Journal of International and Intercultural Communication

Vol. 8, No. 4, November 2015, pp. 311–329

The Emotional Side of Forgiveness: A

Cross-Cultural Investigation of the Role
of Anger and Compassion and Face
Threat in Interpersonal Forgiveness
and Reconciliation
Qin Zhang, Stella Ting-Toomey, John G. Oetzel &
Jibiao Zhang

This study examined the dynamic interplays between emotions (i.e., anger and
compassion), face threat, forgiveness, and reconciliation in relational transgressions
in U.S. and Chinese cultures. Results indicated that Chinese participants reported
more relationship-oriented forgiveness than U.S. participants, but no distinction was
uncovered in self-oriented forgiveness. Results also showed that, relative to
preforgiveness, there was less postforgiveness anger but more postforgiveness
compassion in both cultures. Anger had a negative association, but compassion had a
positive association, with forgiveness and reconciliation in both cultures. Perceived
face threat first evoked initial emotions, which influenced forgiveness and
counterinfluenced reactive emotions, which then affected reconciliation.

Keywords: Forgiveness; Face Threat; Anger; Compassion; Reconciliation

While close relationships bring us joy, happiness, love, and companionship, they can
also be sources of conflict, frustration, pain, and stress (Wohl & McGrath, 2007). Rela-
tional transgressions in close relationships are especially hurtful, leaving us feeling
deceived, devalued, betrayed, and victimized (Guerrero, Andersen, & Afifi, 2014).

Qin Zhang is an Associate Professor and Chair in the Department of Communication at Fairfield University.
Stella Ting-Toomey is a Professor in the Department of Human Communication Studies at California State Uni-
versity, Fullerton. John Oetzel is a Professor in the Department of Management Communication at University of
Waikato. Jibiao Zhang is an Associate Professor in the School of Foreign Studies at Central China Normal Uni-
versity. Correspondence to: Qin Zhang, Department of Communication, Fairfield University, Fairfield, CT 06824,
USA. Email: qzhang@fairfield.edu

ISSN 1751-3057 (print)/ISSN 1751-3065 (online) © 2015 National Communication Association

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2015.1087094
312 Q. Zhang et al.
As a gateway to reconciliation (Merolla, 2014), forgiveness plays a critical role in
mending injuries, transcending pains, renewing trust, and reestablishing relationships
following the transgressions (McCullough, 2000; Waldron & Kelley, 2008). Forgive-
ness generally involves a motivational transformation typically characterized with
diminished impulse to retaliate and revenge but with elevated impetus to repair and
reconcile (McCullough, Worthington, & Rachal, 1997).
In addition to being a relationship-restoring mechanism, forgiveness also entails
an emotional transformation, whereby people let go of negative feelings of anger
and resentment, and embrace positive emotions of compassion and benevolence
(McCullough, 2000; Waldron & Kelley, 2008). Thus, forgiveness is essentially a
self-healing and relationship-healing emotional process which allows one to cure
the pain so that past transgressions no longer ruin the future. Consequently,
emotions may change and shift following forgiveness, which may in turn influence
the ensuing behaviors. Although empathy has long been recognized as an important
forgiveness antecedent (McCullough et al., 1997), surprisingly, few empirical studies
have ever probed into the dynamic nature of emotions in the forgiveness process.
Existing research on forgiveness seems to largely focus on why, when, and how
people communicate forgiveness (Kelley, 1998; McCullough et al., 1998; Merolla
& Zhang, 2011).
In addition to their volatility and fluidity, emotions are, by nature, socially constructed
(Bodtker & Jameson, 2001), occur in response to specific triggering events (Frijda, 1986,
1987; Lazarus, 1991), and adapt to the interpersonal effects of partner behavior (Zhang,
Andreychik, Sapp, & Arendt, 2014). Moreover, relational offenses and transgressions
can also be regarded as a face-threatening conflict process, whereby a partner violates
the norms governing the relationship, and the victim experiences face threat or
loss, frames situated faces or identities, and enacts facework (Kam & Bond, 2008;
Ting-Toomey, 1988, 2005; Zhang, Ting-Toomey, Dorjee, & Lee, 2012). In light of the
central role of face and facework in conflict process (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003;
Oetzel et al., 2001), perceived face threat or loss during transgressions can also exert
crucial influences on emotions and the forgiveness process (Hui & Bond, 2009; Kam &
Bond, 2008).
While forgiveness is a universal, globalized phenomenon fundamental to human
nature and relationships, it is also contextualized and localized in specific interactions,
influenced by individual, situational, and cultural factors (Hook, Worthington, &
Utsey, 2009; Hook, Worthington, Utsey, Davis, & Burnette, 2012; Merolla, Zhang,
& Sun, 2013). In spite of the accumulating evidence demonstrating the cultural role
in shaping the forgiveness process (Hook et al., 2013; Merolla et al., 2013), most of
the forgiveness research still uses Western individualistic samples (Hook et al.,
2009), and the consideration of cultural influences on forgiveness is still largely
absent (Merolla et al., 2013; Sandage & Williamson, 2005). Taken together, this
study intends to investigate the dynamic interplays between emotions (i.e., anger
and compassion), face threat, and forgiveness, as well as their effects on reconciliation
in U.S. and Chinese cultures.
 Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 313

