ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 213–228

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Uncertainty avoidance and facework:

$
A test of the Hofstede model
Rebecca S. Merkin
Department of Communication and Culture, New York University, 239 Greene Street,
New York, New York 10003, USA

Abstract

This study tested whether Hofstede’s Uncertainty Avoidance dimension of culture is an

important predictor for understanding national differences. To determine this, an analysis of survey
data was carried out in six countries: Chile, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Sweden and the United
States. This replication study tested Hofstede’s conclusions of 1980 and 2001 about the role of
uncertainty in facework, the action taken to maintain or gain face. As hypothesized, multivariate
analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) results showed that, while controlling for social desirability
effects, uncertainty avoidance influences ritualistic, harmonious, and aggressive facework
strategies in an embarrassing situation. Therefore, this successful replication of Hofstede’s
assertions as applied to facework confirms that uncertainty avoidance exerts a significant influence
on facework communication strategies. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Facework, i.e., actions taken to maintain or gain face, is an essential element of

interaction processes. Therefore, a more comprehensive understanding of the facework
process could help facilitate intercultural relationships. During interaction,

$
This manuscript was adapted from my dissertation, directed by Dr. Rebecca Rubin, and completed at Kent
State University in December 2000.

Tel.: +19739162596; fax: +19739162698. E-mail

address: rmerkin@aol.com.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
214 R.S. Merkin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 213–228

0147-1767/$-see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.08.001
when a person is slighted, communication may become defensive (Gibb, 1961).
Hofstede’s (2001) conceptualization of Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) reflects a form of
defensiveness that impacts on stranger–host national relationships. UA refers to the
extent to which people are made nervous by situations they consider to be unstructured,
unclear, or unpredictable, and the extent to which they try to avoid such situations by
adopting strict codes of behavior and beliefs in absolute truths (Stohl, 1993). In
particular, people from strong-UA cultures are hesitant to embrace new intercultural
relationships (Hofstede, 2001). This notion of UA could help explain troubling
intercultural interactions. How those from strong-UA cultures negotiate face-threatening
situations will be tested here to exemplify how UA acts as a useful predictor of
intercultural relationships.
The purpose of this study was to replicate UA’s effects as presented by Hofstede
(1980, 2001). If Hofstede’s UA conception was replicated, then this cultural value and its
implications for facework could be discussed in a broader cultural context. This
replication was also carried out because researchers have ignored studying this dimension
to a large extent (Smith, 2002). Perhaps this neglect was caused by crosscultural
controversies debating the usefulness of Hofstede’s (1980) conception of UA (Hofstede
& Bond, 1984; Hofstede, Bond, & Luk, 1993). In fact, when Hofstede and Bond (1984)
discovered a fifth dimension, long-term orientation (LTO), they questioned whether LTO
has replaced the UA dimension in Asian samples. Later, however, Hofstede (2001)
affirmed that the UA dimension characterizes whether organizations are tightly (e.g.,
structured) versus loosely controlled (e.g., open). Furthermore, according to Burgoon
(2005), UA does influence cultures—particularly in the content of each culture’s
interactional expectancies—by predicting how they vary according to the extent to which
expectancies are tight or loose. Other support for UA as a predictor of national
differences (in the Sudan and Britain) was found by Shackleton and Ali (1990) with
organizations and by Arrindell et al. (2004) with self-assessed fears.
Despite this support, there is another controversy as to whether Hofstede’s (1980,
2001) overall approach to studying culture via cultural dimensions should be considered
altogether (Degabriele, 2000; McSweeney, 2002). Helmreich and Merritt’s (1998) study
with airline staff found it hard to interpret UA results because they were highly
intercorrelated with Hofstede’s power distance dimension. In another replication attempt
focusing on Hofstede’s other cultural dimensions, power distance and individualism were
replicated; but a replication test of UA was not undertaken (Smith, Dugan, &
Trompenaars, 1996). Then again, Hoppe’s (1991) study with European elites did find
support for Hofetede’s (1980) UA dimension.
A final point of controversy questions whether one can generalize Hofstede’s (1980)
findings to other contexts because his original study used a single IBM organizational
sample (Hunt, 1981; McSweeney, 2002). Despite this viewpoint, claims have been made
that Hofstede’s (1980) findings are applicable to other contexts such as the mental health
field (Arrindell, Emmelkamp, Monsma, & Brilman, 1987) and the airline industry
(Merritt, 2000).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.S. Merkin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 213–228 215

