A Typology of Facework Behaviors

This article was downloaded by: [University Of Maryland]
On: 13 October 2014, At: 18:38

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Communication Quarterly
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcqu20
A typology of facework behaviors

in conflicts with best friends and
relative strangers
a b c
John G. Oetzel , Stella TingToomey , Yumiko Yokochi ,
d e
Tomoko Masumoto & Jiro Takai
a
Assistant professor in the Department of Communication
and Journalism , University of New Mexico
b
Professor in the Speech Communication Department ,
California State University , Fullerton
c
Analyst and assistant vice president in strategic research ,
Nikko Securities Co. International, Inc.
d
Assistant professor in the Intercultural Communication
Institute , Kanada University of International Studies
e
Associate professor in the Department of British American
Studies , Nanzan University
Published online: 21 May 2009.
To cite this article: John G. Oetzel , Stella TingToomey , Yumiko Yokochi , Tomoko Masumoto
& Jiro Takai (2000) A typology of facework behaviors in conflicts with best friends and relative
strangers, Communication Quarterly, 48:4, 397-419, DOI: 10.1080/01463370009385606
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463370009385606
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever
as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the
authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy
of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified
with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/
page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [University Of Maryland] at 18:38 13 October 2014
A Typology of Facework
Behaviors in Conflicts with
Best Friends and Relative Strangers
John G. Oetzel, Stella Ting-Toomey, Yumiko Yokochi,

Tomoko Masumoto, and Jiro Takai
The purpose of the current study was to create a typology of facework behaviors in
interpersonal conflicts between best friends and relative strangers for Japanese and
U.S. participants. In phase I, 286 participants responded to open-ended questions

about the manner in which they negotiated face during a conflict with either a best
friend or a relative stranger. The responses of a sample of these respondents -16
Japanese, 16 members of ethnic minority groups in the U.S., and 20 European
Americans were categorized using a Q-sort technique. Fourteen categories of
facework behaviors were derived. Validation procedures for the typology were
carried out via a cluster analysis resulting in 13 unique clusters: (a) aggression, (b)
apologize, (c) avoid, (d) compromise, (e) consider the other, (f) defend self (g)
express feelings, (h) give in, (i) involve a third party, (j) pretend, (k) private
discussion, (l) remain calm, and (m) talk about the problem. In phase II, 95 Japanese
and 61 U.S. Americans rated the appropriateness and effectiveness of behaviors
from each of the categories. The findings illustrate that the typology captures a wide
range of appropriateness and effectiveness rating which further demonstrates the
validity of the typology.
KEY CONCEPTS Face, facework, conflict, cross-cultural communication
John G. Oetzel (Ph.D., University of Iowa) is an assistant professor in the

Department of Communication and Journalism, University of New Mexico.
Stella Ting-Toomey (Ph.D., University of Washington) is a professor in the
Speech Communication Department, California State University, Fullerton.
Yumiko Yokochi (M.A., University of New Mexico) is an analyst and assistant
vice president in strategic research, Nikko Securities Co. International, Inc.
Tomoko Masumoto (Ph.D., University of New Mexico) is an assistant
professor in the Intercultural Communication Institute, Kanada University of
International Studies. Jiro Takai (Ph.D., University of California, Santa
Barbara) is an associate professor in the Department of British American
Studies, Nanzan University. An earlier version of this manuscript was
presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication
Association, San Francisco, 1999.
Communication Quarterly, Vol. 48 No 4 Fall 2000, Pages 397-419

C onflict is an inevitable part of human relationships. Conflict is, in and of itself,
not a negative phenomenon. How we manage conflict is what shapes its
outcomes. Conflict is "the perceived and/or actual incompatibility of values,
expectations, processes, or outcomes between two or more parties over substantive
and/or relational issues" (Ting-Toomey, 1994, p. 360). The conflict process produces
antagonistic sentiments between the parties over an issue, relationship, or the process
itself.
One theoretical approach to understanding the conflict process is the face-
negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, 1988; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). Ting-Toomey
(1988) argues that face is an explanatory mechanism for different facework behaviors
and conflict management styles. Face represents an individual's claimed sense of
positive image in the context of social interaction. Facework refers to the
communicative strategies one uses to enact self-face and to uphold, support, or
challenge another person's face. Conflict management style is an individual's
characteristic mode of managing conflict in a variety of conflict interaction episodes.

Although research on cross-cultural conflict styles has flourished (e.g., Oetzel,
1998a; Ting-Toomey, Oetzel, & Yee-Jung, in press; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991; Ting-
Toomey et al., 2000), there is a paucity of investigations about face-negotiation
behaviors utilized during conflict Most prior research on communication during
conflict focuses on the substantive issues of resolving conflict (i.e., conflict styles)
rather than relational and/or face issues (i.e., identity image concerns via facework)
Conflict management style has implications for face-negotiation, but is not
tantamount to face-negotiation. Prior research on conflict style focuses primarily on
substantive issues, whereas facework includes relational and image issues in addition
to substantive issues. A detailed framework for cataloguing cross-cultural facework
has yet to be developed. A cross-cultural facework typology is needed because in order
to understand the role face plays during conflict, we must know what is the variety of
communicative behaviors used to negotiate face in different relationship types. For
example, to make cross-cultural comparisons of facework or to understand how
situational and relational features impact face and face-negotiation during conflict,
we need to know what facework behaviors exist Further, a focus predominately on
substantive issues is a Western-based cultural perspective, whereas emphasizing
relational and image issues in addition to substantive issues is reflective of an
inclusive, cross-cultural approach.
The study of face-negotiation in conflicts, especially cross-culturally, is important
for two reasons. First, demographic changes in the U.S. (and around the world) make
it inevitable that we will encounter people from diverse cultures in our own backyard.
The changes may increase the incidence of conflict because heterogeneity tends to
produce more tensions and conflicts than homogeneity (Cox, 1993). Groups and
organizations can benefit from cultural diversity if conflicts are managed in a face-
sensitive manner.
Second, facework behaviors during conflict have an impact on ratings of
communication competence, which affect important relational outcomes such as
intimacy and satisfaction (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). Communication
competence is an assessment of the quality of interaction (Canary & Spitzberg, 1989).
Thus understanding the various ways that people negotiate face during conflict can
help facilitate effective and appropriate conflict management in personal
relationships.
398 Oetzel, Ting-Tooney, Yokochi, Masumoto, and Takai

The purpose of the current study is to explore the various behaviors that people use
to negotiate face during conflicts with best friends and relative strangers. Specifically,
the objective is to create an inclusive typology of facework behaviors. With the goal of
developing an inclusive typology in mind, we selected both best friends and relative
strangers to reflect the ingroup-outgroup boundary (or level of relational intimacy).
Further, we examine Japanese nationals and U.S. Americans1 to be inclusive of
potential cultural variations (e.g., individualism-collectivism) in the use of facework.
FACE-NEGOTIATION THEORY
There are a number of theories and models explaining face and facework (e.g.,
Brown & Levinson, 1978,1987; Cupach & Metts, 1994; Lim & Bowers, 1991; Rogan &
Hammer, 1994). Previous models have several limitations that make them
inappropriate for the study of facework in conflict First, several models (e.g., Brown
& Levinson, 1987; Lim & Bowers, 1991) focus on general facework behaviors,
especially as they relate to request situations. They have not been specifically applied
to conflict.
More importantly, these models do not include the locus of face (the degree of
concern for self- and other-face) in the model. The locus of face is the starting point for
understanding face and facework as it determines an individual's interest and the
direction of subsequent messages (Rogan & Hammer, 1994; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi,
1998). The locus of face is important for conflict because both self- and other-concerns
are relevant as individuals negotiate a solution to a problematic issue.
Finally, while certain models (e.g., Rogan and Hammer) do include locus of face,
these models focus on face acts without examining the content or substance of the
messages. For example, Rogan and Hammer's model can be used to identify whether
a message attacks other-face, but does not identify what is the end goal of the message
(e.g., win the conflict). Conflict messages have simultaneous substantive and identity
(i.e., face) aspects (Wilmot & Hocker, 2001; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, in press).
In the current study, we utilize face-negotiation theory as it addresses locus of face
and substantive issues during conflict Face-negotiation theory provides the
conceptual linkage between cultural variability (e.g., individualism-collectivism),
conflict styles, and facework behaviors using the concept of face. The basic
assumptions of face-negotiation theory are summarized as follows: (a) people in all
cultures try to maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations; (b) the
concept of face becomes especially problematic in uncertainty situations (such as
embarrassment situations and conflict situations) when the situated identities of the
communicators are called into question; and (c) the cultural variability dimension of
individualism-collectivism, in conjunction with other individual, relational (e.g.,
ingroup-outgroup), and situational variables, influence the use of various facework
and conflict strategies inintergroup and interpersonal encounters. Additionally, Ting-
Toomey and Kurogi (1998) argue that facework competence is a critical aspect of
conflict management
Face and Facework

