This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 10 October 2014, At: 12:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of InternationalCommunicationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rico20

Relational closeness in conflict: Effectson interaction goals, emotion, andconflict stylesQin Zhang & Michael AndreychikPublished online: 15 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Qin Zhang & Michael Andreychik (2013) Relational closeness in conflict: Effectson interaction goals, emotion, and conflict styles, Journal of International Communication, 19:1,107-116, DOI: 10.1080/13216597.2013.775069

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13216597.2013.775069

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Relational closeness in conflict: Effects oninteraction goals, emotion, and conflictstyles

QIN ZHANG & MICHAEL ANDREYCHIK

Abstract: This study examines the effects of relational closeness on interaction goals,

emotion, and conflict styles. Findings indicate that relational closeness affects the perceived

importance of relational, other-identity, and instrumental goals, and the use of conflict styles,

but not emotion and the perceived importance of self-identity goals. Individuals in conflict

with relationally close to others tend to attach more importance to relational and other-

identity goals, but less importance to instrumental goals, and be more integrating and

obliging, but less competing, than those in conflict with distant others.

Keywords: relational closeness, interaction goals, anger, compassion, conflict styles

INTRODUCTION

Conflict is inevitable and pervasive in relationships (Roloff 1987). Conflict can be broadly

conceptualized as an interactional dynamic among two or more interdependent parties who

perceive incompatibilities, strive to achieve goals, and reach solutions (Putnam & Poole

1987; Wilson & Putnam 1990). Central to conflict are perceived incompatibilities in goals

and the interdependence of parties (Canary 2003). Thus, conflict is largely goal-directed

(Berger 2007). Goals are desired end states individuals strive to attain (Berger 2007).

Conflict is also an emotion-laden process (Guerrero & La Valley 2006). Being in conflict

means being emotionally activated (Jones 2000). Conflict does not exist in the absence of

emotion because conflict is emotionally charged and valenced (Bodtker & Jameson 2001).

The recent decade has witnessed a surging interest in the relationship of emotion and conflict

tactics (Guerrero & La Valley 2006). Research demonstrates that emotion plays an important

role in conflict process (Allred et al. 1997).

Conflict management is a function of cultural, situational, and individual factors (Ting-

Toomey & Kurogi 1998; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel 2001). To date, relatively few studies have

examined situational influences on the use of conflict styles (Kim & Leung 2000). Relational

closeness as an important component of situational features has been linked to face concerns

and facework strategies (Brown & Levinson 1978; Lim & Bowers 1991; Oetzel et al. 2001),

The Journal of International Communication, 2013

Vol. 19, No. 1, 107�116, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13216597.2013.775069

# Journal of International Communication

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

2:33

10

Oct

ober

201

4

but research has yet to examine its effects on interaction goals, emotion, and conflict styles.

This study is designed to investigate the effects.

RELATIONAL CLOSENESS

Relational closeness refers to a feeling of emotional intimacy, affinity, and bonding with

another person (Ledbetter et al. 2011). Relational closeness is an important situational factor

influencing conflict processes (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi 1998). People approach conflict

differently depending on the closeness of their relationship. According to politeness theory,

relational closeness exerts great influences on facework behavior (Brown & Levinson 1978,

1987). Empirically, Lim and Bowers (1991) found that relational intimacy was the strongest

predictor of three types of facework � solidarity, approbation, and tact. Similarly, Oetzel et al.

(2001) replicated the effects of relational closeness on face concerns and facework behavior

in conflict, but the effects were found to be small. Individuals in conflict with relationally

close others tend to have less self-face concern and give in more than those in conflict with

distant others (Oetzel et al. 2001).

Relational closeness has also been found to affect the perceived effectiveness and

appropriateness of conflict strategies (Gross, Guerrero, & Alberts 2004). Unacquainted

partners with no relational history were found to self-rate their use of controlling strategy as

effective, whereas acquainted partners with a relational history tend to self-rate it as

ineffective (Gross, Guerrero, & Alberts 2004). The finding makes sense because, when

handling conflict, temporary partners � given that they do not know each other and do not

expect to interact again in the future � tend to be task-oriented, and the controlling strategy

helps them accomplish their instrumental goal; however, relational partners (e.g., close

friends, romantic partners, or family members) also need to focus on relational issues, and the

controlling strategy may hurt their relationship.

