Face threat sensitivity in negotiation roadblock to agreement and joint gain (1)

Face threat sensitivity in negotiation:Roadblock to agreement

and joint gain q

Judith B.White,a,*Ren e e Tynan,b Adam D.Galinsky,c and Leigh Thompson c

a

Tuck School,100Tuck Hall,Dartmouth College,Hanover,NH 03755,USA

b

University of Notre Dame,USA c

Northwestern University,USA

Received 28December 2001Available online 13May 2004

Abstract

Negotiation scholars and practitioners have long noted the impact of face,or social image,concerns on negotiation outcomes.When face is threatened,negotiators are less likely to reach agreement and to create joint gain.In this paper,we explore in-dividual di?erences in face threat sensitivity (FTS),and how a negotiator ?s role moderates the relationship of his or her FTS to negotiation outcomes.Study 1describes a measure of FTS.Study 2?nds that buyers and sellers are less likely to reach an agreement that is in both parties ?interests when the seller has high FTS.Study 3?nds that job candidates and recruiters negotiate an employment contract with less joint gain when the candidate has high FTS,and that this relationship is mediated by increased competitiveness on the part of the high FTS candidates.The results support Deutsch ?s (1961)application of face theory (Go?man,1967)to negotiation.

ó2004Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved.

Keywords:Negotiation;Con?ict resolution;Face;Face threat sensitivity;Identity;Politeness theory

Introduction

The importance of face,or social image,in the preservation of well being has long been recognized.Deutsch,for example,called face ‘‘one of an individual ?s most sacred possessions’’(1961,p.897),stating that maintaining face is necessary to sustain one ?s self-es-teem.Negotiations provide a particularly poignant context to explore the impact of face concerns because there are many opportunities for a person ?s face to be threatened.In this paper,we examine individual di?er-ences in how a person responds to the face threats in-herent in the task of negotiation,and how this di?erence

can signi?cantly a?ect the outcome of a negotiation (Brown,1968;Deutsch,1961;Wilson,1992).

When a person ?s face is threatened in a negotiation,it can tip the balance of his/her behavior away from cooperation toward competition,resulting in fewer agreements and/or less cooperative agreements.Previ-ous research on face in negotiation has experimentally manipulated situational face threats (Brown,1968;Deutsch,1961;Tjosvold,1977b),or examined negoti-ation dynamics as aspects of Go?man ?s dramaturgical approach to interaction (Friedman,1994).In this paper,we take a di?erent approach,one that relies on individual di?erences in face threat sensitivity.Speci?-cally,in these studies we examine the relationship between two factors that vary from one negotiation situation to another:face threat sensitivity and the role that a negotiator assumes in a negotiation.We ?nd that a negotiator ?s face threat sensitivity a?ects the negotiation process and outcomes when his or her face includes the resources being negotiated,a factor that varies with role.

q

This project was funded by a grant from the Dispute Resolution Research Center at the Kellogg School of Management,Northwestern University.Preliminary results from Studies 2and 3were presented at the annual conference of the Academy of Management,August 5,2003.

*

Corresponding author.Fax:1-603-646-1308.

E-mail address:judith.b.white@https://www.doczj.com/doc/3c10782885.html, (J.B.White).0749-5978/$-see front matter ó2004Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.03.005

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 94(2004)102–124

ORGANIZATIONAL

BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES

https://www.doczj.com/doc/3c10782885.html,/locate/obhdp

Face theory

Go?man de?ned face as the‘‘positive social value a person e?ectively claims for himself by his or her self-presentation’’(1967,p.5).Face includes the value to a person of his or her public image,reputation,and status vis- a-vis other people in an interaction.A person?s face,then,is the social value of who and what they hold themselves out to be.For an interaction to proceed smoothly,the parties must allow one another to maintain face.In addition to negotiation,face mainte-nance a?ects communication strategy(Carson&Cup-ach,2000;Lee,1993;Leichty&Applegate,1991;Linde, 1988;Tracy,2002),cross-cultural interaction(Earley, 1997;Lindsley&Braithwaite,1996;Ting-Toomey& Cocroft,1994)and relationships(Metts,1997).

Face is social

The dynamics of face maintenance are determined not only by who and what the individual holds him/ herself to be,but also by how others respond to this presentation(Go?man,1967).Thus,face is a social construct,just as much a property of the social inter-action as an attribute of the individual.Maintaining face,therefore,requires the cooperation of others.Other people can,by their verbal and non-verbal behavior, uphold or threaten an individual?s face,accord or deny the positive social value claimed by the individual. Face is situated

Face is not necessarily positive,nor is it the same across all situations.This means that face can change from one situation to the next,and that face can have more value in some situations than others.For example, an instructor might rely on a colleague to uphold her face as a competent teacher in front of her students,and later count on that colleague to uphold her face as an entertaining dinner companion.Telling a humorous story about a time she lost her lecture notes could threaten her face in the former situation,but uphold her face in the latter.Moreover,the instructor?s face might have more value when one of the parties to the inter-action is someone she particularly wishes to impress. The positive social value of an individual?s face,then, depends not only on the cooperation of others,but also on the precise social situation.

Threats to face

Given the direct link between face and self-esteem,it makes sense that people are motivated to have their face upheld,and feel thwarted when their face is not upheld,or when it is threatened.People respond to face threats with negative emotion(Go?man,1967,p.6),ranging from slight discomfort or embarrassment,to mild annoyance, anger,and outright hostility(e.g.,Andersson&Pearson, 1999;Pearson,Andersson,&Porath,2000).The greater the threat to face,the more intense the emotional response.Carson and Cupach(2000)report a strong linear relationship,r?:82,between the degree of face threat perceived by an individual and the level of anger he or she feels.In fact,some emotions may be uniquely connected to face threats.Keltner and colleagues(Kelt-ner&Anderson,2000;Keltner&Buswell,1996,1997; Keltner&Haidt,1999)suggest that embarrassment is a distinct,functional emotion felt in response to a threat to social status,what we would call a face threat.

Go?man(1967)emphasized the negative a?ective reaction to a face threat,but he also described cognitive and behavioral responses to a face threat.A person whose face has been threatened may give the o?ender a chance to repair the damage,and if no repair(e.g.,an apology)is forthcoming,has the options of unilaterally forgiving the o?ender,maintaining poise but holding a grudge,retaliating,or withdrawing from the interaction. In politeness theory,Brown and Levinson(1987)de-velop the hypothesis that a face threat directly a?ects the perceived relationship between the speaker and the hearer.For example,the intrinsic face threats enumer-ated by politeness theory,including disapproval,dis-agreement,challenge,and non-cooperation(Brown& Levinson,1987,pp.65–66),signal lack of regard for the receiver’s interests and are posited to convey a threat to the relationship between issuer and receiver.This hy-pothesized relationship between face threat and per-ceived threat to the relationship has been demonstrated empirically(Cupach&Carson,2002),and is consistent with Go?man’s stance that‘‘face maintenance is a condition of interaction,not its objective’’(1967,p.12).

Politeness theory(Brown&Levinson,1987)discusses threats to two aspects of face.The?rst,positive face,is more closely associated with Go?man’s de?nition of face as the value of social image claimed by interactants,and with the construct of face that was used in previous ex-perimental studies on face and bargaining.Threats to positive face include being embarrassed,criticized,dis-respected,and the like.The second aspect,negative face, is more closely associated with an individual’s desire to be free from imposition.Both types of face could certainly be threatened during a negotiation,but positive face is more important for relationships(Cupach&Carson,2002; Cupach&Messman,1999),and therefore more likely to be linked to the success of integrative agreements.

Face threats in negotiation

Many common negotiation tactics—disputing the value of an item,providing alternative anchors and frames,questioning interests and motives,criticizing arguments,and disregarding appeals—fall into the cat-egory of intrinsic threats to face,according to politeness theory(Brown&Levinson,1987).Other practices,e.g., suggesting that the other party is inexperienced,has

J.B.White et al./Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes94(2004)102–124103

miscalculated the value of a property,or has unrealistic expectations concerning the outcome,may be construed as face threats,especially if the hearer believes she or her has been personally implicated.It should be noted that many of the acts we call face threats are common competitive practices,and part of the‘‘game’’for some negotiators.Yet they are intrinsically threatening to face.A detailed discussion of how negotiators,or any social interactants,can redress intrinsic threats to face to compete without threatening the ongoing relationship is outside the scope of this paper,but Brown and Levinson (1987)provide a taxonomy of politeness strategies for accomplishing this in daily interaction.

Research suggests that the most egregious threats to an opponent?s face are counterproductive in a negotiation.Presenting a non-negotiable o?er(‘‘Here?s my o?er,take it or leave it’’)prompts a negotiator to become more competitive and less cooperative,leading to poorer outcomes(Tjosvold,1977b)or no agreement at all(Rai?a,1982,p.48).The common strategy of criticizing your opponent?s position(or possessions),a direct threat to face according to Brown and Levinson (1987),can lead him or her to feel a?ronted and resist making concessions(Tjosvold&Huston,1978).Despite the fact that face threats may result in hurt feelings and a threatened relationship,they can be used strategi-cally—and not without risk—in a negotiation to apply pressure(e.g.,Thompson,Nadler,&Kim,1999)and/or to signal power(Brown&Levinson,1987).

Face threats generate negative a?ect and threaten the relationship between the issuer and the receiver.A ne-gotiator who receives a face threat,therefore,should have a negative emotional response(ranging from dis-comfort to hostility),and corresponding thoughts that the issuer has little regard for(a)the negotiator?s inter-ests,and(b)maintaining a long-term,cooperative rela-tionship with the negotiator.Both the a?ective and cognitive responses to a face threat should make a ne-gotiator more competitive and less cooperative.There is evidence that negative a?ect causes negotiators to be less cooperative,more competitive,and less likely to make deals(Forgas,1998),and more likely to engage in downward spirals of destructive behavior(Allred,Mal-lozzi,Matsui,&Raia,1997).A review of research on face threats in negotiation(Wilson,1992)concluded, along these lines,that face threats ultimately result in competitive and/or hostile behavior that has a negative impact on negotiated outcomes.

In addition to an opponent?s direct threats to face, certain situational factors in a negotiation can constitute a threat to face,by heightening face concerns.One such factor is negotiating before an audience,such as the case of a negotiator who must act on behalf of a constituency (Friedman,1994).Negotiators who are accountable to constituents show increased competitiveness(Carnevale, Pruitt,&Britton,1979),although gender of the con-stituent may moderate this e?ect(Pruitt,Carnevale, Forcey,&Van Slyck,1986).Negotiators who are told that they appeared weak before an audience of their peers become even more competitive in later rounds of negotiation;they take the opportunity to retaliate against their opponent,even though it costs them in absolute tangible rewards(Brown,1968).1High-pro?le CEOs who believe the whole world is watching them may become more competitive and less cooperative in business negotiations.

Individual di?erences in face threat sensitivity The experimental research cited above provides strong causal support for the suggestion that face threat causes negotiators to become more competitive and less cooperative,thereby creating a roadblock to agreement and joint gain.In all of the negotiation studies discussed above,researchers manipulated the situation to create face threat without considering whether individuals may respond di?erently to face threats.Go?man suggested that some individuals could display‘‘too much percep-tiveness[to face threats]or too much pride,and[be-come]someone who is thin-skinned,who must be treated with kid gloves,requiring more care on the part of others than he may be worth to them’’(1967,p.40). Tynan(Oatway,1997;Tynan,1999)has proposed that individuals?sensitivity,or reactivity,to face threats is a stable individual di?erence.We propose that exploring this individual di?erence in empirical studies can help us to leverage the power of face theory as a framework for understanding the impact of face threats on negotiation processes and outcomes.

We de?ne face threat sensitivity(FTS)as the likeli-hood that an individual will have a negative a?ective re-action to a face threat.Pilot research suggests that FTS is a stable individual di?erence(Oatway,1997).When one member of a dyad has high FTS,it a?ects the quality of the dyadic interaction via at least two channels.Individ-uals with high FTS are more likely to perceive others as untrustworthy and are less likely to communicate infor-mation,such as the admission of a mistake,that might be threatening to their own face(Tynan,1999).At the same time,individuals with high FTS are less likely to be per-ceived by others as rational,and others are signi?cantly less likely to communicate information about alternative points of view,raise disagreement,or point out errors to high FTS individuals even when that information would be helpful to the performance of a joint task and to the high FTS individual him-or herself(Oatway,1997). Consequently,high FTS is associated not only with an individual?s own a?ect,perceptions,and communication 1Brown and Garland(Brown&Garland,1971;Garland&Brown, 1972)also showed that people made the same trade-o?between face and monetary gain when they had not been insulted.

104J.B.White et al./Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes94(2004)102–124

behavior,but also with the way an individual is perceived and treated by his or her interaction partner. Individual di?erences interact with the situation Past attempts to link individual di?erences with negotiation outcomes generally have not been fruitful. Only when researchers follow Lewin?s(1935)exhortation to take into account how the individual interacts with the situation is it possible to understand the nature of per-sonality e?ects in negotiation.For example,Greenhalgh, Neslin,and Gilkey(1985)found that individual di?er-ences interact with negotiator aspirations to a?ect out-comes.Kray,Galinsky,and Thompson(2002)found that gender interacts with stereotypic expectations to a?ect outcomes.Barry and Friedman(1998)found that Ex-traversion(one of the‘‘Big Five’’personality dimensions) interacts with role to in?uence settlement price.Barry and Friedman found that dyads with extraverted buyers set-tled at higher prices than other dyads.Dyads with extra-verted sellers did not settle signi?cantly lower. Accordingly,individual di?erences in FTS must be un-derstood as characteristics that interact with the situation rather than determine it(Mischel,1968).In the present research,we examine how individual di?erences in FTS interact with the situation to a?ect negotiation outcomes. Because FTS is linked to face,and thus to identity,we hypothesize that face will interact with an aspect of the situation that is linked to identity.

Identi?cation with resources

Theory and research on disputes suggest that when the outcome is bound to the identity of the negotiator,dis-putes become intractable,harder to resolve(Mandel, 1980;Smyth,1994,2002).In commerce,negotiating the value of resources with which one is identi?ed,resources that are self-relevant,heightens face concerns.In a sense, we are what we own(James,1890,p.291);what we own becomes part of who we are(Abelson&Prentice,1989), and this has an e?ect when we negotiate its value(Car-nevale,1995).This is not necessarily because owners value items more than buyers(i.e.,the endowment e?ect, Kahneman,Knetch,&Thaler,1990;Thaler,1980),but because owners include their possessions as part of their face.Because commercial negotiations typically consist of competing claims,challenges,and disagreements about the value of the goods or services being exchanged,we believe FTS should have a greater impact for a negotiator who is closely identi?ed with those goods or services,who would naturally include them in his or her face.

Face threats and the integrative and distributive elements of negotiation

Face threat has been found to increase negotiator competitiveness and decrease negotiator cooperation.Face threat should therefore have di?erent e?ects on the distributive and integrative elements of negotiation (Walton&McKersie,1965).The integrative element arises when negotiators have di?erent strengths of preference across multiple issues;that is,Party A cares more about issue X and Party B cares more about issue Y.If both parties concede on the issue they care less about(i.e.,trade-o?or logroll),both parties can bene?t in terms of their individual and joint outcomes.To do this,parties must have knowledge of each other?s pref-erences(Thompson&Hastie,1990).Integrative gain, therefore,depends on cooperation.A successful inte-grative negotiation outcome,de?ned as having high joint gain,is more likely if the parties trust one another and exchange information(Froman&Cohen,1970; Kimmel,Pruitt,Magenau,Konar-Goldband,&Carne-vale,1980).Because the hypothesized e?ect of a face threat is to make a negotiator more competitive(Deu-tsch,1961),and competitiveness reduces the likelihood that a negotiating dyad will trust one another and ex-change information,we would expect to observe a negative impact of face threats and,by implication,high FTS,on the integrative component of negotiation out-comes(the size of the pie).

Most negotiations have a distributive element,mean-ing that the parties’preferences on an issue are in com-plete opposition;one party’s gain must be another party’s loss.Moreover,joint gain,once created through cooperation,must still be divided amongst the parties in what is essentially a competitive process(Lax&Sebe-nius,1986).The negotiator’s goal is generally to expand the pie and then to claim as large a share as possible of that pie.While high FTS could imperil integrative gain,it could potentially have a bene?cial e?ect on the high FTS negotiator’s distributive outcome,to the extent that in-creased competitiveness could lead to increased individ-ual distributive outcomes(the relative size of one’s slice).

