人员： 王翔 王洋＆张鑫＆吴刚毅 张韵安 范强＆秦博 图表：谢国强 时间： 11 月 30 日前必须完成 摘要 Based on Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory and Ting-Toomey’s (1988) face negotiation theory, the current study examined the
cultural differences between U.S. and Chinese participants (N = 317) regarding face concerns and apology intention. Participants read vignettes that varied in relationship types (in-group versus out-group members) and situation types(negative face versus positive face threatened) and responded to scales measuring realism of the vignettes, intention to apologize, and five types of face concerns. One of the findings showed that Chinese participants, compared to U.S. participants, had stronger intention to apologize when their act threatened the other person’s positive face, while U.S. participants, compared to Chinese participants, had stronger intention to apologize when their act threatened the other person’s negative face. Other findings and implications of the findings are discussed in more detail in the paper. 基于 Brown 和 Levinson 的礼貌理论和 Ting-Toomey 的面子协商理论，目前的研究调查 了总计 317 位中美被研究者之间关于面子观念和道歉倾向的文化差异。 被研究者阅读的题型包含有关系类型（组内和组外成员）和情形类型（当积极面子和 消极面子没有受到预期结果） ，此外他们还回答了测量现实主义的题型，道歉倾向和五种面 子观念。 调查结果之一显示，当某人的行为使得他人并没有得到他自己所希望的赞同、喜爱、 欣赏或尊敬时，相比于美国的被研究者，中国的被研究者有着更强烈的道歉倾向；而当某 人的行为干涉、阻碍了他人的行为，使得他人无法自由选择行动时，相比于中国的被 研究者，美国的被研究者有着更强烈的道歉倾向。 The Effects of Culture and Face Concerns on Intention to Apologize: A comparison of U.S. and China Apology is necessary when an offense as in the forms of harm or discomfort has taken place, whether or not the offense is intentional. Although the concept of apology is culture-universal, its application and interpretation may be culture-specific (Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990;Owen, 1983; Wolfson, Marmor, & Jones, 1989). People in different cultures may use different types of apologies when committing the same offense. Alternatively, the type of offense that calls for apology in one culture may not necessitate apology use in another culture. When facing the same situation, people in one culture may be more likely to intend to apologize than those in another culture. The current study investigates apology use in two different interpersonal situations withdata gathered from Chinese and U.S. Americans. Based on Brown and Levinson’s (11987)politeness
theory and Ting-Toomey’s (1988) face negotiation theory, the current study tests therelationship between face needs and intention to apologize. By varying the relationship betweenan offender and a victim and the types of face threatened, the study examines how people indifferent cultures respond to situations depicted in vignettes and how people’s own concerns forself and other face needs relate to their intention to offer an apology. 对比中美道歉倾向中的文化影响和面子观念 Apology Goffman (1971) defined apology as the offender’s device to remedy a social breach and to reestablish social harmony. To apologize is to admit the offense, express the remorse, and request for the forgiveness from the victim (Goffman, 1971). Goffman’s (1971) view of apology is highly offender-centered, since all the functions of apology are to help the offender restore his or her self-image (Meijer, 1998). While keeping the same framework of Goffman’s (1971) remedial interchange, Fraser (1981) also discusses the hearer’s role in apology use. He points out that when a less-than-direct apologizing strategy is used alone, such as “requesting forgiveness” or “promising forbearance from a similar offending act,” the hearer needs to infer that the speaker assumes responsibility and expresses remorse from the context of interaction (Fraser,1981, p.264). Among the limited number of cross-cultural studies on the apology use, the comparison shave been made primarily between Japanese and U.S. cultures (e.g., Barnlund & Yoshikoka,1990; Cupach & Imahori, 1993; Sugimoto, 1997; Tanaka, Spencer-Oatey & Cray, 2000; Takaku, Weiner & Ohbuchi, 2001; Wagatsuma & Rosett, 1986). Earlier findings show that generally, Japanese tend to apologize more frequently and explicitly than U.S. Americans do, and that Japanese apologize more in established interpersonal relationships, whereas U.S. Americans tend to apologize more in public (Barnlund & Yoshikoka, 1990; Cupach & Imahori, 1993; Haley,1998; Sugimoto, 1997, 1998; Wagatsuma & Rosett, 1986). These findings are consistent with the individualism-collectivism cultural differences between U.S. and Japan. In more recent research, however, Tanaka et al. (2000) find that Japanese do not differ significantly from either British or Canadian respondents in their frequency of apology uses, and on the contrary to the traditionally held stereotypes, Japanese apologize less frequently than British and Canadian English speaking respondents. Studies including other collectivistic cultures further complicate the literature. A previous study (Guan, Park, & Lee, 2005) shows that Chinese, compared to U.A. Americans, have weaker tendency to apologize. In-Group Member versus Out-Group Member Individualism and collectivism frameworks are the most widely used cultural dimensionsto explain cognitive and behavioral similarities and differences across cultures (Gudykunst &Matsumoto, 1996). In individualistic societies, ties between individuals are loose and everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family, whereas in collectivistic societies, people are integrated into strong and cohesive in-groups (Hofstede, 1980).In general, individualistic cultures tend to value the identity of “I”, or independence, personal achievement, and uniqueness, while collectivistic cultures emphasize the identity of “we”, or interpersonal relationships, harmony and well-being of the in-groups (Gudykunst & Matsumoto,1996; Hofstede, 1980; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Ting-Toomey, 1988). It is often acknowledged or argued that both dimensions exist in all cultures with each of the dimensions
