ace negotiation theory

Face Negotiation Theory: Face-Maintenance Framework

Face-Negotiation Theory is a theory conceived by Stella Ting-Toomey in 1985, to

understand how people from different cultures manage rapport and disagreements.
[1]
 The theory posited "face", or self-image when communicating with others, [1] as a
universal phenomenon that pervades across cultures. In conflicts, one's face is
threatened; and thus the person tends to save or restore his or her face. This set of
communicative behaviors, according to the theory, is called "facework". Since people
frame the situated meaning of "face" and enact "facework" differently from one culture
to the next, the theory poses a cultural-general framework to examine facework
negotiation. It is important to note that the definition of face varies depending on the
people and their culture and the same can be said for the proficiency of facework. [2]

Contents

 1Background
 2Components
o 2.1Assumptions
o 2.2Taxonomies
 2.2.1Face orientations
 2.2.2Face movements
 2.2.3Facework interaction strategies
 2.2.4Conflict communication styles
 2.2.5Face content domains
o 2.3Theoretical propositions
o 2.4Intercultural facework competence
 2.4.1Knowledge dimension
 2.4.2Mindfulness dimension
 3Applications
o 3.1Intercultural conflict training
o 3.2Face concerns in interpersonal conflict
o 3.3Face and facework in conflicts with parents and siblings
o 3.4Face negotiation with mothers
o 3.5Physician communication in the operating room
o 3.6Safe sex negotiation
 o 3.7Face Saving in Business Request Emails
o 3.8Face Threat & Disability
o 3.9Responding to Unethical Communication
o 3.10Face Saving in Artwork Reviews
o 3.11Face Concerns and the Intent to Apologize
o 3.12Face Concerns, self-construal and Forgiveness
 4See also
 5Notes
 6References

Background[edit]
In this theory, "face" is a metaphor for self-image, which originated from two Chinese
conceptualizations: lien and mianzi. Lien is the internal moral face that involves shame,
integrity, debasement, and honor issues. Mien-tzu, on the other hand, is the external
social face that involves social recognition, position, authority, influence and power. [3][4]
Erving Goffman also situated "face" in contemporary Western research and
conceptualized the terms lien and mien-Tzu as identity and ego. [5] He noted that face is
a concern for one's projected image that is both immediate and spontaneous and is tied
to the dynamics of social interaction. [6] Goffman also notes that face is a part of a
performance, in which performance is day-to-day activity that each individual uses to
influence others.[7] The performance of 'face' can be for the good of others or it can be
for the good of one's self.[7] Correspondingly, "facework" denotes actions taken to
maintain consistency between the self and public line. The two forms of facework
include restorative and preventive. Restorative facework is the act of reinstating face
after the loss of it has taken place; the preventive face is the act of communicating to
safeguard the threat of face being lost. [2] Further research by Penelope
Brown and Stephen Levinson on politeness suggests that the desire for face is a
universal concern.[8][9] Brown and Levinson further suggested that face can refer to two
wants of the individual- the positive face that necessitates approval by others and the
negative face that requires that one's actions or thoughts are unimpeded by others.
Thus participant's wants are of more importance than the interaction itself in a face-
saving view of politeness. In fact, researchers Brown and Levinson posit that face is
something that "is emotionally invested, and can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and
must be constantly attended to in interaction". [10] Levinson and Brown did not, however,
address culture-specific norms, which is why Ting-Toomey decided to do so in this
theory.[11]
Ting-Toomey expanded this thinking and conceptualized face as an individual's claimed
sense of favorable social self-image in a relational and network context. [12] Facework is
defined as clusters of communicative behaviors that are used to enact self-face and to
uphold, challenge/threaten, or support the other person's face. [4]
With these concepts and frameworks, the face-negotiation theory investigated
intercultural conflict styles. The perceived or actual conflict differences revolved around
three issues: content, relational, and identity.[13] Content conflict refers to the substantive
issues external to the individual involved. Relational conflict refers to how individuals
define, or would like to define, the particular relationship in that particular conflict
episode. The identity-based conflict concerns issues of identity confirmation-rejection,
respect-disrespect, and approval-disapproval. [14] In this way, identity issues are tided
closely to culture-based face-orientation factors. A face-threatening episode is an
identity expectancy violation episode. Thus, the face-negotiation theory views conflict,
intercultural conflict in particular, as a situation that demands active facework
management from the two interdependent conflict parties. It can also be noted that in
face-negotiation, individuals negotiate face not only with others but with themselves, as
well.[11]
The theory has gone through multiple iterations since its creation. There is a 1988
version of seven assumptions and 12 propositions, [12] a 1998 version of seven
assumptions and 32 propositions,[4] and most recent the 2005 version of seven
assumptions and 24 propositions.[14]

