Face-Negotiation Theory assumes that people of various cultures are concerned with the presentation of their face. It is a theory that infuses conflict into its framework, explaining why members of two different cultures, for instance, manage conflict differently. Ting-Toomey asserts that different cultural values exist in dealing with conflict, and these conflictual episodes, in turn, are influenced by the face concerns and face needs of communicators. The theory has a rich history, and we discuss two criteria for the theory’s effectiveness: heurism and logical consistency.

Heurism

Ting-Toomey’s Face-Negotiation Theory has sparked interest among intercultural communication researchers, making it heuristic. Several of the key features of the theory have been studied. Ting-Toomey’s interfacing of conflict and face has prompted researchers to investigate differences between Japanese and Americans (Morisaki & Gudykunst, 1994) and various ethnic groups in the United States (Kim, Lee, Kim, & Hunter, 2004; Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Ting-Toomey, Yee-Jung, Shapiro, Garcia, Wright, & Oetzel, 2000). Ringo Ma (1992) studied the effects of face maintenance by mediators in conflict episodes, and Mark Cole (1989) looked at self-face and face threats in formal, public, and nonintimate settings. Yuling Pan (2000) employed facework in research on face-to-face interactions of the Chinese. Finally, face and facework in conflict have been studied analyzing cultures of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States (Oetzel, Ting-Toomey, Masumoto, Yokochi, Pan, Takai, & Wilcox, 2001).

Logical Consistency

Interestingly, Face-Negotiation Theory has received some clarification from Ting-Toomey herself, prompting refinement of the theory. Recall that the theory rests on the differing experiences and perceptions of individualistic and collectivist cultures. Ting-Toomey uses this foundation to lay out the essence of her theory. At times, however, this cultural dimension may not fully explain cultural differences. In her own research, Ting-Toomey and colleagues (1991) discovered some discrepancies. She found that Japanese respondents showed more concern for self-face than U.S. respondents. In addition, although Ting-Toomey proposes that individualistic cultures are not usually compromising in their conflict styles, the highly individualistic U.S. respondents used a significantly high degree of compromising when faced with a conflict. In this study, then, the “I” identity of the U.S. respondents was displaced.

Ting-Toomey and Cocroft (1994) respond to these differences in expectations by noting that looking at facework from the individualistic and collectivistic orientation “is a necessary starting point for facework behavior research” (p. 314). The researchers also state that many of the facework category systems in research reflect individualism-collectivism thinking, and therefore, Face-Negotiation Theory must necessarily begin from this vantage point.

Additional issues surrounding the logical consistency of Face-Negotiation Theory remain. As we have mentioned, Ting-Toomey (1988) has positioned the theory within the politeness perspective of Brown and Levinson (1978). She incorporates a number of the components of their thinking, including positive face and negative face. Yet Tracy and Baratz (1994) believe that such labeling in Brown and Levinson’s framework “may be too general to capture the face-concern most central to an interactant” (p. 290). That is, other issues pertaining to face concern exist that are not identified by the researchers. Ting-Toomey’s application and integration of politeness research, then, may warrant further reflection and consideration. Interestingly, Ting-Toomey and Cocroft (1994) agree with the fact that Brown and Levinson have presented an original template from which to draw but report data that demonstrates several problems with their research.

Face-Negotiation Theory will continue to intrigue communication researchers. Particularly at a time when culture pervades nearly all aspects of life and the global village is becoming smaller, the theory will have lasting appeal. When people from two different cultures have a conflict, understanding how they maintain and negotiate face will have implications beyond the encounter. Ting-Toomey has given us an opportunity to think about how we can mediate the potential difficulties in communication among cultures, and she elegantly presents important information on a world dependent on communication.