Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Submit your manuscript through SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Communication Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Oetzel, J. G.
Right arrow Articles by Ting-Toomey, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Face Concerns in Interpersonal Conflict

A Cross-Cultural Empirical Test of the Face Negotiation Theory

John G. Oetzel

Stella Ting-Toomey

This study sought to test the underlying assumption of the face-negotiation theory that face is an explanatory mechanism for culture’s influence on conflict behavior. A questionnaire was administered to 768 participants in 4 national cultures (China, Germany, Japan, and the United States) asking them to describe interpersonal conflict. The major findings of this study are as follows: (a) cultural individualism-collectivism had direct and indirect effects on conflict styles, (b) independent self-construal related positively with self-face and interdependent self-construal related positively with other-face, (c) self-face related positively with dominating conflict styles and other-face related positively with avoiding and integrating styles, and (d) face accounted for all of the total variance explained (100% of 19% total explained) in dominating, most of the total variance explained in integrating (70% of 20% total explained), and some of the total variance explained in avoiding (38% of 21% total explained) when considering face concerns, cultural individualismcollectivism, and self-construals.

Key Words: interpersonal conflict • cross-cultural communication • conflict • styles • self-construals • face theory

Communication Research, Vol. 30, No. 6, 599-624 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0093650203257841


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Communication ResearchHome page
M. Matsunaga and T. T. Imahori
Profiling Family Communication Standards: A U.S.-Japan Comparison
Communication Research, February 1, 2009; 36(1): 3 - 31.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Cross-Cultural PsychologyHome page
T. Jackson, H. Chen, C. Guo, and X. Gao
Stories We Love by: Conceptions of Love Among Couples From the People's Republic of China and the United States
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, July 1, 2006; 37(4): 446 - 464.
[Abstract] [PDF]