V: ii,‘ '45
”12%;

T3.
Jam
’11“-

3

.r’

‘ 19:3 2:
$3255?
£5-

a

.......__.
. . ~53
m4 . d5“
’ a“?

,-
{Ha

v15";

”' 7; .
.N m. ‘
“‘ “‘2...

.u»
«an! .

.2...
”12“

.~ are;

r

"in?
"”34

S
«

 

«.
.15:

~ $ «7‘ .
‘13‘.v:.(1,

 

\iiiiiilliii

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

 

FACEWORK DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CHINESE AND AMERICAN

presented by

Jiajia Zheng

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M: A . degree in LQMWWi/caj‘éw‘
Whit/n S’t—MCLCQ-d

fW///%

Major professor

 

Date 7132/ 7*

0-7639 MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Mlchlgan State
Unlverslty

 

 

 

PLACE ll RETURN ”Xbmwomhmmmnmm

TO AVOID FINES rotum on or More data duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FACEWORK DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CHINESE AND AMERICAN

BY

Jiajia Zheng

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication

1994

ABSTRACT

THE FACEWORK DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CHINESE AND AMERICAN

BY

Jiajia Zheng

The objective of this study is to test Brown and
Levinson’s (1978, 1987) politeness theory and Ting-Toomey's
(1988) theory (x1 conflict face-negotiation” Specifically,
the study examines the effects of relational intimacy and
culture on perceived face threats and likelihood of facework
strategy selection. Several hypotheses derived from the
theories were tested. with the subjects from the United
States (N=72) and the People’s Republic of China (N=79). The
results can be summarized as follows: (llTing-Toomey's
theory is partially supported by the results. The Chinese
don't only use more positive politeness, indirect
strategies, but also use more negative politeness than the
Americans. (2)The direction of the effects of intimacy
varied. across different cultures. In. general, Browni and
Levinson’s theory is only supported by the American group,
that is, intimacy level is negatively associated with
perceived face threats and facework for the U.S.A. group,
while it is positively associated with perceived face

threats and facework for the P.R.C. group.

© Copyright by
J IAJ IA ZHENG
1 9 94

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Upon my Master thesis, I world like to express my
thanks to those who influenced, helped, and exhibited
concern about my work. I am greatly indebted to my advisor
Dr. Steven R. Wilson. With his encouragement and support,
this study was made possible. He spent an enormous amount of
time directing my research process step by step, and
struggling through the rough draft. Without him, my thesis
may not have been as fruitful as it has been.

I. want to thank the committee members Dr. Mary
Bresnahan and Dr. John Schweitzer. Although this study was
not directly supervised by them, their criticisms and

suggestions were highly appreciated.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................ iv
INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................... 4
Brown and Levinson's Politeness Theory ............ 4
Ting-Toomey's Face-Negotiation Theory .............. 12
Summary: Culture and Facework ..................... 16
HYPOTHESES .............................................. 21
METHOD .................................................. 27
RESULTS ................................................. 39
DISCUSSION .............................................. 49
APPENDIXES
Appendix A: Text of the Three Hypothetical
Requesting Situations .................... 59
Appendix B: Questionnaire Items for Measuring
Degree of Perceived Face Threat .......... 60
Appendix C: Questionnaire Items for Measuring
Likelihood of Facework Strategy Use ...... 62
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................. 69

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 ................................................. 7

Descriptive Summary for Studies of Effects
of Intimacy on Facework

Table 2 ................................................. 20

Descriptive Summary for Facework Differences
between Individualistic Cultures and Collectivistic
Cultures

Table 3 ................................................. 31
Means of Perceived Request Size and Perceived

Realistic of Requests in Pretest

Table 4 ................................................. 41

Correlations between Experimental Variables
for the U.S.A. Participants

Table 5 ................................................. 42

Correlations between Experimental Variables
for the P.R.C. Participants

Table 6 ................................................. 43

Effects of Culture on Perceived Face Threat
and Likelihood of Facework Strategy

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 ................................................ 47

Interaction of Culture and Intimacy on
Perceived Positive Face Threat

Figure 2 ................................................ 47

Interaction of Culture and Intimacy on
Perceived Self-Face Threat

Figure 3 ................................................ 48

Interaction of Culture and Intimacy on
Self-Face Maintenance

Figure 4 ................................................ 48

Interaction of Culture and Intimacy on
Off—Record Strategy

iv

FACEWORK DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CHINESE AND AMERICAN
Introduction

The concept of face is Chinese in origin, having been
used as early as the fourth century BC (Ho, 1975; Hu, 1944).
In modern times, the uses of the concept of face has been
widespread in English-speaking countries. Although the use
of politeness strategies to manage face is assumed to be
universal, the influence of cultural differences on
perception of face-threat and facework strategies should not

be ignored.

According to Brown and Levinson’s (1978) politeness
theory, cultural factors might affect the weightiness of a
face-threat act (FTA) by influencing perceptions of
relational distance, relational power, and the ranking of
the imposition of the act itself. In this regard, Brown and
Levinson (1987) made a broad distinction between positive

politeness cultures and negative politeness cultures.

In her face-negotiation theory, Ting-Toomey (1988)
suggests that cultural factors (e.g., individualism or
collectivism, low-context or high-context) may influence
types of face concern and face maintenance strategies. She

establishes 12 propositions to predict how cultural

differences might influence face-negotiat ion strategy

2
selection. In this study, I am only interested in 8 out of
her 12 propositions. The reason for this selection is that
Ting-Toomey’s last four propositions are particularized
negotiation strategies in conflict situations, which are not
directly related to Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory
and not interested by this study. Her first eight
propositions are closely related to Brown and Levinson’s
politeness theory, and I am going to examine these eight

propositions in this study.

Ting-Toomey’s Proposition 1 and 2, as well as her
Proposition 5 and 6 posit that members of individualistic or
low-context cultures (LCC) tend to express a greater degree
of self-face maintenance than do members of collectivistic
or high-context cultures (HCC); conversely, members of
collectivistic or HC cultures tend to express a greater
degree of mutual-face or other-face maintenance than do
members of individualistic or LC cultures. Her Proposition 3
and 4 posit that members of individualistic or LC cultures
tend to use more autonomy-preserving strategies (negative-
face need) than do members of collectivistic or HC cultures,
and conversely, members of collectivistic or HC cultures
tend to use more approval-seeking strategies (positive-face
need) than do members of individualistic or LC cultures. Her
Proposition 7 and 8 posit that members of individualistic or

LC cultures tend to use a greater degree of direct face—

3
negotiation strategies than do members-of collectivistic or
HC cultures, and conversely, members of collectivistic or RC
cultures tend to use a greater degree of indirect face-
negotiation strategies than do members of individualistic or
LC cultures. Yet, there is very little research which has

tested these propositions.

The purpose of this study is to test Brown and
Levinson’s predictions about the effects of culture and
relational distance on facework, and also to test Ting-
Toomey’ s eight propositions , i . e . , Proposi tion 1 and 2,
Proposition 3 and 4, Proposition 5 and 6, and Proposition 7

and 8.

In politeness theory, there are three situational
factors which may influence the weightiness of face-threat.

-These three situational factors are: (1) the ranking of the

imposition of the act (e.g., asking for the time is less
imposing than asking for a loan); (2) the relative power of
the hearer over the speaker; and (3) the degree of

relational distance between the bearer and speaker. To limit
variables, my research only focuses on the interaction

between relational distance and cultural factors.

Therefore, in my study, the two independent variables
are cultural differences and relational distance, while the
dependent variables are perceived face threat, and facework

strategy selection. This study is based upon the framework

4
of Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) politeness theory,
Ting-Toomey's (1988) face-negotiation theory, and some
research on cultural differences (e.g., Triandis, 1986;

'Gudykunst, Yoon, & Nishida, 1987).

Literature Review
E i I . , E ].| I]

Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) offer a pan-cultural
theory of politeness designed to explain a large number of
remarkably detailed crossrcultural parallels in language
usage. At the heart of politeness theory is the concept of
face. Brown and Levinson (1978) define “face” as “the public
self—image that every member of a society wants to claim for
himself / herself " . The concept of face has two
distinguishable and related parts: positive face and
negative face. Positive face refers to an actor's desire to
have the approval of others. Negative face is the desire not
to be imposed upon by others. All social actors would like
to have both types of face wants met, but because these are

social desires, they can only be satisfied by other people.

Brown and Levinson (1978) propose the existence of five
general politeness strategies that vary along a continuum of

“redressiveness”. This refers to the extent to which the

5
speaker attempts to mitigate the face threat to the hearer.
When presented in order from most redressive to least
redressive, the strategies are (1) do not do the PTA; (2) do
it off-record, that is, indirectly; (3) use negative
politeness, that is, mitigate the threat to the hearer’s
negative face; '(4) use positive politeness, that is,
mitigate the threat to the positive face; and (5) do it
baldly' on-recordq that is, explicitly' without redressing
either face. A speaker’s choice of which strategy is a
function of the threat implied by the intended act (termed
its weightiness). Weightiness is assumed to be an additive
weighing of three factors: the ranking of the imposition of
the act itself, the relative power of the hearer over the
speaker, and.the degree of relational distance between the
hearer and speaker. According to their assumption, as
relational distance increases, the weightiness of a FTA will
increase. Furthermore, as the weightiness increases, the
speaker should choose a more polite strategy to redress the

face-threat of FTA.

E' 1.. if 1

Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) suggest that as
relational distance increases, the perceived weightiness of
FTA would increases , therefore , correspondingly, facework

increases. Several empirical studies have been designed to

6
examine the proposition about relational distance and

facework.

The results of those empirical studies are Very
complex. In Table 1, the results of seven relevant empirical
researches are summarized. Three types of findings are

categorized.

The first type of finding is generally consistent with
Brown and Levinson’s proposition. Roloff, Janiszewski,
McGrath, Burns, and Manrai's (1988) research found that “the
requests of intimates are relatively less elaborate,
containing fewer apologies (at least for small requests),
explanations, and inducements”. The results of Holtgraves
and Yang's (1990) study are partially consistent with Brown
and Levinson’s assumption. They did find that as intimacy
increased, “bald" requests increased” However, they' also
found that positive politeness increased, and negative

politeness didn't significantly decrease.

The second type of finding indicates that there is an
interaction between intimacy and request size. Leichty and
Applegate (1991) and Tracy, Craig, Smith and Spisak (1984)
found that Brown and Levinson’s proposition was only
confirmed when request size was small, otherwise, the
results were opposite to the proposition. That is, when the
request size was large, as intimacy increased, so did

facework.

