2.1Defining ‘face’ in Chinese and Japanese

The concept of ‘face’ is believed to have originated in China (Bargiela-Chiappini 2003Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca 2003 “Face and Politeness: New (Insights) for Old (Concepts).” Journal of Pragmatics 35 (10–11): 1453–1469. ) and was first explained in terms of mianzi and lian by Hu in 1944Hu, Hsien Chin 1944 “The Chinese Concepts of ‘Face’”. American Anthropologist 46 (1): 45–64. . During the early twentieth century, the Chinese notions mianzi and lian were borrowed by the Japanese as mentsu and kao, acquiring this figurative meaning (Sueda 1998Sueda, Kiyoko 1998 “Chugokujin Gakusei to Nihonjin Gakusei no “Mentsu” no Gainen oyobi Komyunikeshon Sutoratejii ni kansuru Hikaku no Ichi Jirei Kenkyuu [A Quantitative Analysis of Differing Perceptions of Mien-tzu/Mentsu between Chinese and Japanese Students: A Case Study].” Japanese Journal of Social Psychology 13 (2): 103–111.). Chinese and Japanese face share similarities in terms of their ‘Chinese character’, as exemplified by Chinese mianzi 面子 vs. Japanese mentsu 面子. However, several studies have revealed that Chinese and Japanese face differ in terms of either the linguistic expressions or their internal constructs. The Chinese lian is related to a ‘possession’ collocated with ‘have’ or ‘do not have’, whereas the Japanese kao is more concerned with the vertical changes collocated with ‘increase’ or ‘decrease’ (Ervin-Tripp et al. 1996Ervin-Tripp, Susan M., Kei Nakamura, and Jiansheng Guo 1996 “Shifting Face from Asia to Europe.” In Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, and Sandra A. Thompson, 32–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ). In terms of internal constructs, the Chinese mianzi is more frequently threatened when there is a negative evaluation of personal competence, while social status tends to crush the Japanese mentsu, in particular the way in which people are treated according to their social status (Sueda 1998Sueda, Kiyoko 1998 “Chugokujin Gakusei to Nihonjin Gakusei no “Mentsu” no Gainen oyobi Komyunikeshon Sutoratejii ni kansuru Hikaku no Ichi Jirei Kenkyuu [A Quantitative Analysis of Differing Perceptions of Mien-tzu/Mentsu between Chinese and Japanese Students: A Case Study].” Japanese Journal of Social Psychology 13 (2): 103–111.). Yabuuchi (2004)Yabuuchi, Akio 2004 “Face in Chinese, Japanese, and U.S. American Cultures.” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 14 (2): 261–297. proposes that if Japanese speakers fail to fulfil their duties, they will lose face. In contrast, Chinese speakers are more concerned with promoting face by manipulating their rules to build guanxi (‘relationship’).

Contrastive studies of Chinese and Japanese face have received little attention, but research on the emic notions of face has been more comprehensive. Chinese notions of face operate as an inseparable whole of mianzi and lian, with reputation and morality as the distinguishing components of the two representations (Zhou and Zhang 2017Zhou, Ling, and Shao-jie Zhang 2017 “How Face as a System of Value-Constructs Operates through the Interplay of Mianzi and Lian in Chinese: A Corpus-Based Study.” Language Sciences 64: 152–166. ). The creation or maintenance of interpersonal relationships (guanxi) is heavily dependent on everyday renqing (‘favour’) and mianzi practices (Ran and Zhao 2018Ran, Yongping, and Linsen Zhao 2018 “Building Mutual Affection-Based Face in Conflict Mediation: A Chinese Relationship Management Model.” Journal of Pragmatics 129: 185–98. ). Conversely, displaying and soliciting or invoking emotion (ganqing/renqing) and empathy/sympathy (tiliang) from co-participants is intimately related to the interactional accomplishment of face (Chang 2018Chang, Wei-Lin Melody 2018 “Emotivity and Face: Displaying and Soliciting Emotivity in Chinese Mediation Interactions.” Lingua 213: 43–62. ). Besides emotional concerns, the recipient’s image and material interests are needed to understand acts interpreted as mianzi giving (Li 2020Li, Hui 2020 “Towards an Emic Understanding of Mianzi Giving in the Chinese Context.” Journal of Politeness Research 16 (2): 281–303. ). As a Chinese individual tends to be perceived as part of a community (Pan and Kádár 2011Pan, Yuling, and Dániel Z. Kádár 2011 “Historical vs. Contemporary Chinese Linguistic Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (6): 1525–1539. ), self-face also represents the face of the individual’s group (He and Zhang 2011He, Ming, and Shaojie Zhang 2011 “Re-Conceptualizing the Chinese Concept of Face from a Face-Sensitive Perspective: A Case Study of a Modern Chinese TV Drama.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (9): 2360–2372. ). Individual behaviour on behalf of a group and personal individual behaviour can affect both group face and individual face (Wang and Spencer-Oatey 2015Wang, Jiayi, and Helen Spencer-Oatey 2015 “The Gains and Losses of Face in Ongoing Intercultural Interaction: A Case Study of Chinese Participant Perspectives.” Journal of Pragmatics 89: 50–65. ).

