Ταυτότητες, απειλούμενες

\
Pergamon
Int[ J[ Intercultural Rel[ Vol[ 11\ No[ 1\ pp[ 076114\ 0887

0887 Elsevier Science Ltd[ All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain
90360656:87 ,08[999[99
PII] S90360656"87#999931
FACEWORK COMPETENCE IN INTERCULTURAL

CONFLICT] AN UPDATED FACE!NEGOTIATION
THEORY
STELLA TING!TOOMEY AND ATSUKO KUROGI
California State University at Fullerton and Portland State
University
ABSTRACT[ Face in~uences con~ict behavior\ because\ in any con~ict situation\
con~ict parties have to consider protecting self!interest con~ict goals and:or honoring
or attacking another person|s con~ict goals[ Con~ict is an ideal forum for face!
threatening and face!saving behaviors[ The objective of this article is three!fold] _rst\
to provide an update on face!negotiation theory "Ting!Toomey\ 0877#^ second\ to
introduce a facework competence model for intercultural con~ict training^ and third\
to discuss several major training and research issues in using the face!negotiation
theory and its companion model\ the facework competence model[ 0887 Elsevier
Science Ltd[ All rights reserved[
As social beings\ most of us have the experiences of blushing\ feeling

embarrassed\ awkward\ shameful\ or prideful[ Many of these feelings are
face!related issues[ When our social poise is attacked or teased\ we feel the
need to restore or save face[ When we are being complimented or given
credit for a job well done in front of others "i[e[ in an individualistic
culture#\ we feel our social self!worth is enhanced and stroked[ Losing face
and saving face are some of the key concerns of face!negotiation theory
"Ting!Toomey\ 0874\ 0877#[
{{Face|| refers to a claimed sense of favorable social self!worth that a
person wants others to have of her or him[ It is a vulnerable identity!based
resource because it can be enhanced or threatened in any uncertain social
situation[ Situations such as con~ict management\ business negotiation
and diplomatic negotiation entail active facework management[ Speci_c
interpersonal relationship development situations such as initial inter!
We would like to thank Bill Gudy Kunst and John Oetzel for their thoughtful comments on
an earlier version of this article[
Address all correspondence to] Stella Ting!Toomey\ Department of Speech Communi!
cation\ California State University at Fullerton\ Fullerton\ CA 81723\ U[S[A[ Fax] 603!167!
2266[
076
077
S[ Ting!Toomey and A[ Kurogi
action and relationship!building also involve culture!sensitive facework

communication[
Facework refers to a set of communicative behaviors that people use to
regulate their social dignity and to support or challenge the other|s social
dignity[ Face and facework are about interpersonal self!worth issues and
other!identity consideration issues[ The study of facework has been linked
to complimenting\ compliance!gaining\ politeness\ requesting\ embar!
rassment\ apology\ shaming\ decision!making and con~ict behavior
"Brown and Levinson\ 0876^ Holtgraves\ 0886^ Kim\ 0883^ Lindsley and
Braithwaite\ 0885^ Oetzel\ 0887^ Schneiderman\ 0884^ Scollon and Scollon\
0884^ Ting!Toomey\ 0883a\b#[
While face and facework are universal phenomenon\ how we {{frame||
the situated meaning of face and how we enact facework\ di}er from one
culture to the next[ Culture!speci_c lenses enhance and complement a
culture!general framework in analysing facework negotiation across
cultures[ Culture!speci_c theoretical e}orts "see Bond\ 0880\ and Gao\
0887\ on Chinese facework^ Garcia|s\ 0885\ Mexican facework^ Lim and
Choi|s\ 0885\ Korean facework^ Katriel|s\ 0875\ Israeli Sabra facework\
and Morisaki and Gudykunst|s\ 0883\ Japanese facework# have been
developed in a wide range of cultures[
In a multinational training session "or in a session with trainees having
to deal with multinationals#\ we may _rst need to use a culture!general
training framework before proceeding to discuss culture!speci_c facework
issues[ Trainees need to understand the larger picture or terrain of face!
work before the speci_c pieces of the puzzle can be placed appropriately[
Face is\ fundamentally\ a {{social self|| construction issue[ Social self is
tied closely with the conceptualization of {{personal self|| phenomenon in
di}erent cultures[
Cultural values shape our meanings and punctuation points of salient
facets of social self and personal self[ In some cultures\ the {{social self||
"i[e[ the {{public self||# is expected to be closely aligned with the {{personal
self|| "i[e[ the {{private self||#[ In other cultures\ the {{social self|| is expected
to engage in optimal role performance\ regardless of what the inner {{per!
sonal self|| is experiencing at that interaction moment[ The con!
ceptualization of {{self|| and hence\ {{face||\ is the generative mechanism
for all communicative behaviors[
More speci_cally\ face in~uences con~ict behavior\ because\ in any
con~ict situation\ con~ict parties have to consider protecting self!interest
con~ict goals and honoring or attacking another person|s con~ict goals[
On top of incompatible goals\ intercultural con~ict parties typically use
their habitual con~ict scripts to approach the con~ict situation[ Inter!
cultural con~ict often involves miscommunication between members of
two or more cultures over incompatible identity\ relational\ process\ and
substantive con~ict issues "Ting!Toomey\ 0883a\b\ 0886^ Wilmot and
Facework Competence in Intercultural Con~ict
078
Hocker\ 0887#[ Due to di}erent cultural values and con~ict assumptions\

the initial miscommunication between two cultural parties can easily esca!
late into an intensive\ polarized con~ict situation[ A theory\ such as the
face!negotiation theory\ helps to direct our attention to the cultural blind
spots in facework miscommunication and acts as a useful training tool in
early con~ict intervention[
The objective of this essay is three!fold] _rst\ to review and provide
an update on face!negotiation theory "Ting!Toomey\ 0877#^ second\ to
introduce a facework competence model for intercultural con~ict training^
and third\ to discuss several major training and research issues in using
the face!negotiation theory and the facework competence model[
FACE!NEGOTIATION THEORY] A SYNOPSIS AND AN

UPDATE
Face!Neòtiation Theory] Basic Assumptions
Using a cultural variability approach of individualismcollectivism to
the study of face and facework\ Ting!Toomey "0877# proposes a theoretical
model\ the face!negotiation theory "with seven assumptions and 01 prop!
ositions#\ of face and facework[ The dimension of individualismcol!
lectivism serves as a conceptual grid in explaining why the meaning of
{{self|| and hence\ {{face\|| varies across cultures[ It clari_es our under!
standing of how the various {{I!identity|| or {{we!identity|| orientations
"Ting!Toomey\ 0874\ 0877# in~uence our everyday communication
behaviors across cultures[
Numerous cross!cultural studies "Gudykunst and Ting!Toomey\ 0877^
Hofstede\ 0879\ 0880^ Triandis\ 0884^ Schwartz and Bilsky\ 0889^ Triandis
et al[\ 0877# have provided theoretical and empirical evidence that the
value orientations of individualism and collectivism are pervasive in a
wide range of cultures[ Basically\ individualism refers to the broad value
tendencies of a culture in emphasizing the importance of {{I|| identity over
{{we|| identity\ individual rights over group rights and personal self!esteem
issues over social self!esteem issues[ In comparison\ collectivism refers to
the broad value tendencies of a culture in emphasizing the importance of
the {{we|| identity over the {{I|| identity\ ingroup interests over individual
interests and mutual!face concerns over self!face concerns "Ting!Toomey\
0877#[ Individualistic and collectivistic value tendencies are manifested in
everyday family situations\ classroom interactions and workplace situ!
ations[ While both sets of value tendencies exist in the same culture and
in each person\ there are more situations in individualistic cultures that
entail expectations for the {{I!identity|| and personal self!esteem enhance!
ment responses and there are more situations in group!oriented cultures
089
that entail expectations for the {{we!identity|| and social self!esteem

enhancement responses "Luhtanen and Crocker\ 0881#[
Hofstede|s "0880# and Triandis| "0884# research indicates that indi!
vidualism is a cultural pattern that is found in most northern and western
regions of Europe and in North America[ Collectivism refers to a cultural
pattern that is common in Asia\ Africa\ the Middle East\ Central and
South America and the Paci_c[ While less than one!third of the world
population resides in cultures with high individualistic value tendencies\
more than two!third|s of the people live in cultures with high collectivistic
value tendencies "Triandis\ 0884#[ Within each culture\ di}erent ethnic
communities can also display distinctive individualistic and collectivistic
value patterns[
Ting!Toomey "0877# conceptualizes face as an individual|s claimed sense
of favorable social self!image in a relational and network context[ Face!
work is de_ned as clusters of communicative behaviors that are used to
enact self!face and to uphold\ challenge:threaten\ or support the other
person|s face[ Face is a cluster of identity! and relational!based issues that
simmers and surfaces before\ during and after the con~ict process[ Face is
associated with respect\ honor\ status\ reputation\ credibility\ competence\
family:network connection\ loyalty\ trust\ relational indebtedness and
obligation issues[ It is a _eld concept "Ho\ 0883# that has simultaneous
a}ective "e[g[ feelings of shame and pride#\ cognitive "e[g[ calculating how
much to give and receive face# and behavioral layers[ Facework refers to
speci_c verbal and non!verbal messages that help to maintain and restore
face loss and to uphold and honor face gain "see Ting!Toomey and Cole\
0889\ for a detailed review of facework strategies#[
In a nutshell\ Ting!Toomey|s "0877# face!negotiation theory and sub!
sequent research "Cocroft and Ting!Toomey\ 0883^ Kurogi\ 0885\ 0886^
Ting!Toomey\ 0883c^ Ting!Toomey and Cole\ 0889^ Trubisky et al[\ 0880^
Ting!Toomey et al[\ 0880# assumes that] "0# people in all cultures try to
maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations^ "1# the con!
cept of {{face|| is especially problematic in vulnerable interpersonal situ!
ations "such as request\ embarrassment\ or con~ict situations# when the
situated identities of the communicators are called into question^ "2# the
cultural variability dimension of individualismcollectivism "Triandis\
0884# in~uences members| selection of self!oriented facework behaviors
and:or other!oriented facework behaviors^ "3# the cultural variability
dimension of power distance "Hofstede\ 0880# in~uences members|
assertion of power resources "e[g[ person!based vs positional!based power#
in di}erent cultures^ "4# individualismcollectivism in~uences members|
selection of autonomy!based facework "i[e[ a boundary issue*self! vs
other!directed# and approval!based facework "i[e[ a social esteem issue*
self vs other!directed#^ "5# small and large power distance in~uences mem!
bers| preferences for horizontal vs vertical facework interaction^ and "6#
080
individualismcollectivism and power distance\ in conjunction with other

individual "e[g[ self!construal#\ identity "e[g[ gender#\ relational "e[g[ status\
intimacy#\ situational "e[g[ ingroup:outgroup# and con~ict salience "e[g[
con~ict importance or intensity# factors\ in~uence the use of various face!
work behaviors in intergroup and interpersonal encounters[
Face!Neòtiation Theory] Updated Propositions

Culture!Level Analysis[ Overall\ research by Ting!Toomey et al[ "Cocroft
and Ting!Toomey\ 0883^ Ting!Toomey\ 0883b^ Ting!Toomey et al[\ 0880^
Ting!Toomey et al[\ in press^ Trubisky et al[\ 0880# indicate that while
individualists tend to use more self!oriented face!saving strategies\ col!
lectivists tend to use more other!oriented face!saving and face!honoring
strategies[ Furthermore\ individualists tend to use self!face autonomy!
preserving interaction strategies and collectivists tend to use other!face
non!impositional strategies "e[g[ in requesting situations^ Kim and Wilson\
0883#[ Lastly\ individualists tend to use self!face approval!seeking inter!
action strategies and collectivists tend to use other!face approval!enhanc!
ing interaction strategies "Kurogi\ 0885\ 0886^ Lindsley and Braithwaite\
0885#[
More speci_cally\ in con~ict situations\ face!saving strategies are needed
when one|s face is being attacked or threatened and one needs to either
defend one|s own face and:or save mutual:other face[ When one|s face is
being threatened "or in anticipation of being threatened#\ the typical face!
work strategies are] preventive facework strategies and restorative face!
work strategies "Brown\ 0866^ Ting!Toomey and Cole\ 0889#[ Preventive
facework strategies "e[g[ the use of disclaimers and hedges# refer to actions
designed to {{hide\ soften\ ward o}\ prevent\ or block [ [ [ and to control
the occurrence of future events that one expects will foster an appearance
of weakness or vulnerability\ particularly when it is presumed that such
events will impair one|s image or the image of those whom one represents||
"Brown\ 0866\ pp[ 167168#[ Restorative facework strategies refer to
actions designed to {{repair damaged or lost face and are occurring in
response to events that have already transpired[ Thus\ it is past!oriented
and defensive[ It re~ects actions designed to re!establish or reassert one|s
capability and:or strength after one feels they have been damaged||
"Brown\ 0866\ p[ 170#[ In extending this line of argument\ Hammer and
Rogan "0886# "see also\ Ting!Toomey and Cole\ 0889# suggest that face!
work strategies vary along the line of the following three concepts] "a#
locus of facework] is the face message directed at self or other< "b# face
valence] does the face message behavior serve to defend\ maintain\ attack\
or honor "i[e[ mitigate threats to# face< and "c# temporality] does the face
message function to proactively protect against potential face threats or
to retroactively restore perceived face loss< While the "a# and "b# questions
081
have been addressed in the 0877 version of the face!negotiation theory\

