International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 661669

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Facework in Syria and the United States: A cross-cultural comparison

Rebecca Merkin a, , Reem Ramadan b,1
a b

Baruch College-CUNY, 1 Bernard Baruch Way, New York, NY 10010, United States Damascus University, Department of Management, Al-Baramkeh St., Damascus, Syria

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
The rst rule when communicating with people from the Arab world is not to let them lose face said J. Al-Omari. Face or ones social identity is cultural. A face threat is a situation which threatens to create a loss of face. When experiencing face-threats people guard their face with facework behavioral actions enacted to protect ones face. Since facework varies across cultures, this study analyzed how cultural collectivism, power distance, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance inuence direct, indirect, competitive, cooperative, hostile, and ritualistic facework in Syria and the United States, employing a MANCOVA design with gender as the covariate. Signicant ndings (n = 336) showed that: (a) US Americans reported using more direct, competitive, and hostile facework strategies than Syrians while (b) Syrians reported using more indirect, cooperative and ritualistic facework strategies than US Americans (c) US American facework strategies corresponded to individualistic, weak power distance, masculine, and low uncertainty avoidance cultural dimensions while Syrian facework corresponded to collectivistic, high-power distance, moderately masculine, and high uncertainty avoidance and (d) VSM 94 results showed Syria to be more individualistic than Hofstedes original rankings. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 23 May 2010 Keywords: Face and facework Collectivism Power distance Masculinity Uncertainty avoidance Cross-cultural communication Syrian communication Value survey module VSM 94

1. Introduction On May 3, 2003, Colin Powell directly addressed Syria and stated that the days of the cozy deals and of winking and nodding at Syrian support for certain groups that are security threats to the United States were over. He then presented Syria with a list of U.S. direct demands that was nothing short of breathtaking (Timmerman, 2003). The direct language used by the US during this confrontation was face threatening and preceded a break in relations between the US and Syria. Recently, after a four-year break, the Obama administration decided to send an ambassador to Damascus. This is a noteworthy development because it shows that the US recognizes Syrias regional importance (Searle, 2009) and is, in effect giving face to the Syrians. In fact, Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said that President Obamas decision was aimed at fullling his promise to show more US engagement in the Arab world (Hurst, 2009). This gesture was reciprocated by Syrias leader, who sent a July 4th message praising President Obama and invited him to visit Syria (Ghattas, 2009). It is clear that recent events highlight the importance of the relationship between the US and Syria. In order to establish mutually positive relationships with the Arab world, however, understanding and sensitivity to the concept of face or personal dignity in Arab culture is essential (Harris, Moran, & Moran, 2004) because the loss of face could cause communication to break down completely (Gross & Stone, 1964). Facework actions taken to maintain or gain

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 212 312 3732. E-mail addresses: Rebecca.Merkin@baruch.cuny.edu (R. Merkin), Reem.Ramadan@gmail.com (R. Ramadan). 1 Tel.: +1 963 11 2124855/944 420000. 0147-1767/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.05.006

