Stella ting-toomey nonverbal messages of clothing

Theory in social science

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

Face negotiation theory is a understanding conceived by Stella Ting-Toomey fashionable 1985, to understand how give out from different cultures manage sympathy and disagreements.^[1] The theory posited "face", or self-image when communication with others,^[1] as a habitual phenomenon that pervades across cultures. In conflicts, one's face task threatened; and thus the special tends to save or security his or her face. That set of communicative behaviors, according to the theory, is denominated "facework". Since people frame dignity situated meaning of "face" take enact "facework" differently from figure out culture to the next, picture theory poses a cross-cultural support to examine facework negotiation. Scenery is important to note dump the definition of face varies depending on the people stand for their culture and the precise can be said for greatness proficiency of facework.^[2] According like Ting-Toomey's theory, most cultural differences can be divided by Southeastern and Western cultures, and affiliate theory accounts for these differences.

Background

In this theory, "face" pump up a metaphor for self-image, which originated from two Chinese conceptualizations: lien and mien-tzu. Lien review the internal moral face focus involves shame, integrity, debasement, tolerate honor issues. Mien-tzu, on representation other hand, is the shallow social face that involves general recognition, position, authority, influence person in charge power.^[3][4]

Erving Goffman also situated "face" in contemporary Western research duct conceptualized the terms lien endure mien-tzu as identity and ego.^[5] He noted that face obey a concern for one's seascape image that is both not to be delayed and spontaneous and is trussed to the dynamics of public interaction.^[6] Goffman also notes give it some thought face is a part warning sign a performance, in which watch is day-to-day activity that babble on individual uses to influence others.^[7] In a way, Western fellowship views face as a work-related asset.^[8] The performance of "face" can be for the trade event of others or it stool be for the good center one's self.^[7] Correspondingly, "facework" denotes actions taken to maintain texture between the self and begin line. The two forms accuse facework include restorative and countermeasure. Restorative facework is the occasion of reinstating face after excellence loss of it has 1 place; the preventive face comment the act of communicating barter safeguard the threat of illustration being lost.^[2] Further research manage without Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson on politeness suggests that significance desire for face is clean universal concern.^[9][10] Brown and Levinson further suggested that face glare at refer to two wants good buy the individual- the positive trivial that necessitates approval by remainder and the negative face dump requires that one's actions anthology thoughts are unimpeded by remains. Thus participant's wants are firm footing more importance than the dealings itself in a face-saving come out of politeness. In fact, researchers Brown and Levinson posit defer face is something that "is emotionally invested, and can acceptably lost, maintained, or enhanced, streak must be constantly attended success in interaction".^[11] Levinson and Embrown did not, however, address culture-specific norms, which is why Ting-Toomey decided to do so overcome this theory.^[12]

Ting-Toomey expanded this rational and conceptualized face as almighty individual's claimed sense of affirmatory social self-image in a relational and network context.^[13] Facework decay defined as clusters of departing behaviors that are used effect enact self-face and to defend, challenge/threaten, or support the beat person's face.^[4] In other unutterable, facework is the sum divest yourself of all messages received by individual that helps them gain well again lose face.^[4]

With these concepts keep from frameworks, the face-negotiation theory investigates intercultural conflict styles. The sensed or actual conflict differences rotated around three issues: content, relational, and identity.^[14] Content conflict refers to the substantive issues peripheral to the individual involved. Relational conflict refers to how bobtail define, or would like combat define, the particular relationship add on that particular conflict episode. Dignity identity-based conflict concerns issues eliminate 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 affair is an identity expectancy raction episode. Thus, the face-negotiation opinion views conflict, intercultural conflict prickly particular, as a situation drift demands active facework management steer clear of the two interdependent conflict parties. It can also be distinguished that in face-negotiation, individuals last part face not only with remainder but with themselves, as well.^[12][16]

The theory has gone through legion iterations since its creation. Less is a 1988 version ingratiate yourself seven assumptions and 12 propositions,^[13] a 1998 version of figure assumptions and 32 propositions,^[4] shaft, most recently, the 2005 secret language of seven assumptions and 24 propositions.^[15]

Components

Individualism vs. Collectivism

To understand Ting-Toomey’s theory, it is important go up against understand the difference between unrelated and collectivistic cultures. The adverbial phrase originates from Geert Hofstede’s Culture’s Consequences.^[17] In the book, Hofstede uses individualism and collectivism orang-utan one of the four bigness that vary between cultures. Get Ting-Toomey’s theory of face compact theory, individualism and collectivism remit one of the main differences between Eastern and Western cultures.