varying from low to high (e.g., Gudykunst, 1997; Gudykunst, Ting-Toomey, & Chua, 1988).When characterizing one culture as individualistic, it is assumed that in that culture, individualistic tendency tends to dominate. When comparing and characterizing two or more cultures on collectivism and individualism, it can be said that one culture is more individualistic(or collectivistic) than the other. In both Hofstede (1980)’s original study and Oyserman and her colleagues’ (2002) meta-analysis, China ranks lower on individualism while ranks higher on collectivism compared to U.S. Therefore, China is considered as collectivistic culture whereas U.S. is an individualistic one. One of the key differences between individualistic cultures and collectivistic cultures is the degree of distinction between in-groups and out-groups (Triandis, 1995). Members of collectivistic cultures tend to put more emphasis on the goals, values and well-beings of in-groups rather than those of out-groups, while the distinction is not as salient in individualistic cultures. Since people in different cultures differ in their orientation toward different types of interpersonal relationships, they may employ different relationship maintenance strategies. That is, depending on the type of interpersonal relationship between the victim and the offender, different levels of efforts may be spent on repairing the relationship. As the primary function of apology is to repair a harmed relationship between the victim and the offender (Wagatsuma &Rosett, 1986), in cultures where people separate in-group and out-group members to a greater degree, stronger emphasis may be placed on maintaining harmonious relationships with in-group members than with out-group members. In such cultures, communication constructs, such as apology that functions to smooth predicaments and restore relationships, may be more likely to be valued and employed for in-group members. Therefore, it is expected that in collectivistic cultures, people will be more inclined to apologize to in-group members than to out-group members in order to maintain the in-group harmony. In comparison, less difference is expected in individualists’ communication with in-group members versus out-group members. Put it another way, U.S. Americans, compared to Chinese, are expected to be more consistent in their intention to apologize across in-group and out-group relationships. H1: Individuals in a collectivistic culture will have a greater intention to apologize to an in-group member than to an out-group member, while individuals in an individualistic culture will show less difference toward an in-group member and an out-group member. Face Communication researchers have used face and facework concepts to analyze communicative behaviors in the areas such as compliance gaining (Baxter, 1984; Tracy, Craig, Smith & Spisak, 1984), and emotional disclosure (Shimanoff, 1985, 1987). Facework is also employed in research examining cross-cultural differences in areas such as conflict styles (Oetzel& Ting-Toomey, 2003; Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, Yokochi, Masumoto, & Takai, 2000; Ting-Toomey, 1988; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991), request strategies (Holtgraves, & Yang, 1990, 1992),and responses to embarrassment (Cupach & Imahori, 1993; Imahori & Cupach, 1994). Face and facework concepts have been rarely applied in the cross-cultural study of apology. Brown and Levinson (1987) proposed that there are two kinds of face which are distinguishable yet related: positive face and negative face. Positive face is “the positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and
approved of) claimed by interactions”, whereas negative face is “the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction—i.e., to freedom of action and freedom from imposition” (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p.66). Ting-Toomey’s (1988) face negotiation theory is based on the work of Goffman (1959)and Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory. The face negotiation theory is developed to explain the cultural similarities and differences in face concerns as a behavioral guidance for conflict strategies. The theory proposes that there are two conceptual dimensions: 1) face concern dimension: self-face concern, other-face concern or mutual face concern; 2) face-need dimension: positive face need and negative face need (Ting-Toomey, 1988). When face concern dimension is juxtaposed with face need dimension, there are four types of face maintenance: 1)self-positive face maintenance, which refers to the use of communication strategies to defend and protect one’s own need to be approved and valued; 2) other positive face maintenance, meaning the use of communication strategies to defend and protect the other person’s need to be approved and valued; 3) self-negative-face maintenance uses communication strategies to protect oneself freedom, and protect oneself from other’s infringement on one’s action autonomy; and 4)other-negative-face maintenance uses communication strategies to protect the other person’s need of action freedom and autonomy (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Apology can be used to protect or restore the face of an offender or a victim or both. From the victim-supportive perspective of apology and face, an apology is a speech act intended to provide support to the victim negatively affected by an act for which the offender admits responsibility (Olshtain, 1989). By offering an apology, an offender attempts to restore the victim’s positive or negative face, which has been threatened by the offender’s act. On the other hand, as a way of protecting the offender's positive face, apologies can be used to influence the victim to restore a positive impression of the offender. Although apologies are viewed also as face-threatening acts for the offender because apology-giving indicates admission of wrongdoing(Holtgraves, 1992), apologies appropriately prepared for the types and severity of offensive acts can influence the victim to be more positive about the offender than otherwise. Thus, from the offender-supportive perspective of apology and face, apology functions to preserve the offender’s positive face. Different cultures vary in the meaning and importance attributed to various types of face and preferred strategies for enacting facework (Ting-Toomey, 1988; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi,1998). It has been suggested that members of collectivistic cultures are more concerned with maintaining other’s face than their own self face (Ting-Toomey, 1988; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi,1998). For example, Chinese showed a greater concern for other-face and mutual face than U.S. Americans and consequently Chinese were more likely to adopt avoidance and withdrawing strategies in interpersonal conflicts (Oetzel et al., 2001; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991). In terms of positive and negative face needs, individuals in different cultures may also vary in the degree to which they value each of them. Because autonomy and uniqueness are more strongly valued in individualistic cultures than in collectivistic cultures (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), individualists, compared to collectivists, may be more concerned with protecting negative face (Ting-Toomey, 1988). Greater emphasis on fitting in with others and inclusion of others in one’s self-concept in collectivistic cultures (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), collectivists, compared to individualists, maybe more concerned with protecting positive face (Ting-Toomey, 1988).
