Face Concerns in Intra and Intercultural Business Communication

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjic20
Face Concerns in Intra- and Intercultural Business

Communication
Ekaterina Vasilyeva, Maria Bultseva & Nadezhda Lebedeva
To cite this article: Ekaterina Vasilyeva, Maria Bultseva & Nadezhda Lebedeva (2022): Face
Concerns in Intra- and Intercultural Business Communication, Journal of Intercultural
Communication Research, DOI: 10.1080/17475759.2022.2161602
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2022.2161602
Published online: 30 Dec 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 158
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjic20
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2022.2161602
Face Concerns in Intra- and Intercultural Business

Communication
Ekaterina Vasilyeva , Maria Bultseva and Nadezhda Lebedeva
Centre for sociocultural research, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow,
Russian Federation
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study examined the impact of communication context on face Received 10 November 2021
concerns in business interactions. In previous research face con Accepted 15 December 2022
cerns were studied across cultures, but here for the first time KEYWORDS
compared within intra-and intercultural business communication Face; communication;
settings. The study aims at investigating whether the priority of face intercultural communication;
concerns is the same or different in intracultural and intercultural business negotiations; face
face-threatening business communication. We hypothesized that concern
managers would apply different face concerns in response to face
threatening acts in interactions with either their compatriots or
people from foreign cultures. We surveyed 380 Russian business
professionals working in international companies. To measure face
concerns we adapted the questionnaire by S. Ting-Toomey and
J. Oetzel to the Russian sample. We compared two contexts using
t-test and rmANOVA. Results showed a significant difference
between face concerns in managers behaviour in intercultural and
intracultural communication. Managers tend to employ either self-
face or mutual-face rather than other-face concern in intracultural
communication. On the contrary, they prefer mutual-face rather
than self-face or other-face concerns in intercultural communica
tion. These results provide empirical evidence that Russian man
agers create public image in business interactions considering
cultural differences and modify their behaviour to fit the context.
Introduction
Nowadays, the increased connectedness between regions and countries, fast pace of
globalization, and emergence of global economies and markets make intercultural com
munication extremely important for the success of most international business opera
tions (Szkudlarek et al., 2020). Effective communication positively affects both
organizational and individual well-being in a business context. For instance, it contri
butes to successful entry on new markets (Slangen, 2011), performance of international
ventures (Liu et al., 2015), and knowledge sharing within organizations (Tippmann et al.,
2014). Effective communication in intercultural business settings helps expatriates to
adjust better (Farh et al., 2010), be more successful in intercultural negotiations (Liu et al.,
2015), and promotes expatriates’ well-being and job satisfaction (Wang et al., 2020). Even
more than that, intercultural business interactions are increasing not only
CONTACT Ekaterina Vasilyeva edvasilyeva@hse.ru

© 2022 World Communication Association
2 E. VASILYEVA ET AL.
internationally, but also within one’s home country (Henderson, 2005; Gluszek &
Dovidio, 2010), for example, on business negotiations.
Managers face various challenges in international business negotiations. People tend
to employ strategies to remedy the damage while coping with difficult situations. The
process aimed at managing one’s impression in social interaction is closely related to the
concept of face (Carson & Cupach, 2000). The process of face-saving takes place when
individuals follow mutually accepted norms and social roles. When expectations are not
met, grounds for disagreement and a threat to lose one’s face occur (Bousfield, 2018; Kim
& Nam, 1998). The intention to save face may define the quality of relationships. In
response to the reactions of the partner, one needs to choose how to negotiate the
relationship and what strategies to adhere. People who share the same (or similar) culture
can tacitly understand the intentions of each other and communicate successfully.
However, having been brought up in different cultures, they may experience misunder
standing more often, including face issues (Merkin, 2006).
Currently, the available research mainly focuses on cross-cultural comparison of face
concerns and facework (Zhang et al., 2019, 2014). These studies are a valuable source for
comparison of culturally determined behaviour within an intracultural setting. However, the
interaction itself, or what is going on when people from different cultures communicate, i.e.
the intercultural focus, has not been studied sufficiently (Szkudlarek et al., 2020). There is
a lack of empirical evidence of difference between face-concerns and facework of members of
the same ethnic group in different contexts, meaning intra- and intercultural communication
situations. So, this study aims at investigating whether the priority of face concerns is the
same or different in intracultural and intercultural face-threatening business communication.
Face concerns and their determinants

Ting-Toomey defines face as “an image of a person projected into a situation of relations,
or an identity jointly determined by the participants in communication” (Ting-
Ting‐Toomey, 2015, p. 73). In social psychology, the conceptualization of face has
been shifted towards a concern for identity (Cupach & Imahori, 1993; Domenici &
Littlejohn, 2006; Ting-Toomey, S, 2005). While identity is treated as situated within an
individual, face is usually seen as a relational phenomenon (Spencer-Oatey, 2007). Face is
what one thinks of oneself, also what one thinks others should think of his/her worth.
Face concerns is the starting point for understanding face and facework since it deter
mines an individual’s interest and direction of the subsequent messages and can drive the
affective, behavioural, and cognitive dimensions (Ting-Toomey, S, 2005). On the emo
tional level, face-threatening acts may arouse identity-related vulnerable emotions, when
such acts are performed with insufficient facework and relational work (see, e.g. Locher &
Watts, 2005). On the cognitive level, there can be a discrepancy between the way one is
expected to be treated and the reality of how the other person evaluates ones’ self-worth.
For that reason, face is a valuable identity resource in communication (Ting-
Ting‐Toomey, 2015).
Y. Kim says that the desire of a communication participant to take care of their own
face or the face of a partner is influenced by factors of different levels: cultural, individual
and situational (Kim, 2005). Various research show cross-cultural variations in percep
tion of face threatening acts and face-work intensity (e.g. Haugh & Chang, 2019; Sifianou,
JOURNAL OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 3
2012, 2019; Spencer-Oatey, 2005, 2007). Qualitative study of intercultural business

communication between Russian and Chinese showed that FTA in business setting
mostly concerns a threat to a professional role. Situations when respondents’ professional
identity or competence questioned were perceived as FTA (Vasilyeva, 2020).
There is a need to maintain a positive self-image and consider other identity within
and beyond an actual encounter. Face concerns or face orientations determine the focus
with which the face negotiator will direct their attention and energy of the subsequent
messages. According to the model introduced by Ting-Toomey and colleagues, there are
three face concerns, i.e. self-face, other-face, and mutual-face within Face Negotiation
theory (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). Self-face is a positive concern for one’s own
image. Other-face is a primary concern for another person’s image, and mutual-face is
the simultaneous concern for parties’ images and/or the “image” or responsibility for the
relationship.
Previous researchers show that individual characteristics (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey,
2003; Spencer-Oatey, 2007), culture (Merkin, 2006; Ting-Toomey, S, 2005), and situa
tional conditions (Carson & Cupach, 2000) influence face concerns. On individual level,
scholars analysed personal traits (Liu et al., 2005), self-esteem (Hodgins et al., 1996;
Holtgraves, 2009; Tuncel et al., 2020), interdependent and independent self-construals
(Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003), and values (Hui & Bond, 2009) as possible antecedents
for face concerns. Since face is considered to be a relational phenomenon, context factors
can affect face-concerns in interaction (Han, 2016). They include a wide range of aspects,
including out-group and in-group interaction (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2002), face-to-
face and online communication settings (Setijadi, 2019), organizational and academic
context (Tehrani & Yamini, 2020), closeness of the relationship between interlocutors
(Oetzel et al., 2001), and the characteristics of the counterpart, such as status, age, and
gender (Brew & Cairns, 2004; Ng, 2017).
Previous studies investigate substantially cross-cultural differences in face concern
(Merkin, 2006; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Ting-Toomey, S, 2005). The way of
judgment and perception of an individual’s face is culture specific, as it depends on
cultural values (Ho, 1994; Spencer-Oatey & Wang, 2019). Individualism-collectivism
dimension (Hofstede, 2001), is often used as an initial frame in explaining why people
differ in their face expectations and face-concerns across cultures. The difference
between individualistic and collectivistic cultures is partly based on different attitudes
towards in-group and out-group distinctions (Triandis, 1995). Collectivists place inter
ests, goals, and well-being of in-group members ahead of those of out-group members.
However, this distinction is not as much pronounced among individualists. It has been
revealed that members of collectivistic cultures with interdependent selves are more
prone to have higher levels of other-face and mutual-face concerns (Oetzel & Ting-
Toomey, 2003). Yet, some research show that in Russian context there is an opposite
tendency (see, e.g. Larina & Ponton, 2022). Gong et al. (2021) have identified biological
and genetic grounds for a high level of social face (other-face and mutual-face) among
collectivists (mainly Chinese). Oetzel also found that collectivists tend to pursue self-face
in formal communication and other-face in communication with close ones, while
individualists do not possess such a distinction. (Oetzel et al., 2001). At the same time,
according to Aliakbari and Amiri, collectivistic values mainly influence face concern in
informal situations. Such values are less salient and less influential to face concerns in
formal occasions when individuals are less attached to their group’s interests and are
more inclined to reach their personal goals (Aliakbari & Amiri, 2016). Thus, culture
creates a frame for managing any communication via interaction of contextual, relational
and identity factors (Zaidman & Holmes, 2009). However, business communication has
its own specificity independent of cultural effects.
Business communication and face concerns

