Communications Question

Autonomous and Positive Face | Week 4 Discussion 1

Supporting an autonomous and positive face can be challenging. There are times when an autonomous and positive face can create conflict.

Provide an example of a time that this has happened to you or someone you know in your professional and personal experience. What did you do to resolve the issues of autonomous and positive face? Are the strategies you used for each different?

Forgiveness and Reconciliation | Week 4 Discussion 2

Forgiveness can be an integral part in conflict resolution and even a strong factor in psychological and physical health. Some philosophers state that forgiveness is a gift to the person doing the forgiving, not necessarily for the forgiven.

Using what you learned from your readings (including chapter 9 in Cahn and Abigail) and additional research from the UAGC library:

Compare and contrast the ideas of forgiveness and the concept of reconciliation, as they relate to communication.

Describe a situation in which someone has committed a difficult to forgive relational transgression against you and explain the advantages of forgiveness and reconciliation, emphasizing communication aspects.

Conclude by discussing how understanding these concepts informs your communication techniques in a conflict.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Mediation and Arbitration | Week 4 Assignment

http://www.adr.org/

Write a paper that compares mediation and arbitration by explaining the function, role, and effectiveness of each in resolving conflicts.  Further compare the two conflict resolution methods by discussing the types of disputes that can be utilized by mediation and arbitration, and include examples. Finally, explain the drawbacks to using each conflict resolution method.

10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Managing Conflict through Communication
Fifth Edition
Dudley d. Cahn
Professor Emeritus State University of New York, New Paltz
Ruth Anna Abigail
Professor Emeritus Azusa Pacific University
Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco Upper Saddle River
Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid Milan Munich Paris Montreal Toronto
Delhi Mexico City Sã o Paulo Sydney Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,se…
1/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Chapter 7 Managing Face
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,se…
2/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Objectives
At the end of this chapter, you should be able to:
Explain the role of face and face saving in conflict.
Explain the difference between positive face and autonomous face.
Identify at least three preventative strategies you can use to avoid threatening the other person’s
face in a conflict situation.
List three general ways and three specific techniques you can use to support another’s face
during interaction in a conflict situation.
Compare and contrast three conflict situations using the repair sequence: one where you offer
an account, one where you make a concession, and another where you offer an apology.
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,se…
3/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Key Terms
account
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec73#P7000481815000000000000000001DD2)
acknowledgment
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec73#P7000481815000000000000000001DCB)
apologies
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec73#P7000481815000000000000000001DD6)
autonomous
face
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec72#P7000481815000000000000000001DB5)
autonomous
face
management
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec72#P7000481815000000000000000001DB6)
concessions
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec73#P7000481815000000000000000001DD5)
corrective
face
management
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec73#P7000481815000000000000000001DC3)
disclaimers
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec73#P7000481815000000000000000001DBD)
excuses
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec73#P7000481815000000000000000001DD3)
explaining
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/ch07#P700048181500
face
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec73#P7000481815000000000000000001DC7)
face
(impression)
management
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/ch07#P700048181500
justifications
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec73#P7000481815000000000000000001DD4)
offending
situations
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec73#P7000481815000000000000000001DCE)
positive face (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec72#P7000481815000000000000000001DB3)
positive
face
management
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec72#P7000481815000000000000000001DB4)
preventive
face
management
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec73#P7000481815000000000000000001DBB)
remedy
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec73#P7000481815000000000000000001DCA)
repair sequence (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec73#P7000481815000000000000000001DCC)
reproach
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec73#P7000481815000000000000000001DC9)
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,se…
4/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
scanning
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec73#P7000481815000000000000000001DC6)
supportive
face
management
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec73#P7000481815000000000000000001DC0)
The impressions that people have of themselves and each other may be the central issue in a conflict or
arise out of one as a secondary issue. The study of the role of these impressions or what we call
managing face is a rather challenging topic.
A fundamental assumption that underlies our approach to interpersonal conflict is that people are
motivated to create and maintain impressions of themselves. This requires that we distinguish between
face and face management. The sociologist Goffman termed face, as the image people have of
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec7themselves.1
5#P7000481815000000000000000001DF0) The concept of face is basic to who we think we are.
We do more than have an image of ourselves or face; we actively work to get others to accept us as the
person we think we are. This face work behavior we call face (impression) management, which is what
one does during interaction with others who may support, alter, or challenge one’s face. Domenici and
Littlejohn claim that “Face is an accomplishment of interaction as communicators work together over
time to negotiate face issues.”2 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001DF1) According to Goffman, we all have images of ourselves, and we
project
that
image
(our
face)
in
interactions
with
others.3
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001DF3) As we interact, we also look for confirmation of the face we
present.
The projection of face is cooperative—​as long as the image we project seems consistent and believable,
others usually accept it and respond to it as presented. For example, we authors attempt to appear as
competent teachers (or present our “face”) and trust our students to support us in our roles (i.e.,
manage our “face” in the classroom, hallway, or faculty office). Similarly, the students act like prepared
and motivated individuals and expect the faculty to respect their image of themselves. Of course, the
situation is made more complicated by the many factors that affect our perceptions, understandings, and
actions, but this teacher–student example can give you an idea of how we present and manage face in
everyday interaction.
In this chapter, we want to address an important skill in developing competent conflict management
behavior: The ability to maintain one’s own impression and that of others to avoid escalating the conflict
and to restore a relationship if face is lost. We help you identify people’s face, identify techniques to
prevent the loss of face, describe general and specific ways to support the other’s face in conflict
situations, and describe steps you can take to correct a situation after it has occurred.
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,se…
5/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
7.1 Understanding the Demands of Face
The mutual cooperation involved in projecting face is a principle of interaction that is taken for granted.
Being able to create and sustain an identity for oneself, as well as helping the other person to create and
maintain an identity for himself or herself, is a fundamental component of communication competence.
In the past, intercultural communication researchers claimed that everyone has face concerns during
conflict, but members of different cultures present, protect, lose, and save face in different ways because
of different levels of face concerns. However, recent research suggests that these cultural differences are
not as great as we think.4 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001DF4)
The idea that face is the result of negotiation between self and others who may or may not accept the
image one projects implies that face management frequently includes the management of interpersonal
conflict. A person may think he is smart, funny, and lovable, but when challenged is likely to be offended.
In fact, the remark may so anger the person that he or she walks out of the room and has nothing more
to do with the other person. Because people tend to accept others for the image they project (unless
they see a reason to object), face is something that lurks behind the scenes and may or may not make a
difference in a conflict situation. However, when aroused, it may make all the difference in the world.
Consider the role of face in this conflict:
On the way into a restaurant in a hotel, I slipped on the slick marble floor and fell down. My
husband, instead of being concerned, began to yell at me for being so clumsy. He even refused to
help me up off the floor, even though I was having trouble getting up. After we were seated, he
could see that I was crying, and he began to yell at me again, telling me I shouldn’t cry, that if I’d
been paying attention I wouldn’t have fallen, and if I weren’t so fat, I wouldn’t need his help
getting up anyway. When he left for the restroom, the waitress came up to me and asked if she
could do anything for me. I couldn’t talk because I was just so embarrassed. All I could do was
sit there and wonder how I had become a person who would take that abuse from someone
who said he loved me.
The lengths to which people may go to maintain and repair face are wonderfully summarized in a recent
book called Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me ), which examines years of research on how we justify
our actions when faced with the possibility that they are wrong. The authors note:
If . . . ​admitting mistakes is so beneficial to the mind and relationships, why aren’t more of us
doing it . . . ​even when people are aware of having made a mistake, they are often reluctant to
admit it, even to themselves, because they take it as evidence that they are a blithering idiot.5
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001DF5)
If this sounds familiar, it is because the act may be explained by attribution theory and attribution error
as
described
in
Chapter
3
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/ch03#ch03) . You may recall
that we tend to take more credit than is due when the outcomes are good, and assume less responsibility
than we should when the outcomes are bad (it is his or her fault, not mine).
Another reason people don’t want to lose face is that they may also experience shame more than guilt.
While both emotions are reactions to untoward behavior, shame is more self‐focused (e.g., I am such an
idiot), and guilt is more behavior focused (e.g., What a dumb thing I did!). Of the two, guilt is the more
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,se…
6/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
productive emotion. While guilt “causes us to stop and re‐think—​and it offers a way out, pressing us to
confess,
apologize,
and
make
amends,”6
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001DF6) shame does not lead to those outcomes. When we feel shame,
we are more likely to think less of ourselves, withdraw and avoid others, deny our responsibility for the
situation, and to shift the blame to others. Guilt tends to lead to a felt need for restoration; shame leads
to defensiveness. In the narrative above, the woman who fell may feel guilty about her weight or lack of
dieting, but it is her husband who attempted to lower her self-respect by shaming her (verbal abuse).