Hypotheses and Research Question regarding Face Culture and situation type. Two types of faces can be threatened in situations which may necessitate apology use. First, an offender’s act may threaten the victim’s negative face need. For example, when an individual steps on another passenger’s foot in a bus, the individual’s act canbe seen as a violation of the passenger’s personal territories and freedom from imposition and distraction. Second, an offender’s act may threaten the victim’s positive face need. For example, when an individual bursts into laugh at a scene in which a person burps loudly in a nice restaurant, the individual’s act can be seen as a violation of the restaurant patron’s (the person who burps) need for social approval and appreciation of his/her self-image. It is hardly imaginable that causing laughs in public as in one’s self being embarrassment is the patron’s positive self-image s/he want to project to others for their approval and appreciation. Considering that people in different cultures may differ in the degree to which they value different types of face needs (self and other faces with positive and negative face needs), it is expected that the relationship between culture and intention to apologize vary with the types of the victim’s face threatened (positive face need versus negative face need). H2a: Individuals in a collectivistic culture, compared to those in an individualistic culture, will have a greater intention to apologize to an in-group member when the in-group member’s positive face is threatened. H2b: Individuals in an individualistic culture, compared to those in a collectivistic culture, will have a greater intention to apologize to an out-group member when the out-group member’s negative face is threatened. Situation type and face need concerns. It is expected that the relationship between face need concerns and intention to apologize will vary with the types of the victim’s face need threatened. In other words, depending on the type of victim’s face threatened and the level of an offender’s concern for the different types of face, the offender may be more or less strongly intend to apologize to the victim. For example, when the offender threatens the victim’s negative face need, the stronger concern the offender has for negative face need, the stronger intention to apologize can be expected from the offender. H3a: When the victim’s positive face is threatened, individuals’ concern for other’s positive face will be positively related to their intention to apologize. H3b: When the victim’s negative face is threatened, individuals’ concern for other’s negative face will be positively related to their intention to apologize. Culture and face need concerns. It is expected that the relationship between face needconcerns and intention to apologize will vary with culture. That is, concern for negative faceneed can be positively related to intention to apologize in the U.S., while concern for positiveface need can be positively related to intention to apologize in China. H4: For individuals in an individualistic culture, concern for negative face will be positively related to intention to apologize, while for those in a collectivistic culture, concern for positive face will be positively related to intention to apologize. Various types of face concerns (self-positive, self-negative, other-positive, other-negative face, and mutual face concerns) can be examined with respect of apology use. Thus, it is questioned which of the face concerns will be significantly related to intention to apologize in each culture. RQ: Which of self-positive, self-negative, other-positive, other-negative, and mutual face
concerns will be positively related to intention to apologize for individuals in a collectivistic culture and those in an individualistic culture? Culture, relationship type and face need concerns. It is expected that people in different cultures will have varying degrees of intention to apologize when their act is targeted at an in-group member versus an out-group member. Furthermore, such relationship between culture and relationship type (an in-group member versus an out-group member) is expected to vary with strength of face concerns. For example, for individuals in a collectivistic culture, concern for positive face will be more strongly related to intention to apologize for an in-group member than for an out-group member. Thus, the following hypothesis is advanced: H5: The effect of culture on the relationship between face need concerns and intention to apologize will vary with whether it is an in-group member or an out-group member whose face is threatened. Method Participants A total of 317 undergraduate students participated in the study (n = 183 in U.S., n = 134in China). U.S. participants (63 men and 120 women, mean age = 19.64) were recruited from a large Mid-western university and Chinese participants (60 men, 73 women, and 1 unidentified, mean age = 20.86) were recruited from three universities in a major city located in the northeast of P.R. China. Among the U.S. participants, 83.6% were Caucasian, 7.1% were African American, 5.5% were Asian American, 1.5% were Native American, Hispanic, or Pacific Islander, and 2.2% were unidentified. Chinese participants were more homogenous in terms of ethnicity because 94.0% were Han (the predominant ethnicity in mainland China), 5.2% were various minority ethnicities, and 0.7% unidentified. Design Two types of vignettes were prepared to depict a situation where a victim’s negative face need was threatened and another situation where a victim’s positive face need was threatened. In the situation with the negative face need threatened, an individual stepped on another person’s foot in a crowded bus. In the situation with the positive face need threatened, an individual laughed at another person’s