International Journal of Linguistics and Communication
June 2016, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 19-33
ISSN: 2372-479X (Print) 2372-4803 (Online)
Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved.
Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development
DOI: 10.15640/ijlc.v4n1a3
URL: https://doi.org/10.15640/ijlc.v4n1a3

From Universal Perceptions to Diverging Behaviors: An Exploratory Comparison of
Responses to Unreasonable Accusations among People from the United States,
Japan, and South Korea
Sachiko KIYAMA1, Yuki TAKATORI2, Hyunjung LIM3 & Katsuo TAMAOKA4
Abstract
The current study conducted a survey of how people from the United States, Japan, and South Korea selectresponses to unreasonable accusations as an example of face work in conflict situations in terms of 1) culture 2)
situations of accusation differing on the locus of responsibility, 3) the balance of power in relationships, and
4) familiarity between the accuser and the accused. Results of decision tree analyses demonstrated that the
intrinsic content of the situation was the crucial determinant of responses to unreasonable accusations whileinterpersonal relationships had the next-strongest influence on the responses. The findings suggest thatperception of conflict situation appears to be universal, whereas how to assess interpersonal relationships andthe value placed on language expressions suitable for the given interlocutors may differ depending on culture.
Keywords: Responses to unreasonable accusation, conflict management, face work, Japan, Korea, the UnitedStates
1. Introduction
The challenge of dealing with conflict resolution has dogged human society since time immemorial. In every
society, regardless of cultural diversity, humans differ in their needs. It is easy to be nice to another person when bothparties share the same needs. However, once a conflict occurs in everyday encounters, difficulty arises in coping withthe situation because the needs of both sides cannot be concurrently satisfied. As a result, accusations sometimes takeover. The conflict-managing process involves sorting out the priorities from the incompatible and competing needs
two people may have, in accordance with the values cultivated in each culture. In order to reveal the universality andcultural variability of how to manage conflict situations, the present study stems from an exploratory cross-cultural
survey of responses to unreasonable accusations in the United States, Japan, and South Korea.
1.1. Goffman’s (1955, 1967) Face and Face work
When incompatible needs of individuals cannot be reconciled, there may be no choice for a person but tosacrifice his or her own needs in order not to hurt the interlocutor. In such a situation, a person may seek to restore
the interlocutor’s pride and thus dissipate that person’s feeling of losing. The process of conflict management
therefore entails the negotiation of face among individuals (Goffman, 1955, 1967; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998).

1

College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Mie University, Japan. 1577 Kurimamachiya-cho, Tsu-shi, Mie-ken, 514-8507, JAPAN.
College of Arts and Science, Georgia State University, the United States.P.O. Box 3965, Atlanta, GA 30302-3965, the U.S.
3
Faculty of Intercultural Studies, Yamaguchi Prefectural University, Japan.3-2-1 Sakurabata, Yamaguchi-shi, Yamaguchi-ken,
753-8502, JAPAN.
4
Graduate School of Languages and Cultures, Nagoya University, Japan. Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya-shi, Aichi-ken, 4648601, JAPAN.
2

20International Journal of Linguistics and Communication, Vol. 4(1), June 2016

Goffman (1955, 1967) defines face as the “positive social value a person effectively claims for himself” andemphasizes that negotiations of face between two people (i.e., face work) are regulated by the principle of reciprocity.
According to Goffman, it is universal that every individual has face, and that he or she wants his or her face satisfied
by other members of the society. Because satisfaction of personal face can only come from others, a person makes aneffort to fulfill the faces of other people with the expectation that his or her own face will be satisfied in return.
Goffman (1955, 1967) distinguishes manners of everyday encounters by using the terms demeanor as
supporting one’s own face and deference as supporting the other person’s face, with the assumption that acting withdemeanor entails acting with deference. Hence, when a conflict between two parties occurs, threatening theinterlocutor’s face simultaneously threatens one’s own face, in that the threatening person violates the expectation ofmutual concern with face and thus damages his or her own reputation. For this reason, individuals, as social beings,
need to be motivated to resolve conflict as often as possible and to whatever degree possible.
1.2. Value systems across cultures behind coping with conflict situations
Despite the universality of the desire for face assumed by Goffman, value systems about what behaviors are
expected or preferred to satisfy individual face seem to differ from culture to culture. The cultural variety in suchsocial behaviors has often been discussed in terms of the dichotomous characterization between Western (e.g., North
American and European countries) and Eastern (e.g., Asian countries) cultures, such as Hall’s (1976, 1984) low versus
high context, and Hofstede’s (1980) individualism versus collectivism. Hall (1984) distinguishes between low and highcontexts in Western and Eastern cultures: People in the high context Eastern cultures convey information implicitly
while people in the low context Western cultures state information explicitly. Likewise, the dichotomy ofindividualism versus collectivism (Hofstede, 1980) is often cited in cultural studies (e.g., Dalsky, 2010; Markus &Kitayama, 1991; Scollon & Scollon, 1995; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988; Wierzbicka, 1991).
Individualism is characterized by self-reliance and accordingly corresponds to behaviors of low context, in whichstatements are explicit. On the other hand, collectivism is characterized by interdependence, which assumes thatpeople expect others to understand them without communicating any specific expressions to those others. As a result,collectivism corresponds to behaviors in high context cultures.
Several empirical studies have supported the dichotomous concepts that Western cultures are generally
characterized by low context and individualism whereas Eastern cultures indicate characteristics of high context andcollectivism (e.g., Bond, Wan, Keung, & Giacalone, 1985; Cousins, 1989; Hofstede, 1980; Kim-Jo, Benet-Martinez, &Ozer, 2010; Leung, 1988; Merkin, 2006; Ting-Toomey, Gao, Trubisky, Yang, Kim, Lin, & Nishita, 1991; Wheeler,
Reis, & Bond, 1989). However, there is also some counter-evidence to this claim (e.g., Dalsky, 2010; Sofue, 1979;
Takano & Osaka, 1999; Tanaka, Spencer-Oatey, & Cray, 2000).A closer look at previous cross-cultural comparisonsamong the three cultures of the United States, Japan, and Koreahas shown that Japanese people are more likely totake other-oriented behaviors, compared to both Koreans (e.g., Ide & Yim, 2004; Yim, 2004 for refusal; Ozaki, 2005
for request and thanking) and Americans (e.g., Barnlund & Yoshioka, 1990 for apology; Beebe & Takahashi, 1989 fordisagreement; Nomura & Barnlund, 1983 for criticism). In contrast, comparisons between Koreans and Americans
have produced inconsistent results: Some studies have indicated that Koreans are more other-oriented than
Americans (e.g., Kim, 1994 for request), but others have shown no significant difference between the two cultures(e.g., Holtgraves & Yang, 1990 for request). Given the variations in the aforementioned cross-cultural comparisons,this study attempts exploratory examination of face work behaviors seen in responses to other people’s unreasonableaccusations across the United States, Japan, and Korea, considering these responses as examples of conflict situations.
1.3. Responses to Unreasonable Accusation: A Conflict Situation
The occurrence of an accusation means that the accuser conveys some dissatisfaction with the accused.
However, it is often the case that the accuser and the accused have conflicting views about the cause of theaccusation. In other words, some sorts of accusation could be considered unreasonable from the viewpoint of theaccused. In this study, we define “unreasonable accusation” as a statement by the accuser, expressing theirdissatisfaction with the accused, and which the accused believes is unjustified. Responses to the unreasonableaccusations can be viewed as examples of conflict situations. In such situations, the accused wants to disagree with theaccuser’s claim. According to Brown and Levinson’s framework (1978, 1987), which extended Goffman’s view, if theaccused chooses to refute the accusation, he or she will select face-threatening responses to the accuser.