Norisada (1993, p. 47) defines business communication as “communication in the
workplace with the goal of having fixed, practical efficacy”. In other words, business
communication is mainly concerned with utilitarian discourse (Scollon, 1995). It is
oriented on effective, anti-rhetorical, individualistic, and public interactions (Zaidman,
2001), which help to achieve organizational goals via establishment of different business
relationship (Brunner, 2008; Gray & Robertson, 2005). Thus, business perspective
requires taking into consideration pragmatic aspects of communication represented by
the organizational context and necessity to follow the roles as well as business etiquette
and norms of reciprocity which can be culturally determined (Cai & Donohue, 1997).
However, it’s worth noting that such interactions can be based on either the competitive
or the cooperative orientations, while dominance and emotionally expressive style are
associated with self-face; and cooperation, concessions, and compromise are associated
with other-face and mutual-face (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). This actualizes the
question of behaviour in business negotiations, which are the primary type of business
interactions outside the one’s department or organization.
Business negotiations are defined as a reciprocal communication process in which two
or more parties to a dispute examine specific issues, explain their positions, and exchange
offers and counteroffers in an attempt to identify a solution or outcome that is acceptable
to all parties (APA Dictionary of Psychology, 2020). Historically, the negotiation field has
been dominated by a focus on economic outcomes (Mestdagh & Buelens, 2003), defined
as the explicit terms of an agreement (Thompson, 1991), yet a growing body of research
argues for the importance of social psychological outcomes, such as relational capital
among negotiating parties, satisfaction with outcome, achievement of pre-negotiation
goals (Curhan et al., 2006; Gelfand et al., 2006; Wilken et al., 2013).
According to the dual concern model (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986), negotiators have two
types of concerns – concern for their own outcomes and concern for the outcomes of
others. When both concerns are moderately high, negotiators are likely to integrate the
interests of both sides. Different outcome may arise from discrepancy of self-interests,
when one negotiator’s goals are more easily met than the other’s. The first negotiator may
not be motivated to continue the negotiation once her or his goals have been met, and so
the dyad reaches premature closure (Brett & Okumura, 1998). However, if negotiators
become disproportionately concerned about the welfare of others, to the extent of
undermining their own personal aspirations, this can result in mutual yielding or
premature compromise on sub-optimal agreements (Ben-Yoav & Pruitt, 1984; De Dreu
et al., 2000).
When both parties are highly concerned about building or maintaining relationships,
a process called “relational accommodation” may unfold (Wilken et al., 2013). Gelfand
et al. (2006) theorized that negotiating parties who are both very high in relational and
self-concern accessibility should be (1) less effective at creating high joint economic
outcomes (i.e. “enlarging the pie”) yet (2) more effective at fostering relational capital.
Gelfand et al.’s first proposition, that focusing on relationships reduces bargaining
efficiency, is consistent with dual concern theory (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986) and supported
by results of several previous studies comparing negotiations among parties who have or
lack close person ties (Bazerman et al., 2001). Negotiations occurring within these
relational contexts tend to result in lower joint economic outcomes yet, in certain
cases, greater relational satisfaction (Curhan et al., 2008). Probably it means that different
face-concerns lead to different outcomes, and, subsequently, may be applied to achieve
different aims in a business context. For that reason, we need to specify which context of
business interactions makes the relational versus economic outcomes more salient.
Face concerns in intra- and intercultural business interactions

There is a large difference between domestic and international business transactions.
Intracultural context means communication with members of the same culture, sharing
the same communication norms, while intercultural context means communication with
representatives of different cultural group. In the domestic environment, business trans
actions are handled as a part of general business management. The studies on the
effectiveness of business communication in two settings suggest that intercultural nego
tiations generate lower joint gains than intracultural negotiations because of a strategic
misalignment between the parties (Adair et al., 2001, 2009; Brett & Okumura, 1998;
Usunier, 2003). In business interaction in intracultural context, people face fewer exter
nal barriers pursuing their commercial goals. Differences in culture, legal pluralism,
monetary factors, ideological diversity, and greater uncertainty distinguished interna
tional business negotiations from intracultural negotiations (Luo & Shenkar, 2002).
Furthermore, individuals behave in consistency with their cultural values only when
context triggers relevant implicit theories of agency – certain dispositional attributions
about reasons for actions in social situations (Morris et al., 2001). That means that
culturally consistent behaviour is expected to occur in interactions with individuals
who hold the same cultural values (Zou et al., 2009). Communicators perceive their
intracultural counterpart to value social face similarly as they do (Robbins & Krueger,
2005), so they align their behaviour in accordance with common views and expectations.
Communication is easier to manage in terms of mutual understanding when commu
nicators have similar assumptions based on common culture, history, and life experience
(Scollon & Scollon, 2001). So, business professionals may concentrate more on the
message they need to convey and aims they want to achieve than on the relations,
while the way of communication and establishing business relationship in particular
context is clear for both sides. That’s why one can expect that self-face will be highly
pronounced in intracultural business communication. Yet, this does not mean that the
preservation of one’s self-face will occur to the detriment of the mutual-face. On the
contrary, we would like to emphasize the importance of the mutual-face in the business
context, as it allows not only to save one’s self-face securely, but also to increase one’s
status in the in-group. For instance, previous studies identified that support for mutual-
face in the organizational context not only helps to adapt well, but also motivates people
to show disagreement in order to initiate positive changes (Croucher et al., 2020).
Therefore, mutual-face is associated with and can be perceived as a more active and direct
behaviour representing care for the in-group well-being.
As for intercultural context, there is no consensus on whether business profes
sionals extend their domestic negotiation styles to intercultural business commu
nication. On the one hand, there is a body of research that advocates universal rules
of business communication (David et al., 1994). On the other hand, in intercultural
settings, negotiators lack a shared basis of knowledge and attitudes, which limits the
creation of trust and sympathy that can improve problem-solving and cooperative
behaviours (Bushe & Coetzer, 2007; Mohammed & Dumville, 2001; O’Connor et al.,
2010). Due to cultural differences, intercultural communication is much more
challenging than an intracultural one (Ding, 2003; Lázár, 2017; Matsumoto &
Hwang, 2011; Zaidman, 2001). Kameda (2005) describes six major problems in
intercultural business interactions: foreign law problem, currency exchange risk
problem, country risk or sovereign risk problem, international civil procedure
problem, foreign language problem and intercultural understanding problem.
Among them, intercultural understanding is listed last, but should not be under
estimated. It is very likely that problems unthinkable to domestic businesses will
arise in a business that does transactions in a world of intercultural differences in
language, culture, and customs. In case of diverse teamwork, a lot of frustrations
and barriers for effective work may occur (Levitt & Neckermann, 2014). Differences
in preferred communication styles may lead to slow pace of decision-making and to
weakening of social ties (Lauring, 2011). So substantial efforts should be made in
a cooperative mode (Kecskes, 2017) as communicators need to create common
grounds, language processable by others and stable relationship first as
a prerequisite for further discussion. In addition, intercultural communication
process is more stressful than the intracultural one due to anxiety, possible negative
attitudes, lack of competence working in cultural diversity (Jiao et al., 2020).
Operating in an intercultural setting leads to an increase in a face threat sensitivity,
and the decrease in a persons’ self-esteem, making them less demanding (Tuncel
et al., 2020). So, to adapt successfully in a situation of intercultural communication,
an individual needs to be attentive to others; especially when interaction has
a conflict potential. Indeed, studies show that mutual adaptation in intercultural
negotiations, are not only needed but actually happen in order to resolve conflicts
(Adair et al., 2001, 2009). At the same time, an emphasis on self-awareness can lead
to maladaptation (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2020).
Current study
Based on the information above, several assumptions can be made about intracultural
and intercultural business communication:
(1) business communication is mainly about formal interactions (Gong et al., 2021) –
we assume that underlines the importance of self-face;
(2) business interactions are mainly about negotiations, which are the process of
mutual give-and-takes (Croucher et al., 2020) – we assume that makes mutual-
face important for the success of communication;
(3) practitioners may use different strategies of communicative behaviour depending

