FACE-NEGOTIATION THEORY

of
Stella Ting-Toomey

1. INTRODUCTION

. Stella Ting-Toomey's face-negotiation theory helps to explain cultural

differences in response to conflict
r A basic assumption is that all people negotiate "face."
1. Face is a metaphor for our public self-image
2. 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
duE
o Japan and the U.S. represent collectivistic and individualistic cultures"
respectively
o 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-concept

1. Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson define face as the public self"
image that every member of society wants to claim for himself/herself
2. 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 others
2. 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 freedom
1. It is the typical face strategy across individualistic cultures
2. 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 inclusion
a. It means taking care not to embarrass or humiliate the other in public
b. It is the characteristic face strategy across collectivist cultures
 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.

4. 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 with
conflict
& Based on the work of M. Afzalur Rahim" Ting-Toomey identified five distinct
responses to situations in which there is an incompatibility of needs, interests,
or goals.
1. Avoiding
2. Obliging
3. Compromising
4. Dominating
5. lntegrating
.* The five styles vary according to their mix of concern for self-face and other-
face.
L Obliging shows concern for other-face
2. Dominating shows concern for self-face
& Ting-Toomey's theory predicted that different cultures would favor diflerent
confl ict management styles
l. Collectivistic cultures would favor avoiding, obliging" and
compromising
2. 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."

5. 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 conflict
resolution stated above
b. Ting-Toomey and John Oetzel note that these styles are based on work
situations in Western countries
 c. They identifii three additional styles from more ethnically diverse
samples
l. Emotional expression
2. Passive aggression
3. Third-party help
d. Ting-Toomey and Oetzel now locate avoiding and compromising near
obliging as other-face strategies
e. Both collectivists and individualists use integrating and third-party
help, yet they interpret these strategies differently
{. Power distance
1. Third-parfy mediators in large power distance cultures are usually
people highly regarded by disputing parties
2. The complex interaction that results demonstrates the difficulties of
combining power distance with the collectivistic-individualistic
distinction
* Surprisingly, subjects from high-context cultures chose problem solving more
often than did their low-context counterparts

6. APPLICATION: COMPETENT INTNRCULTURAL FACEWORK

communicating across cultures

1. Knowledge-one must be culturally sensitive
2. Mindfulness-one must choose to seek multiple perspectives on the
same event
3. 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 leading

advocate - Ting-Toomey and Oetzel
{ Ting-Toomey recognizes that people within a culture differ on the relative
emphasis they place on self-face and other-face
,/ She discusses the dimension of self-construal (of self-image) in terms of the
independent and interdependent self, or the degree to which people conceive
of themselves as relatively autonomous from, or connected to, others
{ The independent self is more self-face oriented and is thus prevalent within
individualistic cultures, while the interdependent self is more concerned with
other face and is thus closely aligned with collectivism
1. However" individuals within a culture-particularly one that is
ethnically diverse-differ in these images of self and concerns with
face.
./ Recently, Oetzel and Ting-Toomey have found that self-construal is a better
predictor of conflict styles then ethniclcultural background
,/ Face-negotiation theory is in progress and needs to be more complex-