Intercultural Communication: Introverts and Extraverts - Research Paper Example

Intercultural Communication Of INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION INTRODUCTION Language use lies at the heart of social interaction. People use language to get things done, to solidify relationships, to inform others, to entertain others, and so on. But not everyone uses language in the same way. For example, people differ in terms of whether they like to talk (e.g., extroverts vs. introverts) and what they like to talk about (e.g., differences in self-disclosure tendencies). The present research is concerned with differences between people in the expression and interpretation of linguistic meaning. Simple reflection suggests that some people tend to be circuitous in their locutions, whereas others come right out and say what they mean. Similarly, some people tend to search for hidden meanings in others' remarks, whereas others usually interpret remarks literally. The opening of world markets has allowed firms to compete globally. Multinational organizations are increasingly dominating the global economy; in the past twenty years, a number of U.S., European, and East Asian firms have expanded their markets and set up foreign subsidiaries and joint ventures. This increase in the number of multinational corporations, along with the rapid advance in technology and growth in personal mobility, has resulted in greater contact and communication between members of different cultural groups. A number of researchers have identified potentially significant differences in communicative behavior across cultures; these differences in communicative behavior can result in conflict which, in turn, can decrease organizational effectiveness. AIM OF THE PAPER In this paper I shall consider the importance of politeness and face in intercultural communication within the discourse and participation domains. CULTURE AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION Culture refers to a system of socially created and learned standards for perception and behavior shared by members of a certain group; it is the collective programming that distinguishes one group or category of people from another. Although many subcultures may exist within a country, the term "national culture" is used to describe the values and practices of entire nations. An important aspect of culture is that it reflects shared meanings, values, and norms. Cultural values can influence communication practices in organizations. Researchers suggest that surface-level communication differences are grounded in cognitive knowledge about factors that constrain communication, and this culturally-shared knowledge can be used to distinguish one cultural group from another. When an individual approaches a communication situation, cultural frames of reference can influence communication intentions (i.e., instructions individuals give themselves about how to communicate) and communication understanding (i.e., interpretation and explanation of communicated stimuli). Communication problems in intercultural contexts can occur because of two types of difficulties: (1) people may use inappropriate communicative acts because norms of communication appropriate in one culture may be inappropriate in another and (2) people may negatively evaluate a communicative act that deviates from culturally acceptable norms of communication. The first problem occurs because of intercultural differences in communication intentions; the second due to differences in communication understanding. Hence, we can conclude that as the cultural distance between two individuals in a communication interaction increases (i.e., as their cultural values become more dissimilar), the use of communicative acts inappropriate to the situation and the negative evaluation of the communicative acts also increase. THE IMPORTANCE OF POLITENESS Imagine someone who wants to ask a favor of another (e.g., for a loan, a date, the time). To do so successfully will require tact, and most likely it will require tact regardless of whether the favor asking occurs in the United States, Mexico, Uganda, or Korea. Why is this Requests, by definition, are imposing. They threaten the hearer's freedom and impinge on the boundaries of one's self, and tact is required to ritually and symbolically demonstrate deference to the sacredness of the other's self. According to Goffman (1997) this sort of deference, or politeness, is required for smooth social interaction, and the argument can be made that this requirement is both universal and related (at least for greetings) to the display phenomena of other species (Ferguson, 2006). In other words, politeness is more than just the domain of Emily Post (R. Brown, 1998). Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson (1998, 1997) have articulated a theory of politeness that has received considerable attention from communication scholars, anthropologists, linguists, and to a lesser extent, social psychologists. Borrowing heavily from Ervin Goffman's (1997) seminal ideas regarding face-work, these authors have argued that concerns with face motivate the forms that linguistic expressions will take, and because face concerns are assumed to be universal, their theory predicts cross-cultural parallels in the structure of politeness phenomena. Furthermore, they argued that certain interpersonal variables will affect the extent to which any verbal act is face-threatening, and thus these variables will have a corresponding effect on language usage in all cultures. The purpose of the present research was to undertake some cross-cultural tests of hypotheses derived from this theory. There are several reasons why P. Brown and Levinson's (1997) theory is important for social psychology. First, language use has received relatively little attention from social psychologists, even though it is a central feature of many social psychological processes, (for exceptions see R. Brown & Gilman, 1999; Higgins, 2001; Krauss, 1997). Because the primary focus of Brown and Levinson's theory is