on their aims (De Dreu et al., 2000) and depending on their culture and commu
nicative ethno-style” (e.g. Larina, 2015);
(4) intracultural business context is relatively less challenging in terms of building the
mutual understanding and gives a possibility to concentrate on economic goals
(Lázár, 2017) – so we assume self-face is more salient;
(5) intercultural business context is more challenging and requires concentrating on
the relationship and mutual understanding first (Jiao et al., 2020) – we assume that
mutual-face or even other-face become extremely important;
(6) intercultural business context is more stressful, one needs to adapt to a diversity,
and studies show that sensitivity to others should prevail over concentration on
self (Gong et al., 2021) – so, we assume self-face should be less pronounced than
social self (mutual- and other-face).
Considering for these assumptions, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 1: self-face (a) and mutual-face (b) are more pronounced face concerns than
other-face in intracultural communication.
Hypothesis 2: mutual-face (a) and other-face (b) are more pronounced than self-face in
intercultural business communication.
Hypothesis 3: mutual-face (a) and other-face (b) concerns are more pronounced in
intercultural rather than in intracultural communication, while self-face (c) concern is
more pronounced in intracultural rather than in intercultural communication.
Methods
Participants
There were 380 participants surveyed online. The total sample included Russian man
agers from local and international companies with extended experience in business
negotiations (mean age = 33, SD = 7.2, range: 25–50; 48% female). We recruited
participants from two major Russian IT communication corporations. IT industry can
be described as a hyper-competitive (Bogner & Barr, 2000) and highly stressful for the
employees (Padma et al., 2015), that makes conflicts with perspective partners as well as
question of the importance of face concerns during these conflicts especially acute. Both
companies take a primary position in Russian IT industry (Ministry of Digital
Development, 2021). Even more than that, corporate culture of both companies is
based on the same principles – namely, democratic style of management and prevalence
of non-formal over formal style in communication (Filatova & Anikina, 2015; Sosnilo &
Snetkova, 2018).
The questionnaires were introduced to employees of these companies with the
permission and help of their HR managers. On the one hand, this way of sampling
assured better quality of filled questionnaires and higher response rate. It also
allowed reaching business professionals with extended experience of business nego

tiations. It’s worth noting that we didn’t provide any report to HR department and
participation was anonymous, so social desirability was minimized. On the other
hand, there were some restrictions from HR managers. In this regard, a limit was set
on the amount of time that the participant spent on completing the survey. For that
reason, in each company we could use only one version of the questionnaire –
either on intra- or intercultural context of communication. First company employ
ees, who participated in this study, were mostly involved in business communication
with their Russian partners. For that reason, this company employees received
questionaries with intracultural communication context. While second company
employees, who participated in this survey, mostly interacted with partners from
different countries. For that reason, this company employees received questionaries
with intercultural communication context. Based on the total sample, two sub-
samples were created.
The first sub-sample included respondents who filled in the questionnaire concerning
the intracultural context of communication. Russian participants reflected on the actual
encounter with their Russian business partners while filling in the questionnaire
(N = 137, 60% female, mean age = 33, SD = 7.5). A second sub-sample included the
respondents who filled in the questionnaire concerning the intercultural context of
communication. Russian participants reflected on the actual encounter with their inter
national business partners, specifying their cultural background (N = 243, 43% female,
mean age = 33, SD = 7.3). In an intercultural context, Russian respondents described
their behaviour in a situation of interaction with representatives of 28 countries. Further,
in the analysis, we combined these countries into 6 regions: post-Soviet countries –
Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan (15 people), Asia (49 people), Africa (13 people), North
America (19 people), Western Europe (104 people), Southern Europe (24 people). At the
same time, the main most frequent language of communication in an intercultural
context was English (80.5%), the second in frequency was Russian (12.8%), the rest
were the national languages of the counterparts.
Procedure
The study had a cross-sectional design with two sub-samples. The respondents assessed
their behaviour in an actual business conflict between themselves and people from the
same or different culture. Control variables were the gender and age of the respondent, as
well as the status, gender and culture of the recipient.
Data collection was done using a snowball approach. The overwhelming majority of
respondents were recruited through their companies, with the permission of their HR-
manager. The 1 ka.si platform was chosen to conduct the questionnaire. So, we posted the
questionnaire online and distributed links to it, via email. The research participants
received a free online masterclass on the topic of intercultural communication as
gratitude.1 We warned respondents that participation is anonymous, and data will be
processed in a general way. Respondents were not paid for participation. The terms of
participation did not imply time limits. On average, the questionnaire required 30 min
utes to complete.
As for the questionnaire structure, first, participants read the information about the
study and signed a consent form. Only if they pressed the button “agree”, they were
redirected to the next page of the questionnaire. Next, we followed the research proce
dure proposed by Oetzel et al. (2001). It suggests that respondents are asked to recall
a conflict. Conflict was defined for the participants as any “intense disagreement between
two parties that involves incompatible goals, needs, or viewpoints”. So, the participants
were asked to recall a particular conflict and respond to a series of questions about that
conflict. Conflict situation was used as a face threatening situation in business interac
tion. Even though every business interaction involves face issues, face concerns may
operate in a background mode. Ting-Toomey argued that everyone has face concerns,
managing face is especially critical during conflict (Oetzel et al., 2008). So, conflict was
used for the purpose of priming face sensitive situation.
After that, we asked a few questions about the counterpart of the recalled conflict –
their status (subordinate, superior or equal – partner or colleague), gender and culture.
Finally, respondents answered questions regarding their socio-demographic character
istics. In the current study, we used two versions of questionnaire – one for the
intracultural context of communication and the other for the intercultural context of
communication. Each respondent received only one version of the questionnaire. The
questionnaire was in Russian.
Measures
Face concerns were measured with an adapted version of Ting-Toomey and Oetzel scale
(Oetzel et al., 2008) for self-concerns that included 3 sub-scales. Since the original ques
tionnaire was in English, prior the main study we conducted the translation into Russian and
back translation along with cognitive interviews with the Russians (N = 6). Some of the items
for other-face and self-face scales were not fully clear for respondents; they also got low factor
loadings in CFA (lower than .3) in this study (based on the results of CFA on the total sample:
χ2(13) = 151.23, p < .001, CFI/TLI = .93/.89, RMSEA [90% CI] = .09 [.06, .15]). So, in order to
get an appropriate model fit and reliability, we shortened three scales. As a result, self-face
scale included five items, for example, “I was concerned with not bringing shame to myself”.
The other-face scale included 5 items, for example, “My concern was to act humble in order to
make the other person feel good”. Mutual-face included four items, for example, “Relationship
harmony was important to me”. All the items were measured using five-point Likert-type
scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Final CFA results for this
modified version of the instrument were: χ2(20) = 1.679, p = .030, CFI/TLI = .975/.955,
RMSEA = .056, PCLOSE = .355. The reliabilities of these three scales were calculated
Cronbach Alpha approach and Composite Reliability approach. Two of them were applied
as the final structure of the instruments was based on the CFA results, while Composite
Reliability approach might be slightly more accurate in that case (Peterson & Kim, 2013).
Cronbach Alpha’s for the total sample were ⍺ = .79 for other-face, ⍺ = .78 for self-face, and
⍺ = .80 for mutual-face; while Composite reliability scores for the total sample were: CR = .81
for other-face, ⍺ = .84 for self-face, and ⍺ = .82 for mutual-face.
As this study compares the importance of face concerns in two different contexts, we
also specified the reliabilities for two subsamples used. Cronbach Alpha’s for the inter
cultural subsample were ⍺ = .72 for other-face, ⍺ = .69 for self-face, and ⍺ = .81 for
mutual-face; while Composite Reliability scores for the intercultural subsample were:
CR = .74 for other-face, CR = .72 for self-face, and CR = .82 for mutual-face. Cronbach
Alpha’s for the for intracultural subsample were: ⍺ = .73 for the other-face, ⍺ = .69 for the
self-face, ⍺ = .78 for the mutual-face; while Composite Reliability scores for the intra
cultural subsample were: CR = .76 for other-face, CR = .73 for self-face, and CR = .80 for
mutual-face. The scores for each subscale were averaged to create a composite score
(Oetzel et al., 2001).
Data processing
To process the data, we used the statistical package SPSS 27.0 and AMOS. In the preliminary
analysis, we checked the missing data and outliers. CFA and reliability analysis were
performed for the items of face-concerns sub-scales. Next, the assumption of normally
distributed difference scores was examined. Further, we calculated the descriptive statistics
for three face concerns as well as sample description and correlations between variables
(Table 1). To test the Hypotheses, within-group analysis using paired-samples t-test was
performed separately for each sub-sample and ANOVA was performed. Post hoc tests were
applied using Bonferroni adjustment.
There was no significant difference in age and gender of respondents between two
subsamples. In intracultural sub-sample 45% were men, age M = 33.7 (SD = 6.8) and in
intercultural sub-sample 50% were men, age M = 33.5 (SD = 7.3). In intercultural
communication context females were significantly related to the preferences towards
self-face concerns, while in intracultural context other-face was more pronounced when
communicating with men (Table 1).
Results
Face concerns in intracultural communication
Comparison of face concerns priorities among respondents involved in intracultural com
munication (Table 2) showed significant differences between self-face and other-face, as well
as between other-face and mutual-face. There were no significant differences between self-
face and mutual-face concerns. So, we found that Russian managers tend to apply either self-
face or mutual-face rather than other-face concerns in communication with members of the
same (native) culture. These results fully support the first hypotheses of the study.
Face concerns in intercultural communication