People in all cultures share aspects of face. Face can be lost, saved, or protected,
and every member of a society wants to present and protect his/her own public images
(Brown & Levinson, 1978; Goffman, 1959; Ting-Toomey, 1988). Previous studies
indicate that the concept of face is used across cultures; however, the meanings and
Face Typology 399

uses are different depending on the culture (Condon, 1984; Morisaki & Gudykunst,
1994; Ting-Toomey, 1988).
We define face as the claimed sense of favorable social self-worth and/or projected
other-worth in a public situation (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). Face is a vulnerable
resource in social interaction because it can be threatened, enhanced, maintained, and
bargained over. Face is a cluster of identity- and relational-based issues that simmer
and surface before, during, and after the conflict process. Face-negotiation theory
emphasizes the locus of face or the distinction between self-, other-, and mutual-face.
Self-face is the concern for one's own image; other-face is the concern for another's
image; and mutual-face is concern for both parties' images and/or the "image" of the
relationship (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998).
People utilize various communication behaviors or facework to uphold, restore, or
save own face and support, challenge or threaten the face of others. Facework is "the
actions taken to deal with the face-wants of one and/or the other" (Lim, 1994, p. 211).
During conflict, facework has a variety of functions. Facework is employed to resolve
a conflict, exacerbate a conflict, avoid a conflict, threaten or challenge another
person's position, protect a person's image, etc. These functions are part of the process
of maintaining and upholding face.
A closely related concept to facework is conflict style. There are numerous
approaches for explaining conflict styles, but the primary approach is the five-style
model based on two dimensions (Blake & Mouton, 1964; Rahim, 1983,1992; Thomas &
Kilmann, 1974). For example, Rahim (1983, 1992) based his classification of conflict
styles on the two conceptual dimensions of concern for self and concern for others.
Rahim's classification is frequently used in testing face-negotiation theory because of
its consistency with self- and other-face. The first dimension illustrates the degree
(high or low) to which people seek to satisfy their own interests. The second dimension
represents the degree (high or low) to which individuals desire to incorporate others'
interests. The two dimensions combine for five styles of handling interpersonal
conflict integrating (high self and other), compromising (middle on both dimensions),
dominating (high self and low other), obliging (low self and high other), and avoiding
(low on both dimensions).
Other research on conflict strategies (specific tactics used during conflicts)
provides a similar approach toward conflict For example, Sillars (1980) identified
three categories of conflict tactics: integrative, distributive, and passive-indirect.
Similarly, Ting-Toomey (1983) identified integrative, distributive, and descriptive
(neutral) tactics. Integrative tactics are consistent with the integrating and
compromising styles. Distributive tactics are consistent with the dominating style.
Passive-indirect tactics are consistent with the avoiding and obliging styles.
Conflict styles and tactics are reflective of self-, other-, and mutual-face. Ting-
Toomey et al. (1991) found that the dominating style is reflective of self-face, the
avoiding and obliging styles are reflective of other-face, and the compromising and
integrating styles are reflective of mutual-face. However, facework is not equivalent
to conflict styles. In addition to reflecting face concerns, conflict management styles
can include a variety of facework behaviors. For example, the integrating conflict style
reflects a need for solution closure in conflict and involves both parties working
together to substantively resolve the issue (Rahim, 1983). Facework behaviors that are
consistent with the integrating style may include (but are not limited to) listening to the
other person, respecting the feelings of the other, and asserting personal viewpoints.

Further, facework focuses on identity and relational goals in addition to
substantive goals. For example, facework can occur after the conflict to support and/
or challenge the other person (e.g., "You won this time, but next time you owe me").
Facework can also be used to relieve tension from the conflict and support the
relationship (e.g., listening to the other person). Finally, facework may be used to
establish a "positive concern" for the other in order to obtain a goal (e.g., an adolescent
complying with a parent's request in order to gain favor for a later conflict).
In sum, facework can be distinguished from conflict style in that the former
involves specific behaviors that focus on a person's (or other's) claimed image as it
relates to relational and substantive goals above and beyond the conflict situation, and
the latter involves a general pattern of behavior during conflict to address and resolve
substantive issues. To date, there has not been a systematic attempt to identify the
various ways that people negotiate face during conflicts with best friends and relative
strangers in cross-cultural settings. Based on this interest, we offer the following
research question:
RQ1: What are the categories of facework behaviors during conflicts with
best friends and relative strangers?
The range of facework behaviors likely has underlying dimensions that group
particular behaviors together. Specifically, these types are likely reflective of the three
loci of faceother, mutual, and selfand three broad types of conflict styles
avoiding, integrating, and dominating. The loci of face and types of conflict styles are
related in that Ting-Toomey et al (1991) found that other-face correlated positively
with avoiding conflict styles, mutual-face correlated positively with integrating
conflict styles, and self-face correlated positively with dominating conflict styles.
Further, previous researchers (e.g., Sillars, 1980; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998) have
utilized these dimensions to organize a variety of conflict behaviors. Despite the fact
that this research has not examined facework directly, we project that the range of
facework behaviors will cluster along similar dimensions and thus we posit the first
hypothesis:
HI: Facework categories will have three underlying factors of avoiding

(other-face), dominating (self-face), and integrating (mutual-face).
Communication Competence and Facework

Facework has important implications for the quality of relationships. From the
face-negotiation theory perspective, the quality to which face is managed during
conflict will impact the quality of the relationship (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). One
way to measure the quality of face management is communication competence.
Communication competence is an evaluation of the quality of interaction, which
commonly involves the criteria of effectiveness and appropriateness (Cupach &
Canary, 1997). Effectiveness refers to the degree to which communicators obtain their
goals, whereas appropriateness focuses on the social expectations of others regarding
the behavior individuals use to reach their goals (Cupach & Canary, 1997). Essentially,
effectiveness is achieving goals and appropriateness reflects getting along with others
and maintaining relationships. Cupach and Canary (1997) argue that effectiveness
and appropriateness are often complementary criteria as "getting what you want is
Face Typology 401

often facilitated by getting along with others" (p. 26).
There are a number of studies that examine the influence of conflict behavior on
competence impressions. Cupach (1982) [as cited in Canary & Spitzberg (1989)] has
shown that competitive conflict tactics (i.e., dominating style) are viewed as
significantly less competent than cooperative tactics (i.e., integrating style). Canary
and Spitzberg (1989) found that integrative strategies are associated positively with
competence, while distributive and avoiding strategies are associated negatively with
competence. Spitzberg, Canary, and Cupach (1994) summarized the research on
conflict style and competence by overlaying the competence dimensions of
effectiveness and appropriateness onto the conflict dimensions of self- and other-
concern. Through their model, they argued that integrating styles are seen as both
effective and appropriate, dominating styles are seen as effective and inappropriate,
obliging styles are seen as ineffective and appropriate, and avoiding styles are seen as
ineffective and inappropriate. This model is intuitively appealing and is supported by
some empirical work. However, one critique of the model is that is represents a
Western bias. Ting-Toomey (1988) explained that avoiding and obliging conflict styles
are seen by many Asian cultures as effective and appropriate given that these styles are
used to maintain relational harmony.
Research on communication competence and conflict has not examined face-
negotiation behaviors specifically. Examining the ratings of the facework categories
will also help to support the validity of the typology by demonstrating that it includes
a variety of appropriate and effective behaviors. Thus it is important to explore the
ratings of competence for a variety of facework behaviors and a second research
question is posed:
RQ2: What are the ratings of effectiveness and appropriateness for the
categories of facework behaviors?
Cultural Variability and Ingroup-Outgroup

