Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
1
Chapter 27: Face-Negotiation Theory
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
Chapter 27
Face-Negotiation Theory
Chapter Outline
I. Introduction
• In the United States, individuals try to manage their conflicts in a solution-oriented
manner, frequently disregarding the other’s cultural values or norms.
• Face-Negotiation Theory (FNT) was developed by Stella Ting-Toomey. The theory is
multifaceted, incorporating research from intercultural communication, conflict, politeness,
and “facework.”
• Ting-Toomey (1988) comments: “Culture provides the larger interpretive frame in which
‘face’ and ‘conflict style’ can be meaningfully expressed and maintained” (p. 213).
II. About Face
• Ting-Toomey bases much of her theory on face and facework.
• Face is clearly an important feature of life, a metaphor for self-image that pervades all
aspects of social life. The concept of face has evolved in interpretation over the years.
• Erving Goffman (1967) is generally credited with situating face in contemporary Western
research. He noted that face is the image of the self that people display in their
conversations with others.
o People do not “see” another’s face; rather, face is a metaphor for the boundaries that
people have in their relationships with others.
• Goffman (1967) described face as something that is maintained, lost, or strengthened.
o At the time of his writing, Goffman did not envision that the term would be applied
to close relationships.
o As a sociologist, he believed that face and all that it entailed was more applicable to
the study of social groups. Over time, however, the study of face has been applied to
a number of contexts, including close relationships and small groups.
• Ting-Toomey (1988, 1991, 2004) expands on Goffman’s thinking and argues that face is a
projected image of one’s self and the claim of self-respect in a relationship.
o She believes that face “entails the presentation of a civilized front to another
individual” (Ting-Toomey, 1994a, p. 1) and that face is an identity that two people
conjointly define in a relational episode.
2
Chapter 27: Face-Negotiation Theory
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
• Ting-Toomey contends that face can be interpreted in two primary ways: face concern and
face need.
o Face concern may relate to either one’s own face or the face of another. Face
concern answers the question, “Do I want attention drawn toward myself or toward
another?”
o Face need refers to an inclusion–autonomy dichotomy. That is, “Do I want to be
associated with others (inclusion) or do I want dissociation (autonomy)?”
III. Face and Politeness Theory
• Politeness is concerned with appropriateness of behavior and procedures as they relate to
establishing and maintaining harmony in relationships (Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 2012).
• Politeness theorists (Brown and Levinson, 1978, 1987) contend that people will use a
politeness strategy based on the perception of face threat.
o Politeness theory suggests that a single message can provoke more than one face
threat and can both support and threaten face needs simultaneously, and that
politeness and face threats influence subsequent messages.
o Negative face refers to the desire to be autonomous and unconstrained.
• Trying to satisfy one face need usually affects the other face need.
IV. Facework
• When communicators’ positive or negative face is threatened, they tend to seek some
recourse or way to restore their or their partner’s face.
• Ting-Toomey (1994a), following Brown and Levinson, defines this as facework, or the
“actions taken to deal with the face wants of one and/or the other” (p. 8).
• Ting-Toomey and Leeva Chung (2005) also comment that facework is “about the verbal
and nonverbal strategies that we use to maintain, defend, or upgrade our own social self-
image and attack or defend (or ‘save’) the social image of others” (p. 268).
o In other words, facework pertains to how people make whatever they’re doing
• Tae-Seop Lim and his co-authors (Lim and Bowers, 1991; Lim and Ahn, 2015) extend the
discussion by identifying the following three types of facework: tact, solidarity, and
approbation.
3
Chapter 27: Face-Negotiation Theory
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
o Tact facework refers to the extent that one respects another’s autonomy.
o Solidarity facework pertains to a person accepting the other as a member of an in-
group.
o Approbation facework involves minimizing blame and maximizing praise of
another. Approbation facework exists when an individual focuses less on the
negative aspects of another and more on the positive aspects.
V. Assumptions of Face-Negotiation Theory
• Several assumptions of Face-Negotiation Theory take into consideration the key
components of the theory: face, conflict, and culture. The following guide the thinking of
Ting-Toomey’s theory:
o Self-identity is important in interpersonal interactions, with individuals negotiating
that when people meet, they present an image of who they are in the
interaction.
▪ Self-identity includes a person’s collective experiences, thoughts, ideas,
memories, and plans.
▪ People’s self-identities do not remain stagnant, but rather are negotiated in their
interactions with others.
▪ People have a concern with both their own identity or face (self-face) and the
identity or face of another (other-face) (West and Turner, 2016).
▪ Just as culture and ethnicity influence self-identity, the manner in which
individuals project their self-identities varies across cultures.
o The management of conflict is mediated by face and culture.
▪ This assumption of Face-Negotiation Theory relates to conflict, which is a
differences between two people; other cultures believe conflict should be
handled discreetly.
o Certain acts threaten one’s projected self-image (face).
▪ Incorporating politeness research, Ting-Toomey (1988) asserts that face-
4
Chapter 27: Face-Negotiation Theory
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
threatening acts (FTAs) threaten either the positive or the negative face of the
interactants.
▪ Direct FTAs are more threatening to the face of others, whereas indirect FTAs
are less so.
▪ Face-saving involves efforts to prevent events that either elicit vulnerability or
impair one’s image.
▪ Face restoration occurs after the loss of face has happened.
VI. Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures
• Cultural variability helps explain cultural differences in behavior.
• In FNT, culture can be organized around two ends of a continuum: individualism and
collectivism (Ting-Toomey, 2010).
o At one end is a culture that places a premium on the value of individual identity; at
the other end is a culture that values group identity.
o Individualism refers to the tendency of people to highlight individual identity over
group identity, individual rights over group rights, and individual needs over group
Examples of collectivistic cultures include Indonesia, Venezuela, Panama, Mexico,
Ecuador, and Guatemala.