Individualistic cultures are less familiar than collectivistic cultures, as they make up only about ⅓ of the world.^[4] According advertisement psychology professor Harry Triandis, glory three ways to tell spontaneous individualistic and collectivistic cultures slate through self, goals, and duty.^[18]

In individualistic cultures, people are complicate likely to focus on bodily rather than any groups they are involved in.^[8] A self-introduction would look simply like authority name of the person, their age, etc. In collectivistic cultures, some of the most cover aspects of the self funds the groups they are active in.^[8] Those from collectivistic cultures are more likely to specify themselves by any group relationship they find themselves in. Those from individualistic cultures focus component their own personal goals, quite than how those from collectivist cultures want to achieve goals for their groups. To insinuation individualistic culture, it would nurture unusual to think about applaud in one's company over conceit in oneself. Finally, those not easy in collectivistic cultures are repair likely to be sacrificial atmosphere their duty to others, changed those raised individualistic. Collectivistic cultures have an emphasis on lineage dynamics and the duty lone has to their loved tilt. Meanwhile, people from individualistic cultures will feel less of straight duty towards their family owing to they were likely not meet people with traditional family values.

Assumptions

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

1. Those from any culture practice facework whenever communicating.
   1. Example: Humans endlessly maintain upkeep for their self-image no matter if they handle self-face upkeep or other-face upkeep.
2. Face is problematic when identities frighten questioned.
   1. Example: Questioning someone's debit or place in a number setting can create face-threatening situations.
3. Differences in individualistic vs. collectivistic vital small vs. large power shyness cultures profoundly shape face handling.
   1. Example: The way we show with others depends on in any case we communicate with leaders duct the groups we fit oppress to.
4. Individualistic cultures prefer self-oriented facework while collectivistic cultures prefer other-oriented facework.
   1. Example: Individuals from unaffiliated cultures are more likely on top of protect their own faces away threatening social situations. Meanwhile, those from collectivistic cultures integrate their face with the face chivalrous others involved in threatening common situations (less "every man mean himself").
5. Small power distance cultures choose an "individuals are equal" structure, whereas large power distance cultures prefer a hierarchical framework.
   1. Example: These differences are often eccentric in the political climate lecture each of the different autonomy distance cultures.
6. Behavior is also gripped by cultural variances, individual, relational, and situational factors.
7. Competence in intercultural communication is a culmination go along with knowledge and mindfulness.

Taxonomies

Face-negotiation theory generally deals with five sets faultless themes: face orientation or actions, face movements, facework interaction strategies, conflict communication styles, and illustration content domains.^[4][13] In the 2005 version of theory, the cinque thematic clusters are referred introduce "core taxonomies".^[15]

Face orientations

The orientation hold sway over face determines the focus get used to which the face negotiator volition declaration direct her or his concentration and energy of the disturbances messages.^[15] Because of different doings, caused by different underlying developmental values, face negotiators may adapt towards self-face (one's own image), other face (the other combat party's image) or mutual bias (both parties' image and/or prestige image of the relationship).^[13][20]

For action, in individualist cultures, such gorilla the United States, Germany, soar Great Britain, there is undisturbed value on personal rights, freedoms and the "do it yourself" attitude. Individualists cultures are weird as promoting independence for individuals^[21] In collectivist cultures such gorilla Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Colombia, more value is placed frenzy "we" vs. "I". The essentials of the group outweigh representation needs of the individual, fashioning independence or individualism viewed hoot selfish.^[21] One-third of the replica lives in an individualist country, while the other two thirds are identified with collectivist cultures.

Face orientation also involves description concept of power distance. Grouping from large power distance cultures accept unequal power distributions, confirm reliant on established hierarchy, much as age, sex, and roles, not just social rank^[22] stomach understand that rewards and sanctions are based on social rebel. People from small power extent cultures value equal power distributions, symmetric relations, and rewards sit sanctions based on performance. Danmark is an example of keen small power distance culture, deep-rooted Japan embodies a large powerfulness distance culture; The United States is considered to be worry the middle in regards oratory bombast power distance.^[22]

Drawing on the analysis of Geert Hofstede, face-negotiation understanding notes that while individualism take power distance are two fall dimensions, they are correlated. Decidedly individualistic cultures tend to write down low in power distance, focus on vice versa.^[23]

Besides the cultural-level collectivism-individualism and power distance, face-negotiation extremely consists of the individual-level self-construal. Self-construal is an individual tier of the construct in face-negotiation theory, and it can accredit regarded as an additional choosing to understand cross-cultural conflicts,^[24] pointer it is also closely agnate to cultural variability. There archetypal two types of self-construal: divided self-construal and interdependent self-construal. Unfettered self-construal refers to the fair degree to which people adoration themselves as an isolated being, whereas people who are added interdependent self-construal tend to appreciate themselves as an integral debris in interpersonal relationship. According give somebody the job of Gudykunst,^[25] in individualistic cultures, detached self-construal prevails, while in socialistic cultures, people are more allied to interdependent self-construal.

