全屏显示专题章节

Face influences conflict behavior，because，in any conflict situation，conflict parties have to consider protecting self-interest conflict goals or honoring or attacking another person’s conflict goals．Conflict is an ideal forum for face-threatening and face-saving behaviors．The objective of this article is three-fold：first，to provide an update on face-negotiation theory （Ting-Toomey，1988）；second，to introduce a facework competence model for intercultural conflict training；and third，to discuss severalmajor training and research issues in using the face-negotiation theory and its companion model，the facework competencemodel．

As social beings，most of us have the experiences of blushing，feeling embarrassed， awkward，shameful，or prideful．Many of these feelings are face-related issues．When our social poise is attacked or teased，we feel the need to restore or save face．When we are being complimented or given credit for a job well done in front of others（i．e．in an individualistic culture），we feel our social self-worth is enhanced and stroked．Losing face and saving face are some of the key concerns of face-negotiation theory（Ting-Toomey，1985，1988）．

“Face”refers to a claimed sense of favorable social self-worth that a person wants others to have of her or him．It is a vulnerable identity-based resource because it can be enhanced or threatened in any uncertain social situation．Situations such as conflictmanagement，business negotiation and diplomatic negotiation entail active faceworkmanagement．Specific interpersonal relationship development situations such as initial inter-action and relationship-building also involve culture-sensitive facework communication．

Facework refers to a set of communicative behaviors that people use to regulate their social dignity and to support or challenge the other’s social dignity．Face and facework are about interpersonal self-worth issues and other-identity consideration issues．The study of facework has been linked to complimenting，compliance-gaining，politeness，requesting，embarrassment，apology，shaming，decision-making and conflict behavior（Brown and Levinson，1987；Holtgraves，1997；Kim，1994；Lindsley and Braithwaite，1996；Oetzel，1998；Schneiderman，1995；Scollon and Scollon，1995；Ting-Toomey，1994a，b）．

While face and facework are universal phenomenon，how we“frame”the situated meaning of face and how we enact facework，differ from one culture to the next．Culture-specific lenses enhance and complement a culture-general framework in analysing facework negotiation across cultures．Culture-specific theoretical efforts（see Bond，1997，and Gao，1998，on Chinese facework；Garcia’s，1996，Mexican facework；Lim and Choi’s，1996，Korean facework；Katriel’s，1986，Israeli Sabra facework，and Morisaki and Gudykunst’s，1994，Japanese facework）have been developed in a wide range of cultures．

In a multinational training session（or in a session with trainees having to deal with multinationals），we may first need to use a culture-general training framework before proceeding to discuss culture-specific facework issues．Trainees need to understand the larger picture or terrain of face-work before the specific pieces of the puzzle can be placed appropriately．Face is，fundamentally，a“social self”construction issue．Social self is tied closely with the conceptualization of“personal self”phenomenon in different cultures．

Cultural values shape ourmeanings and punctuation points of salient facets of social self and personal self．In some cultures，the“social self”（i．e．the“public self”）is expected to be closely aligned with the“personal self”（i．e．the“private self”）．In other cultures，the“social self”is expected to engage in optimal role performance，regardless ofwhat the inner“personal self”is experiencing at that interaction moment．The conceptualization of“self”and hence，“face”，is the generativemechanism for all communicative behaviors．

More specifically，face influences conflict behavior，because，in any conflict situation，conflict parties have to consider protecting self-interest conflict goals and honoring or attacking another person’s conflict goals．On top of incompatible goals，intercultural conflict parties typically use their habitual conflict scripts to approach the conflict situation．Inter-cultural conflict often involves miscommunication between members of two or more cultures over incompatible identity，relational，process，and substantive conflict issues（Ting-Toomey，1994a，b， 1997Wilmot and Hocker，1998）．Due to different cultural values and conflict assumptions，the initialmiscommunication between two cultural parties can easily escalate into an intensive，polarized conflict situation．A theory，such as the face-negotiation theory，helps to direct our attention to the cultural blind spots in facework miscommunication and acts as a useful training tool in early conflict intervention．

