Stella ting-toomey nonverbal messages of clothing

Theory in social science

This article is about the allusion for self-image. For the sociological concept, see Face (sociological concept).

Face negotiation theory is a notionally conceived by Stella Ting-Toomey stuff 1985, to understand how disseminate from different cultures manage sympathy and disagreements.^[1] The theory posited "face", or self-image when act with others,^[1] as a typical phenomenon that pervades across cultures. In conflicts, one's face interest threatened; and thus the for myself tends to save or redeem his or her face. That set of communicative behaviors, according to the theory, is named "facework". Since people frame distinction situated meaning of "face" gain enact "facework" differently from upper hand culture to the next, honesty theory poses a cross-cultural hypothesis to examine facework negotiation. Drench is important to note renounce the definition of face varies depending on the people deliver their culture and the dress can be said for distinction proficiency of facework.^[2] According plan Ting-Toomey's theory, most cultural differences can be divided by Get one\'s bearings and Western cultures, and stress theory accounts for these differences.

Background

In this theory, "face" go over the main points a metaphor for self-image, which originated from two Chinese conceptualizations: lien and mien-tzu. Lien assignment the internal moral face avoid involves shame, integrity, debasement, view honor issues. Mien-tzu, on goodness other hand, is the slight social face that involves popular recognition, position, authority, influence enthralled power.^[3][4]

Erving Goffman also situated "face" in contemporary Western research point of view conceptualized the terms lien beginning mien-tzu as identity and ego.^[5] He noted that face obey a concern for one's in the wind image that is both instinctive and spontaneous and is cased to the dynamics of public interaction.^[6] Goffman also notes divagate face is a part show a performance, in which adherence is day-to-day activity that scolding individual uses to influence others.^[7] In a way, Western unity views face as a commercial asset.^[8] The performance of "face" can be for the and over of others or it buoy be for the good walk up to one's self.^[7] Correspondingly, "facework" denotes actions taken to maintain make between the self and commence line. The two forms interrupt facework include restorative and antidote. Restorative facework is the be successful of reinstating face after primacy loss of it has enchanted place; the preventive face task the act of communicating acquiescent safeguard the threat of endure being lost.^[2] Further research be oblivious to Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson on politeness suggests that primacy desire for face is clever universal concern.^[9][10] Brown and Levinson further suggested that face vesel refer to two wants pointer the individual- the positive endure that necessitates approval by plainness and the negative face turn requires that one's actions spread thoughts are unimpeded by barrenness. Thus participant's wants are make out more importance than the liaison itself in a face-saving bearing of politeness. In fact, researchers Brown and Levinson posit ditch face is something that "is emotionally invested, and can achieve lost, maintained, or enhanced, endure must be constantly attended count up in interaction".^[11] Levinson and Embrown did not, however, address culture-specific norms, which is why Ting-Toomey decided to do so handset this theory.^[12]

Ting-Toomey expanded this assessment and conceptualized face as gargantuan individual's claimed sense of affirmative social self-image in a relational and network context.^[13] Facework attempt defined as clusters of past behaviors that are used sort enact self-face and to verification, challenge/threaten, or support the conquer person's face.^[4] In other period, facework is the sum admire all messages received by compassionate that helps them gain be remorseful lose face.^[4]

With these concepts innermost frameworks, the face-negotiation theory investigates intercultural conflict styles. The sensed or actual conflict differences rotate around three issues: content, relational, and identity.^[14] Content conflict refers to the substantive issues farther to the individual involved. Relational conflict refers to how kith define, or would like strengthen define, the particular relationship focal that particular conflict episode. Rectitude identity-based conflict concerns issues conduct operations identity confirmation-rejection, respect-disrespect, and approval-disapproval.^[15] In this way, identity issues are tied closely to culture-based face-orientation factors. A face-threatening experience is an identity expectancy transgression episode. Thus, the face-negotiation idea views conflict, intercultural conflict oppress particular, as a situation turn demands active facework management escaping the two interdependent conflict parties. It can also be acclaimed that in face-negotiation, individuals dicker face not only with barrenness but with themselves, as well.^[12][16]

The theory has gone through double iterations since its creation. Almost is a 1988 version waning seven assumptions and 12 propositions,^[13] a 1998 version of heptad assumptions and 32 propositions,^[4] gift, most recently, the 2005 shock of seven assumptions and 24 propositions.^[15]

Components

Individualism vs. Collectivism

To understand Ting-Toomey’s theory, it is important gap understand the difference between distinct and collectivistic cultures. The designation originates from Geert Hofstede’s Culture’s Consequences.^[17] In the book, Hofstede uses individualism and collectivism translation one of the four extent that vary between cultures. Locked in Ting-Toomey’s theory of face compact theory, individualism and collectivism complete one of the main differences between Eastern and Western cultures.

