A three-condition (rejection, criticism, control) single-factor experiment (N = 78) reveals that even relatively minor face-threatening acts of rejection or criticism on a social-networking site similar to Facebook lead to increases in self-reported negative affect and retaliatory aggression, compared with a control. A mediation model demonstrates that face-threatening acts lead to direct effects on negative affect and an indirect affect on retaliatory aggression through negative affect. Findings are discussed in relations to face theory and politeness theory.
AnderssonL. M.PearsonC. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452-471.
2.
BakshyE.SimmonsM. P.HuffakerD. A.TengC.AdamicL. A. (2010, May). The social dynamics of economic activity in a virtual world. Proceedings of the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Washington, DC.
3.
BaumeisterR. F.LearyM. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human need. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
4.
BlackhartG. C.NelsonB. C.KnowlesM. L.BaumeisterR. F. (2009). Rejection elicits emotional reactions but neither causes immediate distress nor lowers self-esteem: A meta-analytic review of 192 studies on social exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 269-309. doi:10.1177/1088868309346065
5.
BollsP. D. (2010). Understanding emotion from a superordinate dimensional perspective: A productive way forward for communication processes and effects studies. Communication Monographs, 77, 146-152. doi:10.1080/03637751003790477
6.
BrettJ. M.OleakalnsM.FriedmanR.GoatesN.AndersonC.LiscoC. C. (2007). Sticks and stones: Language, face, and online dispute resolution. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 85-99.
7.
BrownP.LevinsonS.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. NY: Cambridge Press.
8.
BushmanB. J.HuesmannL. R. (2010). Aggression. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 5th ed., pp. 833-863). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
9.
CazaB. B.CortinaL. M. (2007). From insult to injury: Explaining the impact of incivility. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 335-350.
10.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
11.
CrawfordJ. R.HenryJ. D. (2004). The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 245-265.
12.
CupachW. R.CarsonC. L. (2002). Characteristics and consequences of interpersonal complaints with perceived face threat. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 443-462. doi:10.1177/0265407502019004047
13.
DasboroughM. T.SinclairM.Russell-BennettR.TombsA. (2008). Measuring emotion: Methodological issues and alternative. In AshkanasyN. M.CoooperC. L. (Eds.), Research companion to emotions in organizations (pp. 197-210). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
14.
DillardJ. P.ShenL. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72, 144-168.
15.
Du PrelJ. B.HommelG.RohrigB.BlettnerM. (2009). Confidence interval or p-value? Part 4 of a series of evaluation of scientific publications. Deutsches Arzteblatt International, 106, 335-339.
16.
DuthlerK. W. (2006). The politeness of requests made via email and voic email: Support for the hyperpersonal model. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 500-521.
17.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavioral Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
18.
GoffmanE. (1955). Presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
GraesserA. C. (1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
21.
HancockJ. T.LandriganC.SilverC. (April/May, 2007). Expressing emotion in text-based communication. Proceedings of the CHI ’07 of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA.
22.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.
23.
Kennedy-LightseyC. D. (2010). Recognizing contributions: Face-support and face-threat influences students’ emotional and communicative response. Communication Research Reports, 27, 20-29.
24.
KrosnickJ. A.JuddC. M.WittenbrinkB. (2005). The measurement of attitudes. In AlbarracinD.JohnsonB. T.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 21-76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
LocherM. A.WattsR. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 9-33.
26.
MacDonaldG.LearyM. R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202-223. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.131.2.202
27.
MettsS.CupachW. R. (2008). Face theory. In BaxterL. A.BraithwaiteD. O. (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (pp. 203-214). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
28.
NabiR. L. (2010). The case for emphasizing discrete emotions in communication research. Communication Monographs, 77, 153-159. doi:10.1080/03637751003790444
29.
OetzelJ. G.Ting-ToomeyS. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30, 599-624.
30.
PapacharissiZ. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society, 6, 259-283.
31.
ParkJ. (2008). Linguistic politeness and face-work in computer-mediated communication, Part 1: A theoretical framework. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 2051-2058.
32.
RainsS. A. (2013). The nature of psychological reactance revisited: A meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research, 39, 47-73.
33.
RancerA. S.AvtgisT. A. (2006). Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
ReevesB.NassC. (1996). The media equation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
35.
ShapiroM. (1994). Think-aloud and thought-list procedures in investigating mental processes. In LangA. (Ed.), Measuring psychological responses to media (pp. 1-14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
ShapiroM.ChockT. M. (2004). Media dependency and perceived reality of fiction and news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48, 675-695.
37.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. New York, NY: Pearson.
Ting-ToomeyS.KurogiA. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 187-225.
40.
VangelistiA. L. (1994). Messages that hurt. In CupachW. R.SpitzbergB. H. (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 53-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41.
WatsonC.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and measurement of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
42.
WilliamsK. D.CheungC. K. T.ChoiW. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748-762.
43.
WilliamsK. D.ForgasJ. P.von HippelW. (Eds.). (2005). The social outcast. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
44.
WilsonS. R.AlemanC. G.LeathamG. B. (1998). 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, 64-96.
45.
ZajoncR.B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39(2), 117-123.