According to Reese (1999), resolving inconsistencies of previous results with later

results or theories is a primary motivation for conducting replication research.
Moreover, a number of researchers have noted that there is a paucity of replication
studies in the social sciences (Madden & Easley, 1995; Neuliep & Crandall, 1991;
Schneider, 2004). Others who argue for replication studies point out that social scientific
work requires many replications in order to establish a database of facts (Hunter, 2001).
For these reasons, a replication of Hofstede’s cultural dimension theory will be carried
out with UA in an interpersonal context to help verify whether Hofstede’s cultural UA
conceptualization can help explain and predict interpersonal intercultural interactions in
six countries: Chile, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Sweden and the United States.
USA Americans are weak in UA. Therefore, American travelers trying to establish
their influence abroad assume that their communication attempts are attended to by their
receivers without interference caused by uncertainty. If the traveler’s influence target
possesses strong UA, however, xenophobia, as described by Hofstede (1980, 2001), will
be strong.
If communication targets have strong UA, they first try to reduce uncertainty before
attending to influence attempts. Uncertainty is a diffuse feeling with no probability
attached to it as in the case of risk. To reduce uncertainty, people with strong UA take
measures such as ritualistic behaviors and customs to escape from ambiguity (Hofstede,
2001). Efforts to conceptually replicate UA, in a facework context, as set forth by
Hofstede (1980) takes into account the ritualistic practices enacted in the presentation of
one’s face.

1.1. Face

Face can be viewed as one’s public self-image. One’s face resides in ‘‘the flow of
events in the encounter’’ (Goffman, 1967, p. 7). Face is only meaningful, however, when
perceived in relation to others (Ho, 1976). One’s face does not reside in the individual,
but is negotiated between parties. We present a respectable front to others when
managing different relationships. This front or ‘‘line’’ (Goffman, 1955) is a pattern of
verbal and nonverbal acts carried out to express our view of a situation.
Ting-Toomey (1988) described face as an identity that is conjointly defined by the
participants and the setting. Thus, the definition of face is also situational (Goffman,
1967; Tracy, 1990). This is also the case according to linguistic politeness theory (Brown
& Levinson, 1987), as well as in intercultural applications of face-negotiation theory
(Morisaki & Gudykunst, 1994; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Ting-Toomey, 1988, 1994,
2005; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998).

1.2. Facework

Goffman (1967) defines facework as actions taken by people to make whatever they
are doing consistent with face. When a person’s face is threatened, facework is the
necessary action taken to restore one’s desired identity. Facework researchers (e.g.,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
216 R.S. Merkin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 213–228

Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Ting-Toomey, 2005) tend
to look at particularly face-threatening contexts (e.g., requests, conflict, embarrassment)
in order to study the facework strategies people use to manage such situations.

1.3. Embarrassment: a face-threatening context

Embarrassment i.e., self-conscious distress, unlike shame and guilt, occurs in a social
context (Edelmann, 1981; Tangney, Miller, Flicker, & Barlow, 1996) and is likely to be
accompanied by blushing, smiling, or feelings of foolishness (Buss, 1980).
Embarrassment results from deficiencies in one’s presented self (Klass, 1990;
Modigliani, 1968; Shott, 1979). According to facework negotiation theory (Ting-
Toomey, 1988) and subsequent research (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; TingToomey &
Kurogi, 1998), people in all cultures try to preserve and negotiate face in all
communication situations, but especially in a face-threatening embarrassment context
where a disturbance of the assumptions people make about one another in social
transactions could potentially occur (Gross & Stone, 1964). Therefore, this study was
carried out in the face-threatening context of embarrassment.
It is culture, not the situation, that determines one’s self and, in turn, one’s
corresponding face (Hofstede, 2001; Inkeles & Levinson, 1997). Where the situation does
play a part, however, is in the strategies that people use to present their face. The range of
strategies from which people may choose are, however, limited by their cultural values,
such as UA. Cultural factors can have an indirect effect on facework strategy choices
when mediated by individual-level factors (Gudykunst et al., 1996; Kim, Sharkay, &
Singelis, 1994; Singelis & Brown, 1995); but cultural factors can also have a direct effect
on facework strategy choices (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). It is the cultural-level
reactions during face negotiations that are the focus of this study.

1.4. Hofstede’s cultural findings

At the cultural level, according to Hofstede (2001), cultural dimensions are the shared
assumptions that vary from culture to culture. The assumption is that people who grow up
in the same place will share similar views about what is appropriate in everyday
communication. So, e.g., while it does not occur to USA Americans to mask or to be
embarrassed by a whole range of social customs, for members of strong UA cultures,
exposure during initiation ceremonies or other stylized rituals surrounded with special
sanctions can be extremely face-threatening (Lynd, 1958). Such face-threatening
situations arouse a need to utilize facework reflecting their strong UA. In turn, scripts,
such as rituals, are adhered to more strictly. Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) conception of UA
will be considered, and then applied to the process of facework and its relationship to
intercultural interactions.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.S. Merkin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 213–228 217