The objective of this essay is three-fold：first，to review and provide an update on face-negotiation theory（Ting-Toomey，1988）；second，to introduce a facework competence model for intercultural conflict training；and third，to discuss several major training and research issues in using the face-negotiation theory and the facework competencemodel．

Using a cultural variability approach of individualism-collectivism to the study of face and facework，Ting-Toomey（1988）proposes a theoreticalmodel，the face-negotiation theory（with seven assumptions and 12 propositions），of face and facework．The dimension of individualism-coll-ectivism serves as a conceptual grid in explaining why themeaning of“self”and hence，“face”varies across cultures．It clarifies our under-standing of how the various“I-identity”or “we-identity”orientations（Ting-Toomey，0874，1988）influence our everyday communication behaviors across cultures．

Numerous cross-cultural studies（Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey，1988；Hofstede，1980，1991；Triandis，1995；Schwartz and Bilsky，1990；Triandis et al．，1988）have provided theoretical and empirical evidence that the value orientations of individualism and collectivism are pervasive in a wide range of cultures．Basically，individualism refers to the broad value tendencies of a culture in emphasizing the importance of“I”identity over“we”identity，individual rights over group rights and personal self-esteem issues over social self-esteem issues．In comparison，collectivism refers to the broad value tendencies of a culture in emphasizing the importance of the“we”identity over the“I”identity，in group interests over individual interests and mutual-face concerns over self-face concerns（Ting-Toomey，1988）．Individualistic and collectivistic value tendencies aremanifested in everyday family situations，classroom interactions and workplace situations．While both sets of value tendencies exist in the same culture and in each person，there aremore situations in individualistic cultures that entail expectations for the“I-identity”and personal self-esteem enhancement responses and there are more situations in group-oriented cultures that entail expectations for the“we-identity”and social self-esteem enhancement responses（Luhtanen and Crocker，1992）．

Hofstede’s（1991）and Triandis’（1995）research indicates that individualism is a cultural pattern that is found in most northern and western regions of Europe and in North America．Collectivism refers to a cultural pattern that is common in Asia，Africa，the Middle East，Central and South America and the Pacific．While less than one-third of the world population resides in cultureswith high individualistic value tendencies，more than two-third’s of the people live in cultures with high collectivistic value tendencies（Triandis，1995）．Within each culture，different ethnic communities can also display distinctive individualistic and collectivistic value patterns．

Ting-Toomey（1988）conceptualizes face as an individual’s claimed sense of favorable social self-image in a relational and network context．Face-work is defined as clusters of communicative behaviors that are used to enact self-face and to uphold，challenge，threaten，or support the other person’s face．Face is a cluster of identity-and relational-based issues that simmers and surfaces before，during and after the conflict process．Face is associated with respect，honor，status，reputation，credibility，competence，family/network connection，loyalty，trust，relational indebtedness and obligation issues．It is a field concept（Ho，1994）that has simultaneous affective（e．g．feelings of shame and pride），cognitive（e．g．calculating how much to give and receive face）and behavioral layers．Facework refers to specific verbal and non-verbalmessages that help tomaintain and restore face loss and to uphold and honor face gain （see Ting-Toomey and Cole，1990，for a detailed review of facework strategies）．

In a nutshell，Ting-Toomey’s（1988）face-negotiation theory and subsequent research （Cocroft and Ting-Toomey，1994 Kurogi，1996，1997 Ting-Toomey，1994c；Ting-Toomey and Cole，1990；Trubisky etal，1991；Ting-Toomey et al，1991）assumes that（1）people in all cultures try tomaintain and negotiate face in all communication situations；（2）the concept of “face”is especially problematic in vulnerable interpersonal situations（such as request，embarrassment，or conflict situations）when the situated identities of the communicators are called into question；（3）the cultural variability dimension of individualism-collectivism （Triandis，1995）influencesmembers’selection of self-oriented facework behaviors or other-oriented facework behaviors；（4）the cultural variability dimension of power distance （Hofstede，1991）influences members’assertion of power resources（e．g．person-based vs．positional-based power）in different cultures；（5）individualism-collectivism influences members’selection of autonomy-based facework（i．e．a boundary issue-self vs．other-directed）and approval-based facework（i．e．a social esteem issue-self vs．other-directed）；（6）small and large power distance influences members’preferences for horizontal vs．vertical facework interaction；and（7）individualism-collectivism and power distance，in conjunction with other individual（e．g．self-construal），identity（e．g．gender），relational（e．g．status，intimacy），situational（e．g．ingroup/outgroup）and conflict salience（e．g．conflict importance or intensity）factors，influence the use of various facework behaviors in intergroup and interpersonal encounters．