Negotiators who have their face threatened adopt a more competitive and less cooperative stance toward their opponent,resulting in fewer agreements and less joint gain in the integrative elements of mixed-motive negotiations,and potentially greater gain in the distrib-utive element of a mixed-motive negotiation,assuming the parties reach an agreement.In virtually all of these research investigations,face threats were experimentally manipulated.We conducted the present research to examine whether individual di?erences in FTS in roles that were most likely to activate face threat concerns would also lead to fewer agreements,and less joint gain. Study1:Individual di?erences in face threat sensitivity

Study1was conducted to assess both the reliability of Tynan’s(1999)FTS measure and its convergent and divergent validity with constructs from a nascent

J.B.White et al./Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes94(2004)102–124105

nomological network of individual di?erences that have been hypothesized and found to a?ect communication outcomes broadly,and negotiation outcomes in partic-ular.Central to this network are perhaps the‘‘Big Five’’dimensions of personality,purported to subsume all personality traits(McCrae&John,1992).The Neurot-icism factor of the Big Five represents a dimension of expression of negative a?ect,which some personality theorists refer to as emotional stability(Goldberg, 1993).People who score high on Neuroticism tend to be anxious,moody,and highly emotional.Because FTS is de?ned as the likelihood an individual will respond to a face threat with negative a?ect,we expected FTS would share variance with Neuroticism.Neuroticism,like the other Big Five dimensions,is an end product of an enormous exercise in data reduction.Hence,it is a composite—a supervariable.The NEO measure of Neuroticism is intended to tap into an underlying dimension along which many speci?c personality traits are perceived by raters to co-occur.FTS is not concep-tualized as an expression of anxiety,moodiness,or general emotionality,but of sensitivity to slights.An individual with high FTS does not necessarily have low self-esteem,chronic negative a?ect,or a feeling of hopelessness.Those traits are associated with Neuroti-cism,but they are not conceptually related to one’s reactivity to face threats.

With respect to a nomological network,FTS must be compared to other narrow personality traits that are manifested in interpersonal interaction and a?ect com-munication and negotiation outcomes.FTS as a con-struct is more social than other individual di?erences,in that it describes a tendency to react in a certain way to a speci?c set of social stimuli,rather than an innate state or a tendency to act.We compared FTS to three mea-sures that could be considered similar on the dimensions of caring about one?s face and having high interpersonal reactivity.Machiavellianism(Christie&Geis,1970) describes a dimension of self-orientation and exploita-tion of others.People who score high on Machiavel-lianism are willing to manipulate and deceive others to achieve their personal goals.High Machs tend to be more competitive in negotiations(Rubin&Brown, 1975,p.189).Although research suggests that high FTS negotiators may also behave competitively in response to a face threat,we did not expect that,on their face, Machiavellianism and FTS would be correlated.An individual di?erence measure that is closely related to FTS on its face is self-monitoring(Snyder,1974,1987). Self-monitoring refers to the relative balance between internal cues(one?s own attitudes and beliefs)and external cues(the social situation)one draws on to construct one?s social face in a given situation.High self-monitors,who are sensitive to external cues,have been found to use a style of negotiating that is more e?ective at achieving integrative gain(Jordan&Rolo?,1997;Trubisky,Ting-Toomey,&Lin,1991).Because FTS is de?ned as the likelihood of a negative a?ective reaction to a face threat,and not as an increased sensitivity to detect face threats,we did not expect to?nd a signi?cant correlation between FTS and self-monitoring.A third individual di?erence that is similar to FTS on the di-mension of a negative a?ective reaction in an interper-sonal situation is empathy.The Interpersonal Reactivity Index(Davis,1980,1983)is a measure of empathy that four subscales:perspective-taking,fantasy,empathetic concern,and personal distress.People who are empa-thetic have a negative a?ective reaction to other peoples?di?culties.The di?erence between empathy and FTS is that empathy involves the ability to take the perspective of another person,in a sense,to feel‘‘their’’pain, whereas the pain felt in response to a face threat is one?s own.We therefore did not expect FTS to be correlated with empathy.

Method

Two samples of graduate business students(Sample 1:249men and186women;Sample2:48men and62 women,2missing gender information)completed a measure of FTS,consisting of three items:My feelings are hurt easily,I don’t respond well to direct criticism,I am pretty thin-skinned.Participants circled a number from1to9to indicate whether the statement was not at all characteristic(1)or very characteristic(9)of them.A subset of57participants from Sample1also completed the NEO-FFI(Costa&McCrae,1992),the IRI(Davis, 1980),and the Machiavellianism Scale(Christie&Geis, 1970),and a separate subset of60participants from Sample1completed the Self-Monitoring Scale(Snyder, 1974).Participants from Sample2completed the FTS measure and the Neuroticism scale of the NEO-FFI (Costa&McCrae,1992).

Results

Reliability

The Cronbach?s a for the FTS items was.75in Sample 1(N?435).The reliability of the FTS measure was thus su?cient to justify combining responses to all three items to form a single score.Means,standard deviations, and item intercorrelations are shown in Table1.

Table1

FTS inter-item correlations

M SD123

1.I don?t respond well to

direct criticism

5.04 1.92

2.My feelings get hurt easily 4.85 2.1

3.41???

3.I am pretty thin-skinned

4.57 2.11.40???.66???

Note.N?435.

***p<:001.

106J.B.White et al./Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes94(2004)102–124

Convergent and divergent validity

Sixty participants also completed the Self-Monitoring Scale(Snyder,1974).Fifty-seven participants also completed the NEO-FFI(Costa&McCrae,1992),the Interpersonal Reactivity Index(Davis,1980),and the Machiavellianism Scale(Christie&Geis,1970).The correlations between FTS and these scales are shown in Table2.FTS was not signi?cantly correlated with self-monitoring,suggesting that these constructs are distinct. FTS was not signi?cantly correlated with Machiavel-lianism,suggesting that these constructs are also dis-tinct.FTS was not signi?cantly correlated with the Fantasy,Empathetic Concern,or Perspective-Taking subscales of the IRI,suggesting that FTS is distinct from the overall construct of empathy.FTS was correlated r?:48with the personal distress subscale of the IRI. The personal distress subscale contains items that mea-sure empathetic distress,e.g.,In emergency situations,I feel apprehensive and ill-at-ease.As a component of empathy,it seems surprising that personal distress would be positively correlated with FTS.However,both constructs measure interpersonal reactivity along a negative a?ective dimension,so the positive correlation provides some convergent validity.Also,the mean cor-relation of FTS items with the items in the personal distress subscale,r mean?:26,compared to the mean correlation of FTS items with one another,r mean?:54 (n?59),suggests that while these measures tap into a similar source variable,they also measure distinct con-structs.A table of intercorrelations between the FTS items and the seven items from the personal distress subscale is found in Appendix A.

Big Five.Correlations between FTS and the scales of the NEO-FFI appear in Table2.As predicted,FTS was correlated with Neuroticism(r?:46).The positive correlation with FTS provides convergent validity that FTS is related to the expression of negative a?ect.Like other traits associated with negative a?ect,FTS shares variance with Neuroticism.In addition,the items used to measure FTS in this study,e.g.,My feelings are hurt easily are semantically similar to some of the items used to assess Neuroticism.While FTS is positively corre-lated with Neuroticism,it is not redundant with it.FTS tended to show a negative relationship with Conscien-tiousness and Extraversion,though neither correlation was signi?cant in this sample.

Con?rmatory factor analysis.Because of the signi?cant correlation between the FTS measure and the Neuroti-cism factor,and because these constructs are closely related in a nomological network,it was important to establish that FTS is not merely a facet of Neuroticism, but represents a distinct,albeit related,construct.We collected data from a separate sample of n?112grad-uate business students,who completed both the FTS measure and the Neuroticism scale from the NEO-FFI (Costa&McCrae,1992).Participants’scores on the three-item FTS measure ranged from4to27, M?15:17,SD?5:24.The reliability of the FTS mea-sure in this sample was.74.Scores on the12-item Neuroticism scale ranged from12to55,M?32:41, SD?8:27.The a was.88.

We conducted two con?rmatory factor analyses,and compared the?t of the data to a two-factor(FTS,NEO) model,with the factors allowed to co-vary,with their?t to a one-factor model.We followed Anderson and Gerbing’s(1988)recommendations for assessing the?t of the models.Factor loadings and?t statistics for both models appear in Table 3.The?t of the one-factor model was poor.The v2was signi?cant,at220.35 (df?90),p<:001.The two-factor model?t the data signi?cantly better than the one-factor model.Although the v2was still large,at166.81,df?89,p<:001,the di?erence between the v2was signi?cant,53.43(df?1), p<:001,providing con?rmation that FTS is a narrow trait that shares a signi?cant amount of variance with the supervariable Neuroticism,yet must be considered a distinct trait.

The critical information from the CFA was the va-lidity of the FTS measure.An examination of the factor loadings(Table3)reveals that all three FTS items loa-ded signi?cantly onto one factor,while all12Neuroti-cism items loaded signi?cantly onto the other factor.All standardized loadings for the FTS items were relatively large(.45to.97).The factor loadings thus suggest convergent validity for the FTS measure.A comple-mentary test of divergent validity described by Anderson and Gerbing(1988)is to assess whether the covariance between factors plus two times the standard error in-cludes1.The covariance between FTS and Neuroticism was.58,and the standard error was.08,so we can conclude that the factors are di?erent,not equivalent, constructs.

Table2

Correlations between FTS and other measures

Scale r

NEO-FFI

Agreeableness.19

Conscientiousness).21

Extraversion).26

Neuroticism.46?

Openness.08

IRI

Personal distress.48?

Empathetic concern.12

Fantasy.18

Perspective-taking.03

Machiavellianism+.13

Self-monitoring+.19

*p<:001.

J.B.White et al./Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes94(2004)102–124107

The?t statistics for the two-factor model(Bentler’s CFI?.86,Bentler&Bonett’s NNFI?.84,RMSEA?.09)suggest that the two-factor model did not ade-quately?t the data.We were not discouraged,however, because previous attempts to use con?rmatory factor analysis to?t items from the NEO-PI,one of the most widely used measures in personality research,have also resulted in poor?t(McCrae,Zonderman,Costa,& Bond,1996;Schmit&Ryan,1993).Church and Burke (1994)suggest that CFA models are unable to reveal a good?t of personality data to a model like the Big Five because the underlying structure of personality is not yet well speci?ed.Scores on the NEO-FFI,like the FTS, provide a good indication that the underlying trait is more or less dominant,but they cannot be relied upon to di?erentiate between individuals whose scores are very similar.

Discussion

The FTS items measure individual di?erences in the likelihood of a negative a?ective response to a face threat.The three items showed good construct validity. First,they appear to directly assess the likelihood of a negative a?ective reaction to a face threat.Second,they have adequate reliability,with a Cronbach?s a of.75(.74in Sample2).Cortina(1993)suggests although con-vention is to accept an a of>.70as adequate,‘‘the level of reliability that is adequate depends on the decision that is made with the scale.The?ner the distinction that needs to be made,the better the reliability must be’’(p. 101).For the present purpose of assessing whether there is a predicted relationship between FTS and negotiation outcomes,we consider the a acceptable.

FTS shares variance with other measures of negative a?ect and interpersonal reactivity,but is not redundant with them.FTS was correlated with Neuroticism and with the Personal Distress subscale of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index,suggesting that it shares a common underlying connection to other measures of interper-sonal negative a?ective reaction,but not so strongly (i.e.,it accounts for less than25%of the variance)that FTS would appear to be redundant with these con-structs.FTS was not correlated with other forms of impression management,including self-monitoring and Machiavellianism,suggesting that it measures a distinct construct that is not so much a part of the presentation of face as it is the reaction to threats to face.

It might be argued that the correlation between FTS and Neuroticism raises the question of whether any outcome e?ects associated with FTS could be attributable directly to high levels of Neuroticism.As a predictor

Table3

Con?rmatory factor analysis results of FTS and the NEO-FFI Neuroticism scale

Item One-factor model Two-factor model

Factor loading a R2Factor loading a R2

FTS N

Don?t take criticism well.34.11.45.20

Thin-skinned.40.16.67.45

Feelings easily hurt.61.38.97.94

N1.54.30.54.29

N2.65.42.63.41

N3.47.22.45.22

N4.66.44.68.46

N5.69.48.69.48

N6.64.41.64.41

N7.74.55.74.54

N8.41.17.43.18

N9.65.43.65.42

N10.67.45.70.49

N11.63.40.62.38

N12.57.32.57.32

v2b(df)220.35(90)166.81(89)

NNFI.73.84

RMSEA.12.09

GFI.77.82

CFI.77.86

Covariance between factors–.58

Note.FTS,face threat sensitivity;N,Neuroticism;CFI,comparative?t index;GFI,goodness of?t index;RMSEA,root mean square of approximation;NNFI,non-normed?t index.

a All factor loadings are signi?cant at p<:001.

b The di?erence between the model v2,53.54,df?1,is signi?cant at p<:001.

108J.B.White et al./Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes94(2004)102–124

of behavior in a competitive situation,Neuroticism has received little attention.No one,to our knowledge,has formulated a hypothesis linking Neuroticism to negoti-ation outcomes,although several researchers have measured Neuroticism in the context of negotiation or bargaining and have reported the results.Barry and Friedman(1998)measured Neuroticism along with the other Big Five dimensions,but found that it did not predict negotiation outcomes(see also O?Connor, Arnold,&Burris,2003).Mack(1972)found that high levels of Neuroticism were weakly associated with lack of cooperation and failure to create joint gain in a bargaining game.More recently,Lynch and Evans (2002)found strong evidence that high levels of Neu-roticism were associated with poor negotiation out-comes among defense attorneys.The reason Lynch and Evans found a link between Neuroticism and negotia-tion is probably because they asked raters to charac-terize colleagues they knew to be successful negotiators. This undoubtedly allowed raters to contextualize their assessments by thinking of how the target individuals behaved in a negotiation context.When Neuroticism is assessed in a broad context,it is less likely to predict speci?c behaviors.For this reason,FTS,which is a narrow,contextualized trait,should prove to be a better tool than Neuroticism for deconstructing the social in-teraction that describes a negotiation.

Study2:FTS and agreement rates

Face threats often result in competitive,if not hostile, behavior,and decrease the likelihood that negotiators will cooperate to realize the integrative potential of a deal(Wilson,1992).In Study2we examined the rela-tionship between FTS and negotiators?ability to reach agreements.Deutsch(1961)claims that all negotiations contain,in e?ect,multiple motives,in that on the one hand negotiators are trying to reach an advantageous agreement and on the other hand they are trying to maintain their own face or social image.When these goals con?ict,apparently irrational behavior can result, such as walking away from a negotiation in which both parties would be more likely to meet their needs and satisfy their interests by reaching an agreement rather than reaching an impasse.

In Study2,we chose a negotiation in which impasse is the likely result unless the buyer and seller can cooper-ate,exchange information,and create alternatives to reach a mutually satisfactory outcome.The seller in this negotiation not only owns the property that is the sub-ject of the negotiation,but also has operated it as a sole proprietorship for12years and built its current repu-tation and clientele.The property can be thought of as a part of the seller?s self(James,1890),and the negotiated value of the settlement is thus a direct testament to the seller?s personal vision,e?orts,abilities,and accom-plishments.The buyer,in contrast,is not closely iden-ti?ed with the station or with the money he or she is o?ering in exchange for the station,but merely serving as a representative for a larger corporation.We pre-dicted that dyads with a negotiator who has high FTS would be less likely to cooperate to realize the integra-tive potential of a deal,especially when the negotiator with high FTS is identi?ed with the resources being negotiated.We therefore predicted that dyads with a high FTS seller would be less likely to reach agreement than other dyads.

Method

Participants

One hundred and forty-six students(86men,60 women)enrolled in a graduate negotiation course par-ticipated in a negotiation simulation.

Materials

Negotiation.We used a two-party negotiation between a seller,the owner-operator of a service station and a buyer,the Vice President of Operations for a large oil company(Goldberg,1997).The seller wishes to make enough money from the sale to fund a two-year sailing vacation around the world,with some money left over for living expenses when he/she returns,at least until she/he can?nd employment.The seller?s best alternative to a negotiated settlement is an outstanding o?er for $400,000from another oil company,but this is less than the$580,000the seller needs to fund his/her trip.The buyer wishes to purchase the station,and to secure managers to operate the station after purchase and a facility upgrade.The buyer?s best alternative to a ne-gotiated settlement is to build a new station nearby for an estimated cost of$675,000.Initially,the minimum amount the seller is willing to accept,$580,000,is higher than the maximum amount the buyer has been autho-rized by headquarters to pay,$500,000.At?rst im-pression,therefore,the best outcome for both parties would be to declare an impasse.The underlying interests of the buyer and seller hold integrative potential, however,and if the negotiators discover the interests that underlie each others?positions and are willing to cooperate,then they can reach a mutually bene?cial agreement and complete the sale.2

Post-negotiation questionnaire.Participants reported whether or not they reached an agreement,and their satisfaction with the outcome of the negotiation and the way they were treated by their negotiation partner on 2A common strategy for value creation in this exercise is for the buyer to o?er the seller a job when she/he returns from the vacation.