662

R. Merkin, R. Ramadan / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 661669

face is used to prevent oneself from losing face. Facework is carried out in all negotiations between countries when a possible face-threatening act messages that challenge the image we want to project arises. However, the type of facework strategies employed during interactions varies by culture (Ting-Toomey, 1988, 2005). For example, US Americans regard honest speaking positively. This is evidenced by the legendary story of George Washington cutting down the cherry-tree and admitting it. Most Arabs hearing this story, however, would regard anyone admitting their guilt as compromising their integrity (or face) (Naffsinger, 1964). The values and rationales that underlie peoples reactions are an aspect of national character, a factor of importance in estimating the likely courses of action in dealing face to face with people from different cultures (Hofstede, 1980; Naffsinger, 1964). Understanding the concept of facework across cultures could help dene areas of potential communication mishaps and give insight into stated and unstated attitudes present underneath the surface when communication is taking place between the US and Syria. Thus, the purpose of this study is to investigate the inuence of culture on facework used in response to face threats in Syria and the US in order to increase understanding and improve future communication between our cultures. This will be accomplished by analyzing facework via Hofstedes (1980, 2001) cultural dimensions. 1.1. Examining facework using cultural dimensions Understanding Hofstedes (2001) cross-national differences helps prevent intercultural miscommunication (Meeuwesen, van den Brink-Muinen, & Hofstede, 2009) in a more important way than understanding socio-political disagreements because fundamental cultural differences can inuence peoples understanding of another. In particular, Hofstedes (1980, 2001) cultural dimensions explain the shared views individuals acquire by growing up in a particular country. These dimensions include individualismcollectivism, power distance, masculinity/femininity, and uncertainty avoidance. Hofstedes (2001) theory of cultural dimensions has been the most widely used in analyses of phenomena pertaining to different cultures (e.g., Arrindale et al., 2003; Vishwanath, 2003). Despite some criticism (e.g., Baskerville, 2003; Goodstein, 1981; McSweeney, 2002; Spector, Cooper, & Sparks, 2001), Hofstedes model has been validated in numerous replication studies (e.g., Helmreich & Merritt, 1998; Hoppe, 1991; Merkin, 2006a; Shackleton & Ali, 1990; Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1996; Smith et al., 2005; Vishwanath, 2003). Moreover, Hofstedes cultural indices have been utilized in hundreds of studies exploring the effects of culture in numerous areas (Taras et al., 2010). The large number and the noteworthy consistency of research methodology across these studies justify using Hofstedes framework for studying cross-cultural facework. This article is divided into sections on the basis of the effects of Hofstedes specic cultural dimensions and facework communication that tends to result from being a member of a particular culture. The particular facework strategies that make up the hypotheses of this paper were decided upon on the basis of Hofstedes (1980) assertions in Cultures Consequences. Overall, it is argued that in the context of a potential face-threat, cultural factors will play a major part in determining the facework that people in the US and Syria choose to manage their face. 1.1.1. Individualismcollectivism and power distance as predictors of facework Ones culture affects ones conception of self (Chang & Holt, 1994; Morisaki & Gudykunst, 1994). Losing face is painful because face is an expression of ones inner self. For this reason, the self is the starting point in the conceptualization people hold of their face. The self, ones inner identity, is the lens through which people perceive their world and organize their behavior (Swann, 2005). Ones self is reected in ones face, which is ones social identity acted out in a dynamic self-regulating interactive environment. A number of researchers (de Mooij, 1998; Hofstede, 2001; Inkeles & Levinson, 1997) point out that cultural conceptions of the self include the relationship between the individual and society, which is reective of individualistic and collectivistic values. These cultural conceptions are carried out behaviorally through facework strategies. For example, cultural members who are individualistic tend to use more direct facework strategies while cultural members who are more collectivistic tend to use more indirect facework strategies (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Cocroft, 1992; Ting-Toomey, 1988). Direct communication is frank and clear-cut while indirect communication involves hints, compliance, oblique suggestions, or ambiguous message strategies (Gao, 1998; Holtgraves, 1997; Lin, 1997). Ting-Toomey (2005) posits that face is a universal concept, while the specic meanings of face may vary across cultures. Thus, facework reects cultural inuences on the inner self. Ting-Toomey (2005) pointed out that power distance should also be considered as a separate cultural dimension when explaining facework; but power distance and collectivism are also correlated. Specically, individuals from high-power distance cultures tend to be more collectivistic and individuals from low-power-distance cultures tend to be more individualistic (Hofstede, 1991). While individualismcollectivism refers to how individuals identify with their group, power-distance relates to differences in equality perceptions between people. Hofstede (1980) ranked Syria as a highly collective culture. The identity of people from collectivistic cultures is interconnected with their social groups, otherwise known as their ingroups (Triandis, 1987). In general, members of collective cultures tend to communicate differently with their ingroups than with their outgroups (Hofstede, 2001; Triandis, 1987). Ingroups are groups of interdependent people who interact over a substantial period of time, and who can be identied by others as group members (Triandis, 1987, p. 266); and outgroups consist of everybody else. Social relationships in collective cultures tend to be predetermined by those dened as part of ones ingroup. Within collective ingroups, there is a tacit understanding about the inclusiveness of ingroup relationships that provides ingroup members with mutual support

R. Merkin, R. Ramadan / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 661669

663

(Triandis, 1987). Members of collective societies view those regarded as their outgroups, however, with either indifference or antagonism (Triandis, 1987). According to Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca (1988), in collective societies, people are trained to cooperate with members of a few ingroups and to compete with everyone else (p. 60). In the context of intercultural conict, Neuliep and Speten (2007) found that the degree to which one uses the ingroup as a standard to judge outgroups is positively correlated with ethnocentrism and ones positive self-image. Furthermore, during intercultural conict, as ethnocentrism increases, respect and concern for the intercultural relationship diminishes (Neuliep & Speten, 2007). This could also be the case in the context of embarrassment facework. In fact, ndings show that members of collective ingroups are so interconnected, they tend to be only concerned with the others (i.e., their ingroups) face to the exclusion of their independent self which is of no concern to them (Ting-Toomey, 1988). This is because collectivists have interdependent selves (Morisaki & Gudykunst, 1994). For example, the defense of collectivists face extends to their ingroups. Thus, not only do they defend their own face in social interactions, they also defend the face of others (Goffman, 1955). Consequently, when third parties are present, inappropriate communication on the part of one ingroup member could cause other ingroup members to lose face because of their mutual interdependence. Face is of particular importance to Arab cultures (Al-Omari, 2008; Naffsinger, 1964). As a result of their increased sensitivity to face threats, collectivists are also more likely to use evasion and ambiguity in face-threatening situations (Bull, 2008). This is because ambiguous indirect communication can prevent the exposure to face threats caused by use of explicit language. For example, Al-Omari (2008) suggests to US Americans that if they want a straight answer from a Syrian, it is necessary to request it repeatedly but politely. In the individualistic and low in power distance (Hofstede, 2001) US, people tend to view themselves as separate from their social group. As a result, individualists, who are concerned with both their own face and the others face (Ting-Toomey, 1988) tend to speak honestly and directly (Ting-Toomey, 2005). In turn, individualism has been shown to be connected to direct styles of communication (e.g., Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Gudykunst, 2005; Lindsley & Braithwaite, 1996) as opposed to descriptions of collectivistic indirect communication (Ting-Toomey, 1988, 2005). Consequently, the following hypotheses are posed: Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2. US Americans will use more direct facework than Syrians. Syrians will use more indirect facework than US Americans.

