Selectea titles in ~ n t e ~ e r s o ~ l C ~ ~ u n i c u t i o n

~ ~ too r~~ ~ n c l u ~ e ;
~ ~ e ~ eG+
c~
c uu ~ i~ n ,a w ~ a

erg

The Durk Side o f ~ n t e ~ e r s o ~ l C o ~ ~ ~ n i c u t i

Strategic ~ n t e ~ e r s~nteruction
o~l
~ o ~ i t i Bases
w e for ~ n ~ ~ e r s o ~ l

Co~~unicuti~

Bu~ncingthe Secrets of P~wffte D~clos~res

For a complete list of titles in LEA'S~ommunicationSeries, please

contact Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Uniwersity of ~ i s c o n s i n - M i ~ ~ f f u k e e

iss

Uniwersity of Puget S o u n ~

le

Uniwersit~of ~ o r t ~ f f n ~
Uniwersity of ~ i s c o n s i n - M i ~ ~ f f u k e e

LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, P U ~ L I ~ H E R ~

2002
LondonMahwah,
Jersey New

~opyright0 2002 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

11rights reserved.No part of this bookmay be reproduced
in any
form, by photostat, m i c r o f o ~retrieval
,
syste~,or any other
means, without prior written
~ e ~ ~ sofithe
o publisher.
n
Lawrence Erlbaurn Associates, Inc., Publishers
10 Industrial ~ v e ~ u e
ahwah, NJ07430

ICover designby Kathryn ~oughtalingLacey 1

Interpersonal c o m ~ u ~ i c a t i oresearch
n
:advances through
meta-analysis / edited by Mike Allen .. [et al.].
p.
cm.
Includes bib~iograp~cal
references and index.
ISBN 0-8058-3131-2 (cloth :alk. paper)
ISBN 0-8~58~3132.0
(pbk. :alk. paper)
1. Inte~ersonal co~munication.
2. Interpersonal
co~mu~ication-~esearch.I. Allen, Mike, 1959BF637C4.516442001
153.6 dc21
00-06776~

CIP
Books published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates are printed
on acid-free paper, and their bindings are chosen for strength
and durability.
Printed in the United States of America
1 0 9 8 1 6 5 4 3 2 1

D
D

213

2 2 ~

281

315
345

371

of interpersonal com~unicationis one of the more vibrant

ocial scientific theorizingand investigation. This interest is warranted, as the dyad has long been viewed asthe nexus for messag
and relationship evolution. As might be expected in an area d
the study of the nuances andperplesities of social discourse,the complesi~
of the relational issues embedded in the interpersonal context is both intri~uingand ~ewildering.
Those interested in systematically understandin
the richness of social lifemust address germinal issues: how
and why indivi
uals are attracted to certain others, how talk synchronizes perceptions an
behaviors, or how
and why individuals employstrategic messages to achie
relational outcomes. Of course, the list of fundamental', issues is longan
our journals provide a record
of the conversations between scholars seeking
adherence to various positions on thatlong list.
This book is about those conversations. Contributors approach their
tasks from various perspectives
an with numerous agendas. All of us, howc
ever, share the commitment to establish reliable generalizations
about inter,
personal communication in.ways that can be properly described as
scientific.We search for stable, unbiased, predictable generalizationsthat
operate within clearly definedinterpersonal parameters (seeAllen 6r Preiss,

iscussion of these qualities). Locatingstable, unbiased, predictlizations has been complicated by the splintering of the
macrodomain of interpersonal communication into subgroupings or rubrics
that share common (or disparate) features. Issuesof gender, conflict, communication competence, or group cohesion blurthe oversimplified titlesof
our courses and force usto broadly considerthe long list aswe explore the
ways human utterance functions inte~ersonally.We seek the generalizaat unify and explicate the interpersonal context.
S quest is a
daunting task. ~ l t h o u every
~ h theory is assessedby its abiL
ce meaningful generalizations, there are many theories to conany ex~erimental ~ndingsevaluate.
to
~lrtuallyevery issue on
the long listis contested andadvocates offer important o b s e ~ a t i oand
~ s key
dings that are consistent with their perspectives. Faced with disparate
oretical approaches, assumptions,and methods, it is not surprising that
progress has been uneven andthat some theoretical questions resist interpretation. There is, it would seem,no lack of interpersonal communication
research. There is, it is certain, little consensus on theinterpersonal communication generalizations rooted in the experimental evidence.
We believe that social scientific progressin understanding interpersonal
co~municationwould be served best if the literature could be simultaneously expanded and summarized. Before people accept claims regarding
the planetary origins of men andwomen, the literature on relational come
munication should be gathered and systematically summarized.These summaries would identify voids
in theliterature and draw attention toaccepted
issues that are supported by only a limited number of findings. In short, a
comprehensive reviewof interpersonal communication would providefer+
tile soil for
the nextgeneration of studies. Asresearch accumulated, the new
primary research wouldbe folded into ever-widening reviewsof the issues
explored in theinvestigations. Two methods for summarizin~literature and
reviewingfindings are currently beingused: narrative summaries and
me ta-analysis
.

The narrative review or summary is the traditional verbal description of a

body o~literature(Pillemer, 1984) and the qualitative method for evaluating
research on a given topic (Rosenthal,
1984).In most instances,the narrative
reviewer willexplicate a basic assumption or question
and classifjr existing research using vote-counting
a
system (Didthe studies on the roster of germane
research detect a significant effect?
Was the si~ificanteffect in the predicted
direction? Werethe significant effects attributableto a competing theory?).

The reader is askedto tally the votes (confirm~gor nonconfirm~gtests} an

render a judgment regardingthe question of interest.
The outcome of the narrative summa^ may range from
strong support (a
uniform confirmingvote count)for some proposition
to no support (the failc
ure to detect confirming votes). Of course, interesting questions and the
subtle texture of interpersonal co~municationissues will rarelyproduce a
clearccut vote count.If 60%or 70% of the votes confirm a proposition,the
narrative reviewer must question the robustness of the relationship and provide arationale for nonconfirming outcomes.
If 30%or 40% of the votes are
confirming, the reviewer must impugn the relationship and express the concern that little progress has been made in understanding such an important
issue. In either outcome, more research willcertainly be required.
T h e d i ~ c u with
l t y the narrative review process involves
the tendency for
narrative reviewers to treat each q u a l i ~ n gvote as being 100% accurate.
Because empirical findings
are assessed probabilistically,it is a tautologythat
the ~ndings
of any one study may be the result of sampling error. Usually,
narrative reviewers do not consider the possibility of Twe I (false positive}
or Type I1 (false negative}error as factors influencingtrends in the primary
research. Instead, experts tend to introduce intervening variables that ex0
plain apparent inconsistencies in the experimental record. In instances
where discrepancies resistthe philosopher's stone of the confounding varic
able, narrative reviewers may assess sample characteristics, research
del
signs, or statistical methods as the source of contradictory ~ndings.This
produces a web
of issues, theoretical and methodological?that deflect attention away from hypothesized relationships.
Of course, expert narrative summaries are essential components of the
scientific enterprise, as they provide
an avenue for subjectiveinterpretation,
reformulation, and reappraisal. If the goal is to assess evidence, however,
this approach usually possessesthe liability of nonrepresentativeness. In the
course of making the case for an innovative inte~retationor conclusion,
the reviewer elevatescertain studies as exemplarsof the feature of interest.
The difficulty here is that narrative reviews usually do not employ explicit
rules orthe methods used to locate primary evidence, how the reviewer determine~
which studies were germane
to the analysis, and what criteria were
used to determine whether or not an effect was present. The reader is asked
to consider the exemplar studiesin the context of a theoretical narrative or
story that explains what the findings mean. Although reviewers make the
case that theconfirming evidence (thevote) is consistent with a novel inter0
pretation, the reader is often not told why noncon~rmingexemplars were
excluded from the review.

 h o ~ the
utility of meta-analytic

FIG. PI. Approaches to meta-analysis.

O m a rami~icatio~5.
~ i ~ ~
hen earlier reviews(~arrativeor

ments when accepted, standardized tools were available. In any event,

theoretical justificatio~for all such decisions are essential and restricted
definitions or capricious selection criteria merit cautious inte~retation.

~ l t h o u g meta-analyses
h
in this category address a single question
or a limited
number of conceptual issues,the goal of the meta-analysis isto test hypotheses. If the researcher establishesg e n e r a l ~ a t i within
o~
a narrow
set of conditions, additional theory development
is possible and the scope of the ~ndings
may be increased.hexample in the area of interpersonal communicationis
the &Yun (chap. 7, this volume) meta-analysis
on the effects of attitude simd
ilarity on attraction. Virtually all interpersonal researchers
have followed the
discussion between scholars holding competing views
on this issue. Ah. Yun
tests three hypotheses, searches for moderators, and offers methodological
suggestions that would allow for testsof alternative interpretatio~.
Narrow~inferentialmeta-analyses are now commonly used to summarize
the evidence in a given area.Thispopularity is probably due to the recent are
rival of meta-analysis as a research tool. Because decades
of narrative reviews
have failed to resolve rather basic issues, meta0analyticinvestigatio~are bee
ing devisedthat set the stage for more sophisticated research.
By establishing
whether a relation existsand if so, under what conditions,the researcher establishes baseline summaries.
We believe that, over time, progressivels more
complex issues will be examined meta-analytically.

Early research using meta-analysistreated the empirical summary as a hisc

torical document (Class, 1976, 1983). The logic here is that meta-analytic
assessment constitutes a pragmatic tool, a historical report card of the re+
search in a given area.Some of the early literature asserts that empirical aggregation is atheoretic, but thatview has faded (see Preiss6r.Allen, 1995).
When a comprehensive reviewof an entire body of research is conducted,
the results have theoretical and pragmatic implications.The Hamilton and
Mineo (chap., 16, this volume) review of the literature on argumentative0
ness and verbal aggressiveness an
is example of this approach to meta-analysis. The contributors review asubstantial body of literature focusing on an
important theoretical relationship. They probe the theorized associations
from several directions, assessinstruments, and offer a critique of assumptions and applications.

e comprehensive-descriptive meta-analysis provides a historical record

that is either consistent or inconsistent with theoretical expectations. This
justifiably creates tensions
that prompt reflectionand reevaluation. A consistent history drawsattention toward applicationand policy. Forexample, ah p
pothetical finding that communication skills training increases relational
sat~factionwould encourage counselors to employ this technique in their
practices. An inconsistent record on this issue would force researchersand
practitioners to reconsider and refine their viewson therole of communicaO
tion in the process of relationship maintenance.Comprehensive~descriptive
meta0analyses are compelling because they usually embrace large
of litbodies
erature on complex topics. The results may validate decades of practice or
cast a shadow over commonly accepted maxims.
For this reason comprehensive0descriptive reviewsare inherently political and may s i ~ i f i c a n taffect
l~
future research.

Perhaps the most ambitiousenterprise, the comprehensive~inferentialform

of meta-analysis aggregates large bodies
of literature and tests the assumpc
tions and outcomes predicted by one or more theories. Usually these endeavors involve hundreds of studies, scores of moderators, and, often, the
construction of mathematical models. Pindias (chap.,10, this volume) re0
views ofself-disclosure, Allens (chap.,
13,this volume) workon comforting
strategies, or Hample and Pallingers (chap., 11, this volume) e~amination
of compliance-gaining appeals mightbe classified in this category. Usually,
comprehensive-inferential meta-analyses serveto consolidate bodies of lit0
erature andbecome the benchmark for newtheoretical contributions. The
act of isolating generalizationsdoes not imply correct answers. Rather,the
stable findings become a platform for
innovative interpretations and origic
nal insights.

We believe that bothnarrative and meta-analytic reviews are vital to thescientific studyof interpersonal communication. The risks associatedwith narrative reviews involve distorting average effects by considering example
findings as being 100% accurate, building theoretical stories that ignore
counterexamples, and introducing intervening variables that may obscure
fundamental generalizations. In later chapters, Canary and Mattrey (chap.,
20, this volume) and Fitzpatrick (chap., 21,this volume) point to risks asso-

were not noveltiesin investi~ation

tion. We also sought out issues
that

disclosure, and compliroach to interpersonal

communication. ~ollowing anoverview, meta~analyses are presented on
mforting9 social support, safe-sex interactions, a r g u ~ e n t
ct styles, and sexual coercion.In Part V; contri~utors cons
of the meta-analyses on our understanding of interpersonal communica0
tion. Authors discuss pedagogy and textbooks, assess representa~ions
of the
interpersonal communi tion literature, evaluate the prospects for future
theory d e v e l o p ~ ~ nat 9 chart the course for new investigations.
T h e issues sum~arized in these chapters reinforc
is a necess
unters (1998) contention that meta-analysis
cons ruction. T h e conclusions reached by the contributors to this volume
three invitations for future research. First, the findings
m a y be basenew, prima^ investiga~ions that ay b e i n t e ~ r a ~ e d imore
n t o so-meta-analyses. A second invitation is for holars to empirically
the variables that are conceptually align with the findings
of
these meta-analyses.T h e goal hereis to establish setsof interlocking gener+
alizations that provide breadthof understanding about interpersonal conmunication.Finally,readersareinvited
to replicatean

Allen, M,, & Preiss, R. W. (1993). Replication and meta-analysis: A necessaryconnection.

J
~ of Social
~ ~u
e ~ u v~iand
o r Perso~~ity,
8, 9-20.
Glass, G. V, (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educut~o~u~
searcher, 5, 3-8.
Glass, G. V, (1983). Synthesizing empirical research: Meta-analysis.In S. A. Ward & L. J.
Reed (Eds.), ~ n o ~ ~ estructure
d g e and use: ~ ~ ~ for
~ s ~~ nc tand
u~ ~et n~tie r~~~r e t u(pp.
ti~
3 9 9 4 2 1). ~hiladelphia:Temple University Press.
Hamilton, M. A., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). A fi-amework for understanding:Meta~analysisof
the persuasion literature.In M. Allen &R. W. Preiss (Eds.),P e r s u ~ ~Advunces
on~
t~rough
~ e t u - u n f f ~(pp.
y s ~1-28). Cresskill, NJ:Hampton.
~ e t ~ oofd ~
s etu~u~u~
Orlando,
y s ~ s . FL: AcaHedges, L. V,, 6,Olkin, I. (1985). Stut~sticu~
demic Press.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. (1990). me tho^ for ~ e t u . u ~ ~ yNewbury
s ~ s . Park, CA: Sage.
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., &Jackson, G. B. (1982). Metu-analysis: C u ~ ~ l u t ~ n g ~ n d ~ n g s
across research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Johnson, B., Mullen, M,,
& Salas, E. (1995). Comparison of three major metadanalytic approaches. J o ~ r ~o~
u App~~ed
l
P s ~ c h o ~80,
o ~94-106.
,
Pillemer, D.(1984). Conceptual issues in research synthesis.Journul of SpecialE d ~ c ~ t ~18,
on,
27-40.
Preiss, R.W., &Allen, M. (1995). Understanding and using meta-analysis. E#uluut~onand
18,3 15-335.
the ~ e u l t Professions,
h
Rosenthal, R. (1984).Meta-analytic proceduresforsoc~u~
research. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

iSS

statiticalerror.

in thesocial sciencesis the use of statistical in~eren

ut whether the e~perimental
or survey r e s ~ l t are
s
chance. Consider the simple issue of

flip is biased
by evaluating whether heads or tails is a more likely outcome. If
we flipped the coin l00 times and thecoin flip is fair,the outcome should be
theoretically 50 heads and50 tails. We could flipthe coin 100times and if all
100flips comeout either heads
or tails, we would supposethe coin is biased;
that is, more likelyto produce one outcomeover the other. "he problem is
that very seldom does the theoretically random result (50/50) or the come
pletely biased (100%heads or tails) outcome ever occur. It is much more
likely that theoutcome will be somewherebetween totally random andtotally biased.
Suppose the outcomeof our coin flip is5 1 tails and 49 heads..The results
depart from a perfectly random distribution (50 of each), but a person
would probablynot argue that thedeviation constitutes evidence of bias.
Similarly, a coin flip that generates a 99 to 1outcome would probablymake
the case that the coin
flip was biased.The key isthat ultimately we willset
up some decision rule that makes the distribution of heads andtails considered biased or acceptable. For example, any coin flip is biasedif, when
flipped 100 times, more than 66 heads or tails appear as an outcome. In a
sense, the decision rule is arbitrary because a 66-34 split would be conside
ered a fair coin flip, but a 67-33 split would be considered evidence of a biased coin flip. However,such a procedure is in fact the standardoperating
practice of the social sciences. The alpha (or Type I error rate) is considered at 596,or more commonlyas texts would say,the statistical test is considered significant at p < .05. This is a dividing line so that those
associations falling on either side of .O5,regardless of the magnitude of the
difference, are considered as supporting or not supporting our experiment.
In otherwords, the researcher in a social scientific article is sayingthat the
probability of the observed statistic occurring due torandom chanceis less
than (or greater than) 5%.
The goal of researchers is to have the outcomefrom their investigation
match theempirical outcome that is considered to really exist, The comparison is between whatthe investigation produces usingthe signi~cance
rules
and the outcome
considered to be real or
'(true." There are four possibleoutcomes of an experiment or survey, regardless
of the relation assessed (see Ta#
ble 1.1). Of the four outcomes, two are consistent and two involve errors.
No errors have been committedif the investigation finds an effect (rejects
the null hypothesis) and there is in fact a relation. Similarly, no error has
been madeif the investigation concludes there is no relation (fails to reject
the null hypothesis) and infact no relation exists. The othertwo outcomes
are considered errors because the outcome of the investigation is inconsis+
tent with what really exists.

State of ~ a t ~ r e
Act~o~

~ o n Hy~othesis
c e ~ i n g %sting

Hy~othesisIs true

Hy~thesisIs False

Accept experimental hypothesis

Correct decision

Type I1 error

Reject experimental hypothesis

Type I error

Correct decision

The first error, often called Type

I, is a false positive result.The inves~ga~
tion concludes that there is a relation (rejects
the null hypothesis) whennone
exists. Type I error occurs typicallyabout 5% of the time orthe e~uivalent
of
the alpha errorrate just discussed.The amount of Type I error is set by the re0
search communi^ or the scholar and most testsof significance are calibrate
to reflect this level
of error. TypeI error is serious becausethe investigator believes an association is present whenone is not. Creating a theory or using
the
results to design further investigations involves a resource commitment
that
comes from a findingthat does not exist. Type I errors occur randomly.This
type of error cannot be predictedby e~aminingthe investigation design or
by
exploring the sample size.In science, if a thorough search has been
conducted
for RelationA and no evidence forA exists, it would beprudent for the scien,
tist to conclude that therelation doesnot exist. If such an error was made, an
educator using the scientific record would conclude
that aneducational pro@
cedure does not provide an improvement when it actually does.
The rate of occurrence of Type I1 error results from a combination of
three factors: (a) the level of T v e I error, (b)the size of the effect, and (c)
the size ofthe sample. The maximum levelof TypeI1 error is 1 minus Type I
error, If TypeI error is set at .05 or 5%, the maximum levelof Type I1error is
95%. Seldom is the level of error that large becausethe larger the size ofthe
effect and thelarger the size ofthe sample, the more likely any given
relation
would be detected as significant (Cohen, 1987).
Larger effectsare easier to detect. If you have two drugsand onedrug A
cures 10 out of 100 patients infected with afatal disease but drug B cures 95
out of 100patients infected with fatal
a disease, it is easyto determine which
of the two drugs is more effective. However,if A only cured 49 and B only
cured 5 1, the difference that exists would be difficult to detect given the
normal amount of sampling error associatedwith estimating anystatistical
parameter.

numerator ~ a ~the s

might be the first one toaddress some issuebut thef i n ~ i nare

~ s subject to
either Type I or Type I1 error and as a result are not replicated successfully,
which leads to all sorts of complications. In the social sciences,
ften less than perfect designs or m e a s u r e m ~techniques
~t
that S
icate that thelevel, particularly of Type 11error, could be subst
ten over ~
~ ~ ) .

material and has generated enough information to conduct a valid analysis.

The scholar needs to consider whether or not themethod of generating inl
f o ~ a t i o nsystematically excludes any sources of information that might
produce unusual or digerentresults for some reason.
The search proce
may or may not include unpublishe~information, information published in
a languageother than that
of the scholar, or i n f o ~ a t i o found
n
in private re-.
ports, governmental studies, or corporate entities. The scholar should be
clear on the nature
of the search andprovide enough details so that another
person could replicate the analysis.
In the third step, each study is converted to a common metric and adc
justed for various methodological artifacts as necessary.
The results of any
investigation can be converted into a correlation c o e ~ c i e n for
t use in a
meta-analysis. That is, the chi-square, r,f;l t , d, x, and so on, are converted
into a correlation coefficient. Using the simple associative rules of math
such that a = b,a = c, therefore b = c indicates that all formsof statistics can
be mathematically translated into eachother, providedthe necessary information is available for the transfo~ation. The
use of a common metric
means that thesize of associationscan be directly compared across investigations, regardlessof the particular statistical analysis employed.
In the fourth step, the data are then averaged. The averaging processis
simply to take the estimate fromeach study, add up
the contributions, and divide that total by the number of studies (weightedon the basis of sample size).
~ e i g h t i n by
g sample size is essential because
the size ofsampling erroris red
lated directly to the size of the sample. A large-sample study (10,000) has
much less sampling error than a study with a small sample(20). Failure to
weight by sample size meansthat the estimate of the small-sample study is
given the same importance as the large-sample study. ~ e i g h t by
~ gsample
size reduces Twe I1 error, becauseone of the contributing factorsis the size of
the sample. The advantage of meta-analysis is that by combining samplesizes,
the final estimate hasthe properties of the combined samplesize. However,
this qualityis lost the
if final estimateor average isnot weighted by sample size.
The last step involves the assessment of variability in the initial findings
and the possible sourcesof variation associated with featuresof the primary
studies that may moderate the observed relation.The issue is a simple cornc
p ~ ~ s ooften
n , using chi-square, between the theoretical level of va~ability
among the studies due to sampling error versusthe actual level of variability
among the data sets. If sampling error serves an
as explanation for variability,
one can then
estimate the level of variability that should exist.The basis ofthe
chi-square statisticis the difference betweenthe observed and the expected
values and whether that difference is more than expected due to chance.

One way to conceptualize this step is to consider the random or systematic sources of variance present in the distribution of effects. Random
sources of variability can be issuesrelated to sampling error.The question in
metaOanalysisis whether the differences observedamong studies are the re*
sult of simply random or systematic factors.Studies may be consistently difO
ferent on some basis. For example, suppose
studies were either conductedon
college students or high school students. One could examine whether the
difference, based on age, contributes to a difference in the outcome ob*
served between investigations. The focus should be on thevariability in the
original data points and what sources of variability contribute to the ob0
served difference among the various effects.
The advantage of meta-analysis liesin the ability to replicate the process.
The requirements of a meta-analysis for explicitness
in thedefinition of the
concepts and theprocedures forstatistical analysis mean that otherscholars
can replicate the process. Scholars can disagree about the decisions of any
particular metaeanalysis and test the impact of those decisions in subsec
quent replications of the meta-analysis. The confidence in the outcome of
any findingshould grow asthe number and variety of data sets expandsand
other replications or new meta-analyses on similar topicsare performed.

Research on interpersonal communicationcan andshould contribute to the

development of scientific findings.Yet, some scientifictruths are created by
fallible humans using methods basedon probabilistic inferences and riddled
with all sortsof potential for error. The problem of relying on interpersonal
communication research, without some
method of assessingTwe I and Twe
I1 error, is that theresults may not only produce inconsistent findings,but a
chaotic theoretical approach to future research,Allen (1997) suggested that
many narrative or box-score reviewsthat try to make senseof interpersonal
communication research could
end up simply perpetuating errors
and capitalizing on chance. Additionally, attempts to explain inconsistenciesin the interpersonalcommunicationliteraturebecomemoreconfused,especially
when the number of studies becomes larger
and larger. This happens because
errors cannot be accounted for on the basis of methodo~ogicalartifacts or
some other type of examination of the investigations. Meta-analysis handles
the issues of assessing
the impact and the contribution to interstudy v a r i a b i ~ i ~
in outcome on thebasis of random factors relatingto sampling error.
Interpersonal communication scholarsstriving to formulate theories
must also sift
through all sorts of information riddledwith Type I and Type I1

A L L E ~AND PREISS

Allen, M.(1997,January). How I got tiredof playingconnect the dots. P e r s ~ ~

~ e ~ u
Issues, 4, 8-10.
D. In
Allen, M.(1998). Methodological considerations when examining a gendered world.
Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.),~ u n d b o of
o~
sex differences B s i ~ i ~ u ~ in
t i ec so ~ ~ ~ n ~ c u
Critical essays and e ~ ~ invesrigur~ons
i ~ u ~of sex and gender in inrerucr~on(pp. 427-444).
Mahwah? NJ: Lawrence
E r l b a u ~Associates.
Canary?D., &Hause, K.(1993). Is there any reasonto research sex differencesin communication? ~ o ~ ~ u n i cQuarterly,
u t i ~ 41, 129-144.
Cohen, J. (1987). S ~ r ~ rpower
~ c uu ~ ~ ~forythes~ ~e ~ v i osciences
r u ~ (rev. ed.).Hillsdale,NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cook, X,6r Leviton, L. (1980). Reviewing the literature: A comparison of traditional
methods with meta-analysis.~ o u of~Pers~nu~iry,
u ~
48,
449-472.
Cooper, H.,&Hedges, L. (1994).The ~ n d b oofreseurch
o~
synrhes~.New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
The empirical
Hedges, L. (1987). How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science:
cumulativeness of research. A~ericunP s y c ~ o l o ~42,
r , 443-455.
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, E (1990). Methods of ~ e t u - u ~ u ~Correcting
y s ~ : for u ~ ~andf bias
~ in
r
research ~ n d ~ n gThousand
s.
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hyde, J., &.Plant, E. (1995).~ a g n i t u d eof psychological gender differences:
Another side
~ r159-161.
,
to the story. A ~ e r i c u nP s y c ~ o ~ o50)
Preiss, R.,&.Allen, M.(1995). ~nderstandingand using meta-analysis. ~ v u ~ ~8r the
~ o n
~ e u ~ r h P r o f e s18,
s ~3o15-335.
~)
Wachter, K,,& Straf, M.(1990).The future o f ~ e r u ~ u ~ New
~ y s York:
~ s . Russell Sage Foundation.

As the chapters of this volume amply demonstrate, meta-analytic techniques

serve a usefd function in assessing the degree of empirical support for relac
tions between variables
and the extent towhich these relations
may be moderated by other factors. The utility of meta-analytic reviews for those with
applied communicationconcern is obvious. A public policy, a course
interof
vention, or a therapeutic strategy should
not be basedon variables that have
no demonstrated relationwith the outcome variables of interest. The studies
concerned with communication apprehension persuasively make this point.
Combinations of therapies for dealing with communication apprehension are
more effective in reducing this potentially debilitatingcondition than is any
one therapy by itself (Allen, Hunter, & Donohue, 1989). Obviously, results
like these have immediate
and important i~plicationsfor those interestedin
developing programsto reduce the co~municationapprehension individuals
experience in a wide variety
of communication contexts.Other metaOanalytic
reviews citedin this volume report findings with similar immediate practical
consequences.

of original theorizin
tion researchers (Be

mmunication theories.

e
efforts
tion in guiding f ~ t u r research
fre~uentlymissed in discussions o f e

cation. To begin to deal with them, it is first necessary to advance a prototheory of interpersonal comm~nicationthat ipulateswhatsubstantive
eories o f interpersonal communication shod
go aboutthe task of explanation. The proto-th
2 ) for a p~ilosophy of co~munication
that
urlesons ~ 1 ~ 9 call
S neglected aspects of the communication processso that they
will be examinedin greater detail.The explication of a proto~theory shod

aid in this process. Once this protoetheory of interpersonal communication

is formulated, it should be possible to evaluate the contribution the
meta~analyticstudies of interpersonal communication phenomena prec
sentedinthisvolumemake
toward the goal of developingmore
particularistic interpersonal communication theories. That is,givena
proto0theo~, should
it
be possible to evaluate the potential contribution of
meta-analytic techniques to theory construction efforts. Although I focus
on interpersonal communication in this chapter, the comparisons and evaL
uations should have potentially important implications forother domains of
communication inquiry as well.

Proto-theory is not a substantive theory intended to explain particular communication phenomena; rather, it explicates a general prototype, plan, or
blueprint for such substantive communication theories. Proto-theory ad+
urnbrates the relevant phenomena to be explained and theform an explanation for the phenomena might take. Assuch, it provides a general guideto
theory development. The potential contribution of the meta~analysis studies germane to interpersonal communication will be evaluated within this
proto-theoretic matrix.

