Ting-Toomey (1988) drew on the work of Goffman (1955) and Brown and Levinson (1987) to develop the face-negotiation theory. The face-negotiation theory provides a sound explanatory framework for explaining differences and similarities in face and facework during conflict. In a nutshell, the face negotiation theory and subsequent research assumes that:

(1) People in all cultures try to maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations; (2) The concept of “face” is especially problematic in vulnerable interpersonal situations (such as embarrassment and conflict situations) when the situated identities of the communicators are called into question;

(3) Cultural variability, individual-level variables, and situational variables influence cultural members’ selection of one set of face concerns over others (such as self-oriented face-saving vs. other-oriented face-saving);

(4) Subsequently, face concerns influence the use of various facework and conflict strategies in intergroup and interpersonal encounters.

Based on the past researches and findings, the current updated version of face-negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998) has 32 propositions. These propositions focus on comparisons of conflict behavior between cultural variables such as individualism-collectivism, power distance (1-20) or posit the relationship between individual-level variables (e.g., self-construal) and conflict styles (21-32). Propositions 1-20 deal with culture-level facework and conflict style issues, proposition 21-32 deal with individual-level facework and conflict style issues. These propositions have been tested and largely supported in prior research (e.g., Oetzel et al., 2001; Ting-Toomey et al., 1991).