The purpose of the study is to determine whether predictions about conflict escalation were more consistent with Politeness Theory (which predicts de-escalation in the face of escalation) or Social Interactionist Theory (which predicts intensified escalation in the face of conflict escalation).
An online experiment was conducted to test the effects of conflict escalations on the desire to further escalate or diffuse the conflict. The experiment had four independent variables for a 2 × 2 × 3 × 2 design with two dependent variables. Role players read conflict scenarios and responded to the dependent variables.
Results revealed that across the contextual variables of power, relational quality, amount of escalation and conflict intensity, subjects preferred to respond to positive face threats with de-escalatory moves. However, they perceived that escalation was appropriate when power was equal and relations were close.
This study supports the power of the politeness norm to maintain civility in the face of conflict escalation while casting some doubt on the power of identity protection as an explanation for conflict escalation.
Practitioners might take advantage of references to the need to maintain civility in dealing with escalating conflicts.
In an age burdened by political polarization, positive face threats can further escalate these tensions. The role of education is to call attention to these implications and to find alternative ways to express viewpoints that reduce the prospects for intensifying conflicts leading to violence.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to test the power of Politeness Theory in understanding its role in managing conflict escalation.