J.B.White et al./Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes94(2004)102–124109

7-point scales(1?not at all satis?ed,7?extremely sat-is?ed).

Procedure

Participants had completed the FTS measure de-scribed in Study1in a previous session.Participants were randomly assigned to either the buyer or seller role, and randomly assigned to dyads.They were given con-?dential role materials,detailing the information for their respective role,and instructions for the exercise. Dyads had45min to complete the negotiation.

Results

FTS

The three items of the FTS had an a of.72.They were summed to obtain an individual score for FTS,ranging from4to27,M?14:13,SD?4:97.A check con?rmed that buyers’FTS scores(M?14:59,SD?5:08)and sellers’FTS scores(M?13:67,SD?4:85)did not dif-fer,te72T?1:03,p?:31.

Agreement rates

Overall,43(59%)of the dyads reached an agreement in the negotiation.The remaining30dyads declared impasse.Seller’s FTS and buyer’s FTS were entered in a logistic regression,along with the Seller’s FTS?Buyer’s FTS interaction(measures of FTS were centered).The results were not signi?cant for the e?ects associated with seller’s FTS,Wald(1)?0.83,p?:36,with buyer’s FTS, Wald(1)?.19,p?:66,or with the interaction,Wald (1)?.04,p?:84.Though we had not predicted an e?ect for buyer’s FTS,or for the interaction,we had expected an e?ect associated with seller’s FTS on outcomes.Upon examining the distribution of dyads with high FTS sellers that reached agreement(Fig.1),we deter-mined that the pattern of results among dyads with high FTS sellers appeared to conform to our predictions. Dyads with high or extreme FTS Sellers(‘‘high’’is conventionally de?ned as the top third of the distribu-tion;‘‘extreme’’is conventionally de?ned as values that exceed the mean plus.5SD,see,e.g.,Barry&Friedman, 1998;Barry&Stewart,1997)had relatively more im-passes than other dyads.To test whether that di?erence was signi?cant,we split the sample of dyads into those with(n?22)and without(n?51)a high FTS seller, and those with(n?24)and without(n?49)a high FTS buyer.A check of the observed versus expected cell sizes in this2?2,however,revealed that random as-signment resulted in a signi?cantly uneven distribution of dyads,v2(1,N?73)?11.45,p?:001.Only one dyad had both a high FTS buyer and a high FTS seller, which rendered a conventional2(buyer’s FTS)?2 (seller’s FTS)ANOVA impractical.Consequently,we analyzed results separately for the independent variables of buyer and seller FTS.

Post hoc tests in?ate the risk of a Type I error.The researcher does not want to capitalize on chance when testing the signi?cance of an unplanned e?ect.In this case,however,we felt justi?ed comparing dyads with high FTS sellers to other dyads because this comparison directly tested our a priori hypothesis,albeit with a more liberal test(not assuming a linear relationship).We adjusted the a level for the post hoc test,following the Bonferroni procedure of dividing an a by the implicit number of post hoc comparisons.In this case,we could have tested the di?erences between groups using a median split,a top-third split,or a bottom-third

split.

Fig.1.Negotiation outcomes by seller’s FTS,Study2.

110J.B.White et al./Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes94(2004)102–124

We divided .05by three,and set .017as the a for the test comparing dyads with a high FTS seller to other dyads.Dyads with a high FTS seller were less likely to reach agreement (36%agreement rate)than dyads with a non-FTS seller (69%agreement rate),v 2(1,N ?73)?6.61,p ?:01.3Dyads with a high FTS buyer,on the other hand,did not signi?cantly di?er in their likelihood to reach agreement,v 2(1,N ?73)?0.89,p ?:35.Counts are in Table 4.

Distributive gain

If high FTS negotiators are more competitive,we might expect that they would negotiate more favorable prices when they were able to reach a deal.We therefore compared the station sales price (expressed in thousands of dollars)of high FTS and non-FTS negotiators,among dyads that reached agreements.Means and standard deviations are in Table 4.Seller FTS did not a?ect sales price,t e41T?0:43,p ?:67.Similarly,buyer FTS did not a?ect sales price,t e41T?1:22,p ?:23.Negotiator satisfaction

We assumed that negotiators would,all things con-sidered,prefer to reach an agreement,and that they would believe a that reaching an agreement was more desirable than declaring an impasse.To con?rm this assumption we analyzed satisfaction at the level of the dyad with two MANOVAs,one for buyers ?and sellers ?satisfaction with terms of the agreement and one for buyers ?and sellers ?satisfaction with treatment by ne-gotiation partner.(Some negotiators did not complete

both items,resulting in di?erent cell sizes for di?erent measures.)Reaching an agreement was signi?cantly related to satisfaction with terms,F e2;59T?19:29,p <:001.Sellers who reached agreement were more satis?ed (M ?3:73,SD ?1:52)than sellers who de-clared impasse (M ?2:14,SD ?1:6),F e1;60T?14:55,p <:001.Buyers who reached agreement were also more satis?ed (M ?4:12,SD ?1:48)than buyers who de-clared impasse (M ?2:23,SD ?1:22),F e1;60T?26:46,p <:001.Reaching an agreement had a marginal rela-tionship to satisfaction with treatment,F e2;68T?2:54,p ?:09.Sellers who reached agreement were more sat-is?ed with the way they were treated (M ?5:05,SD ?1:41)than sellers who declared impasse (M ?4:21,SD ?1:71),F e1;69T?4:98,p ?:03.Reaching agree-ment had no relationship to buyers ?satisfaction with treatment;buyers who reached agreement (M ?4:86,SD ?1:34)were not signi?cantly more satis?ed than buyers who declared impasse (M ?4:50,SD ?1:62),F e1;69T?1:04,p ?:31.In sum,both buyers and sellers were more satis?ed with the negotiation when they reached an agreement,but only sellers were also more satis?ed with the way they were treated when they were able to reach agreement.Discussion

Dyads with a high FTS seller were nearly twice as likely to declare impasse when an agreement would have been in both parties ?interests.Our assumption that both parties desired an agreement was con?rmed by the fact that both buyers and sellers who reached agreement were more satis?ed with their negotiation outcome than those who declared impasse.We did not ?nd any reliable pattern for high FTS buyers.We did not observe any reliable e?ect associated with negotiator FTS on dis-tributive gain,measured by sales price.We are hesitant to draw any conclusions about FTS and distributive gain,however,because of the possibility that the bargaining zone in the exercise we used was too small to observe any reliable di?erences.

Our results suggest that high FTS,de?ned as having an FTS score in the top third of the distribution,leads to less cooperative outcomes.However,our initial analysis,regressing outcomes on the original FTS scores,was not signi?cant.There could be two explanations for this.First,the true relationship may be non-monotonic.The distribution illustrated in Fig.1suggests a curvilinear relationship between FTS and impasse rates —the lowest impasse rates appear to be in dyads with an average FTS seller,rather than a low FTS seller.Alternatively,FTS may be similar to other narrow personality traits such as Machiavellianism (Christie &Geis,1970)that are ex-pressed as two categorical types,though they are mea-sured on ordinal scales.High self-monitors are,for example,categorically di?erent from low self-monitors.

3

We also conducted a 2(seller’s FTS)?2(seller’s gender)?2(agreement)Hierarchical Loglinear analysis.As with the two-way analysis,there was a signi?cant e?ect for Seller FTS,with high FTS sellers less likely to reach agreement,partial v 2(1,N ?73)?6.66,p ?:01.The Seller’s Gender ?Agreement interaction was not signif-icant,partial v 2(1,N ?73)?0.07,p ?:79,nor was the Seller’s Gender ?FTS ?Agreement interaction,v 2(1,N ?73)?0.25,p ?:62,suggesting that seller’s gender did not directly a?ect or interact with seller’s FTS to a?ect agreement rate.

Table 4

Agreement rates and sales prices for high FTS negotiators Seller

Agreement rate

69%36%n (with agreement)51(35)22(8)Sales price M 464471SD 4232Buyer

Agreement rate

55%67%n (with agreement)49(27)24(16)Sales price M 460475SD

44

32

Note .Sales prices in $1000.

J.B.White et al./Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 94(2004)102–124

111

High self-monitors‘‘monitor or control the images of self they project in social interaction to a great extent,’’while low self-monitors‘‘value congruence between who they are and what they do’’(Snyder,1987,p.5).In cases such as these,a midrange score on an ordinal scale may represent a neutral position between two extremes. Thus,individuals with high FTS may be thin-skinned and sensitive compared to individuals with a midrange score,but individuals with low FTS may be categori-cally di?erent in ways we have yet to fully understand. While face theory predicts poor outcomes for those with high FTS,it does not predict outcomes for those with low FTS.It should be noted that the cut-o?point for an FTS score to be considered‘‘high’’in this sample was x>16.Since the scale midpoint is15(the lowest pos-sible score is3and the highest possible score is27), another way to view this categorization is that those categorized as‘‘high’’are those who reported that the FTS items were,on average,characteristic of them. Thus,when we compared high FTS negotiators to other negotiators,we were comparing negotiators who char-acterize themselves as thin-skinned,easily hurt,and not able to take direct criticism well,to other negotiators. We interpret our results,therefore,as supporting the prediction derived from past theory and research.

Consistent with Lewin?s(1935)exhortation to look for the way personality interacts with the situation,and with previous research that successfully found e?ects associated with individual di?erences in negotiation (e.g.,Barry&Friedman,1998;Greenhalgh et al.,1985; Kray et al.,2002)we found that role assignment created a situation in which high FTS predicted negotiation outcomes.The role of the seller in this negotiation was closely identi?ed with the value of the property that was the subject of the negotiation,and therefore was the negotiator most likely to include the resources being negotiated in his or her face.In support of this inter-pretation,we note that sellers,and not buyers,were more satis?ed with the way they were treated when they were able to reach an agreement than when they de-clared an impasse.We should note that it is possible to conceive of a negotiation in which the buyer,not the seller,is closely identi?ed with the value of the negoti-ation:Imagine a buyer trying to acquire a family heir-loom that had passed to an owner with no attachment to the item.In such a case,we would hypothesize that the buyer?s FTS,and not the seller?s,would play a role in the negotiation outcome.

Study2provides a conceptual replication of the early studies on face and negotiation(Brown,1968;Deutsch, 1961).Rather than operationalize face threat as an ex-perimenter-controlled variable,we allowed it to vary as a product of the interaction between a situational vari-able,role,and an individual di?erence,FTS.We ob-served the same pattern of results:face threat reduced the likelihood of agreement.Study2thus extends the application of face theory in negotiation to include FTS and role.

Study3:FTS and integrative gain

Study2found a signi?cant e?ect associated with high FTS on negotiation outcomes,namely that dyads with a high FTS seller were less likely to reach agreement.We believe this is because face threat prompts negotiators to adopt more competitive and less cooperative behaviors.Thus the combination of face threats and high FTS should create a roadblock to integrative agreements and joint gain.Even when dyads with high FTS negotiators reach an agreement, this roadblock should slow them down,reducing the overall value of the agreement,the joint gain that the parties could otherwise create by cooperating and making trade-o?s.

The bargaining zone in Study2was initially negative, and negotiators had to cooperate to create a positive bargaining zone.The exercise we used in Study3,in contrast,has a large positive bargaining zone,and minimal cooperation is required to reach an agreement that will satisfy the minimum requirements of both parties.If the parties cooperate and make trade-o?s, however,they can increase the bargaining zone even further,creating larger payo?s for at least one if not both parties.In Study3,we used a scorable contract negotiation between a job candidate and a corporate recruiter.This allowed us to di?erentiate between inte-grative and distributive gain.We also increased the number of dyads to be able to examine how one nego-tiator?s FTS interacts with his or her opponent?s FTS. And we measured a potential mediating variable,com-petitiveness,as well as other alternative explanations of likeability and rationality.In this negotiation,the sub-ject of the negotiation was the value of the candidate?s services to the company.The candidate owns and is highly identi?ed with the services and talents he or she will provide.The recruiter,in contrast,represents the interests of a large corporation.We therefore predicted that dyads with a high FTS candidate would have lower joint gain than other dyads.

Method

Participants

Two hundred and fourteen graduate business stu-dents(133men,81women)participated in a mixed-motive negotiations exercise.

Materials

Negotiation exercise.We used a two-party mixed-mo-tive,scorable negotiation of an employment contract

112J.B.White et al./Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes94(2004)102–124

between a job candidate and a corporate recruiter(Ne-ale,1997).The parties negotiated eight issues:salary, start date,bonus,vacation,moving expenses,insurance bene?ts,job location,and job assignment.Each of the eight issues had?ve predetermined alternatives,e.g.,?ve possible salary levels or?ve potential start dates.The candidate and recruiter had to agree to a contract that included one alternative for each of the eight issues. Each alternative had a speci?c‘‘payo?’’or value to the candidate,and a speci?c payo?to the recruiter.Four of the issues were integrative,two were distributive,and two were compatible.To maximize the integrative or joint gain,dyads had to communicate preferences,and use trade-o?s and logrolling.If the parties simply split the di?erence on all issues without creating joint gain, the resulting agreement was worth48points to each of them,for a dyad total of96(points are in100s).If they maximized the integrative potential of the contract,they could increase the dyad?s total sum to132.Both parties?best alternative to a negotiated settlement was no agreement,an outcome that was worth0points to each of them.

Post-negotiation questionnaire.Participants reported the degree to which they and their negotiation partner each displayed the following demeanors during the negotia-tion:competitive,cooperative,pleasant,likable,rational, and demanding,on scales from1(not at all)to5(ex-tremely).People are quite accurate at judging interper-sonal behavior from short interactions,particularly behaviors that are a?ective,or particularly relevant to the situation(Ambady&Rosenthal,1992).We chose these demeanors to describe the relational quality of the negotiation,using dimensions that were easily under-stood and evaluated by our participants.We included competitive to test Deutsch?s prediction that competi-tiveness mediated the e?ect of face threats on negotia-tion outcomes.

Candidates also indicated whether they thought they would be friends with the recruiter,and how long they would stay in the job they just agreed to take.All par-ticipants rated dyadic rapport and the degree of respect the recruiter showed the candidate.

Procedure

Participants completed the FTS measure described in Study1in an earlier session.Participants were randomly assigned to either the role of candidate or recruiter,and given con?dential role materials to prepare for the ne-gotiation.Candidates and recruiters were randomly as-signed to dyads.Dyads were given30min to negotiate. Upon concluding the negotiation,both members of the dyad completed a contract showing which alternatives had been agreed upon for each of the eight issues.Each participant then completed an individual post-negotia-tion questionnaire.Results

FTS

The three items of the FTS had an a level of.71.They were summed to obtain an individual score for threat sensitivity,ranging from5to27,M?14:67,SD?4:94.

A check con?rmed that recruiters?FTS scores (M?14:60,SD?5:12)and candidates?FTS scores (M?14:10,SD?4:89)did not di?er,te106T?0:69, p?:49.Participants were categorized as high FTS if their score fell into the top third of the distribution (scores above16).Dyads were then categorized ac-cording to whether they contained a high FTS candidate and/or a high FTS recruiter.

Nine dyads were unable to reach an agreement in the allotted time.Of these,four had no high FTS negotia-tor,three had a high FTS recruiter,and two had a high FTS candidate.We ran a2(candidate FTS)?2(re-cruiter FTS)?2(agreement)Hierarchical Loglinear analysis to determine whether there was any association between negotiator FTS and agreement rate.The Can-didate FTS?Agreement association,v2(1,N?107)= 0.28,p?:60,and the Recruiter FTS?Agreement as-sociation,v2(1,N?107)?0.001,p?:97,suggest no association between negotiator FTS and a dyad?s ability to reach agreement.On the independent variable of negotiator FTS,then,the dyads that failed to reach agreement did not di?er from the rest of the sample.We assume their impasses were due to a failure to under-stand or follow instructions,and because their scores on the dependent variable for integrative gain(0)were more than three standard deviations from the sample mean,and their scores on the dependent measure of distributive gain(share to candidate)were impossible to compute,they were treated as statistical outliers in the dependent measures and excluded from further analy-sis.4This left98dyads categorized into the following four cells:43dyads with no high FTS negotiator, 4It may trouble some readers that we interpret impasses as a failure to create integrative gain in Study2and as a failure to follow instructions in Study3.The rationale for our interpretation stems from the di?erent structures of the exercises we used to test negotiators?ability to create integrative gain.The parties?payo?or point schedules in Study3are structured to create a positive bargaining zone that permits the parties to reach an agreement without making tradeo?s and creating integrative gain.It is therefore possible in Study3to distinguish between a dyad?s ability to create integrative gain and a dyad?s ability to reach an agreement,a distinction we were not able to make in Study2.To test whether the impasses in Study3represented an extreme e?ect of negotiator FTS,we assigned an integrative point score of zero to the nine dyads that reached impasse,and included them in an ANOVA of candidate FTS and recruiter FTS.To deal with the presence of extreme values,we?rst transformed the integrative points to ranks.The results were similar to those obtained with98 dyads(Table6),but with a smaller,non-signi?cant e?ect of candidate?s FTS,Fe1;103T?2:44,p?:12.This supports our interpretation that the impasses in Study3were of idiosyncratic origin,unrelated to FTS.