It would bean act of utter folly to attempt to elucidate fully the incredible diversity of topics researched under the general rubric of interpersonal cornrnunication) let alone review exhaustively individual
studies reported under
each topic. Over thepast two decades, considerable
literatures have developed in such areas as communication and thedevelopment of interpersonal
r~lationships)
compliance0gaining strategies,communication and interpersonal conflict,bargaining and negotiation, comforting communication,
communication and perspective taking, miscommunication,deceptive and
equivocal communication, and computer~mediatedcommunication. This
already somewhat lengthy list is hardly exhaustive. Although detecting
commonalities among this seeming melangeof research topicsand u n i ~ i n g
them within the context of a proto-theory would appear to be a difficult
task, it is this project that is undertaken in thefollowing pages.
For two or more indi~duals
to engage each other in social interaction, whetherthe interaction is highly
L

or w a ~ l a~ectionate,
y
cer

ocesses, and a hspothetical social actor

the others present in the situation at a
given comprehensionand interpretative capabilitie n the complete absence
ofm~ssageproduction abilities, including motor pr ctions, the social inter&
action capacities of even the most understanding unicator would be se,
verely d i m ~ i s h e d . n e s e ~ n d a m eprocesses
ntal
are indeed prere~uisitesfor
ing out what is commonly calledinte~ersonal co~munication.
,these fundamental message comprehension and production
cesses constitute at least one of the sought-after common~litiesshare
list of interpersonal CO
nication researchtopics
rindividuals are engaga
romantic interlude, a
iscussion about the state of their marria~e,interpersonal conflict, bargaining and negotiation, deceptive ~ommunication,or comforting each other,
the neurological and cognitive processes adumbrated are in
(1992) noted, with few exceptions (e.g.,
es, 1995), interpersonal com~unicati

als come into close e

h other in some ay.

tive of developing interpersonal communication theories, it seems ex0

tremely u n ~ i s eto ignore this broader experiential context.
tructures andprocesses not only enable ~ e s s a g ce
rpretation aswellasmessage
production; they
n beyondthe generation of verbal and
encounter each otherin facectocface
texts, their interactions are purposive, even
nteraction is merelyto pass time.The goals
pursue mtheir encounters are represented hierarchically in ~ o ~ n i t lstrucc
ve

are also represented cognitively (Berger, 1995,1997). Whether these goals

and plans are consciously formulatedand implemented or primedand activated nonconsciously (Bargh, 1997; Langer, 1989, 1992), they serve to direct actionduring interpersonal encounters. Of course, during a particular
encounter, goals and plans may transmute in a variety ofways; for example, a
simple request for i n f o ~ a t i o from
n
acomplete stranger might mark the be*
ginning of a close~iendshipor a romantic relationship. Regardlessof the interaction's trajectory, goalsand plans guide the actions of those involved.
Just as it is difficultto imagine the possibility ofinterpersonal communication in the absence of any sensory inputs or
the capabilities of messagecornprehension and production, so too is it problematic to consider the possibility
of interpersonal communication in the absence of cognitive representatio~
of goals and plans. The ability to comprehend and produce verbal messages
does not necessarily ensure the capability of organizingthe broader rangeof
actions necessaryto achieve many goals.
This latter ability is a critical prereqc
uisite forthe conduct of any interpersonal communication episode,
"he preceding discussion has made clear the
necessity for interpersonal communication theories to address the fundamental cognitive structures and processes that enable individuals to produce and understand each
other's messages, but thenature of interpersonal
communicative activity itself demands that affective processes also be accorded center stage in theorizing about interpersonal communication for a
number of reasons (Planalp, 1999). First, some interpersonal communica~
tion episodes are organized around explicit effortsto alter affect. Individuals
may seek to assuage others' fears ordisappointments and otherwise comfort
them (Burleson, 1987,1994), orconversely, for a variety
of reasons individuals may explicitly attempt to induce negative emotions like em~arrassment
in others (Petronio, Snyder, 6,Bradford, 1992).
Second, individuals may engage each other in
social interaction to ascerc
tain what emotionthey should be feelingin a givencontext. Research germane to the socialcomparison of emotions (Festinger,1954; Ciles 6,
~ i e m a n n1987;
,
Schachter, 1959; Schachter 6r Singer, 1962; Suls6,Miller,
1977) has demonstrated that under certain conditions, individuals willalter
affective states based on theobservations of others in thesame socialcontext. These alterations in affect can result from verbalinteraction, but can
occur when only visualinteraction is possible (Schachter, 1959). These so,
cially driven alterations of agect are especially dramatic when individuals
are uncertain of the situational appropriateness of their initial emotional re0
sponses. Individuals may devote lengthy conversations to discussions of
e

LYSIS IN ~ ~ N T E

how they ought to respond emotionally to specific circumstances (e.g.,

should one be angryor sad when their child performs poorlyin a particular
situation).
Third, the valence of affect is ~an d a m e n t aelement
l
of the processes unc
derlying relationshipdevelopment and relationship decay (Clore 6r
Ketelaar, 1997). The immense amount of research devoted to d e t e ~ i n i n g
the antecedents andconsequences of interpersonal attraction andliking attests to the central role that affective responsesto others play in developing
and deteriorating relationships. In general, we tend to interact with those to
whom we are attracted andto avoid interaction if possible with those we dislike. There are, of course, exceptions to this seemingly obvious generalization (e.g., individuals who remain in apparently abusive relationships),but
even such apparent
counterexamples may not necessarily providecontrary
evidence. Some individuals in abusive relationshipsmay not only harbor ex,
tremely negative affect toward their abusive partner; they may also want
very much to escape the relatio~hip.
However, the problem of exactly how
to exit the relationship in a way that will forestall severe
retaliation from the
abuser may stand in theway.
Fourth, even in social situations where the focus of the participants is on
issues other than those associated directly with affect (e.g., taskcoriente
and problem#solving interactions), emotional responsesmayassumea
prominent role. When progress toward a goal is thwarted, negative affect
may be generated and have to be managed (Berger, 1995, 1997; Planalp,
1999; Srull 6r Wyer, 1986). By contrast, when desired goals are achieved,
participants may experience positive affect, whichmay or may not have to
be managed depending on thefuture group goals. For example,
the coach of
an athletic team may have to bring players back down
to earth very soon afc
ter a big win
to prepare them for the next crucial gamein a series. Individuals
winning lotteriesmust continue to meet at least someof the mundane exi+
gencies of life in spite of the initial euphoria.
Although sensory, comprehension, production, and planning processes
are fundamental prerequisites for interpersonal communication, one can
imagine interpersonal encounters that are very close to affectless. The
countless routine service encounters that are carried out ineveryday cornc
mercial life tend to range from neutral to moderately positive in affective
tone with the occasional negative encounter. Certainly, at least some of
these mundane transactions border on affectless; that is, the goals of the
particular encounter are met, butaccomplished in a way that has few ifany
affective consequences for participants. However, because normally funcc
tioning humans are capable of recognizing and producing a wide range
of afe

and social relations

trol concerns because the idea of winnin~implies dominance, whereas the

concept of losing implies submissiveness. owever, it is possible

etric power relationshi

us, these exceptions S

ver, Wishet al. (1976) did findtask-oriented interactions to be as*

ships to belocated toward the informal end. Increases in formality
potentiate increases behavioral constraints. The actions deployed in
mal interaction epis es may be dictated by formal protocols that mus
strictly observedby participants. Such protocols may prescribeap~ropriate
verbal and nonverbal actions for allparticipants (e.g., bowing in theappro..
priate manner at the a~propriate
time and saying the proper wor
to observe these interaction conventions may result in the vi
perceived as incompetent a
A fourth critical feature
to have considerr
able impact on interpersonal affect is that of pe
lassic discussion of the perception of interpersonal relationships
the importance of unit relationships between people likepro~imity
and similarity. He argued that theproximity of individuals fostered perceptions of similari~.Individuals tend to affiliate with and be attracted to those
they perceive to be similar to themselves (Byrne, 1971;Duck, 1973; New,
comb, 1961; Schachter, 1959) Of course, the bases on whic
dissimilari~is established may be highlyvaried; that is, ind
similar or dissimilarwith respect to a wide variety of physical, demographic,
and attitudinal attributes.
Finally, another dimension that has been found to characterize socialrelationships is that of superficial versus intense (Forgas, 1979; Wish et al.,

1976). Interactions with casual acquaintances define the former end of this
continuum andinteractions between counselors and their clients, spouses,
or among teammates are associated with the latter. This d i m e ~ i o may
n be
closely associated with thecontinuum labeled involved-uninvolved
(Forgas, 1979)and may share a ~ n i t i ewith
s the relational consequences dimension recovered in studies of persuasive communication situations
~ c ~ a u g h l i1980,
n , 1985; Cody et al., 1983).
One way to view someof the dimensions recoveredin these multidimenc
sional scalingstudies is in terms of goals.Such notions as control, coopera0
tion, competition, affiliation, and inclusion may be thought of as relatively
abstract goals individuals pursuein their interactions with others. In many
cases, such goals ascontrol, cooperation, and competition subserve specific
instrumental goals; that is, to achieve a specificinstrumental goal like enriching ones self,
one may have to gain control over or cooperate with othc
ers. Goals like affiliationand inclusion that atfirst blush may appearto be
primarily consummatory may in factalsobepursued
to achieve
particularistic instrumental goals (e.g., affiliating with powerful peopleand
having informal relationshipswith them to curry their favor).
These fundamentaldimensions or goals for organizing social
interaction
appear to be availableto most people,and individual differencesmay serve
to promote differential salience among
them. For example,in his discussion
of the power motive or need for power (n Power), Winter (1973) suggest~d
that individuals with high levels of n Power not only see power astheir goal
in social situations; they tend to define their relationships with others in
terms of power and control. There is ample evidence to support the view
that individuals high in n Power tend to define their social interactions this
way. It may be that for individuals with veryhigh power motivation levels,
exercising control is sometimes acon summa to^ goal. Presumably,individw
als scoring high
in need for affiliation(n Affiliation) are predisposed to view
their interactions and relationships with others in ways that differ significantly fromthose of their counterparts high in n Power. These very different
ways of approaching social interactions, based asthey are on different goal
orientations, should promote very different interaction styles.
A s significant as the relationships between personality predispositions
like those just discussed
and the fundamental dimensions of social interacc
tion may be, these dimensions may berendered more or less salient by events
that occur during the course of social encounters. Individ~alsmay begin a
given encounter with each otherwhile mutually pursuingan affiliative goal
or frame ( ~ i l l a r dSolomon,
,
6,Samp, 1996), for example, Lets chat or
Letshave some fun together, onlyto find themselves engagedin a titanic

power struggleby the endof the encounter. These dramatic and sometimes
di~cult~toeunderstand
goal shiftsduring conversations may be explained
by
the automatic activation of different goalsand plans. An offhand remark or
a particular facial expressionmay be responsible forthis activation. These
subtle sources of activation may not be easily recalled; thus, those experiencing such dramatic changes during their conversations may remain puzc
zled by them, even after considerable retrospection (Bargh, 1997).
The important point here is that what encountersare about or whatthey
mean to their participants is determined in part by the particular goals and
plans individuals believe themselvesand others to be pursuing during the
encounter. It is these mutual inferences about goals and plans that help individuals imbue particular encounters with meaning. Of course, there is no
guarantee that individualswill generate similarinferences about each
others goalsand plans (Reddy, 1979), and therewill always be some degree
of inferential slippage between parties to thesame socialinteraction. Infer*
entia1 disjunctionsbetween social interactants may themselves fuel consid-erable interpersonal conflict(Sillars,1998).
These potential problems
no~ithstanding,whether these goals and plans and theinferences that flow
from them are activated by relatively enduring predispositions or by particu,
lar events that occur during encounters, they serve to drive individual une
derstanding and interpretations of social behavior and they help shape the
production of subsequent messages.

The cognitive turnin socialpsychology

has promoted a massiveretreat of many of its adherents from the world ofso0
cia1 interaction to the world of the computer screen and thereaction time
task. Even studies that go beyond examining
the effects of experimental manipulations on various cognitive processingand judgment measures rarely
examine potential egects within the context of ongoing socialinteraction.
Although examining how rapidly individuals walk after being digerentially
primed with elderly or neutralwords maybe a cleverdemonstration of how
priming influences individualbehavior (Bargh, 1991)~
such studies provide
little u~derstandingof how priming effects may
or may not be consequential
in ongoing socialinteractions among individuals.
In stark contrast to those who approach the study of social interaction
from a cognitive perspective are communication researchers who eschew
psychologically oriented explanations of social interaction. For example,in
discussing her extensive programof research on equivocal communication
(Bavelas, Black, Chovil, 6L Mullett, 1990), Bavelas (1998) noted that frequently communication theorists invoke psychological processes
to explain

nd how control processes work

may be considerable
variation among receivers interpretations of

t e ~ r e t a t i o nof the equivocal responseto his or her question and any influ*
ence theinterpretation might have on subsequent messa~eswould be the
result of the kinds of individual cognitive processes described earlier,
oreover, if one explains the gen~rationof such equivocal messa~estoy
recourse to such notions as politeness norms or face-savingconcerns, one is
implicit^^ reco~nizin~
the importance of individual cognitive processes.For,
in thefinal analysis,such norms and concerns reside in thelong-term memc
ories of those who attend tothem during their interactions with others. This
is not to say that one cannot dosocial interaction research that brackets
exchange ser
these mental processes in favor of in-depth analyses of message

teraction onthe other

If ~ersuasionresearchers want to understand how compl~ance~gaining

message strategies function in interpersonal settings-or, for that matter, how
any symbolic inducement functions in any comm~lnicativesetting-they
mustcome to grips with the necessity of observing actual m~ssageexchanges. (p. 474)

Given the decided lack of research examining compliance gaining

and other
goals in the context of actual interactions between real people, Miller's
(1987) admonition is still justified today. However, analysesof message ex,
changes between people do not, ipso facto, guarantee that relations bee
tween cognitive structures and processes and social interaction willbe
elucidated. One must approach such studies with at least a general research
strategy. Such astrategy is mapped out inwhat follows.
One possible way to deal with this problem is to see whether thesignatures of cognitive structures can be recovered from socialinteraction behavior. It is commonplace to conceive of such cognitive structures as plansand
scripts as hierarchically organized conceptual representations of goal-die
rected action sequences. Abstract representations of actions tend to be
found at the tops of these hierarchies, and these representatio~become
more concrete atlower levels ofthe hierarchy (Berger, 1997;Lichtenstein 6.
Brewer, 1980)This hierarchicalproperty of plans hasbeen used asthe basis
for formulating the hierarchy principle (Berger, 1997; Berger,Knowlton, 6.
Abrahams, 1996). This line of research has demonstrated that when
goal-directed action is thwarted andindividuals wish to continue to pursue
their goals, they tend to make less cognitively
demanding lower level modifications to message plan hierarchies than more demanding alterations to
higher level plan units. "hus, when individuals are asked to repeat geoc
graphic directions because they were not well understood, they rarely sponc
taneously alter the walk route of the second rendition of their directions.
at her, they are more likelyto repeat thesame walkroute but increase their
vocal amplitude (Berger, 1997; Berger6.diBattista, 1993). oreo over, additional research has shown that alterations to higher level planelements are
eed more cognitively demanding (Berger, 1997; Bergeret al., 1996).
Other studies have demonstrated that individuals can recall goals and
plans that they thoughtabout during specific encounters with others
(Waldron, 1990,1997; Waldron &Applegate,1994; Waldron, Caughlin, 6.
Jackson, 1995;Waldron, Cegala, Sharkey, &Teboul,1990). In these studies,
after individuals have interacted for some periodof time, they individually
review videotape of their conversation,As they view the videotape, they are
asked to indicate at what points in the conversation they can recall what
they were thinking. When they can recall, they recordthe contentof their
thoughts. This procedure has revealed that thoughts aboutgoals and plans
are relatively common during conversations. For example, Waldron (1990)
found that of some 2,273 thoughts individuals could recallafter their conversations with others, 44% were concerned with the goals they were pursuing in theconversation and theplans theywere usingto pursue their goals.

As i n f o ~ a t i v as
e this work is in spelling out thevarious roles plans play
in
message production and the potential beneficial egects of concrete planning (Waldronet al., 1995), it does not address directlythe issue of how plan
structure is reflected in social interaction structure. Furthermore, this work
does not account for how individual-level plans
are coordinated to achieve
social interaction goals(Bruce 6, Newman,1978;Carbonell,
1981;
Waldron, 1997). Clearly, individuals can and do sometimes second-guess
each others goals and plans during their interactions (Hewes 6,Graham,
1989), and theinferences that arise fromthis second-guessing activitymay
be used to alter individual plans. How mightthese inferential processes be
captured empirically?
Although suchtechniques as Markov modeling
and lag-sequential analysis are available to detect patterns of sequential structure in social interaction, these techniques are not very informative about the hierarchical
structure of social interaction, It is the goals interactants pursue and the
plans they invoke to attain their goals that gives socialinteraction its structure (Dillard, 1997). The verbal and nonverbal acts manifested during social encounters are recruited and coordinated to achieve goals. These
coordinated verbal and nonverbal acts are guided by plans. If these postulates are embraced, then thestructure of individual plans ought to be manifested in various patterns of verbal and nonverbal action. Note that it is
patterns of coordinated verbal and nonverbal action that should reflect plan
structure, not individual verbal and nonverbal behaviors.
For example, in pursuing the goal of gaining compliance using a plan
containing an abstract element like providing positive incentives, the
enactment of this plan element during the interactionmight be accome
plished by using both kind words (compliments and offers) and pleasant
actions (pleasant vocal intonations, smiling, and touching). Conversely,
social action guided by a compliance-gaining plan containing an abstract
element like threatening theother)might produce a coordinated pattern
of verbal and nonverbal action characterized by threatening statements
and actions. However, in both examples, the specific verbal and nonverbal
behaviors used to realize these abstract plan elements
in thesocial interace
tion arena could
show considerable variation. There are a very largen u m
ber of configurations of specific verbal and nonverbal actions
that could be
recruited to represent eachof these abstractions at thelevel of social inter0
action. Thus, taken as awhole, these bundles of verbal and nonverbal bed
havior represent abstract interaction units,
whereas the microactions that
make up these bundles are
the lower levelunits from which the larger units
are constructed.

r v ~ t i o of
~ sthe in

s e ~ m e nor
t unitize o

them appear to be pursuing and the plans they seem to be using to attai
them. This conclusion is consistent with that of Green (1989, who argue

amounts to inferring the speakers plan, in all of its hierarchica~glory, ale

though there is room for considerable
latitude regarding the details (p.14)
onsistent with this view, those concerned with how individ~alsarrive at
e~initionsof the social situations in which they find themselves have arc
gued that inferences concerning goals and plans are vital to the achieve#
ment of such definitions (Miller, Cody, 6r ~cLaughlin,1994).
The preceding discussion suggests
that oneway to gain an understandin
of the relations between cognitive structures and processes on theone han
and social interaction on the other
is to determine how cognitiverep re sen^

tations of goalsand plans findtheir way into the stream

of social interaction.
arkers (1963)) Newtsons (1973, 1976), and ~ i c h t e ~ t e and
in
Brewers ( 1 ~ 8work,
~ ) finding residues
of these cognitive structures inongoing behavior should not be as daunting atask as it might first seem. For, as we
have seen, the stream of behavior itself sometimes exhibits a hierarchical
ucture that resembles that of a plan in thepursuit of a goal or a setof goals

Before considering issues related tothe explanation of the interpersonal communication phenomena already out0
lined, potentialmyopia associated with the preceding presentation should
be noted and duly corrected. Clearly, in their everyday lives, indivi~uals
use plans to pursue many endeavors that do not have
facecto-face interac,
tion with others as their primary goal.Shopping at a supermarket,
going to
a bank, buy in^ gas for a car, exercising, purchasing clothing, or chewing
gum, and finding ones way to a specific location may involve interaction
with others. However, the goals of obtaining food or money, exercising,
buying clothing, chewing gum, or finding a specific location arenot theme
selves intrinsically social. Social interaction may play an enabling role in
attaining these goals, but only an enabling role. Moreover, the advent of
what might be termed transactive technology is slowlyeliminatin~ the necessity of face-to-face interactionto satisfy at least some of these mundane
goals (e.g., vending machines, automatic teller machines, credit card purchases at thegas pump, and credit card machines at supermarket checkout
counters).
Goals and plans that guide specific inte~ersonalcommunication episodes may be embedded in still
larger goal-plan structures, andonly parts
of these larger goal-plan structures may explicitly involve communi~ative
activities (Berger, 1997). For example, a plan to achieve the highly abstract goal of personal happiness may involve social goals concerned with
establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships. However, the
same large-scale plan
might contain nonsocial goals and plans for realizing
the regnant personal happiness goal. Such nonsocial goals as a large bank
account, anew ~~W 850, a housewith an ocean view, and f r e ~ u e ntrips
t
to exotic places may also bean important partof the larger personal happiness plan. Thus, it is highlyunrealistic to suppose that thegoals and plans
guiding actions in specific interpersonal encounters are in~ependentof
these larger structures andthat thelarger structures are not influenced by
the subgoals and subplans embedded within them.
I

Given the cognitive and behavioral processes that make interpersonal come
munication possible, the question is what about these processes is in need of
explanation. he view of interpersonal communication already outlined
implies that when fundamental perceptual and cognitive processes are
granted, individua~smust have both relevant knowledge and perfo~mative
skills to participate in social interaction episodes. Individuals must have a
fund of knowledge about how socialinteraction works (procedural knowledge) and knowledge about the specific socialactors who are part of a particular interaction (declarative knowledge) to pursue their goals. In
addition, they must also
have various motor skills that are used to realize this
knowle~gein action. An integral part of procedural knowledge isthe goals
individuals pursue and theplans they use to try to attainthem.
Important questions about
both knowledge and pe~ormativeskills concern how theyare acquired in the
first place. Children learn how to participate in social interaction through
both explicit and ~ p l i c i learning.
t
Children may be explicitly instructed by
parents to wait their turn inconversations; however,in i ~ t r u c t i n ga childto
behave in this way, most parents proba~lydo notand cannot explain the spec
cific nonverbal signals
that thechild might use
to gain control of the conversationalfloorfromothers.
The child isusually provided with a general
conversational convention (e.g., Itsnot polite to interrupt others while they
are speaking),but the child is usually left
to fill in the specificsof just howone
inject ones selfinto a conversationin a proper manner. Exactly how
children fill in these detailsis not clear; however, it is probably
the case that
these details arenot provided through explicit instruction.
With veryfewexceptions, interpersonal ~ommunicationresearchers
have devoted very little attention to the acquisition of relevant knowledge
and skills. Somestudies have compared the cognitive complexity levels
and
perspective0taking skillsof children and adults ~ ~ p p l e g a t1990;
e , Burleson,
1987) and shown that cognitive complexity and perspective-taking ability
both increase with age. Similarly,developmental psychologists have shown
that childrens plans forreaching goals become more complex as they grow
older (Kreitler &L Kreitler, 1987) However, even these studies have not de
termined how childrens interactions with their environments influence
their development in thecognitive complexity,perspective~ta~ing, and
plan
domains. Thus, the details of how children acquire the knowledge and skills
necessary to participate in social interaction remain to be spelled out.
e

As noted earlier, even a

ting withothers may encou
mmunication problemsin specific interaction contexts.
endships withothers m
,and individuals wh
ith their spouses
thin the perspective presented
here, these proble~sare porta ant to study beca e of the potential opportu~
nity to gain understandingofthe knowledge and ills that are requiite for
efe
fe~tive~ n c t i ~ inn these
~ g various contexts.
Once these knowle
prerequisites are understood,
the issue of how they
canbe acquire
ual c o ~ ~ u n i c a t obecomes
rs
t amount. Devising strate~ies
for inculca
this ~ n o w l e and
~ ~ skill
e into a ts might also provide insights i
dren acquire the sameowledge and skills.
e

tionships observed as they

interact with each other, although there aresome
exceptions represented in themarital communication literature (~urggraf
& Sillars, 1987; Gottman, 1979, 1994; Sillars, 1998).
A prerequisite for understanding the multiple roles social interaction
plays in thedevelopment, maintenance, and decay of social relationshipsis
to study directly socialinteraction processes, Studyingthe residues of these
social encounters by asking individuals to recall their experiences, sometimes long after they have takenplace, simplydoes not provide the data necI
essary to link social interaction andrelationship development processes. As
discussed previously, cognitiverepresentations of goalsand plans may serve
to structure goal-directed socialinteraction sequences. Thus, to understand
how individuals' goalsand plans for relationshipsare played out intheir ace
tions, these action streams must be studied directly. Then, the goal-plan
structures identified in their actions can be related to the goal-plan cognic
tive structures that may have guided their actions. This approach to the
study of social relationshipsshould result in a more thorough understanding
of how interpersonal communication and cognitive processes function in
social relationships.
Clearly, some individuals experiencecommunication-related difficulties
when they attempt to execute close relationships; however,
it is equally clear
that some peopleencounter significant communication problems when in0
volved in interpersonal relationships that are not at all close."he sources of
these difficulties may vary asa function of relationship closeness; however,
there may be some commonalities between close and nonclose relationr
ships. For example, violations ofexpectations tied to work rolesmay be responsibleforsomecommunicationproblems
in noninterpersonal
work-related socialcontexts, whereas violationsof expectations associate
with marital and family roles (e.g., mother, father, wife,
and husband) may be
implicated in marital and family communication problems. Thus, violation
of role expectations, regardless of the social context and intimacy level of
the relationship, may fuel communication and relationship problems. Of
course, the possibility that factors unique to close relationships and to
noninterpersonal relationships may also contribute to these difficulties canc
not be ignored. The important point is that a parochial focus on close relationships and their development serves to marginalize the communication
problems individualsencounter in themany morenumerous, nonclose relac
tionships in which they participate as part of their everyday lives.The more
catholic purview of interpersonalcommunicationadvocated
in this
proto-theory should provide at least apartial antidote to this currently more
popular but myopic interpersonal communication perspective.

Given this proto-theoryof interpersonal communication, we nowturn to an

examination of the meta-analysis studies that have dealt with topics related
to theresearch domain of interpersonal communication. The primary quese
tion addressed in the following discussion is the degree to which these
groups of studies deal with the relevant phenomena and
explanatory issues
outlined inthe proto-theory. Of course, many of the studies included in the
meta-analysesreportedinthisvolume
were not designed withthis
proto-theory inmind. Nevertheless, it is still instructive to examine potential links between the proto-theory andthe meta-analyses. These relations
are examined with respect to thework reported on social skills.

This research domain concerns the degree to which individuals possessthe

skills necessary to achieve their goals in social situations.
Dillard and Spitzberg (1984) noted, there is considerable variance in how
social skills are conceived ranging from cognitive to behavioral perspecc
tives. Dillard and Spitzbergs meta-analysis revealed that several ve
(questions and compliments) and nonverbal (gestures and talk time)
haviors positively correlated with communicationskill judgments in excess
of .40. Conversely, adaptors and response latencies exhibited signi~cant
negative relations with social skilljudgments. These results lead these rec
searchers to conclude that being active andexpressive during social interace
tions promotes increased judgments of social skill.
Although intuition suggests the validity of these relations between be-havior and skill judgmentsin some socialcontexts, one can readily conceive
of social situations inwhich inhibition of expressiveness to the pointof si0
lence might well be more effective
in achieving goals. Knowingwhen not to
say too muchor to say anything may be asimportant as knowing what to say.
Strategic use of longer response latencies in particular social situations
might actually enhance communicative performance; for example, when
individuals are already hanging on every word beinguttered by a source.
Moreover) other social exigenciesmay call for the enactmentof behaviors
that are not particularly positive and complimentary. Certain persuasion
andnegotiation goalsmay requireacertain
degree of curtnessand
negativity to be maximally effective (e.g., resisting physical abuse
and sexual
coercion, Emmers 6.Allen, 1995; Emm~rs~Sommer)
chap. 17, this volume)
A lengthy and positively toned response to such coercive attempts would indeed be perverse and probably not very skillful.

suggests, to optimize ones plans for

a t t a ~ i n goals
g
during soci

processes on theother. T h e a b i l i ~to displ

social interaction may prove completelyin

Only a rough outline of a p r o t o - t h e o ~of interpersona

e sketched here. Althou
S resenta at ion has revea
with meta-analysis findings, might
knowle~geabout inter persona^ CO
viding this proto~theoreticcontext for me
proaches to examining interp
potentially more ~ u i tthan
~ l
proto- theory presented here
this proto-theory of interpers
mental questions for which
some individuals more effe
social interaction? The ~roto~theoretic
purview presented here t o ~ e t h ~ r
with meta-analysis f i n ~ i n could
~ s prove to be a powerful c o m ~ i ~ a tfor
io~
answering such critical questions.

Allen, M, (1989, May). A s y n t ~ e and

s ~ extension of c o n s t ~ c t i v ~ t c o ~ f o rresearch.
ting
Paper
presented at the annual conference ofthe International Communication Association,
San Francisco, CA.
Allen, M., Hunter, J. E.,6r Donohue, W. A. (1989). Meta-analysisof self-reportdata on the
effectiveness of public speaking anxietytreatment techniques. C o ~ ~ ~ n ~ c a t ~ ~
tion, 38,54-76.
Applegate, J. L. (1990). Constructs and communication: A pragmatic integration. In G.
Neimeyer 6r R. Neimeyer (Eds.), Advances in ~ e r s o n aconstruct
~
~ s y c ~ (Vol.
o ~ ol,~pp.
203-230). Greenwich, CT JAI.

Bargh, J. A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life.In R. S. Wyer, Jr.(Ed.), Advunces in

so cia^ c o ~ i t ~ (Vol.
o n 10, pp. 1-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Barker, R.G. (1963). The stream of behavior as an empirical problem.In R. G. Barker(Ed.),
The streurn of behuvior~E x ~ ~ r u t i o of
n sits s t ~ c t u r eand content (pp. 1-22). New York:
Appelton~Centu~Crofts.
Bavelas, J. B. (1998). Theoretical and methodological principles ofthe equivocation project. ~
o of ~ u n ~~andg Social
~ e P s ~ c ~ o1~
7, o183-199.
~,
avelas, J. B., Black,A., Chovil, N., 6.Mullett, J. (1990). ~ ~ u ~ v o
c ~crun ~u n ~ c ~ t ~ o n .
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
~ e~ si a ~ e c t ~New
c s . York:
Baxter, L. A.,6.Montgomery, B. M. (1996). ~ e l u t i n g~~i a ~ oand
Guilford.
Berger, C. R. (1991). Communication theories and other curios. C o m r n u n ~ c u tMono~~
~
~ 58, 101-113.
p
~
,
Berger, C. R. (1995). A plan-based approachto strategic communication. In D. E. Hewes
(Ed.), The c o ~ i t i v ebuses of ~ n t e ~ e rcornrnun~cut~on
s~u~
(pp. 141-180). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
t ~ ~ ~ gods throug~
commun~cutiveucBerger, C.R. (1997).P~unningstrategic ~ n t e r u cAttuining
tion. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berger, C. R., 6.Chaffee, S. H. (1987). The study of communication as a science. InC. R.
Berger 6.S. H. Chaffee (Eds.),
~ u n ~ bofoc o r~n ~ u n ~ u t iscience
on
(pp. 15-19). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Berger, C. R.,&diBattista, F? (1993).Communication failureand plan adaptation: If at first
~ , 220-238.
you don't succeed,say it louder and slower. C~rnunicutionM ~ o g r u p60,
Berger, C. R.,6.Douglas, W. (1981). Studiesin interpersonal epistemology111: Anticipated
interaction, self-monitoringand observationalcontext selection. C ~ m u n i c uMonot~
~
~ 48, 183-196.
p
~
,
Berger, C. R., Knowlton, S. W., 6Abrahams, M. E (1996).The hierarchy principlein strategic communication. Comrnunicution Theory, 6, 111-142.
Boster, E J. (1995). Commentaryon compliance~gainingmessage behavior research, In C.
R. Berger 6.M.Burgoon (Eds.), Cornrnun~cut~on
andsocial in~uenceprocesses (pp.
91-1 13). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
Bruce, B., 6Newman, D. (1978). Interacting plans. C o ~ i t ~ v e P s y c h2,
o ~196-233.
o~,
Burggraf, C. S., & Sillars, A. L. (1987). A critical examination
of sex differences inmarital
~u~
276-294.
hs,
communication. C o m r n ~ ~ i c u t ~ o n M o n o54,
Burleson, B. R.(1984).Age, social-cognitive development,
and the use of comforting strategies. Communicution M o n o ~ u p51,
~ , 140-153.
Burleson, B. R. (1987). Cognitive complexity. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.),Per(pp. 305-349). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
so~ulityand i n t e ~ e r s communicuti~
o~~
Burleson, B. R. (1992). Taking communication seriously. C o ~ m u n ~ c uMonogruphs,
t~n
59,
79-86.
Burleson, B. R. (1994). Comforting messages: Features, functions, and outcomes. InJ. A.
(pp. 135-161).
Daly 6,J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Strategic inte~ersonu~ comm~n~cQt~on
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Byrne, D. (1971). The Qttructionp u r u d ~New
~ . York: Academic Press.
Cantor, N., 6, Kihlstrom, J. E (1987).P e r s ~and
~ ~social
t ~~ n t e ~ ~ ~ gEnglewood
ence.
Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall,

Cappella, J. N. (1987). Interpersonal communication: Definitions and fundamental questions. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Hand~ookof c o m m u n i c u t ~science
~
(pp.
184-238). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
A strategy-based modelof adversary planning
in
Carbonell, J.G. (1981). ~ounterplanning:
a~
16,295-329.
real-world situations. A r t i ~ i ~ntel~igence,
Clore, G., & Ketelaar, T (1997). Minding our emotions:
On the role of automatic, unconscious affect.In R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Ed.),Advances in social cognition (Vol. 10, pp. 105-120).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cody, M.J., & McLaughlin, M. L. (1980). Perceptionsof compliance-gaining situations: A
dimensional analysis.Communication Monographs, 47, 132-148.
Cody, M. J., & McLaughlin, M. L. (1985). The situation as a construct in interpersonal
communication research. In M. L. Knapp 6r. G. R.Miller (Eds.), ~ u n d b o o kof interpersonal com~unicat~on
(pp. 263-3 12). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
situCody, M.J., Woelfel, M.L., &Jordan, W. J. (1983). Dimensionsof compliance-~aining
ations. H u ~ n C ~ m u n iResearch,
c a t i ~9, 99-1 13.
Dillard,J. I? (1990). The nature and substanceof goalsin tactical communication. In M. J.
Cody 6r. M. L. McLaughlin (Eds.),The p s y c ~ of~ tactical
o ~ commun~cation(pp. 70-90).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Dillard,J. E (1997). Explicatingthe goal construct: Tools for theorists.
In J. 0.Greene (Ed.),
Message production^ Advances in commun~cutiontheory (pp. 47-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dillard,J. E,Solomon, D. H., &.amp, J.A. (1996). Framing social reality:
The relevance of
relational judgments. Communicution Reseurch, 23, 703-723.
of social skills: Behavioral preDillard, J. I?, kspitzberg, B. H. (1984). Global impressions
dictors. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yeur~ook8 (pp. 446-463). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Duck, S. (1973). Personal relationshipsu n d p e r s constructs:
~~
A study o ~ f r i e n ~ h i ~ f o ~ u t i o n .
London: Wiley.
Duck, S. (1991). ~nderstund~ng re~tionsh~ps.
New York: Guilford.
Emmers, T M., 6Allen, M. (1995, November).Factors contributing to sexuull~coercive behaviors: A metaunulys~.Paper presentedat the annualconference of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.
Festinger, L.(1954).A theory of social comparison processes.
~ u m u Relutions,
n
7,117-140.
Forgas, J. P, (1979). Social episodes: The study of interaction routines. London: Academic
Press.
Giles, H., 6r Wiemann, J. M. (1987). Language, social comparison, and power. In C. R.
Berger & S. H. Chaffee(Eds.), ~ u n d ~ o of
o kco~municutionscience (pp. 350-384).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gottman, J.M. (1979). Muritul ~nteruct~on:
~ x p e r i m e n ~ ~ ~ n v e s t New
i g u t iYork:
o ~ . Academic
Press.
Gottman, J. M. (1994). ut predicts divorce: The r e ~ t i o ~between
h i ~ muritu~process and
~ r i toutcomes.
u ~
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Green, G.M. (1989). P r u ~ u t ~and
c s nut~rullanguuge un~erstunding.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
on~
in commun~cutiontheory. Mahwah,
Greene, J. 0. (Ed.). (1997).Message ~ r o d u c ~ iAdvunces
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dallinger, J.M. (1991,October). The e#ects o f s ~ ton~use

t o~rs~ppress~on
of
cgu~ning
~ p ~ uppeu~s.
~ n c e Paper presented at the convention of the Organization Studying Communication, Language and Gender,
~ilwaukee,WI.
eider, F, (1958). T h e p s y c h o ~ofo ~ n t e ~ e r s o ~New
~ York:
r e Wiley.
~ t ~ ~ .
~ n t e r p e rcomm~n~cution.
s~~
Hillsdale,NJ:
poss~~~e

Graham, M. L. (1989). Second-guessing theory: Review and extension.