Interpersonal Forgiveness
In spite of its historical roots in religion and philosophy (McCullough et al., 1997),
forgiveness research proliferates and flourishes in social sciences, particularly in
psychology transcending clinical, counseling, and social perspectives, which primarily
examines the social-cognitive determinants of forgiveness (Fehr, Gelfand, & Nag,
2010; McCullough, Pargament, & Thoresen, 2000). Recently, forgiveness has also wit-
nessed surging interest in the field of communication, which mostly explores the com-
municative aspects of forgiveness (Kelley, 1998; Merolla, 2008). Despite the obvious
differences in the various definitions of forgiveness from divergent perspectives, a
growing consensus is that forgiveness can be conceptualized as a psychological and
communicative process, which involves prosocial changes in motivations, emotions,
and behaviors in the wake of a transgression (McCullough, Fincham, & Tsang,
2003; McCullough et al., 2000; Merolla, 2014).
Interestingly, extant research on forgiveness in psychology largely focuses on the
questions of why and when people forgive, whereas emerging scholarship on for-
giveness in communication mainly revolves around the question of how people
forgive (Fehr et al., 2010; Kelley, 1998; Merolla, 2014). Psychologists have long
been trying to uncover the antecedents and consequences of forgiveness in close
relationships (McCullough et al., 1997). Four categories of forgiveness determi-
nants have been identified, arranged in the order from the most proximal to
the most distal: social-cognitive or affective variables (e.g., empathy), the offense
(e.g., severity of harm incurred), relationship quality (e.g., closeness), and person-
ality traits (e.g., agreeableness; McCullough et al., 1998). As the most important
factors affecting forgiveness, key social-cognitive antecedents include empathy
toward the offender, rumination over the offense, and blame attributions (McCul-
lough et al., 1998; Merolla et al., 2013). Empathy and self-blame tend to elicit for-
giveness whereas rumination activates aggression. In addition, people are more
willing to forgive less severe offenses particularly in relationships characterized
by satisfaction, intimacy, and commitment (Kearns & Fincham, 2005; McCullough
et al., 1998).
Communication research on the communicative aspects of forgiveness nicely
extends and complements the existing forgiveness research largely dominated by psy-
chologists (Kelley, 1998; Merolla, 2008). This extension to how people communicate
forgiveness is critical to a better understanding of the forgiveness process given that
forgiveness is not only psychological but also communicative (Merolla, 2014;
Waldron & Kelley, 2005). People have been found to communicate forgiveness in
three ways: direct, indirect, and conditional (Kelley, 1998; Merolla & Zhang, 2011;
Waldron & Kelley, 2005). Direct forgiveness involves communicating forgiveness
clearly and explicitly (e.g., “I forgive you”). Indirect forgiveness entails forgiving
being “just understood” by downplaying the offense (e.g., “It was nothing”) or
acting “back to normal.” Conditional forgiveness concerns forgiving with stipulations
attached (e.g., “I will forgive you if . . .”) (Kelley, 1998; Merolla & Zhang, 2011; Merolla
et al., 2013).
314 Q. Zhang et al.
Culture and Forgiveness
Despite the remarkable advances in forgiveness research, most of these studies
were conducted in Western cultures, and only a handful of studies have examined
forgiveness in non-Western cultures (Fu, Watkins, & Hui, 2004; Hook et al., 2013;
Karremans et al., 2011). While forgiveness is a common experience across cultures
and relationships, it is also grounded and embedded in culture-specific inter-
actions, where cultural values and expectations may exert sizable influences on
why, when, and how to forgive (Guerrero, 2013; Hook et al., 2009; Karremans
et al., 2011; Merolla et al., 2013). Forgiveness can be experienced, motivated,
and expressed differently in collectivistic and individualistic cultures (Fu et al.,
2004; Hook et al., 2012; Paz, Neto, & Mullet, 2008). In collectivistic cultures
characterized by relational interdependence and social harmony, forgiveness is
largely perceived as an external or interpersonal construct, and motivated by the
desire of relational repair, reestablishment, and reconciliation. Thus, forgiveness
is a prescribed cultural duty rather than a personal decision (Hook et al., 2009,
2013; Paz et al., 2008). Conversely, in individualistic cultures that accentuate rela-
tional and personal independence and individualities, forgiveness is primarily con-
ceived as an internal or intrapersonal construct, and motivated by the hope of
personal healing, inner peace, and self-enhancement. Thus, forgiveness is more a
personal decision than cultural obligation (Hook et al., 2009; Karremans et al.,
2011; Paz et al., 2008).
In spite of increasing cultural convergence and diversity, the U.S. culture is typically
delineated as individualistic and Chinese culture as collectivistic (Hofstede, 1980),
which might inevitably affect the forgiveness process. In traditional Chinese culture
under the influence of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, harmony is prized
and forgiveness is expected, manifested in the proverbs he wei gui (和为贵,
meaning “harmony is the most valuable”) and de rao ren chu qie rao ren (得饶人
处且饶人, meaning “forgive others as long as you can”) (Fu et al., 2004). Thus, in
China forgiveness is motivated primarily by other-oriented social constructs (e.g.,
relationship solidarity, harmony, and face) rather than by self-oriented personality
variables (e.g., self-esteem, anxiety, and inner peace), whereas in the U.S. forgiveness
seems to be more motivated by self-focused emotions than by social harmony (Fu
et al., 2004; Karremans et al., 2011). However, the reasoning and conjectures have
yet to be tested in cross-cultural studies, and the only relevant cross-cultural study
found that social harmony was an effective predictor of forgiveness in China, but
not in the U.S. (Merolla et al., 2013). In light of the findings, we propose the following
two hypotheses regarding the cross-cultural differences (H1a) and within-cultural
differences (H1b).
H1a: There is more relationship-oriented forgiveness, but less self-oriented forgive-
ness, in China than the U.S.
H1b: There is more relationship-oriented forgiveness than self-oriented forgiveness
in China, whereas there is more self-oriented forgiveness than relationship-oriented
forgiveness in the U.S.
 Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 315