J.B.White et al./Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes94(2004)102–124113

19dyads with a high FTS candidate but not a high FTS recruiter,25dyads with a high FTS recruiter but not a high FTS candidate,and11dyads with both a high FTS candidate and a high FTS recruiter.A check of observed versus expected cell sizes showed no signi?cant di?er-ences,v2(1,N?98)?0,p?:99.The harmonic cell size was n h?19:34.Results were analyzed at the dyadic level with a2(candidate?s FTS)?2(recruiter?s FTS) factorial.

Scored outcomes

Each dyad completed an employment contract agreeing to certain alternatives for the eight issues in the negotiation(bonus,vacation,start date,moving ex-penses,insurance,job assignment,job location,and salary).The candidate?s and recruiter?s respective payo?schedules were used to calculate the number of points earned by each member of the dyad on each issue,and then those points were combined to obtain candidate, recruiter,and dyad scores for compatible,integrative, and distributive issues.We analyzed the e?ect associated with candidate and recruiter FTS on the points earned on compatible and integrative issues(the dyad score for distributive issues was?xed),and on the allocation of points within the dyad(share to candidate,share to recruiter),using separate ANOVAs.Means for all four cells for the analyses described below appear in Table5. Integrative gain.The most integrative points a dyad could earn in this negotiation were144(points are ex-pressed in100s).There was a main e?ect associated with candidate’s FTS,Fe1;94T?5:58,p?:02,as predicted (Table6).5Dyads with a high FTS candidate earned fewer points on integrative issues than other dyads.No e?ects were observed for high FTS recruiter or for the interaction of high FTS candidate and high FTS recruiter on integrative gain(p s>:50).We also con-ducted a test of the e?ect associated with candidate’s and recruiter’s original FTS scores entering both vari-ables(centered),along with the Candidate’s FTS?Recruiter’s FTS interaction,in the GLM module of SPSS.The results were not signi?cant for the e?ects associated with candidate’s FTS score,Fe1;94T?0:95, p?:33,recruiter’s FTS score,Fe1;94T?0:15,p?:70, or the interaction,Fe1;94T?0:28,p?:60.FTS also did not predict points earned on compatible issues.Across the entire sample,95of98dyads earned the maximum

Table5

Integrative and distributive gain in a scorable contract negotiation for high FTS negotiators

Non-FTS candidate High FTS candidate

Recruiter Non-FTS High FTS Non-FTS High FTS

Dyad integrative points

M134a;b135a128b129a;b

SD1181213

Candidate total points

M653a644a;b527b697a

SD18182618

Recruiter total points

M556a;b585a:b636a475b

SD20182320

Candidate share of total points

M54%a52%a;b45%b60%a

SD16%14%22%16%

Note.Points are divided by100.Means in the same row that do not share subscripts di?er at p<:05in the Tukey honestly signi?cant di?erence comparison.

Table6

Analysis of variance for dyad integrative gain

Source df F p Candidate FTS(C)1 5.58?.02 Recruiter FTS(R)10.16.69

C?R10.00.98

D within-group error94(11605)

Note.Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square error, in hundreds of points.D?dyads.

*p<:05.

5We also conducted a2(candidate gender)?2(recruiter gender) ANOVA on dyad integrative points.There were no signi?cant e?ects of candidate’s gender,Fe1;94T?0:56,p?:46,recruiter’s gender, Fe1;94T?1:75,p?:19,or Candidate’s Gender?Recruiter’s Gender interaction,Fe1;94T?1:62,p?:21.We saved the residuals of this ANOVA as dyad integrative gain with e?ects of gender partialled out. A2(candidate FTS)?2(recruiter FTS)ANOVA on these residuals found a main e?ect associated with candidate FTS,Fe1;94T?5:16, p?:03,r?:23,with high FTS candidates getting less integrative gain than other candidates.There were no signi?cant e?ects of recruiter’s FTS,Fe1;94T?0:31,p?:58,or Candidate FTS?Recruiter FTS interaction,Fe1;94T?0:01,p?:94,on these residuals,suggesting that negotiator gender did not account for our results.

114J.B.White et al./Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes94(2004)102–124

24points on the two compatible issues,resulting in little variance on this variable.

Distributive gain .We measured distributive gain by calculating the share of the total dyad points captured by each negotiator,expressed as candidate ?s share of the pie.There was no main e?ect associated with candidate FTS on candidate ?s share,F e1;94T<1:00(Table 7).A marginal main e?ect associated with recruiter FTS on candidate ?s share,F e1;94T?3:05,p ?:08,was quali?ed by a Candidate ?s FTS ?Recruiter ?s FTS interaction,F e1;94T?4:91,p ?:03.6A post hoc test revealed that high FTS candidates who were paired with non-FTS recruiters got signi?cantly smaller shares than either high FTS candidates who were paired with high FTS recruiters,or non-FTS candidates who were paired with non-FTS recruiters.

We conducted post hoc tests on candidate ?s total points,independent of recruiter ?s points,and on re-cruiter ?s total points,independent of candidate ?s points,to determine which negotiators were actually getting better outcomes.These tests and the negotiators ?point totals appear in Table 5.It seemed that in dyads with a non-FTS candidate,recruiter FTS had no impact and opponents earned more joint gain and split the pie more or less evenly.In dyads with a high FTS candidate,however,recruiter FTS did have an impact,resulting in a skewed split:more points to the recruiter,when he or she was not FTS,and more to the candidate,when the recruiter was high FTS.

Negotiators’ratings of self and opponent

After completing their agreement form,negotiators rated themselves and their opponents on six aspects of demeanor:competitive,cooperative,rational,pleasant,demanding,and likable.We analyzed these ratings with four 2(candidate’s FTS)?2(recruiter’s FTS)MANO-VAs,on (1)candidates’self-ratings (Table 8);(2)can-didates’ratings of recruiter;(3)recruiter’s self-ratings;and (4)recruiter’s ratings of candidate.(Data were missing for three recruiters and ?ve candidates;we in-cluded their partners’responses,resulting in unequal df .)High FTS candidates described themselves as more

competitive (M ?3:66,SD ?0:17)than other candi-dates (M ?3:05,SD ?0:12),F e1;89T?8:55,p ?:004.High FTS recruiters described themselves as less de-manding (M ?2:70,SD ?0:15)than other recruiters (M ?3:10,SD ?0:12),F e1;91T?4:13,p ?:045.An interaction between candidate’s and recruiter’s FTS predicted candidates’rating of recruiter’s cooperative-ness,F e1;88T?6:17,p ?:02.Non-FTS candidates de-scribed high FTS recruiters as less cooperative (M ?3:74,SD ?0:18)than other recruiters (M ?4:10,SD ?0:14),while high FTS candidates described high FTS recruiters as more cooperative (M ?4:09,SD ?:26)than other recruiters (M ?3:44,SD ?0:21).None of the other demeanor ratings were reliably

Table 8

Multivariate analysis of variance for candidate’s self-appraisal Source

df F p Between subjects Candidate FTS (C)6 1.77.12Recruiter FTS (R)60.72.63C ?R

6

0.90

.50

Within subjects Candidate FTS (C)Likable 10.12.73Competitive 18.55?.00Pleasant 10.41.52Rational 10.15.70Cooperative 10.27.60Demanding 10.27.61Recruiter FTS (R)Likable 1 1.03.31Competitive 10.56.46Pleasant 10.27.61Rational 10.10.75Cooperative 10.00.95Demanding 10.34.56C ?R Likable 10.29.59Competitive 10.60.44Pleasant 10.10.75Rational 10.45.51Cooperative 1 1.35.25Demanding 1

0.77

.38

Note .D ?dyads.*

p <:01.

Table 7

Analysis of variance for candidate ?s share of dyad ?s total points Source

df F p Candidate FTS (C)10.09.77Recruiter FTS (R)1 3.05.08C ?R

1 4.91?.03

D within-group error

94

(.03)

Note .Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean square error,in share of total.D ?dyads.

*

p <:05.

6

We also conducted a 2(candidate gender)?2(recruiter gender)ANOVA on candidate ?s share of dyad total points.There were no signi?cant e?ects of candidate ?s gender,F e1;94T?2:75,p ?:10,recruiter ?s gender,F e1;94T?0:59,p ?:45,or Candidate ?s Gen-der ?Recruiter ?s Gender interaction,F e1;94T?0:15,p ?:70.We saved the residuals of this ANOVA as candidate ?s share with e?ects of gender partialled out.A 2(candidate FTS)?2(recruiter FTS)ANOVA on these residuals found no signi?cant e?ect associated with candidate FTS,F e1;94T?0:03,p ?:87,a trend for recruiter FTS,F e1;94T?3:63,p ?:06,once again quali?ed by a Candidate FTS ?Recruiter FTS interaction,F e1;94T?4:08,p ?:05,with high FTS candidates paired with a non-FTS recruiter obtaining the smallest share of dyad integrative points.

J.B.White et al./Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 94(2004)102–124115

predicted by candidate’s FTS,recruiter’s FTS,or the interaction.

At the time participants made these ratings,they knew their own point total,though not their opponent?s point total.To eliminate the concern that negotiator ratings of self and other were in?uenced by actual out-comes,we ran the same multivariate analyses with the participant?s own point total as a covariate.Candidate?s point total did not signi?cantly predict candidate?s self-ratings within the multivariate model,Fe6;83T?1:85, p?:10,and the main e?ect associated with candidate?s FTS on self-ratings of competitiveness was still signi?-cant,Fe1;87T?9:33,p?:003.Candidate?s point total did in fact predict candidate?s ratings of the recruiter?s behavior within the multivariate model,Fe6;82T?3:46, p?:004.The observed candidate?s FTS by recruiter?s FTS interaction on candidate?s ratings of recruiter?s cooperativeness was still marginally signi?cant,Fe1; 87T?3:84,p<:06.Recruiter?s point total did not sig-ni?cantly predict recruiter?s self-ratings,Fe1;90T?1:49, p?:19,but adding it to the model reduced the signi?-cance of the main e?ect associated with recruiter?s FTS on self-ratings of demandingness to p?:09. Competitiveness mediates relationship between FTS and integrative outcome

Deutsch(1961)argued that the need to save face in a bargaining situation makes negotiators more competi-tive,and that a competitive orientation leads to lower joint gain.We tested whether competitiveness mediated the relationship between candidate?s FTS and the dyad?s joint gain.To establish mediation,it is necessary to show that(a)candidates?competitiveness predicts joint gain while controlling for their level of FTS,and(b)the relationship between candidate?s level of FTS and dyad?s joint gain is signi?cantly reduced when controlling for the candidate?s competitiveness(Baron&Kenny,1986). When both candidate?s competitiveness and their level of FTS were simultaneously entered into a regression equation,competitiveness continued to predict joint gain,v?à:22,(91)?-2.09,p?:04,but the e?ect as-sociated with FTS was reduced from v?à:23to v?à:17,te91T?à1:60,p?:11.We then tested whe-ther this reduction was signi?cant,following Kenny, Kashy,and Bolger(1998),and it was,Z?à1:63, p?:049,one-tailed.The relationship between candi-dates?level of FTS and their dyad?s joint gain was par-tially mediated by their competitiveness during the negotiation.High FTS candidates were more competi-tive,resulting in lower joint gain.

Respect and rapport

Candidates and recruiters rated the dyad?s rapport and the level of respect shown by the recruiter to the candidate.Candidates?ratings and recruiters?ratings were analyzed with2(candidate?s FTS)?2(recruiter?s FTS)MANOVAs.Recruiters said they showed less re-spect to a high FTS candidate(M?3:36,SD?:18) than to other candidates(M?3:83,SD?:12),Fe1;90T?4:88,p?:03.This e?ect remained signi?cant at p?:03after recruiter?s point total was added to the model as a covariate.No e?ects of FTS were observed on candidate?s ratings of dyad rapport or respect.

Did recruiters notice candidates’competitiveness?High FTS candidates described their behavior as more com-petitive.Did recruiters agree with that assessment? Table9gives the partial correlations between candidate?s

Table9

Partial correlations between candidate and recruiter demeanor ratings,controlling for candidate?s and recruiter?s point totals

Competitive Cooperative Demanding Likable Pleasant Rational Recruiter’s ratings of candidate

Candidate?s ratings of self

Competitive.14).35???.15).20).25?).08 Cooperative).32??.51???).17.36???.37???.25?Demanding.16).45???.16).34???).22?).26?Likable).34???.51???).32??.24?.24?.20 Pleasant).27?.42???).15.35???.32??.20 Rational).19?.28??).19.26?.15.14 Candidate’s ratings of recruiter

Recruiter?s ratings of self

Competitive.00).14.05.02).04).16 Cooperative).19.17).23?.23?.18.14 Demanding).05).14.16).24?).17).17 Likable).14.28??).15.07.27?.21 Pleasant).01.23?).04.25?.22?.21?Rational).04.07).06.15.04.17 *p<:05.

**p<:01.

***p<:001.

116J.B.White et al./Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes94(2004)102–124

and recruiter?s ratings of their own and their partner?s demeanor,controlling for both candidate?s point total and recruiter?s point total.Candidate?s self-described competitiveness was negatively correlated with recruiter?s descriptions of candidate?s cooperativeness,r?à:35, and pleasantness,r?à:25.There was,in fact,more agreement between the parties?descriptions of the can-didate?s behavior than their descriptions of the recruiter?s behavior.Of all the demeanor ratings,candidate?s self-descriptions seemed to best predict recruiter?s judgments of candidate?s cooperativeness.In other words,it ap-peared that recruiters judged candidate?s behavior largely in terms of cooperativeness.Candidate?s self-ratings of competitiveness were also signi?cantly correlated with recruiter?s ratings of respect shown to candidate,r?:23, and dyad rapport,r?:43.When candidates described themselves as competitive,then,recruiters saw them as uncooperative and unpleasant,said they showed them less respect,and felt less rapport with them. Behavioral intentions

High FTS candidates were four times more likely (21%)than other candidates(5%)to say they did not expect to be friends with the recruiter after taking the job, v2(1,N?98)?5.85,p?:02.This is evidence that high FTS candidates were more likely to feel the relationship had been threatened during the negotiation.There was no e?ect associated with recruiter FTS,p>:50.Candi-dates indicated how long they thought they would stay in the position they just agreed to take.The mean for the sample as a whole was27.33months(SD?1:67months), and no signi?cant e?ects were observed for FTS. Discussion

Dyads with a high FTS candidate earned less joint gain than other dyads,as predicted.High FTS candi-dates described themselves as more competitive,and their competitiveness partially mediated the e?ects as-sociated with FTS on joint gain,consistent with our prediction.We did not?nd a main e?ect associated with recruiter?s FTS on joint gain.High FTS candidates de-scribed themselves as more competitive and were four times more likely to say they would not be friends with the recruiter after taking the job,indicating that they felt the relationship had been threatened in the course of the negotiation.Recruiters,for their part,said they showed less respect to high FTS candidates than to non-high FTS sensitive candidates.Recruiter?s ratings of respect to candidate,dyad rapport,and candidate?s likeability, pleasantness and cooperativeness were all correlated with candidate?s self-rating of competitiveness.We in-terpret these correlations as suggesting the following: face threats make a negotiator more competitive,and this competitiveness has a negative impact on the rela-tionship at the negotiation table.We think that face threat thus leads to competitiveness and a concomitant threat to the relationship,resulting in less joint gain.

In Study3,role assignment(candidate or recruiter) created a situation in which the individual di?erence of high FTS had a measurable impact on integrative ne-gotiation outcomes.The candidate in this negotiation owned and was more closely identi?ed with the value of the services that were the subject of the negotiation,and therefore was the negotiator most likely to receive face threats.In Study3,role assignment also in?uenced the way in which high FTS negotiators described their be-havior.High FTS candidates described themselves as more competitive,whereas high FTS recruiters de-scribed themselves as less demanding.This di?erence helps explain why high FTS candidates who were paired with a high FTS recruiter obtained the greatest per-centage of the negotiation pie,whereas high FTS can-didates who were paired with non-FTS recruiters earned the smallest percentage.