Because of how shame affects others, we should avoid shaming them in conflict situations.
In addition to creating conflict situations, threats to face can also make them worse. Negative comments
about the state of a romantic couple’s relationship have been found to be more face‐threatening than
those concerning either partner’s personality, physical appearance, or specific behaviors.7
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001DF7) However, something as simple as answering cell phone calls
and the length of the phone conversation with others when on a date with a romantic partner can
produce
negative
face
threats
and
negative
feelings.8
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001DF8) In fact, romantic partners have to deal with potential face
threats
when
initiating,
intensifying,
or
ending
romantic
relationships.9
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001DF9) Any interaction is potentially face‐threatening; but in conflict
situations, face threats can escalate a conflict and cause it to get out of hand.
As
discussed
in
Chapter
2
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/ch02#ch02) on functional and
dysfunctional conflict communication cycles, one source of a competitive conflict escalation cycle is the
introduction of face issues, which add an extra issue to the initial conflict problems. The disagreement
may be over “X” but by calling the other person “stupid” you have now introduced another issue “Y.”
Because face is so important to people, they try to repair their damaged image before the initial conflict
issue is settled (e.g., “So let’s argue over whether or not I am stupid before we even think about getting
back to the main issue”). Threatening the other person’s face is a good way to guarantee that the conflict
does not enter the resolution phase.
When people lose face they may also seek retaliation. You now see the other as mean, divisive,
uncooperative, problematic, a barrier to achieving a goal. As we said in Chapter 3
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/ch03#ch03) , you are making
internal attributions to explain the other person’s behavior, which you see as an attack on your face.
Aggressive or violent responses to face‐losing situations are more likely when people believe that the
other person in the situation has caused it. Such situations are as mild as someone criticizing you or
teasing you. It is sometimes more serious, such as one embarrassing another in public (e.g., a teacher
criticizing a student in class or a supervisor reprimanding a worker in front of the other workers).
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,se…
7/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
7.2 Two Types of Face: Positive and Autonomous Face
In a seminal work, Brown and Levinson concluded that people experience two kinds of face needs.10
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001DFA) Positive face is our belief that we are likable and worthy of
other’s respect. Positive face management occurs when we work to get other people to like and respect
us. We manage our positive face when we get others to support us, value what we value, express
admiration for our unique qualities, and show acceptance of us as competent individuals. Autonomous
face is that part of us that wants some independence, privacy, recognition for our contributions, or time
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec7alone.11
5#P7000481815000000000000000001DFB)
[Autonomous] face is the desire to maintain one’s own autonomy. Individuals in any culture
want to be shown proper deference and respect and not have their privacy and space invaded,
their resources spent, and their
actions
restricted
without just cause.12
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001DFC)
While each of us enjoys the company of our loved ones, family, and friends, there are times when we
respond to autonomous face needs and want to engage in a creative activity (writing, painting), spend
some time in reflection (walking or sitting and thinking), prepare for a big event (get our act together),
contribute to some large project, or simply rest after a lot of socializing. We engage in autonomous face
management when we try to get other people to recognize, encourage, support, and approve our
autonomous face needs. We also want to put some of ourselves into the products and services we
provide for others, which is another way to look at our autonomous face. When others recognized the
personal contribution we made as well as the time and effort we put into the activity, our autonomous
face is again supported. Sometimes others respond as we would like, but other times we have to remind
them of our role in a project and the contributions we made. When we try to get others to appreciate
what we did, sometimes they do not accept our autonomous face or reward us for our efforts.
My roommate, Sarah, only gets paid if the woman she works for, Anna Marie, actually uses her
designs. Keep in mind that Anna Marie constantly calls Sarah and takes up a lot of her time. The
designs take many hours and even days to do, but there is no guarantee that Sarah will benefit
from all her time and effort in the end. She has a lot of school work and not enough time to stay
on top of it all. Anna Marie should pay Sarah for her time and effort, not just if she occasionally
uses one of her designs.
Interestingly, one person’s positive face management may produce autonomous face conflict in another.
One may want others to communicate support of her or his positive face by expressing admiration for
that person, spending time with that person, and so on, but by doing so, one can encroach on the
person’s autonomy. Constantly calling each other on cell phones and texting may be taken as positive
face support between romantic partners but also leave them with little time alone (an autonomous face
need).
On a recent television show, an elderly but wealthy woman took an interest in a family struggling to make
ends meet. At first the parents were delighted to be invited to the wealthy woman’s home and enjoy her
many luxuries. The problem occurred when the woman started spending a great deal of time with the
children and took over the parents’ roles, buying the children whatever they wanted, giving them a room
of their own in her house, letting them do whatever they wanted such as painting on the walls of the
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,se…
8/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
children’s room. She even crawled into bed with the parents one night when they were watching TV in
her guest bedroom. The parents enjoyed her hospitality up to a point but that ended when they felt that
their privacy and independence was threatened along with the challenge to their parenthood.
Supporting a person’s positive and autonomous face requires a balance under the best of circumstances.
Consider how these competing needs are threatened in a conflict situation.
I would say that the biggest conflict in my life arises when my girlfriend gets emotional. Of all the
girlfriends I have had, I have never dated one as emotional as my current girlfriend. The conflict
usually comes when I have had a hard day and still have work to do in the evening. My girlfriend
comes over and yells at me for ignoring her and not really loving her, because I have been gone
all day without giving her any attention. When I try to tell her I have been busy and still have
much to do, the conflict gets worse. She starts to cry and becomes crazy. At this point, I cannot
deal with the situation and want to hide under a rock. The conflict usually has to defuse itself by
me leaving and not speaking to her until later that evening or the next day. If she follows me out
the door, I have to stop and order her back inside and not answer her calls for a few days. When
she becomes calm, the situation gets resolved, but sometimes it can last for a week or so.
While the man’s positive face is supported by his partner’s desire to spend time with him, his
autonomous face is threatened by her need for too much of his limited time. According to O’Sullivan, it is
unlikely that people would perceive a particular encounter as strictly positive or negative.13
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001DFD) So, in the above example, the couple’s conflicts arise out of the
need to support both positive and autonomous face. Sometimes our individual needs smother another’s
need for autonomy. Take this case with Aron for example.
Last semester, my friend, Aron, started seriously dating Vicky. In the beginning of their
relationship, he hung out with me and our mutual friends. But, as things progressed, he seemed
to cling to the girlfriend, and completely ignore the rest of us. We know he enjoys our company
and likes spending time with us, but as his relationship with Vicky progressed, he simply
disappeared. She demanded his total time and attention and completely shut out his other
friends and interests. He needs to gain a balance between her demands for his time and
attention and his own personal needs (i.e., independence from the girlfriend).
Sometimes face threats occur unexpectedly. A study of 911 calls, for example, claims that the required
questions for information asked by the operators “can threaten callers’ desire to be treated as
trustworthy, intelligent, and of good character, as well as threaten their need to feel unimpeded in their
requests for timely police service.”14 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001DFE) And while most of us would agree that being told we are cared
for is good, a directly affectionate message, while supporting our positive face, might threaten our
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec7autonomous
face.15
5#P7000481815000000000000000001DFF)
To help solve the dilemma posed by competing desires for positive and autonomous face, we offer a
before, during, and after set of recommendations. Before committing loss of face, people may take steps
to prevent it. During interaction, they can go a step farther by supporting the other’s face in general or
specific ways. Finally, if a threat to face is made, they can use corrective face management, using
constructive responses to loss of face in a conflict situation.
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,se…
9/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
7.3 Face Management
There are four factors in face management: the act (what is or should be said or done?), the
conversation (what do I think is happening right now?), the episode (how does this fit into a larger
pattern of interaction with the other?), and the lifescript (who am I?). All four factors are interconnected
—​as changes occur in one they also occur in others. That is, your choice of different conversational
strategies as you perceive and interpret different conflict situations affects your lifescript and vice versa.
Face management is generally one of three kinds: preventative, supportive, or corrective.
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
10/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Preventive Face Management
By avoiding or minimizing threats to face, preventive face management forestalls becoming embroiled
in face‐saving issues during conflict situations. The means of doing this include the following:
Trying to see the situation from the other’s perspective—​how the issue affects the other and the
other’s self‐image.
Accepting what the other person says at face value (no pun intended). Unless there is a good
reason to the contrary, it is best to accept what the other person says as an accurate reflection of
his or her feelings.
Accepting the other person’s right to change his or her mind. No one can predict the future with
any degree of accuracy. The fact is that goals change, people change, and life changes. To treat a
change in goals as a sign of the other person’s insincerity or instability threatens the other
person and sets up future conflicts concerning that very issue.
