Prezi

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in the manual

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Face Negotiation Theory

CSUSB Comm 306 Group Project
by Rioni Lewis on 22 November 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Face Negotiation Theory

Face Negotiation
Theory

Rioni Lewis
Britney Vargas
Francisco Casillas
Christopher Ortiz
Carrera Allred
Haecheol Jang

Research Article
#1
Using the Face-Negotiation Theory in Various Contexts
Methods: Phase I
Method
A Typology of Facework: Behaviors in Conflicts with Best Friends and Relative Strangers
Presentation Outline
Stella Ting-Toomey
Theory Overview
Overview
Haecheol - Intro of presentation
Rioni - Overview of Theory
Chris - Toomey Background
Britney - Research Article #1
Francisco - Research Article #2
Carrera - Practical Applications
Haecheol - Conclusion of Presentation
First Proposed in 1985 to understand how different cultures throughout the world respond to conflict.
There are various features of individual and cultural identities and are described as "FACES."
Locus of Face - Framework for studying face.
There are 7 assumptions for the Face Negotiation Theory
208 Participants
Objective: Develop a typology of facework behaviors in interpersonal conflicts between friends and relative strangers for Japanese and U.S. participants.
American workers in the Toyota Company
1.
Practical Application
Individualist Culture
Focused on self
Collectivist Culture
Focused on group
Face-Negotiation Examples
Preventative Facework
Going to boss with a question, how will you introduce it?
Asking parents for keys to the car

Examples of Face-Negotiation
Mutual-Face Concern
Group Project
We all want to look good in front of the class as individuals and as a group
Face Giving
Defending a new boyfriend to family
Restorative Facework
Asking parents for keys to the car after you came in late for your curfew last night
You've just insulted your best friend by something you said, how do you recover?

Power Distance
Presidential Cabinet cannot come to an agreement, but are suddenly willing to compromise once the President walks in
Young siblings are arguing, how do they act towards one another when their mother walks in?
Two children are fighting on the playground, who steps in to "break it up"?

Keys to Successfully Communicating
1. Knowledge of the other culture
-Expectations, responses, reactions, expressions
2. Mindfulness of all parties involved
-Prejudices, assumptions, ethnocentrism
3. Interaction skills
-Effective communication and adaptation to the people and the situation

Research Article
#2
Theory
Conclusion
Presenting information to a boss
Asking a parent for the keys to the car
Group Projects
Marriage/Relationships

Classroom Setting
Military Culture
Defending a significant other to family
Coming in late for a curfew
Offending a friend/colleague
Power Distance
Preventative Facework
Restorative Facework
Individualist vs. Collectivist Cultures
Face Giving
Mutual Face Concern
169 Participants
206 Participants
185 Participants
768 Participants
Participants:
237 U.S. undergraduate students.
140 males
97 females
20.75 average age
49 undergraduate students from Japan
19 males
30 females
20 .0 average age
Method: Phase 2
Participants:
61 students from the U.S.
36 males
25 females
26.64 average age
95 students from Japan
29 males
66 females
20.5 average age.
Procedure
Results/ Conclusion
Seeks to test the assumptions that “face” is the explanatory idea or mechanism for the relationship between culture and conflict management styles
Premise of Study
Face Concern in Interpersonal Conflict:
A Cross-Cultural Empirical Test of the Face Negotiation Theory

Stella Ting-Toomey and John G. Oetzel
Results
Questionnaire given to 768 participants of 4 national cultures:
China, 208 participants
Germany, 169 participants
Japan, 206 participants
United States, 185 participants
Method
Self face is associated positively with dominating conflict styles, while other face is associated positively with avoidance and integrating conflict styles.
Hypothesis
Self face*
Other face*
Mutual face
Face Concerns
Ones self image composed of:
Independent self
Interdependent self
Self Construal
Individualism
Individuals who view themselves as independent and give priority to themselves rather than others
Collectivism
Individuals who view themselves as part of other groups and are willing to give priority to others rather then themselves
Cultural Indvidualism- collectivism
This provides and overall picture of a persons communication orientation toward conflict
5 style and 3 style models
5 style model
Integrating *
Compromising
Dominating*
Obliging
Avoiding*
Conflict styles
Conflict styles
Cultural individualism-collectivism
Self construal
Face concerns
4 overall factors
Seeks to test the assumptions that “face” is the explanatory idea or mechanism for the relationship between culture and conflict management styles
Premise of Study
Face Concern in Interpersonal Conflict
A Cross-Cultural Empirical Test of the Face Negotiation Theory

Stella Ting-Toomey and John G. Oetzel
Questionaire format-Self contual items-Face concern items-Conflict behavioral items-demographics
Key concepts
Conflict: The perceived and/or actual incompatibility of values, expectations, processes, or outcomes between two or more parties over substantive and/or relative issues

Cross-cultural communication: also referred as "intercultural communication" is the study how individuals communicate across different cultures.
Ex: Individualism and Collectivism
John G. Oetzel, Stella Ting-toomey, Yumiko Yokochi, Tomoko Masumoto, and Jiro Takai
Research Questions
RQ1: What are the categories of facework behaviors during conflicts with best friends and relative strangers.
RQ2: What are the ratings of effectiveness and appropriateness for the categories of facework behaviors.
Appropriateness: The social expectations of others regarding the behavior individuals use to reach certain goals.
Effectiveness: The degree to which communicators obtain their goals.
Phase I: The questionnaire asked the respondents to describe a recent conflict situation with a stranger of best friend.
Participant's responses were summarized into a typology of 14 categories.
Categories: Abuse, apologize, avoid, compromise, consider the other, defend self, express feelings, give in, involve a third party, passive aggression, pretend, private discussion, remain calm, and talk about the problem.
Procedure: Phase 2
The respondents were asked to rate the three prototypes of each category on two seven point semantic differential scales for each behavior:
effectiveness/appropriateness (+3)
to ineffective/ inappropriate (-3)
Three distinct factors emerged:
dominating facework: agression and defend self
avoiding facework: avoid give in, involve third party, and pretend
Avoiding facework is associated primarily with other-face concern.
integrating facework: apologize, compromise, consider the other, private discussion, and talk about the problem.
There were differences in the ratings of the facework categories for national culture (individualism- collectivism)
Japanese respondents rated avoiding facework higher and integrating facework lover than did the U.S. respondents
Japanese culture is collectivistic and thus relational harmony and concern for others is emphasized during conflict. In contrast, U.S. culture is individualistic and thus concern for self and direct resolution of conflict to benefit both parties are a primary focus during conflict.
FranciscoJ. Casillas
Results/Conclusion
China : collectivism
Germany: moderately individualistic
Japan: moderately collectivism
U.S: strictly individualistic
cultural I-C
interdependent self
independent self
other face
Self face
Avoiding
integrating
Dominating
*all three paths proved to go in the predicted path
See the full transcript