IntroductionResearchBackgroundandSignificanceTheaccelerationofglobalizationhasheightenedthecomplexityofcross-culturalcommunication.Especially,theculturaldisparitiesbetweentheEastandtheWest,rootedinhistoricalandgeographicaldistinctions,renderitimperativetoexploreviablecommunicationapproachesthroughin-depthresearchoncross-culturalcommunication.Amongvarioustheoreticalframeworks,thestudyoffacenegotiationtheoryholdsanirreplaceablepositionintherealmofcross-culturalcommunication.ScholarChenYourong(2015)stated,"Asaconstructofsocialsignificance,faceservesnotonlyasamediumforcommunicationindailyinteractionsbutalsoasacommonpursuitinhumanlife.Theintensefocusofresearchersfromvariousacademicfieldsonthetopicofhumanfacenotonlyreflectsthereturnofsubjectivityinhumanlifebutalsorenderspossibleaprofoundunderstandingofthecomplexityofhumancommunicationandinteraction."Bydecipheringtheimplicitrulesofculturaldifferences,mitigatingpotentialconflictrisks,andoptimizingtheefficiencyofglobalcollaboration,facenegotiationtheoryhasemergedasacorepillarincross-culturalcommunicationresearch.Itscorevalueresidesinuncoveringtheprofoundinfluenceofculturaldifferencesoninterpersonalinteractionsandofferingtheoreticalunderpinningsandpracticalguidanceforeffectivecommunicationintheeraofglobalization."Seekingface","savingface"and"givingface"areissuesthatpeoplefromdifferentculturalbackgroundsneedtoconsider(LiYifeng,2021).ThefacetheoryconceptualizedintheWesthasinherentlimitations.Itdefines"face"asthepublicself-imagethatindividualsstrivetoupholdinsocialinteractions,placingastrongemphasisonpersonalautonomy.Thisdefinitionprovesinadequateinexplainingface-relatedbehaviorswithincollectivistcultures.Asaquintessentialcollectivistculture,Chinaurgentlyneedstoconductlocalizedresearchonfacenegotiationtheorytoenhanceitsapplicabilityandscalabilitywithinthedomesticculturalcontext.Theacademicvalueandpracticalimplicationsoffacenegotiationtheoryextendbeyondmeremisunderstandingavoidance;theylieinfosteringtheestablishmentofamoreinclusiveandinnovativedialoguemodelamongdiverseculturalentitiesbasedonmutualrespect.Currentresearchpredominantlyfocusesonthepragmaticstrategiesoffacetheoryorcrisismanagementwithinasingleculturalframework,lackingasystematicanalysisofthedynamicinterplayof"face"incross-culturalcommunicationscenarios.Therefore,thisstudytakescrisisincidentsonChineseandAmericansocialmediaascasestudies,conductsacomparativeanalysisofthehandlingapproachesofthetwocountries,delvesdeepintotheapplicationdiscrepanciesandcopingstrategiesoffacenegotiationtheoryincross-culturalcrisiscommunication,andaimstofurtherdeepentheunderstandingandanalysisofthistheory,expanditstheoreticalfrontiers,andrefineitspracticalapplications.ResearchQuestionsandInnovationsHowtoexplaintheculturaldifferencesincrisiscommunicationonsocialmediabetweenChinaandtheUnitedStatesbasedonthecoreprinciplesoffacenegotiationtheory?Thecoreprinciplesoffacenegotiationtheory,whichlinkculturalcontextstofaceworkstrategies,explainthedivergentcrisiscommunicationpatternsbetweenChinaandtheU.S.Inlow-contextcultures(e.g.,theU.S.),crisisresponsesprioritizeself-orientedface-saving,emphasizingdirectnessandindividualaccountability.