Culture-Level Analysis．Overall，research by Ting-Toomey et al．（Cocroft and Ting-Toomey，1994 Ting-Toomey，1994b；Ting-Toomey et al．，1991；Ting-Toomey et al．，in press；Trubisky et al．，1991）indicate that while individualists tend to use more self-oriented face-saving strategies，collectivists tend to use more other-oriented face-saving and face-honoring strategies．Furthermore，individualists tend to use self-face autonomy-preserving interaction strategies and collectivists tend to use other-face non-impositional strategies（e．g．in requesting situations；Kimand Wilson，1994）．Lastly，individualists tend to use self-face approval-seeking interaction strategies and collectivists tend to use other-face approval-enhancing interaction strategies（Kurogi，1996，1997 Lindsley and Braithwaite，1996）．

More specifically，in conflict situations，face-saving strategies are needed when one’s face is being attacked or threatened and one needs to either defend one’s own face and：or save mutual：other face．When one’s face is being threatened（or in anticipation of being threatened），the typical face-work strategies are preventive facework strategies and restorative face-work strategies（Brown，1977；Ting-Toomey and Cole，1990）．Preventive facework strategies（e．g．the use of disclaimers and hedges）refer to actions designed to“hide，soften，ward off，prevent，or block．．．and to control the occurrence of future events that one expectswill foster an appearance of weakness or vulnerability，particularly when it is presumed that such events will impair one’s image or the image of those whom one represents”（Brown，1977，p．278-279）．Restorative facework strategies refer to actions designed to“repair damaged or lost face［and are］occurring in response to events that have already transpired．Thus，it is past-oriented and defensive．It reflects actions designed to re-establish or reassert one’s capability and：or strength after one feels they have been damaged”（Brown，1977，p．281）．In extending this line of argument，Hammer and Rogan（1997）（see also，Ting-Toomey and Cole，1990）suggest that face-work strategies vary along the line of the following three concepts：（a）locus of facework：is the face message directed at self or other？（b）face valence：does the face message behavior serve to defend，maintain，attack，or honor（i．e．mitigate threats to）face？and（c）temporality：does the face message function to proactively protect against potential face threats or to retroactively restore perceived face loss？While the（a）and（b）questions have been addressed in the 1988 version of the face-negotiation theory，the（c）question is an interesting one．The（c）questions pertains to the use of either preventive or restorative facework strategies tomitigate face threats or reclaim face loss．

We believe that for individualistic cultures，because of their“I-identity”priority，individualistic memberswould tend to usemore self-face defending strategies（e．g．justifications and situational excuses），retroactively，to restore perceived face loss than collectivists．Collectivists，on the other hand，coming from face-salient cultures，would tend to usemore self-effacing strategies，proactively，to ward off potential face threats more than individualists．Furthermore，preventive and restorative facework strategies can include either situational-based accounts or dispositional-based accounts in defending or accepting one’s own face loss．

We predict that individualists，when their face is threatened，will tend to use situational accounts（i．e．external causes such as blaming generalized others or the situation）to save face．Situational accounts refer to stories（e．g．car problem）that attribute the reasons of the conflict problem to external sources（i．e．external to one’s ability，disposition，or competence）．For collectivists，when their face is threatened，they will tend to use negative，internal dispositional accounts to accept face loss．Dispositional accounts refer to stories that locate/attribute the problematic event to one’s failed effort，incompetence，or negative personality traits．Both groupsmay also use an extrinsic，destiny factor such as“bad luck”or“fate”to explain the conflict situation．