INTERACTION GOALS

Conflict interactions can be perceived as a goal-directed strategic process whereby individuals

strive to pursue individual and/or collective goals (Rogan & La France 2003; Keck & Samp

2007). Although alternative typologies have been proposed to characterize interaction goals,

the best-known might be the tripartite typology: instrumental, relational, and identity

(Wilson & Putnam 1990; Berger 2007). Instrumental goals refer to task-oriented goals, such

as obtaining information or goods or solving a problem in conflict (Wilson & Putnam 1990;

Canary 2003). Relational goals focus on relationship dynamics, such as gaining power or

building trust (Wilson & Putnam 1990). Identity goals involve self-focused or other-focused

identity concerns, such as saving face or protecting image (Keck & Samp 2007).

Individuals might pursue multiple goals simultaneously in conflict (Wilson & Putnam

1990). But goals are not perceived as of equal importance, and the relative importance of

goals fluctuates over time (Dillard, Segrin, & Harden 1989; Canary 2003). By and large,

instrumental goals are recognized as of ultimate importance in individualistic cultures, but

individuals may also need to manage relational and identity concerns depending on the

context (Keck & Samp 2007). Thus, it is likely that, when constructing interaction goals,

individuals are more concerned with relational and other-identity goals, but less concerned

108 THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION 19:1, 2013

ZHANG & ANDREYCHIK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

2:33

10

Oct

ober

201

4

with instrumental and self-identity goals, in conflict with friends and family members than

with strangers. Hence, we offer:

H1: Relational goals and other-focused identity goals are considered as more important, but

instrumental goals and self-focused identity goals are considered as less important, in conflict with

those relationally close than those relationally distant.

EMOTION: ANGER AND COMPASSION

Conflict is emotionally driven and arousing (Bodtker & Jameson 2001). There is growing

evidence documenting the important role emotion plays in affecting conflict processes and

outcomes (Allred et al. 1997; Butt, Choi, & Jaeger 2005). Emotion can be valenced positively

(e.g., happiness or compassion) or negatively (e.g., anger or disappointment) (Guerrero & La

Valley 2006). Although conflict mostly triggers negative emotion, scholars argue that

positive emotion can also be evoked and experienced in conflict (Allred et al. 1997; Van Kleef

& Cote 2007). However, negative emotion, such as anger and guilt, has received far more

scholarly attention than positive emotion (Allred et al. 1997; Butt, Choi, & Jaeger 2005).

Recently several studies have examined the effects of positive emotion on conflict and

negotiation strategies and outcomes, such as happiness (Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead

2004), compassion (Allred et al. 1997; Liu & Wang 2010), and pride and gratitude (Butt,

Choi, & Jaeger 2005).

Anger may be the most pervasive and prominent discrete emotion arising in conflict;

unsurprisingly, it has attracted most attention in conflict and negotiation research (Allred et

al. 1997; Van Kleef & Cote 2007). Compassion is often conceptualized as being interchange-

able with empathy and sympathy; consequently, it is largely examined as a contrast to anger

to illuminate how positive and negative emotions generate distinct effects on conflict and

negotiation behaviors (Liu & Wang 2010). Little is known about the effect of relational

closeness on emotion, but it is likely that one may feel more compassion and less anger with

friends than with strangers. Thus, the following hypothesis is posed:

H2: Individuals feel more compassion, but less anger in task conflict with those relationally close

than those relationally distant.