Ting-Toomey and her colleagues (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998; Ting-Toomey &
Oetzel, in press) have explained that cultural variation and the ingroup-outgroup
boundary influence the use of facework behaviors. The contrast of individualism and
collectivism is the major concept used to identify cultural differences (Hofstede, 1991,
Hui & Triandis, 1986; Triandis, 1995). Individualism is a social pattern that consists of
loosely linked individuals who view themselves as independent of collectives and who
give priority to their personal goals over the goals of others (Triandis, 1995).
Collectivism is a social pattern consisting of closely linked individuals who see
themselves as part of one or more collectives (family, co-workers, tribe, nation) and are
willing to give priority to the goals of these collectives over their own personal goals
(Triandis, 1995).
Overall, researchers (e.g., Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Oetzel, 1998b; Ting-
Toomey et al., 1991; Trubisky, Ting-Toomey, & Lin, 1991) have indicated that
collectivists tend to use other-oriented face-saving strategies such as avoiding and
obliging to maintain relational harmony, and individualists tend to use direct face-
saving strategies such as integrating and then dominating. Prior research on
integrating conflict styles generally focuses on resolving the substantive issues of the
conflict in a mutually acceptable and direct manner. The direct and substantive focus
enables individualists to address both parties' concerns and is why individualists

prefer integrating over dominating (which only focus on self-concerns).
In the current study, we utilize Japan and the U.S. to operationalize individualism
and collectivism. Specifically, Japan is a collectivistic culture and the U.S. is an
individualistic culture (Hofstede, 1991). Several studies found differences between
Japan and the U.S. in avoiding, integrating, and dominating conflict behavior
consistent with the face-negotiation theory (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994; Oetzel,
1998b; Ohbuchi & Takahashi, 1994; Ohbuchi, Fukushima, & Tedeschi, 1999). These
differences in facework behaviors likely reflect the ratings of appropriateness and
effectiveness by individuals in these cultures. For example, avoiding facework is used
in Japan because it is viewed as appropriate and effective, whereas integrating and
dominating facework are used in the U.S. because they are rated as appropriate and
effective. Based on the theoretical and empirical research about differences between
individualists and collectivists (and Japanese and U.S. Americans), we offer the
following hypotheses:
H2: Avoiding facework behaviors will be rated as more effective and

appropriate by Japanese than U.S. Americans.
H3: Integrating facework behaviors will be rated as more effective and
appropriate by U.S. Americans than Japanese.
H4: Dominating facework behaviors will be rated as more effective and
appropriate by U.S. Americans than Japanese.
In a recent examination of face-negotiation theory, Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (in

press) argue that situation interacts with cultural- and individual-level variables to
influence face and facework during conflict Ting-Toomey and Oetzel identified
several situational features (e.g., conflict intensity and goal assessments) including
one primary factor relevant for the current studythe ingroup-outgroup boundary.
Ingroups are groups of individuals "about whose welfare a person is concerned, with
whom that person is willing to cooperate without demanding equitable returns, and
separation from whom leads to anxiety" (Triandis, 1995, p. 9). Outgroups are groups
of individuals "with which one has something to divide, perhaps unequally, or are
harmful in some way, groups that disagree on valued attributes, or groups with which
one is in conflict" (Triandis, 1995, p. 9). Ingroups include family and friends, while
outgroups may be strangers or enemies. Consistent with prior research (e.g.,
Gudykunst, Yoon, & Nishida, 1987), we utilize best friends to operationalize ingroups
and relative strangers to operationalize outgroups in the current study. Gudykunst
and Nishida (1986) found that best friends are more intimate than strangers in Japan
and the U.S. and thus represent ingroups and outgroups, respectively.
The ingroup-outgroup boundary influences individuals concern for face and
subsequent conflict behaviors. Oetzel (1999) found that outgroup situations lead to a
greater emphasis on independence of individuals (i.e., individualism) than ingroup
situations indicating that people will have a greater self-face concern and a lesser
other-face concern with outgroup members than with ingroup members.
Additionally, individuals in ingroup situations avoid conflict more often than
individuals in outgroup situations likely because of the greater concern for other-face
(Oetzel, 1999).
Further, the ingroup-outgroup boundary is consistent with the level of intimacy in
a relationship (Triandis, 1995). Relational intimacy is one of the most essential factors
Face Typology 403

for determining face and facework (Lim, 1994). Lim and Bowers (1991) found that the
more intimate the interactive partner, the more likely an individual uses polite
facework. During conflict, avoiding and integrating facework likely would be
considered polite. Integrating is polite because it involves the consideration of both
parties' concerns, whereas avoiding is polite because it helps to avoid hurting others'
feelings and preserve relational harmony. We infer the use of these facework behaviors
is due in part to the ratings of appropriateness and effectiveness by best friends and
relative strangers. Thus we pose the following three hypotheses:
H5: Avoiding facework behaviors will be rated as more effective and

appropriate by best friends than relative strangers.
H6: Integrating facework behaviors will be rated as more effective and
appropriate by best friends than relative strangers.
H7: Dominating facework behaviors will be rated as more effective and
appropriate by relative strangers than best friends.
METHODS
The research questions and hypotheses were addressed in two phases. First, open-
ended questionnaires on face-negotiation during conflicts were collected. The
responses to the open-ended questions were sorted, a typology was created, and steps
were taken to validate the categories. Second, prototypes of the categories were
utilized to rate the appropriateness and effectiveness associated with each category.
Phase I
Participants. The participants in the first phase were 237 undergraduate students
at a large university in the southwestern United States and 49 undergraduate students
at a large university in Japan. The participants were recruited via classes and given
extra credit for their participation. In the U.S. sample, there were 140 males and 97
females with an average age of 20.75 (SD = 4.88). In the Japanese sample, there were
19 males and 30 females with an average age of 20.0 (SD = 1.26).
Procedures. A questionnaire was utilized to provide an in-depth investigation of
the manner in which individuals negotiate face during conflicts with best friends and
relative strangers. The questionnaires asked the respondents to describe a recent
conflict situation with a stranger (n = 140) or a best friend (n = 146). There were three
parts to the questionnaire. In part one, the respondents were asked to provide
background information about the conflict including who was involved, when and
where the conflict happened, and whose fault was the conflict In part two, the
respondents were asked about the manner in which they managed face during the
conflict In part three, demographic information was requested (see Appendix for the
questionnaire).
The questionnaire was translated into Japanese and backtranslated to insure
equivalency and provided to the Japanese respondents. The students were given the
questionnaires and were asked to fill out the forms for extra credit The questionnaire
took approximately 30 minutes to complete. After collecting the questionnaires, all the
Japanese questionnaires were translated into English by one of the current researchers
and checked for accuracy by a second researcher.
After collecting and translating the Japanese responses, 18% of the questionnaires
were selected to create the typology. We made this decision because we deemed the