Emotions and Forgiveness

Forgiveness is an emotionally laden experience, which involves emotional transform-
ation from negative to positive emotions (McCullough, 2000; Waldron & Kelley,
2008). In the wake of forgiveness, one’s emotional, cognitive, and behavioral
responses toward the transgressor tend to become more positive and/or less negative
(McCullough et al., 2003). By and large, one’s initial instinctive responses to rela-
tional transgressions are more destructive, such as anger, blame, and vengeance,
but forgiveness allows one to release the negative impulses and embrace more
constructive reactions, such as empathy, goodwill, and reconciliation (McCullough
et al., 1997). Surprisingly, no empirical research has ever tested the widely recog-
nized assumption regarding the temporal change of emotions in the forgiveness
process. Thus, this study intends to address the dynamic nature of emotions. Specifi-
cally, it examines whether the emotions of anger and compassion change following
forgiveness.
This study focuses on anger and compassion mainly because anger might be the
most common preforgiveness emotion triggered by transgressions and compassion
might be the most ideal postforgiveness emotion hopefully to be elicited by forgiveness
(Kam & Bond, 2008; McCullough et al., 1998). Anger represents the negative emotion
associated with displeasure, rage, and irritation (Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, &
O’Connor, 1987), whereas compassion represents the positive emotion associated
with empathy, sympathy, and understanding (Liu, 2009; Zhang, Ting-Toomey, &
Oetzel, 2014). Emotions in conflict are generally malleable, fluid, and adaptable to
the influences of partner behavior and emotions (Zhang, Andreychik et al., 2014).
Given that prosocial emotional change is a hallmark of forgiveness (McCullough
et al., 2003), it stands to reason to assume one’s initial emotional orientation is
likely to change over time, with forgiveness evoking more compassion but less
anger. Thus, we offer the following hypothesis:
H2: Relative to preforgiveness, there is more compassion, but less anger following
forgiveness in the U.S. and China.
More importantly, in addition to its emotional consequences, forgiveness could also be
emotionally driven (McCullough et al., 1998). While scholars have identified a variety
of contextual factors (e.g., apology, severity, and attribution) that potentially influence
forgiveness (McCullough et al., 1997), McCullough et al. (1998) noted that forgiveness
is “a primarily empathy-driven motivational phenomenon” (p. 1588), and empathy
has been found to facilitate forgiveness in both the U.S. and China (McCullough
et al., 1998; Merolla et al., 2013). Although a direct connection between anger/com-
passion and forgiveness has yet to be established empirically, given the link of anger
with attack and domination and of compassion with understanding and cooperation
(Liu, 2009; Zhang, Ting-Toomey et al., 2014), it can be expected that following trans-
gressions the experience of anger is likely to provoke the impulse of revenge and
estrangement, whereas the experience of compassion is likely to energize the desire
of forgiveness and reconciliation. Thus, we propose:
316 Q. Zhang et al.
H3: Anger has a negative association, but compassion has a positive association,
with forgiveness in the U.S. and China.

Face Threat
Face is a claimed sense of favorable image in the context of social and relational net-
works (Ting-Toomey, 2005). Face and facework play a pivotal role in conflict process
because people from all cultures maintain and negotiate face in communication
(Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Ting-Toomey, 1988, 2005). Derived from Goffman’s
(1967) seminal work on face, Brown and Levinson (1987) developed politeness
theory, which distinguishes between two types of face: positive face and negative
face. Positive face refers to the need for approval and appreciation while negative
face refers to the desire for autonomy and freedom from imposition. While relational
transgressions can threaten both positive face and negative face, they are particularly
threatening to the respectability or positive face of the victim (Kam & Bond, 2008).
Thus, this study focuses on positive face threat.
Face threat in transgressions, such as insults, lies, disrespect, contempt, and rude-
ness, involves not only the loss of face but also the loss of power, dignity, and
status, which consequently elicits strong emotional and behavioral responses (Kam
& Bond, 2008). Face loss has been found to engender negative emotions of anger
and shame (Kam & Bond, 2008), and lower the desire to forgive to salvage an imper-
iled relationship, but increase the motivation to retaliate the transgressor (Hui & Bond,
2009). Hence, we offer:
H4: Perceived face threat has a positive association with anger, but a negative
association with compassion in the U.S. and China.

Reconciliation
Reconciliation is a process of restoring relationships and renewing trust following a
transgression (Hawk, 2014). Reconciliation occurs at a late stage in the journey of
relationship repair and is an ideal state following forgiveness (Freedman, 1998).
While forgiveness often leads to reconciliation, it does not necessitate reconciliation
nor obligates one to reconcile; consequently, forgiveness does not necessarily reestab-
lish relationships (Hawk, 2014). Notably, scholars have also suggested cultural differ-
ences in the magnitude of the relationship between forgiveness and reconciliation
(Hook et al., 2009; Sandage & Williamson, 2005). In collectivistic cultures, forgiveness
occurs within the context of interpersonal reconciliation and social harmony and
people forgive out of relationship-enhancing motives, whereas in individualistic cul-
tures, forgiveness arises within the context of intrapersonal well-being and peace
and people forgive out of self-enhancing motives (Hook et al., 2012). Thus, collectivists
tend to perceive a stronger and closer link between forgiveness and reconciliation than
individualists (Hook et al., 2013; Kadiangandu, Gauché, Vinsonneau, & Mullet, 2007).
Undoubtedly, forgiveness is a strong precursor to reconciliation (Hook et al., 2009).
In spite of their conceptual differences, forgiveness and reconciliation are closely
 Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 317

linked (Hawk, 2014), and both can be accomplished through experiencing empathy
(Worthington, 2013). Thus, just like forgiveness, reconciliation should also be
emotion driven and aroused. But little research has ever examined the emotional influ-
ences on reconciliation. Although the direct relationship between anger/compassion
and reconciliation has not yet been established, considering the link of anger with
attack and revenge and of compassion with empathy and understanding (Liu, 2009;
Zhang, Ting-Toomey et al., 2014), it seems reasonable to propose:
H5: Anger has a negative association, but compassion has a positive association,
with reconciliation in the U.S. and China.

The Hypothesized Model

Perceived face threat in transgressions provoke emotional and behavioral responses
from the victim, with emotions (e.g., anger) partially mediating the effects on beha-
viors (e.g., forgiveness or revenge) (Kam & Bond, 2008). The mediation of emotions
is also consistently confirmed in previous studies suggesting that the interpersonal
effects of partner behavior operate mostly through intrapersonal emotional mechan-
isms to produce behavioral effects (Zhang, Andreychik et al., 2014; Zhang, Ting-
Toomey et al., 2014). Thus, perceived face threat may first arouse emotions, but has
direct and mediated effects on forgiveness.
While forgiveness can be activated by a great variety of contextual and dispositional
factors (McCullough et al., 1998), forgiveness is essentially an emotion-focused
dynamic process, driven by emotions, involving an emotional juxtaposition of positive
emotions against the negative ones, and entailing behavioral consequences (Worthing-
ton, 2013; Worthington & Scherer, 2004). Clearly, emotions pervade and imbue the
entire journey following a transgression through forgiveness to reconciliation.
However, emotions are rarely static; rather they are constantly evolving, transforming,
and affecting and/or responding to cognitive and behavioral changes (Zhang, Andrey-
chik et al., 2014). In addition, given that forgiveness is primarily empathy-driven
(McCullough et al., 1998), one’s initial emotions (e.g., anger or compassion) may
determine one’s forgiveness, which, in turn, counterinfluences and transforms one’s
emotions. Considering that prosocial nature of forgiveness (McCullough et al.,
2003), forgiveness inevitably involves a reduction of negative emotions of anger
and resentment and an increase of positive emotions of compassion and goodwill,
and the reactive emotions ultimately affect one’s likelihood to reconcile with the
transgressor (McCullough, 2000; Waldron & Kelley, 2008). However, in addition
to the indirect effects on reconciliation mediated through emotions, forgiveness
should also have a direct effect on reconciliation particularly in light of their robust
relationships (Hawk, 2014; Hook et al., 2013). Thus, we propose the model (see
Figure 1):
H6: Perceived face threat elicits initial emotions (i.e., anger and compassion), which
influence forgiveness, which in turn counterinfluences emotions (i.e., anger and
compassion), which then affect reconciliation.
318 Q. Zhang et al.