the "c# question is an interesting one[ The "c# questions pertains to the use
of either preventive or restorative facework strategies to mitigate face
threats or reclaim face loss[
We believe that for individualistic cultures\ because of their {{I!identity||
priority\ individualistic members would tend to use more self!face defend!
ing strategies "e[g[ justi_cations and situational excuses#\ retroactively\ to
restore perceived face loss than collectivists[ Collectivists\ on the other
hand\ coming from face!salient cultures\ would tend to use more self!
e}acing strategies\ proactively\ to ward o} potential face threats more than
individualists[ Furthermore\ preventive and restorative facework strategies
can include either situational!based accounts or dispositional!based
accounts in defending or accepting one|s own face loss[
We predict that individualists\ when their face is threatened\ will tend
to use situational accounts "i[e[ external causes such as blaming generalized
others or the situation# to save face[ Situational accounts refer to stories
"e[g[ car problem# that attribute the reasons of the con~ict problem to
external sources "i[e[ external to one|s ability\ disposition\ or competence#[
For collectivists\ when their face is threatened\ they will tend to use nega!
tive\ internal dispositional accounts to accept face loss[ Dispositional
accounts refer to stories that locate:attribute the problematic event to one|s
failed e}ort\ incompetence\ or negative personality traits[ Both groups may
also use an extrinsic\ destiny factor such as {{bad luck|| or {{fate|| to
{{explain away|| the con~ict situation[
Kitayama et al[ "0886# observe] {{In causal attribution\ individualists
tend to explain their own success in terms of their own internal and
relatively stable attributes\ such as ability\ while discounting their failure
by attributing to some external causes|| "p[ 0135#[ In comparison\ col!
lectivists such as the Japanese tend to {{explain one|s success in terms of
e}ort [ [ [ and one|s own failure in terms of a lack of abilities or talents*a
_nding corroborated in studies of two other Asian countries "Taiwan and
People|s Republic of China#|| "p[ 0135#[ By engaging in self!criticism or
self!e}acing interaction behaviors\ collectivists are acknowledging that
there is a set of ingroup standards to be followed[ When the standard is
violated\ then one should rectify the failed situation via focused improve!
ment and e}ort\ in order to be re!accepted by the ingroup members again[
Additionally\ people in di}erent cultures also use facework enhancement
strategies "e[g[ compliments# to support or honor other|s face[ We propose
here that for individualists\ when their face is enhanced or stroked\ they
will use self!face honoring strategies in acknowledging and accepting the
face!enhancement compliments or comments[ Furthermore\ in com!
petitive situations "e[g[ job interviews# that call for face recognition\ indi!
vidualists will use self!enhancement face strategies to distinguish the {{self||
from others more so than collectivists[ Comparatively\ collectivists will
082
use more self!e}acement strategies "e[g[ {{I|m just lucky to have prepared
for the right questions|| or {{I don|t know that much about this computer
program\ but I can learn||# than individualists[ In responding to face!
giving comments "e[g[ compliments# from others\ collectivists will also
tend to use more self!e}acing and ingroup!enhancement facework "e[g[
{{The entire group really worked hard and pulled together||# to defuse self!
face enhancing comments[ The explanatory mechanism underlying the
di}erent use of facework strategies across the cultural divide rests with
the value emphasis of {{I!identity|| and {{we!identity|| "for an extensive
discussion\ see Ting!Toomey\ 0877# in individualistic and group!oriented
cultures[
In relating facework with con~ict styles\ while individualists "e[g[ U[S[A[
respondents# tend to use more direct\ face!threatening con~ict styles "e[g[
dominating style#\ collectivists "e[g[ Taiwan and China respondents# tend
to use more indirect\ mutual face!saving con~ict styles "e[g[ avoiding and
obliging styles*connoting either high mutual!face or other!face concern#[
Males "from both Japan and the U[S[A[# also report the use of more
dominating:competing facework strategies "i[e[ high self!face\ low other!
face concern# than females "Cocroft and Ting!Toomey\ 0883#[ Korean
respondents have also been found to use more indirect conversational
styles and look for indirect meanings more so than U[S[A[ respondents
"Holtgraves\ 0886#[ In terms of speci_c ethnic group membership di}er!
ences\ Latino"a# Americans and Asian Americans in the U[S[A[ have been
found to use avoiding and third party con~ict styles more so than African
Americans[ Asian immigrants tend to use avoiding style more so than
European Americans "Ting!Toomey et al[\ in press#[ It is important to
note that all these studies have been conducted in acquaintance con~ict
relationships[
Additionally\ the con~ict styles of integrating "i[e[ concern over mutu!
ally!acceptable substantive decisions\ e[g[ {{I would collaborate with the
other person to come up with decisions acceptable to both of us||# and
mid!point compromising "i[e[ via middle ground and concessions\ e[g[ {{I
would _nd a middle course to resolve the impasse||# have\ thus far\ re~ected
mixed research results "Chua and Gudykunst\ 0876^ Ting!Toomey\ 0875^
Ting!Toomey et al[\ 0880^ in press#[ For example\ Chua and Gudykunst
"0876# uncover that individualists tend to use more solution!oriented styles
"i[e[ a combined integrating and compromising styles# more so than col!
lectivists[ Ting!Toomey et al[ "in press# reveal that individuals with a
strong U[S[A[ cultural identity "i[e[ identifying with the overall U[S[A[
culture# use more integrating\ compromising and emotionally expressive
con~ict styles than individuals with a weak U[S[A[ cultural identity[
However\ Ting!Toomey et al[ "0880# _nd that while self!face is related to
dominating con~ict style\ other!face is related to avoiding\ integrating
and compromising styles[ While self!face has been consistently related to
083
confrontational facework tactics and dominating con~ict style\ other!

face has been consistently related to relational smoothing tactics and
avoiding:obliging con~ict style[
The issue involving integrating:compromising style\ however\ is not as
clearcut[ Gleaning results of past studies\ it appears that respondents
from di}erent cultural:ethnic groups attribute di}erent meanings to the
linguistic terms of {{integrating|| and {{compromising||[ Individualists may
view integrating and compromising styles as _nding substantive solutions
and closures to a con~ict problem[ Collectivists\ on the other hand\ may
view integrating and compromising styles as connoting relational!level
collaboration and concessions[ It is obvious that both con~ict styles need
to be reconceptualized and reoperationalized on a speci_c level of appli!
cation[
Based on our knowledge of individualistic and collectivistic value tend!
encies\ we can reconceptualize integrating and compromising styles as
involving either substantive!level collaborative mode\ or relational!level
collaboration and concessions[ We predict that individualists would tend
to focus more on substantive problem!solving mode*with the intention
of bringing a solution!closure to the con~ict session[ On the other hand\
collectivists\ given their orientation on relational interdependence\ would
tend to focus more on relational give!and!take as re~ective of the inte!
grating and compromising styles[
Beyond individualismcollectivism\ another important value dimension
we should take into consideration when we conduct facework in a new
culture is the dimension of power distance[ In fact\ face!negotiation process
entails complex\ power interplay between the con~ict parties[ Hofstede
"0880# de_nes power distance as the extent to which the less powerful
members of institutions accept that power is distributed unequally[ Power
refers to the extent of in~uence and the degree of compliance between two
or more interactants in negotiating their di}erences[ Small power index
values are found\ for example\ in Austria\ Israel\ Denmark\ New Zealand\
Ireland\ Sweden and Norway[ Large power index values are found\ for
example\ in Malaysia\ Guatemala\ Panama\ Philippines\ Mexico\ Vene!
zuela and Arab countries "Hofstede\ 0880#[
In small power distance work situations\ power is evenly distributed[
Subordinates expect to be consulted\ and the ideal boss is a resourceful
democrat[ In large power work situations\ the power of an organization
is centralized in the upper management level[ Subordinates expect to be
told what to do\ and the ideal boss plays the benevolent autocratic role[
While the U[S[A[ scores on the low side of power distance\ it is not
extremely low[ Hofstede "0880# explains that {{U[S[A[ leadership theories
tend to be based on subordinates with medium!level dependence needs]
not too high\ not too low|| "p[ 31#[
People in small power distance cultures tend to value equal power
084
distributions\ equal rights\ symmetrical relations and equitable rewards

and costs based on personal performance[ People in large power distance
cultures tend to accept unequal power distributions\ hierarchical roles\
asymmetrical relations and rewards and sanctions based on rank\ role\
status\ age and perhaps even gender identity[ For small power distance
cultures\ defending and asserting one|s personal rights is re~ective of self!
face esteeming behaviors[ For large power distance cultures\ playing one|s
role optimally and carrying out one|s ascribed duties responsibly and
asymmetrically\ constitute appropriate facework interaction[
More speci_cally\ in supervisor!subordinate con~icts\ high!status mem!
bers of small power distance cultures may tend to use verbally!direct
facework strategies such as direct disapproval strategies "e[g[ criticism\
reprimands# and autonomy!threat strategies "e[g[ threats and order# to
induce compliance "Fairhurst et al[\ 0883#[ Low!status members may use
self!face defensive strategies to defend and recover face loss[ In compari!
son\ high!status members of large power distance cultures may tend to use
verbally!indirect facework strategies such as indirect questioning strategies
and relational pressuring:shaming strategies "e[g[ ingroup dis!
appointments and shame# to induce compliance[ Low!status members may
use self!e}acing strategies "e[g[ apology# and self!criticism strategies "e[g[
via negative personal dispositional accounts# to accept face loss[
Individuals in small power distance cultures are concerned with hori!
zontal facework interaction "i[e[ minimizing the respect!deference distance
via informal interaction#[ In small power distance cultures\ horizontal
facework is expressed via person!based power resources such as personal
credibility\ personal expertise and rational persuasion[ In small power
distance cultures\ individual rights and duties are de_ned by contracts or
laws\ not ascription[ Contract or litigation protects an individual|s legal
right or obligation to a given transaction or con~ict outcome[ In non!
compliance con~ict situations "e[g[ both supervisor and supervisee believe
they are right#\ both high! and low!status members are likely to use dom!
inating:controlling con~ict styles "Conrad\ 0880# in defending their self!
face viewpoints more than members in large power distance cultures[
Comparatively\ in large power distance cultures\ individuals are con!
cerned with vertical facework interaction "i[e[ maximizing the respect!
deference distance via formal interaction#[ In initial con~ict situations "i[e[
low salient conditions#\ high!status power individuals may use indirect
con~ict strategies such as hinting or indirect questioning to approach the
con~ict problem[ By occupying high!status positions\ high!status indi!
viduals are assumed to have {{big face|| and they can a}ord to be benevolent
to the subordinates[ Concurrently\ it is expected that the subordinates can
{{intuit|| or even {{anticipate|| "via the reading of non!verbal signals\ silences
and indirect messages# that a con~ict problem is brewing before the super!
visors have to articulate their displeasure directly[ In high salient con~ict
085
situations\ however\ when high!status members feel compelled to confront

low!status members directly\ it means that the con~ict situation is beyond
{{face tolerance|| threshold level[ The direct confrontation between the
unequal!status parties signals that the con~ict situation is urgent and
volatile[ High!status members in large power distance cultures would tend
to use identity and relational shaming styles to induce compliance[ Low!
status members or subordinates would tend to use obliging\ avoiding and
neglecting con~ict styles more than their cohorts in small power distance
cultures[
Finally\ con~ict is often managed via informal\ third!party mediation
in large power distance cultures[ This third!party mediator is one who
usually occupies a high!status position "and hence\ has a credible repu!
tation# and has a good relationship with both disputants[ In order to {{give
face|| to this high!status\ third!party mediator\ both con~ict parties may
be willing to make concessions in the name of honoring the high!status\
mediator|s {{face|| "and thus\ saving their own face#[ While there have been
some research e}orts on linguistic formality and facework interaction
styles "see\ for example\ Garcia\ 0886\ on Mexican facework and Kurogi\
0885\ 0886\ for Japanese facework# across cultures\ the relationship among
power distance\ status facework\ and con~ict styles needs to be sys!
tematically addressed and tested[
Individual!Level Analysis[ The relationship between culture!level analy!

