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
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
Latest News 