Figure 1 Hypothesized Model.

Method
Participants
Participants included 329 college students: 153 from a medium-sized university in the
Northeastern U.S. (48 males, 101 females, 2 unidentified) and 176 from a large univer-
sity in Central China (43 males and 133 females). The average age of the participants
was 20.85 (SD = 3.27) for the U.S. sample and 21.40 (SD = 2.36) for the Chinese
sample. The ethnicities in the U.S. sample were 81% Caucasian, 3% African American,
3% Asian, 11% Hispanic, 1% other, and 1% unidentified. Most of the Chinese students
were ethnically Han.

Procedures
The questionnaire was developed in English and translated and back-translated into
Chinese by different bi-lingual scholars to ensure linguistic equivalence. The U.S.
participants were recruited from a variety of communication, psychology, and
history classes and the Chinese participants from English classes. Participants
were first asked to recall a recent hurtful offense against them by someone close
to them, such as a close friend, boyfriend/girlfriend, or a family member, in
which what s/he does or says that hurts or offends their feelings. Altogether 54%
of the participants described an offense by a close friend, 29% by boyfriend/girl-
friend, 16% by a family member, and 1% unspecified. Participants were also
asked to report how severe the offense was and independent samples t-test indi-
cated that the perceived severity of the offense was not significantly different
across the two cultures (U.S.: M = 3.19, SD = 1.07; China: M = 2.95, SD = 1.24),
t(325) = 1.83, p = ns.
Participants were later asked to keep the same recalled hurtful offense in mind and
respond to 5-point Likert-type questions measuring their perceptions of face threat of
the offense and their initial anger and compassion when the offense actually hap-
pened. Then they were asked to indicate on a 5-point Likert-type scale whether
they have now forgiven the offender, as well as their current anger and compassion
toward the offender and reconciliation actions. The questionnaire required approxi-
mately 15 minutes to complete. All the participants responded to the questionnaire
in their native language. The participation was anonymous.
 Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 319

Instruments
Anger
Anger was measured with four slightly modified 5-point Likert-type items (5 = strongly
agree, 1 = strongly disagree) (Dillard & Shen, 2005). The items asked participants to rate
how irritated, angry, annoyed, and aggravated they felt. Participants completed the
measure of anger twice, their initial anger when the offense actually happened and
their current or reactive anger following forgiveness. For the U.S. sample, the alpha of
the scale was .96 for the initial anger and .97 for their reactive anger. For the Chinese
sample, the alpha of the scale was .92 for the initial anger and .90 for their reactive anger.

Compassion
Compassion was assessed with four 5-point Likert-type items (5 = strongly agree, 1
= strongly disagree) (Liu & Wang, 2010). The items asked participants to rate the
extent to which they felt sympathy, compassion, empathy, and understanding.
Participants completed the measure of compassion twice, their initial compassion
when the offense actually happened and their current or reactive compassion fol-
lowing forgiveness. For the U.S. sample, the alpha of the scale was .93 for the
initial compassion and .95 for their reactive compassion. For the Chinese sample,
the alpha of the scale was .85 for the initial compassion and .80 for their reactive
compassion.

Face threat
Perceived face threat was measured with ten 5-point Likert-type items (5 = strongly
agree, 1 = strongly disagree) developed by Cupach and Carson (2002), assessing posi-
tive face threat. All items were prefaced by the phrase, “During the offense, my
partner . . .” Sample items included “was rude,” “showed disrespect towards me,” and
“showed contempt towards me.” The alpha of the scale was .80 for the U.S. sample
and .81 for the Chinese sample.

Forgiveness
Forgiveness was measured with five 5-point Likert-type items (5 = strongly agree,
1 = strongly disagree), which included three items developed by Aquino, Tripp,
and Bies (2006), and two items developed by Bachman and Guerrero (2006).
Sample items included “I have completely forgiven him/her” and “I have let go of
my hurt and pain.” The alpha was .93 for the U.S. sample and .88 for the Chinese
sample.

Forgiveness motivation
Relationship-oriented forgiveness was assessed with four 5-point Likert-type items
partially adapted from Hook’s (2007) interpersonal forgiveness subscale. Sample
items included “I forgive my partner to heal the relationship between us” and
“I forgive my partner to restore our damaged relationship.” The alpha was .89 for
the U.S. sample and .82 for the Chinese sample. Self-oriented forgiveness was
320 Q. Zhang et al.
assessed with four 5-point Likert-type items developed for the study. The four items
included “I forgive my partner for my own benefits,” “I forgive my partner for inner
peace,” “I forgive my partner to let go of my anxiety,” and “I forgive my partner to
let go of my pain.” The alpha was .87 for the U.S. sample and .84 for the Chinese
sample. The confirmatory factor analysis (see preliminary analysis) confirmed the
factorial validity and measurement invariance of the scales in both cultures.

Reconciliation
Reconciliation was measured with four 5-point Likert-type items (5 = strongly agree, 1
= strongly disagree), which included three items developed by Aquino et al. (2006) and
one item from Hook et al. (2013). Sample items included “I try to make amends” and “I
take steps toward reconciliation.” The alpha was .95 for the U.S. sample and .96 for the
Chinese sample.

Results
Preliminary Analyses
A confirmatory factor analysis of the measurement model was conducted to assess the
construct validity of the measures. The hypothesized measurement model included all
underlying constructs: perceived face threat, initial anger and compassion, forgiveness,
reactive anger and compassion, and reconciliation. Since the data were collected from
two national cultures, evidence of invariance in measurement across the two cultures
was important (Fletcher et al., 2014; Little, 1997). The measurement model with freely
estimated model parameters across the two groups revealed a good fit, χ2 (1010) =
1776.45, χ2/df = 1.76, p < .05, CFI = .93, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .05. Similarly, the
weak metric invariance model showed evidence of an adequate fit, χ2 (1041) =
1912.46, χ2/df = 1.87, p <.05, CFI = .92, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .05, so did the strong
metric invariance model, χ2 (1093) = 2122.49, χ2/df = 1.94, p <.05, CFI = .91, TLI =
.90, RMSEA = .05. Items with high covariances in error terms were correlated in
the analysis. The establishment of configural and weak and strong metric invariance
showed that the measurement was reasonably equivalent across the two cultures.
Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations
for all the variables in this study appear in Table 1.