Study3provides evidence that face threat a?ects negotiation outcomes by making negotiators more competitive,thereby having a negative impact on a dyad?s ability to create joint gain.In addition,the results of Study3suggest that FTS is an important construct in the application of face theory to negotiation.

General discussion

Face threat has long been known to a?ect negotiator behavior and negotiation outcomes(Deutsch,1961). The studies reported in this paper demonstrate how a negotiator?s FTS(face threat sensitivity,de?ned as an increased likelihood that an individual will have a neg-ative a?ective reaction to a face threat)can in?uence the negotiation process and outcomes.Across two di?erent negotiations,a consistent pattern of results emerged in which the hypothesized relationship between high ne-gotiator FTS and a process leading to poor integrative outcomes manifested itself in a failure of dyads to create su?cient value to reach an agreement that would have bene?ted both parties(Study2),and a failure of dyads to create value that would potentially have bene?ted both parties(Study3).Study2found that FTS,depending on role,had a negative impact on negotiators?ability to reach a cooperative settlement.High FTS owners of a service station were twice as likely to‘‘drop the deal,’’or declare impasse,than non-FTS owners,whereas FTS of buyers did not a?ect settlement rates.Study3found that FTS,depending on role,had a negative impact on joint gain,but not relative share of gain.High FTS job candidates negotiated deals with lower joint gain than non-FTS job candidates,while FTS of recruiters did not a?ect outcomes.Increased competitiveness on the part of high FTS job candidates mediated the e?ect associ-ated with their FTS on joint gain.

J.B.White et al./Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes94(2004)102–124117

FTS is a narrow personality trait that is explicitly concerned with the dynamics of social interaction.FTS is correlated with Neuroticism,but conceptually distinct from it and from other measures of interpersonal reac-tivity:Machiavellianism,empathy,and self-monitoring (Study1).We believe that we found systematic evidence in negotiations of an e?ect associated with FTS because we took into account how FTS interacts with the dy-namics of a negotiation(Lewin,1935;Mischel,1968).A negotiator?s high FTS apparently has an e?ect on ne-gotiation dynamics only when he or she is closely identi?ed with the resources that are the subject of the negotiation.In other words,when a negotiator?s face is on the line,high FTS negotiators are more competitive and less cooperative,resulting in fewer agreements (Study2),less joint gain when they do reach an agree-ment(Study3),and a weaker relationship with the other party(Study3).

Face is a social,interactive construct.There are several potential pathways through which high FTS,once face concerns are activated,could translate to a dropped deal or a roadblock to integrative gain.The?rst is through the demeanor and behavior of the high FTS negotiator who may be more likely to perceive an opponent?s tactics as face-threatening.Face threats result in negative a?ect, mistrust of the other party,a perception of threat to the relationship,and increased competitiveness vis- a-vis the other party.Through this pathway,we imagine the high FTS negotiator might become o?ended and withdraw from the negotiation to save face,or alternatively,become vengeful and refuse to cooperate in order to spite the other party.A second pathway is through the perceptions and actions of the high FTS negotiator?s opponent who may perceive the high FTS negotiator as‘‘high maintenance,’’requiring more care and trouble than he/she is worth (Go?man,1967).Through this pathway,one negotiator?s high FTS might increase the cost to the other negotiator of maintaining the interaction,which is a precondition for working together to reach an agreement.The high FTS negotiator?s opponent may simply decide it is not worth the e?ort and withdraw,to?nd an easier person to deal with.A third pathway is through the chill FTS casts on the interaction between negotiators,making it harder to communicate,to develop trust,to come up with creative alternatives,to coordinate the steps of what Rai?a re-ferred to as‘‘the negotiation dance’’(1982,p.47).Future research is needed to more closely examine the ways in which high FTS a?ects negotiation processes and out-comes.

Face threats appear to impair a negotiator?s e?ciency by making him or her more competitive in a situation that requires some level of cooperation.7The issue(s)of a negotiator?s—and a negotiation?s—e?ciency have been the focus of negotiations research since its inception. The dominant paradigm for addressing these questions has been game theory,based on a model of the indi-vidual negotiator as a rational decision maker(Rai?a, 1982).This model has given rise to a large literature on rationality and an accompanying attention to cognitive biases as non-rational in?uences on outcomes(Bazer-man,Curhan,Moore,&Valley,2000),with cognitive biases even serving as an explanation for motivational in?uences(Kramer,Newton,&Pommerenke,1993). The presumption of this powerful paradigm is that a rational negotiator will act to maximize his or her in-terests(Bazerman&Neale,1992).For example,it would be possible to interpret our results within the frame of the rational negotiator paradigm as due to a rational choice to give less satisfaction to an opponent (by reducing joint gain)when the opponent issues a face threat,on the assumption that punishing an opponent satis?es the negotiator?s interests.Not only does this interpretation beg the question of what is rational,but most of the time,as Brodt and Dietz(1999)gently re-mind us,negotiators don?t actually know how to maxi-mize their interests:a failure of process,rather than rationality,leads to sub-optimal outcomes.In particu-lar,negotiation scholars have had di?culty extending theories of rational behavior to explain the more social aspects of negotiation,particularly the back-and-forth interaction of the negotiation dance.More recent per-spectives categorize negotiation as a social interaction (Brodt&Dietz,1999;Friedman,1994;Pruitt,1995;for a review see Thompson&Loewenstein,2003;Valley, Neale,&Mannix,1995)in which social processes like communication style directly a?ect negotiation out-comes(e.g.,Adair,Okumura,&Brett,2001).

Much of the research in this area,like the studies reported above,uses quasi-experimental methods,often drawing participants from a student population(un-dergraduate,graduate,or adult)and assigning them to enact roles in a negotiation.The external validity of the present studies is limited to the extent that our par-ticipants were enacting a role in an exercise,not in Go?man?s sense of enacting a role in real life.Al-though we suspect that the e?ects associated with FTS would be even greater if negotiators were truly identi-?ed with the issues or resources being negotiated(see, e.g.,Mandel,1980;Smyth,1994,2002),the present studies do not allow us to conclude that this is so. Further research is needed in real negotiations,where the stakes are higher,to fully establish the external validity of our results.While cultural di?erences in face threat sensitivity have been documented and generally accepted,the construct of individual di?erences in face threat sensitivity is still in its early stages of develop-ment.We believe there is great potential for the ap-plication of this construct in understanding negotiation

7An alternative and perhaps complementary explanation,sug-

gested by an anonymous reviewer,is that competitive behavior may

have its e?ects on negotiation outcomes via face threats and FTS.

118J.B.White et al./Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes94(2004)102–124

processes,but we recognize that much work has yet to be done.

Two further limitations of the present work should be noted.First,we considered only positive face,one of two types of face described by Brown and Levinson (1987).Positive face is linked to the desire to have one?s public image upheld.Threats to positive face in a ne-gotiation may include challenges,demands,and dis-agreement.Negative face,the second type,is linked to the desire to be free from imposition.Threats to nega-tive face in a negotiation may include asking for a concession,for information,and for a process change. Some negotiation tactics may thus threaten positive but not negative face,and vice versa.We believe that neg-ative face threat sensitivity could also be relevant to negotiation behavior.More research is thus needed to clarify the construct of what constitutes a face threat in negotiation.Second,further work is necessary to create more robust measurement scales of both positive and negative face threat sensitivity,with a greater number of items and higher a levels.A clear concern is that we did not observe a monotonic relationship between FTS and outcomes;further research is necessary to determine whether this was a result of limitations of the FTS measure itself or whether it re?ects the true nature of the relationship.Future development should also take care to carefully distinguish FTS from other,similar con-structs such as Neuroticism.

Applying face theory to emerging negotiations research Our results provide a conceptual replication of early work on the impact of face threats on negotiations (Brown,1968;Deutsch,1961;Tjosvold,1977b;Tjosvold &Huston,1978)showing that face has a measurable impact on negotiator behavior and negotiation out-come,and open the door for further theoretical devel-opment in this area.The application of face theory to negotiation has special promise for several emerging lines of research that categorize negotiations as a social interaction:emotion,culture,and communication strategies(the‘‘politeness paradox’’).

Emotion

Negotiation practitioners and scholars frequently discuss the tendency of negotiators to take things per-sonally,to get o?ended,to become upset,or to have a negative a?ective response during a negotiation.Face theory provides a powerful theoretical base from which to predict,explain and explore negative a?ective reac-tions during negotiations.Both positive and negative emotions are related to face,and how an individual?s face is maintained or threatened can have immediate and strong impact on his or her emotional state.As Go?man notes,‘‘If events establish a face for[an indi-vidual]that is better than he might have expected,he is likely to?feel good?;if his ordinary expectations are not ful?lled,one expects that he will?feel bad?or?feel hurt’’(1967,p.6).We need to know more about how one?s ?ordinary expectations?interact with the situations commonly found in negotiation.What is clear is that face theory can yield testable hypotheses as to what types of tactics(e.g.,non-negotiable demands,Tjosvold, 1977b)will result in a negative a?ective reaction.Ne-gotiators may be able to use face strategically to a?ect the emotions of others in ways which enhance their own position(Thompson et al.,1999).There may also be ways to damp down one?s own threat sensitivity (Schlenker,Dlugolecki,&Doherty,1994),particularly when it would lead to an emotion such as anger which can have its own negative e?ect on negotiation(Allred et al.,1997;Davidson&Greenhalgh,1999).Face theory provides a theoretical framework for both basic and applied research on emotion in negotiation.

Culture

Cross-cultural negotiation.Cross-cultural researchers have long been aware of the di?erences in face mainte-nance across cultures and the impact those di?erences can have on cross-cultural perceptions and interactions (Ting-Toomey,Gao,Trubisky,&Yang,1991).For ex-ample,face-negotiation theory(Ting-Toomey& Kurogi,1998)describes how face is negotiated between social interaction partners,and how it becomes prob-lematic particularly in con?ict situations and in cross-cultural communication.Mao(1994)points out that although face theory draws extensively on the Chinese concept of face,there are signi?cant di?erences across cultures in the way face is maintained.We must keep in mind that the results about face and face maintenance we generate with American negotiators may not hold across cultures,and there may be interactions between particular cultures and face that a?ect cross-cultural negotiations.

Culture of honor.Cultures di?er in how they sanction individual reactions to a face threat.When the en-forcement of social norms relies more on individual in-tegrity and less on public institutions,one?s face is even more valuable.Cohen and Nisbett(1994)describe a culture of honor as one that places a high regard on an individual?s willingness and ability to respond punitively to a face threat to maintain the individual?s status and thus the social order.Someone from a culture of honor, whether it?s Spain(Mosquera,Manstead,&Fischer, 2002)or the American South(Cohen,Nisbett,Bowdle, &Schwarz,1996),is more likely to respond to a threat to honor,what we would call a face threat,than some-one else.For example,U.S.Southerners are more likely than Northerners to respond to incidental insults,or face threats,with anger,elevated testosterone,and

J.B.White et al./Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes94(2004)102–124119

aggression(Cohen et al.,1996).The research presented here suggests we might be able to predict when the cultural sensitivity to face threats will interact with the negotiation situation to a?ect cross-cultural negotiation processes and outcomes.

Politeness paradox

If face threats are a roadblock to agreement and joint gain,why don?t negotiators simply use ingratia-tion,or redress their demands with politeness,to reduce the impact of the inevitable face threats?According to politeness theory(Brown&Levinson,1987),people use politeness(e.g.,I see your point but)to redress face threats(e.g.,I disagree).Ordinarily politeness serves to redress the harm caused to the receiver?s face and mitigate against a negative a?ective reaction.Of the several factors in?uencing the degree of politeness a negotiator should use(culture,familiarity,social dis-tance,urgency;Brown&Levinson,1987),one factor is the relative power between the negotiator and oppo-nent.All other things being equal,the more power a person has,the less politeness he or she will use to redress a face threat.Negotiators face a paradox,then, since using politeness can redress a face threat and help integrative gain(Tjosvold&Huston,1978),yet it can also be interpreted as weakness and encourage one?s opponent to set more aggressive aspirations(Tjosvold, 1977a,1978).

Conclusion

Face concerns exert a gravitational pull on negotia-tors:powerful,inexorable,invisible.Deutsch claimed that‘‘...whenever bargainers are unable to reach agreement despite the clear existence of a potential agreement that would leave the bargainers in a better position than their position of no agreement—one may suggest that at least one of the bargainers feels that his face has been threatened and that an agreement would lead to loss of face’’(1961,p.896).Indeed,that one bargainer is the one most identi?ed with the subject of the negotiation and thus the one whose face is,so to speak,on the line.Across two studies,we have shown that an aspect of the person(FTS)interacts with the current context(roles)to determine the e?ciency of negotiated outcomes.We believe face theory has par-ticular force in current research that examines negotia-tions process and outcomes from a social perspective, and that individual di?erences in reactions to face threats can be a useful tool in exploring the psycholog-ical dynamics of how face operates in negotiation.

Appendix A.FTS and the personal distress subscale of the IRI(Davis,1983)

FTS1FTS2FTS3PD1PD2PD3PD4PD5PD6PD7 FTS1(.44)

FTS2.51???(.62)

FTS3.37??.73???(.55)

PD1.14.44???.39??(.40)

PD2.42???.37??.30?.43???(.27)

PD3.25.26?.00.24.52???(.27)

PD4.06.41???.37??.50???.14.14(.39)

PD5.11.37??.27?.44???.23.17.44???(.39)

PD6.25.40??.22.37??.25.37??.48???.48???(.39)

PD7).10.33??.29?.45???.05.18.63???.29?.39??(.33) Mean correlation of FTS item with PD items

.16.37.26

Note.Values on the diagonal are mean correlation of item with all other items in its scale.

*p<:05.

**p<:01.

***p<:001.

120J.B.White et al./Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes94(2004)102–124

五年级上册成语解释及近义词反义词和造句大全.doc

五年级上册成语解释及近义词反义词和造句大全 囫囵吞枣；【解释】：囫囵：整个儿。把枣整个咽下去，不加咀嚼，不辨味道。比喻对事物不加分析考虑。【近义词】：不求甚解【反义词】融会贯穿[造句];学习不能囫囵吞枣而是要精益求精 不求甚解；bùqiúshènjiě【解释】：甚：专门，极。只求明白个大概，不求完全了解。常指学习或研究不认真、不深入【近义词】：囫囵吞枣【反义词】：精益求精 造句；1；在学习上，我们要理解透彻，不能不求甚解 2；学习科学文化知识要刻苦钻研，深入领会，不能粗枝大叶，不求甚解。 千篇一律；【解释】：一千篇文章都一个样。指文章公式化。也比喻办事按一个格式，专门机械。 【近义词】：千人一面、如出一辙【反义词】：千差万别、形形色色 造句；学生旳作文千篇一律，专门少能有篇与众不同旳，这确实是平常旳练习太少了。 倾盆大雨；qīngpéndàyǔ【解释】：雨大得象盆里旳水直往下倒。形容雨大势急。 【近义词】：大雨如柱、大雨滂沱【反义词】：细雨霏霏牛毛细雨 造句；3月旳天说变就变，瞬间下了一场倾盆大雨。今天下了一场倾盆大雨。 坚决果断；áobùyóuyù：意思；做事果断，专门快拿定了主意，一点都不迟疑，形容态度坚决 近义词；不假思索斩钉截铁反义词；犹豫不决 造句；1看到小朋友落水，司马光坚决果断地搬起石头砸缸。2我坚决果断旳承诺了她旳要求。 饥肠辘辘jīchánglùlù【近义词】：饥不择食【反义词】：丰衣足食 造句；1我放学回家已是饥肠辘辘。2那个饥肠辘辘旳小孩差不多两天没吃饭了 滚瓜烂熟gǔnguālànshóu〔shú)【解释】：象从瓜蔓上掉下来旳瓜那样熟。形容读书或背书流利纯熟。【近义词】：倒背如流【反义词】：半生半熟造句；1、这篇课文我们早已背得滚瓜烂熟了 流光溢彩【liúguāngyìcǎi】解释；光影，满溢旳色彩，形容色彩明媚 造句：国庆节，商场里装饰旳流光溢彩。 津津有味；jīnjīnyǒuwèi解释：兴趣浓厚旳模样。指吃得专门有味道或谈得专门有兴趣。 【近义词】：兴致勃勃有滋有味【反义词】：索然无味、枯燥无味 造句；1今天旳晚餐真丰富，小明吃得津津有味。 天长日久；tiānchángrìjiǔ【解释】：时刻长，生活久。【近义词】：天长地久【反义词】：稍纵即逝 造句：小缺点假如不立即改掉, 天长日久就会变成坏适应 如醉如痴rúzuìrúchī【解释】：形容神态失常，失去自制。【近义词】：如梦如醉【反义词】：恍然大悟造句；这么美妙旳音乐，我听得如醉如痴。 浮想联翩【fúxiǎngliánpiān解释】：浮想：飘浮不定旳想象；联翩：鸟飞旳模样，比喻连续不断。指许许多多旳想象不断涌现出来。【近义词】：思绪万千 造句；1他旳话让人浮想联翩。2:这幅画饱含诗情，使人浮想联翩，神游画外，得到美旳享受。 悲欢离合bēihuānlíhé解释；欢乐、离散、聚会。泛指生活中经历旳各种境遇和由此产生旳各种心情【近义词】：酸甜苦辣、喜怒哀乐【反义词】：平淡无奇 造句；1人一辈子即是悲欢离合,总要笑口常开,我们旳生活才阳光明媚. 牵肠挂肚qiānchángguàdù【解释】：牵：拉。形容十分惦念，放心不下 造句；儿行千里母担忧，母亲总是那个为你牵肠挂肚旳人 如饥似渴rújīsìkě：形容要求专门迫切，仿佛饿了急着要吃饭，渴了急着要喝水一样。 造句；我如饥似渴地一口气读完这篇文章。他对知识旳如饥似渴旳态度造就了他今天旳成功。 不言而喻bùyánéryù【解释】：喻：了解，明白。不用说话就能明白。形容道理专门明显。 【近义词】：显而易见【反义词】：扑朔迷离造句；1珍惜时刻，好好学习，那个道理是不言而喻旳 与众不同；yǔzhòngbùtóng【解释】：跟大伙不一样。 〖近义词〗别出心裁〖反义词〗平淡无奇。造句； 1从他与众不同旳解题思路中，看出他专门聪慧。2他是个与众不同旳小孩

