Face-negotiation theory

Face-negotiation theory is a concept in psychology and communications that addresses the role self-image and "maintaining face" has in interpersonal communications. It is especially relevant in conflict situations. The theory proposes that cultural influences and societal expectations are very important in face-negotiation. As a result, the theory holds, these factors can create significant difficulties in negotiations and interpersonal relationships.

Background

Formal study into how cultural differences and variations in societal expectations and customs impact relationships began in the 1970s. American linguist Penelope Brown and her husband, British linguist Stephen C. Levinson, first suggested the theory in 1978, to explain the differences and challenges in interpersonal relationships among people from different cultures. Their work proposed that people have both a positive and a negative "face need." The term face in this instance refers to the persona or personality that someone portrays to others and to himself or herself. Brown and Levinson proposed that people have both a positive face—the need to be liked and appreciated by others—and a negative face—the desire to not have to worry what others think of them. As linguists, Brown and Levinson noticed the role these two faces played in the level of politeness with which people addressed others, particularly in conflict situations.

In 1985, communications professor Stella Ting-Toomey began applying the research of Brown, Levinson, and others to the faces people present to themselves and others during interpersonal encounters. Her own experiences inspired her to study cultural differences in communications. Ting-Toomey came from Hong Kong to study in a small rural community in Iowa. Later, as she continued her studies, she noticed biases in how studies on interpersonal communications were conducted in Western countries that she felt did not represent all cultures. Ting-Toomey applied the Chinese concepts of mien-tzu and lien to the study of how people communicate. According to Chinese tradition, mien-tzu is the social, external face. It places a greater focus on a person's influence, power, and authority. Lien is the private, internal face that is concerned with honor, morality, integrity, and, when any of these are violated, shame.

Overview

The face-negotiation theory is based on several premises. According to the theory, human beings are interested in "maintaining face" in their interactions with others. The things that are important to maintaining face are derived from and established by the culture and community in which one is raised. These cultural influences can affect various aspects of how a person interacts with others as well. Such factors affect how a person reacts to authority and whether the person values individuality or the greater good of a community. When people feel that their face is being threatened or when issues arise that are in opposition to their views regarding authority or communal good, then problems can result.

Ting-Toomey's theory proposes that people have two faces; one is the personality, or the view others see when they interact with a person, and the second is the internal face that the person keeps to himself or herself. The external personality is defined in large part by societal norms and expectations. In other words, the individual strives to present a face that will be acceptable to others. This face is learned over time through experience with the expectations of society.

Western communications experts have identified five key ways in which people respond when confronted with conflict—avoidance, compromise, domination, integration, and obliging. Some people attempt to avoid conflict, while others will try to find a middle ground or compromise to resolve it. Some people will stick to their viewpoint until they dominate a conflict, while others will strive for a way to resolve it that more fully integrates the needs and ideals of both parties. Finally, some are obliging, surrendering their preferences to the other person involved in the conflict. Ting-Toomey asserted that there are three additional conflict management styles: emotional expression, third-party help, and passive aggression. Those favoring an emotional approach use clearly shared expressions of their needs and desires to control the outcome. Others seek to draw an additional third party into the conflict to facilitate the resolution. Finally, some take a passive aggressive approach by indirectly blaming others for the conflict.

When efforts to resolve the conflict in a way that maintain face fail, the face-negotiation theory holds that efforts will be made to restore face. People also differ in how they approach this, and, as is the case with maintaining face, cultural differences play a role in the ways a person will seek to restore face. Some people will put such a high emphasis on restoring their own face that there will be little or no concern for the other person's need to maintain face. Others will put equal emphasis on each side maintaining face. Others who have a lower level of self-esteem or self-face may seek to resolve a conflict in a way that destroys either their own or both parties face.

The theory proposes that people from Western countries, which put a high emphasis on independence, are more likely to be individualistic in the ways they seek to maintain face. They will favor individual rights and freedom. The theory contends that they will be more likely to resort to domination and competition, causing others to lose face if it means they can maintain their own. According to the theory, those from Eastern countries are more likely to favor a collectivist viewpoint. They are more likely to be accommodating, obliging, and compromising because they more interested in the collective good. Some of these approaches can be particularly problematic, according to face-negotiation theory. For instance, a Westerner trying to maintain face may make direct eye contact as a way to assert her independence in conflict situations. In some Eastern cultures, this gesture is considered rude behavior. The result can be an escalation in conflict.

While the face-negotiation theory has gained wide support, it has also been subject to some criticism. Some critics point out it has been updated very frequently, indicating it is not definitive. Others say it makes too many cultural generalizations to be accurate in all situations. Finally, increased globalization and greater prolonged contact among cultures is causing greater assimilation, making some of the assumptions upon which the theory is based less universally valid.

Bibliography

Canado, Maria Luisa Perez. "Interview with Stella Ting-Toomey." Language and Intercultural Communications, vol. 8, no. 3, 2008, pp. 209–17.

"Face Negotiation Theory." West Virginia University, wvuspice2012.blogspot.com/2012/06/face-negotiation-theory.html. Accessed 30 Nov. 2017.

Floyd, Kory, et al. Exploring Communication Theory: Making Sense of Us. Taylor and Francis, 2017, p. 360.

"Intercultural Conflict Styles." AFS Intercultural Programs, 2012, s3.amazonaws.com/woca-s3/telligent.evolution.components.attachments/13/1637/00/00/00/00/65/20/Intercultural+Conflict+Styles+for+AFS+%26+Friends.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJC2S635RRRB3EOPQ&Expires=1512492733&Signature=wL5Zgurf%2fbhbIDLfJFecavsfczM%3d. Accessed 30 Nov. 2017.

Kim, Wonsun, et al. "Face and Facework: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Maintaining Politeness Norms in the United States and Korea." International Journal of Communications, vol. 6, 2012, pp. 1100–118.

Mishra, Sneha. "Face Negotiation Theory." Businesstopia, www.businesstopia.net/mass-communication/face-negotiation-theory. Accessed 30 Nov. 2017.

"Stella Ting-Toomey's Face Negotiation Theory Explained." Health Research Funding, 5 Jan. 2017, healthresearchfunding.org/stella-ting-toomeys-face-negotiation-theory-explained/. Accessed 30 Nov. 2017.

Ting-Toomey, Stella. "Theory Reflections: Face-Negotiation Theory." National Association of Foreign Student Advisers (NAFSA), www.nafsa.org/‗/file/‗/theory‗connections‗facework.pdf. Accessed 30 Nov. 2017.