Avoiding face‐threatening topics (which is almost impossible in a conflict situation) or employing
communication practices that minimize threats to face.
The last approach of avoiding threats to face consists of communication practices such as politeness and
disclaimers (additions to the message that soften the forcefulness of the message) that help to minimize
threats to face before they happen.16 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001E00)
This narrative illustrates how to maximize a face threat. We hope you notice as well that the evaluation,
control, and certainty with which the dissatisfaction was expressed also created a defensive climate (see
Chapter 6 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/ch06#ch06) ).
Just recently, my mother was expressing her dissatisfaction to me about the host in the dining
room at the retirement home where she lives. She had come a little late to lunch and found that
“her” table had dishes all over it. Instead of moving to a different table or asking someone to
take away the dishes, she turned to the host and said, “When are you going to start doing your
job?” As she told me the story, she was amazed that the host had subsequently been rude to her.
I tried explaining conflict management skills to her, but someone with as much practice at
engaging in nasty behavior as my mother is not likely to change.
In the above conflict situation, for example, the person making the complaint could have used either of
the following disclaimers to soften the effect of the complaint:
Hedging: indicating uncertainty and receptivity to suggestions. “Is this my table? No one has
cleared it yet.”
Cognitive disclaimer: asserting that the behavior is reasonable and under control, despite
appearances. “I don’t want to sound demanding, but I’d really like to sit down now and the dirty
table is bothering me.”
Other disclaimers available in a conflict situation include the following:
Credentialing: indicating you have good reasons and appropriate qualifications for the
statement you intend to make. “I am your friend and I care about you, so I want to say . . .”
Sin license: indicating that this is an appropriate occasion to violate the rule and one should not
take the violation as a character defect. “Well, this is a special occasion and . . .”)
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
11/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Appeal for suspended judgment: asking the other to withhold judgment for a possibly
offensive action until it is explained. “Hear me out before you get upset . . .”17
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001E01)
The above prevention techniques are illustrated in this person’s situation:
A conflict situation in which face‐saving was an issue is when I had to address my fellow sorority
members about a bad situation. We had a fund‐raising event on an upcoming Friday night, and
with 30 women in the sorority, only five were planning to help out. The problem is, we could not
do the fund‐raiser with only five people there to help out. It looked like we might have to cancel
the event. I was upset by this and decided I needed to say something about it at our next
meeting. I was worried about my “face” because the girls are important and I would like them to
like and respect me, and the problem was pretty touchy. Some preventative strategies I
employed to avoid threatening their faces were seeing the situation from their point of view,
avoiding face‐threatening topics, being polite, and using disclaimers. In this specific conflict
situation, I decided to assume that those who were unable to make the event had legitimate
reasons they could not attend, and I did not question anyone’s absence, to avoid threatening
others’ faces. I also understood that the fund‐raiser was not their priority. I used the cognitive
disclaimer when I started off by saying “I don’t want to sound like your mother, but we really
need people to be there on Friday, and because not everyone could come together, we stand to
lose out on raising any money.” I used another disclaimer when I said “I don’t want anyone to
take personal offense by this, but . . .” By using the disclaimers I was able to minimize threats to
face.
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
12/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Supportive Face Management
When in a conflict with someone, use supportive face management to help reinforce the way the other
is presenting himself or herself. In a general way, people want others to like them, respect them,
encourage them, consult them, include them, appreciate them, reward them, make references to them,
ask them for their opinion or input, smile at them, greet them warmly, help when needed, and make them
feel safe. Ask yourself if you do the following when in a conflict:
Do I try to make the other feel important?
Do I try to make the other look good to other people?
Do I try to make the other think that they are winning?
Do I try to make the other feel secure?
Do I try to make the other believe that I am honest and trustworthy?
We can support others in a general way by what we do and what we say. If we don’t include, consult, ask,
reward, or help others, they may feel put down by our actions. It is also possible to put people down
verbally by insulting them or showing disrespect. We can also support others in a more specific way. To
do this, you need to determine what traits or characteristics the other perceives in himself or herself and
point out the ones you have in common or are capable of supporting.
You like to fish? Well, so do I.
I like people with red hair.
You’re a jogger, so let’s jog together next time.
You have taken three classes from Professor Hamad. I hope to take a class from her soon.
We both want to lose weight.
One of our students illustrates this more specific type of support for the other in the following situation:
I wasn’t close with one of my housemates when we first moved in. One day it was just the two of
us at home, and she was watching TV in our common living room. I didn’t know her well but
wanted to put in the effort. So I came in and sat down, and we started talking about our mutual
love of the particular show she was watching. By having that in common with her we both
started to open up and get along much better.
When people say they don’t like others with a particular color hair, and you have that hair color, you may
feel put down. Because they say they don’t exercise regularly, you may see that as some kind of
disapproval for your doing it. If their goal in a conflict is to inflict serious mental harm on you, they can
resort to verbal abuse and put you down. If their goal is to solve a problem, then they want to avoid
abuse and support your face.
In the earlier example of a sorority member trying to get her sisters to participate in a Friday fund‐
raising event, she goes on to describe how she supported their faces in the ongoing interaction.
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
13/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
First, I tried to make the others feel important, secure, honest, and trustworthy. Second, I
specifically recognized their individual needs and interests by saying “We all want money for the
dance festival that is coming up . . .” and “We are sisters. We feel the need to come together . . .”
and “I know that everyone is really busy right now . . .”
Corrective Face Management
When a threat to face has been made, you should use corrective face management, or statements
meant to ameliorate the effect of face‐threatening messages. When you are the one whose face has been
threatened, one means of corrective action is simply to act as though no threat to face has been made,
ignoring the action that caused a face threat. This is a good strategy for minor issues, but ignoring a
major face threat may result in a larger conflict later on. Other forms of corrective action have been
generated by Thomas and Pondy, who viewed impression management (ensuring that the image one
projects is the one that others perceive) as critical in moving a conflict to its resolution phase.18
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001E02) People’s beliefs about the other’s intent affect the conflict
strategies they choose and how they interpret the other’s strategies. Thomas and Pondy found that when
people were asked to recall what conflict resolution mode they had used, the majority (74 percent) were
most likely to recall using “cooperative” modes: collaboration, compromise, and accommodation.
However, the majority (73 percent) also recalled that the other person in the conflict had been
competitive rather than cooperative. Thus, people are not being perceived as cooperative even when
they think they are being cooperative.
The authors identified a number of ways in which people can work to manage the impression they make
in a conflict to help ensure that the image they project is the one the other person perceives. Two of their
suggestions include scanning and explaining.
Scanning is the process of checking out the perceptions being created. We can question the other to
confirm that we are “on the same page.” We use explaining to clarify when we perceive that the other
has not taken our message in the way we meant it. Both of these techniques are illustrated in the
narrative below:
I went to talk to my boss about my job. I started off by saying that I was getting to the point
where I couldn’t meet the deadlines he set. It just seemed like there was no end to them, and no
down time. I asked him if he had been able to get the second person to take half of the work as
he had promised over a year earlier. He started to get defensive about his budget and his hands
being tied, so I said I understood all that, but I was there to talk to him about whether I could
continue to work at this job. Part of being able to do so was whether he anticipated providing
the help that had been promised. Of course, this was pretty threatening because he thought I
was talking about broken promises or his inability to get what he said he would. I kept telling
him that I knew the system was making life difficult for him but that I was at the end of my rope.
I finally said that I couldn’t continue to work at this pace. It had nothing to do with him, or the
organization, it was just that I didn’t have the stamina to do it anymore. I informed him that I had
decided to accept an offer from one of our competitors, and I gave him my resignation.
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
14/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Repair Rituals
What should we do if we realize that we have offended the other person? We have available to us a ritual
known as a repair sequence, which has these four steps:
Offending situation: the other’s behavior is seen as intentionally hurtful, whether or not that
person did intend it
Reproach: request for an explanation of an offense from the one offended
Remedy: an account, concession, or apology supplied by an offender
Acknowledgment: evaluation of the account supplied by the one offended
The repair sequence is a specialized version of the conflict process where a triggering event is followed
by initiation, differentiation, and perhaps resolution. The difference is mainly in the relationship of the
issue to the episode. Whereas in conflict both people perceive that the other is interfering with their
goals or engaging in incompatible activities, in a repair sequence there is a clear distinction between the
offender and the offended party. The offender has created a problem (i.e., the offender has not acted in
accordance with the face she or he has created for the other person) and must explain his or her
actions. Let us consider each of the phases or steps in the repair sequence.
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
15/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Offending Situation.
Offending situations are those in which a person believes that the other has acted in an intentionally
hurtful way. Usually, the offense is face‐threatening in nature. Nothing is more awkward that having to
continue interacting with a person who has offended you and refuses to acknowledge it or appears
unaware of it.
