Face negotiation theory

There is the avoidance face which deflects others attention. Individualistic cultures prefer self oriented facework, and Face negotiation theory cultures prefer other oriented facework. Avoiding facework attempts to preserve harmony in the relationship by dealing with the conflict indirectly.

Preventative facework is an attempt to minimize face-loss before the threat occurs.

Face-Negotiation Theory

Collectivist cultures on the other hand, such as China, often promote resolutions that benefit the society as a whole. Along this line of thinking, the research recommends physician communication training to address both unique language considerations and different orientations to face concern and self-construal.

These directives did little to improve communication and conflict resolution between cultures with differing styles. These differences in communication styles have a lot to do whether or not the culture is individualistic or collectivistic. Dominating facework is characterized by trying to maintain a credible image with the goal of Face negotiation theory the conflict.

Facework differs from conflict styles by employing face-saving strategies which can be used prior to, during, or after a conflict episode and can be used in a variety of identity-threatening and identity-protection situations. Take a very simple thing like, for example, eye contact as face respect.

Members of collectivist cultures are more concerned with mutual-face maintenance than individualistic cultures. Myers, Mary Meares, and Estefana Lara.

What is Face Negotiation Theory?

The first one is called self-face concern, which is predominant in American or other individualistic cultures. Heisler and Ellis did a study on the "face" and reasons for face in motherhood. The ideal strategic responses have been highlighted in the figure.

Avoiding facework attempts to preserve harmony in the relationship by dealing with the conflict indirectly. It resulted in loss of face because the recipient was denied autonomy and acted in a socially unacceptable manner. Specifically, low-high context and individualism-collectivism frameworks are used to draw the eight propositions.

Maybe in Western cultures, as in some Western European cultures, individuals prefer direct eye contact as a signal of attention and interpersonal respect; however, in some Asian cultures such as Thai and Vietnamese cultures, individuals might not prefer direct eye contact - especially in the context of a high-status person telling you what to do.

Ting-Toomey asserts that several conditions must be perceived as severe in order for a negotiator to feel his face is threatened; the importance of the culturally approved facework that is violated, feelings of mistrust because of a large distance between cultures, the importance of the conflict topic, the power distance between the two parties, and the perception of the parties as outgroup members are all conditions which must be made salient for face-threatening communication to occur.

Mien-tzu, on the other hand, is the external social face that involves social recognition, position, authority, influence and power.

Individualist cultures are those that place greater importance on individual face than on the group face, while collectivist cultures are those that place the importance of group face above the individual faces. On a cognitive level, face threat is measured based on the degree of how far the threatening action diverges from the cultural norm of behavior.

Whereas in Eastern countries have a collective or group culture and they honor community. These include the guilt that they do not spend enough time with their children, insecurities and values they have are not being in met, and their self-esteem is low because of the fear of judgment.

Collectivistic cultures operate in a more indirect, high context facework emphasizing nonverbal subtleties. These findings provide direct empirical support of the face-negotiation theory. Face and facework are a part of everyday life, but the frame of reference on how one manages face individually and on a cultural level is what Face Negotiation Theory tries to capture.

Members of collectivistic cultures use more integrative facework strategies than individualistic culture members do. Behavior is also influenced by cultural variances, individual, relational, and situational factors. The face is nothing but an identity, the persona we keep up in the society-a public image.

The highest rated conflict-resolution method in both the other-face concern scale and the self-face concern scale is integrating.Face-Negotiation Theory. The cultural differences in the society shape the responses to conflicts in different societies.

The theory holds up the idea of maintaining a face according to their cultures. The face is nothing but an identity, the persona we keep up in the society-a public image. Face Negotiation Theory is a theory first postulated by Stella Ting-Toomey in to explain how different cultures manage conflict and communicate.

The theory has gone through multiple iterations since that time and has been updated most recently in In essence, the theory explains that the root of conflict is based on the task of maintaining 'Face.

Face Negotiation Theory was first conceived by Stella Ting-Toomey in The theory was born as a result of Ting-Toomey’s frustration with the interpersonal conflict communication theories that were popular in the s. Face negotiation theory is affected by culture and it says that if a culture acts a certain way to saving face then the individual will act that way as well.

It seems like the theory neglects the individualism of a person and may or may not want to save face in certain situations based on his individualistic needs.

The face-negotiation theory deals with the cultural differences within society and how these differences explain certain responses to conflict. It also proposes the idea that.

Face negotiation theory Download
Face negotiation theory
Rated 5/5 based on 23 review