amount of questionnaires sufficient to provide a range of responses to create the initial
typology. We checked this assumption by utilizing the criterion of saturation. That is,
inclusion of further data would yield no new responses or categories. Specifically, 10%
of the European American questionnaires (n = 20), a third of the Japanese
questionnaires (n = 16), and a third of the U.S. American ethnic minority
questionnaires (n = 16) were randomly sampled from all the questionnaires. We
completed the random selection process by selecting every nth questionnaire from the
appropriate stack after choosing a random starting place (e.g., starting with the 2nd
questionnaire via a random draw and selecting every 3 rd Japanese questionnaire). We
utilized a greater portion of the Japanese and U.S. minorities' questionnaires to
potentially capture variation across cultures and ethnic groups.
There were a variety of conflicts reported in the questionnaires. For the relative
strangers, conflicts were with customers at work (37%), acquaintances from school
(33%), strangers in public settings (e.g., disagreement at a movie) (19%), and co-
workers (11 % ). The participants reported that the other party was responsible for three
out of four conflicts. In the other 25% of the reported conflicts, the participants were
responsible for the conflict For the best friends, conflicts were with close friends (77% )
and relational partners (23%). The participants reported that the responsible party for
these conflicts included self (39%), the other party (45%), both parties (9%), or a third
party (6%).
The participants also reported on a range of intensity of stranger and best friend
conflicts. We determined the intensity of conflict by the language given by the
participants. For example, low intensity conflicts included "a minor difference of
opinion," "it was a simple miscommunication," and "a small conflict" High intensity
conflicts included "she was very mad," "it got out of hand and we almost ended a three
year relationship," and "he is always disturbing me." The range of conflicts in the
questionnaires helps to insure that the typology is inclusive of a variety of facework
behaviors and can generalize to numerous conflict situations.
We examined questions four through twelve to complete the typology (see
Appendix). We utilized nine questions to create the typology because the variety of
questions helped us to be inclusive of the variety of facework behaviors. The questions
reflect a variety of potential uses and perspectives for facework via contrasting
questions. For example, we asked participants to describe how they and their conflict
partners managed face. If we only asked how the participants manage face, the
responses may have reflected a self-serving bias. The range of questions about face
allows the typology to be inclusive of self-, other-, and mutual-face.
Every unique way of negotiating face appearing in the responses of the sampled
questionnaires was transferred to index cards. The unit of analysis was the facework
behavior. A total of 230 unique responses were discovered. The decision to include only
18% of the questionnaires was reinforced by the fact that the responses from further
questionnaires simply repeated the unique responses. Thus the pool of unique
responses was saturated.
Creation of the typology. To create and validate the typology, three steps were
carried out First, three of the current researchers divided the cards equally and sorted
the cards based on between-item similarity. Each response was placed into only one
category with other similar responses. After independently sorting the cards, the three
researchers collaboratively combined their categories into one large set This
combination was accomplished by having each person describe their categories and
Face Typology 405

pooling similar categories.
The second concern was to demonstrate the coding reliability of the typology. The
reliability was determined by having two judges (one American and one Japanese) sort
three prototypical examples of each category. Prototypes were selected by the
researchers to represent the content of the categories. Prototypes were chosen to insure
parallel phrasing and equivalence across categories. The prototypes were selected by
one of the current researchers and then confirmed by three of the other researchers to
represent adequately the responses offered in the open-ended questionnaires. The
judges were given a brief category description and were required to assign each
example to a single category.
The third concern was to demonstrate the representational validity of the
typology. The three prototypes of each category were presented to 46 participants from
a large university in the southwestern U. S and 30 participants from a large Japanese
university. The examples, displayed in Table 1, were presented in a random order on
two sheets of paper. There were 29 females and 17 males in the U. S. sample with an
average age of 25.33 (SD = 7Ai). The Japanese sample consisted of 23 females and 7
males with an approximate average age of 21 (all were juniors, but age was not directly
requested of the participants). The participants were required to sort the statements
based on between-item similarity or commonality. No indication was given as to the
number of categories that should have been used. The participants were asked to sort
each response into only one category and use each response only once. Further, they
were instructed that a category must have at least two responses and that each
category needed to be unique from other categories.
Phase II
Participants. In this phase, ratings of appropriateness and effectiveness were
conducted. The purpose of this step was to provide preliminary, descriptive data of the
competence associated with each category. There were 61 from a large university in
the southwestern U.S. and 95 students from a large university in Japan. In the U.S.
sample, there were 36 males and 25 females, and the average age was 26.64 (SD = 8.58).
The Japanese sample consisted of 29 males and 66 females with an approximate
average age of 20.5 (all were sophomores or juniors, but age was not directly requested
of the participants).
Procedures. The respondents were asked to rate the three prototypes of each
category. The ratings were completed in relation to either a conflict with a best friend
(n = 85; Japan = 49, U.S. = 36) or a relative stranger (n = 71; Japan = 46; U.S. = 25).
Appropriateness and effectiveness were explained to the respondents as two different
goals. Appropriateness was defined as "the ability to maintain the relationship with
the other person," whereas effectiveness was defined as "the ability to get what you
want from the conflict" The definition of appropriateness provided to the
participants varies slightly from the conventional definition (i.e., proper behavior).
We utilized the revised definition to reflect a relational goal. This definition is relevant
given the focus on substantive and relational goals during conflict and the positive
relationship between proper behavior and relational maintenance (Cupach & Canary,
1997).
The ratings were completed on two seven point semantic differential scales for
each behavior: effectiveness/appropriateness (+3) to ineffective/inappropriate (-3).
The use of single items to measure effectiveness and appropriateness has precedence.

Douglas (1988) utilized this approach to illustrate the ratings of affinity-seeking
behaviors. The use of the single measure provides an initial evaluation of the
categories, which helps to support the representational validity of the categories (i.e.,
an inclusive typology should have a variety of appropriateness and effectiveness
ratings). The ratings for the individual behaviors were summed to create composite
scores of each category. The items were summed in a manner consistent with the
validated typology (see below).
RESULTS
Phase I Typology and Validations Procedures
Initial typology. After the initial sort by the researchers, 30 categories were created.
At a subsequent meeting, the same researchers tried to insure that the 30 categories
were unique. Each category was reviewed in detail for uniqueness. After the review,
20 categories remained. At a final meeting, the researchers reviewed each response in
each category. Some overlaps were discovered, resulting in combined categories. This
process was completed twice to insure that each response fit only one category and that
the categories were unique. The final result of this stage was a typology with 16
categories.
Reliability of coding. The judges had an agreement of .96 (kappa = .96) (American)
and .62 (kappa = .60) (Japanese) with the original category scheme in the coding of the
prototypes. Based on the high level of disagreement from one of the judges, the
researchers closely examined the examples for sources of difficulties. A total of nine
changes were made in the phrasing of examples to clarify the meanings. Two more
judges (one American and one Japanese) were asked to complete the same task of
assigning the new examples to a single category. The judges had an agreement of .96
(kappa = .96) (European American) and .73 (kappa = .71) 0apanese). Further
inspection of the categories and examples revealed two areas of difficulty. First, the
judges were confusing the categories of playing cool and ignoring the conflict. Playing
cool consisted of responses in which individuals acted like their feelings were not hurt,
while ignoring the conflict consisted of responses where individuals acted like a
conflict did not exist Based on the confusion of the judges and the overlap in the
categories, these two categories were combined into one unique category, pretend.
Second, the category of regret was confusing to the judges. This category was not
reflective of a face move during interpersonal conflict, but rather was an internalized
emotion and thus was removed from the typology. The result was 14 categories (see
Table 1 for the categories). When the new typology was considered the judges
demonstrated agreement of .98 (kappa = .97) and .86 (kappa = .85) demonstrating that
the typology of behaviors facilitates reliable coding of responses. However, the
typology's representational validity has yet to be determined.
Representational validity. To address the representational validity, the
participants' responses were summarized as a frequency matrix reflecting how often
each example statement was paired with all other statements. These data were
submitted to cluster analysis in which hierarchical clusters were generated on the basis
of average linkage. Determination of the most probable solution (i.e., the number of
clusters) is highly subjective (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). One approach is to use
the vertical icicle (Williams, 1992), which presents a series of stages successively
reclustering the cases into typically smaller and more homogeneous groups. At stage
14 (chosen because of the 14 categories), there were 13 unique clusters and one item
Face Typology 407