Reproach. People are unlikely to walk away from an offense without saying anything at all, although that
can happen on occasion, especially when the consequences are minimal. In more significant cases, one
can call attention to an offense by simply commenting on it or confronting the offender and asking him
or her for an explanation (e.g., “What do you have to say about the broken window?”). In some cases,
one can make an offender aware of an offense even by remaining silent. The other may perceive this as
“the silent treatment,” realize what caused it, and come forward with an explanation. Finally, the offended
party may also use nonverbal cues (e.g., slamming doors, dirty looks) to let the offender know an offense
has occurred, which assumes that the offender knows what he or she did to upset the other.
Remedy. Reproaches create a need for us to take an action that rectifies matters. However, it is possible
that an offender may respond to a reproach by refusing to act, the most aggravating response. Refusals
include denying that one was even involved in the offending event or that the event took place (which
may mean lying). A person can also refuse to act by turning the reproach around and questioning the
right of the offended person to make a reproach. In cases where one cannot deny the event or one’s role
in it, there are three broad types of actions an offender can take to restore a relationship: offer an
account (through excuses or justifications), make a concession, or offer an apology; one can also act in a
way
that
combines
any
of
these.
(See
Table
7.1
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec73#P7000481815000000000000000001DD0) for a complete listing of actions.)
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
16/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Table 7.1 Image Restoration Strategies
Less Restorative
Excuses
I didn’t do it, someone else did.
I was forced to do it; you made me do it.
I lost my head; I didn’t know what I was doing.
I didn’t mean to do it.
Justifications
I meant well.
It was a one‐time thing: it’s not characteristic of me. You know me better than
that.
It looks a lot worse than it really is.
It actually was a good thing to do given the circumstances.
Concessions
Let me give you something for your pain.
I will make the offense right; I will change my ways.
Apology
More
Restorative
I am so ashamed and so sorry this happened. Please forgive me.
An account is an explanation for behavior when questioned. Accounts are also part of the conflict
interaction (when a person is challenged on an issue and must respond) or its aftermath (when a person
tries to explain what was done and said in a conflict situation). Accounts serve an important function in
that they explain how people interpret the situation at hand.
Accounts may take the form of excuses or justifications. Excuses admit that the offense occurred but
deny responsibility for it. The offender can claim
impairment (e.g., “I was drunk”),
diminished responsibility (e.g., “I didn’t know”), scapegoat status (e.g., “they made me do it”), or
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
17/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
that she or he is a “victim of a sad tale,” in which the offender recounts a series of misfortunes
that have resulted in the way the offender is today. Sad tales are often the staple of courtroom
drama, in which defense attorneys try to prove their client incapable of responsibility in a crime.
In contrast to offering an excuse, the offender may choose to offer a justification, which diminishes the
meaning of the offense rather than diffusing responsibility for it. Justifications may acknowledge that an
act was committed while claiming that
it hurt no one (e.g., “it was just a practical joke”),
the victim deserved it (e.g., “he hit me first”), other people who have committed similar offenses
were not punished, he or she had good intentions when choosing to commit the offense, or
the offense was needed because of loyalty to others (e.g., the reasons used by various political
subordinates when explaining why they broke various laws).
Because not all excuses or justifications are acceptable or sufficient in themselves, the offender may
need to make some sort of concession. Concessions admit the offender’s guilt and offer restitution. For
example, a husband brings his wife flowers, she does something with him that he enjoys doing (play golf,
sail, or watch a football game), one gives a gift to the other, and a relative buys the other tickets to an
athletic event. Concessions are often done in combination with excuses or apologies.
Apologies are admissions of blameworthiness and regret on the part of the offender. Apologies allow a
person to admit to accepting blame for an action, but they also attempt to obtain a pardon for the action
by convincing the offended person that the incident is not representative of what the offender is really
like.
Schlenker and Darby have identified several levels of apology, which are used progressively by actors as
the offense committed becomes more serious and as the actor’s responsibility for the offense increases.
An apology can include a simple “pardon me” or something more complicated, including statements of
remorse (e.g., “I’m sorry”), offering to help the injured party, self‐castigation (“how clumsy of me”), or
direct attempts to obtain forgiveness.
In one study, respondents were asked to imagine that they had bumped into another person in a public
place, either in a crowded shopping mall or in a hallway at school between classes. The degree of felt
responsibility was manipulated by explaining that the actor was either knocked from behind, thus
bumping into the victim, or had not been paying attention and bumped into the victim without noticing.
Offenses of varying degrees were that the victim had been bumped on the arm (low), knocked to the
ground but was unhurt (medium), or knocked to the ground and was moaning in pain (high).
Respondents were asked whether they would use one of the levels of apology, respond with no oral
apology (e.g., saying or doing nothing, or responding nonverbally), or respond in justification (“I’m glad
to see you’re not hurt”), or excuses (“I didn’t see you”). According to Schlenker and Darby, when
apologies appear to be sincere and the offender does not seem likely to repeat the offense, acceptance is
a socially expected result of the apology. Under these circumstances, it would be unusual for social
19
interaction
not
to
return
to
normal.
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001E03) Effective apologies have these components:
an explicit expression of remorse (e.g., “I’m sorry.”)
a specific statement of why one feels remorse (e.g., “I’m sorry for stepping on your toe,” as
opposed to, “I’m sorry for what happened.”) and being sorry for the right thing (e.g., “I’m sorry I
called you a liar,” as opposed to, “I’m sorry you feel that way.”)
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
18/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
a comment that accepts responsibility for your actions (e.g., “It’s my fault.”)
a truthful explanation for the offensive behavior without trying to excuse the offence and shirk
responsibility (e.g., “I’m sorry. I wasn’t looking where I was going,” vs. “I’m sorry I bumped into
you but I had to answer my cell phone quickly.”)
a promise of future good behavior. This is a statement to say that the offensive behavior is not
reflective of the offender’s true character, therefore the victim can trust the behavior will not
recur (e.g., “I’ll be more careful in the future.”)
an
offer
of
restitution
(e.g.,
“I’ll
pay
to
have
it
cleaned.”)20
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001E04)
Apologies are particularly important when one is faced with the reality of having offended a high trait
hostility person. When a person is faced with an offending situation, his or her blood pressure and pulse
rises. Those who rate high on trait hostility or anger have much higher increases in blood pressure and
pulse when subjected to verbal harassment. But, if after the experience they are given a sincere apology,
their blood pressure and pulse returns to normal much faster than if they receive an insincere
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec7apology.21
5#P7000481815000000000000000001E05)
Acknowledgment. After an account has been rendered, the offended party responds with an
acknowledgment in one of several ways. The most mitigating way is to honor the account, accepting its
content and signaling, verbally or nonverbally, that the “score is even.” The offended party may retreat
from the reproach, dropping his or her right to make it (e.g., “I didn’t know that you were forced into
action”). The offended party may also simply drop or switch the topic, moving away from the reproach
without resolving the issue. More aggravating is rejection of the account, either by taking issue with it
(e.g., “I can’t believe you expect me to believe you”) or by simply restating the reproach as though no
account was given.
In an effort to apply the repair ritual in his own life, a student writes:
Some of my old high school buddies visited during Homecoming at the college. One night after
too many beers, I started getting a little rowdy with one of them, and friendly child play turned
into drunken wrestle‐mania right there in the bar. After taking the rest of the night to sober up
and cool off, I felt I needed to say something to break the ice due to the fact that my buddy
wasn’t speaking to me. I decided that I should be the one to explain and apologize for my actions
because I realized that I instigated the whole mess. So instead of ignoring the situation and
pretending like nothing happened, I admitted to my friend (the person I offended) that my
behavior was unacceptable, but I also explained that it was unintentional. I had one too many
drinks that night. After I explained myself to him, he was completely understanding and
forgiving. I offered to treat him to breakfast, so we went out. If I hadn’t tried to excuse my
behavior, apologized, and bought him breakfast, we would still not be talking to each other.
However, I realized that taking responsibility for what I did was my best way to get out of the
dog‐house.
Let us authors hasten to add, that we do not condone using the excuse of alcohol or drugs for
inappropriate, immature, or offensive behavior. Some excuses are more acceptable than others; however,
the above scenario illustrates the repair ritual in a way that some students can identify with and
understand.
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
19/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Reactions to Face Management
In a recent study, Benoit and Drew examined the ways in which people respond to impression
management strategies. They had people rate how appropriate and effective various strategies are when
someone has damaged one’s impression. The scenario was one in which person A bumps into person B,
spilling something on B’s favorite coat. B accuses A of ruining B’s clothes, and A replies with denial (“I
didn’t do it”), evasion of responsibility for the event (“it was an accident; it wasn’t my fault”), reducing the
offensiveness of the event (“it’s not that bad”), corrective action (“I’ll have the clothing cleaned”), or
apology (“I’m so sorry”). The results indicated, not surprisingly, that apologies and offering some
corrective action were seen as the most appropriate and effective ways to restore one’s image in this
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec7kind
of
circumstance.22
5#P7000481815000000000000000001E07) Unfortunately, Elana didn’t do all she should have done.
