http://ccr.sagepub.com/Cross-Cultural Research

http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/46/2/109The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1069397111424867

2011 2012 46: 109 originally published online 11 NovemberCross-Cultural Research

Rebecca MerkinMiddle Eastern Impression-Management Communication

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Cross-Cultural Research Sponsored by the Human Relations Area Files

can be found at:Cross-Cultural ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ccr.sagepub.com/content/46/2/109.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Nov 11, 2011OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Apr 18, 2012Version of Record >>

at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BARUCH COLLEGE LIBRARY on October 1, 2013ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Cross-Cultural Research46(2) 109 –132© 2012 SAGE PublicationsReprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1069397111424867http://ccr.sagepub.com

424867 CCR46210.1177/1069397111424867MerkinCross-Cultural Research© 2012 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

1Baruch College–City University of New York, USA

Corresponding Author:Rebecca Merkin, Baruch College, City University of New York, 1 Bernard Baruch Way, VC 8-241, New York, NY 10010, USA Email: Rebecca.Merkin@baruch.cuny.edu

Middle Eastern Impression-Management Communication

Rebecca Merkin1

AbstractThis study examines Israeli and Syrian impression management (facework), drawing on Hofstede’s theory of cultural dimensions. Using a MANCOVA design while controlling for social desirability and gender, it measured the influence of country on direct, aggressive, competitive, and harmonious facework strategies from self-report questionnaires (n 176) collected in Israel and Syria. Consistent with the hypotheses, Israelis exhibit more direct, aggressive, and competitive facework strategies than Syrians. Israeli face-work strategies corresponded to cultural individualism and a low power dis-tance, whereas Syrian facework corresponded to cultural collectivism and a high power distance. Contrary to expectation, Israeli facework is more harmonious. A unique contribution of the present study is the identifica-tion of changes in facework necessary for avoiding a loss of face among two populations whose previous diplomatic efforts have not succeeded.

Keywordsface and facework, collectivism, power distance, cross-cultural communication, Israeli communication, Arab communication

In 2009, with the help of Turkish mediators, indirect peace talks took place between Israel and Syria for the first time in 8 years. In 2010, President Barack Obama’s administration also changed American policy toward Syria

110 Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

and tried to smoothen the progress of peace talks between Israel and Syria (Syrian President Praises, 2010). Although the relationship between the Pres-ident of Syria and the U.S. President warmed up, Syria’s leader accused Israel of not seeking peace at all (Syrian President Praises, 2010). Given the tide of recent events, the vital importance of relations between Israel and Syria has become more pronounced. To establish associations between Israel and Syria, however, thoughtful understanding of the concept of face or per-sonal dignity (Naffsinger, 1964) is critical (Harris, Moran, & Moran, 2004). Face concerns and face-saving strategies previously have been examined in interpersonal contexts; however, Ting-Toomey (2004) argued that situations such as diplomatic negotiations often entail active facework negotiation as well. Applying this notion, this study explores the possible application of facework to the context of diplomatic relations. Clearly, establishing peace in the Middle East is a complex matter. This study, however, addresses micro-communication issues that might help to improve our understanding of the role that impression-management communication (hereafter “facework”) plays in relations between Syria and Israel.

The communication between Israel and Syria has been particularly vital in recent face-threatening negotiations between these two nations. Israel has shut the door on Turkish-mediated Syrian talks, insisting that any new nego-tiations be direct (Williams, 2009). Recognizing that both Israel and Syria are multicultural societies, it should be noted that references to Israelis and Syrians henceforth refer to individuals in the majority culture of each coun-try. Keeping this in mind, while Israelis prefer direct facework (Katriel, 1986), Syrians, based on their collective high-power-distance values (Hofstede, 1980), prefer indirect facework, such as third-party negotiations. If culturally preferred facework strategies could be recognized and under-stood in broader contexts, a greater understanding among different cultural parties could result in more productive intercultural interactions in the future.

For example, to Israelis, direct communication functions as an equalizer and acts to bond interacting Israeli parties (Katriel, 1986). However, impart-ing direct expression to high-face-saving cultures such as Syria (Naffsinger, 1964) is viewed as a threat to the other’s feelings (Holmes, 2008). The values and motivations that underlie people’s responses are reflected in their national character, an important factor in approximating the likely courses of action taken by people from different cultures (Hofstede, 1980; Naffsinger, 1964). Considering the concept of facework across cultures could help define areas of possible misunderstanding and give insight into current outlooks held by Israelis and Syrians when communicating. Moreover, the mainstream culture needs to be taken into account when Israelis and Syrians interact. Better

Merkin 111

understanding of the importance of face and the most preferred facework strategies can help strengthen the composition of future message production in attempted diplomatic efforts. Knowing that some communicative acts are not personal could also help take away some of the negative perceptions from difficult interactions between Israeli and Syrian cultures.

A unique contribution of the present study is that facework research is extended to two previously unexamined cultures, whose past facework has not been, for the most part, successful. Moreover, this study is the first of its kind in that it makes a cross-cultural comparison of Middle Eastern face-work, as opposed to past research, which has primarily focused on compari-sons between United States and Asian facework (e.g., B. Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994). Thus, the purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of cultural dimensions on facework used in response to embarrass-ing face threats in Israel and Syria to help understand the communication differences between Israelis and Syrians. This article will provide a back-ground to facework theories culminating in a description of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, followed by hypotheses set forth to test whether individualism and power distance impact impression-managing facework communication in both Syria and Israel. Finally, a summary and implications of the results of tested relationships will be presented.

