Mobile Pantry Food distribution

This was an overwhelming event.  There were 400 people waiting in line in the dark cold when I got there waiting to get into the church.  The parking lot was sheer ice and treacherous.  They let us in an we set up stuff with no clue about how events would unfold.  As people came in we gave them our questionnaire but there was hesitancy about when to collect it.  We had to maintain order and keep people in line to turn in it.  We also ran a lottery for tee shirts and cook books which was very popular. People kept on stopping by and saying they wanted a tee shirt.  We collected surveys for the next four and one half hours.  It was chaotic and exhausting!  So many people were in bad shape.  Some couldn't read. Many were physically challenged.  Most people were missing teeth.  Many were overweight.  Families were there too.  We met refugees from Burma (Myanmar), Somalia, Tanzania and other places.  It was a pretty sobering experience.  A couple of people said our survey made them depressed because we asked about nutritional hardships.  We collected a ton of surveys but will need to judge the quality.   We gave out almost all of the compensation money which people really appreciated.  Pictures will follow.  They finally put us in the chapel to control the flow of people.  They were still distributing groceries to a long line of people when we left at noon.  Hope everyone got some food.  There is just such real need!

The Communication Department Haven House Family

Wow!  We did good here :)  Glad to be affiliated with our wonderful department!

Food Deserts Redux

Next Saturday we will collect data from 500 inner city residents for the nutritional stigma project!  This is such an awesome opportunity.  We send out a loud shout to our chair, Jim Dearing, for finding some money for this exceptionally worthwhile project.  We will be at a food distribution event sponsored by the Lansing Mobile Food Pantry.  It is sobering to understand how many people in Lansing need food and might otherwise go hungry.  This is good work to be doing.

Sonnentag & Fritz on Recovery

Citation

Database: PsycARTICLES

[ Journal Article ]

The Recovery Experience Questionnaire: Development and validation of a measure for assessing recuperation and unwinding from work.

Sonnentag, Sabine; Fritz, Charlotte

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol 12(3), Jul 2007, 204-221. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.204

Abstract

1. Drawing on the mood regulation and job-stress recovery literature, four self-report measures for assessing how individuals unwind and recuperate from work during leisure time were developed (Study 1). Confirmatory factor analyses with a calibration and a cross-validation sample (total N=930) showed that four recovery experiences can be differentiated: psychological detachment from work, relaxation, mastery, and control (Study 2). Examination of the nomological net in a subsample of Study 2 (N=271) revealed moderate relations of the recovery experiences with measures of job stressors and psychological well-being; relations with coping and personality variables were generally low (Study 3). Potential applications for the future use of these short 4-item measures in longitudinal and diary research are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

MA Handbook

Here is the link for the MA Handbook.  I think it is up and running now.  Sorry for any inconvenience!



 http://cas.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Masters-COMM-handbook.pdf

Graduate School Career Services

Images have been blocked to protect your privacy. Show Images? | Show this HTML in a new window?

Dear Graduate Program Directors and Secretaries,

Greetings from the Office of Graduate Student Life & Wellness and PhD Career Services. I am writing to let you know about the services and programs that PhD Career Services has available for your graduate students.  Attached is a PDF Copy of our PhD Career Services Brochure, which outlines our online and in-person resources, programs, and advising services.

Our PhD career consultants provide confidential one-on-one advising as well as group advising to both assist students in their career and professional development planning and provide PhD students with the knowledge and practical skills associated with a successful job search. On the PhD Career Services website you will find fall 2013 dates & times for group resume & cover letter sessions in the International Center (http://CareerSuccess.msu.edu/phdcareers/help). To schedule a one-on-one appointment with a member of the PhD Career Services team, please call (517) 884-1344. Before scheduling an appointment, be sure to check out our online resources: http://CareerSuccess.msu.edu/PhDCareers.

Our team includes three specialists on graduate student careers:

Dr. Matthew Helm (careers in the professoriate, including postdoctoral fellowships) – helmmatt@msu.edu

Dr. Julia McAnallen (careers in the private & public sectors, non-profit, and university administration) – mcanall8@msu.edu

Paul Artale (all careers; specializes in advising for master’s degrees and CV and resume reviews) – artalepa@msu.edu

 

Best wishes on the start of the new academic year,

Julia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Julia McAnallen, Ph.D.