悲惨的近义词反义词和造句

悲惨的近义词反义词和造句 导读：悲惨的近义词 悲凉(注释:悲哀凄凉：～激越的琴声。) 悲惨的反义词 幸福(注释:个人由于理想的实现或接近而引起的一种内心满足。追求幸福是人们的普遍愿望，但剥削阶级把个人幸福看得高于一切，并把个人幸福建立在被剥削阶级的痛苦之上。无产阶级则把争取广大人民的幸福和实现全人类的解放看作最大的幸福。认为幸福不仅包括物质生活，也包括精神生活;个人幸福依赖集体幸福，集体幸福高于个人幸福;幸福不仅在于享受，而主要在于劳动和创造。) 悲惨造句 1.一个人要发现卓有成效的真理，需要千百个人在失败的探索和悲惨的错误中毁掉自己的生命。 2.贝多芬的童年尽管如是悲惨，他对这个时代和消磨这时代的地方，永远保持着一种温柔而凄凉的回忆。 3.卖火柴的小女孩在大年夜里冻死了，那情景十分悲惨。 4.他相信，他们每个人背后都有一个悲惨的故事。 5.在那次悲惨的经历之后，我深信自己绝对不是那种可以离家很远的人。 6.在人生的海洋上，最痛快的事是独断独航，但最悲惨的却是回头无岸。 7.人生是艰苦的。对不甘于平庸凡俗的人那是一场无日无夜的斗

争，往往是悲惨的、没有光华的、没有幸福的，在孤独与静寂中展开的斗争。……他们只能依靠自己，可是有时连最强的人都不免于在苦难中蹉跎。罗曼·罗兰 8.伟大的心胸，应该表现出这样的气概用笑脸来迎接悲惨的厄运，用百倍的勇气来应付开始的不幸。鲁迅人在逆境里比在在顺境里更能坚强不屈。遇厄运时比交好运时容易保全身心。 9.要抓紧时间赶快生活，因为一场莫名其妙的疾病，或者一个意外的悲惨事件，都会使生命中断。奥斯特洛夫斯基。 10.在我一生中最悲惨的一个时期，我曾经有过那类的想法：去年夏天在我回到这儿附近的地方时，这想法还缠着我;可是只有她自己的亲自说明才能使我再接受这可怕的想法。 11.他们说一个悲惨的故事是悲剧，但一千个这样的故事就只是一个统计了。 12.不要向诱惑屈服，而浪费时间去阅读别人悲惨的详细新闻。 13.那起悲惨的事件深深地铭刻在我的记忆中。 14.伟大的心胸，应该用笑脸来迎接悲惨的厄运，用百倍的勇气来应付一切的不幸。 15.一个人要发现卓有成效的真理，需要千百万个人在失败的探索和悲惨的错误中毁掉自己的生命。门捷列夫 16.生活需要爱，没有爱，那些受灾的人们生活将永远悲惨;生活需要爱，爱就像调味料，使生活这道菜充满滋味;生活需要爱，爱让生活永远充满光明。

知己的近义词反义词及知己的造句

知己的近义词反义词及知己的造句 本文是关于知己的近义词反义词及知己的造句，感谢您的阅读！ 知己的近义词反义词及知己的造句知己 基本解释：顾名思义是了解、理解、赏识自己的人，如"知己知彼，百战不殆";更常指懂你自己的挚友或密友，它是一生难求的朋友，友情的最高境界。正所谓:"士为知己者死"。 1.谓了解、理解、赏识、懂自己。 2.彼此相知而情谊深切的人。 【知己近义词】 亲信，好友，密友，心腹，挚友，深交，相知，知交，知友，知心，知音，石友，老友，至友 【知己反义词】 仇人敌人陌路 【知己造句】 1、我们想要被人爱、想拥有知己、想历经欢乐、想要安全感。 2、朋友本应是我们的亲密知己和支持者，但对于大多数人来说，有一些朋友比起帮助我们，更多的却是阻碍。 3、那么，为什么你就认为，随着年龄的增长，比起女人来男人们的知己和丰富的人际关系更少，因此一般容易更孤独呢？ 4、他成了我的朋友、我的知己、我的顾问。 5、无论在我当州长还是总统的时候，布鲁斯都是我的密友、顾问和知己。他这样的朋友人人需要，也是所有总统必须拥有的。

6、波兰斯基有着一段声名卓著的电影生涯，也是几乎所有电影界重要人物们的挚友和同事，他们是知己，是亲密的伙伴。 7、搜索引擎变成了可以帮追我们的忏悔室，知己，信得过的朋友。 8、这样看来，奥巴马国家安全团队中最具影响力的当属盖茨了――但他却是共和党人，他不会就五角大楼以外问题发表看法或成为总统知己。 9、我们的关系在二十年前就已经和平的结束了，但在网上，我又一次成为了他精神层面上的评论家，拉拉队，以及红颜知己。 10、这位“知己”，作为拍摄者，站在距离电视屏幕几英尺的地方对比着自己年轻版的形象。 11、父亲与儿子相互被形容为对方的政治扩音筒、知己和后援。 12、这对夫妻几乎没有什么至交或知己依然在世，而他们在后纳粹时期的德国也不可能会说出实话的。 13、她把我当作知己，于是，我便将她和情人之间的争吵了解得一清二楚。 14、有一种友谊不低于爱情；关系不属于暖昧；倾诉一直推心置腹；结局总是难成眷属；这就是知己！ 15、把你的治疗师当做是可以分享一切心事的知己。 16、莉莉安对我敞开心胸，我成了她的知己。 17、据盖洛普民意调查显示，在那些自我认同的保守党人中，尽管布什仍维持72%支持率，但他在共和党领导层中似乎很少有几位知

小学语文反义词仿照的近义词反义词和造句

仿照的近义词反义词和造句 仿照的近义词 【仿制解释】：仿造：～品 【模仿解释】：个体自觉或不自觉地重复他人的行为的过程。是社会学习的重要形式之一。尤其在儿童方面，儿童的动作、语言、技能以及行为习惯、品质等的形成和发展都离不开模仿。可分为无意识模仿和有意识模仿、外部模仿和内部模仿等多种类型。 仿照的反义词 【独创解释】：独特的创造：～精神ㄧ～一格。 仿照造句 一、老师让我们仿照黑板上的图画一幅画。 二、仿照下面的句式，以“只有”开头，写一结构与之相似的复句。 三、仿照例句的句子，在下面两句的横线上补写相应的内容。 四、仿照例句，以“记忆”或“友情”开头，另写一句话。 五、仿照下面两个例句，用恰当的词语完成句子，要求前后语意关联。 六、仿照开头两句句式，通过联想，在后面两句横线上填上相应的词语。 七、仿照所给例句，用下面的词展开联想，给它一个精彩的解释。 八、仿照例句，以“你”开头，另写一个句子。 九、仿照下列句式，续写两个句子，使之与前文组成意义相关的.句子。 十、我们也仿照八股文章的笔法来一个“八股”,以毒攻毒,就叫做八大罪状吧。

十一、仿照例句，任选一种事物，写一个句子。 十二、仿照下面一句话的句式和修辞，以“时间”开头，接着写一个句子。 十三、仿照例句，以“热爱”开头，另写一句子。 十四、仿照下面的比喻形式，另写一组句子。要求选择新的本体和喻体，意思完整。 十五、根据语镜，仿照划线句子，接写两句，构成语意连贯的一段话。 十六、仿照下面句式，续写两个句式相同的比喻句。 十七、自选话题，仿照下面句子的形式和修辞，写一组排比句。 十八、仿照下面一句话的句式，仍以“人生”开头，接着写一句话。 十九、仿照例句的格式和修辞特点续写两个句子，使之与例句构成一组排比句。 二十、仿照例句，另写一个句子，要求能恰当地表达自己的愿望。 二十一、仿照下面一句话的句式，接着写一句话，使之与前面的内容、句式相对应，修辞方法相同。 二十二、仿照下面一句话的句式和修辞，以“思考”开头，接着写一个句子。 二十三、仿照下面例句，从ABCD四个英文字母中选取一个，以”青春”为话题，展开想象和联想，写一段运用了比喻修辞格、意蕴丰富的话，要求不少于30字。 二十四、仿照下面例句，另写一个句子。 二十五、仿照例句，另写一个句子。 二十六、下面是毕业前夕的班会上，数学老师为同学们写的一句赠言，请你仿照它的特点，以语文老师的身份为同学们也写一句。

暗示的近义词和反义词 [暗示的近义词反义词和造句]

暗示的近义词和反义词[暗示的近义词反义词和造句] 【暗示解释】：用含蓄、间接的方式使他人的心理、行为受到影响。下面小编就给大家整理暗示的近义词，反义词和造句，供大家学习参考。 暗示近义词 默示 示意 暗指 暗意暗示反义词 明说 表明 明言暗示造句 1. 他的顶级助手已经暗示那可能就在不久之后，但是避免设定具体的日期。 2. 一些观察家甚至暗示他可能会被送到了古拉格。 3. 要有积极的心理暗示，达成目标的好处不够充分，画面不够鲜明那它对你的吸引力就不够强烈，你就不易坚持下去! 4. 不要经常去试探男人，更不要以分手做为威胁，当你经常给他这种心理暗示，他的潜意识就会做好分手的打算。 5. 向读者暗示永远不必为主角担心，他们逢凶化吉，永远会吉人天相。 6. 约她一起运动，不要一下跳跃到游泳，可以从羽毛球网球开始，展示你的体魄和运动细胞，流汗的男人毫无疑问是最性感的，有意无意的裸露与靠近，向她暗示你的运动能力。 7. 正如在上一个示例所暗示的，只有在这些对象引用内存中同一个对象时，它们才是相同的。 8. 渥太华此时打出中国牌，巧妙地对美国这种行为作出警告，暗示美国如果长期这样下去的话，美国将自食其果。 9. 团长用震撼人心的嗓音喊道，这声音对他暗示欢乐，对兵团暗示森严，对前来校阅阅兵的首长暗示迎迓之意。 10. 渥太华此时打出中国牌，巧妙地对美国这种行为作出警告，暗示美国如果长期这样下去的话，美国将自食其恶果。 11. 我们需要邀请用户，为他们描述服务产品有多少好，给他们解释为什么他们需要填那些表单并且暗示他们会因此得到利益的回报。 12. 她对暗示她在说谎的言论嗤之以鼻。 14. 在力士参孙中，整首诗都强烈暗示着弥尔顿渴望他自己也能像参孙一样，以生命为代价，与敌人同归于尽。 15. 戴维既然问将军是否看见天花板上的钉子，这就暗示着他自己已看见了，当将军做了肯定的答复后，他又说自己看不见，这显然是自相矛盾。 16. 自我暗示在我们的生活中扮演着重要角色。如果我们不加以觉察，通常它会与我们作对。相反地，如果你运用它，它的力量就可以任你使唤。 17. 纳什建议太阳招兵买马，暗示去留取决阵容实力。 18. 同时，还暗示了菊既不同流俗，就只能在此清幽高洁而又迷漾暗淡之境中任芳姿憔悴。 19. 学习哲学的最佳途径就是将它当成一个侦探故事来处理：跟踪它的每一点蛛丝马迹每一条线索与暗示，以便查出谁是真凶，谁是英雄。 20. 不要经常去试探你的伴侣，更不要以分手做为威胁，试探本身就是一种不信任，当

放弃的近义词反义词和造句

放弃的近义词反义词和造句 下面就给大家整理放弃的近义词，反义词和造句，供大家学习参考。 放弃的近义词【废弃解释】：抛弃不用：把～的土地变成良田ㄧ旧的规章制度要一概～。 【丢弃解释】：扔掉;抛弃：虽是旧衣服，他也舍不得～。 放弃的反义词【保存解释】：使事物、性质、意义、作风等继续存在，不受损失或不发生变化：～古迹ㄧ～实力ㄧ～自己，消灭敌人。 放弃造句(1) 运动员要一分一分地拼，不能放弃任何一次取胜的机会。 (2) 我们不要放弃每一个成功的机会。 (3) 敌军招架不住，只好放弃阵地，狼狈而逃。 (4) 为了农村的教育事业，姐姐主动放弃了调回城市的机会。 (5) 都快爬到山顶了，你却要放弃，岂不功亏一篑?(6) 纵使遇到再大的困难，我们也要勇往直前，不轻言放弃。 (7) 逆境中的他始终没有放弃努力,仍满怀信心,期待着峰回路转的那一天。 (8) 听了同学的规劝,他如梦初醒,放弃了离家出走的想法。 (9) 因寡不敌众,我军放弃了阵地。 (10) 要日本帝国主义放弃侵华野心,无异于与虎谋皮。 (11) 永不言弃固然好，但有时放弃却也很美。

(12) 他这种放弃原则、瓦鸡陶犬的行径已经被揭露出来了。 (13) 适当放弃，做出斩钉截铁的决定，才能成为人生的赢家。 (14) 他委曲求全地放弃自己的主张，采纳了对方的意见。 (17) 我们要有愚公移山一样的斗志，坚持不懈，永远不放弃，去登上梦想的彼岸!(18) 只要有希望，就不能放弃。 (19) 为了大局着想，你应该委曲求全地放弃自己的看法。 (20) 既然考试迫在眉睫，我不得不放弃做运动。 (21) 即使没有人相信你，也不要放弃希望。 (22) 无论通往成功的路途有多艰辛，我都不会放弃。 (23) 在困难面前，你是选择坚持，还是选择放弃?(24) 无论前路多么的漫长，过程多么的艰辛，我都不会放弃并坚定地走下去。 (25) 你不要因为这点小事就英雄气短,放弃出国深造的机会。 (26) 像他这样野心勃勃的政客，怎么可能放弃追求权力呢?(27) 鲁迅有感于中国人民愚昧和麻木,很需要做发聋振聩的启蒙工作,于是他放弃学医,改用笔来战斗。 (28) 我们对真理的追求应该坚持不懈，锲而不舍，绝不能随便放弃自己的理想。 (29) 感情之事不比其他，像你这样期盼东食西宿，几个男友都捨不得放弃，最后必定落得一场空。 (30) 爷爷临终前的话刻骨铭心，一直激励着我努力学习，无论是遇到多大的困难险阻，我都不曾放弃。

