SELECT AN EDITION:
9th EDITION   10th EDITION   11th EDITION
A First Look at Communication Theory Reveal main menu
 

The screen on this device is not wide enough to display Theory Resources. Try rotating the device to landscape orientation to see if more options become available.

Resources available to all users:

  • Text Comparison—theories covered in A First Look and ten other textbooks
  • Theory Overview—abstract of each chapter
  • Self-Help Quizzes—for student preparation
  • Chapter Outlines
  • Key Names—important names and terms in each chapter
  • Conversation Videos—interviews with theorists
  • Application Logs—student application of theories
  • Essay Questions—for student prepatation
  • Suggested Movie Clips—tie-in movie scenese to theories
  • Links—web resources related to each chapter
  • Primary Sources—for each theory with full chapter coverage
  • Further Resources—bibliographic and other suggestions
  • Changes—for each theory, since the previous edition
  • Theory Archive—PDF copies from the last edition in which a theory appeared

Resources available only to registered instructors who are logged in:

  • Discussion Suggestions
  • Exercises & Activities
  • PowerPoint® presentations you can use
  • Short Answer Quizzes—suggested questions and answers

Information for Instructors. Read more


CHANGE TO: View by Type

Resources
by Theory

 VIEW BY THEORY HOME
For the full list of resources
see View by Type

Instructors can get additional
resources. Read more













TEXT COMPARISON

Archived chapters (PDF)
from previous editions are
available in Resources by
Type. See list

New to Theory Resources?
Find out more in this
short video overview (3:01).


Face Negotiation Theory
Stella Ting-Toomey

CULTURAL CONTEXT: INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

Chapter 32
 Communication Accomodation...
Speech Codes Theory 
Chapter 32
 Communication Accomodation...
Speech Codes Theory 

Chapter Outline 9th Edition

  1. Introduction.
    1. Stella Ting-Toomey’s face-negotiation theory helps to explain cultural differences in response to conflict.
    2. 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.
    3. Our identity can always be called into question, which inevitably leads to conflict and vulnerability.
    4. Facework and corresponding styles of handling conflict vary from culture to culture.
    5. Ting-Toomey suggests that face maintenance is the crucial intervening variable that ties culture to people’s ways of handling conflict. 
       
  2. Collectivistic and individualistic cultures.
    1. Harry Triandis says that there are three important distinctions between collectivistic and individualistic cultures—the different ways members perceive self, goals, and duty.
    2. Japan and the U.S. represent collectivistic and individualistic cultures, respectively.
    3. Whereas Japanese value collective needs and goals (a we-identity), Americans value individualistic needs and goals (an I-identity).
    4. 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. Self-construal: Varied self-images within a culture.
    1. Ting-Toomey recognizes that people within a culture differ on the relative emphasis they place on individual self-sufficiency or group solidarity.
    2. 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 to, others.  Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama call this dimension self construal, otherwise know as self image.
    3. The independent self is more self-face oriented and so this view of self is more prevalent within individualistic cultures, while the interdependent self is more concerned with other-face and is thus closely aligned with collectivistic cultures.
    4. However, individuals within a culture—particularly one that is ethnically diverse—differ in these images of self as well as varied views on the degree to which they give others face or restore their own face in conflict situations.
    5. Ting-Toomey built her theory around the foundational idea that people from collectivistic/high-context cultures are different in the way they manage face and conflict situations than individualistic/ low-context cultures.
    6. Ting-Toomey now believes self-construal is a better predictor of face-concerns and conflict styles than ethnic/cultural background.
       
  4. The multiple faces of face.
    1. 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.
    2. The meaning of face differs depending on differences in cultural and individual identities.
    3. 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.
    4. Mutual face is where there’s an equal concern for both parties’ image, as well as the public image or their relationship.
    5. 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.
    6. Face-giving is the facework strategy used to defend and support another’s need for inclusion.
      1. It means taking care not to embarrass or humiliate the other in public.
      2. It is the characteristic face strategy across collectivist cultures.
      3. It often involves self-effacement.
    7. Although cultural difference is not absolute, people from collectivisitic and individualistic cultures tend to privilege other-face and self-face, respectively.
       