Kiyama et. al.

21

On the other hand, if the accused decides to tolerate or accept the accusation in order to maintaininterpersonal relationships, it follows naturally that he or she will select face-saving responses to the accuser, such as
agreement and apology.
Tanaka, Spencer-Oatey, and Cray (2000) have observed that the Japanese are likely to refuse to apologize
unless they accept responsibility for having committed a fault. Although Tanaka et al. (2000) do not clarify thereasoning behind this response; one possible interpretation is that the more Japanese people value social harmony, themore they will require the interlocutor to adopt a cooperative attitude. If that is the case, Japanese people who arecertain about their innocence may take great offense at unreasonable accusations and unleash a strongly negative
response. Even though the Japanese are said to be eager to seek social harmony, not all Japanese people have thesame needs, interests, or behaviors (Kiyama, Tamaoka, & Takiura, 2012). To the extent to which Japanese people areincompatible with each other, conflict over the question of responsibility will be inevitable in their interactions(Krauss, Rohlen, & Steinhoff, 1984). Consistent with Tanaka et al.’s (2000) finding, Gudykunst and Nishita (1993)
also reported that Japanese people, guided by honor and traditions, are likely to mention duties and obligations to
persuade others. South Koreans in a collectivistic high-context culture as well as the Japanese may also feel and use
social norms and pressure to guide and convince others. Korean culture generally demands that more deferential
language (more so than Japanese) be regularly used in referring to anyone older; including an elaborate system ofaddressee honorifics to indicate the interpersonal relationship between the addresser and the addressee, regardless of
the utterance content (Brown, 2015). Saving face in Korean society, therefore, can be a difficult task in situations
involving age and power. Americans in an individualistic low-context culture, contrarily, seem to differ greatly fromtheir Asian counterparts in matters of responses to accusations. As for accepting responsibility, Americans may
believe that each person is responsible for him- or herself and try to disassociate themselves from situations where
they feel that they are being forced to accept unwarranted responsibility for something that has gone wrong(Westerhof, Whitbourne, & Freeman, 2012).
1.4. Multiple Factors Influence Responses to Unreasonable Accusations as an Example of Conflict
Situations
People try to keep a balance among multiple faces in social encounters, a very challenging process. If facework is based on the principle of reciprocity, as Goffman (1967) notes, it is difficult to weigh two competing faces,
namely, one’s own face and the interlocutor’s face. Regardless of which face gets sacrificed, people have to be
motivated to redress that face by using many different strategies. Beyond that, a realization of face work should be theresult of interactional effects caused by multiple factors. As noted above, culture is frequently reported as a major
factor influencing interpersonal relationships (e.g., see Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989; Gudykunst, ed., 2003;
Ting-Toomey, 2009). Yet, even people who have been raised in the same culture may exhibit varying responses.
Because people usually desire to maintain smooth interpersonal relationships with other members of a given society,they may respond less defensively to the interlocutor with greater social standing or more familiar parties by hiding
their feelings of displeasure in conflict situations (e.g., Becker, Kimmel, & Bevill, 1989; MacGeorge, Lichtman, &Pressey, 2002 for advice; Holtgraves, Srull, & Socall, 1989 for assertion; Holtgraves, 1986 for questions). The content
of a situation also leads to different reactions (e.g., Leichty & Applegate, 1991; Sharkey & Stafford, 1990).
The factors that plausibly fluencing a person’s face work behaviors are efficiently summarized by Brown andLevinson’s (1978, 1987) model in which a person estimates the degree of his or her face-threatening act (FTA) to theinterlocutor. Brown and Levinson, following Goffman’s (1955, 1967) conceptualization of face work, assume that aperson selects a face-redressing (i.e., politeness) strategy appropriate to the degree to which an act is face-threatening
to the interlocutor. Further, in order to estimate the degree of an FTA, they propose three factors as follows:
Wx = D (S, H) + P (H, S) + Rx
Wx is the weight of an FTA, D refers to a distance (D) between one and the interlocutor, P refers to the power (P) theinterlocutor has over the other, and R refers to a value that measures the degree to which the FTA(x) is rated as an
imposition in that culture (Brown & Levinson, 1987, pp. 76-77). They explain that these factors can be viewed invarious ways. P (power) is assessed as greater when the interlocutor is eloquent and influential, and D (distance) is
usually measured by social distance based on stable social attributes.

