Theory Reflections: Face-Negotiation Theory
The researching of facework can be found in a wide range of disciplines such as anthropology, psychology,
sociology, linguistics, business management, international diplomacy, and human communication studies, among
others. The concept of face has been used to explain linguistic politeness rituals, apology acts, embarrassment
episodes, requesting behaviors, rapport-building, and conflict interactions. The origin of the face negotiation theory
stemmed from the author’s dissatisfaction with the mainstream interpersonal conflict communication literature in
the early 1980s. In the mainstream Western-based interpersonal and workplace conflict research literature, the twin
ideologies of conflict confrontation and self-disclosure were strongly endorsed, and conflict tactfulness, avoidance
style, and silence strategy were minimized.
Thus, the author set out to incorporate a stronger Eastern or Asian cultural lens on conflict negotiation in a
variety of conflict contexts. Earlier versions of the conflict face-negotiation (FN) theory can be found in the “Toward a
Theory of Conflict and Communication” chapter (Ting-Toomey 1985) and the “Intercultural Conflict Styles: A Face-
Negotiation Theory” chapter (Ting-Toomey 1988) in which the first version of the FN theory became available. A
second rendition of the FN theory on “Intercultural Facework Competence” with seven assumptions and 32
propositions were made available in a subsequent journal article (Ting-Toomey and Kurogi 1998). The seven core
assumptions of the FN theory are as follows:
(1) people in all cultures try to maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations;
(2) the concept of face is especially problematic in emotionally threatening or identity-vulnerable
situations when the situated identities of the communicators are called into question;
(3) the cultural value spectrums of individualism-collectivism and small/large power distance shape
facework concerns and styles;
(4) individualism and collectivism value patterns shape members’ preferences for self-oriented face
concern (i.e., verbal direct tendency) versus other-oriented or mutual-oriented face concern (verbal
indirect-accommodating tendency);
(5) small and large power distance value patterns shape members’ preferences for horizontal-based
facework (i.e., informal interaction) versus vertical-based facework (i.e., formal interaction);
(6) the value dimensions, in conjunction with individual, relational, topical, and situational factors
influence the use of particular facework behaviors in particular cultural conflict scenes; and
(7) intercultural facework competence refers to the optimal integration of culture-sensitive knowledge,
mindfulness, and flexible communication skills in managing vulnerable identity-based conflict
situations appropriately, effectively, and adaptively.
Based on the results of several large, cross-cultural comparative research studies, a third version of the FN
theory appeared in the “The Matrix of Face” (Ting-Toomey 2005) and contained an updated 24 FN theoretical
propositions. Overall, empirical research evidence revealed that:
(1) individualists (e.g., German and U.S. respondents) tended to use more direct, self-face conflict styles
(i.e., dominating and competing), and collectivists (e.g., Chinese and Mexican respondents) tended to
use more indirect, other-face concern conflict styles (i.e., avoiding and seeking third-party help)
(see Oetzel, Garcia, and Ting-Toomey 2008; Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, and Masumoto 2001);