Graduate Career Services Coordinator

113 Student Services Building

Michigan State University

+1 (517) 884-1333

mcanall8@msu.edu

GUIDE TO DOCTORAL PROGRAMS IN COMMUNICATION

Doctoral Program Guide

At the urging of the NCA Doctoral Education Committee, the National Communication Association has developed a Doctoral Program Guide with the express purpose of collecting and presenting relevant, timely, and useful information about doctoral programs in the Communication arts and sciences. This information is offered for use by prospective and existing doctoral students, as well as other interested parties.

NCA has identified 74 doctoral programs that offer a Ph.D. degree in Communication (alphabetical listing, state-by-state listing). We also list the programs by identified research area or specialty. If a program has been traditionally ranked or evaluated as a doctoral program in Communication, or if it is a new program in the discipline, it is profiled in this resource guide. Doctoral programs that exclusively confer a Ph.D. in journalism were not included. All information presented in this guide is publicly available on the individual department or program website and/or in other published sources. Questions about the NCA Doctoral Program Guide should be directed to Trevor Parry-Giles (tparrygiles@natcom.org)

In addition to general information about each of the identified doctoral programs, we also provide the specific concentrations or research emphases of each program, the admissions requirements for each program, a listing of the programs' graduate faculty, and contact information. In addition, we synthesize and report on the programs' standing in a series of different rankings/ratings and recognize a program's recipients of NCA Awards from 2000-present. Specifically, we indicate the programs' rankings in the following:

• The 2004 NCA Doctoral Reputational Study 
• K.A. Neuendorf, et al., "The View from the Ivory Tower: Evaluating Doctoral Programs in Communication," Communication Reports 20 (2007): 24-41.
• The National Research Council's 2010 "Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs," specifically on the measures of research output and diversity.
• M. Allen, et al., "Evaluating Doctoral Programs in Communication on the Basis of Citations," Electronic Journal of Communication 22 (2012). Article available with subscription.
• Communication Institute for Online Scholarship's rankings of "Top Ten" research programs in specific areas of research (subscription required).
  
  

  ---

    Alphabetical Listing of Doctoral Programs  |  Listing of Doctoral Programs by State  

• American University, School of Communication 
• Arizona State University, Hugh Downs School of Human Communication 
• Bowling Green State University, School of Media & Communication 
• Cornell University, Department of Communication 
• Drexel University, Department of Culture & Communication 
• Duquesne University, Department of Communication & Rhetorical Studies 
• Florida State University, School of Communication 
• George Mason University, Department of Communication 
• Georgia State University, Department of Communication 
• Howard University, School of Communications 
• Indiana University, Department of Communication & Culture 
• Indiana University, Department of Telecommunications 
• Louisiana State University, Department of Communication Studies 
• Michigan State University, Department of Communication 
• Michigan State University, Ph.D. in Media & Information Studies 
• New York University, Department of Media, Culture & Communication 
• North Carolina State University, Program in Communication, Rhetoric & Digital Media 
• North Dakota State University, Department of Communication 
• Northwestern University, Department of Communication Studies 
• Ohio State University, School of Communication 
• Ohio University, Department of Communication Studies 
• The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Communication Arts & Sciences 
• The Pennsylvania State University, College of Communications 
• Purdue University, Brian Lamb School of Communication 
• Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Communication & Media 
• Rutgers University, School of Communication & Information 
• Southern Illinois University, Department of Speech Communication 
• Stanford University, Department of Communication 
• Syracuse University, S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications 
• Temple University, School of Media & Communication 
• Texas A&M University, Department of Communication 
• University of Alabama, College of Communication & Information Sciences 
• University at Albany-SUNY, Department of Communication 
• University of Arizona, Department of Communication 
• University at Buffalo-SUNY, Department of Communication 
• University of California-San Diego, Department of Communication 
• University of California-Santa Barbara, Department of Communication 
• University of Colorado, Department of Communication 
• University of Connecticut, Department of Communication Sciences 
• University of Denver, Department of Communication Studies 
• University of Georgia, Department of Communication 
• University of Illinois, Department of Communication 
• University of Illinois, Institute for Communications Research 
• University of Illinois-Chicago, Department of Communication 
• University of Iowa, Department of Communication Studies 
• University of Kansas, Department of Communication Studies 
• University of Kentucky, Department of Communication 
• University of Maine, Department of Communication & Journalism 
• University of Maryland, Department of Communication 
• University of Massachusetts, Department of Communication 
• University of Memphis, Department of Communication 
• University of Miami, School of Communication 
• University of Michigan, Department of Communication Studies 
• University of Minnesota, Department of Communication Studies 
• University of Missouri, Department of Communication 
• University of Nebraska, Department of Communication Studies 
• University of New Mexico, Department of Communication & Journalism 
• University of North Carolina, Department of Communication Studies 
• University of North Dakota, Department of Communication 
• University of Oklahoma, Department of Communication 
• University of Oregon, School of Journalism & Communication 
• University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg School of Communication 
• University of Pittsburgh, Department of Communication 
• University of South Florida, Department of Communication 
• University of Southern California, Annenberg School of Communication & Journalism 
• University of Southern Mississippi, Department of Communication Studies 
• University of Texas, Department of Communication Studies 
• University of Utah, Department of Communication 
• University of Washington, Department of Communication 
• University of Wisconsin, Department of Communication Arts 
• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Department of Communication 
• Washington State University, Edward R. Murrow College of Communication 
• Wayne State University, Department of Communication 
• West Virginia University, Department of Communication
  