Components[edit]
Assumptions[edit]
Face and facework are universal phenomena.[15] A Face-Negotiation Theory perspective
stresses the impact of culture on the situated meaning of face and the enactment of
facework. Thus, the theory assumes that:[14]

1. Communication in all cultures is based on maintaining and negotiating

face.
2. Face is problematic when identities are questioned.
3. Differences in individualistic vs. collectivistic and small vs. large power
distance cultures profoundly shape face management.
4. Individualistic cultures prefer self-oriented facework, and collectivistic
cultures prefer other-oriented facework.
5. Small power distance cultures prefer an "individuals are equal"
framework, whereas large power distance cultures prefer a hierarchical
framework.
6. Behavior is also influenced by cultural variances, individual, relational,
and situational factors.
7. Competence in intercultural communication is a culmination of knowledge
and mindfulness.
Taxonomies[edit]
Face-negotiation theory primarily deals with five sets of themes: face orientation or
concerns, face movements, facework interaction strategies, conflict communication
styles, and face content domains.[4][12] In the 2005 version of theory, the five thematic
clusters are referred as "core taxonomies". [14]
Face orientations[edit]
The orientation of face determines the focus with which the face negotiator will direct
her or his attention and energy of the conflict messages. [14] Because of different
concerns, caused by different underlying cultural values, face negotiators may orient
towards self-face (one's own image), other face (the other conflict party's image) or
mutual face (both parties' image and/or the image of the relationship). [12][16]
For example, in individualist cultures, such as the United States, Germany, and Great
Britain, there is great value on personal rights, freedoms and the "do it yourself" attitude.
Individualists cultures are seen as promoting independence for
individuals[17] In collectivist cultures such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Colombia, more
value is placed on "we" vs. "I". The needs of the group outweigh the needs of the
individual, making independence or individualism viewed as selfish. [17] One-third of the
world lives in an individualist society, while the other two thirds are identified with
collectivist cultures.
Face orientation also involves the concept of power distance. People from large power
distance cultures accept unequal power distributions, are reliant on established
hierarchy, such as age, sex, and roles, not just social rank [18] and understand that
rewards and sanctions are based on social position. People from small power distance
cultures value equal power distributions, symmetric relations, and rewards and
sanctions based on performance. Denmark is an example of a small power distance
culture, while Japan embodies a large power distance culture; The United States is
considered to be in the middle in regards to power distance. [18]
Drawing on the research of Geert Hofstede, face-negotiation theory notes that while
individualism and power distance are two separate dimensions, they are correlated.
Highly individualistic cultures tend to be low in power distance, and vice versa. [19]
Besides the cultural-level collectivism-individualism and power distance, face-
negotiation also consists of the individual-level self-construal. Self-construal is an
individual level of the construct in face-negotiation theory, and it can be regarded as an
additional alternative to understand cross-cultural conflicts, [20] and it is also closely
related to cultural variability. There are two types of self-construal: independent self-
construal and interdependent self-construal. Independent self-construal refers to the
great degree to which people regard themselves as an isolated entity, whereas people
who are more interdependent self-construal tend to conceive themselves as an integral
part in interpersonal relationship. According to Gudykunst, [21] in individualistic cultures,
independent self-construal prevails, while in collectivistic cultures, people are more
related to interdependent self-construal.
Face movements[edit]
Face movement refers to the options that a negotiator faces in choosing whether to
maintain, defend and/or upgrade self-face versus other-face in a conflict episode. There
are four opportunities a mediator has in regards to their concern for self-face, your
personal image and other-face, the counterpart's image of themselves that define face
movements:

1. If there is a high level of concern for both self-face and other-face, the
result is mutual-face protection.
2. If there is a low level of concern for both self-face and other-face, the
result is mutual-face obliteration.
 3. If there is a high level of concern for self-face but a low level of concern
for other-face, the result is self-face defence.
4. If there is a high level of concern for other-face but a low level of concern
for self-face, the result is other-face defence.
Ting-Toomey asserts that several conditions must be perceived as severe in order for a
negotiator to feel his face is threatened; the importance of the culturally approved
facework that is violated, feelings of mistrust because of a large distance between
cultures, the importance of the conflict topic, the power distance between the two
parties, and the perception of the parties as outgroup members are all conditions which
must be made salient for face-threatening communication to occur. [14] Whether or not a
person engages in a conflict depends on how face-threatening the situation is
perceived.
In an individualistic culture, the more self-face threatening the conflict, the more likely
the individual will engage in an attack. In a collectivistic culture, where mutual-face
concern is important, avoidance of conflict may prevail in order for the situation to be
defused. Collectivistic communicators may also require a third-party negotiation to make
progress in finding a resolution.
Facework interaction strategies[edit]
On a broad level, individualistic cultures operate with a more direct, low
context facework with importance placed on verbal communication and nonverbal
gestures for emphasis. Collectivistic cultures operate in a more indirect, high
context facework emphasizing nonverbal subtleties. There are three prevalent facework
strategies: dominating, avoiding, and integrating. Dominating facework is characterized
by trying to maintain a credible image with the goal of winning the conflict. Avoiding
facework attempts to preserve harmony in the relationship by dealing with the conflict
indirectly. Integrating facework focuses on content resolution and maintaining the
relationship.[14]
Along the face concern-orientation dimension, facework is at play before (preventive),
during, and after (restorative) the situation. Preventive facework is an attempt to
minimize face-loss before the threat occurs. Preventive strategies include credentialing,
appealing for suspended judgment, pre-disclosure, pre-apology, hedging, and
disclaimers.[22] Collectivistic cultures tend to employ more preventive strategies than
individualistic cultures. Restorative facework attempts to repair face that was lost.
Restorative strategies include excuses, justifications, direct aggression, humor, physical
remediation, passive aggressiveness, avoidance, and apologies. [22] Individualistic
cultures are more likely to use restorative facework than collectivistic cultures.
Facework differs from conflict styles by employing face-saving strategies which can be
used prior to, during, or after a conflict episode and can be used in a variety of identity-
threatening and identity-protection situations. These strategies are focused on relational
and face identity beyond conflict goal issues. Conflict styles are specific strategies used
to engage or disengage from a conflict situation. Preventive and restorative face-work
strategies are typically employed when one's face is being threatened.
Conflict communication styles[edit]
Conflict style consists of learned behaviors developed through socialization within one's
culture. Rahim[23][24] based his classification of conflict styles into two dimensions. The first
dimension demonstrates the concern for self, how important it is for the individual to
maintain their own face or that of their culture (this is rated on a high to low continuum)
and the second is concern for others, how important is it to the individual to help them
maintain their own face (also rated on a high to low continuum). The two dimensions are
combined to create five styles for dealing with conflict. The individual will choose a style
of handling conflict based on the importance of saving their face and that of the face of
the other.

1. Dominating: One person's position or goal above the other.

2. Avoiding: Eluding the conflict topic, the conflict party, or the conflict
situation altogether.
3. Obliging: High concern for the other person's conflict interest above a
person's own interest.
4. Compromising: A give-and-take concession approach in order to reach a
midpoint agreement.
5. Integrating: A solution closure that involves high concern for one's self
and high concern for the other.
In 2000 Ting-Toomey, Oetzel, and Yee-Jung incorporated three additional conflict
communication styles to the original five.[25] These three have further enhanced conflict
communication across cultures.

