Em Griffin A First Look at Communication Theory 7 th edition © 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Chapter 31 Face-Negotiation Theory of Stella Ting Toomey
Em Griffin
A First Lookat
Communication Theory7
th edition
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Chapter 31
Face-Negotiation Theory of Stella Ting Toomey
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Face-Negotiation Theory
Collectivism and Individualistic Cultures Self-Construal: Varied Self-Images Within a Culture The Multiple Faces of Face Predictable Styles of Conflict Management Application: Competent Intercultural Facework Critique: Passing the Test With a Good Grade
Slide 2
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Face-Negotiation Theory
Ting-Toomey assumes that people of every culture are always negotiating faceFacework of people from individualistic
cultures will be strikingly different from face work of people from collectivistic cultures
Slide 3
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Face-Negotiation Theory
Face – projected image of one’s self in a relational situation
Facework – specific verbal and nonverbal messages that help to maintain and restore face loss and to uphold and honor face gain
Slide 4
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Face-Negotiation Theory
Face maintenance is crucial intervening variable that ties culture to people’s way of handling conflict
Slide 5
Type ofCulture
Type of Self-Construal
Type of FaceMaintenance
Type of ConflictManagement
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Figure 31-1: Some Techniques of Third-Party Mediation
Slide 6
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Collectivism and Individualistic Cultures
Ting-Toomey bases face-negotiation theory on distinction between collectivism and individualismCollectivism and individualism differ in how
one perceives• Self• Goals• Duty
Slide 7
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Collectivism and Individualistic Cultures
Collectivistic culture – wherein people identify with a larger group responsible for providing care in exchange for group loyalty; we-identity
Individualistic culture – wherein people look out for themselves and their immediate families; I-identity
Slide 8
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Collectivism and Individualistic Cultures
More than two-thirds of the world’s people are born into collectivistic cultures
Less than one third of the population live in individualistic cultures.The we-identity of the Japanese is quite
foreign to the I-identity of the American who values individualistic needs and goals over group needs and goals.
Slide 9
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Self-Construal: Varied Self-Images Within A Culture
People are not cultural clonesPeople within a culture differ on the relative
emphasis they place on individual self-sufficiency or group solidarity
Self-construal – self-image; the degree to which people conceive of themselves as relatively autonomous from, or connected, to others
Slide 10
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Self-Construal: Varied Self-Images Within A Culture
Independent self values I-identity and is more self-face oriented; prevalent within individualistic cultures
Interdependent self values we-identity and emphasizes relational connectedness; closely aligned with collectivism
Slide 11
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Self-Construal: Varied Self-Images Within A Culture
Relational reality of self-image within the same culture can varyCulture is an overall framework for face-
concern, but individuals within a culture have different images of self and vary on their views on the degree to which they give others face or restore their own face in conflict situations
Slide 12
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
The Multiple Faces of Face
“Face” is a universal concernExtension of self-concept, a vulnerable,
identity-based resource
Three orientations of face:Self-faceOther-faceMutual face
Slide 13
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
The Multiple Faces of Face
Face is a universal concernFace-concern – regard for self-face, other
face, or mutual faceFace-restoration – self-concerned
facework strategy used to preserve autonomy and defend against loss of personal freedom
Slide 14
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
The Multiple Faces of Face
Face (continued)
Face-giving – other-concerned facework strategy used to defend and support another person’s need for inclusion
Most people raised in collectivistic culture tend to privilege other-face or mutual-face
People raised in individualistic culture more concerned with self-face
Slide 15
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Predictable Styles of Conflict Management
The five generally accepted responses to conflictAvoiding (withdrawal)Obliging (giving in)Compromising (negotiation)Integrating (problem solving)Dominating (competing)
Slide 16
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Predictable Styles of Conflict Management
Avoiding – responding to conflict by withdrawing from open discussion
Obliging – accommodating or giving into the wishes of another in a conflict situation
Slide 17
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Predictable Styles of Conflict Management
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
Slide 18
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Predictable Styles of Conflict Management
Ting-Toomey and John Oetzel stress these responses associated with western countries
An ethnically diverse sample identified three new conflict styles:Emotional expressionPassive aggressionThird-party help
Slide 19
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Predictable Styles of Conflict Management
Emotional expression – managing conflict by disclosure of venting of feelings
Passive aggression – making indirect accusations, showing resentment, procrastination, and other behaviors aimed at thwarting another’s resolution of conflict
Slide 20
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Predictable Styles of Conflict Management
Third-party help – method of conflict management where disputing parties seek aide of mediator, arbitrator, or respected neutral to help them resolve their differences
Slide 21
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Figure 31.2: A Cultural Map of Eight Conflict Management Styles
Slide 22
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Application: Competent Intercultural Facework
Ting-Toomey believes cultural knowledge, mindfulness, and facework interaction skills are requirements for effectively communicating across cultures
Slide 23
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Application: Competent Intercultural Facework
Knowledge – most important dimension of facework competence
Mindfulness – recognition that things are not always what they seem and seeking multiple perspective in conflict situations
Interaction skill – ability to communicate appropriately, effectively, and adaptively in a given situation
Slide 24
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Figure 31-3: Face-Negotiation ModelSlide 25
© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill
Critique: Passing the Test With a Good Grade
Most cross-cultural researchers analyze different cultures from a highly interpretive perspective
Ting-Toomey and Oetzel committed to objective social science research agenda that looks for measurable commonalities across cultures that are then linked to subsequent behavioral outcomes
Slide 26