22International Journal of Linguistics and Communication, Vol. 4(1), June 2016

In this exploratory study of unreasonable accusations, we shall assume P corresponds to differences in thesocial statuses of the accusers and D corresponds to the differences in familiarity between the accuser and theaccused. The conceptualization of R (ranking of imposition) is abstract, because Brown and Levinson subsume all
variables influencing face work (other than P and D) into the factor of R. From their explanation of R as “culturally
and situation ally defined ranking of impositions,” it is clear that R includes situational factors together with cultural
factors. Their intention behind such an abstraction of R seems to allow their formula to make clear the universal
phenomena of face work processes, on the basis of Goffman’s (1967) original view that actual realizations of facework differ according to culture whereas its motive stems from universal human nature.
The feature of this formulation deserves a generative model that accounts for face work (Holtgraves, 2002,
2009; Kiyama, et al., 2012) and at the same time receives criticisms from linguistic pragmatists (e.g., Kasper, 1990),
and sociologists (e.g., Psathas, 1995). For the purpose of analyses of the interactional effects among multiple factors
influencing face work behaviors, the effect of cultural factor needs to be investigated independently from that ofsituational factor. In this study, then, we assume R to be the situational factor and set the cultural factor as anindependent predictor candidate of responses to unreasonable accusations. Taken together, the current study
conducted a questionnaire survey of responses to unreasonable accusations as an example of face work in conflictsituations in terms of 1) culture, 2) the accusation situation differing on the locus of responsibility, 3) the power of theaccuser, and 4) the familiarity between the accuser and the accused.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
A total of 785 undergraduate and graduate students (380 male and 405 female)participated in the current
survey. Of these students, 201 were from the United States (85 male and 116 female), 271 were from Japan (163 maleand 108 female), and 313 were from South Korea (132 male and 181 female). None of them participated in the
manipulation check (described in 2.3). The native languages of the participants in each country were English,
Japanese, and Korean, respectively. They volunteered to fill out the questionnaire in approximately 20 minutes,
without compensation. All of the American participants were enrolled at a public university located in the State ofGeorgia, and all of the participants from Japan were enrolled at a private university in Tokyo. The Korean participants
were from several private universities in the metropolitan area of Seoul. The ages of the American participants ranged
from 18 years and 7 months to 40 years and 0 months (M = 23.37 years, SD = 4.37 years).The ages of the Japaneseparticipants ranged from 18 years and 4 months to 25 years and 8 months (M = 20.07 years, SD = 1.57 years). The
ages of the Korean participants ranged from 18 years and 1 month to 29 years and 0 months (M = 21.24 years, SD =2.31 years). Participants over 40 years old were eliminated from the analysis.
2.2. Material
Two scenarios using different situations concerning unreasonable accusations were originally created for thepresent survey. The situations differed depending on whether the accused (i.e., a participant) recognized his or her
own fault clearly or not, in order to generate a difference in the locus of responsibility in a given conflict situation.
Each scenario consisted of a brief description of a situation involving two people, the accuser and the accused. The
participants were asked to imagine that they were the accused in the situation and had to respond to an accusation
about something that was their fault, even though the hypothetical accuser had previously made the same mistakes
several times. This was intended to make the participant (i.e., the accused) feel that the accusation was unreasonable.
However, in order to avoid the participants being aware of our intentions, the words ‘fault’ and ‘unreasonable’ were
not used throughout the questionnaire.
In Situation 1, where the accuser’s (i.e., the participant’s) fault was unclear, an accusation occurred due to amisunderstanding about the time of an appointment. The participants were first asked to imagine a situation in which
they had an appointment with a person (i.e., the accuser) and had arrived at the agreed location on time. However, theaccuser (who was habitually late) had arrived early, and accused the participant of arriving late.
In Situation 2, in which the accuser’s (i.e., the participant’s) fault was clear, an accusation occurred due to a
mistake by the accused, which was in charge of the cash accounts of a tour group. Participants were then asked toimagine that they had been carefully doing the accounting work for their seminar class tour group but had made a
mistake. One of the seminar members, who had also made similar mistakes with accounting work previously, accused
the participant of being irresponsible.

Kiyama et. al.