1. Emotional Expression-Articulating a persons feelings in order to deal

with and control conflict.
2. Third Party Help-Resolving conflicts by enlisting additional help to
manage communication.
3. Passive Aggressive-Reacting to conflict in a roundabout way, placing
blame indirectly.
Other researchers used a different way to group the conflict tactics. Ting-Toomey
(1983) grouped strategies into three categories of tactics for handling conflict;
integrative, distributive and passive-indirect.
Integrative conflict tactics incorporated integrating and compromising styles and is
reflective of mutual-face and the need for a solution. Those who chose this tactic work
with the other person involved in the conflict to get the best possible solution for both
parties. Examples of Integrative tactics may include listening to the other, respecting
their feelings, and providing their own personal viewpoints in a manner that assists in
the negotiation.
Distributive conflict tactics use the dominating style of handling conflict, and emphasizes
the individuals own power over the other. This style reflects self-face. Passive-indirect
conflict tactics are consistent with obliging and avoiding styles of handling conflict and
reflects other-face.
Face content domains[edit]
Face content domains refer to the different topics an individual will engage in facework
on. Individuals have different face wants or face needs in a diverse range of
communicative situations.[14] There are six domains that an individual will operate in:

1. Autonomy-represents our need for others to acknowledge our

independence, self-sufficiency, privacy, boundary, nonimposition, control
issues, and our consideration of other's autonomy face needs
2. Inclusion-our need to be recognized as worthy companions, likeable,
agreeable, pleasant, friendly, cooperative
3. Status-need for others to admire our tangible and intangible assets or
resources: appearance, attractiveness, reputation, position, power, and
material worth
4. Reliability-need for others to realize that we are trustworthy, dependable,
reliable, loyal, and consistent in words and actions
5. Competence-need for others to recognize our qualities or social abilities
such as intelligence, skills, expertise, leadership, team-building,
networking, conflict mediation, facework, and problem-solving skills
6. Moral-need for others to respect our sense of integrity, dignity, honor,
propriety, and morality
Theoretical propositions[edit]
The heart of Face Negotiation Theories are 24 propositions. They are based on the
seven assumptions and five taxonomies that have been proven in numerous cases and
studies. They describe facework on three levels of communication: cultural, individual,
and situational.
Cultural-level propositions[14]

1. Individualistic cultures predominantly express self-face maintenance

interests than collectivistic culture members do.
2. Collectivistic cultures are more concerned with other-face maintenance
than members of individualistic cultures.
3. Members of collectivist cultures are more concerned with mutual-face
maintenance than individualistic cultures.
4. Members of individualistic cultures predominantly use direct and
dominating facework strategies in conflict
5. Collectivistic cultures tend to use avoidance strategies more than
individualistic cultures do.
6. Members of collectivistic cultures use more integrative facework
strategies than individualistic culture members do.
7. Individualistic cultures prefer dominating/competing conflict styles more
than collectivistic cultures do.
8. Individualistic cultures use more emotionally expressive conflict styles
than collectivistic cultures do.
9. Individualistic cultures use more aggressive conflict styles than members
of collectivistic cultures.
 10. Collectivistic cultures use more avoidance techniques than members of
individualistic cultures.
11. Collectivistic cultures use more obliging conflict styles than members of
individualistic cultures.
12. Collectivistic cultures utilize compromising styles of conflict more than
members of individualistic cultures.
Individual-level propositions[14]

1. Independent self is positively associated with self-face concern.

2. Interdependent self is positively associated with other-/mutual-face
concern.
3. Self-face maintenance is associated with dominating/competing conflict
style.
4. Other-face maintenance is associated with avoiding/obliging conflict style.
5. Other-face maintenance is associated with compromising/integrating
conflict style.
6. Independent self–construal is associated with dominating/competing
conflict style.
7. Interdependent self-construal is associated with obliging/avoiding.
8. Interdependent self-construal is associated with compromising/integrating.
9. Bi-construal is associated with compromising/integrating.
10. Ambivalent is associated with neglect/third-party.
Situational-level propositions[14]

