Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice Copyright 2000 by the Educational Publishing Foundation

2000, Vol. 4, No. 3,259-271 1089-2699/O0/S5.OO DOI: 10.1037//1089-2699.4.3.259

Social Face in Conflict: Effects of Affronts to Person

and Position in China

Dean Tjosvold Haifa Sun

Lingnan University South China Normal University

Social face concerns have been theorized as greatly affecting management of conflict
and as likely to lead to conflict avoidance, especially among collectivist people.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

However, this study proposed that confirmation of personal face, even with strong
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

negative evaluations of position, can facilitate the effective use of open disagreement
to make decisions. Experimental findings obtained in China indicated that confirmation
of personal face, compared with affronts, developed a cooperative context for conflict
management; specifically, it promoted uncertainty about one's original position, ex-
ploration and understanding of the opposing view, efforts to integrate positions, and
confidence in the relationship. Affronts to position had very modest effects on the
dynamics and outcomes of conflict. Results were interpreted as suggesting that group
members can manage their conflicts constructively when they communicate a direct
confirmation of face.

Social face concerns have been theorized to
be critical for understanding conflict manage-
ment, especially among Chinese and other East
Asian people (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey, 1994;
Leung, 1997; Ting-Toomey, 1988). Indeed, di-
rect disagreements may be avoided because
they easily communicate disrespect (Ding,
1995; Jehn & Weldon, 1992; Kirkbride, Tang,
& Westwood, 1991; Tse, Francis, & Walls,
1994). However, direct discussion may not in-
evitably affront social face. Confirming the face
of the other protagonist may reduce concerns
and promote direct, effective discussion of dif-
ferences. This study suggested that people can
accept strong negative evaluations of their po-
sition, provided they believe their personal face
is confirmed. We hypothesized that confirma-
Dean Tjosvold, Department of Management, Lingnan
University, Hong Kong, China; Haifa Sun, Department of
Psychology, South China Normal University, Guangzhou,
China.
Haifa Sun is now at the School of Management, Zhong-
shan University, Guangzhou, China.
We thank our research assistants from South China Nor-
mal University for their able assistance in conducting this
study. This work was supported by Research Grants Council
of Hong Kong Grant LC890/96H.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Dean Tjosvold, Department of Management,
Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong. Electronic
mail may be sent to tjosvold@ ln.edu. hk.
259
tions of personal face intensify cooperative
goals, which in turn create open-mindedness
toward the opposing view and acceptance of the
other person, whereas affronts to the position
can increase interest in learning more about the
other's arguments.
Conflict and Teamwork
Research on groups and conflict have pro-
ceeded somewhat independently (Bettenhausen,
1991; Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1991; Hack-
man, 1990; Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994; Van de
Vliert & Kabanoff, 1990). However, recent
studies have emphasized the critical role of con-
flict in groups (Amason, 1996; Eisenhardt,
1989; Jehn, 1995, 1997; Mason & Mitroff,
1981; Peterson & Nemeth, 1996). Groups must
contend with, among other issues, conflicts over
such task issues as the effective and fair distri-
bution of work and the best ways to accomplish
their goals, as well as relational issues such as
social loafing and personal hostility (Wageman,
1995). Groups provide interpersonal contexts in
which conflicts occur and attempts to manage
them are made.
Research in the Western countries has em-
phasized that group members, by dealing with
their conflict constructively, can use their dif-
ferences to solve problems and make decisions
(Gruenfeld, 1995; Schweiger, Sandberg, &
 260 TJOSVOLD AND SUN
Rechner, 1989; Tetlock, Armor, & Peterson,
1994). Productive conflict management facili-
tates understanding of opposing views and their
integration into high-quality solutions to prob-
lems and strengthens group members' confi-
dence that they can work together effectively
(Barker, Tjosvold, & Andrews, 1988; Deutsch,
1973, 1980; Tjosvold, 1998). Dealing with con-
flict is not only realistic but, when skillfully done,
promotes effective group decision making and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
relationships (De Dreu & Van de Vliert, 1997).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Conflict researchers have argued that il is not
conflict itself that is destructive or constructive
but how it is managed (Deutsch, 1973). They
have recently distinguished the type of conflict
and found that task conflicts can be constructive
but relationship conflicts tend to interfere with
decision making (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995,
1997). In the present study, we proposed that
people can distinguish between relational issues
and cognitive ones and, in particular, that they
react differently to beliefs that they have ap-
peared personally weak compared with their
position appearing weak. Affronts to personal
face are expected to make conflict relational and
unproductive, whereas affronts to position em-
phasize cognitive disagreement and can pro-
mote an open discussion of differences.
This study made two contributions to the
conflict management and group literature. First,
it used the theory of cooperative and competi-
tive conflict developed in North America
(Deutsch, 1973) to examine the dynamics of
social face among Chinese people as they make
a decision. Social face has usually been invoked
as an explanatory variable in research in both
Eastern and Western countries rather than di-
rectly investigated. The role of social face in
conflict situations should be examined vigor-
ously. Second, this study experimentally inves-
tigated the hypotheses that affronts to personal
social face induce competitive goals, closed-
mindedness, and rejection of the other, whereas
affronts to position are more acceptable and can
increase curiosity to understand the other.
