Face-Negotiation Theory paper

Running head: FACE-NEGOTIATION THEORY 1
Face-Negotiation Theory
SarahAshley Haygood
Kennesaw State University

FACE-NEGOTIATION THEORY 2
Literature Review
Conflict is a common and uncomfortable situation in almost all cultures. A healthy
conflict can be good every once in a while because it can help to promote growth and consensus.
People do not always agree on things but too often find themselves in an uncomfortable or sticky
situation. For many decades scholars have studied conflict by looking at the modes of
communication and specifically the topics of conflict in communication. In an attempt to
expound on these matters, communication theorist, Stella Ting-Toomey developed the face-
negotiation theory. By exploring the birth of face-negotiation theory, what supports it and how it
is applied, one could better understand the impact it has had and how it has changed over time.
Face-negotiation theory is a theory of communication developed by Dr. Stella Ting-
Toomey, professor of Human Communication Studies at California State University. According
to Qin Zhang, Stella Ting-Toomey, and John Oetzel (2014), “The most inclusive and influential
theory pertaining to culture and conflict may be the conflict face-negotiation theory which
provides a sound explanatory framework for explicating cultural, individual, and situational
influences on face work behavior and conflict styles” (p.373). Stella Ting-Toomey conceived
this theory in an effort to explain how people deal with conflict situations. At first she suggested
the biggest factor had to do with the culture of the person’s birth. The idea of culture was split
into two categories: individualistic and collectivistic. Individualistic culture is one where people
are independent from each other, they think of their own goals, and how they want to pursue
them. Collectivistic culture is when the people are reliant on one another to accomplish goals
and are concerned with the impact they may have on the people around them.

Collectively, there are twenty-four propositions in this theory. A dozen cultural-level
theoretical propositions are made concerning face-negotiation theory. The second level of
theoretical propositions is individual and contains ten. The last level is situational and it has two
propositions. According to Fletcher et al. (2014):
The cultural-level propositions center on comparisons between members of
individualistic cultures and members of collectivistic cultures regarding their selections
or preferences of face concerns and conflict communication styles. The individual-level
propositions concentrate on comparisons between self-construals and conflict styles as
well as face-concern types and conflict styles. The relational and situational-level
propositions focus on comparisons of individualists and collectivists in terms of their face
concerns and facework behaviors with in-group and out-group members in conflict
situations. (p. 150)
Basically the cultural-level propositions suggest there is a direct relationship between the
type of culture someone comes from and their choice of conflict style. For example, the
individual-level propositions offer the idea that a person’s self-image and the degree to which
they are concerned for themselves or for others, correlates with their style of conflict resolution.
As in the situational-level propositions, propose the conflict style a person chooses depends on
the person’s cultural background, their degree of face-concern and the way they approach
situations.
One might say within a certain culture, not everyone is the same. This is true because
people born into the same culture grow up to handle things in different ways. This can be
explained by the further study and research of Stella Ting-Toomey. She continues to clarify that

people are not only categorized by what culture they are from but also how they develop their
self-image. Another word for self-image is self-construal or the way that someone thinks of
himself or herself in a social situation.
There are many factors of self-image or self-construal. When a person is developing
their image they take into account who they are as a person, but they want others to see their best
self. This is important when speaking of conflict. According to John Oetzel and Stella Ting-
Toomey (2003), “The interdependent construal of self, involves an emphasis on the importance
of relational connectedness” (p.603). This is a social and relational factor in conflict
management situations. A person’s self-construal can say they are interdependent on the others
in a group or they are independent from their group.
This process of relating culture to conflict style is continued in a person’s face-
development. Face-restoration correlates closely with individualistic culture, meaning a person
is trying to save their own face or image from damage. Face-giving correlates mostly with the
collectivistic culture, meaning a person cares so much for the people around them that they try to
give them the best face possible. According to John Oetzel et al. (2001), “Facework is used to
manage concerns during conflict and has a variety of functions” (p.238). People concerned more
with their own image are considered to be self-face oriented. Those worried more about the
people around them are said to be other-face oriented. Those focused on the image of the
relationship are considered mutual-face oriented. If these kinds of people were brought up in the
same culture then it would be wrong to say that they would take care of a conflict in the same
way. Self-face oriented people want to make sure they save their own face in a conflict but
other-face oriented people want to give the other person the best face they can have. Even
though Stella Ting-Toomey founded her theory on people’s background of culture and its effect