  
  State by State Listing 

Alabama

• University of Alabama, College of Communication & Information Sciences 

Arizona

• Arizona State University, Hugh Downs School of Human Communication 
• University of Arizona, Department of Communication 

California

• Stanford University, Department of Communication 
• University of California-San Diego, Department of Communication 
• University of California-Santa Barbara, Department of Communication 
• University of Southern California, Annenberg School of Communication & Journalism  

Colorado

• University of Colorado, Department of Communication 
• University of Denver, Department of Communication Studies 

Connecticut

• University of Connecticut, Department of Communication Sciences 

District of Columbia 

• American University, School of Communication 
• Howard University, School of Communications 

Florida

• Florida State University, School of Communication 
• University of Miami, School of Communication 
• University of South Florida, Department of Communication 

Georgia

• Georgia State University, Department of Communication 
• University of Georgia, Department of Communication 

Illinois

• Northwestern University, Department of Communication Studies 
• Southern Illinois University, Department of Speech Communication 
• University of Illinois, Department of Communication 
• University of Illinois, Institute for Communications Research 
• University of Illinois-Chicago, Department of Communication 

Indiana

• Indiana University, Department of Communication & Culture 
• Indiana University, Department of Telecommunications 
• Purdue University, Brian Lamb School of Communication 

Iowa

• University of Iowa, Department of Communication Studies 

Kansas

• University of Kansas, Department of Communication Studies 

Kentucky

• University of Kentucky, Department of Communication 

Louisiana

• Louisiana State University, Department of Communication Studies 

Maine

• University of Maine, Department of Communication & Journalism 

Maryland

• University of Maryland, Department of Communication 

Massachusetts

• University of Massachusetts, Department of Communication 

Michigan

• Michigan State University, Department of Communication 
• Michigan State University, Ph.D. in Media & Information Studies 
• University of Michigan, Department of Communication Studies 
• Wayne State University, Department of Communication 

Minnesota

• University of Minnesota, Department of Communication Studies 

Mississippi

• University of Southern Mississippi, Department of Communication Studies 

Missouri

• University of Missouri, Department of Communication 

Nebraska

• University of Nebraska, Department of Communication Studies 

New Jersey

• Rutgers University, School of Communication & Information 

New Mexico

• University of New Mexico, Department of Communication & Journalism 

New York

• Cornell University, Department of Communication 
• New York University, Department of Media, Culture & Communication 
• Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Communication & Media 
• Syracuse University, S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications 
• University at Albany-SUNY, Department of Communication 
• University at Buffalo-SUNY, Department of Communication 

North Carolina

• North Carolina State University, Program in Communication, Rhetoric & Digital Media 
• University of North Carolina, Department of Communication Studies 