CONFLICT STYLES

Conflict styles are patterned responses to conflict across situations (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel

2001). Derived from Blake and Mouton’s (1964) two-dimensional grid of concern for self and

concern for others were five conflict styles: competing, collaborating, compromising,

avoiding, and obliging (Thomas & Kilmann 1974; Rahim 1983). The competing style

prioritizes one’s own interests and goals, whereas the obliging style concerns personal

sacrifices to satisfy others. The compromising style involves a mutual give-and-take

concession, whereas the collaborating style focuses on a win�win outcome. The avoiding

style is characterized by non-action from both parties (Blake & Mouton 1964). This study

focuses on integrating, competing, and obliging styles mainly for two reasons. First, scholars

suggest that the five conflict styles be collapsed into four types because compromising and

collaborating substantially overlap (Cai & Fink 2002). Second, consistent with Butt, Choi,

109THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION 19:1, 2013

RELATIONAL CLOSENESS IN CONFLICT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

2:33

10

Oct

ober

201

4

and Jaeger’s (2005) practice, avoiding is not included because the nature of the simulation in

the study makes avoiding not a possible option.

Conflict styles are often affected by cultural, situational, and individual variables (Ting-

Toomey & Kurogi 1998; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel 2001). Individuals from low context and

individualistic cultures tend to be more competing and confrontational, but less avoiding and

obliging, than those from high context and collectivistic cultures (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey

2003; Ting-Toomey 2005; Zhang 2007). Given that relational distance influences face

concerns and facework behavior (Lim & Bowers 1991; Oetzel et al. 2001), it seems reasonable

to propose:

H3: Individuals are more integrating and obliging, but less competing, with those relationally

close than those relationally distant.

METHOD

Design and materials

This study manipulated relational closeness into two conditions: close friend vs. stranger.

Consistent with previous studies (Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead 2004, 2006), the task-

oriented conflict scenario also involved a buyer�seller negotiation task. The buyer�seller

negotiation simulation has been found to replicate real-life negotiation and demonstrate

validity (Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead 2004, 2006). In this study, participants were told

that they would buy a used car from John, a close friend or a stranger. The asking price was

$5000, but they were willing to pay no more than $4500. Both of them wanted to reach a

deal, so they would negotiate over the price.

Manipulation check

Manipulation checks were conducted for the independent variable: relational closeness. An

independent samples t-test was performed to test the validity of the relational closeness

conditions described in the scenarios. Participants reported a higher level of relational

closeness in the close condition (M�4.35, SD�0.76) than in the distant condition (M�1.54, SD�0.71), t(172) �25.14, pB0.001. Thus, relational closeness was manipulated

correctly in the experiment.

Participants

The participants were 174 college students (45 male, 128 female, and 1 unidentified)

recruited from a variety of communication, psychology, and English classes at a small

university in the Northeast. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 23 (M�19.97, SD�1.36). Of these, 84% of them self-identified as White, 6% Black, 6% Hispanic, 3% Asian, and

1% other or unidentified; 31% of them were freshmen, 24% sophomore, 13% juniors, 30%

seniors, and 2% other or unidentified. The participants received extra credit for their

participation.

Procedure

Participants were assigned randomly to read one of the two written conflict scenarios

manipulating the levels of relational closeness (close friend or stranger). They were urged to

110 THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION 19:1, 2013

ZHANG & ANDREYCHIK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

2:33

10

Oct

ober

201

4

try their best to imagine that the scenario really happened to them, think about how they

would feel and how they would negotiate if they were really in such a situation. Then they

were asked to complete 5-point Likert-type questions (5 � strongly agree, 1 � strongly

disagree) measuring their interaction goals, emotion, and conflict styles.

Measures

Interaction goals. Interaction goals were measured with slightly modified four 5-point Likert-

type items developed by Keck and Samp (2007). Participants were asked to complete one

item assessing the importance of each goal. Wording of the items was adapted to fit the

context. Instrumental goal was measured with ‘It is important for me to get the best deal’.

Relational goal was assessed with ‘It is important for me to maintain my relationship with

John’. Self-identity goal was measured with ‘It is important for me to protect my own face/

pride’, and other-identity goal was measured with ‘It is important for me to protect John’s

face/pride’.