1.5. UA and the need for control

Because uncertainty-avoiding cultures shun ambiguous situations, the stronger a

culture’s tendency to avoid uncertainty, the greater its need for rules (Hofstede, 2001).
Examples of uncertainty-avoiding rituals that embody the rules are the writing and filing
of memos and accounting. Other such rituals include family celebrations and academic,
religious, and state ceremonies. Hofstede points out that rituals like these allow
individuals to feel they control their future.
Internally, when doubt replaces basic trust in the way of life of one’s social group or in
one’s place in it, one’s sense of identity can be undermined (Lynd, 1958). Therefore,
one’s social group and its corresponding communication rituals take on a great
importance to culture members with strong UA. This is because the violation of social
communication rules could possibly lead to a loss of face. For example, in strong UA
cultures, people pay particular attention to fashion in order to feel protected when facing
a threatening world (Mooij, 1998). Protected feelings result because being in fashion is
always looked upon as being properly dressed. As long as one’s appearance is
fashionable, one is protected from painful reflections that might otherwise be experienced
when becoming an object of attention in interactions (Simmel, 1957).
During an interaction to establish control, members of strong-UA cultures aim to
impart their communication rules or rituals explicitly in order to prevent the actor from
engaging in unpredictable communication that might be face-threatening. Culture
members with strong-UA have a strong need for clarity (Hofstede, 2001). Clear low-
context messages are characterized by spelling things out (Hall, 1976). ‘‘There is a
natural tendency to feel a kind of security by a language of signs whose meaning does not
alter’’ (Lynd, 1958, p. 118). Communication that includes free verbal play with its
inevitable risks of misunderstanding is for such strong UA persons something to be
feared. Without the armor of verbal specificity, individuals with strong UA cannot feel
secure in their beliefs (Joost, 1952).
Because strong-UA cultures have formal rules for interaction (Gudykunst &
TingToomey, 1988), their motivation to control communication to avoid facethreatening
uncertainty is often translated into behavior attempting to endorse explicit predictable
ritualistic practices. Thus, the following hypothesis is posed:

H1:. Members of strong-UA cultures are more likely to communicate ritualistically than
members of weak-UA cultures.

Whereas members of weak-UA cultures generally attempt to appear collected and

unruffled to maintain smooth conversations, members of strong-UA cultures possess a
high degree of anxiety when faced with uncertainty (Hofstede, 2001). This anxiety leads
members of strong-UA cultures to show their emotions more than members of weak-UA
cultures (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988). Therefore, they may be lacking the ability
to express harmonious social graces. Thus, the following hypothesis is posed:
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
218 R.S. Merkin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 213–228

H2:. Members of strong-UA cultures are less likely to use harmonious facework
strategies than members of weak-UA cultures.

The same anxiety that is likely to dissuade strong-UA culture members from
expressing harmonious facework may also influence their facework into becoming
antisocial. While members of strong-UA cultures are subject to the same discerning
conversational demands as conversational senders, they may demonstrate hostile
facework strategies. Hofstede (2001) pointed out the paradox that in strongUA cultures
they are often more prepared to engage in a fight with a potential opponent rather than
just sitting back and waiting. Thus the following hypothesis is posed:

H3:. Members of strong-UA cultures will be more likely to respond to facethreatening

acts with aggression than members of weak-UA cultures.

2. Method

2.1. Design and statistical procedures

The purpose of this study is to execute a replication test of Hofstede’s (2001) UA

dimension by analyzing UA’s effect on facework in six cultures. To this end, a
multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) design was used to test the main effect
of Hofstede’s (2001) UA dimension on facework strategies. The covariate of social
desirability was included as a control (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). The sample size
necessary for adequate power in the hypotheses using MANCOVA designs is 58 subjects
per group (Lauter, 1978) and according to Cohen (1988), 70 subjects per group. All
samples had more than 70 participants.

2.2. Participants

Hofstede (1980) specified that the best way to operationalize culture would be to use a
matching sample because if subjects were matched on as many characteristics as possible
(e.g., age, education, and sex), such factors could not act as competing effects with the
calculation of cultural effects. Thus, for the most part, the participants in this study, all
college students within the native culture being studied, were matched in age, education,
and sex (see Table 1).
A total of 658 college students participated in this study: 442 women and 216 men.
These participants represented the following six countries: Japan, Sweden, Israel, Hong
Kong, Chile, and the United States. Ninety-eight students from Tezukama College in
Nara, Japan, made up the Japanese sample. The total Hong Kong sample included 92
participants who came primarily from Hong Kong Baptist University (n ¼ 60) and
secondarily from the Chinese University of Hong Kong (n ¼ 32). The Israeli sample (n ¼
81) came primarily from three sources: Haifa University, Bar Ilan University, and Tel
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.S. Merkin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 213–228 219