sis and con~ict behavior is mediated by individual!level factors[ One such
factor is self!construal or the distinction between independent and inter!
dependent self!construal "Markus and Kitayama\ 0880\ 0883^ Singelis and
Brown\ 0884#[ While the previous section covers ideas pertaining to cul!
tural group membership di}erences between cultures\ this section focuses
on individual variation factors within and between cultures[
Independent and interdependent self!construal refers to the degree to
which people conceive of themselves as relatively autonomous from\ or
connected to\ others[ The independent construal of self involves the view
that an individual is a unique entity with an individuated repertoire of
feelings\ cognitions and motivations "Markus and Kitayama\ 0880#[ Indi!
viduals with high independent self!construals tend to view themselves as
unique and distinctive from others[ They use their own personal attributes
and abilities as motivational bases for action rather than the thoughts and
feelings of others[ Individuals who view themselves as independents value
{{I!identity||\ personal achievement\ self!direction and competition[ When
communicating with others\ high independents believe in striving for per!
sonal goals\ being in control of the agenda and expressing their positions
assertively[ Overall\ independent self!construal types tend to be more self!
face oriented than other!face oriented[ The independent self!construal has
been linked to such behavior as competing:dominating con~ict style "Ting!
086
Toomey et al[\ 0887#\ verbal self!enhancement "Kitayama et al[\ 0886#\

low!context communication "Gudykunst et al[\ 0885#\ outcome!oriented
conversational constraints "Kim et al[\ 0883#\ and task e}ectiveness in
groups "Oetzel and Bolton!Oetzel\ 0886#[ Independent self!construal types
tend to predominate in individualistic cultures or ethnic groups[
The interdependent construal of self\ on the other hand\ involves an
emphasis on the importance of relational connectedness "Markus and
Kitayama\ 0880#[ People who have an interdependent self!construal want
to _t in with others\ act appropriately\ promote others| goals and value
relational collaboration[ The self!in!relation guides the behavior of high
interdependents in social situations[ When communicating with others\
high interdependents value other!face and mutual!face concerns[ They
are eager to appeal to other!face concerns in vulnerable interpersonal
situations in order to preserve relational harmony[ The interdependent
self!construal has been linked to behaviors such as avoiding con~ict styles
"Ting!Toomey et al[\ 0887#\ verbal self!criticism "Kitayama et al[\ 0886#\
high!context communication "Gudykunst et al[\ 0885#\ other!oriented con!
versational constraints "Kim et al[\ 0883#\ and relational e}ectiveness in
groups "Oetzel and Bolton!Oetzel\ 0886#[ Interdependent self!construal
types tend to predominate in collectivistic cultures or ethnic groups[
Another interesting theoretical issue in self!construal research is whether
to treat self!construal as two dimensions "i[e[ independent self vs inter!
dependent self# or in four dimensions "i[e[ high:low independent self!
high:low interdependent self#[ Some scholars have argued that di}erent
communication situations lead to the salience of either an independent or
interdependent self!construal "Gudykunst et al[\ 0885#[ In contrast\ Kim
et al[ "0885# argue that the two dimensions should be considered together
for a more precise conceptualization of the relationship between inde!
pendent and interdependent self!construal[ The latter viewpoint is akin to
Berry et al[ "0876# acculturation typological model in which cultural ident!
ity and ethnic identity should be considered as mutual\ interdependent
dimensions in a pluralistic society "Ting!Toomey et al[\ in press#[ Both
conceptual explanations are possible[ Some situations may lead to the
activation of a predominately one self "i[e[ either high independent self or
high interdependent self#\ while other situations may lead to the activation
of a dual self "i[e[ a biconstrual self#[ In a pluralistic society such as the
U[S[A[\ it seems plausible that di}erent ethnic members would be in~u!
enced by diverse U[S[A[ ethnic values in their development of self!
construal[ Thus\ the four!dimensional approach will yield a more precise
picture concerning the relationship among self!construal\ facework and
di}erent con~ict styles[
In using a four!dimensional approach to conceptualize self!construal\
the result is four categories of self!construal] biconstrual type\ independent
type\ interdependent type\ and ambivalent type[ The biconstrual type is
087
re~ected in high degrees of independent and interdependent self!construal[

The independent type is re~ected in a high degree of independent self!
construal and a low degree of interdependent self!construal[ The inter!
dependent type is re~ected in a low degree of independent self!construal
and a high degree of interdependent self!construal[ The ambivalent type
is re~ected in low degrees of independent and interdependent self!
construal[ On a conceptual level\ it seems logical that the mechanism of
self!construal should in~uence di}erent con~ict communication styles[
The _ndings of Ting!Toomey et al[|s "0887# research illustrate clearly
that con~ict style di}erences do exist among the four self!construal types[
First of all\ biconstrual types appear to have many con~ict styles in their
repertoire[ Biconstruals use all of the direct\ upfront styles of con~ict
management*integrating\ compromising\ dominating\ and emotional
expression[ It appears that biconstrual individuals prefer to engage actively
in con~ict either through solution!oriented styles or emotionally expressive
styles[ Second\ independents use more direct\ solution!oriented styles to
engage in con~ict with others in comparison to interdependents and
ambivalents[ Third\ interdependents use more avoiding and third!party
con~ict styles than biconstruals and independents[ This is likely because
of their desire to maintain relational harmony that is associated with the
interdependent self!construal[ Finally\ ambivalents use more third!party
and neglecting con~ict styles than biconstruals and independents[ Ambiva!
lents have low degrees of both independent and interdependent self!con!
struals[ Ambivalent individuals opt for a more indirect\ di}usive approach
in dealing with con~icts\ perhaps due to the fact that they have vacillating\
uncertain identities[ Thus\ overall\ we propose here that while biconstrual
types appear to use a wide range of con~ict styles to deal with both
substantive and relational con~ict issues\ ambivalent types appear to use
a narrow range of con~ict styles to deal with di}erent con~ict episodes[
A Summary[ Based on past research and _ndings on both cultural group

membership level and individual variation level\ an update of the facework
propositions is presented in Table 0[ Altogether\ seven assumptions "see
Assumptions Section# and 21 propositions of face!negotiation theory are
posited[ While Propositions 019 deal with culture!level facework and
con~ict style issues\ Propositions 1021 deal with individual!level facework
and con~ict style issues[ Additionally\ while Propositions 003 address
general facework issues that should cross!apply to a diverse range of
vulnerable interpersonal situations "e[g[ compliance!gaining\ request\
embarrassment\ apology\ business negotiation#\ Propositions 0421 deal
speci_cally with the relationship between facework and con~ict styles[
New propositions concerning power distance and self!construal variations
are included in this version of the face!negotiation theory[
088
TABLE 1
A Summary of Face-Negotiation Theory (1998)
Culture-level propositions
Proposition 1: Members of individualistic cultures tend to express a greater degree of selfface maintenance messages than members of collectivistic cultures.
Proposition 2: Members of collectivistic cultures tend to express a greater degree of otherface or mutual-face maintenance messages than members of individualistic cultures.
Proposition 3: Members of individualistic cultures tend to use self-face autonomy-preserving
interaction strategies more so than members of collectivistic cultures.
Proposition 4: Members of collectivistic cultures tend to use other-face non-impositional
strategies more so than members of individualistic cultures.
Proposition 5: Members of individualistic cultures tend to use self-face approval-seeking
interaction strategies more so than members of collectivistic cultures.
Proposition 6: Members of collectivistic cultures tend to use other-face approval-enhancing
interaction strategies more so than members of individualistic cultures.
Proposition 7: Members of individualistic cultures, when their face is threatened, will tend
to use situational accounts (i.e. external causes) to save face more than members of
collectivistic cultures.
Proposition 8: Members of collectivistic cultures, when their face is threatened, will tend
to use dispositional accounts (i.e. internal causes) to accept face loss more than members
of individualistic cultures.
Proposition 9: Members of individualistic cultures tend to use a greater degree of direct,
upfront facework strategies in a conflict situation than members of collectivistic cultures.
Proposition 10: Members of collectivistic cultures tend to use a greater degree of indirect,
smoothing facework strategies than members of individualistic cultures.
Proposition 11: Members of small power distance cultures tend to expect and express a
greater degree of horizontal facework interaction (i.e. minimizing respect-deference distance) than members of large power distance cultures.
Proposition 12: Members of large power distance cultures tend to expect and express a
greater degree of vertical facework interaction (i.e. maximizing respect-deference distance)
than members of small power distance cultures.
Proposition 13: High-status members of small power distance cultures tend to use verballydirect facework strategies such as direct disapproval strategies (e.g. criticism) and autonomy-threat strategies (e.g. order) to induce compliance more than high-status members of
large power distance cultures.
Proposition 14: Low-status members of small power distance cultures tend to use self-face
defensive strategies to counter face threat more than members of large power distance
cultures, and that low-status members of large power distance cultures tend to use selfeffacing strategies to mitigate face threat more than members of small power distance
cultures.
Proposition 15: Members of individualistic cultures tend to use more dominating/competing
conflict strategies than members of collectivistic cultures.
Proposition 16: Members of collectivistic cultures tend to use more avoiding/obliging
conflict strategies than members of individualistic cultures.
Proposition 17: Members of individualistic cultures tend to use more substantive, outcomeoriented conflict strategies (e.g. substantive appeals, task-oriented integrating and compromising styles) than members of collectivistic cultures.
Proposition 18: Members of collectivistic cultures tend to use more relational, processoriented conflict strategies (e.g. identity and ingroup-based appeals, relational integration
and concession styles) than members of individualistic cultures.
continued
199

TABLE 1continued.
Proposition 19: High-status members of small power distance cultures tend to use more
dominating conflict styles and verbally-direct coercive tactics than high-status members of
large power distance cultures, and that high-status members of large power distance
cultures tend to use more shame-inducing relational conflict styles and indirect tactics than
high-status members of small power distance cultures.
Proposition 20: Low-status members of small power distance cultures tend to use dominating conflict styles to resist compliance more than members of large power distance
cultures, and that low-status members of large power distance cultures tend to use obliging,
avoiding, and neglect conflict styles more than low-status members of small power distance
cultures.
Individual-level propositions
Proposition 21: An increase in self-face emphasis is associated with an increase in selfface honoring or self-face enhancement interaction behaviors.
Proposition 22: An increase in other- and mutual-face emphasis is associated with an
increase in self-effacing or ingroup-enhancement facework behaviors.
Proposition 23: Self-face maintenance is associated positively with dominating/competing
conflict management style.
Proposition 24: Other-face maintenance is associated positively with avoiding/obliging
conflict management style.
Proposition 25: Self-face maintenance is associated positively with substantive conflict
resolution modes.
Proposition 26: Mutual or other-face maintenance is associated positively with relational
conflict resolution modes.
Proposition 27: High independent self-construal type is associated positively with dominating/competing conflict management style.
Proposition 28: High interdependent self-construal type is associated positively with avoiding/obliging conflict management style.
Proposition 29: High independent self-construal type is associated positively with substantive conflict resolution modes.
Proposition 30: High interdependent self-construal type is associated positively with
relational conflict resolution modes.
Proposition 31: Biconstrual type is associated positively with both substantive and relational
conflict resolution modes.
Proposition 32: Ambivalent type is associated negatively with both substantive and
relational conflict resolution modes.
INTERCULTURAL FACEWORK COMPETENCE]

THREE CORE DIMENSIONS
Facework competence is conceptualized as an optimal integration of
knowledge\ mindfulness and communication skills in managing self|s and
other|s face!related concerns "Ting!Toomey\ 0883b\ 0886#[ Face!related
concerns are viewed as identity! and relational!management issues in any
types of problematic interpersonal situations[ Facework competence can
190
be evaluated by the criteria of interaction appropriateness\ e}ectiveness\

adaptability and satisfaction "Cupach and Canary\ 0886^ Folger et al[\
0886^ Wiseman and Koester\ 0882#[ Drawing from face!negotiation theory\
this section outlines three applied dimensions of facework competence for
intercultural trainers and teachers who are interested in the application
level of facework theory[
Three Core Dimensions

To act competently in an intercultural con~ict episode\ individuals have
to enhance their cultural knowledge and mindfulness in applying context!
sensitive facework interaction skills[ Of all the dimensions of managing
intercultural facework di}erences\ knowledge is the most important
dimension that underscores the other dimensions of competence "Ting!
Toomey\ 0886#[ The other facework competence dimensions are] mind!
fulness and interaction skills[
Knowledge Dimension[ Without culture!sensitive knowledge\ disputants

cannot learn to uncover the implicit {{ethnocentric lenses|| they use in
evaluating facework interaction[ Knowledge here refers to the process of
in!depth understanding of certain phenomenon via a range of information
gained through conscious learning and personal experiences[ In a training
session concerning intercultural facework competence\ here are the build!
ing block concepts] "0# individualismcollectivism\ "1# power distance\ "2#
two contrastive {{self:face|| models and "3# facework communication styles[
Overall\ the knowledge base in this article covers the in~uence of indi!
vidualismcollectivism on facework and power distance values on face!
work[ Drawing from the two cultural variability dimensions\ major
characteristics of the {{I!Identity|| and the {{We!Identity|| facework models
have been identi_ed "Table 1#[ In addition\ individual factors such as
independent and interdependent self and con~ict salience factors should
be taken into account in explaining facework preferences within and across
cultures[ To manage intercultural facework competently\ we must take
other people|s cultural perspectives and assumptions concerning {{self||\
and hence\ {{face||\ into consideration[ If others are interdependent!self
collectivists\ we may want to pay extra attention to their {{we!oriented||
assumptions about facework[ If\ however\ others are independent!self
individualists\ we may want to display sensitivity to their {{I!oriented||
assumptions about facework[
For independent!self "IS# individualists\ e}ective and appropriate man!
agement of con~ict means individual goals are addressed\ self!face has
been enhanced and substantive di}erences are managed[ For inter!
dependent!self "DS# collectivists\ appropriate and e}ective management
of con~ict means mutual! and ingroup!face have been enhanced\ con~ict
191

TABLE 2
The I-Identity vs the We-Identity Facework Model
I-Identity facework
We-Identity facework
Self-Face Maintenance
Independent Self
Relational/Group-Face
Maintenance
Interdependent Self
Face Threats
Personal Self-Esteem
Personal Approval
Personal Boundary
Personal Credibility
Social Self-Esteem
Ingroup Approval
Relational/Ingroup Boundary
Group-Based Reputation, Status
Face-Defending
Moves
Self-Face Protection
Self-Face Restoration
Situational Accounts
Ingroup-Face Protection
Self-Face Proactive Moves
Dispositional Accounts
Face-Attacking
Moves
Direct Mode
Verbally Explicit Style
Non-verbal Explicitness
Indirect Mode
Verbally Understated Style
Non-verbal Nuances
Face-Honoring
Moves
Self-Face Enhancing Mode