Anger. Anger was measured with slightly modified four 5-point Likert-type items (Dillard &

Shen 2005). The scale asked participants to rate how irritated, angry, annoyed, and

aggravated they felt. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.91 for this study.

Compassion. Compassion was assessed with four 5-point Likert-type items (Liu & Wang

2010). The scale asked participants to rate the feeling of sympathy, compassion, empathy,

and understanding. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.77 for this study.

Conflict styles. Conflict styles were measured with 12 5-point Likert-type items assessing three

conflict styles: competing, integrating, and obliging. The scale was based on the Rahim

Organizational Conflict Inventory-II (ROCI-II) (Rahim 1983) and negotiation behavior (Butt,

Choi, & Jaeger 2005). Prior studies suggest that the scale has adequate reliability (Cai & Fink

2002; Butt, Choi, & Jaeger 2005; Zhang 2007). For this study, the reliability was 0.76 for

competing style, 0.81 for integrating style, and 0.85 for obliging style.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations for all the

variables in this study, are shown in Table 1. H1 predicted that relational goals and other-

focused identity goals are considered as more important, but instrumental goals and self-focused

identity goals are considered as less important, in task conflict with those relationally close than

those relationally distant. As Table 2 shows, an independent sample t-test indicated that greater

importance is attached to relational goals, t(172) �15.40, pB0.001, and other-identity goals,

t(172) �5.12, pB0.001 in conflict with friends than with strangers, but relational distance

does not affect the perceived importance of self-identity goals, t(172) ��0.83, p �0.41.

Instrumental goals are considered as less important in conflict with friends than with strangers,

t(172) ��3.05, pB0.005. Thus, H1 was partially supported.

H2 predicted that individuals feel more compassion, but less anger in conflict with those

relationally close than those relationally distant. Table 2 shows that relational distance did

not affect anger, t(172) �0.57, p �0.57, and compassion, t(172) �0.46, p �0.21. H2 was

not supported.

111THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION 19:1, 2013

RELATIONAL CLOSENESS IN CONFLICT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

2:33

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Table 1 � Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for All Variables.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 M SD

1. Instrumental

goal

4.49 0.66

2. Relational

goal

�0.26** 3.45 1.38

3. Self-identity

goal

0.33** �.07 3.67 0.89

4. Other-

identity goal

�0.05 0.53** 0.31** 2.93 0.98

5. Anger 0.03 0.03 0.13 0.01 2.69 0.91

6. Compassion �0.12 0.29** �0.01 0.31** �0.07 2.98 0.70

7. Competing

style

0.40** �0.26** 0.16* �0.14 0.17* �0.08 3.75 0.63

8. Integrating

style

�0.17* 0.39** �0.09 0.16* �0.14 0.24** �0.27** 4.24 0.64

9. Obliging

Style

�0.22** 0.37** �0.11 0.31** �0.06 0.34** �0.27** 0.34** 2.54 0.71

*p B0.5; **pB0.01.

Table 2 � Effects of Relational Closeness on Interaction Goals, Emotion, and Conflict

Styles.

Close Distant Comparison

Variables M SD M SD t p

Instrumental goal 4.35 0.76 4.65 0.48 �3.05 �003

Relational goal 4.45 0.76 2.34 1.03 15.40 0.000

Self-identity goal 3.62 0.90 3.73 0.89 �0.83 0.41

Other-identity goal 3.26 0.92 2.55 0.90 5.12 0.000

Anger 2.73 0.84 2.65 0.99 0.57 0.57

Compassion 3.05 0.67 2.91 0.72 0.46 0.21

Competing style 3.62 0.64 3.90 .58 �2.96 .004

Integrating style 4.40 0.60 4.06 0.63 3.61 0.000

Obliging style 2.70 0.68 2.36 0.71 3.26 0.001

112 THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION 19:1, 2013

ZHANG & ANDREYCHIK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

2:33

10

Oct

ober

201

4

H3 predicted that individuals are more integrating and obliging, but less competing, with

those relationally close than those relationally distant. Table 2 also shows that individuals

were more integrating, t(172) �3.61, pB0.001, obliging, t(172) �3.26, pB0.005, but

less competing, t(172) ��2.96, pB0.005, in conflict with friends than with strangers.