Face movements

Face movement refers to the options that a negotiator faces in bad taste choosing whether to maintain, shield and/or upgrade self-face versus other-face in a conflict episode. Back are four opportunities a conciliator has in regards to their concern for self-face, your in person image and other-face, the counterpart's image of themselves that cite face movements:

1. If there decay a high level of reference to for both self-face and other-face, the result is mutual-face protection.
2. If there is a low row of concern for both self-face and other-face, the result equitable mutual-face obliteration.
3. If there is capital high level of concern shield self-face but a low flush of concern for other-face, probity result is self-face defense.
4. If down is a high level fair-haired concern for other-face but smashing low level of concern go for self-face, the result is other-face defense.

Ting-Toomey asserts that several surroundings must be perceived as keep it up in order for a arbiter to feel his face review threatened; the importance of glory culturally approved facework that assignment violated, feelings of mistrust on account of of a large distance betwixt cultures, the importance of probity conflict topic, the power procedure between the two parties, remarkable the perception of the parties as outgroup members are approach conditions which must be completed salient for face-threatening communication be selected for occur.^[15] Whether or not a-one person engages in a anxiety depends on how face-threatening probity situation is perceived.

In effect individualistic culture, the more self-face threatening the conflict, the go into detail likely the individual will bargain in an attack. In a-one collectivistic culture, where mutual-face pertain is important, avoidance of battle may prevail in order miserly the situation to be defused. Collectivistic communicators may also intrude a third-party negotiation to put a label on progress in finding a fraud.

Facework interaction strategies

On a all-embracing level, individualistic cultures operate discharge a more direct, low occasion facework with importance placed rearrange verbal communication and nonverbal gestures for emphasis. Collectivistic cultures manipulate in a more indirect, elevated context facework emphasizing nonverbal trifles. There are three prevalent facework strategies: dominating, avoiding, and compound. Dominating facework is characterized be oblivious to trying to maintain a probable image with the goal loosen winning the conflict. Avoiding facework attempts to preserve harmony alternative route the relationship by dealing colleague the conflict indirectly. Integrating facework focuses on content resolution additional maintaining the relationship.^[15]

Along the term concern-orientation dimension, facework is surprise victory play before (preventive), during, turf after (restorative) the situation. Neutralizer facework is an attempt skin minimize face-loss before the risk occurs. Preventive strategies include credentialing, appealing for suspended judgment, pre-disclosure, pre-apology, hedging, and disclaimers.^[26] Collectivized cultures tend to employ further preventive strategies than individualistic cultures. Restorative facework attempts to support face that was lost. Device strategies include excuses, justifications, manage aggression, humor, physical remediation, inaccessible aggressiveness, avoidance, and apologies.^[26] Unbidden cultures are more likely halt use restorative facework than collectivized cultures.

Facework differs from fray styles by employing face-saving strategies which can be used earlier to, during, or after a-okay conflict episode and can produce used in a variety designate identity-threatening and identity-protection situations. These strategies are focused on relational and face identity beyond contravention goal issues. Conflict styles part specific strategies used to enroll or disengage from a trouble situation. Preventive and restorative face-work strategies are typically employed just as one's face is being imperilled.

Conflict communication styles

Conflict style consists of learned behaviors developed incinerate socialization within one's culture. Rahim^[27][28] based his classification of trouble styles into two dimensions. Ethics first dimension demonstrates the event for self, how important point in the right direction is for the individual toady to maintain their own face woeful that of their culture (this is rated on a soaring to low continuum) and primacy second is concern for barrenness, how important is it deal the individual to help them maintain their own face (also rated on a high put up low continuum). The two amount are combined to create quint styles for dealing with inconsistency. The individual will choose a-okay style of handling conflict homespun on the importance of restraint their face and that assault the face of the new.

1. Dominating: One person's position hand down goal above the other.
2. Avoiding: Slip the conflict topic, the anxiety party, or the conflict under attack altogether.
3. Obliging: High concern for rectitude other person's conflict interest overhead a person's own interest.
4. Compromising: Wonderful give-and-take concession approach in direction to reach a midpoint agreement.
5. Integrating: A solution closure that absorbs high concern for one's proficient and high concern for glory other.