23

For each scenario, participants were presented with five possible responses per situation and asked to selectthe one they felt was closest to what they would say in the situation. As shown in the appendix, each scenario waspaired with examples of two types of face-saving responses towards the accuser, two types of face-threatening
responses towards the accuser, and an avoidance of explicit response. This approach allowed us to compare response
choices concerning face work across the three different cultural groups using frequencies of choices. Five responses
were created for each of the two situations resulting in a total of ten possible responses. The scenarios and the
responses to the two situations were first created in Japanese and then translated into Korean and English by highlyadvanced bilinguals with many years of research experience. The translations were later back translated into Japanese,and no significant problems were found. (The material is provided in English in the Appendix.)
2.3. Manipulation checkWe asked 81 college students, not overlapping with the main survey, to evaluate the severity and unreasonablenessof the two accusation situations. We also asked participants to evaluate the disagreeability of the ten responses (i.e., five
responses per situation) to the accusation situations, knowing the situations and responses might be evaluateddifferently across the three cultures. The 81 students consisted of 30 Americans (19 male and 11 female), ranging
from 18 to 35 years (M = 22.3 years, SD = 4.4), 28 Japanese participants (16 male and 12 female), ranging from 18 to
23 years (M = 20.0 years, SD = 1.1), and 23 Koreans (10 male and 13 female), ranging from 18 to 24 years (M = 21.0
years, SD = 1.8). The native languages of the participants were English, Japanese, and Korean, respectively.
Participants were asked to read the scenarios and responses and then decide whether or not each situation
was severe and unreasonable, in addition to whether or not responses disagreed with the accuser. They did this by fillingin specific numbers, based on how they felt, ranging from 0% (totally disagree) to 100% (totally agree). The degrees of
unreasonableness were analyzed using a linear mixed effects (LME) methodology (see Baayen, 2008; Baayen,Davidson, & Bates, 2008; Bates, 2005; West, Welch, &Gatecki, 2007) implemented in PASW Advanced Statistics ver.
18.0J (SPSS, 2006). This methodology is advantageous in that it tests the significance of predictor variable(s) as fixedvariable(s) over effect of random variable(s). The present study set factors of situation and culture as fixed variables,and participants as a random variable.
Table 1 provides mean degrees (i.e., the percentage) of unreasonableness of the two accusations evaluated by
students from the United States, Japan, and South Korea. The LME analysis revealed that the main effect of situation
was significant (F1, 78 = 35.695, p< .001.), while the main effect of culture was not significant (F2, 59 = 1.873, p = .163,ns.). The interactive effect between situation and culture was significant (F2, 78 = 5.403, p< .01.). The significance ofinteraction may be because American participants showed a relatively larger average difference (25.1%) between thetwo situations, compared to their counterparts from Japan (16.3%) and South Korea (15.7%). Nevertheless,participants from all of the three cultures in general perceived Situation 2 (where the accuser’s fault is clear; involving
the cash account) as more unreasonable than Situation 1 (the accuser’s fault is unclear; involving the appointment).
Table 1: Perception of unreasonableness of accusation in situations

The U.S.
Japan
Korea
Total

Situation 1(Appointment)
M%(SD %)
44.0(36.1)
50.0(31.7)
61.3(31.2)
51.0(33.6)

Situation 2(Cash account)M%(SD %)
89.0(36.1)
66.3(23.7)
77.0(27.2)
77.7(25.4)

24

International Journal of Linguistics and Communication, Vol. 4(1), June 2016

Table 2: Perception of severity of accusation situations

The U.S.
Japan
Korea
Total

Situation 1(Appointment)
M%(SD %)
53.0(33.2)
53.1(32.1)
60.7(29.6)
55.3(31.6)

Situation 2(Cash account)M%(SD %)
71.5(30.5)
55.9(27.6)
68.3(30.9)
65.2(30.1)

Table 3: Perception of disagreeability expressed in responses to accusation
Situation 1 (Appointment)

The U.S.
Japan
Korea
Total

Response 1
M% (SD%)
13.0 (25.0)
41.6 (42.6)
46.7 (43.5)
33.6 (40.3)

Response 2
M% (SD%)
41.1 (30.0)
54.4 (35.4)
57.3 (41.7)
50.8 (36.5)

Response 3
M% (SD%)27.3 (29.6)
47.8 (35.4)
49.0 (41.9)
41.2 (37.2)

Response 4
M% (SD%)
71.1 (34.0)
73.9 (34.3)
37.6 (37.0)
59.5 (38.7)

Response 5
M% (SD%)
63.4 (32.5)
74.6 (33.3)
54.2 (40.5)
63.2 (36.4)

Note: Responses 1 to 5 say “Sorry for the trouble,”“I may be confused,”“avoiding explicit comment,”“Itmight be two-thirty,” and “I’m not irresponsible,” respectively.
Table 4: Perception of disagreeability expressed in responses to accusation
Situation 2 (Cash account)

The U.S.
Japan
Korea
Total

Response 1
M% (SD%)
20.0 (31.3)
58.0 (36.1)
40.0 (36.2)
38.2 (37.4)

Response 2
M% (SD%)32.5 (30.7)
45.9 (36.5)
29.0 (41.7)
35.0 (36.9)

Response 3
M% (SD%)31.6 (29.2)
42.0 (33.1)
42.0 (40.0)
38.4 (34.5)

Response 4
M% (SD%)53.6 (27.1)
55.7 (34.0)
32.0 (35.0)
46.2 (33.6)

Response 5
M% (SD%)
66.4 (30.9)
43.9 (24.8)
41.3 (36.9)
50.7 (33.4)

Note: Responses 1 to 5 say “Sorry for the trouble,”“I might be careless,”“avoiding
explicitcomment,”“It’s only my first mistake,” and “I’m not irresponsible,” respectively.
Table 2 shows mean degrees (i.e., the percentage) of severity of the two accusations evaluated by students
from the United States, Japan, and South Korea. The degrees of severity, like unreasonableness, were analyzed using
the LME method. Results revealed that the main effect of situation was significant (F1, 79 = 6.036, p< .05.), whereas no
significance was found for the main effect of culture (F2, 61 = 1.243, p = .296, ns.) and the interaction effect between
the two factors (F2, 79 = 1.537, p = .221, ns.). Our participants perceived Situation 2 (where the accuser’s fault is clear;involving the cash account) as more severe (65.2%) than Situation 1 (the accuser’s fault is unclear; involving theappointment). (55.3%), regardless of the participants’ culture.
Lastly, the LME method was used to compare mean degrees of the disagreeability (i.e., percentage) of the
responses to accusations among the three cultures (i.e., a fixed variable), setting participants as a random variable.
Table 3 provides the mean degree of disagreeability of the responses in Situation 1 concerning an appointment. The
same analysis revealed that cultural differences were significant for Response 1,“ Sorry for the trouble” (F2, 62 = 8.386,
p< .001.), Response 4, “The agreed time might be two-thirty” (F2, 61 = 4.280, p< .05.), and Response 5, “I’m notirresponsible” (F2, 64 = 5.556, p< .01.), whereas no significance was found for Response 2,“I might be careless” (F2, 60= 1.344, p = . 268, ns.), and Response 3, avoiding explicit comment (F2, 62 = .901, p = .411, ns.). Table 4 shows thedisagreeability in Situation 2.