Aviv University. The Chilean sample (n ¼ 70) came primarily from two places: the
University of Chile and Universidad Diego Portales. The 92 Swedish participants came
primarily from three universities: the University of Lund, the University of Hogskolan
Trollhattan-Uddevalla, and the Royal Institute of Technology/Stockholm. Finally, the
United States sample (n ¼ 241) came from a large Midwestern University.
Table 1
Demographic Information About Test Participants

Item Chile Israel Japan Sweden USA Hong Kong

Mean age 21.04 23.32 19.15 23.26 19.52 17.68
SD 7.29 4.12 1.56 10.85 2.98 11.63
Mean education 15.49 14.11 13.04 14.70 14.25 14.32
SD 1.59 1.40 2.21 3.42 1.44 2.81
] Males 20 20 32 31 31 22
Percent males 28.60% 24.70% 32.70% 33.70% 33.70% 27.20%
] Females 50 61 63 59 59 59
Percent females 71.40% 75.30% 64.30% 64.10% 64.10% 72.80%
Note: SD ¼ standard deviation.

2.3. Experimental procedure

Instructors (i.e., college professors) who were teaching in their own native culture
contacted students to be studied. This study was part of a larger one where respondents
read a vignette (see Appendix A) representing a face-threatening situation and rated nine
different strategies (i.e., consultation expectations during organizational change, direct,
indirect, self-attribution, harmonious, ritualistic, hostility, cooperative, and competitive)
in terms of likelihood of use. Respondents were presented with these face-saving
strategies and were asked to indicate on a fivepoint Likert scale the extent to which they
would use each strategy. The questionnaires were distributed to students in class and
collected when they finished. USA respondents and because they were bilingual,
respondents from Hong Kong, Israel, and Sweden received questionnaires in English.
The Hispanic subjects filled out the questionnaire in Spanish. Their questionnaire was
translated into Spanish by one person and back-translated by a different translator to
assure the translation’s validity. The same procedure was repeated for the Japanese
participants. Subjects were told to work through their booklet at their own speed.

2.4. Instrumentation

Hofstede (1994) developed the Value Survey Module (VSM 94) in order to measure
cultural dimensions from actual population data. The VSM 94 is made up of five four-
item questionnaire segments used to compare culturally determined values between
people from different countries. Each four-question set allows for an index score
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
220 R.S. Merkin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 213–228

calculation. Six questions provide demographic data. All of the questions are scored on
five-point scales. The total scores are derived from the mean scores on the questions for
national samples of respondents. The actual calculations from Hofstede’s VSM 94
measure was employed for this study (see Table 2).
Table 2
Country scores in UA

Country VSM UA calculations Hofstede’s calculated scores

United States 77 46
Sweden 67 29
Hong Kong 90 29
Japan 73 92
Israel 61 81
Chile 93 86
A few studies have recalculated the reliability and validity of the dimensions of the
VSM 94. For example, using the VSM 94, Earley and Stubblebine (1989) found the
reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for UA subscale to be .75. Shackleton and Ali (1990)
retested the factor structure of Hofstede’s dimensions for four countries and confirmed
the same factors (dimensions) as Hofstede (1980). This established further construct
validity for the VSM 94. Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988) established the VSM 94’s
convergent validity by finding a number of correlations in their predicted direction.
While Hofstede’s (1980) country classifications were originally chosen to test UA,
VSM 94 results indicated that value changes have taken place since 1980. As a result,
cultures did not actually rank in UA the way Hofstede originally ranked countries on this
cultural dimension. This study used the VSM 94 results as a basis for determining strong
and weak UA.
A scale to measure ritualized behaviors was constructed because no instrument already
existed to measure them (see Appendix B). A pilot test that used 200 USA students was
conducted and yielded a reliability of .80 for ritualized behaviors. The ritualized
behavioral items were constructed on the basis of Hofstede’s (1980) description of how
uncertainty avoiding individuals use routinized behavior. The new scale had been
constructed with Hofstede’s theory in mind. Further validation and testing of the
Intercultural Ritualism Scale was carried out as well (Merkin, 2004).
Harmony strategies were measured using Cocroft’s (1992) construction of response
items because Cocroft (1992; Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994) had successfully utilized
these response items with Japanese and USA respondents. The strategy responses
corresponding to harmony strategies were factor analyzed and represented by a separate
factor (Merkin, 2004). This supports the construct validity of these response items.
Reliabilities of harmony items were as follows: Chile .50; Hong Kong .68; Israel .79;
Japan .69; Sweden .68; and the USA .70.
Aggression responses were measured by Buss and Durkee’s (1957) irritability subscale
of their Hostility Inventory. This scale’s reliability was tested during a pilot study and its
reliability was .72. The Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI; Buss & Durkee, 1957)
is a widely used measure of hostility. The BDHI is composed of 66 items and seven
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.S. Merkin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 213–228 221