On the other hand, emic notions of the Japanese face consist of mentsu, kao, taimen and menboku, which were borrowed from Chinese culture over time. Unlike Chinese notions of face, namely mianzi and lian, which overlap to a significant extent in representing the values assumed in interpersonal communication (Zhou and Zhang 2017Zhou, Ling, and Shao-jie Zhang 2017 “How Face as a System of Value-Constructs Operates through the Interplay of Mianzi and Lian in Chinese: A Corpus-Based Study.” Language Sciences 64: 152–166. ), Japanese notions of face incorporate a hierarchical relationship, with kao having the widest semantic field, encompassing the notions of menboku, taimen and mentsu (Haugh 2005Haugh, Michael 2005 “What Does ‘Face’ Mean to the Japanese? Understanding the Import of ‘Face’ in Japanese Business Interactions.” In Asian Business Discourse(s), ed. by Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini, and Gotti Maurizio, 211–238. Berlin: Peter Lang.). Haugh (2007)Haugh, Michael 2007 “Emic Conceptualisations of (Im)Politeness and Face in Japanese: Implications for the Discursive Negotiation of Second Language Learner Identities.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (4): 657–680. further claims that the place to which one belongs (uchi) and the place where one stands (tachiba) are important for understanding Japanese face: the perceived evaluation of one’s place by a particular seken (‘imagined community’) has much to do with the loss, gain or maintenance of one’s own face, or that of one’s group. The Japanese face becomes noticeable only when persons with specific kinds of relationships are involved in encounters. It refers to one’s own public image and the fulfilment of one’s social role as expected by others (Lin and Yamaguchi 2008Lin, Chun-Chi, and Susumu Yamaguchi 2008 “Japanese Folk Concept of Mentsu: An Indigenous Approach from Psychological Perspectives.” In Perspectives and Progress in Contemporary Cross-Cultural Psychology: Proceedings from the 17th International Congress of the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, ed. by Gang Zheng, Kwok Leung, and John G. Adair, 343–357.). The maintenance of face denotes the successful claim of valued characteristics that individuals wish to convey in the presence of others. Specifically, the awareness to preserve Japanese face encompasses the concepts of perceived abilities, individual standing, dignity, and trustworthiness (Feldman and Kinoshita 2019Feldman, Ofer, and Ken Kinoshita 2019 “Ignoring Respect: The Effects of Threat to Face on Replies and the Ensuing Questions During Broadcast Political Interviews in Japan.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 38 (5–6): 606–627. ), and positive dispositional features such as autonomy and willingness (Geyer 2010Geyer, Naomi 2010 “Teasing and Ambivalent Face in Japanese Multi-Party Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8): 2120–2130. ).

2.2Previous empirical studies of face in Chinese and Japanese

According to Ho (1976)Ho, David Yau-fai 1976 “On the Concept of Face.” American Journal of Sociology 81 (4): 867–84. , Chinese people experience two important changes in the status of one’s face: face-loss and face-gain. In Brown and Levinson’s framework, speech acts are applied as politeness strategies to mitigate different degrees of face-threat. There is no indication in that framework that speech acts can genuinely boost face when there is no need for redress (Terkourafi et al. 2020Terkourafi, Marina, Benjamin Weissman, and Joseph Roy 2020 “Different Scalar Terms are Affected by Face Differently.” International Review of Pragmatics 12 (1): 1–43. ). Face-enhancement should be positioned at one pole, with face-threat at the other. Hsu (1996)Hsu, Chuanhsi Stephen 1996 “ ‘Face’: An Ethnographic Study of Chinese Social Behavior.” Ph.D. dissertation. Yale University. tested thirty-two situations related to the loss of Chinese mianzi and lian. Correspondingly, Hinze (2002)Hinze, Carl G. 2002 “Re-Thinking ‘Face’ Pursuing an Emic-Etic Understanding of Chinese Mian and Lian and English Face.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Queensland. adapted Hsu’s approach and examined situations related to the gain of Chinese mianzi and lian. The two results revealed that prominent face-losing situations run against the moral order of Chinese culture, while prominent face-enhancing situations pertain to one’s ability to succeed in various significant endeavours in life and to one’s status vis-a-vis their fellow interactant(s), i.e., social standing. Zhang et al. (2011)Zhang, Xin-an, Qing Cao, and Nicholas Grigoriou 2011 “Consciousness of Social Face: The Development and Validation of a Scale Measuring Desire to Gain Face Versus Fear of Losing Face.” The Journal of Social Psychology 151 (2): 129–149. empirically assessed an individual’s desire to enhance face and fear of losing face through the measurement named Consciousness of Social Face. This finding aligns with previous studies that treated an individual’s concern for face as a two-dimensional construct, i.e., face-enhancement and face-threat (e.g., Hwang et al. 2003Hwang, Alvin, Anne Marie Francesco, and Eric Kessler 2003 “The Relationship Between Individualism-Collectivism, Face, and Feedback and Learning Processes in Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United States.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 34 (1): 72–91. ; Zhou and Zhang 2016Zhou, Ling, and Shao-jie Zhang 2016 “Hanyu Wenhua Texing de Jiji Pingjia Mianzi yu Xiaoji Pingjia Mianzi Gainian Jiangou: Jiyu Shenfen Lilun de Shijiao [Constructing Positively-evaluated Face and Negatively-evaluated Face in Chinese Culture: An Identity Theory-based Approach].” Foreign Languages and Their Teaching 5: 41–49+145.). However, to the best of our knowledge, no comparisons have been made between Chinese face and Japanese face regarding the distinction between face-enhancement and face-threat.

Both Chinese and Japanese face embody positively-evaluated and negatively-evaluated categories resulting from judgments and evaluations of a person’s behaviour (e.g., Ervin-Tripp et al. 1996Ervin-Tripp, Susan M., Kei Nakamura, and Jiansheng Guo 1996 “Shifting Face from Asia to Europe.” In Essays in Semantics and Pragmatics, ed. by Masayoshi Shibatani, and Sandra A. Thompson, 32–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ; Haugh 2005Haugh, Michael 2005 “What Does ‘Face’ Mean to the Japanese? Understanding the Import of ‘Face’ in Japanese Business Interactions.” In Asian Business Discourse(s), ed. by Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini, and Gotti Maurizio, 211–238. Berlin: Peter Lang.; Zhou and Zhang 2016Zhou, Ling, and Shao-jie Zhang 2016 “Hanyu Wenhua Texing de Jiji Pingjia Mianzi yu Xiaoji Pingjia Mianzi Gainian Jiangou: Jiyu Shenfen Lilun de Shijiao [Constructing Positively-evaluated Face and Negatively-evaluated Face in Chinese Culture: An Identity Theory-based Approach].” Foreign Languages and Their Teaching 5: 41–49+145.). Evaluation standards for face are closely tied to cultural values because face is socially constructed and determined by a system of cultural values (Bogdanowska-Jakubowska 2011Bogdanowska-Jakubowska, Ewa 2011 “Cultural Variability in Face Interpretation and Management.” In Politeness Across Cultures, ed. by Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini, and Dániel Z. Kádár, 237–357. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. ). Moreover, cultural differences in face are not based on the variety of components but on the varying emphasis placed on them (Goffman 1967Goffman, Erving 1967 Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York: Pantheon Books.). Zhou and Zhang (2017)Zhou, Ling, and Shao-jie Zhang 2017 “How Face as a System of Value-Constructs Operates through the Interplay of Mianzi and Lian in Chinese: A Corpus-Based Study.” Language Sciences 64: 152–166. further proposed the value-construct view of face, which asserts that Chinese face involves a system of values in its internal constructs. In particular:

[Face] is internally constructed of generally assumed individual, socio-cultural, and cognitive values that are illustrated by a cluster of such specific value-based factors as public self-image, morality, capability, social status, favour, dignity, self-esteem, etc.(Zhou and Zhang 2017Zhou, Ling, and Shao-jie Zhang 2017 “How Face as a System of Value-Constructs Operates through the Interplay of Mianzi and Lian in Chinese: A Corpus-Based Study.” Language Sciences 64: 152–166. , 162)

People’s communication behaviour is derived from the internalisation of their culture’s values (Gudykunst et al. 1996Gudykunst, William B., Yuko Matsumoto, Stella Ting-Toomey, Tsukasa Nishida, Kwangsu Kim, and Sam Heyman 1996 “The Influence of Cultural Individualism-Collectivism, Self Construals, and Individual Values on Communication Styles Across Cultures.” Human Communication Research 22 (4): 510–543. ). In this sense, the concept of face reveals one’s deference to, or violation of, the prevailing values in affiliated groups. However, comparative studies ignore the distinction between face-enhancement and face-threat, which can result from deference or violation. We assume that values triggering the perception of face-threat could be insensitive to the perception of face-enhancement or vice versa. In addition, Chinese and Japanese participants may have different degrees of face-enhancement or face-threat regarding the same value. The current study intends to explore the triggering values in face-enhancing and face-threatening scenarios in Chinese and Japanese linguacultures. In particular, it addresses the following questions:

3.1Participants

Utilising online platforms in China ( wenjuan​.com ) and Japan ( crowdworks​.jp ), we invited fifty Chinese (twenty-two male and twenty-eight female) and fifty Japanese (twenty-four male and twenty-six female) participants to complete the questionnaire. The participants represented a wide array of occupations, including students, teachers, doctors, business people, freelancers, homemakers and part-time employees. The age range for Chinese participants spanned from 19 to 51 years (mean 36.13), while the Japanese participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 68 years (mean 37.73). Geographically, the participants were from various regions, with most Chinese participants being from Shenyang (21%), Changchun (20%), and Dalian (20%), and most Japanese participants being from Tokyo (32%), Hokkaido (26%), and Osaka (21%). All participants had received secondary education or higher, with fifteen Chinese participants completing secondary education and thirty-five completing higher education, whereas twenty-one Japanese participants finished secondary education and twenty-nine completed higher education. The diverse mix of gender, age, educational background, and occupation contributed to the representativeness of the data. It is important to note, however, that our data do not encompass the full spectrum of cultural diversity within each linguaculture. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to posit that some of the attitudes our participants espoused are culturally-rooted and more closely aligned with members of their respective countries than with individuals from other nations.

In addition to our questionnaire data, we conducted supplementary interviews with a subset of respondents. Five participants from each linguaculture, whose perceptions were consistent with our contrastive findings from the survey, were invited to partake in these interviews. Ultimately, three Japanese and five Chinese accepted the invitation, enriching our study with more in-depth insights.

3.2Instruments

The data for this study were collected through a combination of a questionnaire and structured interviews. This mixed-method research provided both quantitative and qualitative data for identifying the prominent values and the underlying reasons.

In designing the questionnaire, we drew inspiration from previous studies (e.g., Hsu 1996Hsu, Chuanhsi Stephen 1996 “ ‘Face’: An Ethnographic Study of Chinese Social Behavior.” Ph.D. dissertation. Yale University.; Sueda 1998Sueda, Kiyoko 1998 “Chugokujin Gakusei to Nihonjin Gakusei no “Mentsu” no Gainen oyobi Komyunikeshon Sutoratejii ni kansuru Hikaku no Ichi Jirei Kenkyuu [A Quantitative Analysis of Differing Perceptions of Mien-tzu/Mentsu between Chinese and Japanese Students: A Case Study].” Japanese Journal of Social Psychology 13 (2): 103–111.; Zhang et al. 2011Zhang, Xin-an, Qing Cao, and Nicholas Grigoriou 2011 “Consciousness of Social Face: The Development and Validation of a Scale Measuring Desire to Gain Face Versus Fear of Losing Face.” The Journal of Social Psychology 151 (2): 129–149. ) to create five face-threatening scenarios and their corresponding symmetrical face-enhancing counterparts using antonyms. Face-threatening scenarios included ‘failing the examination’, ‘borrowing money from a friend’, ‘being disrespected by an inferior’, ‘being criticised by a superior’, and ‘not being invited to a close friend’s wedding ceremony’. Face-enhancing scenarios encompassed ‘passing the examination’, ‘lending money to a friend’, ‘being respected by an inferior’, ‘being praised by a superior’, and ‘being invited to a close friend’s wedding ceremony’. Attitudinal questions were employed to assess how respondents felt about a given scenario. For each scenario, participants were asked to provide a short answer explaining why they believed the situation was face-threatening or face- enhancing. Participants were encouraged to simply write ‘no’, if they considered the scenario irrelevant to face. The short answers served to capture the reasons behind the face-enhancement or face-threat created by the scenarios, i.e., research question 1. The frequencies of the reasons pointed out by participants were used to identify similarities and differences between Chinese and Japanese participants, addressing research question 2. This methodology constituted our primary comparative research approach.

The scenarios were initially produced in Chinese and subsequently translated into Japanese by the first author. The Japanese versions were then back-translated into Chinese by a different bilingual translator. The two Chinese versions were compared to ensure equivalence of the scenarios, making adjustments as necessary to maximise similarity in meaning. See Appendix 1 for its English translation.

Structured interviews were used to shed light on the cultural factors that contribute to the observed discrepancies between the two linguacultures. The questionnaire’s findings pointed to three scenarios – ‘borrowing money from a friend’, ‘being criticised by a superior’, and ‘being respected by an inferior’ – as sources of contrasting views on face held by Chinese and Japanese respondents. The interview materials comprised these three scenarios and the Chinese and Japanese participants’ differing perceptions regarding the scenarios.