Comparison of the face concerns priorities among respondents involved in intercultural
communication (Table 3) showed that there were significant differences between self-
face and mutual-face, as well as between other-face and mutual-face. There were no
significant differences between self-face and other-face. We found that Russian managers
were more prone to use mutual-face rather than self-face or other-face concerns in
communication with their foreign partners. These results fully supported the second
hypothesis of the study in terms of the highest priority of mutual-face; and partly rejected
it due to low priority of other-face in intercultural communication.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables for Intracultural and Intercultural
sample.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Intracultural context (n = 137)
1. Gender –
2. Partners’ gender - -
3. Status −.14 .09 -
4. Self-face .09 .04 −.09 -
5. Other-face −.04 −.22** −.11 .23** -
6. Mutual-face .08 −.01 −.06 .25** .53** -
Mean 4.0 3.28 3.90
SD .64 .78 .85
Intercultural context (n = 243)
1. Gender -
2. Partners’ gender - -
3. Status .06 −.04 -
4. Self-face .15* .10 .04 -
5. Other-face .11 −.02 −.004 .30** -
6. Mutual-face .07 .00 .01 .41** .56** -
Mean 3.80 3.78 4.32
SD .79 .74 .76
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Table 2. Results of T-test for face concerns in intracultural communication.

Face concerns M SD t(130) p Cohen’s d
SF-OF .712 .890 9.159 .000 .717
MF-SF −.091 .928 −1.129 .261 .756
OF-MF −.620 .794 −8.950 .000 .818
Note: SF – self-face, OF – other face, MF – mutual face; *p < .05. **p < .01.
Intra- and intercultural contexts of communication

Further, a one-way within subjects (or repeated measures) ANOVA was conducted to
compare the effect of the interaction context (intracultural and intercultural) on Self-face,
Other-face and Mutual-face concerns (Table 4). Significant differences were found in self-
face, other-face as well as mutual-face. We take the values of the t-test for unequal variances
since the variance for the intercultural context according to Levene’s test is greater.
Thus, it is possible to compare face-concerns in two contexts using repeated measures
ANOVA, where face is within subject factor, and the intergroup factor is the context
(intracultural and intercultural) of communication. According to Box’s test results (Box’s
M = 16.276, F (6) = 2.685, p = 0.013) and Mauchly’s test of sphericity (Mauchly’s
W = 0.932, p < 0.001), the application of the Greenhouse-Geisser test will be adequate.
Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity has been violated (χ2
(2) = 24.64, p < 0.001). Therefore, degrees of freedom were corrected using Greenhouse-
Geisser estimates of sphericity (ε = 0.93).
The results showed that there was a significant difference between face concerns, and
there was also an interaction of face-concerns and context of communication (Table 4).
The result of applying Greenhouse-Geisser test for intragroup effects (F
(1.87,655.31) = 79.45, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.185) showed significant differences in face-
concerns. Also, there was a significant interaction of face concerns and the context of
interaction (F (1.872,655.313) = 34.665, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.09). The intergroup effects
Table 3. Results of T-test for face concerns in intercultural communication.

Face concerns M SD t(220) p Cohen’s d
SF-OF .007 .894 .125 .900 .759
MF-SF .514 .840 9.097 .000 .779
OF-MF .537 .702 − 11.395 .000 .751
Note: SF – self-face, OF – other face, MF – mutual face; *p < .05. **p < .01.
Table 4. Sample analysis of variance (ANOVA) table.

Intracultural context Intercultural context
Variables N M SD N M SD F(1) η2
Self-face 137 4.00 0.64 243 3.80 0.79 5.537 .016*
Other-face 137 3.28 0.78 243 3.78 0.74 38.911 .100**
Mutual-face 137 3.90 0.85 243 4.32 0.76 22.106 .059**
*p < .05. **p < .01.
showed the difference between the two contexts in terms of the overall score: F (1,
350) = 13.971, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.038.
The ANOVA analysis (Table 5) showed that there is a significant difference between each
of face concerns in intracultural and intercultural context of communication. Post-hoc tests
revealed that mutual-face was more pronounced in intercultural communication than in
intracultural communication. Self-face on the contrary was more preferable in intracultural
context. Other-face was the least salient face concern in both contexts, yet it was more
pronounced in intercultural communication (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Face concerns by communication context.

Table 5. One-Way Analysis of Variance of face concerns by communication context.