Table 1

 

 

(2) For larger requests:
Positive face and
autonomy redress
strategies increases

D“ '0 ' "“v.‘ 0 0° 0 ‘ ‘ O o 11-. 0.
Easement
Study Lim & Bowers Leichty & Holtgraves
Applegate & Yang
(1991) (I991) (1990)
Participants American students Residence hall advisors American students
N=300 N=42 N=78
Korean students
N=64
Independent (1) Intimacy (I) Intimacy (1) Culture
Variables (2) Power differences (2) Power differences (2) Gender .
(3) Right to act (3) Size of request (3) Power differences
(4) Intimacy
(5) Size of request
Dependent (I) Solidarity ( 1) Positive face redress (I) Bald
Variable (2) Approbation strategies (2) Positive politeness
(3) Tact (2) Autonomy redress (3) Negative politeness
strategies (4) Off record
Type of (1) Negative comment Favor asking Favor asking
Request (2) Enforce obligation
(3) Favor asking
Findings for (I) Solidarity increases (1) For small requests: (I) Bald increase
Intimacy (2) Approbation Positive face and (2) Positive politeness
(As Intimacy increases autonomy redress increase
Increases) (3) Tact increases strategies decreases;

 

 

 

Table 1 (continued)
I“ '0 ' ‘ mum 0 ' ‘ o ‘ ‘ o u. 00
Easemrk
Roloff & Roloff et al. Baxter Tracy et al.
Janiszewski
(I989) (I988) (I984) (1984)
American students American students American students American students
N=117 N=59 N=155 N=20
(I) Intimacy (I) Intimacy (1) Gender (1) Intimacy
(2) Type of request (2) Size of request (2) Intimacy (2) Power differences
(3) Power differences (3) Size of request
(I) Explanation Elaboration Compliance-gaining Compliance-gaining
(2) Apology politeness strategies
(I) Borrowing Favor asking Negative comment & Favor asking
(2) Favor asking enforcing obligation
( I) For borrowing: Elaboration decreases Politeness increases (1) For smaller requests:
Explanation and Strategies decreases;
apology decreases (2) For larger requests:

(2) For favor asking:
Explanation and
apology increases

Strategies increases

 

9

The third type of finding indicates that there is an
interaction between intimacy and request type. In general,
two types of request are classified: one type is favor
asking, the other type is negative comment andenforcing
obligation. “Favor asking” is mainly threatening to the
hearer’s autonomy and requester’s competence; “negative
comment and enforcing obligation” is mainly threatening to
the hearer’s competence and/or acceptance, and sometimes, it
might threaten hearer’s autonomy and requester's acceptance.
Since two types of request threaten different kinds of face,
therefore, different facework strategies are required. As
shown in Table 1, the findings of empirical researches with
“negative comment and enforcing obligation” hypothetical
situations (e.g., the researches of Lim & Bower 1991, and
Baxter 1984) are generally opposite to Brown and Levinson’s
proposition, that is, as intimacy increases, so does

facework.

In sum, the influence direction of intimacyon facework
is not as simple as Brown and Levinson predicted. According
to the results of several empirical researches, the
direction of influence varies at different request sizes and
types.

WWW
According to the politeness theory, cultural factors

may affect facework strategy selection by influencing the

lO
perceptions of relational distance, power, and rank. Brown
and Levinson (1978, 1987) assume that there are some
societies where low power difference and low distance
between members of these societies are valued, and
generally, less polite strategies are preferred by these
cultures. Brown and Levinson (1987) defined these kind of
cultures as positive politeness cultures. On the contrary,
in other societies, high power difference and high distance
might be valued, and more polite strategies are preferred.
These are defined as negative politeness cultures. American
culture is classified. as a ;positive politeness culture.
Chinese and Korean cultures are classified as negative

politeness cultures.

So far, little research has examined Brown and
Levinson’s ideas about cultural influences on facework. From
my knowledge, only Holtgraves and Yang (1990) have examined
cultural differences as an independent variable combining
with other independent variables (power and distance). They
report that their results generally are consistent with the
description of Korea as a negative politeness culture (more
polite strategies preferred) and the United States as a
positive politeness culture (less polite strategies
preferred). Consistent with their expectation, they have
found that the difference between the two most polite

(negative politeness and hints) and two least polite (bald

11
and positive politeness) strategies to be greater for
Koreans than for Americans. In their discussion, they did

not explain this difference from a cultural angle.

Based on this study, further research should be
developed. First, further study' should explain the
difference in the results of Holtgraves and Yang's study by
accounting for cultural factors and the interaction between
cultural factors and other relational factors. Second, since
politeness theory is limited to hearer-oriented strategies,
further study should not only investigate hearer-oriented
strategies, but also investigate speaker-oriented strategies

cross-culturally.

Although Kim and Wilson's (in press) cross-cultural
comparison study is not directly designed to test Brown and
Levinson’s theory, their findings are relevant. They have
found that to make a request, Koreans (classified as
negative politeness culture by Brown and Levinson) tend to
do more facework than Americans (classified as positive
politeness culture). Specifically, Americans consider the
direct statement strategy' as the most effective way' of
making a request, while Koreans rate it as the least
effective strategy. Koreans perceive doing facework (e.g.,
“concerning for not hurting the hearer's feelings",
“concerning for minimizing imposition”, and “concerning for

avoiding negative evaluation by the hearer") to be more

12
effective for making a request than Americans do. In some
degree, their findings supported Brown and Levinson’s

distinction of positive and negative politeness cultures.

One weakness of Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory
is that it just focuses on bearer-oriented facework
strategies, that is, it does not pay attention to speaker-
oriented facework strategies. For example, when a person
makes a request, not only the hearer’s face but also the
speaker's self-face may be threatened (Wilson, 1992). The
speaker may risk embarrassment (Wallston, 1976), lost power
(Worchel, 1984), or reduced self-esteem (Nadler, Fisher, and
Itzhak, 1983). In this kind of face-threat act, both the
speaker's positive face and negative face need protection.
Politeness theory did not pay much attention to speaker-

oriented facework.

Some previous empirical facework studies have included
the requester's face into their face concern dimension, and
included self-face maintenance into their face work
strategies. For example, Roloff and his colleagues' (1988,
1989) research took some self-positive face protection
strategies (e.g., explanations and contingencies) into their
test. Tracy et al.'s (1984) study also gave attention to the

speaker’s positive face need.

l3

Ting-Toomey’s (1988) face-negotiation theory includes
not only hearer-oriented facework strategies, but also
speaker-oriented facework strategies. This theory suggests
that there are two conceptual dimensions: (1) face-concern
dimension: self-face concern, other-face concern, or mutual-
face concern, and (2) face-need dimension: negative face
need and positive face need. Based on these two dimensions,
four types of face need are distinguished: self positive-
face need, self negative-face need, other’s positive—face
need, and other’s negative-face need. Furthermore, to meet
these four types of face need, four types of face
maintenance strategies are classified; (1) self jpositive
face maintenance, which aims at defending and protecting
speaker’s need for approval and being valued; (2) other
positive face maintenance, which aims at supporting hearer's
need for approval and being valued; (3) self negative face
maintenance, which aims at protecting speaker’s right of
freedom and autonomy; and (4) other negative face
maintenance, which aims at signaling speaker’s respect for

hearer's need for freedom and autonomy.

Ting-Toomey (1988) suggests that face concern, face
need, and facework would be influenCed by relational
variables (such as low-high intimacy level), situational
variables (such as informal-formal level, public-private

level) of context, and salience (such as topic magnitude,

14
topic commitment). In this article, she doesn't discuss why
and how these variables affect face concern, face need, and

facework in detail.

She also proposes that culture might have effects on
face concern, face need and facework. She assumes that the
self-other dimension and the positive-face and negative-face
dimension would be influenced by the cultural interpretation
and the cultural expectation levels of the context. In
addition, certain sets of facework suprastrategy would be
favorably preferred by members of a culture more often than
others. In her face-negotiation theory, cultures are
classified into individualistic cultures and collectivistic

cultures, or low-context cultures and high-context cultures.

I i' 'i J' l' : J I 2 J] . . I' 2 1|

Numerous cross-cultural studies (Hui & Triandis, 1986;
Hofstede & Bond, 1984) have provided empirical evidence that
the theoretical dimension of individualism-collectivism is a
primary dimension that differentiates different clusters of

cultures from an international perspective.

Hofested and Bond’s (1984) research found that the “I"
identity has precedence in individualistic cultures over the
“WE" identity, which takes precedence in collectivistic
cultures. In individualistic societies, the emphasis is

placed on individuals' initiative and achievement, while in

15
collectivistic societies, emphasis is placed on belonging to

groups

People in individualistic cultures tend to be
universalistic and apply the same value standards to all.
People in collectivistic cultures tend to be particularistic
and apply different value standards for members of their
groups and outsiders. Also, Triandis (1986) suggests that
members of collectivistic cultures draw sharper distinctions
between members of their own group and outsiders and
perceive in-group relationships to be more intimate than

members of individualistic cultures.

Stover (1974, 1976) found that in China, the concept of
face could be interpreted as “other-directed self-esteem.”
People in collectivistic cultures are more likely to seek
approval from others, in other words, they are more
sensitive to their own and also other's positive face needs

than people in individualistic cultures (Ting-Toomey, 1988).

WWW

Hall's (1976, 1983) low-context culture and high-
context culture dimension serves as a good theoretical
foundation to account for communication style differences
across a range of cultures. According to Hall (1983) and
Ting-Toomey's (1985) :researchq low-context. cultures ‘value
individual value orientation, linear logic, direct verbal

interaction, and individualistic nonverbal style. High-

16
context cultures value group value orientation, spiral
logic, indirect verbal interaction, and contextual nonverbal
style. Contextual verbal and. nonverbal style means
intentions and meanings are situated within the larger
shared knowledge of the cultural context. In their account,
Chinese culture is identified as a high-context culture, and

American culture is identified as a low-context culture.

WM

Both politeness theory and face-negotiation theory
propose that culture has significant influence on face need
and facework. In Table 2, the relationships between culture
and facework are summarized. In. general, according
politeness theory, culture affects facework by influencing
the perceptions of power distance, relational distance, and
request size (Brown and Levinson, 1978, 1987); according to
face-negotiation theory, culture affects facework by
influencing face concern, face need and facework strategy

preference (Ting-Toomey, 1988).

Brown 'and. Levinson (1987) made a broad. distinction
between positive politeness cultures which is generally
compatible with individualistic, low-context cultures, and
negative politeness cultures which in general is compatible
with. collectivistic, high-context cultures. Ting-Toomey's

(1988) assumptions are not agreeable to Brown and Levinson's

l7
politeness culture distinction. She suggests that members of
individualistic, low-context cultures tend to- have more
autonomy need, and are more likely to use negative
politeness strategy. On the contrary, members of
collectivistic, high-context cultures tend to have more need
for approval, and are more likely to use positive politeness

strategy. Regarding this disagreement, I concur more with

Ting-Toomey than with Brown and Levinson. For this
theoretical disagreement, my explanations are the
followings:

First, Brown. and.ILevinson’s (1978, 1987) politeness
continuum is questionable. According to politeness theory,
at one end, the most politeness is off-record (indirectly),
along the politeness continuum, which is followed by
negative politeness strategy, and then positive politeness
strategy. The least polite strategy is on-record (directly)
which is at the other end. However, since a FTA may related
to different types of face threat, it is problematic to
compare different types of face threat by using one
measurement, that makes judgment about which type of face
threat is more serious than others. For the same reason, it
is problematic to evaluate different facework strategies by
using one politeness continuum. Baxter (1984) found that
positive politeness was not perceived less polite than

negative politeness by American respondents. In addition,

18
Holtgraves and Yang (1990) found that hints (indirectly)
were not rated as the most polite strategy by both American
and Korean participants. I think that there may not be an
absolute hierarchical ranking order of facework strategies
along politeness (continuum, at least there is not an

universal ranking order.