3.3Procedures

The data collection process spanned around two weeks, ranging from 2 September 2022 to 18 September 2022. During the first week, we focused on collecting and analysing the questionnaire data. We simultaneously distributed the questionnaire through wenjuan​.com , a Chinese online platform, and crowdworks​.jp , a Japanese online platform. After collecting the initial data, we began the validation and coding process. Throughout the validation process, we paid particular attention to the relationship between the ‘reasons’ provided and face perceptions. In some instances, participants may evaluate the scenarios without identifying the reasons that triggered face-enhancement or face-threat. For example, while most participants agreed that the ‘being praised’ scenario was face-enhancing for having a good public image with pride, one participant commented on the necessity of being encouraged. We assumed that the latter did not establish a connection between the ‘being praised’ scenario and face perceptions, rendering the result invalid. The average completion time of the survey was approximately five minutes.

In the second week, we contacted respondents to schedule the interviews. On average, each interview lasted approximately fourteen minutes, and we conducted both Chinese and Japanese interviews on WeChat.11.The authors conducted interviews with Japanese respondents on WeChat because the popular Japanese application, Line, was unavailable in China. Prior to the interviews, we emailed the Japanese interviewees to assist them in downloading and using the application. During the interviews, we focused on the causes for the interviewees’ unique perceptions of the face-related scenarios. As an icebreaker, the participants were asked to describe a recent instance in which they had experienced face-enhancement or threat, such as “I had my face enhanced during the arm-wrestling competition because I had muscular arms”. The interviewer then proceeded to lay out the scenarios and the different perspectives toward the scenarios in order. Respondents were asked to explain the origins of their perceptions. For example, in the ‘borrowing money from a friend’ scenario, the Chinese interviewees were asked, “Why do you think it is the deficiency of ability, but not trouble to others, that make your face lost?” (italics could be substituted with other values). In contrast, the Japanese interviewees were asked, “Why do you think it is trouble to others, but not the deficiency of ability that make your face lost?” The interview materials were also translated and back-translated (see Appendix 2 for the questions in short). The interviews were performed in Chinese for Chinese participants and in Japanese for Japanese participants.

3.4Data coding and analysis

The present study adopts a value-construct approach to examine the values that triggered face-enhancement and face-threat among the Chinese and Japanese participants. In order to illustrate particular values determining the evaluations and judgments of face-enhancement or face-threat, our analysis focused on the ‘reasons’ described by participants in the questionnaire. We expected participants to identify the specific attributes that influenced their face perception by responding to the ‘reasons’ that lead to the perception of face-enhancement and face-threat. With the help of NVivo (version 12), the authors generalised these ‘reasons’ into specific values. For instance, the ‘public image’ value frequently emerged in our data, represented by yinxiang (‘impression’) and yingxiang (‘influence’) in Chinese, and hyoban (‘reputation’) and insho (‘impression’) in Japanese. Similarly, the ‘achievement’ value was expressed as bi bieren hao (‘better than others’) in Chinese and yūetsukan (‘a sense of superiority’) in Japanese.

Our participants may have provided multiple reasons for face-enhancement or face-threat. One Japanese participant, for instance, perceived the ‘borrowing money from a friend’ scenario as face-threatening due to ‘a lack of money’, ‘causing others trouble’, and ‘feeling embarrassed’. Consequently, we coded three ‘reasons’ leading to face-threat. Ultimately, we collected 369 Chinese results and 252 Japanese results, with a total of 625 reasons encompassing 333 reasons in Chinese and 292 reasons in Japanese (cf. Table 3). These reasons were categorised into seven types of values that trigger face-enhancement and seven types of values that trigger face-threat. We compared the frequency of values by conducting Chi-square tests with the significance level set at 0.05.

4.1Prominent triggering values of face-enhancement and face-threat

Based on the generalisation of the reasons that trigger face-enhancement, we ultimately identified seven main categories (see Table 1) of values. For each value, a Chinese example is provided first, followed by a Japanese example, in the table’s illustration column.

Status superiority refers to the ability to exert control over individuals and resources. The commanding position of a superior, as well as wealth superiority, were perceived as face-enhancing. Good public image refers to public approval of one’s image, which emphasises the distinctiveness of self from others and is often accompanied by the recognition of others. Competence concerns personal competence and the accomplishments achieved by the individual. Competence is frequently associated with comparisons between oneself and others, indicating a belief that one is superior to others. Self-esteem and pride are the positive inner feelings of the participants, that is, self-generated evaluations. Positive emotions, such as pride and glory, describe the inner feelings experienced in face-enhancing situations. Consideration22.According to Fukushima (2020)Fukushima, Saeko 2020 Metapragmatics of Attentiveness: A Study in Interpersonal and Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Bristol: Equinox., consideration is demonstrated by paying attention to the other party and tuning one’s feelings in line with theirs, i.e., doing something for the other party. In contrast, inconsideration refers to ignoring the feelings of others and causing them inconvenience or harm. relates to care and empathy, explicitly attending to the needs of others. Our participants suggested that their face was enhanced when they were assisting or doing something for the other party. Stable relationships emphasise the safety and stability of relationships between individuals and groups. Face is enhanced when one is considered a close friend or valued by others, indicating a sense of belonging. Responsibility involves adhering to social expectations in terms of fulfilling obligations. The responsibility value orients to group face as well. Those who were exposed to the ‘being respected by an inferior’ scenario reported their face enhanced after observing that their group members had completed the task on schedule. In addition, the responsibility value relates to self-management. The participant’s face was enhanced for working hard and demonstrating good self-management, rather than superiority over others.

The face-threat values were also divided into seven main categories (see Table 2).

Social status (threatened) originates from the challenge to one’s higher status, which leads to the loss of prestige. Negative public image refers to the negation of one’s image by other people. Incompetence concerns personal deficiencies and failures, which are often judged by oneself. Self-abasement and shame represent the participants’ inner feelings and are self-evaluations. Inconsideration denotes a lack of care or empathy towards others. In particular, the Japanese participants explained that it is considered shameful to trouble others. Unstable relationships refer to the insecurity of interpersonal relationships, especially when one is not approved as an insider. Irresponsibility refers to the failure to meet one’s duties. The participants indicated that the unfulfilment of personal obligations leads to a certain degree of face-threat.