loud burp in a nice restaurant. The vignettes are presented below. The current study used a 2 (culture: U.S. and China) × 2 (relationship type: a friend [an in-group member] and a stranger [an out-group member]) × 2 (situation type: bus [negative face need threatened] and restaurant [positive face need threatened]) mixed design with culture and relationship type as between subject factors and story as a within subject factor. Participants were asked to read two stories (bus and restaurant) which depicted either a friend (an in-group member) or a stranger (an out-group member) as a victim. For example, a participant read a story in which s/he stepped on a friend’s foot and another story in which s/he laughed at a friend’s burp. Another participant read a story in which s/he stepped on a stranger’s foot and another story in which s/he laughed at a stranger’s burp. The vignette containing a friend as the victim in the bus situation (negative face threatened) is as follows: Bus vignette: You and your friend are taking a bus downtown. The bus is crowded and neither you nor your friend has a seat. At one stop, many passengers get on the bus, and you have to move toward the back of the bus to make room for those getting on. While you are moving, you
step on your friend's foot. The vignette containing a stranger as the victim in the restaurant situation (positive face threatened) is as follows: Restaurant vignette: You and one of your friends are eating in a nice restaurant. While you two are eating, one person (who you do not know) sitting next to your table accidentally burps really loudly and the sound is quite funny. You can’t help laughing at the person a little. After you stop laughing, you find that person is looking at you. Following the vignette, participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire. Measures The questionnaire was produced in English and Chinese. The English version of the questionnaire was compared with Chinese version, using various methods such as back-translation and inspection by speakers fluent in the two languages to ensure the equivalence in meaning. The participants completed the questionnaire in their native languages. All the measures used a 5-point Likert scale response format (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Realism. The questionnaire contained three sections of scaled items. The first section included four items to assess the realism of the vignettes (e.g., “A situation like this could happen in real life.” “This situation is realistic.”). For the bus vignette, reliabilities (Cronbach’s α)of the realism scale were .77 for U.S. participants and .81 for Chinese participants. For the restaurant vignette, reliabilities of the realism scale were .98 for U.S. participants and .96 for Chinese participants. In the two cultures, both vignettes were rated as realistic. For U.S. participants, the mean on realism scale for the bus vignette was 4.72 (SD = 0.46), which was significantly different from 3 (the middle point of the scale), t (182) = 51.05, p < .001, η2 = .93. For Chinese participants, the mean on realism scale for the bus vignette was 4.34 (SD = 0.53), which was significantly different from 3 (the middle point of the scale) as well, t (133) = 29.14, p < .001, η2= .86. For U.S. participants, the mean on realism scale for the restaurant vignette was 4.14 (SD =0.53), which was significantly different from 3 (the middle point of the scale), t (182) = 21.05, p< .001, η2 = .71. For Chinese participants, the mean on realism scale for the restaurant vignette was 3.62 (SD = 0.70), which was significantly different from 3 (the middle point of the scale) as well, t (133) = 10.23, p < .001, η2 = .44. The participants from the two cultures significantly differed in their realism ratings, t(315) = 6.82, p < .001, η2 = .13 for the bus vignette and t (315) = 6.31, p < .001, η2 = .11 for the restaurant vignette. For the possibility of this cultural difference in realism scores affecting any of the results, realism score was included as a covariate in the main analyses reported in the results section. Realism score, however, did not affect any of the overall patterns of culture and relationship main effects and interaction effects on the dependent variables. Intention to apologize. The second section of the questionnaire included four items to assess the realism of the vignettes (e.g., “In this situation, I intend to apologize to _____.” “In this situation, I would apologize to _____.”). For the bus vignette, reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) of the realism scale were .90 for U.S. participants and .93 for Chinese participants. For the restaurant vignette, reliabilities of the realism scale were .98 for U.S. participants and .96 for Chinese participants. Face concerns. The third section of the questionnaire included items to assess various types of face concerns: one’s own positive face, one’s own negative face, other’s positive face, other’s
negative face, and mutual face. Face concern measurement items were developed, based on Ting-Toomey and Oetzel’s (2001) face scale and Brown and Levinson’s (1987) positive andnegative face concerns. Items intended to measure concern for one’s own negative face and concern for other’s positive face had reliabilities lower than .70 for U.S. participants. Because the reliabilities for these two scales were too low in one culture, these two scales were not used for examining cultural differences. For one’s own positive face concern, other’s negative concern, and mutual face concern, CFA showed that a three-factor solution (NNFI = .84, CFI = .86, GFI= .84) was superior to one-factor solution (NNFI = .65, CFI = .69, GFI = .72) (?χ = 600.12, p< .001.). For testing equality of three-factor structures across the two cultural groups, CFA yielded an acceptable fit (NNFI = .89, CFI = .90, GFI = .82) when factor loadings, error variances, and