(Ting-Toomey,1988)Thisalignswithindividualisticvalues,wherepersonalautonomyandimmediateresponsibility-takingdominate.Conversely,high-contextcultures(e.g.,China)adoptother-oriented/collectiveface-savingstrategies,prioritizingindirectcommunicationandcollectiveharmonytoavoidembarrassingindividualsorgroups.Thesedifferencesarerootedinculturaldimensionslikeindividualism-collectivismandpowerdistance,(Hofstede,2001)whichshapehow"face"isperceivedandnegotiatedduringcrises.Therefore,thisstudyfocuesonthefollowingresearchquestions.Incross-culturalcrisisincidents,whatarethesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenChinaandtheUnitedStatesinface-savingstrategiesregardingapologystylesandresponsibilityattribution?Howdoculturaldimensionsbehindthesedifferences(suchasindividualism/collectivism)function?Consideringtheinfluencingfactorsofthefacenegotiationtheory,Ting-Toomey(1988)identifiedculturalcontextsaspivotaldeterminantsoffaceworkstrategies:high-contextcultures(e.g.,China,Japan)prioritize"other-oriented"face-saving,whilelow-contextcultures(e.g.,theU.S.)emphasize"self-oriented"strategies.Hofstede's(1980)culturaldimensionstheoryfurtherexplainsthesedisparities.The"PowerDistance"dimensionhighlightsacceptanceofhierarchy:low-power-distanceculturesstressegalitariandialogueincrises,whereashigh-power-distanceculturesrelyon"authoritativeendorsement."Theinnovationofthispaperliesintheattempttocomprehensivelyanddeeplysummarizeaseriesofefficientfacenegotiationmodelsforcross-culturalcrisiscommunicationfromtheperspectiveofthecutting-edgefacenegotiationtheory.Thesemodelscannotonlysignificantlyimprovetheaccuracyandprofessionalismofcross-culturalcommunicationtoacertainextent,butalsoprovidepracticalcommunicationmethodsforcommunicatorsfromdifferentculturalbackgrounds,enablingbothpartiesinvolvedincommunicationtoachievemoreharmoniousandsmoothcommunicationinthecomplexenvironmentofculturaldifferences.Thisisnotonlyhelpfulforestablishingbetterinterpersonalrelationshipsbetweenindividuals,butalso,fromamacroperspective,canprovideasolidfoundationforculturalexchangesforfriendlycooperationbetweencountries,promotein-depthinternationalexchangesandcooperation,anddriveculturalintegrationandcommondevelopmentintheprocessofglobalintegration.ResearchMethodsandFrameworkInthisstudy,thecaseanalysismethodisadopted.TypicalcrisiseventsonChineseandAmericansocialmediaareselectedassamples.Throughin-depthanalysisofthesereal-worldcases,itispossibletodirectlyobservethespecificapplicationandeffectivenessoftheFaceNegotiationTheoryinreal-lifesituations,layingasolidpracticalfoundationfortheoreticalexploration.Thecomparativeresearchmethodisusedtocarefullycomparetheface-savingstrategiesintheprocessofcrisiscommunicationunderthetwodifferentculturalcontextsofChinaandtheUnitedStates.Comparisonsarecarriedoutfrommultipledimensionssuchascommunicationpatterns,perceptionofresponsibility,andthedegreeofinformationdisclosure,thusclearlyrevealinghowculturaldifferencesshapedistinctface-savingparadigms.Bymeansoftheinterdisciplinaryintegrationapproach,knowledgesystemsfrommultipledisciplinessuchascommunicationstudies,sociology,andpsychologyareintegrated.Thetheoriesandmethodsofdifferentdisciplinescomplementeachother,providingabroaderperspectiveandmoreabundantanalyticaltoolsforadeepunderstandingofthemechanismoftheFaceNegotiationTheoryincross-culturalcrisiscommunication.Thecontentanalysismethodisappliedtosystematicallyanalyzerelevantmaterialssuchassocialmediatextsandnewsreportscollected.Throughacombinationofquantitativeandqualitativemethods,keyinformationrelatedtotheFaceNegotiationTheory,suchasthetypesofface-threateningeventsandthefrequencyofcopingstrategies,isaccuratelyextracted,makingtheresearchconclusionsmorescientificandpersuasive.Inaddition,throughacomprehensiveliteraturereviewmethod,researchachievementsathomeandabroadontheFaceNegotiationTheory,cross-culturalcrisiscommunication,andrelatedfieldsarecombed.Thecontributionsandlimitationsofexistingresearchareclarified,accuratelypositioningthedevelopmentofthisstudyandensuringthattheresearchhasacertaindegreeofinnovationandfrontiernature.

2TheoreticalFramework2.1Definitionof"Face"InWesternculture,theconceptof"face"isrootedinitsculturalbackground.Socially,AmericansociologistErvingGoffman(1959)definedfaceasthepositivesocialvalueindividualsearnthroughsocialinteraction,embodyingtheirself-image.Forexample,negotiatorsmaintainfacebygainingrecognitionthroughprofessionalconductinbusinesstalks.Publicly,BrownandLevinsonviewedfaceasthepersonalimageoneseekstoupholdinthepublicsphere,whichcanbeaffectedduringinteractions.Acelebrity,forinstance,maintainsfacebyengagingincharityandproperpublicbehavior.InChineseculture,"face"isacomplexandsignificantconcept.ZhaiXuewei(2004)describeditasanindividual'sself-evaluationofbehaviorrelatedto"face"andtheirperceivedstatusinothers'minds,apsychologicalstate.DeeplyinfluencedbyConfucianism,theChinesevalue"ritual"and"morality,"makingsocialstatusandinterpersonalharmonykeytoevaluatingface.Socio-psychologically,itreflectsone'srecognizedstatusandrespectinothers'eyes,linkedtoself-esteem.Beingpraisedinsocietybringsface,whilepubliccriticismcauseslossofface(GuYueguo,1992).Socially,itrepresentsareputationbuiltthroughpersonalsuccessandmanagement.Ahigh-incomejobbringsfamilyhonor,whereasalow-incomeonecausesshame.2.2IntroductiontoFaceNegotiationTheoryTingToomey(1998)pioneeredthe"FaceNegotiationTheory,"whichartfullyintegratesErvingGoffman'sfoundational"FaceTheory"—whichconceptualizesfaceasthepositivesocialvalueindividualsclaimforthemselvesininteraction—andBrown&Levinson's"PolitenessTheory,"whichfocusesonlinguisticstrategiestomaintaininterpersonalface.Thistheoreticalsynthesisnotonlyclarifiestheconstructoffaceasadynamicsocialresourcebutalsounderscoresitstwopivotalcharacteristics:transformabilityacrossinteractionalcontextsanddeep-rootedculturalsituationality(ZhaoAnqi,2023).Thetheorypositsfourcentralassumptionsthatanchoritsexplanatoryframework.Firstly,itassertsthatacrossallculturalsystems,individualsengageincontinuousprocessesoffacemaintenanceandnegotiationindiversecommunicativescenarios.Forexample,indailyconversations,peopleinstinctivelyadjusttheirlanguage—suchasusinghonorificsorself-deprecatinghumor—toalignwithrelationalnormsandpreservetheirdesiredsocialimage.Secondly,thesalienceoffacemaintenanceescalatesdramaticallyduringconflictsituations.Whendisagreementsarise,thethreattoone'sself-identityorsocialstandingmakesfaceconcernsacentralaxisofinteraction.Consideraworkplaceconflictwhereanemployee'sprofessionalcompetenceischallenged;theensuingdialogueoftenbecomesasmuchaboutrestoringfaceasresolvingthesubstantiveissue.Thethirdassumptionhighlightsthetriadicinfluenceofculturalbackground,individualpersonality,andsituationalcontextonfacemanagementstyles.Culturalvalues,inparticular,shapewhatconstitutes"face"andhowitshouldbemanaged.Incollectivistcultures,forinstance,"relationalface"—theconcernforgroupharmonyandmutualrespect—oftentakesprecedenceoverindividualfaceneeds,leadingtoconflictstrategiesthatprioritizeindirectcommunicationandthird-partymediation.Incontrast,individualisticculturesmayemphasize"self-face,"promptingmoredirectassertionofpersonalrightsduringdisagreements.Personalitytraitsfurthernuancethisprocess:anextrovertedindividualmightemploymoreexpressivefaceworkstrategiesthananintrovertedcounterpart,evenwithinthesameculturalmilieu.Thefourthassumptionlinksfaceconcernstotheselectionoffaceworkandconflictresolutionstrategies.Faceworkreferstothecommunicativebehaviorsaimedatpreservingorrestoringface,whichcanrangefrompositivepoliteness(e.g.,givingcompliments)tonegativepoliteness(e.g.,usinghedgeslike"Iwonderif...").Whenfaceisthreatened,individualsmaychooseavoidance,accommodation,competition,orcollaborationasconflictstrategies,dependingonwhethertheirprimaryconcernisself-face,other-face,ormutualface(Neuliep&Johnson,2016).Akeycontributionofthistheoryliesinitsfocusonthe"why"and"how"offaceconcerns,specificallyexamininghowculturalvariationscreatedistinctfacepreservationconflictsandresolutionmechanisms.AsXiaHuan(2022)notes,faceisauniversalconstruct—everyindividualineveryculturalcontextpossessesfaceandengagesindeliberatefacemanagement.However,themeaningsascribedtofacedifferprofoundly:insomecultures,facemaybetiedtosocialhierarchy,whileinothers,itmayrevolvearoundpersonalautonomy.Theseculturalimaginingsoffaceoftenleadtointenseinterculturalfaceconflicts,suchaswhenadirectcriticalremarkinanindividualisticcontextisperceivedasaseverefacethreatinacollectivistsetting.Thetheorythusservesasacriticaltoolfornavigatingsuchconflictsbypromotingawarenessofculturalfacenormsandfosteringadaptivecommunicationstrategies.Inessence,theFaceNegotiationTheoryenrichesourunderstandingofhowsocialactorsnavigatethedelicatebalancebetweenassertingtheiridentitiesandmaintainingrelationalharmony,particularlyinculturallydiverseinteractionallandscapes.Byrecognizingfaceasbothauniversalhumanconcernandaculturallysituatedconstruct,itprovidesaframeworkforaddressingthecommunicativechallengesthatarisewhendifferentfacenormscomeintocontact..2.3InfluenceofCulturalDimensionsonFaceNegotiationTheoryTheculturaldimensionstheorywasproposedbyHofstede(2001),whoidentifiedmultipledimensionsformeasuringdifferentculturalcharacteristics,includingindividualism-collectivism,powerdistance,uncertaintyavoidance,masculinity-femininity,andlong-termvs.short-termorientation.Thesedimensionsprovideasystematicframeworkforexplainingcross-culturaldifferencesinfacebehaviors.Inthedimensionofindividualism-collectivism,individualisticculturesemphasizepersonalindependence,autonomy,andself-actualization,wherepersonalgoalsoftentakeprecedenceovercollectiveones.Insuchcultures,peopletendtoprioritizeself-facemaintenance.Facenegotiationstrategiesusuallyinvolvedirectlyexpressingopinionsandneedstoprotectpersonalfreedomandspacefromexternalinterference.Forinstance,inbusinessnegotiations,negotiatorsfromindividualisticculturesmayfocusonmaximizingtheirowninterestsanddirectlyraiseobjectionstorestorefacewhenitisthreatened.Conversely,collectivisticcultureshighlightgroupharmony,unity,andsharedgoals,promptingindividualstoconsidercollectiveinterestsandreputationintheiractions.Inthesecultures,peoplevaluenotonlyself-facebutalsoother-faceandgroup-face.Indirectandeuphemisticapproachesarecommonlyadoptedinfacenegotiationtomaintainharmoniousrelationshipsandgroupcohesion.Forexample,incollectivisticcorporatedecision-making,membersmayrefrainfromvoicingdissentingopinionspubliclytorespectleadersandcolleagues,optingforprivatecommunicationinstead.?Thepowerdistancedimensionreferstosociety'sacceptanceofunequalpowerdistribution.Inhigh-power-distancecultures,peopleshowgreatrespectforauthorityandhierarchicalsystems,withsignificantpowerdisparities.Facenegotiationinsuchculturesisstronglyinfluencedbypowerstructures:subordinatestypicallydefertosuperiorstoacknowledgetheirauthority,whilesuperiorsreinforcetheirpowerbymaintainingface.Inhierarchicalorganizations,subordinatesoftencomplyunconditionallywithsuperiors'instructionsandrarelyexpressdisagreementstoavoidembarrassingsuperiors.Inlow-power-distancecultures,equalityisemphasized,andpowergapsareminimal.Facenegotiationismoredemocraticandequal,withbothpartiesfocusingonmutualrespectandcommunicationandlessinfluencedbypowerdynamics.Forexample,inWesternenterprises,employeescanfreelyproposesuggestionsandraisedoubtswithoutfearingdamagetosuperiors'face.?Theuncertaintyavoidancedimensionreflectspeople'stoleranceofuncertaintyandambiguity.Inhigh-uncertainty-avoidancecultures,individualstendtofeelanxiousabouttheunknownandpreferestablishedrulesandprocedurestoreduceuncertainty.Infacenegotiation,theyrelyontraditionalandfixedmethodstomaintainandnegotiateface,avoidinginnovativeorunconventionalapproachesthatmightrisklosingface.Strictadherencetosocialetiquetteforfaceworkiscrucialinsuchcultures.Incontrast,low-uncertainty-avoidanceculturesembraceuncertaintyandchange,allowingformoreflexiblefacenegotiationstrategies.Peopleintheseculturesaremorewillingtoexperimentwithnovelapproachestohandleface-relatedissues.Forexample,inculturalenvironmentswiththrivingcreativeindustries,unconventionalcommunicationandfacenegotiationstrategiesaremorereadilyaccepted.?Culturaldimensionsprofoundlyshapethefacenegotiationtheory.Peoplefromdifferentculturaldimensionsvarysignificantlyintheirunderstanding,emphasis,andstrategiesoffacenegotiation.In-depthstudyoftheseinfluenceshelpsenhancecross-culturalunderstanding,preventface-relatedconflicts,andfacilitateeffectivecommunicationandcooperation.2.4ApplicabilityofFaceNegotiationTheoryinCross-CulturalCrisisCommunicationThe"FaceNegotiationTheory"focusesonvariousculturalfactorsthatinfluenceface.Asacomplextheorywithinsocialpsychology,itcanplayasignificantroleincross-culturalcommunication(LiY,2023).Intoday'ssociety,thankstotheconvenienceoftheInternet,bothcross-culturalcommunicationandcross-culturaldisseminationphenomenahavebecomemorefrequentandprofound.Whetheritisdiplomaticexchangesbetweencountries,cooperativeexchangesbetweenenterprises,onlineinteractionsbetweenindividuals,orone-sidedculturalpromotion,therearesituationswhereitisnecessarytosaveandupholdface.AftergaininganunderstandingoftheFaceNegotiationTheoryandhavingaclearcomprehensionoftheface-relatedissueswithinthecultureoftheotherparty,itispossibletoreduceconflictsanddisputesarisingfrom"face"issues,minimizefrictionsinvariousscenariossuchaspolitics,business,negotiations,andsocialinteractions.Itcanalsoplayavitalguidingroleinallcross-culturalcommunicationbehaviors,includingadvertisingplanning,thusfurtherpromotingthedevelopmentofcross-culturalcommunication(HuZhongli,2015).Moreover,ChangJingandHuangLiyao(2022)discoveredthatalthoughthistheoryistypicallyappliedincross-culturalresearch,inrecentyears,ithasbeenwidelyutilizedinthefieldsofsociology,healthcommunication,andmanagement,suchasinaspectsofsocialadaptation,identitytransformation,ethnicdifferences,interactionsinvolvingthedisabled,doctor-patientcommunication,andbusinessnegotiations.