I do not think I used the right remedy after offending my boyfriend. I just said I didn’t mean to
upset him and that I thought what I said was no big deal. I never said that I was sorry for
upsetting him, and I never showed regret.
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
20/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Conflict and Impression Management in Cyberspace
A newly developing area of communication study is online conflict that occurs in real time chat rooms or
asynchronous discussion forums. In their study of online conflict, Smith, McLaughlin, and Osborne found
that few people replied to reproaches and seldom completed the traditional repair sequence.23
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001E08) How can you explain this difference between online and face‐
to‐face (FTF) conflicts? We suggest that it is much easier to “walk away” from an offending situation
online than it is FTF, especially where there is a relationship between the parties involved. In many of
these online offending situations, there is no (previously established) relationship to repair. When FTF, if
you call me on the carpet for something I said or did, I may feel obligated to respond and seek your
acceptance of my excuse, apology, or concession, but in an online discussion group, I might find it easier
and less awkward to simply exit the discussion. The research is corroborated by others examining the
difference between FTF conflict and conflict in computer-mediated communication (CMC). Zornoza and
colleagues, for example, found that negative conflict behaviors were more frequent in CMC than FTF, and
the number of positive conflict management behaviors actually decreased over time.24
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001E09) In addition, Dorado and colleagues found that there were
higher levels of avoidance and lower levels of forcing in computer-mediated negotiation, while FTF
negotiation
displayed
more
forcing
and
compromise.25
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001E0A) Finally, Hobman and colleagues’ research indicated that CMC
groups displayed more process and relationship conflict than FTF when first starting, but those
differences
disappeared
after
the
first
day.26
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001E0B)
Another line of research in cyber communication involves the creation of impressions and their
management by users of Social Network Sites (SNSs) such as My Space and Facebook. Teachers who use
Facebook, for example, and allow students access may be perceived as more accessible and similar to
students, which may result in higher student participation and affective learning.27
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001E0C) Among students, the number of friends one
has, the
descriptions that one makes about oneself, and the comments made by others are related to the
impressions people make on others in SNSs. Specifically, the number of friends one has on Facebook is
related to perceptions of popularity but only up to a certain point. People having fewer than 100 friends
or more than 300 friends are viewed as less popular than those in the middle, but for different reasons.
People with more than 300 friends may be perceived as too Facebook dependent. They are viewed as
substituting the computer environment for FTF interactions. Too many friends may be seen as an act of
desperation
rather
than
a
sign
of
popularity.28
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001E0D)
While the number of friends is related to positive impressions of the person being rated, the number of
friends one has does not have any particular relationship to ratings of physical attractiveness.29
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001E0E) However, the attractiveness of the friends who leave messages
on a person’s “wall” in Facebook affects impressions of that person’s attractiveness.30
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec7https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
21/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
5#P7000481815000000000000000001E0F) Further, the comments made by others about a person on his
or her profile are more influential in creating impressions than statements one makes about oneself.31
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001E10) While it has been commonly expected that people seek out
online relationships because of their inability to handle FTF ones, research does not bear that
conclusion out. While people who are anxious about FTF communication do use Facebook to pass the
time and assuage feelings of loneliness, they have fewer friends. The author concludes: “Such results
seem to justify the rich‐get‐richer hypothesis, which states that the internet primarily benefits
extraverted individuals. Our results are in contrast to findings that socially anxious individuals are more
likely to form relationships online.”32 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec75#P7000481815000000000000000001E11) Still another study demonstrated the utility of Facebook for
solidifying relationships that might otherwise be weak, and for creating social ties linked to a sense of
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec7community.33
5#P7000481815000000000000000001E12) Sometimes, though, those ties can be complicated, as in the
narrative below.
My boss is my “friend” on Facebook, largely because I didn’t want to deal with the consequences
of not accepting the request. One day I was really bored in a meeting. They were going on and
on about something that could have been decided in minutes. I posted an update on Facebook
about being in the worst meeting in the world. The next day my boss called me into his office
and chewed me out for making that remark.
Facebook and other SNSs are the new age in face and face management. Comments made by students in
class and local newspaper accounts raise many issues regarding face. What happens when prospective
employers look at your profile picture as well as other photos you make available on Facebook or
MySpace? What happens when romantic partners find that they differ on how they designate their
relationship status? Should it matter if a partner includes ex‐romantic partners among his or her
friends? Can you tell when a Facebook entry is using the site like one might use an online dating service?
Of course we could raise other face management issues for other social media as well as other sites like
the work related LinkedIn as well as online dating services. You probably have a presence on the web.
What do these sites say about you? Have you effectively managed your face online?
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
22/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Manage It
Some other cultures more openly discuss and emphasize the importance of face and face saving
techniques than many Americans do. However, the concept is no less important for Americans. One of
the primary reasons conflicts escalate or get out of hand is due to face threats. In this chapter, we
distinguish between face and face management. Face is the image people have of themselves—who we
think we are. We do more than have an image of ourselves or face; we actively work to get others to
accept us as the person we think we are. This face work behavior we call face (impression) management,
which is what one does during interaction with others who may support, alter, or challenge one’s face.
There are two types of face and face management, positive and autonomous face. Positive face is our
belief that we are likable and worthy of other’s respect. Positive face management occurs when we work
to get other people to like and respect us. We manage our positive face when we get others to support
us, value what we value, express admiration for our unique qualities, and show acceptance of us as
competent individuals. Autonomous face is that part of us that wants some independence, privacy,
recognition for our contributions, or time alone. We engage in autonomous face management when we
try to get other people to recognize, encourage, support, and approve our autonomous face needs. We
also want to put some of ourselves into the products and services we provide for others, which is
another way to look at our autonomous face. When others recognized the personal contribution we
made as well as the time and effort we put into the activity, our autonomous face is again supported. The
desires for positive and autonomous face, under the best of circumstances, can create a dilemma
because it requires balance.
Conflict managers can prevent threatening another’s face before, during, and after interaction. An
effective conflict manager may precede a face-threatening message with a disclaimer such as hedging,
cognitive disclaimer, credentialing, sin license, or appeal for suspended judgment.
Once engaged in conversation with another, an effective conflict manager can employ general ways and
specific techniques to support another’s face in conflict situations. In a general way, people want others
to like, respect, encourage, consult, include, appreciate, and reward them. They want others to ask them
questions, greet them warmly, help them when needed, and make them feel safe. We can also support
others in a more specific way. To do this, we need to determine what traits or characteristics the other
perceives in himself or herself and point out the ones we have in common or are capable of supporting.
In a conflict situation in which we lose face, we can employ a repair sequence to regain it. A repair
sequence has these phases or steps: the offending situation, a reproach (request from the offended
person for an explanation of the other’s offense), a remedy (an account from the offender such as an
excuse or justification, a concession, or an apology), and an acknowledgment (evaluation of the account).
Some offenses are worse than others. When the violation creates more than an offending situation, a
relational
transgression
occurs,
which
we
examine
in
Chapter
9
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/ch09#ch09) . When relational
transgressions occur, forgiveness and perhaps reconciliation are necessary to restore the relationship.
Threats to face can also cause stress and anger, which are the subjects of the next chapter.
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
23/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Exercises
Think about It
1. Under what conditions in the past have other people commented on your face management?
Were these positive or negative experiences? How did you react?
2. How have you seen issues of autonomous and positive face create conflicts in your experience?
What have you done to resolve issues of autonomous and positive face? Are the strategies you
use for each issue different?
3. What are your general and specific face needs? In general, what actions could others take that
would show support for your face needs? What specific actions could they take?
4. Can you remember a time that you used preventative face work to avoid making the other
person feel defensive? What was the nature of the situation? How did you use it?
5. Can you remember a time that you needed to use corrective face work in order to repair a
relationship? What was the nature of the situation? How did you use it?
6. If you are a member of Facebook, My Space, or another Social Network Site (SNS), or work
related sites like LinkedIn, think about the way you use it. How do you present yourself? What
impression do you hope people will get from reading your profile? Have there been times
people have posted something on your profile that you wished they hadn’t?
Apply It
1. Imagine that you have to say something potentially face‐threatening to a friend. Explain how you
could use each of these disclaimers to soften the complaint:
a. hedging
b. cognitive disclaimer
c. credentialing
d. sin license
e. appeal for suspended judgment
2. Visit a number of different SNS sites. How does the site itself describe its purpose? How do you
see the profiles of people within the site exemplifying that purpose? What are the differences
between the various sites?