1. Individualist or independent-self personalities tend to express a greater

degree of self-face maintenance concerns and less other-face
maintenance concern in dealing with both ingroup and outgroup conflicts
situations.
2. Collectivist or interdependent-self personalities express a greater degree
of other-face concerns with ingroup members and a greater degree of
self-face maintenance concerns with outgroup members in intergroup
conflict situations.
Intercultural facework competence[edit]
Reflecting on the final assumption, intercultural facework competence consists of
another component of face-negotiation theory. Facework competence is conceptualized
as an optimal integration of knowledge, mindfulness and communication skills in
managing self's and other's face-related concerns. [4] To act competently in an
intercultural conflict episode, the theory posits that individuals have to enhance their
cultural knowledge and mindfulness in applying context-sensitive facework interaction
skills.
Knowledge dimension[edit]
Knowledge here refers to the process of in-depth understanding of phenomenon via a
range of information gained through conscious learning and personal experiences.
Building block concepts include: (1) individualism-collectivism, (2) power distance. (3)
two contrastive "self/face" models, and (4) facework communication styles. [4]
Mindfulness dimension[edit]
Mindfulness means attending to one's internal assumptions, cognitions and emotions
and simultaneously attuning attentively to the other's assumptions, cognitions and
emotions while focusing the five senses. [26] To be mindful of intercultural facework
differences, we have to learn to see the unfamiliar behavior from a fresh context.
[15]
 Thus, on a general level, mindfulness demands creative thinking and living.

Applications[edit]
As an intercultural communication theory, face-negotiation theory was first tested in and
applied to the field of intercultural training and conflicts. However, researchers from
other areas also find this theory applicable and relevant. Recent applications and
examinations of the theory include following studies.
Intercultural conflict training[edit]
One direct application of face-negotiation theory is the design of intercultural
conflict training frameworks. Part of the objective of face-negotiation theory, according
to Ting-Toomey, is in fact to translate the theory into a viable framework for mindful
intercultural conflict training.[15] Ting-Toomey suggests that this theory can be most
useful when it comes to application of the theory to intercultural training across cultures.
[18]

More specifically, intercultural conflict training revolves around international business

negotiation, intercultural conflict mediation, managing intercultural miscommunication,
and developing intercultural conflict competencies. Adapting face-negotiation theory,
and also in combination with various communication researches such as Critical
Incident, Intergroup Negotiation Simulation etc., Ting-Toomey designed a detailed
three-day training session. Agenda outline, along with in class activities, lecture themes,
and exercises, is provided in her design as well.
Face concerns in interpersonal conflict[edit]
This study by the author of the theory Stella Ting-Toomey and, Department of
communication and Journalism at the University of New Mexico, John G. Oetzel was
done in order to discover if face was indeed a factor in determining "culture's influence
on conflict behavior" (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2003). There were 768 people from four
different countries who partook in the study. The cultures represented were China,
Germany, Japan, and the United States. China and Japan representing the collectivist
countries and Germany and the United States as the individualist countries. Each
contributor was given a survey in which they were to explain interpersonal conflict. [1] The
largest findings are as follows.

1. "Cultural individualism-collectivism had direct and indirect effects on

conflict styles."[1]
 2. "Independent self-construal related positively with self-face and
interdependent self-construal related positively with other-face." [1]
3. "Self-face related positively with dominating conflict styles and other-face
related positively with avoiding and integrating styles." [1]
4. "Face accounted for all of the total variance explained (100% of 19% total
explained) in dominating, most of the total variance explained in
integrating (70% of 20% total explained) when considering face concerns,
cultural individualism-collectivism, and self-construals." [1]
Face and facework in conflicts with parents and siblings[edit]
This study, implemented by the author of this theory Stella Ting-Toomey, John Oetzel,
Martha Idalia Chew-Sanchez, Richard Harris, Richard Wilcox, and Siegfried Stumpf,
observed how facework in conflict with parents and siblings is affected by culture, self-
concept, and power distance. There were 449 people from four different countries and
cultures that participated. Germany, Japan, Mexico, and the United States were the
countries used in the study. The survey looked at 3 apprehensions of face and 11
behaviors of "facework". The results are as follows.

