A Comparative Analysis of Mianzi and Facework Strategies Among Chinese and Western European University Students
Journal: Journal of Higher Education Research DOI: 10.32629/jher.v7i3.5311
Abstract
This study investigates the divergent approaches to “face”and “facework” between Chinese and Western European university students, aiming to provide a multi-layered explanation for observed behavioral differences in face-threatening situations. Employing a mixed-methods approach, the research analyzes quantitative survey data from 15 scenario-based questions administered to both cultural cohorts and interprets these findings through a qualitative synthesis of established theoretical frameworks. The results reveal a consistent pattern: Chinese students predominantly favor harmony-oriented, indirect, and other-focused facework strategies, while their Western European counterparts gravitate toward direct, assertive, and self-focused strategies. The primary contribution of this paper is the development of a comprehensive explanatory model that moves beyond a singular theoretical lens. By integrating Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, Ting-Toomey’s Face-Negotiation Theory, and the foundational philosophical traditions of Confucianism and the European Enlightenment, this study argues that these divergent communication styles are not arbitrary but are predictable outcomes of deeply rooted cultural value systems. The findings underscore the enduring resilience of cultural norms in an era of globalization and highlight the critical need for nuanced intercultural competence in international higher education and beyond.
Keywords
“mianzi” culture; Hofstede’s cultural latitude theory; cross-cultural communication; social hierarchy; individualism
Full Text
PDF - Viewed/Downloaded: 0 TimesReferences
[1]Heng, T. T. (2021). Understanding the psychological and sociocultural adjustment of Chinese international students in the United States: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of International Students, 11(2), 265–284.
[2]Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Anchor Books.
[3]Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213–235). Sage.
[4]Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of the United States, Germany, Japan, and China. Communication Monographs, 70(4), 235–258.
[5]Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), Article 8.
[6]Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 187–225.
[7]Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage Publications.
[8]Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
[9]Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
[10]McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith—a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118.
[11]Ho, D. Y. F. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81(4), 867–884.
[12]Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concepts of "face." American Anthropologist, 46(1), 45–64.
[13]Chen, X. (2023). A review on mianzi in interpersonal, familial, and business settings. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 26(3), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12470
Gao, G. (1998). "Don’t take my word for it"—Understanding Chinese speaking practices. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 163–186.
[14]Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
[15]Ting-Toomey, S. (2017). Face-negotiation theory: A permeable theory. In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of intercultural communication (pp. 1–14). Wiley.
[16]Chen, G. M. (2008). Communication competence and moral competence: A Confucian perspective. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 3(3), 1–16.
[17]Zhu, Y., & Bresnahan, M. J. (2024). Chinese international students' facework and collective face concerns in response to group criticism. Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication.
[18]Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
[19]Baldwin, R. (2016). The great convergence: Information technology and the new globalization. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
[20]Pomeranz, K. (2000). The great divergence: China, Europe, and the making of the modern world economy. Princeton University Press.
[2]Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Anchor Books.
[3]Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213–235). Sage.
[4]Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of the United States, Germany, Japan, and China. Communication Monographs, 70(4), 235–258.
[5]Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), Article 8.
[6]Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 187–225.
[7]Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage Publications.
[8]Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
[9]Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
[10]McSweeney, B. (2002). Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith—a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89–118.
[11]Ho, D. Y. F. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81(4), 867–884.
[12]Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concepts of "face." American Anthropologist, 46(1), 45–64.
[13]Chen, X. (2023). A review on mianzi in interpersonal, familial, and business settings. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 26(3), 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12470
Gao, G. (1998). "Don’t take my word for it"—Understanding Chinese speaking practices. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 163–186.
[14]Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
[15]Ting-Toomey, S. (2017). Face-negotiation theory: A permeable theory. In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of intercultural communication (pp. 1–14). Wiley.
[16]Chen, G. M. (2008). Communication competence and moral competence: A Confucian perspective. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 3(3), 1–16.
[17]Zhu, Y., & Bresnahan, M. J. (2024). Chinese international students' facework and collective face concerns in response to group criticism. Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication.
[18]Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
[19]Baldwin, R. (2016). The great convergence: Information technology and the new globalization. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
[20]Pomeranz, K. (2000). The great divergence: China, Europe, and the making of the modern world economy. Princeton University Press.
Copyright © 2026 Yuan Gao
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License