Second, the term of positive politeness cultures means
that less polite strategies are preferred in those cultures,
while the term of.negative politeness cultures means that
more polite strategies are preferred 'in those cultures
(Brown and Levinson, 1978,1987). Since the politeness
continumm is questionable, the more polite strategy is not
necessarily negative politeness, also the less politeness
strategy is not necessarily positive politeness. Therefore,
I think that it might be more proper to label the positive
politeness cultures as “less facework preferred cultures”,
and the negative politeness cultures as “more facework

preferred cultures”.

Both politeness theory and negotiation theory agree
that certain facework strategies may be more preferred in a
culture than in others. For‘ example, Ting-Toomey (1988)
(suggests that 'members of individualistic or“ high-context
cultures tend to use a greater' degree of direct face-

negotiation strategies, while on the contrary, members of

19
collectivistic cultures tend to use a greater degree of

indirect face—negotiation strategies.

There is little empirical research to test cultural
influence on facework. Nomura and Barnlund's (1983) findings
are consistent with Ting-Toomey’s proposition, that is, the
members of collectivistic or high-context cultures tend to
withdraw from face-threat situations, or do a FTA
indirectly. Holtgraves and Yang’s (1990) study is designed
to examine Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory,
inconsistent. with. Brown. and. Levinson's jpropositions,
Holtgraves and Yang (1990) have found that negative
politeness are perceived as significantly more polite than
are hints. We can conclude that use of hint as a strategy
may not mean that there is more concern about the hearer's
negative face. In high-context cultures, preference of using
hints does not mean that there is a high respect to other's
autonomy as politeness theory supposed. The interpretation
could be that there is a high need for mutual face support,
not just other’s negative face, but also, may be more
important, self positive face. For the persons in high—
context or collectivistic cultures, hint is the best way to
support mutual faces. Since the speaker does not make a
request directly, the hearer could reject the request in the

same way without threatening both sides' face.

Table 2

20

 

 

Authors Key Constructs Individualistic, Low- Collectivistic, High-
of “Face” Context Cultures Context Cultures

Hofested & Bond Identity emphasis on “I” identity emphasis on “WE”
(1934) identity
Triandis Value Standards universalistic value particularistic value
(1986) standards standards
Bond & Lee Orientation self-oriented other-oriented
(I981) group-oriented
Brown & Levinson Culture Distinction positive politeness cultures negative politeness culture

(1987)

Brown & Levinson
(1987)

Brown & Levinson

(1987)

Brown & Levinson
(I987)

Ting-Toomey
( 1988)

Ting-Toomey
(I 988)

Ting-Toomey
( I 988)

Strategies Preferred
Perceived Power
Distance

Perceived
Relational Distance

Face Concern

Face Need

Strategies Preferred

(1) positive politeness
(2) directly

small

small

self-face concern

autonomy
(negative face need)

(I) negative politeness
(2) self-face maintenance
(3) directly

( 1) negative politeness
(2) indirectly

large

large

other-face concern
mutual face concern

approval, acceptance
(positive face need)

( 1) positive politeness

(2) mutual face
maintenance

(3) indirectly

 

Hypotheses

According to communication theories, any selection of a
communication strategy is based upon predictions about
hearer's reaction and speakers' self image, and any change
of prediction may change communication strategy selection.
My assumption is that the intimacy level between the speaker
and the hearer may determine the speaker’s predictions about
type and degree of face threat of a FTA, thereby, the

predictions may mainly influence speaker's facework.

I will explore three types of face threat of a request:
other’s negative face threat, other's positive face threat,
and self face threat. Brown and Levinson (1978) only
mentioned the first two types of face threat in their work.
The studies conducted by Craig, Tracy and Spisak (1986) and
Wilson (1992)‘ suggest that an act of making a request
potentially' questions the responsibility, competence,
independence of the requester. In other words, a request
does not only threaten the hearer’s face, but also threatens
the speaker’s positive face. Thus, speaker-oriented facework
strategies (e.g., explanation, making excuses) would be used
for self face maintenance. My first hypothesis is to test my

assumption.

"Hypothesis 1: Cross-culturally there is a strong

 

correlation between speaker's prediction of face threat and

facework. strategy' selection. Specifically; the degree of

21

22
perceived hearer’s negative face threat is positively
correlated with use of the “negative politeness” strategy;
the degree of perceived hearer’s positive face threat is
positively correlated with use of the “positive politeness"
strategy; the degree of perceived self face threat is
positively’ correlated. with 'use of the “self face
maintenance” strategy. All kinds of face threat are
negatively correlated with “directly” strategy, whereas they '
are positively correlated with “indirectly”, and “don't do

FTA" strategies.

The following hypotheses are to determine whether
culture has effects on facework, specifically, the following
four hypotheses are to test Ting-Toomey's (1988) Proposition
3 and 4 which state that members of individualistic, low-
context cultures would tend to perceive more negative-face
need and use more autonomy-preserving strategies than would
members of collectivistic, high-context cultures, and
conversely, the latter would tend to perceive more positive
face need and use more approval-seeking strategies than do

the former (see Table 2).

Hypothesis_2: Compared with Chinese, Americans are more
likely to perceived higher degree of other's negative face

threat.

23
Hypothesis_3: Compared with Americans, Chinese are more

likely to perceived higher degree of other's positive face

threat.

Hypothesis_4: Compared with Chinese, Americans are more

likely to use negative politeness.

Hypgghgaia_§: Compared with Americans, Chinese are more

likely to use positive politeness.

The following two hypotheses are to test Ting-Toomey’s
(1988) Proposition 1 and 2, and Proposition 5 and 6, which
state that the former tend to express a greater degree of
self-face maintenance than do the latter, and the latter
tend to express a greater degree of mutual-face or other-

face maintenance than do the former (see Table 2).

H¥DQLh§Sis_6: Compared with Chinese, Americans are more

likely to perceived higher degree of self face threat.

Hypothesis_1: Compared with Chinese, Americans are more

likely to use self face maintenance.

The following hypotheses are to test Ting-Toomey’s
(1988) Proposition 7 and 8 which state that members of
individualistic, low-context cultures tend to use a greater
degree of direct face-negotiation strategies than do members
of collectivistic, high-context cultures. And the latter
tend to use a greater degree of indirect face-negotiation

strategies than do the former (see Table 2).

24
Hypothesis_8: Compared with Chinese, Americans are more

likely use the “directly” strategy.

Hypothesis_9: Compared with Americans, Chinese are more

likely to use the “indirectly” strategy.

Wm: Compared with Americans, Chinese are

more likely to use the “don’t do FTA” strategy.

The next hypotheses are to test Brown and Levinson’s
(1987) prediction that as relational distance increases, so
does facework. By reviewing previous empirical studies, this
prediction is only partially supported, that is, as
relational distance increases, so does negative politeness.
I predict that intimacy' has a main effect) on negative
politeness use. Also the effect of intimacy is less
influenced by culture, because in both individualistic and
collectivistic cultures, as two people grow closer, they
become more and more interdependent and willing to help each
other, and they become more willing to tolerate a certain

level of imposition (Lim, 1989).

Hypothesis__ll: Cross-culturally, as intimacy level

increases, perceived other's negative face threat decreases.
Hypothesis___12: Cross-culturally, as intimacy level
increases, likelihood of negative politeness strategy
decreases. The following hypotheses are to determine whether

the effects of intimacy on facework are influenced by

25
culture, in other words, whether there is an interaction
between cultural factor and relational factor on facework.
Brown and Levinson (1987) assume that as relational distance
between speaker and hearer increases, so does facework.
Their rationale is that as relational distance increases,
perceived magnitude of face threat of a FTA increases, then

more facework is needed.

I think that Brown and Levinson's assumption is too
simple to predict the likelihood of facework strategies. I
assume that relational distance might affect facework by
influencing (I) predicted degree of other's positive face
need, (2) expected degree of self-face need being satisfied,
and (3) perceived degree of obligation to satisfy other’s
positive face need” For' collectivistic, high-context
cultures, as intimacy level increases, positive politeness
and self-face maintenance would increase. The reasons could
be as the follows: (1) As shown in Table 2, people in
collectivistic cultures tend to be group-oriented, and be
particularistic and apply different value standards for
members of their' groups and. outsiders (Triandis, 1986).
Consequently, they tend to be more sensitive to changes of
relational distance. (2) Since they are group-oriented, they
have much more need to be approved, and to accept other in
close relationships than in distant relationships. They

would perceive greater degree of obligation to satisfy

 

26
other’s positive face need, predict greater degree of
other's positive face need, and expect greater degree of
self-face need to be satisfied in close relationships than
in distant relationships. Therefore, they tend to do more
facework, especially positive politeness and self-face
maintenance in close relationships than in distant
relationships. In other words, in, collectivistic cultures,
intimacy level is positively associated with positive

politeness and self-face maintenance.

For individualistic, low-context cultures, I assume
that as intimacy level increases, positive politeness and
self-face maintenance would decrease, or it would have no
great change. The reasons could be that (1) People in
individualistic cultures tend to be universalistic and apply
the same value standards to all, therefore, they would be
not so sensitive to changes of relational distance as people
in collectivistic cultures; (2) They do not expect so much
need to be approved of in close relationships as people in
collectivistic cultures do. Also they do not think it is
necessary to do more facework in close relationships. They
perceive less obligation to satisfy other’s positive face
need in close relationships than in distant relationships

(Lim, 1989).

Based on my assumptions, the next four hypotheses are

the followings:

27
HanLhESL&_ll: As intimacy level increases, perceived
degree of other's positive face threat would increase for

Chinese, but decrease or not change for Americans.

Hypothesia_14: As intimacy level increases, perceived
degree of self-face threat would increase for Chinese, but

decrease or not change for Americans.

Hypothesia__lfi: As intimacy level increases, the

likelihood of use positive politeness strategy would
increase for Chinese, but decrease or not change for

Americans.

Hypothesis__16: As intimacy level increases, the

likelihood of use self-face maintenance would increase for

Chinese, but decrease or not change for Americans.

Method

912mm

This study evaluated hypotheses about effects of
culture and relational distance on perceived face threats
and likelihood of facework strategy selection. A 3x 2
factorial design (three levels of intimacy: close friend,
friend, and acquaintance, by two cultural groups: American
and Chinese) was used for this study. Two cultural groups

are selected: subjects from the U.S.A. and subjects from

28
People’s Republic of China. Intimacy level is manipulated by
the questionnaires. To increase external validity,
participants responded to one of three different request
situations (the data then were collapsed across these
situations). Hence, each participant responded to one of
nine different hypothetical scenarios, crossing three levels
of intimacy with three different situations. A pretest was
used to check perceived request size in each scenario by the
two cultural groups. Perceived level of intimacy was checked

and controlled.