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
24/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Work with It
Read the following case study and answer the questions that follow it.
A group of us live together in a sorority house. One of our sisters, Gina, is normally quiet and easygoing.
However, one day she suddenly verbally attacked each one of us and accused us of plotting against her
behind her back. I said to her, “What? Where is this coming from?” We were all shocked at her suddenly
different behavior. She even threw a textbook at one of her sisters and stormed out of the room. That
evening she rejoined the group but said nothing about the incident. At first, a couple of us raised the
issue, but she just smiled and said, “I don’t know what you are talking about.”
a. Is this an offending situation?
b. Does a reproach occur?
c. Was a remedy offered? If not, what might it be? As for acknowledgment, what remedies would
likely receive rejection from the narrator? What remedies might receive acceptance?
Discuss It
Read the following case study and discuss in class your answers to the questions that follow it.
A long‐lasting conflict centered on the amount of time and affection Frank’s wife, Judy, was spending on
their cat, Lucky. This conflict took place a number of times, usually whenever Frank was feeling
neglected. Whenever Judy entered the house, she lavished the cat with affection. In fact every time she
passed the cat in the hallway, she would stop and caress her, talk to her, and go out of her way to make
the cat feel loved. From his perspective, Frank felt that Judy always had time to give the cat the affection
she needed (and more) while never having time to provide the affection he felt that he needed. He
inferred from her actions that she was never too busy for the cat but rarely had enough time for him. He
was jealous of the cat.
From Judy’s perspective, the cat was helpless and her lavishing attention was only because the cat was
so “cute and defenseless.” Judy didn’t realize that Frank would really enjoy short, quick doses of affection
throughout the day like she was giving the cat. Because of a few instances where Judy interrupted Frank
while he was working intensely on something and he responded a bit negatively, she also felt that he
might put a damper on her affectionate overtures toward him by not being responsive, or by failing to
“purr.”
a. What is the likely outcome of this conflict situation?
b. How could the characters have supported one another’s face using general techniques? How
could the characters have supported one another’s face using specific techniques, and what
would then have been the likely outcome?
c. Suppose you recommend corrective actions to the couple. Describe the steps in the repair
sequence as they would apply to this conflict. Also, what role could accounts, concessions, and
apologies play in this case study?
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
25/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Notes
1. Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Overlook Press, 1959);
Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face‐to‐Face Behavior (New York: Pantheon Books, 1967).
2. Kathy Domenici and Stephen W. Littlejohn, Facework: Bridging Theory and Practice (Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006), p. 22.
3. Ibid.
4. John Oetzel, Stella Ting‐Toomey, Tomoko Masumoto, Yukiko Yokochi, Xiaohui Pan, Jiro Takai, and
Richard Wilcox, “Face and Facework in Conflict: A Cross‐Cultural Comparison Of China,
Germany, Japan, and the United States,” Communication Monographs 68 (2001), 235–​258;
John Oetzel, Stella Ting‐Toomey, Martha Idalia Chew‐Sanchez, Richard Harris, Richard
Wilcox, and Siegfried Stumpf, “Face and Facework in Conflicts with Parents and Siblings: A
Cross‐Cultural Comparison of Germans, Japanese, Mexicans, and U.S. Americans,” Journal of
Family Communication 3 (2003), 67–​93.
5. Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) (Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Inc.,
2007), pp. 221–​222.
6. June P. Tangney and Rhonda L. Dearing, Shame and Guilt (New York: The Guilford Press, 2002), p.
180.
7. Shuangyue Zhang and Laura Stafford, “Perceived Face Threat of Honest but Hurtful Evaluative
Messages in Romantic Relationships,” Western Journal of Communication 72(1) (2008), 19–​
39.
8. Amy E. Hubbard, Hae L. Han, Whitney Kim, and Leanne Nakamura, “Analysis of Mobile Phone
Interruptions in Dating Relationships: A Face Threatening Act.” Paper presented at the
International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA, 2007.
9. Adrianne Kunkel, Steven Wilson, James Olufowote, and Scott Robson, “Identity Implications of
Influence Goals: Initiating, Intensifying, and Ending Romantic Relationships,” Western Journal
of Communication 67(4) (2003), 382–​412.
10. Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).
11. Originally the research literature referred to this concept as “negative face.” Because the term
seemed misleading, we chose to refer to the concept in a more descriptive way as
“autonomous face.”
12. Steven R. Wilson, Carlos G. Aleman, and Geoff B. Leatham, “Identity Implications of Influence
Goals: A Revised Analysis of Face‐Threatening Acts and Application to Seeking Compliance
with Same‐Sex Friends,” Human Communication Research 25 (1998), 65.
13. Patrick B. O’Sullivan, “What You Don’t Know Won’t Hurt Me: Impression Management Functions
of Communication Channels in Relationships,” Human Communication Research 26 (2000),
403–​431.
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
26/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
14. Sarah J. Tracy, “When Questioning Turns to Face Threat: An Interactional Sensitivity in 911 Call
Taking,” Western Journal of Communication 66 (2002), 152.
15. Larry A. Erbert and Kory Floyd, “Affectionate Expressions as Face‐Threatening Acts: Receiver
Assessments,” Communication Studies 55 (2004), 254–​270.
16. Renee Edwards and Richard Bello, “Interpretations of Messages: The Influence of Equivocation,
Face Concerns, and Ego‐Involvement,” Human Communication Research 27 (2001), 598.
17. John Hewitt and Randall Stokes, “Disclaimers,” American Sociological Review 40 (1975), 1–​12.
18. Kenneth W. Thomas and Louis R. Pondy, “Toward an ‘Intent’ Model of Conflict Management
among Principle Parties,” Human Relations 30 (1997), 1089–​1102.
19. Barry R. Schlenker and Bruce W. Darby, “The Use of Apologies in Social Predicaments,” Social
Psychology Quarterly 44 (1981), 271–278 .
20. Jeremy C. Anderson, Wolfgang Linden, and Martine E. Habra, “Influence of Apologies and Trait
Hostility on Recovery from Anger,” Journal of Behavioral Medicine 29 (2006), 348.
21. Ibid, p. 347–​358.
22. William L. Benoit and Shirley Drew, “Appropriateness and Effectiveness of Image Repair
Strategies,” Communication Reports 10 (1997), 153–​163.
23. Christine B. Smith, Margaret L. McLaughlin, and Kerry K. Osborne, “Conduct Control on Usenet,”
Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication 2 (1997), retrieved on November 19, 2011
from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol2/issue4/smith.html.
24. Ana Zornoza, Pilar Ripoll, and Jose M. Peiro, “Conflict Management in Groups that Work in Two
Different Communication Contexts: Face‐to‐Face and Computer‐Mediated Communication,”
Small Group Research 33 (2002), 481–​508.
25. Miguel A. Dorado, Francisco J. Medina, Lourdes Munduate, Immaculada F. J. Cisneros, and Martin
Euwema, “Computer Mediated Negotiation of an Escalated Conflict,” Small Group Research 33
(2002), 509–​524.
26. Elizabeth V. Hobman, Prashant Bordia, Bernd Irmer, and Artemis Chang, “The Expression of
Conflict in Computer‐Mediated and Face‐to‐Face Groups,” Small Group Research 33 (2002),
439–​465.
27. Joseph P. Mazer, Richard E. Murphy and Cheri J. Simonds, “I’ll See You On ‘Facebook’: The Effects
of Computer‐Mediated Teacher Self‐Disclosure on Student Motivation, Affective Learning,
and Classroom Climate,” Communication Education 56 (2007), 1–​17
28. Stephanie T. Tong, Brandon Van Der Heide, Lindsey Langwell, and Joseph B. Walther, “Too Much
of a Good Thing? The Relationship Between Number of Friends and Interpersonal
Impressions on Facebook,” Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication 13 (2008), 542,
531–​549.
29. Ibid.
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
27/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
30. Joseph B. Walther, Brandon Van Der Heide, Sang‐Yeon Kim, David Westerman, and Stephanie
Tom Tong, “The Role of Friends’ Appearance and Behavior on Evaluations of Individuals on
Facebook: Are We Known by the Company We Keep?” Human Communication Research 34
(2008), 28–​49.
31. Joseph B. Walther, Brandon Van Der Heide, Lauren M. Hamel, and Hillary C. Shulman, “Self‐
Generated Versus Other‐Generated Statements and Impressions in Computer‐Mediated
Communication: A Test of Warranting Theory Using Facebook,” Communication Research 36
(2009), 229–​253.
32. Pavica Sheldon, “The Relationship between Unwillingness to Communicate and Students’
Facebook Use,” Journal of Media Psychology 20 (2008), 67.