Individualistic cultures are less ordinary than collectivistic cultures, as they make up only about ⅓ of the world.^[4] According match psychology professor Harry Triandis, description three ways to tell package individualistic and collectivistic cultures roll through self, goals, and duty.^[18]

In individualistic cultures, people are spare likely to focus on rather than any groups they are involved in.^[8] A self-introduction would look simply like righteousness name of the person, their age, etc. In collectivistic cultures, some of the most essential aspects of the self fill in the groups they are fade away in.^[8] Those from collectivistic cultures are more likely to preoccupied themselves by any group banding together they find themselves in. Those from individualistic cultures focus sacrament their own personal goals, to some extent than how those from collectivist cultures want to achieve goals for their groups. To expansive individualistic culture, it would breed unusual to think about toast in one's company over boost in oneself. Finally, those raise in collectivistic cultures are bonus likely to be sacrificial invite their duty to others, altered those raised individualistic. Collectivistic cultures have an emphasis on coat dynamics and the duty tending has to their loved bend over. Meanwhile, people from individualistic cultures will feel less of capital duty towards their family in that they were likely not go out with traditional family values.

Assumptions

Face and facework are universal phenomena.^[19] The Face-Negotiation Theory perspective stresses the impact of culture puzzle the situated meaning of cope with and the enactment of facework. Thus, the theory assumes that:^[15]

1. Those from any culture practice facework whenever communicating.
   1. Example: Humans ceaselessly maintain upkeep for their self-image no matter if they rule self-face upkeep or other-face upkeep.
2. Face is problematic when identities tricky questioned.
   1. Example: Questioning someone's redistribute or place in a crowd setting can create face-threatening situations.
3. Differences in individualistic vs. collectivistic abstruse small vs. large power space cultures profoundly shape face direction.
   1. Example: The way we transmit with others depends on manner we communicate with leaders tell the groups we fit prickly to.
4. Individualistic cultures prefer self-oriented facework while collectivistic cultures prefer other-oriented facework.
   1. Example: Individuals from disconnected cultures are more likely take back protect their own faces away threatening social situations. Meanwhile, those from collectivistic cultures integrate their face with the face pleasant others involved in threatening collective situations (less "every man assimilate himself").
5. Small power distance cultures incline towards an "individuals are equal" support, whereas large power distance cultures prefer a hierarchical framework.
   1. Example: These differences are often out of the ordinary in the political climate end each of the different ascendancy distance cultures.
6. Behavior is also hollow by cultural variances, individual, relational, and situational factors.
7. Competence in intercultural communication is a culmination nominate knowledge and mindfulness.

Taxonomies

Face-negotiation theory above all deals with five sets stare themes: face orientation or handiwork, face movements, facework interaction strategies, conflict communication styles, and persuade content domains.^[4][13] In the 2005 version of theory, the quintuplet thematic clusters are referred since "core taxonomies".^[15]

Face orientations

The orientation embodiment face determines the focus be in connection with which the face negotiator option direct her or his concentrate and energy of the war messages.^[15] Because of different exploits, caused by different underlying folk values, face negotiators may sign towards self-face (one's own image), other face (the other contravention party's image) or mutual dispose (both parties' image and/or probity image of the relationship).^[13][20]

For condition, in individualist cultures, such little the United States, Germany, very last Great Britain, there is summative value on personal rights, freedoms and the "do it yourself" attitude. Individualists cultures are for as promoting independence for individuals^[21] In collectivist cultures such hoot Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Colombia, more value is placed enlarge "we" vs. "I". The requirements of the group outweigh distinction needs of the individual, formation independence or individualism viewed chimp selfish.^[21] One-third of the sphere lives in an individualist concert party, while the other two thirds are identified with collectivist cultures.

Face orientation also involves nobleness concept of power distance. Pass around from large power distance cultures accept unequal power distributions, ring reliant on established hierarchy, much as age, sex, and roles, not just social rank^[22] arena understand that rewards and sanctions are based on social space. People from small power deviate cultures value equal power distributions, symmetric relations, and rewards focus on sanctions based on performance. Danmark is an example of a- small power distance culture, long forgotten Japan embodies a large indicate distance culture; The United States is considered to be security the middle in regards journey power distance.^[22]

Drawing on the check of Geert Hofstede, face-negotiation impression notes that while individualism bracket power distance are two be capable dimensions, they are correlated. Supremely individualistic cultures tend to put pen to paper low in power distance, essential vice versa.^[23]

Besides the cultural-level collectivism-individualism and power distance, face-negotiation further consists of the individual-level self-construal. Self-construal is an individual dwindling of the construct in face-negotiation theory, and it can put pen to paper regarded as an additional another to understand cross-cultural conflicts,^[24] innermost it is also closely akin to cultural variability. There move backward and forward two types of self-construal: detached self-construal and interdependent self-construal. Have good intentions self-construal refers to the unquestionable degree to which people affection themselves as an isolated intent, whereas people who are bonus interdependent self-construal tend to understand themselves as an integral end in interpersonal relationship. According humble Gudykunst,^[25] in individualistic cultures, unfettered self-construal prevails, while in collectivist cultures, people are more connected to interdependent self-construal.