Subjects were supposed to make a request to a target
person. Intimacy level between. requester and target was
manipulated by the questionnaire. Requesters’ perception of
type and degree of face-threat by this request were
measured. Request messages illustrating six facework
strategies were jprovided to the subject. Subjects’

likelihood of using facework strategies was measured.

Two analysis techniques (two-way factorial ANOVA and

Pearson r) were used to examine the hypotheses.

E l' . |

Two groups of subjects were selected based upon their
cultural background. The U.S.A. group was composed of 72
undergraduate students (25 males, 47 females) enrolled in a

communication course at Michigan State University in Fall

 

29
Semester 1993. They participated in this study in order to
fulfill a course requirement. Any foreign student, or any
student who was born or grew up in a foreign country was not
included in this group. The average age of this group was

22.

The Chinese group was composed of 79 Chinese students
(46 males, 30 females) from P.R. China who were studying at
Michigan State University. A Chinese student directory
printed by Chinese Students and Scholars Association was
used as a sampling frame. Each first name of four names on
the directory' was selected. as a subject. Since ‘most of
Chinese subjects were graduate students, the average age was
30. The average of years living in the U.S.A. was around 3
years. The questionnaires were delivered to the subjects
with return envelops and stamps. The return rate was 88%. In
sum, N=151 participants (79 Chinese, 72 Americans) completed
the experiment. .These participants were orderly divided
across the six experimental conditions (cell size range from
23 to 28).
E . S 1 l' E E

In order to increase internal validity and to control
the extraneous variable request size, a pretest was done
before the experiment. Two small cultural groups were set
for the pretest. In the pretest, the subjects were different

from the subjects were used in the experiment. The U.S.A.

30

group was composed of 24 students who were enrolled in a
sociology course (SOC 216) in the summer of 1993 at Michigan
State University. The P.R. China group was composed of 19
Chinese students who attended a Chinese students poem
recital and picnic party in the summer of 1993. This pretest
was used to check perceived request size for both cultural
groups. Subjects were asked to rank a set of requests (e.g.,
borrow $5 for making copies in library, borrow $100 for rent
payment, ask for a ride, ask for repaying a loan, borrow
class notes, ask other to re—do a project work) from the
largest request to the smallest request.

The result of this pretest showed that both cultural
groups perceived equal size of these requests except “borrow
$100 for rent payment” (the U.S.A. group perceived a larger
request than the P.R.C. group) and “asking for repayment"
(the P.R.C. group perceived a larger request than the U.S.A.
group). However, according to the results of t-test, p>.05,
the significance of the differences are on the margin, and
there is no significant difference on perceived realistic of
the requests between two cultural groups (see Table 3).

Based on the pretest, three requests were chosen as
request scenarios for the questionnaires. These were (a)
“borrowing $5 for making copies in library”, (b) “asking for
repaying a loan”, and (c) “asking someone to re-do a project

work” (see Appendix A).

 

 

31

 

 

Table 3
U‘o.‘ 0 .‘ . ‘0. :‘Ol“ . “ o... .‘ ‘ ‘0 :‘o. C
West
Mean of Perceived Request Size Mean of Perceived Realistic
l=largest request I=not realistic
=smallest request 7=very realistic
Requests _ U.S.A. P.R.C. t-test U.S.A. P.R.C. t-test
=28 N=23 p N=28 N=23 p
Borrow $100 for rent I 1.96 2.65 '074 3'41 3'91 '240
Ask re-do a project work 2.75 2.48 .559 4.79 4.42 .539
Ask for repay a loan 3.21 2.48 .052 5.48 4.90 .086
Ask for a ride 3.68 3.22 .302 5.14 5.35 .682
Borrow $5 for copy 4.46 4.74 .351 4.95 5.26 .559
Borrow class notes 5.04 5.43 .202 5.96 5.67 '539

 

: . E E . J E i

The intimacy level between requester and target was
manipulated by questionnaire. Nine questionnaires were
developed to represent nine different situations. In
addition to three different requests, one from three target
persons who represented three levels. of intimacy (best
friend, friend, and acquaintance) appeared in each request
(see Appendix A). The questionnaires were originally created
in English, then translated into Chinese by a professional
translator. Back translation was used to check the identity

of these two language versions.

 

32
A set of communication intimacy items (e.g., frequency
of communication with the target; frequency of discussing
personal problem with the target) developed by Roloff et
al.(1988) was used to check manipulated intimacy and control
for perceived intimacy. The subjects of both cultural groups
were asked to rate level of communication intimacy with the

imaged target person.

The subjects of both cultural groups were asked to
imagine one out of these nine request situations, to predict
type and degree of face threats initiated by this request,
and to rate likelihood of sixteen different request messages
or actions which instantiated six facework strategies.
Independent_yariables

Two independent variables were in this factorial

design: the cultural factor and the relational factor.

The cultural factor was operated by two groups of
subjects from two different cultures: American and Chinese.
The American culture and the Chinese culture are at opposite
poles of cultural dimensions such as individualism-
collectivism (Hofstede, 1980) and low—context versus high-

context (Hall, 1976).

The nanipulated variable was relational distance

between requester and target. Subjects were supposed to make

 

33
a request to a target person considered to be a best friend,
or a friend, or an acquaintance.
Dependentlariahleundmeasures
In order to test my hypotheses, two sets of dependent

variables are measured.

W One set of variables was

perceived face threats. Three types of perceived face threat
(other’s negative face threat, other's positive face threat,
and self face threat) were distinguished and measured: (a)
“Perceived other's negative face threat” refers to how much
the requester predicts that the target person would feel
being imposed by his/her request; (b) “Perceived other's
positive face threat” refers to how ‘much the requester
predicts that the target person would feel he/she was not
approved by the requester; 9 “Perceived self face threat"
refers to how much the requester would feel he/she was not
liked or not valued by the target person because of making

the request.

Three items were designed to measure each type of
perceived face threat. A 7=point scale—Strongly Agree(7)-—
Strongly Disagree(1) was employed to measure perceived
degree of face-threat of each type of face threat at each
request situation and each intimacy level. “Strongly agree"
indicated the largest face threat, “strongly disagree”

indicated a smallest face threat.

 

34

W. The other set of dependent
variables was rating likelihood of facework strategies.
Combining the politeness strategies of Brown and Levinson's
(1978, 1987) politeness theory and face maintenance
strategies of Ting-Toomey’s (1988) face-negotiation theory,
six facework strategies were developed for this research.
They were “don’t do FTA”, “indirectly”, “negative
politeness”, “positive politeness”, “self face maintenance”,
and “directly”. Sixteen request messages or actions were
written to illustrate these six facework strategies. One
item was used for the strategy of “don't do FTA", three
items .were used for each of the other five facework

strategies.

“Don't do FTA” strategy is indicated by the item that
requester tries to avoid performing the face threatening
action. The “indirectly” strategy includes those messages in
which requester never states the request outright, but
instead drops hints to the other person, or makes the
request indirectly. The “negative politeness” strategy
includes those messages in which requester asks about the
ability of the target to provide the needed assistance, or
the requester accompanies a request with an option of
rejection, or with an apology. The “positive politeness"
strategy includes those messages in which the requester

tries to be close or to get on “common ground” with the

 

35
target or the requester promises to do a favor for the
target before asking the request. The “self face
maintenance” strategy includes those messages in which
requester makes explanations or excuses, or implies that the
need for help is just a matter of temporary bad luck, or
mentions his or .her own efforts prior to the request, or
emphasizes his or her reliability. The “directly" strategy
includes those messages in which requester just directly

states the request.

Sixteen request messages or actions were presented to
the subjects of both groups. The subjects were asked to rate
their likelihood of using each face work strategy in each

request situation and each intimacy level. A 7-point scale—

Véry Uhlikely(l)--Very Likely(7)-- was used to measure
likelihood.
Controlledlariahles

There were three controlled variables: relational

power, request size, and perceived intimacy.

Politeness theory (1978) proposed that there are three
situational factors (relational distance, relational power,
and request size) which may influence the weightiness of
face-threat of a FTA. In this study, only the relational
distance factor was of interest. The other two situational
factors—relational power and request size—were held

constant.

36
W. The relationship between requester
and target was controlled by the scenarios. The relationship
was supposed to be equal in relational power, or with the

same social status, such as classmate, or roommate, etc.

W . The pretest was used to select request
situations. Three items were employed in the questionnaire
to measure perceived request size for each request

situation.

Eerceixed___intimagy. Since intimacy labels are

culturally and personally based, they may be somewhat
imprecise. These imprecise labels, which must influence the
manipulation of intimacy level, may threaten the internal
validity of this study. In order to increase internal
validity, a set of communication intimacy items (e.g.,
frequency of communication with the target; frequency of
discussing personal problem with the target, etc.) developed
by Roloff et al.(1988) was used to measure and control the
variable of perceived intimacy.
H . ] l' :1 1

Perceived intimacy was measured at three levels, in
order to check if the manipulated variable—intimacy—has been
manipulated. A 3 X 2 ANOVA crossing manipulated intimacy and
culture was used for this manipulation check. The
independent variables were manipulated intimacy and culture,

the dependent variable was perceived intimacy. The results

37
show that the manipulation of intimacy has a significant
main effect on perceived intimacy, F(2,143)=138.45, p<.001,
Eta2=.629 (for the U.S.A. group, M=5.71 for best friend,
M=4.63 for friend, M=2.51 for acquaintance; for P.R. China
group, M=5.19 for best friend, M=3.73 for friend, M=1.82 for
acquaintance). It indicates that the manipulation of

intimacy level was effective.

The results also show that culture has main effect on
perceived intimacy, F(1,143)=18.39, p<.001, Eta2=.036. The
subjects in the P.R. China group perceived significantly
lower intimacy than the subjects in the U.S.A. group across
three intimacy levels. Hierarchical regression was conducted
to determine whether the difference of perceived intimacy
between two groups had any effect on the dependent
variables. The procedure of regression was that perceived
intimacy was entered at the first step, then culture and
manipulated intimacy were entered at the second step, and
finally the interaction between culture and manipulated
intimacy was entered at the third step. The results show
that (a) there was no significant effect of perceived
intimacy on the dependent variables; (b) after controlling
for perceived intimacy, the main effects and interaction
between culture and manipulated intimacy were no different
from the results of the ANOVA reported below. The results of

this evaluation indicate that the difference of perceived

 

 

38
intimacy between two cultural groups did not significantly
influence perceived face threat and likelihood of face work

strategy selection.

51.1.]. :1]

Reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) was used to
check inter—item correlation coefficient for each variable.
The results showed that the measurement of each variable,
except the negative politeness strategy, was acceptable (see
Table 6).

Analxais

Correlation. r; was used to test Hypothesis 1. This
analysis compared a Set of scores of perceived face threat
and a set of scores of likelihood of facework strategies.
Mean scores and standard deviations were calculated foreach
perceived face threat and likelihood of each facework
strategyu The mean scores comparisons were made between
cultural groups, and among three intimacy levels. Then two-
way factorial ANOVA was used to discover whether relational
distance and culture have any main effect separately, and
also whether these two independent variables were
interacting and . producing a cumulative effect. This

procedure was used to test the remaining hypotheses.