Thus, H3 was supported.

DISCUSSION

This study examines the effects of relational closeness on interaction goals, emotion, and

conflict styles. Findings indicate that relational closeness affects the perceived importance of

relational, other-identity, and instrumental goals, but not the perceived importance of self-

identity goals. As expected, individuals in conflict with relationally close others tend to attach

more importance to relational and other-identity goals, but less importance to instrumental

goals, than those in conflict with distant others. This finding not only contributes to literature

by establishing the link between relational closeness and interaction goals, but also provides

empirical support to prior argument that relational closeness is an important contextual

factor influencing conflict processes (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi 1998). In spite of the fact that

instrumental goals are generally perceived as the most important goal in conflict regardless of

relational closeness (Dillard, Segrin, & Harden 1989; Canary 2003), this finding makes sense

because individuals in conflict with close friends also have to manage relational goals, and

consider other-identity issues to sustain their relationship and maintain face for partners. But

intriguingly, relational closeness does not affect the perceived importance of self-identity

goals. One possible explanation is that, since the conflict scenario used in this study is task-

oriented, self-identity goal may not be perceived as important as instrumental goals. This

finding is also at odds with prior research suggesting that individuals in conflict with friends

have less self-face concern than those in conflict with strangers (Oetzel et al. 2001).

Surprisingly, findings suggest that relational closeness does not have a significant impact

on anger or compassion. Individuals in conflict with close others do not feel less anger or

more compassion than those in conflict with distant others. One explanation may be that

emotion is, by nature, socially constructed (Bodtker & Jameson 2001), so it tends to occur in

response to specific stimuli or triggering events (e.g., counterpart behavior) (Frijda 1986,

1987), rather than being aroused by general situational factors (e.g., relational closeness).

As hypothesized, results show that relational closeness exerts influences on the use of

integrating, competing, and obliging conflict styles. Individuals in conflict with relationally

close others tend to be more integrating and obliging, but less competing, than those in

conflict with distant others. In spite of the general preference to competing style and the

unwillingness to use obliging style in individualistic cultures, such as the USA (Ting-Toomey

& Kurogi 1998; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel 2001), conflict styles are essentially a response to

situations (Friedman et al. 2000). Individuals may strategically adopt certain conflict styles to

respond to situational factors and the moves and countermoves of their counterpart (Liu &

Wilson 2011). This finding is also consistent with prior research suggesting that individuals

in conflict with friends give in more than those in conflict with strangers (Oetzel et al. 2001).

Two limitations of this study need to be addressed. The first limitation involves the

experimental design of this study, which asked participants to negotiate over price with a

113THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION 19:1, 2013

RELATIONAL CLOSENESS IN CONFLICT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

2:33

10

Oct

ober

201

4

hypothetical counterpart in an imaginary buyer�seller negotiation rather than engaging in a

real negotiation interaction with an actual person. Although the use of buyer�seller

negotiation simulation has been found to demonstrate validity (Van Kleef, De Dreu, &

Manstead 2004, 2006), and the manipulation of relational distance was found to be effective,

the use of hypothetical responses does not accurately reflect real-life conflict interactions.

Additionally, since the conflict scenario is task-oriented, the findings may not be generalizable

to relationship conflict. Task conflict and relationship conflict have different foci, engendering

distinct behavior (Simons & Peterson 2000). The second limitation concerns the measure-

ment of the perceived importance of interaction goals with a single item. Measuring a variable

with a single item might be potentially problematic because a one-item scale is not always a

reliable indicator of what it intends to measure. Additionally, the data were collected at a

private university in the Northeast in the USA, so the findings might not be generalizable to

other cultures. These limitations might constrain the generalizability of the findings.