Table 3 presents the frequency and percentage of values that trigger face-enhancement and face-threat.33. Table 3 shows 276 reasons triggering face-enhancement and 349 reasons triggering face-threat, which add up to a total of 625, matching the number of reasons produced by Chinese and Japanese participants. Table 4 presents the 276 reasons triggering face-enhancement reported by Chinese and Japanese participants, while Table 5 displays the 349 reasons triggering face-threat reported by the same participants. As illustrated in Table 3, values that trigger face-enhancement and face-threat are distributed in similar categories. In a descending trend, face perception is mainly related to competence and incompetence (29.44%), inner feelings: self-esteem and pride and self-abasement and shame (17.76%), positive or negative public image (14.72%), stable relationships and unstable relationships (12.96%), status superiority and social status (threatened) (11.20%), responsibility and irresponsibility (8.64%), followed by consideration and inconsideration (5.28%). It appears that face-enhancement is more likely to be triggered by competence (37.32%), compared with the percentage incompetence (23.21%) occupied in face-threatening situations. On the other hand, face-threat is more likely to be triggered by negative public image (18.05%) and self-abasement and shame (21.78%), compared with the percentage good public image (10.51%) and self-esteem and pride (12.68%) occupied in face-enhancing situations.

Our results showed that values triggering face-enhancement and face-threat belong to similar categories. However, the Chi-square goodness of fit test suggested that values triggering face-enhancement and face-threat differed significantly (χ ² = 5.693, p = .017). This indicates an asymmetric relationship of values that trigger face-enhancement and face-threat. Additional Chi-square tests showed that face-enhancement was more often triggered by competence (p = .005) and responsibility (p = .003), whereas face-threat was more often triggered by social status (threatened) (p = .041), negative public image (p = .022) and self-abasement and shame (p = .013). Only consideration vs. inconsideration (p = .844) and stable relationships vs. unstable relationships (p = .639) were equally perceived in face-enhancing and face-threatening situations.

4.2Comparison between Chinese and Japanese participants

Table 4 presents the frequency and percentage of values reported in face-enhancing situations by Chinese and Japanese participants. Overall, Chinese participants provided a greater number of values than Japanese participants (f = 167 for Chinese, f = 109 for Japanese). Both Chinese and Japanese participants considered competence (42.51% and 29.36%, respectively) as the prominent value that triggers face-enhancement. Compared with Chinese participants, Japanese participants considered status superiority to be a less sensitive value (11.98% and 1.83%, respectively). Both Chinese and Japanese participants mentioned consideration less frequently than other values in face-enhancing situations (4.19% and 6.42%, respectively).

The Chi-square tests showed that the Chinese participants reported status superiority more frequently (f = 20 for Chinese, f = 2 for Japanese; p = .004), and marginally44.The percentage of p-values between .05 and .10 that were described as “marginally significant” (Olsson-Collentine et al. 2019Olsson-Collentine, Anton, Marcel A. L. M. van Assen, and Chris H. J. Hartgerink 2019 “The Prevalence of Marginally Significant Results in Psychology Over Time.” Psychological Science 30 (4): 576–586. ). more often reported stable relationships (f = 29 for Chinese, f = 9 for Japanese; p = .059). Conversely, Japanese participants reported good public image (f = 10 for Chinese, f = 19 for Japanese; p = .007) and self-esteem and pride (f = 13 for Chinese, f = 22 for Japanese; p = .008) more frequently. Although participants reported different frequencies for competence, consideration, and responsibility, these differences did not reach a significant level (p = 0.131, 0.434, and 0.176, respectively).

Table 5 presents the frequency and percentage of values reported by Chinese and Japanese participants in face-threatening situations. Overall, Japanese participants provided a greater number of values than Chinese participants (f = 166 for Chinese, f = 183 for Japanese). Our Chinese participants considered incompetence (31.33%) as the prominent value, whereas our Japanese participants considered self-abasement and shame (27.32%) to be the prominent value. In addition, irresponsibility and inconsideration were less frequently mentioned by Chinese participants (2.41% and 1.81%, respectively) than by Japanese participants (8.20% and 8.74%, respectively). Chi-square tests showed that Japanese participants reported inconsideration (f = 3 for Chinese, f = 16 for Japanese; p = .007), self-abasement and shame (f = 26 for Chinese, f = 50 for Japanese; p = .034), and irresponsibility (f = 4 for Chinese, f = 15 for Japanese; p = .024) more frequently, whereas Chinese participants more frequently reported incompetence (f = 52 for Chinese, f = 29 for Japanese; p = .007). The participants reported different frequencies for social status (threatened), negative public image, and unstable relationship, but these differences did not reach a significant level (p = 0.557, 0.994, and 0.110, respectively).

In the following section, we provide a description of results from our structured interviews in which the respondents explained their choices.

As for the ‘borrowing money from a friend’ scenario, most Chinese respondents felt that their face was at risk due to their lack of competence. The lack of money represents inadequacies and inferiority on the part of the borrower. Our Chinese respondents emphasised that there is a link between personal competence and successful interpersonal relationship maintenance. One interviewee explained the relevance of personal superiority to interpersonal relationships:

Most Japanese participants, on the other hand, viewed the scenario as inconsiderate, because displaying no concern for friends is considered rude and poses a challenge to interpersonal connections. One interpretation by a Japanese respondent is:

Regarding the scenario of ‘being criticised by a superior’, both Chinese and Japanese respondents identified negative public image, self-abasement and shame as factors contributing to face loss. However, there are cultural differences in the significance of self-abasement and shame and their subordinate emotions, such as embarrassment and shame. While Chinese respondents viewed self-abasement and shame as fleeting and short-lived, Japanese respondents perceived them as persistent and frequent. Consider the following explanations:

As for the ‘being respected by an inferior’ scenario, the questionnaire yielded comparable answers to the ‘borrowing money from a friend’ scenario, with Chinese respondents emphasising status superiority and Japanese respondents emphasising responsibility. During the interview, Chinese respondents explained that the scenario is face-enhancing, as the members’ accomplishment of working is viewed as a face-giving act:

It appears that Chinese renqing practice occurs not just in social contexts, as evidenced by the ‘borrowing money from a friend’ scenario, but also in business settings, as demonstrated by the current case. Our Japanese interviewees, on the other hand, cited role-based obligations as the primary motivation for face-enhancement:

To sum up, the results of the interview demonstrated that the disparities between the two linguacultures were due to their divergent cultural orientations. The perception of face-threat and face-enhancement among the Chinese respondents was substantially correlated with guanxi (‘relationship’). Face and facework are frequently employed in Chinese social communication to maintain and enhance interpersonal relationships. The Japanese respondents, on the other hand, noted observations of social norms, such as the ideological term meiwaku (‘debt’), the fulfilment of obligations, and the prevalence of shame.