hostility subscales. A total measure of hostility is assessed by this scale by summing the
seven hostility subscale scores. Estimates of internal consistency were made by Tangney,
Wagner, Fletcher, and Gramzow (1992) for the inventory subscales. The Cronbach alphas
ranged from .57 for Indirect Hostility to .78 for Assault. Buss (1961) found the Irritability
subscale, used in this study, to yield a test–retest reliability (over a 5-week period) of .65.
The original scale items are in true–false form; however, in the current study participants
rated each item on a fivepoint scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree
(5) to obtain an interval-level measure of hostility.
Social desirability was measured using the Crowne and Marlowe (1960) Social
Desirability Scale. Original scale internal consistency was .88. The scale’s test–retest
value was .89 (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960).

3. Results

This study attempted to conceptually replicate Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) UA by testing

his conceptions in the context of how UA influences facework strategy choices in an
embarrassing situation. Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 predicted that UA would influence
facework in a face-threatening situation. Using data from six countries in order to find out
if social desirability concerns might affect the results, an analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was conducted to see if there were significant differences in this measure by country
(culture). ANOVA results showed that Chilean responses were significantly lower than
all of the other countries tested and that the other five countries tested did not differ from
one another. Thus, for all this analysis, a MANCOVA with social desirability as the
covariate was employed to control for any differences between samples. Bartlett’s test of
sphericity (923.27, [1, 44], po:0001) indicated that multivariate analysis of covariance
was warranted. The dependent variables were facework strategies: ritualism, harmony,
and aggression. The independent variable was UA. The multivariate main effect for UA
was significant, Wilk’s l¼ :82, F(9, 636) ¼ 15.14, po:0001, Z2 ¼ :18. There were
significant univariate effects for ritualism, F(2, 643) ¼ 12.71, po:0001, Z2 ¼ :04,
harmony, F(2, 643) ¼ 23.27, po:0001, Z2 ¼ :07 and aggression, F(2, 643) ¼ 105.87,
po:0001, Z2 ¼ :25.
Members of strong-UA cultures (M ¼ 3:51, SD ¼ :65) utilize more ritualistic
strategies than members of weak UA cultures (M ¼ 3:26, SD ¼ :61). Moreover, strong
UA culture members harmonize less (M ¼ 2:07, SD ¼ :56) than weak UA culture
members (M ¼ 2:39, SD ¼ :61). Finally, aggression is employed to a greater extent by
strong UA culture members (M ¼ 3:43, SD ¼ :59) than by weak UA culture members
(M ¼ 3:35, SD ¼ :61).
VSM 94 findings indicated that cultures originally ranked according to UA by
Hofstede (1980) have changed their cultural values (see Table 2). While Chilean values
remained about the same in terms of UA ranking, VSM 94 calculations for the other five
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
222 R.S. Merkin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 213–228

cultures tested differed to a large extent. The largest change occurred in respondents from
Hong Kong who went from scoring high in UA to scoring low in UA.
4. Discussion

4.1. Findings in relation to hypotheses

This research posed three hypotheses conceptually replicating Hofstede’s research with
a face-threatening situation by testing specific facework strategies (i.e., ritualism,
harmony, and aggression) that Hofstede stated are used by members of strong-UA
cultures. All three hypotheses conceptually supported Hofstede’s (1980) original notion
of UA. When attempting to be influential with strong-UA culture members, as
Hypothesis 1 findings showed, cultural members strong in UA are more ritualistic than
weak-UA cultural members. Hypothesis 2, that people from strongUA cultures are less
likely to use harmonious facework strategies than people from weak-UA cultures was
also supported. When UA is so strong, harmonious behavior may not be attempted.
Correspondingly, as this study demonstrated, the more likely response of strong-UA
culture members to uncertain situations is hostility. As Hofstede (2001) pointed out,
uncertainty is to risk as anxiety is to fear. Hence, UA is a gnawing feeling that leads
people to sometimes prefer risky communication such as aggression over harmonious
communication which is often safer in terms of the interpersonal ramifications that could
result.