Hypotheses
H1a predicted that there is more relationship-oriented forgiveness, but less self-
oriented forgiveness, in China than the U.S. H1b predicted that there is more relation-
ship-oriented forgiveness than self-oriented forgiveness in China, whereas there is
more self-oriented forgiveness than relationship-oriented forgiveness in the U.S.
Results of independent samples t-test indicated that Chinese reported more relation-
ship-oriented forgiveness (M = 3.47, SD = 1.02) than Americans (M = 3.18, SD = 1.23),
t(327) = –2.31, p < .05, but the differences in the reported self-oriented forgiveness was
 Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 321

Table 1 Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for All Variables by Culture
Culture Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 M SD
1. Face Threat 3.46 0.7
2. Initial Anger .42** 3.4 1.38
3. Initial Compassion –.47** –.38** 1.81 0.98
US 4. Forgiveness –.54** –.40** .51** 3.18 1.25
5. Reactive Anger .52** .31** –.30** –.73** 2.75 1.42
6. Reactive Compassion .43** –.27** .32** .64** –.57** 2.61 1.24
7. Reconciliation –.52** –.33** .43** .84** –.66** .68** 3.22 1.33

1. Face Threat 2.98 0.68

2. Initial Anger .61** 2.75 1.2
3. Initial Compassion –.43** –.38** 2.44 0.99
China 4. Forgiveness –.47** –.42** .52** 3.54 1.11
5. Reactive Anger .41** .38** –.23** –.53** 2.26 1.09
6. Reactive Compassion –.25** –.15* .24** .37** –.20** 3.13 0.96
7. Reconciliation –.33** –.29** .40** .56** –.51** .39** 3.26 1.21
*p < .05; **p < .01.

not significant (U.S.: M = 2.92, SD = .97; China: M = 2.98, SD = .85), t(326) = –.57,
p = ns. Thus, H1a was partially supported. In addition, results of paired samples
t-test indicated that both U.S. Americans and Chinese reported more relationship-
oriented forgiveness than self-oriented forgiveness, U.S.: t(151) = 2.58, p < .05;
China: t(175) = 4.85, p < .001. Thus, H1b was partially supported.
H2 predicted that, relative to preforgiveness, there is more compassion, but less
anger following forgiveness in the U.S. and China. Two-point comparisons between
the initial emotions when the offense occurred and reactive or current emotions fol-
lowing forgiveness were made to examine the changes in anger and compassion. A
one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to test whether the changes
were significant. The multivariate effects were significant, Wilks’s lambda = .86, F
(1, 152) = 23.93, p < .001. Results indicated significantly less anger in the U.S.
(initial: M = 3.40, SD = 1.39; reactive: M = 2.75, SD = 1.43), Wilks’s lambda = .86,
F(1, 152) = 23.93, p < .001, partial η 2 = .14, and in China (initial: M = 2.75,
SD = 1.20; reactive: M = 2.26, SD = 1.09), Wilks’s lambda = .87, F(1, 175) = 26.12,
p < .001, partial η 2 = .13, but significantly more compassion in the U.S. (initial:
M = 1.81, SD = .98; reactive: M = 2.61, SD = 1.24), Wilks’s lambda = .72, F(1, 152)
= 58.24, p < .001, partial η 2 = .28, and in China (initial: M = 2.44, SD = .99; reactive:
M = 3.13, SD = .96), Wilks’s lambda = .59, F(1, 175) = 59.05, p < .001, partial η 2 = .25
Thus, H2 was supported.
H3–H6 can be answered with the testing of the hypothesized model. The hypoth-
esized model (see Figure 1) was tested with structural equation modeling (SEM)
with maximum likelihood estimation using AMOS. Bootstrapping was used to
obtain the indirect effects of perceived face threat on reconciliation mediated
through emotions and forgiveness. Bootstrapping analysis was appropriate in this
study because it was recommended as the most powerful, reasonable, and valid
322 Q. Zhang et al.

Figure 2 Model for the U.S. Data. *p < .05; **p < .001; standardized path coefficients
reported.

method for testing mediating variable effects (Hayes, 2009; Preacher & Hayes, 2008).
The hypothesized model had an acceptable fit to both U.S. and Chinese data (U.S.: χ2
(df = 7) = 15.91, χ2/df = 2.27, p < .05, CFI = .98, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .08; China: χ2 (df
= 7) = 12.11, χ2/df = 1.72, p < .05, CFI = .98, TLI = .96, RMSEA = .07). Figure 2 displays
the significant path coefficients for the U.S. data and Figure 3 for the Chinese data. The
bootstrapped estimates for the indirect effects, confidence intervals, and standard
errors are provided in Table 2.
H3 predicted that anger has a negative association, but compassion has a positive
association, with forgiveness in the U.S. and China. SEM results (See Figures 2 and
3) indicated that initial anger had a significant negative effect on forgiveness in
both cultures (U.S.: β = –.15, p < .05; China: β = –.16, p < .05), and initial compassion
had a significant positive effect on forgiveness (U.S.: β = .29, p < .001; China: β = .38,
p < .001). Thus, H3 was supported.
H4 predicted that perceived face threat has a positive association with anger, but a
negative association with compassion in the U.S. and China. SEM results (see Figures 2
and 3) indicated that perceived face threat had a significant positive effect on initial
anger in both cultures (U.S.: β = .42, p < .001; China: β = .55, p < .001), and a significant
negative effect on initial compassion (U.S.: β = –.47, p < .001; China: β = –.43, p < .001).
Thus, H4 was supported.
H5 predicted that anger has a negative association, but compassion has a positive
association, with reconciliation in the U.S. and China. SEM results (see Figures 2
and 3) indicated that reactive anger had a significant negative effect on reconciliation
in both cultures (U.S.: β = –.16, p < .05; China: β = –.30, p < .001), and reactive com-
passion had a significant positive effect on reconciliation (U.S.: β = .23, p < .001; China:
β = .21, p < .001). Thus, H5 was supported.
H6 predicted that perceived face threat elicits initial emotions (i.e., anger and
compassion), which influence forgiveness, which in turn counterinfluences emotions
(i.e., anger and compassion), which then affect reconciliation. As indicated above, the
hypothesized model had a good fit in both cultures. Table 2 shows that the triggering
and indirect effects of perceived face threat on reconciliation mediated through
 Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 323

Figure 3 Model for the Chinese Data. *p < .05; **p < .001; standardized path coefficients
reported.