Face concerns df SS MS F p
Self-face Between Groups 3.50 1 3.50 6.40 0.01
Within Groups 206.73 378 0.54
Total 210.24 379
Other-face Between Groups 21.90 1 21.90 38.46 0.00
Total 237.16 379
Mutual-face Between Groups 15.45 1 15.45 24.54 0.00
Total 253.49 379
To sum it up, significant differences in the three modes of face concerns were found
within and between two contexts of communication – intercultural and intracultural
communication settings. Intraculturally, self/mutual-face were more pronounced than
other-face, but interculturally, mutual-face was more pronounced than self/other-face.
Thus, mutual-face was more pronounced than other-face similarly across both contexts,
while self-face concern was dependent on the context. Finally, between contexts compar
ison revealed significant differences in all three face concerns.
Discussion
This article was dedicated to the investigation of face-concerns in intra- and intercultural
business communication. We have obtained results showing that, indeed, priorities of
face-concerns are different depending on the context of communication. To begin with,
we fully supported our first hypothesis, stating that self-face and mutual-face are more
pronounced face concerns than other-face in intracultural business communication. So,
the results showed that self-face and mutual-face were equally important, while other-
face was less important among Russian managers during the conflict with other Russians.
Our second hypothesis, that mutual-face and other-face are more pronounced than self-
face in intercultural business communication, was partly supported, regarding mutual-
face. However, the importance of other-face and self-face was approximately equal for
Russian managers interacting with an international counterpart. So, we identified that
mutual-face was the most pronounced and other-face was the least pronounced in both
intra- and intercultural business communication. Finally, regarding our third hypothesis,
we have found that self-face was more pronounced while mutual-face and other-face
were less pronounced in intracultural than in intercultural communication. That means
that co-creation of mutual understanding is granted not only by attention to the other
person and reciprocal aims, but also by lower salience of one’s own face concern.
Let’s discuss the importance of particular face concerns in two contexts of commu
nication from a comparative perspective and considering both universal patterns. It is
also important to address the specificity of Russian culture. Although Russian culture is
usually classified as a collectivistic one, there is a peculiar feature of Russian collectivism
representing the high motivation to get and secure dominant position in the in-group
(Elenkov, 1997; Michailova & Hutchings, 2006). That fact may help to explain the
obtained results more deeply.
To begin with, on the one hand, we identified the highest priority of mutual-face in
both contexts. On the other hand, it is still more prevalent in an intercultural context
than in intracultural context. The importance of mutual-face in intra-cultural commu
nication may indicate the desire to keep the balance between instrumental and relational
goals in the business communication. Previous studies showed that the conflict between
instrumentality (material benefits and extrinsic aims) and relations (friendship between
organizations) undermines business outcomes (Grayson, 2007). Mutual-face also helps
to achieve other aims in addition to the instrumental ones. As for intercultural commu
nication, both the leading priority and higher level in comparison with intracultural
context may represent the necessity for adaptation and creation of mutual understanding
in intercultural communication. For example, Kern et al. (2012) showed that intercul
tural negotiators, who had used language that promoted an understanding of the other
party and reduced the social distance, would realize higher joint gains than intracultural
negotiators who did not. In psychological theory, this preliminary process of adaptation
is named development of the “negotiated culture” (Brannen & Salk, 2000). It implies that
the new context- and situation-dependent “culture” of communication is discovered and
co-created by communicators from different cultures during the negotiation process.
After this new “culture” is created, principles and positions of the participants become
clear that leads to a more effective communication. That’s in line with the ideas of Ruhi
(2010) that face management strategies are oriented not only towards current interac
tional goals, but also towards future interaction and long-term goals which can help the
whole organization to succeed. Another important issue is that communication in
a business context is highly ritualized, and etiquette plays a great role in forming the
patterns of behaviour (Kurbakova et al., 2020). Etiquette provides universal rules that
mutual respect is welcoming – both individualistic and collectivistic countries don’t
approve use of strategies which lead to a loss of face for their counterparts during the
negotiations (Zarkada‐Fraser & Fraser, 2001). From this perspective, more pronounced
care for mutual face in intercultural interactions may be perceived as a sign of higher
intercultural and professional competences, so it is socially desirable and acceptable.
Next, our findings regarding other-face is rather novel. Other-face and mutual-face
are sometimes viewed as one entity or the process of giving face in an actual interaction
(Gong et al., 2021). We based our second and third hypotheses about the high impor
tance of both mutual-face and other-face concerns on the idea that both of them help to
establish the positive relationship (Zhang et al., 2014), which is necessary for intercultural
adaptation. Indeed, such a social other-oriented focus is necessary for building mutual
trust and understanding which grant for creation of a “negotiated culture” (Clausen,
2007). However, while we supported this assumption regarding between groups compar
ison, at the same time we found the lowest priority of other-face in both contexts
regarding within groups comparison. So other-face is more pronounced in intercultural
communication in comparison to intracultural communication. These findings may
advocate for a complex consideration of fundamentally different roles of two types of
Social-face concerns in a business context, as they provide different perspectives for
achievement of economic goals. It was found that the higher concern for the other-face
maintenance leads to the higher preference for non-forcing (obliging, avoiding, integrat
ing, and compromising) conflict styles (Kim et al., 2004). However, in business commu
nication disproportional concern about the welfare of others may lead to mutual yielding
or premature compromise on sub-optimal agreements (Ben-Yoav & Pruitt, 1984; De

Dreu et al., 2000). So other-face concern is probably associated with hindering commer
cial goals’ achievement (Kameda, 2005), while mutual-face concern helps to keep the
balance between instrumental and relational aims.
To consider the culture-specific explanation of differences in mutual-face and other-
face, both in intra- and intercultural communication, we can apply the ideas proposed by
“cultural logics” (Leung & Cohen, 2011) for interpretation. “Cultural logics” implies that
cultural differences are formed as a result of interpersonal communication and participa
tion in particular situations, which are widespread in particular contexts (cultures and
countries). The cross-cultural study of Smith and colleagues have revealed that unlike
other collectivistic cultures Russians (in particular, who live in Moscow, the same as
majority of our respondents) prefer dignity cultural logic, but not face cultural logic
(Smith et al., 2021). The key difference between the two is that dignity logic underlines
the self-worth of each individual but has lower other-face concern. The same results were
found for some individualistic cultures such as UK, Australia, Canada, but not for
collectivistic cultures as Japan.
Finally, we identified that the importance of self-face depends on the context in both
senses. First, it plays a leading role in face concerns priorities (together with mutual-face)
in intracultural communication, and it is more pronounced in intracultural than in
intercultural communication. Generally, the importance of self-face may reflect the
idea that business relations are instrumental for achieving economic purposes (Ingram
& Roberts, 2000). Even more than that, one of the key factors which help to establish
business friendship is reputation (Gao et al., 2016). So, being an attractive business
partner is crucial for successful business interactions. However, while the instrumental
aims can be achieved more easily in the intracultural context, intercultural communica
tion requires some additional adaptation. Intercultural communication is characterized
by additional challenges related to language barriers, negative stereotypes, prejudice,
increased stress etc. So, the situation of intercultural conflict can give fewer opportunities
for dominating behaviour (Batkhina & Lebedeva, 2019). For example, it has been found
that Russians more often used competing strategies with Russians than with foreigners,
and vice versa for accommodating strategy (Batkhina, 2020).
While the lower preference for self-face in intercultural communication can be easily
explained via universal patterns, we find it useful to discuss the results about intracultural
context in relation to Russian culture. Probably, the reason for a high importance of self-
face also can be at least partly explained by the fact that Russian culture is slowly
becoming more and more individualistic (Giacobbe-Miller et al., 2003; Naumov &
Puffer, 2000). Collectivism and individualism coexist in Russian society (Mamontov
et al., 2014; Velichkovsky et al., 2019). Studies show that some Russians prefer collecti
vistic values, others prefer individualistic ones; however, the biggest part of Russians has
mixed preferences (Voskresenskaya, 2020). Russian collectivism has features of self-
serving individualism (Ledeneva, 2008). Russian leaders are often described as author
itarian, assertive, competent but free from rules applicable to others (subordinates; Puffer
& McCarthy, 2011). So, on the one hand, representatives of Russian business can be
oriented on more “one shot” strategies rather than cooperative ones due to the economy
still being under transition (Kuznetsov & Kuznetsova, 2005). On the other hand, socio-
economic changes motivate Russians to modify their behaviour to fit new conditions of
hybrid culture (Valitova & Besson, 2018); thus, perception of the situation and the
counterpart matters.
Overall, the concept of face concerns, operationalized within Face negotiation theory,
may have expanded application in analysis of intercultural interactions. Our study has
revealed differences in face concern priorities in intra- and intercultural business interaction.
The obtained findings contribute to studies of face concerns by, first, identifying different
roles of two types of social face concerns; and secondly, by revealing differences for
intracultural and intercultural business communication. So, this study expands the under
standing of the Face negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, S, 2005) in different contexts, taking
into consideration the peculiarities of business communication and cultural fit in commu
nication (the same culture versus different cultures). Business professionals care a lot for
mutual-face concern, while other-face concern is significantly less pronounced in both types
of interactions. However, the priority of self-face concern varies depending on the counter
part belonging either to the same (in our case, Russian) culture or to a foreign one. Our
conclusions support the findings from other research which demonstrate people’s tendency
to take into consideration cultural differences and modify their behaviour in order to fit in
with the situation and expectations about other cultures (Rao & Hashimoto, 1996; Thomas
& Ravlin, 1995). However, many cultural, situational, and individual factors influencing face
concerns and behaviour strategies associated with them are still to be explored.
Limitations and future directions of the study