Future research could consider the following directions. First, since the finding suggests

that relational closeness does not have a significant impact on anger and compassion, but

given that emotion is malleable and adaptable to external influences (Frijda 1986, 1987),

more research is needed to further investigate the effects of other contextual factors (e.g.,

social status, power distance, and conflict type) on other types of emotion (e.g., happiness,

guilt, and fear). Second, since the experimental design of a task-oriented conflict scenario in

this study makes avoiding style not a possible option, future research could consider

investigating the effects of relational closeness on the use of avoiding style in real-life conflict.

This is particularly relevant given that, to maintain relational harmony, avoiding a conflict

with relationally close others may seem obvious. Third, the conflict scenario in this study is

task-oriented, so more attention can be given to examining the effects of relational closeness

on relationship-oriented conflict and see if the same patterns hold true.

Qin Zhang is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at Fairfield

University, Fairfield, CT 06824, USA. Correspondence: Email: qzhang@fairfield.edu

Michael Andreychik is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology, Fairfield

University, Fairfield, CT, USA. Email: mandreychik@fairfield.edu

REFERENCES

Allred, K.G., Mallozzi, J.S., Matsui, F., & Raia, C.P. (1997) ‘The influence of anger and compassion on

negotiation performance’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, pp.175�87.

Berger, C. (2007) ‘Communication: A goal-directed, plan-guided process’, in D. Roskos-Ewoldsen &

J.L. Monahan (eds) Communication and social cognition: Theories and methods, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum, pp.47�70.

Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1964) The managerial grid, Houston, TX: Gulf.

Bodtker, A.M. & Jameson, J.K. (2001) ‘Emotion in conflict formation and its transformation:

Application to organizational conflict management’, The International Journal of Conflict Management,

12, pp.259�75.

114 THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION 19:1, 2013

ZHANG & ANDREYCHIK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

2:33

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1978) ‘Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena’, in E.N. Goody (ed)

Questions and politeness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.56�289.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language use, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Butt, A.N., Choi, J.N., & Jaeger, A.M. (2005). ‘The effects of self-emotion, counterpart emotion, and

counterpart behavior on negotiator behavior: a comparison of individual-level and dyad-level

dynamics’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, pp.681�704.

Cai, D.A. & Fink, E.L. (2002) ‘Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivists’,

Communication Monographs, 69, pp.67�87.

Canary, D.J. (2003) ‘Managing interpersonal conflict: A model of events related to strategic choices’, in

J.O. Greene & B.R. Burleson (eds) Handbook of communication and social interaction skills, Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.515�49.

Dillard, J.P., Segrin, C., & Harden, J.M. (1989) ‘Primary and secondary goals in the production of

interpersonal influence messages’, Communication Monographs, 56, pp.19�38.

Dillard, J.P. & Shen, L. (2005) ‘On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health

communication’, Communication Monographs, 72, pp.144�68.

Friedman, R.A., Tidd, S.T., Currall, S.C., & Tsai, J.C. (2000) ‘What goes around comes around: The

impact of personal conflict style on work conflict and stress’, The International Journal of Conflict

Management, 11, pp.32�55.

Frijda, N.H. (1986) The emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Frijda, N.H. (1987) ‘Emotion, cognitive structure, and action tendency’, Cognition and Emotion, 1,

pp.115�43.

Gross, M.A., Guerrero, L.K., & Alberts, J.K. (2004) ‘Perceptions of conflict strategies and communication

competence in task-oriented dyads’, Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, pp.249�70.

Guerrero, L.K. & La Valley, A.G. (2006) ‘Conflict, emotion, and communication’, in J.G. Oetzel & S. Ting-

Toomey (eds) The Sage handbook of conflict communication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.69�96.

Jones, T.S. (2000) ‘Emotional communication in conflict: Essence and impact’, in W. Eadie & P. Nelson

(eds) The language of conflict and resolution, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.81�104.

Keck, K.L., & Samp, J.A. (2007) ‘The dynamic nature of goals and message production as revealed in a

sequential analysis of conflict interactions’, Human Communication Research, 33, pp.27�47.