4.2. Implications

This study indicated support for Hofstede’s notion of UA with the case of facework
communication. Results showed that UA influences people’s assumptions about
ritualistic, harmonious, and aggressive communication. An example of how ritualistic
communication preferences might be enacted follows.
Hofstede (1980) described a business dinner party taking place between members of
two cultures varying in UA: Chinese (strong UA) and Canadians (weak UA). The dinner
party was hosted by the Canadians who wanted to conduct business with the Chinese.
The Chinese had ritualistic expectations as to how a dinner party should be carried out:
i.e., there would be one senior-age host offering a welcoming toast at the beginning of the
meal. The Canadians, however, had two hosts and did not offer a welcoming toast. Thus,
the Chinese participants would not receive the Canadian business offer. They were too
overwhelmed with uncertainty to proceed. Instead, they abruptly ended the evening and
left. The lack of attention to Chinese ritualistic practices on the part of the Canadians was
considered to be rude by the Chinese. This exemplification shows how strong-UA
operates in Asian cultures where Hofstede and Bond’s (1984) LTO is also high.
Additionally, this conceptual replication helps explain how Hofstede’s UA dimension is
operative in intercultural interactions. Finally, these results show the value of paying
careful attention to ritualistic practices during interactions with members of strong-UA
cultures.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.S. Merkin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 213–228 223

Support for this study’s second hypothesis that members of strong-UA cultures are less
likely to use harmonious facework strategies than members of weak-UA cultures applies
to intercultural interactions. Brislin, Cushner, Cherrie, and Yong (1986) presented an
example of an American businessman (weak UA) who thought he had adjusted well to
Japanese culture (strong UA), at least until tried to bring up a last minute correction to a
proposal he had previously circulated to a group of Japanese businessmen. In response to
his introduction of uncertainty, his Japanese counterparts, who normally would use
harmonious strategies to smooth over rough situations, responded to this infraction with
silence and refused the entire proposal. This exemplification also shows how UA operates
in Asian cultures where Hofstede and Bond’s (1984) LTO is high. Hofstede’s (1980,
2001) UA dimension appears to be internally present during intercultural interactions.
Hypothesis 3, that members of strong-UA cultures will be more likely to respond to
face-threatening acts with aggression than members of weak-UA cultures, is connected to
the tension created by uncertainty. We respond emotionally to violations of what we
believe to be natural (Chen & Starosta, 1998). Yet, what we believe to be natural is to a
large part culturally determined. When we are kept waiting or people stare at us too long,
we may get angry. Such anger is hard to control. Thus, as these findings show, those who
are strong in UA also have trouble being harmonious and tend toward aggressive
responses.
When faced with uncertainty, strong-UA culture members filter out the senders’
messages and focus on reducing uncertainty instead of listening to others’ messages. The
implications of these findings, therefore, are that when people try to initiate
communication with members of strong-UA cultures, it is important to take into
consideration their responses to the introduction of uncertainty during communication. It
is important to understand cultural rituals and norms of strong-UA culture member
behavior before initiating communication, making it more likely that communication
attempts are attended to, understood, and accepted—not simply rebuffed.
This analysis is guided by a general theory of national cultures developed by Hofstede
(1980, 2001) that views culture as the mental programming inherent in the self. Although
more qualitative approaches to culture call for analyses based on symbolic interaction
with more thick descriptions of culture (Degabriele, 2000), culture was analyzed here as
determining people’s automatic gut reactions. While identity is negotiated and complex
webs of human interactions exist, one’s gut responses reflect one’s ‘‘programming of the
mind’’ (Hofstede, 2001). These automatic reactions and corresponding communication
behaviors are worthwhile to be reflected upon because they represent a person’s initial
instinctive reaction which can often not be masked or socialized away. Innate
‘‘programming’’ of the kind to which Hofstede (2001) refers is instructive because it
helps to explain what people from strong or weak UA might be thinking during
intercultural interactions. While cultural thoughts (i.e., UA) might not be as actively
displayed as actual verbal or nonverbal communication, in the case of UA, such thoughts
may result in antisocial communication that may hinder effective interactions between
parties from different cultures. Thus, this replication of Hofstede’s (1980) original results
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
224 R.S. Merkin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 213–228

indicates that UA is still part of the mental programming lurking in people’s minds when
they are engaging in cross-cultural interactions.
4.3. Limitations

The self-report data collection method used in this study has both strengths and
limitations. Specifically, the self-report method has the advantage of being able to
measure information that is carried around in respondents’ heads and not readily
available using observational techniques. The disadvantage of this method, however, is
that respondents are not actually carrying out the behaviors they are reporting they would
intend to carry out. On the other hand, traditionally, facework studies have been carried
out using this method (e.g., Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Imahori, 1994; Oetzel &
Ting-Toomey, 2003; Oetzel et al., 2001; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991) because it is difficult
to measure phenomena that reside inside a person’s mind using other methodologies. The
questionnaire was also anonymous and an independent social desirability scale was
administered to assure that there were no differences between the samples in this
measure. Thus, despite the above concerns, self-report measures were used.
This study employed a convenience sampling technique because the conditions under
which the questionnaires were given out made it impossible to facilitate random sampling
and random assignment. However, according to the central limit theorem, if summed
variables are calculated with large samples, the distribution will be approximately normal
(Norusis, 1991). Given the large sample used in this study, results should be
generalizable.