covariances among the factors were allowed to vary within each culture.
Table 1 reports reliabilities (Cronbach’s α) of and correlations among the three face concern measures. For 8 items measuring concern for one’s own positive face (e.g., “I like myself-image to be approved by others.”), Chinese participants (M = 3.89, SD = 0.51) had stronger concern for one’s own positive face than did U.S. participants (M = 3.71, SD = 0.51), t (315) =3.21, p = .001, η2 = .03. For 6 items measuring concern for other’s negative face (e.g., “It is important not to impede others’ actions.”), Chinese participants (M = 3.97, SD = 0.39) had stronger concern for others’ negative face than did U.S. participants (M = 3.78, SD = 0.51), t(314) = 3.55, p = .001, η2 = .04. For 4 items measuring concern for mutual face (e.g., “maintaining peace in interactions is important to me.”), Chinese participants (M = 4.23, SD =0.50) and U.S. participants (M = 4.30, SD = 0.55) did not differ for their concern for mutual face, t (314) = 1.23, p = .22, η2 = .005. Results H1 and H2 H1 expected two-way interactions between culture and relationship type, while H2a, andH2b expected the effects of three-way interactions among culture, relationship type, and situation type on intention to apologize. To test these hypotheses, a 2 (culture: U.S. and China) × 2(relationship type: a friend and a stranger) × 2 (situation type: bus and restaurant) mixed NOVA with culture and relationship type as between subject factors and story as a within subject factor. The main effect for culture was not significant, F (1, 309) = 1.21, p = .27, η2= .001. U.S. participants (M = 3.79, SD = 0.68) and Chinese participants (M = 3.85, SD = 0.72)were not different for their intention to apologize. The main effect for relationship type was not significant either, F (1, 309) = 1.10, p = .29, η2 = .001. The participants’ intention to apologize did not differ for a friend (M = 3.86, SD = 0.74) and for a stranger (M = 3.78, SD = 0.66). The interaction between culture and relationship type was also not significant, F (1, 309) = 0.86, p= .36, η2 = .00. Table 2 shows cell means and standard deviations. The main effect for situation type was significant, F (1, 309) = 381.14, p < .001, η2 = .33. The participants had stronger intention to apologize in the bus situation (M = 4.55, SD = 0.65)than in the restaurant situation (M = 3.09, SD = 1.17). The interaction between situation type and culture was significant, F (1, 309) = 39.88, p < .001, η2 = .03. As shown in Figure 1, in the bus situation, U.S. participants (M = 4.70, SD = 0.55) more strongly intended to apologize than did Chinese participants (M = 4.34, SD = 0.73), while in the restaurant situation, Chinese participants(M = 3.39, SD = 1.02) more strongly intended to apologize than did U.S. participants (M = 2.87,SD = 1.22). The interaction between situation type and relationship type was significant,
F (1,309) = 9.43, p = .002, η2 = .008. As shown in Figure 2, in the bus situation, participants’ intention to apologize did not differ for a friend (M = 4.47, SD = 0.68) and for a stranger (M =4.61, SD = 0.63), while in the restaurant situation, participants’ intention to apologize was stronger for a friend (M = 3.25, SD = 1.22) than for a stranger (M = 2.96, SD = 1.11). The three way interaction among situation type, culture, and relationship was not significant, F (1, 309) =1.45, p = .23, η2 = .001. In summary, contrary to H1, Chinese participants did not more strongly intend to apologize to a friend than to a stranger. Data were also inconsistent with H2, which predicted that Chinese, compared to U.S. participants, would more strongly intend to apologize to a friend when the friend’s positive face was threatened (i.e., but situation), whereas U.S. participants, compared to Chinese, would more strongly intend to apologize to a stranger when the stranger’s negative face was threatened (i.e., restaurant situation). H3, H4, RQ, and H5 (Face Concerns as Predictors) H3, H4, RQ, and H5 expected face concerns as predictors for intention to apologize and two-way and three-way interactions among face concerns, culture, and relationship type. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to test if any of the three types of face concerns would predict intention to apologize and if any of the three types of face would interact with culture and relationship type. Two moderated multiple regression analyses (one analysis for bus situation and another one for restaurant situation) were conducted with the two categorical variables (culture and relationship type) coded as dummy variables (U.S. = 0 and China = 1;stranger = 0 and friend = 1) and multiplied with mean-centered continuous variables (three types of face concerns) to test interaction effects (i.e., second-order and third-order effects), as shown in Table 3. Because the first-order effects (i.e., main effects) of culture and relationship type on intention to apologize in the bus and restaurant situations were already reported in the above, the first-order effects of face concerns and second-order and third-order effects were of interest here. The results showed that for the bus situation, all of the three types of face concerns were positively related to intention to apologize. That is, the greater the concerns for one’s own positive face, other’s negative face, and mutual face, the more strongly an individual intends to apologize. Contrary to the expectations, however, none of the interaction effects accounted for significant variance in intention to apologize. The relationship between each type of face concerns and intention to apologize did not vary with culture and with whether it was a stranger or a friend to be apologized. For the restaurant situation, only the concern for other’s negative face