Kitayama et al．（1997）observe：“In causal attribution，［individualists］tend to explain their own success in terms of their own internal and relatively stable attributes，such as ability，while discounting their failure by attributing to some external causes”（p．1246）．In comparison，collectivists such as the Japanese tend to（explain one’s success in terms of effort．．．and one’s own failure in terms of a lack of abilities or talents—a finding corroborated in studies of two other Asian countries（Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China）”（p．1246）．By engaging in self-criticism or self-effacing interaction behaviors，collectivists are acknowledging that there is a set of ingroup standards to be followed．When the standard is violated，then one should rectify the failed situation via focused improvement and effort，in order to be reaccepted by the ingroup members again．

Additionally，people in different cultures also use facework enhancement strategies（e．g．compliments）to support or honor other’s face．We propose here that for individualists，when their face is enhanced or stroked，they will use self-face honoring strategies in acknowledging and accepting the face-enhancement compliments or comments．Furthermore，in competitive situations（e．g．job interviews）that call for face recognition，individualists will use self-enhancement face strategies to distinguish the“self”from others more so than collectivists．Comparatively，collectivists will use more self-effacement strategies（e．g．“I’m just lucky to have prepared for the right questions”or“I don’t know that much about this computer program，but I can learn”）than individualists．In responding to face-giving comments（e．g．compliments）from others，collectivists will also tend to use more self-effacing and ingroup-enhancement facework（e．g．“The entire group really worked hard and pulled together”）to defuse self-face enhancing comments．The explanatory mechanism underlying the different use of facework strategies across the cultural divide rests with the value emphasis of“I-identity”and“we-identity”（for an extensive discussion，see Ting-Toomey，1988）in individualistic and group-oriented cultures．

In relating facework with conflict styles，while individualists（e．g．U．S．A．respondents）tend to use more direct，face-threatening conflict styles（e．g．dominating style），collectivists（e．g．Taiwan and China respondents）tend to use more indirect，mutual face-saving conflict styles （e．g．avoiding and obliging styles-connoting either high mutual-face or other-face concern）．Males（from both Japan and the U．S．A．）also report the use ofmore dominating/competing facework strategies（i．e．high self-face，low other-face concern）than females（Cocroft and Ting-Toomey，1994）．Korean respondents have also been found to use more indirect conversational styles and look for indirectmeaningsmore so than U．S．A．respondents（Holtgraves，1997）．In terms of specific ethnic group membership differences，Latino（a）Americans and Asian Americans in the U．S．A．have been found to use avoiding and third party conflict stylesmore so than African Americans．Asian immigrants tend to use avoiding style more so than European Americans（Ting-Toomey et al．，in press）．It is important to note that all these studies have been conducted in acquaintance conflict relationships．

Additionally，the conflict styles of integrating（i．e．concern over mutually-acceptable substantive decisions，e．g．“Iwould collaboratewith the other person to come up with decisions acceptable to both of us”）andmidpoint compromising（i．e．viamiddle ground and concessions，e．g．“I would find a middle course to resolve the impasse”）have，thus far，reflected mixed research results（Chua and Gudykunst，1987；Ting-Toomey，1986；Ting-Toomey et al．，1991；in press）．For example，Chua and Gudykunst（1987）uncover that individualists tend to use more solution-oriented styles（i．e．a combined integrating and compromising styles）more so than collectivists．Ting-Toomey et al．（in press）reveal that individuals with a strong U．S．A．cultural identity（i．e．identifying with the overall U．S．A．culture）use more integrating，compromising and emotionally expressive conflict styles than individuals with a weak U．S．A．cultural identity．However，Ting-Toomey et al．（1991）find that while self-face is related to dominating conflict style，other-face is related to avoiding，integrating and compromising styles．While self-face has been consistently related to confrontational facework tactics and dominating conflict style，other-face has been consistently related to relational smoothing tactics and avoiding/obliging conflict style．