Kim, M.-S. & Leung, T. (2000) ‘A multicultural view of conflict management styles: Review and critical

synthesis’, in M. Roloff (ed) Communication yearbook 23, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.227�69.

Ledbetter, A.M., Mazer, J.P., DeGroot, J.M., Meyer, K.R., Mao, Y., & Swafford, B. (2011) ‘Attitudes toward

online social connection and self-disclosure as predictors of Facebook communication and relational

closeness’, Communication Research, 38, pp.27�53.

Lim, T.-S. & Bowers, J.W. (1991) ‘Facework: Solidarity, approbation, and tact’, Human Communication

Research, 17, pp.415�50.

Liu, M. & Wang, C. (2010) ‘Explaining the influence of anger and compassion on negotiators’ interaction

goals: An assessment of trust and distrust as two distinct mediators’, Communication Research, 37,

pp.443�72.

Liu, M., & Wilson, S.R. (2011) ‘The effects of interaction goals on negotiation tactics and outcomes: A

dyad-level analysis across two cultures’, Communication Research, 38, pp.248�77.

Oetzel, J.G. & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003) ‘Face concerns and facework during conflict: A test of the face-

negotiation theory’, Communication Research, 30, pp.599�624.

Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., & Wilcox, R. (2001) ‘Face and

facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States’,

Communication Monographs, 68, pp.235�58.

115THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION 19:1, 2013

RELATIONAL CLOSENESS IN CONFLICT

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

2:33

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Putnam, L.L., & Poole, M.S. (1987) ‘Conflict and negotiation’, in F. Jablin, L. Putnam, K. Roberts & L.

Porter (eds) Handbook of organizational communication, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp.549�99.

Rahim, M.A. (1983) ‘A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict’, Academy of Management

Journal, 26, pp.368�76.

Rogan, R.G. & La France, B.H. (2003) ‘An examination of the relationship between verbal

aggressiveness, conflict management strategies, and conflict interaction goals’, Communication

Quarterly, 51, pp.458�69.

Roloff, M.E. (1987) ‘Communication and conflict’, in C. Berger & S. Chaffee (eds) Handbook of

communication science, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp.484�534.

Simons, T.L. & Peterson, R.S. (2000) ‘Task conflict and relationship in top management teams: The

pivotal role of intragroup trust’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, pp.102�11.

Thomas, K.W. & Kilmann, R.H. (1974) Thomas-Kilmann conflict MODE instrument, Tuxedo, NY: Xicom.

Ting-Toomey, S. (2005) ‘The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory’, in W.B. Gudykunst

(ed) Theorizing about intercultural communication, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.71�92.

Ting-Toomey, S. & Kurogi, A. (1998) ‘Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-

negotiation theory’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, pp.187�225.

Ting-Toomey, S. & Oetzel, J.G. (2001) Managing intercultural conflict effectively, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Van Kleef, G.A. & Cote, S. (2007) ‘Expressing anger in conflict: When it helps and when it hurts’, Journal

of Applied Psychology, 92, pp.1557�69.

Van Kleef, G.A., De Dreu, C.K.W., & Manstead, A.S.R. (2004) ‘The interpersonal effects of anger and

happiness in negotiations’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, pp.57�76.

Van Kleef, G.A., De Dreu, C.K.W., & Manstead, A.S.R. (2006) ‘Supplication and appeasement in conflict

and negotiation: The interpersonal effects of disappointment, worry, guilt, and regret’, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 91, pp.124�42.

Wilson, S. & Putnam, L.L. (1990) ‘Interaction goals in negotiation’, in J. Anderson (ed) Communication

yearbook 13, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp.374�406.

Zhang, Q. (2007) ‘Family communication patterns and conflict styles in Chinese parent�child

relationships’, Communication Quarterly, 55, pp.113�28.

116 THE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION 19:1, 2013

ZHANG & ANDREYCHIK

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 1

2:33

10

Oct

ober

201

4