33. Nichole B. Ellison, Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe, “The Benefits of Facebook ‘Friends:’ Social
Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites,” Journal of Computer‐
Mediated
Communication
12(4),
retrieved
November
19,
2011
from
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
28/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Chapter 9 Managing Conflict through Forgiveness
Objectives
At the end of this chapter, you should be able to:
Distinguish relational transgressions from other types of problematic situations.
Explain the advantages of forgiveness and reconciliation following relational transgressions.
Distinguish forgiveness from forgetting and reconciliation.
Explain which relational transgressions are hardest to forgive.
Describe the steps one must take to forgive.
Key Terms
core
relational
rules
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec91#P7000481815000000000000000001E9B)
emotional
residues
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec91#P7000481815000000000000000001E9F)
forgiveness
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec91#P7000481815000000000000000001EA2)
helping
orientation
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec91#P7000481815000000000000000001E9E)
reconciliation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec91#P7000481815000000000000000001EA7)
relational
transgressions
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec91#P7000481815000000000000000001E9A)
revenge
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec91#P7000481815000000000000000001EA6)
self‐fulfilling
prophecies
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec93#P7000481815000000000000000001EC4)
transforming
the
meaning
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec91#P7000481815000000000000000001EA3)
truth
bias
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec91#P7000481815000000000000000001E9D)
unforgiveness (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec91#P7000481815000000000000000001EA5)
victimization
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec94#P7000481815000000000000000001EC8)
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
29/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Have you experienced something so upsetting that you have not forgiven the person? In previous
classes, students have anonymously revealed the following instances:
A friend needed me to co‐sign for a car because she had credit issues. She failed to make her
payments and caused me to have a low credit rating as a result. I will never forgive her.
My mother said nasty things to me, like “I’m the mistake that she regrets in her life.” I can’t
forgive her for that.
After his graduation from high school, my son had serious financial problems that caused him to
be indebted to me for thousands of dollars, which he will never pay back. I can’t let him get away
with that. We haven’t spoken for years.
My uncle shot and killed my father when I was a kid. He served a few years in prison for that. I
can never forgive my uncle.
Laying me off put us in a severe financial bind. I have hated my boss ever since.
My boss was really harsh to me during the time my father was sick in the hospital and later
passed away, telling me I was blowing the situation out of proportion and that he wasn’t really
that sick.
My sister kicked our mother out of her house, so she came to live with us, but mother was quite
ill. Then, my sister spread the word that she got ill on liquid cleaners we keep around our house,
as though we caused her illness. I don’t speak to her anymore.
My ex and I had a lot of problems. For one thing, he was verbally abusive. He would always put
me down and call me names. Finally, he punched me in the face. I could never forgive him for
what he put me through.
My ex had affair after affair with various men. She hurt me deeply.
In Chapter 7 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/ch07#ch07) , we
introduced the idea of an offending situation that exists when people have acted in ways that threaten
the face of another person or that seem intentionally hurtful. Accounts, concessions, and apologies are
ways of rectifying problematic situations. But when “offending situations” take on crisis proportions and
become more intense than a simple face‐management problem as in the above examples, we call them
relational transgressions.
Some hurtful actions may not need forgiving, such as annoyances, slights, or disappointments. Smedes
notes, “It is wise not to turn all hurts into crises of forgiving . . . . We put everyone we love on guard when
we
turn
personal
misdemeanors
into
major
felonies.”1
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EE5) However, when others do commit relational transgressions
against us, we shouldn’t down play them either. How do we manage conflicts that involve relational
transgressions? In this chapter, we discuss conflict situations that involve central relational issues, the
nature of forgiveness, its effects, the means people use to forgive one another, and the ways in which we
may reconcile our differences. You are expected to learn how to distinguish forgiveness from forgetting,
distinguish forgiveness from reconciliation, explain the advantages of forgiveness and reconciliation
following relational transgressions, and identify the steps you can take to forgive others and, if you
choose to do so, to reconcile with them.
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
30/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
9.1 The Need for Forgiveness and ReconcIliation
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
31/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Relational Transgressions Defined
Relational transgressions are extremely problematic situations in which core rules of a relationship are
violated, leaving high emotional residues. We’ll explain each of these elements—​rules and residues—​in
turn.
Core relational rules define our expectations about the way we should behave toward others as well as
the way they should behave toward us. We treat strangers one way, friends another way, and our
romantic partners still another. We relate to our parents differently from our more distant relatives. Part
of the socialization process has taught us the rules that govern each type of social relationship such as
romantic pairings, friendship, and being roommates. Relational transgressions occur when those rules
we take for granted as “sacred” are broken by someone important to us.
Relationship rules exist when people are interdependent. Some of these rules cannot be violated without
calling the relationship into question, so we call them core rules. Among friends, for example, a core
relational rule becomes an issue when a person who claims to be your friend fails to help in your time of
need. “Imagine that a person runs out of gas outside of town and calls someone she considers a good
friend to come and give her a ride. Suppose the other responds with ‘Why call me? Why don’t you call a
taxi?’ If one fails to help in time of need, the friendship is in trouble.”2
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EE6)
Another relationship rule is that you should not lie to your best friends. In American culture, committed
romantic partners and spouses are supposed to also be among one’s “best friends.” Lying to an
acquaintance about why you do not want to go to the beach is different from lying to your best friend,
because best friends are supposed to trust each other. This is particularly true because as we develop
friendship with others, we also develop a truth bias toward them: We assume that they tell us the truth.
This truth bias makes us more vulnerable and less accurate in detecting deception when it occurs.
A lie is generally classified as deliberately altering information to change a person’s perceptions about an
issue. Certainly, “social lies,” used to avoid sticky situations (e.g., “I really can’t go with you to the beach
because I have to study”), are part of our social fabric, whether or not we approve of them. They become
a relational transgression, however, when another learns that a partner lied in a way that breaks core
relational rules.
In addition to the cognitive effects, research indicates that the more involved people are with another
person, the more intense their negative emotions when they discover that the person has lied to them. In
addition, the more important the information lied about, the more intense negative emotions are on
discovering the deception and the more likely it is that the future of the relationship is in jeopardy
because being caught lying to one’s best friend is a relational transgression.
Rules govern our romantic relationships as well. In a committed romantic relationship, a core relational
rule is that you should not cheat on your partner. Metts asked respondents to rate relational
transgressions in order of their difficulty in resolution and found that sexual infidelity was identified as
the most difficult to deal with.3 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EE8) But sexual infidelity in romantic relationships is not the only
relational transgression.
Clearly, interpersonal violence in a romantic or parent–​child relationship constitutes a relational
transgression, a violation of a core relationship rule. One expects his or her partner to love and protect.
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
32/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
This occurs because as we develop romantic relationships with others, we tend to take a helping
orientation toward them: We assume that they love us and desire to help rather than hurt us, as we do
them. Verbal abuse and physical violence run contrary to a helping orientation. The same is true in
parent–child relationships. Therefore, interpersonal violence, when it occurs, is a violation of another
core
relationship
rule
that
motivates
breakups
and
leaving
home.4
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EE9)
In addition to violating core relationship rules, relational transgressions produce highly emotional
residues; that is, people experience lingering emotional responses to the memory of the transgression. If
a good friend or romantic partner has lied to you, you may experience shock, disbelief, hurt, anger,
and/or betrayal. You may wonder whether you can trust what that person says in the future. It may even
cause you to check up on the person continuously, who is likely to add problems rather than solve them.
People in long‐term relationships face a need to forgive and perhaps reconcile the transgression in some
way.
The need to study forgiveness and reconciliation is based on the assumption that conflicts are cyclical
and repetitive (see schismogenesis, URP, and competitive and escalation cycle in Chapter 2
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/ch02#ch02) ), affected by
what has come previously and affecting what comes after. Our ability to break out of dysfunctional
conflict cycles and respond appropriately to conflicts in the present is in no small way dependent on our
ability to forgive those close to us.
While once the province of religious discourse, forgiveness is an established part of the communication
and psychology research literature. How then are we to understand this gift and bestow it appropriately?
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
33/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Defining Forgiveness and Reconciliation
Forgiveness and reconciliation are related but separate processes with the former generally preceding
the latter. Forgiveness is a cognitive process that consists of letting go of feelings of revenge and desires
to retaliate. In his seminal work on forgiveness, Smedes lists the key stages that the process goes
through, namely:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hurt
Hate
Healing
Coming
together5
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EEA) (We now know that “coming together” need not be
taken in a physical sense but rather in a psychological, mental, and emotional sense, where you
might cognitively forgive another without behaviorally reconciling.)