5.1The asymmetry of triggering values in face-enhancement and face-threat scenarios

Our participants confirmed that face-enhancement is triggered by a set of cultural values, including status superiority, good public image, competence, self-esteem and pride, consideration, stable relationships, and responsibility. Participants felt their face enhanced when the public approved their image or evaluated their ability higher than their peers, as indicated by status superiority, good public image, and competence. Face relates more to others’ judgments in accordance with external constraints, emphasising an individual’s personal dependence on social approval and driving the desire for more positive feedback through comparisons to others. Face is also self-judged; self-esteem and pride are positive self-generated evaluations that participants experience after successfully maintaining their face.

Interestingly, we discovered new understandings of how face is influenced by consideration. Both Chinese and Japanese individuals acknowledged the importance of others in social interactions, which motivates the protection of others’ face by allowing them to look good (Morisaki and Gudykunst 1994Morisaki, Seiichi, and William B. Gudykunst 1994 “Face in Japan and the United States.” In The Challenge of Facework: Cross-Cultural and Interpersonal Issues, ed. by Stella Ting-Toomey, 47–93. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.). Our study suggests that showing consideration also protects one’s self-face, albeit at a lower frequency (cf. Table 4). Both contributors and beneficiaries perceive consideration to be face-enhancing, as indicated by the ‘lending money to a friend’ scenario. Helping others is definitely a polite behaviour, which seems to contradict Hinze’s (2012Hinze, Carl G. 2012 “Chinese Politeness Is Not about ‘Face’: Evidence from the Business World.” Journal of Politeness Research 8 (1): 11–27. , 20) argument that concerning mianzi did not engender polite behaviour (linguistic or otherwise). Responsibility is also self-face related by observing conventional modes of social bonding in established groups (Schwartz et al. 2012Schwartz, Shalom H., Jan Cieciuch, Michele Vecchione, Eldad Davidov, Ronald Fischer, Constanze Beierlein, Alice Ramos, Markku Verkasalo, Jan-Erik Lönnqvist, Kursad Demirutku, Ozlem Dirilen-Gumus, and Mark Konty 2012 “Refining the Theory of Basic Individual Values.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103 (4): 663–688. ). Those who deviate from the conventional modes of behaviour risk losing their self-face because they are seen as irresponsible or untrustworthy. Our study suggests that one’s self-face, as indicated by fulfilling one’s duties, is politeness-related by observing the norms of manner/etiquette, i.e., liyi in Chinese and leigi in Japanese (Haugh 2007Haugh, Michael 2007 “Emic Conceptualisations of (Im)Politeness and Face in Japanese: Implications for the Discursive Negotiation of Second Language Learner Identities.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (4): 657–680. ). The consideration of others’ face is also politeness-related by observing the norms of attentiveness, i.e., zhoudao in Chinese and kikubari in Japanese (Fukushima and Haugh 2014Fukushima, Saeko, and Michael Haugh 2014 “The Role of Emic Understandings in Theorizing Im/Politeness: The Metapragmatics of Attentiveness, Empathy and Anticipatory Inference in Japanese and Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics 74: 165–179. ; Zhou and Zhang 2018Zhou, Ling, and Shao-jie Zhang 2018 “Reconstructing the Politeness Principle in Chinese: A Response to Gu’s Approach.” Intercultural Pragmatics 15 (5): 693–721. ).

As for values triggering face-threat, our participants claim that social status (threatened), negative public image, incompetence, self-abasement and shame, inconsideration, unstable relationships, and irresponsibility are sensitive to the perception of face-threat. Inconsideration and unstable relationships did not differ significantly from their corresponding values. However, social status (threatened), negative public image, incompetence, and self-abasement and shame differed significantly from their corresponding values (cf. Table 3). We assume that values triggering face-enhancement and face-threat could embody an asymmetric feature in which specific values are more related to face-threat, but not so much to face-enhancement, and vice versa. This result is consistent with the previous claims that when face is positively evaluated, there is praise for one’s achievement, whereas face is negatively evaluated when an individual’s quality of character, i.e., reputation, is involved (Haugh 2005Haugh, Michael 2005 “What Does ‘Face’ Mean to the Japanese? Understanding the Import of ‘Face’ in Japanese Business Interactions.” In Asian Business Discourse(s), ed. by Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini, and Gotti Maurizio, 211–238. Berlin: Peter Lang.; Zhou and Zhang 2017Zhou, Ling, and Shao-jie Zhang 2017 “How Face as a System of Value-Constructs Operates through the Interplay of Mianzi and Lian in Chinese: A Corpus-Based Study.” Language Sciences 64: 152–166. ).

Face conceptualisation requires both face-enhancement and face-threat. Matsumoto (1988)Matsumoto, Yoshiko 1988 “Reexamination of the Universality of Face: Politeness Phenomena in Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 12 (4): 403–26. suggests that Japanese honorifics are used in apparently non-face-threatening situations. Thanking, congratulating, inviting, and promising are all face-enhancing behaviours that help achieve a “positive face goal” (Leech 2014Leech, Geoffrey N. 2014 The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. , 110). However, moving away from face-threat, face arrives at a saving point, where the values associated with face-threat are retained. When face reaches the point of enhancement, distinctive values may become apparent. In their research design, for example, Holtgraves and Kraus (2018)Holtgraves, Thomas, and Brian Kraus 2018 “Processing Scalar Implicatures in Conversational Contexts: An ERP Study.” Journal of Neurolinguistics 46: 93–108. chose the broader “non-face-threatening” dimension as the inverse of “face-threatening”.