Previous Approaches to FaceworkFacework studies began with the work of Goffman (1967) who detailed the need to project and protect one’s social identity that is acted out in social situ-ations. People endeavor to maintain the face they have actualized in social situations. Goffman defines face as “the positive social value a person effec-tively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes” (Goffman, 1967, p. 5). Face resides in “the flow of events in the encounter” (Goffman, 1967, p. 7). It does not reside in the individual but is negotiated between parties. As face is negotiated, it is enacted through interaction (Tracy, 1990). This communication enactment process is called facework (Tracy & Baratz, 1994) and is comprised of communication strate-gies used to maintain face. For example, after people present themselves to others, they determine whether to amend their strategies based on the response they receive from others. People present their face, but no matter what mes-sage strategies the individual wishes to send, the other participant(s) assumes that the individual intentionally took his or her stand. In turn, the individual must then handle the impression that he or she has created (Goffman, 1967).

112 Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

When people are brought up in similar cultures, their similar mind-sets are tacitly understood; but when people are brought up with different cultural assumptions, others’ intentions are often misunderstood (Scollon & Scollon, 1994). Through appropriate facework, members of different cultures could negotiate relationships leading to a greater focus on mutuality and under-standing. In general, people attempt to maintain each others’ faces to avoid interactions from breaking down (Goffman, 1967).

Based on Goffman’s (1967) work, Brown and Levinson (1978) developed a linguistic politeness theory explaining how politeness contributes to the process of managing one’s impression. Politeness theory differentiates between positive and negative face. Positive face is the positive self-image claimed by those who interact, and negative face is the basic claim to terri-tories and freedom from imposition (Brown & Levinson, 1978). During interactions, people are often forced to threaten an addressee’s positive and/or negative face. If this occurs, then politeness strategies are used to mitigate those face-threatening acts. Politeness is used to negotiate a person’s presen-tation of face so that the greater the face-threatening act, the more the indirectness of polite speech will be used.

Many facework studies that followed Brown and Levinson’s (1978) work tested their propositions (e.g., Arundale, 2006; Manusov & Trees, 2004). To some extent, Brown and Levinson’s theory has been supported in U.S. sam-ples (Manusov & Trees, 2004; Trees & Manusov, 1998). Others, however, dispute the validity of Brown and Levinson’s theory (e.g., Johnson, Roloff, & Riffee, 2004; Lim & Bowers, 1991; Tracy, 1990). Brown and Levinson themselves later cited a number of criticisms and difficulties with politeness theory; for example, the actual politeness of strategies sometimes do not fol-low their continuum of direct and indirect messages.

In addition, although Brown and Levinson (1978) maintained that polite-ness theory is culturally universal, this claim has only been partially sup-ported (e.g., Holtgraves & Yang, 1992; Matsumoto, 1988). In fact, the universality of politeness theory has been challenged by studies of both ver-bal communication (Arundale, 2006; Holtgraves, 1992; Katriel, 1986) and non-verbal communication (Ambady, Koo, Lee, & Rosenthal, 1996; Ambady & Weisbuch, 2010).

Culture affects one’s perception of self (Markus & Kitayama, 1999) and, in turn, one’s corresponding face (Hofstede, 2001; Inkeles & Levinson, 1997). Although the need to save face is universal (Ting-Toomey, 1988; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998; Yau-fai Ho, 1976), cross-cultural facework is varied and needs to be analyzed as such (Ting-Toomey, 2005). Even though the situation plays a part in the facework strategies people use to present their

Merkin 113

face, the range of strategies from which people choose is limited by their cultural values.

For example, respect in Japan follows a maxim of preserving peaceful relations (Midooka, 1990), whereas in China, Germany, and the United States, face is associated with respect, honor, status, reputation, credibility, competence, family/network connection, loyalty, trust, relational indebted-ness, and obligation issues (Oetzel et al., 2001). Similarly, Arab face is referred to as personal dignity (Naffsinger, 1964). To uphold their different perceptions of face, individuals are likely to enact different corresponding facework. Overall, previous research shows that cross-cultural notions of face reflect aspects of how one presents one’s positive social image to others. Given the need to promote a more accurate understanding of the broad impli-cations of how impression management works across the world, a more comprehensive approach to studying facework focusing on cultural differ-ences became warranted.

Ting-Toomey developed face-negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, 1988; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998), which accounts for the relationship between culture and face concerns (i.e., whether one is focused on one’s own face or the other person’s face) and how they affect conflict strategies. Face-negotiation theory argues that (a) people in all cultures try to maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations; (b) the concept of face becomes especially problematic in identity-vulnerable situations (such as embarrass-ment, requests, and conflict) in which the identity of communicators are called into question; (c) cultural variability, individual-level variables, and situational variables affect cultural members’ choice of one set of face concerns over oth-ers; and (d) subsequently, face concerns influence the use of various facework and conflict strategies in intergroup and interpersonal encounters (Ting-Toomey, 2005). Oetzel and Ting-Toomey (2003) provided support for a number of the assumptions of the face-negotiation theory.

According to face-negotiation theory, individualism/collectivism and power distance are the most common cultural values used to explain face-work involving conflict communication (Oetzel, Dhar, & Kirschbaum, 2007). This present study also examines how these two cultural dimensions influ-ence facework and impression management in Israel and Syria. Cultural dimensions were first studied by Geert Hofstede (1980). Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) theory of cultural dimensions has been the most widely used in the analysis of trends pertaining to diverse cultures (e.g., Arrindale et al., 2003). Meeuwesen, van den Brink-Muinen, and Hofstede (2009) argued that under-standing Hofstede’s cross-national differences is a prerequisite for the deterrence of intercultural mishaps. Notwithstanding some criticism (e.g.,

114 Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

McSweeney, 2002; Spector, Cooper, & Sparks, 2001), Hofstede’s theory of cultural dimensions provides a generalizable and quantifiable framework for examining national culture(s). Hofstede’s cultural indices have also been used in hundreds of studies in a number of fields. Thus, Hofstede’s theory of cultural dimensions can help describe the cultural differences between Syria and Israel and help explain the two nations’ inability to negotiate successfully with each other.

Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) cultural dimensions explain the shared views that individuals acquire by growing up in a particular country. These dimensions include individualism/collectivism, power distance, masculinity/femininity, and uncertainty avoidance. Although Israel has a separate classification by Hofstede, he classified Syria together with other Arab countries because there were not enough observations in Hofstede’s original study to run statistics on Syria alone. To date, there are no rankings on Syria alone; thus, references to Syria and Arab countries will be denoted in this text interchangeably.

Cultural Dimensions and FaceworkThe maintenance of face is a fundamental condition of interaction (Goffman, 1967). Goffman (1955) referred to facework as the rules that people follow in enacting their face. It is these rules that vary according to culture (Hofstede, 1991; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). Cultural factors also have a direct effect on individuals’ predominant facework strategy choices (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003).

Used within a face-threatening context, facework strategies that vary by culture include (but are not limited to) direct strategies (e.g., B. Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994), which are clear and follow a direct course; aggressive strategies, in which the actor threatens the receiver (e.g., Merkin, 2006); com-petitive strategies, in which actors try to distinguish themselves as being the best (e.g., Merkin, 2006); and harmonious strategies (e.g., B. Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994), where the goal is to smooth over potentially heated interactions.

There is a historic tradition that cultural values indicate preferred modes of behavior in a given culture (Kapoor, Hughes, Baldwin, & Blue, 2003). Hofstede (2001) has been one proponent of this method, linking cultural val-ues to goal-directed behaviors. Unlike ethnomethodological (Goffman, 1967) and sociolinguistic (Brown & Levinson, 1978) studies, face-negotiation theo-rists (B. Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Merkin, 2006; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Ting-Toomey, 2005) began studying facework in cross-cultural contexts using the more culturally universal approach advocated by Hofstede

Merkin 115

(1980, 2001). Therefore, this article extends facework research by analyzing facework cross-culturally within Hofstede’s conceptual framework but applied to previously unexamined Middle Eastern cultures.

Individualism/Collectivism as Predictors of FaceworkResearch indicates that individualism influences facework strategy choices (e.g., Buda & Elsayed-Elkhouly, 1998; Ting-Toomey, 2005). In particular, individualists tend to use more direct facework strategies, whereas collectiv-ists tend to use more indirect facework strategies (B. Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Ting-Toomey, 1988). Direct communication is frank and clear-cut, whereas indirect communication involves hints, oblique sugges-tions, or third-party communications (Gao, 1998). For example, if someone says “I’m Robert Smith” and John responds, “Nice to meet you, Bob.” Then, Robert could reply, “I use Robert as my first name” which is direct or “How informal of you” which would be indirect.

Besides their tendency toward indirect communication, collectivists also tend to have a greater propensity to use more deceptive communication than do individualists (Triandis, 2005). For example, members of collective cul-tures tend to provide indirect answers to questions they are uncomfortable with (Bull, 2008). Unlike individualists who tend to use low-context com-munication or spell out their intentions, collectivists tend to use more high-context messages, which are implicit and not spelled out (Hall, 1976; Ting-Toomey, 1988). In high-context communication, for example, what is most important is the way people say things, not what they say. Thus, nonver-bal cues such as silence, third-party messages, and pauses have greater mean-ing than explicit words. For example, Syrians show a preference for third-party mediation, as in the case of Turkey mediating between Syria and Israel. Moreover, interdependents—individual-level collectivists—are more prone to experience threats to face (Kim et al., 2009), which could increase the sting of direct face-threatening messages.

Although Arab individuals tend to be more collectivistic, Israelis tend to be more individualistic (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). Individualists assume that all individuals can communicate directly and argue for what is on their minds, even if it risks damaging the relationship (Kim, Sharkey, & Singelis, 1994; Triandis, 1995). Members of individualistic cultures also tend to distrust ambiguous messages because they view indirect communication as deceptive (Kashima et al., 1995). Therefore, individualistic Israelis could have difficul-ties grasping the subtlety of the implicit messages transmitted by high-context cultures such as those of the Arab countries.

116 Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

As those from collectivistic cultures such as Syrians believe that express-ing oneself directly could hurt others’ feelings, they are likely to practice evasion deliberately (Holmes, 2008). In addition, research has shown that collectivists tend to use ambiguous indirect communication to prevent expo-sure to face threats that could result from using explicit language (B. Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Ting-Toomey, 1988). For example, when units of the Syrian army took control over Jisr al-Shughour after armed clashes with citi-zens, Syrian television reported that the government had to “purify it from members of armed groups,” an indirect expression not linking the govern-ment directly with violence (“Syrian Forces Seize,” 2011).

Individuals from collectivistic cultures tend to have interdependent selves in that they need to be accepted as part of their group (Markus & Kitayama, 1999). Thus, interdependents are also more prone to experience threats to face because of their need to be accepted by their social unit (Kim et al., 2009), which could increase the sting of direct face-threatening messages. This contrasts with individualistic values of getting straight to the point (Ting-Toomey, 1988). For example, individualistic Israelis have been shown to speak honestly and directly (Katriel, 1986). In general, individualists believe that conflict is an acceptable form of communication (Earley, 1997) and that honest communication does not need to be stifled for the sake of face. Thus, they would be more likely to uphold their face through a tendency to commu-nicate directly with others. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is posed:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Israelis will be more likely to use direct strategies than Syrians will.

There also appears to be a relationship between individualism and aggres-sive communication. For example, Li, Wang, Wang, and Shi (2010) found a positive association between the endorsement of individualism and aggression. In addition, findings show that in the United States (with mostly individualists) direct and indirect aggression was higher than in Poland (a culture with an intermediate level of individualism and collectivism), and direct and indirect aggression was higher in Poland than in highly collectivistic China (Forbes, Zhang, Doroszewicz, & Haas, 2009). Thus, it appears that the individualistic assumption that direct conflict can resolve misunderstandings is likely to be enacted through aggressive facework. To test this notion with individualist Israelis and collectivistic Syrians, the following hypothesis is posed:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Israelis will be more likely to use aggressive face-work than Syrians will.