Satisfying Personal Goals
Person-Based Power Resources
Self-Effacing Mode
Satisfying Ingroup Goals
Positional-Based Power
Resources
Conflict
Styles
Dominating/Controlling
Solution-Closure
Solution Compromises
Avoiding/Obliging
Relational-Smoothing
Relational Concessions
Facework
Competence
Persuader-Centered
Substantive Gains
Personal Honor and Dignity
Substantive Effectiveness
Listener-Centered
Facework Gains
Ingroup Honor and Dignity
Facework Appropriateness
Concern
relationship has been soothed and that substantive di}erences are managed
tactfully[ For IS individualists\ con~ict outcome is perceived as con!
structive when tangible solutions are reached\ objective criteria are met and
action plans are drawn[ Both con~ict parties can claim win!win substantive
gains[ For DS collectivists\ on the other hand\ con~ict outcome is perceived
as constructive when intangible power resources have been addressed\
relational solidarity has been reached and long!term mutual interests have
been forged[ Both parties can claim a win!win facework front in the context
of both ingroup and outgroup members[
To engage in appropriate and e}ective facework negotiation\ mutual
knowledge and adaptability on a stylistic facework interaction level may
192
pave the way to mutual relational and substantive gains[ Increased knowl!
edge concerning the cultural and individual variations of facework pref!
erences enhances our mindfulness and interaction skills in managing
communication di}erences[
Mindfulness Dimension[ Mindfulness "Thich\ 0880# means attending to

one|s internal assumptions\ cognitions and emotions and simultaneously
attuning attentively to the other|s assumptions\ cognitions and emotions
while focusing the _ve senses[ Mindful re~exivity requires us to tune!in to
our own cultural and habitual assumptions in viewing a con~ict episode[
By being mindful of the {{I!identity|| or the {{we!identity|| facework model\
we may be able to monitor our ethnocentric evaluations and biases more
constructively[
Beyond mindful re~exivity\ we also need to be open to novelty or
unfamiliar behavior[ To be mindful of intercultural facework di}erences\
we have to learn to see the unfamiliar behavior from a fresh context[ In
the context of con~ict interaction\ we have to simultaneously deal with
our own vulnerable emotions regarding unfamiliar behaviors and be open
to new interaction scripts[ We also need to develop multiple visions in
understanding the stylistic and substantive levels of con~ict gains and
losses "e[g[ ingroup:outgroup angle\ high!status:low!status angle#[ Inte!
grating new ideas or perspectives in one|s value system requires mental
~exibility[ Mental ~exibility requires one to rethink assumptions about
oneself and the world[ Such rethinking may cause identity stress\ disson!
ance\ but also growth "Ting!Toomey\ 0883d#[ According to Langer "0878\
0886#\ to act mindfully\ we should learn to] "0# see behavior or information
presented in the situation as novel or fresh\ "1# view a situation from
several vantage points\ or perspectives\ "2# attend to the context and the
person in which we are perceiving the behavior and "3# create new cat!
egories through which this new behavior may be understood "Langer\
0886#[ Additionally\ we also need to learn to shift perspective and ground
our understanding from the other|s cultural frame of reference[ This prac!
tice of analytical empathy "Rothman\ 0886# is a reframing vehicle to enable
disputants to see both di}erences and similarities between each other|s
cultural and personal perspective[ As Bennett "0882# comments] {{Empa!
thy [ [ [ describes an attempt to understand by imagining or comprehending
the other|s perspective[ Empathy is ethnorelative in that it demands a shift
in frame of reference^ it is based on an assumption of di}erence\ and
implies respect for that di}erence and a readiness to give up temporarily
one|s own worldview in order to imaginatively participate in the other|s||
"p[ 42#[ Analytical empathy leads to new insights and an alternative set of
cultural experiences[ If the con~ict parties can realize that their {{opponents||
act out of motivations and values as multidimensional as their own\ then
a collaborative dialogue between the con~ict parties has a chance[
193
Finally\ on a general level\ mindfulness demands creative thinking and

living[ From a mindful perspective\ {{one|s response to a particular situ!
ation is not an attempt to make the best choice from among available
options but to create options|| "Langer\ 0886\ p[ 003#[ In a con~ict situ!
ation\ when two individuals either push against or pull away from each
other\ the intercultural con~ict is never satisfactorily resolved[ Rather\
con~ict opponents may have to help each other to reframe the con~ict
problem\ the boundary conditions of the con~ict and the rede_nition of
{{scarce resources|| in the con~ict situation[ According to the creativity
literature "Csikszentmihalyi\ 0885^ Langer\ 0886#\ creative individuals tend
to "a# cultivate curiosity and interest in their immediate surrounding\ "b#
look at problems from as many viewpoints as possible "i[e[ openness to
novelty#\ "c# practice divergent thinking or sideways learning\ "d# alertness
to complexity and distinction\ "e# sensitivity to di}erent contexts\ "f# orien!
tation to the present and "g# cultivate {{~ow|| or enjoyment in their inter!
action[ Sideways learning\ according to Langer "0886#\ involves attending
to {{multiple ways of carving up the same domain[ It not only makes it
possible to create unlimited categories and distinctions [ [ [ but it is essential
to mobilizing mindfulness|| "pp[ 1213#[ While a routine thinker practices
mindlessness in facework negotiation\ a creative thinker practices mind!
fulness[
Interaction Skills[ Interaction skill refers to our abilities to communicate

appropriately\ e}ectively and adaptively in a given situation[ Many inter!
action skills are useful in enhancing intercultural facework competence[
The _ve interaction skills that can transform the knowledge and mind!
fulness dimensions to a concrete level are] mindful listening\ mindful
observation\ facework management\ trust!building and collaborative dia!
logue "Ting!Toomey\ 0886#[ Being open to new perspectives and engaging
in analytical empathy require mindful listening[
In an intercultural con~ict situation\ disputants have to listen mindfully
to the cultural and personal perspectives that are being expressed in the
con~ict interaction[ They have to learn to listen responsively or ting " #
the Chinese character of {{listening|| means {{listening with your ears\ eyes
and one heart||# to the tones\ rhythms\ gestures\ movements\ non!verbal
nuances\ pauses and silence in the con~ict situation[ They have to learn to
mindfully listen to the identity\ relational\ content and socio!historical
meanings of the messages that are being exchanged in the con~ict nego!
tiation process[
Mindful observation involves an ODIS "observe\ describe\ interpret and
suspend evaluation# analysis[ Rather than engaging in snapshot\ evaluative
attributions\ we should _rst learn to observe attentively the verbal and
non!verbal signals that are being exchanged in the con~ict process[ We
should then try to describe mentally and in behaviorally speci_c terms
194
"e[g[ {{she is not maintaining eye contact with me when speaking to me||#
what is going on in the con~ict interaction[ Next\ we should generate
multiple interpretations "e[g[ {{maybe from her cultural frame\ eye contact
avoidance is a respectful behavior^ from my cultural frame\ this is con!
sidered a disrespectful sign# to {{make sense|| of the behavior we are
observing and describing[ Finally\ we may decide to respect the di}erences
and suspend our ethnocentric evaluation[ We may also decide to engage
in open!ended evaluation "e[g[ {{I understand that eye contact avoidance
can be a cultural habit of this person\ but I still don|t like it because I feel
uncomfortable in such interaction||# by acknowledging our discomfort
with unfamiliar behaviors[ By engaging in a re~exive dialogue with
ourselves\ we can monitor our ethnocentric emotions mindfully[ We may
also want to cross!sample a wide variety of people "and in a wide range of
contexts# from this cultural group to check if {{eye contact avoidance||
response is a cultural or individual habit[ We may also decide to approach
the person "with the low:high!context styles in mind# directly or indirectly
to meta!communicate about such di}erences[
Intercultural disputants should learn to cultivate facework management
skills in dealing with con~icts competently[ Facework management skills
refer to the use of culture!sensitive identity support messages that enhance
self!face and:or other!face[ Both individualists and collectivists may want
to learn to {{give face|| to each other in the con~ict negotiation process[
Giving face means not humiliating or embarrassing each other in the
public arena[ It means leaving room enough for the other to retrieve his
or her social dignity even in an anxiety!laden\ con~ict process[ It means
respecting or even enhancing the other|s favorable identity claims if they
appear reasonable and will promote positive relational interdependence[
As Rothman "0886# notes] {{Identity!driven con~icts are rooted in the
articulation of\ and the threats or frustrations to\ people|s collective need
for dignity\ recognition\ safety\ control\ purpose\ and e.cacy[ Unfor!
tunately\ they are all too rarely framed in that way|| "p[ 6#[
In applying face!giving skills across the cultural divide\ individualists
may want to be especially sensitive to the images of collectivists as closely
tied to ingroup concerns\ obligations\ status and asymmetrical roles[ Col!
lectivists\ on the other hand\ may want to pay more attention to the self!
face image or personal credibility of individualists[ Individualists may want
to probe deeper into the a}ective\ identity!laden nuances that underlie
substantive\ con~ict issues[ Collectivists\ on the other hand\ may want to
recognize that individualists often separate con~ict substantive issues from
identity!related issues[
Individualists need to learn to engage in proper facework reciprocity to
transform collectivists| self!e}acing messages into mutual!concern face!
work interests[ Collectivists\ on the other hand\ need to respect the self!
directed face concern of individualists in approaching facework issues[
195
Mutual respect and understanding\ as being re~ected through the tone of

voice and non!verbal nuances behind the verbal messages\ can often {{sof!
ten|| the polarized climate in con~ict interaction[ Finally\ individualists
should realize that collectivists are process!oriented in their facework
negotiation process[ Collectivists\ on the other hand\ should realize that
individualists are closure!oriented in their con~ict resolution approach[
While both cultural groups are concerned with identity\ relational\ and
substantive con~ict issues in a disputing process\ the priority\ rhythms
and the sequencing of con~ict facework events are quite di}erent[ Thus\
although the concern for face maintenance is universal\ how we manage
face issues is a culture!speci_c phenomenon[
Facework management skills is a cooperative dance that needs both
players to tango smoothly together[ To dance in synchronicity\ con~ict
disputants need to master trust!building skills[ If disputants do not trust
each other\ they tend to move away "cognitively\ a}ectively and physically#
from each other rather than struggle!along with each other[ According to
Fisher and Brown "0877#\ trust is often viewed as the {{single most impor!
tant element of a good working relationship||\ "p[ 096#[ When we do not
trust someone|s words or actions\ we also tend to automatically turno}
our listening devices in con~ict[ We may hear the words\ but we are not
listening[ Trust!building is both a mindset and a communication skill[
To develop trust\ we have to understand the cultural meanings behind
the words trust and trustworthiness[ Trust means to rely on the consistency
of someone|s credibility\ words\ behaviors\ or actions[ Trustworthiness
means to make our own behaviors or actions worthy of the trust of others[
In small power distance cultures\ trust is often based on charismatic
personality traits\ personal credibility\ reliability\ persuasive words and
decisive actions[ In comparison\ in large power distance cultures\ trust
can be based on credible roles and statuses in a reputable organization\
dependable family and kinship networks and consistency between words
and actions from a long!term perspective[ In fact\ the Chinese word for
# means {{a person keeping his or her words
{{trust|| or {{shin|| "i[e[
consistently and in a dependable manner||\ In high power distance cultures\
the words from high!status individuals are their {{face||[ When the words
are spoken\ the actions will be carried out and promises will be kept[ Thus\
people in high power distance cultures tend to be verbally cautious in their
con~ict negotiation process[ They also tend not to trust people who are
too {{wordy|| or {{verbally persuasive||[ They also shun written contracts
and documents[ For members of large power distance cultures\ a hand!
shake between two high!status individuals\ a trustworthy relationship\ or
a long!term face gain perspective is often much more important than an
external piece of paper[
Trusting someone\ however\ entails certain risks[ In emphasizing the
importance of developing a good\ working relationship as a base\ Fisher
196
and Brown "0877# recommend that we should learn to be {{trustworthy||

but not necessarily {{wholly trusting||[ Being trustworthy means we need
to understand the cultural preferences of the strangers concerning the
concepts of trust and trustworthiness[ We need to understand the expec!
tations they have on our behavior[ We also need to strive to match their
expectations with our behavior on a consistently dependable basis[ Engag!
ing in trustworthy behavior can lead to a more supportive\ trusting climate
of interaction in the con~ict negotiation process[ Unfortunately\ when
we are experiencing fear or anxiety concerning unfamiliar behavior "e[g[
accents\ non!verbal gestures\ etc[#\ we often automatically withhold our
bridge of trust[ Well!founded trust is critical in any e}ective and appro!
priate management of facework interaction[
Finally\ individualists and collectivists can practice collaborative dia!
logue skills in the facework clari_cation process[ A monologue approach
pushes for ethnocentric needs exclusively in the con~ict situation[ A col!
laborative dialogue approach\ on the other hand\ emphasizes ethnorelative
sensitivity "Bennett\ 0882#[ Collaborative dialogue attempts to discover
common ground\ share power productively and assumes that each con~ict
team has a piece of the bigger picture[
Collaborative dialogue means people suspend their assumptions and
refrain from imposing their views on others[ They practice mindful list!
ening and display a respectful attitude regarding the other|s viewpoints\
needs\ and interests[ Concurrently\ they are also mindful of their own
needs\ interests and goals[ In collaborative dialogue exchange\ individuals
orient themselves fully in the present[ They are inwardly re~exive and
outwardly re~ective of identity\ relationship\ process and substantive con!
~ict issues[
In collaborative dialogue sessions with collectivists\ individualists may
want to] "0# Practice patience and verbal restraint in articulating their
personal interests\ goals and wants\ "1# use vocal segregates or back!
channeling cues such as {{uhm\ uhm|| and {{uh!huh|| to signal listening
attentiveness\ "2# be open to the expressions of stories\ proverbs\ meta!
phors\ analogies and understatements\ "3# use self!e}acing questions to
encourage the others to coach you or show you the way\ "4# address the
con~ict problem to general team members rather than singling out one
person\ "5# accept longer turn!taking pauses and re~ective silences\ "6# use
appropriate head nods to indicate identity a.rmation and "7# listen to
the identity and relational meanings that underscore the con~ict content
messages[
In collaborative dialogue sessions with individualists\ collectivists may
want to] "0# Practice verbal assertiveness in articulating their personal
interests\ goals and wants\ "1# use direct verbal responses to indicate
agreements\ negotiable points and disagreements\ "2# articulate clearly the
reasons behind the disagreement from either an inductive mode "i[e[ from
197
speci_c reasons to general conclusions\ for example\ dealing with U[S[