Kiyama et. al.

25

The same LME analysis revealed that significant cultural differences were found for Response 1, “Sorry forthe trouble” (F2, 61 = 8.322, p< .001.), Response 3, “avoiding explicit comment” (F2, 62 = 3.658, p< .05.), and Response
4, “It’s only my first mistake” (F2, 62 = 8.966, p< .001.). By contrast, no significance was found for Response 2, “I may
be confused” (F2, 63 = 1.947, p = .151, ns.) and Response 5, “I’m not irresponsible” (F2, 63 = 1.792, p = .175, ns.).
In the light of the results of this manipulation check, we should assume that a participant’s evaluation ofdisagreeability of responses to accusation to be culturally specific. Evaluations of unreasonableness and severity of theaccusation situations, however, were essentially the same among the three cultures. Therefore, perception about which
strategy is more face-saving/face-threatening in each situation should not be treated as a continuous variable. Instead,the main analyses of the present questionnaire were conducted in an exploratory way in which the hypotheticalresponses were treated as categorical (i.e., qualitative) data separately for each culture.
2.4. Analysis
We employed a decision tree analysis to examine how responses to accusations within each culture were
influenced by interactional effects caused by the four candidate factors (i.e., culture, power, distance, and situation).
This analysis aims to select a useful subset of predictors in descending order from a larger set of candidate factors,
with respect to a dependent measure. Since the dependent measure in the present study is categorical data of theparticipants’ response selection, we utilized a classification tree analysis is to seek qualitative significant differences. This
classification tool is built on the basis of the algorithm chi-squared automatic interaction detector (CHAID) which was
originally proposed by Kass (1980). CHAID automatically chooses the candidate factor that has the strongest
interaction, followed by the next-highest one (SPSS, 2006). In the tree-growing process, each parent node representing
a factor split into child nodes only if a significant difference is found among any of other factors. Every node splitting
step uses Bonferroni’s adjusted p values to avoid Type I Error (i.e., false positives). In this study, we examined theparticipants’ response selections in terms of two candidate factors: (1) the hypothetical accuser’s power (teacher, peer,
and junior) and (2) familiarity (familiar and unfamiliar) between the accuser and the accused. We used SPSSClassification Trees ver. 15.0J (SPSS, 2006) for this analysis.
3. Results
3.1. Situation 1: Concerning an Appointment
Situation 1 describes an accusation situation concerning an appointment, but whether it was the accuser’s(participant’s) fault or not remains unclear. The situation was perceived as less unreasonable and severe, according to
the manipulation check. Figures 1 to 3 show classification trees that predict the participants’ selection of responses tothe accusation presented in Situation 1. Influences of the two independent variables (i.e., power and familiarity) on the
response selection differed among participants from the United States, Japan, and South Korea. The response
selection of American and Korean participants was principally influenced by the accuser’s power (i.e., whether theaccuser was a teacher, peer, or junior). On the other hand, the principal factor influencing the choice of Japaneseparticipants was familiarity (i.e., whether the accused were familiar or unfamiliar with the accuser).A classification tree
for American participants (Figure 1) showed that their selection of responses to the accusation was significantly
different depending on whether the accuser was a teacher or not (χ24 = 209.659, p< .001). 59.2% of the participantschose Response 2,“I have gotten confused,” to the accusation uttered by teachers (Node 1) versus 42.3% (Node 2)
for the more preferred response, the one to the accusation by peers and juniors, which was Response 4, “The agreed
time might have been two-thirty”. The factor of familiarity also influenced the participants’ response selection (χ24 =
13.801, p< .01 for teachers; χ24 = 29.848, p< .001 for peers and juniors).
As shown in Figure 2, in contrast to the Koreans and Americans, the majority of Japanese participants
selected Response 4, “The agreed time might have been two-thirty,” regardless of the interpersonal relationshipbetween the accuser and the accused. Although the dominant response did not change for any type of accuser, thestrongest predictor of the Japanese participants’ pick was familiarity (χ24 = 139.444, p< .001). For a familiar accuser(Node 1), 69.5% of Japanese participants selected Response 4, “The agreed time might have been two-thirty.”26

International Journal of Linguistics and Communication, Vol. 4(1), June 2016

In contrast, for an unfamiliar accuser (Node 2), the ratio of Response 4, “The agreed time might have been
two-thirty,” to Response 2, “I may have gotten confused,” was relatively low, 46.7%, to 31.2%. Additionally, theJapanese response selection was influenced by the factor of power (Nodes 3 to 7) (χ24 = 54.417, p< .01 for familiar; χ24= 92.815, p< .001 for unfamiliar).
Korean participants, like Americans, revealed that the strongest predictor of response selection (Figure 3) was
the accuser’s power (χ24 = 116.857 p< .001). Likewise, similar to Americans, they chose Response 4, “The agreed timemight have been two-thirty” for peers and juniors (43.3%, Node 2). However, the preferred response to teachers was
distinct. Unlike Americans, Koreans were almost evenly divided between those who selected Response 4 (28.9%) andthose who selected Response 1, “Sorry for the trouble,” (28.8%), shown in Node 1. The factor of familiarity was thesecond predictor of responses to peers and juniors (χ24 = 10.028, p< .05), generating Nodes 3 and 4, although it had
no significant influence on responses to teachers.