Affronts to Personal Face
Affronts to personal face are expected to
make conflicts relational and unproductive. So-
cial face is based on the assumption that people
attempt to project a desirable image as an indi-
vidual and want assurance that their image is
accepted (Hodgins, Liebeskind, & Schwartz,
1996; Tjosvold, 1983). Goffman (1967), a pio-
neer in social face research, proposed that face
is "an image of the self delineated in terms of
approved social attributes" (p. 2). People use
culturally approved ways to project a favorable
image, and in conflict that image should reflect
strength (Deutsch, 1962). Social face therefore
can be defined as the image of personal strength
protagonists want to project in conflict. Show-
ing respect to people confirms their face in that
it communicates an acceptance of this positive
image, whereas disrespect affronts their face
(Goffman, 1955, 1959).
Western research has concentrated on dem-
onstrating how people respond to believing they
have appeared personally weak, referred to as
an affront, loss, or disconh'rmation of face. Peo-
ple are expected both to be ready to prevent
disconfirmation and to make restitution after
they have suffered an affront to face (Brown,
1968, 1970; Goffman, 1955, 1959). Those who
have lost face do not act consistently with this
image but attempt to assert themselves as
strong. Making concessions in conflict is be-
lieved to confirm weakness, whereas defiance
and counterattack are the aggressive actions
used to reassert face (Deutsch, 1962, 1973).
Threats, negative concessions, claims of su-
periority and other aggressive strategies have
been found to affront social face (Borah, 1963;
Deutsch & Krauss, 1962, Tjosvold, 1974,
1977a, 1977b). Experiments have documented
that in response negotiators will retaliate, coun-
terthreat, use aggression, make concessions
slowly, deceive, and refuse to reach an agree-
ment (Brown, 1968; Deutsch & Krauss, 1962;
Tedeschi, Bonoma, & Brown, 1971; Tjosvold &
Huston, 1978).
Much of the theorizing about social face has
focused on its critical role among Chinese and
other collectivists who are considered collectiv-
ist with a strong emphasis on maintaining rela-
tionships (Boisot & Child, 1996; Chan, 1963;
Triandis, 1990; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui,
1990). Social scientists have argued that pro-
tecting social face, although not restricted to
East Asians, is especially valued in Chinese
society to promote relationships (Bond & Lee,
1981; Brunner & Wang, 1988; Earley, 1997;
Ho, 1975; Hu, 1944; Hwang, 1985; Kirkbride et
al., 1991; Redding & Ng, 1982). Chinese man-
agers and employees seek harmony and com-
 SOCIAL FACE IN CONFLICT
municate that they respect their partners as ca-
pable and worthy (Cocroft & Ting-Toomey,
1994; Leung, 1997; Ting-Toomey, 1988). Their
collectivism in general and their understanding
of social face lead them to be hesitant about
engaging in aggressive interaction that may
challenge the face of others. Direct disagree-
ment easily communicates a lack of respect and
is experienced as an attempt to embarrass and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
challenge one's competence (Ding, 1995; Kirk-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
bride, Tang, & Westwood, 1991; Tse et al.,
1994; Jehn & Weldon, 1992). Western manag-
ers are advised that they should be careful to
protect the face of their East Asian colleagues or
risk severe disruptions in joint ventures and
other international arrangements (Tung, 1991;
Yeung & Tung, 1996).
Although the impact of social face on conflict
management has been thought to be powerful
and general, little empirical work, especially in
East Asia, has directly studied social face (Bond
& Lee, 1981; Ting-Toomey, 1988). Strong
needs for social face are invoked to understand
results indicating that Chinese prefer avoiding
and accommodating strategies. Research di-
rectly on social face, especially among Chinese
people, is needed to document and clarify the
processes by which social face has its theorized
effects.
Cooperative and Competitive Conflict
Deutsch (1962, 1973) used the theory of co-
operation and competition to understand re-
sponses to a loss of face. Denning conflict as
incompatible activities, he argued that protago-
nists can emphasize cooperative or competitive
goals. With cooperative goals, protagonists be-
lieve that as one moves toward goal attainment,
the other also moves toward goal achievement.
They tend to view a conflict as a mutual prob-
lem that needs common consideration and so-
lution. Protagonists who emphasize their com-
petitive interests believe that as one succeeds,
the other moves away from goal attainment.
They tend to view the conflict as a win-lose
struggle; if the other wins, they lose.
This theoretical perspective describes the
processes of social face on conflict manage-
ment. Disconfirming social face has the impact
of strengthening competitive goals. Affronted
negotiators believe that they must reassert
themselves. Their goal of appearing strong is
261
incompatible with the face goals of the other
person. Protagonists compete over who is stron-
ger rather than negotiate in ways in which both
reach their goals of appearing strong. On the
other hand, confirming social face has the im-
pact of strengthening cooperative goals. Protag-
onists help each other appear strong so that they
can engage in an open discussion to develop a
mutually beneficial solution.
Considerable research supports the proposi-
tion that the conclusion of competition has per-
vasive effects on the dynamics and outcomes of
conflict (Deutsch, 1973; Tjosvold, 1985, 1998).
With competitive goals, protagonists often be-
come locked into mutual hostility and costly
aggression. Negotiators whose face was af-
fronted, compared with those whose face was
affirmed, were found to view the conflict as
competitive and to reject the other person and
position (Tjosvold, 1974; Tjosvold, Johnson, &
Fabrey, 1980; Tjosvold, Johnson, & Lerner,
1981). Affronts to personal face are expected to
induce protagonists to reject the opposing posi-
tion and discussant, whereas confirmation leads
to an openness to the opposing person and po-
sition. The present study examined whether
confirmation of face reinforces cooperative
goals and contributes to productive conflict
management among Chinese people.
Recent research has suggested that disagree-
ment, especially within a cooperative context,
induces epistemic curiosity (Berlyne, 1963).