on conflict situations, she has discovered that self-image or self-construal is a better interpreter
of how they will manage the conflict.
Having explained the different types of people involved in any given conflict, now the
five styles of conflict management will be described. Conflict styles are the way someone
decides to carry out a disagreement or a difference in opinion. The five conflict styles include,
avoiding, obliging, compromising, dominating, and integrating. A person has the ability to
choose how they interact with someone else about a conflict by doing one or more of these
things. Avoiding, or taking yourself out of a conflict may result in physical peace but most of
the time not mental peace. Obliging, or letting the other person win normally makes one person
feel really good and the other feels cheated. Compromising, or exchanging the same amount
with someone makes both people feel equally ripped-off. Dominating over or challenging has to
do with a power struggle that both parties may feel. Integrating or both sides taking part in
problem solving with each other is normally a healthy way to try and deal with a conflict.
According to John Oetzel, Karen Myers, Mary Meares, and Estefana Lara (2003), “Conflict style
refers to general tendencies or modes of patterned responses to conflict in a variety of
antagonistic interactive situations” (p.107). People tend to gravitate towards a certain style of
conflict management according to individualistic or collectivists culture and their own self-
construal. For example a person raised in America, a highly individualistic culture, with an
interdependent self-image might be inclined to use the integrating style of conflict. Integrating
has high concern for self and high concern for others, or mutual-face concern, making it the best
style for them to use.
Face-negotiation theory has been researched over many years. It has been used to help
understand communication in many different scenarios and situations. A study by Kristin

Kirchbaum (2012) shows the examination of relationships between face-negotiation theory and
health communication. Kirchbaum used face-negotiation theory to test doctor’s and surgeon’s
ability to communicate on the job. According to Kristin Kirchbaum (2012):
An intercultural communication theory and instrument can be utilized for health
communication research; as applied in a medical context, face-negotiation theory can be
expanded beyond traditional intercultural communication boundaries; and theoretically
based communication structures applied in a medical context could help explain
physician miscommunication in the operating room to assist future design of
communication training programs for operating-room physicians. (p.292)
Kirchbaum found face-negotiation theory could be helpful when trying to analyze the
communication within an operating room. Her results showed the language of the survey might
need to be altered but overall the findings can help prevent future miscommunication.
Another case study of 2005 American Girl campaign demonstrates how the success of a
business and its follower’s conflict styles are the result of cultural positioning and type of face.
This specific study shows the dilemma between conservative face-threatening acts and
progressive face-saving acts. According to Dattner-Garza Bonita (2010), “Stella Ting-Toomey’s
model explains how one’s cultural orientation and self- and other-face concerns play a role in the
dynamics of conflict responses, as seen in the consumption and production practices of American
Girl fans and American Girl Corporation” (p.199). There was a disagreement about the way the
campaign was framed. The progressive group thought the campaign values were well structured,
but the conservative group felt otherwise. The conservative’s cultural background and the fact

that they were concerned with their own image suggest the reason behind the protests they put
on.
The theory of face-negotiation can be applied to everyday communication. People can
communicate more effectively after gaining the knowledge of this theory, understanding the
ability to be mindful of themselves, and their overall skill in communication. According to
Stella Ting-Toomey (2007), “Mindfulness exists on a philosophical, spiritual, meditative,
cognitive, affective, behavioral, and ethical level.” (p. 264). Humans have the ability to alter
themselves. They are able to think and understand how they are interacting with others. People
have a complex sense of self and this is what Stella Ting-Toomey is describing.
She explains the three most important factors in applying this theory as knowledge,
mindfulness, and interaction skill. Without the knowledge to understand this theory, one could
not apply it. If one is not capable of being mindful of themselves then they would be unable to
analyze their own facework, preventing them from choosing the correct conflict style. Lastly, if
someone simply does not have general interaction capability, they will not be able to effectively
communicate especially in conflict situations. When speaking about Ting-Toomey’s work, Lori
Dewitt (2006), describes that, “She seems to feel that if we are mindful of issues such as “face”
and its influence in conflict situations, then we will improve our intercultural relationships”
(p.39). Communication is a necessary part of life. If a person improves their knowledge,
construction of face and the way they interact, they will be more effective communicators.
Overtime Stella Ting-Toomey has been critiqued on her theory and the ways it could be
improved. While the original theory was created in 1988, Ting-Toomey modified it with an
updated version ten years later. According to Stella Ting-Toomey and Atsuko Kurogi (1998):

