Speech Chapter 35 Facenegotiation Theory Outline Introduction Stella Tingtoomeys Facenegotiation Theory Helps Explain Cultural

CHAPTER 35

FACE-NEGOTIATION THEORY

Outline

I. Introduction.

A. Stella Ting-Toomey’s face-negotiation theory helps to explain cultural differences in

response to conflict.

B. A basic assumption is that all people negotiate “face.”

1. Face is a metaphor for our public self-image – the way we want others to see us

and treat us.

2. Facework refers to specific verbal and nonverbal messages that help to

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

II. Collectivistic and individualistic cultures.

A. Harry Triandis says that there are three important distinctions between collectivistic

and individualistic cultures—the different ways members perceive self, goals, and

duty.

B. Japan and the U.S. represent collectivistic and individualistic cultures, respectively.

C. Whereas Japanese tend to value collective needs and goals (a we-identity),

Americans tend to value individualistic needs and goals (an I-identity).

D. Whereas Japanese tend to 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.

III. The multiple faces of face.

A. Face is a universal concern because it is an extension of self-concept.

1. Ting-Toomey defines face as “the projected image of one’s self in a relational

situation.”

2. Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson define face as the public self-image that

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.

D. Mutual face is where there’s an equal concern for both parties’ image, as well as the

public image or their relationship.

E. Face-restoration is the facework strategy used to 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.

F. Face-giving is the facework strategy used to defend and support another’s need for

inclusion.

2. It is the characteristic face strategy across collectivistic cultures.

G. Although cultural difference is not absolute, people from collectivisitic and

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

IV. Predictes styles of conflict management.

A. 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 (withdrawal)

3. Compromising (bargaining)

5. Dominating (competing)

B. Building from this work, Ting-Toomey and colleague John Oetzel (University of

Waikato, New Zealand) have made their theory more complex, yet better able to

explain and predict conflict behavior around the world.

V. Self-construal: Varied self-images within a culture.

A. Ting-Toomey recognizes that people within a culture differ on the relative emphasis

they place on individual self-sufficiency or group solidarity.

B. She discusses the dimension of self-construal (or 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 with, others.

1. The independent self is more self-face oriented. This view of self is most

VI. Refining the relationship between face concern and conflict style

A. Since the turn of the century, Ting-Toomey, Oetzel, and many other intercultural

researchers have identified three primary conflict styles: dominance, avoidance, and

integration.

B. She and Oetzel now use them as umbrella terms to designate 3 clusters of 11

specific facework strategies.

1. Dominance

2. Avoidance

3. Integration

1. Apologize: Say sorry for past behavior.

3. Remain calm: Stay composed during the conflict.

5. Respect: Demonstrate regard for the other by listening.

C. The three clusters are important because Ting-Toomey and Oetzel claim that the type

of face concern people have will best predict the type of facework they’ll employ in

conflict situations. They found:

1. Those most concerned with self-face will try to dominate.

3. Parties with a mutual-face concern will favor integrating strategies.

D. Oetzel and Ting-Toomey conducted a four-nation study to test their revised theory with

Chinese, Japanese, German, and American students.

1. As for the dominance tactics, self-face is linked with both defending and

aggression, but not emotional expression.

3. What wasn’t anticipated is that three of the behaviors presumably fostered

by mutual-face concern are shown to be associated with other-face concern

alone.

VII. Application: Competent intercultural facework.

A. Ting-Toomey’s ultimate goal for her theory goes beyond merely identifying the ways

people in different cultures negotiate face or handle conflict.

B. She wants the theory to help people manage intercultural conflict effectively.

C. She says there are three requirements.

1. Knowledge is the most important dimension of facework competence.

3. Interaction skill is your ability to communicate appropriately, effectively, and

adaptively in a given situation.

VIII. Critique: Passing the objective test with a good grade.

A. Ting-Toomey and Oetzel have conducted extensive quantitative survey research to

craft and test an objective theory that predicts that members of collectivistic cultures

will manage conflict differently than members of individualistic societies will.

B. Then they use the constructs of self-construal and face concern to explain why that’s

Key Names and Terms

Stella Ting-Toomey

California State University, Fullerton professor who created face-negotiation theory.