5.2Perceptions of face-enhancement and face-threat by Chinese and Japanese

Contrastive results indicated both similarities and differences between Chinese and Japanese participants. Similar frequencies of reported values were found in competence, consideration, and stable relationships in face-enhancing situations. In face-threatening situations, similar frequencies of reported values were found in social status (threatened), negative public image, and unstable relationships. This result is inconsistent with Sueda’s (1998)Sueda, Kiyoko 1998 “Chugokujin Gakusei to Nihonjin Gakusei no “Mentsu” no Gainen oyobi Komyunikeshon Sutoratejii ni kansuru Hikaku no Ichi Jirei Kenkyuu [A Quantitative Analysis of Differing Perceptions of Mien-tzu/Mentsu between Chinese and Japanese Students: A Case Study].” Japanese Journal of Social Psychology 13 (2): 103–111. claim that Japanese face is more harmed when people are unfairly treated according to their social status. In collectivist cultures such as Chinese and Japanese, there is a strong emphasis on hierarchy (Triandis et al. 1990Triandis, Harry C., Christopher McCusker, and C. Harry Hui 1990 “Multimethod Probes of Individualism and Collectivism.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59 (5): 1006–1020. ). This vertical dimension embraces inequity, and privileges are granted according to social ranks in both cultures.

The cultural exchanges between China and Japan have spanned thousands of years, with Chinese notions of face being incorporated into Japanese culture during various historical periods. The figurative use of face is represented by two Chinese terms: mian and lian (Hu 1944Hu, Hsien Chin 1944 “The Chinese Concepts of ‘Face’”. American Anthropologist 46 (1): 45–64. ). It was during the early twentieth century (the 1920s–1930s) that the Chinese term mian(zi) was borrowed into (Modern Standard) Japanese, with a different pronunciation as men(tsu) (Haugh 2005Haugh, Michael 2005 “What Does ‘Face’ Mean to the Japanese? Understanding the Import of ‘Face’ in Japanese Business Interactions.” In Asian Business Discourse(s), ed. by Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini, and Gotti Maurizio, 211–238. Berlin: Peter Lang.). The Chinese term yan, referring to prestige (e.g., in the compound form yanmian) was incorporated into (Modern Standard) Japanese with a different pronunciation, kao, and acquired the figurative sense of positive social image during the Heian period (8–12 century A.D.) (Haugh 2005Haugh, Michael 2005 “What Does ‘Face’ Mean to the Japanese? Understanding the Import of ‘Face’ in Japanese Business Interactions.” In Asian Business Discourse(s), ed. by Francesca Bargiela-Chiappini, and Gotti Maurizio, 211–238. Berlin: Peter Lang.).

Another similarity is that our participants were more concerned with values triggering face-threat (cf. Table 3). This suggested that, compared with actions contributing to face-enhancement, behaviours were more likely to be motivated by the avoidance of face-threat, i.e., face-saving behaviours. The emphasis on face-saving behaviours illustrates why the Western understanding of face is explainable from the perspective of Brown and Levinson’s (1987Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson 1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ) politeness theory. We believe that only the threat of face-loss has been incorporated into Western linguacultures, rather than the desire for face-enhancement.

Comparative results indicated that, in face-enhancing situations, Chinese participants reported a significantly higher frequency of status superiority and competence, whereas Japanese participants reported more instances of good public image, self-esteem and pride, and responsibility (cf. Table 4). The Chinese participants considered social status and competence as embodiments of superiority through an acknowledged advantage over other people. This result is consistent with the notion of getting face promoted by manipulating their rules to build guanxi (‘relationship’) (Yabuuchi 2004Yabuuchi, Akio 2004 “Face in Chinese, Japanese, and U.S. American Cultures.” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 14 (2): 261–297. ). Chinese individuals build guanxi by exchanging renqing (‘favour’) in social communication. The practice of renqing renders Chinese interpersonal guanxi more multidimensional (Yuan 2022Yuan, Zhoumin 2022 “Yanyu Jiaoyu Zhong de Guanxi Guanli Moxing: Bentu Yuyong Shijiao [Guanxi Management Model in Verbal Communication: An Indigenous Pragmatic Perspective].” Foreign Language Research 2: 1–7. ). For instance, the participants had different perceptions of the ‘lending money to a friend’ scenario:

The examples demonstrate that our participants agreed that the ‘lending money to a friend’ scenario influences the perceptions of face-enhancement. However, the Chinese participant claimed that competence superiority (geng youxiu) and financial status superiority (geng youqian) contribute to face-enhancement to some extent. Our Chinese participants indicated individual superiority through the explicit or implicit comparison with others. In contrast, the Japanese participants explained this scenario by referring to consideration, i.e., tasukeru (‘help others’). In other words, the Japanese participants believed that showing care and empathy was a path to greater self-face.

The Japanese participants took inconsideration and irresponsibility more seriously in face-threatening scenarios, often accompanied by a sense of shame, as indicated by their higher mentioning of self-abasement and shame (cf. Table 5). Inconsideration and irresponsibility are inconsistent with the traditional Japanese notion of giri, the sense of duty or obligation based on emotional attachment towards the target person(s) (Doi 1971Doi, Takeo 1971 Amae no Kozo [The Construction of Interdependence]. Tokyo: Koobundoo.). Behaviours that inflict emotional harm on others are primarily linked to the preservation of one’s own self-image, as evidenced by the greater emphasis on shame among Japanese individuals. The judgment of losing face by Japanese participants is linked to the subjective emotions of those they interact with, as causing distress to others can pose a threat to one’s own self-image. The Japanese face is other-related and encompasses the expectations placed upon individuals by others. The distinction in perceptions regarding face-threat is exemplified through the ‘being disrespected by an inferior’ scenario:

The examples show that the participants agreed that the ‘being disrespected by an inferior’ scenario is face-threatening. However, the Chinese participant claimed that the threat to social status contributes to face-threat, as indicated by weixin (‘dignity’) and quanweixing (‘authority’). Conversely, the Japanese participant explained this scenario by referring to incompetence (tōsotsuryoku no na-sa). Moreover, Japanese participants mentioned irresponsibility as the cause of face-threat. They saw their face as threatened when the team failed to finish the work on time, as others expected. This difference reflects the divergent self that individuals hold within social relationships. Fei (1992)Fei, Xiaotong 1992 From the Soil, the Foundations of Chinese Society: A Translation of Fei Xiaotong’s Xiangtu Zhongguo, with an Introduction and Epilogue. (Gary G. Hamilton, and Zheng Wang, Trans.) Berkeley: University of California Press. claims that social relationships in China possess a self-centred quality. The Chinese tend to place a greater emphasis on self-centredness, exhibit a stronger desire for rests precisely on hierarchical differentiations, as indicated by a strong desire of weixin (‘dignity’) and quanweixing (‘authority’). In contrast, the Japanese are believed to be more group-oriented, exhibiting a continuous susceptibility to social pressure stemming from an underlying fear of abandonment (Morisaki and Gudykunst 1994Morisaki, Seiichi, and William B. Gudykunst 1994 “Face in Japan and the United States.” In The Challenge of Facework: Cross-Cultural and Interpersonal Issues, ed. by Stella Ting-Toomey, 47–93. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.). As a result, Japanese people are more concerned with adhering to the group’s norms and duties to maintain their group membership.