4.4. Future directions

Previous research has debated the viability of Hofstede’s notion of UA (Degabriele,

2000; Hunt, 1981; McSweeney, 2002). The current findings, on the other hand, lend
conceptual support for Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) conceptualization of UA. Therefore,
implications for facework can be discussed more broadly. Future investigations on which
sender communication strategies effectively reduce uncertainty in strong UA receivers
should be conducted. If such strategies could be identified, a greater understanding
between different cultural parties could result. If communication could be identified that
functions to reassure strong-UA culture members and change their focus from fear of
uncertainty to more relaxed communication processes, greater trust could be developed
and more purposeful, fruitful intercultural interactions could take place in the future.
Future research should also investigate UA’s effects in other facework contexts such as
conflict, where the strategies influenced in this study by UA (i.e., ritualistic, harmonious
and aggression) could have implications for continuing or diffusing intercultural conflict
more or less readily. As a final point, Triangulating this study with observational studies
in the future would support these findings to a larger extent.

5. Conclusion
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.S. Merkin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 213–228 225

This study aimed to conceptually replicate Hofstede’s (1980) UA dimension in a

facework context to be able to apply his theory in a more expanded context.
While this study replicated his UA construct with facework, the results reported here
expand to interpersonal intercultural interactions. The indications of this study’s results
could help identify new underlying cultural perspectives.

Appendix A. Face-Threatening Scenario used in test

How would you respond

Please answer all the following questions by marking the response that best describes
how you would respond in the situations described. There are no right or wrong answers.
(Please respond to all the questions.) After reading the scenario below, please indicate the
extent to which you might respond in the way indicated in each statement.
If you strongly agree with the statement, circle 1; if you strongly disagree, circle 5.
Circle any number between 1 and 5.
Imagine that you are traveling in another country as a tourist and you are the only
person from your country in the city you are currently visiting. While visiting a restaurant
in this city you knock your full glass of red wine onto the floor. It shatters and the wine
goes everywhere. Everyone in the restaurant sees this.

Appendix B. Ritualized Behavior Questionnaire

How often do the following statements below apply? Please indicate the extent to
which the following occur in your culture. If it NEVER occurs, circle 1; if it RARELY
occurs, 2; if it SOMETIMES occurs, 3; if it OFTEN occurs, 4; and if it ALWAYS occurs,
5.

NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES OFTEN ALWAYS 1.

In my culture, we have formal routines that
we follow with business associates................1 2 3 4 5

2. In my culture we value formal introductions

and leave-taking.............................................1 2 3 4 5

3. People from my culture develop routinized

communication patterns with their close
associates ......................................................1 2 3 4 5

4. In my culture, there are particular

communication routines that people use
when communicating with strangers..............1 2 3 4 5
5. In my culture, we distinguish between different
relationships by the way we say
"hello" or "good-bye." .....................................1 2 3 4 5
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
226 R.S. Merkin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 213–228

6. In most of the families of my culture,

there are unspoken rules that we
follow
during family occasions..................................1 2 3 4 5
References

Arrindell, W. A., Eisemann, M., Oei, T. P. S., Caballo, V. E., Sanavio, E., Sica, C., Bages, N., Feldman,
L., Torres, B., Iwawaki, S., Hatzichristou, C., Castro, J., Canalda, G., Furnham, A., & van der Ende, J.
(2004). Phobic anxiety in 11 nations: Part II. Hofstede’s dimensions of national cultures predict national-
level variations. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 627–643.
Arrindell, W. A., Emmelkamp, P. M. G., Monsma, A., & Brilman, E. (1987). The role of perceived parental
rearing practices in the aetiology of phobic disorders: A controlled study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 143,
183–187.
Brislin, R. W., Cushner, K., Cherrie, C., & Yong, M. (1986). Intercultural interactions. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Burgoon, J. (2005). Expectancy violations and interaction adaptation. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing
about intercultural communication (pp. 149–171). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Buss, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley.
Buss, A. H. (1980). Self-consciousness and social anxiety. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Buss, A. H., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 21, 343–349.
Chen, G-M., & Starosta, W. J. (1998). Foundations of intercultual communication. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
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. K., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Facework in Japan and the United States. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 18, 469–506.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for behavioral sciences. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349–354.
Degabriele, M. (2000). Business as usual: How business studies thinks culture. M/C: A Journal of Media and
Culture, 3, 1–5.
Earley, P. C., & Stubblebine, P. (1989). Intercultural assessment of performance feedback. Group and
Organization Studies, 14, 161–181.
Edelmann, R. J. (1981). The state of embarrassment. Current Psychological Reviews, 1, 125–138.
Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication, 11, 141–148.
Goffman, E. (1955). On face work. Psychiatry, 18, 213–231.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York: Doubleday.
Gross, E., & Stone, G. P. (1964). Embarrassment and the analysis of role requirements. American Journal of
Sociology, 70, 1–15.
Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S. (1996). The
influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construals, and individual values on communication
styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22, 510–543.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Culture and affective communication. American Behavioral
Scientist, 31, 384–400.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.
Helmreich, R. L., & Merritt, A. C. (1998). Culture at work: National, organizational, and professional
influences. London: Ashgate.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.S. Merkin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 213–228 227