Protagonists, confronted with an opposing po-
sition, begin to doubt the adequacy of their own
perspective (Tjosvold, 1985, 1998). Feeling un-
certain that their present views are complete and
accurate, they are motivated to search the argu-
ments and perspective of opposing positions.
They have been found, for example, to feel
more uncertain about the adequacy of their po-
sition, ask more questions of the other, demon-
strate more understanding, and incorporate ele-
ments of the opposing position into their deci-
sion (Tjosvold, 1982; Tjosvold & Deemer,
1980; Tjosvold & Johnson, 1977, 1978). Avoid-
ing disagreement and discussing topics with
persons with a similar position induce a com-
placent acceptance of one's own view as com-
plete and an illusion of understanding the oth-
er's arguments. Direct, open disagreement, not
conflict avoidance, makes cooperative work
more productive and enhancing.
 262 TJOSVOLD AND SUN
Affronts to Position
Theorists on social face suggest that protag-
onists want to be seen as personally strong and
effective. Whether others disagree with their
position and evaluate their position negatively
is secondary to their needs for personal face.
Especially when evaluations of protagonists as
personally strong are present, evaluations of
their positions may have little impact on feel-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ings of losing face or subsequent competitive
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
beliefs. They may react to affronts to their po-
sition in a task-oriented, cognitive manner by
concluding their position may have weaknesses
that they should examine and consider. Affronts
to position may then intensify uncertainty and
encourage the search for additional information
about the opposing views, resulting in more
openness in disagreement.
On the basis of the above research and rea-
soning, we hypothesized that (a) confirmation
of personal face, compared with affront, induces
perceived cooperative goals, uncertainty, explo-
ration of the opposing position, search for more
information, a positive, nonconfrontational ap-
proach, knowledge of the opposing arguments,
confidence in the relationship, effort to integrate
positions, and integrated decisions; and (b) af-
fronts to position, compared with confirmation,
induce uncertainty and exploration of the op-
posing position.
This study supplements previous North
American research by testing the ideas of social
face and cooperation and competition in Chi-
nese people. Although research in the West
cannot be assumed to apply in the East (Hofst-
ede, 1993), theories of conflict management that
have been validated in the East as well as the
West may be particularly useful in such settings
as international joint ventures.
Method
Participants
Eighty male undergraduates majoring in
management who were recruited from a univer-
sity in Guangzhou, China, volunteered to par-
ticipate in a study on communication in deci-
sion making. They were randomly assigned to
four conditions, with 20 participants in each
condition. They received a gift for their
participation.
Confederates
Four male undergraduate students were re-
cruited to be confederates. They were given 15
hr of training in how to induce participants'
involvement and commitment in the experimen-
tal situation and how to negotiate in a standard
manner and carry out the experimental induc-
tions. All confederates were trained to say the
same thing using similar language, syntax, and
length, except for the differences required by
the operationalizations of the independent vari-
ables. We observed the confederates piloting six
participants each to ensure their competence in
fulfilling the confederate's role. Each confeder-
ate participated in all four conditions in a
counter-balanced way.
Independent Variables
Affront-confirmation of face and affront-
confirmation of position were crossed to form
four conditions. The affront-confirmation in-
ductions were implemented through a question-
naire that was unexpectedly exchanged in the
middle of the negotiations. The experimenter
gave the participant and the confederate a ques-
tionnaire that asked them to rate each other's
competence on a 7-point Likert scale, which for
all scales in this study ranged from 1 (a very
little) to 7 (a great deal). For participants in the
face-confirmed condition, the confederate rated
the participant as 6 on the two personal face
items. They also wrote, "I consider the other
discussant a strong and capable person." In the
face-affronted condition, the confederate rated
the participant as 2 on the personal capability
items and wrote, "I think the other discussant is
a weak and incapable person." In the position-
confirmed condition, the confederate rated the
participant as 6 on the two position items and
wrote, "I find the other's position strong and his
reasoning for this position effective." For the
position-affronted condition, the confederate
rated the participant as 2 on the position evalu-
ation items and wrote, "I find the other's posi-
tion weak and his reasoning for this position
ineffective."
We adopted these operations because they
could directly induce confirmation-affront and
clearly distinguish between personal face and
positions and therefore have experimental real-
ism. Previous research has tended to use indi-
 SOCIAL FACE IN CONFLICT
rect ways of affronting face (i.e., threat) and
then use social face to understand results. It
should be noted that affronts are seldom com-
municated in the manner used in this experi-
ment and therefore the operations are low on
mundane realism.
Dependent Variables
There were seven sets of dependent mea-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sures. To measure the participants' view of the
negotiations as cooperative, we had them com-
plete a postnegotiation questionnaire. Their re-
sponses to three 7-point Likert-type scale ques-
tions were combined to measure perceived co-
operation (see Appendix for this and other
measures included on the postdiscussion ques-
tionnaire). They also indicated on five items the
extent to which they had mutual interests with
the other discussant.
The next set of dependent measures involved
epistemic curiosity. During the negotiations, the
confederate counted the number of questions
the participants asked indicating that they
wanted more information about the confeder-
ate's position. On the postdiscussion question-
naire, participants indicated the extent to which
they felt uncertain about their own position.
They also rated the extent to which they had
explored the position of the other discussant on
six items using 7-point scales.
Another set of measures dealt with approach
to the discussion. Participants indicated on four
items the extent to which they and the other
rebuked and confronted each other in a tough
manner.
The next set focused on the emotional tone of
the discussant. The confederates took notes on
the participants' emotional response to the ex-
perimental inductions. Two students coded the
notes independently. Participants who consis-
tently showed aggressive and unhappy attitudes
were coded as negative; those with respectful,
happy attitudes were coded as positive; partici-
pants with mild and little sign of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction were coded as neutral. The two
coders agreed on 72 out of 80 cases and they
met and resolved their disagreements.
