The Dynamics of Face Loss Following Interpersonal Harm for Chinese and Americans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Face concerns arise in any encounter where one’s credibility as a social actor is questioned by the flow of interpersonal exchanges. Being the target of another’s harmful acts raises the question of one’s deservingness for that harm, thereby bringing one’s face into question. The present study tests whether Hong Kong Chinese are more sensitive to the consequent loss of their own face than are Americans, when targeted during interpersonal encounters. It addresses this question by assessing whether two factors predicting face loss are universal or culturally specific in their impacts. The factors are loss of relative power following the harm doing and degree of norm violation characterizing the harm doing. The results showed that loss of relative power in the relationship by the target vis-à-vis the perpetrator predicted face loss for Americans, but not for Hong Kong Chinese. Although greater norm violation led to more face loss in both groups, the linkage between the two constructs was stronger for Hong Kong Chinese than for Americans. The culturally derived personality variables of horizontal-vertical individualism-collectivism were, however, unable to unpackage either cultural difference in linkage strength. Possible reasons for these findings are discussed, and suggestions are offered for increasing the scope of this basic model in explaining face loss following interpersonal harm.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".