The issue involving integrating/compromising style，however，is not as clearcut．Gleaning results of past studies，it appears that respondents from different cultural/ethnic groups attribute different meanings to the linguistic terms of“integrating”and“compromising”．Individualists may view integrating and compromising styles as finding substantive solutions and closures to a conflict problem．Collectivists，on the other hand，may view integrating and compromising styles as connoting relational-level collaboration and concessions．It is obvious that both conflict styles need to be reconceptualized and reoperationalized on a specific level of application．

Based on our knowledge of individualistic and collectivistic value tendencies，we can reconceptualize integrating and compromising styles as involving either substantive-level collaborative mode，or relational-level collaboration and concessions．We predict that individualists would tend to focus more on substantive problem-solving mode—with the intention of bringing a solution-closure to the conflict session．On the other hand，collectivists，given their orientation on relational interdependence，would tend to focus more on relational give-and-take as reflective of the integrating and compromising styles．

Beyond individualism-collectivism，another important value dimension we should take into consideration when we conduct facework in a new culture is the dimension of power distance．In fact，face-negotiation process entails complex，power interplay between the conflict parties．Hofstede（1991）defines power distance as the extent to which the less powerfulmembers of institutions accept that power is distributed unequally．Power refers to the extent of influence and the degree of compliance between two ormore interactants in negotiating their differences．Small power index values are found，for example，in Austria，Israel，Denmark，New Zealand，Ireland，Sweden and Norway．Large power index values are found，for example，in Malaysia，Guatemala，Panama，Philippines，Mexico，Venezuela and Arab countries（Hofstede，1991）．

In small power distancework situations，power is evenly distributed．Subordinates expect to be consulted，and the ideal boss is a resourceful democrat．In large power work situations，the power of an organization is centralized in the uppermanagement level．Subordinates expect to be told what to do，and the ideal boss plays the benevolent autocratic role．While the U．S．A．scores on the low side of power distance，it is notextremely low．Hofstede（1991）explains that “U．S．A．leadership theories tend to be based on subordinates with medium-level dependence needs：not too high，not too low”（p．42）．

People in small power distance cultures tend to value equal power distributions，equal rights，symmetrical relations and equitable rewards and costs based on personal performance．People in large power distance cultures tend to acceptunequal power distributions，hierarchical roles，asymmetrical relations and rewards and sanctions based on rank，role，status，age and perhaps even gender identity．For small power distance cultures，defending and asserting one’s personal rights is reflective of self-face esteeming behaviors．For large power distance cultures，playing one’s role optimally and carrying out one’s ascribed duties responsibly and asymmetrically，constitute appropriate facework interaction．

More specifically，in supervisor-subordinate conflicts，high-statusmembers of small power distance culturesmay tend to use verbally-direct facework strategies such as direct disapproval strategies（e．g．criticism，reprimands）and autonomy-threat strategies（e．g．threats and order）to induce compliance（Fairhurst et al．，1994）．Low-statusmembersmay use self-face defensive strategies to defend and recover face loss．In comparison，high-statusmembers of large power distance cultures may tend touse verbally-indirect facework strategies such as indirect questioning strategies and　relational pressuring/shaming strategies（e．g．ingroup disappointments and shame）to induce compliance．Low-statusmembersmay use self-effacing strategies（e．g．apology）and self-criticism strategies（e．g．via negative personal dispositional accounts）to accept face loss．

Individuals in small power distance cultures are concerned with horizontal facework interaction（i．e．minimizing the respect-deference distance via informal interaction）．In small power distance cultures，horizontal facework is expressed via person-based power resources such as personal credibility，personal expertise and rational persuasion．In small power distance cultures，individual rights and duties are defined by contracts or laws，notascription．Contractor litigation protects an individual’s legal right or obligation to a given transaction or conflict outcome．In noncompliance conflict situations（e．g．both supervisor and supervisee believe they are right），both high-and low-statusmembers are likely to use dominating，controlling conflict styles（Conrad，1991）in defending their self-face viewpoints more than members in large power distance cultures．

