A cross-cultural examination of facework communication: An application of Hofstede's cultural dimensions (Geert Hofstede)

Cross-cultural communication has become necessary in this global world. In cross-cultural communication more miscommunication occurs because of cultural differences present during interactions. The issue of face is important because if a person's face is lost, communication can break down, stopping all future contact. Thus, this study investigated how culture groups, facework strategies differ in their responses to face-threatening situations.; Hofstede's (1980) study culminated with establishing four cultural dimensions: individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance. Countries high and low on all of these dimensions were tested in this study. Although previous research has only tested the relationship between individualism and facework strategies, this study was unique in that it explored the relationship of both individualism and masculinity on facework choices. I also examined the effect of power distance and uncertainty avoidance on people's responses to others' self-presentations. In essence, Hofstede's dimensions were tested to see if they accounted for differences in facework strategy behavior.; Respondents from six cultures—Japan, Sweden, Israel, Hong Kong, Chile, and the U.S.—completed questionnaires indicating their most probable face-saving strategies in an embarrassing situation. The resulting data were analyzed using multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) where age, education, and social desirability were held constant.; Results showed that all Hofstede's (1980) cultural dimensions (and a fifth dimension, long-term orientation) influenced the facework strategies respondents chose to use in response to a face-threatening situation. Although not all hypotheses were completely supported, one of the most substantive findings was that masculinity is as much a predictor of facework strategies as is individualism/collectivism. Together, both individualism and masculinity influenced the facework strategies people chose. Low power distance appeared to affect individuals, needs for consultation about structural changes taking place in business. Finally, uncertainty avoidance was also a significant predictor of facework use, but high levels, curiously, inclined people to use less ritualistic and aggressive strategies than did low uncertainty avoidance levels. Another finding was that culture groups high in long-term orientation indicated that they would use more Confucian-oriented (i.e., harmonious and cooperative) facework than short-term oriented cultures.