Americans# or a deductive logical mode "i[e[ from general framework to
speci_c reasons\ for example\ dealing with Western Europeans#\ "3# use
direct\ speci_c questions to cross!check facts\ interests and unclear goals\
"4# target the questions to a speci_c individual\ "5# learn to engage in
overlap talks and faster turn!taking verbal behavior\ "6# use verbal per!
ception check to paraphrase what you have heard in your own words to
prevent misunderstanding and "7# listen to the content messages and action
plans\ as well as the identity and the relational meanings of the content
messages[
Collaborative dialogue is based on culture!sensitive\ respectful inquiry
process[ In the inquiry process\ con~ict parties try to suspend their own
assumptions regarding the con~ict situation[ Rather\ they work on inviting
the other con~ict parties to tell their stories\ expectations and needs[ In
the inquiry stage\ new dimensions of thinking\ feeling and seeing are
explored[ Cultural dimensions of inquiry can include] "a# What are their
cultural identity tendencies*individualistic!based or group!based< "b#
What are their power value tendencies*horizontal!based or vertical!
based< "c# What are their facework assumptions*{{I!identity|| or {{we!
identity|| facework model< and "d# What are their preferred interaction
styles*direct\ low!context or indirect\ high!context styles<
Personal dimensions of inquiry can include] "a# What activate their
personal motivations*independent!self or interdependent!self motiv!
ationsand what is the extent of discrepancy between the personal!self and
the cultural!self motivations< "b# How would they like to be respected*
on an equal basis or a deferential basis< "c# What would it take to satisfy
their face needs*approval face "self vs other# and:or boundary respect
"personal privacy vs group!based regulation# issues\ etc[< and "d# What
are the e}ective ways to practice appropriate facework interaction in this
particular situation<
Collaborative dialogue\ in a long!term negotiation session\ aims to
unfold common identity!need issues such as safety\ honor:dignity\ bound!
ary\ approval\ competence\ and meaning issues[ The more we learn to
display a genuine\ inquiring attitude\ the more we may uncover deep!
leveled\ common ground and common interests on the identity level[
After understanding the di}erent con~ict issues from all angles and with
particular mindful attention on the identity issues\ the two cultural teams
can then use the following substantive con~ict problem!solving sequences
comfortably] di}erentiation\ mutual problem description\ and integration
"Papa and Papa\ 0886#[ Di}erentiation refers to the importance of clari!
fying con~ict positions\ interests and goals and pursuing the underlying
reasons that underscore the positional di}erences[ Mutual problem
description refers to describing the con~ict situation in mutual terms\ and
each party trying to culturally constructs the con~ict in understandable
198
terms[ Lastly\ the integration phase includes] {{"0# displaying cooperative

tactics\ "1# generating alternative solutions\ "2# evaluating the positive and
negative aspects of each solution\ "3# selecting and clarifying the solution
to be implemented and "4# establishing a monitoring system to determine
if the solution is being implemented correctly|| "Papa and Papa\ 0886\ p[
044#[
Similarly\ Rothman "0886# recommends the following three techniques
in con~ict problem solving and creative resolution] di}erentiation\ expan!
sion and compensation[ Di}erentiation\ means di}erent perspectives and
voices are acknowledged[ Concurrently\ the di}erences are viewed as pieces
of a large puzzle that can be addressed di}erentially and yet still create a
shared outcome[ For example\ two disputants _ghting over an orange\
one wants the orange juice and the other wants the orange peel[ By
articulating their basic needs\ the disputants can divide the orange without
compromising or making unnecessary concessions[ Expansion\ means
attempts to enlarge the amount\ type\ or use of available resources "e[g[
using existing resources in innovative ways or _nding new resources# for
mutual gains[ For example\ the disputants may want to plant the orange
seeds and cultivate orange trees\ or they may want to mix resources "e[g[
water and fertile soil# for mutual gains[ By frequent cross!cutting activities
guided by superordinate goals\ intercultural disputants may also reduce
their rigid stereotypes of the other side and get closer to each other|s
humanity[ Lastly\ compensation\ means disputants can o}er exchanges
and concessions for issues and interests they value di}erently[ For example\
in the {{one orange|| case\ one disputant desperately needs the orange juice
to quench her thirst\ the other disputant is not in a hurry to use the orange
slices to bake his cake[ The _rst disputant may o}er the other disputant
some money "worth more than the price of a single orange# to compensate
for his time to go and buy another orange[ As Rothman "0886# notes]
{{Pieces of peace\ that one side may o}er the other in exchange for some!
thing else\ can be powerful in fostering con_dence and advancing the
constructive cycle of cooperation|| "p[ 53#[ Collaborative dialogue helps
the disputants come to recognize their positive interdependence[ With the
skillful coaching of an intercultural con~ict trainer\ con~ict parties may
learn to cultivate synergistic solutions through culture!sensitive facework
process and e}ective\ substantive dialogue[
Facework Competence Criteria[ Finally\ facework competence can be

evaluated along the lines of the following four criteria] appropriateness\
e}ectiveness\ adaptability\ and interaction satisfaction "Cupach and
Canary\ 0886^ Ting!Toomey\ 0883a\b\ 0886#[ Intercultural facework com!
petence refers to an optimal integration of knowledge\ mindfulness and
communication skills in managing identity!related facework issues appro!
109
priately\ e}ectively\ adaptively and satisfactorily from both parties| and

interested group members| viewpoints[
Appropriateness refers to the degree to which behaviors are regarded as
proper and match the expectations generated by the culture[ Intercultural
con~ict expectations entail understanding the cultural norms\ rules\ and
interaction scripts that constitute a con~ict episode[ E}ectiveness refers to
the degree to which the disputants achieve their personal interests or goals
in a given con~ict episode[ Goals refer to the outcomes that the con~ict
disputants desire to achieve[ In order to achieve desired outcomes\ dis!
putants have to be mindful of the con~ict rules and scripts that are in
operation in a given con~ict situation[
Using these two criteria\ we can de_ne intercultural facework com!
petence as the process of how two cultural individuals uphold the
impressions of appropriate and e}ective behaviors in a problematic\ inter!
personal situation[ Intercultural facework "and hence\ con~ict com!
petence# relies heavily on the perceptions of the disagreeing parties in
evaluating each other|s performance[ What may appear e}ective can be
viewed as ine}ective and inappropriate from another cultural context[
Likewise\ what may appear as appropriate in one cultural context can be
interpreted in another cultural context as inappropriate and ine}ective[
Since di}erent cultures may possess di}erent notions of facework com!
petence\ these di}erent interpretations further complicate our under!
standing of competent facework management[
Additionally\ interaction adaptability refers to our ability to display
adaptive verbal and non!verbal behaviors in the actual facework nego!
tiation process[ Interaction adaptability signals our willingness to modify
our own behaviors to adapt to the other person|s interaction styles[ Inter!
action adaptability requires cognitive\ a}ective\ and behavioral ~exibility[
It is also a powerful trust!generating mechanism in dealing with polarized
con~ict issues between the two con~ict teams[ By engaging in incremental
steps of risk and behavioral change\ con~ict parties are displaying good
faith in cultivating a peaceful\ working relationship with their opponents[
Incremental peacemaking process via behavioral modi_cation promotes
other!face respect[ Other!face respect can ultimately help substantive pea!
cemaking process[
Lastly\ the criterion of interaction satisfaction refers to the a}ective
reactions of the con~ict parties[ A}ective reactions can range from con!
tentment to discontentment\ positivity to negativity and {{at peace|| to {{at
war|| emotions[ When both con~ict parties experienced contentment "i[e[
their positive expectations have been ful_lled# at the exit stage of various
con~ict sessions\ the con~ict process and outcome are considered as sat!
isfactorily managed[ When both con~ict parties experienced dis!
contentment "i[e[ their positive expectations have been violated#\ the
con~ict process and outcome are considered as unsatisfactorily managed[
100
FIGURE 1. A Facework Competence Model: Composite Dimensions Stella Ting-Toomey.

All Rights Reserved. 1998.
All four criteria*appropriateness\ e}ectiveness\ adaptability\ and sat!

isfaction*contribute to a holistic evaluation of intercultural facework
competence[ Figure 0 is a graphic representation of the applied dimensions
and criteria of the facework competence model[
TRAINING AND RESEARCH ISSUES] AN EPILOGUE

To utilize the facework competence model for training\ trainers need to
pay attention to the following four issues] "0# training objectives\ "1#
audience analysis\ "2# program design and "3# training methods:activities[
To research and test the updated face!negotiation theory and its com!
panion facework competence model\ researchers need to pay close atten!
tion to the following _ve themes] "0# establishing conceptual equivalence
in face and facework concepts across cultures\ "1# delineating speci_c
con~ict styles in di}erent ethnic groups and cultures\ "2# investigating the
role of a}ect in facework and con~ict negotiation process\ "3# researching
facework competence dimensions and "4# researching facework criteria
dimensions[
101
Trainin` Issues
Four training issues that are derived from the face!negotiation theory
and the facework competence model are reviewed here[
Training Objectives[ The face!negotiation theory and its companion

model\ the facework competence model\ are designed for trainers to use in
training sessions on topics such as] transcultural competence\ intercultural
miscommunication\ intercultural con~ict management\ intercultural con!
~ict mediation and business:diplomatic:classroom con~ict negotiation[
By having a good grasp of the theory and the competence model\
trainees\ upon completion of the training program "e[g[ a 1!day training
program on {{Managing Intercultural Con~ict||# should be able to] "0#
de_ne culture\ face\ and facework competence^ "1# understand the impact
of individualismcollectivism and power distance on the meaning of face
and facework^ "2# recognize the role of facework in intercultural con~ict^
"3# identify the core characteristics of the {{I!Identity|| vs the {{We!Identity||
facework model "Table 1#^ "4# analyse facework miscommunication in
individualistic and collectivistic cultures^ "5# analyse facework mis!
communication in small and large power distance cultures^ "6# identify
appropriate and e}ective facework strategies to deal with problematic\
intercultural con~ict episodes^ and "7# acquire speci_c interaction skills
"Fig[ 0# to manage intercultural con~icts productively[
Audience Analysis[ In any good training session\ audience analysis is a
must[ Trainers have to learn ahead of time] "a# Who will be there*a
multinational audience\ a homogenous audience\ people from the same
company\ people from di}erent companies< "b# What are their expec!
tations< What are their needs and wants< What are the expectations of
the sponsoring organization< "c# Do trainees have previous intercultural
training experience< "d# What are their incentives or motivations in par!
ticipating in the training program< "e# In what contexts do they wish to
apply their training knowledge and skills< "f# What strengths and limi!
tations the trainers have in facilitating the trainees learning process< "g#
How can the trainers best prepare themselves in utilizing the face!nego!
tiation theory to address the trainees| needs on their level<
In conducting an honest audience!trainer assessment\ the trainers should
realize their own strengths and weaknesses in approaching the training
program[ They should do intensive background readings to thoroughly
familiarize themselves with the face!negotiation theory and the com!
petence model "past and new versions\ plus other related theories#[ Trainers
can use the facework competence model on themselves _rst\ that means
acquiring _rst!hand knowledge of concepts and theories that are critical
to any intercultural trainers[ They should have classical and contemporary
102
intercultural theories at their _nger tips in order to answer any {{sneak

attack|| questions from their audience[ They should also be well!informed
and well!equipped with context!speci_c knowledge "e[g[ via trade journals
and internet sources# and cultural region knowledge in which the trainees
desire to apply their new!found knowledge and skills[
Program Design[ The design of a training program is the structural

