Roots of the concept of face
Goffman (1955) called the self-image people want acknowledged in interaction face, and analyzed the behaviors that protect one's own face or support others' face as face-work. Brown and Levinson (1987) distinguished positive face, the desire for approval, from negative face, the desire to be free from imposition, in building politeness theory. Ting-Toomey (1988) applied the concept to intercultural conflict, proposing that face matters in all cultures but that what counts as face and how it is protected differ across cultures.
Face concerns and conflict styles
The theory divides face concerns into self-face, protecting one's own image; other-face, considering the other's image; and mutual face, protecting the relationship as a whole. It predicts that individualistic cultures, with strong self-face concern, favor dominating styles that confront and assert, while collectivistic cultures, with strong other- and mutual-face concern, favor avoiding, obliging and integrating styles. Ting-Toomey and Kurogi (1998) added individual-level factors such as independent or interdependent self-construal and power distance, and introduced facework competence, the ability to manage face appropriately for the situation.
Evidence and critiques
Oetzel and colleagues (2001) compared China, Germany, Japan and the United States to test links between face concerns and conflict behavior, and Oetzel and Ting-Toomey (2003) showed that face concerns are a key link between culture and conflict style. Ting-Toomey (2005) restated the theory's propositions in light of these results. The theory is used in research on international negotiation, multicultural organizations and health communication. Critics argue that the broad individualism-collectivism divide hides diversity within cultures and that the evidence relies on self-reports. It is sometimes combined with uncertainty reduction theory, which addresses limited information about conversation partners.
FAQ
- What is face-negotiation theory in simple terms?
- Even when people argue, they try to protect their own and the other person's face, and because cultures differ in which face matters more, they resolve conflict differently.
- Does it fit cultures that value face highly, such as Korea?
- It is often used to explain conflict styles in collectivistic cultures that stress others' and relational face, but individuals and situations within the same culture vary widely.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18(3), 213–231. The classic analysis of face and face-work.
- Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The politeness classic defining positive and negative face.
- Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in Intercultural Communication (pp. 213–235). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. The original statement of face-negotiation theory.
- Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 187–225. An updated version adding individual-level factors and facework competence.
- Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., & Wilcox, R. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68(3), 235–258. A four-nation comparison of face concerns and conflict behavior.
- Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30(6), 599–624. Tests face concerns as mediators between culture and conflict style.
- Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing About Intercultural Communication (pp. 71–92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. A later summary of the theory's propositions.