While Hofstedes (1980) cultural dimension scores show that the US is both individualistic and low in power distance, Syrian citizens besides being collective, also have a high-power distance. Both individualismcollectivism and power-distance dimensions of culture are important predictors for understanding cross-cultural facework (Merkin, 2006b; Oetzel et al., 2001). In particular, high-power distance has been associated with indirect and cooperative facework (Merkin, 2006b). This is because cultures high in power distance tend to be more authoritarian and tend to stress conformity and submissiveness (Hofstede, 2001). Therefore, when it is necessary for people from power-distance cultures to interact with others, they engage in obedient, peaceful, cooperative communication strategies that compromise or collaborate with others (Kirkbride, Tang, & Westwood, 1991). People in high-power-distance societies also tend to accept inequality in the allocation of power and human rights (Hofstede, 2001). Not surprisingly, ndings show that those with high-power-distance orientations also tend to be less responsive to unfair treatment and less likely to voice concerns over inequality, preferring more cooperative indirect modes of communication (Brockner et al., 2001; Merkin, 2006b). Cooperative strategies are reassuring, extra considerate communication that demonstrate deference and respect. This type of communication helps smooth over potentially face-threatening events. One manner in which obedience might be expressed is via deferential or agreeable cooperative communication strategies. It is widely known that a preference for obedient, conforming, and cooperative communication is also related to collectivism (Hofstede, 2001; Offermann & Hellmann, 1997). Given Hofstedes (2001) description of the preferences of those from high-power-distance cultures for cooperative exchanges and given the positive correlation between high-power distance and collectivism, it is reasonable that individuals from high-power-distance cultures would prefer using cooperative facework strategies to smooth over difcult face-threatening situations. Thus, the following hypothesis is posed: Hypothesis 3. Syrians will use more cooperative facework than US Americans.

Unlike members of high-power-distance cultures, people from low-power-distance cultures view the world as just (Furnham, 1993). Therefore, injustice is simply not expected in low-power-distance cultures (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988; Matsumoto, 1989). As a result, when confronted with an unjust situation, people from low-power-distance cultures do not readily accept the status quo, but rather engage in more active communication, feeling more in control of their fate (Fetchenhauer, Jacobs, & Belschak, 2005). People from low-power-distance cultures (who are also individualistic) believe in individual freedom of expression (Matsumoto, 1989) and emphasize clarity, which, to them, indicates integrity (Fry, 1991). Thus, by denition, members of low-power-distance cultures also value equal power distributions across different social roles (Ting-Toomey, 2005). Moreover, they assume that equals can communicate directly with each other and say what is on their minds, even if it risks damaging the relationship at hand (Kim, Sharkey, & Singelis, 1994; Triandis, 1995). For example, Kopelman and Olekalns (1999) describe Australians, who are low in power distance, as egalitarian individualists who care

664

R. Merkin, R. Ramadan / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 661669

about honesty, truth, and transparency, and who, therefore, tend to be direct and blunt in their speech acts, favor argument, and can be confrontational if necessary, none of which need be damaging to the relationship. In contrast, foreigners are generally advised to avoid ever causing an Arab to lose face (Harris et al., 2004) In addition, individualistic direct and clear communication is considered inappropriate and may be offensive to those from collectivistic societies generally (Hofstede, 2001). 1.1.2. Masculinityfemininity as predictors of facework Social science researchers (e.g., de Mooij, 1998; Hofstede, 2001; Inkeles & Levinson, 1997) point out that cultural conceptions of the self include the individuals concept of individualism and masculinity. Given that the self is expressed through face (Goffman, 1955, 1967), it follows that masculinity should also inuence facework communication (Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Inkeles & Levinson, 1997). Hofstede (1980, 2001) ranked Syrian culture as masculine; however, its masculinity ranking is lower than the masculinity ranking of the US. In addition, the high-power distance of Syrian culture should militate against typically masculine facework such as displays of assertiveness, for example. This would indicate that those from the US are more likely to demonstrate more classically masculine characteristics such as emphasizing performance, ambition, things, power, and assertiveness (Hofstede, 2001). Competitive facework strategies are communications designed to enable an actor to rise above the target as in being better, more successful, or winning against the target. Hostile facework strategies are disconrming, impatient, inconsiderate communications that demonstrate disregard or lack of respect for the target. Johnson, Kulesa, Cho, & Shavitt (2005) found masculinity to be negatively associated with acquiescent response behavior and positively associated with extreme response styles (e.g., hostility). Given the masculine focus on competition and strength (Hofstede, 2001), the concomitant use of both competitive and hostile strategies appears to be likely. Thus, the following hypotheses are posed: Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 5. US Americans will use more competitive facework than Syrians US Americans will use more hostile facework than Syrians