TABLE 1
Typology of Face Behaviors
AbusePut the other person down. Telling the other he/she is wrong, stupid, etc. (n = 28)
10. I verbally insulted him.
26. I called the other person mean names.
29. I was nasty towards the other person.
Apologize-Adnvt that you made a mistake and telling the other, ( - 9)
7. I said I was sorry.
19. I asked for forgiveness.
41. I admitted I made a mistake and apologized.
AvoidWithdrawing from the other person, (n - 13)
1. I politely ended the conversation because I didn't want to talk with the other person.
18. I tried not to see the other person.
40. I left the scene.
CompromiseGiving a little and getting a little, ( = 8)
13. I acknowledged some of the other person's good points so that he/she would acknowledge some of mine.
27. I tried to use give and take.
34. I tried to compromise with the other person.
Consider the otherTake into consideration the other person's feelings to show respect, ( = 28)
11. I tried not to hurt the other person.
16. I listened to the other person to show respect.
31. I took into consideration the other person sfeelings.
Defend selfDefend one's side without giving in; generally in the response to a perceived attack, (n = 34)
9. I was firm in my demands and didn't give in.
15. I defended my position.
39. I wouldn't admit I was wrong, instead I insisted I was right.
Express feelingsExpress how one is feeling without defending or attacking the other, ( = 28)
5. I expressed what I wanted to say.
20. I told her exactly what I thought.
36. I explained how I was feeling.
Give /-Accommodate the other person and let them win. ( = 7)
2. I backed down to solve the problem.
25. I agreed with the other person to end the conflict.
30. I accepted whatever the other person said.
Involve a third partyInvolving an outside person to help to resolve the issue, ( = 2)
3. I wanted to talk with the other person through an outside party.
23. I wanted to take our problems to our boss so that he/she could solve it.
35. I wanted a mediator to be involved.
Passive aggrm/onAttackingtheotherthrough subtle means. Not outwardly abusive, but the result is similar.
(n = 10)
6. I gave the person wrong information so he/she gets into trouble.
22. I tried to make the other person feel guilty.
33. I said bad things about the person behind his/her back.
Prefew</--Pretending that there is no conflict or that you are not upset or hurt by what has happened. (=11)
12. I tried to fake that I wasn't upset.
17. I ignored the conflict and behaved as if nothing happened.
32. I pretended not to be hurt.
Private discussion-Avoid talking about the problem in public. ( = 4)
14. I waited until we were by ourselves to talk about the problem.
28. I didn't argue with the other person in public.
38. I tried not to discuss it in front of others.
Remain Calm-Attempting to stay calm and unemotional. ( = 17)
4. I tried to remain calm.
24. I tried not to get angry.
37. I didn't get emotional.
Talk about the problemDirectly discuss the issues of the conflict with the other person. The focus is to
resolve the problem. ( = 29)
8. I talked things out one at a time and listened to what the other was saying to resolve our conflict.
21. I talked thoroughly with the other person about the trouble to find a solution.
42. I worked with the other person to find a mutually acceptable solution.

(11) by itself. The original typology was reinforced except that passive aggression and
abuse clustered together (see Figure 1). This typology provides the answer to the first
research question, "What are the categories of facework behaviors during conflicts
with best friends and relative strangers?"
FIGURE 1.
Dendrogram of Facework Categories
Case 0- -10- -15- -20- -25
10
26
29 Aggression (10,26,29,33,6,22)
33
6
22 _J
23 Involve 3rd Party (23,35,3)
35
3
12
3- Pretend (12,32)
32
24 Remaii Calm (24,37,4)
37
4
3-
2 Give In (2,30,25)
30
25
18
40 Avoid (18,40,1,17)
1
17
28 Private Discussion (28, 38.14
38
14
8
21
42
13
27
3- Talk About Problem (8,21,4$
Compromise (13,27,34)
34
16 Consider Other (16,31)
31
11
7 Apologize (7,41, 19)
41
19
5 Expression (5,36,20)
36
20
9 Defenc Self (9,39,15)
39
15
_J
Face Typology 409

Phase II Ratings of Effectiveness and Appropriateness
The second research question asked, "What are the ratings of effectiveness and
appropriateness for the categories of facework behaviors?" The means for each of the
13 categories are listed in Table 2. Overall, the categories appeared to be dichotomized
as either effective and appropriate, or ineffective and inappropriate. The effective and
appropriate categories were talk about the problem, consider the other, remain calm,
private discussion, express feelings, compromise, and apologize (ranked from most to
least effective/appropriate). The ineffective and inappropriate categories were
aggression, avoiding, give in, defend self, involve a third party, and pretend (ranked
from most to least ineffective/inappropriate). The ratings for give in, defend self,
involve a third party, and pretend were right around the neutral point, but below the
overall average for the categories. We found it interesting that the ratings of
appropriateness and effectiveness were so closely related. Although there was some
variation in the ratings of appropriateness and effectiveness for individual categories
(e.g., aggression, avoiding, private discussion, and remain calm), the overall ratings
were related positively (average r = .50).
TABLE 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Appropriateness/Effectiveness Ratings
Overall Best Friend Stranger
App Eff App Eff App Eff
AGG -1.85(1.16) -0.88(1.41) -1.82(1.24) -0.89(1.42) -1.89(1.06) -0.86(1.41)
APO 1.06(1.17) 0.99(1.25) 1.26(1.06) 1.22(1.19) 0.82(1.26) 0.72(1.26)
AV -0.42(1.04) -0.10(1.23) -0.54(0.98) -0.15(1.28) -0.28(1.09) -0.05(1.17)
COMP 1.01(1.04) 1.06(1.06) 1.08(1.06) 1.13(1.12) 0.92(1.00) 0.97(0.98)
CO 1.89(1.15) 1.93(1.21) 1.99(1.05) 1.79(1.24) 1.77(1.26) 1.67(1.19)
DS -0.22(1.15) 0.27(1.02) -0.18(1.12) 0.21(1.28) -0.27(0.91) 0.35(0.95)
EX 1.15(1.04) 1.46(1.09) 1.25(1.05) 1.55(1.14) 1.03(1.02) 1.35(1.03)
GI -0.03(1.31) -0.02(1.51) 0.14(1.35) -0.15(1.52) -0.24(1.25) -0.14(1.50)
ITP 0.02(1.25) 0.24(1.27) -0.10(1.28) 0.08(1.41) 0.16(1.22) 0.43(1.06)
P 0.11(1.32) 0.25(1.45) 0.14(1.40) 0.19(1.50) 0.07(1.22) 0.45(1.38)
PD 1.49(1.09) 1.19(1.15) 1.56(1.18) 1.24(1.17) 1.41(0.99) 1.12(1.13)
RC 1.78(0.69) 1.38(1.07) 1.84(0.77) 1.46(1.00) 1.21(1.14) 1.27(1.13)
TP 2.05(0.99) 1.96(1.00) 2.15(0.88) 2.00(1.06) 1.91(1.09) 1.85(0.91)
Japanese U.S.
App Eff App Eff
AGG -2.34(0.90) -1.52(1.21) -1.54(1.20) -0.46(1.38)
PO 1.43(1.15) 1.34(1.11) 0.83(1.13) 0.77(1.28)
AV -0.26(1.03) 0.21(1.16) -0.69(1.00) -0.59(1.19)
COMP 0.77(0.96) 0.82(1.05) 1.38(1.04) 1.43(0.97)
CO 1.55(1.14) 1.40(1.28) 2.42(0.96) 2.25(0.89)
DS -0.36(1.01) 0.28(1.17) 0.05(1.01) 0.26(1.10)
EX 0.86(0.99) 1.24(1.24) 1.61(0.95) 1.81(0.82)
GI 0.25(1.28) 0.28(1.49) -0.47(1.25) -0.48(1.44)
ITP 0.15(1.27) 0.33(1.17) -0.19(1.21) 0.09(1.42)
P 0.47(1.20) 0.63(1.33) -0.44(1.31) -0.33(1.45)
PD 1.08(0.92) 0.81(1.00) 2.13(1.04) 1.78(1.12)
RC 1.68(0.67) 1.20(1.16) 1.94(0.70) 1.66(0.83)
TP 1.74(1.04) 1.86(1.03) 2.33(0.85) 2.22(0.86)
Note: App=appropriateness, Eff = effectiveness, AGG=aggression, APO = apologize, AV = avoid, COMP
= compromise, CO = consider the other, DS = defend self, EX=express feelings, GI=give in, ITP = involve
a third party, P = pretend, PD = private discussion, RC=remain calm, TP = talk about the problem. Standard
deviations in parentheses.

