User:Mosimpkins/sandbox

Contents

1	Background

2	Components

2.1	Assumptions

2.2	Taxonomies 2.2.1	Face orientations 2.2.2	Face movements 2.2.3	Facework interaction strategies 2.2.4	Conflict communication styles 2.2.5	Face content domains 2.3	Theoretical propositions 2.4	Intercultural facework competence 2.4.1	Knowledge dimension 2.4.2	Mindfulness dimension

3	Applications

3.1	Intercultural conflict training 3.2	Face concerns in interpersonal conflict 3.3	Face and facework in conflicts with parents and siblings 3.4	Face negotiation with mothers 3.5	Physician communication in the operating room 3.6	Safe sex negotiation 3.7	Face Threat & Disability 3.8	Responding to Unethical Communication 3.9	Face Saving in Artwork Reviews 3.10	Face Concerns and the Intent to Apologize

4	Notes

5	References

Background

Article review
Article: Face Negotiation Theory •	Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

• Yes, everything in the article is relevant to the topic. The application section require further investigation but everything appears to be in-line with the taxonomies. •	Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

• The article is neutral, however, I think there are section that need rewriting in order to maintain neutrality. •	Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

• Most of the links work, however, many are not accessible because they are linked to sources that require personal login. The sources appear to support the claims in the article for the one I have access to. •	Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

• Not in all cases, the article has a template requesting help for citations. The accessable citations are reliable, however, overall they are not sufficient to support the thrust of the article. •	Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? • Nothing is out of date, however, the face-negotiation theory description, background and conflict communication styles, and knowledge dimension sections should be expanded or rewritten to provide better coverage.This theory has gone through multiple iterations (1978, 1988, 1998 and 2005) which implies several discrepancies remain.

= Face-Negotiation Theory (Draft) = Lead:

The Face-Negotiation Theory provides general principles for predicting how people present their self-image while interacting with others. Referenced as facework, it is the communication behaviors that people use to protect or construct their own face or a means to protect, build or attack the face of other people. It was first proposed by Goffman and expanded by Brown and Levinson (1978) to explore how cultures interact to manage harmonious relationships and disagreements. Cultural differences affect how we respond to conflict in various societies. Observing facework in action, reveals various interactions going on because people in different cultures employ different types of facework to respond to situations based on their identity and cultural norms.

Background
Background: (Upon further analysis and restructure, no significant improvement can be made.)

Brown and Levinson (1978) research provided the foundation for the face-negotiation theory with the aid of two Chinese conceptualizations: lien and mien-tzu. In many cultures, face is viewed as self-image. Lien represents the moral face which is comprised of integrity, debasement, shame, and honor while mien-tzu refers to the external social face that relates to power, influence, and authority. (2) Erving Goffman expanded the face-negotiation theory by conceptualized the terms of lien and mien-tzu in the western world. He felt that face was primarily concerned with an individual’s immediate projected image based on cultural norms. (3) Brown and Levinson expanded the theory by associating face with emotions and the continuous adjustments based on personal interactions. (4) Ting-Toomey and her colleagues furthered this theory by providing the foundational elements for predicting how individual engage in facework based on different social settings. Facework was later defined as an individual’s self-image in the presence of other individuals. It held up the thought of maintaining facial expressions based on cultures (2). Moreover, one’s face represents their identity in private and public settings.

With this foundational construct, it is easy to see how the face-negotiation theory in compasses different styles of intercultural conflict. Conflict revolves around three issues: content, relational, and identity. (5) A closer look at these issues show how dynamic they are with respect to actual or anticipated conflict. Content conflict involves various issues external to the individual while relational conflict involves a how an individual defines a conflict situation. Conflict related to identity concerns aspects of one’s identity based on respect-disrespect, conformation-rejection, and approval disapproval. (6) As noted, the face-negotiation theory is complex because of the factors associated with our facework during normal and conflict situations.

Content
Philosophical assumptions provide the foundation for any theory. As such, the assumptions associated with the face-negotiation theory are centered on the impact of culture in determining facework. The following assumptions determines how the face-negotiation theory evolves: (6)


 * 1) Communication is the cultural base line for maintaining and determining facial expression.
 * 2) Face expression are difficult to discern when identities are unreliable.
 * 3) Variance in power distance and individualist vs. collectivist cultures impact face management. Individualist cultures’ facework are based on self-orientation while collectivist cultures’ facework are flexible.
 * 4) Behavior is affected by various cultural variances, relational, individual, and situational factors.
 * 5) Competent intercultural communication is a function of knowledge and mindfulness.