Merkin 117

Power Distance as a Predictor of Facework

Researchers suggest that power distance should be taken into consideration when explaining facework as a separate cultural dimension (Merkin, 2006; Ting-Toomey, 2005). Power distance is “the extent to which the less power-ful individuals from institutions expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 98). Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimension scores show that Arab countries have a high-power-distance ranking, whereas Israel has a low power-distance ranking.

High power distance has been associated with compliant behavior 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 high-power-distance cultures to interact with oth-ers, they tend to engage in obedient communication strategies that compro-mise or collaborate with others (Galin & Avraham, 2009). People in high-power-distance societies also tend to accept inequality in the allocation of power and human rights (Hofstede, 2001). As researchers point out, those with high-power-distance orientations also tend to be less responsive to unfair treatment and less likely to voice concerns over inequality (Brockner et al., 2001; Furnham, 1993).

Unlike high-power-distance cultures, people from low power-distance cul-tures view the world as fundamentally just (Furnham, 1993). Therefore, injus-tice 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 because they feel more in control of their fate (Fetchenhauer, Jacobs, & Belschak, 2005).

Differences in power-distance orientations are likely to lead to conflicting communications between Syrians and Israelis. If Syrians accept inequality and do not negotiate status, then their need for the status quo directly collides with Israeli expectations of equality and preferences for direct, possibly face-threatening negotiations of situations at hand. Given the low power-distance orientation of the Israelis and their corresponding beliefs that the status quo can be changed, they may also tend to be more competitive in their facework. For example, Khare (1999) argued that, in Japan, a high-power-distance cul-ture, the last thing a new employee would think of is to compete with seniors in the organization. When status differences exist, high-power-distance ori-entations lead people to avoid competing with superiors in favor of acceptance of the others’ power (Khatri, 2009). However, those with low power-distance

118 Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

assumptions would tend to try to manage their face through competing. Thus, the following hypothesis is posed:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Israelis will be more likely to use competitive face-work than Syrians will.

As people in high-power-distance societies tend to accept inequality in the allocation of power and human rights (Hofstede, 2001), they tend to be less responsive to unfair treatment, preferring more indirect modes of communi-cation (Brockner et al., 2001). Moreover, in Arab cultures, accepting hierar-chical relations is partly a way of maintaining harmony (Al-Haj, 1989). Harmonious strategies are reassuring extraconsiderate communications that smooth over differences and demonstrate respect. This type of communica-tion helps resolve potentially face-threatening events.

In Arab cultures, it is important to maintain harmony between individuals and their social environment by accepting hierarchical relationships in fami-lies and in their larger society (Haj-Yahia, 1995). Haj-Yahia (1995) argued that harmony with the environment also means the preservation of family ties and collectivist behavior. Hofstede (2001) also described the preference for accommodating exchanges in high-power-distance cultures. Given that there is a positive correlation between a high power distance and collectivism, it is reasonable to expect that individuals from collective high-power-distance cultures would also prefer using more harmonious facework strategies to smooth over difficult face-threatening situations. Thus, the following hypoth-esis is posed:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Syrians will be more likely to use harmonious face-work than Israelis.

Although conceptions of masculinity or femininity are also part of Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) cultural dimensions, because Hofstede ranked both the Arab countries and Israel as masculine and because both Israeli and Arab cultures share high-uncertainty-avoidance cultural rankings (Hofstede, 1980), the explanatory characteristics between Israel and the Arab countries in terms of masculinity and uncertainty avoidance should be constant. Thus, further cultural analysis along the lines of masculinity and uncertainty-avoidance characteristics was omitted. However, it is noteworthy that given both culture’s high uncertainty avoidance, Israelis and Syrians may be par-ticularly likely to feel nervous and suspicious of those with whom they are unfamiliar (Hofstede, 1980; Merkin, 2010). To establish theoretical equivalence,

Merkin 119

as suggested by Gudykunst (2002), this research study is based on Hofstede’s (1980) theory of cultural dimensions. As both cultures are matched in terms of the degree to which they are uncertainty avoidant and masculine, these cultural dimensions are controlled for as possibly competing predictors in this study.

MethodParticipants

This investigation followed Hofstede’s (2001) specifications that the best way to operationalize culture is to use matching samples. Matching participants on as many characteristics as possible reduces the possibility of competing effects from demographics, isolating the cultural effects as the predictor. For this reason, attempts were made to match participants on age and education, thus establishing sample equivalence (Gudykunst, 2002). The participants were all college students studying in their home countries within the same age range. Specifically, the mean age of the Syrian sample was 22 years and of the Israeli sample was 23 years. The mean education level of the Syrian and Israeli samples were matched at 14 years. Finally, students were less matched on sex between samples because the Israeli sample was dominated by women, whereas the Syrian sample was dominated by men. Thus, the possible influ-ence of gender was controlled for by making gender a covariate.

In addition, given the possibility that taking a self-report questionnaire could result in social desirability effects, the difference between the two countries on social desirability was tested indicating that there were, in fact, significant social desirability differences between the two samples. As a result, to control for the possible competing effects of social desirability partly due to the nature of the self-report instrument or possibly due to differ-ent face concerns, social desirability was also included as a covariate.

The sample size necessary for adequate power in the hypotheses using multivariate analyses with a medium effect size is between 58 participants 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 University in Damascus. In the Syrian sample, 27 were women and 68 were men. The Israeli sample (n 81) came primarily from Universities in Ramat Gan, Tel Aviv, and Haifa. In the Israeli sample, 61 were women and 20 were men.

Design and statistical procedures. Hypotheses were tested by means of a MANCOVA design with country as the independent variable, social desir-ability and gender as the covariates, and direct, aggressive, competitive, and

120 Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

harmonious facework strategies as the dependent variables. Students were requested by their professors, in classes in their home countries, to read a vignette (below) representing a face-threatening situation and rate the f acework strategies in terms of their likelihood of use. The cross-cultural pre-dicament presented was pretested with a group of 30 students by presenting them with a series of predicaments, which they rank ordered for representa-tiveness. Professorial experts (professors of cross-cultural communication) were consulted as to the predicament’s cross-cultural face validity. Specifi-cally, experts were presented with a number of representative scenarios to rank-order based on the degree of their universal appeal. The resulting universal scenario was used for this study. Thus, each respondent was pre-sented 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 din-ner. 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 acquaintance’s shirt. Everyone in the restaurant sees this.