on language usage (although the authors suggest that the theory can handle nonverbal behavior as well), it provides a comprehensive framework for the study of this underresearched aspect of social psychology. Second, their theory is clearly a social psychological theory of language usage. The forms that speakers use are not determined in isolation but rather in terms of the face wants of the hearer and the speaker. The theory is also social psychological through its inclusion of the interpersonal variables of power and distance. There is much evidence for the primacy of these variables in social interaction (Wish, Deutsch, & Kaplan, 2006), and earlier research by R. Brown (2005) has indicated that these variables have an effect on the use of different address forms. P. Brown and Levinson's (1997) theory goes considerably further and extends this research by accounting for the effects of power and distance on many other verbal behaviors. Third, the theory provides a framework for the study of social interaction at multiple levels (from the minutiae of politeness rituals to the broader interpersonal variables of power and distance to the "ethos" of a culture) and makes explicit the links between these various levels. For example, the relative power between interactants feeds into the politeness system and affects the form of remarks that interactants will use. Furthermore, because assumptions regarding power vary cross-culturally (e.g., some cultures are more egalitarian than others), there should be predictable cultural differences in language usage. Note that in this way the theory has the potential to account for both cross-cultural similarities and cross-cultural differences. Finally, these linkages may be reciprocal. For example, speaker power can affect language usage, and reciprocally, language usage can affect perceptions of the speaker's power (Holtgraves, 2006). P. BROWN AND LEVINSON'S (1997) POLITENESS THEORY A fundamental assumption of P. Brown and Levinson's (1997) theory is that all interactants are assumed to have, and to be concerned with, face, or a desired public image (Goffman, 1997). Face is assumed to be of two types: positive face, or the want to be approved of by others, and negative face, or the want to be unimpeded by others. Acts that run contrary to these wants threaten the face of the speaker (e.g., apologies) or the hearer (e.g., requests). Face wants are assumed to operate in all cultures and affect the linguistic realization of face-threatening acts. FACE MANAGEMENT The mitigation-aggravation account continuum can be connected to the literature on face-work. Face is a social phenomenon created when one person comes into contact with another; it refers to the "socially situated identities people claim or attribute to others . . . face-work references the communicative accounts that are the enactment, support, or challenge of those situated identities" (Tracy, 2000, p. 210). Face management concerns arise when people engage in actions that threaten the face of others (Goffman, 2001; Gonzales, 2002; Gonzales et al., 2000, 2002). Such face management concerns can be addressed through accounts that protect and validate others' face needs. Examining the mitigation-aggravation continuum clarifies the extent to which accounts vary in terms of expressing concern for others' face needs. Mitigating accounts (concessions) are deferential, express support for others' face, and attempt to minimize face threats. In contrast, aggravating accounts (refusals) protect the account-giver's own face needs, question the listener's right to criticize, and denote less respect for others' face needs (Gonzales, 2002; Gonzales et al., 2000, 2002). Accounts in the middle of continuum (excuses and justifications) provide some support for others' face needs, at the same time protecting the account-giver's own face needs. The literature suggests that cultures vary in the extent to which they emphasize providing face support to others. For example, Ting-Toomey's (1998) face-negotiation theory states that although people in all cultures try to maintain and negotiate face in communication interactions, cultural norms influence people's selection of face management strategies. Similarly, empirical research suggests that face concerns are influenced by cultural differences across countries; for example, Coulmas (1999) found face-support for others to be more common in Japan than in the U.S., and Holtgraves and Yang (2000) and Kim and Wilson (2004) found that Korean subjects provided more face support than U.S. subjects. The connection between the mitigation-aggravation account continuum and face concerns suggests that cultures that differ in emphasis on face support are also likely to differ in the types of accounts considered appropriate. For example, countries in which societal norms put less emphasis on providing face support to others are more likely to consider aggravating accounts appropriate compared to cultures that value face support. Since the perceived appropriateness of accounts can influence their use and effectiveness (DuBrin, 2001; Kim & Wilson, 2004), account-giving and account evaluation can be influenced by cultural standards governing face support. The next section uses three dimensions of cultural variability to develop mid-range propositions about the connections between culture, account-giving, and evaluation of accounts. Extrapolating from this connection between individualism--collectivism and face concerns to the context of accounts suggests that collectivistic cultures which value both self-face and other-face maintenance are more likely to give mitigating accounts and negatively evaluate aggravating accounts compared to individualistic cultures concerned with self-face maintenance. Few studies (Hamilton & Hagiwara, 2002; Itoi et al., 2006), however, have examined the connection between individualism-collectivism and account-giving. Hamilton and Hagiwara (2002) found that Japanese students were more likely to offer accounts that assuaged the offended party, even if the account (apology) implied personal responsibility. Itoi et al. (2006) established that Japanese subjects (collectivists) were more likely to use mitigating accounts (concessions and excuses) and less likely to use aggravating accounts (justifications) compared to U.S. subjects. Since the use of accounts is strongly related to implicit theories about account effectiveness (DuBrin, 2001; Kim & Wilson, 2004), these two studies suggest that collectivists are more likely to perceive mitigating accounts as appropriate and are more likely to evaluate such accounts positively compared to individualists. Although the literature has not examined intercultural account-giving and account evaluation, communication encounters between individualists and collectivists have the potential to result in miscommunication and conflict; for example, using their own values and frames of reference, collectivists may misinterpret the accounts given by individualists as too aggravating and evaluate the accounts negatively. This miscommunication and conflict will increase as the cultural distance on individualism-collectivism between the two parties increases. Research in the areas of conflict management and dispute resolution also suggests that collectivistic cultures prefer mitigating conflict styles that can maintain harmonious relationships and provide opportunities for face support, whereas individualistic cultures tolerate aggravating styles that maintain self-face and show less support for others' face needs. For example, Ohbuchi and Takahashi (2004) found that collectivists (Japanese) were motivated to preserve relationships and used mitigating conflict management styles; U.S. subjects, in contrast, used aggravating styles. Similarly, adversarial dispute resolution procedures (aggravating tactics) that protect one's own face needs and do not provide face support to others are often used in individualistic countries such as the U.S. (Folger, Cropanzano, Timmerman, Howes, & Mitchell, 2006; Thibaut & Walker, 2005), Canada, and the Netherlands (Leung, Bond, Carmen, Krishnan, & Liebrand, 2000), and are evaluated negatively in the collectivistic cultures of China (Leung, 1997; Leung & Lind, 2006) and Japan (Benjamin, 2005). In contrast, tactics that provide opportunity for face support (e.g., mediation and bargaining) are evaluated positively in collectivistic cultures such as Mexico (Nadler, Nadler, & Broome, 2005). Cultural beliefs concerning mitigating versus aggressive conflict management styles and dispute resolution procedures are likely to be similar to norms concerning the appropriateness of mitigating versus aggravating accounts; hence, the literature on conflict management provides additional support for the proposed relationship between individualism-collectivism, account-giving, and evaluation of accounts. CONCLUSION P. Brown and Levinson's (1997) politeness theory is an ambitious attempt to explain how concerns with face management (and the variables that affect it) motivate the manner in which speakers in any culture will phrase their remarks. As such, this theory represents a comprehensive and parsimonious account of the verbal strategies that individuals in any culture will use to pursue their goals. The theory's most basic claim is that verbal strategies for performing face-threatening acts can be ordered on a politeness continuum based on the extent to which the remarks encode concern for the hearer's face. Moreover, this ordering should be the same in different cultures. A second aspect of P. Brown and Levinson's (1997) theory concerns the relationship between interpersonal variables and the use of politeness strategies. Consistent with the theory, the relationship between power, distance, and politeness was the same for all irrespective of intercultural differences. However, the theory predicts that power and distance should combine additively to affect the perceived likelihood of different request strategies. Although P. Brown and Levinson's (1997) theory is in obvious need of further testing and refinement, their overall approach provides a useful framework for investigating many different aspects of social interaction. For example, by specifying the links between linguistic politeness and interpersonal variables, the theory provides a framework for understanding the first step in the person perception process, the transformation of a natural social stimulus (language) into some type of symbolic code (Kraut & Higgins, 2004). The theory also has important implications for understanding gender differences in language use. To the extent that women are more polite than men (Lakoff, 1997b), the theory suggests such differences could be due to gender differences in power and/or distance, rather than gender per se. Finally, P. Brown and Levinson's (1997) theory can provide a useful framework for explaining interactional misunderstandings. To the extent that politeness strategies are linked to interactants' assessments of power and distance and to the extent that interactants differ in their assessment of these values, misunderstandings can occur. This phenomena is nicely illustrated in Scollon and Scollon's (2001) research on interethnic communication. They argued that misunderstandings between native Athabaskans and English-speaking Americans occur because Athabaskans prefer negative politeness strategies (a result of assuming low familiarity) and Americans prefer positive politeness strategies (a result of assuming high familiarity). As a result, an Athabaskan who encounters positive politeness from an American and who then responds with negative politeness will feel as if he or she is of lower status in the dyad. This happens because negative politeness indicates lower status relative to positive politeness (as our results clearly demonstrate). These different politeness systems could result also in the misinterpretation of the meaning of remarks. Consider, for example, a negative politeness culture that relies heavily on off-record strategies. If off-record strategies are used with someone from another culture