1. "Self-construals had strong effects on face concerns and facework with

independence positively associated with self-face and dominating
facework and interdependence positively associated with other- and
mutual-face and integrating and avoiding facework behaviors." [27]
2. "Power distance had small, positive effects on self-face, other-face,
avoiding facework, and dominating facework." [27]
3. "National culture had small to medium effects with individualistic, small
power distance cultures having more self-face and mutual-face and using
more dominating and integrating facework and less avoiding facework." [27]
4. "Germans have more self-face and used defending more than U.S.
Americans."[27]
5. "Japanese used more expression than Mexicans." [27]
6. "Individuals in conflict with parents were more likely to use respect and
expression and less likely to use aggression, pretend, and third party than
individuals in conflict with siblings."[27]
Face negotiation with mothers[edit]
Motherhood of the Construction of "Mommy Identity" – Heisler & Ellis Face Negotiation
Theory suggests that, "USA culture simultaneously encourages connection and
autonomy among individuals."[28] Mothers do not want to be vulnerable so there is a
"face" that is developed in the culture of mothers. Heisler and Ellis did a study on the
"face" and reasons for face in motherhood. The results portrayed that the main reasons
for keeping "face" in a culture of mothers are:

1. Acceptance and approval: There is a fear of criticism and rejection by

others. There is the avoidance face which deflects others attention.
Acceptance face attracts attention.
 2. Personal Reasons: There are many internal pressures that mothers face.
These include the guilt that they do not spend enough time with their
children, insecurities and values they have are not being in met, and their
self-esteem is low because of the fear of judgment.
3. Mentoring/helping others: Mothers put on a face in order to appear as a
good mother figure to younger mothers that look up to them. There are
cultural expectations that can contribute to personal expectations for how
mothers should act. Women's thoughts on mothering are not their own
original ideas. They take on a lot of societal pressures. An example would
be, if a mother's child acts poorly in public, it makes the mother look bad.
Motherhood and "face": Results from the same study showed that mothers participate in
"Mommy face work." Depending on who they are talking to or interacting with. Mothers
said to put on their highest face with friends, spouses, mothers and other family
members. This is not to say that mother's plan to be deceptive, but they feel more
comfortable not showing weakness and hide it accordingly. [29]
Physician communication in the operating room[edit]
Kristin Kirschbaum applied face-negotiation theory to the health communication context,
and specifically in the operating room environment. [30] In the research, a survey was
administered to anesthesiologists and surgeons at a teaching hospital in the
southwestern United States to measure three variables commonly associated with face-
negotiation theory: conflict-management style, face concern, and self-construal. The
results strongly support the theory, and significant positive correlations were found
between independent self-construal and self-face concern for anesthesiologists and
surgeons. Specific to this health communication context, the research shows
differences between the two groups of operating-room physicians: surgeons are
potentially more other-face oriented and that anesthesiologists are potentially more
independently oriented. Further, both anesthesiologists and surgeons recognize the
importance of collaboration as surgical team members.
The survey also found that specific terms were contextually inappropriate for this
population, e.g. the terms pride, dignity, or credibility demonstrated a need for error
correlation. This suggests unique considerations of language. Along this line of thinking,
the research recommended physician communication training to address both unique
language considerations and different orientations to face concern and self-construal.
Safe sex negotiation[edit]
Gust Yep, noticing the potential vulnerability and emotional volatility of sexual
interaction, applied face-negotiation theory to the safe sex negotiation context. [31]
The study integrated various components of face-negotiation theory, and eight
propositions are derived from empirical testing in intimate communication scenarios
including East-West romantic dyads. The research is based on preliminary observations
on personal interviews with two Asian women, aiming to predict intimate communication
patterns between Asian women and Euro-American men. Specifically, low-high context
and individualism-collectivism frameworks are used to draw the eight propositions.
Face Saving in Business Request Emails[edit]
A study conducted on the exchange of business emails between Chinese & American