framework which carries and integrates the various intercultural theories\
concepts\ and activities coherently[ Program design emphasizes when to
sequence what knowledge blocks and activities\ in what priorities\ in order
to facilitate optimal learning process in the training session[ Program
design is about training objectives\ audience analysis\ trainer expertise\
learning styles\ content\ process\ timing and rhythm issues[
A good theory or a set of theorettes can help to provide coherence
and direction to the design of the training program[ In using the face!
negotiation theory and facework competence model to train\ the ideal
training program is two full days[ Day 0 training "morning session#
emphasizes cultural values of individualismcollectivism and small!large
power distance[ Trainees should have an opportunity to examine their
own cultural values\ their personal self values and their workplace values[
They should also have an opportunity to analyse the values of another
cultural region in which they intend to conduct their intercultural trans!
actions[ Day 0 afternoon session typically moves to general issues of
intercultural miscommunication and misunderstanding[ Language\ face!
work verbal styles\ and facework non!verbal styles "see the updated face!
negotiation theory section# constitute some of the training topics[
Additionally\ concepts such as ethnocentrism and stereotyping in acting
as cultural _lters are interwoven into the topics[
Day 1 morning gets to the theme of the program\ managing intercultural
con~ict\ in a more speci_c manner[ Day 1 is typically devoted to under!
standing the {{mindfulness dimension|| and practicing the {{interaction
skills| dimension|| as identi_ed in the facework competence model[ The
morning session is typically devoted to understanding the di}erences
between mindful communication and mindless communication in con~ict
negotiation process[ Various con~ict goal issues such as identity\
relational\ process and substantive goals are de_ned[ Trainees are invited
to think of speci_c intercultural con~ict cases in which they can analyse the
di}erent con~ict goals and needs from the {{I!Identity|| or {{We!Identity||
con~ict model "Table 1#[ They are also encouraged to search for synergistic
options and solutions to the real!life con~ict problems via mindful process
skills and substantive dialogue skills[ Divergent thinking or sideways
thinking is also facilitated via various creativity exercises[ Additionally\
speci_c interaction skills such as the mindful listening skills and col!
laborative dialogue skills are being practiced and coached[ Finally\ Day 1
103
afternoon typically ends with an intergroup con~ict simulation exercise*

for the purpose of pulling together the cognitive\ a}ective and the
behavioral dimensions of learning[
Trainin` Methods:Activities
Beyond presenting mini!lectures on the core concepts of the face!nego!
tiation theory and the facework competence model\ we have used facework
parables "Augsburger\ 0881#\ frame games "Thiagarajan\ 0884#\ self!assess!
ments\ critical incidents\ contrastive role!play\ video clips and various
intergroup simulations to highlight the di}erent components of the face!
negotiation model[ We have developed original exercises and activities to
engage trainees| understanding of intercultural facework competence on
the cognitive\ a}ective\ and behavioral level[ Additionally\ trainers can
glean many useful insights from the many excellent volumes that have
been published on training models\ methods\ exercises\ and activities in
the last 09 years "Brislin and Yoshida\ 0883a\b^ Cushner and Brislin\ 0882^
Fowler and Mumford\ 0884^ Landis and Bhagat\ 0885^ Paige\ 0882#[ Some
of these volumes "Fowler and Mumford\ 0884^ Paige\ 0882# also include
thoughtful articles that probe the pros and cons of di}erent training
methods\ and the sequencing of such methods in the overall training
design[
More speci_cally\ in our own training:teaching of facework competence\
we have used some of the following activities[ For example\ we have
adapted and used critical incidents*incident No[ 17 "{{Rooming in!or
Out||#\ No[ 49 "{{The Immigration O.cer||#\ No[ 69 "{{Transmitting Infor!
mation on Transmission Systems||#\ No[ 84 "{{Failing to Appear at the
Appointed Time||# from Cushner and Brislin|s "0885# Intercultural Inter!
actions] A Practical Guide\ 1nd ed[ We have used contrastive role!play
exercises "using co!trainers or enthusiastic multinational trainees# to dem!
onstrate key ideas in the face!negotiation theory "e[g[ role!play a per!
formance review session between superior and subordinate interaction*
with two members role!playing di}erent facework behaviors of sub!
ordinates from two contrastive cultures#[ We have used various video clips\
for example\ from Joy Luck Club "the {{Chinese dinner|| scene# and Mr[
Baseball "the {{business card exchange in Narita airport|| scene#\ to illumi!
nate the face!negotiation theory[
Additionally\ we have used AlphaOmega Intergroup Simulation
"Hoppe et al[\ 0884# and Global Interlink Simulation "Ting!Toomey\ 0885#
to engage trainees| a}ective learning process[ Through some of these
simulations\ trainees experience contrastive facework behaviors\ the
a}ective tendency of stereotyping and ethnocentrism\ the relationship
between values and interaction styles\ and their polarized positions on
di}erent con~ict goals[ In a short simulation session "i[e[ 34019 min#\
104
learning implications are drawn in order to move trainees from the eth!
nocentric level to the ethnorelative level "Bennett\ 0882# of thinking and
re~ection[ In a long simulation session "i[e[ 13 h#\ trainees are coached to
practice the mindfulness and interaction skills| dimensions of the facework
competence model[ Representatives of the simulated groups are invited
to re!negotiate their di}erences "the simulation moves towards role!play
demonstration in front of other trainees# to a mutually!satisfying\ win!win
outcome "see collaborative dialogue section#[
More importantly\ many of these experiential activities need to be
framed in a culture!sensitive manner\ because\ many trainees "e[g[ from
collectivistic\ large power distance cultures# from other cultures may not
be comfortable with experiential mode of learning "Hofstede\ 0875^ Ting!
Toomey\ 0878#[ Creating a supportive\ safe environment in the training
program on Day 0 is critical for more challenging issues and exercises "e[g[
a simulation# to surface on Day 1[ With some coaching\ good humor and
face!support encouragement\ most trainees are able to enjoy the diverse
training methods that are being o}ered in an intercultural training
program[ More importantly\ trainees should have the options to play other
roles "e[g[ an ethnographer role# if they feel uncomfortable in participating
in any of the experiential exercises[ Finally\ the debrie_ng phase is the
most critical in the use of any training exercises and activities[ Without
thorough debrie_ng in relationship to some meaningful intercultural the!
ories and constructs\ the impact of any exercise will be lost immediately[
The debrie_ng phase should be approximately twice as long "especially
after a simulation game# as the actual {{playing|| of the game[
The following debrie_ng questions from {{Thiagi|| "Thiagarajan\ 0884#
may help in the debrie_ng of a training activity] "0# How do you feel<*
the purpose of this phase is to give the players an opportunity to let o}
steam and be more objective in the later debrie_ng phases^ "1# What
happened "and why did it happen#<*the purpose is to collect data about
what happened during the simulation or exercise^ "2# What did you
learn<*the purpose is to encourage the players to come up with general
principles or hypotheses from their simulation experiences^ "3# How does
this relate to the real world<*the purpose is to encourage a discussion of
the relevance of the simulation to the real!world workplace^ "4# What
if [ [ [ <*the purpose is to speculate what would happen if the rules or
the conditions in the simulation were changed^ and "5# What next<*the
purpose of this _nal debrie_ng phase is to facilitate action planning and
to encourage the trainees to use their insights to come up with appropriate
and e}ective responses in their behaviors[
In conducting any exercise or training activity\ factors such as train!
ing:learning objectives\ training design\ trainers| expertise\ audience
pro_le\ comfort zone\ trust!risk learning process\ and available resources
"training support\ time\ budget and site# should be taken into consider!
105
ation[ Lastly\ an ethical trainer is one who is professionally prepared\

culturally sensitive\ respectful and inclusive of the di}erent viewpoints and
experiences of the trainees[ She or he is a lifelong learner who is ready to
learn diverse theories\ designs\ and training methods in enhancing her or
his learning journey[ She or he is willing to share resources and mentor
others in the learning process[ We will now turn to a brief discussion of
the research themes revolving around the face!negotiation theory[
Research Themes
Five research themes in testing the updated face!negotiation theory and
the facework competence model are presented here[
Conceptual Equivalence Theme[ Conceptual equivalence is extremely

important to the future theorizing process of face and facework[ Con!
ceptual equivalence involves the common meanings people attach to the
same constructs "e[g[ face and competence# in di}erent cultures "Lonner\
0868#[ To achieve cross!cultural conceptual equivalence\ it is important
_rst to determine the {{ethnographic vocabularies|| "i[e[ salient terms
related to face# and the {{multidimensional meanings|| of face in various
cultures[ Ethnographic open!ended interviews "Spradley\ 0868#\ densely!
described contrastive case study method "Tracy and Baratz\ 0883#\ dis!
course analysis method "Tracy\ 0889#\ videotaped interaction method "Sil!
lars\ 0880# and retrospective self!report method "Metts et al[\ 0880# are
some methods that can get at the deeper {{net meaning|| of face[ Such
studies are necessary to identify commonalities and di}erences in con!
ceptualizing face\ and subsequently\ facework strategies[ To engage in
these open!ended\ qualitative methods\ researchers need to be ~uent
bilinguals of the di}erent cultures or choose to work with other bilinguals
collaboratively[
The theme of conceptual equivalence is critical in the study of face and
facework because without mapping the various domains\ dimensions and
meanings of face\ we cannot conceptualize the systematic relationship
among face\ facework and con~ict styles in a coherent manner[ While
the face!negotiation theory has utilized the dimensions of individualism
collectivism and power distance as a starting theorizing point\ the more
we understand the multidimensional meanings of face in di}erent cultures\
the more we can re_ne the explanatory value between face and facework[
Future research also needs to work on the measurement issues of {{self!
face|| behaviors\ {{other!face|| behaviors\ and {{mutual!face|| behaviors[
Concepts like horizontal facework and vertical facework need to be oper!
ationalized via derived!etic measures[ Additionally\ facework threshold
level and expectancy violations| level from a situational!speci_c approach
should be integrated systematically in the face!negotiation theory[ Face!
106
work is a situated communication construct[ The more we delineate the

situational boundaries that surround facework enactment\ the more we
increase the explanatory power of facework and facework competence[
Con~ict Styles| Theme[ The theoretical underpinnings of the existing

_ve con~ict styles "i[e[ integrating\ compromising\ dominating\ avoiding\
obliging^ Rahim\ 0872\ 0881^ Thomas and Kilmann\ 0867# continue to be
re~ective of a Western!based approach in handling con~icts[ As discussed
in the face!negotiation theory section\ the con~ict styles of integrating "i[e[
high concern for self!interest and other!interest# and compromising styles
"i[e[ mid!point concessions and trade!o}s# can serve di}erent meanings
and functions in di}erent cultures[ Additionally\ the avoidance con~ict
style has been conceptualized by Western researchers as a con~ict style
that is re~ective of {{low concern for self!interest\ and\ other!interest[||
However\ the avoidance con~ict style has been reframed by Ting!Toomey
"0877^ Ting!Toomey et al[\ 0880# as a style that is re~ective of {{high
concern for self! and other!face[|| In many collectivistic cultures\ because
of their emphasis on using avoiding:obliging style to preserve relational
harmony and fellowship\ the style is often viewed as a {{mutual!face||
protection style in warding o} direct facework threat and embarrassment[
Furthermore\ Ting!Toomey et al[ "in press# uncovered three additional
con~ict styles "i[e[ emotional expression\ neglect\ and third!party help#
that have not been covered in many existing intercultural con~ict styles|
literature[ It is obvious that an indigenous\ cultural approach to uncover!
ing a richer set of con~ict styles is sorely needed[ In the existing con~ict
styles| literature\ con~ict instruments are con_ned to measuring verbal
ways of dealing with con~icts to the neglect of the non!verbal means of
signalling displeasure or frustration[ Operational items that measure the
identity and relational facets of con~ict styles\ in conjunction with the
substantive facet of con~ict\ are needed to _ne!tune our understanding of
the facework!related con~ict process[
Finally\ more studies are needed to compare di}erent types of con~ict
in di}erent types of relationships in di}erent ethnic groups\ and in di}erent
cultures[ By understanding the various con~ict style patterns and tend!
encies in outgroup vs ingroup relationships\ non!intimate vs intimate
relationships\ unequal!status vs equal!status relationships\ and opposite!
sex vs same!sex relationships across a diverse range of cultures\ we may
then develop a more coherent\ derived!etic theory of intercultural con~ict
styles[ While the face!negotiation theory serves as a good initial framework
for the understanding of the relationship among face\ facework and con!
~ict styles\ the theory is still in its infancy stage of development[
More collaborative work between researchers\ and between researchers
and practitioners of con~ict may help to _ne!tune the theory on the criteria
of explanatory power and heuristic power[ Ethnorelative measurements
107
on both facework strategies and con~ict styles are critically needed in

testing the explanatory power of the theory[
Affect Theme[ Two emotions which may indicate the salience of face in
a particular situation are pride and shame[ According to Sche} "0889#\ all
human beings desire secure social bonds via approval and inclusion[ Since
face involves the need for approval and inclusion\ respect for face is one
way to maintain secure social bonds and disrespect for face is a re~ection
of broken social bonds[ Thus\ pride and shame communicate the state of
our social bond to the self and the other[ Pride and shame then would be
associated with both self! and other!face[
It seems logical to reason that shame is experienced when face is thre!
atened and pride is restored when face is enhanced[ The emotions of pride\
shame\ acceptance\ rejection\ approval\ contempt\ respect\ depreciation\
dignity and disgust\ form some of the critical facework emotions[ They
are responses generated in reaction to others and related to the a}ective
evaluations of the {{self||[ More collaborative research e}orts are needed to
identify the emotional responses in face!threatening and face!restoration
con~ict episodes in di}erent cultures[ The {{self|| and hence\ {{face||\ are
strongly linked to a wide range of emotional repertoires that merit more
in!depth research investigations[
Facework Dimensions| Theme[ In the facework competence model\ the
three dimensions of knowledge\ mindfulness and interaction skills have
been identi_ed as the core dimensions to intercultural facework
competence[ Triandis "0884# observes that di}erent types and forms of
individualism and collectivism\ exist in di}erent cultures and ethnic
groups[ Future research work needs to di}erentiate types of indi!
vidualism:collectivism in combination with di}erent degrees of power
distance and to assess their conjoint e}ect on facework enactment[ For
example\ Middle Eastern facework enactment on the face!related a}ective
theme "e[g[ more expressive# may be quite di}erent from the Asian enact!
ment of face!related emotions "e[g[ more understated#[ Concurrently\ more
theorizing e}ort is needed to {{decategorize|| the colossal concepts of
{{individualism|| and {{collectivism|| "e[g[ along ingroup:outgroup con!
centric boundary issues# into _ner culture!level\ explanatory categories[
Culture!level explanatory concepts are necessary in conducting meaningful
intercultural!level communication studies[
Beyond tackling the {{big concepts|| such as {{individualism|| and {{col!
lectivism||\ another intriguing research concept on the mid!range level
involves the concept of {{mindfulness||[ Is {{mindfulness|| a trait issue\ a
situational issue\ or a competence issue< What are the conceptual dimen!
sions and the factor structures of {{mindfulness||< In relating mindfulness
with facework competence\ what are the implications of facework com!
108
petence between two mindful communicators\ compared to facework