In J.
(Ed.}, ~ ~ m ~ nyeur~ook
~ c 12
u (pp.
t ~213-248).
~
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
imagery andmindfulnesslmindlessness.In
1-128). New York: Plenum.
reitler, S., &Kreitler, H. (1987). Plans and planning:
Their motivational and cognitive
anfor
tecedents. In S. L. Friedman, E. K. Skolnick, &R, R. Cocking (Eds.),B ~ ~ e p ~ n t sth~nking: The role o f ~ ~ n n in
~ cn og ~ ~ t ~ v e ~ v e(pp.
~ o 110-178).
p ~ e n t New York: Cambridge
Wniversi~Press.
Lan er, E. J. (1989). ~ i n d ~ ~ n Reading,
ess.
MA: Addison
.Interpersonal
mindlessness
and
langu
m~nicution
Mono~u~hs,

,&Brewer,W.E (1980).

Memory for goal directed events.

C o ~ ~ tPsy~ve

Mark, R. A. (197 1). Coding communication

at therelationship level.~

o of C ~o ~ ~~ ~ u n

uasion. InC. R. Berger & S. H.Chaffee (Eds.), Hund~ookof com.446-483). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Miller, G.R,,& Steinberg, M. (1975). B e t ~ e e n p e o p ~
Aenew
~ analysis of~nterpersonu~
c ~ m ~ n ~ c a ~ oChicago:
n.
Science Research Associates.
iller, L. C., Cody, M.
J., & McLaughlin, M. L,(1994). Situationsand goals as fundamental
constructs in interpersonal communication research. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller
~ ~ ned.,
~ c app.
t ~162-198).
on
Newbury Park,
(Eds.), ~ u n d ~oof ~o n~ t e ~ e r s o n u ~ c o ~ (2nd
CA: Sage.
Newcomb, 1:M. (1961). The uc~~u~ntunce~rocess.
New York:Holt, Rinehart &Winston.
of
Newtson, D. (1973). Attribution and fheunit of perception of ongoing behavior.3o~rnu~
Personu~~t~
and Social P s y c h o ~ o28,
~ , 28-38.
Newtson, D. (1976). Foundationsof attribution: The perception of ongoing behavior.In J.
arvey, W. J. Ickes, 6.R. F.Kidd (eds.), New d~rect~ons
in ~ t t ~ ~reseurch
~ t ~ (Vol.
o n 1,
23-247). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Osgood, C. E.,Suci, G. S., & Tannenbaum, E? H, (1957). The ~ e a s ~ r e moe~n ~~ e u n ~Urng.
bana: Universityof Illinois Press.
Petronio, S., Snyder, E., 6.Bradford, L. (1992, October). ~ ~ u n n strategies
~ng
for the emburruss~ento ~ ~ r An
~ upp~~cut~on
e n ~ ~and test of Bergers p ~ n n ~ theory.
ng
Paper presentedat
the annual conference of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago.
Planalp, S. (1999). C o ~ ~ u n ~ c u t ~ n g Social,
e ~ omoru~,
t ~ o nand
~ c ~ ~ processes.
t ~ ~ Paris:
u ~ Carnbridge University Press6,Editions de la Maison des Sciencesde 1Homme.
eddy, M.J. (1979). The conduit metaphor-A case of frameconflict in our language about
language. In A. Ortony (Ed,),Metaphor and t ~ o u g (pp.
~ t 284-324). London: Cambridge
Wniversity Press.
Rogers, L. E.,6r Farace, R.B. (1975). Relational communication analysis: New measure.
ment procedures. Human ~ o m m ~ n ~ cResearch,
~ t ~ o n1, 222-239.

~ c h a ~ h t eS.r ,(1959). T h e ~ s ~ c hofo ~ o ~

Singer, J. L. (1962). Cognitive, social and physiologicaldeterminan~sof
emotional state. P s y c h o ~ o ~ Review,
cu~
69, 37~-399.

~acilitatinge8ects of
Waldron, V. R., Caughlin, J., &Jackson, D.(1995). Talking specifics:
planning on AIDS talk in peer dyads.
Heu~th Comm~nicut~on,
7, 179-204.
Waldron, V. R., Cegala, D. J., Sharkey,W. E,& Teboul, B. (1990). Cognitiveand tactical di.
rnensions of goal manage~ent.~
o of ~ ~ n ~~andg Social
u e P
~ s y c h o ~ o9,
~ , 101-1 18.
Watzlawick, E,Beavin, J. H., &Jackson, D. (1967).
D. P r u ~ t i c os ~ h comm~nicut~on.
~ ~ n
New York: Norton.
Webb, E.J., Campbell, D. X , Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). U n o ~ t ~ s ~ ~ e m e ~ ~
~ o n r e u c research
~ ~ ~ e in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Winter, D.G. (1973). The power motive. New York: The Free Press.
of int~rpe~sonal
relaWish, M-,Deutsch, M., & Kaplan, S. J. (1976). Perceived dimensions
tions. ~
o of P ~~ r s o ~~ uand
~ ~uSt yo c i ~~P ~s ~ c h o ~33,
o ~409-420.
,

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

researchers attach torelational

the thousands of experiments a
hese issues. For example,a database S
~ ~ c resulted
a ~ ~in 2o ~~ , hits.
0 Expan
~ ~
d terms exponentially increases
the a
the magnitude of this domain, we
lay out our criteria for selecting the meta~analysesincl
id en ti^ the logic usedto group and organize the meta-analyses, and provide
the context for the first collection dealingwith individual processes.

Esta~lishin~
selection criteriawas a formidable task.The sheer volumeof mac
terial, the complexi~of interpersonal processes,and the nuances of inte
sonal communication pose risks forboth meta~analystsand those interest
in placing the empirical reviewsin context. Cooperand Rosenthal(198
dressed the judgment calls that a metaOanalytic reviewer must make when
coding efTects and interpreting findings,but the decisions that must be made
when selecting and organizing meta-analyses has received less attention.

ansford (1984) and Preiss and Allen (19 9 ~believed

)
that areas
merit empirical aggregation
if they meetthe criteria of uniqueness or suitabiL
ity. A meta-analytic review may be considered unique
if the area or question
has never been empirically assessed,
if earlier meta-analyses
omitted key studies, or if conclusions groundedin existing meta0analyses are controversial
or
equivocal. A meta-analysismay alsobe considered unique if it explores atheoretical modelor advances apotential moderator variablethat clarifies theoretical approaches.W e n considering suitability,the primary issueof concern
is variability. Although meta-analysis is an important tool for untangl~ga
large number of appar~ntlyinconsistent experimental findings,
it is also valuable when the goal isto estimate the m a ~ i t u d of
e an eRect in a domainof ef+
fects that are consistent in direction. The issue of magnitude may have
important theoretical plications and result in mathematical models that
clarify underlying processes.
~e were mindful of both uniqueness and suitability when selecting and
arranging the summaries found in later chapters. Because characteristics
and behaviors of the participants are fundamental, we initially lookedat is0
sues associatedwith the individuals participating in interpersonal communication. We then examined the available empirical summaries exploring
the dyad asthe basic unit. Assessed in this area are issues such as attraction
and self-disclosure. Finally, we lookedto meta-analyses that examined the
interaction itself as the central issue, Topics in this section include sexual
communication and conflict management.
These three approaches-individual, dyadic, and interactional-serve
as the framework and contextfor the empirical summaries selected for
this
book. These metasanalyses are in no
way intended as exhaustive coverage
of
the salient issues in interpersonal com~unication.
We do, however, hope to
frame key controversies and point to new avenues of inquiry.

~nderstandinghow relationships form and evolve is central to theorizing

about interpersonal commu~ication.Perceptions of and attributions about
ones own behaviorsand theactions of others are vital to this understandc
ing. Gilesand Street (1994) suggestedthat e~amining
communicator characteristics helps explicatethe motives, behaviors,and utterances that occur
during the earliest stagesof relationship formation.The most frequentlyocc
curring topics in this domain of literature include peoples perceptions of
others, their self-esteem orself~presentation,their need for a~iliationor affinity, and their communicative skills or abilities. The purpose of this prec
viewis to brieflydiscuss each of these areas, contextualize the three

L
meta~analyses
in this
cance of the ~ n d ~ g s .

riefly
summarize

UR
theoretica
the

searchers have long observe

data or erceive causality
ions of the others motives for
acting in a certain
66). For example, Bahk (1993) believedth
erstanding affect an ~ d i ~ d u ability
a ~ s to
.Drawing on Heider9s (1958) reasoning?
suggested that people assume they know or canspec
tentions ormotivations. ~ndivid~als
constantly make
tributions even though they may be inaccurate or m
attributional approach posits that people
m e a ~ i n syste~atically
~s
their own thoughts andfeelings
Weary, 1985). ~urthermore, at0
tribution researchers hold that
ay not make objective or ratiopretations,andare
likely to maintain theirinterpr
of contrary evidence (~urleson,1986; Fincham, 1985;
1 ~ 8 5 )Wood
.
(1999), for example,found that survivors of violence in intimate Kelationships tend to disassociate the menthey love &omthe (same)
men who inflict violenceon them by claiming that hewas not h i m s e l ~(p.
5) These attributionsare similar to perceptions of people in n o n ~ o l e n re*
t
lations~ipswho explain the disagreeable behavior of their partners. It ap
pears that individuals use idiosyncratic standards whenf o ~ i n attributions
g
that assign blame, intentions, or motivations.
search also suggests that relationship initiatio~and m~intenanceinvolve perceptions and attri~utionsabout the partners co~munication.
Vangelisti (1994) found that less damageis done to relationship
a
i~individO
that the speaker di ot mean to hurt theirfeel
tts ( 1 ~ 9 4 )concludhat
positive interpretations
others justi~cationof a particular action mitigated relational damage.
Sillars (1982) discovered that indivi~uals
assume that theirreasons foracting or feeling are much like other peoples perceptions and they settle on one
causal explanation rather than consider multiple interpretations. There is
also evidence that individuals may commit the fundamental attribution error as they assign personal blame for an event rather than consider other
possibilities. Sillars (1982) and Canary and Spitzberg (1990) documented
several attribution biases associatedwith relationship formation a
tenance. Sillars (1982) found that a self-serving bias may devel

peoples preference for denying responsibility for

an unfortunate action or
failing to acknowledge responsibility forhappier events. Parks (1994) concluded that when the individual attributes communicative failures to negc
ative characteristics of selfsuch as character defects or a lack of social skills,
trouble
S result, butwhen the failure can be attributed to transitory or
lecauses(p. 607), individual emotions are more positive
manageable. Sillars (1980) discoveredthat inconflicts, indivi
more likelyto attribute negative behaviors to their partners and positive bec
haviors to themselves. Canary and Spitzberg ( 1 9 ~ 0 discovered
)
that individuals make general attributions about their partners competence based
on thepositiveness of the partner. Apparently, individualsare reluctant to
change their attributions once made, and they have trouble considering
that more than oneexplanation is possible or thattheir own behavior maybe
problematic.
Manusovs (1990)study extended attributionprinciples to nonverbal behavior, Like researcherswho studied attribution based on verbal communication,she found that thosewhoare
more satisfied tend to make
relationship0enhancing attributions, whereas those who are less satisfied
create distress-maintaining casual explanations (p. 114) about nonverbal
communication. ~ndividualsseem to make attributions based on both verbal and nonverbal messages, and these perceptions are related to significant
relational outcomes.
The meta0analyses in this section approach perceptions and attributions
in a straightforward way. Sahlstein and Allen (chap. 4) discuss sex differ0
ences and selfcesteem from the perspective of gendered communication
practices and socialization. The notion that mediated portrayals of gender
agect perceptions and alter causal attributions is consistent with current
theorizing in interpersonal communication. Also, the multi~imensional
conceptualization of these self0attributions provides opportunities to ex0
plore widening differences
in these perceptions. The Timmerman (chap. S)
meta-analysis on power in language extends this idea of gender and attribw
tion directly to communication behaviors. At issue isthe use of message
feat
tures that lead to attributions of power. The complexity of these perceptions
can be seen in thecoding systems for behaviors
such as interruptions, attributions produced by hedges and tag questions, and politeness inferences
based on the use of hostile verbs, civilities, and threats. Spitzberg and
Dillards (chap. 6) meta-analysis on social skills takes a somewhat different
approach by identifying behaviorsthat index the skillfulness of the cornrnunicator. Molecular behaviors such as gaze, response latency, and feedback
responseswereassociated
with molar perceptions of skill. Allthree

meta~analyses areunique and suitable horn the perspective of perceptions

and attributions.

S e ~ ~ - erefers
s ~ eto~ theway individuals view themselves in terms of their
overall worth. Rosenberg (1979) theorized
that selfcesteem reflectsthe posic
tive or negative feelingsthat people hold about themselves. Josephs (1991)
claimed that ones selfcesteemis a balance of a n i n d i ~ i d uconceptualiza~
a~s
tion of her orhis own value plus her orhis need to be accepted by others.
Greenberg, Pyszczynski,and Solomon (1986) believedthat our culture provides the parameters we use
to judge our self-worth, and thatindividuals use
their own culturescriteria to judge their own overall value.
Thus, itappears
that individualsbring their constructed conceptualization
of their
selfdworth to a relationship and thatperception is reinforced or refined during interactions with others.
The perception of self-esteem has beenassociated with specific commuc
nication behaviors. Those individuals whohave high self-esteemhave been
characterized as appreciating their own worth, being flexible and relaxed,
and being open to criticism (Braden, 1992; Simmons, 1987). Individuals
with high self-esteemhave beenfound to be less easily influenced
and more
positively evaluated by others (Infante, 1976). Tedeschi andNorman
(1985) noted that individuals with high selfcesteem are more convinced
that their real self corresponds
to their conceptualization of an ideal self.Individuals with low self-esteem,
on theother hand,lack confidence in their
own ability, evaluate their own competency negatively, and expect failures
(Baumeister, 1993). Low-self-esteem individuals are easily persuaded
(Preiss & Gayle, 2000), perhaps because they are more apt to follow rec
spected others (Infante, 1976). ~ommunicationseems to be avital compoz
nent ofselfcesteemprocesses.Forexample,
Menees (1997) found that
children of alcoholic parents who expressed their anger and frustration had
higher self-esteem. Finally, several researchers established a link between
jealousy and low selfeesteem. Highly jealous individualsappear to possess
lower levelsof self-esteem (Mathes, Adams, & Davis, 1985) and lower lev,
els of selfcworth may lead to jealousy (Bringle, 1981).
Selfcesteem is often considered a subset of self-concept. Turner (1987)
suggested that ones self-concept, how we define or think about our capabil.
ities, is basedon a set of cognitive representations that induce levels of social
comparison. Nicotera (1993) theorizedthat theself-concept provides information and expectations about how the self relates to the environment,
claiming that self-concept as it is developed, presented, and validated de#

e of inte~ersonalrelationships, (pp.
cept affects howwe communi
urthermore, the self-concept r

85) mainta~ed that

relational partners have a mutual investizing and supporting each others self~concept.This is consis*
nt with Go~mans(1959) view that our self-concept isnot only what we
lieve about ourselves, but a comprehensive self~~resentation that
allows
privately heldconceptions and manage their imprese
6,Edwards, 1997). Burgoon(1994) claimed that ime
behaviors are aimed at avoiding social disapproval
feelings and att~butionsso that those perceptions
o our ideal identity. Because
in~ividualsrecognize
public self, most individuals
monitor their own bed
er, 1979). High self#monitorsare aware of the im0
pression they make and are concerned about the appro~riateness
of their
verbal and nonverbal skills (Giles 6,Street, 1994). These individuals are
better able to express emotional states, possess greater encoding skills, initb
ate conversations, and are highly sensitiveto feedback (~hodewalt, 19~6).
ken together, the research on selfcesteem, self*concept,and self-presentation suggests that anindividuals perceptions of self influence her or
his communicative interactions. The metacanalyses in this section make
unique and suitable contributions to this characteristic of the interpersonal
communi~a~ion
literature. Sahlstein and Allens (chap.4) analysis offersthe
provocative conclusion that sexebased differencesin selfeesteem may be in@
creasing over time. Timmermans (chap. 5) finding of a small, consistent
pattern of powerlessness markers across coding categories can be inter0
preted as having roots in self-esteem. In this view, language~inducedsub*
missiveness is the result of socialization and mar~inalization. Finally,
Spitzberg and Dillards (chap. 6) meta0analysis isolatescommunication bee
haviors that convey impressionsof competence and composure, and these
~ehaviorsare frequently associated with high selfcesteem.

A fourth themein theinterpersonal communication literature involves affiliation. Individuals possess aneed to associate with, and be accepted by,
others as well asto garner their potential partners approval (
Leary, 1995; Giles 67.Street, 1994). Indvik and Fitzpatrick (1986) argued

liation refers to the emotional closeness and a h

e i n f o ~ a t i o n (p. 3). These authors conceptu
cteristics of a~iliation:acceptance, openness, ca
also delineated a ~ l i a t i o nfrom inclusion by de
tracting attention and
interest and being differentiate
6,Fitzpatrick, 1 ~p. 2).~hey~theorized
9
that inclusion is
separate co~ponents:accessibility, similarity, evaluation, stimulation9an
the process of association iscon
Utes (a~liationand inclusion)
It in afini or liking. Accor
feelpositivetoward t
sen (1993) believedthat a ~ nseeking
i ~ isan integrated concept that
an active process, (b) is
strategic by n a t u r ~(c)
, engages peoplein making choices, and (d) encourages the use of affinity strategies through comence, affini~--seeking
strategies are employed earlyin the
o ascertain the prospective partnersinterest in
ers often distinguish between two types of strate
egies. ~ndividualsuse one set of strategies to induce affiliation or in

and another set

of strategies to test for reciprocated a f f i n i ~(Baxter
mot, 1984; Daly6,Kreissen, 1993).Seven global strategieshave been iden0
tified that elicit affiliation or liking (Bell 6,Daly, 1984; Daly 6, Kreissen,
1993) The controlling visibility strategyoccurs when individuals differentic
ate, appear attractive, andestablish autonomy by assuming control or conveying the impression of being in control. Appearing trustworthy and open
and adhering to politeness normsare two other strategies usedwhen seeking
affinityoraffiliation.Individualsmayalsoreveal
concernand caring
through listening and supporting the others self confidence, involve the
other person by maximizing positiveinteractions, and involve the seifby expressing a desire for a relationship, Finally, affinity
may be sought by emphasizing similaritiesand equality.
Individuals have beenfound to implement secret teststo determine if
the desire to build a relationshipis actually reciprocated (Baxter (srWilmot,
1984). These eight global strategies involve
confronting or directly assessing
whether the otheris interested in maintaining the relationship, sustain in^
or taking action to keep the relationship progressing, or withdrawing to as-maintai~ing the
relatione
certain if the otherwill assume responsibility for
ship. Strategies like hazing or making the potential partner perform tasks
e

and services, offeringor setting up favorable situations for apotential partner to encounter, or increasing intimacy levels
are also used. Finally, individuals might network by engaging a third party to help with relations hi^
initiation or by diminish in^ their o m reputation in hopes the potential
partner will rescuethe individual. Douglas (1987) claimedthat individuals
choose strategies based on social appropriateness as well as efficiency.
Researchers have identified the effectiveness of some a ~ n i ~ s e e k i n g
strategies. Roach (1998) found that in the
workplace, theory y managers
were perceived as using more
a ~ n i ~ s e e k i strategies
ng
that increased employees organizational identi~cation.Bachman and Zakahi (2000) found
that secure love schemes oradult attachmentstyles were positivelycorrelated with commonalities, mutual trust, and concern andcaring, whereas a
clingy love schema was correlated with caring and closeness. Martin and
bin (1998) found that individuals who were morecontrolling employed a
greater range of strategies when seeking affinity.They also discoveredthat
individuals who used a more expressive
communicator style reported being
more interpersonally competent andpossessing a largeaffini~seekingrep0
ertoire. They found liking was associated with the awareness that affine
ityseeking strategies have been employed.
The affiliation and affini~seekingresearch suggests that individuals
have both conscious and unconscious motivations in trying to obtain othc
ers regard. Individuals employ specific strategies to entice others to like
them andtest)others to see if they are interested in pursuing a relationship.
One meta-analysis directly addresses the affiliation thesis. Spitzberg and
Dillard (chap.6) identify the skill areasof altercentrism (showinginterest in
and concern for the other party), expressiveness, and composure. These
competencies are essential aspectsof strategic interaction. The meta-analysis by Timmerman (chap. 5) also offers intriguing opportunities for theory
development related to affiliation. Powerful language may provide a vehicle
for affinity seeking,but we also note thatless assertivespeech provides ope
portunities for secret tests, subtle maneuvers, and vivid contrasts in language use basedon situational needs.

Whenever individuals communicate, they choose language

that reflects their
basic beliefsabout others and themselves, Jacobs (1994)
suggeste~ that
language is systematically organized
in a varietyof waysbeyond the units of words
and sentences all of which contribute to the i n f o ~ a t i o nconveyed and the
actions performedby a message (p.
200). In other words, individualsmay use
language strategicallyto affect perceptionsand impressions and to attempt to

exert control duringinteractions(Bradac,Wiemann,

6.Schaefer,1994;
Jacobs, 1994).When researchers explorethe relation between perceptions
of
social power or
control and an individua~s
language style, aspects
of
or powerless speechare ofien investigated. Accordingto Brad
(19849, powerless speech involves
the use of hedges, hesitation
deictic phrases, tag questions or instances
of rising tona at ion i
declarative sentences, and polite fon-ns (p. 2). A meta-analytic review by
er (1998) revealed that a powerful language style W
edible. Timmen-nan (chap. 5) investigates the relat
tween sex differencesand the use of powerful and powerless l a n ~ a g e
results help clarify the relation among language style, communicator
ity, and sex differences.
Other researchers exploringthe relation between social poweror control
and an individuals language style
have explored the way one verbally
paraverbally interact to signal how literal meaning should beinterpreted
tered orunderstood (Norton, 1978, p. 99). These researchers explored an
individuals communicator style, which Norton (1978) conceptualize
being multidimensional.Communicators may engage in impression leaving
or creating a lasting image, contentious
be
orchallenging during a disagreement, orbecome open orrevealing of their feelings. A communicator may
be dominant ortake charge, bedramatic andtell colorful stones, or be pree
cise and document points with evidence. The remaining dimensions inc
volve the communicator appearing relaxed, friendly or encouraging,
attentive, and animated. Researchers have found that positive elements of
communicator style are related to patients satisfaction with their physician
(Cardello, Ray, 6.Pettey, 1995) and supervisors useof positive and expresc
sive humor has been associated with her orhis communicator style (Martin
6rGayle, 1999). These lines of research are consistent with Nortons (1983)
view that communicator style is acollection of learned behaviors that shape
the way an individual is perceived.
%e collections of behaviors construed as a style may resultin clear impressions of the communicator. For example, individualsmay be evaluated
by how well they are perceived to seek out meaningful interactions with
others, render support, be relaxed, appreciate others plight, and turntake
appropriately (Query, Parryk, 6.Flint, 1992, p. 80). Here an individuals
communicator style is equated with perceived effectiveness, accuracy,and
the clarity with which she or he is able to adapt to theneeds and behaviors of
others in any given situation (Parks, 1994; Spitzberg, 1994).On this level,
the impression created is one of competence, and the meta-analyses in this
section provide insightsabout the communicator skills or abilities
theme eve

P
the inte~ersonalcommunication literature. ~pitzberg an
irectly assess the molecular ~ehaviors that
are associ
of communication competence. The large effectsize
n talk time and perceptionof skill levelin naturalisticsettings underthe importance of communicator characteristics. This perception
maybe rever~erating acrossmeta-analyses, aspowerlessspeakers(se
T i m m e ~ a nchap.
,
5) and low0self~esteemcommunicators (see ~ahlstein
Allen, chap. 4) may talk less than their powerful and high0self0esteem couw
arts. These issues are ripe for future primary investigations.

Each of the areas discussed in this preview is more interrelated than disanalysis is a valuabletool because it cansummarize issues
domains of literature and unify disparate findings. Each of
the constructs in this unit deals with individual~levelprocesses in interc
ersonal communication.From the vantage of perceptions, self-esteem or
self~presentation,af~liation,and communicatorskills, the meta-analyses
summarize enduring issues, offer surprising insights, and pose new quese
tions orfuture investigations.The ability to summarize findings and point
to new avenues of research is an important benefit of meta-analysis. It of0
fers interpersonal communication researchersan additional tool for theory ~ e v e l o p ~ e n t .

Bachman, G., & Zakahi, W.R. (2000). Adult attachment and strategicrelational commu~on
13, 12-19.
ni~ation:Love schemas and a ~ n i ~ - s e e k i nCg~, m u n ~ c u t Reports,
Bahk, C. (1993).Interpersonalperceptions of same-sexand opposite-sex friendships
in the
United States and Korea. In A.M. Nicotera (Ed.), ~ ~ t e ~ e r s o ~ u l c o ~ minu friend
~~cution
u d mate r e ~ u t ~ (pp.
~ s79-106).
~ ~ ~ sAlbany: State University of New York Press.
Baumeister, R.E (1993). Self- esteem^ The puzzle of low s e ~ f - r e gNew
~ ~ ~York:
.
Plenum.
Baumeister, R. E,& Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonalatt ~ 491-529.
n,
tachments as a fundamental human motivation. P s ~ c ~ o ~~o u~ ~c u~ ~e1 17,
Baxter, L. A., 6r Wilmot, W.W.(1984).Secret tests: Social strategies for acquiring information about the state of the relationship. ~ u m u n C o ~ ~ u n ~ c u t i o I~1, 17
~ e1-201.
seurc~,
ng
of communication. CommuBell, R.A., 6r Daly, J.A. (1984).The a f ~ n i ~ s e e k i function
~ ~ C U t ~MO on ~ o ~ u51,
~ 91-1
~ s ,15.
Bradac, J. J., & Mulac, A. (1984). Attributional consequences of powerful and powerless
speech stylesin a crisis~interventioncontext. Journal of ~ n ~ uand
g Social
e
Ps~c~o~o~,
3, 1-19.
Bradac, J. J., Wiemann, J. M., & Schaefer, K. (1994). The language of control in interperJ. A. Daly6,J. M. Wiemann (Eds.),Strategic ~ n t e r p e r s como~~
sonal communication. In
mun~ut~
(pp.
o ~91-108). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Braden, N. (1992). The power o ~ s e ~ ~ ~ eNew

s t e eYork:
~ . Health Communications.
Bringle, R. G. (1981). Conceptualizingjealousy as a disposition. A ~ t e ~ a t ~ v e 4,~ ~ ~ e s ~
274-290.
Burgoon, J. (1994). Nonverbal signals.In M. L. Knapp &G. R. Miller (Eds.),hand boo^ of
i n t e ~ e r s ~ ~ (pp.c 229-285).
~ ~ u ~Thousands
~ a t iOaks,
~ CA: Sage.
in natural conversations.
Burleson, B. R. (1986).Attribution schemes and causal inference
In D. G. Ellis &W.A. Donohue (Eds.) ,C o n t e ~ p o r issues
a ~ in~ a n ~and
g ed i s c ~ ~prose
cesses (pp. 63-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bunell, N. A., & Koper, R. J. (1998). The efficacy of powerful/po~erlesslanguage on atti~
through
tudes and source credibility.
In M. Allen & R. Preiss (Eds.),P e r s ~ s i o nAdvances
~ t a - a ~ (pp.
~ y203-216).
s ~
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1990). Attribution biases and associations between con~ o ~l. a p h s ,
flict strategies.c ~ ~ u n ~ a t i ~ 57,~ 139-15
Cardello, L. L.,
Ray, E. B., & Pettey, G. E. (1995). The relationship of perceived physician
communicator styleto patient satisfaction, C o ~ ~ ~ n i c a t ~ o n 8,R27-37.
e~or~,
Cooper, H. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1980). Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings.Re~iewof ~ d ~ c a t i o nResearch,
al
52,291-302.
Daly, J. A., 6Kreissen, I.!0.(1993).Affinity-seeking. InJ. A. Daly & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.),
Strategic ~ n t e ~ e r s o ~ ~ c o ~ ~ (pp.
u n ~109-134).
c a t i o nHillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Douglas, W. (1987). Affinity-testing
in initial interactions.]ou~~
of S o c and
~ ~per so^^ Re~ t i o n s h i ~4,s ,3-16.
Fincham, F. D. (1985). Attributions in close relationships. In J. H. Harvey 6 G. Weary
n ; issues and a ~ ~ ~ i c a t i(pp.
o n s 203-234). New York: Academic.
(Eds.), A t t ~ ~ t i oBasic
Giles, H., & Street, R. L. (1994). Communicator characteristics and behavior. In M. L.
Knapp 6G. R.Miller (Eds.), hand boo^ of inte~ersonalc o ~ ~ u n i c a(pp.
t i ~103-161).
Thousands Oaks, CA:Sage.
Goffman, E.(1959).Presen~t~on ofselfin
everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday/Anchor.
Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, X, & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences of a
need for self-esteem. In R. Baumeister (Ed.), Public se~fandprivate self (pp. 189-212).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
n : issues and applications.New York: AcaHarvey, J. H., &Weary, G.(1985).A t t ~ ~ t i oBasic
demic.
Hattie, J.A., 6r Hansford, B. C. (1984).Meta-analysis: A reflection on problems. A u s t r a ~ ~ n
]
~ o ~ Pu s ~ c~~ 26,
o ~239-254.
~o ~ ,
Heider, E (1958). T h e p s y c h o ~ o ~inter~ersonal
of
rehtions. New York: Wiley.
Indvik, J., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1986). Perceptions of inclusion, affiliation, and
control in
t~~
34, 1-1 1.
five interpersonal relationships.C o m m u n ~ c aQuarter~y,
Infante, D.A. (1976). Persuasion as a function of the receivers prior success or failure as a
message source. C o ~ ~ u n ~ cQuarterly,
u t i ~ 24, 21-26.
Jacobs, S. (1994). Language and interpersonal communication. In M. L.Knapp & G. R.
Miller (Eds.),H a n ~ o o k o f ~ n t e ~ e r s o n u l c o ~ m u(pp.
n ~ c a199-228).
tion
Thousands Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Josephs, L. (1991). Character structure, self-esteem regulation,and the principle of identity maintenance. In R. Curtis (Ed.), The relational self (pp. 199-228). NewYork:
Guilford.
Kelley, H. (1973). The process of causal attribution. American Psycho~o~st,
28, 107-128,

ISS

Laing,R. D., ~hillipson,H., 6.Lee, A. R. (1966). ~ n t e ~ e r percept~on.

s o ~ ~ NewYork:
Springer.
Manusov, V. (1990). An application of attribution principles to nonverbal behaviorin romantic dyads. C o m m u n ~ c M
u ~ ~ ~ u57,p104-1
~ ,18.
Martin, D., & Gayle, B.M. (1999). It isnt a matter of just being funny: Humor production
by organizational leaders. Communicution ResearchRepo~ts,16, 72-80.
Martin, M. N., 6Rubin, R. B. (1998). A ~ n i ~ s e e k i and
n g initial interactions. The Southern C o m m u n i c u t ~ o u 63,
~ 13
~ 1-143.
,
Mathes, E. W., Adams, H. E.,&Davis, R.M. (1985). Jealousy:Loss of relationship rewards,
loss of self-esteem, depression, anxiety,and anger. ~
o of per
uso^^^^
~ and~Social Psyc h o ~ o48,
~ , 1552-1561.
Menees, M.M. (1997). The role of coping, socialsupport, and family communica~onin explaining the self-esteem ofadult children
of alcoholics.C ~ m u n ~ arep^^,
t i ~ 10,9-19.
Metts, S. (1994). Relational transgressions.In W. R, Cupach &L B. H.Spitzberg (Eds.),The
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
dark sideo f i ~ t e ~ e r s ~ ~ c ~ m(pp.
u n2i17-240).
c u t ~ oHillsdale,
~
Associates.
Nicotera, A. M. (1993). The importance of communication in interpersonalrelationships.
In A. M.Nicotera (Ed.), ~ n t e ~ p e r s o ~ ~ c ~ minuend
n ~ cand
u t mate
~ n r e ~ t i o ~ s h (pp.
~ps
3-12). Albany: State University of New York Press.
n ~ ~ u
Norton, R,W.(1978). Foundationof the com~unicatorstyle construct. ~ u m u ~
cation Reseurch,4, 99-1 12.
Norton, R. W.(1983).C o m m u ~ ~ u tstyle:
o r Theory,upp~~ur~ons,
and measures. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Parks, M, R. (1994). Communication competence and interpersonal control. In M. L.
Knapp & G. R.Miller (Eds.), ~ a n d ~ o o k o f i n t e ~ e r s o ~ ~ c ~ m(pp.
u n 589-620).
~cution
Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.
Preiss, R. W., & Allen, M. (1995). Understanding and using meta-analysis.~ ~ u l&f ~ t i
The ~ e u l t hProfessions, 18, 315-335.
Preiss, R.W., & Gayle, B. M. (2000, November).Se~~-esteem
and p e r s u ~ ~ oAn m
: etu-u~~~sis
of studies ~ n v o message
~ ~ ~ exposure.
~ g
Paper presented at the meeting of the National
Communication Association,Seattle, WA.
Query, J. L,,Parry, D., 6Flint, L.J. (1992). The relationship among social support, communication competence, and cognitive depression fornontraditional students. ~0~~~ of
A p ~ ~ i e d ~ o m ~ u n i cResearch,
u t i o n 20, 78-94.
Reeder, G. D. (1985). Implicit relations between dispositions and behaviors: Effects on
o n : issues and
dispositionalattribution. In J. H. Harvey& G. Weary (Eds.),A t t ~ ~ ~ r iBasic
NewYork: Academic.
u ~ ~ ~ ~ c a t(pp.
i o n 87-116).
s
:(1986). Self-presentation andthe phenomenal self: On the stability and
Rhodewalt, E ?
malleability of self-conceptions. InR. E Baumeister (Ed.),P ~ ~ s~e ~i ~cu pri~ute
nd
self (pp.
117-142). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Roach, K.D.(1998). Management view, power use,and affinity-seeking effects on college
student employee identification. Commu~~ation
Research Reports, 15, 354-364.
g New York: Basic.
Rosenberg, M.(1979). C o ~ c e ~ ~ofi nself.
Shaw, C. M.,(SrEdwards, R. (1997). Self-concepts and self-presentations of males and females: Similarities and differences. Comm~n~cation
Reports, IO, 55-62.
Sillars, A.L. (1980).Attributions and communication in roommate conflicts.C o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c
tion Monopuphs, 47, 180-200.