Results

CorrelatiomuieeLEacflhreaLanchacemrk

Hypothesia_l predicts that cross-culturally the degree
of perceived face threat would be strongly correlated to the
' likelihood of .facework strategy. To evaluate this
hypothesis, Pearson r was employed. As is apparent in Tables
4 and S, the results are consistent with my first
hypothesis. For both cultural groups, the degree of
perceived other’s negative face threat is positively
correlated to the likelihood of negative politeness (U.S.A.
group: r=.20, p<.05; P.R.C. group: r=.34, p<.01), the degree
of other’s positive face threat is positively correlated to
the likelihood of positive politeness (U.S.A. group: r=.32,
p<.01; P.R.C. group: r=.48, p<.001), and the degree of
perceived self face threat is positively correlated to the
likelihood of self face maintenance (U.S.A. group: r=.59,
p<.001; P.R.C. group: r=.48, p<.001). The degrees of three
types of perceived face threat are significantly positively
correlated to “don’t do PTA” and “indirectly” strategies.
The degree of three types of perceived face threat are
significantly' negatively' correlated. to the likelihood. of
“directly" strategy, except perceived negative face threat

in the P.R.C. group.

39

40

W
Hypotheses 2, 3. 4, and 5 are to test Ting-Toomey's

(1988) Proposition 3 and 4. ANOVA was used to test these
four hypotheses. As shown in Table 6, the result is
consistent with W which predicts that Americans
perceived significantly higher degree of other’s negative
face threat than Chinese, F(1,145)=S.63, p<.05, Eta2=.36.

W is confirmed by the result, F(1,145)=18.90,
p< . 001 , Eta2= . 11 . It means that Chinese perceived
significantly higher degree of other's positive face threat
than Americans. The result is inconsistent with mm
which predicts that Americans are more likely to use
negative politeness than Chinese. Opposite to this
hypothesis, Chinese rate significantly higher likelihood of
using negative politeness strategy than Americans do,
F(1,145)=4.02, p<.05, Eta2=.026. Wheels—5 is confirmed
by the result, F(1,145)=4.93, p<.05, Eta2=.032. It means
that Chinese are more likely to use positive politeness

strategy than Americans.

aver: sovi- .aez

 

 

:. bags 8:
.2”.- -- coca—.2532 coca-.23 3v
8.- AA. --- «mucus—om 358“— A8
2..- :2. 2. 9.82:8 02382 E
8.- : _ m. 8. :2. bases as
.8: as. 2.. 2. :2. fit on teen 5
:3..- :am. :2. :mm. : _ e. 2.9.. .85 one-sum E.
:2.- ..me. :2. 2. :3. :3. ::.. sea: use geese 5
:en- : _ n. :N... .8. : _ m. :3. :2. :2. .85. 8e... 08802 5
3. . _ N..- em.- 2 .- e _ .- 8.- :2..- :9..- :3. bass. 3235.2 5
8: as as E as 5 E 5 S 83st; 58:884.".

u or. a 0 0.: a at: to. to no. t - 0

e canes

Sven: ”Sir- .soz .

 

 

.: began a:
2 .- successes. cone-rum 5
o..- :8. 823:3 cranes 8V

.2. z. :. 882%.. 3:802 E

:2: :em. :8. Ne. bases Ge

:2.- ..3. :3. 8. :m. «E on can 5

:3.- ..2. :fi. 8. :3. :2. .82: cue-cam E

:ee- :8. :3. 8.- :3. :E. :2. 325. 8e“. 228a 5
8.- :8. AN. :em. .2. .. a. :8. :8. .85 8e". 3:802 E
8. as. 8. 2.. .-_~. 2. .2. .8. 2.- cease ceases: E
8: 5 as 6 Ge 5 3 5 5 8.8:; Essie-a

.. u . .. _. .L. .1. -. Z. - - .

m canes

43

 

 

Table 6
‘ e o - e. ‘ ‘e a ‘. .10 .‘ a...
Wat-zen):
All U.S.A.’ P.R.C.
Dependent Variables Subjects Subjects Subjects F p Alpha
Perceived Face Threat
Other’s Positive 2.5 2.7 2.2 5.63 .019 0.80
Face Threat (1.37) (1.49) (1.20)
Other’s Negative 3.6 3.0 4.1 18.90 .000 0.76
Face Threat (1.61) (1.28) (1.73)
Self-face Threat 3.2 . 2.8 3.6 11.84 .001 0.81
(1.56) (1.42) (1.59)
Likelihood of Strategy
Don’t Do FT A 3.2 2.7 3.6 7.17 .008
(2.15) (1.92) (2.26)
Indirectly 2.8 2.4 3.1 12.41 .001 0.65
(2.15) (1.15) (1.58)
Negative Politeness 3.9 3.7 4.1 4.02 .047 0.53
(1.42) (1.26) (1.52)
Positive Politeness 3.7 3.4 4.0 4.93 .028 0.64
(1.55) (1.18) (1.80)
Self-face Maintenance 4.3 4.2 4.4 0.34 .562 0.62
(1.45) (1.23) (1.63)
Directly 3.4 3.4 3.3 0.29 .589 0.80
(1.82) (1.83) (1.82)

 

Note. N=151 (72 U.S.A. participants, 79 P.R.C. participants). Numbers outside parentheses are mean
scores; numbers inside parentheses are standard deviations. Higher mean scores indicate higher degree of

perceived face threat or higher likelihood of facework strategy.

 

44

Hypotheses—6—and_1 are to test Ting-Toomey’s (1988)
Proposition 1 and 2 and Proposition 5 and 6. ANOVA was used
to test these two hypotheses. Both hypotheses are not
confirmed by the results. Opposite to W, Chinese
perceive significantly higher degree of self face threat
than‘ Americans did, F(1,145)=11.84, p<.01, Eta2=.068.
Regarding to W, the result indicates that there
is no significant difference on likelihood of self face

maintenance between two cultural groups.

Hypotheses 8. 2, and 10 are to determine whether

culture has any effect on the likelihood of “directly",
“indirectly", and “don't do FTA" strategies. ANOVA was used
to test these three hypotheses. As shown in Table 6,
W8 is not confirmed. The result indicates that
there is no significant difference on likelihood of
“directly” strategy between the two cultural groups.
WES—9. is confirmed by the result, F(1,145)=12.41,
p<.01, Eta2=.078. It means that Chinese are more likely to
use “indirectly" strategy than Americans. The result is
consistent with WEI-3.4.0.- F(1,145)=7.17, p<.01,
Eta2=.048. It means that Chinese are more likely to use
“don't do FTA" strategy than Americans.

W is confirmed by the result, that is,

cross—culturally as intimacy level increases, perceived

 

45
other's negative face threat decreases, F(2,14S)=S.37,

p<.01, Eta2=.068. W is not supported by the
result, that is, as intimacy level increases, likelihood of

negative politeness strategy doesn’t significantly decrease.

WWW
Hypotheses_13_and_14 are to determine whether there is
an interaction between culture and intimacy on perceived
face threats. Two-way ANOVA was used. Hypothesia_13 is
confirmed by the result, F(2,145)=6.27, p<.01, Eta3=.07l. As
shown in Figure 1, in a distant relationship, the two groups
perceive almost the same degree of other's positive face
threat. As intimacy increases, perceived other's positive
face threat decreases for Americans, whereas it increases
for Chinese. This pattern also is reflected in the
correlations shown in Tables 4 and 5, where manipulated
intimacy is negatively related to perceived other's positive
face threat for Americans, but positively related for
Chinese. Hypothesis_14 is confirmed by the result,
F(2,14S)=7.34, p<.01, Eta2=.085. As shown in Figure 2, in a
distant relationship, there is little difference between the
two cultural groups. As intimacy increases, Americans
perceive lower degree of self face threat, while Chinese
perceive higher degree of self face threat. Again, the some

pattern is evident in the correlations between manipulated

 

46
intimacy and self face threat for Americans versus Chinese

participants (compare Tables 4 and S). Hypotheses_15_and_1§
are to determine whether there is an interaction between
culture and intimacy on likelihood of positive politeness
strategy and self face maintenance. Two-way ANOVA was
conducted to test these two hypotheses. Hypothesis_15 is not
confirmed by the result. There is no significant interaction
between culture and intimacy on likelihood of positive
politeness. Hypothesis_16 is confirmed by the result. As
shown in Figure 3, the interaction for self-face maintenance
strategies is significant, F(2,145)=3.94, p<.05, Eta?=.051.
The results indicate that in a distant relationship, Chinese
are less likely to use self face maintenance than Americans.
However as intimacy level increases, the likelihood
increases for Chinese, while it decreases for Americans.
Furthermore, there is another finding shown in Figure 4, the
'interaction for “indirectly” strategy is significant,
F(2,145)=3.06, p<.05, Eta2=.037. In distant relationships,
there is no difference between two groups. As intimacy
levels increases, Americans become less likely to use hint,
whereas Chinese become more likely to use hint. Once again,
these interactions also are apparent in correlations between
intimacy and politeness strategies for Americans versus

ChineSe participants (compare Tables 4 and 5).

47

4.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

g 3.5 .. ‘w.
§ \ \
IL -. \
‘K
E 3.. \
a. \
o \
2.5 .L \
‘-
2, ”q lint-nee fining “Friend
htimacy Level
L... U.SA .. P.R.C. I
F(2,l45)=6.27, p<.01
Figure 1
. E : ] l I -
E - i E . I . E I] |
4
-l
55..

PerceivedheoTNut
a

2-5 d.

 

 

 

 

Mara...- a... m}...-
um Level

F. us». .. P.R.CJ

 

 

F(2,145)=7.34 p<.01
Figure 2
. E 1 I I .
Wit-tamar- ’

4.8

9
5

PM thhood'
.5
u

48

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.8 ..
3.6 . 1 1
W Fn'énd 8001an
Macy Laval
F..umx4.PRcJ
F(2,!45}=3.94, p<.05
Figure 3
Interaction of Culture and Intimacy on Selfefiagg_Maintenangg

3.6
3.4 1’.
3.2 .

PM wow
N
a

 

 

 

 

 

2.6 .. \
o \
24 4,. \
\
" ‘0— x
2.2 d- ‘- ‘ x
0 '0
2 Acquaintm Friind mém
mm
F._u&A4.PRcJ
F(2,l4$)=3.94, p<.05
Figure 4
o ‘ - o. o .oo o u. o. O -:‘ o. . ‘0

49
In general, the results in Tables 4 and 5 indicate that
except negative face threat and likelihood of negative
politeness, intimacy level is negatively correlated to
perceived face threats and facework for the U.S.A. group,
while it is positively correlated to them for the P.R.C.
group. There is. also a tendency that as intimacy level

increases, the cultural differences increase.

Discussion

The purpose of this study is to test Brown and
Levinson/s 'predictions about the effects of culture and
relational factor on facework, and also to test some
propositions from Ting-Toomey's face-negotiation theory.
Specifically, this study aims at determining whether a
cultural factor and a relational factor—intimacy—have
effects on requesters’ perceived face threat and likelihood

facework strategy when individuals make a request.