1.1.3. Uncertainty avoidance as a predictor of facework Cultural uncertainty avoidance refers to the degree to which people in a culture strive for specicity (e.g., through ritualistic communication), so that they will perceive as little uncertainty as possible (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). In particular, uncertainty avoidance inuences how communication receivers interpret whether a senders message is a violation of face (Merkin, 2006a). For example, receivers with high uncertainty avoidance perceive others messages through a lter. First, they reduce uncertainty; then they attend to the message. If there is too much initial uncertainty present, they will not be able to focus on the message at all because of the distraction caused by uncertainty (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Merkin, 2006a). To manage uncertainty, those from high uncertainty avoidance cultures tend to use more predictable ritualistic communication (Merkin, 2010). (For example, members of high uncertainty avoidance cultures could project their face using ritualistic facework communication behaviors such as a strong handshake.) Ritualistic facework strategies are repetitive actions that create predictability in interactions. Ritualistic facework is primarily used during greetings and leave taking, though depending on the cultural mores, can be used for meetings and ceremonies of various kinds. Resembling many Arab countries, Syrians have high uncertainty avoidance, which indicates a need for stability and a resistance to change (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). Hofstede (1991) points out that people with a strong need to reduce uncertainty also tend to be less likely to trust others. Moreover, particularly when a relationship is new and perceived as stressful, negotiators with high uncertainty avoidance also tend to have a higher need for clear structured signals (Hofstede, 1989) and predictable ritualistic communication (Merkin, 2006a). Thus, given previous ndings, the following hypothesis is posed: Hypothesis 6. 2. Methods 2.1. Participants This study followed Hofstedes (1980, 2001) specications that the best way to operationalize culture is to use matching samples. Matching subjects on as many characteristics as possible reduces the possibly of competing effects from demographics, thereby isolating the cultural effects of the predictor. For this reason, in this study, attempts were made to match subjects on demographic characteristics such as age, education, and gender. The participants were all college students studying in their home countries within the same age range. Specically, the mean age of the Syrian sample was 22 and the mean age for the US sample was 20. In addition, the mean education level of the Syrian and US samples was matched at 14 years of education. Finally, students were less matched on sex in the US and Syrian samples because the US sample was dominated by women while the Syrian sample was dominated by men. Thus, the possible inuence of gender was controlled for by making gender a covariate. Hofstede (1994) pointed out that his Value Survey Questionnaire requires a sample size of 50 per country. The sample size necessary for adequate power in the hypotheses using multivariate analyses is between 58 subjects per group (Lauter, 1978) and 70 per group (Cohen, 1988). Both samples had more than 70 participants. The Syrian sample (n = 95) came from a Syrians will use more ritualistic facework than US Americans.

R. Merkin, R. Ramadan / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 661669

665

University in Damascus. In the Syrian sample 27 were women and 68 were men. The US sample (n = 241) came from a large Midwestern University. In the US sample, 150 were women and 91 were men. In order to assure that the VSM calculations were calculated with a matched sample, a second data collection was carried out with a similar student population in Syria. Specically, an additional 20 women lled out the VSM questionnaire. This assured that a more accurate interpretation of Syrian VSM scores was undertaken. 2.2. Design and statistical procedures Hypotheses were tested by means of a MANCOVA design with country as the independent variable, gender as the covariate, and direct, indirect, cooperative, competitive, hostile, and ritualistic facework strategies as the dependent variables. Students were requested by their professors, in classes in their home countries, to read a vignette representing a facethreatening situation and rate direct, cooperative, competitive, hostile, and ritualistic strategies in terms of likelihood of use. The cross-cultural predicament presented was pretested with a group of 30 students; and college professors who were experts in intercultural communication were consulted as to the predicaments cross-cultural face validity. Each respondent was presented the following scenario: Imagine you are in a foreign country as a tourist and are currently visiting with an acquaintance from this foreign country. (You met this afternoon in the museum.) This acquaintance invites you out for dinner. While dining in a fancy restaurant, you accidentally knock over your glass of fruit juice. It shatters and your drink goes everywhere, including onto your acquaintances shirt. Everyone in the restaurant sees this. US participants received the questionnaire in English and Syrian respondents received the questionnaire in Arabic. The Arabic questionnaire was backtranslated separately to assure the translations validity (Brislin, 1986). Respondents were asked to respond to the items on a 5-point Likert scale. A demographic questionnaire also was included to assure that the respondents were matched. A second set of 20 women were given the VSM questionnaire in their classes in Syria. 2.3. Instrumentation As suggested by Hofstede (1994), cultural dimensions were operationalized by country. Besides operationalizing culture by country, Hofstedes Value Survey Module (VSM 94) which allows for the calculation of index scores for cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 1994) was also used to see if scores were different from Hofstedes (1980) original rankings. The VSM consists of four-item questionnaire sections on each of Hofstedes cultural dimensions. Cocrofts (1992) construction of response items for direct and indirect strategies were used because Cocroft (1992) and Cocroft and Ting-Toomey (1994) were able to successfully utilize these response items with Japanese and US respondents. An example of an indirect questionnaire item is I would express my regrets indirectly. Cooperation and competitive strategies were operationalized in this study by using the Cooperative/Competitive Strategy Scale (CCSS; Simmons, Tucker, & King, 1988), which measures the motivation to use competitive, cooperative, and/or avoidance strategies to achieve success. This 24-item scale contains three independent subscales. Each item is followed by ve response options ranging from always (5) to never (1). Although the CCSS was scored by adding all responses within the three subscales and computing the aggregate average for each subscale, this study employed the cooperative and competitive subscales only. Testretest reliability for the Cooperative subscale has been reported at .75 (Simmons et al., 1988). Construct validity was also established by Ward (1993), who conrmed the factor structure of the Simmons et al. (1988) scale with an independent sample of employed adults. Hostility strategies were measured by Buss and Durkees (1957) irritability subscale of their Hostility Inventory. This scales reliability was tested during a pilot study and its reliability was .72. The BussDurkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI; Buss & Durkee, 1957) is a widely used measure of hostility. The BDHI is composed of 66 items and seven hostility subscales. A total measure of hostility is assessed by this scale by summing the seven hostility subscale scores. The original scale items are in truefalse form; however, in the current study, participants rated each item on a ve-point Likert scale to obtain an interval level measure of hostility. Merkin (2004) constructed a scale to measure ritualistic facework strategies to measure Hofstedes description of the effects of uncertainty avoidance. Face validity for this scale was established by a group of four professors who were experts in intercultural communication. Merkin (2004) found a testretest reliability of .81 and construct validity evidence for this scale. 3. Results Differences in Syrian and US facework were tested by means of a MANCOVA design with country as the independent variable, gender as the covariate, and direct, indirect, cooperative, competitive, hostile, and ritualistic facework strategies as the dependent variables. For reliabilities of both US and Syrian facework strategies, see Table 1. Overall results showed that multivariate analysis was warranted because the multivariate main effect for culture was signicant (Wilks = .089; F[6,317] = 538.93, p < .0001, 2 = .91). Hypotheses 1 and 2, that Americans reported the intent to use more direct facework strategies (M = 1.75, SD = .53) than Syrians (M = 1.64, SD = .50) and Syrians would report using more indirect facework strategies (M = 17.95, SD = 4.12) than their US counterparts (M = 2.84, SD = .54) were substantiated. In addition, Hypothesis 3, that Syrians would use more cooperative facework (M = 2.16, SD = .51) than US Americans (M = 1.89, SD = .50) was also substanti-