Other measures involved learning. After the
discussion, participants were asked to list the
arguments of the other discussant. They re-
ceived one point for each argument accurately
recalled.
263
The postdiscussion questionnaire also fo-
cused on the relationship between the partici-
pant and confederate. Relationship confidence
was measured by four items concerning the
participant's willingness to work with the other.
The final set of measures involved integration
of arguments. After the discussion, the partici-
pants outlined their decision. These decisions
were rated as 1 if they reflected only the partic-
ipant's assigned position, 2 if they reflected
some ideas from the opposing view, and 3 if
they extensively incorporated the other's posi-
tion. Similarly, participants indicated their rea-
soning for their decision and this was coded as 1
if it reflected only the participant's assigned
position, 2 if it reflected some ideas from the
opposing view, and 3 if it extensively incorpo-
rated the other's position. Participants also rated
their effort to find a new, integrated solution to
the problem on six items using 7-point scales.
As the experimental materials were originally
written in English, several bilingual researchers
translated it into Chinese (Mandarin). They
reached agreement on the translated version.
Procedure
The experiment was conducted in three
phases; Participants prepared for a discussion
about a work distribution issue with a partner,
discussed the issue with a person with an op-
posing opinion, and were debriefed. Two par-
ticipants and two confederates (posing as par-
ticipants) were scheduled at each session.
To begin Phase 1, Haifa Sun divided partic-
ipants and confederates into two groups, each
with one participant and one confederate. He
escorted them into different rooms and outlined
that the research studied communication be-
tween persons in decision making and that they
would take the role of supervisors at East Asian
Electronics. They were to read the written in-
structions and discuss them with each other to
understand the situation and their role.
The participants read that as supervisors they
had to meet with employees about job rotation
(Maier, 1952). The employees had developed a
practice of trading their positions every hour.
The supervisor, as a representative of manage-
ment, opposed this job rotation. Participants
read that they would discuss this distribution of
work with a person from the other group in
Phase 2.
 264 TJOSVOLD AND SUN
Participants were also given a briefing sheet
outlining six arguments supporting their posi-
tion. The supervisor arguments emphasized in-
creased efficiency. They read, for example, that
a time study revealed that workers differed sub-
stantially in their efficiency at different posi-
tions and that the competition's new assembly
made the need for increased efficiency more
pressing.
In Phase 2, the confederates exchanged
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
rooms and were introduced as the employee
representative. Discussants were reminded to
present their opening positions in 2 min and
then to negotiate freely for the remainder of 18
min. Eight min into the negotiations, the exper-
imenter entered the room and asked them to
complete the questionnaires that included the
experimental inductions. Then he unexpectedly
exchanged the questionnaires "to increase com-
munication" so that the participant could read
the confederate's ratings. The experimenter
asked them to continue negotiating before he
left the room and later gave them a warning of 2
min. Then the experimenter entered the room,
asked the participant to complete the decision
report form and the postdiscussion question-
naire, and escorted the confederate out of the
room.
The participants were then fully debriefed,
thanked, and asked not to discuss their experi-
ence with others who might participate. All
participants were then given a small gift.
Preparation and Induction Checks
At the end of Phase 1, participants were
asked to complete a short questionnaire to mea-
sure their preparation for the upcoming discus-
sion. Overall, participants indicated on 7-point
Likert-type scales that they had sufficient time
and information (M = 5.38, SD = 1.15), felt
prepared to defend their position (M = 5.90,
SD = 1.04), and were personally involved in the
study (M = 5.86, SD = 1.18). As expected,
there were no significant differences among the
conditions. These results suggested participants
were prepared to discuss their opposing position
with the other discussant.
To check on the effectiveness of the induc-
tions, we had participants rate four items in the
postdiscussion questionnaire indicating the ex-
tent to which the other person thought the par-
ticipant was a valuable, important, and capable
person and the extent to which the other showed
respect to the participant as a person. (Cronbach
alpha = .90). Participants in the face-confirmed
condition (M = 5.43, SD = 1.00), compared
with the face-affronted condition (M = 3.36,
SD = 1.44), indicated that they were seen as
more competent persons by the other discus-
sant, F(l, 78) = 62.94, p < .01. Participants in
the position-confirmed condition (M = 4.75,
SD = 1.48), compared with the position-affront
condition (M - 3.54, SD = 1.47), indicated on
two items that the other regarded their position
as strong and their arguments as effective
(Cronbach alpha = .90), F(l, 77) = 13.31,
p < .01. Therefore, it can be concluded that
the inductions to test the hypotheses were
successful.
Results
After obtaining a significant MANOVA re-
sult, we conducted univariate analyses to test
the hypotheses. The results (see Table 1) sup-
port the first hypothesis that affront to face
affects the perceived cooperation, dynamics,
and outcomes of conflict. Participants whose
face was confirmed compared with those whose
face was affronted perceived more cooperative
goals between themselves and the other discus-
sant and worked more to promote their mutual
interests than did face-affronted participants.
They demonstrated more epistemic curiosity in
that they asked more questions of the other
discussant. They indicated more uncertainty
about whether their position was completely
satisfactory and explored the opposing views
more than did participants whose face was af-
fronted. Face-affronted participants confronted
the other in a tough manner. Moreover, face-
confirmed participants demonstrated a generally
positive attitude toward the other during the
discussion, whereas face-affronted participants
were negative (Table 2).
Participants whose personal face was con-
firmed rather than affronted learned more in that
they identified more arguments used by the
other discussant (Table 1). They also developed
more confidence that they could work with the
other discussant in the future than did face-
affronted participants.