The results of this study are summarized and discussed

as the followings:

My Hypothesis___1 assumed that cross-culturally

requesters' perceived face threat would be positively
correlated to likelihood of facework, and negatively

correlated to “directly" request making. The results are

 

 

50
consistent with the hypothesis, but some of the correlations
are not as high as I expected. My explanation is that as
requester select facework strategies, it is not necessary to
only choose the facework strategy which is matched with the
type of face threat he/she predicted. For instance, when a
requester perceived a strong other's negative face threat,
he/she might not only use negative politeness, but also use
self face maintenance to mitigate the face-threat. Based on
the results shown in Tables 4 and 5, cross-culturally, of
these three types of perceived face threats, perceived
positive face threat and self face threat are better

predictors of all types of facework strategies.

Except for Hypothesis___$, Ting-Toomey’s (1988)

Euoposition 3 and 4 are generally supported by my results.
As shown in Table 6, Chinese perceive a higher degree of
positive face threat than Americans. Conversely, Americans
perceive a higher degree of negative face threat than
Chinese. For the likelihood of facework strategy, my result
is consistent with. Hypothesis__5, that Chinese are more
likely to use positive politeness strategy than Americans.
However, Wheel” is not confirmed by the results.
Americans do not present higher likelihood of using negative
politeness. Opposite to my hypothesis, Chinese have higher

likelihood to use negative politeness.

51

Why do Americans perceive higher degree of negative
face threat than Chinese, but don’t present higher
likelihood of using negative politeness than Chinese? The
explanations for the results could be that: (1) Americans
don't see negative politeness as viable, but by looking at
the means in Table 6, for the U.S.A. participants, negative
politeness strategy is ranked as the second high likely,
which is higher than that of positive politeness strategy.
Therefore, it indicates that Americans do rate negative
politeness strategy as fairly likely to be used. In this
sense, Ting-Toomey’s prediction is partially supported. (2)
Even though Americans perceive higher degree of negative
face threat, they might prefer to use positive politeness
and self face maintenance to mitigate the negative face
threat instead of using negative politeness. As shown in
Table 6, for the U.S.A. participants, the correlation
between perceived negative face threat and negative
politeness is only r=.20, p<.05, which is the weakest
correlation of all correlations between perceived negative
face threat and facework strategies (e.g., correlation with
self face maintenance is the strongest one, r=.51, p<.001;
with positive politeness 1:.42, p<.001). On the contrary,
Chinese perceive less other's negative face threat than
American, but they rate higher likelihood of negative

politeness strategy than Americans. Those findings might

 

 

52
partially support Brown and Levinson’s (1987) culture
distinction, that is, the members of the positive politeness
cultures (what the U.S. culture is classified) prefer to use
positive politeness to redress face threats, and the members
of the negative politeness cultures (what the Chinese
culture is classified) prefer to use negative politeness to

redress face threat.

Ting-Toomey’s Proposition 1 and 2, and Proposition 5
and 6, which propose .that members of individualistic
cultures tend to have more self-face concern and to be more
likely to use self-face maintenance, are not supported by
the ANOVA tests. Opposite to Hypothesis_§, Chinese perceive
higher degree of self-face threat than Americans. Hypothesis
1 is also not confirmed by the result, that is, there is no
significant difference between two cultural groups on the
likelihood of self-face maintenance. But by looking at means
in Table 6, for the U.S.A. participants, the mean of
likelihood of self-face maintenance is ranked as the highest
likely to be used, even though is slightly lower than the
mean. of the P.R.C. participants. Moreover, as shown in
Figure 3, Americans don’t tend to use self-face maintenance
at all levels of ,intimacy. At distant relationships,
Americans are much more likely to use self-face maintenance

than Chinese; but at close relationships, Americans are less

53
likely to use self-face maintenance than Chinese. In this

sense, Ting-Toomey’s proposition is partially supported.

Ting-Toomey’s Proposition 7 and 8, which predict that
members of individualistic cultures are more likely to use
direct strategy and less likely to use hint and avoidance
than members of collectivistic cultures, are supported by my
results. Hmthesiij is not confirmed by the ANOVA test,
that is, no significant difference on likelihood. of
“directly” between two cultural groups is found. But by
looking at the means in Table 6, for the U.S.A.
participants, the mean of “directly” is much higher than the
means of “indirectly”, “don't do PTA", and the same with the
means of jpositive politeness. On the contrary, for the
P.R.C. participants, the mean of “directly” is much lower
than the means of “don't do PTA”, and positive politeness,
almost the same with the mean of “indirectly”. These results
indicate that Americans do rate “directly" strategy as
fairly likely' to be used. In this sense, Ting-Toomey's

propositions are mainly supported.

Regarding to the effect of intimacy on perceived
negative face threat and likelihood of negative politeness,
HynQLhaaia_ll is confirmed, that is, the intimacy level is
negatively associated with perceived negative face threat.
Hypotheaia_12 is not confirmed. Cross-culturally, the change

of relational distance has no significant influence on

 

54
likelihood of negative politeness strategy. Culture

differences has main effect on this dependent variable.

Except for Hypothesis__15, my hypotheses about an

interaction between the cultural factor and relational
factor are generally supported by the results. As shown in
Figure 1, 2, 3, and 4, in distant relationships, two
cultural groups show a small difference on their perceived
face threat and their likelihood of doing facework; in close
relationships, there is a large difference between two
groups. These findings are consistent with my assumptions
that the members in collectivistic culture have more need to
be approved in close relationships than in distant
relationships, therefore, they tend to use more self face
maintenance and hint in close relationships than in distant
relationships. Conversely, the members of individualistic
culture tend to perceive less face threat in close
relationships than in distant relationships, therefore, they
are less likely to use self face maintenance and hint in

close relationships than in distant relationships.

My findings indicate that the directions of the effects
of intimacy varied across different cultures. It implies
that Brown and Levinson's prediction about intimacy
negatively associated with facework might have some cultural
bias, in that it might be true only for individualistic

cultures, but not for collectivistic cultures. As shown in

55
Tables 4 and 5, and Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4, in many cases,
intimacy level is negatively associated with perceived face
threats and facework for the U.S.A. group (that is,
consistent with Brown and Levinson's prediction), while it
is positively associated with perceived face threats and
facework for the P.R.C. group (that is, inconsistent with

Brown and Levinson's prediction).

In order to test this reasoning more directly, future
research is Suggested to use the subjects who are from the
countries with the individualistic cultures (or low-context
cultures) but other than the U.S.A., and the subjects who
are from the countries with the collectivistic cultures (or

high-context cultures) but other than the P.R. China.

Furthermore, a subsidiary analysis indicates that the
direction of the effects of intimacy varied across different
types of request. It implies that Brown. and. Levinson’s
prediction. might have a :request type bias, in that the
prediction might be true only for the request type of asking
for a favor, but not for the request type of enforcing
obligation. In my study design, the three different request
situations represented two types of request: asking for a
favor vs. enforcing obligation. In general, as relational
distance increases, facework increases in the “money
borrowing” situation—asking for a favor (that is, consistent

with Brown and Levinson's prediction), but facework

 

 

56
decreased, or remained constant in the “asking for loan
repayment” and “ Asking for re-do work" situations—enforcing

obligation (that is, inconsistent with Brown and Levinson's

prediction).

Again, to test this reasoning more directly, further
research is recommend that hypothetical request situation
could be different kinds of favor-asking and enforcing
obligation, other than the situations I used in this study.
Moreover, other than favor-asking and enforcing obligation,
different types of request situation are suggested to use to

test this reasoning.

Aside from findings relevant to the hypotheses, the
other results merit note. The Chinese participants indicated
that they were more likely than the American participants to
use nearly all types of politeness (see Table 6, and Figures
1, 2, 3 and 4). The explanations for the results could be
that (1) the Chinese (participants perceived larger
relational distance across three intimacy levels than the
American participants did; (2) the Chinese participants
perceived larger size of requests than the American
participants did, especially for the request type of
enforcing obligation and negative comment; (3) the Chinese
might tend to grade higher likelihood for all types of

politeness than the American participants did.

57
I should note some limitations of this study. First,
since I could not have the Chinese sample from the country
of the P.R.C., the participants of the P.R.C. group are
Chinese graduate students in Michigan State University who
are originally from the P.R.C. This group of subjects might

be different from the people who are living in the P.R.C.

Second, there are differences on the participants’ age
and gender between two cultural groups. The participants of
the P.R.C. group are older and have more males than U.S.A.
group. T-tests were used to determine whether there is a
significant difference on perceived face threat and
likelihood of facework between male and female participants.
No significant difference was found, except that American
female participants were more likely to use negative
politeness than. American. male participants. Correlations
were used to determine whether age differences are
associated with the differences on perceived face threat and
likelihood of facework. No significant correlations were
found, except that for Chinese participants, age was
positively correlated to perceived negative face threat
(r=.27, p<.05), and for American participants, age was
negatively correlated to likelihood of negative politeness
(z=-.22, p<.OS). Based on these tests, the differences on
age and gender do not appear to be a major problem for this

study.

58
Third, the set of request situations is mixed up with
two types of request (asking for a favor and enforcing
obligation). It might have an effect on. perceived face
threat and facework, which might moderate or even distort

the main effects of culture and intimacy.

Fourth, a questionnaire was used for my experiment.
Hence, social desirability might have influenced the
results, since participants' answer might be different from

their acting in the real world.

In conclusion, my results provide some partial support
for Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) politeness theory and
Ting-Toomey’s (1988) face-negotiation theory. I believe that
their approach are particularly useful for cross-cultural
communication study and social psychology study. Based on my
study, I think that their hypotheses and propositions might
be too simple to cover the complicated reality. Further
studies are. recommended on facework in different types of
request and using the subjects who are from individualistic
and collectivistic cultures but other than the U.S.A. and

the P.R.C.

 

APPENDIX A

Text of the Three Hypothetical Requesting Situations

(1) Money Borrowing

Imagine that you are in main library and want to cope
articles from recent issues of some academic journals. It
costs $5 to copy those articles. When you search for money,
you notice that you have forgotten to bring your wallet. You
really need those articles as soon as possible for your term
paper. Just then, you happen to notice your best friend
(friend, acquaintance) sitting nearby. Now you decide to ask

him/her to lend you $5.

(2) Loan Repayment

Imagine that your best friend (friend, acquaintance)
borrowed $20 from you a month ago and promised to repay the
money in a week. However, he/she has not repaid it to you

now. You feel that you have to remind him/her of it.

(3) Re-do Project

Imagine that you have been assigned to a group project
in one of your classes. It is important to you that you get
a good grade in this class. The final grade will depend to a
great extent on how well the group project turns out. You
were designated by the course instructor to be the leader of
the group. One group member, who is your best friend
(friend, acquaintance), has done such poor job that the
group grade is in jeopardy. You need to get him/her to re-do
his/her part of the project in the remaining time before the

final project is due.

59

 

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire Items for

Measuring Perceived Face Threat

05W (Alpha=.80)

For three hypothetical situations:

B1. He/she would perceive your request as a difficult
one with which to comply.

B4. Your request would be perceived by him/her as an
unreasonable infringement.

 

B7. Given your request, he/she would feel that you are
imposing on him/her.