Sillars,A. L. (1982). Attributions and communication: Are people naivescientists or just

naive? In M. E. Roloff 6.C. R. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and c o ~ ~ ~ (pp.
n ~ a t
73-106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Simmons, R. G.(1987). Self-esteemin adolescence. InT.Honess 62.K.Yardley (Eds.), Self
and ~ e n r Perspect~ves
i ~ ~
across l~fespun(pp. 172-192), New York: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Snyder, M. (1979). Self-monito~n~
processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),~ d v u ~ cine ~
s
e ~ ~ e
tal social psycho^^ (Vol. 12, pp. 85-128). New York: Academic.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1994). The dark sideof incompetence. In W. R. Cupach 6.B. H.Spitzberg
(Eds.), The durk side ofinte~ersonulc ~ ~ ~ n(pp.~ 25-50).
u t Hillsdale,
i ~
NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Swann, W. B., 6.Predmore, S. C. (1985). Intimates as agents of social support: Sources
of
consolation or despair?~
~of P ~ e ~a ands Social
l ~ P~s ~~ c ~~49,
~ 1609-161
o ~ ,
7.
Tedeschi, J. T., & Norman, N. (1985). Socialpower, selfpresentation, and the self. In B. R.
Schlenker (Ed.),S e ~ f u ~ d n t (pp.
~ 293-322).
t ~
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Turner, J. C. (1987). Red~cover~ng
thesocial
Oxford, UK:Blackwell.
Vangelisti, A.L. (1994). Messages that hurt. In IX R. Cupach &B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.),The
durk side of i ~ r e ~ e ~ s o ~ (pp.
~ 53-82).
c ~ Hillsdale,
~ ~ n ~NJ:u Lawrence
t i ~ Erlbaum
Associates.
Wood, J. T. (1999). That wasnt really him: Womens
disassociationof violence fromthe
t i v e Reports in ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~I , 1-7.
c u ~ ~ o n ,
men who enacted it. ~ ~ u ~ ~ r uResearch

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

~ommunicationis extremely important in theformation of ones sense of

self, Our interactions with others andour exposure to culture an
form and influence howwe see ourselves. Nevertheless,we do notall have
the same experience with the world and thepeople with whom we interact.
Thus, our sense of self develops differently.
A prevalent and controversial topic of study todayis how sense of self, or
selfeesteem, differs for males and females. How these differences are conc
structed and to what degree these differences exist are central questions
that merit inquiry. The current researchexaminingdifferentlevels
of
selfcesteem has produced inconsistent results. This meta-analysis wasconducted to aggregate the empirical outcomes of investigations examining sex
differences in self-esteem.

Several definitions for self-esteem

have been posited in theliterature, but all
have similar characteristics. Rosenberg (1972) defined selfcesteem as a feeling of selfeworthand fundamental respect for oneself.
He characterized low
selfcesteem as a lack
of respect for oneselfand feelings ofunworthi~ess,inc
equacies, and deficiencies. Coopersrnith (1967) referred
to self-esteem as

the evaluation, which the individual makes and customarily maintains

with regard to himself: it expresses an attitude of approval or disapproval,
icates the extent which
to
the individual believes himselfto be capable, s i ~ i f i c a n tsuccessful,
,
and worthy (p. 4)In general, these authorscone
clude that self-esteem represents a positive ornegative personal evaluation
of oneself:
The empirical literature examining the relation between self-esteem and
sex differencesgenerates controversial and often inconsistentconclusions.
Despite the numerousstudies on this subject, no definitive conclusion exists. Some studies report that males have significantly higher self-evaluations than females (e.g., Alpert-Gillis & Connell, 1989; Bohan, 1973;
Dukes & Martinez, 1994; Richman, Clark, 6r Brown, 1985) Backes (1994)
claimed: Research indicates young adolescent females self-concept is
much lower than that of their male peers (p. 19). In 1991, the American
sociation of University Women conducted a study of 3,000 adolescents
ranging in ages from9 to 15 and found a considerable gap in male and female
selfcesteem that widened as children grew older (Sadker & Sadker, 1994).
Eccles et al. (1989)reported in a study of early adolescents that male self#es-.
teem scores were higher than female scores.
Several other studies report no significant differencesbetween male and
femaleselfflesteem(e.g.,Alawyie
&L Alawyie,1988;Lerner,
Sorell, 6
hackney, 1981; Maccoby 6r Jacklin, 1974; Mullis, Mullis, & orm man din,
1992; Osborne & LeGette, 1982; Williams & McGee, 1991).Maccoby and
Jacklin (1974) reviewed several studies examining gender diRerences and
concluded that males and females rate theiroverall self-images equally posir
tive or negative. Research by Lerner et al. (1981) found results consistent
with empirical generalizations drawn from the sex differences literature
from Maccoby and Jacklin(p. 719).
Some other studies report female self-esteemas greater than male self-esc
teem (e.g., Cienki 6r Brooks, 1989; Kohr, Coldiron, Skiffington, Masters,6
Blust, 1988; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1975; Whiteside, 19?6). These
results are quite controversial because theyviolate the expectationthat females have lower self-esteem than males. Because the literatureon self-es*
teem and sex differences provides inconsistent results, a more definitive
conclusion would benefit future theory and research.
For some scholars, self-esteem represents a multidimensional construct
including cognitive, social, and physical appearance dimensions that corn0
bine to create anoverall or comprehensive self-evaluation. Richman et al.
(1985) suggestedthat self-esteem constitutes a general feeling of self-worth
constructed by the compilation of variousarea-specific feelings of

self-worth. Womenand menmay evaluate each dimensi

ing sex differe~ces in
subscales of selfcesteem (Jackson
1994). Someresearch efforts find differences between
of selfcesteem su ham bliss, Muller, Hulnick, 6r Woo
eGette, 1982; Richman et al., 1985;
S have found no s i ~ i ~ c adifferen
nt
92). Jackson et al. (1994) argued t
ted that women and men draw
selfcperceived strength to arrive at overall selfce
tidimensional conceptualization of selfeesteem may explain
self~esteemlevels maybe similar for males
and females but different on various subdomains measuring selfcesteem(i.e., physical appearance,
nication skills, and academic achievement). The differences in
may be the consequence of gender stereotypes in our culture and
the differ0
ent socialization processes formen andwomen.
Selfcesteem is a product of communicating with other people and is constructed through interactionswith others. Two possible reasons for sex differences in selfcesteem may be the differential communication practices
used by males versus females and the socialization of mens talk versus
womens talk.The first reason emerges from
the possible differencesin the
messages sent to males and females and how these messages reflect different
selfcesteem levels. Sadker and Sadker (1994) claimed that theeducational
system in theUnited States is failing girls
and causing lower levels
of selfeesc
teem. The different ways women and menare spoken to and treatedmay afd
fect the construction of male and female selfeesteem.
Selfcesteem may also be explainedby sex differencesin communication.
Women and men are socialized to communicate differently according to
some scholars(Lakog 1975).Men are taught to be assertive, authoritati~e,
and certain in their speech, whereas femalesare taught to be tentative, re,
sponsive, and inclusive in their speech. Mens speech is more powerful and
womens speech is viewed as powerless.
By definition, maleand female types
of speech help reinforce differencesin confidence and esteem regarding how
one communicates and whatis beingcommunicated. If men andwomen are
taught to speak differentlyand these differences alsohelp construct differ@
ent images of the self, then this may be one area where the origins of selfces,
teem differences exist. For example,Grob and Allen (1995) found gender
differences in a metacanalysis on the use of powerful and powerless lane
guage. Males used
more powerful speechthan females. Perhaps females used
less powerful language as an indication of their level of self-esteem, and
males, who may feel more confident in themselves overall, utilized more

owerful l a n g ~ a ~Females
e.
may
ut thestandard for con~dencea

male and female selfeesteem are presented as the outcome of unfair treatment in our school systems and society.
The mass media also affect gender socialization and s t e r e o ~ i n
media have beenblamed for decreasing female selfdesteem, most
not
the domain of physical appearance, ~ t t r a c t i ~ ~ nise scentral
s
to female
self-esteem, and themedia playan integral part in construct in^ this emphasis. Women are barraged by messa~esvaluing youth and beauty. Medias
ages makewomen feel inferiorto menand that their worthiness stems
their appearance (Wolf, 1991). Over their life span, females are constantly receiving messages about their looks that may have adverse effects
on their self-esteem. Feelingsof attractiveness, vital to female self-esteem,
diminish drastically as girls reach adolescence and go on through high
school (Sadker 6r Sadker, 1994). Decreasing female selfcesteemmay be an
outcom~of the constantbombardment of stereotypical sex-role portrayals
on television (Herrett0Skjellum 6r Allen, 1995). Herrett-Skjellum and A1-

lens (1995) meta~analysisdemonstrates that themajority of television content serves to reinforce traditional gendererale
stereotypes. The propagation
of the typical female submissive
role in oursociety may in
e ~ e r in
s causing them to feel cognitively inferior to
ias physical portrayalsof women are oft
not give wamen attainablerole models ~ o o d 1994).
,
ences fernales in this way, one would expect lower femaleself~esteem,
most notably on thedimension of physical attractiveness. The multiple face
ets of self-esteem may account for the inconsistency of results in vario~s
studies. If this body ofresearch emphasizes different aspects af selfcesteem, it
is likely the findings would be variedand inconclusive.
If seIf-esteem differencesbetween the sexes exist, then communication
researchers should investigate how different messages can constructdifferent levels of self-esteem in males and females. The need for a meta~analysis
the relation~etween
sex and self-esteem is extremelyi ~ p o r ~ a n t
cant implications of the issue. he results of subsec
quent empirical studies on self-esteem and sex differences would merely
replicate the existing variedconclusio~;therefore, a meta0analysis is ware
ranted. Thisreview aggregatesthe available data to assess the overall relation between sex and level of self-esteem.

~ a m i n past
~ g research generates contradicto~and inconsistent conc1uI
sions about whethermales or females have higher selfMesteern. ~ u r r e n tas
,
well aspast research, provides one of three canclusions: (a) Thereare no sex
differences in self-esteem, (h)
males have higher self+esteem,or (c) fernales
have higher self-esteem. More studies comparing sex differencesand self*
teem would add to theconfusion and not resolve the inconsistency in fi
ings. In this chapter, we examine the available research to locate an overall
pattern to the sex difference and Self-esteem question by using the tech0
nique of meta-analysis.

A computer search using a CD-ROM version of PSYCHLit, (fromince~tion

to June 1995) and ERIC (1966June 1995) was conducted using the
keywords se^^^^, s e ~ c ~~e~~
~ e and
~ ~sex., The reference sections of
each manuscript were also reviewed forrelevant citations. The process gathered over 100 studies that were examined for relevancyin this report.

~anuscriptsincluded in this meta0analysis met the following conditions:

(a) The manuscript had to include a measurement of selfcesteem or
self-concept (a measurement was included if the measurement measured
individuals self-worthor feelings about the self);(b)the authors must have
made a sex comparison
between males and females on their levels of self-esc
teem; and (c) the authors must have provided su cient statistical i n f o ~ a ~
tion to calculate the effect sizeof the sex difference.

Each study was coded according to relevant i n f o ~ a t i o ncontained in the

manuscript. Five codes were imposed on each study: (a) date of the study,
(b) mean age of the sample, (c)race of the sample, (d) the measure(s) used
to evaluate level of self-esteem, and (e) whether the measure wasan overall
effect or a subscalemeasurement. There were 20 different scales used across
the 65 studies, somethat reported effects for subscales
of the measure. The
subscales included in this analysis comprisedthree domains: cognitive, social, and physical appearance. If more subscales were reported, they were
collapsed into oneof the threemain domains of the self-esteem. Table4.1 is
a summaryof the studies contained in this report.

~ and dish
The overall analysis included 124 caseswith a sample of 3 7 9 17
plays an average negative correlation (r = -.009) between males and females Self-esteem, females having higher overall selfeesteem. The effect
however is heterogeneous, X( 123) = 1071.82, p .05.
Heterogeneity indicates the possibility of moderator variables that need
further investigation. Subsequent analysis consideringthe dateof the study
showed a positivecorrelation (r = .191) for males.Therefore as the studies
became morerecent, male self-esteemwas greater than female self-esteem.

The measures of comprehensive, cognitive, social,and physical appearance

self-esteem were individually averaged for an overall effect. The comprehensive measure of self-esteem included the effects created by averaging
across multiple scalesand did not include subscale effects for cognitive,
so-

The studies used in this meta-analysis and the research that did not meet our criteria are no
cited here due
to space limitations. Anyone who wishes
to obtain the complete references for this
analysis may contact the Erin Sahlstein.

Author

Agrawal
Alawyie
Allgood~Merton
Alpert-Gillis
Backes
Berrenberg
Bledsoe I
Bledsoe I1
Bowler
Brack
Brenner
Brookover
Butts
Calhoun
Campbell
Carlson I
Carlson I1
Cate
Chambliss
Cheung
Chiu
Cienki
Clark
Coopersmith (Exp. 1)
Coopersmith (Exp. 2)
Dukes
Eccles
Edwins
Ezeilo
Feather
Flaherty
Fleming
Gadzella
Goldschmid
Gove
Hall
Heatherton

Meum-es O v e r u ~
Efiect
~

1978
1985
1991
1989
1992
1989
1961
1964
1986
1988
1992
1962
1963
1986
1986
1984
1984
1986
1978
1985
1990
1989
1979
1967
1967
1989
1989
1980
1983
1985
1980
1980
1984
1968
1975
1979
1991

-.107
.ooo
.l69

.zoo
.085
.013
-.013
-.290
.l06
.28 1
$288
--.070
,156
.031
,000

.ooo
.ooo

,066
-.012

.ooo

.011
.009
-.044
-.078
-.090
.l03
.052
.l59
.025

.l27
,033
-.040
-.430

.ooo

.077
.053
.014

A ~ t ~ ~ r

Helmrich -.026
Hensley
Herbert
Hernandez
Hong
Jackson (Exp. 1)
Jackson (Exp. 2)
Jones
Jong-Gierveld
Josephs (Exp. 1)
Josephs (Exp. 2)
Juhasz
Kahle
King
Klein
Kohr
Il-Abate
Lamke
Lau
Lekarczyk
Lerner
Long
Lortie-Lussier
Marron
Marsh (Exp. 1)
Marsh (Exp. 2)
Marsh (Exp. 3)
Marsh (Exp. 4)
Marsh (Exp. 5)
Marsh (Exp. 6)
Martinez
Mintz
Mullis
Nottelmann (Exp. 1)
Nottelmann (Exp. 2)
Nottelmann (Exp, 3)
OMaIley
Orlofsky I
Orlofsky I1
Osborne

Date

1974
1977
1969
1984
1993
1994
1994
1996
1987
1992
1992
1985
1976
1981
1992
1984
1960
1982
1989
1969
1977
1967
1992
1984
198 1-87

1985
1991
1991
1987
1986
1992
1987
1987
1987
1979
1977
1987
1982

Overa~
Effect
~

Measwes

T
.050
.255

-.292
.078
.063
.l37
,257
.l00
.248
.l42
.07 1
.l 13
-.135

.ooo

--.026
.l26
,102
.096
-.105
.038
.l02

.ooo

.l64
.l03
.l09
.l09
.04 1
.063

.ooo

-.011
,302
-.030
,152
.082
.l19
,044
$063
.l31
.020

Aut~or

-.003
Payne
Pennebaker
120.
Piers I
-,029
Piers I1
Prescott .032
Puglisi .056
Reynolds
Rice
Richman
.085
Rosenberg
Rowlison -.060
Ryan
RYff
Sethi .004
Simmons (Exp. 1)
Simmons220
(Exp. 2)
Simon
-.049
Spence
Stein
Stoner .204
Tennen
Turner
--,026
Watson ,108
Whiteside --.l50
Williams
Williams~~urns
.092
Zeldow
Zuckerman I
Zuckerman I1

Date

1987
1990
1964
1977
1976
1981
1988
1984
1985
1975
1988
1986
1989
1986
1973
1976
1975
1975
1992
1978
1987
1982
1987
1976
1988
1976
1985
1980
1989

Overa~~
Effect

Measures

.ooo

T
T
T
T

.ooo

.055
-030

T
T
T
T S, P

c,

T
T
.l17
.l02

T c,S, P
T
T
T
T

.l60

,050

T
.l17

.ooo

T
T c,S, P
TS
TS
T

.037

.OS2

.ooo
.ooo

TS
1:

TGS
T

T c,p
T

T = total measure; S = socialmeasure; C = cognitive measure; P = physical appearance measure.

cial, and physical domains. The comprehensive analysis included 64 cases

(N= 325,~95). The
effect was negative,with females having higher selfees3 )204.5+41,p
.O
teem (r = -.021). The effect was s i ~ i f i c a n t , ~ 2 ( 6=
Analyses using date of study were performed. A positive correlation (r =
.05 1) revealed maleshad higher self-esteem.As the studies became morere0
cent, the gap between male and female self-esteem grew larger.
The cognitive subscale, which had 32 studies and a sample of 310,365
had an overall average negative effect (r = --,026) for females. The effect
was heterogeneous, x2(31) = 186.63, p C .05. Date of study was teste

moderator variable and a positivecorrelation (r = .095) showed maleshad

higher cognitive self-esteem asthe studies became more recent.
Further analyses wereconducted on thecognitive subscalewithout one
large samplesizes effect taken into account (Kohr et al., 1988). The studys
sample (~ = 293,03 1)was so large its effect was
ove~owering the
results of
the analysis. ~ i t h o u the
t large study, the overall effect was positive (r =
.024) for males for
the 3 1studies included (n= 17,334).The chi-square was
2(30)= 14.0.52,p C .05. Not including the large study did not
make a homogeneous sample. However, without the study by Kohr et al.
(1988) dominating the analysis of the cognitive domain, the effect size was
slightly positive for males,
but the correlation was almost zero.
Analysis of the social self-esteem subscale was performed
on 51 studies
with a sample sizeof 39,487. The overall effect was positive for males
(r=
.028). The chi-square, ~ 2 ( 5 0=
) 192.82, p C .05, was significant and revealed heterogeneity across these samples. The possibility of moderator
variables existsin this measurement of social self-esteem.Thus, analysis for
date of study was performedand a slightlymore positive correlation was revealed (r= ,117).
Analyses were conducted
on the third subscale, physical appearance. Twenty
eight studies with a sampleof size
15,399 produced a positive effect
(r= .202) displaying that males have higher selfeesteem for their physical appearance
than
) 110.83, p <.05, was significant, indicating
females. The chi-square, ~ 2 ( 2 7=
the possible presence of a moderating variable. Analysis correlatingwith the
date of the study revealed a slightly higher positive correlation
(r = .3 10).Males
increased in selfcesteem over females across time,
A second set of analyses was performedwith respect to participant race
and sex. Fortyctwo studiescontained only White participants (n = 20,762).
The correlation was slightly positive (r = .057) for males. However, the
chi-square of 278.40 was significant(p .05) Seventeen studies with Black
participants were also analyzed (n = 5,975). A positive correlation (r =
. ~ 8 8 was
) found with a nonsignificant chi-square of 16.95 (p > 05); thus
the effect was homogeneous. Finally, analyses were performed on Native
American participants (n = 1,277) There was aslightly positivecorrelation
(r = .043), and thechi-square
wasnonsignificant, ~ 2 ( 8=) 38.55,p >.05.
Age of the participant was also taken into consideration and tested. The
mean age of the participants across allstudies was 13.0 years.
A positive corc
relation (r = $3 16)
was found as participants aged. Therefore, as malesand
females get older,the gap between their levels of self-esteem widens.One
possible explanation is that as females get older, they become more cone
cemed with their looks and social status; therefore, their level of self-esteem

IF
may decrease as males self0esteem increases
with age. However,the correla-

The results reinforce some theoretical perspectives and stereotypical ass u m ~ t i about
o ~ gender differencesin self-esteem. Each of the five analyses
on the available data was consistent with the possible explanations presented by previous authors. The review of the existing literature inc
dicated equivocal resultsamong various studies. The main explanation for
sults may be the presence of a multifaceted self-esteem
differ in their levels of the specific spheresof selfeestee
l1effect showed females
having slightly higher self-esteem
than
er, the effect was close to zero and indicated the possibility
riables. Further analysis revealed that the dateof the stu
might be one of the moderating variables.The more recently complet
search studies demonstrated a larger effect, with male selfeesteem
greater than femaleself-esteem. oreo over, other mo ratingvariables
should be expected if self-esteem is a multifaceted CO truct, The latter
point was supported by the subsequent subanalyses.
The analyses performedon thecomprehensive measures showedthat females have higher self-esteem than males, but moderator variables weredeeterogeneity would be expected if one agrees that males and
females differ in their cognitive, social, and physical appearance evaluac
tions. Mter testing for the date-of-the-study moderator, the correlation bed
came positive and males had higher self-esteem.If the overall measurestap
all of the facets of self-esteem, one would expect males to score higher on
cognitive and physical appearance self-esteem levels. Females would
be ex0
pected to score higher on social selfdesteem.The effects presentedhere do
not support this line of reasoning.
The subscale analyses reflected sex differences in the three domains of
self-esteem.Femaleswerefound
to have higher cognitiveself-esteem,
whereas maleshad higher socialand physical self-esteem. Some researchers
argued that females receive unfair academic treatment and should have
lower cognitive self-esteem; nevertheless,the empirical findingshave been
inconsistent (Jackson et al., 1994). Part of the reason for the inconsistent
findings might be that cognitive self-esteem may be multifaceted, with
subdomains of different academic subject areas,
Education may be failing females in the classroom as some researchers
have argued, but theeffect presentedhere did not reflect male omi in at ion.
If schools servethe interests of some groupsat theexpense of others, there

e an exploration into how educators perpetuate orinfluence current

social status differences and stereotypes (Sprague, 1992). This analysis di
ort a male-dominated sex difference. Nevertheless,
after excluding
extremely large study(n = 29~,03
l),the effect became hoz
positive, with males having higher self-esteem. The correlation was small (T = .024) and therefore needs to be asse
er testing for date of the study, males seemed
to show h
nitwe self-esteem, and over the years the gap has widened. Our educational
system may be having an effect by increasingly reinforcing male
actions and
ways of being over female behavior.
S report slightly higher social selfeesteemthan females. This sex difwas inconsistent with the stereotypical view that women are more
relationship oriented and socially competent. However, the existence of
ossible moderators was detected in the si~nificant chiesquare. Further
analysis fordate of study revealed an even larger positivecorrelation, with
having higher self-esteem.
e physical attractiveness domain displayed the predicted positive efe
t-males had higher self-esteem. With respect to study date, the effect
came more positive. Therefore, male physical selfcesteemhas increased
with respect to female physical self-esteemover the years. Other possible
moderators could bein~uencing the
results. These differences can be attributed to the socialization of females in our society. Although the effect was
not extremelylarge, the difference between the two sexes is evident,
Women do feel lessconfident with their physical image.
The media may be one of the largest influenceson female self-esteemby
pe~etuatingsexcrole stereotypes. As implied by ~erretteskjellumand Allens
(1995) meta-analysis of television, when females increasetheir levels of media intake and thus their exposure to gender stereotypes, female self-esteem
ecreases. Female role models
on television and in movies place unfair expectations on women in our society. Males are exposedto a wide varietyof role
models and are given more range
in what is considered an acceptable physical
appearance, whereas women
are bombarded with images
of s u p e ~ o d e land
s
~ u ybabes
~ u
as samples
~ ~ of attractiveness in our society. The only real female examples on television are Oprah Winfiey, and Rosie ODonnell, and
even they have gone to great lengthsto alter their appearances.
The effects of
media exposureon self-esteem needto be explored further.
These meta-analysis resultsare consistent with the conceptualization of
self-esteem as multidimensional. By separating self-esteem research into
three areas, it is clear men andwomen rate themselves differently.The conceptualization of a multifaceted selfcesteemaccounts for inconsistenciesin

results across studies.~dditionally, the

choice of measure may cause males
or females to rate themselves higher or lower, depending on thescales as*
sessment (i.e., cognitive, social, or physical appearance)
These results do not provide answers orove~helmingsupp
research on general sex d
;however,scholarship that le
in cognitive,
social,
creased
understanding of
if&erences
selfcesteem specifically form
is in order. ~ l t h o u g hoverall the da
not point to large differences between male and female selfcesteem levels,
ntially these differences n have important implications forthe men,
physical health. ofind
als. Scholars in this discipline shoul
mmunication is vital to the differentl~t
creased attention to h
self-evaluation processesof males and females. Communication, in its vari
forms, is how wecome to h o w ourselves aswe11 as others. Through processes
of communication individuals(re)const~cttheir self esteem throu~heveryc
day talk and in their exposure to media. As Communication scholars we
should be asking more questions
c o n c e ~ i n gthe role of communication in the
process of constructing sexdiEerences in specificself-evaluat
tively,socially, and physically). In the words of Sadker a
(1994),We believethat understanding these crucial issues will
enable people
to work for change (p. xi).
(I

Alawyie, O., & Alawyie, C.2.(1988). Self-concept developmentof Ghanaian school children. ~0~~~ ofPsycho~o#, 122, 139-145.
Alpert-Gillis, L.J., & Connell, J. I! (1989). Gender and sex-role influenceson childrens
o of P e~T s o ~ l ~57,97-114.
t ~u ,
~
self-esteem.~
Backes, J. (1994).Bridging the gender gap: Self-concept in the middle grades.Schoo~sin the
Middle, 3, 19-23.
Bohan, J. S. (1973). Age and sex differences in self-concept.Adolescence, 8,379-384.
Chambliss, J., Muller, D.,Hulnick, R., &Wood, M.(1978). Relationships between self-concept, self-esteem, popularity,and social judgmentsof junior high schools t u d e n t s . ~ o ~ ~ nul ofPsycho~o#, 98, 91-98.
of highschool students as a function of sex,
Cienki, S. J., & Brooks, C. I. (1989). Self-esteem
grade, and curriculumorientation. Psyc~olo~cul
~ e ~ o ~6 4t ,s 191-194.
,
Coopersmith, S. A. (1967). The antecedents of self-estee~. San Francisco: Freeman.
Dukes, R. L.,& Martinez, R. (1994). The impact of gender on self-esteem among adoles29, 105-1 15.
cents. A~o~escence,
Eagly, A.(1995).The science and politics of comparing women
and men.~ ~ e ~Psychol~
c u n
agist, 50,145-158.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Flanagan, C. A.,Miller, C,, Reuman, D. A., 6r Yee, D. (1989).
Self-concepts, domain values,and Self-esteem: Relations and changes at early adolesPe~sonu~~ty,
u l
57, 283-3 10.
cence, ~ o ~of ~