666

R. Merkin, R. Ramadan / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 661669

Table 1 Reliabilities for dependent variables. United States Dependent variable Indirect Direct Cooperation Competitive Hostile Ritualistic Reliability .78 .60 .74 .71 .72 .72 N 240 240 240 240 240 240 Syria Reliability .70 .68 .70 .68 .71 .71 N 95 95 95 95 92 91

Table 2 Analysis of variance summary between the US and Syria. Facework strategies Direct Indirect Cooperation Competitive Hostile Ritualistic F 4.97 2847.84 13.41 92.40 53.24 31.83 Eta2 .015 .898 .040 .223 .142 .090 p .026 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001 .0001

Table 3 Hofstedes and VSM rankings. US VSM 94 1980 Rank Syria Study 1 VSM 94 Individualism Masculinity Power distance Uncertainty avoidance 140 79 39 80 91 62 40 46 84 41 103 90 Study 2 VSM 94 84 47 45 88 1980 Rank 38 53 80 68

ated. Results supported Hypothesis 4, that Americans would use more competitive facework strategies (M = 2.36, SD = .47) than Syrians (M = 1.67, SD = .64) as well. Moreover, Hypothesis 5, that Americans would use more hostile facework strategies (M = 3.37, SD = .61) than Syrians (M = 2.76, SD = .85), was supported. Finally, signicant results showed that Syrians reported the intent to use more ritualistic facework (M = 3.93, SD = .66) than US Americans (M = 3.51, SD = .65), showing support for Hypothesis 6. In short, all hypotheses tested were substantiated. Specic univariate results of the hypotheses tested are summarized in Table 2. The covariate effect of sex was also signicant (Wilks = .925, F[6,317] = 4.27, p < .0001, 2 = .08). Finally, Hofstedes VSM 94 yielded four index scores for individualism, masculinity, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance which were calculated as a conrmation measure (see Table 3). The VSM scores are a rank order determination of countries when compared to other countries and are not directly comparable to Hofstedes (1980, 2001) country rankings because they are not on the same scale. Thus, the VSM scores are not country rankings. In general, VSM score rankings between the US and Syria and in tune with Hofstedes original country score rankings. However, Syrias individualism VSM rankings showed a smaller difference between the US and Syria than was originally found using the range between Hofstedes country scores (i.e., 14084 = 56 as opposed to 14038 = 102) indicating that while still more collective than the US, Syria appears to be more individualistic than in the past. Finally, VSM results indicated that balancing the Syrian sample for gender fundamentally changed the power-distance score (i.e., from 103 to 45). 4. Discussion 4.1. Implications and future research The purpose of this study is to investigate the inuence of culture on facework used in response to embarrassing face threats in Syria and the United States in order to increase understanding and improve future communication between our cultures. The present ndings substantiating Hypotheses 1, 4, and 5 indicate that US Americans prefer using direct expressions and can compete and communicate in a hostile manner to manage their face, as corroborated by previous research (e.g., Merkin, 2006a, 2006b; Ting-Toomey, 2005). Results substantiating Hypotheses 2, 3, and 6, however, show that Syrians prefer using indirect, cooperative and ritualized communication when faced with a face-threatening situation. It is clear that the communication needs in both the US and Syria appear to differ; indicating that culture needs to be taken into account when Americans and Syrians interact with each other. This study is the rst of its kind in that it makes a cross-