Figure 1: Classification tree of responses in Situation 1 concerning an appointment (less unreasonable andsevere): The United States (n = 201)

Kiyama et. al.

27

Figure 2: Classification tree of responses in Situation 1 concerning an appointment (less unreasonable andsevere): Japan (n = 271)

Figure 3: Classification tree of responses in Situation 1 concerning an appointment (less unreasonable andsevere): Japan (n = 313)

28

International Journal of Linguistics and Communication, Vol. 4(1), June 2016

Figure 4: Classification tree of responses in Situation 2 concerning an appointment (highly unreasonable
and severe): The United States (n = 201)3.2. Situation 2: Concerning Cash AccountSituation 2 involves an accusation about the accuser’s (participant’s) error in accounting work. The
manipulation check indicated this accusation was perceived as highly unreasonable and severe. Figures 4 to 6 present
results of the classification tree analyses of the participants’ response selection, which was the same across the threecultures: The most selected response was Response 1, “Sorry for the trouble.” Nevertheless, the three cultures showed
different patterns in which the factors of power and familiarity influenced the participants’ response choice. As
revealed in Figure 4, the strongest predictor of American participant response selection was the factor of the accuser’s
power (χ24 = 104.537, p < .001). Response 1, “Sorry for the trouble,” was the principally selected response to teachers(68.1%, Node 1). When replying to peers and juniors (Node 2), Response 5, “I’m not irresponsible,” also yielded aconsiderable ratio of 26.9%, in addition to 38.4% for Response. Moreover, the familiarity factor influenced responses
to peers and juniors (χ24 = 21.297, p < .001) generating Nodes 3 and 4, but it had no significant influence on
responses to teachers.
The response selection of Japanese participants (Figure 5) was, like Americans, principally influenced by thepower factor (χ24 = 100.009, p < .001). The most preferred response to teachers was Response 1, “Sorry for thetrouble” (70.5%, Node 1). Both Responses 1 and 2 were found to be popular choices in answering accusations bypeers and juniors as shown in Node 2. Unlike Americans, Japanese seldom picked Response 5, “I’m notirresponsible,” when addressing the teacher (2.8%, Node 1), peer, and junior situations (7.8%, Node 2). The factor offamiliarity also consistently influenced Japanese participant responses, as the second predictor of their responses (χ24
= 30.326, p < .001 for teachers; χ24 = 40.962, p < .001 for peers and juniors), generating Nodes 3 to 6.
For Korean participants (Figure 6), the significant predictor was only the power factor (χ24= 73.445, p < .001),
and no significant influence of familiarity was found on any responses, different from both the Americans andJapanese participants. For any accuser type, the most preferred response was Response 1, “Sorry for the trouble”(49.2% for teachers, Node 1; 35.8% for peers, Node 2; 29.2% for juniors, Node 3). Nevertheless, response selection
to juniors tended to vary: 29.2% for Response 1, 23.0% for Response 2, 17.4% for Response 3, 17.7% for Response
4, and 12.6% for Response 5.

Kiyama et. al.

29

Figure 5: Classification tree of responses in Situation 2 concerning an appointment (highly unreasonable
and severe): Japan (n = 271)

Figure 6: Classification tree of responses in Situation 2 concerning an appointment (highly unreasonable
and severe): South Korea (n = 313)
4. Discussion
To investigate universality and cultural variability of face work behavior in conflict situations, this study
conducted a survey about how people from the United States, Japan, and South Korea selected responses tounreasonable accusations. Specifically, we examined the accusation situation, the accuser’s power, and the familiarity
between the accuser and the accused. Results revealed several similarities and differences among the participants’
perception to unreasonable accusations across the three cultures. First, a manipulation check showed no significant
differences in the participants’ evaluation of the unreasonableness and severity of a situation of accusation amongpeople from the United States, Japan, and South Korea.