Then respondents were prompted to fill out the strategy items in response to the scenario. Israeli participants received the questionnaire in English and Syrian respondents received the questionnaire in Arabic. The Arabic ques-tionnaire was back-translated separately to assure the translation’s validity (Brislin, 1986) and linguistic equivalence (Gudykunst, 2002). Respondents were asked to respond to the questionnaire on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).

InstrumentationAs suggested by Hofstede (1994), cultural dimensions were operationalized by country. Social desirability was operationalized by a shortened version of the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), namely, the MCSDS–Short Form C (MCSDS-C; Reynolds, 1982). A sample item of this scale includes “I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings.” The MCSDS-C consists of 13 items answered yes or no but for the purpose of this study a Likert-type for-mat was used. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients ranged from .70 to .87

Merkin 121

and averaged .78 across both groups indicating that the instrument had ade-quate internal consistency.

B. K. Cocroft’s (1992) construction of response items for direct/indirect (e.g., I would try to express my regrets indirectly) and harmony strategies (e.g., I would maintain harmony between me and my acquaintance) were used because B. K. Cocroft and B. Cocroft and Ting-Toomey (1994) were able to successfully use these response items with Japanese and U.S. respon-dents. Direct/indirect reliability coefficients ranged from .70 to .71 and aver-aged .71 across both groups, whereas harmony reliability coefficients ranged from .67 to .74 and averaged .72 across both groups.

Aggressive strategies were measured by Buss and Durkee’s (1957) Irritability subscale of their Aggressive Inventory. An example of a scale item is “I am irritated a lot more than people are aware of.” The original scale items are in true–false form; however, in the current study, participants rated each item on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly dis-agree). Reliability coefficients ranged from .71 to .75 and averaged .73 across both groups. Both aggressive strategies and competitive strategies were used successfully in previous studies with respondents from Chile, Sweden, the United States, and Hong Kong and the United States and Syria, respectively (Merkin, 2006; Merkin & Ramadan, 2010). Hence, these strategy measures were used again in the cross-cultural context of Israel and Syria.

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 is a 24-item scale containing three independent subscales. Each item (e.g., “To succeed, one must compete against others”) is followed by five response options ranging from 5 (always) to 1 ( never). This study used the Competitive subscale only. Reliability coef-ficients ranged from .71 to .73 and averaged .72 across both groups.

ResultsTo test Hypotheses 1 to 4 in a multivariate model, an overall test was neces-sary to see whether the four strategies tested (i.e., direct, aggressive, com-petitive, and harmonious) were intercorrelated. Hence, Barlett’s test of sphericity, !2(6, N 174) 37.18, p � .0001, was carried out and indicated that multivariate analysis was necessary. In addition, covariates were included to control for the possible competing effects of gender and social desirability. The covariate effect of sex was as follows: Wilks’s " .927,

122 Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

Table 1. Analysis of Variance Summary, Means, and Standard Deviations

Facework strategies

Israel/Syria Israel Syria

F K2 p M SD M SD

Direct 6.15 .113 .0001 1.91 .60 1.64 .50Aggressive 10.01 .087 .0020 3.20 .58 2.81 .84Competitive 105.85 .382 .0001 2.57 .34 1.65 .62Harmonious 16.25 .087 .0001 2.30 .64 2.14 .50

Note: The overall effect and the covariate effects are in the results section.

F(4, 167) 3.27, p .01, #2 .07. The covariate effect of social desirability was as follows: Wilks’s " .957, F(4, 167) 1.88, p .12, #2 .04.

Differences in Syrian and Israeli facework were measured by using a MANCOVA design with country as the independent variable, social desir-ability and gender as the covariates, and direct, aggressive, competitive, and harmonious strategies as the dependent variables. Overall results showed that the multivariate main effect for culture was significant, Wilks’s " .398, F(4, 167) 25.62, p � .0001, #2 .38.

H1 tested whether Israelis would be more likely to use direct strategies than Syrians. Results (i.e., Israel: M 1.91; Syria: M 1.64) indicated that Israelis actually do use more direct communication strategies than do Syrians; thus, H1 was supported. (More specific univariate results of H1-H4 and accompanying descriptive statistics are summarized in Table 1.) Results also indicated that Israelis are more likely to use aggressive facework than Syrians (i.e., Israeli: M 3.20; Syrian: M 2.81) in support of H2. In addition, sup-port was found for H3 in that Israelis use more competitive strategies than Syrians (i.e., Israel: M 2.57; Syria: M 1.65). Finally, H4, that Syrians would be more likely to use more harmonious facework than Israelis, was not supported (i.e., Israeli: M 3.20; Syrian: M 2.81).

DiscussionThe goal of this study was to help understand the communication differences between Israelis and Syrians. Overall, if the type of communication needed by one party to save face is offensive to the other party, then conflict is likely to arise or escalate depending on the situation. Thus, when Israelis need to explain themselves using direct, aggressive, and competitive communication, if Syrians feel their boundaries are being threatened, defensiveness could be

Merkin 123

heightened (Gibb, 2008). Thus, one or both parties need to modify their communication differences or keep in mind that their communication may offend the other party. In addition, attempts should be made by both par-ties to view communication differences as cultural artifacts and to try not to take the impression-management communication they are experiencing personally.