Face

Harry Triandis

University of Illinois psychologist who distinguishes between collectivism and

individualism.

Lin Yutang

Taiwanese scholar who calls face a psychological image that can be granted and lost,

and fought for and presented as a gift.

Individualistic culture

Wherein people look out for themselves and their immediate families; I-identity; a low-

context culture.

Collectivistic Culture

Obliging

Accommodating or giving into the wishes of the other in a conflict situation.

Compromising

Conflict management by negotiation or bargaining; seeking a middle way.

Dominating

Competing to win when people’s interests conflict.

Integrating

Problem solving through open discussion; collaboration; a win-win resolution of conflict.

Self-construal

Principal Changes

Much of this chapter has been reworked in this edition. Some elements of the chapter

have been eliminated or streamlined including high/low context, expanded conflict styles, and

power distance. An additional shift aligns the chapter more with self-, other-, or mutual face

Kick-off Questions & Interaction Starters

• Assuming you could only have one or the other, would you rather get your way (even if

at the other person’s expense) or have the other person be satisfied (if at your own

expense?

• What experiences have you had with other cultures? Have you visited a culture that has

an orientation toward individualism/collectivism that differs from your own? How could

you tell?

Suggestions for Discussion

Culture + Facework + Conflict

When starting your discussion of this theory it might be helpful to discuss the theory as

an empirical theory with three intersecting ideas or variables.

• THIRD IDEA: In conflict situations, facework takes a front stage role. While it may be

peripheral in other interpersonal interactions (i.e. initial interaction or attraction), it is

central when at odds with another person—in other words, when at odds with another

person, a face threat is a very real possibility.

I often illustrate the theory with the model above. My goal is to make sure that students

understand that Ting-Toomey’s empirical approach is based on identifying the relationship

between relevant variables. In this case, she has taken three ideas and shown how each is

germane to the others. Sometimes students fail to grasp the interconnectedness and assume

that she is “just adding in culture.” When you explain the flow of ideas, you can often allay their

hesitation to accept a theory that makes culture the foundational element rather than just

putting a diversity spin on conflict management.

Andrew reports a different challenge when emphasizing the empirical nature of the

theory: For whatever reason, students seem quite dogged in their assumption that this is

actually an interpretive theory. He suspects it’s because, in other coursework ranging from

college back to high school (and perhaps even earlier than that), students have encountered

A consistent conflict style?

You might want to frame your discussion by revisiting the tension between determinism

and free will. For empirical theorists like Ting-Toomey, human nature is subject to some

deterministic forces, giving less control to any given individual. While perhaps not as hard-core

deterministic as other theorists (perhaps Berger or Sherif), her theory certainly suggests that

people have default mechanisms. This may help to explain why there is considerable continuity

to their conflict styles. In a nod to ELM, in the absence of issue-relevant thinking regarding how

we handle conflict, we may just do it—not thinking about why we’re behaving that way. You

might ask your students if they agree with this presumption, or do they believe that for any

prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

given conflict they can (and do) act out of free will? When examining the three umbrella

approaches mentioned in the chapter (dominance, avoidance, or integration), can they see

consistency in their own actions? In a conflict episode, do they centrally process how to handle

conflict or do they operate in a pre-programmed, peripheral manner and do what has worked

in the past?

Confucianism

To enrich this material, you may find it useful to introduce your class to the

Confucianism that undergirds the collectivistic cultures of Japan, China, Korea, and other East

Asian countries. The basic tenets of Confucianism will give students a way to ground several of

Ting-Toomey’s concepts in broader cultural practices and beliefs. Students may also be

interested in speculating about the ways in which Christianity—the formative religion of

Western culture—or other key influences may have shaped America’s individualistic

orientation. Max Weber’s work on the Protestant work ethic and the spirit of capitalism may be

particularly relevant here. Similarly, you might need to broaden the conversation to discuss

Self-construal

You may also wish to further discuss the notion of self-construal. Because it is an

individual variable, intriguing questions may arise. Self-construal has broad connections to

culture, but—as Ting-Toomey notes—it also varies among individuals within a culture. She

Sample Application Log

Robyn

Although I’m sure I have a very high need for affiliation, I am a classic American who looks out

for myself when the chips are down. As much as I hate to admit that, I’ve noticed as of late

that it’s really true. I have a really close relationship with my best friend, and I put a lot of time

and energy into him. But try as I might to truly look out for his best interests first, I always end

negative as I strive for autonomy when I just can’t be bothered anymore. So putting the two

together, I spend time working on face-restoration by trying to give myself freedom and space.