North Dakota

• North Dakota State University, Department of Communication 
• University of North Dakota, Department of Communication 

Ohio

• Bowling Green State University, School of Communication 
• Ohio State University, School of Communication 
• Ohio University, Department of Communication Studies 

Oklahoma

• University of Oklahoma, Department of Communication 

Oregon

• University of Oregon, School of Journalism & Communication 

Pennsylvania

• Drexel University, Department of Culture, Communication & Media 
• Duquesne University, Department of Communication & Rhetorical Studies 
• The Pennsylvania State University, Department of Communication Arts & Sciences 
• The Pennsylvania State University, College of Communications 
• Temple University, School of Media & Communication 
• University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg School of Communication 
• University of Pittsburgh, Department of Communication 

Tennessee

• University of Memphis, Department of Communication 

Texas

• Texas A&M University, Department of Communication 
• University of Texas, Department of Communication Studies 

Utah

• University of Utah, Department of Communication 

Virginia

• George Mason University, Department of Communication 

Washington

• University of Washington, Department of Communication 
• Washington State University, Edward R. Murrow College of Communication 

West Virginia

• West Virginia University, Department of Communication 

Wisconsin

• University of Wisconsin, Department of Communication Arts 
• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Department of Communication 

 

ANOTHER INTERESTING JOURNAL

Hi I'm back posting again after a needed break.
Here is a journal that I thought you might like.

Research Article

Tailoring Messages to Individual Differences in Monitoring-
Blunting Styles to Increase Fruit and Vegetable Intake
Pamela Williams-Piehota, PhD1,2; Amy E. Latimer, PhD1,3; Nicole A. Katulak, BS1;

Ashley Cox, MS, JD1; Stephanie A. N. Silvera, PhD4; Linda Mowad, RN5; Peter Salovey, PhD1

ABSTRACT

Objective: To examine whether messages matched to individuals’ monitoring-blunting coping styles

(MBCS) are more effective in increasing fruit and vegetable intake than mismatched messages. MBCS refers
to the tendency to either attend to and amplify, or distract oneself from and minimize threatening information.  

Design/Setting: Randomly assigned messages were tailored to resonate with either monitors or blunters

and delivered at baseline, 1 week, 2 months, and 3 months later. Surveys were conducted at baseline and 2
and 4 months later.  

Participants: 531 callers to a cancer information hotline who did not meet the 5 A Day guideline.

Intervention: A brief telephone-delivered message and 3 mailings of booklets and promotional items encouraging
fruit and vegetable intake, tailored for either monitors or blunters.
 Main Outcome Measure: Fruit and vegetable intake 2 and 4 months post-baseline.
Analysis: Hierarchical regression modeling.
Results: Messages matched toMBCS were more effective than mismatched messages, particularly for the
monitor message, in increasing intake at 2 months but not at 4 months.
Conclusions and Implications: These minimal interventions influenced fruit and vegetable intake.
MBCS may be a promising target for developing tailored messages aimed at increasing intake, although
additional research is needed to verify the robustness of these findings.  

Key Words: persuasive communication, nutrition education, tailoring, monitor, coping styles (J Nutr

Educ Behav. 2009;41:398-405.)

INTERESTING ARTICLE

 

Social Science & Medicine, 75, 2012, 1254-1262

 

The relationship between diet and perceived and objective access

to supermarkets among low-income housing residents

 

Caspi a,*, Ichiro Kawachi a, S.V. Subramanian a, Gary Adamkiewicz a,b, Glorian Sorensen

a b s t r a c t

In the U.S., supermarkets serve as an important source of year-round produce (Chung & Myers, 1999), and yet access to supermarkets may be scarce in “food deserts,” or poor, urban areas that lack sources of healthy, affordable food (Cummins & Macintyre, 2002). This study examined objective distance to the