Wm (Alpha= . 76)

For "money borrowing" situation:

B2. He/she might think that his/her public image would
be damaged if he/she rejected your request.

BS. He/she may feel good about himself/herself since
he/she has chance to help you.

Be. He/she might think that his/her self-esteem would
be damaged if he/she rejected your request.

For "loan repayment" and "re-do project: situations:

BZ. Your request would potentially damage his/her
public image.

BS. He/She may feel embarrassed about himself/herself,
because of your request.

B8. Your request would reflect negatively on his/her
abilities and efforts.
SelLfathreat (Alpha: . 81)

For three hypothetical situations
60

B3.

B6.

B9.

61

Your request may create a negative image of
yourself in his/her mind.

You would feel embarrassed about making this
request.

Your request would reflect negatively on your
abilities and efforts.

 

APPENDIX C

Questionnaire Items for
Measuring Likelihood of Facework Strategy

(1) Money Borrowing Situation

Dn_nnt_dn_ETA (One item)

You decide not to borrow money from him/her.

Cl.

Indirectly (Alpha=.65)

C5. You explain your problem in detail to him/her

C10.

C16.

 

without mentioning the request. (e.g., "See, I am
collecting articles for my term paper. I didn't
realize that I did not have my wallet with me until
I brought these journals to the copy center. It
looks like I'll have to leave these journals here
and go back to get some money, but I am afraid
these journals may have been taken by someone else
when I get back.")

You do not state your request outright, but instead
drop hints to him/her. (e.g., "I was going to
copy some articles here, but I forgot to bring my
wallet with me.") ’

You tell him/her that you have been looking for
your roommate in library for a while, in order to
borrow some money to make copies. At this moment,
you haven't found your roommate yet.

Nega£i¥e_politeness (Alpha=.53)

C2. You accompany your request with an apology for

C11.

having to ask for a help. (e.g., "I'm sorry to
bother you, but I was wondering if I could borrow
$5 to copy some articles.")

You ask him/her if he/she has extra money before
mentioning your request.

62

63
C15. You state your request, making it clear to him/her
that he/she can feel free to say NO. (e.g., "Could
you please lend me $5? but if you don't have any
extra money, that's OK, I can ask someone else.")

W (Alpha: . 64)

C6. You are friendly toward him/her to get him/her in
the right frame of mind before mentioning your
request. (e.g., "Hi, how are you? You look great
today! I like your shirt! Hey, I wanted to copy
some articles, but I forgot to bring my wallet.
Could you please lend me $5?")

C7. You accompany the request with a promise of your
help to him/her in the future. (e.g., "Could I
borrow $5 to make some copies? If you need any
help, you can feel free to come to me.")

 

C13. You indicate how important his/her help is to you
personally. (e.g., "Can I borrow $5 to make some
copies? I 'd really appreciate it. You'd be saving
my life, because otherwise, I might not finish my
paper on time.")

Seliiamaintenance (Alpha: . 62)

C3. You make explanations or excuses for not having your
wallet with you. (e.g., “I need these articles for
my paper which is due tomorrow, but I forget my
wallet and I just don't have time to go back and
get it. Could you lend me $5?")

C4. You mention your own efforts prior to the request.
(e.g., "I forgot to bring my wallet, could you
please lend me $5? I intended to go back to get my
wallet, but I just realized that I forgot the key
of my apartment also.")

C8. You explain the situation and imply that your need
for help is just an accidental matter. (e.g., "Can
I borrow $5 to make some copies? I usually put my
wallet in a pocket of my jacket, but today it is
too warm to wear a jacket, so I forgot to bring my
wallet.")

64
Dizeanlx (Alpha=.80)

C9. You directly state the request to him/her. (e.g.,
"Hi! How are you doing? Can I borrow $5 to make
some copies?")

C12. You state the request to him/her in a casual tone.
(e.g., "Hi! How's it going? Any chance you could
loan me $5 so I can make some copies?")

C14. You simply and plainly ask him/her for help. (e.g.,
"Would you lend me $5?")

(2) Loan Repayment Situation

I29_ns2t_do_ETA (One item)

C1.You wouldn't ask him/her to repay the loan. You
pretend that you have forgotten it.

Indirectly (Alpha= . 65)

C5. You aren't very friendly to him/her until he/she
gets the hint that you are mad with his/her delay in
repaying you.

C10. You don't state your request outright, but instead
drop hints to him/her. (e.g., "I have run out of
cash, and I really need to pay some bills.")

C16. You mention that someone else always keeps his/her
promise to repay the loan without mentioning his/her
delay in repayment.

Negatimnnliteness (Alpha= . 53)

C2. You accompany your request with an apology for
reminding him/her to repay the loan. (e.g., "I am
sorry to mention this, but I really need some money
right now. Do you remember that you borrowed $20 a
month ago? Could you please repay it now?")

C11. You ask him/her if he/she has any financial
problems before mentioning your request. (e.g., "Are

65

you low on cash recently? If not, could you repay my
loan?")

C15.You state the request, making it clear to him/her

that the choice is up to him/her as to whether the
loan is repaid right away. (e.g., "Could you repay my
loan? But if you are low on cash, you can repay it
another time.")

Ensitixe_neliteness (Alpha=-64)

C6.You try to be friendly toward him/her to get him/her

in the right frame of mind before mentioning the
request. (e.g., "Hi! How is your semester going? You
look great today! Hey, you know something, I have run
out of cash. Could you repay my loan?")

C7.Before mentioning the request, you ask why he/she

hasn't repaid the loan as he/she promised.

C13.You accompany the request with a statement that you

do not think he/she is the type of person who
normally borrows money and then does not repay it for
long periods of time. (e.g., "Could you repay the
loan? I know that you must have forgotten it, because
you are not the type of person who always delays
repayment.")

Self_fane_maintenance (Alpha=.62)

C3.You describe how badly you need some money right

C4

C8.

away, otherwise, you would not press him/her. (e.g.,
"I wouldn't press you to repay the loan, but I have
run out of cash and I really need some money to pay
my bills.")

.You indicate that you are.just doing a routine check,

that the request does not mean that you are pressing
him/her to repay. (e.g., "Did you borrow $20 from me
a month ago? I just wanted to make sure I remembered

correctly. I'm not pressing you to repay it right
now.")

You state that you understand the financial problems
he/she faces, you won't urge him/her to repay. (e.g.,

66
"I understand that you are facing some financial
problems, I won't press you to repay the loan.")

Directly (Alpha=.80)

C9.You directly state your request. (e.g., "I would like
you to repay the loan.")

C12. You simply tell him/her that it is the time for
him/her to repay the loan.

C14. You simply inform him/her that he/she should repay
the loan right away. (e.g., "You promised that you
would repay the loan in a week, but more than four
weeks have passed. Could you repay it now?")

(3) Re-do Project Situation

DQ_th_dQ_EIA (One item)

C1. You wouldn't ask him/her to re-do his/her work.

Indirectly (Alpha=.65)

C5. You aren't very friendly to him/her until he/she
gets the hint that you are aren't very pleased with
the quality of his/her work.

C10. You don't say a word to him/her and simply re-do
his/her work without telling him/her about it.

C16. You recount a fictitious occurrence about being in
another group where one person re-did his part of
work because of his poor job without mentioning your
own group's problem.

Negatiye_ndliteness (Alpha=.53)
C2. You accompany your request with an apology for
reminding him/her to do more work. (e.g., "I am sorry

for having to ask you to re-do your part of work.")

C11. You ask him/her how busy his/her schedule is before
mentioning your request. (e.g., "Are you really busy
these days? Could you please re-do your project
work?")

 

67

C15.You state the request, making it clear to him/her

that the choice is up to him/her as to whether to re-
do the project work.

Bceitiye_ncliteneee (A1pha= . 64)

C6.

C7.

You tell him/her how much the rest of group will
appreciate his/her re-doing the project work. (e.g.,
"If you re-do your work, our group project will get a
good grade. All of our group members will really
appreciate your re-doing your part of work.")

You affirm that he/she has put reasonable time and
effort on his/her work before asking him/her to re-do
his/her work.(e.g., "I know that you have put
reasonable time and effort on your project work, but
I think that if you re-do some parts of your work,
our project will be much better than this one.")

C13.You indicate how important it is to you personally

to get a good grade out of the class and ask him/her
to help you out as a personal favor. (e.g., "This
class is very important for me. I need to get a good
grade out of this class. Would you please re-do your
work as a favor to me?)

Self_fece_maintenance (Alpha: . 62)

C3.

C4.

C8.

You accompany your request with a statement showing
that you understand the kinds of time pressures and
demands he/she faces. (e.g., "I understand that you
have tight schedule and it is not easy for you to do
this kind of project, but I think that you should re-
do your part of work.")

You tell him/her that it is your obligation as a
group leader to ask him/her to re-do work.

You present the concern not as your own but as a
concern of fellow group members. (e.g., "Could you
please re-do your part of project work? It is not
that I'm concerned but that rest of our group is
worried.")

Directly (Alpha: . 80)

68
C9.You directly state your request. (e.g., "Your should
re-do your work.")

C12. You simply tell him/her that he/she has to re—do
his/her work.

C14. You simply inform him/her that he/she should re-do
the project work.

B I BLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agassi, Joseph and Jarvie, I. C. (1968). A study in
westernization. In Ian C. Jarvie and Josephy .Aggassi
(Eds . ) , Hong Kong: A Society in Transi tion. New York:

Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers.

Baxter, Leslie A. (1984) An investigation into compliance-
gaining as politeness. Haman communication Research, 10,
427-456.

Bond, Michael H.- 8: Lee, Peter W. (1981). Face saving in
Chinese culture: a discussion and experimental study of
Hong Kong students. In Ambrose Y. King & Rance P. L. Lee
(Eds.) , Social Life and Development in Hong Kong. Hong
Kong: The Chinese University Press.

Bond, Michael 1L. & Wang, Sung-Hsing (1983). China:
aggressive behavior and the problem of maintaining order
and harmony. In Arnold P. Goldstein & Marshall H. Segall
(Eds.), Aggression in Global Perspective. New York:
Pergamon Press.

Bond, Michael H. & ‘Wan, K. C. et al. (1985). How are
responses to verbal insult related to cultural
collectivism and power distance? Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 16, 111-127.

Brislin, Richard W., Lonner, W. J. & Thorndike, R. M.
(1973). Cross-CHltural Research .Methods. .A. ‘Wiley-
Interscience Publication, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Brocknery J}, et al (1981). Face-saving' and. entrapment.
Jburnal of EXperimental Social Psychology, 17, 68-79.

Brown, B. (1977). Face-saving and face-restoration in
negotiations. In Daniel Druckman (Ed.), Negotiations:
Social-Psychological Perspectives. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.

Brown, B. (1970). Face-saving following experimentally
induced embarrassment. JOurnal of EXperimental Social
Psychology, 6, 255-271.

Brown, B. (1968). The effects of need to maintain face on
interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology. 4, 107-122.