体面的近义词-反义词及造句

体面的近义词|反义词及造句 我们还必须迅速采取行动，为实现社会包容和人人体面工作营造有利的环境。下面是小编精选整理的体面的近义词|反义词及造句，供您参考，欢迎大家阅读。 体面的近义词： 面子、合适、美观、颜面、场合、场面、排场、得体、好看、局面 体面的反义词： 难听、寒碜、邋遢、寒酸、难看 体面造句 1、我认为，帖在墙面上的证书，并不能使你成为一个体面的人。 2、他是那里唯一的看上去很体面的人;我认为他从来没有这样好看过。 3、所有的美国人都是好的，体面的人们每天都在践行着他们的责任。 4、美国人民慷慨、强大、体面，这并非因为我们信任我们自己，而是因为我们拥有超越我们自己的信念。 5、工人就是工人，无论他们来自哪里，他们都应该受到尊重和尊敬，至少因为他们从事正当的工作而获得体面的工资。 6、然而反之有些孩子可能就是多少有些体面的父母的不良种子这一概念却令人难以接受。

7、如果奥巴马能够成就此功，并且帮助一个体面的伊拉克落稳脚跟，奥巴马和民主党不仅是结束了伊拉克战争，而是积极从战争中挽救。 8、而且，等到年纪大了退休时，他们希望能得到尊重和体面的对待。 9、爸爸，您倒对这件事处理得很体面，而我想那可能是我一生中最糟糕的一个夜晚吧。 10、有一些积极的东西，低于预期的就业损失索赔和零售销售是体面的。 11、如果你努力工作，你就能有获得一份终生工作的机会，有着体面的薪水，良好的福利，偶尔还能得到晋升。 12、体面的和生产性的工作是消除贫困和建立自给自足最有效的方法之一。 13、同时，他是一个仁慈、温和、体面的人，一个充满爱的丈夫和父亲，一个忠实的朋友。 14、几周前我们刚讨论过平板电脑是如何作为一个体面且多产的电子设备，即使它没有完整的键盘，在进行输入时会稍慢些。 15、什么才是生活体面的标准? 16、我们还必须迅速采取行动，为实现社会包容和人人体面工作营造有利的环境。 17、她告诉我人们都担心是不是必须把孩子送到国外去学习，才能保证孩子们长大后至少能过上体面正派的生活。

近义词反义词大全有关聆听的反义词近义词和造句

近义词反义词大全有关聆听的反义词近义词和造句 【聆听解释】：1.汉扬雄《法言.五百》:"聆听前世﹐清视在下﹐鉴莫近于斯矣。"后多用于书面语﹐常指仔细注意地听。下面就给大家聆听的反义词，近义词和造句，供大家学习参考。 嘱咐 [注释]1.叮嘱，吩咐 倾听 [注释]1.侧着头听。 2.细听;认真地听 凝听 [注释]1.聚精会神地听 谛听 [注释]注意地听;仔细听：侧耳谛听 细听 [注释]… 1. 学校应充分利用社会的各种，调动一切可以调动的力量，应尽一切可能请进名师专家，让教师和学生有较多的机会聆听大师的声音、与大师对话。这多少会机器他们向往大师、成为大师的冲动，多少会使他们觉得大师就在身边，大师并不遥远。 2. 今天妈妈带我来到了这个美丽的大安森林公园玩，这儿有漂亮的花儿和绿油油的树，草，看起来像一个我好想好想要的花园。树

上有小鸟儿在唱歌，有蝉声在帮忙和弦，树下有小朋友再安静仔细聆听著这最自然的交响曲。 3. 静静聆听那滴滴答答的声音，不知在为谁倾诉?她在偶尔低语，偶尔高唱，偶尔呻吟，偶尔叹息，生动灵活，充满了立体与层次之美，在心灵中轻轻一吻，便触发了思绪，这思绪时而短暂，时而绵长，时而深沉，时而悠远…… 4. 九月的手掌拂去小溪夏日的狂躁，用心聆听着秋日的私语，温顺地弹唱着九月醉人的秋歌，惹得天空湛蓝高远，碧空如洗。 5. 我光着脚丫，踩着海水，注视着波光粼粼的海面，听着哗哗的响声，那声音好像高超演奏家的激越的钢琴曲，又像歌唱家的雄浑的进行曲，那声音使胸膛激荡，热血奔涌，啊，我多么愿意聆听大海老人的谆谆教诲啊! 6. 雪花飘飘，寒风阵阵，我细细地聆听着寒风谱写成的有声有色的乐谱，为雪花的舞步增添一些光彩。寒风真像一位默默为雪花服务的人。过了一会儿，又为雪花写了一篇朗朗上口的诗歌，一会儿又为她热烈地鼓起了清脆的掌声。

终于的近义词,反义词及造句

终于的近义词，反义词及造句 …终究[注释]副词。 总：总归;毕竟;最终：我们只要把事情办好，人们终究会相信我们的|腐朽的东西终究要灭…到底[注释]1.直到尽头。 2.始终;从头到尾。 3.毕竟;究竟。 …结果[注释]结果1在一定阶段，事物发展所达到的最后状态：优良的成绩，是长期刻苦学习的～ㄧ经过一番争论…终归[注释]1.传说中神兽名。 2.终究;毕竟。 …究竟终于的反义词：起初、最初、原来、依旧、起先终于的造句：(1) 盼望了一个冬天的雪花，下午终于飘飘洒洒满天飞舞般降落。 同事们也如孩子般奔向办公室的走廊，欣喜地用手去接冰凉的小雪花再用盆子收拢些飘舞的小雪花。 隔窗望去，天地之间因突然多了这白色的小精灵而愈发显得美丽。 (2) 快乐的暑假终于到了，我可以开开心心痛痛快快地玩一顿了!当然，在这之前，我也会好好安排一下我的暑假生活，使我过个既快乐又充实的暑假，我快乐的暑假生活。 (3) 坚韧，让沙石煎熬住大海的蹂躏，终于化作璀璨的珍珠;坚韧，让天空忍受住雨水倾盆的阴霾，终于看见那一道彩虹;坚韧，让泉水忘记流进山谷崎岖的历程，终于汇入蔚蓝无垠的大海。

它的叶子正面是身绿色的，反面是浅绿的，经脉上还有一些毛绒绒的小细毛。 又过了几天，含羞草的花蕾也长出来了，圆溜溜的，紫红色，还有着一些像针一样的东西，非常美丽。 (5) 漫长而炎热的夏天终于过去了，凉爽怡人的秋天来到了。 (6) 随着天空被点燃，太阳也终于露出脸来，它没有害羞，而是大大方方地把它独特的热情展示给我们，毫不吝惜地奖光芒撒向大地。 (7) 大约过了二十分钟，太阳终于挣脱了大地妈妈的怀抱，在崇山俊岭之间冉冉升起，真像个大红球，又像气得涨红了脸。 (8) 半个月的低烧，终于有了好转，高烧了……(9) 夏天的雨后，太阳冲出乌云的包围，终于露出了整张脸，此时阳光直直的，却不呆板、单调，它们穿梭在树枝之间，织成一道道金色的丝，将鱼后的水珠串成一串金黄的珍珠。 夏天少有的凉意伴着美丽的阳光，令人沁透心脾。 (10) 终于到达了果园。 我们忽然发现，果园里还种了一些菊花。 这些菊花有红的蓝的黄的白的……它们颜色不同，姿态也不同：菊花们有的含苞欲放，有的开了一半，有的已经绽开了笑脸……千姿百态，十分美丽。 (11) 发改委终于超越了统计局，说北京人均绿地是巴黎两倍。 最牛回复：“是算上了开心农场吧?。

二年级近义词反义词造句

形近字 （徐）徐、（斜）阳、（星）斗（浇）水、发（烧）、围（绕） 小（岛）、（乌）云（纱）布、节（省） 水（塔）、（搭）建汗（滴）、（摘）花 （芬）芳、打（扮）茂（密）、（蜜）桃 凤（凰）、辉（煌）（题）目、（提）水 解（冻）、（陈）皮山（沟）、（勾）画、（购）买 长（寿）、波（涛）山（岭）、（铃）声、（拎）水、（玲）珑漂（泊）、（柏）树（阵）雨、（陈）列 （恩）人、抽（烟）（单）位、（蝉）声 （泉）水、（冰）冻指（导）、（夺）目、（守）护、（讨）厌（杏）花、（呆）子周（末）、（抹）黑 （哄）骗、（拱）手世（界）、（价）钱 花（骨）朵、（滑）冰（楼）梯、无（数） （趴）下、（叭）儿狗发（芽）、惊（讶） （谈）天、（炎）热蜜（蜂）、雷（锋） （附）近、王（府）（沉）睡、蛋（壳） 隐（约）、（勺）子、（勾）结蜘（蛛）、珍（珠） （钻）研、商（店）（睡）觉、（垂）柳 玻（璃）、距（离）（抽）查、（油）菜 收（拾）、（搭）车拐（骗）、（另）外 （而）且、（耐）心、（需）要（谜）语、（迷）人、人（类） （传）呼、（转）动（钉）子、（针）对 （玉）米、（压）力、讨（厌）（芬）芳、打（扮） 而（且）、（组）织价（钱）、一（盏）灯 （玻）璃、（破）碎 同音字 b?胳（膊）、停（泊） ch?n 深（沉）、（陈）皮 chì（斥）责、（翅）膀 dān （丹）青、菜（单） dǎo 海（岛）、向（导） diàn 沉（甸）甸、商（店） dù（杜）鹃、年（度） fù（附）近、欺（负） ɡē（胳）膊、大（哥）ɡ?u 足（够）、（购）买 ɡōu （勾）画、水（沟）ɡǔ（股）票、（骨）肉 hán 包（含）、严（寒） hū（呼）唤、（忽）然 huánɡ凤（凰）、辉（煌） huī（灰）心、（辉）煌 jì足（迹）、（季）节、（继）续 jiàn 搭（建）、（渐）渐 jiāo （骄）傲、（浇）水、（焦）急 jìnɡ（敬）爱、冷（静）

五年级上册成语解释及近义词反义词和造句大全

囫囵吞枣；【解释】：囫囵：整个儿。把枣整个咽下去,不加咀嚼,不辨滋味。比喻对事物不加分析思考。 【近义词】：不求甚解【反义词】融会贯通。 【造句】;学习不能囫囵吞枣而是要精益求精 不求甚解；bùqiúshènjiě【解释】：甚：很,极。只求知道个大概,不求彻底了解。常指学习或研究不认真、不深入 【近义词】：囫囵吞枣【反义词】：精益求精 造句；1；在学习上,我们要理解透彻,不能不求甚解 2；学习科学文化知识要刻苦钻研,深入领会,不能粗枝大叶,不求甚解。 千篇一律；【解释】：一千篇文章都一个样。指文章公式化。也比喻办事按一个格式,非常机械。 【近义词】：千人一面、如出一辙【反义词】：千差万别、形形色色 造句；学生的作文千篇一律,很少能有篇与众不同的,这就是平时的练习太少了。 倾盆大雨；qīng pén dàyǔ【解释】：雨大得象盆里的水直往下倒。形容雨大势急。【近义词】：大雨如柱、大雨滂沱【反义词】：细雨霏霏牛毛细雨 造句；3月的天说变就变,瞬间下了一场倾盆大雨。今天下了一场倾盆大雨。 毫不犹豫；áo bùyóu yù：意思；做事果断,很快拿定了主意,一点都不迟疑,形容态度坚决

近义词；不假思索斩钉截铁反义词；犹豫不决 造句；1看到小朋友落水,司马光毫不犹豫地搬起石头砸缸。2我毫不犹豫的答应了她的要求。 饥肠辘辘jīcháng lùlù【近义词】：饥不择食【反义词】：丰衣足食 造句；1我放学回家已是饥肠辘辘。2这个饥肠辘辘的孩子已经两天没吃饭了 滚瓜烂熟gǔn guālàn shóu（shú)【解释】：象从瓜蔓上掉下来的瓜那样熟。形容读书或背书流利纯熟。 【近义词】：倒背如流【反义词】：半生半熟造句； 1、这篇课文我们早已背得滚瓜烂熟了 流光溢彩【liúguāng yìcǎi】解释；光影,满溢的色彩,形容色彩明丽 造句：国庆节,商场里装饰的流光溢彩。 津津有味；jīn jīn yǒu wèi解释：兴趣浓厚的样子。指吃得很有味道或谈得很有兴趣。【近义词】：兴致勃勃有滋有味【反义词】：索然无味、枯燥无味 造句；1今天的晚餐真丰富,小明吃得津津有味。 天长日久；tiān cháng rìjiǔ【解释】：时间长,日子久。【近义词】：天长地久【反义词】：稍纵即逝 造句：小缺点如果不马上改掉, 天长日久就会变成坏习惯

仿照的近义词反义词和造句教学设计3篇

仿照的近义词反义词和造句教学设计3 篇 Imitative synonym, antonym and sentence ma king teaching design

仿照的近义词反义词和造句教学设计3篇 前言：小泰温馨提醒，本教案根据教学设计标准的要求和针对教学对象的特点，将教学诸 要素有序安排，确定合适的教学方案的设想和计划。便于学习和使用，本文下载后内容可 随意修改调整及打印。 本文简要目录如下：【下载该文档后使用Word打开，按住键盘Ctrl键且鼠 标单击目录内容即可跳转到对应篇章】 1、篇章1：仿照的近义词教学设计 2、篇章2：仿照的反义词教学设计 3、篇章3：仿照造句教学设计 【仿照解释】：按照已有的方法或式样去做：～办理ㄧ～苏 州园林风格修建花园。下面小泰就给大家整理仿照的近义词，反 义词和造句，供大家学习参考。 篇章1:仿照的近义词教学设计 【仿制解释】：仿造：～品 【模仿解释】：个体自觉或不自觉地重复他人的行为的过程。是社会学习的重要形式之一。尤其在儿童方面，儿童的动作、语言、技能以及行为习惯、品质等的形成和发展都离不开模仿。可 分为无意识模仿和有意识模仿、外部模仿和内部模仿等多种类型。

篇章2:仿照的反义词教学设计【按住Ctrl键点此返回目录】 【独创解释】：独特的创造：～精神ㄧ～一格。 篇章3:仿照造句教学设计【按住Ctrl键点此返回目录】 一、老师让我们仿照黑板上的图画一幅画。 二、仿照下面的句式，以“只有”开头，写一结构与之相似的复句。 三、仿照例句的句子，在下面两句的横线上补写相应的内容。 四、仿照例句，以“记忆”或“友情”开头，另写一句话。 五、仿照下面两个例句，用恰当的词语完成句子，要求前后语意关联。 六、仿照开头两句句式，通过联想，在后面两句横线上填上相应的词语。 七、仿照所给例句，用下面的词展开联想，给它一个精彩的解释。 八、仿照例句，以“你”开头，另写一个句子。 九、仿照下列句式，续写两个句子，使之与前文组成意义相关的句子。

恰当的反义词近义词及造句

恰当的反义词|近义词及造句 因为我们已经知道那是恰当的x和y的值。所以，何不取正确的现成的组合，同时来看会发生什么。下面是本人精选整理的恰当的反义词|近义词及造句，供您参考，欢迎大家阅读。 恰当的反义词： 不当、失当 恰当的近义词： 适合、妥善、事宜、安妥、得当、稳当、稳妥、 停当、适当、伏贴、妥贴、妥当、允洽、适宜、妥帖 恰当的基本解释 (1) [just now]∶正好;适逢恰当其时 (2) [suitable;proper;fitting]∶合适;妥当用词恰当 恰当的详细解释 1、正好;适逢。 宋杨万里《送黄几先司户》诗：“恰当新酒熟，幸与故人接。” 周立波《山乡巨变》上二三：“这正是她眼前急切 需要的经验，她感激他对自己的工作的息息相关的恰当其时的关怀。” 2、合适，妥当。 明李贽《寒灯小话》：“禽兽畜牲强盗奴狗既不足以骂人，则当以何者骂人乃为恰当。” 闻一多《神话与诗·龙凤》：“因之把龙凤当作我 们民族发祥和文化肇端的象征，可说是再恰当没有了。” 恰当造句

1、恰当的夸张可以突出事物的特点，启发读者的想象。 2、恰当的比喻可以把抽象的道理说得更形象、更生动。 3、老师说我作文里有些词语用得不恰当。 4、要使表情达意十分贴切恰当，必须要精心选用近义词。 5、如果小玲解题有困难，你可以恰当地提示一下。 6、恰当地使用形容词，可以使文章更加生动。 7、由这位女演员来扮演国色天香的西施，最恰当不过。 8、为画线处补上恰当的句子，在内容要与上下文衔接，句式上要分别与其前面画横线的句子相一致。 9、他是个粗枝大叶的人,叫他干这种精细的活路,怕不恰当。 10、有了准备,就能恰当地应付各种复杂的局面。 11、以“爱心”为陈述对象，仿造下面的句式，续写两个恰当的比喻句，使之构成一组排比句。 12、仿照下面两个例句，用恰当的词语完成句子，要求前后语意关联。 13、只根据只言片语来评论一篇文章的好坏,那是不恰当的。 14、让他当班长是再恰当不过了。 15、这篇文章写得真好，前后照应，恰当好处。 16、在横线处填写恰当的句子，构成前后连贯、合理的排比句。 17、这件事，老师处理得很恰当。