Hypothesis One predicted that there would be three underlying factors of the
facework typology. Exploratory factor analyses with equamax rotation were
employed to test the hypothesis. Two criteria were used to determine the factors. First,
the primary loading had to be at least .4. Second, the secondary loading needed to be
at least .2 less than the primary loading. Table 3 displays the results from the factor
analyses for the effectiveness and appropriateness ratings and subsequent Cronbach
alphas for each factor.
For the effectiveness ratings, three factors accounting for 58.47% of the variance
were discovered. The first factor had an eigenvalue of 3.32, accounted for 25.55% of the
variance, and included apologize, compromising, consider the other, private
discussion, and talk about the problem. The second factor had an eigenvalue of 2.22,
accounted for 17.06% of the variance, and included avoid, give in, involve a third
party, and pretend. The third factor had an eigenvalue of 2.06, accounted for 15.85%
of the variance, and included aggression and defend self. Express and remain calm
loaded on both the first and third factors (remain calm negative to the third factor). The
underlying factors appear to be integrating, avoiding, and dominating for the first,
second, and third factors respectively. The facework categories were summed and
averaged for each of the three factors.
TABLE 3
Factor Analyses of the Facework Categories
Appropriateness
Facework Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Aggression -.46 .35 .66
Apologize .68 .17 -.02
Avoid -.10 .60 .49
Compromise .73 .08 .15
Consider the other .81 .03 -.08
Defend self .06 .01 .89
Express feelings .55 -.46 .38
Give in .05 .70 -.03
Involve a third party .10 .54 .13
Pretend .03 .73 .05
Private discussion .74 -.16 -.02
Remain calm .51 .15 -.15
Talk about the problem .79 -.07 -.23
Cronbach's Alpha .83 .71 .81
Effectiveness
Facework Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Aggression -.16 .38 .76

Apologize .73 .25 .05
Avoid -.15 .74 .24
Compromise .73 .14 .17
Consider the other .80 .07 -.30
Defend self -.03 .01 .80
Express feelings .57 -.32 .48
Give in .15 .76 -.10
Involve a third party .17 .44 .25
Pretend .02 .73 -.10
Private discussion .62 -.03 -.37
Remain calm .43 .11 -.46
Talk about the problem .79 -.12 -.13
Cronbach's Alpha .84 .76 .82
Face Typology 411

For the appropriateness ratings, three factors accounting for 57.25% of the
variance were discovered. The first factor had an eigenvalue of 3.61, accounted for
27.73% of the variance, and included apologize, compromising, consider the other,
private discussion, remain calm, and talk about the problem. The second factor had an
eigenvalue of 2.10, accounted for 16.16% of the variance, and included avoid, give in,
involve a third party, and pretend. The third factor had an eigenvalue of 1.74,
accounted for 13.36% of the variance, and included aggression and defend. Express
loaded on the first and second factors (negative on the second factor). Similar to the
effectiveness ratings, the underlying factors appear to be integrating, avoiding, and
dominating respectively. The facework categories were summed and averaged for
each of the three factors given that there were adequate reliabilities for each factor.
Based on the results of the factor analyses, the first hypothesis was supported.
Hypotheses Two-Four focused on the ratings of the effectiveness and
appropriateness for avoiding, integrating, and dominating facework by Japanese and
U.S. Americans. Hypotheses Five-Seven focused on the ratings of the effectiveness and
appropriateness for avoiding, integrating, and dominating facework by best friends
and relative strangers. Multivariate analysis of variance was utilized to investigate
these hypotheses. The ingroup-outgroup boundary and national culture (individual-
ism-collectivism) were the independent variables and the appropriateness/
effectiveness ratings of the three factors were the dependent variables. Bartletf s test
of sphericity, 273.90 (df= 20), p < .001 indicated that a multivariate analysis of variance
was warranted. The multivariate interaction effect of national culture and ingroup-
outgroup boundary was not significant, Wilks' lambda = .97, F(6,147) = .86, p = ns.
Similarly, the multivariate main effect for ingroup-outgroup boundary was not
significant, Wilks' lambda = .93, F(6,147) = 1.72, p = ns.
There was a significant multivariate main effect for national culture, Wilks'
lambda = .69, F(6,147) = 10.90, p < .001. There were five significant univariate effects:
avoiding effectiveness, (F[6,147] = 5.21, p < .05, n2 = .03), avoiding appropriateness,
(F[6,147] = 4.07, p < .05, rf = .03), integrating effectiveness, (F[6,147] = 27.74, p < .001,
if = .15), integrating appropriateness, (F[6, 147] = 20.85, p < .001, rf = .12), and
dominating effectiveness, (F[6, 147] = 9.06, p < .01, n2 = .06). Dominating
appropriateness was not significant, (F[6,147] = 5.21, p = ns).
We carried out planned comparisons of the significant univariate effects based on
the hypotheses. Japanese (M = .51, SD = .80) rated avoiding effectiveness higher than
U.S. Americans (M = .21, SD = .73), f(154) = 2.35, p < .05. Japanese (M = .36, SD = .70)
also rated avoiding appropriateness higher than U.S. Americans (M = .13, SD = .60),
f(154) = 2.12, p < .05. U.S. Americans (M = 1.73, SD = .75) rated integrating effectiveness
higher than Japanese (M = 1.01, SD = .82), f(154) = 5.47, p < .001. U.S. Americans (M =
1.85, SD = .70) also rated integrating appropriateness higher than Japanese (M = 1.39,
SD = .82), f (154) = 4.70, p < .001. Finally, Japanese (M = -.09, SD = 1.14) rated dominating
effectiveness higher than U.S. Americans (M = -.63, SD = .99), f(154) = 3.05, p < .01.
Overall, Hypotheses Two and Three were supported and Hypotheses Four-Seven were
not supported.
DISCUSSION
The objective of the current study was to develop a typology of facework behaviors
in conflicts between best friends and relative strangers. The findings of the current
study include: (a) a total of 230 unique face-related Japanese and U.S. responses were

identified; (b) after an extensive Q-sort procedure, 16 facework categories emerged; (c)
based on an initial reliability check, 14 facework categories were uncovered; (d) cluster
analysis of a Q-sort by participants revealed that the 14 categories agglomerated into
13 clusters; and (e) participants rated the 13 categories as either, effective and
appropriate, or ineffective and inappropriate and there were differences in the ratings
for nationality. In this section, we discuss the facework typology and underlying
factors, the competence ratings, and implications, limitations, and future directions.
Underlying Factors of the Typology

In examining the content items of the 13 facework categories and the results of the
factor analyses, three distinct factors emerge. These factors are consistent with
previous categorizations of conflict styles and tactics (e.g., Sillars, 1980) and face
concerns in the face-negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey and Kurogi, 1998).2 The first
factor can be labeled as dominating facework. The dominating facework behaviors are
aggression and defend self. This factor emphasizes the importance of asserting and
defending one's face or self-interest and with the use of direct tactics to threaten the
other parry's face in order to defeat the other person for self-gain. Both behaviors
represent self-face concerns although defending self is a response to a threat from
another person and aggression is a direct attack on the other person.
The second factor can be labeled as avoiding facework. The avoiding facework
behaviors are avoid, give in, involve a third party, and pretend. This factor focuses on
obliging or saving the face of the other conflict party in order not to embarrass the other
person's face directly. Although avoiding, pretending, and involve a third party can
also be used to protect self-face (e.g., pretending not to be hurt), previous research has
indicated that avoiding conflict tactics are associated positively with other-face (Ting-
Toomey et al., 1991). Thus avoiding facework is associated primarily with other-face
concern.
In examining the avoiding facework, give in focuses on accommodating the face
of the other person, whereas pretend and avoid do not deal directly with the conflict
and thus do not threaten the face of the other (and potentially the self). Involve a third
party refers to utilizing an outside party to help deal with the conflict This is a face
move because it protects self- and other-concerns and can be used to maintain
relational harmony.
The third factor can be labeled as integrating facework. The integrating facework
behaviors are represented by apologize, compromise, consider the other, private
discussion, and talk about the problem. This factor emphasizes a mutual concern for
both self- and other-face. The mutual-face behaviors also have subtle differences.
Private discussion protects the relationship by not dealing with the conflict in public.
Talking about the problem and compromising provide a means to directly discuss and
resolve the conflict and protect both self- and other-face needs through direct means.
Consider the other and apologize demonstrate concern for the other party (other-
face), which helps support the relationship (mutual-face). Essentially, these behaviors
represent a variety of ways to discuss the conflict in a manner that protects the
relationship and both parties' needs. 3
Each of these facework behaviors may also serve other functions than just face or
identity goals. Many of the facework behaviors are used to address substantive goals
during the conflict. For example, talking about the problem is utilized to resolve the
issue and expressing feelings is used to define the conflict in order to resolve i t
Face Typology 413