R. Merkin, R. Ramadan / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 661669

667

cultural comparison of face and facework during a time of face threat in the US and Syria, a previously unexamined culture, as opposed to past research which has primarily focused on comparisons between US and Asian facework. Hofstede (1980, 2001) classied Syrians as being collective, having a high-power distance, being moderately masculine, and moderately high in uncertainty avoidance. In contrast, Hofstede (1980, 2001) classied US Americans as individualistic, having a low-power distance, being masculine, and low in uncertainty avoidance. For the most part, Hofstedes original ranking of Arab countries corresponded to the calculated VSM 94 results in this study for both Syria and the US. Although for the purposes of this study culture was calculated by country, as designated by Hofstedes (1980) study, VSM 94 results were calculated according to Hofstedes (1994) formula, as a control to see if discrepancies might better inform results. While in most cases the US and Syrias VSM rankings were similar to Hofstedes original rankings, the differences between Hofstedes country score rankings and calculated VSM score rankings with regard to individualismcollectivism scores showed a smaller difference between the US and Syria than Hofstede (1980) had originally found. This indicates that while Syria is still more collective than the US, Syria also appears to be more individualistic than in the past. This may be due to globalization. Recently, reports specify that as more Syrian expatriates return to their country from abroad, that they push new trends and demand the services and cuisine they have been used to abroad. For example, sushi is now deemed the height of sophistication in Damascus, and is becoming de rigueur for the capitals upper class. The Syrian outlook is expanding in that atbread and hummus may no longer do for Syrias elite population (International 2010). This type of acculturation could indicate more individualistic leanings than previously on the part of the Syrians in accordance with global trends towards individualism (Arnett, 2002; Stevenson & Zusho, 2002). Future research should investigate this aspect of Syrian culture further because this could inform future dealings between Syria and the US. Finally, VSM results indicated that balancing the Syrian sample for gender fundamentally lowered the power-distance score (i.e., from 103 to 45). It could be that overall this is reective of Syrian culture. Alternatively, it is possible that Syrias female population has a lower power distance than the male population. However, further testing is needed using data from an additive individualism scale because the VSM 94 is exclusively a ranking tool. In general, the results of this study showed that while controlling for gender, culture is likely to inuence the preferred facework strategies (i.e., direct, indirect, cooperative, competitive, hostile, and ritualistic) that people use in response to feeling a face threat. In particular, in response to face threats, Syrians scored higher than those from the US in their preference for indirect, cooperative, and ritualistic facework, while US Americans showed a preference for direct, competitive, and hostile facework. This studys ndings indicate that both the US and Syria could improve with a better understanding of each others preferred facework communication. One possible solution to establish greater similarity of minds would be for those from the US to tone down the directness of their communication when communicating with Syrians. This appears easier than suggesting to high-power-distance Syrians not to feel offended when their Pavlovian response would be shock over what they perceive to be offensive. For example, when Colin Powell referred to Syria as a terror supporter (Schweid, 2003), this direct and hostile communication could have been viewed as face threatening by the Syrians and subsequently ignored. Many sources report that the rst rule when communicating with people from the Arab world is not to let them lose face (e.g., Al-Omari, 2008; Harris et al., 2004; Patai, 2007). Therefore, the suggestion is made for those from the low uncertainty-avoidance US to take extra strides to moderate their direct communication when communicating with Syrians. In addition, because ritualistic communication is on the whole quite signicant to Syrians, it would be useful for US Americans to become familiar with Syrian rituals. Another constructive idea for US Americans, who are used to direct literal communication, is to be aware that ritualistic communication is wrought with nuances and subtle cues. As a result, US Americans could do with greater mindfulness to unspoken meanings in their communication with Syrians. US Americans would also do well to be aware that Syrians are more likely to conceal their intentions and feelings given their perceptions of what they consider to be appropriate communication. On the other hand, for Syrians about to engage in meetings with US Americans, it would be noteworthy to be aware that US Americans can sometimes communicate in ways that are seemingly harsh to Syrians, who are not used to the aggressive communication styles favored by US Americans. Although the US habitual use of direct expression may seem disrespectful and gruff to the uninitiated, if Syrians are warned and have greater expectations of possibly being on the receiving end of an intentionally or unintentionally overly explicit communication style, such offenses could be managed. The results of this study were based on propositions from Hofstedes (2001) theory of cultural dimensions. These ndings provide important implications for the concepts of face and face management during meetings between the US and Syria in the future. 4.2. Limitations Because this study necessitated the use of a cross-cultural sample, there could be some validity issues in the translation of the English questionnaire despite the care taken to assure that the translation was accurate. The same could be true with regard to the thorough back-translation undertaken for the purpose of this study. This study operationalized culture by country as initiated by Hofstede (1991). Although there is support for this form of measurement, others dispute Hofstedes cultural methodology (e.g., Baskerville, 2003; Goodstein, 1981; McSweeney, 2002; Spector et al., 2001). Furthermore, VSM 94 measurements indicated that the Syrian sample in this study scored higher on individualism than Hofstede (1980) previously predicted. However, the Syrian samples rankings still scored more collective

