Power Distance and Facework Strategies...listic cultures stress individual goals, whereas collectivistic cultures stress group goals. Facework strategy choices cultural members carry

Journal of Intercultural Communication ResearchVol. 35, No. 2, July 2006, pp. 139–160

Power Distance andFacework 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-culturalfacework. 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 onthe 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 membersare more likely to use cooperative, indirect, and direct communication strategies to

manage face threats than their small-PD counterparts. The cooperative and indirectfacework 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 College-

CUNY, 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) � 2006 World Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/17475750600909303

(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; Ting-

Toomey & Kurogi, 1998), people in all cultures try to preserve and negotiate face

(using facework) in all communication situations partly to avoid being embarrassed.

140 R. S. Merkin

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.

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 141

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 conceptua-

lized (Brown & Levinson, 1978; Holtgraves & Yang, 1992; Oetzel et al., 2001;

Ting-Toomey, 1988; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). These varying notions of cross-

cultural 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 goal-

directed 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; Ting-

Toomey, 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.

142 R. S. Merkin

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 discus-

sions 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 individua-

listic 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


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, extra-

considerate 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 fromsmall-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).

144 R. S. Merkin

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-savingstrategies than their small-PD counterparts.

Power Distance and Verbal Expression

In large-PD cultures people generally foster a lower verbal expression of negative

emotions (Fernandez, 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).


People from large-PD cultures even forgo their normal display rules of lower

emotional expression of negative emotions to foster and legitimize status differences

(Fernandez 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 communica-

tion 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

146 R. S. Merkin

(Fry, 1991); they value equal power distributions across different social roles (Ting-

Toomey, 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 fromlarge-PD cultures to respond to a face-threatening situation with directstrategies.

Method

Participants

The participants were as follows: 92 students primarily from Hong Kong Baptist

University (n¼ 60), and secondarily from the Chinese University of Hong Kong

(n¼ 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


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.

Table 2 Multivariate analysis of power distance as a predictor of facework strategies:Cooperative, indirect, and direct.

Multivariate tests

df F Wilk’s � Significance �2

Power distance 9, 614 3.49 0.95 0.0001 0.05

Univariate tests

Power distance Sum of squares df F Significance Beta

Cooperative 1.62 1,625 5.75 0.0001 0.10Indirect 6.88 1,623 6.88 0.0001 0.11Direct 2.34 1,625 7.51 0.0001 0.11

Table 1 Demographic information about test participants.

Item Chile Israel Japan Sweden USA Hong Kong

Mean age 21.04 23.32 19.15 23.26 19.52 17.68SD 7.29 4.12 1.56 10.85 2.98 11.63

Mean education 15.49 14.11 13.04 14.70 14.25 14.32SD 1.59 1.40 2.21 3.42 1.44 2.81

No. Males 20 20 32 31 31 22% males 28.60 24.70 32.70 33.70 33.70 27.20

No. females 50 61 63 59 59 59% females 71.40 75.30 64.30 64.10 64.10 72.80

SD¼ standard deviation.

148 R. S. Merkin

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 Kong¼ 0.81; Japan¼ 0.72; Chile¼ 0.75; USA¼ 0.78; Sweden¼ 0.76;

Israel¼ 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


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 visitingwith an acquaintance from this foreign country (you met this afternoon in themuseum). This acquaintance invites you out for dinner. While dining in a fancyrestaurant, you accidentally knock over your red wine. It shatters and your drinkgoes everywhere, including onto your acquaintance’s white shirt. Everyone in therestaurant 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 (Eigenvalue¼ 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: Eigenvalue¼ 2.28 with 12.69% of the variance

and Factor 4: Eigenvalue¼ 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: Eigenvalue¼ 2.38 with 13.25% of the variance accounted for and

150 R. S. Merkin

Factor 3: Eigenvalue¼ 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 (Eigenvalue¼ 2.65); the second factor contained

four items and explained 18.18% of the variance (Eigenvalue¼ 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 (Eigenvalue¼ 1.63) accounted for 32.54% of the variance. Factor 2

(Eigenvalue¼ 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 isreported 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


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.

152 R. S. Merkin

Implications

Cooperative facework strategiesThe 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 face-

threatening 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 large-

PD counterparts. Therefore, if face-threatening events occur during cross-cultural

interactions, it would be important not to be too blunt or prickly about the face-

threatening 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


face-threatening situations, one might consider reacting more indirectly with large-

PD 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 faceworkstrategies 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. Thequestion 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 whendelivering 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, whereasindirect strategies were cited as strategies of last resort.

Yet another explanation could be that this finding exemplifies how directcommunication 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 byhigher 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 ensuingcommunication 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 duringpotentially 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 facethreatening (Fu, Watkins, & Hui, 2004). In Zimmerman’s (1985) book about the

high PD Japanese, he suggests that Americans (low PD) negotiate conflict, a face-

threatening context, by using both direct and indirect communication simulta-neously. 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 sametime 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

154 R. S. Merkin

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.

LimitationsThis study employed self-reports which have limited external validity. While self-

reports 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 pilot-

tested, 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 relation-

ships between Hofstede’s (1980) PD cultural dimension and cooperative, indirect,

and direct facework strategies. Now that the cultural-based facework responses have


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.Fernandez, 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.

156 R. S. Merkin

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 individualism-

collectivism and self-construals to communication styles in India and the United States.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 683–700.


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’ self-

construal 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.

158 R. S. Merkin

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 theUnited 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 powerdistance 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 indiverse 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 indiverse 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 ErlbaumAssociates, Inc.

Shackleton, V. J., & Ali, A. H. (1990). Work-related values of managers: A test of the Hofstedemodel. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 109–118.

Shott, S. (1979). Emotion and social life: A symbolic interactionist analysis. American Journal ofSociology, 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 ofSocial Psychology, 128, 199–205.

Singelis, T. M., & Brown, W. J. (1995). Culture, self, and collectivist communication: Linkingculture to individual behavior. Human Communication Research, 21, 354–389.

Smith, P. B. (2004). Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communication style. Journalof 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 ofIntercultural 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, andembarrassment 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 updatedface-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187–225.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. (2002). Cross-cultural face concerns and conflict styles: Currentstatus and future directions. In W. B. Gudykunst & B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of internationaland intercultural communication (pp. 143–163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Tracy, K. (1990). The many faces of facework. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook oflanguage 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 ofonline information and uncertainty avoidance. Communication Research, 30, 579–598.

Ward, E. A. (1993). Factor structure of employed adults’ motivation for competitive or cooperativestrategy. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 741–743.

Weinfurt, K. P. (2000). Repeated measures analysis: ANOVA, MANOVA, and HLM. InL. 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: Culturalantecedents and behavioral consequences. Organization Development Journal, 10, 13–19.

Zimmerman, M. (1985). How to do business with the Japanese. New York: Random House.

160 R. S. Merkin

Documents

Power Distance and Facework Strategies...listic cultures stress individual goals, whereas collectivistic cultures stress group goals. Facework strategy choices cultural members carry