Table 2 Bootstrap Analysis of Indirect Effects of Perceived Face Threat on Reconciliation

through Emotion and Forgiveness
BCa 95% CI
Bootstrap
Culture Mediation paths estimate SE Lower Upper
Face Threat–Initial Emotion–Forgiveness –.20 0.04 –.28 –.13
Face Threat–Initial Anger/Forgiveness– 0.39 0.06 0.3 0.48
Reactive Anger
US Face Threat–Initial Compassion/Forgiveness– –.35 0.05 –.42 –.24
Reactive Compassion
Face Threat–Initial Emotion–Forgiveness– –.45 0.06 –.54 –.34
Reactive Emotion–Reconciliation
Face Threat–Initial Emotion–Forgiveness –.21 0.05 –.29 –.11
Face Threat–Initial Anger/Forgiveness– 0.32 0.05 0.25 0.41
Reactive Anger
Face Threat–Initial Compassion/Forgiveness– –.17 0.04 –.25 –.11
Reactive Compassion
China Face Threat–Initial Emotion–Forgiveness– –.29 0.05 –.37 –.22
Reactive Emotion–Reconciliation
Significant indirect effects (p < .05) are shown in bold.
BCa: accelerated bias-corrected bootstrap.

emotions and forgiveness were all significant. H6 was supported. Thus, emotions play
a crucial role in influencing forgiveness and reconciliation.

Discussion
This study probed the dynamic nature of emotions and the perceived face threat in the
forgiveness and reconciliation processes in two distinctive cultures, namely, China and
the United States. The major findings of this research were as follows: (a) Chinese par-
ticipants reported more relationship-oriented forgiveness than U.S. participants but
324 Q. Zhang et al.
no distinction was uncovered in the reported self-oriented forgiveness facet. In
addition, both U.S. and Chinese samples reported more relationship-oriented forgive-
ness than self-oriented forgiveness; (b) relative to preforgiveness, results indicated less
postforgiveness anger and more postforgiveness compassion in the U.S. and in China;
(c) initial anger had a negative association with forgiveness, but initial compassion had
a positive association with forgiveness in both cultures; (d) perceived face threat had a
positive relationship with initial anger and a negative relationship with initial com-
passion in both cultures; (e) anger was negatively correlated, and compassion was
positively correlated, with reconciliation in both cultures; and lastly (f) the hypoth-
esized model had a good fit to the data in both cultures; thus, perceived face threat
evokes initial emotions (i.e., anger and compassion), which influences forgiveness,
and in turn counterinfluences emotions (i.e., anger and compassion), which then
affects reconciliation.

Hypotheses
The findings lend partial support for H1a and H1b, and full support for H2–H6. Across
the two cultures, Chinese reported more relationship-oriented forgiveness than U.S.
Americans, but not on the self-oriented forgiveness facet. In addition, within cultures,
both Americans and Chinese reported more relationship-oriented forgiveness than
self-oriented forgiveness. The nonsignificant result on the self-oriented forgiveness
could be attributed to the disproportionate ratio of female (n =234; 72%) to male par-
ticipants (n = 91; 28%) in this study. According to a recent review study (Caughlin,
Vangelisti, & Mikucki-Enyart, 2013) on female–male conflict interactional differences
in dating relationships, some interpersonal scholars have suggested that “women are
socialized to focus more on relationships” (p. 171) than men. Another plausible
reason to explain the findings could be that sample participants were recalling
relationship hurtful events by someone close to them and, thus, the close relationship
context tilted the result towards relationship-oriented forgiveness as versus self-
oriented forgiveness (e.g., as versus in recalling workplace transgression events).
Furthermore, H2 predicted that, relative to the preforgiveness phase, there is an
increase of compassion, but a decrease of anger following forgiveness in the U.S.
and China. H2 was supported with the notion that there exist more human common-
alities in the experienced emotions associated with forgiveness rather than differences
between sample participants in the two cultures.
H3–H6 basically tested the predictive pathways among a reduction of negative
emotions of anger and resentment and an increase of positive emotions of compassion
and goodwill, and how the reactive emotions ultimately shape one’s likelihood to
reconcile with the transgressor. In addition to the indirect effects on reconciliation
mediated through emotions, the study also predicted a direct effect between forgive-
ness and reconciliation. The hypothesized model was found to have a good fit to
both U.S. and Chinese data and, thus, all four hypotheses were supported.
The findings support that emotions change and evolve after a perceived relationship
transgression episode, with less anger and more compassion at postforgiveness relative
 Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 325

to preforgiveness. Further, the emotion of anger has a negative association, but the
emotion of compassion has a positive association, with forgiveness and reconciliation.
Perceived face threat has a positive relationship with anger, but a negative relationship
with compassion. The findings of the study highlight the role of emotions in forgive-
ness and reconciliation, and feature more cultural similarities than differences in the
dynamic role of emotions in both cultures, with anger associated negatively, and com-
passion associated positively, with forgiveness and reconciliation in both individualis-
tic and collectivistic cultures.