Personal face-confirmed participants made
more integrated decisions than did face-af-
fronted participants, but this difference did not
 SOCIAL FACE IN CONFLICT 265

Table 1
Significant Comparisons on Dependent Measures
Confirm face Affront face
Confirm Affront Confirm Affront Significant
Variable position position position position comparisons F(U 76)
Cooperative goals
M 4.53 4.24 3.87 3.53 Person 5.59*
SD 1.21 1.49 1.33 1.15
Mutual interest
M 5.59 5.12 4.59 3.65 Person 36.49**
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

SD 0.74 1.13 0.90 0.85 Position 11.87**

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Uncertainty
M 4.07 4.62 3.79 3.61 Person 8.02**
SD 1.03 1.02 0.81 1.19
Questions asked
M 2.05 1.50 0.55 1.15 Person 8.06**
SD 1.96 1.43 0.76 1.42
Explore
M 5.45 5.63 5.08 5.04 Person 7.01**
SD 0.88 0.87 0.91 0.83
Confrontation
M 2.15 2.83 3.53 3.36 Person 10.58**
SD 1.00 1.39 1.55 1.26
Arguments identified
M 1.90 2.10 1.50 1.20 Person 5.71*
SD 1.37 1.12 1.19 0.95
Relationship confidence
M 4.75 4.69 3.49 2.86 Person 25.27**
SD 1.56 1.17 1.38 1.35
Integrated decision
M 1.95 2.50 1.75 1.95 Person 2.53f
SD 1.00 1.24 1.07 0.87
Integrative reasoning
M 2.15 2.50 1.75 2.05 Person 2.83f
SD 1.27 1.32 0.85 1.00
Integrative effort
M 3.92 3.97 3.32 3.64 Person 5.59*
SD 1.03 1.25 0.60 1.25
t p < .10 (marginally significant). *p < .05. **p < .03.

reach statistical significance. They also indi-
cated more integrative reasoning, but this dif-
ference was only marginally significant. Face-
confirmed participants did indicate that they had
made greater efforts to integrate than did face-
affronted participants.
Results suggest that affronts to position had
much more modest impact on the dynamics and
outcomes of conflict than did affronts to face.
Participants whose position was confirmed
compared with affronted indicated that they
were more committed to pursuing mutual ben-
efit. However, contrary to the second hypothe-
sis, position-affronted participants did not indi-
cate more uncertainty about the adequacy of
their position or more interest in understanding
the other's position than did position-confirmed
participants.
Discussion
Our results support the argument that people
can distinguish between relational and task is-
sues involved in conflict, and that affronts to
personal face make conflict more relational and
unproductive. Discussants reacted strongly to
affronts to personal face by becoming closed-
minded toward the other's position and reject-
ing of the other as a person. Affronts to position
were much less impactive. They did not appear
 266 TJOSVOLD AND SUN
Table 2
Emotional Responses of Participants in Each Experimental Condition
Confirm person
Confirm Affront
Response position position
Positive 14 7 2
Neutral 6 13
Negative 0 0
Total cases 20 20
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Note. x*(6, N = 80) = 45.42, p < .01. Data represent number of participants coded with
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
each response.
to induce much rejection of the other nor did
they encourage uncertainty and openness to-
ward the other's view.
North American research on social face and
cooperative and competitive conflict proved to
be useful for understanding conflict manage-
ment among Chinese people. As suggested by
previous theorizing about Chinese organiza-
tions, we found social face concerns to play a
significant role in managing conflict and devel-
oping relationships in China. When they felt
personally accepted as competent, Chinese par-
ticipants were more likely to believe their goals
were cooperatively linked and were more open
to the other person and position. Under these
conditions, social face concerns did not lead to
conflict avoidance but to the productive use of
conflict. When personal face was affronted, so-
cial face concerns induced closed-mindedness
and rejection that disrupted attempts to integrate
positions and undermined relationships.
Results specified that it is affronts to the
person that have such disruptive effects on man-
aging conflict. Affronts to position do not ap-
pear to have strong effects. Contrary to common
theorizing about how Chinese people avoid
conflict, we discovered that the participants did
not feel personally slighted because another dis-
agreed with their position, even when the pro-
tagonist communicated a strong, clear negative
evaluation of their position. As suggested by
social face theorizing (Deutsch, 1962; Goffman,
1967), beliefs that one has appeared personally
incapable—not that one's arguments are dis-
puted—questioned face and provoked rejection.
Consistent with its universalistic aspirations
(Deutsch, 1973), the theory of cooperation and
competition proved useful for understanding the
dynamics of affront to face in China. Confirma-
Affront person
Confirm Affront
position position Total cases
1 24
8 6 33
10 13 23
20 20 so
tion of personal face and cooperative goals ap-
pear to be highly reinforcing, whereas affronts
induce competition. However, the similarity of
findings and use of the same theory do not
suggest that Chinese and Westerners interact in
highly similar ways. The actions they take to
communicate respect and develop cooperative
goals as well as the extent to which they engage
in these actions may be quite discrepant (Wall,
1990; Westwood & Chan, 1995). The cues that
affront face and the specific ways that affronted
people demonstrate defensive closed-minded-
ness may be quite different in China and North
America. The operations of the theory depend
on the cultural context.
However, if cooperative and competitive
conflict dynamics are similar in the East and
West, Chinese and Western partners in joint
business ventures and in other international ar-
rangements may be able to agree that they
should strive to disagree directly and respect-
fully and develop underlying cooperative goals
so that they can work productively and syner-
gistically. A future research challenge is to un-
derstand how people from the West and from
the East can both effectively communicate ac-
ceptance of personal face and disagree directly
and cooperatively.
