ISSN 2079-6617 (Print)
ISSN 2309-9828 (Online)
“Saving face” — means or goal of communication? Socio-psychological characteristics of face concept

“Saving face” — means or goal of communication? Socio-psychological characteristics of face concept

PDF (Rus)

Recieved: 03/18/2021

Accepted: 05/25/2021

Published: 06/30/2020

Keywords: identity; self-presentation; face; facework; intercultural communication; communication competence

p.: 26-35

DOI: 10.11621/npj.2021.0203

Available online: 30.06.2020

To cite this article:

Vasilyeva Ekaterina D. . “Saving face” — means or goal of communication? Socio-psychological characteristics of face concept. // National Psychological Journal 2021. 2. p.26-35. doi: 10.11621/npj.2021.0203

Copied to Clipboard

Issue 2, 2021

Vasilyeva Ekaterina D. HSE University


Background. The concept of “face” appeared in scientific discourse in the middle of the last century and has since been used by researchers in the fields of communication studies, linguistics and psychology. Such a diversified approach to the study of this phenomenon leads to a number of disagreements in the understanding of its main characteristics and functions. The relevance of this review lies in the systematic analysis of face and facework, highlighting it as an independent subject of study and formulating problems for further research.

Objective. The purpose of this article is to analyze the relationship between the concepts of “identity”, “self-presentation” and “face”, as well as to identify the main characteristics and features of the process of saving face from the socio-psychological point of view.

Methods. Systemic and subjective approaches, comparative analysis method.

Results. “Face” is defined as a universal phenomenon of the individual and relational levels that cannot be considered independently of the object and context of communication. In addition, special attention is paid to the consideration of this concept as a component of intercultural communication. New research directions are outlined.

Conclusions. For further study of “face”, one needs a more detailed understanding of the factors influencing the face concerns and facework at the individual, situational and cultural levels. In addition, the concept of “face” can be viewed as a component of intercultural communicative competence.


Andreeva G.M. (2012). Identity presentations in the context of interaction. Studies in psychology: online scientific journal (Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya: elektronnyi nauchnyi zhurnal), 5 (26), 1–1. (In Russ.).

Arundale R.B. (2005). Face as relational and interactional: alternative bases for research on face, facework, and politeness. 9th International Pragmatics Association Conference, Riva del Garda, Italy, 10–15.

Baranova E. (2010). Facework in organizational conflict: A cross-cultural study comparing Russians and Americans. University of Kansas.

Bondarenko A.F. (2018). Ethical personalism: synthesis of cross-cultural and indigenous in psychological counselling. Konsul’tativnaya psikhologiya i psikhoterapiya (Psychological Counselling and Psychotherapy), 9, 6–15. (In Russ.).

Brown P., Levinson S.C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena (Eds.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–311). Cambridge University Press.

Collier M.J. (2015). Intercultural communication competence: Continuing challenges and critical directions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 48, 9–11. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.03.003

Garber-Barron M., Si M. (2013). Adaptive storytelling through user understanding. Ninth Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference, Boston, USA, 128–134.

Goffman E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Hecht M.L. et al. (2005). The communication theory of identity. In Gudykunst W.B. (Eds.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 257–278). Sage.

Imahori T.T., Cupach W.R. (2005). Identity management theory. In Gudykunst W.B. (Eds.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 195–210). Sage.

Khrebina S.V., Filimonova A.N. (2018). Psychological approaches to the study of personal self-representation problem in students of management. International research journal. (Mezhdunarodnyi nauchno-issledovatel’skii zhurnal), 1–3 (67), 116–119. (In Russ.).

Lebedeva N.M. (2011). Ethnic and cross-cultural psychology. Moscow: MAKS Press. (In Russ.).

Matsumoto Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of pragmatics, 12 (4), 403–426. doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(88)90003-3

Merkin R.S. (2006). Uncertainty avoidance and facework: A test of the Hofstede model. International journal of Intercultural relations, 30 (2), 213–228. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.08.001

Oetzel J. et al. (2003). Face and facework in conflicts with parents and siblings: A cross-cultural comparison of Germans, Japanese, Mexicans, and US Americans. Journal of Family Communication. 3 (2), 67–93. doi: 10.1207/S15327698JFC0302_01

Oetzel J., Garcia A.J., Ting-Toomey S. (2008). An analysis of the relationships among face concerns and facework behaviors in perceived conflict situations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19 (4), 382–403. doi: 10.1108/10444060810909310.

Oetzel J.G. (2001). Self-construals, communication processes, and group outcomes in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Small group research, 32 (1), 19–54. doi: 10.1177/104649640103200102

Peleckis K.Ę. (2018). Strategies of Self Presentation. Advanced Science. «Nauka i Prosveshchenie», Penza.

Pikuleva O.A. (2005). Self-presentation of personality in the process of social interaction. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Politologiya. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya (Bulletin of Saint-Petersburg University. Political science. International relations), 1, 85–91. (In Russ.).

Pontari B.A., Schlenker B.R. (2000). The influence of cognitive load on self-presentation: Can cognitive busyness help as well as harm social performance? Journal of personality and social psychology, 78 (6), 1092–1108. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1092

Scollon R. (1995). Plagiarism and ideology: Identity in intercultural discourse. Language in Society, 24 (1), 1–28. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500018388

Sifianou M. (2011). On the concept of face and politeness. Politeness across cultures, 42–58. Palgrave Macmillan, London. doi: 10.1057/9780230305939_3

Soldatova E.L., Pogorelov, D.N. (2018). The phenomenon of virtual identity: actual state of problem. Obrazovanie i nauka (Education and science), 20 (5), 105–120. doi: 10.17853/1994-5639-2018-5-105-124 (In Russ.).

Spencer-Oatey H. (2005). Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of politeness research, 1 (1), 95–119. doi: 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.95

Spencer-Oatey H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of pragmatics, 39 (4), 639–656. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004

Spencer-Oatey H. (2009). Face, identity and interactional goals. Face, communication and social interaction, 137–154.

Speshnev N.A. (2014). The Chinese. Specific features of national psychology. Saint-Petersburg: KARO. (In Russ.).

Ting-Toomey S. (2004). Translating conflict face-negotiation theory into practice. Handbook of intercultural training, 3, 217–248. doi: 10.4135/9781452231129.n9

Ting-Toomey S. (2015). Identity negotiation theory. The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication, 1–10. doi: 10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic129

Vasil’eva E.D. (2020). Psychological difficulties in the process of Russian-Chinese intercultural communication: aqualitative study of Russian business milieu. Organizatsionnaya psikhologiya (Organization psychology), 10 (3), 124–139. [Electronic resource]. URL: (In Russ.).

Wang X. et al. (2016). A moderated mediation model of sharing travel experience on social media: Motivations and face orientations in Chinese culture. Journal of China Tourism Research, 12 (1), 42–64. doi: 10.1080/19388160.2016.1151850

To cite this article:

Vasilyeva Ekaterina D. . “Saving face” — means or goal of communication? Socio-psychological characteristics of face concept. // National Psychological Journal 2021. 2. p.26-35. doi: 10.11621/npj.2021.0203

Copied to Clipboard