  5. Predictable styles of conflict management.
    1. 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)
      2. Obliging (giving in)
      3. Compromising (negotiation)
      4. integrating (problem solving)
      5. Dominating (competing)
    2. Ting-Toomey and John Oetzel identified three additional styles based on more ethnically diverse samples.
      1. Emotional expression
      2. Passive aggression
      3. Third-party help
    3. The styles vary according to their culture related face concern.
    4. They predicted that different cultures would favor different conflict management styles.
      1. Collectivistic cultures would favor avoiding, obliging, compromising, third-party, help and integrating.
      2. Individualistic cultures would favor emotional expression, passive aggression, and dominating.
    5. Avoiding is now rated almost as high as obliging on concern for other person face.
    6. Third-party help is used differently by collectivistic cultures than by individualistic cultures.
      1. In collectivistic cultures, parties voluntarily go to an admired person with whom they already have a relationship.
      2. In individualistic cultures, parties go to an independent mediator.
    7. The model assumes that people from a given culture construe their self-image consistent with the collectivistic or individualistic nature of their society.
    8. Integrating, when adopted by collectivistists, focuses on relational-level collaboration; whereas individualists concentrate on solving the task and bringing closure. 
       
  6. Complicating factors: Power distance and perceived threat.
    1. Ting-Toomey suggests that power differences complicate the situation
    2. Power distance is the way a culture deals with status differences.
    3. Power differences and individualistic/collectivistic values tend to go together, but there are exceptions.
    4. Additionally, not all face threats are the same and various factors may affect how a face threat is perceived.
    5. Those raised in an individualistic culture usually turn aggressive in a face-defending situation while collectivists typically go for avoidance.
       
  7. Application: Competent intercultural facework.
    1. Ting-Toomey believes there are three requirements for effectively 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.
         
  8. Critique: Passing the test with a good grade.
    1. Ting-Toomey and Oetzel are committed to objective social science research agenda that looks for measurable commonalities across cultures.
    2. Oetzel and Ting-Toomey tested the core of the theory in four nations using only the three primary conflict styles—dominating, integrating, and avoiding—with largely positive results.
    3. Results suggest that culture-self-construal- face-concern- conflict style was a better predictor path than culture-conflict style directly.
    4. Their results should be interpreted with caution, as it is they are based on self-reports that are often self-serving.
    5. Specific survey items may not tap into corresponding concepts as described in the theory.

CHANGE TO: View by Type

Resources
by Theory

 THEORY HOME
For the full list of resources
see View by Type

Instructors can get additional
resources. Read more













TEXT COMPARE

Archived chapters (PDF)
from previous editions
are available in
Resources by Type.
See list

New to Theory
Resources?
Find out more in this short
video overview (3:01).


Face Negotiation Theory
Stella Ting-Toomey

CULTURAL CONTEXT: INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

Chapter 32
 Communication Accomodation...
Speech Codes Theory 
Chapter 32
 Communication Accomodation...
Speech Codes Theory 

Chapter Outline 9th Edition

  1. Introduction.
    1. Stella Ting-Toomey’s face-negotiation theory helps to explain cultural differences in response to conflict.
    2. 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.
    3. Our identity can always be called into question, which inevitably leads to conflict and vulnerability.
    4. Facework and corresponding styles of handling conflict vary from culture to culture.
    5. Ting-Toomey suggests that face maintenance is the crucial intervening variable that ties culture to people’s ways of handling conflict. 
       