Though we obtained novel and significant results in the study, it still had several
theoretical and methodological limitations which may be addressed in future research.
First, the current study analysed face concerns separately from facework behaviours, that
have been an integral part of Face Negotiation theory. Future research may include both
face concerns and facework to provide more complex analysis of behaviour patterns in
face threatening situations. Previous studies identified that for Russian managers situa
tions when respondents’ professional identity or competence questioned were mainly
perceived as face threatening (Vasilyeva, 2020). So experimental studies with manipula
tion regarding assessment of professional identity or competence may contribute to the
better understanding of situational and contextual factors of face concerns and facework.
Second, instruments measuring face concerns needs additional adaptation and valida
tion on a bigger Russian sample. In this study, shortened version of the instrument was
used in the analysis. As the structure of scales used were based on the CFA results, we
mainly considered Composite Reliability scores which were slightly higher than alpha’s
and for all the scales fitted the required necessary threshold (.7). However, more elaborate
work on Russian version of the scales and inclusion of the bigger amount of items, could
make the future studies more convincing.
Third, since our results showed a difference between face concerns in intra- and
intercultural contexts, we find it useful for future research to include perceived threat
into analysis. To better understand the mechanism of saving face in communication, we
need to assess which situations are perceived as more face threatening in business
communication. Addressing the attributions of responsibility for the conflict, status
differences, type of communication, attitudes towards particular nations and cultures,
cultural distance and some situational conditions may be also useful for specifying
possible factors of face concerns in intercultural communication.
Fourth, we didn’t consider the cultural factors of business communication and face
concerns. Perhaps in future research, it could be useful to include such variables as
organizational culture, cultural values or idiocentrism/allocentrism. In addition, consid
eration for individual values, as motivational triggers, may help to increase exploratory
power of the study. To better understand cultural differences in face-saving processes,
future study may also focus on cross-cultural comparison of face concerns in intercul
tural communication with several samples from individualistic and collectivistic coun
tries. Also, future research might use the notion of collective face as a construct relevant
to the business communication context.
Next, it seems relevant to investigate face concerns in computer-mediated commu
nication facing the challenges of COVID-19 pandemic. Since recently most of the
international negotiations are held online, the role of ICT has significantly increased
(Almeida et al., 2020). Previous studies have shown that preferences in a choice of
channel of communication, to a high degree, can be explained via face concerns
(Ledbetter & Herbert, 2020). Application of face negotiation theory to different modes
of communication during a pandemic can be a promising direction of study aimed at
explaining both the well-being and efficacy of employees.
Finally, as for methodology, another limitation of this study is uneven sample sizes for
intercultural and intracultural communication. Also, we didn’t control for the intensity
and nature of the conflict, that could also have a potential explanatory power for
differences between two samples. Furthermore, we conducted intergroup rather than
intra group comparison (the same group of respondents in both contexts). To overcome
limitations related to a cross-sectional design and sampling, it could be useful to conduct
an experimental or quasi-experimental study that will address the face concerns’
dynamics within the same group of people.
Note
1. Around 50% of the participants, recruited from their companies, took part in these master
classes.
Biographical note
Mrs Ekaterina Vasilyeva, Research intern in the Centre for Sociocultural Research, National Research
University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation. ORCID: 0000-0002-7814-
953X, phone: +7(903)5656325. Address: 20 Myasnitskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, Russian Federation
Ms Maria Bultseva, PhD, Research Fellow in the Centre for Sociocultural Research, National
Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation. ORCID: 0000-
0002-5899-9916. Address: 20 Myasnitskaya Ulitsa, Moscow, Russian Federation
Dr Nadezhda Lebedeva, Doctor of Sciences, Director, Chief Research Fellow of the Centre for
Sociocultural Research, Professor, National Research University Higher School of Economics,
Moscow, Russian Federation. ORCID: 0000-0002-2046-4529. Address: 20 Myasnitskaya Ulitsa,
Moscow, Russian Federation
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
The article was prepared within the framework of the HSE University Basic Research Program
ORCID
Ekaterina Vasilyeva http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7814-953X
Maria Bultseva http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5899-9916
Nadezhda Lebedeva http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2046-4529
Data availability statement

Aggregated data available on request from the authors.
References
Adair, W. L., Okumura, T., & Brett, J. M. (2001). Negotiation behavior when cultures collide: The
United States and Japan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 371. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.86.3.371
Adair, W. L., Taylor, M. S., & Tinsley, C. H. (2009). Starting out on the right foot: Negotiation
schemas when cultures collide. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 2(2), 138–163.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2009.00034.x
Aliakbari, M., & Amiri, M. (2016). Personality, face concern, and interpersonal conflict resolution
styles: A case of Iranian college students. Personality and Individual Differences, 97, 266–271.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.068
Almeida F., Duarte, S. J., & Augusto M. J.The Challenges and Opportunities in the Digitalization of
Companies in a Post-COVID-19 World,in IEEE Engineering Management Review,vol. 48, no. 3,
pp. 97–103, 1 thirdquarter,Sept. 2020. doi:10.1109/EMR.2020.3013206
Batkhina, A. (2020). Values and communication apprehension as antecedents of conflict styles in
intercultural conflicts: A study in Germany and Russia. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace
Psychology, 26(1), 22–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pac0000429
Batkhina, A. A., & Lebedeva, N. M. (2019). Рredictors of behavioral strategy choice among
Russians in intercultural conflict. In Social psychology and society (pp. 70–91). Moscow State
University of Psychology and Education.
Bazerman, M. H., Curhan, J. R., & Moore, D. A. (2001). The death and rebirth of the social
psychology of negotiation. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of
Social Psychology: Interpersonal Processes (pp. 196–228). Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Ben-Yoav, O., & Pruitt, D. G. (1984). Resistance to yielding and the expectation of cooperative
future interaction in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20(4), 323–335.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(84
Bogner, W. C., & Barr, P. S. (2000). Making sense in hypercompetitive environments: a cognitive
explanation for the persistence of high velocity competition. Organization Science, 11(2),
212–226. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.2.212.12511
Bousfield, D. (2018). Face (t) s of self and identity in interaction. Journal of Politeness Research, 14
(2), 225–243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/pr-2018-0014
Brannen, M. Y., & Salk, J. E. (2000). Partnering across borders: Negotiating organizational culture
in a German-Japanese joint venture. Human Relations, 53(4), 451–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0018726700534001
Brett, J. M., & Okumura, T. (1998). Inter-and intracultural negotiation: US and Japanese
negotiators. Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 495–510. https://doi.org/10.5465/256938
Brew, F. P., & Cairns, D. R. (2004). Do culture or situational constraints determine choice of direct
or indirect styles in intercultural workplace conflicts? International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 28(5), 331–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2004.09.001
Brunner, B. R. (2008). Listening, communication & trust: Practitioners’ perspectives of business/
organizational relationships. The International Journal of Listening, 22(1), 73–82. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10904010701808482
Bushe, G. R., & Coetzer, G. H. (2007). Group development and team effectiveness: Using cognitive
representations to measure group development and predict task performance and group
viability. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 184–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0021886306298892
Cai, D. A., & Donohue, W. A. (1997). Determinants of facework in intercultural negotiation. Asian
Journal of Communication, 7(1), 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292989709388299
Carson, C. L., & Cupach, W. R. (2000). Facing corrections in the workplace: The influence of
perceived face threat on the consequences of managerial reproaches. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 28(3), 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880009365572
Clausen, L. (2007). Corporate communication challenges: A ‘negotiated’ culture perspective.
International Journal of Cross-Cultural Management, 7(3), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1470595807083376
Croucher, S. M., Kelly, S., Chen, H., & Ashwell, D. (2020). Examining the relationships between
face concerns and dissent. International Journal of Conflict Management, 32(1), 22–38. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-11-2019-0215
Cupach, W., & Imahori, T. (1993). Identity management theory: Communication competence in
intercultural episodes and relationships. In R. Wiseman & J. Koester (Eds.), Intercultural
Communication Competence (pp. 112–131). Sage.
Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., & Xu, H. (2006). What do people value when they negotiate?
Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91(3), 493–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.493
Curhan, J. R., Neale, M. A., Ross, L., & Rosencranz-Engelmann, J. (2008). Relational accommoda
tion in negotiation: Effects of egalitarianism and gender on economic efficiency and relational
capital. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(2), 192–205. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.02.009
David, K. T., Francis, J., & Walls, J. (1994). Cultural differences in conducting intra- and inter
cultural negotiations: A Sino-Canadian comparison. Journal of International Business Studies,
25(3), 537–555. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490211
De Dreu, C. K., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative
negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78(5), 889–905. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.5.889
Ding, D. D. (2003). The emergence of technical communication in China—Yi Jing (I Ching) the
budding of a tradition. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 17(3), 319–345.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651903017003003
Domenici, K., & Littlejohn, S. (2006). Facework. Bridging Theory and Practice. Sage.
Elenkov, D. S. (1997). Differences and similarities in managerial values between US and Russian
managers: An empirical study. International Studies of Management & Organization, 27(1),
85–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1997.11656703
Farh, J. L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much
and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1173–1180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020015
Filatova, O. V., & Anikina, E. O. (2015). Management in it-sector in Russia and in China: The
experiment of construction of organizational culture. RUDN Journal of Public Administration,
2, (In Russ.), 66–74. https://journals.rudn.ru/public-administration/article/view/6624
Gao, W., Liu, Y., & Qian, L. (2016). The personal touch of business relationship: A study of the
determinants and impact of business friendship. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33(2),
469–498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10490-016-9464-1
Gelfand, M. J., Major, V. S., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L. H., & O’Brien, K. (2006). Negotiating
relationally: The dynamics of the relational self in negotiations. Academy of Management
Review, 31(2), 427–451. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208689
Giacobbe-Miller, J. K., Miller, D. J., Zhang, W., & Victorov, V. I. (2003). Country and
organizational-level adaptation to foreign workplace ideologies: A comparative study of dis
tributive justice values in China, Russia, and the United States. Journal of International Business
Studies, 34(4), 389–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400040
Gluszek, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (2010). The way they speak: A social psychological perspective on the
stigma of non-native accents in communication. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14
(2), 214–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309359288
Gong, P., Guo, W., Zhang, X., Cao, K., Wang, Q., Zhang, M., . . . Zhou, X. (2021). Associations of
Chinese social face with cortisol level and glucocorticoid receptor gene. Current Psychology, 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01255-5
Gray, R., & Robertson, L. (2005). Effective internal communication starts at the top help executives
understand the need for clear, concise communication. Communication World - San Francisco,
22(4), 26–28.
Grayson, K. (2007). Friendship versus business in marketing relationships. Journal of Marketing,
71(4), 121–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.4.121
Han, K. H. (2016). The feeling of “face” in confucian society: From a perspective of psychosocial
equilibrium. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1055. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01055
Haugh, M., & Chang, W. L. M. (2019). “The apology seemed (in) sincere”: Variability in percep
tions of (im) politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.
2018.11.022
Henderson, J. K. (2005). Language diversity in international management teams. International
Studies of Management & Organization, 35(1), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2005.
11043722
Ho, D. Y.-F. (1994). Face dynamics: From conceptualization to measurement. In S. TingToomey
(Ed.), The challenge of facework (pp. 269–286). State University of New York Press.
Hodgins, H. S., Liebeskind, E., & Schwartz, W. (1996). Getting out of hot water: Facework in social
predicaments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 300–314. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0022-3514.71.2.300
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organi
zations across nations. Sage publications.
Holtgraves, T. (2009). Face, politeness and interpersonal variables: Implications for language
production and comprehension. In Face, communication and social interaction (pp. 192–207).
Equinox London, England.
Ingram, P., & Roberts, P. W. (2000). Friendships among competitors in the Sydney hotel industry.
American Journal of Sociology, 106(2), 387–423. https://doi.org/10.1086/316965
Jiao, J., Xu, D., & Zhao, X. (2020). The development and validation of an intercultural business
communication competence scale: evidence from mainland China. SAGE Open, 10(4), 4.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020971614
Kameda, N. (2005). A research paradigm for international business communication. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 10(2), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13563280510596970
Kecskes, I. (2017). The interplay of recipient design and salience in shaping speaker’s utterance. In
M. Ponte & K. Korta (Eds.), Reference and representation in thought and language (pp.
144–161). Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198714217.003.0009
Kern, M. C., Lee, S., Aytug, Z. G., & Brett, J. M. (2012). Bridging social distance in inter‐cultural
negotiations: “you” and the bi‐cultural negotiator. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 23(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444061211218294
Kim, Y. Y. (2005). Association and dissociation: A contextual theory of interethnic communica