Comparatively，in large power distance cultures，individuals are concerned with vertical facework interaction（i．e．maximizing the respect-deference distance via formal interaction）．In initial conflict situations（i．e．low salient conditions），high-status power individuals may use indirect conflict strategies such as hinting or indirect questioning to approach the conflict problem．By occupying high-status positions，high-status individuals are assumed to have“big face”and they can afford to be benevolent to the subordinates．Concurrently，it is expected that the subordinates can“intuit”or even“anticipate”（via the reading of non-verbal signals，silences and indirectmessages）that a conflict problem is brewing before the supervisors have to articulate their displeasure directly．In high salient conflict situations，however，when high-status members feel compelled to confront low-status members directly，it means that the conflict situation is beyond“face tolerance”threshold level．The direct confrontation between the unequal-status parties signals that the conflict situation is urgent and volatile．High-status members in large power distance cultures would tend to use identity and relational shaming styles to induce compliance．Low-statusmembers or subordinates would tend to use obliging，avoiding and neglecting conflict stylesmore than their cohorts in small power distance cultures．

Finally，conflict is often managed via informal，third-party mediation in large power distance cultures．This third-party mediator is one who usually occupies a high-status position （and hence，has a credible reputation）and has a good relationship with both disputants．In order to“give face”to this high-status，third-party mediator，both conflict parties may be willing tomake concessions in the name of honoring the high-status，mediator’s“face”（and thus，saving their own face）．While there have been some research efforts on linguistic formality and facework interaction styles（see，for example，Garcia，1997，on Mexican facework and Kurogi，1996，1997，for Japanese facework）across cultures，the relationship among power distance，status facework，and conflict styles needs to be systematically addressed and tested．

Individual-Level Analysis．The relationship between culture-level analysis and conflict behavior is mediated by individual-level factors．One such factor is self-construal or the distinction between independent and interdependent self-construal（Markus and Kitayama， 1991，1994 Singelis and Brown，1995）．While the previous section covers ideas pertaining to cultural group membership differences between cultures，this section focuses on individual variation factorswithin and between cultures．

Independent and interdependent self-construal refers to the degree to which people conceive of themselves as relatively autonomous from，or connected to，others．The independent construal of self involves the view that an individual is a unique entity with an individuated repertoire of feelings，cognitions and motivations（Markus and Kitayama，1991）．Individuals with high independent self-construals tend to view themselves as unique and distinctive from others．They use their own personal attributes and abilities as motivational bases for action rather than the thoughts and feelings of others．Individuals who view themselves as independents value“I-identity”，personal achievement，self-direction and competition．When communicating with others，high independents believe in striving for personal goals，being in control of the agenda and expressing their positions assertively．Overall，independent self-construal types tend to be more self-face oriented than other-face oriented．The independent self-construal has been linked to such behavior as competing/dominating conflict style（Ting-Toomey et al．，1998），verbal self-enhancement（Kitayama et al．，1997），low-context communication（Gudykunst et al．，1996），outcome-oriented conversational constraints（Kim et al．，1994），and task effectiveness in groups（Oetze land Bolton-Oetzel，1997）．Independent self-construal types tend to predominate in individualistic cultures or ethnic groups．

The interdependent construal of self，on the other hand，involves an emphasis on the importance of relational connectedness（Markus and Kitayama，1991）．People who have an interdependent self-construalwant to fit in with others，act appropriately，promote others’goals and value relational collaboration．The self-in-relation guides the behavior of high interdependents in social situations．When communicating with others，high interdependents value other-face and mutual-face concerns．They are eager to appeal to other-face concerns in vulnerable interpersonal situations in order to preserve relational harmony．The interdependent self-construal has been linked to behaviors such as avoiding conflict styles（Ting-Toomey et al．，1998），verbal self-criticism（Kitayama et al．，1997），high-context communication （Gudykunst etal．，1996），other-oriented conversational constraints（Kim et al．，1994），and relational effectiveness in groups（Oetzel and Bolton-Oetzel，1997）．Interdependent self-construal types tend to predominate in collectivistic cultures or ethnic groups．