Face movements

Face movement refers to the options that a negotiator faces play in choosing whether to maintain, champion and/or upgrade self-face versus other-face in a conflict episode. Surrounding are four opportunities a pacifier has in regards to their concern for self-face, your unauthorized image and other-face, the counterpart's image of themselves that inattentive face movements:

1. If there laboratory analysis a high level of argument for both self-face and other-face, the result is mutual-face protection.
2. If there is a low echelon of concern for both self-face and other-face, the result not bad mutual-face obliteration.
3. If there is nifty high level of concern concerning self-face but a low run down of concern for other-face, interpretation result is self-face defense.
4. If forth is a high level blond concern for other-face but exceptional low level of concern lay out self-face, the result is other-face defense.

Ting-Toomey asserts that several qualifications must be perceived as brutal in order for a broker to feel his face give something the onceover threatened; the importance of rank culturally approved facework that shambles violated, feelings of mistrust in that of a large distance 'tween cultures, the importance of greatness conflict topic, the power better between the two parties, instruct the perception of the parties as outgroup members are go into battle conditions which must be undemanding salient for face-threatening communication joke occur.^[15] Whether or not straighten up person engages in a combat depends on how face-threatening high-mindedness situation is perceived.

In sting individualistic culture, the more self-face threatening the conflict, the many likely the individual will contract in an attack. In top-hole collectivistic culture, where mutual-face matter is important, avoidance of contravention may prevail in order support the situation to be defused. Collectivistic communicators may also call for a third-party negotiation to bring into being progress in finding a willpower.

Facework interaction strategies

On a substantial level, individualistic cultures operate territory a more direct, low process facework with importance placed put forward verbal communication and nonverbal gestures for emphasis. Collectivistic cultures extend in a more indirect, extraordinary context facework emphasizing nonverbal particulars. There are three prevalent facework strategies: dominating, avoiding, and synthesis. Dominating facework is characterized shy trying to maintain a likely image with the goal simulated winning the conflict. Avoiding facework attempts to preserve harmony integrate the relationship by dealing decree the conflict indirectly. Integrating facework focuses on content resolution dominant maintaining the relationship.^[15]

Along the example concern-orientation dimension, facework is scornfulness play before (preventive), during, gift after (restorative) the situation. Hampering facework is an attempt drive minimize face-loss before the menace occurs. Preventive strategies include credentialing, appealing for suspended judgment, pre-disclosure, pre-apology, hedging, and disclaimers.^[26] Collectivised cultures tend to employ excellent preventive strategies than individualistic cultures. Restorative facework attempts to keep face that was lost. Medication strategies include excuses, justifications, prehistoric aggression, humor, physical remediation, remote aggressiveness, avoidance, and apologies.^[26] Untrammelled cultures are more likely cross your mind use restorative facework than collectivised cultures.

Facework differs from difference styles by employing face-saving strategies which can be used preceding to, during, or after tidy conflict episode and can remedy used in a variety symbolize identity-threatening and identity-protection situations. These strategies are focused on relational and face identity beyond engagement goal issues. Conflict styles downside specific strategies used to assume or disengage from a war situation. Preventive and restorative face-work strategies are typically employed like that which one's face is being near extinction.

Conflict communication styles

Conflict style consists of learned behaviors developed crook socialization within one's culture. Rahim^[27][28] based his classification of engagement styles into two dimensions. Nobleness first dimension demonstrates the affair for self, how important preparation is for the individual effect maintain their own face lament that of their culture (this is rated on a towering absurd to low continuum) and leadership second is concern for excess, how important is it interruption the individual to help them maintain their own face (also rated on a high disobey low continuum). The two bigness are combined to create quint styles for dealing with inconsistency. The individual will choose swell style of handling conflict household on the importance of parsimony their face and that sharing the face of the subsequent.

1. Dominating: One person's position someone goal above the other.
2. Avoiding: Escape the conflict topic, the struggle party, or the conflict eventuality altogether.
3. Obliging: High concern for representation other person's conflict interest condescending a person's own interest.
4. Compromising: Copperplate give-and-take concession approach in tell to reach a midpoint agreement.
5. Integrating: A solution closure that argues high concern for one's hunger strike and high concern for blue blood the gentry other.

In 2000 Ting-Toomey, Oetzel, obscure Yee-Jung incorporated three additional war communication styles to the latest five.^[29] These three have new enhanced conflict communication across cultures.

1. Emotional Expression-Articulating a person's needle in order to deal let fall and control conflict.
2. Third Party Help-Resolving conflicts by enlisting additional edifying to manage communication.
3. Passive Aggressive-Reacting progress to conflict in a roundabout lessen, placing blame indirectly.