Contributions
This study offers several substantive contributions to the literature. First, the findings
of this study may help to augment conflict face-negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey,
2005) in its future development. For example, the fifth condition in the face-threaten-
ing process (FTP) states that: “Fifth, the more harm or hurtful the FTP produces, the
more time and effort is needed to repair the FTP. . . . Self-face concern becomes incre-
mentally more salient if several of these conditions are present in a face-threatening
communication process” (p. 77). The findings of H3–H6 pave the beginning step of
testing the FTP conditions.
Second, the results of this study actually point to more commonalities between
two contrastive cultures than differences in the evolving emotions of forgiveness
and reconciliation. If compassion is indeed positively associated to forgiveness
and reconciliation in a wide range of cultures or cultural communities, future
research and applied training in conflict resolution processes may want to unpack
this phenomenon more closely to understand how to cultivate pan-culture
compassion and researching the multidimensional facets (i.e., from spiritual to
communicative) of compassion.
Third, the findings of this study also contribute to an understanding of the reactive
emotions of anger and compassion in shaping interpersonal amends and reconcilia-
tion. The goodness of fit of the SEM in both the U.S. and China paints a more complete
picture of the direct path between forgiveness and reconciliation and the mediated
paths among perceived face threats, emotions, and reconciliation. In order to recon-
cile, forgiveness is an essential step to reconciliation in both individualistic and
group-based cultures. Alternatively, softening or reframing the perceived face threat
event in the relationship, and developing empathy and compassion for the transgres-
sor may also activate the beginning step for the forgiveness and reconciliation
processes.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Conceptually, this study attempted to fill a void in the forgiveness and reconciliation
literature by investigating the critical role of different emotion facets (i.e., anger and
compassion) in the forgiveness and reconciliation processes. In addition, the perceived
face threat phenomenon was cast as a triggering mechanism with spillover effects on
326 Q. Zhang et al.
the arousing emotions and subsequent forgiveness and reconciliation directions.
While the results of the study supported the majority of the six hypotheses, there
exist some limitations to this research.
Theoretically, owing to the paucity of theorizing in the emotion, forgiveness, and
culture domain (Merolla et al., 2013), this study has to piece together a diverse
range of concepts in the conflict literature and pull together their interdependent com-
ponents. Future research studies will do well to glean from the findings of this research
study and engage in a stronger theorizing effort in laying out the perceived face threat
component and how its role affects the subsequent vulnerable emotion arousal pro-
cesses such as the hostile emotions of anger and jealousy, or flat emotions such as
hurt or stonewalling.
Methodologically, although this study tested the preforgiveness emotions of anger
and compassion, and also the counterreactive emotions prior to reconciliation, the
data utilized in this study are recalled data and cross-sectional data. Thus, the
results do not actually capture the various experienced emotions of anger and com-
passion at two or multiple points in time and should be interpreted with caution.
Indeed, future research studies will do well to investigate real-time developmental tra-
jectory of the ebb and flow of fluctuating emotions in the forgiveness and reconcilia-
tion journey across a diverse range of cultures and gender identity groups. Future
research can also investigate more closely the different forgiveness message styles
(e.g., direct, indirect, and unconditional) in conjunction with the subsequent counter-
emotions and reconciliation process.
In addition, the perceived face threat phenomenon was also netted via recalled data.
The severity or the magnitude of the perceived face threat concept was not measured,
thus, sample participants could be recalling different vulnerable events and emotions
via a distant cognitive appraisal lens. Future research will do well to actually operatio-
nalize the different types of perceived face threat events and testing the different
relational transgression “face threat” types on the relationship among emotions, for-
giveness, and reconciliation.
In conclusions, this study extended the understanding of emotion dynamics in the
study of culture, forgiveness, and reconciliation. The findings provided some solid,
clear support for the emotions of anger and compassion in the pathway of forgiveness
motivation and extending reconciliation and repair. Hopefully, this study helps to
pave the initial groundwork for the systematic study of perceived face threats, the dia-
lectical emotions of anger and compassion in the forgiveness journey and, ultimately,
leading to interpersonal or intergroup relationship reconciliation work.

References
Aquino, K., Tripp, T.M., & Bies, R.J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice,
and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in
organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 653–668. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.653
Bachman, G.F., & Guerrero, L.K. (2006). Forgiveness, apology, and communicative responses to
hurtful events. Communication Reports, 19, 45–56. doi:10.1080/08934210600586357
 Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 327