Overall, forgiveness occurs when a person lets go of his or her feelings of revenge and need for
retaliation, and changes his or her thoughts about the transgression and the transgressor. It starts with
anger over a transgression and moves toward transforming the meaning of the event, or changing the
way we view the event in light of other events in our lives. Forgiveness is something that happens over
time as “negative unforgiving emotions [are replaced] with positive other‐oriented emotions . . . [and]
negative
emotions
are
repeatedly
whittled
away.”6
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EEB) Forgiveness is “reframing of how one views the world . . . . [It
is]
in
reality
a
case
of
acting
in
one’s
own
enlightened
self‐interest.”7
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EEC)
Writers in the field of forgiveness focus largely on the “victim’s development of empathy toward the
perpetrator
as
a
necessary
step
in
forgiveness;”8
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EED) lasting forgiveness results from the ability to see the
perpetrator as a human being rather than as a stereotyped victimizer. It is a necessary step in growing as
a person; the choice not to forgive is essentially an unhealthy one. However, healthy a choice it may be,
forgiveness cannot be rushed. “Premature forgiveness that takes place before self‐affirmation and
empowering are under way is deleterious. Frequently, it does not even seem to be forgiveness at all, but
is
instead
a
cover
for
passivity
and
anxiety.”9
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EEE)
We can distinguish forgiveness from both unforgiveness and revenge. Unforgiveness is a cognitive
process in which one doesn’t let go of feelings of revenge and maintains a desire to retaliate. Revenge is
a behavior based on the notion of “an eye for an eye.” One wants to follow evil with more evil. Revenge
characterizes the cycle of violence in which each aggressive act is followed by more aggressive behavior.
The best way to stop the cycle is to switch to forgiveness and perhaps initiate reconciliation.
Reconciliation is a behavioral process in which we take actions to restore a relationship or create a new
one following forgiveness. It is a process distinct from forgiveness. As Freedman et al. argue,
“Forgiveness . . . ​is one person’s response toward another in a hurtful situation; reconciliation is the
process
of
two
people,
together,
negotiating
and
working
out
differences.”10
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec9-
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
34/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
6#P7000481815000000000000000001EEF) The evidence indicates that forgiveness is an important mental
process that should follow traumatic conflict. Reconciliation, on the other hand, involves a series of
actions we may choose to avoid, particularly if the offender is likely to violate us again.
Forgiveness does not obligate us to reconciliation. It is not simply forgetting that something happened. It
does not release the other person from the consequences of his or her behavior. It does not deny anger.
It does not put us in a position of superiority. It is not a declaration of the end of all conflict or of ever
risking again with the other person (or anybody else). When forgiveness takes any of these forms, it
feels demeaning, as though the other is simply waiting for a time to even up the score.
The widespread assumption by many people that forgiveness and reconciliation are virtually
simultaneous is disturbing to us, because that assumption often moves people toward reconciliation
before such action is actually warranted. One writer calls this reconciliation without true forgiveness as
“compulsive, unconditional, unilateral attempt at peacemaking for which you ask nothing in return . . . ​
when you forgive cheaply, you seek to preserve the relationship at any cost, including your own integrity
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec9and
safety.”11
6#P7000481815000000000000000001EF0) Reconciliation without true forgiveness is often driven by fear
of the offender’s anger, fear of the offender leaving, or fear of harming the offender. It is based on an
unhealthy need to preserve a relationship that may not survive the cost of avoiding the conflict. In our
experience, this usually only prolongs the painful period leading up to the eventual break up of the
relationship. The desire for reconciliation must be tempered by recognition of the possible dangers
involved within it. We do not forgive to become martyrs to the relationship. We forgive because it is
better for us and better for the other person. We forgive because we want to act freely again, not react
out of past pain.
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
35/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
9.2 Advantages of Forgiveness
Forgiveness Benefits Our Mental Health
Most writers in the area of forgiveness have argued that holding onto grief and hurt is psychologically
unhealthy. By placing blame on other people, we relinquish our control over our emotions and give that
control to another.
Holding grudges constitutes an egocentric position wherein we view those who have hurt us only in
terms
of
what
we
need,
what
we
wish,
or
what
we
long
for.12
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EF1) Those who not only do not forgive but additionally seek
revenge do so “. . . based on the belief that . . . ​it is possible to measure the magnitude of an offense, to
receive
an
equal
amount
of
retribution
somehow
balances
the
account.”13
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EF2)
Forgiveness is linked to both mental and physical benefits. For example, research examining social
adjustment and the ability to forgive found a high correlation between the two: As a person’s social
adjustment
score
went
up,
so
did
the
person’s
ability
to
forgive.14
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EF3) More recent research on the role of forgiveness in counseling
and mental health has demonstrated that teaching people about forgiveness and training them in
“forgiveness strategies” helped increase recovery from divorce (restoring positive feelings about oneself,
etc.), decreased feelings of guilt, and decreased feelings of depression and anxiety.15
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EF4) Among other benefits, forgiveness intervention has been
effective
in
reducing
depression
and
anxiety,16
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EF5)
raising
self‐esteem,17
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EF6)
improving
perceptions
of
self‐efficacy,18
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EF7) and increasing self‐esteem and feelings of hope while lowering
depression
and
anxiety
for
incest
survivors.19
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EF8)
Some people who forgive others cannot forgive themselves and vice versa. Researchers have found that
the process of forgiving oneself is different than that of forgiving others, and being able and/or willing to
do one does not mean a person is willing or able to do the other.20
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EFA) People who are unable to forgive themselves have higher levels
of loneliness, although which causes what is not yet understood. It may be that people who are lonely
overestimate the severity of their offenses and so do not forgive themselves. Or, it may be that people
who do not forgive themselves for offenses cut themselves off from social contact. Whatever the
direction of the relationship, learning forgiveness toward both others and self is an important skill.
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
36/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
Forgiveness Benefits Our Physical Health
Not only is forgiveness related to our psychological health, it is related to our physical health as well.21
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EFB) College students who report an ability to forgive others
perceive
their
health
to
be
better
than
those
who
do
not.22
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EFC) Additionally, people who have high levels of trait‐like
unforgiveness tend to experience higher levels of pain than those who have lower levels.23
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EFD) In general, those who are able to forgive sleep better than
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec9those
who
don’t.24
6#P7000481815000000000000000001EFE) And senior citizens who manifested greater abilities to forgive
others reported better physical health than those who reported less ability to forgive others.25
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001EFF)
Trait‐like forgiveness or unforgiveness has some widely demonstrated links to cardiovascular health.
People with higher trait‐like forgiveness experience lower blood pressure and better recovery from
incidents that raise blood pressure than those with low trait‐like forgiveness.26
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001F00)
Harms resulting from the inability to forgive often involve anger and stress. We experience physical
damage when this flight‐or‐fight mechanism, which was designed for short‐term emergency responses to
situations, becomes a long‐term ongoing response. The desire for revenge may play a role in physical
damage to our bodies making us more susceptible to physical illness.
https://content.uagc.edu/print/Cahn.7882.17.1?sections=title,ch07,sec7-1,sec7-2,sec7-3,sec7-4,sec7-5,ch09,sec9-1,sec9-2,sec9-3,sec9-4,sec9-5,s…
37/93
10/23/22, 10:04 PM
Print
So Why Don’t People Forgive?
Given the number of mental and physical benefits to forgiveness, one would think that people would see
the good in embracing it. We know this is not always the case. But why? There are several explanations
for a lack of forgiveness in a relationship.
The most frequent reason people don’t forgive is that the other has not admitted wrongdoing,
apologized, or asked for forgiveness. In addition, people report refusal to forgive when the other
continues in offensive behavior.27 (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001F01)
Research has also demonstrated a link between a person’s perception of an apology and whether or not
it is accepted. When a person is offended, being offered an apology that is too elaborate for the offense
or
too
simple
may
result
in
a
lack
of
forgiveness.28
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001F02) Further, since people often refuse to forgive when the other has
not offered an apology or explanation, they also might believe that by withholding forgiveness, they can
prevent
the
transgressor
from
hurting
them
again.29
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001F03)
There are others who don’t forgive because they prefer the role of victim. In a related manner, a few do
not want to give up their right to hold a grudge; it gives them a sense of power to hold their hurt over
the other person. Sometimes, being hurt has created a loss of face for the person who was offended, and
forgiving the transgressor would cause an even greater loss of face. And fear of vulnerability and giving
off what might be perceived as “signs of weakness” are often a barrier to forgiveness.
People
who
lack
empathy
find
it
harder
to
forgive
others.30
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001F04) In addition, empathy has a stronger relationship for forgiveness
in men than in women; while women are more empathic in general, it does not affect their levels of
forgiveness. However, men with higher levels of empathy are more forgiving than those with lower
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec9levels.31
6#P7000481815000000000000000001F05) Those who are able to see themselves as potential offenders
are also more likely to forgive than those who cannot imagine themselves as offenders; again, this effect
is
more
pronounced
for
men
than
women.32
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Cahn.7882.17.1/sections/sec96#P7000481815000000000000000001F06)
Age …