ImplicationsThe results of this study showed that, while controlling for gender and social desirability, culture (i.e., individualism and power distance) predicts the preferred facework strategies people use in response to an embarrassing face threat. The results of H1 to H3 were also consistent with previous research (e.g., Ting-Toomey, 2005), whereas H4 was not supported. In particular, Israelis tend to use more direct, aggressive, competitive, and harmonious facework, whereas Syrians tend to prefer indirect facework. Significantly, findings of the present study indicate that the preferred facework strategies of Syrians and Israelis could be at odds with each other. In addition, besides existing ideological disagreements between Arabs and Israelis, the two cul-tures seem to have different face-saving communication needs as indicated by the results of this investigation.

In particular, this study’s results help others understand the communication differences between Israelis and Syrians by examining how their respective cultures influence their responses to embarrassing face threats. H1, that Israelis will be more likely to use direct strategies than Syrians, was substantiated. Specifically, Israelis prefer to communicate directly and have direct interac-tions. This mode of communication (as deduced indirectly by the significance of H1) contrasts with the Syrians’ preference to communicate indirectly. What is more, significant findings demonstrating H2, that Israelis will be more likely to use more aggressive facework than Syrians, give the impression that rela-tions between Syrians and their Israeli counterparts are likely to be fraught with conflicting sensitivities. Moreover, support for H3 shows that Israelis will also be more likely to use competitive facework than Syrians.

Contrary to expectations, as indicated by past research that in collectivis-tic cultures there is an emphasis on maintaining harmony (e.g., Triandis, 1995), a test of H4 did not show that Syrians are more likely to use more harmonious facework than Israelis. It is possible that under the pressure of face threats, Syrians do not respond particularly harmoniously. Ting-Toomey (2005) argued that direct aggressive facework is face-threatening and aggra-vates conflicts. This study’s results show that Israelis tend to enact facework

124 Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

that is direct and competitive. Thus, a potential Syrian response to Israeli direct messages, which are unnerving to collectivists (Nelson, Al Batal, & El Bakary, 2002), would be unlikely to be harmonious. What is more, pos-sible interaction with parties that Syrians distrust could be potentially face-threatening. Future research is needed to test this notion during actual interactions between the two parties.

Equally potentially troubling is the Israeli need to engage directly and their perception of there being a loss of face associated with being asked to negotiate with the Syrians via a third party, unlike the Syrians who believe the opposite (Merkin & Ramadan, 2010). In fact, Israelis find the refusal of Syria to communicate directly with them to be an unacceptable rebuff (Williams, 2009). It is possible that Syrians have shown a preference for negotiating through a third-party negotiator (i.e., Turkey) as opposed to talk-ing directly with Israelis because, similar to the collective nature of the Arab world, they are most comfortable communicating with their in-group (Triandis, 1995). However, individualistic Israelis do not make the same in-group–out-group distinctions (Triandis, 1995) and may consequently consider in-group–out-group distinctions to be insulting.

Overall, this study’s findings show that both Israelis’ and Syrians’ face-work differ in contrasting ways. Research indicates that it is particularly important not to let those who are culturally from the Arab world lose face (e.g., Al-Omari, 2008; Harris et al., 2004; Patai, 2007). Researchers show that there is a concern as to whether using direct communication is unnerving to collectivists (Nelson et al., 2002).With this in mind, if Israelis were coached to tone down their direct messages and speak more indirectly when communicating with Syrians, this might improve their reception. However, if Syrians could be prepped before meetings with Israelis about how the Israelis communicate directly, perhaps this awareness could help take the edge off of their reactions to direct interactions with Israelis.

Alternatively, when Syrians use indirect facework, Israelis may interpret this mode of communication as indicating that they are not concerned about the interaction taking place (Earley, 1997). This may be partly due to indi-vidualist cultural values in which indirectness and avoidance are associated with a low concern for the other person’s interest (Takai & Lee, 2003). Israelis, as individualists, understand and expect direct communication. Therefore, it is offensive to Israelis to only be spoken to through third-party negotiators (Williams, 2009). In addition, because of their literal focus, Israelis could completely fail to notice Syrian subtlety during interactions. Therefore, if Syrians would communicate more specifically with Israelis, greater understanding could possibly be reached between them.

Merkin 125

Limitations

As this study necessitated a cross-cultural sample, validity issues in the trans-lation of the English questionnaire could exist even though the Israelis were fluent in English. In addition, questionnaires translated into Arabic and back-translated could have had discrepant meanings. This study operationalized culture by country as initiated by Hofstede (1991). Although there is support for this form of measurement (Smith, Dugan, & Trompenaars, 1996), others dispute Hofstede’s cultural methodology (e.g., McSweeney, 2002).

Using self-report data has limitations as well as strengths. The disadvan-tage of self-reports is that respondents are not actually carrying out the behav-iors they are reporting but are reporting the behaviors they would intend to carry out instead. Traditionally, facework studies have been carried out using self-reports (B. Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). Although not completely real, self-reports can yield useful results. This is because it is difficult to measure phenomena that exist inside a per-son’s mind using other methodologies.

Finally, this study’s results indicate proclivities for communicating in a particular fashion. As actual communication during interactions between Israelis and Syrians was not measured, results of this study should be consid-ered to be a first step to be followed up by further studies investigating actual interactions between Israelis and Syrians.

Future ResearchAs past research has primarily focused on comparisons between the United States and Asian facework, this study filled a need to investigate the more specific context of communication between Syrians and Israelis to facilitate their interactions in the future. Future research in face-threatening contexts such as conflict and requests should be sought out as other areas of concern for studying facework.

On the theoretical level, this study shows that for the most part, in the Middle Eastern cultures of Israel and Syria, cultural patterns follow the pat-terns indicated by Hofstede’s (1980) work on cultural dimensions. Collectivism plays a big part in the communication strategies used by members of the Arab world to save face. Individualism and a low power distance are likely to be behind the Israeli direct, aggressive, and competitive facework strategy choices. One surprising finding is that Israelis were more likely to use harmo-nious strategies than Syrians. Perhaps this mode of communication is used to tone down the intensity of their other modes of communication. Future research

126 Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

is needed to better understand the contexts in which Israelis are more likely to use harmonious versus possibly face-threatening direct, aggressive, or com-petitive facework strategy choices. Finally, additional studies testing actual interactions between Israelis and Syrians are warranted.