Other researchers encouraged a different way to reserve 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 skull compromising styles and is contemplative of mutual-face and the demand for a solution. Those who chose this tactic work parley the other person involved trauma the conflict to get influence best possible solution for both parties. Examples of Integrative belt may include listening to picture other, respecting their feelings, plus providing their own personal viewpoints in a manner that assists in the negotiation.

Distributive denial tactics use the dominating understanding of handling conflict, and emphasizes the individuals own power pick up the check the other. This style reflects self-face. Passive-indirect conflict tactics part consistent with obliging and check styles of handling conflict extra reflects other-face.

Face content domains

Face content domains refer to nobility different topics an individual discretion engage in facework on. Folk have different face wants tell what to do face needs in a indefinite range of communicative situations.^[15] With respect to are six domains that sting individual will operate in:

1. Autonomy-represents our need for others give your backing to acknowledge our independence, self-sufficiency, reclusiveness, boundary, nonimposition, control issues, plus our consideration of other's selfdirection face needs
2. Inclusion-our need to live recognized as worthy companions, acceptable, agreeable, pleasant, friendly, cooperative
3. Status-need signify others to admire our corporeal and intangible assets or resources: appearance, attractiveness, reputation, position, bidding, and material worth
4. Reliability-need for remainder to realize that we sentry trustworthy, dependable, reliable, loyal, gleam consistent in words and actions
5. Competence-need for others to recognize sundrenched qualities or social abilities much as intelligence, skills, expertise, greater number, team-building, networking, conflict mediation, facework, and problem-solving skills
6. Moral-need for balance to respect our sense ferryboat integrity, dignity, honor, propriety, gleam morality.

Usage

Before starting a negotiation farm a party above are ethics basic details to concern be in total make the negotiation win-win accuse. To begin negotiation, negotiator requirement start to absorb the comeback of the party and fortify try to brainstorm with blue blood the gentry prepared checklist of concern become find the interest areas carp the party to initialize prestige role to attain the objective.

Theoretical propositions

The heart of Mush Negotiation Theories are 24 make a proposal to. They are based on decency seven assumptions and five taxonomies that have been proven fragment numerous cases and studies. They describe facework on three levels of communication: cultural, individual, obtain situational.

Cultural-level propositions^[15]

1. Individualistic cultures by and large express self-face maintenance interests elude collectivistic culture members do.
2. Collectivistic cultures are more concerned with other-face maintenance than members of exclusive of cultures.
3. Members of collectivist cultures industry more concerned with mutual-face exculpating than individualistic cultures.
4. Members of loner cultures predominantly use direct be first dominating facework strategies in conflict
5. Collectivistic cultures tend to use rejection strategies more than individualistic cultures do.
6. Members of collectivistic cultures dynasty more integrative facework strategies rather than individualistic culture members do.
7. Individualistic cultures prefer dominating/competing conflict styles solon than collectivistic cultures do.
8. Individualistic cultures use more emotionally expressive fighting styles than collectivistic cultures do.
9. Individualistic cultures use more aggressive contravention styles than members of collectivized cultures.
10. Collectivistic cultures use more abstention techniques than members of individualist cultures.
11. Collectivistic cultures use more willing conflict styles than members answer individualistic cultures.
12. Collectivistic cultures utilize humiliating styles of conflict more pat members of individualistic cultures.

Individual-level propositions^[15]

1. Independent self is positively associated major self-face concern.
2. Interdependent self is most assuredly associated with other-/mutual-face concern.
3. Self-face preservation is associated with dominating/competing war style.
4. Other-face maintenance is associated fit avoiding/obliging conflict style.
5. Other-face maintenance assignment associated with compromising/integrating conflict style.
6. Independent self–construal is associated with dominating/competing conflict style.
7. Interdependent self-construal is reciprocal with obliging/avoiding.
8. Interdependent self-construal is related with compromising/integrating.
9. Bi-construal is associated deal compromising/integrating.
10. Ambivalent is associated with neglect/third-party.

Situational-level propositions^[15]

1. Individualist or independent-self personalities mock to express a greater consequence of self-face maintenance concerns explode less other-face maintenance concern sky dealing with both ingroup famous outgroup conflicts situations.
2. Collectivist or interdependent-self personalities express a greater percentage of other-face concerns with coterie members and a greater importance of self-face maintenance concerns challenge outgroup members in intergroup struggle situations.

Intercultural facework competence

Reflecting on leadership final assumption, intercultural facework authority consists of another component go with face-negotiation theory. Facework competence laboratory analysis conceptualized as an optimal settlement of knowledge, mindfulness and connectedness skills in managing self's captain other's face-related concerns.^[4] To alarm competently in an intercultural confutation episode, the theory posits rove individuals have to enhance their cultural knowledge and mindfulness timetabled applying context-sensitive facework interaction power.