However, the way that substantive issues are addressed has direct relevance on face
concerns. Individuals who are attempting to talk about the problem likely want other
people to view them as decent, respectful people and view others as worthwhile.
People who express feelings probably want other parties to view them as important
and with genuine emotions. In contrast, individuals who are aggressive are trying to
"win the conflict" and do not care about others' face.
Competence Ratings
The findings of the current study have important implications for understanding
the relationship between facework behavior and communication competence. First,
the ratings of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the categories provide
important insights about the competence of particular facework behaviors. The
ratings indicate that integrating facework behaviors generally are rated as competent,
avoiding facework behaviors are generally rated as neutral, and dominating facework
behaviors are incompetent

These findings are in contrast to Spitzberg et al/s (1994) model that posited that
the obliging conflict style is appropriate and ineffective, the avoiding conflict style is
inappropriate and ineffective, and the dominating conflict style is effective and
inappropriate. The strong correlation between appropriateness and effectiveness in
the current study may be due to the fact that the ratings were listed together under each
behavior and thus the respondents saw the ratings as connected. In addition, the
ratings of each behavior had only single measures of appropriateness and
effectiveness, which may not capture the full range of meaning of the concepts.
Second, the ratings of the facework categories provide insight into the effects of
facework on relational outcomes. Canary and Spitzberg (1989) found that competence
ratings mediated the relationship between conflict strategies and relational outcomes.
Specifically, they found that integrative strategies were judged as competent and
consequently had positive effects on trust, intimacy, and satisfaction in relationships.
Distributive strategies were judged as incompetent and thus had negative effects on
trust, intimacy, and satisfaction. Thus we can speculate that apologize, consider the
other, express feelings, private discussion, remain calm, and talk about the problem
would lead to trust, intimacy, and satisfaction in relationships, whereas aggression,
and defending self would lead to a lack of trust, intimacy, and satisfaction in
relationships.
Third, there were some differences in the ratings of the facework categories for
national culture (i.e., individualism-collectivism). Overall, Japanese respondents
rated avoiding facework higher and integrating facework lower than did the U.S.
respondents. These findings are consistent with prior research supporting the face-
negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). 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 (Ting-Toomey et
al., 1991; Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). However, the results for dominating facework
did not support previous research as the Japanese rated the effectiveness of
dominating higher than U.S. Americans. Japanese may have rated dominating in this
manner because they view assertiveness as desirable in terms of goal achievement but
yet do not employ dominating because Japanese cultural values discourage it
Additionally, there was no effect for the ingroup-outgroup boundary on the

ratings of the facework behaviors. The lack of significant findings is surprising, but
may be due to the research design. The best friend-relative stranger distinction may
be not have been salient for the participants because they were asked to rate the
facework behaviors in a general, hypothetical situation. Thus the ratings are general
and not situation specific. Situations have an effect on the perceived competence of
conflict styles (Canary & Spitzberg, 1987; Oetzel, 1999). For example, giving in may be
viewed as incompetent in general, but may be viewed as competent when the issue is
not important to an individual. The current study did not adequately account for
situational differences in the ratings of the behaviors and the lack of a specific situation
may not bring out significant differences between best friends and relative strangers.
Implications, Limitations, and Future Directions

The current study obtains some meaningful results in generating 13 distinct
facework categories that can be categorized into three factors: avoiding, integrating,
and dominating facework. The three factors represent the broad framework for how
conflict can be addressed, while the facework behaviors represent specific moves that
take place during conflict An important implication of the typology is that it helps to
capture a wide variety of potential cross-cultural facework behaviors.
Three broad conflict strategy types (or five conflict styles) are too limiting for
cross-cultural and intercultural research because the use of only three strategy or
styles may cause researchers to gloss over important differences (Ting-Toomey, 1988).
For example, cross-cultural research illustrates that people from collectivistic cultures
prefer to maintain relational harmony and to demonstrate concern for the other's face.
Using a five-style model, we conclude that people will avoid or accommodate conflict
Based on the findings of the current study, we can utilize a variety of behaviors to
accomplish these goals, such as avoiding, apologizing, considering the other,
involving a third party, and private discussion.
Each of these behaviors may be utilized in different situations to accomplish
different goals. With the current typology, researchers can examine the possible
situational, cultural, and relational influences on the use of facework behaviors. A
broader typology helps to identify subtle nuances in facework across cultures that may
have important implications for successful conflict management At the same time,
the organizing framework of the three types helps to place the moves into a larger
context of facework and conflict approaches that assist in comparing and contrasting
cultures.
Additionally, the typology helps to move beyond substantive to relational and
image concerns. Thus the typology has two further implications. First, a focus on only
the substantive evaluation of conflict emphasizes a Western-based, individualistic
cultural perspective rather than a collectivistic cultural perspective. Both
perspectives are important as the resolution of conflict can impact the quality of
relationships, but the underlying relational and image issues often motivate the
communication of conflict parties. The current typology helps to emphasize both
perspectives.
Second, the item contents of each cluster were logically interpretable and can serve
as an initial step to operationalize the dimensions of self-, other-, and mutual-face in
the face-negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998). Thus, the clusters can be
utilized to empirically derive a reliable and valid measurement of facework in a
variety of cultures. With a reliable and culturally-sensitive facework instrument, we
Face Typology 415

can then proceed to conduct meaningful research on cross-cultural or intercultural
facework encounters and relationship development Specifically, the typology will
enable researchers to empirically validate untested propositions of the face-
negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998).
Finally, the constructed typology is also applicable to a variety of conflict
situations. Specifically, the typology applies to both intergroup and interpersonal
situations because we included both best friends and relative strangers. Best friends
represents an ingroup situation that is reflective of interpersonal communication,
whereas relative strangers represents an outgroup situation that is reflective of
intergroup communication.
An important next step in the development and application of the typology is to
link the categories with other facework dimensions. Specifically, the facework
categories can be linked with such dimensions as defend (proactive)-restore (reactive),
threat-honor, or approval-autonomy face. We can make some predictions for the
facework behaviors. In the dominating facework behaviors, defend appears to restore

and honor the autonomy aspect of self-face, whereas aggression threatens the
approval face of the other or potentially restores and honors the self-face. The
integrating facework behaviors appear to both defend and honor the approval aspects
of self- and other-face. Finally, avoiding facework defends and honors the autonomy
aspects of self- and other-face. Determining how these behaviors associate with face
dimensions will help us better understand how individuals manage identity issues
during conflict
There are several conceptual and methodological limitations in this study. First,
because the data were based on self-report recall behaviors, the subtle nature of the
give-and-take facework concessions and counter-concessions cannot be captured
adequately. The nonverbal aspect of facework was especially difficult to pinpoint
Second, no manipulation checks were used to probe the degree of face salience in the
recall conflict situation. We assumed that face was salient in both the relative stranger
and best friend conflict situations. Third, the sample size was relatively small and
composed only of students from the U.S. and Japan. Thus we should be careful
generalizing to other populations and cultures, especially in regards to the ratings of
appropriateness and effectiveness of the categories. Finally, because we sorted the
responses in the English language, the nature of English may have produced a strong
individualistic, low-context effect in the sorting process.
Overall, the current study serves as a first step in deriving a typology of face
behaviors from the perspectives of Japanese and U.S. cultural members. The typology
consists of three factorsavoiding, integrating, and dominating faceworkwhich
broadly reflects the other-face, mutual-face, and self-face dimensions of the face-
negotiation theory. Future research will continue to refine or expand the 13 face
behavioral clusters along the facework dimensions (e.g., defend-restore and threat-
honor) and cultural variability dimensions, such as individualism-collectivism,
power distance, and self-construals.
NOTES
1
We use the term U.S. Americans to refer to people who are citizens of the U.S. This term is
preferable to the more common American as America includes North, Central, and South
America.
2
The three-factor solution only explained 57% of the variance in appropriateness and 58% of