nearest supermarket and participant-report of supermarket access in relation to fruit and vegetable intake. Street-network distance to the closest supermarket was calculated using GIS mapping. Perceived access was assessed by a survey question asking whether participants had a supermarket within walking distance of home. Cross-sectional survey data were collected from 828 low-income housing residents in three urban areas in greater-Boston. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the association between perceived and objective supermarket access and diet. Fruit and vegetable consumption was low (2.63 servings/day). Results suggest that most low-income housing residents in greater-Boston do not live in “food deserts,” as the average distance to a supermarket was 0.76 km (range 0.13e1.22 km). Distance to a supermarket was not associated with fruit and vegetable intake. Perceived supermarket access was strongly associated with increased fruit and vegetable intake (0.5 servings/day) after controlling for socio-demographic covariates (p < 0.0001). Patterns of mismatch between
perceived and objective measures revealed that mismatch between the two measures were high (31.45%). Those who did not report a supermarket within walking distance from home despite the objective presence of a supermarket within 1 km consumed significantly fewer fruits and vegetables (0.56 servings/day) than those with a supermarket who reported one, even after controlling for sociodemographic variables. Perceived measures of the food environment may be more strongly related to dietary behaviors than objective ones, and may incorporate components of food access not captured in objective measures.

 

STUFF

My daughter is home from Argentina speaking fluent Spanish and hoping to go back!

Another interesting journal

                 

 

Psychology, Health & Medicine         

Aims & scope

Open Select option now available
Psychology, Health & Medicin e provides a forum to report on issues of psychology and health in practice. The journal reaches an international audience, highlighting the variation and similarities within different settings. Examining the wide range of applied health and illness issues and how they incorporate psychological knowledge, understanding, theory and intervention, the journal reflects the growing recognition of psychosocial issues as they affect health planning, medical care, disease reaction, intervention and management.
For many years theoretical research was very distant from applied understanding. The emerging movement in health psychology, changes in medical care provision and training, and consumer awareness of health issues all contribute to a growing need for applied research. This journal focuses on practical applications of theory, research and experience and provides a bridge between academic knowledge and health care practice.

Readership
The journal is aimed directly at health psychologists, general psychologists, and health care workers such as hospital and community doctors, social workers, planners and managers. The journal will be accessible and of use to both the academy and the professionals.
Peer Review Integrity
All research articles in this journal, including those in special issues, special sections or supplements, have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymized refereeing by at least two independent referees.

Disclaimer
Taylor & Francis make every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in our publications. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Interesting Journal

Health & Place

An International Journal

The journal is an interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the study of all aspects of health and health care in which place or location matters.
Recent years have seen closer links evolving between medical geography, medical sociology, health policy, public health and epidemiology. The journal reflects these convergences, which emphasise differences in health and health care between places, the experience of health and care in specific places, the development of health care for places, and the methodologies and theories underpinning the study of these issues.
The journal brings together international contributors from geography, sociology, social policy and public health. It offers readers comparative perspectives on the difference that place makes to the incidence of ill-health, the structuring of health-related behaviour, the provision and use of health services, and the development of health policy.
At a time when health matters are the subject of ever-increasing attention, Health & Place provides accessible and readable papers summarizing developments and reporting the latest research findings.

The journal is an interdisciplinary journal dedicated to the study of all aspects of health and health care in which place or location matters.
Recent years have seen closer links evolving between medical...

View full aims and scope

Editor: Graham Moon
View full editorial board

• Guide for Authors
• Submit Your Paper
• Track Your Paper
• Order Journal
• View Articles

Impact Factor: 2.419

Impact Factor:
2012: 2.419
© Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports 2013

5-Year Impact Factor: 3.007

Five-Year Impact Factor:
2012: 3.007
To calculate the five year Impact Factor, citations are counted in 2012 to the previous five years and divided by the source items published in the previous five years.
© Journal Citation Reports 2013, Published by Thomson Reuters

Imprint: ELSEVIER

ISSN: 1353-8292

Stay up-to-date

Register your interests and receive email alerts tailored to your needs
Click here to sign up

Follow us

Share on facebookFacebookShare on twitterTwitter

Subscribe to RSS

Latest News

Publish your article Open Access in Health & Place

Policies and Guidelines

Ways to Use Journal Articles Published by Elsevier: A Practical Guide

Helping you get published: Watch our informative webcasts

Peer review policy

View All

Most Cited Articles

The most cited articles published since 2008, extracted from Scopus.