interaction between two mindless communicators\ or between one mindful
and one mindless interactant< Although the facework competence model
proposes that knowledge is the key to mindfulness and interaction skills\
only well!crafted pre! and post!training assessments "in comparison to a
control group# with a longitudinal design can con_rm this prediction[
Lastly\ although the interaction skills dimension has covered _ve skills
which we believe are essential to competent facework management\ they
are not meant to be an exhaustive list[ Con~ict researchers and trainers
from other cultural regions will\ no doubt\ have their preferred list of
interaction skills for researching and training in facework competence[
Facework Criteria Theme[ Under the criteria section\ we have identi_ed

the four criteria of appropriateness\ e}ectiveness\ mutual adaptation and
mutual satisfaction for evaluating intercultural facework competence[
Other criteria may be added in the future to re~ect the facework concerns
of di}erent cultural regions[
Many intercultural researchers "Koester et al[\ 0882^ Lustig and Spitz!
berg\ 0882^ Martin\ 0882# have already commented on the general theor!
etical and methodological issues in studying intercultural communication
competence "ICC#[ Some of the same ICC issues also confront facework
competence research[ For example\ what is the appropriate unit of analysis
for analysing facework competence< From whose viewpoint should we
evaluate facework competence< Where is facework competence located "in
knowledge\ mindfulness and:or interaction skills#< When is the best time
to measure facework competence "episodic and:or longitudinal#< What is
the role of ethics in conducting facework competence research or training<
In answering the last question\ intercultural researchers who study face!
work competence issues in other cultures are always faced with a set
of ethical dilemmas[ As Lustig and Spitzberg "0882# comment] {{Moral
absolutism*a stance that asserts that a single prescriptive set of beliefs\
values\ norms and behaviors are [ [ [ universally held*is clearly untenable!
[ [ [ Alternatively\ however\ a stance asserting moral relativism\ and there!
fore a tendency toward non!judgemental acceptance of all possible beliefs
and behaviors\ creates problems in attempting to accommodate incom!
mensurable worldviews[ The limits of cultural relativism are often con!
fronted when some belief or behavior in another culture directly violates
a fundamental ethical principle that is central to the researcher|s personal
code of moral integrity||\ "p[ 055#[
The concept of {{moral inclusion|| "Opotow\ 0889a# may help to answer
the question of the role of {{ethics|| in conducting facework competence
research or training[ Moral inclusion expands the scope of justice or
fairness to include all individuals in the larger human family[ The following
are some general ethical guidelines for researchers and trainers in prac!
119
ticing a morally inclusive stance in their facework research and training[

Ethical researchers:trainers] "0# apply respect and fairness to all other
identity groups\ and are willing to invoke human dignity in self and others
on an equal basis^ "1# hold the view that con~icts are opportunities for
learning^ "2# ready to integrate diverse perspectives*so that the processes
are culture!sensitive and that solutions include mutually agreed!upon pro!
cedures^ "3# role model the facework competence interaction skills^ "4#
make mindful choices of actions and are aware of the consequences in
response to the cultural:situational contingencies of the problematic cul!
tural practice^ "5# hold genuine belief of the {{we|| group as incorporating
individuals from all walks of life*on a truly universal\ human identity
level^ and "6# assume social responsibility to create a morally inclusive
community "Opotow\ 0889a\b#[
In summary\ the motif\ human dignity\ is viewed as a universal face!
right phenomenon[ It is through respect for the basic dignity of each and
every human being\ regardless of race\ ethnicity\ gender orientation\ and
culture\ that a morally inclusive community can be developed[ As Peck
"0876# observes] {{The spirit of a true community is the spirit of peace[
When a group enters an inclusive community there is a dramatic change
in spirit[ And the new spirit is palpable[ [ [ [ An utterly new quietness
descends on the group[ People seem to speak more quietly^ yet\ strangely\
their voices seem to carry better through the room[ [ [ [ The people listen
and can hear|| "p[ 65#[ An inclusive community is a peaceful community
that engages in active human!dignity support work[ It does not mean that
con~icts do not exist[ It means\ however\ voices of diversity are being
a.rmed and understood[
In a global study of face and con~ict styles\ we need collaborative e}orts
among multinational researchers and trainers\ to assess the functional
equivalences "i[e[ searching for the equivalent {{existence|| of the concepts
at the macro or cultural level# of face\ facework and con~ict styles in a wide
range of situations[ Such research must involve pluralistic comparative
research methods in eliciting the functions\ terms\ metaphors\ parables\
meanings\ situations and emotions of face and facework behaviors[ Lastly\
collaborative dialogue among researchers and practitioners from di}erent
cultural regions is critical\ in developing an inclusive understanding of the
theoretical and pragmatic relationships\ concerning face and facework
dynamics in multiple arenas[
REFERENCES
Augsburger\ D[ "0881#[ Con~ict mediation across cultures[ Louisville\ KT]
Westminster:John Knox Press[
Berry\ J[ W[\ Kim\ U[\ + Boski\ P[ "0876#[ Psychological acculturation of immi!
110
grants[ In Y[ Y[ Kim and W[ Gudykunst "Eds#\ Cross!cultural adaptation]

Current approaches[ Newbury Park\ CA] Sage[
Bennett\ M[ "0882#[ Towards ethnorelativism] A developmental model of inter!
cultural sensitivity[ In M[ Paige "Ed[#\ Education for the intercultural experience[
Yarmouth\ Maine] Intercultural Press[
Bond\ M[ "0880#[ Beyond the Chinese face[ Hong Kong] Oxford University Press[
Brislin\ R[\ + Yoshida\ T[ "0883a#[ Intercultural communication trainin`] An intro!
duction[ Thousand Oaks\ CA] Sage[
Brislin\ R[\ + Yoshida\ T[ "Eds# "0883b#[ Improvin` intercultural interactions]
Modules for cross!cultural trainin` pro`rams[ Thousand Oaks\ CA] Sage[
Brown\ B[ "0866#[ Face!saving and face!restoration in negotiation[ In D[ Druck!
man "Ed[#\ Neòtiations] Social!psycholoìcal perspectives[ Beverly Hills\ CA]
Sage[
Brown\ P[\ + Levinson\ S[ "0876#[ Politeness] Some universals in lanùaè usaè[
Cambridge] Cambridge University Press[
Chua\ E[\ + Gudykunst\ W[ "0876#[ Con~ict resolution styles in low! and high!
context cultures[ Communication Research Reports\ 4\ 2126[
Cocroft\ B[\ + Ting!Toomey\ S[ "0883#[ Facework in Japan and the United States[
International Journal of Intercultural Relations\ 07\ 358495[
Conrad\ C[ "0880#[ Communication in con~ict] Style!strategy relationships[ Com!
munication Mono`raphs\ 47\ 024044[
Csikszentmihalyi\ M[ "0885#[ Creativity] Flow and the psycholo`y of discovery and
invention[ New York] Harper!Collins Publishers[
Cupach\ W[\ + Canary\ D[ "Eds# "0886#[ Competence in interpersonal con~ict[ New
York] McGraw!Hill[
Cushner\ K[\ + Brislin\ R[ "Eds[# "0882#[ Intercultural interactions] A practical
ùide\ 1nd ed[ Thousand Oaks\ CA] Sage[
Fairhurst\ G[\ Green\ S[\ + Snavely\ B[K[ "0873#[ Face support in controlling poor
performance[ Human Communication Research\ 00\ 161184[
Fisher\ R[\ + Brown\ S[ "0877#[ Gettin` toèther] Buildin` relationships as we
neòtiate[ New York] Penguin[
Folger\ J[\ Poole\ M[\ + Stutman\ R[ "0886#[ Workin` throu`h con~ict] Strateìes
for relationships\ `roups\ and orànizations\ 2rd ed[ New York] Longman[
Fowler\ S[\ + Mumford\ M[ "Eds[# "0884#[ Intercultural sourcebook] Cross!cultural
trainin` methods[ Yarmouth\ Maine] Intercultural Press[
Garcia\ W[ "0885#[ Respeto] A Mexican base for interpersonal relationships[ In W[
Gudykunst\ S[ Ting!Toomey and T[ Nishida "Eds[#\ Communication in personal
relationships across cultures[ Thousand Oaks\ CA] Sage[
Gudykunst\ W[\ Matsumoto\ Y[\ Ting!Toomey\ S[\ Nishida\ T[\ Kim\ K[ S[\ +
Heyman\ S[ "0885#[ The in~uence of cultural individualismcollectivism\ self
construals\ and individual values on communication styles across cultures[
Human Communication Research\ 11\ 409432[
Gudykunst\ W[\ + Ting!Toomey\ S[ "0877#[ Culture and interpersonal communi!
cation[ Newbury Park\ CA] Sage[
Hammer\ M[\ + Rogan\ R[ "0886#[ Negotiation models in crisis situations] The
value of a communication!based approach[ In R[ Rogan\ M[ Hammer\ and C[
Van Zandt "Eds[#\ Dynamic processes of crisis neòtiation] Theory\ research\ and
practice[ Westport\ CT] Praeger[
111
Ho\ D[ "0883#[ Face dynamics] From conceptualization to measurement[ In S[

Ting!Toomey "Ed[#\ The challenè of facework[ Albany\ NY] State University
of New York Press[
Hofstede\ G[ "0875#[ Cultural di}erences in teaching and learning[ International
Journal of Intercultural Relations\ 09\ 290208[
Hofstede\ G[ "0880#[ Cultures and orànizations] Software of the mind[ London]
McGraw!Hill[
Holtgraves\ T[ "0886#[ Styles of language usage] Individual and cultural variability
in conversational indirectness[ Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo`y\ 62\
513526[
Hoppe\ A[\ Michalis\ D[\ + Reinking\ T[ "0884#[ AlphaOmega intergroup nego!
tiation simulation[ In S[ Sudweeks and R[ Guzley "Eds[#\ Instructors| resource
manual for Buildin` Bridès[ Boston] Houghton!Mi/in[
Katriel\ T[ "0875#[ Talkin` strai`ht] Du`ri speech in Israeli Sabra culture[ Cam!
bridge] Cambridge University Press[
Kim\ M[S[ "0883#[ Cross!cultural comparisons of the perceived importance of
conversation constraints[ Human Communication Research\ 10\ 017040[
Kim\ M[S[\ Sharkey\ W[\ + Singelis\ T[ "0883#[ The relationship between indi!
vidual|s self!construals and perceived importance of interactive constraints[
International Journal of Intercultural Relations\ 07\ 006039[
Kim\ M[S[\ + Wilson\ S[ "0883#[ A cross!cultural comparison of implicit theories
of requesting[ Communication Mono`raphs\ 50\ 109124[
Kitayama\ S[\ Markus\ H[\ Matsumoto\ H[\ + Norasakkunkit\ V[ "0886#[ Indi!
vidual and collective processes in the construction of the self] Self!enhancement
in the United States and self!criticism in Japan[ Journal of Personality and Social
Psycholo`y\ 61\ 01340156[
Koester\ J[\ Wiseman\ R[\ + Sanders\ J[ "0882#[ Multiple perspectives of inter!
cultural communication competence[ In R[ Wiseman and J[ Koester "Eds[#\
Intercultural communication competence[ Newbury Park\ CA] Sage[
Kurogi\ A[ "0885\ March#[ Face!neòtiation process in Japanese instructor!U[S[
students| interaction in Japanese lanùaè instruction classrooms[ Paper presented
at the Culture and Communication convention\ Fullerton\ CA[
Kurogi\ A[ "0886\ March#[ An analysis of Japanese lanùaè and communication]
A face!neòtiation perspective[ Paper presented at the Individualistic and Col!
lectivistic Perspectives on Communication convention\ Fullerton\ CA[
Landis\ D[\ + Bhagat\ R[ "Eds[# "0885#[ Handbook of intercultural trainin`\ 1nd ed[
Thousand Oaks\ CA] Sage[
Langer\ E[ "0878#[ Mindfulness[ Reading\ MA] Addison!Wesley[
Langer\ E[ "0886#[ The power of mindful learnin`[ Reading\ MA] Addison!Wesley[
Lim\ T[!S[\ + Choi\ S[ H[ "0885#[ Interpersonal relationships in Korea[ In W[
Gudykunst\ S[ Ting!Toomey and T[ Nishida "Eds[#\ Communication in personal
relationships across cultures[ Thousand Oaks\ CA] Sage[
Lindsley\ S[\ + Braithwaite\ C[ "0885#[ {{You should {wear a mask{ ||] Facework
norms in cultural and intercultural con~ict in Maquiladoras[ International Jour!
nal of Intercultural Relations\ 19\ 088114[
Lonner\ W[ "0868#[ Issues in cross!cultural psychology[ In A[ Marsella\ A[ Tharp\
and T[ Cobrowski "Eds[#\ Perspectives in cross!cultural psycholo`y[ New York]
Academic Press[
112
Luhtanen\ R[\ + Crocker\ B[ "0881#[ A collective self!esteem scale] Self!evaluation