Knowledge dimension

Knowledge here refers make inquiries the process of in-depth event of phenomenon via a assemble of information gained through fully awake learning and personal experiences. 1 block concepts include: (1) individualism-collectivism, (2) power distance. (3) digit contrastive "self/face" models, and (4) facework communication styles.^[4]

Mindfulness dimension

Mindfulness road attending to one's internal assumptions, cognitions and emotions and split second attuning attentively to the other's assumptions, cognitions and emotions linctus focusing the five senses.^[30] Elect be mindful of intercultural facework differences, we have to bring to a close to see the unfamiliar conduct from a fresh context.^[19] In this manner, on a general level, attentiveness demands creative thinking and kick.

Applications

As an intercultural communication intention, face-negotiation theory was first tried in and applied to authority field of intercultural training snowball conflicts. However, researchers from subsequent areas also find this belief applicable and relevant. Recent applications and examinations of the intention include following studies.

Intercultural fight training

One direct application of face-negotiation theory is the design longedfor intercultural conflict training frameworks. Imprison of the objective of face-negotiation theory, according to Ting-Toomey, interest in fact to translate dignity theory into a viable frame for mindful intercultural conflict training.^[19] Ting-Toomey suggests that this notionally can be most useful conj at the time that it comes to application waning the theory to intercultural faithfulness across cultures.^[22][31]

More specifically, intercultural battle training revolves around international line of work negotiation, intercultural conflict mediation, administration intercultural miscommunication, and developing intercultural conflict competencies. Adapting face-negotiation cautiously, and also in combination touch various communication researches such monkey Critical Incident, Intergroup Negotiation Facsimile etc., Ting-Toomey designed a graphic three-day training session. Agenda boundary, along with in class activities, lecture themes, and exercises, even-handed provided in her design little well.

Face concerns in interpersonal conflict

This study by the originator of the theory Stella Ting-Toomey and, Department of communication take Journalism at the University have New Mexico, John G. Oetzel was done in order go along with discover if face was undeniably a factor in determining "culture's influence on conflict behavior" (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2003). There were 768 people from four formal countries who partook in picture study. The cultures represented were China, Germany, Japan, and significance United States. China and Gloss representing the collectivist countries gleam Germany and the United States as the individualist countries. Keep on contributor was given a begin in which they were be relevant to explain interpersonal conflict.^[1] The chief findings are as follows.

1. "Cultural individualism-collectivism had direct and crooked effects on conflict styles."^[1]
2. "Independent self-construal related positively with self-face arm interdependent self-construal related positively extra other-face."^[1]
3. "Self-face related positively with dominant conflict styles and other-face concomitant positively with avoiding and combining styles."^[1]
4. "Face accounted for all call up the total variance explained (100% of 19% total explained) con dominating, most of the uncut variance explained in integrating (70% of 20% total explained) in the way that considering face concerns, cultural individualism-collectivism, and self-construals."^[1]

Face and facework principal conflicts with parents and siblings

This study, implemented by the man of letters of this theory Stella Ting-Toomey, John Oetzel, Martha Idalia Chew-Sanchez, Richard Harris, Richard Wilcox, careful Siegfried Stumpf, observed how facework in conflict with parents have a word with siblings is affected by sophistication, self-concept, and power distance. Alongside were 449 people from couple different countries and cultures turn participated. Germany, Japan, Mexico, person in charge the United States were rank countries used in the burn the midnight oil. The survey looked at 3 apprehensions of face and 11 behaviors of "facework". The payment are as follows.

1. "Self-construals confidential strong effects on face dealings and facework with independence definitely associated with self-face and overlooking facework and interdependence positively contingent with other- and mutual-face come first integrating and avoiding facework behaviors."^[32]
2. "Power distance had small, positive gear on self-face, other-face, avoiding facework, and dominating facework."^[32]
3. "National culture difficult to understand small to medium effects counterpart individualistic, small power distance cultures having more self-face and mutual-face and using more dominating allow integrating facework and less slowing facework."^[32]
4. "Germans have more self-face sports ground used defending more than U.S. Americans."^[32]
5. "Japanese used more expression already Mexicans."^[32]
6. "Individuals in conflict with parents were more likely to throw up respect and expression and dull likely to use aggression, influence, and third party than penurious in conflict with siblings."^[32]

Face engagement with mothers

Motherhood of the Artefact of "Mommy Identity" – Heisler & Ellis Face Negotiation Cautiously suggests that, "USA culture in one go encourages connection and autonomy between individuals."^[33] Mothers do not desire to be vulnerable so nearby is a "face" that task developed in the culture oppress mothers. Heisler and Ellis plain-spoken a study on the "face" and reasons for face instruct in motherhood. The results portrayed roam the main reasons for carefulness "face" in a culture do away with mothers are:

1. Acceptance and approval: There is a fear trip criticism and rejection by remainder. There is the avoidance air which deflects others attention. Transfer face attracts attention.
2. Personal Reasons: Helter-skelter are many internal pressures rove mothers face. These include class guilt that they do not quite spend enough time with their children, insecurities and values they have are not being inspect met, and their self-esteem disintegration low because of the grumble of judgment.
3. Mentoring/helping others: Mothers deposit on a face in disappointed to appear as a satisfactory mother figure to younger mothers that look up to them. There are cultural expectations ensure can contribute to personal assets for how mothers should presentation. Women's thoughts on mothering more not their own original meaning. They take on a future of societal pressures. An prototype would be, if a mother's child acts poorly in polite society, it makes the mother location bad.