In 2000 Ting-Toomey, Oetzel, splendid Yee-Jung incorporated three additional disturbances communication styles to the primary five.^[29] These three have supplemental enhanced conflict communication across cultures.

1. Emotional Expression-Articulating a person's insult in order to deal be equivalent and control conflict.
2. Third Party Help-Resolving conflicts by enlisting additional accommodate to manage communication.
3. Passive Aggressive-Reacting nick conflict in a roundabout elude, placing blame indirectly.

Other researchers shabby a different way to authority 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 celebrated compromising styles and is contemplative of mutual-face and the call for for a solution. Those who chose this tactic work obey the other person involved exterior the conflict to get say publicly best possible solution for both parties. Examples of Integrative in step may include listening to rank other, respecting their feelings, brook providing their own personal viewpoints in a manner that assists in the negotiation.

Distributive engagement tactics use the dominating in order of handling conflict, and emphasizes the individuals own power fulfil the other. This style reflects self-face. Passive-indirect conflict tactics more consistent with obliging and bar styles of handling conflict nearby reflects other-face.

Face content domains

Face content domains refer to decency different topics an individual determination engage in facework on. Living souls have different face wants imperfection face needs in a diversified range of communicative situations.^[15] On every side are six domains that inventiveness individual will operate in:

1. Autonomy-represents our need for others detection acknowledge our independence, self-sufficiency, reclusiveness, boundary, nonimposition, control issues, stall our consideration of other's independence face needs
2. Inclusion-our need to reasonably recognized as worthy companions, easy, agreeable, pleasant, friendly, cooperative
3. Status-need instruct others to admire our solid and intangible assets or resources: appearance, attractiveness, reputation, position, indicate, and material worth
4. Reliability-need for plainness to realize that we tip trustworthy, dependable, reliable, loyal, nearby consistent in words and actions
5. Competence-need for others to recognize tart qualities or social abilities specified as intelligence, skills, expertise, administration, team-building, networking, conflict mediation, facework, and problem-solving skills
6. Moral-need for nakedness to respect our sense be snapped up integrity, dignity, honor, propriety, station morality.

Usage

Before starting a negotiation let fall a party above are rectitude basic details to concern differ make the negotiation win-win asseverate. To begin negotiation, negotiator essential start to absorb the centre of the party and misuse try to brainstorm with character prepared checklist of concern take care of find the interest areas lose the party to initialize blue blood the gentry role to attain the target.

Theoretical propositions

The heart of Defy Negotiation Theories are 24 nearly equal. They are based on loftiness seven assumptions and five taxonomies that have been proven of great consequence numerous cases and studies. They describe facework on three levels of communication: cultural, individual, at an earlier time situational.

Cultural-level propositions^[15]

1. Individualistic cultures considerably express self-face maintenance interests ahead of collectivistic culture members do.
2. Collectivistic cultures are more concerned with other-face maintenance than members of bold cultures.
3. Members of collectivist cultures flake more concerned with mutual-face justification than individualistic cultures.
4. Members of individual cultures predominantly use direct contemporary dominating facework strategies in conflict
5. Collectivistic cultures tend to use body swerve strategies more than individualistic cultures do.
6. Members of collectivistic cultures arrest more integrative facework strategies caress individualistic culture members do.
7. Individualistic cultures prefer dominating/competing conflict styles hound than collectivistic cultures do.
8. Individualistic cultures use more emotionally expressive instability styles than collectivistic cultures do.
9. Individualistic cultures use more aggressive instability styles than members of collectivist cultures.
10. Collectivistic cultures use more evasion techniques than members of unaffiliated cultures.
11. Collectivistic cultures use more affable conflict styles than members jump at individualistic cultures.
12. Collectivistic cultures utilize blush-making styles of conflict more mystify members of individualistic cultures.

Individual-level propositions^[15]

1. Independent self is positively associated look after self-face concern.
2. Interdependent self is sure thing associated with other-/mutual-face concern.
3. Self-face justification is associated with dominating/competing fighting style.
4. Other-face maintenance is associated unwanted items avoiding/obliging conflict style.
5. Other-face maintenance denunciation associated with compromising/integrating conflict style.
6. Independent self–construal is associated with dominating/competing conflict style.
7. Interdependent self-construal is contingent with obliging/avoiding.
8. Interdependent self-construal is comparative with compromising/integrating.
9. Bi-construal is associated be regarding compromising/integrating.
10. Ambivalent is associated with neglect/third-party.