VII. Face Management and Culture
• Citizens of an individualistic society are more likely to be concerned with controlling their
own autonomies and boundaries for behavior.
o They would also want choices to satisfy self-face needs.
o Ting-Toomey believes that in individualistic cultures, face management is overt in
that it involves protecting one’s face, even if it comes to bargaining.
• Collectivistic cultures “are concerned with the adaptability of self-presentation image”
(Ting-Toomey, 1988, p. 224).
o Adaptability, then, allows for interdependent bonds with others (positive face).
o Professor Yang, as a member of a collectivistic culture, seeks both self-face and
• Ting-Toomey believes that conflict is opportunistic when members from two different
cultures—individualistic and collectivistic—come together with a disregard for how the
5
Chapter 27: Face-Negotiation Theory
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
other handles conflictual situations.
VIII. Managing Conflict Across Cultures
• The individualistic–collectivistic cultural dimension influences the selection of conflict
styles.
• These styles refer to patterned responses, or typical ways of handling conflict across a
variety of communication encounters (Ting-Toomey and Chung, 2005; Ting-Toomey and
Oetzel, 2001).
• The styles include avoiding (AV), obliging (OB), compromising (CO), dominating (DO),
o The obliging style includes a passive accommodation that tries to satisfy the needs of
others or goes along with the suggestions of others.
o In compromising, individuals try to find a middle road to resolve impasses and use
give-and-take so that a compromise can be reached.
o The dominating style includes those behaviors that involve using influence,
authority, or expertise to get ideas across or to make decisions.
o The integrating style is used by people to find a solution to a problem.
• Ting-Toomey believes that the decision to use one or more of these styles will depend on
the cultural variability of communicators.
• Ting-Toomey notes several relationships between conflict styles and face concern/face
need.
o First, both AV and OB styles of conflict management reflect a passive approach to
handling conflicts.
o A CO style represents a mutual-face need by finding middle-ground solutions to a
conflict.
o Finally, a DO style reflects a high self-face need and a need for control of the
conflict, whereas the IN conflict style indicates a high self-face/other-face need for
o The Taiwanese report using significantly more integrating styles of conflict
management.
o The Chinese and Taiwanese use significantly more obliging conflict styles (than
Americans).
6
Chapter 27: Face-Negotiation Theory
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
o The Chinese use higher degrees of avoidance as a conflict style than other cultural
groups.
o The Chinese use a higher degree of compromising than other cultures.
• Additional research also showed that collectivistic cultures (China, Korea, and Taiwan)
had a higher degree of other-face concern.
• One additional study (Croucher, et. al., 2011) employing Ting-Toomey’s intercultural
IX. Integration, Critique, and Closing
• Face-Negotiation Theory assumes that people of various cultures are concerned with the
presentation of their face.
A. Logical Consistency
• Face-Negotiation Theory has received some clarification from Ting-Toomey herself,
prompting refinement of the theory.
• In her own research, Ting-Toomey and colleagues (1991) discovered some
discrepancies. She found that Japanese respondents showed more concern for self-face
than U.S. respondents.
o In addition, although Ting-Toomey proposes that individualistic cultures are not
usually compromising in their conflict styles, the highly individualistic U.S.
respondents used a significantly higher degree of compromising when faced with
a conflict.
• Additional issues surrounding the logical consistency of Face-Negotiation Theory
framework “may be too general to capture the face-concern most central to an
7
Chapter 27: Face-Negotiation Theory
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
interactant” (p. 290).
B. Heurism
• Ting-Toomey’s Face-Negotiation Theory continues to spark interest among intercultural
communication researchers, making it highly heuristic.
Classroom Activities
1. Purr Like a Kitten! Bark Like a Dog!
Objective: To show students the various ways that identity (in the context of Face-
Negotiation Theory) can be influenced in the presence of others
Directions
a. Instruct students to complete the worksheet independently.
b. When the class is finished, record the students’ rankings on the board with tally
marks. Ask for volunteers to perform each of the tasks.
“Purr Like a Kitten! Bark Like a Dog!”
Worksheet
Directions: Assume that you will be asked to perform each of the following tasks in front of
the class. Rank the tasks in the order in which you would be willing to perform them, with
“1” as most willing and “7” as least willing.
_____ 1. Purr like a kitten, and bark like a dog.
_____ 2. Sing “The Star-Spangled Banner.”
_____ 3. Stand face-to-face with a person of the opposite sex so that your noses are
touching.
_____ 4. Share a story about your most embarrassing moment.
_____ 5. Dance.
West, Introducing Communication Theory, 6e
Copyright © 2018 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior
written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
_____ 6. Cheer your school’s cheer/sing your school’s fight song.
_____ 7. Talk nonstop for one minute.
2. Saving Your Face
Objective: To have students identify times they used face-saving strategies to preserve
their face or that of another
Materials: None
Directions:
a. Instruct students to list the following situations:
• A time when they used tact facework to help another save face
• A time when someone else used tact facework to help them save face
• A time when they used solidarity facework to help another person save face
• A time when someone else used solidarity facework to help them save face
• A time when they used approbation facework to help another person save face
• A time when someone else used approbation facework to help them save face
b. Discuss the effectiveness of the tactics. Were some more effective than others? Why?
3. Saving Face: The Case of Professor Jie Yang and Kevin Bruner
Objective: To show students the influence of cultural and social expectations on face-
saving and provide them with an opportunity to identify various face-saving tactics
Materials: The case study at the beginning of Chapter 27 in the text
b. Have the groups discuss the face-saving strategies they or others have used in initial
interactions. Instruct them to identify which strategies have been effective and which
of them have been ineffective.