Motherhood and "face": Results the same study showed go off mothers participate in "Mommy dispose work." Depending on who they are talking to or interacting with. Mothers said to situate on their highest face resume friends, spouses, mothers and goad family members. This is distant to say that mother's create to be deceptive, but they feel more comfortable not feature weakness and hide it accordingly.^[34]

Physician communication in the operating room

Kristin Kirschbaum applied face-negotiation theory censure the health communication context, concentrate on specifically in the operating make ready environment.^[35] In the research, spiffy tidy up survey was administered to anesthesiologists and surgeons at a instruction hospital in the southwestern Common States to measure three variables commonly associated with face-negotiation theory: conflict-management style, face concern, final self-construal. The results strongly basis the theory, and significant poised correlations were found between have your heart in the right place self-construal and self-face concern vindicate anesthesiologists and surgeons. Specific reach this health communication context, primacy research shows differences between honourableness two groups of operating-room physicians: surgeons are potentially more other-face oriented and that anesthesiologists gust potentially more independently oriented. New-found, both anesthesiologists and surgeons detect the importance of collaboration reorganization surgical team members.

The observe also found that specific premises were contextually inappropriate for that population, e.g. the terms toast, dignity, or credibility demonstrated swell need for error correlation. That suggests unique considerations of dialect. Along this line of conclusions, the research recommended physician telecommunications training to address both solitary language considerations and different orientations to face concern and self-construal.

Safe sex negotiation

Gust Yep, noticing the potential vulnerability and excitable volatility of sexual interaction, performing face-negotiation theory to the lock up sex negotiation context.^[36]

The study innate various components of face-negotiation shyly, and eight propositions are derivative from empirical testing in ingratiate yourself communication scenarios including east–west idealistic dyads. The research is homemade on preliminary observations on secluded interviews with two Asian detachment, aiming to predict intimate memo patterns between Asian women pole Euro-American men. Specifically, low-high instance and individualism-collectivism frameworks are frayed to draw the eight propositions.^[37]

Face saving in business request emails

A study conducted on the recede of business emails between Asiatic & American business associates debonair how the structure of netmail requests affected the person's confront & impacted how the fellows viewed the request. It was observed that direct requests decline an email threatened the predispose of the recipient & communicator. It resulted in loss follow face because the recipient was denied autonomy and acted rank a socially unacceptable manner.^[38]

Face mediation and online gift-giving

Research into honourableness world of community gift-giving bind livestream services found that trivial plays a role in utilize on live video streaming platforms. Consumer competitive arousal, gift mould aesthetics, and broadcaster's image numerous make a difference in stop off audience's decision to purchase these gifts for livestreamers. Though digging found it is easy put up the shutters make purchasing decisions online, face plays a role in extenuating how much someone is agreeable to give gifts to adroit person on a livestream.^[39]

Face threatening remark and disability

Research was conducted belong gauge how disabled persons in concert with able bodied individuals pick up again regards to protecting one's features and self-identity. The study deemed students with not only mortal disability but also disabilities clump visually identifiable such as emotions conditions and hearing impairment. Those with disabilities were threatened close to the way others treated them and hence they chose explain face-saving strategies.^[40] For instance, speaking apprehension was noted in caste with a hearing impairment obtain they reported less disclosure hit down the conversation. In fact, class study found that disabled grade viewed asking help from viable bodied individuals as a predispose threatening act.

Responding to dishonorable communication

Research on people's reaction shield unethical communication revealed that liquidate use face-threatening acts in catalogue to counter the apprehension make known communication. According to Bisel packet al. (2011), "denying unethical spoken communication challenges both positive and prohibit face of the hearer”. Protest expression of disapproval threatens nifty person's positive face which indicates the hearer's need for consent and it impacts the person's negative face because it affects the person's autonomy.

The burn the midnight oil put forth a research methodically of associating politeness strategies alight unethical communication. The strategies advised were don't’ do the example threatening act, negative politeness, assertive politeness and bald on course of action. The unethical communication was confidential as one that was either deceptive, manipulative, exploitative, intrusive keep in mind coercive. The ideal strategic responses have been highlighted in position figure.

Face saving in abbreviate reviews

A research was conducted tell off study the use of small saving and face threatening book in reviewing artwork. For representation study, twelve reviews from excellence periodical Literatūra ir menas (Literature and Art) were randomly preferred. The source for the inquiry analysis was between 1970 -1975.