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, 259–275. doi:10.1108/eb022858
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Caughlin, J., Vangelisti, A., & Mikucki-Enyart, S. (2013). Conflict in dating and marital relationships.
In J.G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication (2nd
ed., pp. 161–185). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cupach, W.R., & Carson, C.L. (2002). Characteristics and consequences of interpersonal complaints
associated with perceived face threat. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19,
443–462. doi:10.1177/0265407502019004047
Dillard, J.P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive
health communication. Communication Monographs, 72, 144–168. doi:10.1080/03637750
500111815
Fehr, R., Gelfand, M.J., & Nag, M. (2010). The road to forgiveness: A meta-analytic synthesis of its
situational and dispositional correlates. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 894–914. doi:10.1037/
a0019993
Fletcher, C.V., Nakazawa, M., Chen, Y., Oetzel, J.G., Ting-Toomey, S., Chang, & Zhang, Q.
(2014). Establishing cross-cultural measurement equivalence of scales associated with face-
negotiation theory: A critical issue in cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of International
and Intercultural Communication, 7, 148–169. doi:10.1080/17513057.2014.898364
Freedman, S. (1998). Forgiveness and reconciliation: The importance of understanding how they
differ. Counseling and Values, 42, 200–216. doi:10.1002/j.2161-007X.1998.tb00426.x
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,
115–143.
Fu, H., Watkins, D., & Hui, E.K. (2004). Personality correlates of the disposition towards interper-
sonal forgiveness: A Chinese perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 305–316.
doi:10.1080/00207590344000402
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago, IL: Adrine.
Guerrero, L.K. (2013). Emotion and communication in conflict interaction. In J.G. Oetzel & S. Ting-
Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication (2nd ed., pp. 105–131).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guerrero, L.K., Andersen, P.A., & Afifi, W.A. (2014). Close encounters: Communication in relation-
ship (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hawk, G.W. (2014). The practice of forgiveness and reconciliation. In J.L. Hocker & W.W. Wilmot
(Eds.), Interpersonal conflict (pp. 303–343). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hayes, A.F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium.
Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420. doi:10.1080/03637750903310360
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Hook, J.N. (2007). Forgiveness, individualism, and collectivism. Unpublished master’s thesis, Virginia
Commonwealth University.
Hook, J.N., Worthington, E.L. Jr., Davis, D.E., Watkins, D., Hui, E., Luo, W., . . . & Reyna, S.H.
(2013). A China–New Zealand comparison of forgiveness. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 16, 286–291. doi:10.1111/ajsp.12033
Hook, J.N., Worthington, E.L. Jr., & Utsey, S.O. (2009). Collectivism, forgiveness, and social
harmony. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 821–847. doi:10.1177/0011000008326546
Hook, J.N., Worthington, E.L. Jr., Utsey, S.O., Davis, D.E., & Burnette, J.L. (2012). Collectivistic self-
construal and forgiveness. Counseling and Values, 57, 109–124. doi:10.1002/j.2161-007X.2012.
00012.x
328 Q. Zhang et al.
Hui, V.K.Y., & Bond, M.H. (2009). Target’s face loss, motivations, and forgiveness following rela-
tional transgression: Comparing Chinese and US cultures. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 26, 123–140. doi:10.1177/0265407508100312
Kadiangandu, J.K., Gauché, M., Vinsonneau, G., & Mullet, E. (2007). Conceptualizations of forgive-
ness collectivist-Congolese versus individualist-French viewpoints. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 38, 432–437. doi:10.1177/0022022107302312
Kam, C.C.S., & Bond, M.H. (2008). Role of emotions and behavioral responses in mediating the
impact of face loss on relationship deterioration: Are Chinese more face-sensitive than
Americans? Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 175–184. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2008.
00254.x
Karremans, J.C., Regalia, C., Paleari, F.G., Fincham, F.D., Cui, M., Takada, N., . . . & Uskul, A.K.
(2011). Maintaining harmony across the globe the cross-cultural association between close-
ness and interpersonal forgiveness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 443–451.
doi:10.1177/1948550610396957
Kearns, J.N., & Fincham, F.D. (2005). Victim and perpetrator accounts of interpersonal transgres-
sions: Self-serving or relationship-serving biases? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
31, 321–333. doi:10.1177/0146167204271594
Kelley, D. (1998). The communication of forgiveness. Communication Studies, 49, 255–271. doi:10.
1080/10510979809368535
Lazarus, R.S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Little, T.D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical
and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32, 53–76. doi:10.1207/
s15327906mbr3201_3
Liu, M. (2009). The intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of anger on negotiation strategies: A
cross-cultural investigation. Human Communication Research, 35, 148–169. doi:10.1111/j.
1468-2958.2008.01342.x
Liu, M., & Wang, C. (2010). Explaining the influence of anger and compassion on negotiators’ inter-
action goals: An assessment of trust and distrust as two distinct mediators. Communication
Research, 37, 443–472. doi:10.1177/0093650210362681
McCullough, M.E. (2000). Forgiveness as human strength: Theory, measurement, and links to
well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 43–55. doi:10.1521/jscp.2000.19.
1.43
McCullough, M.E., Fincham, F.D., & Tsang, J.A. (2003). Forgiveness, forbearance, and time: the tem-
poral unfolding of transgression-related interpersonal motivations. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 84, 540–557. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.540
McCullough, M.E., Pargament, K.I., & Thoresen, C.E. (Eds.). (2000). Forgiveness: Theory, research,
and practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
McCullough, M.E., Rachal, K.C., Sandage, S.J., Worthington, E.L. Jr., Brown, S.W., & Hight, T.L.
(1998). Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships: II. Theoretical elaboration and measure-
ment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1586–1603. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.
6.1586
McCullough, M.E., Worthington, E.L. Jr., & Rachal, K.C. (1997). Interpersonal forgiving in close
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 321–336. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.73.2.321
Merolla, A.J. (2008). Communicating forgiveness in friendships and dating relationships.
Communication Studies, 59, 114–131. doi:10.1080/10510970802062428
Merolla, A.J. (2014). Forgive like you mean it: Sincerity of forgiveness and the experience of negative
affect. Communication Quarterly, 62, 36–56. doi:10.1080/01463373.2013.860903
Merolla, A.J., & Zhang, S. (2011). In the wake of transgressions: Examining forgiveness communi-
cation in personal relationships. Personal Relationships, 18, 79–95. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.
2010.01323.x
 Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 329

Merolla, A.J., Zhang, S., & Sun, S. (2013). Forgiveness in the United States and China: Antecedents,
consequences, and communication style comparisons. Communication Research, 40, 595–622.
doi:10.1177/0093650212446960
Oetzel, J.G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns and facework during conflict: A test of the face-
negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30, 599–624. doi:10.1177/0093650203257841
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, 235–258. doi:10.1080/03637750128061
Paz, R., Neto, F., & Mullet, E. (2008). Forgiveness: A China-Western Europe comparison. The
Journal of Psychology, 142, 147–157. doi:10.3200/JRLP.142.2.147-158
Preacher, K., J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and com-
paring indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
Sandage, S.J., & Williamson, I. (2005). Forgiveness in cultural context. In E.L., Worthington, Jr. (Ed.),
Handbook of forgiveness (pp. 41–56). New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.
Shaver, P.R., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D, & O’Connor, C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further explora-
tions of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1061–1086.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y.Y. Kim & W.
Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213–235). Newbury Park,
CA: Wadsworth.
Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In W.B. Gudykunst
(Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 71–92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Waldron, V.R., & Kelley, D.L. (2005). Forgiving communication as a response to relational
transgressions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 723–742. doi:10.1177/
0265407505056445
Waldron, V.R., & Kelley, D.L. (2008). Communicating forgiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wohl, M.J., & McGrath, A.L. (2007). The perception of time heals all wounds: Temporal distance
affects willingness to forgive following an interpersonal transgression. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1023–1035. doi:10.1177/0146167207301021
Worthington, E.L. Jr. (2013). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Worthington, E.L., & Scherer, M. (2004). Forgiveness is an emotion-focused coping strategy that can
reduce health risks and promote health resilience: Theory, review, and hypotheses. Psychology
& Health, 19, 385–405. doi:10.1080/0887044042000196674
Zhang, Q., Andreychik, M., Sapp, D.A., & Arendt, C. (2014). The dynamic interplay of interaction
goals, emotion, and conflict styles: Testing a model of intrapersonal and interpersonal effects
on conflict styles. International Journal of Communication, 8, 534–557.
Zhang, Q., Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J.G. (2014). Linking emotion to the conflict face-negotiation
theory: A U.S.–China investigation of the mediating effects of anger, compassion, and guilt in
interpersonal conflict. Human Communication Research, 40, 373–395. doi:10.1111/hcre.12029
Zhang, R., Ting-Toomey, S., Dorjee, T., & Lee, P. (2012). Culture and self-construal as predictors of
relational responses to emotional infidelity: China and the United States. Chinese Journal of
Communication, 5, 137–159. doi:10.1080/17544750.2012.664438
Copyright of Journal of International & Intercultural Communication is the property of Taylor
& Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.