business associates presented how the structure of email requests affected the
person's face & impacted how the associates viewed the request. It was observed that
direct requests in an email threatened the face of the recipient & sender. It resulted in
loss of face because the recipient was denied autonomy and acted in a socially
unacceptable manner.[32]
Face Threat & Disability[edit]
A research was conducted to gauge how disabled persons interact with able bodied
individuals with regards to protecting one's face and self-identity. The study considered
students with not only physical disability but also disabilities not visually identifiable such
as heart conditions and hearing impairment. Those with disabilities were threatened by
the way others treated them and hence they chose more face-saving strategies. For
instance, communication apprehension was noted in students with a hearing
impairment and they reported less disclosure in the conversation. In fact, the study
found that disabled students viewed asking help from able bodied individuals as a face
threatening act.
Responding to Unethical Communication[edit]
A research in people's reaction to unethical communication revealed that people
use Face Threatening Acts in order to counter the apprehension in communication.
According to Bisel et al. (2011), ‘denying unethical communication challenges both
positive and negative face of the hearer”. An expression of disapproval threatens a
person's positive face which indicates the hearer's need for approval and it impacts the
person's negative face because it affects the person's autonomy.
The study put forth a research question of associating politeness strategies and
unethical communication. The strategies considered were don't’ do the face threatening
act, negative politeness, positive politeness and bald on strategy. The unethical
communication was classified as one that was either deceptive, manipulative,
exploitative, intrusive or coercive. The ideal strategic responses have been highlighted
in the figure.
Face Saving in Artwork Reviews[edit]
A research was conducted to study the use of face saving and face threatening acts in
reviewing artwork. For the study, twelve reviews from the periodical Literatūra ir
menas (Literature and Art) were randomly selected. The source for the research
analysis was between 1970 -1975.
It was observed that reviewers generally had the face of the artist in mind before
presenting their reviews. When presenting a negative review, reviewers threatened the
positive face of the artist and hence also presented positive feedback in order to ‘save
face’ of the artist.
Face Concerns and the Intent to Apologize[edit]
A study was conducted among 317 Chinese and American participants to determine
how the cultural variation between the two affected the intention to apologize. The
cultural norms were categorized as the individualistic and collectivist cultures. According
to Hofstede (1980), an individualistic culture lays emphasis on the identity of the “I”
while collectivist cultures place more importance on the “we” and the harmony in
groups.
This study also took into account culture when trying to understand the intention to
apologize. Apology, according to Goffman (1971), is the “offender's device to remedy a
social breach and to re-establish social harmony”. [7]
The cultural differences were more prominent especially as the intention took into
account if the member (whose face was threatened by an act and thus necessities an
apology) was an in-group or an out-group member. The study thus found that Chinese
participants had a greater intention to apologize especially if their act threatened the
positive face of the other individual. On the other hand, the U.S participants had the
intention to apologize when their act threatened the negative face of the person.
Face Concerns, self-construal and Forgiveness[edit]
Ting-Toomey and other researchers conducted a latest research in 2019 on the effects
of the three main individual-level constituents of face-negotiation: face concerns, self-
construal and apology on victims’ choice of forgiveness, reconciliation and revenge to
offenders. It is a study on relational transgressions in two different cultures: the high-
context communication of China, and the low-context communication of United States.
Participants of this study include 327 college students in United States and 176 college
students in central China. And researchers make five hypothesis on relationship
between the central constructs of face-negotiation theory and victims’ behavioral
consequences. The final result indicates a negative relationship between self-face
concern and forgiveness, independent self-construal and forgiveness in both cultures. It
also suggests a positive association between other-face concern and forgiveness,
interdependent self-construal and forgiveness, offender apology and forgiveness in both
countries.