On the practical level, understanding which facework strategies are pre-ferred by each conflicting party in a negotiation is helpful in preparing for negotiations with clearer expectations and strategies. In addition, knowing others’ preferred facework before negotiating can be instructive as to how to proceed communicatively to facilitate respective successful outcomes. It is also possible to use the information gained by this study to analyze commu-nication setbacks to get possibly thwarted negotiations back on track.

Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

FundingThe author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or pub-lication of this article.

ReferencesAl-Haj, M. (1989). Social research on family lifestyles among Arabs in Israel. Jour-

nal of Comparative Family Studies, 20, 175-195. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.Al-Omari, J. (2008). Understanding the Arab culture: A practical cross-cultural

guide to working in the Arab world. Oxford, UK: Howtobooks.Ambady, N., Koo, J., Lee, F., & Rosenthal, R. (1996). More than words: Linguistic

and nonlinguistic politeness in two cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 996-1011. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.5.996

Ambady, N., & Weisbuch, M. (2010). Nonverbal behavior. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 5th ed., pp. 464-497). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Arrindale, W. A., Eisemann, M., Richter, J., Oei, T., Caballo, V., van der Ende, J., . . . Zaldívar, F. F. (2003). Masculinity–femininity as a national characteristic and its relationship with national agoraphobic fear levels: Fodor’s sex role hypoth-esis revitalized. Behavior Research and Therapy, 41, 795-807. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Arundale, R. (2006). Face as relational and interactional: A communication frame-work for research on face, facework, and politeness. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture, 2, 193-216. doi:10.1515/PR.2006.011

Merkin 127

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. 137-164). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Brockner, J., Ackerman, G., Greenberg, J., Gelfand, M. J., Francesco, A. M., Chen, Z. X., . . . Shapiro, D. (2001). Culture and procedural justice: The influence of power distance on reactions to voice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 300-315. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1451

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenom-enon. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interac-tion (pp. 56-289). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Buda, R., & Elsayed-Elkhouly, S. (1998). Cultural differences between Arabs and Americans: Individualism–collectivism revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psy-chology, 29, 487-492. doi:10.1177/0022022198293006.

Bull, P. (2008). Slipperiness, evasion, and ambiguity: Equivocation and facework in noncommittal political discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 333-344. doi:10.1177/0261927X08322475

Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostil-ity. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 343-349. doi:10.1037/h0046900

Cocroft, B. K. (1992). Facework in Japan and the United States: A cross-cultural comparison. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Fullerton.

Cocroft, B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Facework in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 469-506. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(94)90018-3

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354. doi:10.1037/h0047358

Earley, P. C. (1997). Face, harmony, and social structure: An analysis of organiza-tional behavior across cultures. London, England: Oxford University Press.

Fetchenhauer, D., Jacobs, G., & Belschak, F. (2005). Belief in a just world, causal attributions, and adjustment to sexual violence. Social Justice Research, 18, 25-42. doi:10.1007/s11211-005-3369-1

Forbes, G., Zhang, X., Doroszewicz, K., & Haas, K. (2009). Relationships between individualism–collectivism, gender, and direct or indirect aggression: A study in China, Poland, and the US. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 24-30. doi:10.1002/ab.20292

Furnham, A. (1993). Just world beliefs in twelve societies. Journal of Social Psychol-ogy, 133, 317-329. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Galin, A., & Avraham, S. (2009). A cross-cultural perspective on aggressive-ness in the workplace: A comparison between Jews and Arabs in Israel.

128 Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 43(1), 30-45. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.remote.baruch.cuny.edu. doi:10.1177/1069397108326273

Gao, G. (1998). “Don’t take my word for it.”—Understanding Chinese speaking prac-tices. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 163-186. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00003-0

Gibb, J. R. (2008). Defensive communication. In C. Mortensen & C. Mortensen (Eds.), Communication theory (2nd ed., pp. 201-208). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work. Psychiatry, 18, 213-231.Retrieved from EBSCOhost.Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Gudykunst, W. B. (2002). Issues in cross-cultural communication research. In W. G. Gudykunst

& B. Mody (Eds.), Handbook of international and intercultural communication (2nd ed., pp.165-182). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and affective communication. American Behavioral Scientist, 31, 384-400. doi:10.1177/000276488031003009

Haj-Yahia, M. M. (1995). Toward culturally sensitive intervention with Arab families in Israel. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 17, 429-447. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Anchor Books.Harris, P. R., Moran, R. T., & Moran, S. V. (2004). Managing cultural differences.

Oxford, UK: Elsevier.Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-

related values. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London, UK:

McGraw Hill.Hofstede, G. (1994). Value survey module. Maastricht, Netherlands: Institute for

Research on Intercultural Cooperation.Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institu-

tions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Holmes, P. (2008). Foregrounding harmony: Chinese international students’ voices in

communication with their New Zealand peers. China Media Research, 4, 102-110. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Holtgraves, T. (1992). The linguistic realization of face management: Implications for language production and comprehension, person perception, and cross-cultural communication. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 141-159.

Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. N. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strate-gies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 62, 246-256. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.246

Merkin 129

Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. J. (1997). National character: A psycho-social perspec-tive. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Johnson, D., Roloff, M. E., & Riffee, M. A. (2004). Responses to refusals of requests: Face threat and persistence, persuasion and forgiving statements. Communication Quarterly, 52, 347-356. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Kapoor, S., Hughes, P. C., Baldwin, J. R., & Blue, J. (2003). The relationship of individualism–collectivism and self-construals to communication styles in India and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 683-700. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2003.08.002

Kashima, Y., Yamaguchi, S., Kim, U., Choi, S., Gelfand, M. J., & Yuki, M. (1995). Culture, gender, and self: A perspective from individualism-collectivism research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 925-937. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.925

Katriel, T. (1986). Talking straight: Dugri speech in Israeli Sabra culture. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Khare, A. (1999). Japanese and Indian work patterns: A study of contrast. In H. S. R. Kao, D. Sinha, & B. Wilpert (Eds.), Management and cultural values: The indigenisation of organisations in Asia (pp. 121-136). New Delhi, India: SAGE.