668

R. Merkin, R. Ramadan / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 661669

than the US respondents, providing support for the country-level ndings. In addition, we were limited to the gender composition available to us. Though a second data collection took place to even out the sample, a larger sample overall would have helped provide more denitive results. Finally, using self-report data has limitations as well as strengths. The disadvantage of self-reports is that respondents are not actually executing the behaviors they are reporting but rather are reporting the behaviors they would intend to carry out. While cross-cultural negotiations are not exactly the same context as the scenario used in this study, respondents did indicate what their preferred facework would be when given an embarrassing face threat. Self-report literature is not completely isomorphic with reality, but can give useful guidelines that can be followed up on and used for future research. The self-report method has the advantage, however, of being able to measure information that is in respondents minds and not readily available using observational techniques. Then again, traditionally, facework studies have been carried out using this method (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Imahori, 1994; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Oetzel et al., 2001) because it is difcult to measure phenomena that exist inside a persons mind using other methodologies. Questionnaires were also anonymous, and the samples were matched on possible confounding demographic characteristics. Thus, despite the drawbacks above, self-report measures were used. Despite methodological limitations, this study lled a need to investigate the more specic context of communication in Arab cultures to facilitate global interactions of the future. References
Al-Omari, J. (2008). Understanding the Arab culture: A practical cross-cultural guide to working in the Arab world. Oxford, United Kingdom: Howtobooks. Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57, 774783. Arrindale, W. A., Eisemann, M., Richter, J., Oei, T., Caballo, V., & van der Ende, J. (2003). MF as a national characteristic and its relationship with national agoraphobic fear levels: Fodors sex role hypothesis revitalized. Behavior Research and Therapy, 41, 795807. Baskerville, R. F. (2003). Hofstede never studied culture. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(1), 114. Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instrument. In W. J. Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137164). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., et al. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The inuence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(4), 300315. Bull, P. (2008). Slipperiness, evasion, and ambiguity: Equivocation and facework in noncommittal political discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 333344. Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 343349. Chang, H.-C., & Holt, G. R. (1994). A Chinese perspective on face as interrelational concern. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework (pp. 95132). Albany: State University of New York Press. Cocroft, B. K. (1992). Facework in Japan and the United States: A cross-cultural comparison. Unpublished masters thesis, California State University, Fullerton. Cocroft, B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Facework in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 469506. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum. de Mooij, M. K. (1998). Masculinity/femininity and consumer behavior. In G. Hofstede (Ed.), Masculinity and femininity (pp. 5576). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fetchenhauer, D., Jacobs, G., & Belschak, F. (2005). Belief in a just world, causal attributions, and adjustment to sexual violence. Social Justice Research, 18, 2542. Furnham, A. (1993). Just world beliefs in twelve societies. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 317329. Fry, E. (1991). Subtlety and the art of Japanese management. Business Credit, 93, 2628. Gao, G. (1998). Dont take my word for it. Understanding Chinese speaking practices. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 163186. Ghattas, S. F. (2009). With eye on ally Irans turmoil Syria looks for better ties with US and moderate Arabs. The Canadian Press. http://www6.lexisnexis.com/ publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100010464&docId=l:1001074296&start=11 Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work. Psychiatry, 18, 213231. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York: Doubleday. Goodstein, L. D. (1981). Do American theories apply abroad? American business values and cultural imperialism. Organizational Dynamics, 10(1), 4955. Gross, E., & Stone, G. P. (1964). Embarrassment and the analysis of role requirements. American Journal of Sociology, 70, 115. Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). Theorizing about intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and affective communication. American Behavioral Scientist, 31, 384400. Harris, P. R., Moran, R. T., & Moran, S. V. (2004). Managing cultural differences. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Helmreich, R. L., & Merritt, A. C. (1998). Culture at work: National, organizational, and professional inuences. London: Ashgate. Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1989). Cultural predictors of national negotiation styles. In F. Maunter-Markhof (Ed.), Processes of International Negotiation (pp. 193202). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw Hill. Hofstede, G. (1994). Value survey module. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation. Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Holtgraves, T. (1997). Styles of language use: Individual and cultural variability in conversational indirectness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 624637. Hoppe, M. H. (1991). A comparative study of country elites: International differences in work-related values and learning and their implications for management training and development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC. Hurst, S. R. (2009). Obama sending ambassador to Syria after years. The Associated Press. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31524824/ Imahori, T. T. (1994). A cross-cultural comparison of the interpretation and management of face: U.S. American and Japanese responses to embarrassing predicaments. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 193219. Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. J. (1997). National character: A psycho-social perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. International: Can exotic food lead to liberty? Sushi in Syria. (2010). The Economist, 395(8677), 50. Retrieved April 2 from ABI/INFORM Global (Document ID: 2006962341). Johnson, T., Kulesa, P., Cho, Y., & Shavitt, S. (2005). The relation between culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 264277. Kim, M.-S., Sharkey, W. F., & Singelis, T. M. (1994). The relationship between individuals self construal and perceived importance of interactive constraints. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 117140. Kirkbride, P. S., Tang, S. F., & Westwood, R. I. (1991). Chinese conict preferences and negotiating behaviour: Cultural and psychological inuences. Organization Studies, 12, 365386.