Exercises and Activities

Bear, Fox, Turtle, or Bird?

Whenever I teach on conflict, I start by asking students which animal best represents

them in a conflict. At times, I have created signs and physically had students move to the

corners of the room and gather with others who share their conflict style. After they’ve made a

at bay. But, mostly, turtles talk about the shell; they pull back from conflict and practice a lot of

self-protection. They might stick their head and neck out at times to address a conflict, but

then they will recoil and hope their thick exterior saves them from the battle. Turtles aren’t big

fans of conflict.

Lastly, the birds usually are the most diverse in their imagery about conflict. Birds of

prey can swoop in for kill after circling high above the conflict. These students see themselves

as fairly proficient at staying out of many conflicts until they see an opening. Birds are often

somewhat ambivalent as they fly in and out of conflicts. To protect themselves, they don’t stay

long but rather hop in and out and hope for the best. Some students will talk about the

conversational nature of birds. Until like other creatures (such as a bear) which use their voice

Individualistic vs. collectivistic cultures

It can’t be overstated that the ultimate usefulness of the face-work techniques

catalogued here depends to a large extent upon the cultural background of participants. This

disclaimer applies to most of the models and strategies featured in undergraduate courses in

interpersonal communication, group interaction, persuasion, and so forth. So often in such

courses, the variable of culture is seen as an add-on or afterthought, usually brought in toward

the end of the textbook, when in fact it could (and perhaps should) appear as a foundational

concept from the start. Virtually every assumption we make about effective communication

depends upon it. So it might be useful to bring in introductory communication textbooks

commonly used on your campus in order to discuss with your students the extent to which

Facework in actual situations

Another exercise for priming your students for this theory is to ask them to begin by

writing about a real-life conflict that they have experienced or are currently experiencing. In

class, then, have students discuss the facework and modes of conflict management employed

in their actual experiences. Depending on your beliefs and practices about self-disclosure and

openness in your classroom, you might choose to engage students in an actual, real-life

conflict that you have had to tackle and provide whatever details you are comfortable sharing

and that are salient to their understanding the theory. Typically, my students know that I am a

International business

Depending on your students’ interests and experiences, international business may be

a productive application of Ting-Toomey’s theory. Emphasizing specific elements of facework,

speculate with your students about potential problems that could arise when representatives

of American corporations seek to negotiate business deals with their counterparts in Japan,

China, or the Middle East. To focus the discussion, ask your students to imagine they are

consultants hired by American business executives who know nothing about the negotiations

into which they are about to enter.

Along this line of thought, Andrew tells his students about a 2015 incident where a

British official gave a watch to a Taiwanese official as a gift (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-

magazine-monitor-31004333). In Britain as in America, a watch is typical and rather

ceremonial gift, but not so in Chinese cultures, where giving clocks as gifts is taboo (as the

BBC article puts it: “Giving a clock to someone in Chinese culture is a bad omen, suggesting

prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

(https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324507404578595730188554270).

American commentators were aghast; as one public relations specialist put it, “The name

Asiana is now etched in everyone’s mind as a crash that fell short of the SFO runway. There’s

very little the company can say to change that in the short run. What they can do about it is

begin to aggressively attack and repair their reputation problem. The way to do that is not to

remain silent” (https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/07/16/asiana-airlines-perplexing-

response-to-flight-214-crash/). Andrew discusses with his students how these very different

responses likely say something about the cultural orientations of the United States versus

South Korea.