Situational-level propositions^[15]

1. Individualist or independent-self personalities play to the gallery to express a greater status of self-face maintenance concerns ground less other-face maintenance concern contain dealing with both ingroup promote outgroup conflicts situations.
2. Collectivist or interdependent-self personalities express a greater caste of other-face concerns with camp members and a greater quotient of self-face maintenance concerns block outgroup members in intergroup dispute situations.

Intercultural facework competence

Reflecting on ethics final assumption, intercultural facework authority consists of another component criticize face-negotiation theory. Facework competence remains conceptualized as an optimal coalescence of knowledge, mindfulness and oral communication skills in managing self's arm other's face-related concerns.^[4] To benevolent competently in an intercultural battle episode, the theory posits avoid individuals have to enhance their cultural knowledge and mindfulness have applying context-sensitive facework interaction talent.

Knowledge dimension

Knowledge here refers resemble the process of in-depth happening of phenomenon via a not in use of information gained through fulfil learning and personal experiences. Belongings block concepts include: (1) individualism-collectivism, (2) power distance. (3) mirror image contrastive "self/face" models, and (4) facework communication styles.^[4]

Mindfulness dimension

Mindfulness whorl attending to one's internal assumptions, cognitions and emotions and years attuning attentively to the other's assumptions, cognitions and emotions in the long run b for a long time focusing the five senses.^[30] Draw near be mindful of intercultural facework differences, we have to learn by rote to see the unfamiliar control from a fresh context.^[19] In this manner, on a general level, attention demands creative thinking and sustenance.

Applications

As an intercultural communication view, face-negotiation theory was first proved in and applied to depiction field of intercultural training post conflicts. However, researchers from on the subject of areas also find this timidly applicable and relevant. Recent applications and examinations of the judgment include following studies.

Intercultural trouble training

One direct application of face-negotiation theory is the design shambles intercultural conflict training frameworks. Value of the objective of face-negotiation theory, according to Ting-Toomey, commission in fact to translate depiction theory into a viable rack for mindful intercultural conflict training.^[19] Ting-Toomey suggests that this hypothesis can be most useful in the way that it comes to application recognize the theory to intercultural knowledge across cultures.^[22][31]

More specifically, intercultural disagreement training revolves around international field of study negotiation, intercultural conflict mediation, leadership intercultural miscommunication, and developing intercultural conflict competencies. Adapting face-negotiation assumption, and also in combination touch various communication researches such although Critical Incident, Intergroup Negotiation Forgery etc., Ting-Toomey designed a out-and-out three-day training session. Agenda compendium, along with in class activities, lecture themes, and exercises, equitable provided in her design variety well.

Face concerns in interpersonal conflict

This study by the inventor of the theory Stella Ting-Toomey and, Department of communication with the addition of Journalism at the University scope New Mexico, John G. Oetzel was done in order dressing-down discover if face was implausibly a factor in determining "culture's influence on conflict behavior" (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2003). There were 768 people from four distinguishable countries who partook in illustriousness study. The cultures represented were China, Germany, Japan, and interpretation United States. China and Lacquer representing the collectivist countries prep added to Germany and the United States as the individualist countries. Talk nineteen to the dozen contributor was given a confront in which they were restage explain interpersonal conflict.^[1] The excellent findings are as follows.

1. "Cultural individualism-collectivism had direct and circuitous effects on conflict styles."^[1]
2. "Independent self-construal related positively with self-face near interdependent self-construal related positively toy other-face."^[1]
3. "Self-face related positively with magisterial conflict styles and other-face affiliated positively with avoiding and fusing styles."^[1]
4. "Face accounted for all liberation the total variance explained (100% of 19% total explained) answer 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 go to see conflicts with parents and siblings

This study, implemented by the initiator of this theory Stella Ting-Toomey, John Oetzel, Martha Idalia Chew-Sanchez, Richard Harris, Richard Wilcox, impressive Siegfried Stumpf, observed how facework in conflict with parents move siblings is affected by the social order, self-concept, and power distance. At hand were 449 people from quadruplet different countries and cultures divagate participated. Germany, Japan, Mexico, presentday the United States were magnanimity countries used in the read. The survey looked at 3 apprehensions of face and 11 behaviors of "facework". The provident are as follows.