was positively related to intention to apologize. That is, the greater the concern for other’s negative face, the more strongly an individual intends to apologize. Similar to the results for the bus situation, none of the interaction effects accounted for significant variance in intention to apologize. The relationship between each type of face concerns and intention to apologize did not vary with culture and with whether it was a stranger or a friend to be apologized. In summary, data were not consistent with H3, H4, and H5, which predicted the relationship between face concerns and intention to apologize to vary with culture, relationship type, and situation type. In answering RQ, the analyses showed that regardless of culture, concern for one’s own positive face, other’s negative face, and mutual face were significantly related to intention to apologize when the victim’s negative face was threatened (bus situation),whereas only concern for
other’ negative face was positively related to intention to apologize when the victim’s positive face was threatened (restaurant situation). Discussion The current study examined the effects of culture on intention to apologize, considering the cultural differences in salience of in-group and out-group members and strengths of various face concerns. It was predicted that cultural differences in intention to apologize would be more prominent when a harmful or discomforting act was done to an in-group member versus to an out-group member, furthermore when the harmful act threatened positive face need versus negative face need. Individuals’ concerns for face (i.e., self-positive, self-negative, other-positive, other-negative face, and mutual face) were expected to relate to apology intention to varying degrees, depending on the cultures to which individuals belonged and the types of face needs which were threatened. None of the hypothesized interaction effects of culture by relationship type, situation type, and face concerns, however, were statistically significant. 讨论 考虑到在集团内和集团外成员的突出性以及不同面子观念的力量这两方面的文化差异， 最新的研究表明了文化对于道歉倾向的影响。 已经预测到的是， 当一个带伤害性的或者令人 难受的举动被施加到集团内成员时相对于集团外成员， 另外当这种带有伤害性的举动威胁到 积极面子需求时相对于消极面子需求， 文化差异对于做出道歉的倾向更加显著。 根据不同个 体属于的文化以及受威胁的面子需求的类型，个体对于面子的观念（比如 自我积极面子， 自我消极面子，他人积极面子，他们消极面子，以及相互共同的面子等）被预料到与不同程 度的道歉倾向是有联系的。然而，没有一种假定的文化交互作用对于关系类型，情境类型以 及面子观念在统计学上是有重大意义的。 Situation Type
Although not hypothesized previously, significant two-way interaction effects were observed for situation type by culture and situation type by relationship type. The findings showed that U.S. participants more strongly intended to apologize than Chinese participants did when they stepped on other person’s foot in a crowded bus, whereas Chinese participants more strongly intended to apologize than U.S. participants did when they happened to laugh at other person’s burp in a nice restaurant. Additionally, individuals more strongly intended to apologize to a friend than to a stranger in the restaurant situation, whereas individuals had the similar level of intention to apologize to a friend and to a stranger in the bus situation. 虽然事先没有猜测过， 但是文化对于情景类型以及关系类型对于情景类型的重大的双向 交互作用被观察到了。 调查显示当人们在拥挤的公交车里踩到别人的脚时美国参与者相较于 中国参与者有更强烈的倾向做出道歉， 而当人们在一家豪华饭店里嘲笑别人打嗝时， 中国参 与者道歉的倾向更强烈。 另外， 在这种饭店的情形中个体对朋友道歉的倾向相对于陌生人来 讲更强烈，而在公交车的情形中个体对朋友或陌生人有相近程度的道歉倾向。
These findings illustrate the importance of situational characteristics when examining apology use. In the current study, the bus situation was operationalized as the offender threatening the other person’s negative face need because the act of stepping on a foot was presumed to violate the other person’s personal territory including body. The restaurant situation was characterized as the offender threatening the other person’s positive face need because the act of laughing at a burp was considered to embarrass the other person, indicating that the burp in a nice restaurant was socially inappropriate. With these characterizations of the two situation types, the findings seem to indicate that Chinese, compared to U.S. participants, may have felt worse for threatening the other person’s positive face need, whereas U.S. participants, compared to Chinese participants, may have been more concerned with threatening the other person’s negative face need. To put it differently, consistent with Ting-Toomey’s (1988) face negotiation theory, the interaction effect of culture and situation type on apology intention may stem from the fact that maintaining positive face may be more important for Chinese than for U.S. Americans, while maintaining negative face may be more important for U.S. Americans than for Chinese. 这些发现阐明了当检验对道歉的使用时情境特征的重要性。 在最近的研究中， 这种公交车情 形的实施使侵犯者威胁到别人的个人消极面子需求， 因为踩到别人脚的这种举动被认为是侵 犯了别人的个人领域（包括身体） 。而饭店情形被认定为是侵犯者威胁到人的个人积极面子 需求， 因为嘲笑别人打嗝的这种举动被认为会让别人感到尴尬， 这暗示着在豪华饭店里打嗝 在社交上是不合时宜的。 通过这两种情景类型的特征可以看出， 这些发现看上去暗示了中国 参与者——和美国参与者相比， 可能对自己威胁到了别人的积极面子需求感到更糟糕， 而美 国参与者——和中国参与者相比， 可能对自己威胁到了别人的消极面子需求更担心一点。 区 别来看待，和 Ting-Toomey 1988 年的面子商洽理论相一致，文化情景类型对于道歉倾向的 交互作用源于一个事实， 这个事实就是维持积极面子对中国人来说比美国人更重要这样， 而 维持消极面子对于美国人来说比中国人更重要。
The above interpretation of the finding on the effect of situation type by culture on apology intention, however, may need to be taken with a caution for a couple of reasons. First, it can be questioned if the participants also considered these two situation types as threatening negative face need and positive face need. Another way to characterize these two situations is that the bus situation may represent causing a physical discomfort, while the restaurant situation may represent causing an emotional discomfort. Thus, it is possible that these two situation might have varied in aspects other than (or in addition to) the types of face threatened. If so, those other aspects might have been the reasons for the cultural differences observed in the current study. Second, both Chinese and U.S. participants more strongly intended to apologize in the bus situation than in the restaurant situation. For the restaurant situation, U.S. participants’ intention to apology (M = 2.87, SD = 1.22) was not significantly different from the scale middle point (3), t (181) = 1.41, p = .16, implying that U.S. participants did not have much of intention to apologize. Although Chinese participants’ intention to apologize (M = 3.38, SD = 1.03) was significantly higher than the scale middle point (3), t (131) = 4.24, p < .001, their apology intention could not be considered as strong, either. Considering that participants in the current study viewed the bus situation as much more realistic and apologetic than the restaurant situation, future research needs to improve