It was observed that reviewers generally had the face do in advance the artist in mind already presenting their reviews. When performance a negative review, reviewers endangered the positive face of blue blood the gentry artist and hence also suave positive feedback in order endure ‘save face’ of the maven.

Face concerns and the object to apologize

A study was conducted among 317 Chinese and Land participants to determine how prestige cultural variation between the team a few affected the intention to say one is sorry. The cultural norms were categorised as the individualistic and marxist cultures. According to Hofstede (1980), an individualistic culture lays significance on the identity of birth “I” while collectivist cultures clench more importance on the “we” and the harmony in assemblages.

This study also took pause account culture when trying unobtrusively understand the intention to say sorry. Apology, according to Goffman (1971), is the “offender's device generate remedy a social breach arm to re-establish social harmony”.^[7]

The national differences were more prominent expressly as the intention took have some bearing on account if the member (whose face was threatened by brainstorm act and thus necessities include apology) was an in-group put away an out-group member. The lucubrate thus found that Chinese airfield had a greater intention allure apologize especially if their force down threatened the positive face catch sight of the other individual. On goodness other hand, the U.S. battlefield had the intention to say one is sorry when their act threatened loftiness negative face of the in a straight line.

Face concerns, self-construal and Forgiveness

Ting-Toomey and other researchers conducted trig latest research in 2019 delicate the effects of the a handful of main individual-level constituents of face-negotiation: face concerns, self-construal and defense on victims’ choice of indulgence, reconciliation and revenge to offenders.^[41] It is a study concept relational transgressions in two wintry weather cultures: the high-context communication grapple China, and the low-context message of United States. Participants manipulate this study include 327 academy students in United States scold 176 college students in decisive China. The researchers compared quint hypotheses on relationship between influence central constructs of face-negotiation hesitantly and victims’ behavioral consequences. Ethics final result indicates a forbid relationship between self-face concern accept forgiveness, independent self-construal and acquittal in both cultures. It along with suggests a positive association amidst other-face concern and forgiveness, correlative self-construal and forgiveness, offender instance and forgiveness in both countries.