30International Journal of Linguistics and Communication, Vol. 4(1), June 2016

The reasonable and “right” things seemed to be universally accepted. However, there were significant
differences of culture in the participants’ evaluation of disagreeability in responses to accusation. This suggests thatthe concept of values regarding specific language expressions is culturally specific. Many cross-cultural
miscommunications may occur, not caused by differences in how to perceive the same situation, but instead led bydifferent ideas about what to say and how to behave in the same situation.
Second, the results of the classification tree analyses revealed that the response selection by our participantsfrom the three cultures differed depending on the situation. In the more unreasonable and severe situation concerning
the cash account (i.e., Situation 2), it seemed to be common sense in each culture that anyone accused of his or her
own mistake should apologize, even if the accuser had previously made similar mistakes several times. On thecontrary, to less unreasonable and severe accusations, such as the one concerning the time of appointment (i.e.,
Situation 1), participant responses were relatively diversified among the three cultures. There was no consensus on
how to manage accusations in a situation that was not that unreasonable and severe.
Third, the relationship of power, and the familiarity between the accuser and the accused, had differing
influences on the participants’ response selection to accusation across culture of origin. This implies that culturaldifferences play a role in assessing interpersonal relationships and in structuring value systems that affect language
expressions suitable for given interlocutors. For instance, in the less unreasonable and severe accusation situation(involving an appointment), power, followed by familiarity, was the strongest predictor of American and Korean
responses, while familiarity, followed by power, was the strongest for Japanese participants. By contrast, in the highly
unreasonable and severe accusation situation (involving a cash account), power, followed by familiarity, was thestrongest predictor of American and Japanese responses while only power only the predictor of Korean responses.
Finally, to sum up the characteristics of the three cultures, American participants clearly changed their
responses depending on the accuser. It should also be noted that some Americans tended to select the assertive
response of “I’m not irresponsible” to the highly unreasonable and severe accusation, if the accuser did not have more
power than they did. This response was rarely selected by Japanese and Koreans, regardless of who the accuser was.
This may be viewed as a dichotomy of western individualistic (i.e., American) and eastern collectivistic (i.e., Japaneseand Korean) cultures (e.g., Hall, 1976, 1984; Triandis, 1995; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal, Asai, & Lucca, 1988). The
Japanese response selection was most strongly influenced by both the balance of power in the relationship and thefamiliarity between the accuser and the accused. Whether power or familiarity became the first predictor changed,
depending on the situations. This suggests that Japanese culture may have more complex ways of assessing
interpersonal relationships, compared with American and South Korean culture. In the Korean responses, therelationship of power consistently had the strongest influence across the three cultures, while the influence offamiliarity was the weakest. Also, many Korean participants responded to teachers with an apology in both accusation
situations. As revealed in previous studies (e.g., Ide & Lim, 2004; Ozaki, 2005; Tamaoka, Lim, Miyaoka, & Kiyama,2010), teachers may be given a stronger status in Korea.
It is possible that response selection differs according to interpersonal relationships because individuals in asocial encounter do not necessarily receive equal treatment regarding face. This phenomenon can be seen in realworld encounters. For instance, in a conversation among three or more people, a person may treat a closer
interlocutor (e.g., spouse or friend) differently from a distant interlocutor (e.g., stranger or person in a higher
position). The idea of interactional imbalance in face work is not a new concept. Goffman (1967) promoted the idea
in his conceptualization of the ritual of demeanor, which refers to behaviors that convey the self as a desirable quality,and deference, which deals with behaviors that convey respect for others. According to Goffman, acting withdemeanor entails acting with deference. This means that the self should incur a slight loss when interacting with otherpeople. In other words, sometimes individuals have to save the interlocutor’s face in order to save their own faces.
This imbalance of face work can clearly be seen in our findings of responses to unreasonable accusations selected bypeople from the United States, Japan, and South Korea.
The present study has revealed some insights into similarities and differences in conflict management
processes across three cultures. However, a possible methodological limitation lies in the fact that participants wereasked to select their responses from a list, instead of generating their own responses. Since there have not been any
common indices to measure the degrees of face-saving/threatening expressed in responses in previous studies, we
explanatorily prepared unstandardized hypothetical responses to accommodate each situation of unreasonableaccusations.

Kiyama et. al.

31

Due to the irregularity of perception about degree of disagreeability of the responses among the threecultures, the main analysis was limited in comparisons of frequency of response selection per situation for each
culture. In future research, a standardized schema needs to be developed for conflict situations, if we are to investigate
more complex and elaborative expressions in actual encounters. of course, many determinants and consequences areembedded within any social interaction. Further investigations on other candidate factors and on other various
cultures are needed if we are to move towards a more complete understanding of face work in conflict situations.
5. Conclusion
The decision tree analysis for response selections of unreasonable situations in the present study havedemonstrated that the intrinsic content of a conflict is a crucial determinant of responses by the accused and that theinterpersonal relationship between the accuser and the accused has the next-to-strongest influence on the responses.
Beyond that, the details of the effects of the distance factor differ according to culture. To conclude, while perceptionof conflict situations appears to be universal, the assessment of interpersonal relationships and the value placed on
language expressions suitable for the given interlocutors appear to differ according to culture.
References
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge University Press.
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for
subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59,390-412.
Becker, J. A., Kimmel, H. D., &Bevill, M. J. (1989). The interactive effects of request form and speaker status on
judgments of requests. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 18,521-531.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bond, M. H., Wan, K. C., Keung, K., & Giacalone, R. A. (1985). How are responses to verbal insults related to
cultural collectivism and power distance? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16,111-127.
Brown, L. (2015). Honorifics and politeness. In L. Brown, & J. Yeon. (Eds.), The handbook of Korean linguistics (pp. 303319). NY: Willy Blackwell.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.),
Questions and politeness(pp. 56-289). Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usages. Cambridge University Press.
Burnland, D., & Araki, S. (1985). Intercultural encounters: The management of compliments by Japanese andAmericans. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 16, 9-26.
Burnland, D., &Yoshioka, M. (1990). Apologies: Japanese and American styles. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 14,193-206.
Cousins, S. D. (1989). Culture and self-perception in Japan and the U.S. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
56,124-131.
Dalsky, D. (2010). Individuality in Japan and the United States: A cross-cultural priming experiment. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34,429-435.
Goffman, E. (1955). On face work. Psychiatry, 18,213-231.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago: Aldine.
Guan, X., Park, H. S., & Lee, H. E. (2009). Cross-cultural differences in apology. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 33,32-45.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishita, T. (1993). Interpersonal and intergroup communication in Japan and the United States.
In W. B. Gudykunst. (Ed.), Communication in Japan and the United States(pp. 149-214). State University of New
York Press.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. NY: Anchor Books.
Hall, E. T. (1984). The dance of life: The other dimension of time. NY: Anchor Books.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Holtgraves, T. (1986). Language structure in social interaction: Perceptions of direct and indirect speech acts andinteract ants who use them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,305-314.

32International Journal of Linguistics and Communication, Vol. 4(1), June 2016

Holtgraves, T., Srull, T., K., & Socall, D. (1989). Conversation memory: The effects of speaker status on memory forthe assertiveness of conversation remarks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56,149-160.
Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies andinferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,719-729.
Ide, R.,&Yim, Y. (2004). Hashi to chokkalak: Kotoba to bunka no nikkan-hikaku [Japanese chopsticks and Korean chopsticks: A
comparison between Japanese and Korean on language and culture].Tokyo: Taishukan.
Kass, G. V. (1980). An exploratory technique for investigating large quantities of categorical data. Journal of Applied
Statistics, 29,119-127.
Kim-Jo, T., Benet-Martinez, V., & Ozer, D. J. (2010). Culture and interpersonal conflict resolution styles: Role ofacculturation. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 41,264-269.
Kiyama, S., Tamaoka, K., & Takiura, M. (2012). Applicability of Brown and Levinson's politeness theory to a nonWestern culture: Evidence from Japanese facework behaviors. SAGE Open, October-December, 1-15.
Kraus, E. S., Rohlen, T. P., & Steinhoff, P. G. (1984). Conflict in Japan. University of Hawaii Press.
Leichty, G., & Applegate, G. L. (1991). Social-cognitive and situational influences on the use of face-saving persuasive
strategies. Human Communication Research, 17, 451-484.
Leung, K. (1988). Some determinants of collective avoidance. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 19,125-136.
Liu, M. (2009). The intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of anger on negotiation strategies: A cross-culturalinvestigation. Human Communication Research, 35,148-169.
MacGeorge, E. L., Lichtman, R. M., &Pressey, L. C. (2002). The evaluation of advice in supportive interactions:
Facework and contextual factors. Human Communication Research, 28,451-463.
Merkin, R. S. (2006). Uncertainty avoidance and facework: A test of the Hofstede model. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations,30,213-228.
Ozaki, K. (2005). Irai-kodo to Kansha-kodokaramitanikkan no idou [Comparisons between Japan and Korea in termsof request and thanking behaviors]. Nihongogaku [Japanese Linguistics],24(7), 42-51.
Park, H. S., & Guan, X. (2009). Culture, positive and negative face threats, and apology intentions. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 28,244-262.
SPSS Inc. (2006). SPSS Classification Trees (Version 15.0) (Computer software and manual). Chicago.
Tanaka, N., Spencer-Oatey, H., & Cray, E. (2000). “It’s not my fault”: Japanese and English responses to unfoundedaccusations. In H. Spencer-Oatey. (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures(pp. 7597). London: Continuum.
Tamaoka, K., Lim, H., Miyaoka, Y., &Kiyama, S. (2010). Effects of gender-identity and gender-congruence on levelsof politeness among young Japanese and Koreans. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 20, 23-45.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2009). Facework collision in intercultural communication. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini, & M. Haugh.
(Eds.), Face, communication, and social interaction(pp. 227-249). London: Equinox.
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S., Lin, S., & Nishita, T. (1991). Culture, face maintenance,and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A study in five cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management,
2,275-296.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation
theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22,187-225.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: West view.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N. (1988). Individualism-collectivism. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54,323-338.
West, B. T., Welch, K. B., &Gatecki, A. T. (2007). Linear mixed models: A practical guide using statistical software. Boca
Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Westerhof, G. J., Whitbourne, S. K., & Freeman, G. P. (2012). The aging self in a cultural context: The relation ofconceptions of aging to identity processes and self-esteem in the United States and the Netherlands. Journals ofGerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 67,52-60.
Wheeler, L., Reis, H. T., & Bond, M. H. (1989). Collectivism-individualism in everyday social life: The middle
kingdom and the melting pot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,79-86.

Kiyama et. al.

33

Appendix: Scenarios of Two Settings Concerning Unreasonable Accusation Settings
Participants read the following scenarios and selected one of the five alternatives for six hypothetical accusers
per situation. Notes in parentheses were not presented to participants in the actual questionnaire.
Setting 1: Concerning appointments (less unreasonable and severe)
You have made an appointment with a certain person to meet at two-thirty in the afternoon. You tried not tobe late and arrived at the agreed location at two-twenty five, five minutes ahead of time. The other person had alreadyarrived and said to you “The time we promised to meet was two o’clock. You are twenty minutes late. You are
irresponsible.” However, in two prior arranged meetings, this person had been late, but you had never been late.
Alternative responses to the above statements by the hypothetical interlocutors:
1. You say you are sorry for the trouble, admitting that you are late. (Face-saving)
2. You say you might have been confused about the time of the appointment. (Face-saving)
3. You say nothing of importance. (Avoidance of response)
4. You say that the agreed time might be two-thirty. (Face-threatening)
5. You claim you are not irresponsible because you are not late. (Face-threatening)
The hypothetical interlocutors (The above alternatives of response are presented per interlocutor. The interlocutors
are randomly presented per setting in the actual questionnaire)
Case 1: A teacher with whom you have talked much. (Familiar teacher)
Case 2: A teacher with whom you have not as yet talked much. (Unfamiliar teacher)
Case 3: A classmate of the same age with whom you have talked much. (Familiar peer)
Case 4: A classmate of the same age with whom you have not as yet talked much. (Unfamiliar peer)
Case 5: A younger person with whom you have talked much. (Familiar junior)
Case 6: A younger person with whom you have not as yet talked much. (Unfamiliar junior)
Setting 2: Concerning a mistake in the cash account of a group tour (highly unreasonable and severe)Suppose a group of students attending the same seminar class went on a group tour, and you were appointed
to manage its cash account. You did your job carefully so as not to make mistakes in dealing with the money you were
entrusted with by your classmates. Unfortunately, however, you did make a mistake. As a consequence, one of themembers said, “You are irresponsible for making a mistake in the money account.” However, this was the first time
you had made such a mistake while your accuser had made similar mistakes on two previous occasions.
Alternatives of response to the above statements by the hypothetical interlocutors
1. You say you are sorry for the trouble, admitting your mistake. (Face-saving)
2. You say you might have been careless. (Face-saving)
3. You say nothing of importance. (Avoidance of response)
4. You say that it may be only your first mistake. (Face-threatening)
5. You say you are not irresponsible because you have done the job carefully up to that point. (Face-threatening)
The hypothetical interlocutors
Identical with Setting 1.