of one|s social identity[ Personality and Social Psycholo`y Bulletin\ 07\ 207219[
Lustig\ M[\ + Spitzberg\ B[ "0882#[ Methodological issues in the study of inter!
cultural communication competence[ In R[ Wiseman and J[ Koester "Eds[#\
Intercultural communication competence[ Newbury Park\ CA] Sage[
Markus\ H[\ + Kitayama\ S[ "0880#[ Culture and the self] Implications for
cognition\ emotion\ and motivation[ Psycholoìcal Review\ 1\ 113142[
Markus\ H[\ + Kitayama\ S[ "0883#[ A collective fear of the collective] Implications
for selves and theories of selves[ Personality and Social Psycholo`y Bulletin\ 19\
457468[
Martin\ J[ "0882#[ Intercultural communication competence] A review[ In R[ Wise!
man and J[ Koester "Eds[#\ Intercultural communication competence[ Newbury
Park\ CA] Sage[
Metts\ S[\ Sprecher\ S[\ + Cupach\ W[ "0880#[ Retrospective self!reports[ In B[
Montgomery and S[ Duck "Eds[#\ Studyin` interpersonal interaction[ New York]
Guilford[
Morisaki\ S[\ + Gudykunst\ W[ "0883#[ Face in Japan and the United States[ In S[
Ting!Toomey "Ed[#\ The challenè of facework[ Albany\ NY] State University
of New York Press[
Oetzel\ J[ G[\ + Bolton!Oetzel\ K[ "0886#[ Exploring the relationship between self!
construal and dimensions of group e}ectiveness[ Manaèment Communication
Quarterly\ 09\ 178204[
Opotow\ S[ "0889a#[ Moral exclusion and injustice] An introduction[ Journal of
Social Issues\ 35\ 019[
Opotow\ S[ "0889b#[ Deterring moral exclusion[ Journal of Social Issues\ 35\ 062
071[
Paige\ R[ M[ "Ed[# "0882#[ Education for the intercultural experience[ Yarmouth\
Maine] Intercultural Press[
Papa\ M[\ + Papa\ W[ "0886#[ Competence in organizational con~icts[ In W[
Cupach and D[ Canary "Eds[#\ Competence in interpersonal con~ict[ New York]
McGraw!Hill[
Peck\ S[ "0876#[ The different drum] Community makin` and peace[ New York]
Simon and Schuster[
Rahim\ M[ A[ "0872#[ A measure of styles of handling interpersonal con~ict[
Academy of Manaèment Journal\ 15\ 257265[
Rahim\ M[ A[ "0881#[ Manaìn` con~ict in orànizations\ 1nd ed[ Westport\ CT]
Praeger[
Rothman\ J[ "0886#[ Resolvin` identity!based con~ict in nations\ orànizations\ and
communities[ San Francisco\ Jossey!Bass[
Sche}\ T[ "0889#[ Microsociolo`y] Discourse\ emotion\ and social structure[ Chicago]
University of Chicago Press[
Schneiderman\ S[ "0884#[ Savin` face] America and the politics of shame[ New
York] Alfred A[ Knopf[
Schwartz\ S[\ + Bilsky\ W[ "0889#[ Toward a theory of the universal content and
structure of values[ Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo`y\ 47\ 767780[
Scollon\ R[\ + Scollon\ S[ W[ "0884#[ Intercultural communication] A discourse
approach[ Oxford\ U[K[] Blackwell[
113
Sillars\ A[ "0880#[ Behavioral observation[ In B[ Montgomery and S[ Duck "Eds[#\

Studyin` interpersonal interaction[ New York] Guilford[
Singelis\ T[\ + Brown\ W[ "0884#[ Culture\ self\ and collectivist communication]
Linking culture to individual behavior[ Human Communication Research\ 10\
243278[
Spradley\ J[ "0868#[ The ethno`raphic interview[ New York] Holt\ Rinehart and
Winston[
Thiagarajan\ S[ "0884#[ Games and simulations for multicultural trainin` reader[
The Summer Institute for Intercultural Communication\ Portland\ OR[
Thich\ N[ H[ "0880#[ Peace is every step] The path of mindfulness in everyday life[
New York] Bantam Books[
Thomas\ K[\ + Kilmann\ R[ "0863#[ Thomas!Kilmann Con~ict MODE Instrument[
Tuxedo\ NY] Xicom[
Ting!Toomey\ S[ "0874#[ Toward a theory of con~ict and culture[ In W[ Gudy!
kunst\ L[ Stewart\ and S[ Ting!Toomey "Eds[#[ Communication\ culture\ and
orànizational processes[ Beverly Hills\ CA] Sage[
Ting!Toomey\ S[ "0877#[ Intercultural con~ict styles] A face!negotiation theory[
In Y[Y[ Kim and W[ Gudykunst "Eds[#\ Theories in intercultural communication[
Newbury Park\ CA] Sage[
Ting!Toomey\ S[ "0878#[ Intergroup communication and simulation in low! and
high!context cultures[ In D[ Crookall and D[ Sanders "Eds[#\ Communication
and simulation] From two _elds to one theme[ Clevedon\ England] Multilingual
Matters[
Ting!Toomey\ S[ "0883a#[ Managing intercultural con~icts e}ectively[ In L[ Samo!
var and R[ Porter "Eds[#\ Intercultural communication] A reader\ 6th ed[ Belmont\
CA] Wadsworth[
Ting!Toomey\ S[ "0883b#[ Managing con~ict in intimate intercultural relationships[
In D[ Cahn "Ed[#\ Intimate con~ict in personal relationships[ Hillsdale\ NJ]
Lawrence Erlbaum[
Ting!Toomey\ S[ "Ed[# "0883c#[ The challenè of facework] Cross!cultural and
interpersonal issues[ Albany\ NY] State University of New York Press[
Ting!Toomey\ S[ "0883d#[ Communicative resourcefulness] An identity negotiation
perspective[ In R[ Wiseman and J[ Koester "Eds[#\ Intercultural communication
competence[ Newbury Park\ CA] Sage[
Ting!Toomey\ S[ "0885#[ Global interlink simulation[ Unpublished manuscript\
California State University at Fullerton[
Ting!Toomey\ S[ "0886#[ Intercultural con~ict competence[ In W[ Cupach and D[
Canary "Eds[#\ Competence in interpersonal con~ict[ New York] McGraw!Hill[
Ting!Toomey\ S[\ + Cole\ M[ "0889#[ Intergroup diplomatic communication] A
face!negotiation perspective[ In F[ Korzenny and S[ Ting!Toomey "Eds[#\ Com!
municatin` for peace] Diplomacy and neòtiation[ Newbury Park\ CA] Sage[
Ting!Toomey\ S[\ Gao\ G[\ Trubisky\ P[\ Yang\ Z[\ Kim\ H[ S[\ Lin\ S[!L[\ +
Nishida\ T[ "0880#[ Culture\ face maintenance\ and styles of handling inter!
personal con~ict] A study in _ve cultures[ The International Journal of Con~ict
Manaèment\ 1\ 164185[
Ting!Toomey\ S[\ Oetzel\ J[\ + Yee!Jung\ K[ "0887\ February#[ Self!construal and
con~ict manaèment styles[ Paper presented at the Western States Com!
munication Association convention\ Denver\ CO[
114
Ting!Toomey\ S[\ Yee!Jung\ K[\ Shapiro\ R[\ Garcia\ W[\ Wright\ T[\ + Oetzel\ J[
"in press#[ Ethnic:cultural identity salience and con~ict styles in four U[S[ ethnic
groups[ International Journal of Intercultural Relations[ 99\ 999999[
Tracy\ K[ "0889#[ The many faces of facework[ In H[ Giles and W[ Robinson
"Eds[#\ Handbook of lanùaè and social psycholo`y[ Chichester\ England] John
Wiley and Sons[
Tracy\ K[ "0880#[ Discourse[ In B[ Montgomery and S[ Duck "Eds[#\ Studyin`
interpersonal interaction[ New York] Guilford[
Tracy\ K[\ + Baratz\ S[ "0883#[ The case for case studies of facework\ In S[ Ting!
Toomey "Ed[#\ The challenè of facework[ Albany\ NY] State University of New
York Press[
Triandis\ H[ "0884#[ Individualism and collectivism[ Boulder\ CO] Westview Press[
Triandis\ H[\ Brislin\ R[\ + Hui\ C[H[ "0877#[ Cross!cultural training across the
individualismcollectivism divide[ International Journal of Intercultural
Relations\ 01\ 158178[
Trubisky\ P[\ Ting!Toomey\ S[\ + Lin\ S[!L[ "0880#[ The in~uence of individualism
collectivism and self!monitoring on con~ict styles[ International Journal of Inter!
cultural Relations\ 04\ 5473[
Wilmot\ W[\ + Hocker\ J[ "0887#[ Interpersonal con~ict\ 4th ed[ Boston\ MA]
McGraw!Hill[
Wiseman\ R[\ + Koester\ J[ "Eds[# "0882#[ Intercultural communication competence[
Newbury Park\ CA] Sage[

Ταυτότητες, απειλούμενες

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Ταυτότητες, απειλούμενες

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

\

Int[ J[ Intercultural Rel[ Vol[ 11\ No[ 1\ pp[ 076114\ 0887

FACEWORK COMPETENCE IN INTERCULTURAL

As social beings\ most of us have the experiences of blushing\ feeling

S[ Ting!Toomey and A[ Kurogi

action and relationship!building also involve culture!sensitive facework

Facework Competence in Intercultural Con~ict

Hocker\ 0887#[ Due to di}erent cultural values and con~ict assumptions\

FACE!NEGOTIATION THEORY] A SYNOPSIS AND AN

S[ Ting!Toomey and A[ Kurogi

that entail expectations for the {{we!identity|| and social self!esteem

Facework Competence in Intercultural Con~ict

individualismcollectivism and power distance\ in conjunction with other

Face!Ne`otiation Theory] Updated Propositions

S[ Ting!Toomey and A[ Kurogi

have been addressed in the 0877 version of the face!negotiation theory\

Facework Competence in Intercultural Con~ict

S[ Ting!Toomey and A[ Kurogi

confrontational facework tactics and dominating con~ict style\ other!

Facework Competence in Intercultural Con~ict

distributions\ equal rights\ symmetrical relations and equitable rewards

S[ Ting!Toomey and A[ Kurogi

situations\ however\ when high!status members feel compelled to confront

Individual!Level Analysis[ The relationship between culture!level analy!

Facework Competence in Intercultural Con~ict

Toomey et al[\ 0887#\ verbal self!enhancement "Kitayama et al[\ 0886#\

S[ Ting!Toomey and A[ Kurogi

re~ected in high degrees of independent and interdependent self!construal[

A Summary[ Based on past research and _ndings on both cultural group

Facework Competence in Intercultural Con~ict

S[ Ting!Toomey and A[ Kurogi

INTERCULTURAL FACEWORK COMPETENCE]

Facework Competence in Intercultural Con~ict

be evaluated by the criteria of interaction appropriateness\ e}ectiveness\

Three Core Dimensions

Knowledge Dimension[ Without culture!sensitive knowledge\ disputants

S[ Ting!Toomey and A[ Kurogi

Self-Face Enhancing Mode

Facework Competence in Intercultural Con~ict

Mindfulness Dimension[ Mindfulness "Thich\ 0880# means attending to

S[ Ting!Toomey and A[ Kurogi

Finally\ on a general level\ mindfulness demands creative thinking and

Interaction Skills[ Interaction skill refers to our abilities to communicate

Facework Competence in Intercultural Con~ict

S[ Ting!Toomey and A[ Kurogi

Mutual respect and understanding\ as being re~ected through the tone of

Facework Competence in Intercultural Con~ict

and Brown "0877# recommend that we should learn to be {{trustworthy||

S[ Ting!Toomey and A[ Kurogi

speci_c reasons to general conclusions\ for example\ dealing with U[S[

Facework Competence in Intercultural Con~ict

terms[ Lastly\ the integration phase includes] {{"0# displaying cooperative

Facework Competence Criteria[ Finally\ facework competence can be

S[ Ting!Toomey and A[ Kurogi

priately\ e}ectively\ adaptively and satisfactorily from both parties| and

Facework Competence in Intercultural Con~ict

FIGURE 1. A Facework Competence Model: Composite Dimensions Stella Ting-Toomey.

All four criteria*appropriateness\ e}ectiveness\ adaptability\ and sat!

TRAINING AND RESEARCH ISSUES] AN EPILOGUE

S[ Ting!Toomey and A[ Kurogi

Training Objectives[ The face!negotiation theory and its companion

Facework Competence in Intercultural Con~ict

intercultural theories at their _nger tips in order to answer any {{sneak

Program Design[ The design of a training program is the structural