Overall, research indicates that while individualists tend to use more self-oriented face-
saving strategies, collectivists tend to use more other-oriented face-saving and face-
honoring strategies. Furthermore, individualists tend to use self-face autonomy-
preserving interaction strategies and collectivists tend to use other-face non-impositional
strategies. Lastly, individualists tend to use self-face approval-seeking interaction
strategies and collectivists tend to use other-face approval-enhancing interaction
strategies. (p.191)
Stella Ting-Toomey and her colleagues have been able to collect objective research about
peoples’ everyday communication. While this theory is not a hundred years old, it does have
archives of support. It has been applied in many different research surveys and countless
situations. Stella Ting-Toomey continues to accept and test the suggestions that are given to her
so that she may perfect her theory.
In the attempts to concentrate her theory she has proved to stand strong in most of her
original propositions. Her theory of cultural differences to self-construal to face-concern to
conflict style has been more correct and efficient than the course that was first suggested from
cultural background to conflict style. She is able to adapt and overcome the challenges this
theory brings but research is still being done. This theory is widely accepted, still alive, and
Stella welcomes any advice. She values culture and she understands the importance of
developing yourself.
In further review of face-negotiation theory of communication, it was found that some
suggestions could be offered. Stella Ting-Toomey could consider specific religions of the world
and how the people of those religions choose to interact in conflict. Ting-Toomey could test the

difference between someone who is highly religious and someone who does not practice religion
at all. Religion is a big part of most people’s lives and it has an effect on the way each person
thinks of themselves so this addition to her theory might prove to be significant.

References
Bonita, D. (2010). The Strategic Raiding of a Campaign Discourse of Change. International
Journal Of The Humanities, 8(3), 199.
DeWitt, L. (2006). Invited Essay: Face-Negotiation Theory. North Dakota Journal Of Speech &
Theatre, 1938-42.
Fletcher, C. V., Nakazawa, M., Chen, Y., Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., Chang, S., & Zhang,
Q. (2014). Establishing Cross-Cultural Measurement Equivalence of Scales Associated
with Face-Negotiation Theory: A Critical Issue in Cross-Cultural Comparisons. Journal
Of International & Intercultural Communication, 7(2), 148-169.
doi:10.1080/17513057.2014.898364
Kirschbaum, K. (2012). Physician Communication in the Operating Room: Expanding
Application of Face-Negotiation Theory to the Health Communication Context. Health
Communication, 27(3), 292-301 10p. doi:10.1080/10410236.2011.585449
Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-
cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30(6),
599-624. doi:10.1177/0093650203257841
Oetzel, J., Meares, M., Myers, K. K., & Lara, E. (2003). Interpersonal Conflict in Organization:
Explaining Conflict Styles via Face-Negotiation Theory. Communication Research
Reports, 20(2), 106-115.

Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Xiaohui, P., Takai, J., & Wilcox, R.
(2001). Face and Facework in Conflict: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of China,
Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68(3), 235.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An
updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal Of Intercultural Relations, 22(2),
187-225. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00004-2
Ting-Toomey, S. (2007). Intercultural Conflict Training: Theory-Practice Approaches and
Research Challenges. Journal Of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(3), 255-271.
doi:10.1080/17475750701737199
Zhang, Q., Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2014). Linking Emotion to the Conflict Face-
Negotiation Theory: A U.S.-China Investigation of the Mediating Effects of Anger,
Compassion, and Guilt in Interpersonal Conflict. Human Communication Research,
40(3), 373-395.

Face-Negotiation Theory paper

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Face-Negotiation Theory paper

Face-Negotiation Theory paper