69

70
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen (1978). Universals in
language usage: Politeness phenomenon. In E. Goody (Ed.),

Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social
Interaction (pp.S6-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen (1987). Politeness: Some
Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and
solidarity. In. T. .A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in .Language
(pp.253- 276). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

Cheek, J. M. & Hogan, R. (1983). Self-concepts, self-
presentations, and moral judgments. In Jerry Suls &
Anthony G. Greenwald (Eds.) , Psychological Perspectives

on the Self, Vol.2. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

Cody, M., McLaughlin, M., & Schneider, M. (1981). The impact
of relational consequences and intimacy on the selection
of interpersonal persuasion tactics: 1k reanalysis.
Cbmmunication Quarterly, 29, 91-106.

Craig, R., Tracy, K. & Spisak, F. (1986). The discourse of
requests: assessment of a politeness approach. Human
COmmunication Research, 12, 437-468.

Cupach, W. R., Metts, S., & Hazelton, Jr., V. (1986). Coping
with embarrassing predicaments: Remedial strategies and
their perceived utility. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 5:181-200.

Daly, J. & McCrosky, J. C. (1984). Avoiding Communication:
Shyness, Reticence, and Communication Apprehension.
Beverly Hills: Sage.

Eberhard, Wolfram (1967). Guilt and Sin in Traditional
China. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California.

Edelman, R. J. (1985). Social embarrassment: An analysis of
the process . Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 2:195-213.

71
Falbo, T. & Peplau, L. A. (1980). Power strategies in
intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, 618-628.

Fitzpatrick, M. A. & Winke, J. (1979). You always hurt the
one you love: Strategies and tactics in interpersonal
conflict. Cbmmunication Quarterly, 27, 3-11.

Gergen, K. J. & Wishnov, B. (1965). Other's self-evaluations
and interaction anticipation as determinants of self-
presentation. Journal of {personality' and Social
Psychology, 2, 348-358.

Goffman, Erving (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual
elements in social interaction. Psychiatry: Journal for
the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 18, 213-231.

Goffman, Erving (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday
Life. Garden City, NY: Boubleday.

Goffman, Erving (1961). Encounters. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-
Merrill.

Goffman, Erving (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on face-
to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.

Goffman, Erving (1971). Relations in Public. New York:
Basic.

Gross, E. & Stone, G. P. (1964). Embarrassment and the
analysis of role requirements. The American Journal of
Sociology, 70, 1-15.

Gudykunst, William B. & Kim, Y. Y. (1984). Methods for
Intercultural COmmunication Research. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications. Published in cooperation with the Speech
Communication Association Commission on International and
Intercultural Communication.

Gudykunst, W., Yoon, Y. & Nishida, T. (1987). The influence
of individualism-collectivism (n1 perceptions of
communication in ingroup and outgroup relationships.
communication.Mbnographs, 54, 295-305.

Gudykunst, William B. & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and
Interpersonal Communication. Sage series in interpersonal
communication 8. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

72
Hall, E. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday.
Hall, E. (1983). The Dance of Life. New York: Doubleday.

Harris, L. M., & Gergen, K. J. & Lannamann, J. W. (1986).
Aggression. rituals. Cbmmunication..MOnographs, 53, 252-
265. I

Hiniker, P. J3 (1969). Chinese reactions to fOrced
compliance: dissonance reduction or national character .
The Jburnal of Social Psychology, 77, 157-176.

Ho, D. Y. (1975). On the concept of face. American Journal
of Sociology, 81, 867-884.

Hofstede, CL. (1980). Culture's Cbhsequences: International
.Differences in Wbrk-related ‘Values. Beverly' Hill: CA:
Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of national cultures in
fifty countries and three regions. 131.]. Deregowski, S.
Dzuirawiec, 8: R. Annis (Eds.), Explications in Cross-
cultural Psychology. Lisse, The Netherland: Swets &
Zeitlinger.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1984). Hofstede's culture
dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach's
value survey. Journal of Cross-Cul tural Psychology: 15,
417-433.

Holtgraves, T. & Yang, J. (1990). Politeness as universal:
Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and
inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59, 719-729.

Hsu, Francis L. K. (1983). Rugged Individualism
Reconsidered : Essays in psychol ogi cal an thropol ogy.
Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press. -

Hsu, Francis L. K. (1981). Americans and Chinese: Passage to
Differences. (Third Edition) Honolulu: The University
Press of Hawaii.

Hui, C. H. & ‘Triandis, H. (1986). Individualism-
collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researches.
Journal of cross-cultural Psychology, 17, 225-248.

73

Jones, E. E. & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general
theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.),
Psychological Perspectives on the Self. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum. ~ .

Kim, Min-Sun, & Wilson, S.R. (in press). A cross-cultural
comparison of implicit theories of requesting.
communication Mbnographs.

King, A. Y. C. & Myers, J. T. (1977). Shame as an Incomplete
Conception of _ Chinese Culture: A Study of Face. Hong
Kong: Social Research Center, The Chinese

University of Hong Kong.

Kline, Susan L. (1981, May). Construct system development
and face support in persuasive messages: Two empirical
investigations. Paper present at the MCA Convention.

Leary, M. -R. & Schlenker, B. R. (1981). The social
psychology of shyness: A self-presentational model. In J.
T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression .Management Theory' and
Social Psychology Research, (pp.335-358). New York:

Academic Press.

Leichty, G. and Applegate, J. L. (1991). Social-cognitive
and situational influences on the use of face-saving
persuasive strategies. Human Cbmmunication Research, 17,
451-484.

Leung, K. & Bond, M.~ (1984). The impact of cultural
collectivism on reward allocation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 47, 793-804.

Lim, Tae-Seop (1988, Nov.) . A new model of politeness in
discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Speech Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.

Lim, Tae-Seop (1989). Positive and negative politeness in

(performing face-threatening acts. Paper presented at the
annual meeting' of the International Communication

Association, San Francisco.

Lim, Tae-Seop (1990). Politeness behavior in social
influence situations. In James Price Dillard (Ed.),
Seeking Cbmpliance: The Production of Interpersonal

74 _
Influence Messages. Scottsdale, Arizona: Gorsuch
Scarisbrick, Publishers.

Lim, 'Tae-Seop and. IBowers, J.W. (1991). Facework:
solidarity, approbation, and tact. .Human Communication
Research, 17, 415-450.

Lin, Yutang (1939). .My Country' and .My People. London:
Heinemann.

McLaughlin, Margaret L. (1984) . Conversation: How Talk Is
Organized. Sage Series in Interpersonal Communication
Volume 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Modigliani, A. (1971). Embarrassment, facework, and eye
contact: testing a theory of embarrassment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 15-24.

Modigliani, A. (1968). Embarrassment and embarrassability.
Sociometry, 31, 313-326.

Nadler, A., Fisher, J., & Itzhak, S. (1983). With a little
help from my friend: Effect of single or multiple act aid
as a function of donor and task characteristics. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 310-321.

meura, N. & Barnlund, D. (1983). Patterns of interpersonal
criticism in Japan and United States. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 7, 1-18.

Rawlins, W. (1983). Negotiating close friendship: The
dialective of conjunctive freedoms. Human Communication
Research, 9, 255-266.

Roloff, M. E., Janiszewski, C. A., McGrath, M. A. Burns, C.
S., & Manrai, L. A. (1988). Acquiring resources from
intimates: When. obligation. substitutes for' persuasion.
Human communication Research, 14, 364-396.

Roloff, M. E. & Janiszewski, C. A. (1989). Overcoming
.obstacles to interpersonal compliance: A. principle of
message construction. Human Communication Research, 16,
33-61.

Schlenker, B. R. 8: Leary, M. R. (1985) Social anxiety and
communication about the self. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, 4:171-192.

75

Schneider, D. J. (1981). Tactical self-presentations: Toward
a broader conception. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression
Management Theory and Social Psychological Research,
(pp.23-40). New York: Academic Press.

Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Sears, Robert (1961). Thanscultural variables and conceptual

equivalence . In Bert Kaplan (Ed . ) , Studying Personali ty
Cross- Culturally. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and
Company. '

Stover, Leon E. (1974). ,The Culture .Ecology' of Chinese

Civilization: Peasants and Elites in the Last of the
Agrarian State. N. Y.: Pica Press.

Stover, Leon E. and Stover Takeko K. (1976). China: An
Anthropological Perspective. Pacific Palisades,
California: Goodyear Publishing Company, Inc.

Tedeschi, J. T. (editor) (1981a). Impression .Management
Theory and Social Psychological Research. New York:
Academic Press.

Tedeschi, J. & Reiss, M. (1981b). Verbal strategies in
impression management. In Charles Antaki (Ed.), The
Psychology of Ordinary EXplanations of Social Behavior. A
Volume in European Monographs in Social Psychology.
London: Academic Press.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Toward a theory of conflict and
culture. In W. Gudykunst, L. Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey
(Eds.), COmmunication, Culture, and Organizational
Processes (pp.71-86). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). A face-negotiation theory. In Y.
Kim. & ‘W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in Intercultural

communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, 2., Kim, H.S.,
Lin, S. & Nishida, T. (1991). Culture, face maintenance,
and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A study in
five cultures. The International Journal of conflict

Management, 2, 275-296.

76
Tracy, K., et al (1984). The discourse of requests:
assessment of a compliance-gaining approach. Human
COmmunication Research, 10, 513-538.

Tracy, K. (1990). The many faces of facework. In H. Giles &
P. Robinson (Eds.) , The Handbook of Language and Social
Psychology. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

Triandis, H. C. (1986). Collectivism vs. individualism: a
reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-cultural
psychology. In C. Bagley & G. Verma (Eds.), Personality,
Cbgnition, and values: Cross-cultural Perspectives of
Childhood and Adolescence. London: Macmillan.

Tu, W. (1985). Selfhood and otherness in Confucian thought.

In A. Marsella, G. Devos, & F. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and
Self: .Asian and western Perspectives. New York:
Tavistock.

Weary, G., et al (1982). Self-presentation and the

moderation of self-serving attributional biases. Social
cognition, 1, 140-159.

Wilson, Richard. W. (1970). Learning" to .Be Chinese: The
Political Socialization of Children in Taiwan. Cambridge:
The M.I.T. Press.

Wilson, S.R., Kim, M. & Meischke, H. (1991/1992). Evaluating
Brown and Levinson's politeness theory: A revised
analysis of directives and face. Research on Language and
Social Interaction, 25, 215-252.

Wilson, S.R., Meischke, H., & Kim, M. (1990). A revised
analysis of directives and face: Implications for
argument and negotiation. In F.van Eemeren, R.
Grootendorst, J. Blair, & C. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings
of the Second International Conference on Argumentation
(pp.470-480). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: SICSAT.

Wilson, S.R. & Putnam, L.L. (1990). Interaction goals in
negotiation. In J.A. Anderson (Ed.), Conununication
Yearbooks 13 (pp.374-406). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Wilson, S.R. (1992). Face and facework in negotiation. In
Linda L. Putnam & Michael E. Roloff (Eds.), Cbmmunication
and Negotiation. Newburg Park, CA: Sage.

77

Yang, Kuo-shu (1981). Social orientation and individual
modernity among Chinese students in Taiwan. The Journal
of Social Psychology, 113, 159-170.