comparability of situation types. 以上对于文化对情景类型中道歉倾向的影响，不管怎样，出于一些原因，还是需要慎重一点 来进行阐释。 首先， 调查的参与者们是否也考虑到会威胁到别人消极积极面子的需求这点是 值得怀疑的。另一种界定两种情形的方法在于，公交车情形可能表示造成了身体上的不适， 而饭店的情形可能造成了情绪上的不适。因此，有可能这两种情境可能会朝不同于（或不仅 限于）面子威胁的几种类型的其他方面变化。如果是这样的话，那些其他方面可能就是造成 最近研究中观察到的文化差异的原因。 其次， 中国和美国志愿者在公交车情形中都有甚于饭 店情形的倾向做出道歉。对于饭店的情形，美国参与者的道歉倾向（平均评分 2.87，方差 1.22）并不与测量的中间值差多少，这暗示着美国参与者并没有很强烈的道歉倾向。虽然中 国参与者的道歉倾向评分（平均 3.38，方差 1.03）引人注目地比测试的平均评分高，但他们 的道歉倾向并不被认为十分强烈。 考虑到近期研究中的参与者认为公交车情形比饭店情形来 得现实且更充满歉意，未来的研究需要提高不同情境类型的可比性。 Face Concerns The findings on face concerns show that in the bus situation, concerns for one’s own positive face, other’s negative face, and mutual face were all positively related to apology intention. This finding seems to be consistent with the view that apology can be both sender-supportive as well as hearer-supportive. Apology is more likely to be used by individuals with greater concern for maintaining positive self-image and social approval, greater concern for other people’s freedom, and greater concern for harmony between themselves and others. On the other hand, in the restaurant situation, only concern for other’s negative face was positively related to apology intention. It is suspected that this finding may be due to the act of laughing at someone’s burping depicted in the restaurant situation. It is wondered if individuals with greater concern for other’s negative face might have been more likely to consider “laughing” at other’s mistake as impinging on other’s right (or wish) not to be bothered, hence stronger intention to apologize for laughing. 面子顾虑 关于面子观念的研究发现表明在公交车情形中， 对自己的积极面子， 他人的消极面子以及交 互面子的顾虑都与道歉倾向是有积极联系的。 这个发现看来与道歉兼得受传者及受者支持的 这样一种观点相一致。一些个体对维持个人积极形象以及社会支持，对别人的自由空间，对 他人与自己的和谐关系怀有更大的顾虑，道歉有更打可能被这些个体使用。在另一方面，在 饭店情形中， 只有对他人消极面子的顾虑才与道歉倾向有积极联系。 有质疑认为这个发现可 能归结于这举动是被描述成在饭店里嘲笑某人打嗝时。 也有人想知道那些对他人的消极面子 怀有更大顾虑的个体是否更可能认为 “嘲笑” 别人的错误是侵犯了别人不应被侵犯的权利 （或 意愿） ，因此产生了更强烈的为嘲笑而道歉的倾向。
The lack of cultural differences in the relationship between face concerns and intention to apologize calls for a couple of speculations. First, the measures for face concerns are imperfect. By adding another dimension (positive versus negative face needs) to Ting-Toomey and Oetzel’s(2001) scale on self- and other-face maintenance, measures were created for self-positive, self-negative, other-positive, other-negative face concerns in addition to mutual face concern. Two of these measures were deemed unsuitable for analyses due to low reliabilities and the three
measures used for analyses did not have high reliabilities, either. In addition, in the current study, Chinese participants scored higher on scales measuring one’s own positive face concern and other’s negative face concern than did U.S. participants, but did not differ from U.S. participants for mutual face concern. Oetzel et al. (2001) reported that among the participants from Japan, China, and Germany, Chinese participants scored highest on self-face maintenance concern in both close and distant interpersonal relationships. Ting-Toomey et al. (1991) also showed that Chinese and U.S. participants did not differ in their self-face maintenance concern, although Chinese participants had higher concern for other-face maintenance than did U.S. participants. That is, because data have not always been consistent with the prediction about Chinese and U.S. cultures, scales measuring face needs or concerns need improvement. 文化差异的缺乏会引起一些对于面子顾虑与道歉倾向之间关系的推测。 首先， 这种对面 子顾虑的测量是不完美的。研究者通过在 Ting-Toomey 和 Oetzel 在 2001 年对个人及他人 面子的维持的测量上增加另一个研究方向（积极面子需求对比消极面子需求） ，创造出了针 对除了交互面子顾虑之外，还包括个人积极面子、个人消极面子、他人积极面子及他人消极 面子顾虑等方面的一些测量方法。其中两种方法，由于很低的可靠性被认为不适于分析，而 且这三种用于分析的测量方法也都没有很高的可靠性。另外，在近期研究中，中国参与者在 测量个人自己的积极面子顾虑和他人的消极面子顾虑时比美国参与者得到更高的分数， 但他 们在交互面子顾虑上与美国参与者没什么区别。Oetzel 等人 2001 年在报告中指出在来自日 本、 中国和德国的参与者中， 中国参与者在紧密与疏远的人际关系的个人面子维持时都得到 最高的分数。Ting-Toomey 等人在 1991 年同样展示了中国和美国参与者在个人面子维持的 顾虑上没什么区别， 尽管中国参与者比美国参与者在他人面子维持上有更深的顾虑。 就是说， 由于关于中国和美国的文化， 研究数据并不总是和预测一致， 对面子需求或顾虑的测试需要 得到改进。 Second, the current study measured participants’ general level of face concerns, rather than situation-specific face concerns. The inconsistent findings on culture and face concerns from the current study as well as previous studies may stem from the possibility of situational or contextual face concerns. It is wondered if certain situational or contextual characteristics are more likely to activate one type of face concern over other type. 其次，近期的研究测量了参与者们面子顾虑的总体水平，而不是特定情形的面子顾虑。 在近期以及先前的研究中体现出来的前后不一致的发现可能源自情境形成的或前后关联的 面子顾虑的可能性。 有人想知道某种特定的情境形成的或前后关联的特性是否更可能由一种 面子顾虑激化另一种面子顾虑。 Conclusion Understanding cross-cultural differences in apology use can be crucial in discovering ways to reduce misunderstandings in intercultural encounters and to increase intercultural sensitivity. The questions regarding when an individual offers apology and why it is so do not have simple black and white answers. Culture, relationship, and situations are interwoven with each other, influencing the decision to use apology. Future studies need to consider various situational characteristics and examine many different types of interpersonal relationships in order to discover cultural differences as well as similarities in a systematic way.