LL
Ezeilo, B. N. (1983). Sexand urban-rural differences in self-concepts among Nigerian adolescents. ~m~~of P s y c ~ o ~Io14,
~ ,57-61.
in ~
~and ~ ~e e r ~~
~e sn s u~A g ~e
Grob, L., & Allen, M. (1995, April). Gender di~~erences
rnera-a~~ytical
review. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the Central States Communication Association,St. Paul, MN.
He~ettSkjellum,J., & Allen, M. (1995). ~ ~ v ~ s~ ir o ~na r n r n and
~ n gsex srereory~~ng~
A
r n e ~ - a ~ ~Manuscript
ys~.
submittedfor publication.
Jackson,L. A., Hodge,C. N., & Ingram, J. M. (1994). Gender and self-concept: A reexamination of stereotypic differencesand the role of genderattitudes. Sex Roles, 30,615-630.
Klein, H.A. (1992). Temperament and Self-esteem in late adolescence. Ado1escence, 27,
689-694.
, S. (1988). The influKohr, R. L.,Coldiron,R,, Skiffington,E.W., Masters,3. R., ~ B l u s tR.
ence of race, class,and gender on self#esteemfor fifth, eighth, and eleventh grade students in ~ennsylvaniaschools. ~
oo f u
~ e E~d~o
~ a t i~o n57,467-481.
,
~and womens
~
glace.
g NeweYork: HarperCollins.
Lakog, R. (1975). ~
Lee, l? C., &Cropper, N. B. (1974). Sex-roleculture and educationalpractice. Hurvard Educ a t i ~~e v~~ e w
44,369-407.
,
Lerner, R. M,, Sorell, G. 13, & Brackney, B. E. (1981). Sex differencesin self-concept and
self-esteem of late adolescents: A time-lag analysis.Sex Roles, 7, 709-722.
Maccoby, E. E., 6 Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The ~ s ~ c h oofl sex
o ~ d~~erences.
Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Mullis, A. K., Mullis, R. L.,& Normandin, D.(1992). Cross-sectional and longitudinal
comparisons ofadolescent self-esteem.Adolescence, 27,5 1-61.
Osborne, W. L., & LeGette, H. R. (1982). Sex, grade level,and social class differencesin
self-concept. ~easurernentand E v a ~ ~ r in
~ oGnu ~ ~ n c14,
e , 195-201.
Richman, C. L.,Clark, M. L., 6:Brown, K. l? (1985). General and specific self-esteem in
late adolescent students: Race X gender X SES effects.Ado~escence,20,555-556.
Rosenberg, M. (1972). Society and the ado1escenr sel~-~rnage.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ryan, C. M., &Morrow, L. A. (1986).Self-esteem in diabetic adolescents: Relationship between ageat onset and gender.Jmm1 o~consu~tingand C1~~ical Psych010~,
54,730-73 l.
Sadker, M., & Sadker, D.(1994). Failing at fairness: How A ~ e r i c u s c h o o ~cheat girls. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Spence, J.13, Helmreich, R.,(SrStapp, J. (1975).Ratings of selfand peerson sex-role attributes and their relationshipto self-esteem and conceptions
of masculinity and femininity.
J o u m ofpersonaliry
~
and Sociul P s y c h o ~ o32,
~ , 29-39.
Sprague, J. (1992). Expanding the researchagendafor instructional communication:
Raising some unasked questions. C o ~ ~ u ~Educut~~n]
~ c a r41,~1-25.
~
Whiteside, M.(1976).Age and sex differencesin self-perceptionas related to ideal trait seI I , 585-592.
lections. A~o~escence]
Williams, S., 6.McGee, R. (1991). Adolescents perceptionsof their strengths. ~~r~~ of
Youth and Adolescence, 20,325-337.
Wolf, N. (1991). The ~ e u ~myth.
r y New York: Morrow.
r ~ oand
n c, u ~ r ~ (2nd
r e ed.). Belmont,
Wood, J. T. (1994). Gendered lives: C ~ ~ ~ n ~ c agender
CA: Wadsworth,

In recentyears the general public has developed fascination

a
with sex differences in communication. The extremely widespread popularity
of Grays
(1992) book, MenAre From Mars, o en Are From Venw, evidence
is
of this
interest. Gray has since developed seminars,produced daily calendars,and
written several bestselling booksfurther elaborating on thesubject. Grays
main contention is that men and women are from diiferent planets, and
therefore speak totally different languages. His books purport to decode
those languages forthe opposite sexto enhance relational communication.
Gray isthe most popular writer
on sex differencesin language production, it
is true, but itshould be noted that more academicauthors have also investigated this topic.
Deborah Tannen is a linguistics professor,
and cites scholarly researchin
her books, but has achieved popular acclaim as well. Tannens
(1990) book,
You Jwt Dont ~nderstund~
omen und Men in ~ o n ~ e ~ s u twas
~ o na ,sli~htly
more academic slant on thesame idea,that men and
women come from different worlds. She followed up with T u ~ ~ ~From
n g 9 to 5 (Tannen, 1994),
which examined sex differences in communication at work. Both books
were bestsellers. Although popular interest is recent, scholarly interest in
the sex differences in language production is rooted in long-standing re0

an^ ~ o ~Plclce~ (1975a,

, s 1975b) serve
erature aboutmens and womens useof powanguage. Lakoff (1975a) claimedthat women experi,
ination in two ways: in the way they are taught to use
e, and in the
way general language usetreats them (p. 46). Lakoffs
hypothesis is that there are specific features that characterize
womens speech, and thatthis language styleac ally keeps womenin submissive positionsand men in dominant roles. 0 rr (1982) also addressed
this c o n c e ~The
:
tendency for more women t
eak powerless language
for men tospeak it less isdue, at least in part, to thegreater tendency of
women to occupyrelativelypowerlesssocialpositions(pp.
7~-71).
koff (1975a, 1975b) identifiedwomen speaking a different lane
rr (1982) and his colleagues argued that individuals in lower
status roles tend to use powerless language. In other words, the argument
changes, as Lakoff (1975a) viewed women using primarily powerless features, whereas OBarr concluded that both males and females would use
erless languagein low-status roles (e.g., a janitor vs. a doctor).
akoffs (1975a, 1975b) work employsqualitative m e t h o ~ o l orelying
~,
mostly on introspection. A s she explained:
I have examined my own speech and thatof my acquaintances, and have
have also made use of the media: in
used my own intuitions in analyzing Iit,
some ways, the speech heard,e.g., in commercials or situation comedieson
television mirrors the speech
of the television0watchi~~
community. (Lakoff,
1975a, p. 46)

Lakoff (1975a) observed several differences between mensand womens

speech, includ~g:(a) vocabulary items (i.e., women have
a greater repertoire
of colors and use less harsh swear words), (b) empty adjectives (i.e., women
use more words like~ o r uc ~
~ ~ i,and
n ~ ~ ~, ~(c) iquestion
~ ) forms
,
(i.e.,
women use tag
~uestionsand ~ p e r a t i v e in
s question form, whereasmen use
~eclaratives)
,(d) politeforms (i.e., women s a y ~and
~ t~~en you
k more often
than men), (e) hedges or forms
of uncertainty (Le., women use many phrases
S, k
~and I~& ~ ~~n k(0) ,,intensives (i.e., women usereu~~y,
so, and very
more frequently than men), and (g) hypercorrect grammar (i.e., women are
less ~ikely than
men to use words like aint or to shorten words like doin or

SI

aminedover the

constitute some of the most comm

the construct of powerless langua
years. A. number of quantitative studies h
,and the findhgs o

maintaining ones turn ratherthan

equently over the years as powerful
rruptions remain the single most researched
feature of
ss language, with the general assumption that those
ore power in a conversation. However, even with a
literature on interruptions, the results remainincon&
clusive. Due to the extreme sex differences they found, ~immerman an
Wests (1975) study is
an often cited investigation of interruption behavio
They found that in 11mixed-sex pairs,men performed 98%of all interru
tions. West and ~ i m m e (1983)
~
performed a similar investigation, a
found that in 5 mixed-se ads,
men performed 75% of all interruptions.
These percentages are extreme, but otherresearchers (Carli, 1990;Dindi
1987; Mulac, Wiemann, Widenmann, & Gibson, 1988) have produce
comparable results. Turner, Dindia,
and Pearson (1995)found that menine
terrupt more than women in both same0 and mixed-sex dyadsdo. Bilous and
rauss (1988)found that inmixed-sex pairs,men did moreinterrupting, but
that it was the female same-gender pairs that interrupted one anothermore
than themale same-gender pairs, to quite a large degree.
However, some empirical support contradicts thesefindings.
Blumstein, and Schwartz (1985) argued that [ilnterruptionsa
a sign of conversational dominance (p. 40), but found no difference in
the amount of interruptions between males and females in cross~sex
pairs. Simkins-~ullock and Wildman
(1991) found no differences in the
amount of interruptions within mixed-sexdyads, or betweenmale-male
pairs and female-female pairs, supporting Kollock et al.s (1985) findings. Interestingly, there is o support for the claim that women int
rupt more thanmen do.
nedy andCamden (1981) observed
graduate studentsover six l-hour, mixedcsex group sessions. They found
that women performed 157 (or 62%) of the 255 total interruptions.
Dindia (1987) foundwomen interrupting morethan men in her
study of
30 mixed-sex pairs. Clearly, results from studies investigating interrup~
tions are inconsistent and inconclusive.

Generally, languagethat indicates a particular level of certainty about what

the speaker is saying is considered powerful language. Research
exam in in^
disclaimers, hedges,and tag questions explore uncertainty (powerlessness)
in language production, and havealso been subject to much empirical scrutiny, alongwith some controversy.Carli (1990) found women use substana
tially larger amount of disclaimers than men do(up to 3.5 times more) in
both same- and mixedcsex pairs. Other researchers (Entwisle 6z.Garvey,
1972; Stutman, 1987) have replicated these results. Turner et al. (1995),
however, found just the opposite-that men use more disclaimers than
women in both same- and mixed-sex pairs. Similarly, the ~ndings this
in line
guistic category are inconclusive.
Within the literature on hedges, a great deal of controversial evidence
exists. Carli (1990) found that, similar to disclaiming behavior, women per.
formed more hedgesthan mendid, both in same-sex dyadsand mixed0sex
dyads. Mulac et al. (1988) found results that supported Carlis (1990) first
finding, but not the second, as they reported men using more hedges in
samecsex pairsthan women. In aninvestigation of sex differencesin childrens language (comparing20 children each in four age groups:d, years, 8
years, 12 years, and 16 years), Staley (1982) found that in all age groups,
males used more hedges
than females. The only exception was the 12-yearold age group, whichhad just as strong an effect, but in theopposite direction, with girls using more hedges.
An interesting side note is that thedifference between the sexeswaslargest at age 16 (the oldest of the ages
examine^), which may indicate a learned behavior as time goes on. However, it was in the unexpected direction (boys hedging more than girls).
Clearly, without further research, conclusions cannot be drawn.
Tag questions, asmentioned earlier, have been investigated in a number
of studies as well. Besides Crosby and Nyquist (1977), Carli (1990) also
found that women use moretag questions than men do, in both same- and
mixed-sex pairs. McMillan, Clifton, McGrath, and Gale (1977) reported
the same findings,with a slightly larger effect.
The same researchers also re*
ported that ((imperativeconstructions in question form, ..defined asalternatives to simple and direct ways ofordering action (p.548) are used more
by women than by men.
In some cases, researchers combine variables
to indicate a style
of speaking. For example, in
three separate studies, Crosby
and Nyquist (1977) coded
for the use of female register, which is actually a combination variable
that includes four powerless linguistic features: empty adjectives,
tag questions,
(
.

UAGE ON THE BASIS OF S

hedges, and the word so. They found that women rated higher in the use of fee
male registerthan men. Overall,whether investigating hedges, tags,
or come
binations of these l ~ g u ~ tfeatures,
ic
the research findingsare contradictory.

~inguisticfeatures that are considered displays of (im)politeness have also

been examined asp o w e ~ uor
l powerless. Hostile verbs (Gilley6,ummers,
1970) were used more
by men thanwomen, and menwere alsofound to do
more swearing than women on a daily basisin everyday situations (taley,
1978). In addition, men have been
found to make threats more than women
do (Scudder 6Andrews, 1995). Civilities (sayingplease,
you, ~
~
~~~~tI be ableto ~ v eetc.)
, have beencoded as powerless language,
and have
been found more in womens speech than inmens (Brouwer, Gerritsen, 6
DeHaan, 1979). Womenhave also been accused of a fondness for hyperbole and ...use of adverbs
of intensity (Haas, 1979,p. 620),which is seen as
powerless language. Empirical investigations comparing
the use of intensifie
ers by men andwomen have supported this tendency (Carli, 1990;Crosby
Nyquist, 1977; McMillan et al., 1977; Mulac et al., 1988; Turner et al.,
1995). Again, the findings in this area are hard to interpret.
As Deaux and Major (1987) noted, inshort, researchers attempting to
document and replicate sex differences have often found them elusive, a
case of now yousee them, now you dont (p. 369)
However, the need for
clear-cut results is also evident. In a recent meta-analysis of powerful and
powerless language, Burrell and Koper (1998) found that powerful lane
guage is perceived as more credible than powerless language (p. 24.8).
Clearly, it is important in many situations to be perceived as credible
or persuasive (e.g., teaching, parenting, sales, and legal contexts, to name a few).
Burrell and Kopers findingindicates that women may be in theposition of
being perceived as less credible
than men, and therefore less persuasive
than
men, simply as a result of
the language they use. Becauseof the contradictory resultsand the importantimplications, a meta-analysis was performed
to determine whether or notwomen speak less powerfullythan mendo.
~~~~

A thorough search of the research literature examining sex differencesin

the use of powerful and powerless language wasconducted. The relevant literature was obtained through a search of journals in communication, social

To streamline final analyses, the original 25 language featu~eswere cole

into four categories: floor allocation, c e r t a i n ~ - u n c e ~ a i npolite~,
ness-impoliten~ss, andstyle. It was hoped that more conclusive, concrete
results would beuncovered by com~iningdifferent linguistic features into
groupings of behaviors with conceptual similarities.
The first category, floor allocation, included features such as interruptions, turn taking, starting a sequence, indepen~entturns, and shultaneous speech, These language features were groupedtogether because they
are all measuresof taking or maintaining the floor in con~ersation.
Catego-

E ON THE BASIS OF S

Author

Beattie
55
Beck
Bilous
587
Brouwer
Carli116
64 (Exp. 1)
Crosby
197(Exp. 2)
Crosby
90 (Exp. 3)
Crosby
Dindia
Entwisle
Gilley
35
Kennedy
Kollock
Martin
40
McMillan
98
Mulac
Mulac
48
12
Mulac
48 (Exp. 1)
Mulac
48 (Exp. 2)
Mulac
.3 Pillon
40
Scudder
Simkins-Bullock
78
Staley
55
Staley
Stutman
50
Turner
80
West
Willis
15
Zimmeman

Year

1981
1978
1988
1979
1990
1977
1977
1977
1987
1972
1970
1981
1985
1983
1977
1980
1982
1985
1988
1988
1992
1995
1991
1978
1982
1987
1995
1983
1976
1975

Overall C ~ ~ e l a t i o n

-.105
24
60

.482
-.260

60
665
100

-.l00

30

"089

.152
.077
.268

-.zoo

63

.277
.110

142

,178

26

.107

.048
.132
.100

10

.700

22

,716

Note. Only the first author is listed; see references for complete citation.

ries werecoded as powerful language

when used to either take the floor from
another speaker or maintainthe current speaking turn.
"he second category, certain~-uncertain~,
included the largest amount
of language features (variables markedwith a (+) are considered powerful
when employed; those marked with a (-) are considered powerless) :nega-

tions (+),such as Imnot kid

ers (+),as in I woul
e ..;~ u a l i ~ eor
rs
uch as Im not su
ges (-), such as I gue
g ~uestions(-), as
1constructions (-), which are essentially identical to impera(-) ,such as ~ o n you
9 t think we should goto lunch now
ke or ~kay;adverbials beginning a sentenc
beginning a sentence (-).
icated a particular level o

ally;verbalreinforcehasyes
or Isee; ciase and if
you
don
ostile
verbs
(+), as in
red; threats (+); obscenities (+); an
ther example, These variables were
sent a direct display of (im)politeness.
style, was comprised
of variables culledfrom stu
ers grouped several different linguistic features toe
able (i.e., the aforementione
empty adjectives, hedges, a
h variables that were not separab
ealso included in this cate o
e stylecat ego^ consisted of elab
which is the difference between ful
ity; female register(-) ;and dynamism (+),or being perceived as strong,
ace
t h e 9loud, and aggressive.

The procedure employed in this investigation involvedconverting available

summa^ statistics (i.e., means, standard deviations, correlations, t statisc
tics, F statistics) into correlational estimates for summarizing purposes.A
positive correlation (a randomly assigned designation)indicat
used more powerful language or women used more powerless
negati~ecorrelation indicated the reverse. The correlations were weighted
for sample sizeand averaged.
A chi-square test for homogeneity wasthen performe
ata. If the chi-square test was nonsignificant, the avera
considered to be an accurate true score estimate. If, however, the chi-xpare
test was significant, alternative methods o~determining the
average correlation were performed.

lier here, having the largest correlation, and was removed for the next
analysis. ~ i t h o uit,
t there re nine cases with a total of 1,039participants.
(8) = 14.68,p >.05, indicating that men use
The eRect was r = +.054,
more powerful (or certain) languagethan women do.
Po~iteness-impolitenesswas also includedin 10 studies, employing atotal
of 1,19l participants. The efiFectwas r = 162,
) = 1 7 . 1 0 , ~ +05,indicating a signi~cantamount of variance. Once a
~ c ~ i l l et
a al.
n (1
was an outlier, and without it, there were nine cases with 1,093participants.
ct wasr = +.l34 *(8) = 6.92, p .05, which indicates that women
ore politely than na, in
other words, less power~lly.
The style category included 14 studies and 958 participants.
S
(13) = 17.67,p >.05, i~dicating that men
~owerfully than
women do.
The sex compositionof the dyad wasalso considered as a possible m
tor variable, and the sameOsex pairs were analyzed apart
from the mix

Floor allocation
Outliers removed
Certainty
Outlier removed

14
12

27.82*
604
5 72

,067

10

27.66*
1,137
14.68
1,039

.087

.025

8.58

.054

Politeness
Outlier removed

10

1,191
6.92
1,093

.l62

Style

14

958

.l74

17.10*

,134
17.67

Note. Additional analyses were run for floor allocation, certainty,and politeness.

*p

.05.

pairs. Seven studies (n = 426) investigated same-sex pairs,

and the effect was
= .002, ~ ~ ( =6 40.64,
)
p <.05, indicating a significantamount of variance. The Bilous and Krauss (1988) article was responsible for aamount
large
of variance, and was removed forthe next analysis. The effect size withoutit
(n = 366) was T = +.126, ~ ~ ( =
5 2.56,
)
p > .05, which indicates that in
same-sex pairs,men speak more powerfullythan women do.
Fifteen studiesincorporated mixedcsex pairs, usingtotal
a of 1,754participants. The effect was T = +.l10,x2 (14) = 18.94, p >.05, indicating that
men speak more powerfullythan women do inmixedcsex pairs.

The existing literature regardingthe use of powerful and powerless language

by men and women has produced conflicting results.
In the current investigation, results from
30 studies examiningmens and womens powerfuland powerlesslanguageuseweresubjected
to meta-analysis.Resultssupported
Lakoffs (1975a, 1975b) claim that men use more powerful language than
women do, although all subcategories have small effect sizes. Interestin~ly,
this means that taken together, these studies show that perhaps men and
women are more similar than most findings would lead us to believe. The
trend is present, however,and should not be ignored.In addition, the results
indicate that there are moderator variablesto consider, and analyses showed
that men speak more powerfully
to each other and to women, and they speak
more powerfully across
the board with respect
to types of linguistic features.

UAClE ON THE BASIS OF SE

Burrell and Kopers (1998) metaeanalysis on powerful and powerless language and credibility found that powerful language is perceived as ~ o T e
c ~ e than
~ powerless
~ ~ ~ e
language (p. 248). This finding impacts the current
meta-analys~.Because men areusing more powerful language
than women
are, men may beperceived as morecredible than women, a ~ r m i n g
Lakoffs
(197!ia, 1975b) fearthat language is serving to keep women in submissive
positions. Kramer(1974) echoed this concern: allaspects of female speech,
if they do indeed exist ...would indicate oneway in which the sex rolesare
maintained (pp. 20-21). Because there are many situations inwhich one
would want to be perceived ascredible, the findings presented here are particularly meaningful for interpersonal communication. As Kolb (1993) put
it, womens distinctive communicationstyle that serves them well in other
contexts may be a liability in negotiation (p. 146). In fact, any time that
women present ideas or attemptto influence others (e.g., in theclassroom,
at work, in ~ e r s o n arelationships,
~
etc.), they are in danger of being per.
ceived as less credible and less persuasive than their male counterparts,
solely due to thelanguage they use. Staley (1982) found sex differencesin
children as young as4 years old, which indicates that evenas students, and
at a very early age, girls may be perceived as less credible
than boys.
Of course, another important implication of this meta-analysis is that
powerful languageis most definitelya skill that canbe taught. We now have
definitions of what language features are considered more powerful (and
hence more credible), and we can use this knowledge to our benefit and
teach women to communicatemore powerfullywhen the situationmay call
for it. More and more women are getting degrees and joining the workforce,
which means that women now commonly populate mens places.Pue to
this change, women are finding themselvesin direct competition with men,
and being sensitive to linguistic differences may help equalize the sexes.
That is to say, at times it is true that powerless languagemight be more ape
propriate (e.g., when negotiating with a party who doesnot wanthis or her
authority challenged),but there are also times when powerful language is
more appropriate (e.g., when perceived credibility is important). Teaching
both men and women how to use various levelsof power when they speak
will likely be most usefulto them.

Although the conclusion that men speak more powerfully than women is
supported here, itshould be remembered that theeffect sizesare small and

intercultural. Only two of the studies included in this analysis were per#
formed on non-English0speaking participants (Brouwer et al., 1979; Pillon,
Duquesne, 1992),so we have no idea if these results would
hold true in other countries, or in the United States if respondents used
other languages. Romance languages (i.e., Spanish, French, and Italian),
which give all objects
an actual gender forthe purpose of language, may, for
example, have very interesting effects. In a related vein, power is a very difsome other countries (i.e.9Asian politeness norms) that
t on the correlations.

It is necessary to investigate additional moderator variables to study further

this area of communication. Tme of language features should be explore
more fully9so that we may determine which features are most i ~ p o r t ain
~t

NT
various situations. For example, perhaps politeness forms are perceive
powerless language during persuasive efforts, but not d
interactions when there
is no attempt at influence. The
future research in this areashould be examining diverse contexts t o e ~ a m ine the effects of us^^ ~ o w eand
~ powerless
l
language. In addition, theissue of message elicitation must be investigated, as the dynamics of the
ction e ay influence the use of p o w e r ~ and
l powerless lan~uage.
onsideration is ~ e r f o ~ i more
n g naturalistic observation,as the e
fects may differ outside of the universi~
boundaries. ~ a t u r a l l yoccurring
language is an important featureto this area of study, but gettinga rep re sen^
tative sample of all populations (not just those involved in
make a difference. ~bservingworkplace negotiations, te
parenting strategies, and courtroom interactions
would a
nues for future i n ~ u on
i ~sex ~ifferences inlanguage
rnately, thismeta~analysis has i~luminateda small but perhaps crucial
difference that exists between men's and women's language use.

References marked with an asterisk indicate studiesinclu~edin thernetac

analysis.

"Beattie, G. W. (1981). Interruption in conversational interaction, and its relation tothe

~ 15-35.
cs,
sex and status of the interactants. ~ n ~ ~ s t19,
*Beck, K. (1978). Sex differentiated speech codes.
~ n t e ~ u t ~ ~ u ~ 3 o u ~S t~~ d ~ eos ,~ ~ o m e
I , 566-572.
Bell, R.A., Zahn, C. J., & Hopper, R. (1984). Disclaiming: A test of two competing views,
C~municution~ u r t e r32,
~ ~28-36.
)
"Bilous, F.R., CjlKrauss,R.N.(1988). Dominance and accommodation
in the conversational
behaviors of same- and mixed-gender dyads.
~ n ~ u dg Commun~ution,
e
8, 183-194.
Bradac, J.J., Konsky, C. W., & Davies, R.A. (1976).Two studies of the effects of linguistic
diversity upon judgments
of communicator attributes and message effectiveness.Communicut~on~ o n o ~43,u 70-79.
~ ~ ,
Bradac, J. J., Konsky, C. W., &Elliott, N.K. (1976). Verbal behavior of interviewees:
The effects of several situational variables
on verbal productivity, disfluency, and lexical diversity. ~ o u of~Cuo m~ ~ ~ n i c u Pisoders,
~ ~ o n 9, 211-225.
Bradac, J. J., 6Mulac, A. (1 984). A molecular view of powerful and powerless speech styles
and communicator intentions.
Attributional consequencesof specific language features
C o m m u ~ i c u t~i ~ ~
o51,307-3
~
u
19. ~
~
,
Bradley, l? H. (1981). The folk-linguistics of women's speech: An empirical examination.
C o ~ ~ u n ~ c u~t ~ o n ~ o48,~73-90.
~ ~ ~ s ,
"Brouwer, D., Gerritsen, M., 6 DeHaan, D. (1979). Speech differences between women
g 8,
e 33-50.
and men: On the wrong track? ~ ~ ~ in uSociety,

Burrell, N. A., & Koper, R.J. (1998). The efficacy of powerful/powerless languageon attitudes and source credibility. In
M. Allen 6rR.Preiss (Eds.),P e r s ~ s Advances
~n~
through
(pp. 203-216). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
meta~unulys~s
Canary, D. J., & Dindia, K. (Eds.). (1998). Sex d~~erences
and s i ~ ~ l a rin~ct ~ s~ u n ~ c a t i
~
~essaystand e~m p i ~a investigati~
a~ ~
of sex and gender in interaction. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carli, L. L, (1989).Gender differences in interaction style and influence.^^^^ o ~ P e r s ~ aiity and Social psycho lo^, 56, 565-576.
t y Social PsyCarli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language,and influence.~ o u r n aof~P e r s ~ l ~and
c h o i o ~59,94
,
1-95 1.
Conley, J., OBarr, W., & Lind, E.(1978).The power of language:Presentationalstyle in the
c o u r t r ~ mDuke
.
Law J
~ 1375-1399.
~
~
,
Crosby, F., & Nyquist, L. (1977). The female register: An empirical study of Lakoffsh p
pothesis. ~ n ~in Society,
g e 6, 313-322.
Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. P s y c h o l o ~ arev^^,
~
94, 369-389.
Dindia, K. (1987).The effects of sex subject
of
and sex ofpartner on interruptions.H~~~
C o m ~ u n i c a t ~ n ~ e s e a13,345-3
rch,
7 1.
Dubois, B. L., 6rCrouch, I. (1975). The question of tagquestions in womens speech:They
dont really use more ofthem, dothey? Langmge in Society, 4, 289-294.
Entwisle, D. R., & Garvey, C. (1972).Verbal productivity and adjectiveusage. ~ n ~ g e
and Speech, 25,288-298.
Giles, H., Scholes,
J., &Young, L. (1983). Stereotypesof maleand female speech: A British
a ~ Speech ~ o u ~ a34,
l , 255-256.
study. ~ e n t r States
Giles, H., Wilson,E,& Conway, T. (1981). Accent and lexical diversity asdeterminants of
impression formationand employment selection. Langmge Sciences, 3, 91-103.
*Gilley, H.,& Summers, C.(1970).Sex differencesin the use ofhostile verbs.JournalofPsy.
cholo#, 76, 33-37.
Gould, R.J., & Stone, C. G. (1982). The feminine modesty effect: A self-presentational
interpretation of sex differences in causal attribution. Perso~lityand Social Psycholo#
~ u ~ ~ 8,
e t477-485.
~n,
guide for i~proving
Gray, J. (1992)-Men are from Mars, women are from Venus:A pract~ca~
c o ~ ~ u n i c a t i oand
n gettingwhatyouwant
in your r e ~ u t i o n s ~New
i ~ . York:
HarperCollins.
Haas, A. (1979). Male and female spoken language differences: Stereotypes
and evidence.
P s ~ c h o l o ~ c a ~ ~ u l86,
l e t616-626.
in,
Haleta, L. L. (1996).Student perceptionsof teachersuse of language:The effects of powerful and powerless language on impression formation and uncertainty. Co~mun~cation
Educat~on,45, 16-28.
Hall, J.A., & Braunwald, K.G. (1981).Gender cues in conversations.~ou~~
o~Perso~lit~
~ , 99-1 10.
and Social P s y c h o ~ o40,
Hogg, M. A.(1985).Masculine and feminine speechin dyads and groups: A study ofspeech
style and gender salience.~ o u of~Language
u ~ and Social P s y c h o ~ o4,
~ ,99-1 12.
Hopper, R. (1998). G e ~ d e talk.
~ ~ Unpublished
g
manuscript.
on impresHosman, L,A., &Wright, J.W., 11.(1987).The effects of hedges and hesitations
u S~~ue~e c hC ~ ~ u n ~ c a sion formationin a simulated courtroom
context. ~ e s t e r n ~ o ~f
tion, 51, 173-188.