The affront to position did not induce more
uncertainty and exploration of the opposing
view. Evidence does not support the reasoning
that affront to position heightens epistemic cu-
riosity. One possibility is that the disagreement
itself, especially when supplemented with con-
firmation of face, had already developed a sig-
nificant level of uncertainty and exploration so
that effects of affront to position were masked.
Or it may be that affronts to position are gen-
erally ineffective for inducing exploration. Pro-
 SOCIAL FACE IN CONFLICT
tagonists whose position is affronted may sim-
ply reciprocate by becoming defensive and re-
jecting the other's position. The finding that
affronts to position induced less pursuit of mu-
tual interests supports this reasoning. Indeed, it
may be that affronts to position, when there is
no direct evidence regarding personal face, are
assumed to be affronts to face and provoke
considerable defensiveness. Research is needed
to investigate these speculations.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Overall, our results support the traditional
theorizing about the importance of social face
concerns in conflict management, especially in
China. However, they do not suggest that these
concerns inevitably make constructive conflict
management unlikely. Social face concerns,
when confirmed, allowed participants to make
use of the conflict to strengthen cooperative
goals, search for and understand the opposing
position, work toward integration, and develop
confidence in their relationship. Social face con-
cerns, when appropriately met, can help people
make productive use of conflict to a great
extent.
Limitations
The results of this study are of course limited
by the sample and operations. The Chinese sam-
ple may have made identifying effects of social
face affronts easier, but the sample may be a
particularly stringent test of the value of open
discussion and affront to positions for problem
solving. The confirmation and affront induc-
tions were communicated through an unexpect-
edly exchanged questionnaire, whereas direct
verbal and nonverbal behavior are most often
used. Participants had a shorter time perspective
and fewer tangible outcomes involved than do
most organizational members. The discussants
defended positions that could be integrated. Al-
though this is, a typical assumption in conflict
and decision-making research, some conflicts in
organizations cannot be integrated. The sample
is not representative. However, students at this
Chinese university came from several provinces
of China.
Spector and Brannick (1995) have argued
that the most effective way to overcome meth-
odological weaknesses is to test ideas with dif-
ferent methods. Previous experiments in North
America with different situations and opera-
tions as well as field studies there and in China
267
suggest that major findings may have both in-
ternal and external validity (Tjosvold, 1974;
Tjosvold et al., 1980; Tjosvold et al., 1981;
Tjosvold, Moy, & Sasaki, 1996). It would be
desirable to provide direct experimental verifi-
cation of the theory in actual organizational
settings.
Practical Implications
Managing conflict is increasingly seen as im-
portant in working as a team and solving orga-
nizational problems (De Dreu & Van de Vliert,
1997). Results of this study confirm that Chi-
nese people can use open discussion effectively,
especially if they confirm social face. Social
face concerns do not necessarily impose conflict
avoidance and a reluctance to participate and
voice ideas. Indeed, by directly confirming so-
cial face, Chinese managers and employees can
use conflict to understand each other's position,
strengthen their work relationship, and work
toward integrating their views to create new
solutions.
More generally, the results suggest the
value of using cooperative and competitive
conflict theory to strengthen conflict manage-
ment capabilities, even in a collectivist cul-
ture like China. To develop productive coop-
erative relationships, employees can together
develop shared goals, integrated roles, com-
mon tasks, and shared reward distributions
that build cooperative goals (Hanlon, Meyer,
& Taylor, 1994; Tjosvold & Tjosvold, 1995).
Then they feel that they are on the same side
so that as one succeeds, others succeed; as
one fails, others too are threatened. These
conclusions can greatly aid conflict manage-
ment (Deutsch, 1990).
Our findings support emerging research in
the West that suggests relational conflicts are
particularly disruptive of making decisions
and building relationships in conflict (Kramer
& Messick, 1995) and specifies that affronts
to personal face can instigate relational con-
flicts. However, findings did not indicate that
Lask conflicts, at least as initiated by strong
negative evaluations of the position, induce
more exchange and openness. When rela-
tional issues were minimized and confirma-
tion of personal face confirmed, Chinese pro-
tagonists were found to use open discussion
of differences effectively. They felt they had
 268 TJOSVOLD AND SUN
cooperative goals; asked more questions of
the other; felt less certain of the adequacy of
their original position; explored the opposing
view; discussed in a positive, nonconfronta-
tional manner; understood the opposing argu-
ments; and worked to integrate the positions.
Efforts to strengthen the relationship through
confirmation of personal face can help pro-
tagonists discuss problems comprehensively
and constructively.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
References
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of
functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic
decision making: Resolving a paradox for top
management teams. Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 123-148.
Barker, J., Tjosvold, D., & Andrews, I. R. (1988).
Conflict approaches of effective and ineffective
managers: A field study in a matrix organization.
Journal of Management Studies, 25, 167—178.
Berlyne, D. E. (1963). Motivational problems raised
by exploratory and epistemic behavior. In S. Koch
(Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 5; pp.
75-93), New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bettenhausen, K. L. (1991). Five years of groups
research: What we have learned and what needs to
be addressed. Journal of Management, 17, 345-
381.
Bettenhausen, K. L., & Murnighan, J. K. (1991). The
development of an intragroup norm and the effects
of interpersonal and structural challenges. Admin-
istrative Science Quarterly, 36, 20-35.
Boisot, M., & Child, J. (1996). From fiefs to clans
and network capitalism: Explaining China's
emerging economic order. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 41, 600-628.