who tends not to use off-record strategies (and does not expect others to use them), then the intended meaning of these remarks may be missed (e.g., Cohen, 1997). REFERENCES Adler, N. J. (1997). International dimensions of organizational behavior (3rd ed.). Cincinnati: Southwestern. Ambady, N., Koo, J., Lee, F., & Rosenthal, R. (2006). More than words: Linguistic and nonlinguistic politeness in two cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 996-1011. Barnlund, D. C. (1999). Communicative styles of Japanese and Americans: Images and realities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Baron, R. A. (2000). Countering the effects of destructive criticism: The relative efficacy of four interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 235-245. Bates, E. (2006). Language and context: The acquisition of pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. Baxter, L. A. (2004). An investigation of compliance gaining as politeness. Human Communication Research, 10, 427-456. Benjamin, R. W. (2005). Images of conflict resolution and social control: American and Japanese attitudes toward the adversarial system. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 19, 123-137. Bern, S. L. (2004). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 155-162. Bies, R. J. (1997). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 289-319). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (2006). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Bies, R. J., & Sitkin, S. B. (2002). Explanation as legitimation: Excuse-making in organizations. In M. L. McLaughlin, M. J. Cody, & S. J. Read (Eds.), Explaining one's self to others: Reason-giving in a social context (pp. 183-199). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Blum-Kulka, S. (2002). The metapragmatics of politeness in Israeli society. In R. Watts, R. J. Ide, & S. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. 255-281). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Blum-Kulka, S., & House, J. (1999). Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behavior. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Advances in discourse processes (Vol. 31 pp. 123-155). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Blum-Kulka, S., Danet, B., & Gherson, R. (2005). The language of requesting in Israeli Society. In J.Forgas (Ed.), Language and social situations (pp. 113-139). New York: Springer-Verlag. Blumstein, P. W., Carssow, K. G., Hall, J., Hawkins, B., Hoffman, R., Ishem, E., Maurer, C. P., Spens, D., Taylor, J., & Zimmerman, D. L. (2004). The honoring of accounts. American Sociological Review, 39, 551-566. Bobocel, D. R., & Farrell, A. C. (2006). Sex-based promotion decisions and interactional fairness: Investigating the influence of managerial accounts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 22-35. Brown, P. and C. Levinson (1987). Politeness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1997). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1998). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E.Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56-289). London: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1997). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Brown, R. (1998). More than P's and Q's. Contemporary Psychology, 33, 749-750. Brown, R. (2005). Social psychology. New York: Free Press. Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1999). Politeness theory and Shakespeare's four major tragedies. Language in Society, 18, 159-212. Buttny, R. (2003). Social accountability in communication. London: Sage. Cansler, D. C., & Stiles, W. B. (2001). Relative status and interpersonal presumptuousness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 459-471. Carrell, P. L., & Konneker, B. H. (2001). Politeness: Comparing native and non-native judgments. Language Learning, 31, 17-30. Chiu, C., Tsang, S., & Yang, C. (1998). The role of face situation and attitudinal antecedents in consumer compliant behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 173-180. Clark, H. H., & Schunk, D. (2000). Polite responses to polite requests. Cognition, 8, 111-143. Cody, M. J., & McLaughlin, M. L. (2000). Interpersonal accounting. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 227-255). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Cohen, R. (1997). Problems of intercultural communication in Egyptian-American diplomatic relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 11, 29-47. Collier, M. J. (2001). Conflict competence within African, Mexican, and Anglo American Friendships. In S. Ting-Toomey & F. Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-cultural and interpersonal communication (Vol. 15, pp. 132-154). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 69-92). New York: Mouton. Coulmas, F. (1999). Poison to your soul: Thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. In F. Cupach, W. R., Metts, S., & Hazelton, V., Jr. (2006). Coping with embarrassing predicaments: Remedial strategies and their perceived utility. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 5, 181-200. Davis, D. (2002). Determinants of responsiveness in dyadic interaction. In W.Ickes & E.Knowles (Eds.), Personality, roles, and social behavior (pp. 89-139). New York: Springer-Verlag. DuBrin, A. J. (2001). Sex and gender differences in tactics of influence. Psychological Reports, 68, 635-646. Ferguson, C. A. (2006). The structure and use of politeness formulas. Language and Society, 5, 137-151. Fitzpatrick, M., & Winke, J. (1999). You always hurt the one you love: Strategies and tactics in interpersonal conflict. Communication Quarterly, 27, 3-11. Folger, R., Cropanzano, R., Timmerman, T., Howes, J. C., & Mitchell, D. (2006). Justice is not so complex after all: Further evidence for voice in judgments of procedural fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 435--441. Forsyth, D., Schlenker, B., Leary, M., & McCown, N. (2005). Self-presentational determinants of sex differences in leadership behavior. Small Group Behavior, 16, 199-210. Fraser, B., & Nolan, N. (2001). The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93-109. Giacalone, R. A., & Beard, J. W. (2004). Impression management, diversity, and international management. American Behavioral Scientist, 37, 621-636. Gilligan, C. (1997). In a different voice: Women's conceptions of self and of morality. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 481-517. Goffman, E. (1997). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face interaction. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Goffman, E. (1997). On face work. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior (pp. 5-45). Chicago, IL: Aldine. Goffman, E. (2001). Remedial interchanges. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Relations in public: Micro-studies of the public order (pp. 95-187). New York: Harper & Row. Gonzales, M. H. (2002). A thousand pardons: The effectiveness of verbal remedial tactics during account episodes. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 11, 133-151. Gonzales, M. H., Manning, D. J., & Haugen, J. A. (2002). Explaining our sins: Influencing offender accounts and anticipated victim responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 958-971. Gonzales, M. H., Pederson, J. H., Manning, D. J., & Wetter, D. W. (2000). Pardon my gaffe: Effects of sex, status, and consequence severity on accounts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 610-621. Greenberg, J. (2000). Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 111-157). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Gudykunst, W. B. (1997). Sociocultural variability and communication processes. In C. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 847-889). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gudykunst, W., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1998). Culture and interpersonal communication. Newburg Park, CA: Sage. Gumperz, J. (1982). 'Interethnic communication', in Gumperz, J. J (ed.). Discourse strategies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Reproduced in Coupland, N. & Jaworski, A. (1997) Sociolinguistics, Basingstoke: Palgrave.) Hall, E. T. (2001). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. Hall, E. T. (2006). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. Hamilton, V. L., & Hagiwara, S. (2002). Roles, responsibilities, and accounts across cultures. International Journal of Psychology, 27, 157-179. Higgins, E. T. (2001). The "communication game": Implications for social cognition and persuasion. In E.Higgins, C.Herman, & M.Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 1, (pp. 343-392). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A., & Ogino, T. (2006). Universals of linguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence for Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 347-371. Hofstede, G. (2000). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2000). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures and organizations. Software of the mind. London: McGraw- Hill. Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (2004). Hofstede's culture dimensions: An independent validation using Rokeach's value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 417-433. Holtgraves, T. (1999). The form and function of remedial moves: Reported use, psychological reality, and perceived effectiveness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 8, 1-16. Holtgraves, T. (1999). The form and function of remedial moves: Reported use, psychological reality, and perceived effectiveness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 8, 1-16. Holtgraves, T. (2006). Language structure in social interaction: Perceptions of direct and indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 305-314. Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. (2000). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 719-729. Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. (2002). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 246-256. Holtgraves, T., Srull, T., & Socall, D. (1999). Conversation memory: The effects of speaker status on memory for the assertiveness of conversation remarks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 149-160. Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (2005). Measurement in cross-cultural psychology. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 131-152. Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. J. (1999). National character: The study of modal personality and sociocultural systems. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 111-157). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Itoi, R., Ohbuchi, K., & Fukuno, M. (2006). A cross-cultural study of preference of accounts: Relationship closeness, harm severity, and motives of account making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 913-934. Kim, M., & Wilson, S. R. (2004). A cross-cultural comparison of implicit theories of requesting. Communication Monographs, 61, 210-235. Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (2001). Variations in value orientations. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Konovsky, M. A., & Folger, R. (2001). The effects of procedures, social accounts, and benefits levels on victims' layoff reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 630-650. Krauss, R. (1997). The role of the listener: Addressee influences on message formulation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6, 81-98. Kraut, R. E., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Communication and social cognition. In R. S.Wyer & T. K.Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 3, (pp. 87-128). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lachman, R., Nedd, A., & Hinings, B. (2004). Analyzing cross-national management and organizations: A theoretical framework. Management Science, 40, 40-55. Lakoff, R. T. (1997a). Politeness, pragmatics, and performatives. In A.Rogers, B.Wall, & J.Murphy (Eds.), Proceedings of the Texas conference on performatives, presupposition, and implicatures (pp. 79-106). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Lakoff, R. T. (1997b). Women's language. Language and Style, 10, 222-248. Leung, K. (1997). Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for conflict resolution: A cross-national study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 898-908. Leung, K., & Lind, E. A. (2006). Procedural justice and culture: Effects of culture, gender, and investigator status on procedural preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1134-1140. Leung, K., Bond, M. H., Carment, D. W., Krishnan, L., & Liebrand, W. B. G. (2000). Effects of cultural femininity on preference for methods of conflict processing: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 373-388. McGrath, J. E. (2004). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., & O'Hair, H. D. (2003). The management of failure events: Some contextual determinants of accounting behavior. Human Communication Research, 9, 208-224. McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., & Rosenstein, N. E. (2003). Account sequences in conversation between strangers. Communication Monographs, 50, 102-125. McLaughlin, M., Cody, M., & O'Hair, H. (2003). The management of failure events: Some contextual determinants of accounting behavior. Human Communication Research, 9, 208-224. Mullen, B. (2001). Group composition, salience, and cognitive representation: The phenomenology of being in a group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 297-323. Nadler, L. B., Nadler, M. K., & Broome, B. J. (2005). Culture and the management of conflict situations. In W. B. Gudykunst, L. P. Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture, and organizational processes. International and intercultural communication annual (Vol. 9, pp. 87-113). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Ohbuchi, K., & Takahashi, Y. (2004). Cultural styles of conflict management in Japanese and Americans: Passivity, covertness, and effectiveness of strategies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1345-1366. Okabe, R. (2003). Cultural assumptions of east and west: Japan and the United States. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory: Current perspectives (pp. 21-44). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pandey, J., & Singh, P. (1997). Effects of machiavellianism, other-enhancement, and power-position on affect, power feeling, and evaluation of the ingratiator. Journal of Psychology, 121, 287-300. Schaubroeck, J., May, D. R., & Brown, F. W. (2004). Procedural justice explanations and employee reactions to economic hardship: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 455-460. Schonbach, P. (2000). A category system for account phases. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 199-200. Schonbach, P. (2000). Account episodes: The management or escalation of conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Schwartz, S. H. (2000). Individualism-collectivism: Critique and proposed refinements. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 139-157. Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. (1983). 'Face in interethnic communication', in J. Richards & R. Scmidt (Eds), Language and communication, London: Longman Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (2001). Narrative, literacy and face in interethnic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Scott, M. R., & Lyman, S. M. (1998). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46-62. Searle, J. (2005). Indirect speech acts. In P.Cole & J.Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 59-92). New York: Academic Press. Slugoski, B., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: Sarcasm, banter and social relations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 101-121. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000) 'Rapport management: a framework for analysis', in Spencer-Oatey, H. (ed.) Culturally speaking: managing rapport through talk across cultures, London: Continuum. Tannen, D. (2001). Indirectness in discourse: Ethnicity as conversational style. Discourse Processes, 3, 221-228. Tata, J. (1998). The influence of gender on the use and effectiveness of managerial accounts. Group and Organization Management 23, 267-288. Tedeschi, J. T., & Riess, M. (2001). Verbal strategies in impression management. In C. Antaki (Ed.), The psychology of ordinary explanations of social behavior (pp. 271-309). New York: Academic Press. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (2005). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Ting-Toomey, S. (1998). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (Vol. 12, pp. 213-235). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Tracy, K. (2000). The many faces of facework. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Psychology (pp. 209-226). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Triandis, H. C. (1999). Cross-cultural studies of individualism-collectivism. In J. J. Berman (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Cross-cultural perspectives (Vol. 37, pp. 41-133). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Triandis, H. C. (2004). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. Triandis, H. C., & Albert, R. D. (1997). Cross-cultural perspectives. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication. An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 264-295). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Walters, J. (2000). The perception of politeness in English and Spanish. In C.Yorio, K.Perkins, & J.Schachter (Eds.), On TESOL '79: The learner in focus (pp. 288-296). Washington, DC: TESOL. Winograd, T. (1997). A framework for understanding discourse. In M.Just & P.Carpenter (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension, (pp. 63-88). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Wish, M., Deutsch, M., & Kaplan, S. (2006). Perceived dimensions of interpersonal relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 409-420. Read More