Johnson, C., &Vinson,L. (1987).Damned ifyoudo, damned ifyou dont?:

Status, powerful speechand evaluations of female witnesses. Womens Studies in C m m ~ n ~ u10,
r~,
37-44.
Johnson, C., & Vinson, L. (1990). Placementand frequency of powerless talk and impression formation.C ~ m u n ~ c u r ~ o n ~38,r t325-333.
erl~,
& Camden, C.T (1981). Gender differences in interruption behavior: A
Kennedy, C. W.,
dominance perspective. r n t e ~ r i o n ~u ~ o of Wuo ~ e n~ Studies,
s
~ 4, 18-25.
Kolb, D. M.(1993). Her place
at the table: Gender and negotiation. InL. Hall (Ed.),Negoriurhn: Strategies for m u t ~gain
l (pp. 138-150). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kollock, F?, Blumstein, F?, &Schwartz, E! (1985). Sexand power in interaction: Conversational privileges and duties.American Sociologicul Review, 50, 34-46.
Kramer, C. (1974). Womens speech:Separate but unequal?~ ~ r r e r lof ~Speech,
~ ~ 60,
~ u l
14-24.
g e 2, 45-80.
Lakoff, R. (1975a). Language and womans place. ~ n ~in Society,
LakofT, R. (1975b). ~
~and ~ o~m u n place.
s g Newe York: Harper & Row.
*Martin, J. N., & Craig, R.T (1983). Selected linguisticsex differences during
initial social
interactions of same-sex and mixed-sex student dyads. W e s r e ~ 3 o ~of~Speech
ul
Cmm~n~cution,
47, 16-28.
McMillan, J. R., Clifton, A. K., McGrath, D., 6. Gale, W S. (1977). Womens language:
Uncertainty or interpersonal sensitivityand emotionality. Sex Roles, 3,545-559.
Moore, S. E,Shaffer, L., Goodsell, D.A., & Baringoldz, G. (1983). Gender or situationally
determined spoken language differences?
The case ofthe leadership situation. ~ n r e ~ u r i ~ uof Womens
l ~ Studies,
~ ~ 6,~44-53.
three dimensions of listener attitude.
Mulac, A.(1976). Effects ofobscene language upon
Communicution M o n o ~ u p43,300-307.
~,
MuIac, A., Incontro, C. R., & James, M. R. (1985). A comparisonof the gender-linked
language effect and sex-role stereotypes.
~
o ofpersonu~it~
u
~ and ~
Social Psychology, 49,
1099-1 110.
Mulac, A., 6. Lundell, T L. (1980). Differences in perceptions createdby syntactic-semantic productions of maleand female speakers.C m ~ u ~ M
~ u~ t ~i ~u47,p11~
1-1 ,18.
Mulac,A., 6. Lundell, 1:L. (1982). An empirical test of the gender-linked language effect
in a public speaking setting.~
~and Speech,
~
25,g243-256.e
Mulac, A., Lundell, ?
:L., 6. Bradac, J. J. (1986). Male/female language differences and
attributional consequencesin a public speaking situation: Toward
an explanationof the
gender-linked language effect.Co~municutionMonoguphs, 53, 115-1 29.
Mulac, A., Wiemann, J. M., Widenmann, S. J., 6.Gibson, T W. (1988). Malelfemalelanguage differencesin same-sexand mixed-sexdyads: The gender-linked language effect.
~ ~ m u n i c u t i Monoguphs,
on
55,3 15-335.
Natale, M., Entin,E., 6.Jaffe,J. (1979). Vocal interruptions in dyadic communication
a funcas
tion of speech and social anxiety.
of P e r s and
~ Social
~ ~ psycho^^, 37,865-878.
on person
Newcombe, N.,6.Arnkoff, D. B. (1979).Effects ofspeech styleand sex of speaker
o of Perso~u~ity
u
~ and ~Social P s y c h o ~ o37,
~ , 1293-1303.
perception. ~
~ ~ t i~ cn ~ u gpower,
e , and strategy in the courtroom.New
OBarr, W M.(1982). ~ ~ n evidence:
York: Academic Press.
*Pillon,A., Degauquier, C., 6. Duquesne, F. (1992). Males and females conversational behavior in cross-sex dyads: From gender differences to gender sidilarities. ~ o u of~ l
P s ~ c h o ~ ~ n Research,
~ ~ s t i c 21, 147-172.
~~~

ayers, E,& Sherblom,J. (1987). Qualification inmale langua~eas influenced by age and
a t ~ Reports, 4, 88-92.
gender of conversational partner.C o ~ m u n ~ cResearch
Scudder, J.N., &Andrews, Et H. (1995). A comparison
of twoalternative models of powerful speech:The impact of powerand gender uponthe use ofthreats. C o m m u n ~ c u t Re~o~
search Re~orts,12, 25-33.
Ps~cho~~Siegler, D. M.,6Siegler, R.S. (1976). Stereotypesof males' and females' speech.
cal R e ~ o r39,
~ , 167-170.
Simkins0Bullock, J. A.,6r Wildman, B. G. (1991). An investigation into therelationships
between genderand language. Sex Roles, 24, 149-160.
"Staley, C. M.(1978). Male-female use of expletives: A heck of a differencein expectations. A n t h r o ~ o ~ o L~ c~a ~n ~ ~20,367-380.
t ~ s ,
"Staley, C. M. (1982). Sex-related differencesin the style ofchildren's l a n g u a ~ e . ~ oofu ~ ~
Ps~cho~in~
Research,
~ t i c 11, 141-158.
~
o of theuA m e~~ c a n~
*Stutman, R.K. (1987). Witness disclaiming during examination.
ore^^ ~ s o c ~ a t ~23,
o n96-101.
,
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understund~ en and men in con~ersa~~on.
New York:

alla an tine.

Tannen, D.(1994). ~ a ~ k ~ n 9g to~ S:

o How
m women's and men'sc o n v e r s a t ~ styles
~ u ~ a ~ e cwho
t
gets heurd, who gets credit, and what gets done at work. New York: Morrow.
Turner, L. H., Dindia, K., & Pearson,J. C. (1995).An investigation of female/male verbal
behaviors in same-sexand mixed-sex conversations.Commun~cat~n Re~orts,
8,86-96.
von Baeyer, C. L.,Sherk, D. L.,6.Zanna, M. Et (1981). I~pressionmanagement in the job
interview:When thefemale applicant meets
the male (chauvinist)interviewer. Persona ~and
i Social
~
P s ~ c h o ~ o ~ 7,
~ 45-5
u ~ ~1.t i n ,
Warfel, K. A. (1984). Gender schemas and perceptions of speech style. C o ~ m u n ~ a t ~ o n
~ o n o ~ a ~SIh,s253-267.
,
of
in cross-sex
*West, C., &Zimmerman, D. H.(1983).Small insults: A study inte~uptions
conversations betweenunacquainted persons. InB. Thorne, C. Kramarae, &N. Henley
.(Eds.), ~ n ~ ggender
e , and society (pp. 102-1 17). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Wiley, M. G., & Eskilson, A. (1985). Speech style, gender stereotypes,
and corporate success: What if women talk more likemen? Sex Roles, 12, 993-1007.
*Willis, F. N., & Williams, S. J. (1976). Simultaneous talking in conversation and sex of
speakers. P e r c e ~ tand
~ l Motor S ~ ~ l l43,
s , 1067-1070.
Wright, J. W., 11, 6r Hosman, L, A. (1983). Language style and sex bias in the courtroom:
The effects of male and female use of hedgesand intensifiers on impression formation.
S o u t ~ Speech
e ~ ~ o m m ~ n i c a t i o n ] o u r48,
~ l ,137-152.
*Zi~merman,D. H., &West, C. (1975). Sex roles,interruptions, and silencesin conversation. InB. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.) ,~ n ~ uand
g sex:
e ~ ~ ~ f e r eand
n c ed o m ~ ~ n(pp.
ce
105-129). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

hat does it mean to be a sk

we think of ability, capabili
eable in the trade,
is able to produce
error-~eeand meet the demands of the clients and context.A
r knowsthe rules and tactical requirements of the game,
to demonstrate this knowledge on thecourt throughconsistent performance at a reasonablyhigh level of success.
These notions of skill do not seem problematic. However, a brief review
illustrates just howcomplicated they are. What constitutes consistency i
performance? Even the best tennis players have off days and runsof ba
hat constitutes knowledge of a trade? An architect who specializes
only in hospitals may be pro~cientwith health care structures) butincompetent with houses or schools.
What constitutes a reasonablyhigh level of success? Is success in tennis avoiding mistakesand following the rules, or is it
defined by a high winning record against opponents:
Any opponents, or only
those of comparable talent? Clearly, what constitutes skill, even in wellfined contexts, is difficult to specif$
A similar difficulty arises
with the concept of social skills. Social skills
are
often referred to as socialcompetence or interpersonal competence or cornmunication competence. Social skill usually implieshigh quality, or pr fi-

ciency with social interaction and relationships. However, this intuitively

appealing explanation tendsto hide more than it reveals. This chapterex.amines the concept of social skills,the relations to communication, and the
results of a meta-analyticapproach to identi~ing
these relations.

S o c ~s~~~~
l
are defined here as goal-directed actions in interpersonal con#
texts that are learnable, repeatable, and variable intheir quality(see
Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984, 1989) Some of these terms need explanation.
First, skills are directed toward goals. Coals are objectives that represent
preferred outcomes. Coals such as wanting to get a job oRer or a date are
rather clear and objective. Other goals are far more ambiguous
in nature.A
person may pursue a goal of meeting and establishing some rapport with ah
attractive person in class, This person may leave a conversation not exactly
knowing whether or not rapport was achieved, partly becausethe goal itself
has no obvious criteria to determine the degree to which it was accom
plished. Nevertheless, all goals imply some
continuum along whichthe skills
directed toward them canbe evaluated.
Second, the claim that social skillsare ~ o a l O d ~ ~means
e c ~ dthat theaction
is in pursuit of objectives or preferred outcomes. This does not necessarily
imply that thegoals are achieved. Professional tennis players often miss on
their first serves,and evenoccasionally double fault, An architect canleave
some detail out of a blueprint. Such
mistakes do notimply these professionals lack skills.
The implication is that social skills must be defined separately
from the actualaccomplishments. The concept that skills can be identified
independent of the outcomes is complex, especiallyin reference to social bed
havior. However, consider the context of seeking a date with someone. A
person may engage in perfectly appropriate behavior when interact in^ with
the object of attraction and still not actually get the date. The person dis.
played the skills necessaryto get the date, but the other
person simply was
not attracted to thepotential suitor.
Third, the terms social and ~ ~ t e ~ ~imply
e ~ that
s o the
~ lgoal-directed na,
ture of skills must be towardoutcomes that are interpersonally interdepen.
dent. The goal of sharpening a pencil is not social in any significant sense,
and therefore is irrelevant td the conceptof social skills.On the other hand,
needing to borrow a pencil clearly requires the use of request strategies,
which in turninvolve social,communicative behavior. Furthermore, this sod
cia1behavior depends on theactions of another person. The goal cannot be
achieved escept through interactionwith others.

6, SOCIALSKILLS AHD C O ~ ~ ~ H I C A T I O H
The effectiveness, or goal success,of behavior can be viewed fiom two
different levels: processand outcome. At the process level, the question is
whether the appropriate behaviors are performed (e.g., did the tennis player
engage in all the specific, correct actions involved in serving?). At the out&
come level, the question is what the process accomplished(e.g., did the ball
actually land in theright court, put theopponent in an awkward defensive
position, or was it anace?). Social skills refer
to behaviors (i.e., process level)
that are directed toward achieving some goal(s),but this does not require
that the goals are always successfully accomplished. It is not uncommon,
however, for social skills
to be assessedat both the
process and theoutcome
level, This practice is veryimportant to understanding the meta0analysis described later in this chapter.
Fourth, social skillsare learnable. This means that they can be specified,
trained, reinforced, and improved.Social behavior may begenetically
hardcwired to some extent. Research suggeststhat very smallinfants recc
ognize their mothers face before others faces,and that peek-a-boo is a
template, or schema, for managing turn taking in interaction that later
serves to facilitate the development of conversation skills (Foster, 1990).
However, these innate skills are clearly expanded, refined, and repackaged
into more elaborate sets and sequences of skills. Such learning occurs
through both formal (e.g., parents teaching table manners and etiquette)
and informal (e.g., watching a big brother or sister engage in an argument
with a parent) processes,
Fifth, social skillsare repeatable. Any person can get atennis ball in the
correct court on a serveby luck. he essence of skill is that the person can,
with a high degree of consistency, gothrough the motions that get the ball
into theappropriate court. What constitutes a high degree of consistency
will vary bycontext andpeoples personal standards. This raises the last isc
sue in defining social skills: quality.
Quality is the most problematic concept in defining social skills. m a t
strikes one person asan appropriate opening or pick-up line
will be viewed
by
another person as awkward, overly direct, or simply obnoxious (Kleinke,
Meeker, 6,Staneski, 1986). The social skills literature generally identifies
quality in terms of standards relevant to the contextbeing studied.For example, if social skillsare being studiedin a heterosocialcontext in which a person
is to make a good impression
on a memberof the opposite sex, quality
may be
evaluated by rating the persons attractiveness. If, on the other hand, a persons social skills are assessed in an assertion context (e.g., asking someone
who justcut inline ahead of youto go to the back of the line), then effective#
ness and appropriateness may serve asthe best standards of evaluating quality.

contact, questions, smiles,and talk t

are more general and evaluative,a
therefore, representmolar evaluac
tions. ~0~~ evaluations represent high-level orabstract j u d ~ e n t ssuch
,
as
evaluating the quality of a persons eye
contact, questions, and so forth. The

r the investigation of social skills iswhether certain m

ehaviors relate systematic ly to molar judgments of quality.
behavior refers to interaction behavi

Social skillsare the fabric of human relationships. Relationships exist

in one
of only two locations: mind or action. We often think about our relation
ships; we ponder, contemplate, worry about, mull over, reflecton, enjoy, a
nd bothsorrow and delight in our relationships. However, as p
are completely unableto pry open eachothers heads and peer ins
know of others is their behaviors. For example, we
S relationships with others. Trust can be aset of beliefsor feelings
about anotherperson. But to the extent that
this trust aRects the rela
ship, it must affect it through one persons actions toward the other.
int is that all relationshipsare essentially comprisedof the actions a
ractions we make available to others.
If relationships arecomp~sedof actions and interactions, it follows that the
ss (i.e., quality) with which these actions and interactions are
etermine the quality of life experienced in these relationships.
search fromavariety of disciplines demonstrates that socialskillsa
significant factors in predicting general health (Rook, 1992, 1998; Rook
Pietromonaco, 1987), learning disabilities (Swanson& Malone, 1992), and
psychosocial problemssuch as depressionand loneliness (Segrin,1990, 1992,
1993,1997; Segrin & Dillard, 1993). Social skills and competence are
alsoreptions of a persons physical attractiveness (Eag
Longo, 1991; Ritts, Patterson & Tubbs, 1992), a
populari~and social status (Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993).Peoples
abilities to marshal social support from others (Procidano, 1992; Rohrle 6r
Sommer,1994),manageconflicts,
and achieverelationshipsatisfaction
(Spitzberg, Canary, & Cupach, 1994) depend significantly on how compec
tently they interact with others.
For some time, social skills were viewedtheasprimary basisof mental illness itself (e.g., Trower, 1980; Trower, Bryant, & Argyle, 1978). It was asc
sunned that deficits in social skills facilitated negatively reinforcing social

e n v i r o ~ e n t in
s which people increas~glyfound themselves ineffectivein
interacting with the normal world around them. Finally, research indicates
that social skills trainingis highly effectivein instilling higher levels
of social
skills (Beelmann, Pfingsten, 6,Usel, 1994), and in reducing social phobias
(Taylor, 1996) and psychiatric symptoms (Benton6r Schroeder, 1990; Comic
gan, 1991).
The nature of causality between social skillsand suchpsychosocial phenomena is still not entirely clear. It could be that someone who is anxious,
depressed, or lonely wouldlack motivation to perform social skills,
or might
literally getout of practice. For example, Spitzbergand Canary (1985) suggested that people who are chronically lonely may develop subsequently
lower social skills.
To date, however, the most carefully designed research
by
Segrin (1997)did not find that depression, loneliness,and anxiety ledto reductions in social skills.The more reasonableconclusion is that over time,
people with fewer or less consistent social skills find themselveswith fewer
resources fornegotiating problematic relationships and achieving relational
satisfaction. Further, deficitsin social skills may actually
create problems in
relationships (e.g., being unable to assert oneself can allow problemsto go
unresolved). Such resulting problems,in turn, would be more difficult to resolve becauseof the lack of social skills.
The importance of social skillsand theimpact of our social relationships
are difficult to underestimate. For example, research showsthat experience
~ingabuse in our childhood and having small or inactive social relationship
networks as adults have more harmful effects on our health andmortality
than smoking, drinking, obesity, and health care practices! To the extent
that social skills can enhance our relationships with family, friends, colleagues, and romantic partners, they quite literally provide one of the prie
mary keys to health and happiness.

If social skillsare so important to theconduct of everyday relationswith others, then itbecomes essentialthat their nature be understood. For decades,
research has vigorously pursued an extensive agenda investigating social
skills. For obvious reasons, most
of this research has come out of the clinical
psychology and behavioral therapy literatures. Therapists need to know
how to diagnose social skill deficits, to
how
instill new behaviors
into clients
repertoires, what skills to include in the training, and how to assess outc
comes of the training.
The basic model forthese studies has been to present participants with
some formof situation (e.g., hypothetical scenario, naturalistic encounter)

and videotape their behavior in thesituation. The taped behavior is then

coded by third parties (blindto any experimental hypotheses) into relatively
molecular social skill categories(e.g., amount of eye contact, frequency of
gestures, number of questions asked, amount of talk time used, etc.). A difd
ferent third-party group (also blind to experimental hypotheses) views the
videotapes and rates the participants' social skillfulness.These ratings typically use molar-level(e.g., semantic differential) items ranging from
attractive to unattractive,effective to ineffectiv~, and appropriate to
inappropriate. The coded molecular behaviors are then correlated to the
molar ratingsof social skillfulnessto see what behaviors systematically predict impressions of social skillsand competence.
There have beenseveral problems with developingcumulative conclue
sions fromthe social skills research. First, social skills
research evolved haphazardly. Rifferentlines of research, often affiliated withparticular
disciplines, schools of psychiatry, clinics, or academic programs, tended to
develop their own experimental designs, stimuli, scenarios,and assessment
methods (Bellack, 1983). ~onsequently,one program might look at eye
contact, whereas another would observe gestures.
One group would lookat
both eye contact andgestures, whereasanother would assessthese and the
use of questions. Although these different programs of research tended to
share similar conceptions of social skills, and even tendedto employ basic
cally similar ~uasi~experimental
designs, they often assessed different behaviors as typesof social skills.
The second problem with attempts to derive cumulative conclusions
from the social skillsresearch concerns the differences in basic study design
or population. Some researchers usedhypothetical scenarios, whereasothers used naturalistic situations. A hypothetical scenario, often called a
role-play situation, would involve presenting a brief
description of an imagic
nary, but typical, situation (e.g., returning a defective item for a refund,
making a good impressionon anoppositecsex stranger in a get-acquainted
situation). Participants would be presented with the description, and then
asked to behave as they normally would
in such a situation. The person with
whom they would be interacting was typically a confederate of the study.
"he confederates were often trained to behave in certain consistent ways so
that differences across role plays would
not be due todifferences in confedc
erate behavior. Other programs of research would focusmore on naturalise
tic, or in vivo contexts. An invivo study might ask clinic staff to engage
outpatients in a taped interview or assertivenesssituation in which the parc
ticipant believed the context was part of ongoing clinic procedures rather
than part of a study.

ts i all and er, ~ o n g e r ,

er involvement in the i

atings of social s~illful

uch a relation. Such

accounting for low powerby accumulating participants across studies an

can account for methodological differences as variables for analysis across
research programs.

meta0analysis was conducted in three basic steps. First, a systematic

re was undertaken to pro uce a pool of studies for analysis.
ults of these studies were onverted to a common effect size
e mean and variance of each distribution was computed.
were examined for any possiblemode rat in^ variables that
might account for variance in thedistributions beyond what would be expected by chance.

Four criteria were established for inclusion

of studies: Each study had to (a)
be published, (b) use an En~lish0speakin~
sample and be re~ortedin. E n g

ies in separate samples.

,thereby enhancing the range of skills re

inflate effect sizes,but itwas not possible
relatively smallnumber of st

viors, 9 nonverbal and 3 verbal, wereeach cornc

cross at least three studie
cy is the number of sec0
t and the ~ e g i n n ~
ofgthe participa~tsre,
conds a participant appears
to be looking toe
~ is the~ amount
t of~ time a~
ward the face of the other person. Eye c
participant appears to be looking directly in the eyes of the other person.
S ~ is the
~ ~ e~~ u esnof
c ytimes ~articipantsdisplay upturned corners of their
~ e s the number (per minute)
revealing theirteeth, ~ e s t ~reflects
or a m movements employedto facilitate, elaborate, or empha-

size verbal utterances. Head m~~~~ is the number of times (perminute)

the participant movesher or his head hom side to side or up and down, other
than postural shifts, whichare used to indicate agreement or disa~eement.
~
~ commonly
~
considered
~
fidgeting,
T
~ represent
the
, number of times (per
minute) a participant displays small movements
of hands or fingers
unrelated
to speech (e.g., stroking, picking, scratching, playingwith hair, tapping with
object, etc.). V
o is the
~ subjective
~
~ loudnessof a personsspeech, typically
rated on a 5-point scale ranging from
x (very soft)to x (very loud)~~k time is
the total amount of time spent speaking.
reflected the number of
verbal utterances requesting i n f o ~ a t i o nC
.
~were statements
~
that~
made positive references
to the other
person, Finally, mi^^^^ ~ c o ~ T uwere
~es
the number of verbal feedback responses, typically indicating acknowledgment (e.g., mehm, yes, Really!Oh?,etc.).
~~~~

e effect size statistic selected for analysis

the Pearson
was
correlation coeffit or F), it was converted
cient. When some other effect size was reported (i.e.,
to T (Hunter, Schmidt,&Jackson, 1982). When multiple effectsizes were reported for a given behavior,
the effects were averaged
(e.g., when multiple role
plays were investigated the
forsame participant,the effect sizes were averaged
across role plays).
~ i s t r i b u t i of
o ~effects were formed for
each behavior, and
the means and variances of these distributions were summarized and corrected forsamplingerror.
The resulting variances were subjected to
chi-square tests.This test ascertainswhether the amount of variation is what
would be expectedby chance (i.e., sampling error). Giventhe high powerof
this test (Hunter et al., 1982), null results provide strong evidence that the
differences between studies
are not likely to be basedon substantive orconc
ceptual variables, and instead, are based on sampling error alone.
When a significantchi-square was found, the studies wereexamined for
possible variablesthat could account for their differences. When possible,
these variables were then used to code studies and further meta-analyses
were conducted to estimate the homogeneity of the resulting categoriesand
the differences in effect sizes between the categories. Such analysis helps
identify possible moderator variables that influence the effect sizes.
Finally, reliabilityinformation was not sufficiently reported in all studies.
Reliability estimates weretherefore derived by converting the information
provided, or by forming distributions of those estimates provided across
studies (Nunnally, 1969). These estimates were then substituted when a
given study providedno reliability information.

The results are summarized in Table 6.1. Social skill, the depen
able, produced mean
a
reliabili~of .87 across 13studies, which w
for correction of measurement error in the subsequent analyses.
In this initial analysis, the average correlation of molecular behaviors to
t h i r d ~ p aratings
r~
of social skillfulness ranged from
-33 to .45. The average
correlation across the 12behaviors was.31,indicating a smallbut nontrivial
eEect. The average correlation was positive in all casesexcept response latency and use of adaptors. Thus, in general, an interactants increased useof
gaze, eyecontact, smiles, gestures,head movements, greater volume, ques..
tions, compliments, and verbal encouragement tends to enhance others
views of this interactants competence. The use of longer latency in red
sponding to others speakingturns and the use of nervous or unmotivated
movements, such as scratching, tapping, and hair twirling, tends to impair
ones competence in theeyes ofothers. The effects of most of these behavc
iors are relatively small,although in some instances, they account for very
substantial amounts of variance in perceptions of social skills. For example,
gestures, questions, and compliments each revealed moderate relations
(i.e., .41 to .45) to perceptions of interactant competence.
There was one behavior, talk time, that revealed significant variance
across studies,x2(13) = 66.34, p C ,001, indicating that something was ace
counting for the differences acrossstudies other thansampling error.The 1
studies examining talk time wereexamined for potential moderating varrables. Two candidates appeared relevant: type of sample and type of situation. Samples werecoded as either patient or nonpatient,
based on whether
the participants represented clinical populations or nonclinical populations. Situations were coded as either role play or in vivo (or unobtrusive,
naturalistic).
Sample type (-.69) and situation type (.l) both correlated with S
skill and with each other(-.42). Given that sample typeand situation
were correlated to each other, it was reasoned that controlling for the most
powerful variable (i.e., sample) might account for the effect of the other.
However, both sample groupsproduced highly s i ~ i f i c a nchi-squares,
t
suggesting that both sample and situationtype needed to be analyzed together.
When thestudies were separated (see Table 6.2), the resulting chiesquare
statistics werenonsi~ificant,indicating these variables interact to moder0
ate therelation between behaviors and perceptions of social skill.
Talk time was strongly
related to social skills ratings for
nonpatient same
ples, but more so in naturalistic situations (.63) than role-play (.39) situae

Patient

Role play
In vivo

K=O
,r

= .08

Sd,,

= .34

,r

.39

,S
,d,

.04

.63

.oo

r,,
Sd
,,,

tions. Further,talk time is unrelated to social skill ratings

in patient samples
in naturalistic situations (.O~).
There were no talk time stu
role-play situations.
Finally, although there was a large
ratio of error to observed variancesrad
tio forcompliments,suggesting variation that was not arti
chi-square test was nonsignificant. Further analysis wasnot PO
the small number of studies in this category.

The results of this study are both discouraging and encouraging.

discouraging because (a) there appear to be a relatively small number of
studies examiningthe relation between behavior and perceived skillfulness,
and (b) more complex questions,
such as the combined effectsof behaviors,
cannot be e~amined.For decades, therapists have employed social skills
training as an integral component of treatment for a wide variety
of interpersonal and psychological problemsand as a sourceof personal enrichment.
Yet, despite the enormous disciplinary and societal investments in such
training, there has been surprisingly little research devoted to examining if
the skills beingtrained are in fact effective in creating impressions of competence, By the early 1980s9 only
14.articles couldbe located that specifically
examined the relation between molecular behaviorsand molar ratingsof social skill.It would be easy
to presume that thesituation has improved S
cantly since the 1980s. However, a perusalof recent issues of manyof the
journals most represented in this meta-analysis reveals that studies have
tended to move to thestudy of more specializedtherapies for more specialized problems(e.g,, social skillstraining for drug abusers, for juvenile delin-

quents, disabled persons, etc.). The more general question of which

behaviors predict impressions of social skillfulness doesnot appear to have
cant research priority.
discouraging result of this meta0analysis isthe inability to examine the issue of combined effects. Specifically, behaviors
do notoccur in a
vacuum. The meaning and si~ificance
of eyecontact is likelyto depend sigc
nificantly on how it is framed within the entire behavioral p e r f o ~ a n c ea
person provides.A compliment presented with no smiles, eyecontact, gesc
tures, or questions may berelatively inconsequential. A question asked with
volume and long latency is just as likely to be viewed asincompeven the nature of the design of the studies analyzed inthis
meta~analysis, there
was no way to examine the combined effectsof such behavior. Further, if the impact of a behavior depends on thebehaviors that
co-occur with it, clearly it is important to consider the behavior of the other
in the interactionas well. Yet,almost no social skillsresearch has
the sequential or combined effects of confederate or partner bee
havior on the evaluationof a given persons skillfulness.
Despite these discouraging conclusions, however,
it is clear that ind
ehaviors can have an impact on peoples perceptionsof competence. Indeed,
it is somewhat su~risingto consider that agiven single type
of behavior (e.g.,
head movements, questions,etc.) can significantly affectanother persons impressions. In the entirecontext of a conversation or interaction episode, it is
reassuring and intriguing that the mere frequency orduration of individual
behaviors relate in systematic ways to perceived competence. To a large ex-.
tent, this meta0analysis demonstratesthat social skills training~ r o ~ a m
ares
on target. That is, the skills being assessed and
trained appear to be related in
valid waysto the primary criterion of interest-the impression that aperson is
a competent, socially skilledinteractant.
There was only one unambiguously large effect, that of talk time among
nonpatients in naturalistic (i.e., in vivo) contexts (r = h 8 ) . Such a sub,
stantial effect is remarkable for a gross-level measure such as talk time.
The interaction between
type of population andtype of situation requires
some explanation. First, patient samples may reveal a restrictionof range
in their verbal
abilities. One of the factors that makes their conditionserious enough to require clinical treatment may be limited ver~alization.
Such tendencies may be even more greatly restrained by roleeplay situations that may be so normative as to require only limited response. In con*
trast, normal interactants relatively
in
unstructured situationsmay have
the most discretion to take the conversation wherever the situation and
the ~articipantsdesire.

Beyond the issue of the interaction between situation a

the question remains why talk time should be important a
so important in at
least one particular context. One explanation may be that
talk time is actually a composite measure,
representing several behaviors si0
multaneously. To talk for extended periods of time, a person minimally
needs to employ both verbal and nonverbal skills to manage turn taking,
topic developme~t, and
conversational openings and closings.
is an important finding that a single indicator, measured only
by the amount
of time a person spends speaking, accounts for 46% of the variance in per#
ceptions of social skill,It suggests that a personcannot expect to make a posl
itive impression through silence and passivity. Positive impressionsappear
to be made by holding the floor and having something (anything?) to say.
he strong positive correlation between talk time and social skill sug
a linear relation. However, this cannot be concluded decisively from this
analysis. There was no way to adjust by proportion (i.e., howmuch time the
interactant spoke relative to the total conversation length) or extreme
range (i.e., whether ornot there were extremelyshort talk durations and ex#
tremely long talk durations). Such an adjustment could permit a considere
ation of conversational narcissism, or the negative effect of dominating a
conversation relative to the conversational partner.Research in other
realms suggests that talk time is curvilinear to competence ~ h e e l e s s ,
Frymier, 6,Thompson, 1992). Specifically, interactants who talk a great
deal orvery little are rated unfavorably and they are described as having predominantly unpleasant attributes. The most favorableevaluations are given
to persons whocontribute somewhat more than their share to the conversation (Hayes 6,Meltzer, 1912,p. 554). Such a conclusionmay also applyto
all the otherbehaviors included in this meta-analysis (see ~pitzberg,1987,
1988, 1993,1994, for discussionof curvilinearity and competence) .
The size ofthe relations uncoveredin this meta-analysis deservesfurther
comment. The average correlation between any given behaviorand ratings
of social skillfulnesswas .31, accounting for just over 9% of the variance.
This may not sound like a verysubstantial effect. However,another way of
understanding this effect is to translate it intopercentage improvement or
success, Given the assumption T = .31 between the behaviors commonly
taught in social skills programs and the perceptions others have of the
interactant, a programthat effectively taught suchskills would be approximately equivalent to animprovement in perceived competence from 35%
to 65% (Rosenthal, 1983). In essence, a person who actually learnsto use
more of the behaviors examinedin this meta-analysis can expect substantial
improvements in theaverage persons attribution of Competence.

inally, there is the issue of why:

dothesebehaviorspredictsocial
examining the list of behaviors in Table6.1, there appear
S represented. ~
~
~is the
o a b si l i ~
to~appear
~ calm,
e CO
gns of anxiety (e.g., latency,lack of
T
C (~~~~
=~ other,c~
~~= tobe
t ~center
~
~
terest in, concern for, andattention to the other
person inthe conversation
.g., gaze, head move men^, ~ u e s t i ocompliments,
~,
etc.). ~
x
~ is ~
the ability to display a n ~ a t i o n
in ones conversational behavior(e.g., smiles,
gestures, volume,etc.) ~0~~~~~~~ is the ability to manage turn taking,time
e n t ~and
, exit in theconversation (e.g., latency, talk t h e , minimal enrages, etc.). There are other behaviors that fit into these cate
e x t e ~ i v eresearch shows these four clusters are s i ~ i ~ c a n tpr
ly
competence ratings, and maybe fairly exhaustive as a taxonomy of social skills
(see Spitzberg, 1995) M e n collapsed one level more (Spitzberget al., 1994),
it makes sense that there would need for a self d ~ e ~ i (i.e.,
o n an effectiveness, or expressiveness and composure), and an other-oriented d ~ e ~ i o n
.,appropriateness, or coordination andaltercent~m).
Competence, therefore, is more likely to the extent that communicat
pursue both self-interests and the interests of the other person(s) involv
Persons who wantto initiate a romantic relatio~hipwith another need to ape
pear composed and expressiveif the otherperson is to perceive themas come
petent. Composuredisplays the suitor as con~dentand focused, an
e~pressivenessleavesvivid impressio~andhelps the other person
ese skills help people pursue their own goals. However, unless the
other person ismade tofeel importantthroughcoordination
and
a l t e r c e n t r ~attraction
~,
is unli~elyto follow. Coordination shows a concern
for making the interaction more comfortable, and the altercentrism getsthe
other persons interests involved in the conversation, and perhaps, the relac
tionship. Thus, tobe competent, interactants need to use their communicaO
tion skills to promote both their own interests andthe- interests of the
coparticipants.

IF! Dillard as
This chapteris based on a study originally published with James
lead author (see Dillard 6r Spitzberg, 1984).

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the metaanalysis.

Arkowitz, H., Lichtenstein,E., McGovern, K,, & Hines, I? (1975). The behavioral assessment of socialcompe
in males. B e ~ ~T~h eor ur ~6,, 3-13.
eelmann, A., P~ngsten,
Ltisel, E (1994). Effectsof training social competence in children: A meta-analys~ ent
evaluation s t u d i e s . of
~ C~ ~~ ~~C~~
c u~sycho
~
260-27 1.
Bellack, A. S. (1983). Recurrent problems in the behavioral assessmentof social skill.Be-

ior T ~ e r a ~12,
y , 41-55.
in adult psychiatric populations: A meta-analyCorrigan, E W. (1991).Social skills training
of B e ~ ~ ~ o r and
T h Ex~erimentu~
e r u ~ ~ ~ s y c h ~22,
t ~203-210.
,
sis.
Corriveau, D. I?,Vespucci, R., Curran, J. I?,Monti, EM., Wessberg, H. W.,
(1981).The effects of various
rater training procedureson the perception of social skills
and social anxiety.
of B e h u ~ ~ oAssessment,
ru~
3, 93-97.
Dillard, J. E,& Spitzberg, B. H. (1984). Global impressions of social skills:
B
dictors. InR. N. Bostrom(Ed.), Commun~cut~on yeur~ook
8 (pp. 446-463).
CA: Sage.
"Dow, M. G., Glaser,S. R., & Biglan, A. (1981). The relevance of specific conversational
o f B e ~ v ~ oAssessru~
behaviors to ratings of social skill:
An experimentalanalysis.~ou~u~
ment, 3, 233-242.
M. G,, kLongo, L.C. (1991).What is beautifulis
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. Makhijani,
D.,
good, but ...:A meta-analytic reviewof research on the physical attractiveness stereou ~ ~109-128.
et~n,
type. ~ s y c h o ~ o ~ c u ~ B110,
Foster, S. H. (1990). The co~municutive
c o ~ ~ e t e nof
c eyoung c~i~dren:
A modu~r a~~rouch,
New York: Longman.
Galassi, M. D., 6.Galassi, J. I? (1976). The effects of role-playing variationson the assessment of assertive behavior. Behavior Thera~y,7,343-347.
"Galassi, J.E, Hollandsworth,J. G., Jr., Radeki,J. C., Gay, M. L.,Howe, M. R., &Evans, C.
L. (1976). Behavioral performancein the validation of an assertiveness scale. B e ~ v ~ o ~
~~~~

~~~~

Thera~y,7, 447-452.