参与的反义词近义词及造句

参与的反义词|近义词及造句 参与是一个汉语词汇，亦作“ 参预”或“ 参豫”，读音为cān yù。指预闻而参议其事;介入，参加。指的是以第二 或第三方的身份加入、融入某件事之中。下面是本人精心整理的参与的反义词|近义词及造句，供您参考，欢迎大家阅读。 参与的反义词： 避开、旁观 参与的近义词： 插手、列入、参加、参预、加入、出席、到场、介入、插足 参与造句 1, 校长邀请几位同学参与制订学校的工作计划。 2, 这次聚会你必须参与，否则你将会失去一次好机会。 3, 这次的活动开展得十分顺利，很多同学都参与了 进来。 4, 这条警犬参与过许多大案侦破，立下了赫赫战功。 5, 对于班级的集体活动，你不能旁观，要积极参与。 6, 他性格粗野，经常参与打架斗殴。 7, 在同学们热情地参与下，我们策划了一场成功的 班会。 8, 这件事与你无关，请你不要参与。 9, 现在我不能打退堂鼓了，但我后悔自己参与了这 个项目。 10, 参与这个左右全局的默默无闻的工作使他感到满足。

11, 如果我的参与，只会引来更多的纠葛，我会选择义无反顾地离去。 12, 同学们积极参与班干部竞选。 13, 整个科研过程他都没有参与，最后却鸠占鹊巢，把功劳归为己有。 14, 文米克自始至终参与其事，可从来没有出过面。 15, 看着学生们正兴致勃勃地玩着游戏，我也很想参与进去。 16, 这次的研讨会，有许多资深望重的人也参与其中。 17, 参与这次竞赛的人，如果想要一箭双雕，休假和奖金二得，就得好好努力了。 18, 爸爸参与了长江三峡水利工程的设计和施工。 19, 各种具创意的参与式游戏全面开放，保证令你乐而忘返! 20, 这个法盲,拿钱参与贩毒,被公安部门抓获,最后 落了个人财两空。 21, 评比会上,各地的朋友纷纷拿出自己的作品参与 交流,以文会友。 22, 对那些无聊的争论，我是闭口不言，概不参与。 23, 与其冷眼旁观，不如热心参与。 24, 这次比赛大家要积极参与。 25, 要竞争,就得参与,不然则便是临渊羡鱼,夺冠拿 奖只是空想。 26, 他参与制定了这个计划。 27, 孙氏于是在江东发展，未参与中原逐鹿。 28, 没有互联网，公民参与，需要跋山涉水。 29, 对那些无聊的争论,他常常闭口无言,概不参与。

四年级上册近义词、反义词、造句

四年级上册近义词 1．观潮 屹立—耸立鼎沸—沸腾昂首—仰头依旧—照旧颤动—抖动犹如—好像霎时—顿时逐渐—渐渐漫天卷地—铺天盖地 2．雅鲁藏布大峡谷 壮丽—壮观景观—景象奇特—奇异呈现—出现美誉—美名预料—预测 人迹罕至—荒无人烟郁郁苍苍—郁郁葱葱 3．鸟的天堂 规律—规则照耀—照射静寂—安静逼近—靠近展示—展现茂盛—茂密留恋—迷恋的确—确实逐渐—渐渐似乎—好像不可计数—数不胜数应接不暇—目不暇接 4．火烧云 高寿—长寿凶猛—凶恶威武—威猛镇静—镇定沉静—平静笑盈盈—笑呵呵 6．爬山虎的脚 均匀—匀称空隙—间隙注意—留意原先—原来牢固—坚固舒服—舒适 7．蟋蟀的住宅 隐蔽—隐藏骤雨—暴雨慎重—谨慎即使—即便立刻—立即出名—有名简单—简明搜索—搜查随遇而安——入乡随俗 8．世界地图引出的发现 静谧—宁静吻合—符合叩开—敲开枉费—白费心机—心思鼓舞—鼓励偶然—偶尔坐卧不安—如坐针毡 9．巨人的花园 允许—准许凝视—注视训斥—斥责喧闹——喧哗洋溢—充满孤独——孤单10．幸福是什么 彼此—互相诧异—惊讶假如—如果仍旧—依然义务—责任宽阔—广阔恢复—复原清理—整理茂密—茂盛 11．去年的树 知道—知晓剩下—余下寒冷—酷寒朋友—好友 12．小木偶的故事 灵活—机灵关心—关爱神奇—神秘热闹—喧闹愤怒—愤恨可怜兮兮—可怜巴巴13．白鹅 高傲—傲慢供养—供给侍候—伺候奢侈—奢华倘若—假如窥伺—窥探呵斥—斥责的确—确实看守—看护严厉—严肃譬如—比如从容——镇静局促不安—忐忑不安14．白公鹅 腔调—语调掂量—估计大吃一惊---大惊失色 15．猫 暖和—温暖任凭—听凭古怪—奇怪呼唤—呼喊勇猛—勇敢温柔—温和尽职—负责变化多端—千变万化生气勃勃—生机勃勃 16．母鸡 成绩—成就警戒—警惕欺侮—欺负慈爱—慈祥辛苦—辛劳心思—想法凄惨—悲惨尖锐—尖利 17．长城 蜿蜒—弯曲坚固—牢固凝结—凝聚雄伟—宏伟瞭望—眺望陡峭—峻峭智慧—才智崇山峻岭—层峦叠嶂 18．颐和园 游赏—游览郁葱—葱茏姿态—姿势远眺—远望姿态不一---千姿百态 隐隐约约—模模糊糊金碧辉煌—富丽堂皇神清气爽—心旷神怡 19．秦兵马俑 鸟瞰—俯瞰健壮—强壮宏伟—雄伟庄重—庄严宏大—巨大模拟—模仿 举世无双—独一无二所向披靡—所向无敌享誉世界—举世闻名 20．古诗两首

朝夕相处近义词反义词及造句

朝夕相处近义词|反义词及造句 成语，作谓语。朝：早晨。夕：晚上。从早到晚都在一起，形容关系密切。出自冯玉祥《我的生活》第十四章：“这时我和梁同住一间房，朝夕相处，相爱如弟兄。”下面是本人精心整理的朝夕相处近义词|反义词及造句，供您参考，欢迎大家阅读。 朝夕相处的近义词： 朝夕共处 朝夕相处的反义词: 天涯相隔劳燕分飞各奔东西 朝夕相处造句 1.我们在黑龙江兵团生活了八年，朝夕相处，同甘共苦，真是患难之交了。 2.她的改变是因为和我朝夕相处、耳闻目染的结果。 3.那时我和小英同住一间房,朝夕相处,亲如姐妹。 4.自己的房子被冲进来，却要配合工作，自己朝夕相处的狗，却象那样，也被归为罪恶的根源。 5.主人说，他们朝夕相处两个多月了，每当小鸡在猫面前跳上跳下嬉戏玩耍时，猫总是深情注视，时不时地还用爪子轻轻抚摸小鸡，甚至还给小鸡梳洗羽毛。 6.风景如画的校园，谆谆教诲的老师，朝夕相处的同学，六年来无时无刻不陪伴着我们的事物即将离开我们，一想到这里，恋恋不舍的感情油然而生…… 7.也难怪，人们朝夕相处的室内环境、格调和品位很大程度上取决于装修质量的高低。 8.还有一次，朝夕相处的领导暗地里抢了我的订单，

之后我跟单位领导提出辞职。 9.一个学院就是一个大家庭，其成员应该朝夕相处，而只有当他们都住在大学校园里时，才能达到这一点。 10.他看到的并不是他多年来朝夕相处时看见的那个 模样，并不是一个善于持家的贤惠的主妇，而是一个婷婷玉立的少女。 11.在朝夕相处中，我们一道成长，转眼间，却要分开，心中怎能平静呢? 12.我辞职没有其他的遗憾，只是舍不得和我朝夕相 处的同事。 13.物似人非，曾经和好朋友朝夕相处的地方，是如 此的宁静，我们的欢笑再也没有了，留下的只是默默的回忆! 14.这种感觉很奇怪，你和朋友朝夕相处了那么久， 然后突然你就没法天天见到他们了。 15.我永远忘不了我们之间的情谊，更忘不了我们朝 夕相处的时光。 16.我对婚姻有了一个新的看法。两个人相爱，朝夕 相处，突然有一天，他们之间没话可说了。 17.继续往前，下一个步骤进入到我们每天朝夕相处、年年月月相伴的“环境”区域。 18.得到儿子原谅、多活几年多资助些贫困生、和那 些曾经朝夕相处的孩子再见见面，是郑书明现在最大的愿望。 19.我教书是因为与那些开始成长的学生们朝夕相处，我有时感觉到自己也和他们一起成长了。 20.在这不寻常的六年里，我和孩子们朝夕相处。 21.又逢新岁，我更加思念昔日的同窗密友，追忆我 们曾朝夕相处充满温馨的时光，愿美好的回忆永远伴随你我。

悲惨的近义词反义词和造句.doc

悲惨的近义词反义词和造句 【悲惨解释】：处境或遭遇极其痛苦，令人伤心：～的生活ㄧ身世～。下面我就给大家整理悲惨的近义词，反义词和造句，供大家学习参考。 悲惨的近义词 悲凉( 注释:悲哀凄凉：～激越的琴声。) 悲惨的反义词 幸福( 注释: 个人由于理想的实现或接近而引起的一种内心满足。追求幸福是人们的普遍愿望，但剥削阶级把个人幸福看得高于一切，并把个人幸福建立在被剥削阶级的痛苦之上。无产阶级则把争取广大人民的幸福和实现全人类的解放看作最大的幸福。认为幸福不仅包括物质生活，也包括精神生活;个人幸福依赖集体幸福，集体幸福高于个人幸福;幸福不仅在于享受，而主要在于劳动和创造。 )悲惨造句 1.一个人要发现卓有成效的真理，需要千百个人在失败的探索和悲惨的错误中毁掉自己的生命。 2.贝多芬的童年尽管如是悲惨，他对这个时代和消磨这时代的地方，永远保持着一种温柔而凄凉的回忆。 3.卖火柴的小女孩在大年夜里冻死了，那情景十分悲惨。 4.他相信，他们每个人背后都有一个悲惨的故事。 5.在那次悲惨的经历之后，我深信自己绝对不是那种可以离家

很远的人。 6.在人生的海洋上，最痛快的事是独断独航，但最悲惨的却是回头无岸。 7.人生是艰苦的。对不甘于平庸凡俗的人那是一场无日无夜的斗争，往往是悲惨的、没有光华的、没有幸福的，在孤独与静寂中展开的斗争。......他们只能依靠自己，可是有时连最强的人都不免于在苦难中蹉跎。罗曼·罗兰 8.伟大的心胸，应该表现出这样的气概用笑脸来迎接悲惨的厄运，用百倍的勇气来应付开始的不幸。鲁迅人在逆境里比在在顺境里更能坚强不屈。遇厄运时比交好运时容易保全身心。 9.要抓紧时间赶快生活，因为一场莫名其妙的疾病，或者一个意外的悲惨事件，都会使生命中断。奥斯特洛夫斯基 10.在我一生中最悲惨的一个时期，我曾经有过那类的想法：去年夏天在我回到这儿附近的地方时，这想法还缠着我;可是只有她自己的亲自说明才能使我再接受这可怕的想法。 11.他们说一个悲惨的故事是悲剧，但一千个这样的故事就只是一个统计了。 .不要向诱惑屈服，而浪费时间去阅读别人悲惨的详细新闻。 13.那起悲惨的事件深深地铭刻在我的记忆中。 14.伟大的心胸，应该用笑脸来迎接悲惨的厄运，用百倍的勇气来应付一切的不幸。 15.一个人要发现卓有成效的真理，需要千百万个人在失败的

根据的近义词反义词和造句.doc

根据的近义词反义词和造句 【根据解释】：①把某种事物作为结论的前提或语言行动的基础：～气象台的预报，明天要下雨ㄧ～大家的意见，把计划修改一下。下面我就给大家整理根据的近义词，反义词和造句，供大家学习参考。 根据近义词 凭据 依据 遵照 按照 依照 根据反义词 臆断 妄言 根据造句 1 根据学校的部署，本周日全校师生在校园内植树。 2 姐姐根据高考试题标准答案测算了自己的得分。 3 这部电影是根据一个真实的故事拍摄的。 4 这个结论没有事实根据，不能成立。 5 有经验的农民根据庄稼的长势可以推测出秋天的收成。 6 根据树的年轮可以推算出它的年龄。 6 造句网(在线造句词典)-造句大全,几千词语的造句供您参考

哦! 7 当年，毛泽东率领红军在井冈山开创了第一个革命根据地。 8 根据尖端放电的原理，人们在高大的建筑物顶上安装了避雷针。 9 看图作文，首先要看懂图画的内容，同时还要根据图画的内容展开联想。 10 作文时要先列提纲，再根据提纲起草。 11 我根据她的脸色揣测她有点不高兴了。 科学家根据太阳、地球和月球的运行规律，可以准确地推算出日食和月食的时间。 13 毛泽东、朱德创立了井冈山革命根据地。 14 我们应根据问题本身就事论事。 15 1920xx年,毛泽东创建了井冈山革命根据地。 16 这篇作文不限定范围，可以根据自己的生活经历随便写。 17 每个人都要根据他们的能力安排工作，让他们各得其所。 18 我根据小林平日的基础及努力情况,估计这次考试成绩不会好,果然不出所料,他考了个不及格。 19 空穴来风,他们的批评不是完全没有根据。 20 根据中国人民政治协商会议第一届全体会议的决议,兴建了这座纪念碑。 21 抗日根据地的军民相信,只要万众一心,众志成城,就一定能粉碎敌人的"大扫荡"。 22 每个人都根据自己的能力安排工作，让大家都各得其所。

近义词反义词造句

捐助——羞怯——惊恐——折磨—— 原委——震惊——尖利——继续—— 劝戒——眷恋——推想——举措—— 疲乏——欣赏——矗立——精巧—— 横卧——困窘——厌恶——要挟—— 幽静——出世——恬静——竭尽全力——证实——羞怯——辽阔——机灵—— 和气——惊讶——竭力——凋零—— 容易——绽放——哺育——枯萎—— 也许——阻拦——矗立——顽强—— 镇定——汇集——隐藏——缝隙—— 推算——材料——新鲜——形象—— 记录——欣赏——援助——聪明—— 轻快——表扬——抑制——摇撼—— 欲望——迟疑——希望——请求—— 教育——继而——尖锐——吹嘘—— 掩饰——整齐——雪白——朗读—— 弯曲——回荡——往常——顽皮—— 责骂——时常——倘若——生机—— 俨然——协助——惨白——珍贵—— 原因——特别——往日——震撼—— 居然——疲劳——妄想——索性—— 分明——牵挂——格外——闪烁—— 觉察——萌生——理睬——疲劳不堪——歧视——乞求——美好——欣喜若狂——明亮——奔流——清脆——脱离—— 退缩——逃避——寻找——拯救—— 吓坏——困窘——蔑视——毫不在意——竣工——恶劣——回击——知难而进——冷酷——渴盼——光临——艰巨—— 才华——特殊——舒适——迷糊—— 担忧——宁静——欣赏——仿佛—— 嘲笑——容易——绽放——形态万千——朗读——弯曲——轻快——整齐—— 竣工——劳苦——思索——留意——

漂亮——幸福——结束——困难——简单——凋零——可爱——喜欢——纤细——弱小——邪恶——坚硬——反对——光明——软弱——光滑——拥挤——分神——整齐——开放——浑浊——弯曲——朴素——稀少——憨厚——寒苦——冒失——非凡——胆怯——强烈——笨拙——严寒——潮湿——漫长——脆弱——浅显——严厉——呆滞——幸运——蜷缩——红润——坚决——前进——静寂——模糊——熟悉——长期——难得——一般——藐视——赞叹——杰出——缩短——撑开——舍弃——机灵——责备——善良——轻易——热乎乎——急冲冲——湿漉漉——软绵绵—— 隐隐约约——知难而进—— 造句： 兴致勃勃—— 兴奋不已—— 乐此不疲—— 惊恐—— 折磨—— 竭尽全力—— 清幽—— 恬静—— 摇篮—— 骄傲：1、 2、 只有……才……—— 只要……就……—— 即使……也……—— 宁愿……也……—— 如果……就……——