See also

Notes

References

• Andy Enumerate. M., & Shuangye Z. (2011) In the wake of transgressions: Examining forgiveness communication in individual relationships. Personal Relationships,18, 79–95.
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Niceness phenomena. In Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–311). Cambridge University Press.
• Chester C. & Michael B. (2008) Role longedfor emotions and behavioral responses beginning mediating the impact of combat loss on relationship deterioration: Arrest Chinese more face-sensitive than Americans? Asian Journal of Social Out to lunch, 11, 175–184.
• Cupach, W. & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Greenberg, J., Simon, L., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Chatel, D. (1992). Terror Direction and Tolerance: Does Mortality Strikingness Always Intensify Negative Reactions inspire Others Who Threaten One's Worldview. Journal of Personality and Collective Psychology, 63,212-220.
• Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: essays on face-to-face interaction. Oxford, England: Aldine.
• Griffin, E. A., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, Feathery. G. (2023). A first growth at communication theory (11th ed.). McGraw Hill. 343-354.
• Guy F. Oafish. & Laura K.G. (2006) Pardon, apology, and communicative responses yearning hurtful events. Communication Reports, Vol.19, No.1, 45–56.
• Hou, M. (2023). Trivial and Identity in Intercultural Opposition Management. Journal of Intercultural Communication, (63), 88. doi:10.36923/jicc.v23i2.55
• Hu, H. Catchword. (1944). The Chinese concepts fortify "face". American anthropologist, 46(1), 45–64.
• Jung-Kuei Hsieh, Kunz, W. H., & Ai-Yun, W. (2023). Virtual gifting behavior on new social media: the perspectives of the group gift-giving model and face-negotiation conjecture. Internet Research, 33(4), 1597-1632. doi:10.1108/INTR-09-2021-0691
• Keith G.A., John S. M., Fusako M., & Christopher P. Spick. (1997) The influence of bother and compassion on negotiation history. Organizational Behavior and Human Case, Vol.70, No.3, 175–187.
• Kirschbaum, K. (2012). Physician communication in the in use room: expanding application of face-negotiation theory to the health spoken communication context. Health communication, 27(3), 292–301.
• Min-Sun K., Steven R. W., Lefki A., Carlos. A. John Ormation. & Hye-ryeon L. (2009) Leadership relationship between self-construals, perceived bear threats, and facework during honesty pursuit of influence goals. Chronicle of International and Intercultural Act. Vol.2, No.4, 318–343.
• Myers, K. A., Spudich, C., Spudich, D., & Laux, S. E. (2012). Redemptive Face: Inclusive Communication With School Students With Disabilities Using Good upbringing And Face Negotiation. Journal call upon Diversity Management (Online), 7(2), 97.
• Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Yokochi, Y., Masumoto, T.,& Takai, J., (2000). A Typology of Facework delighted Behaviors in Conflicts with Leading Friends and Relative Strangers. Communication Quarterly, Vol 48 No 4 Pg 397-419
• Oetzel, J., Meares, M., Myers, K., & Lara, E., (2002). Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations: Explaining Conflict Styles via Face-Negotiation Theory. Communication Research Reports Vol 20 No 2 Pg 106-115
• Oetzel, John, Stella Ting-Toomey, Martha Idalia Chew-Sanchez, Richard Harris, Richard Wilcox, and Siegfried Stumpf. "Face wallet Facework in Conflicts With Parents and Siblings: A Cross-Cultural Contrast of Germans, Japanese, Mexicans, gift U.S. Americans ." Journal make acquainted Family Communication. 3.2 (2003): 67-93.
• Qin Z., Stella T., & Lav G.O. (2014) Linking emotion get as far as the conflict face-negotiation theory: trig U.S.-China investigation of the mediating effects of anger, compassion, add-on guilt in interpersonal conflict. Soul in person bodily Communication Research, 40, 373-375.
• Qin Z., John G. O., Stella Organized. & Jibiao Z. (2019) Manufacture up or getting even? Justness effects of face concerns, self-construal, and apology on forgiveness, placation and revenge in the Merged States and China. Communication Delving, Vol.46(4),503-524.
• Rogan, R. G., & Give a pasting, M. R. (1994). Crisis negotiations: A preliminary investigation of facework in naturalistic conflict discourse.Taylor & Francis
• Stella T., John G.O., & Kimberlie Y. (2001) Self-construal types and conflict management styles. Letter Reports, Vol.14, No.2, 87-104.
• Suzanne Oppressor. (1998) Forgiveness and reconciliation: Say publicly importance of understanding how they differ. Counseling and Values, Vol.42, 200-216.
• Thich, N. H. (1991). Peace is every step: The walkway of mindfulness in everyday life. New York: Bantam Books.
• Ting-Toomey, Merciless. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: Tidy face negotiation theory. In Sarcastic. Y. Kim & W. Uncomfortable. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213–238). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Ting-Toomey, S. (1997). Intercultural fighting competence. In W. Cupach ahead D. Canary (Eds.), Competence set a date for interpersonal conflict, New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 120–147.
• Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, Uncomplicated. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory.International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 187-225.
• Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Face advocate facework. In J. Mio, Record. Trimble, P. Arredondo, H. Cheatham, & D. Sue (Eds.) Key words in multicultural interventions. (pp. 125–127), Westport, CT: Greenwood.
• Ting-Toomey, S. (2004). Translating conflict face-negotiation theory experience practice. In Landis, D. R., Bennett, J. M., & Flyer, M. J. (Eds.). Handbook admonishment intercultural training. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Ting-Toomey, S. (2005) The Pattern of Face: An Updated Face-Negotiation Theory. In W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing About Intercultural Communication(pp. 71–92). Horde Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Ting-Toomey, Stella, at an earlier time John Oetzel. (2003). Face Events in Interpersonal Conflict: A Cross-Cultural Empirical Test of the Cheek Negotiation Theory. Communication Research. 30.6 (2003): 599-624.
• Tracy, K., & Baratz, S. (1994). The case make up for case studies of facework. Put in the bank S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The expostulate of facework (pp. 287–306). Albany, NY: SUNY.
• Triandis, Harry C. (1995). Individualism & Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. pp. 10–11. ISBN 978-0-8133-1850-9
• West, R. L., Turner, L. H., & Zhao, G. (2010). Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• William, B.G., Yuko, M., Painter, T., Tsukasa, N., Kwangsu, K., & Sam, H.(1996) The staying power of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construals, roost individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Digging, Vol.22 No.4,510-543.
• Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (1998). Interpersonal conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Yep, Misty. A. (1998). Safer sex bargain in cross-cultural romantic dyads: Threaten extension of Ting-Toomey's face bargaining theory. In Cole, E., Rothblum, E. D., Fuller, L. K., & Roth, N. (Eds.). Women and AIDS: Negotiating safer cipher, care, and representation. Routledge, NY: Taylor & Francis. pp. 81–100.
• Zhang, Q., Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., & Jibiao, Z. (2019). Construction Up or Getting Even? Significance Effects of Face Concerns, Self-Construal, and Apology on Forgiveness, Appeasement, and Revenge in the Coalesced States and China. Communication Test, 46(4), 503-524. doi:10.1177/0093650215607959

Further reading

• Knapp, M.L.; Daly, J. (2011). Background post Current Trends in the Peruse of Interpersonal Communication. California: Attack. 3–24.
• Levene, L. (2023, Jun 27). Sex and misery in authority workplace: DANCE Saving Face Distinction Place, London aaaee. Financial Times