*Glasgow, R. E., 6.Arkowitz, H.(1975).The behavioral assessmentof maleand femalesocial Competence in dyadic heterosexual interactions. Behavior Theru~y,6, 488-498.
Gormally, J. (1982). Evaluation of assertiveness: Effects of gender,rater involvement, and
~ ~219-225.
,
level of assertiveness. B e h u v ~ r T h e r u13,
*Greenwald,D. IF! (1977). The behavioral assessmentof differencesin social skilland social
anxiety in female collegestudents. Behavior T ~ e r a ~8,y 925-937.
,
Hayes, D. E, & Meltzer, L. (1972). Interpersonal judgmentsbased on talkativeness: X. Fact
or artifact? Sociometry, 35, 538-561.
Hunter, J., Schmidt, E,& Jackson, G. (1982). Meta-analysis: C u ~ u ~ t researc~
~ n g ~nd~ngs
across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
"Kern, J. M. (1982).The comparative external and concurrent validity of three role-plays
for assessing heterosocial performance.~ e h a v ~ o r T h e1r3,a 666680.
~,
Kleinke, C. L.,Meeker, E B., 6. Staneski, R. A. (1986). Preference for opening lines: Comparing ratingsby men and women. Sex Roles, 15, 585-600.
"~artinez~Diaz,
J. A., & Edelstein, B. A. (1980).Heterosocial competence: Predictive and
4, 115-129.
construct validity. Be~uvior Mod~~cut~on,

*Minkin, N., Braukman, C. J., Minkin, B. L., Timbers, C. D., Timbers, B. J., Fixen, D.L.,
Phillips, E. L., & Wolf, M. M. (1976). The social validationand training of conversational skills. 3
~ of A p~p l ~ d~l e ~ ~A i~ ol yr s9,~ 127-139.
,
Mungas, D. M., 6.Walters, H. A. (1979). Pretesting effects
in the evaluation of social skills
n g Cl~nicu~ Psycho~o~,
47, 216-2 18.
training. ~ o uof ~C ~ls u ~ t i and
Newcomb, A. E, Bukowski, W. M., 6 Pattee, L. (1993). Children's peer relations: A
meta-analytic reviewofpopular,
rejected, neglected, controversial, and average
sociometricstatus. Psycho~o~al
~ u ~ ~ e113,
t ~ 99-128.
n,
Nietzel, M. 'X,&Bernstein, D.A. (1976). Effects i~~uctionally
of
mediated demandon the behavioral assessment of assertiveness.
3
~ of C ~~ ~ tl i and
n g~~u~ psych^^, 44,500.
~unnally,J. (1969). P s y c ~ o m e theory
t~
(2nd ed.). New York: McCraw~~ill.
Procidano, M. E. (1992). The nature of perceived socialsupport: Findingsof meta-analytic
studies. In C. D.Spielberger & J. N.Butcher (Eds.), Aduunces in ~ e r s o ~ ~assessment
ity
(VoL 9, pp. 1-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ritts, V,,Patterson, M. L., &Tubbs, M. E. (1992). Expectations, impressions, and judgments
of physically attractive students: Areview. R e ~ i of
e ~E d ~ a Research,
~ l 62, 4 13-426.
Rohrle, B., & Sommer, G. (1994). Social supportand social competencies: Some
theoretical and empirical contributions to their relationship. In N. F. Nestmann 6 K.
Hurrelmann (Eds.), Social n e t ~ o and
r ~ social support in c ~ ~ ~ and
~ ou doo d~ s c e ~
(pp.
e
111-129). Berlin: de Gruyter.
of a component model of asser*Romano,J. M.,6. Bellack, A.S. (1980). Social validation
and Clinical Psycho~o~,
48, 478-490.
tive behavior.3~~~~ of Consu~&~ng
Rook, K.S. (1992). Detrimental aspectsof social relationships: Taking
stock of an emerging
me~urem~t ofsoc~~
literature. In H. 0.EVeiel &U. Baumann (Eds.),The meun~ngund
s~pport(pp. 157-169). New York: Hemisphere.
Rook, K.S. (1998). Investigating the positive and negative sidesof personal relationships:
Through a lens darkly?
In B. H. Spitzberg &W R. Cupach (Eds.), The ~ r k s ~ofclose
d e re.
~ & i ~ s h (pp.
i p s 369-393). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rook, K. S., &Pietromonaco, l? (1987). Close relationships: Ties
that heal or ties
that bind?
i p s1, pp. 1-35).
In W. H. Jones & D.Perlman (Eds.),Advances in personal r e ~ t i ~ ~(Vol.
Greenwich, CTT:JAI.
Rosenthal, R. (1983). Meta-analysis: Toward
a more cumulative social science. In
L.Bickman
(Ed.),A p p ~ dsocial p s y c ~ ~ ~ (Vol.
a 4,n pp.
n ~65-93).
l
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
of heterosocial skill.Ps~cholo~*Royce, W. S. (1982).Behavioral referents for molar ratings
cal Reports, 50, 139-146.
deficits in depression. C o m ~ u ~ i c a ~
Segrin,C. (1990). Ameta-analyticreview of social skill
tion ~ o n o ~ aS?,
p 292-308.
~ ,
Segrin, C.(1992). Specifiing the nature of social skill deficits associated with depression.
~ u m Cao ~ ~ u n i c u & Research,
ion
19, 89-1 23.
Segrin, C.(1993). Social skills deficitsand psychosocial problems: Antecedent, concomitant, or c o n s e q u e n t ? ~ o uof~ Social
l
and C~inicaiPsycho~o~,
12,336-353.
and the development of psychosocial
Segrin, C. (1997). Social skills, stressful life events,
problems. Journal of Social and C~inicu~
psycho lo^, 18, 14-34.
Segrin, C., 6z Dillard, J. l? (1993). The complex link between social skill and dysphoria.
~ o ~ ~ u n ~ c aResearch,
t i o n 20, 76-104.
"Spence, S. H, (1981).Validation of social skills of
adolescentmales in an interview conversation with a previously unknown
a d u l t . ~ ~ ~ l o f A p ~~ l iee d ~A ~vl y ~
s ~14,159-168.
sr,

Spitzberg, B. H. (1987). Issuesin the study of communicative competence.In B. Dervin &

M. J. Voight (Eds.), Progms in c ~ m u n ~ u t i sciences
on
(Vol. 8, pp. 1 4 6 ) . Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1988). Communication competence: Measures
of perceived effectiveness.
o kthe study of humun
comm~nicution;Methods and inIn C. H. Tardy (Eds.),A ~ n d ~ ofor
(pp. 67-106).
s t ~ m e n t sfor o~serwing,m e a s u ~ nand
~ assessing c o ~ m u n i c ~ t i oprocesses
n
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1993).The dialectics of ( i n ) c o m p e t e n c e . ] ~ ~ofl Social and P e r s o ~Rel
~ t ~ n s h i p10,
s , 137-158.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1994). The dark side of (in)competence. In W. R. Cupach 6; B. H.
Spitzberg (Eds.),The dark side o f ~ n t e ~ e rcommun~u~ion
so~~
(pp. 25-49). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1995).T h e c o n w e r s u ts~ ~kl rutingscu~e:
~ ~ ~ A n i ~ t r ~ assessment
c t ~ ~ lofinterpersonu~
competence. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
competent communiSpitzberg, B. H., 6 Canary, D. J. (1985). Loneliness and relationally
cation.]ouml of Social and P e r s o ~Rl e ~ t i o ~ h 2,387-402.
i~s,
Spitzberg, B. H., Canary,D. J., 6;Cupach, W. R.(1994). A competence-based approachto
the study of interpersonal conflict.In D. D. Cahn (Ed.), Conflict in per so^^ relutionships
(pp. 183-202). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
so~~
competence. Beverly
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R.(1984). ~ n t e r ~ e rcommun~cution
Hills, CA: Sage.
o ki n t e ~ e r s competence
o~~
research.
Spitzberg, B. H., 6. Cupach, W.R. (1989). ~ u n d ~ o of
New York: Springer-Verlag.
of socialskill withoutpatient
*St. Lawrence,J. S. (1982). Validationof a component model
adults. ]~ml
of ~ehawioru~
Assessment, 4, 15-26.
Steinberg, S. L., Curran, J. E,Bell, S., Paxson, M.A., &Munroe, S. M. (1982). The effects of
confederate prompt delivery style
in a standardized social stimulation
test.]ou~u~
of Behawiorul Assessment, 4, 263-272.
Swanson, H. L., & Malone, S. (1992). Social skills and learning disabilities:
A meta-analysis
of the literature. School psycho lo^ Rewiew, 21, 427-443.
Taylor, S. (1996). Meta-analysisof cognitive-behavioral treatments for social phobia.Journul o f ~ e ~ w i o r T h and
e r u~~x ~ e r i ~ e n t u l P s y27,
c h1-9.
~t~,
Trower, E (1980). Situational analysisof the components and processesof behavior of socially skilled and unskilled patients. J o u m l of ~ o n s u ~ t i und
ng C l ~ n ~ c u l P s y c ~
48,
o~o~,
327-339.
Trower, E, Bryant, B., & Argyle, M.(1978). Social s k i ~ ~
and
s mental ~ e u ~Pittsburgh,
t~.
PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Wallander, J. L.,Conger, A. J., Mariotto, M. J.,Curran, J. E,& Farrell, A.D.(1980). Comparability of selection instruments
in studies of heterosexual-social problem behaviors.
Behawior Theru~y,t t , 548-560.
Wheeless, L. R.,Frymier, A. B., &Thompson, C.A. (1992). A comparisonofverbaloutput
and receptivity in relation to attraction and communication satisfaction in interper~ ~ ~ 40,
t ~102-1
r 15.
l ~ ,
sonal relationships.Commun~cutzo~

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

As a way to approach inte ersonal communication processes, we selecte

three general perspectivesas the framework forthis book. The first section
emphasized individualcharacteristics and behaviors, and we now examine
the empirical literature focusing on thedyad as acentral issue in in
sonal communication. We were mindful of both the uni~ueness
a
ability criteria aswe selected and arranged the empirical summariesin this
section. In this overview, we make the case for dyadic processes, summarize
some of the recent contributions in this area, and offer connections to the
meta-analyses in this section. In Part 111,we turn our attention to ape
proaches that emphasize the interaction as a way to explain i~terpersona~
communication processes and outcomes.

Dyadic communication is based upon the premise that each participant affects and is affected by the other (Wilmot, 1987,p. 38). As Duck an
~ i t t (199~)
~ a ~explained, it is
through the daily activities of talk ...that two partners in a re~ations~ip
achieve a comprehensionof one anothers psychology,an understanding of

ISS
roles and complementa~tyof behavior that reorganizes the relationship, and
a realization of sharing that is itselfan importantmessage about thestability,
nature, and futurityof the relationship (p. 682).

Thus, everyday interpersonal conversations are used to negotiate ones roles

identity, establish parameters in the relatio~hip,maximize each per,
sons needs, and acquire information about the ~artner.
Fre~uentlyoccurring topics in the study of these dyadic issues involvean
individuals identity construction, patterns of disclosure, aspects of attrac-.
tion, relation uncertainty reduction strategies, need achievement, and relac
tional in~uence.Themeta~analyses in thissection address issues
concerning childrens identity formation, the relationship between similar^
ity of attitude and attraction, and the relational functions of self0disclosure.
Also, a secondarydata analysis exploresthe impact of the situation on utilizing compliance0gaining strategies.The purpose of this overview isto briefly
iscuss these commonly researched areas to provide the context for the
three meta-analyses and one secondary data analysis. Each topic is re*
viewed, followedby a brief conceptual summary.

an porta ant asc

Most researchers agree
that inte~ersonalc o ~ u n i ~ a t i is
on
pect of dyadic processes. Central to dyadic exchanges are opportunitiesfor
self-discoveryandchange.Researchersbelieve
that a persons identity is
shaped andnegotiated throughher or hisinteractionswith relational partners
(McCall, 1987; Swann, 1987; Tajfel, 1981). Identity formation can occur in
many contexts and across a diverse array
of relationshi~s.hoits and Virshup
(1997) suggested that identityformation is anongoingprocess
that is
achieved through lasting
relatio~hips,They reasoned that ones role identity
is esta~lishedthrough interactions with relational partnerswho provide muof the partners
tualexchanges of support. Over time,moreandmore
self~identityis thought to be integratedinto the relationship, as opportunities
for identity formation and reinforcement are
encountered and managed.
Allen and Burrell (chap. 8) address aspecific issue of identity construct
tion: How the sexual identity ofparents affects their children. The authors
explore various research findings that lead to conflicting hypotheses re*
garding the impact of homosexual parenting on childrens identity forma
tion. Their research extends the dyadic perspective to an important social
issue. Other meta-analyses in this section indirectly address identity formar
tion. ~ ~ ~ (chap.
i a 10)
s discussion on self~d~closure
and l i k i and
~ ~ self~d~clo0
sure and reciprocity suggests a process of s e l f ~ d e ~ ~ tconstructed
ion
through

intimate exchanges. Ah Yuns (chap. 9) meta-analysis of the sirnilarity and

attraction literatureindicates that thepositive affiect that occurs during interactions may affiect the identityformation of relational partners.

Theories of attraction attemptto explain the processes involve

ship formation or maintenance. Researchers have explored three dimensions of attraction: social a ~ n i t y physical
,
appearance, and task respect.
Hatfield and Sprecher(1986) defined physical
attractiveness as onescoria
ception of the ideal in appearance (p.5). Research on physical attraction
reveals an overall preference for thosewhoare
physically attractive
(Langlois, Roggman, Casey, RiesnereDanner,
&Jenkins, 1987),a patternof
dating partnersmatching in terms of physical attraction (Feingold, 1 9 8 ~ ) ,
and atendency for physicallyattractive roommates to be more satisfied with
their relationships (Carli, Ganley, 6r Pierce-Otay, 1991).
McCroskey and McCain(1974) arguedthat social attractiveness, in contrast to physical attractiveness, occurs when individuals enjoy interacting
and want to spend time with their relational partner. Researchers found that
peoplewho areseen as humorous (Wanzer, ~ o o t h ~ ~ u t t e r f i e l&d ,
~00th- utter field, 1992) orare judged to be highly communicatively comc
petent (Duran & Kelly, 1988) are viewed as more socially attractive, and
those who are perceived as being verbally aggressiveare seenas less socially
attractive ~ a n z e et
r al., 1992),
Johnson (1992) maintained that task attraction deals with the perc
ceived abilityto work withanother person (p.58). Individuals seem to base
their judgments of this type of attraction on how competent acommun~ca~
tor the individual appears to be (Duran & Kelly, 1988; Johnson, 1992). Researchers have found that perceptions of task attraction are related to the
versatility and responsiveness dimensions of communicator style and
nonconfrontation and solutioneorientation strategies of conflict managec
ment (Wheeless 6,Reichel, 1990). Perceptions of physical, social,and task
attraction appear to affect relational initiation and maintenance.
The meta-analyses in this section reflect the dyadic approach to interpersonal communication. Ah Yuns (chap. 9) meta-analysis exploresthe extensively investigated topicof attitude similarity and attraction. Ah Yun provides
a detailed account of the various approaches, competing
theoretical explanations, and contradictory findings evident in this domain of literature. The
positive averageeffiect detected by the meta-analysis illustrates howinterpersonal exchanges mediate perceptionsof the participants. The Dindia (chap.
10) meta-analysis indirectly addresses
the issue ofinterpersonal attraction by

tent with ~ n d a m e

tactics.
ce the choice of com~liance0gain~g

d attitude similarities ten

to increase uncertainty (

e or wlthdraw fiom the relationship.

1986) extended URT by advancing two types of uncerc
and behavioral. He suggested that cognitive uncertainty is
havioral uncertain^ is felt as a result
of a pare
ticular exchange. As individuals seekto establish deeper levels of relational
acy, they must increase their knowledge about the partner. his reuals to move from a escriptive knowledge that accounts for
t behavior; to predic e knowledge of the others beliefs,attiings; to explanatory knowledge,
rtners behavior and motives.
construct m
that facilitate uncertainty reduction, usingpassive strat
ely observe the other, active strate~iesto seek i ~ f o r m a ~
tion (perhapsfroma third party), and interactive strategies to obtain
through direct exchanges (Berger, 1979).
indicates that URT is an im~ortant
dyadic process. Parks an
an (1983) found that when an individuals family supports hi5 her
or

a1 reports less uncert

uncertain^ and greater attraction.

A faurth theme in the interpersonal communication literature
involves disclosure pattems within thedyad. Dindias (chap. 10) metaOanalysisdefines
self0disclosure asthe process by which one person verb~llyreveals in for ma^
tion abouthimself or herself (including thoughts,feelings, and experiences)
to anotherperson. She presentsthreemeta~analyses on self0disclo~
sure-sex ~ i ~ e r e n cselfedisclosure
e~,
and liking, and reciproci~-to produce a comprehensive review of the self0~isclosureresearch.
related to sex s t e r e o ~ ~ i relationship
n~,
intimacy, and reciproci~have
far0reaching theoretical implication^ for researchers intereste~in relational
develo~ment.
Social penetration theory researchers view self-disclosure as a prima^
hanism for regulating intimacy in interpersonalrelationships. Al~man
Taylor (1973) defined social ~enetrationas overt inte~ersonalbehave
iors which take place in social interaction and internalsubjective processes

which precede, accompany or follow overt exchange (p. 5). They reasoned
that self~d~closive
exchanges result in a subjective picture of what the
other person is like, positive
and negative feelings about the person, and an
estimation of how the otherin~ividualwould behave in a variety of situations (p. 5). For example, Altman andTaylor suggested that in theinitial
relationship stages, partners might search for similaritiesas they promote a
sense of trustwort~iness needed
for the relationship to progress to a more in0
timate level. Altman, Vinsel, and Brown (198 1)concluded that relational
partners engage in cycles of openness or cfosedness that vary in frequency
(how often), amplitude (degrees of openness or closedness), regularity (patt e r of
~ openness and closedness), and duration(how longthe cycle lasts).
These cycles vary from
couple to couple and involve a sense of equity in ex0
changes. Viablerelationships withstand periods of stability and change and
progress through a number of cycles and stages.
Taylor and Altman (1987) clarified social penetration theory by articulating four relationship development stages and delineating how individuals
proceed from trivial to intimate exchanges within these stages. In theorientation stage, cautious and exploratory communication occurs in public arenas. In the exploration stage, thoughts and feelings are exchanged that
teveal aspects of ones personality and private thoughts. As participants
move to the affective exchange stage, even more about ones personality,
feelings, and private thoughts are exchanged in a casual and freewheeling
atmosphere. The final stable exchange stage is characterized by a continuous openness that allows partners to interpret andpredict each others behaviors and feelings. Taylor andAltmanacknowledgedthat,
for a
relationship to grow, partners must negotiate inevitable conflicts and calcuc
late the co~municationrewards involved in managing relational stress.
VanLear (1987, 1991) used longitudinal studies to investigate cyclical
functions of the social penetration theory. VanLear (1987) found that there
was a cycle of reciprocal exchanges over time as wellas an equity norm related to the intimacy level of the disclosures. VanLear (1991) again sup*
ported the cyclical modeland found that the shortcycles wereoften partof
larger fluctuations. He also noted that partners coincide in the amplitude
and frequency of their disclosures.
Intercultural scholars have also employed socialpenetration theory. A10
though Gudykunst and Nishida (1983) identified more similarities
than differences, they did find that Americans engage in more e~changeswithin
their close friendshipsabout theirmarriage; love,dating, and sex; and emoe
tions than did their Japanese counterparts. Likewise, Korn (1993) found
that Koreans and Americans have specific, stable topics that are explored

F
withintheircloserelationships.Americanstendedtobemore
self~disclosiveregarding separated or divorced parents, money, defensivec
ness about ones own beliefs, loans, conversing withothers, sexual morality
birth control, and episodes of bravery. rean partners, on the other
hand, reported significantly more social penetration than
family rules, the importanceof education, andresponsibility.
Overall, the research on self~disclosure and
social penetration theory in0
dicates that relational partners, at every stage of the relationship, have ex0
pectationsabouttheamountan
types of self-disclosure that are
appropriate for the dyad. Clearly, Dindias (chap. 10) meta~analysis inthis
section captures the essence of social penetration mechanisms. Consistent
with Altman and Taylors (1973) theorizing,Ah Yuns (chap. 9) meta-analysis on similarity and attraction addresses the idea that relational partners
search for similaritiesin the initialstages of the relationship.

A fifth theme in the interpersonalcommunication literature involves ex-

changes of messages as the basis of relational satisfaction.

adopting the perspective of social exchange theory believethat individuals
use a cost-benefit analysis in determining whether to continue or terminate
their relationships (Blau, 1964; Homans, 1958; Thibaut 6,Kelley, 19~9).
Relational partners apply economic principles to minimize negative outcomes or costs such as time, money, and emotional energy and maximize relational rewards such as companionship, affection, and love (Foa 6,Foa,
1972; Walster, Berschied, 6,Walster, 1976).
Roloff (1981) argued that the guiding force of inte~ersonalrelationships is the advancementof both parties selfdinterest (p.14). He claimed
that each relational partner determines what is a fair exchange or what she
or he expects of a particular relationship (Roloff, 1987). Thus, the nature
of
a satisfactory exchange and theterms for compliance
or repayment will vary,
based on the partner, the partners past experiences, and the currentrelac
tionship. These judgments are thought to result from a needs assessment,
where partners negotiate the means for improving
their relationships so that
specific obligations are met or sanctions are invoked. Roloff (1987) suggested that these negotiations involve normsof reciprocity. Relational satis#
faction is thought to be rooted in expectations of a fair distribution of
relational resources, the equity of the exchanges, and the time allowed to
satisfy needs.
Social exchange researchers have explored the tenetsof the theory using
a variety of relationship types. Cline and Musolf (1985) e ~ a m i n ecollege
~

to test the efficacy of the social exchange model.

estments with male partshortetem relationships.
concluded that traditional sex-role socializat
to invest in relationships different~y and
expect
rd (1992) explored marital relationsh
rison level index or equity perceptions varied
different relationship maintenance strategies.
arriages were equitabl
ositivity, assurance, a
r (1983) explored social exchange theory in terms of the superiors information adequacy on issues of
organizational concern, thesubordinates relational satisfaction with her or
job satisfaction. Their results indicated that theinformal
model could be improvedby accounting
he loss ofthe superiors information. Cox
found that managers constantly engage in theprocess of
enefit ratio based on the employees fit with organizational norms, expectations for performance,or the replacement costs. Posi e ratios resulted in retaining theemployee, wher S a poor pe~ormance
resulted in the
employee being dismiss
amer (1993) observed support for social exchange processes in
ent of employees transferred to a new location. Transferees
ources until they felt secure enough to negotiate their
amer did not detect the gradual deepening of relationships predicted by social exchange theory. Fortransferees, relationships der
veloped and stabilized quickly.
Overall, research suggests that participants in ongoing relationships as0
sess whether their needs are being met and how the dyad must adjustif the
relationship is to continue. Although no rneta-analysis in this section directly assesses the efficacy of social exchange the
e basic principles can
be
identified
indirectly.
The motivation for S
losure
described in
Dindias (chap. 10) meta-analysis, the positive affect underlying Ah Kms
(chap. 9) similarity and attraction meta-analysis, the costs and rewards inn establishing a strong homosexual parent-child relationship in AlRurrells (chap. 8) meta-analysis, and the personal benefits derived
from selecting the appropriate compliance-gain in^ strategies in Hample
and Dallingers (chap. 11) research all suggestthat relationship negotiation
is based on theselfeinterest of the parties involved.

IC

in the interpersonal commu~icationliterature stre

adic exchanges are involved in a process of mut
others in order to achieve th
might be active (to gain S
(having an impact on another) andelicit responsessuch as resista~ce,come
pliance, or withdrawal from the relationship ( ~ i l l a r d1990).
,
Inte~ersonal
influence appears to involve regulative and persuasive at
face-toeface situations in which ere is potential for feedback a
cal communication (Newton
Burgoon, 1990, p. 478). Newton an
~ u r g o o n(1990) suggested that individuals attempt to attain instrumenta
goals, manage the relationship, and preserve desired identities, These mac
neuvers may involve considerable risk, influence
as
attempts occur between
interdependent and interconnectedpartners.
archers have examined the way individuals enact their influence atDillard et al. (1989) advanced a goal-planning-action sequen
n the desired outcome and thecosts to the relationship associate
with the influence tactic or goal chosen. They suggeste
consider both primary goalsthat instigate the influence p
ary goalsthat shape the verbal communication choices available. Dill~rd et
al. ( 1 9 8 ~ proposed
)
five types of secondary goals: identity, interactional)
personal resources,relational resources, and arousal management. Newton
and ~ u r g o o n(1990) found that content validation, selfcassertions, and
other accusations were the most common strategies, but greater communication satisfaction occurred when supportive tactics were employed. Males
were more persuasive
when using content validation and self-assertions and
less persuasive usingcontent invalidation and other accusations. Females
were more persuasive using other0supported strategiesand less persuasive
using content invalidation. The research on interpersonal influence sug
gests that relational partners assess goalsand strategically implement stratec
gies to gain compliance.
In a situation that calls for persuasion, relational partners may elect to use
messages or suppress them. Hample and Dallinger (chap. 11) address issues
related to interpersonal influence or the ways in which we try to get an0
other person to comply with our wishes. In Study 1, they explore the suppression or endorsement of interpersonal persuasive appeals. In Study 2,
they assesssituational features that affect the decision~ma~ing
processes in0

e inwhen producing compliance-gaining appeals. Seven sitsions are identi~ed that

mediate the decision to endorse or
tial persuasive appeal. Other meta-analyses in this section
S interpersonal influence. In Ah Yuns (chap. 9) metaranaln of attitudinal similari~is created, inpart, through interc
attempts. imilarly, in Dindias (chap. 10) meta0analysis
isclosure, a partnermight choose what to share to influ
tional partners feelings of connectedness.

n this o v e ~ i e wwe
, have tried to stress subtle distinctions between theories
that share a great
deal of intellectual space. Although recognizing the simb
S, we believe that the dyadic nature of interpersonal communication
illuminated by adopting the perspectives of relational and personal
id en ti^, attraction, relational uncertain^, disclosure patterns, social exchange, and interpersonal influence. Each themehighlights subtle features
of relatio~hips that
lead to important outcomes. It is also fairto conclude
that each theme
emphasizes ongoinginterpersonal processes that are fundamental to building, maintaining, or terminating relationships.
The goal of this previewwas to offer a context for interpreting the
meta-analyses in this section. Ofcourse, eachrneta-analysis can standalone
as a summa^ of the domainof literature related to its topic. We believe that
a longer view is also
warranted. ~eta0analytic
findings have implications for
the themes that have emerged over years, even decades, of research. The
summa~esin this section provide evidence that these dyadic communication themes are vital and robust, hey summarize enduring issues, offersurc
prising insights, and pose interesting new questions for future in~estigation.

Altman, L,, 6rTaylor, D.A. (1973). Social~enetru~~on;

The d e ~ e ~ o ~ ~ e n t
orela~~n~e
t ~ o n s ~New
~ ~ sYork:
.
Holt, Rinehart 6.Winston.
Altman, L., Vinsel, A.,6r Brown, B. A. (1981).Dialectic conceptionsin social psychology:
An application to social penetrationand privacy regulation.In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in e x ~ e ~ ~ e ~ t u ~
s(Vol.
o c 14,
~ ~pp. 107-160).
~ s ~ c hNew
o ~York:
o ~ Academic.
Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interactions: Uncertainty,understand~g,and the development of interpersonal relationships.In H. Giles6.R. N. St. Clair (Eds.),~ n ~ g
and soc~a~
~ s ~ c h (pp.
o ~ 122-144).
o ~
Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Berger, C. R. (1986). Uncertainty outcome valuesin predicted relationships: Uncertainty
reduction theory then and now. ~~~n C o ~ ~ ~ n ~ c~esear~h,
a t ~ o n13,34-38.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R.J. (1975). Some explorationsin initiai interaction and beyond: Toward a development theory
of interpersonalcommunication. ~ ~ m u n
C ~ m
X ,99-1 12.
n ~ u tReseurch,
i ~
e p o ~ e in
r social life. New York: Wiley.
Blau, E (1964) E x c ~ n g and
Brashers, D. E., Neidig, J. L.,Haas, S. N.,Dobbs, L.K., Cardillo, L.W., & Russell, J. A.
( 2 ~ )Communication
.
in the management of uncertainty: The case of persons living
with HIV or AIDS.C o m m u n ~ u ~t ~ ~o ~ ~67,63-84.
u p ~ )
Canary, D. J., &Stafford, L. (1992). Relationalmaintenance strategies and equity in marriage. C ~ m ~ n i c u~t ~ n~
o 59, ~
243-267.
u
~
~
,
Carli, L. L.,Ganley, R., & Pierce-Otay, A. (1991). Similarityand satisfaction. in roommate
relationships.~~~l of per so^^^^ and Social P s y c ~ o ~17,
o ~419426.
,
Cline, R. J., & Musolf,K.E, (1985). Disclosure as social exchange:
Anticipated length of relationship, sex roles,and disclosure intimacy.~ e s t e ~of~Speech
o ~ C~ ~u m~ ~ ~ ~ u t i
49,43-56.
Cox, S. A.,& Kramer, M.W. (1995). Communication. during employee dismissals: Social
Exchange principles and group influenceson employee exit.~ u ~ g e m e n t C ~ m ~ n ~ c u
tion ~ u u ~ e r9,~156-190.
y,
and the relationship between inforDaniels, 1:D.,& Spiker, B. K.(1983). Social exchange
mation adequacyand relational satisfaction. ~ e s t~e ~ oof Speech
~ C ~~ m ~l n ~ u t i ~ ,
47, 118-137.
Dillard, J. E (1990). A goal-driven modelof interpersonal influence. In J. Dillard (Ed.),
S e e ~ n g c o m ~ ~ i a nThe
c e ~ ~ r o d ~ c t i oofn i ~ t e ~ e ~rn s~ u~e n~messages
ce
(pp.41-56),
Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
Dillard,J. E,Segrin,C., &Harden, J. M. (1989). Primary and secondary goalsin the production of interpersonal influencemessages. Comm~n~cution
~ o n o ~ u ~56,
h s19-38.
,
M. L.Knapp (5r.G. R.
Duck, S., & Pittman, G. (1994). Socialand personal relationships. In
Miller (Eds.),H u ~ d ~ o o k o f ~ n t e ~ e r s o n u ~ c o m(pp.
m ~ n676-695).
~ ~ u t i o nThousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Duran, R. L.,& Kelly, L. (1988). The influence of communicative competence on perceived task, social,and physical attraction. C o m m ~ n ~~u ~t ~~ ~e 36,
r l 41-49.
y ,
Feingold, A, (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex
friends: A meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psycholo~u~
~ ~ ~ ~204,
e 226-235.
t ~ n ,
Foa, E.,& Foa, U. (1972). Resource theory
of social exchange. In
J. Thibaut, J. Spence, &R.
Carson (Eds.), C o n t e m ~ o r utopics
~ in social ~ s ~ c (pp.
~ o
99-13
~ o1).~Morristown, NJ:
General Learning Press.
Gudykunst,W. B., &Nishida, 1:(1983). Social
penetration in Japaneseand American close
friendships. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), C o m m ~ ~ i ~ u tyeur~ook
ion
7 (pp. 592-61 l). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
r ) ...The ~m~ortunce of~ooks
in e ~ e life.
~ ~ y
Hatfield, E.,& Sprecher,S. (1986). ~ i ~ omirror
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hines, S. C., Badzek, L., Leslie, N., CSr. Glover, J. (1998). ana aging uncertainty in conversations about treatment preferences: A study of home
health care nurses.C o ~ m ~ n i c u t ~ o n
~ e s e u r Re~orts,
c~
15, 33 1-339.
A ~ e ~ uo fnS ~~~ oo 63,597-606.
l o~~ ,~ ~
Homans, G.(1958). Social behavior as exchange.
Johnson, G. M.(1992).Subordinate perceptions of superiors communication competence
and taskattraction related to superiors use ofcompliance~gainingtactics. ~ e s t e ~ ~ o u r nul o ~ c o m m ~ n i c u t ~56,
o n54-67.
,

.(1993).