Bond, M. H., & Lee, P. W. H. (1981). Face saving in
Chinese culture: A discussion and experimental
study of Hong Kong students. In A. Y. C. King &
R. P. L. Lee (Eds.), Social life and development in
Hong Kong(pp. 289-303). Hong Kong, China:
The Chinese University Press.
Borah, L. A. (1963). The effects of threat in bargain-
ing: Critical and experimental analysis. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 4, 107-122.
Brown, B. R. (1968). The effects of the need to
maintain face in interpersonal bargaining. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 107-122.
Brown, B. R. (1970). Face saving following experi-
mentally induced embarrassment. Journal of Ex-
perimental Social Psychology, 7, 490-502.
Brunncr, J. A., & Wang, Y. (1988). Chinese negoti-
ating and the concept of face. Journal of Interna-
tional Consumer Marketing, 1, 27-43.
Chan, W. T. (1963). A source book in Chinese phi-
losophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Cocroft, B. A. K., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Face-
work in Japan and in the United States. Interna-
tional Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18, 469-
506.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate
culture: The rites and rituals of corporate life.
Reading, MA: Addis on-Wesley.
De Dreu, C , & Van de Vliert, E. (Eds.). (1997).
Using conflict in organizations. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some
theoretical notes. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska
symposium on motivation (pp. 275-319). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Deutsch, M. (1980). Fifty years of conflict. In L.
Festinger (Ed.), Retrospections on social psychol-
ogy (pp. 46-77). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Deutsch, M. (1990). Sixty years of conflict. The
International Journal of Conflict Management, 1,
237-263.
Deutsch, M., & Krauss, R. M. (1962.). Studies in
interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Conflict Res-
olution, 6, 52—76.
Ding, D. Z. (1995, August). In search of determi-
nants of Chinese conflict management styles in
joint ventures: An integrated approach. Paper pre-
sented at the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the
Association of Management, Vancouver, Canada.
Earley, P. C. (1997). Doing an about-face: Social
motivation and cross-cultural currents. In P. C.
Earley & M. Erez (Eds.), New perspectives on
international industrial/organizational psychology
(pp. 243-275). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic de-
cisions in high velocity environments. Academy of
Management Journal, 32, 543-76.
Goffman, E. (1955). On face work. Psychiatry, 18,
213-231.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in ev-
eryday life. New York: Doubleday.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in
face-to-face behavior. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Gruenfeld, D. H. (1995). Status, ideology, and inte-
grative complexity on the U.S. supreme court:
Rethinking the politics of political decision mak-
ing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
68, 5-20.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In
J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational be-
havior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-
tice Hall.
 SOCIAL FACE IN CONFLICT
Hackman, J. R. (1990). Groups that work (and those
that don't). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hanlon, S. C , Meyer, D. C , & Taylor, R. R. (1994).
Consequences of gainsharing: A field experiment
revisited. Group and Organizational Management,
79,87-111.
Ho, D. Y. (1975). On the concept of face. American
Journal of Sociology, 81, 867-884.
Hodgins, H. S., Liebeskind, E., & Schwartz, W.
(1996). Getting out of hot water: Facework in
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
social predicaments. Journal of Personality and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Social Psychology, 71, 300-314.
Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in manage-
ment theories. The Academy of Management Ex-
ecutive, 7, 81-94.
Hu, H. C. (1944, January-March). The Chinese
concepts of face. American Anthropologist, 46,
45-64.
Hwang, K. K. (1985). Face and favour: The Chinese
power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92,
944-974.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of
the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256—282.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict
types and dimensions in organizational groups.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557.
Jehn. K., & Weldon, E. (1992, August). A compara-
tive study of managerial attitudes toward conflict
in the United States and the People's Republic of
China: Issues of theory and measurement. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Academy of Man-
agement, Las Vegas, NV.
Kirkbride, P. S., Tang, S. F. Y., & Westwood, R. I.
(1991). Chinese conflict preferences and negotiat-
ing behaviour: Cultural and psychological influ-
ences. Organizational Studies, 12, 365-386.
Kramer, R. M., & Messick, D. M. (1995). Negotia-
tion as a social process. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Leung, K. (1997). Negotiation and reward allocations
across cultures. In P. C. Earley & M. Erez (Eds.),
New perspectives on international industrial/orga-
nizational psychology, (pp. 640-675) San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Maier, N. R. F. (1952). Principles of human behav-
ior. New York: Wiley.
Mason, R. O., & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging
strategic planning assumptions. New York: Wiley.
Peterson, R. S., & Nemeth, C. J. (1996). Focus versus
flexibility: Majority and minority influence can
both improve performance. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21, 14-23.
Redding, S. G., &. Ng, M. (1982). The role of "face"
in the organizational perceptions of Chinese man-
agers. Organizational Studies, 3, 201—219.
269
Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994).
Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settle-
ment (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Rechner, P. L.
(1989). Experiential effects of dialectical inquiry,
devil's advocacy, and consensus approaches to
strategic decision making. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 32, 745-772.
Spector, P. E., & Brannick, M. T. (1995). The nature
and effects of method variance in organizational
research. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.)
International Review of Industrial and Organiza-
tional Psychology (pp. 249-274). Chichester, En-
gland: Wiley.
Tedeschi, J. T., Bonoma, T. B., & Brown, R. C.
(1971). A paradigm for the study of coercive
power. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 15, 197-
223.
Tetlock, P. E., Armor, D., & Peterson, R. S. (1994).
The slavery debate in antebellum America: Cog-
nitive style, value conflicts, and the limits of com-
promise. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 66, 115-126.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). A face negotiation theory.