结论 对道歉使用上的跨文化差异理解对探究出能减少跨文化碰撞中的误解以及增加不同文化的 敏感性的方法是至关重要的。 关于什么时候一个个体做出道歉以及为什么他会这么做， 这样 的问题是没有纯粹的不是黑就是白的单一答案的。文化，关系和情境是相互编织在一起的， 它们影响做出道歉的决定。 未来的研究需要考虑到各种情形的特征并检查人际关系的不同类 型以致能够用一种系统的方法来探究文化的差异性及相似性。 参考文献 Barnlund, D..C.(1998). Communication in a Global Village. In M. J. Bennett (Ed.), Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings (pp. 35-52). Yarmouth, MN: Intercultural Press. Barnlund, D. C., &Yoshioka, M. (1990). Apologies: Japanese and American styles. Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 193-206. International
Baxter, L. A. (1984). An investigation of compliance-gaining as politeness. Human Communication Research, 10, 427-456. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cocroft, B. K., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Facework in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 4, 469-506. Cupach, W. R., & Imahori, T. T. (1993). Managing social predicaments created by others: A comparison of Japanese and American facework. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 431-444. Edmondson, W. J. (1981). On saying you’re sorry. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and patterned speech (pp. 273288). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. Fraser, B. (1981). On apologizing. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and patterned speech (pp. 259-271). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. Garcia, C. (1989). Apologizing in English: Politeness strategies used by native and non-native speakers. Multilingua, 8, 3-20. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Guan, X., Park, H.S., & Lee, H. E. (2005). Cross-cultural comparisons in the use of apology. Manuscript submitted for publication. Gudykunst, W. B. (1992). Cultural influence on communication: Introduction. In W. Gudykunst & Y. Y. Kim (Eds.), Readings on communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication (pp. 69-70). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Gudykunst, W. B. (1997). Cultural variability in communication: An introduction. Communication Research, 24, 327-348. Gudykunst, W. B., & Matsmoto, Y. (1996). Cross-cultural variability of communication in personal relationships. In W. B. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey, & Nishida, T. (Eds), Communication in personal relationships across cultures (pp.19-56). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gudykunst, W. B., Ting-Toomey, S., & Chua, E. (1988). Culture and interpersonal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Haley, J. O. (1998). Apology and pardon: Learning from Japan. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 842-867. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Holtgraves, T. (1992). The linguistic realization of face management: Implications for language production and comprehension, person perception, and cross-cultural communication. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 141-159. Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. N. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 4, 719-729. Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. N. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 2, 246-256. Imahori, T. T., & Cupach, W. R. (1994). A Cross-cultural comparison of the interpretation and management of face: U.S. American and Japanese responses to embarrassing predicaments. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 18, 2, 193-219. Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Conceptual clarification and elaboration. In U.
Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 19-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kagitcibasi, C. A. (1994). Critical appraisal of individualism and collectivism: Toward a new formulation. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 52-65) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kotani, M. (2002). Expressing gratitude and indebtedness: Japanese speakers’ use of “I’m sorry” in English conversations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35, 39-72. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403-426. Meijer, A. J. (1998). Apologies: what do we know? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 215-231. Mir, M. (1992). Do we all apologize the same?: An empirical study on the act of apologizing by Spanish speakers learning English. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 3, 1-19. 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. Oetzel, J., & 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. 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. Olshtain, E. (1989). Apologies across Languages. In Blum-Kulka, S., J. House, & G. Kasper (Ed.) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp.155-173). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Owen, M. (1983). Apologies and remedial exchanges: A study of language use in social interaction. Berlin, Netherlands: Mouton. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72. Schimanoff, S. B. (1985). Rules for governing the verbal expression of emotions between married
couples. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 49, 147-165. Schimanoff, S. B. (1987). Types of emotional disclosures and request compliance between spouses. Communication Monographs. 54, 85-100. Sugimoto, N. (1997). A Japan-U.S. comparison of apology styles. Communication Research. 24, 349-369. Sugimoto, N. (1998). Norms of apology depicted in U.S. American and Japanese literature on manners and etiquette. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 22, 251-276. Takahashi, K., Ohara, N., Antonucci, T.C., & Akiyama, H. (2002). Commonalities and differences in close relationships among the Americans and Japanese: A comparison by the individualism/collectivism concept. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 453-465. Takaku, S., Weiner, B., & Ohbuchi, K. (2001). A cross-cultural examination of the effects of apology and perspective taking on forgiveness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20, 44-166. Tanaka, N., Spencer-Oately, H., & Cray, E. (2000). “It’s not my fault!”: Japanese and English Responses to Unfounded Accusations. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. (pp. 75-97). New York, NY: Continuum. Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing intercultural conflicts effectively. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Yang, Z., Trubisky, P., Kim, H. S., Lin, S., & Nishida, T. (1991). Culture, face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A study in five cultures. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275-296. Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187-225. Tracy, K., Craig, R., Smith, M., & Spisak, F. (1984). The discourse of requests: Assessment of a compliance-gaining approach. Human Communication Research, 10, 513-538. Triandis, H. C. (1992). Collectivism v. individualism: A Reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-cultural social psychology. In W. Gudykunst & Y. Y. Kim (Eds.), Readings on Communicating with Strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. (pp. 7181). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CL: Westview. Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in native/non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 147-167. Wagatsuma, H., & Rosett, A. (1986). The implications of apology: Law and culture in Japan and the United States. Law and Society Review, 20, 461-498. Wolfson, N., Marmor, T., & Jones, S. (1989). Problems in the comparison of speech acts Across cultures. In Blum-Kulka et al., (Ed.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 174-196). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.