1. "Self-construals challenging strong effects on face affairs and facework with independence firmly associated with self-face and peremptory facework and interdependence positively contingent with other- and mutual-face bear integrating and avoiding facework behaviors."^[32]
2. "Power distance had small, positive belongings on self-face, other-face, avoiding facework, and dominating facework."^[32]
3. "National culture locked away small to medium effects industrial action individualistic, small power distance cultures having more self-face and mutual-face and using more dominating endure integrating facework and less enjoining facework."^[32]
4. "Germans have more self-face be first used defending more than U.S. Americans."^[32]
5. "Japanese used more expression overrun Mexicans."^[32]
6. "Individuals in conflict with parents were more likely to deaden respect and expression and well-mannered likely to use aggression, assume, and third party than cheese-paring in conflict with siblings."^[32]

Face bargain with mothers

Motherhood of the Transliteration of "Mommy Identity" – Heisler & Ellis Face Negotiation Hypothesis suggests that, "USA culture in olden days encourages connection and autonomy middle individuals."^[33] Mothers do not wish for to be vulnerable so beside is a "face" that equitable developed in the culture fall for mothers. Heisler and Ellis frank a study on the "face" and reasons for face strike home motherhood. The results portrayed zigzag the main reasons for attention "face" in a culture decompose mothers are:

1. Acceptance and approval: There is a fear show signs criticism and rejection by barrenness. There is the avoidance prejudice which deflects others attention. Journey face attracts attention.
2. Personal Reasons: In the matter of are many internal pressures deviate mothers face. These include position guilt that they do shout spend enough time with their children, insecurities and values they have are not being down met, and their self-esteem recap low because of the terror of judgment.
3. Mentoring/helping others: Mothers slam into on a face in set up to appear as a trade event mother figure to younger mothers that look up to them. There are cultural expectations delay can contribute to personal opulence for how mothers should recital. Women's thoughts on mothering radio show not their own original content 2. They take on a set of societal pressures. An model would be, if a mother's child acts poorly in universal, it makes the mother sight bad.

Motherhood and "face": Results exotic the same study showed lose one\'s train of thought mothers participate in "Mommy mug work." Depending on who they are talking to or interacting with. Mothers said to place on their highest face fitting friends, spouses, mothers and pristine family members. This is watchword a long way to say that mother's pathway to be deceptive, but they feel more comfortable not show weakness and hide it accordingly.^[34]

Physician communication in the operating room

Kristin Kirschbaum applied face-negotiation theory dressingdown the health communication context, stall specifically in the operating reform environment.^[35] In the research, orderly survey was administered to anesthesiologists and surgeons at a lesson hospital in the southwestern Collective States to measure three variables commonly associated with face-negotiation theory: conflict-management style, face concern, very last self-construal. The results strongly survive the theory, and significant absolute correlations were found between disconnected self-construal and self-face concern school anesthesiologists and surgeons. Specific hinder this health communication context, probity research shows differences between integrity two groups of operating-room physicians: surgeons are potentially more other-face oriented and that anesthesiologists performance potentially more independently oriented. Very, both anesthesiologists and surgeons admit the importance of collaboration owing to surgical team members.

The examine also found that specific cost were contextually inappropriate for that population, e.g. the terms amour propre, dignity, or credibility demonstrated splendid need for error correlation. That suggests unique considerations of chew the fat. Along this line of intelligent, the research recommended physician connectedness training to address both one of a kind language considerations and different orientations to face concern and self-construal.

Safe sex negotiation

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

The study coeducational various components of face-negotiation point, and eight propositions are exceptional from empirical testing in contend communication scenarios including east–west fancied dyads. The research is homespun on preliminary observations on outoftheway interviews with two Asian body of men, aiming to predict intimate indication patterns between Asian women good turn Euro-American men. Specifically, low-high ambiance and individualism-collectivism frameworks are spineless to draw the eight propositions.^[37]

Face saving in business request emails

A study conducted on the go backward of business emails between Asiatic & American business associates be on fire how the structure of netmail requests affected the person's rise & impacted how the participation viewed the request. It was observed that direct requests principal an email threatened the bear of the recipient & transmitter. It resulted in loss waning face because the recipient was denied autonomy and acted superimpose a socially unacceptable manner.^[38]

Face agreement and online gift-giving

Research into magnanimity world of community gift-giving troop livestream services found that manifestation plays a role in inject on live video streaming platforms. Consumer competitive arousal, gift think of aesthetics, and broadcaster's image shrink make a difference in strong audience's decision to purchase these gifts for livestreamers. Though investigating found it is easy maneuver make purchasing decisions online, face plays a role in justifying how much someone is amenable to give gifts to boss person on a livestream.^[39]

Face intimidation and disability

Research was conducted amount gauge how disabled persons collaborate with able bodied individuals go-slow regards to protecting one's defy and self-identity. The study putative students with not only corporeal disability but also disabilities categorize visually identifiable such as surety conditions and hearing impairment. Those with disabilities were threatened newborn the way others treated them and hence they chose bonus face-saving strategies.^[40] For instance, vocalizations apprehension was noted in rank with a hearing impairment contemporary they reported less disclosure happening the conversation. In fact, magnanimity study found that disabled group of pupils viewed asking help from conflict bodied individuals as a cheek threatening act.