Khatri, N. (2009). Consequences of power distance orientation in organisations. Vision (09722629), 13(1), 1-9. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Kim, M.-S., Sharkey, W. F., & Singelis, T. M. (1994). The relationship between individuals’ self construal and perceived importance of interactive constraints. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 117-140. doi:10.1016/0147-1767(94)90008-6

Kim, M.-S., Wilson, S., Anastasiou, L., Aleman, C., Oetzel, J., & Lee, H. (2009). The relationship between self-construals, perceived face threats, and facework during the pursuit of influence goals. Journal of International and Intercultural Com-munication, 2, 318-343. doi:10.1080/17513050903177326

Lauter, J. (1978). Sample size requirements for the T2 test of MANOVA. Biometrical Journal, 20, 389-406. Retrieved from JSTOR.

Li, Y., Wang, M., Wang, C., & Shi, J. (2010). Individualism, collectivism, and Chinese adolescents’ aggression: Intracultural variations. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 187-194. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Lim, T., & Bowers, J. (1991). Facework: Solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research, 17, 415-450. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Manusov, V., & Trees, A. R. (2004). Do unto others? Conversational moves and perceptions of attentiveness toward other face in accounting sequences between friends. Human Communication Research, 30, 514-539. doi:10.1093/hcr/30.4.514

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. In R. F. Baumeister & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), The self

130 Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

in social psychology (pp. 339-371). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenom-ena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403-426.

Matsumoto, D. (1989). Cultural influences on the perception of emotion. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 92-105. doi:10.1177/0022022189201006

McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith—A failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89-118. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

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, 58-66. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.09.015

Merkin, R. (2006). Power distance and facework. Journal of Intercultural Communi-cation Research, 25, 139-160. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Merkin, R. (2010). Uncertainty avoidance. In R. Jackson (Ed.), The encyclopedia of identity (pp. 849-852). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Merkin, R., & Ramadan, R. (2010). Facework in Syria and the United States: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 661-669. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.05.006

Midooka, K. (1990). Characteristics of Japanese-style communication. Media, Cul-ture & Society, 12, 477-489. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Naffsinger, P. A. (1964). Face among the Arabs. CIA VOIA document. Studies in Intelligence, 8. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol8no3/html/v08i3a05p_0001.htm

Nelson, G., Al Batal, M., & El Bakary, W. (2002). Directness vs. indirectness: Egyptian Arabic and US English communication style. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(1), 39-57. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(01)00037-2

Oetzel, J., Dhar, S., & Kirschbaum, K. (2007). Intercultural conflict from a multilevel perspective: Trends, possibilities, and future directions. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36, 183-204. doi:10.1080/17475750701737124

Oetzel, J., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30, 599-624. doi:10.1177/0093650203257841

Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Xiaohui, P., Takai, J., . . . Wilcox, R. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68, 235. doi:10.1080/03637750128061

Patai, R. (2007). The Arab mind. New York, NY: Hatherleigh Press.

Merkin 131

Reynolds, W. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 119-125. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1994). Face parameters in East-West discourse. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework (pp. 133-158). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Simmons, C. H., Tucker, S. S., & King, C. S. (1988). The cooperative/competitive strategy scale: A measure of motivation to use cooperative or competitive strat-egies for success. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 199-205. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

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, 231-264.

Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., & Sparks, K. (2001). An international study of the psy-chometric properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: A comparison of individual and country/province level results. Applied Psychology: An Interna-tional Review, 50, 269-281. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Swann, W. B. (2005). The self and identity negotiation. Interaction Studies, 6, 69-83. doi:10.1075/is.6.1.06swa

Syrian Forces Seize Northern Town in Attack Against Rebels. (2011, June 12). San Fancisco Chronicle. Retrieved from http://g7finance.com/global-news/syrian-forces-seize-northern-town-in-attack-against-rebels/

Syrian President Praises Obama, Slams Israel. (2010, November 9). CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20022194-503543.html#ixzz1PxY3MeoP

Takai, J., & Lee, P. (2003). Japanese directness and indirectness across situations: Focusing on refining the ingroup–outgroup distinction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213-235). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2004). Translating conflict facework-negotiation theory into prac-tice. In D. Landis, J. Bennett, & M. J. Bennett (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (p. 217). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: A face-negotiation theory. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 71-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural con-flict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187-225. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00004-2

132 Cross-Cultural Research 46(2)

Tracy, K. (1990). The many faces of facework. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 209-226). London, UK: Wiley.

Tracy, K., & Baratz, S. (1994). The case for case studies of facework. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of facework (pp. 287-306.). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Trees, A. R., & Manusov, V. (1998). Managing face concerns in criticism: Integrat-ing nonverbal behaviors as a dimension of politeness in female friendship dyads. Human Communication Research, 24, 564-583. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1998.tb00431.x

Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.Triandis, H. C. (2005). Culture and social behavior. In R. M Sorrentino, D. Cohen,

J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 10, pp. 207-227). New York, NY: Routledge.

Williams, D. (2009, August 12). Israel shuts door on Turkish-mediated Syria talks. Retrieved from http://ns.bdnews24.com/details.php?id=140093&cid=1

Yau-fai Ho, D. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 867-884. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

BioRebecca Merkin, received her PhD from Kent State University. She is currently an assistant professor of communication studies at Baruch College–City University of New York. Her research focuses on cross-cultural communication and the application of cultural concepts to problematic workplace relationships. She has published arti-cles in numerous journals, including the International Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, Journal of Intercultural Communication, Journal of International Women’s Studies, and International Journal of Intercultural Relations.