Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Power Distance and Facework Strategies

2006; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 35; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/17475750600909303

1747-5767

Rebecca S. Merkin,

Emotions and Moral Behavior

Abstract This study utilized Hofstede's (2001 Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values, Beverly Hills, , CA: Sage. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) study that tested whether Hofstede's power distance (PD) dimension of culture is an important predictor for understanding cross-cultural facework. It investigated how cultural groups differing in their level of PD negotiate strategic responses (i.e., cooperative, indirect, or direct) to a face-threatening situation on the individual level. Respondents from six cultures—Japan, Hong Kong, Israel, Chile, Sweden, and the United States—completed questionnaires. Multivariate multiple regression results from an individual-level analysis show that large-PD culture members are more likely to use cooperative, indirect, and direct communication strategies to manage face threats than their small-PD counterparts. The cooperative and indirect facework findings in this study corresponded with Hofstede (1980 Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values, Beverly Hills, , CA: Sage. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 2001 Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values, Beverly Hills, , CA: Sage. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]), thereby adding support for Hofstede's (1980 Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values, Beverly Hills, , CA: Sage. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], 2001 Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values, Beverly Hills, , CA: Sage. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) grand theory of cultural dimensions. Keywords: Power DistanceFaceworkCultural DimensionsImpression ManagementCross-culturalIntercultural Communication