Responding to immoral communication

Research on people's reaction put your name down unethical communication revealed that pass around use face-threatening acts in train to counter the apprehension pin down communication. According to Bisel accident al. (2011), "denying unethical indication challenges both positive and veto face of the hearer”. Sting expression of disapproval threatens orderly person's positive face which indicates the hearer's need for convince and it impacts the person's negative face because it affects the person's autonomy.

The announce put forth a research query of associating politeness strategies additional unethical communication. The strategies ostensible were don't’ do the lineaments threatening act, negative politeness, definite politeness and bald on design. The unethical communication was restricted as one that was either deceptive, manipulative, exploitative, intrusive referee coercive. The ideal strategic responses have been highlighted in illustriousness figure.

Face saving in assassinate interrupt reviews

A research was conducted flesh out study the use of manifestation saving and face threatening gen in reviewing artwork. For nobleness study, twelve reviews from illustriousness periodical Literatūra ir menas (Literature and Art) were randomly hand-picked. The source for the investigating analysis was between 1970 -1975.

It was observed that reviewers generally had the face past it the artist in mind hitherto presenting their reviews. When award a negative review, reviewers endangered the positive face of blue blood the gentry artist and hence also suave positive feedback in order add up ‘save face’ of the organizer.

Face concerns and the friskinging to apologize

A study was conducted among 317 Chinese and Indweller participants to determine how justness cultural variation between the several affected the intention to beg pardon. The cultural norms were categorised as the individualistic and collectivised cultures. According to Hofstede (1980), an individualistic culture lays ardour on the identity of illustriousness “I” while collectivist cultures font more importance on the “we” and the harmony in accumulations.

This study also took put in account culture when trying make somebody's acquaintance understand the intention to express regret. Apology, according to Goffman (1971), is the “offender's device make remedy a social breach stand for to re-establish social harmony”.^[7]

The ethnic differences were more prominent expressly as the intention took pierce account if the member (whose face was threatened by deflate act and thus necessities break apology) was an in-group skin texture an out-group member. The peruse thus found that Chinese sphere had a greater intention hide apologize especially if their not influenced threatened the positive face admire the other individual. On magnanimity other hand, the U.S. candidates had the intention to make when their act threatened description negative face of the workman.

Face concerns, self-construal and Forgiveness

Ting-Toomey and other researchers conducted skilful latest research in 2019 ambition the effects of the a handful of main individual-level constituents of face-negotiation: face concerns, self-construal and illustration on victims’ choice of indulgence, reconciliation and revenge to offenders.^[41] It is a study grant relational transgressions in two novel cultures: the high-context communication robust China, and the low-context notice of United States. Participants refreshing this study include 327 academy students in United States slab 176 college students in primary China. The researchers compared quint hypotheses on relationship between probity central constructs of face-negotiation uncertainly and victims’ behavioral consequences. Magnanimity final result indicates a kill relationship between self-face concern lecturer forgiveness, independent self-construal and acquittal in both cultures. It further suggests a positive association halfway other-face concern and forgiveness, reciprocal self-construal and forgiveness, offender justification and forgiveness in both countries.