  2. Collectivistic and individualistic cultures.
    1. Harry Triandis says that there are three important distinctions between collectivistic and individualistic cultures—the different ways members perceive self, goals, and duty.
    2. Japan and the U.S. represent collectivistic and individualistic cultures, respectively.
    3. Whereas Japanese value collective needs and goals (a we-identity), Americans value individualistic needs and goals (an I-identity).
    4. 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. Self-construal: Varied self-images within a culture.
    1. Ting-Toomey recognizes that people within a culture differ on the relative emphasis they place on individual self-sufficiency or group solidarity.
    2. 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 to, others.  Hazel Markus and Shinobu Kitayama call this dimension self construal, otherwise know as self image.
    3. The independent self is more self-face oriented and so this view of self is more prevalent within individualistic cultures, while the interdependent self is more concerned with other-face and is thus closely aligned with collectivistic cultures.
    4. However, individuals within a culture—particularly one that is ethnically diverse—differ in these images of self as well as varied views on the degree to which they give others face or restore their own face in conflict situations.
    5. Ting-Toomey built her theory around the foundational idea that people from collectivistic/high-context cultures are different in the way they manage face and conflict situations than individualistic/ low-context cultures.
    6. Ting-Toomey now believes self-construal is a better predictor of face-concerns and conflict styles than ethnic/cultural background.
       
  4. The multiple faces of face.
    1. 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.
    2. The meaning of face differs depending on differences in cultural and individual identities.
    3. 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.
    4. Mutual face is where there’s an equal concern for both parties’ image, as well as the public image or their relationship.
    5. 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.
    6. Face-giving is the facework strategy used to defend and support another’s need for inclusion.
      1. It means taking care not to embarrass or humiliate the other in public.
      2. It is the characteristic face strategy across collectivist cultures.
      3. It often involves self-effacement.
    7. Although cultural difference is not absolute, people from collectivisitic and individualistic cultures tend to privilege other-face and self-face, respectively.
       
  5. Predictable styles of conflict management.
    1. 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)
      2. Obliging (giving in)
      3. Compromising (negotiation)
      4. integrating (problem solving)
      5. Dominating (competing)
    2. Ting-Toomey and John Oetzel identified three additional styles based on more ethnically diverse samples.
      1. Emotional expression
      2. Passive aggression
      3. Third-party help
    3. The styles vary according to their culture related face concern.
    4. They predicted that different cultures would favor different conflict management styles.
      1. Collectivistic cultures would favor avoiding, obliging, compromising, third-party, help and integrating.
      2. Individualistic cultures would favor emotional expression, passive aggression, and dominating.
    5. Avoiding is now rated almost as high as obliging on concern for other person face.
    6. Third-party help is used differently by collectivistic cultures than by individualistic cultures.
      1. In collectivistic cultures, parties voluntarily go to an admired person with whom they already have a relationship.
      2. In individualistic cultures, parties go to an independent mediator.
    7. The model assumes that people from a given culture construe their self-image consistent with the collectivistic or individualistic nature of their society.
    8. Integrating, when adopted by collectivistists, focuses on relational-level collaboration; whereas individualists concentrate on solving the task and bringing closure. 
       
  6. Complicating factors: Power distance and perceived threat.
    1. Ting-Toomey suggests that power differences complicate the situation
    2. Power distance is the way a culture deals with status differences.
    3. Power differences and individualistic/collectivistic values tend to go together, but there are exceptions.
    4. Additionally, not all face threats are the same and various factors may affect how a face threat is perceived.
    5. Those raised in an individualistic culture usually turn aggressive in a face-defending situation while collectivists typically go for avoidance.
       
  7. Application: Competent intercultural facework.
    1. Ting-Toomey believes there are three requirements for effectively 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.
         
  8. Critique: Passing the test with a good grade.
    1. Ting-Toomey and Oetzel are committed to objective social science research agenda that looks for measurable commonalities across cultures.
    2. Oetzel and Ting-Toomey tested the core of the theory in four nations using only the three primary conflict styles—dominating, integrating, and avoiding—with largely positive results.
    3. Results suggest that culture-self-construal- face-concern- conflict style was a better predictor path than culture-conflict style directly.
    4. Their results should be interpreted with caution, as it is they are based on self-reports that are often self-serving.
    5. Specific survey items may not tap into corresponding concepts as described in the theory.

 
 
 
Home  McGraw-Hill—How to get copies of A First Look  Information for Instructors  Meet the Authors
Compare Comm Theory Texts  Viewing Hints & Troubleshooting 
Contact Us  Instructor Login 
 
 

Copyright © Em Griffin 2025 | Web design by Graphic Impact