tion. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 323–349).
Sage Publishing.
Kim, M. S., Lee, H. R., Kim, I. D., & Hunter, J. E. (2004). A test of a cultural model of conflict styles.
Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 14(2), 197–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/japc.14.2.
02kim
Kim, J. Y., & Nam, S. H. (1998). The concept and dynamics of face: Implications for organizational
behavior in Asia. Organization Science, 9(4), 522–534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.4.522
Kurbakova, S. N., Archakov, R. A., Kondratyev, E. G., Markova, T. S., & Kuzminova, O. A. (2020).
Improving the efficiency of intercultural business communication. International Journal of
Management, 11(5), 1–8. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3628955
Kuznetsov, A., & Kuznetsova, O. (2005). Business culture in modern Russia: Deterrents and
influences. Problems and Perspectives in Management, (2), 25–31.
Larina, T. (2015). Culture-specific communicative styles as a framework for interpreting linguistic
and cultural idiosyncrasies. International Review of Pragmatics, 7(2), 195–215. https://doi.org/
10.1163/18773109-00702003
Larina, T., & Ponton, D. M. (2022). I wanted to honour your journal, and you spat in my face:
Emotive (im) politeness and face in the english and Russian blind peer review. Journal of
Politeness Research, 18(1), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2019-0035
Lauring, J. (2011). Intercultural organizational communication: The social organizing of interac
tion in international encounters. The Journal of Business Communication, 48(3), 231–255.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943611406500
Lázár, T. (2017). Some sources of misunderstandings in intercultural business communication.
International Journal of Engineering and Management Sciences, 2(3), 91–101. http://dx.doi.org/
10.21791/IJEMS.2017.3.9
Ledbetter, A. M., & Herbert, C. B. (2020). Revisiting the impression management model: The
mediating role of net benefits, the moderating role of communication competence, and the
importance of mutual-face concern. Information, Communication & Society, 1–21. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1803945
Ledeneva, A. (2008). “BLAT” AND “GUANXI”: INFORMAL PRACTICES in Russia and China.
Comparative Studies in Society and History, 50(1), 118–144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0010417508000078
Leung, A. K. Y., & Cohen, D. (2011). Within-and between-culture variation: Individual differences
and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 100(3), 507–526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022151
Levitt, S. D., & Neckermann, S. (2014). What field experiments have and have not taught us about
managing workers. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 30(4), 639–657. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1093/oxrep/grv003
Liu, L., Adair, W., & Bello, D. (2015). Fit, misfit, and beyond fit: Relational metaphors and
semantic fit in international joint ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(7),
830–849. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2015.13
Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Walter de Gruyter.
Luo, Y., & Shenkar, O. (2002). An empirical inquiry of negotiation effects in cross-cultural joint
ventures. Journal of International Management, 8(2), 141–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1075-
4253(02)
Mamontov, V. D., Kozhevnikova, T. M., & Radyukova, Y. Y. (2014). Collectivism and individu
alism in modern Russia. Asian Social Science, 10(23), 199–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.
v10n23p199
Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. S. (2011). Cooperation and competition in intercultural interactions.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(5), 677–685. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijintrel.2011.02.017
Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2020). Reconsidering the active psychological ingredients
underlying intercultural adaptation: Implications for international business. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 529737. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.529737
Merkin, R. S. (2006). Uncertainty avoidance and facework: A test of the Hofstede model.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(2), 213–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijintrel.2005.08.001
Mestdagh, S., & Buelens, M. (2003). Thinking back on where we’re going: A methodological
assessment of five decades of research in negotiation behavior. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Available at SSRN 400840. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.400840.
Michailova, S., & Hutchings, K. (2006). National cultural influences on knowledge sharing:
A comparison of China and Russia. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 383–405. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00595.x
Ministry of Digital Development., Communications and Mass Media of the Russian Federation
(2021 April 10) https://digital.gov.ru/en/?utm_referrer=https%3a%2f%2fwww.google.com%2f
Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework:
Expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational
Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology
and Behavior, 22(2), 89–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.86
Morris, M. W., Menon, T., & Ames, D. R. (2001). Culturally conferred conceptions of agency:
A key to social perception of persons, groups, and other actors. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 5(2), 169–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0502_7
Naumov, A., & Puffer, S. (2000). Measuring Russian culture using Hofstede’s dimensions. Applied
Psychology, 49(4), 709–718. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00041
Ng, R. (2017). Intercultural communication in the hospitality and tourism industry: A study of
message design logic across two cultures [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Cornell
University.
O’Connor, K. M., Arnold, J. A., & Maurizio, A. M. (2010). The prospect of negotiating: Stress,
cognitive appraisal, and performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5),
729–735. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.04.007
Oetzel, J., Garcia, A. J., & Ting‐Toomey, S. (2008). An analysis of the relationships among face
concerns and facework behaviors in perceived conflict situations: A four‐culture investigation.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(4), 382–403. https://doi.org/10.1108/
10444060810909310
Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural
empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30(6), 599–624. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0093650203257841
Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, 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(3), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03637750128061
Padma, V., Anand, N., Gurukul, S. M. G. S., Javid, S. M. A. S. M., Prasad, A., & Arun, S. (2015).
Health problems and stress in Information Technology and Business Process Outsourcing
employees. Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences, 7(5), 9–14. https://doi.org/10.4103/
0975-7406.155764
Peterson, R. A., & Kim, Y. (2013). On the relationship between coefficient alpha and composite
reliability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(1), 194–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030767
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. (1986). Social Conflict Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. Random
House.
Puffer, S. M., & McCarthy, D. J. (2011). Two decades of Russian business and management
research: An institutional theory perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(2),
21–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amp.25.2.21
Rao, A., & Hashimoto, K. (1996). Intercultural influence: A study of Japanese expatriate managers
in Canada. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(3), 443–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/
palgrave.jibs.8490844
Robbins, J. M., & Krueger, J. I. (2005). Social projection to ingroups and outgroups: A review and
meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(1), 32–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15327957pspr0901_3
Ruhi, Ş. (2010). Face as an indexical category in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8),