Playing it safe: The influence of neighbourhood safety on children's physical activity-A review Carver, A. | Timperio, A. | ...

Obesity prevalence and the local food environment Morland, K.B. | Evenson, K.R.

The built environment and obesity: A systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence Feng, J. | Glass, T.A. | ...

View All

Recent Articles

Recently published articles from Health & Place.

The spatial and temporal association of neighborhood drug markets and rates of sexually transmitted infections in an urban setting Jacky M. Jennings | Stacy E. Woods | ...

Transitions into and out of homelessness among street-involved youth in a Canadian setting Tessa Cheng | Evan Wood | ...

More neighborhood retail associated with lower obesity among New York City public high school students Michael D.M. Bader | Ofira Schwartz-Soicher | ...

View All

Most Downloaded Articles

The most downloaded articles from Health & Place in the last 90 days.

1. Understanding rural and remote health: A framework for analysis in Australia Lisa Bourke | John S. Humphreys | ...

2. Disparities and access to healthy food in the United States: A review of food deserts literature Renee E. Walker | Christopher R. Keane | ...

UPCOMING NCA PANEL

 

Giving and Getting: Protective and Corrective Facework and Obligation in Asia and the U.S.

Unit:

International and Intercultural Communication Division

Chair:

Mary Jiang Bresnahan
Michigan State University

 

Respondent:
Deborah A Cai
Temple University

Description:

Overview Description of the Proposed Panel:
The lead paper by Tae-Seop Lim and Sang-Yeon Kim presents an updating of Lim and Bowers 1991 extension of Brown and Levinson's facework theory with special consideration of the work that Lim has done on Asiacentric understanding of facework (Lim, 2004, 2012). The paper by Wuyu Liu focuses on cultural differences in the perception and extent of obligation for Chinese and Euro-Americans. Yi Zhu's examination of corrective facework in China and the U.S. develops and operationalizes fellowship, autonomy, and competence face values based on the Lim and Bowers model. The paper by Ying Cheng tests whether making Confucian values salient in a public or private failure event involving dishonesty has any impact on face loss, guilt, and shame. Professor Cai's paper revisits her earlier work on Chinese obligation. She also provides a critique of the four papers in this panel.

Rationale:

This panel brings together three seasoned scholars who have studied issues of face, obligation and culture and 3 promising new scholars. Facework is a culturally sensitive construct and a source of interest to the NCA membership. People in several divisions are conducting studies of facework. Contributors to this panel have expertise in intercultural communication and face issues. The panel also advances facework theory in an exciting way that is sensitive to culture. Possible Co-Sponsors for this panel: Interpersonal Communication Division, Language & Social Interaction Division, and Chinese Communication Association

Supporting Files

NCAIICDivisionfor2013Washington.docx

Papers

The impact of Holism, Cognitive Relativity, and Culture on Face Need across the U.S., Korea, and Japan

This paper describes holism and cognitive relativity as two important predictors of face needs, and examines the similarities and dissimilarities across the three cultures in the relationships between holism, cognitive relativity, and face needs. Holism refers to the inclination to see social or natural entities as single, irreducible wholes, not sums of their parts. Individuals with high relational holism tend to identify themselves with their friends, families, and colleagues. Cognitive relativism is the propensity to see, think, and act relatively. Individuals with high cognitive relativity think that people are under different conditions, so they need to be differentially judged: Persons with higher social status must satisfy stricter standards than those with lower social status. We will first develop measures of face needs, holism, and cognitive relativity, then investigate differences and similarities between Americans, Japanese, and Koreans in face needs and the ways in which holism and cognitive relativism determine face needs. In this study, we want to keep distance from two extreme perspectives in the study of face: universalism that believes a simple set of rules can explain all cultures and particularism that subscribes to the myth of culture: "It's because of CULTURE." We believe that identifying commonness is as important as finding differences, and looking into the convergence between cultures is as necessary as studying how cultures reproduce themselves. Everyone knows culture makes differences, but we here want to know WHAT of culture makes the differences. Holism and Cognitive relativity are personal dispositions that can be isolated from culture to explain differences in face work across cultures.