Given its complexity, the face-negotiation theory revolves around five themes: face movement, face interaction strategies, conflict communication styles, and face content domains. (2) (6)

Face Movement
Face orientation involves a number of variables that determine the level of effort an individual gives to the conflict or acknowledgement message. Facework is an individuals’ communication behaviors used to change and maintain facial orientation or respond to facial orientation of another individual. (7) Living in diverse communities highlight different concerns that dictate whether the individual focuses on one’s own image or the opposing individual’s image. (2)(6) It all depends on the cultural variables of individualism-collectivism and power distance. Individualist cultures such as United States and Germany promote autonomy, individual responsibility, and individual achievement while collectivist cultures honor the community or collective groups above the individual person. It would appear that the facework of individualist would be higher than the collectivist because it recognizes people as autonomous beings vice catering to the values of the group or community. People in individualist cultures tend to increase facework when threatened to recover from damage while the facework of people in collectivist culture tends to be neutral and not self-orientated when threateded. (7) Lastly, face orientation involves power distance because in many societies certain members and groups exert great influence and control over others. (7) Large power distance cultures embrace unequal power distributions, rely on established hierarchy, and understand the benefits and hardship associated with social position. Individuals from small power distance cultures are the opposite because they value symmetric relations and equal power distributions. (7) For example, Great Britain is an example of small power distance culture while North Korea is a large power distance culture.

Face Interaction Strategies
At the heart of the face-negotiation theory is face movement. How does an individual select to defend or change self-face versus other-face in conflict situations? It all depends on the following opportunities an individual has with respect to face orientation:


 * 1) High level of concern for both self-face and other-face equates to mutual-face protection.
 * 2) Low level of concern for both self-face and other-face equates to mutual-face destruction.
 * 3) High level of concern for self-face but a low level of concern for other-face equates to self-face defense.
 * 4) High level of concern for other-face but a low level of concern for self-face equates to other-face defense.

Ting-Toomey believes that numerous conditions exist that dictate whether the individual feels threatened and the results are a function of individualism-collectivism cultures and large or small cultural power distance. (6)

Conflict Communication Styles
Individualists prefer more direct personal attacks and are likely to protect or rebuild face by showing personal respect while collectivists prefer less personal attacks and more indirect in conflict. (7) There are two dimensions, assertiveness and cooperation, that combine to create the following five styles of working through conflict: dominating, avoiding, obliging, compromising, and integrating. An assertiveness approach underscores on the importance of issues while a cooperative approach values relationships. (8)

Several researchers to include Ting-Toomey have looked at different conflict communication styles to complement the aforementioned conflict styles in order to enhance communication across cultures. Ting-Toomey believes that the interaction of facework and conflict are a function of one’s culture and sense of independence or interdependence with other individuals. Independent individuals tend to use direct communication approaches when confronted with conflict while interdependent individuals approach conflict on a relational basis. (7)

Face Content Domains
Face content domains are the different situations an individual will employ facework on other individuals. (6) The following are the six domains individuals operate in:


 * 1) Autonomy-individual’s need for others to accept independence, privacy, and other's self-governing face needs
 * 2) Inclusion-individual’s need to be accepted as valid companions, likeable, agreeable, pleasant, and friendly
 * 3) Status-need for others to admire individuals tangible and intangible assets or material worth
 * 4) Reliability-need for others to acknowledge individual’s trustworthiness, loyalty, and reliability
 * 5) Competence-need for others to recognize individuals’qualities or social abilities
 * 6) Moral-need for others to respect our moral values

Application
The face-negotiation theory gives meaning to the complex nature of cultural differences by explaining how people handle conflict to maintain their self-image while interacting with others. These examples show how theorist organize and construct research by framing observations and experiments. Ting-Toomey translated the face-negotiation theory into a viable framework for effective intercultural conflict training. (8) To that end, Ting-Toomey designed a detailed three-day intercultural conflict training session consisting of online and classroom activities with lectures and exercises that focused on international business negotiation, intercultural conflict mediation, and intercultural miscommunication, and intercultural conflict competencies. (8) Ting-Toomey, John G. Oetzel, and University of New Mexico conducted a study to find out the role face has in determining if cultural influence affects conflict behavior. In this extensive study, 768 people from China, Germany, Japan, and the United States were surveyed to explain interpersonal conflict. Among the significant findings, cultural individualism-collectivism had major effects on conflicts styles, self-face had a positive effect on dominating conflict styles and other-face had positive effects on avoiding and integrating styles, and face had a profound impact all of the total variance for dominating and integrating. (9)

Critique
Even though there are many benefits of the face-negotiation theory, there are concerns that the cultural dimension does not explain cultural differences based on the experiences and perceptions of cultures that promote individual responsibility or community above individuals. Even with the latest updates, Ting-Toomey and colleagues have highlighted that further research shows that: community focused cultures can be self-protective like Japanese people, generalization of face-negotiation is not true in all situation, and the spread of behaviors by countries that promote individual responsibility is changing the dynamic relationships that are foundational to the principles of the theory.