In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theory
and intercultural communication (pp. 47-92).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tjosvold, D. (1974). Threat as a low-power person's
strategy in bargaining: Social face and tangible
outcomes. International Journal of Group Ten-
sions, 4, 494-510.
Tjosvold, D. (1977a). The effects of the constituent's
affirmation and the opposing negotiator's self-pre-
sentation in bargaining between unequal status
groups. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Performance, 18, 146-157.
Tjosvold, D. (1977b). Low-power person's strategies
in bargaining: Negotiability of demand, maintain-
ing face, and race. International Journal of Group
Tensions, 7, 29-42.
Tjosvold, D. (1982). Effects of the approach to con-
troversy on superiors' incorporation of subordi-
nates* information in decision making. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 67, 189-193.
Tjosvold, D. (1983). Social face in conflict: A cri-
tique. International Journal of Group Tension, 13,
49-64.
Tjosvold, D. (1985). Implications of controversy re-
search for management. Journal of Management,
11, 21-37.
Tjosvold, D. (1998). The cooperative and competi-
tive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments
and challenges. Applied Psychology: An Interna-
tional Review, 47, 285-313.
Tjosvold, D., & Deemer, D. K. (1980). Effects of
controversy within a cooperative or competitive
context on organizational decision making. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 65, 590-595.
 270 TJOSVOLD AND SUN
Tjosvold, D., & Huston, T. L. (1978). Social face and
resistance to compromise in bargaining. Journal of
Social Psychology, 104, 57-68.
Tjosvold, D., & Johnson, D. W. (1977). The effects
of controversy on cognitive perspective taking.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 679-685.
Tjosvold, D., & Johnson, D. W. (1978). Controversy
within a cooperative or competitive context and
cognitive perspective taking. Contemporary Edu-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
cational Psychology, 5, 376—368.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D. W., & Fabrey, L. (1980).
Effects of controversy and defensiveness on cog-
nitive perspective-taking. Psychological Reports,
47, 1043-1053.
Tjosvold, D., Johnson, D. W., & Lerner, J. (1981).
Effects of affirmation and acceptance on incorpo-
ration of opposing information in problem-solving.
Journal of Social Psychology, 114, 103-110.
Tjosvold, D., Moy, J., & Sasaki, S. (1996). Managing
for customers and employees in Hong Kong: The
quality and teamwork challenges. Journal of Mar-
ket-Focused Management, 1, 339-357.
Tjosvold, D., & Tjosvold, M. M. (1995). Cooperation
theory, constructive controversy, and effective-
ness: Learning from crises. In R. A. Guzzo & E.
Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision mak-
ing in organizations: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
79-112.
Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross cultural studies of in-
dividualism and collectivism. In J. J. Berman
(Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1989
(Vol. 37, pp. 41-133). Lincoln: University of Ne-
braska Press.
Triandis, H. C , McCusker, C , & Hui, C. H. (1990).
Multimethod probes of individualism and collec-
tivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 59, 1006-1020.
Tse, D. K., Francis, J., & Walls, J. (1994). Cultural
differences in conducting intra- and inter-cultural
negotiations: A Sino-Canadian comparison. Jour-
nal of International Business Studies, 24,537-555.
Tung, R. (1991). Handshakes across the sea: Cross-
cultural negotiating for business success. Organi-
zational Dynamics, 14, 30-40.
Van de Vliert, E., & Kabanoff, B. (1990). Toward
theory-based measures of conflict management.
Academy of Management Journal, 33, 199-209.
Wageman, R. (1995). Interdependence and group
effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly,
40, 145-180.
Wall J. A., Jr. (1990). Managers in the People's
Republic of China. Academy of Management Ex-
ecutive, 4, 19-32.
Westwood, R. L, & Chan, A. (1995). The transfer-
ability of leadership training in the East Asian
context. Asia Pacific Business Review. 2, 68-92.
Yeung, L, & Tung, R. (1996). Achieving business
success in Confucian societies: The importance of
guanxi (connections). Organizational Dynamics,
25, 54-65.

Scale
Cooperation
Mutual Interest
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Internal Uncertainty
Explore the Other's Position
Confrontation
Confidence in the Other
Integrate Efforts
SOCIAL FACE IN CONFLICT 271
Appendix
Postdiscussion Measures
Item Alpha
Your benefit and the other's were consistent .64
Your goals and the other's goal went together
You supported each other's interest
You listened to the other's presentation of his argument .72
The other was interested in listening to your argument
Both parties were empathetic toward each other emotionally
The other discussed issue coldly
You liked the way the other discussed with you
The other's way of discussing made you doubt the quality of your argument .69
The other's way of discussing made you question the effectiveness of your
argument
The other's way of discussing reinforced your willingness to understand the
other's argument
The other's way of discussing motivated you to have a deeper discussion
with the other
The other's way of discussing stimulated you to collect more evidence to
persuade the other
The other's way of discussing made you listen more carefully to the other's
arguments
You considered the other's opinion .81
You tried to understand the reasonable components of the other's argument
You understood the issue discussed from the other's position
You tried to understand the other's feelings and emotions
You tried to explore the other's intentions
You tried to explore the other's position
To what extent did you rebuke the other .77
To what extent did the other rebuke you
To what extent did you criticize the other impolitely
To what extent did the other criticize you impolitely
You would recommend the other to an important position for the way he .87
discussed with you
You found the other to be a creative person
You were willing to work together with the other in the future
You tried to find a solution accepted by both parties .72
You thought the other's position and argument had merit
You integrated both parties' opinions
You were willing to satisfy the other's requirement to have job rotation
You agreed with the other's argument for job rotation
You have changed from your original position