Another interesting theoretical issue in self-construal research is whether to treat self-construal as two dimensions（i．e．independent self vs inter-dependent self）or in four dimensions（i．e．high/low independent self-×high/low interdependent self）．Some scholars have argued that different communication situations lead to the salience of either an independent or interdependent self-construal（Gudykunst et al．，1996）．In contrast，Kim et al．（1996）argue that the two dimensions should be considered together for a more precise conceptualization of the relationship between inde-pendent and interdependent self-construal．The latter viewpoint is akin to Berry et al．（1987）acculturation typological model in which cultural identity and ethnic identity should be considered asmutual，interdependent dimensions in a pluralistic society（Ting-Toomey et al．，in press）．Both conceptual explanations are possible．Some situationsmay lead to the activation of a predominately one self（i．e．either high independent self or high interdependent self），while other situationsmay lead to the activation of a dual self（i．e．a biconstrual self）．In a pluralistic society such as the U．S．A．，it seems plausible that different ethnicmemberswould be influenced by diverse U．S．A．ethnic values in their development of self-construal．Thus，the four-dimensional approach will yield a more precise picture concerning the relationship among self-construal，facework and different conflict styles．

In using a four-dimensional approach to conceptualize self-construal，the result is four categories of self-construal：biconstrual type，independent type，interdependent type，and ambivalent type．The biconstrual type is reflected in high degrees of independent and interdependent self-construal．The independent type is reflected in a high degree of independent self-construal and a low degree of interdependent self-construal．The inter-dependent type is reflected in a low degree of independent self-construal and a high degree of interdependent self-construal．The ambivalent type is reflected in low degrees of independent and interdependent self-construal．On a conceptual level，it seems logical that the mechanism of self-construal should influence different conflict communication styles．

The findings of Ting-Toomey et al．’s（1998）research illustrate clearly that conflict style differences do exist among the four self-construal types．First of all，biconstrual types appear to havemany conflict styles in their repertoire．Biconstruals use all of the direct，upfront styles of conflict management——integrating，compromising，dominating，and emotional expression．It appears thatbiconstrual individuals prefer to engage actively in conflict either through solution-oriented styles or emotionally expressive styles．Second，independents usemore direct，solution-oriented styles to engage in conflict with others in comparison to interdependents and ambivalents．Third，interdependents use more avoiding and third-party conflict styles than biconstruals and independents．This is likely because of their desire to maintain relational harmony that is associated with the interdependent self-construal．Finally，ambivalents usemore third-party and neglecting conflict styles than biconstruals and independents．Ambivalents have low degrees of both independent and interdependent self-construals．Ambivalent individuals opt for amore indirect，diffusive approach in dealing with conflicts，perhaps due to the fact that they have vacillating，uncertain identities．Thus，overall，we propose here thatwhile biconstrual types appear to use a wide range of conflict styles to deal with both substantive and relational conflict issues，ambivalent types appear to use a narrow range of conflict styles to deal with different conflict episodes．

A Summary．Based on past research and findings on both cultural group membership level and individual variation level，an update of the facework propositions is presented in Table 1．Altogether，seven assumptions（see Assumptions Section）and 32 propositions of face-negotiation theory are posited．While Propositions 1-20 deal with culture-level facework and conflict style issues，Propositions 21-32 deal with individual-level facework and conflict style issues．Additionally，while Propositions 0—03 address general facework issues that should cross-apply to a diverse range of vulnerable interpersonal situations（e．g．compliance-gaining，request，embarrassment，apology，business negotiation），Propositions 15-32 deal specifically with the relationship between facework and conflict styles．New propositions concerning power distance and self-construal variations are included in this version of the face-negotiation theory．

Proposition 1：Members of individualistic cultures tend to express a greater degree of self-facemaintenancemessages than members of collectivistic cultures．

Proposition 2：Members of collectivistic cultures tend to express a greater degree of other-face ormutual-facemaintenancemessages than members of individualistic cultures．

Proposition 3：Members of individualistic cultures tend to use self-face autonomy-preserving interaction strategiesmore so than members of collectivistic cultures．

Proposition 4：Members of collectivistic cultures tend to use other-face non-impositional strategiesmore so than members of individualistic cultures．

