FACE NEGOTIATION THEORY

(FNT)

Was developed by

Ms. Stella Ting-Toomey.

FNT…..explains how people from different cultures handle

conflict (Ting-Toomey, 2005).

It assumes that all cultures try to

maintain face and negotiate face.

is defined as the difference of values, expectations, processes , and outcomes between two or more parties over relational issues (Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998)

CONFLICT

What…………….are the social behaviors of Face

Negotiation Theory

Face is the image we see ourselves in our culture ,and how we want others to see us (Ting-Ting- Toomey and Kurogi, 1998) .

Face work is the verbal and non-verbal ways people promote to protect face (Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998).

Who

Why is FaCeNeGoTiATiON

ThEoRY………………

important in communication studies ?

So What……If we know the culture’s social

behavior, we can probably predict the conflict style

………..Individualist………………….

Collectivist………………

The United States is considered an Individualist culture

Primarily concern with their own interest/self face (Ting Toomey, 2003).

Japan is an example of a Collectivistic culture

Willing to give priority to the group over their own personal goals (Oetzel and Ting-Toomey, 2003).

What is the

Problem? Culture –general predictors varied across cultural groups.

Theory is in its beginning stage of development. More studies needed.

(Oetzel and Ting-Toomey, 2003)

When dealing with conflict, be mindful of the other person’s

communications style, and try to change your approach so that it’s

a win win for everyone.Let’s start doing this today!

Are we ALL IN?

ReferencesOetzel, 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

Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). “Identity negotiation theory: Cross cultural boundaries”. Theorizing about intercultural communication,211- 233.

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.