5.3Face perception and interpersonal relationship in Chinese and Japanese linguacultures

The structured interviews suggest that face and facework are frequently used in social communication in China to uphold and improve interpersonal relationships. In contrast, Japanese respondents made observations regarding social norms. The participants’ divergent perspectives on interpersonal relationships, Chinese guanxi and Japanese kankei, may help explain the differing face perceptions. According to Chinese respondents, the purpose of enhancing face by demonstrating advantages was to deepen interpersonal relationships through the exchange of mianzi. But in Japan, adhering to social norms did not necessarily mean keeping a close interpersonal relationship. Conversely, personal relations in a “vertical society” (Nakane 1970Nakane, Chie 1970 Japanese Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.) aim to maintain a certain amount of social distance to avoid disrupting the other person. Thus, the Chinese place a premium on maintaining strong and stable interpersonal relationships, while the Japanese prefer to interact with one another from a distance in the name of territory defence.

An individual’s mianzi is a function of perceived social position and prestige within one’s social network, which might be derived from achieved status obtained via personal qualities of knowledge, strength, ability, and so forth (Ho 1976Ho, David Yau-fai 1976 “On the Concept of Face.” American Journal of Sociology 81 (4): 867–84. ). Accordingly, an individual’s social connections are important factors frequently considered by others when judging overall social status (Jacobs 1979Jacobs, J. Bruce 1979 “A Preliminary Model of Particularistic Ties in Chinese Political Alliances: Kan-Ch’ing and Kuan-Hsi in a Rural Taiwanese Township.” The China Quarterly 78: 237–273. ). Having close connections to influential people is highly sought after. As for tactics for enhancing relationships, one can present a gift or hold a feast, or as an interviewee said, simply increase the frequency of renqing (‘favour’) practices. The practice of renqing is a custom observed in Chinese interactions and signifies a stronger guanxi (‘relationship’) between participants. The pursuit of stronger relationships is primarily influenced by the family-centred cultural values prevalent in Chinese society. Chinese individuals welcome not only relatives, but also friends, colleagues, and other acquaintances within the social circle of the family (Chen 2019Chen, Xinren 2019 “ ‘Family-Culture’ and Chinese Politeness: An Emancipatory Pragmatic Account.” Acta Linguistica Academica 66 (2): 251–270. ). This expansion of the family’s social circle into professional setting is supported by the use of generalised kinship terms, facilitating Chinese students in establishing emotional connections with other members in their academic family, as demonstrated by Ren and Chen (2019)Ren, Juanjuan, and Xinren Chen 2019 “Kinship Term Generalization as a Cultural Pragmatic Strategy among Chinese Graduate Students.” Pragmatics and Society 10 (4): 613–38. . Even on social media platforms, the preoccupation of Chinese individuals with intimate relationships is apparent (e.g., Jin and Chen 2020Jin, Yingzhe, and Xinren Chen 2020 “ ‘Mouren’ (‘Somebody’) Can Be You-Know-Who: A Case Study of Mock Referential Vagueness in Chinese Weibo Posts.” Journal of Pragmatics 164: 1–15. ).

In contrast, interpersonal interactions in Japanese should be kept at a safe distance. Standard Japanese, established in the early 20th century, was taught in school as a form of ‘manner’ for the modern nation’s people. These manners were based on the rules of decorum of buke (‘samurai families’) and were strongly promoted within families, which led to increased interpersonal distance in close relationships (Takiura 2013Takiura, Masato 2013 Nihongo wa Shitashisa o Tsutae Rareru ka [Can Japanese Language Communicate Closeness?]. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.). Te-kureru, for example, is a form of honorifics distinguishing social ranks of interlocutors (Obana and Haugh 2018Obana, Yasuko, and Michael Haugh 2018 “Malefactive Uses of Giving/Receiving Expressions: The Case of Te-Kureru in Japanese.” East Asian Pragmatics 3 (2): 201–231. ). Hasegawa (2012)Hasegawa, Yoko 2012 “Against the Social Constructionist Account of Japanese Politeness.” Journal of Politeness Research 8(2): 245–268. highlights that the Japanese students do not shift their speech to plain form in academic settings; instead, they place great emphasis on adhering to the social norm of polite language. Additionally, Diegoli (2022)Diegoli, Eugenia 2022 “The Speech Act of Apologising in Japanese Online Communication: A Corpus-Assisted Study on the Use of Gomen in Written, Computer-Mediated Settings.” East Asian Pragmatics 7 (1): 123–141. points out the existence of numerous polite or super polite forms of apology in computer-mediated communication. Based on these observations, we may safely assume that Japanese interpersonal interactions, in contrast to the preoccupation with intimate relationships seen in Chinese individuals, tend to be characterised by maintaining a safe distance.

According to Gu (1990)Gu, Yueguo 1990 “Politeness Phenomena in Modern Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics 14 (2): 237–257. , the notion of face should not be seen in terms of psychological wants, but rather in terms of societal norms in the Chinese context. Our results suggest that face in the Japanese linguaculture is more societal than it is in the Chinese context. Japanese people appear to be more constrained by social conventions than Chinese people. Based on interview findings, Japanese participants commonly mentioned the emotional expression hazukashī (‘ashamed’) as a response to loss of face, which depicts a person’s awareness of outside pressure and their reliance on the group (Doi 1971Doi, Takeo 1971 Amae no Kozo [The Construction of Interdependence]. Tokyo: Koobundoo.). The ‘frame’ group (basho) has long occupied a significant position in Japanese social theory (Nakane 1970Nakane, Chie 1970 Japanese Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.). The Japanese people’s adherence to social norms and their compliance with them result from their reliance on the group as a whole. It would be shameful to receive a reprimand from the ‘frame’ group, which provides ‘sanctuary’ to Japanese individuals. To continuously take advantage of their affiliated ‘frame’ group, the Japanese emphasise the spirit of wa (‘harmony’) and kakuitsuka (‘standardisation’) when dealing with interpersonal relationships.