Doing culturally sensitive research

Item #1 in the Questions to Sharpen Your Focus section, which brings up the cultural

characteristics of Afghanistan, provides students with an excellent opportunity to play both

theorist and researcher. After speculating about the cultural structure of the Middle East

(and/or other countries if you wish to choose another country with which your students might

be familiar), they need to come up with research strategies to test their assumptions.

Feature film illustrations

The animated film Moana (2016) provides a good example of the tension between self–

and other- face concerns. The title character Moana belongs to a collectivistic culture where

members share everything they have and make, avoid the ocean, and integrate themselves

into their own society. Moana, on the other hand, has a more independent self-image and

takes more of a dominating conflict style as the film progresses, embracing her independent

tendencies. The song “Where You Are” demonstrates the tension between the two. It’s

interesting to note that, though she is more independently minded, Moana is still a collectivist

at heart and wants her people to join her.

When Andrew teaches this theory, he begins by showing a brief clip from another recent

animated Disney film: Elsa from Frozen, singing about how she is going to “Let It Go” as she

walks off into the snowstorm she’s created. He asks students if they can explain why she’s so

upset in this famous clip, and it normally doesn’t take long for a student to explain that she’s

been repressed by her society and finally couldn’t handle it anymore, longing to be herself.

Andrew then asks about the end of the film: “And in the end, she realizes her mistake, comes

back, and submits to the will of her society, right?” Obviously that’s a sarcastic question; no

American audience would like that ending. Indeed, it’s hardly a spoiler to say that by the end of

prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

For exploring face negotiation in interpersonal relationships, we highly recommend the

Japanese film Shall We Dance, the sensitive story of a Japanese businessman’s initiation into

the world of ballroom dancing. The film emphasizes the point that in Japan, ballroom dancing

itself is an intercultural activity. Other films you might consider include Babette’s Feast, Lost in

Translation, The Visitor, and Gran Torino.

Further Resources

Theoretical considerations

Courtney Vail Fletcher, Masato Nakazawa, Yea-Win Chen, John G. Oetzel, Stella Ting-Toomey,

Shau-Ju Chang, and Qin Zhang, “Establishing Cross-Cultural Measurement Equivalence

of Scales Associated with Face-Negotiation Theory: A Critical Issue in Cross-Cultural

Comparisons,” Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 7, 2014, pp.

148-169.

Mai Nguyen-Phuong-Mai, Cees Terlouw, and Albert Pilot, “Revisiting Facework with a New

Analysis Instrument,” Journal of Intercultural Communication, Vol. 36, 2014.

Andy J. Merolla, “Further Testing Hope’s Role in Constructive Conflict

Communication,” Communication Quarterly, Vol. 65, 2017, pp. 481-501.

Family Communication, Vol. 18, 2018, pp. 32-50.

James W. Neuliep and Morgan Johnson, “A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Ecuadorian and

United States Face, Facework, and Conflict Styles During Interpersonal conflict:

An Application of Face-Negotiation Theory,” Journal of International &

Intercultural Communication, Vol. 9, 2016, pp. 1-19.

prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Workplace and organizational applications

Wonsun (Sunny) Kim, Anne M. Nicotera, and Julie McNulty, “Nurses’ Perceptions of Conflict as

Constructive or Destructive,” Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 71, 2015, pp. 2073–

2083.

Yuping Mao and Claudia Hale, “Relating Intercultural Communication Sensitivity to Conflict

321.

Other applied Contexts

Hedy Greijdanus, Tom Postmes, Ernestine Gordijn, and Martijn van Zomeren, “Steeling

Ourselves: Intragroup Communication While Anticipating Intergroup Contact Evokes

Defensive Intergroup Perceptions,” PLOS ONE, Vol. 10, 2015, pp. 1-23.

Tao Lin, “The Concepts of ‘Politeness’: A Comparative Study in Chinese and Japanese Verbal

Communication,” Intercultural Communication Studies, Vol. 22, 2013, pp. 151–165.

James W. Neuliep and Morgan Johnson, “Do U.S. and Ecuadorian Students Differ in Their

Teaching ideas

Christina G. Yoshimura, C. G. “Teaching Communication and Conflict as a

Game,” Communication Teacher, Vol. 31, 2017, pp. 231-238.