2131–2146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.020
Scollon, R. (1995). Plagiarism and ideology: Identity in intercultural discourse. Language in
Society, 24(1), 1–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500018388
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2001). Discourse and Intercultural Communication. The Handbook
of Discourse Analysis, 538–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753460.ch28
Setijadi, N. N. (2019). The Architecture of Facework in Intercultural Virtual Work Team. Jurnal
Komunikasi Indonesia, 114–123.Universitas Pelita Harapan. https://doi.org/10.7454/jki.v8i2.
11241
Sifianou, M. (2012). Disagreements, face and politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12), 1554–1564.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.009
Sifianou, M. (2019). Im/politeness and in/civility: A neglected relationship? Journal of Pragmatics,
147, 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.008
Slangen, A. H. (2011). A communication‐based theory of the choice between greenfield and
acquisition entry. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1699–1726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.
1467-6486.2011.01013.x
Smith, P. B., Easterbrook, M. J., Koc, Y., Lun, V. M. C., Papastylianou, D., Grigoryan, L., and
Chobthamkit, P. (2021). Is an Emphasis on Dignity, Honor and Face more an Attribute of
Individuals or of Cultural Groups? Cross-Cultural Research, 55(2-3), 95–126. SAGE Publications.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397120979571
Sosnilo, A. I., & Snetkova, D. A. (2018). Role of Modern Corporate Culture in Companies
Development. Administrative Consulting, 6(6),120–129. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.22394/
1726-1139-2018-6-120-129
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2005). (Im) Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their
bases and interrelationships. Walter de Gruyter.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 39
(4), 639–656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004
Spencer-Oatey, H., & Wang, J. (2019). Culture, context, and concerns about face: Synergistic
insights from pragmatics and social psychology. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38
(4), 423–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X19865293
Szkudlarek, B., Osland, J. S., Nardon, L., & Zander, L. (2020). Communication and culture in
international business–Moving the field forward. Journal of World Business, 55(6), 101126.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2020.101126
Tehrani, H. D., & Yamini, S. (2020). Personality traits and conflict resolution styles: A
meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 157, 109794. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2019.109794
Thomas, D. C., & Ravlin, E. C. (1995). Responses of employees to cultural adaptation by a foreign
manager. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.
1.133
Thompson, L. L. (1991). Information exchange in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 27(2), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.133
Ting‐Toomey, S. (2015). Identity negotiation theory. The International Encyclopedia of
Interpersonal Communication, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0039
Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2002). Cross-cultural face concerns and conflict styles: Current
status and future directions. Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication, 2
(143), 96163.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In W. Gudykunst
(Ed.), Theorizing about Intercultural Communication (pp. 71–92). Sage.
Tippmann, E., Scott, P. S., & Mangematin, V. (2014). Subsidiary managers’ knowledge mobiliza
tions: Unpacking emergent knowledge flows. Journal of World Business, 49(3), 431–443. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2013.09.001
Triandis, H. C. (1995). A theoretical framework for the study of diversity. In M. M. Chemers, S.
Oskamp, & M. A. Costanzo (Eds.), Diversity in organizations: New perspectives for a changing
workplace (pp. 11–36). Sage Publications, Inc.
Tuncel, E., Kong, D. T., Parks, J. M., & van Kleef, G. A. (2020). Face threat sensitivity in distributive
negotiations: Effects on negotiator self-esteem and demands. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 161, 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.07.004
Usunier, J. C. (2003). Cultural aspects of international business negotiations. International
Business Negotiations, 2, 97–135.
Valitova, A., & Besson, D. (2018). Perception of Russian employees’ culture by Western managers
of Western subsidiaries in Russia. Society and Business Review, 13(2), 195–216. https://doi.org/
10.1108/SBR-11-2017-0097
Vasilyeva, E. (2020). Psychological difficulties of Russian-Chinese intercultural communication:
Qualitative study of Russian entrepreneurs and employees. Organizational Psychology, 10(3),
124–139. (In Russ.). http://orgpsyjournal.hse.ru
Velichkovsky, B. B., Solovyev, V. D., Bochkarev, V. V., & Ishkineeva, F. F. (2019). Transition to
market economy promotes individualistic values: Analysing changes in frequencies of Russian
words from 1980 to 2008. International Journal of Psychology, 54(1), 23–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1002/ijop.12411
Voskresenskaya, N. G. (2020). The role of collectivist and individualist values in young people’s
representations of the country. Voprosy Psikhologii, (3), 56–67. ((In Russian)).
Wang, J., Chen, C., Liu, Y., Barkley, D., & Wu, C. C. (2020). Intercultural competences and job
satisfaction of expatriates: The mediating effect of positive psychological well-being.
International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 12(3), 140–155. https://www.ijoi-online.
org/attachments/article/199/1004%20Final.pdf
Wilken, R., Jacob, F., & Prime, N. (2013). The ambiguous role of cultural moderators in inter
cultural business negotiations. International Business Review, 22(4), 736–753. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ibusrev.2012.12.001
Zaidman, N. (2001). Cultural codes and languages strategies in business communication:
Interactions between Israeli and Indian businesspeople. Management Communication
Quarterly, 14(3), 408–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318901143002
Zaidman, N., & Holmes, P. (2009). Business communication as cultural text: Exchange and
feedback of promotional video clips. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(6),
535–549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.06.002
Zarkada‐Fraser, A., & Fraser, C. (2001). Moral decision-making in international sales
negotiations. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 16(4), 274–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1108/EUM0000000005501
Zhang, Q., Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., & Zhang, J. (2019). Making up or getting even? The
effects of face concerns, self-construal, and apology on forgiveness, reconciliation, and revenge
in the United States and China. Communication Research, 46(4), 503–524. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0093650215607959
Zhang, Q., Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2014). Linking emotion to the conflict face-
negotiation theory: A US–China investigation of the mediating effects of anger, compassion,
and guilt in interpersonal conflict. Human Communication Research, 40(3), 373–395. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12029
Zou, X., Tam, K. P., Morris, M. W., Lee, S. L., Lau, I. Y. M., & Chiu, C. Y. (2009). Culture as
common sense: Perceived consensus versus personal beliefs as mechanisms of cultural
influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 579–597. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/a0016399

Face Concerns in Intra and Intercultural Business Communication

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Face Concerns in Intra and Intercultural Business Communication

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjic20

Face Concerns in Intra- and Intercultural Business

Ekaterina Vasilyeva, Maria Bultseva & Nadezhda Lebedeva

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2022.2161602

Published online: 30 Dec 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 158

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Face Concerns in Intra- and Intercultural Business

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Ekaterina Vasilyeva edvasilyeva@hse.ru

Face concerns and their determinants

2012, 2019; Spencer-Oatey, 2005, 2007). Qualitative study of intercultural business

Business communication and face concerns

Face concerns in intra- and intercultural business interactions

(3) practitioners may use different strategies of communicative behaviour depending

Considering for these assumptions, we hypothesize that:

allowed reaching business professionals with extended experience of business nego­

Face concerns in intercultural communication

Table 2. Results of T-test for face concerns in intracultural communication.

Intra- and intercultural contexts of communication

Table 3. Results of T-test for face concerns in intercultural communication.

Table 4. Sample analysis of variance (ANOVA) table.

Figure 1. Face concerns by communication context.

Table 5. One-Way Analysis of Variance of face concerns by communication context.

or premature compromise on sub-optimal agreements (Ben-Yoav & Pruitt, 1984; De

Limitations and future directions of the study

Data availability statement

Kim, Y. Y. (2005). Association and dissociation: A contextual theory of interethnic communica­

Ruhi, Ş. (2010). Face as an indexical category in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8),

You might also like

allowed reaching business professionals with extended experience of business nego

Kim, Y. Y. (2005). Association and dissociation: A contextual theory of interethnic communica