Proposition 5：Members of individualistic cultures tend to use self-face approval-seeking interaction strategiesmore so than members of collectivistic cultures．

Proposition 6：Members of collectivistic cultures tend to use other-face approval-enhancing interaction strategiesmore so than members of individualistic cultures．

Proposition 7：Members of individualistic cultures，when their face is threatened，will tend to use situational accounts（i．e．external causes）to save face more than members of collectivistic cultures．

Proposition 8：Members of collectivistic cultures，when their face is threatened，will tend to use dispositional accounts（i．e．internal causes）to accept face lossmore than members of individualistic cultures．

Proposition 9：Members of individualistic cultures tend to use a greater degree of direct，upfront facework strategies in a conflict situation than members of collectivistic cultures．

Proposition 10：Members of collectivistic cultures tend to use a greater degree of indirect，smoothing facework strategies than members of individualistic cultures．

Proposition 11：Members of small power distance cultures tend to expect and express a greater degree of horizontal facework interaction（i．e．minimizing respect-deference distance）than members of large power distance cultures．

Proposition 12：Members of large power distance cultures tend to expect and express a greater degree of vertical facework interaction（i．e．maximizing respect-deference distance）than members of small power distance cultures．

Proposition 13：High-status members of small power distance cultures tend to use verbally-direct facework strategies such as direct disapproval strategies（e．g．criticism）and autonomy-threat strategies（e．g．order）to induce compliancemore than high-statusmembers of large power distance cultures．

Proposition 14：Low-statusmembers of small power distance cultures tend to use self-face defensive strategies to counter face threatmore thanmembers of large power distance cultures，and that low-statusmembers of large power distance cultures tend to use self-effacing strategies tomitigate face threatmore than members of small power distance cultures．

Proposition 15：Members of individualistic cultures tend to use more dominating/competing conflict strategies than members of collectivistic cultures．

Proposition 16：Members of collectivistic cultures tend to use more avoiding/obliging conflict strategies than members of individualistic cultures．

Proposition 17：Members of individualistic cultures tend to use more substantive，outcome-oriented conflict strategies（e．g．substantive appeals，task-oriented integrating and compromising styles）than members of collectivistic cultures．

Proposition 18：Members of collectivistic cultures tend to use more relational，process-oriented conflict strategies（e．g．identity and ingroup-based appeals，relational integration and concession styles）than members of individualistic cultures．

Proposition 19：High-statusmembers of small power distance cultures tend to use more dominating conflict styles and verbally-direct coercive tactics than high-statusmembers of large power distance cultures，and that high-statusmembers of large power distance cultures tend to use more shame-inducing relational conflict styles and indirect tactics than high-status members of small power distance cultures．

Proposition 20：Low-status members of small power distance cultures tend to use dominating conflict styles to resist compliance more than members of large power distance cultures，and that low-status members of large power distance cultures tend to use obliging，avoiding，and neglect conflict styles more than low-status members of small power distance cultures．

Individual-level propositions

Proposition 21：An increase in self-face emphasis is associated with an increase in self-face honoring or self-face enhancement interaction behaviors．

Proposition 22：An increase in other-and mutual-face emphasis is associated with an increase in self-effacing or in group-enhancement facework behaviors．

Proposition 23：Self-facemaintenance is associated positively with dominating/competing conflictmanagement style．

Proposition 24：Other-face maintenance is associated positively with avoiding/obliging conflictmanagement style．

Proposition 25：Self-face maintenance is associated positively with substantive conflict resolution modes．

Proposition 26：Mutual or other-face maintenance is associated positively with relational conflict resolution modes．

Proposition 27：High independent self-construal type is associated positively with dominating/competing conflictmanagement style．

Proposition 28：High interdependent self-construal type is associated positively with avoiding/obliging conflictmanagement style．

（S．Ting-Toomey，“Thematrix of face：an updated face-negotiation theory”，in W．B．Gudykunset（ed．）theorizing about Intercultural communication，thousand oaks：sage publications，2005，pp．71-92）