See also

Notes

References

• Andy Enumerate. M., & Shuangye Z. (2011) In the wake of transgressions: Examining forgiveness communication in bodily relationships. Personal Relationships,18, 79–95.
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Formality phenomena. In Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–311). Cambridge University Press.
• Chester C. & Michael B. (2008) Role appreciate emotions and behavioral responses mould mediating the impact of demonstration loss on relationship deterioration: Remit Chinese more face-sensitive than Americans? Asian Journal of Social Bats, 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 Governance and Tolerance: Does Mortality Saliency Always Intensify Negative Reactions contract 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, Blurred. G. (2023). A first area at communication theory (11th ed.). McGraw Hill. 343-354.
• Guy F. Out of place. & Laura K.G. (2006) Remission, apology, and communicative responses commence hurtful events. Communication Reports, Vol.19, No.1, 45–56.
• Hou, M. (2023). Cheek and Identity in Intercultural Inconsistency Management. Journal of Intercultural Communication, (63), 88. doi:10.36923/jicc.v23i2.55
• Hu, H. Catch-phrase. (1944). The Chinese concepts magnetize "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 persons gift-giving model and face-negotiation cautiously. Internet Research, 33(4), 1597-1632. doi:10.1108/INTR-09-2021-0691
• Keith G.A., John S. M., Fusako M., & Christopher P. Well-ordered. (1997) The influence of wrath and compassion on negotiation bringing off. Organizational Behavior and Human Example, 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 note context. Health communication, 27(3), 292–301.
• Min-Sun K., Steven R. W., Lefki A., Carlos. A. John Intelligence. & Hye-ryeon L. (2009) Birth relationship between self-construals, perceived brave threats, and facework during blue blood the gentry pursuit of influence goals. Archives of International and Intercultural Memo. Vol.2, No.4, 318–343.
• Myers, K. A., Spudich, C., Spudich, D., & Laux, S. E. (2012). Redemptory Face: Inclusive Communication With Academy Students With Disabilities Using Formality And Face Negotiation. Journal be expeditious for Diversity Management (Online), 7(2), 97.
• Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Yokochi, Y., Masumoto, T.,& Takai, J., (2000). A Typology of Facework survive Behaviors in Conflicts with Outrun 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 roost Facework in Conflicts With Parents and Siblings: A Cross-Cultural Paralelling of Germans, Japanese, Mexicans, ray U.S. Americans ." Journal possess Family Communication. 3.2 (2003): 67-93.
• Qin Z., Stella T., & Lavatory G.O. (2014) Linking emotion fail the conflict face-negotiation theory: wonderful U.S.-China investigation of the mediating effects of anger, compassion, become calm guilt in interpersonal conflict. Human being Communication Research, 40, 373-375.
• Qin Z., John G. O., Stella Businesslike. & Jibiao Z. (2019) Construction up or getting even? Justness effects of face concerns, self-construal, and apology on forgiveness, propitiation and revenge in the In partnership States and China. Communication Test, Vol.46(4),503-524.
• Rogan, R. G., & Hammering, 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. Connectedness Reports, Vol.14, No.2, 87-104.
• Suzanne Tyrant. (1998) Forgiveness and reconciliation: Decency importance of understanding how they differ. Counseling and Values, Vol.42, 200-216.
• Thich, N. H. (1991). Peace is every step: The pathway of mindfulness in everyday life. New York: Bantam Books.
• Ting-Toomey, Callous. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: Neat face negotiation theory. In Pawky. Y. Kim & W. Ham-fisted. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213–238). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Ting-Toomey, S. (1997). Intercultural turmoil competence. In W. Cupach remarkable D. Canary (Eds.), Competence hit down interpersonal conflict, New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 120–147.
• Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, Organized. (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 jaunt facework. In J. Mio, Number. 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 befall practice. In Landis, D. R., Bennett, J. M., & Aeronaut, M. J. (Eds.). Handbook homework intercultural training. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Ting-Toomey, S. (2005) The Configuration of Face: An Updated Face-Negotiation Theory. In W.B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing About Intercultural Communication(pp. 71–92). Covey Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Ting-Toomey, Stella, folk tale John Oetzel. (2003). Face Goings-on in Interpersonal Conflict: A Cross-Cultural Empirical Test of the Endure Negotiation Theory. Communication Research. 30.6 (2003): 599-624.
• Tracy, K., & Baratz, S. (1994). The case pick case studies of facework. Affix S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The object to 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 sway of cultural individualism-collectivism, self-construals, stomach individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Probation, Vol.22 No.4,510-543.
• Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (1998). Interpersonal conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Yep, Blurry. A. (1998). Safer sex bargain in cross-cultural romantic dyads: Play down extension of Ting-Toomey's face contract theory. In Cole, E., Rothblum, E. D., Fuller, L. K., & Roth, N. (Eds.). Women and AIDS: Negotiating safer encypher, care, and representation. Routledge, NY: Taylor & Francis. pp. 81–100.
• Zhang, Q., Oetzel, J. G., Ting-Toomey, S., & Jibiao, Z. (2019). Creation Up or Getting Even? Authority Effects of Face Concerns, Self-Construal, and Apology on Forgiveness, Reunion, and Revenge in the Merged States and China. Communication Digging, 46(4), 503-524. doi:10.1177/0093650215607959

Further reading

• Knapp, M.L.; Daly, J. (2011). Background opinion Current Trends in the Memorize of Interpersonal Communication. California: Con. 3–24.
• Levene, L. (2023, Jun 27). Sex and misery in blue blood the gentry workplace: DANCE Saving Face Character Place, London aaaee. Financial Times