3ComparativeAnalysisofCross-CulturalCrisisCommunication:PracticalApplicationsofFaceNegotiationTheoryInthecurrenteraofthevigorousdevelopmentofsocialmedia,thewaysofhandlingcrisiscommunicationeventsshowsignificantdifferencesduetoculturalbackgrounddisparities.Thefacenegotiationtheoryprovidesauniqueandcrucialpathforinterpretingcross-culturaldifferencesbydeeplyanalyzingtheinternalmechanismsthroughwhichpeoplefromdifferentculturalbackgroundsmaintainfaceincrisismanagement.Meanwhile,theculturaldimensiontheoryservesasanimportantsupplementandlaysthefoundationforthisframeworkofunderstanding.DuetothedifferencesinculturaldimensionsbetweenChinaandtheUnitedStates,therearenumerousdiscrepanciesinthehandlingofcrisiscommunicationeventsonsocialmedia,andeachcountryhasitsownemphasison"face-saving"strategies.3.1DifferencesinHandlingSocialMediaCrisisCommunicationEventsBetweenChinaandtheUnitedStates3.1.1ApologyStylesTobetterunderstandthedifferencesincrisiscommunicationstrategiesbetweenindividualisticandcollectivisticcultures,let'sexaminetworepresentativecasesandtheircorrespondinganalyses.IntheUnitedStates,aprototypicalindividualisticsociety,amajorU.S.techcompany'sresponsetoa2021databreachvividlyillustratesitscrisiscommunicationapproach.AsChenYourong(2015)pointedout,inAmericanculture,"facerelatedtoindividualability"isemphasized,andmaintainingone'sreputationthroughdecisiveadmissionsofresponsibilityisbothamoralimperativeandstrategicnecessity.Whenthedatabreachoccurred,within18hours,thecompany'sCEOpubliclyacknowledgedspecificsecuritylapsesviaaTwittervideo,stating,"Thiswasourresponsibility—weneglectedencryptionprotocolsandwillimplementcomprehensivereforms."Americanentitiesandindividualsusuallyadoptatwo-prongedstrategyincrisiscommunication:immediateacknowledgmentandexplicitownershipoferrors.Theyissuerapidpublicstatements,oftendeliveredbyhigh-profilerepresentativeslikeCEOstoenhancecredibility.Linguistically,theyavoidambiguity,usingactive-voicedeclarationssuchas"Wefailedtomeetexpectations"toemphasizeinstitutionalaccountability.Thisapproachalignswiththeculturalnormsofindividualism,wheretimelyanddirectapologiesareseenasdemonstrationsofcompetence,allowingorganizationstopreservetheir"face"ascapableentitieswhiletakingvisiblecorrectiveactiontocurbreputationaldamage.Withholdingapologiesinthisculturalcontextrisksbeingperceivedasanethicalfailureratherthanastrategicchoice,becauseindividualisticnormsequatepersonalresponsibilitywithintegrity.Contrastingly,inChina'scollectivistculturalframework,a2019caseinvolvingaChineseconsumergoodsmanufacturershowcasesadifferentcrisiscommunicationpattern.AsChenYourong(2015)observed,thecollectivistcultureleadstonegotiationbehaviorswithan"evasivestyle"thatbalancesacknowledgmentwithcollectiveface-saving.Whenproductsafetyconcernsemerged,thecompanyfirstspentagreatdealofcommunicationeffortinitsinitial2,000-wordstatementanalyzing"unprecedentedrawmaterialshortages"and"provincialqualityinspectiondiscrepancies",detailingexternalcircumstancesandsystemicchallenges.Onlythendiditgraduallytransitiontoexpressionsofregret,concludingwith,"Wesincerelyregretanycustomerdissatisfactionencountered."Thisphasedapproachservesmultipleculturalfunctions.Itprotectsthecollective"face"ofvariousstakeholders,includingemployeesandindustrypartners,maintainssocialharmonybyavoidingdirectblameattribution,andisinlinewithConfucianvaluesthatemphasizeindirectconflictresolution.LinguisticanalysisshowsthatChinesecrisiscommunicationoftenusessofteningdevices,suchastheclassicalidiom“事出有因”(therearereasonsbehindevents)andpassivevoiceconstructionstodiffuseindividualresponsibility.Thisreflectstheculturallogicthatabruptadmissionscoulddisruptinterconnectedsocialnetworks.Inthecollectivistculture,gradual,context-richexplanationsarecrucialformaintainingrelationalequilibriumevenduringcrises,asthepreservationofgroupharmonyisprioritizedoverindividualaccountability.3.1.2ResponsibilityAttributionTocomprehensivelygraspthecontrastingresponsibilityattributionmechanismsinAmericanandChinesesocialmediacrisiscommunication,let'sdelveintospecificcasesandtheircorrespondingin-depthanalyses.IntheAmericancontext,the2018Starbucksracialprofilingincidentservesasaprimeexample.AsperBennett's(1990)"indexingtheory",medianarrativesintheU.S.tendtoreflecteliteperspectivestoestablishauthoritativecrisisinterpretations.Duringthisincident,mediacoveragepredominantlycenteredaroundthen-CEOKevinJohnson'spersonalapologyandhiscommitmenttoanti-biastraining.ThisalignswithWuMengni's(2012)"responsibilityframework",whichemphasizespinpointingspecificindividualsorfunctionalunitsascausalagents,oftensideliningsystemicorcontextualanalyses.ThefocusonKevinJohnson'spersonalactionssatisfiedtheindividualisticdemandforclearmoralactorsinthenarrativeofwrongdoing.Italsoreinforcedtheculturalscriptofheroicleadershipthroughhisvisibleaccountabilitygesturesandprotectedtheinstitutional"face"byconfiningblametoanindividualratherthantheentireorganization.Thisindividual-centricapproachispartofathree-stagemediaritual:quicklyidentifyingaresponsiblefigure,demonstratingpublicperformativeaccountability(suchaspledgesforreform),andachievingnarrativeclosurethroughsymbolicredress.A2020analysisbySmithetal.ofcorporatescandalsshowedthat78%ofFortune500companies'crisisresponsesnamedindividualexecutivesasresponsible,comparedtoonly22%attributingfaultstoorganizationalsystems.Thispatternextendstothepoliticalsphere,asseenwhenTransportationSecretaryPeteButtigiegfacedsolemediascrutinyduringthe2023Ohiotrainderailmentcrisis,despitelong-standingregulatoryfailuresacrossadministrations.Thisindividual-centricapproachreflectsMarkusandKitayama's(1991)"independentself-construal",wheresocialevaluationdependsonpersonalagencyratherthansituationalfactors,makingtargetedblameattributionaneffectiveface-maintenancestrategyforboththoseassigningblameandthosebeingblamed.Incontrast,considerthe2021controversyofafailedAIprojectbyaleadingChinesetechfirm.China'scollectivistorientationleadstoa"leadershipframework"ofcrisisnarration.Whenthecrisisoccurred,officialstatementscarefullyattributedtheshortcomingsto"insufficientinterdisciplinarycollaboration"and"unforeseenmarketdynamics",avoidinganymentionofspecificengineersormanagers.Thisfollowsastandardizedfour-phasecommunicationprotocol:initiallyacknowledgingtheincidentfromabroadinstitutionalperspective,articulatingsystemicimprovementplans,makingsymbolicleadershipgesturesofcontrition,andre-emphasizingcollectiveprogre