FACE-NEGOTIATION THEORYof

Stella Ting-Toomey

1. INTRODUCTION

. Stella Ting-Toomey's face-negotiation theory helps to explain culturaldifferences in response to conflict

r A basic assumption is that all people negotiate "face."1. Face is a metaphor for our public self-image2. Facework refers to specific verbal and nonverbal messages that help to

maintain and restore face loss, and to uphold and honor face gain.

2. COLLECTIVISM VERSUS INDIVIDUALISM

o Harry Triandis says that there are three important distinctions between

collectivism and individualism-the different ways of defining self, goals, and

duEo Japan and the U.S. represent collectivistic and individualistic cultures"

respectivelyo Whereas Japanese value collective needs and goals (a we-identity), Americans

value individualistic needs and goals (an I-identity)o Whereas Japanese perceive others in us-them categories and attach little

importance to pursuing outsiders' attitudes or feelings, Americans assume that

every person is unique and reduce uncertainty by asking questions.

3. THE MULTIPLE F'ACES OF' F'ACE

' Face is a universal concern because it is an extension of self-concept1. Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson define face as the public self"

image that every member of society wants to claim for himself/herself2. Ting-Toomey defines face as the projected image of one's self in a

relational situation. The meaning of face differs depending on differences in cultural and

individual identities. Face concern focuses on whose face a person wants to save.

1. One can save one's own face or the face of others2. Those in individualistic cultures tend to be more concerned with

preserving their own face, whereas people in collectivistic cultures

value maintaining the face of the other party. Face-restoration is the facework strategy used tc stake out a unique place in

life, preserve autonomy, and defend against loss of personal freedom1. It is the typical face strategy across individualistic cultures2. It often involves justifying one's actions or blaming the situation

. Face-giving is the facework strategy used to defend and support another's

need for inclusiona. It means taking care not to embarrass or humiliate the other in public

b. It is the characteristic face strategy across collectivist cultures

4.

c. It often involves self-effacement. Although cultural difference is not absoiute, people from collectivistic and

individualistic cultures tend to privilege other-face and self-face, respectively.

F'ACE: LINIilNG CULTURE AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

& Ting-Toomey's research focuses on establishing a link between the face

concerns of different cultures and people's predominant style of dealing withconflict

& Based on the work of M. Afzalur Rahim" Ting-Toomey identified five distinctresponses to situations in which there is an incompatibility of needs, interests,

or goals.1. Avoiding2. Obliging3. Compromising4. Dominating5. lntegrating

.* The five styles vary according to their mix of concern for self-face and other-

face.L Obliging shows concern for other-face2. Dominating shows concern for self-face

& Ting-Toomey's theory predicted that different cultures would favor diflerentconfl ict management styles

l. Collectivistic cultures would favor avoiding, obliging" and

compromising2. Individualistic cultures would favor dominating and integrating

& Rigorous testing has confirmed a strong relationship between type of culture

and face concern* As the theory predicts, individuals from individualistic cultures preferred

dominating strategies, whereas individuals from collectivistic cultures were

more likely to avoid or oblige*, Surprisingly, results about the integrating and compromising styles of conflict

were mixed, apparently because different cultural and ethnic groups ascribe

their own meanings to the terms "integrate" and "compromise."

A REVISED F'ACE-NEGOTIATION THEORY.

* Ting-Toomey has reworked some of the concepts of face-negotiation theory

l. She believes the collectivistic-individualistic distinction is not the only

variable affecting people's style of conflict management

2. She's added the consideration of power to her theory'{. New conflict styles.

a. Texts on dispute resolution refer to the five main styles of conflictresolution stated above

b. Ting-Toomey and John Oetzel note that these styles are based on worksituations in Western countries

5.

c. They identifii three additional styles from more ethnically diversesamples

l. Emotional expression2. Passive aggression3. Third-party help

d. Ting-Toomey and Oetzel now locate avoiding and compromising nearobliging as other-face strategies

e. Both collectivists and individualists use integrating and third-partyhelp, yet they interpret these strategies differently

{. Power distance1. Third-parfy mediators in large power distance cultures are usually

people highly regarded by disputing parties2. The complex interaction that results demonstrates the difficulties of

combining power distance with the collectivistic-individualisticdistinction

* Surprisingly, subjects from high-context cultures chose problem solving moreoften than did their low-context counterparts

6. APPLICATION: COMPETENT INTNRCULTURAL FACEWORK

communicating across cultures1. Knowledge-one must be culturally sensitive2. Mindfulness-one must choose to seek multiple perspectives on the

same event3. Interaction skill-one must be able to communicate appropriately,

effectively, and adaptively in a given situation

7. CRITIQUE: CONFOUNDED BY INDIVIDUAL DIFF'ERENCES

./ The current challenge to face-negotiation theory comes from its leadingadvocate - Ting-Toomey and Oetzel

{ Ting-Toomey recognizes that people within a culture differ on the relativeemphasis they place on self-face and other-face

,/ She discusses the dimension of self-construal (of self-image) in terms of theindependent and interdependent self, or the degree to which people conceiveof themselves as relatively autonomous from, or connected to, others

{ The independent self is more self-face oriented and is thus prevalent withinindividualistic cultures, while the interdependent self is more concerned withother face and is thus closely aligned with collectivism

1. However" individuals within a culture-particularly one that isethnically diverse-differ in these images of self and concerns withface.

./ Recently, Oetzel and Ting-Toomey have found that self-construal is a betterpredictor of conflict styles then ethniclcultural background

,/ Face-negotiation theory is in progress and needs to be more complex-