The Effects of National Culture and Face Concerns on Intention to Apologize: A Comparison of the USA and China

Park, Hee Sun; Guan, Xiaowen

doi:10.1080/17475750601026933

Cited by 22 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But despite the fact that each literature does not regularly reference the other, the two do exert influence on one another and other related research streams. An example of this influence on other streams lies in research on the interface of apologies and facework-the idea that those involved in a trust violation situation have differing needs when it comes to face needs, with cultural differences being particularly relevant (Guan, Park, & Lee, 2009;Kim, Guan, & Park, 2012;Park & Guan, 2006). For instance, Park & Guan (2006) documented that, relative to U.S. respondents, Chinese respondents have been shown to be more prone to initiate an apology depending on the broader situational context (i.e., whether their act potentially violated a target's positive face).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Exploration of the Structure of Effective Apologies

Lewicki

Polin

Lount

2016

Negotiation Conflict Man Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Violations of trust are an unfortunate but common occurrence in conflict and negotiation settings: negotiators make promises that they do not keep; parties in conflict behave in unexpected ways, escalating tensions and breaking past trust. What often follows these violations is some form of an account, specifically an apology, in an effort to repair that trust. But are some apologies more effective than others? Two studies reported here examine the structural components of apologies. Six components of an apology were defined from previous research and presented to subjects—singly and in combination—in the form of component definitions and in the context of a trust violation scenario. Results indicate that not all apologies are viewed equally; apologies with more components were more effective than those with fewer components, and certain components were deemed more important than others. Moreover, apologies following competence‐based trust violations were seen as more effective than apologies following integrity‐based violations. Implications and future directions for research in the structure of effective apologies are presented.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Exploration of the Structure of Effective Apologies

Lewicki

Polin

Lount

2016

Negotiation Conflict Man Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The discussion so far has attested to the common sense that although the concept of apology is universal, its applications and interpretations can be divergent among various language groups and even within a language group (Park and Guan, 2006) in accordance with different sociocultural contexts, gender-related differences and situational characteristics. This observed sociolinguistic diversity in the speech act of apologizing has important implications for language teaching and learning since misunderstandings can easily arise if communicators across language groups fail to recognize those governing rules in different sociolinguistic contexts.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Influenced by various types of situations, perceptions of whether the offensive context threatens individual's positive or negative face have a certain effect on their intention to apologize (Park & Guan, 2006). As exemplified in the study by Park and Guan (2006), the bus situation was regarded as a negative face threatened situation since the act of stepping on other person's foot is presumed to violate his/her personal space. The restaurant situation was characterized as a positive face threatened situation because the act of laughing at other person's belch is considered to embarrass him or her.…”

Section: Situational Variations In Apologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Apart from sociocultural effects on productions of apologies, some research has attested to the influence of sociocultural differences on perceptions of apologies (Chang & Haugh, 2011;Park & Guan, 2006). Due to the differences in their sociocultural backgrounds, the Australian and Chinese respondents have different interpretations regarding the importance of sincerity in evaluating the im/politeness of apologies.…”

Section: Sociocultural Influencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study (Park & Guan, 2006) considered in-group and out-group memberships as situational variants that may influence the participants' perceptions of their intention to apologize. In-group members include friends, family members, and colleagues, whereas out-group members are strangers or opponents whose well-being is of little concern or can even clash with that of in-group members (Park & Guan, 2006). Based on the research findings, American and Chinese participants showed inconsistency in their perceptions of their intentions to apologize.…”

Section: Perceptions Of Apologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Productions and Perceptions of Apologies: Intercultural Comparisons

Wang¹

2017

AES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The productions and perceptions of apologies vary from one language to another in terms of linguistic realization patterns, strategic preferences, and evaluative opinions. Accordingly, these variations motivate the investigation of apology use and its perceptions in different languages. By comparing productions and perceptions of apologies among college students who speak Arabic, Russian, English and Chinese languages, the current study reports on the students' various strategic preferences (i.e., explicit or direct apology strategies, less explicit or indirect apology strategies and strategy combinations) and their diverging tendencies to evaluate the im/politeness of apologies. The results have confirmed that although the concept of apology is universal, its applications and interpretations can be divergent across various language groups and within each language group. These observed discrepancies can be attributed to sociocultural influences (e.g., face need concerns and culturally-specific perceptions of sincerity), gender-related differences (e.g., explicit and indirect apology strategies used more frequently by females than males) and situational characteristics (e.g., positive vs. negative face threatened situations, and in-group vs. out-group memberships). In addition, the author believes that this synthesis study will provide certain implications for ESL/EFL teaching and learning by enhancing the awareness of intercultural communicators to better make inferences from the effects of the three responsible factors on their use of apologies.

show abstract