R. Merkin, R. Ramadan / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 34 (2010) 661669

669

Kopelman, S., & Olekalns, M. (1999). Process in cross-cultural negotiations. Negotiation Journal, 15, 373. Lauter, J. (1978). Sample size requirements for the T2 test of MANOVA. Biometrical Journal, 20, 389406. Lin, Z. (1997). Ambiguity with a purpose: The shadow of power in communication. In P. C. Barley, & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on international industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 363376). San Francisco: New Lexington Press. Lindsley, S. L., & Braithwaite, C. A. (1996). You should wear a mask: Facework norms in cultural and intercultural conict in maquiladoras. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 199225. Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Cultural inuences on the perception of emotion. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 92105. McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstedes model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89118. Meeuwesen, L., van den Brink-Muinen, A., & Hofstede, G. (2009). Can dimensions of national culture predict cross-national differences in medical communication? Patient Education and Counseling, 75, 5866. Merkin, R. (2004). Conceptualization and measurement of intercultural ritualism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Boston, Massachusetts. Merkin, R. (2006a). Uncertainty avoidance and facework: A test of the Hofstede model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 213238. Merkin, R. (2006b). Power distance and facework. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35, 139160. Merkin, R. (2010). Uncertainty avoidance. In R. Jackson (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Identity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Morisaki, S., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1994). Face in Japan and the United States. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework (pp. 4794). Albany: State University of New York Press. Naffsinger, P. A. (1964). Face among the Arabs. CIA VOIA document. Studies in Intelligence, 8. Neuliep, J., & Speten, K. (2007). The inuence of ethnocentrism on facework and conict styles during intercultural conict. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago. Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Matsumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., et al. (2001). Face and facework in conict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68, 235258. Oetzel, J., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conict: A cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30, 599624. Offermann, L. R., & Hellmann, P. S. (1997). Cultures consequences for leadership behavior: National values in action. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 342351. Patai, R. (2007). The Arab mind. New York: Hatherleigh Press. Schweid, B. (2003). Colin Powells terror warning: Iran scolded on weapons plans, Syria called terror supporter [AP Report]. http://www.cbsnews. com/stories/2003/03/31/terror/main546906.shtml. Searle, P. (2009). Rewards of Syrian diplomacy. Gulf News (United Arab Emirates), http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action= UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100010464&docId=l:1000889407&start=17. Shackleton, V. J., & Ali, A. H. (1990). Work-related values of managers: A test of the Hofstede model. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 109118. Simmons, C. H., Tucker, S. S., & King, C. S. (1988). The cooperative/competitive strategy scale: A measure of motivation to use cooperative or competitive strategies for success. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 199205. Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and the values of organizational employees: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(2), 231264. Smith, P. B., Peterson, M. F., Ahmad, A. H., Akande, D., Andersen, J. A., Avestaran, S., et al. (2005). Demographic effects on the use of vertical sources of guidance by managers in widely differing cultural contexts. International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 5, 526. Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., & Sparks, K. (2001). An international study of the psychometric properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: A comparison of individual and country/province level results. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(2), 269281. Stevenson, H. W., & Zusho, A. (2002). Adolescence in China and Japan: Adapting to a changing environment. In B. B. Brown, R. Larson, & T. S. Saraswathi (Eds.), The worlds youth: Adolescence in eight regions of the globe (pp. 141170). New York: Cambridge University Press. Swann, W. B. (2005). The self and identity negotiation. Interaction Studies, 6, 6983. Taras, V., Kirkman, B. L., & Steel, P. (2010). Examining the impact of Cultures Consequences: A three-decade, multi-level, meta-analytic review of Hofstedes cultural value dimensions. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 95(3), 405439. Timmerman, K. (2003). Sending a serious message to Syria. Insight on the News, 19(13), 23. Retrieved from Regional Business News database Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conict styles. In Y. Y. Kim, & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213235). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: A face-negotiation theory. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 7192). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Triandis, H. (1987). Collectivism vs. individualism. In C. Bagley, & G. Verma (Eds.), Personality, cognition and values: Cross-cultural perspectives on childhood and adolescence (pp. 264295). London: MacMillan. Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview. Triandis, H., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Collectivism vs. individualism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 323338. Vishwanath, A. (2003). Comparing online information effects: A cross-cultural comparison of online information and uncertainty avoidance. Communication Research, 30, 579598. Ward, E. A. (1993). Factor structure of employed adults motivation for competitive or cooperative strategy. Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 741743.