Author

Tae Seop Lim
University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee

Co-Author

Sang-Yeon Kim
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee

Cultural Differences in Obligation and Reciprocity in China and the US

This paper investigates a concept that is closely related to facework concerns-the meaning and extent of interpersonal, ingroup obligation across cultures. Chinese are described as valuing relative positioning with respect to important in-group members and maintaining interdependence with relational partners (Hwang, 1987). In collectivist cultures, much more effort is put into other and mutual facework compared to self-facework in individualist cultures. Obligation and reciprocity are important Confucian values. Chinese selfhood is governed by the principle of reciprocity 'guanxi' (Ho et al., 2001). Bedford (2004) describes nei jiu which is the inner feeling that is experienced in failing in obligation to others (p. 31). The study measures pro-self and relational-self orientations and also manipulates three levels of obligation-low, moderate, and high obligation. The study is framed in Goei and Boster's (2005) theory of aversive versus benevolent obligation. While the results of this study are still being analyzed at the time of the submission of this proposal, we predict that Euro-American participants will see obligation to others as more aversive and will show more reluctance to engage in an obligation relationship whether low, moderate, or high compared to Chinese. Chinese participants are likely to show more agreement that obligation is benevolent and will be more likely to agree to help across all obligation conditions.

Author

Wuyu Liu
Michigan State University

Restoring Other-Face: Cultural Differences in Corrective Face-work in China and the US

This paper investigates corrective facework strategies preferred by Chinese and Americans using Lim and Bowers (1991) three levels of face relations-competence face, autonomy face, and fellowship face. The study predicts that autonomy face will be a greater concern for American participants while fellowship face is more consistent with Chinese values. Both Americans and Chinese are theorized to value competence face. Chinese participants are predicted to have greater concern about the fear of negative evaluation (Leary, 1983). Zhu learned that in the agency condition (you talked about your friend's failing grade to others with your friend standing behind you), both Chinese and American participants opted for apologizing as their preferred strategy. However, American participants also said they would offer an excuse for their unacceptable behavior while Chinese participants indicated that they would blame the professor for an overly difficult exam. In the observer condition (you and your friend who failed the exam were there when someone else revealed that your friend failed the exam), Americans said they would offer empathy and support to their friend while Chinese indicated that they preferred avoidance. Female participants also expressed more support for the offended friend regardless of country. Finally, fear of negative evaluation (Leary, 1983) was a significant predictor of desire to repair other-face.

Author

Yi Zhu
Michigan State University

The Impact of Buddhist and Confucian Values on Face Loss, Guilt and Shame

The paper presented by Ying Cheng (The Impact of Buddhist and Confucian Values on Face Loss, Guilt and Shame) probes the role of Confucian and Buddhist values for Chinese in face loss situations. The goal of this study was to present a value-vested set of problem scenarios to prompt Chinese participants to think about important social values. Specifically, the study tests 4 experimental conditions involving plagiarism against a control condition. The study also manipulated whether the cheating was known only to the cheater or had been made public. The three dependent variables were perception of face loss, shame, and guilt. The study was conducted with 125 Chinese respondents using snowball sampling. The results of this study are still being analyzed at the time of the submission of this proposal. However, we hypothesize that respondents will show more face loss, guilt and shame when the cheating is public, and when Buddhist/Confucian values are made salient in the message. Respondents are also likely to experience high face loss, shame, and guilt when the cheating is known only to them but when Buddhist/Confucian values are made salient.

Author

Ying Cheng
Michigan State University

Response to face and obligation in Asia

Dr. Deb Cai (Temple University) is an ideal respondent for this panel. She has studied face and obligation in the cultural context of Chinese communication and only recently has published a study on cultural differences in face and obligation between Chinese and Euro-Americans. She is a nationally recognized expert in the field of intercultural communication both in the years she spent at Maryland and in her current position at Temple University. So this panel brings together an important theoretical contribution to culture and face work, three papers which advance research design and measurement issues related to core Chinese values, and an examination of aversive and benevolent perceptions of obligation. The respondent has expertise in these areas and has also thought about how to extend the study of these areas on her own apart from these papers. Taken together, these studies combine data collected from more than 900 participants in Asia and the U.S. and contribute to understanding of Asia centric values in face work.

Author

Deborah A Cai
Temple University