the variance in effectiveness. Thus the labels do not explain all of the variance.
3
Two facework categories did not load cleanly with the three factors. Express feelings and
remain calm appear to be included with both dominating and integrating facework.
REFERENCES
Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. R. (1984). Cluster analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomenon. In E.
Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-310). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1987). Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of con-
flict strategies. Human Communication Research, 14, 93-118.
Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1989). A model of perceived competence of conflict strategies.
Human Communication Research, 15, 630-699.
Cocroft, B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Facework in Japan and the United States. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 469-506.
Condon, J. C. (1984). With respect to the Japanese: A guide for Americans. Yarmouth, Maine: Inter-
cultural Press.
Cox, T. H. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco:
Berret-Koehler.
Cupach, W. R., & Canary, D. J. (1997). Competence in interpersonal conflict. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Douglas, W. (1988). Affinity-testing in initial interactions. Journal of Social and Personal Relation-
ships, 4, 3-15.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (1986). The influence of cultural variability on perceptions of
communication behavior associated with relationship terms. Human Communication Research,
13, 147-166.
Gudykunst, W. B., Yoon, Y. C., & Nishida, T. (1987). The influence of individualism-collectivism
on perceptions of communication in ingroup and outgroup relationships. Communication
Monographs, 54, 295-306.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill Inter-
national Ltd.
Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural re-
searchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 225-248.
Lim, T. S. (1994). Facework and interpersonal relationships. In S. Ting-Toomey (Ed.), The chal-
lenge offacework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues (pp. 209-229). Albany, NY: State Uni-
versity of New York Press.
Lim, T. S., & Bowers, J. (1991). Face-work: Solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communica-
tion Research, 17, 415-450.
Morisaki, S. & Gudykunst, W. B. (1994). Face in Japan and the United States. In S. Ting-Toomey
(Ed.), The challenge offacework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues (pp.47-94). Albany, NY:
State University of New York.
Oetzel, J. G. (1998a). The effects of ethnicity and self-construals on self-reported conflict styles.
Communication Reports, 11, 133-144.
Face Typology 417

Oetzel, J. G. (1998b). Explaining individual communication processes in homogeneous and het-
erogeneous groups through individualism-collectivism and self-construal. Human Communi-
cation Research, 25, 202-224.
Oetzel, J. G. (1999). The influence of situational features on perceived conflict styles and self-
construals in small groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 679-695.
Ohbuchi, K., Fukushima, O., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1999). Cultural values in conflict management:
Goal orientation, goal attainment, and tactical decision. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
30, 51-71.
Ohbuchi, K., & Takahashi, Y. (1994). Cultural styles of conflict management in Japanese and
Americans: Passivity, covertness, and effectiveness of strategies. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 24, 1345-1366.
Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 26, 368-376.
Rahim, M. A. (1992). Managing conflict in organizations (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Rogan, R. G., & Hammer, M. R. (1994). Crisis negotiations: A preliminary investigation of facework
in naturalistic conflict discourse. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 216-231.
Sillars, A. L. (1980). Attributions and communication in roommate conflicts. Communication
Monographs, 47, 180-200.
Spitzberg, B. H., Canary, D. J., & Cupach, W. R. (1994). A competence-based approach to the
study of interpersonal conflict. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.), Conflict in personal relationships (pp. 183-
202). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict MODE instrument. Tuxedo,
NY: Xicom.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1983). An analysis of verbal communication patterns in high and low marital
adjustment groups. Human Communication Research, 9, 306-319.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). A face negotiation theory. In Y. Kim & W. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in
intercultural communication (pp.213-235). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Managing intercultural conflicts effectively. In L. Samovar & R. Porter
(Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (7th ed., pp. 360-372). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An up-
dated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187-225.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (in press). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S., Oetzel, J. G., & Yee-Jung, K. (in press). Self-construal types and conflict man-
agement styles. Communication Reports.
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S., Lin, S.-L., Nishida, T. (1991). Culture,
face maintenance, and styles of handling interpersonal conflict: A study in five cultures. The
International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275-296.
Ting-Toomey, S., Yee-Jung, K., Shapiro, R., Garcia, W., Wright, T., & Oetzel, J. G. (2000). Cul-
tural/ethnic identity salience and conflict styles. International Journal ofInterculturalRelations,
24, 47-81.
Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Trubisky, P., Ting-Toomey, S., & Lin, S.-L. (1991). The influence of individualism-collectivism and
self-monitoring on conflict styles. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 65-84.
Williams, F. (1992). Reasoningwithstatistics: How to read quantitative research(4thed.). Forth Worth,
TX: Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich.
Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2001). Interpersonal conflict(6thed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

APPENDIX
Open-Ended Questionnaire
Recall a recent conflict situation with your best friend. Describe the conflict situation in as much
details as possible.
1) Please start your description by giving some background information about your conflict
partner (i.e., sex, age, relationship type, etc.) and then comment on the WHEN, WHERE,
WHAT, HOW, of the conflict situation. Be as specific as you can in describing the conflict
episode.
2) Who was primarily responsible for starting the conflict? Clarify briefly.
3) What were the primary causes of the conflict? Explain briefly.
The following questions are concerned with how you negotiated "face" in the conflict situation.
"Face" is defined as the positive social values (e.g., self-respect) that persons claim for their public
selves.
4) In recalling the same conflict situation, how did you and your conflict partner negotiate
"face"?
5) What were the specific verbal and/or nonverbal communication strategies you used to
negotiate "face"?
6) What were the specific verbal and/or nonverbal communication strategies your partner used
to negotiate "face"?
7) Overall, did you feel you "lost face" or "saved face" in this conflict situation? Why?
8) Overall, did you feel your partner "lost face" or "saved face" in that conflict situation? Why?
9) Did you attempt to "give face" to your conflict partner in this conflict situation? How? Why?
10) Did your partner attempt to "give you face" in this conflict situation? How? Why?
11) In retrospect, what do you think the most appropriate ways to negotiate "face" in this conflict
situation would be?
12) In retrospect, what do you think the most effective ways to negotiate "face" in that conflict
situation would be? Why?
13) Are there anything else you would like to comment on concerning the role of face-negotiation
in interpersonal conflicts?
Basic Demographic Information:

Sex? Male Female Educational level?
Age? yeas old Major?
Ethnic/cultural background (be specific)?
Face Typology 419

A Typology of Facework Behaviors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Typology of Facework Behaviors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [University Of Maryland]

On: 13 October 2014, At: 18:38

A typology of facework behaviors

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463370009385606

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

John G. Oetzel, Stella Ting-Toomey, Yumiko Yokochi,

U.S. participants. In phase I, 286 participants responded to open-ended questions

KEY CONCEPTS Face, facework, conflict, cross-cultural communication

John G. Oetzel (Ph.D., University of Iowa) is an assistant professor in the

Communication Quarterly, Vol. 48 No 4 Fall 2000, Pages 397-419

characteristic mode of managing conflict in a variety of conflict interaction episodes.

398 Oetzel, Ting-Tooney, Yokochi, Masumoto, and Takai

Face and Facework

Face Typology 399

400 Oetzel, Ting-Tooney, Yokochi, Masumoto, and Takai

HI: Facework categories will have three underlying factors of avoiding

Communication Competence and Facework

Face Typology 401

Cultural Variability and Ingroup-Outgroup

402 Oetzel, Ting-Tooney, Yokochi, Masumoto, and Takai

H2: Avoiding facework behaviors will be rated as more effective and

In a recent examination of face-negotiation theory, Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (in

Face Typology 403

H5: Avoiding facework behaviors will be rated as more effective and

appropriate by relative strangers than best friends.

404 Oetzel, Ting-Tooney, Yokochi, Masumoto, and Takai

Face Typology 405

406 Oetzel, Ting-Tooney, Yokochi, Masumoto, and Takai

Face Typology 407

408 Oetzel, Ting-Tooney, Yokochi, Masumoto, and Takai

Case 0- -10- -15- -20- -25

Face Typology 409

410 Oetzel, Ting-Tooney, Yokochi, Masumoto, and Takai

Aggression -.16 .38 .76

Face Typology 411

412 Oetzel, Ting-Tooney, Yokochi, Masumoto, and Takai

Underlying Factors of the Typology

Face Typology 413

behaviors are incompetent

414 Oetzel, Ting-Tooney, Yokochi, Masumoto, and Takai

Implications, Limitations, and Future Directions

Face Typology 415

facework behaviors. In the dominating facework behaviors, defend appears to restore

416 Oetzel, Ting-Tooney, Yokochi, Masumoto, and Takai

Face Typology 417

418 Oetzel, Ting-Tooney, Yokochi, Masumoto, and Takai

Basic Demographic Information:

Face Typology 419

You might also like