> Abstract
Face influences conflict behavior, because, in any conflict situation, conflict parties have to consider protecting self-interest conflict goals and\or honoring or attacking another person’s conflict goals. Conflict is an ideal forum for face-threatening and face-saving behaviors. The objective of this article is three-fold: first, to provide an update on face-negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey 1988); second, to introduce a facework competence model for intercultural conflict training; and third, to discuss several major training and research issues in using the face-negotiation theory and its companion model, the facework competence model.
Section snippets
As social beings, most of us have the experiences of blushing, feeling embarrassed, awkward, shameful, or prideful. Many of these feelings are face-related issues. When our social poise is attacked or teased, we feel the need to restore or save face. When we are being complimented or given credit for a job well done in front of others (i.e. in an individualistic culture), we feel our social self-worth is enhanced and stroked. Losing face and saving face are some of the key concerns of
Face-Negotiation Theory: Basic Assumptions
Using a cultural variability approach of individualism–collectivism to the study of face and facework, Ting-Toomey 1988 proposes a theoretical model, the face-negotiation theory (with seven assumptions and 12 propositions), of face and facework. The dimension of individualism–collectivism serves as a conceptual grid in explaining why the meaning of ‘‘self’’ and hence, ‘‘face,’’ varies across cultures. It clarifies our understanding of how the various ‘‘I-identity’’ or ‘‘we-identity’’