Ho, D. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 867–884.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1994). Value Survey Module. Maastricht, The Netherlands: Institute for Research on Intercultural
Cooperation.
Hofstede, G., (2001) (2nd Edition). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1984). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: An independent validation using
Rokeach’s value survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 417–433.
Hofstede, G., Bond, M. H., & Luk, C. (1993). Individual perceptions of organizational cultures: A
methodological treatise on levels of analysis. Organization Studies, 14, 483–503.
Hoppe, M. H., (1991). A comparative study of country elites: International differences in work-related values
and learning and their implications for management training and development. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Hunt, J. W. (1981). Applying American behavioral science: Some cross-cultural problems. Organizational
Dynamics, 10(1), 55–62.
Hunter, J. E. (2001). The desperate need for replications. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 149–158.
Imahori, T. T. (1994). A cross-cultural comparison of the interpretation and management of face: USA.
American and Japanese responses to embarrassing predicaments. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations,, 18, 193–219.
Inkeles, A., & Levinson, D. J. (1997). National character: A psycho-social perspective. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Joost, A. M. (1952). Conversation and communication: A psychological inquiry into language and human
relations. International Universities Press.
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.
Klass, E. T. (1990). Guilt, shame and embarrassment: Cognitive–behavioral approaches. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.),
Handbook of social and evaluation anxiety (pp. 385–414). New York: Plenum Press.
Lauter, J. (1978). Sample size requirements for the T2 test of MANOVA. Biometrical Journal, 20, 389–406.
Lynd, H. M. (1958). On shame and the search for identity. New York: Harcourt Brace & World, Inc.
Madden, C. S., & Easley, R. W. (1995). How journal editors view replication research. Journal of Advertising,
24, 1–13.
McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede’s model of national culture differences and their consequences: A triumph of
faith—A failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55, 89–118.
Merkin, R. (2004). Conceptualization and measurement of intercultural ritualism. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Eastern Communication Association, Boston, MA.
Merritt, A. (2000). Culture in the cockpit: Do Hofstede’s dimensions replicate? Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 31, 283–301.
Modigliani, A. (1968). Embarrassment and embarrassability. Sociometry, 31, 313–326.
Mooij, M. (1998). Masculinity/femininity and consumer behavior. In W. J. Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.),
Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national cultures (pp. 55–72). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Morisaki, S., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1994). Face in Japan and the United States. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The
challenge of facework (pp. 47–94). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Neuliep, J. W., & Crandall, R. (1991). Editorial bias against replication research. In J. W. Neuliep (Ed.),
Replication research in the social sciences (pp. 85–90). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Norusis, M. N. (1991). SPSS/PC+ student software plus. Chicago: Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
228 R.S. Merkin / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 30 (2006) 213–228

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.
Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Matsumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., 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, 235–258.
Reese, H. W. (1999). Strategies for replication research exemplified by replications if the Istomina study.
Developmental Review, 19(1), 1–30.
Schneider, B. (2004). Building a scientific community: The need for replication. Teachers College Record, 106,
1471–1483.
Shackleton, V. J., & Ali, A. H. (1990). Work-related values of managers: A test of the Hofstede model. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 109–118.
Shott, S. (1979). Emotion and social life: A symbolic interactionist analysis. American Journal of Sociology,
84, 1317–1334.
Simmel, G. (1957). Fashion. The American Journal of Sociology, 62, 541–558.
Singelis, T. M., & Brown, W. J. (1995). Culture, self, and collectivist communication: Linking culture to
individual behavior. Human Communication Research, 21, 354–389.
Smith, P. B. (2002). Culture’s consequences: Something old and something new. Human Relations, 55, 119–
135.
Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and the values of organizational
employees. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 231–264.
Stohl, C. (1993). European manager’s interpretations of participation: A semantic network analysis. Human
Communication Research, 20, 97–117.
Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Are shame, guilt, and embarrassment distinct
emotions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1256–1269.
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P., Fletcher, C., & Gramzow, R. (1992). Shamed into anger? The relation of shame and
guilt to anger and self-reported aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 669–675.
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. (1994). Face and facework: An introduction. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The challenge of
facework (pp. 307–340). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.),
Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 211–234). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S., Lin, S., & Nishida, T. (1991). Culture, face
maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A study in five cultures. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 2, 275–296.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated
facenegotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187–225.
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: Wiley.