Friendship formation
and development two
in cultures: Universalconstructs
United States and Korea. In A. M. Nicotera (Ed.),r
n
~ c ~ ~ s ~~in u~
and mute r e ~ ~ h i(pp.
p s 61-78). Albany: State university of New York Press.
ramer, M+W. (1993). Communicationabout job transfers: Social exchange processes
in
learning new roles. H u ~ Comrnun~ut~on
n
Research, 20, 147-174.
anglois, J. H., Roggman,L.A., Casey, R.J., Riesner-Danner,L.A., &Jenkins, V.Y. (1987).
o ~ e
Infant preferences for attractive faces: Rudiments of a stereotype?~ e ~ e ~Psyc h o l o ~23,363-369.
,
cCall, G. J. (1987).The self-concept and interpersonal communication.In M. E. Roloff
G. R. Miller (Eds.),r n t e ~ e r s ~processes:
ul
New d ~ r e c i~
n communicuti~
~o~
reseurch (pp.
63-76). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
ccroskey, J. C., 6.McCain, X A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction.
Speech ~ o n o ~ a41,p 261-266.
~ j
euliep, J.W., & Ryan, D. J. (1998). The influence of intercultural communication apprehension andsocio-communicati~eorientation on uncertainty reduction during initial
cross-cultural interaction. C ~ m u n ~ u t ~ o n ~ u
46,r t88-99.
er~y,
Newton, D. A., &Burgoon,J.K.(1990).The use and consequenceof verbal influencestrategies duringinte~ersonaldisagree men^. H u ~ Cornmun~at~n
n
Reseurch, 16,477-5 18.
Parks, M.R., &Adelman, M. B. (1983). Communication networksand the development of
romantic relationships:An expansion of uncertainty reduction theory. ~~~n Cornmun ~ u t Research,
~n
10,55-79.
IofC M.E.(1981). l n t e ~ e r cso~~ ~m ~ n ~ c uThe
t ~ osocial
n ~ ~chunge up~ouch.
Beverly
Hills, .,CA: Sage.
loff, M. E. (1987).~ommunicationand reciprocity withinintimate relationship. In M. E.
Roloff 6.G. R. Miller (Eds.),~ n t e ~ e rprocesses:
s o ~ ~ New direct~onsin c ~ m ~ n ~ c uret~on
search (pp. 11-38). Newbury Park, CA:Sage
~ w a n nW.
, B.,Jr. (1987).Identity negotiation:Where two roads meet.J o u ~ ou ~ P e r s o ~ ~
and Social P S Y C ~ O53,
~ O1038-1051.
~,
Tajfel, H.(1981).~
u grmps
~ and nsocialcutegor~es~ Stud~es
in social p s y c h o ~ oCambridge,
~.
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, D. A., & Altman, I. (1987). Communication in interpersonal relationships: Social
penetra~ionprocesses. In M. E. Roloff&G.R. Miller (Eds.), lnterpersonulprocesses:New
d ~ r e c t in
~ co~rnun~cut~on
o~
research (pp. 257-277). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
o~
New York: Wiley.
Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H.(1959). The social p s y c h o ~ ofgwmps.
Thoits, l?A., & Virshup, L.K. (1997). Mes and wes: Formsand functions of socialidentities. In R.D. Ashmore & L. Jessium (Eds.),S e ~ ~ ~udne n~t(pp.
~ t ~ 106-126). Oxford,UK:
Oxford University Press.
VanLear, C. A. (1987). The formation of social relationships:A longitudinal studyof social
penetration. Human Corn~unicution~eseurch,13, 299-322.
VanLear, C. A. (1991).Testing a cyclical model of communicative openness
in relationship
~ o n o ~ u p h58,
s , 337-361.
development: Two longitudinal studies.~ornrnunicat~on
Walster, E., Berschied, E.,6r Walster, G. (1976). New directions in equity research. InL,
Berkowitz & E. Walster (Eds.), ~ ~ u itheory:
t y Toward a general theoryo f s o c ~~nteruction
l
(pp. 1-42). New York: Academic.
Wanzer, M. B., Booth-Butterfield, M,, 6.~Ooth-Butte~eId,
S. (1992). Are funny people
popular?An examination of humor orientation, loneliness, and socialattraction. Corn~unicution ~uarter~y,
44, 42-52.

Wilmot, W.W. (1987). ~

y c ~u ~ ~~ ~~New
~ c
York:
u Random
~ ~ o House.
~ .
Wheeless, L.R., 6.Reichel, L.S. (1990).A r~inforcementmodel ofthe relationships of supervisors general co~municationstyles and conflict styles to task attraction. ~~~~~i~

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

The raising of a child represents one of the most important interactionsbee

tween individuals that exists in society. The Supreme Courtof the United
States in various decisions (
~ v. C o n~n e c ~ ~1964)
~c ~ ~ ,has~recognized
0
the right to raise a child as a fundamentalquestion of freedom. The courts
have recognized that parents are provided the right to determine choices for
the child. The courts give parents wide latitude indetermining how a child
should be raised. A parent is permitted to determine religion, diet, school0
ing, and awhole host of other aspects of the upbringing of a child. The prernise isthat parentsshould be ableto raise a child according to thebeliefs and
practices of their choosing. As long as the practices represent no direct and
recognizable harm to thechild, the courtshave been reluctant tointerfere
with the right of a parentto raise a child according to thepreference of the
parent.
The question of the sexual practices of the parent come into question
when a marriage ends in divorce, and about 50%of marriages in the United
States do end indivorce (although recentevidence indicates that this rate
may be dropping). One of the issues regardingthe process of separation is
how to determine thecustody of children andvisitation rights, a major issue
for separating spouses. The divorce represents a relational change from husc

it must also providea basis fora cont

roblem is separating one setof rela
tlnuing anotherrelationship. When

homosexual partner. If the heterosexual spouse was unaware of the preference of the partner, the noti~cationof the change in practice often would
form the basis forthe divorce. Divorcing couplesoften are angry with each
other and seek methods of getting some ure of revenge.
The heterosexual spouse may feel particularly betraye
r years of a relationship that is
ving for reasonsthat the spouse cannot affect. The feeling of betrayal
ccusations of dishonesty can create a situation which
in
the children
a focus for hurting the other party.
ssue of the sexual practicesof the parent may be considere
courts as a relevant issue in the determination of placement and v~itation.
e courts need to establish a custody arrangement that promotes the best
Interestsof the child, whilenot abridging the rights of the parent to serve asa
rce for the development of the person. The courts can choose to
ether thesexual practicesof the parent represent some factor
that
t the custody, placement, and visitation rightsof the parent.
hat the courts are seeking to determine is the impact of the environO
ment inwhich the child will be exposed and raised. The courts are charged
the requirement of examining allrelevant aspects of the environment
etermining the bestplace and arrangement for the interests of the
Such acharge is a broad one and the
courts canconsider a variety of
elements in making the determination. The number of gay parents with
children is estimated to be several million, indicating a great number of per0
sons (both parents and children)
potentially affected by the issue of parent
sexual practices as a custody issue.The willingness or ability
of the courtsto
*

examine this issue creates a asis ofconcern for millionsof indivi

S squarely in the
field ofcommunication and represents a set
sues that contain a number of theoretical and practical im~lications
communication question is that thebasis of ~ e t e ~ i n i the
n g i m ~ a cot
the impact of interaction between
examine or considerthe issues ba
set of int~ractions bet~een
child an
te various outcomes. he question before the CO
rent impact the interaction in
f the studies examining the im~act
of
he observation of the impact of how
o not manifest themselvesin the sod
ation involves an evaluationof how
interaction with a type of individual generates various outcomes.

Gay parents automatically lose custody and visitation. in the courts inS
states (~ississippi,~ i s s o ~ North
r i ) Dakota, Oklahoma, SouthDakota
Virginia; see ODell, 1995). Parental homosexuality can serve as the
for denial of visitation and custody of a child during a divorce in those states.
ven in states that
have statutes expressly forbiddingthe con
nce of the parent, thejudge maydeem the actsof
termining the best interestsof the child ( ~ e ~
v. ~
~1980). ~
Therefore
~ evene when~these ,
practice of the parentshould not be considered as a basis for decision,
the ise
sues may be intro~ucedat thediscretion of the judge. The result is that the
issue of the parents sexual practice is introduced whenever t
thatthe issue
is relevant, Wide latitude of discretion for
t
es exists when considering the circumstances relevant to child custody.
Statutory language can be avoided, ignored, or abused if the courtconsiders
the factor relevant. T h e s t a t u t olanguage
~
in practice functio~smore as a
guide to decision makingrather than anabsolute set of criteria that requires
application or consid~ration.
In many states homosexual acts are illegal, and the courtconsiders that a
parent participating in illegal activities as part of a personal lifestyleis some6
thing detrimental to the interests of the child. The issues of homosexual
practice become related to thedegree that homosexuali~
is perceived as a
criminal behavior of the parentby the judicial officer.The parent becomes a

N
criminal in theeyes of the court when participating in homosexual activities. A criminal that is unlikely to reform can be viewed as
i n c o ~ i s t e nwith
t
the role of a parent (when viewed from a heterosexual perspective). The
criminalization of homosexual acts serves as a basis forevaluation of the en*
v i r o ~ e n provided
t
by the parent.
The crim~alization
of homosexuali~comes fiom a moral stance about
sexual practices. The U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that,The law,however,is constantlynotions
of m o r a l i ~,+.
[the justices of thecourt] are unpersuaded t
domylawsof some 25
states should beinvalidated (pp. 2~46-2~4~).
The court sai
ments by the petitioners failed to provide a basis for rejecting the maj
opinion that ina democracy matters of m o r a l i ~should be dis~issed. The
court inB o ~ e rdid
s not find that h0
right conferred by the constitution.
are moral issuesand fall within thepurview of the legislature to determine
whether or not such actions arecriminal. The argument by the court explicthe claim that consensual behavior, even if private, escapes
state regulation. The implication for child custody is that statutes making
ho~osexualitya crime providethe basis forevaluations of the fitness of the
homosexual parent because one is involved incriminal acts. The home and
bedroom becomethe sceneof an ongoing crimeand therefore could becon0
sidered as unsuitable places forthe upbringing of a child.
The family courts, given the discretion to consider allrelevant behavior,
can choose to include the parents sexuality in making a deter~inationof
custody. The impact of the behavior is that judges (elected public officials or
appointed by elected officials) are subject to popular opinion and personal
bias. There are few restrictions or littleoversight on thebehavior of indivi
ual trial judges when itcomes to determining the environmentbest suite
for raisinga child. Mostappellate reviews are unlikelyto reverse a decision
made by a trial judge. Therefore, the decision, and the basis for that decir
sion, is likelyto be upheld on appeal. Family courts have a tra
ing custody and visitation decisions based on the individu
child under consideration. Appellate courts are reluctant t
the practices of most judgesoperating with the principles of improving chile
drens lives.The neteffect of the uncertain legal status of homosexuals and
the discretion of justices creates abasis for decisionsthat would not tendto
favor the homosexual parent.
The introduction of HIV as an infectious disease into society has proba.
bly increased the prejudice that thecourts feel against homosexualparents
(particularly gay men). HIV infection has raised the level of potential homo0

phobic reactions to homosexuals by associating a disease with particular

practices of that community. The stability of the environment
is a factor, and
if the parent is participating in actions that could put his or her health at
sec
rious risk,the judge may be predisposedto consider that as a factor in determining custody and itat at ion. This factor is one that the judge could
introduce as a basis for makinga custody determination. Custody determi,
nations by a judicial offker canconsider the level of risk to the healthof a
parent based on lifestyle, occupation, or any other factor that the court
deems relevant.
A fear of the courts is that a homosexual parent may encourage homosexuality in thechild. It is i ~ p o r t a nto
t note that in ajurisdiction where homosexuality is a crime, the parent would be encouraging participation in an
illegal behavior, which could be
construed as a form of contributing to the
delin~uencyof a minor. The courts would arguethat thegay parent serves as
a role model forthe child and contactwith the parentwould encourage the
child to pursue a life of homosexuality. The judicial officer would taking
be
a
stance on theundesirability of homosexuality asa practice and thepossibility of parental influence in this choice.
The court may feel that a child with a homosexual parent may not develop her or his full potential because of the stigma or social ostracism.A
child with a gay parent may be teased, excluded, or subject to abuse at the
hands of peer groupsor other adults,The courts therefore believe that they
are acting in thebest interests of the child by protecting the child fromthe
parent on the basis of how the parent's sexual preference will impact the
child's development. "he focus is not onparental rights; the focus becomes
the best interests of the child. Judicial officers possessenormous discretion
generally to determine what
factors fall within the scope of that term. Once
the issue of parental sexual orientation enters the court, the cornerstone
of
decision making becomes focused
not onthe parentalrights, but on the interests of the child (such a consideration has been the basis for appellate
court decisions; seeS. v.S, 1980;S.E.G. cy, R.A.G., 1987).The reference is to
the stigma that the courts believe may exist for a child whose parent is a
known homosexual. The courts are reluctant to grant custody to a parent
when thestigma associated with some aspect
of the parent's life may negatively impact the perception of that child by the communi^. Such anargue
ment, although a part of the legal literature, appears relatively specious.
~ o n s i d ethat
r
the court this
in view isnot arguing that the parent's practices
directly influence the child or create arisk. The court is arguing that the re#
actions of the communitymight create a hostile or negative environment
for the child. Such a position, in our opinion, is unwarranted. The courts
'

not generalis consi

the local communi^ as
r ~ u m e nabout
t
the im
communi^ r~action that
may or may no
creates a terribleprecedent as a basis for
t
initial hear in^ poses afuture risk.

the heterosexual par en^. If the sexual practices of the ho~osesual

parent
are the basis forthe divorce, the judicial officer ma viewthat as afactor in,
~uencing the
custody decision.One factor in chi1
bility o ~ e r e by
d the various parents. A person
tha
a preference for heterosexual practices, and for a paren
e yearslater can be viewed as an indicatio~
of instabil
interpr~tedas an indication of d i ~ i ~ u lin
t yha
~ a r r i a gVOW
e carries a sense
of legal and moral
sexual parent is now terminating.The judicial
the ability of the parent to follow legalcommitments r e ~ u i r in
~d
arrangement. Any view of this process in terms of changing
views clearlyu n d e ~ i n e the
s ability of the hQmose~ua1
parent t o o ~ t afain
vorable ~ir~umstances
and may even work to deny basic custody or visits..
tion rights in many circumstances.
c

creates a circumstance that

parents abilityto gain custo

ese outcomes are

to d e t e ~ i n to
e what
Social science seeks
from a set
of conditions. In terms of
by a ho~osexualparent
negative outcome than a child raised
by
son is an porta ant one because not all
ents grow up in desirable e n v i r o ~ e n tor
s reveal negative consequences.
expect that all childr~nraised by homos
up with a particular
outcome is not realis
h e s the p r o ~ a b i lof
i ~various outcomes. ~ c i e n t i inves
~ c tions can s i ~ p ~ y
~ x a m i the
~ econse~uencesor impactof various livingG
ions and whether
enerate diEerences in outcome.
be whether homosexual parents as a
to generate a relatively positive
or n
nt of the child. The a r ~ u m e nsur
~
ment on the part of social scientists a
represent, The American Psycholo~calAssociation
the Supreme Court that homosexual parentsdo not ne
a negative influenceon the development of a child.Cam
( 1 ~ ~ argued
7 ) that theAPA in
curue (friend of the
Supreme Court misrepresented the scientific literat
Camero~s
paper is a critiqueof the briefs filed by
the APA in support of grant
ing homosexual parents custody, devoted
to a critiqueof the available literae
~~~~

ture on various methodolo~calgrounds. The conclusion offeredis that some

studies do not support the conclusion maintained by the APA about the lack
rm due tohomosexual parenting. These authors argued that the
ot act consistent with scientific principles
but were guided byother
cerns in evaluating the evidence. However,Cameron and Cameron admitte
re is mixed: Some findings support
the lack of a harmhl effect
to negative outcomes. '"heseauthors argued overallthat the
are inconsistent and do notsustain the conclusion advanced by the
er social scientists(hzett, 1989; Cramer, 1986;Kirkpa~ick,
Howell, & Tibbi~-Kleber,1992; ~ u n g e s s e1980;
~ Patterson,
& Golombok, 1997; Walters & Stinnett, 1971) support
Cameron andCameron's (1997) findingsand conclude that theimpact of a
parent is relatively minimal in terms of negative consequences
.The conflict within the scientific community focuseson disagreements about the theoretical assumption level and the accuracy of the
empirical description.This chapter is an examination of the latter rather
than
the former. eta-analysis is designed to examine the issue surround in^ the
degree to which empirical consensuscan be established.
The inconsistency among the outcomes of the empirical investigations
serves asa basis fora more thorough and systematic reviewof the literature.
The number of studies appearing in the APA brief and the Cameron and
Cameron (1997) reviewis lessthan thenumber of investigations appearing
in this report. This meta-analysis may or may not provide an exhaustive re"
view, but itrepresents a larger efhort than theexisting narrative box score re#
views ofthe literature.The key isthat thereview processof a meta0analysis
provides a method of literature review capableof replication by others. The
problem with the review of outcomes by Cameron and ame er on (1997) is
the reliance on box score orsigni~cancetest outcomes to determine the direction of the findings. Such procedures are fraught with the potential for
error and the introduction of bias due to divergent perspectives, the very
problem that theauthors claimed is the problem inthe APA position paper.
Cameron and Cameron (199'7) argued that in submitting the legal briet
the N A failed as scientists
in their respo~ibilityto provide an objective repc
resentation of the data. ~eta0analysisdoes not represent a truly objective
method of analysis; but it does providea method of literature summa^ that
permits an assessment of the literature that others can replicate. If someone
d i s a ~ e e with
s
the summary, or new data are available, the existing analysis
can be replicated (and updated to include new and difherent data) tovalidate
the analysis. 'Thetechnique permits an intersubjective claimthat is capable of
inde~endenttesting and assessment. This intersubjectivity of the method

means that others can ependently assess the validity of the claims about
the cons~tencyof the evidence. If the empirical examples themselves
are
dependent, then a consensus of observations can grow and inferenc
represent scientific consensusabout specific relationscan be discuss
From a scienti~cperspective, the issue of effect is a factual o
should be able to compare chi1 n from households where someparents are
heterosexual and homosexual
e question of whether a difference in ou
come exists is a question that
Id be capable of empirical description an
evaluation. This meta-analysis is simplya summary
ing with that comparison. It is an effort to assess wh
the current pool of empirical data.
This chapterconsiders one aspect of the proces
tion interms of the childs best interest. The cou
evidence as a basis for consideration of issues. In the case of S. v. S. (1980)
the appellate court wrote, There is excellent scientific research on theefe
fects of parental modeling on children. Speculating from suc
sonable to suggest that Shannon [the daughter] may hav
achieving a fulfilling heterosexual identity of her own in the
This case is important because at theoriginal trial the moth
appellate court o v e r t u ~ e dthis decision because, the low
failing to apply the standards of the best interests of the child and potential
for endangering the physical, mental, moral, or emotional health of the
child (p. 66) warranted overturning theoriginal decision.The court inthis
case took a general principle and thenextrapolated that principle to thespec
cific circumstances to create a conclusion.
The court was concerned that thecontinued interactionof the child with
a homosexual parent represented a co~municationenvironmentthat
would adversely effectthe child. The court speculated from existing social
scientific theory and evidence in an attempt to provide an application to the
particulars of the pending case. Civil courts, of which family courts are a
part, operate on the basis of preponderance of evidence rather than the
criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A metaeanalysis of
the existing evidence, if consistent, should providethe basis of the prepom
derance of scientific evidence addressing this question.
in0

e ~~ ~ es~ o st ~ ~
e
The literature was identified using the terms gay ~ a ~and
e n , using various databases that exist (
~ ~ ~ERIC,
I P S~~ C H
~ ~ i tE, ~
Socabstracts). In addition, various reviews of the literature (Hitchens
Thomas, 1983; Maggiore, 1988, 1992) were examined for possible relee

analysis. This analysis is an expa

version of an earauthors (for additional search
ated report,see Allen &Burrell
ince the original publication a
rporated into this analysis
ith, 1986; Javaid, 1993). So
studies from clinica
is (Javaid, 1983). Meta-ana
rt and additional data sets
should be added to theanalysis
le. ~dditional data
sets work t o s t r e ~ ~ t hrefine,
en,
conclusion in variety
a
o f i ~ p o r t a nways.
t
This upto view research as a dynamic process of refine,
ims rather than a static creation of a claim that
elements of the existing studies required attention a
tential oder rat or variables. One of the prima^ feature
ular dependent variable considered in theinnt variables consider the CO
hild. A potential problem e
ways to measure a childs development. Each
receive consideration and attention to
explore
the potential impact of the parents sexual practices.
tati is tical analysis was conducted using a va~ance-centere
developed by Hunter and Schmidt (1990). The technique is
st whether the
variability of the individual studies is the result
ror or the potentialexistence of some other featurethat mode
erates or generates the differences in observed outcome. The h
test examines the sample of effects comparedto a h ~ o t h e t i c a l
where the differences between the observed effectsare the result of random
s a ~ p l i n gerror. The sum of the squared difference scores, weightedby s a m
the basis of the chiesquare statistic (Hedges ~ ~ l k i1985).
n, A
significant chi-square indicatesthat the level of total difference a ~ o n the
g
correlation is greater than what should exist due to random chance. A
n o ~ i g n i ~ c achi#square
nt
statistic
indicates that thedifference is not signifie
cantly greater than one would expect due to randomdifferences. The ime
~ o r t aaspect
~ t to remember is that differences existamong the correlations
and thequestion of a moderator focuses on theissue of whether thosediffer-.
ences among the observed effectscan be explained in terms of sampling er0
ror or someother feature.

The studies were separate on thebasis ofthe perspective of the

riables. One set of
tionscomes from the persp
ult
and
another
is
rive of the child. The rat
ts of the childs behavior came from self-report
atio ions ofthe parent or third parties.

this perspective consider the following characteristics: (a)

teraction, (b) sex role, (c) childs life satisfaction
viewed by the parent, and(d) childs lifesatisfaction viewed by a teacherat
school. When e~amining the
overall average across
all measures (r = -.057,
k = 13 N = 619) the direction slightly favors the homosexual parent,
ence is not si~ificant.
st setof results considers how an adult rates the
quality of the interaction that a chi1 has with other children. The designs of these investigations have observ S evaluate theability of the child in social interactions.
The results demonstrate no differences between homosexual or heterosexc
ual parents. The rating of child-child interaction (r = .119, k = 5, n =
284) is in thehomosexual parent direction.
The other sets of results mirror this finding. The ratings of sex role (r =
.012) similarly showno difference between groups. This indicates that parents do not
find the childs sex role
a functionof the parents sexual pra
It is important to note that ratings by the parents (r = $081) an
teacher (r= ,036)demonstrate no difference as well.The last findingindicates that thechilds displayof general satisfaction is not predicated on the
basis of the parents sexual orientation (see Table8.1).

~ e a s u r e from
s
the perspective of the child consider: (a) sexual orientation
(overall as well asbroken down by boys and girls), (b) satisfaction with life
(overall as well as
broken down by boysand girls), and (c)cognitive development. The overall analysis across all measures
demonstrates virtually no difference (r = -.011) Table 8 2 displays the complete set of results.
The results indicate that childs sexualorientation is not affected by the
sexual orientation of the parent (r= -.008). This was true for both boys (r=
.005) and girls (r= --.034). The results indicate that any argument about pac
rental sexual practices as predictors of a childs sexualpractices receives no
empirical support.

Ruting of

~ ~ i l d ~ ~ i Rut~ng
~ by
~nteruct~n Parent
Sex Role
5
7

Ruting by
~ac~er

Overal~
13

619

284

167353

179

-.057

-.l 19

.012

-.08 1

.036

0.00

0.00

5.56

0.00

-15

.l1

.23

--.27

-.16

Average r

0.00

x2

99% confidence interval

Upper limit

.05

-.03

Lower limit

-.16

-.27

--.l3

Cohens powerestimate
.99 effect .99
Large

.99

.99

.99

.99
Medium effect

-99

.99 .99

.99

.54effect .35
Small

.79

.38

.59

The satisfaction with life scoresindicate no differences betweenchildren

of homosexual or heterosexual parents (r = -.001). The results indicate the
sexual practices of the parent do not contribute either positively or nega-.
tively when comparing the scores of children in each group. Basically, a child
is equally likely to feel satisfied or dissatisfied regardless of parental type.
When broken down by gender of the child, the results showthe same pattern for boys (r = -.012) and girls (r = ,038). It is important to note that
these results are from the perspective of the child and demonstrate no significant differences on the basis of parental sexual practice.
The final measure was that of cognitive development. ~ o ~ i s t ewith
nt
the othermeasures, cognitivedevelopment demonstrated no significant re+
lation (r = --.038)to the parents sexualorientation. This provides an indie
cator that the parents sexual practices were not impacting on the childs
cognitive development.

The results demonstrate no discernible differencein outcome on thebasis of

the parents sesual practices. Resultsindicate that theinfluence of the par-.

99

12k

n664
Average r

x2

15

775

490 263 206

-.001

-*m8

0.00

.005 -.034
-*001

0.00
0.24 0.00

156

163

308

-.012

,038

-.038

1.11

2.33
0.00

0.77

.l17

.l94

.237

217

-.164

99% confidence interval

,092 e082Upper
limit
Lower
limit

.l84
-.l03

-.108

Cohens power estimate

.99
99 Large
effect
Medium
.93 -99 .99
effect
Small
effect

.88

-.l74
-.l92
-.l15

,125

.99

.99

.99
.99

.99

.99

.97

.98
.92

.93

*43 .82.49

.41

.26

.27

.l09
184

.29

ents heterosexuality or homosexuality is not related to any adverse outcome in the childs development. The results indicate no evidence for
diRerential outcomes based on theparents sexualorientation for anyof the
various issuesstudied to date. The results include a power analysis using
CO*
hens (1987)method to indicate that theprobability of a large effect existing
on the basis of undiscovered evidence is small. This inclusion is probably
necessary because the database for the average correlations is relatively
small and subject to a great deal of random sampling error. However,even
the small databases provide a sense of clear impact and direction for evaluate
ing overall effects, The power analysis indicates that thereshould be little
expectation of large or moderate differences between parents on thebasis of
a homosexual or heterosexual classification.
The results also suggestthat arguments about the possible negative cone
sequences of a homosexual parent granted custody or visitation rights do
not find empiricalsupport. The use ofthe social learning theory or modeling

ay serve as a sourceof sol

basis
aasfor

deny in^ a gay parent

issue
e is

not

metaOanalyses increases,the desire for polic~makinginstitutions to meor0

that information as part
of theconsideration grows.
some methodof developing atechnique of sophistic
knowledgeefhectively i
mosexual parents shoul
class that deserve grouptreatment, because this classor type of in0
generates no negative consequences for children.This is not to say
that some homosexual parentsare unfit, any more than to say that all heterosexual parents are fit.The results of this chapter suggest that the condicircumstances of the individual parent should be considered in
o the particular child or children. The important issue for the
courts is to consider the suitability of a particular person as a parent for a
.The evidence accumulat~dto date fails to support an argument that a
sexual parent providesan unsuitable or risky environment.
one of the primary research studies appear
in communication j o u ~ a l s ,
books, or proceedings. However, if one examines the dependent measures
for the studies, many of them are interaction measures of some quality of
child-pare~tor c h ~ l d ~ h iinteraction.
ld
The focus on assessment of child
developm~ntinvolves the evaluation of some aspectof thequality of communication ~ehavior.Our results generate another methodological argue
ment for focusingon behavioral ~ e r f o ~ a nasc ae meanso f ~ e t e r m i ~the
ing
parents ability.The key isthat this examinationof underlying relationships

ata, which may refle

o the child. Instead,
tions indicates that
of interaction. This
scholars have gre
n t issue involvinga ~uestion
mea~ingfulcontributions to a n i ~ ~ o r t asocial
about com~unicativeinteraction.

o genetic or environmental

~ u ~ i of
ew
this chapter.

basis ofwhat reactions may or may

not occur. Such a position renders the
ents sexual orientation meaningless because it is the c o m ~ u n that
i~

of the evidence in this chapter

considers the outcomeof various communication processes. Although thisprocess has been the focus of some scholarship (see, e.g., Sypher 6 Apple ate, 1984), the disciplinelags behin
Another aspect of child devel ment considers the argu~ents about
whether a child should be engagedin day care or home care.
worry that sending a child to day care rather than having a parent stay at
homeunderminesthe
childs development.Arecentmeta-analysis
(Dindia, Schuh, 6Allen, 1998)demonstrated no differences between children who receivedhome careand those who werein day care. The primary
ependent variables considered the issues of the childs abilityto interact
with parents and other children. At the heart
of these studies was a consideration of the quality of communication, but none of the studies appeared in
communication journals or were authored by members of communication
departments. The noninvolvement of the communication discipline is
probably due to thelack of recognition that child development is pi calls
characterized as the development of social skills. The characterization of
the environment and development of a child as a process of communication
provides a basis for participation in an important
area of research.
Child development research indicates a connection between assumptions about the natureof parental inputs into the
childs development. The
assessment of that process focuseson the childs abilityto communicate or
interact with others. However, this connection does not seem to involve an
assumption that the sexual practices of the parent impact that development. The issue thatCameronandCameron
(1996, 1997) implicitly
pointed to is some aspect of parenting related to the parents sexual practices. The current datafail to suggest the significance of such arelation. The
methodolo~icalissue claimed is that the current data do notconsider the
long-term implications of the sexuality of the parent. Most of the current
studies do notconsider whether theparental impact, although beni
child during the formative years, manifests itself
when thechild eventually
becomes an adult. Such
follow-updata are unclear and notwell developed.
Another issue raisedby Cameron and Cameron (1996,1997)
is the feelings an adult child may generate toward the homosexual parent. The issue is
whether over the longer term achild develops feelingsof resentment or loss
toward the gay parent. Cameronand Cameron (1
997) cited evidence of surveyed adult children who expressresentment against the gay parent for the
lifestyle.The evidence is difficult to assess however, because
no baseline is
provided. To determine whether this emotional feeling represents a problem, there would need tobe a baseline comparisonto persons raisedby a heterosexual parent. There are many children raised by heterosexual parents

F
who might feelresentment against the lifestyleof their parents.
the parents sexual practices
or a manifestation
by a generational gap is unclear.
The emotional
to any other expression oroutcome, so a ain it
ings were felt by the child and impact
transition to becoming an adult. Without some basis for comparison or eviis di~icultto assess the evidence. Future research shoul
evelop these areas. Another optionis some
vention to ameliorate these feelings, similarto other types of interventions
currently used in families.
lthough direct behavioral data are commendable, another aspect
serves additional consideration: the childs mental or emotional feeli
ay not be directly observable as behavior,
but theimpore
emotions and attitudes deserves attention. Such data
more suited to the use of self-report data measurement
alysis suggeststhat theparticular method of data
e difference in outcome. he method of analysis
not create divergent findings; the investigators generated those.
The consideration of child custody provides a difficult issue for society.
The assumption of parental rights is something that thecourts are reluctant
to reverse. This finding continues to support the conclusion that biological
parents, regardless of heterosexual or homosexual practices, should not
have their rights to custody or visitation t e r ~ i n a t e or
d restricted. This study
suggests that parents need to be evaluated in terms of the particular pracc
tices that they provide to a child. The information provided about the impact of the parents sexual practices(heterosexual or homosexual) failedto
provide aclear basis for custody preference
on thebasis ofwhat impact such
practices have on thechilds development.

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the metac

analysis.
Allen, M., 6r Bunell, N.(1996). Comparingthe impact of homosexual and heterosexual paro ~ H ~ o s 32,19-35.
~ ~ u l ~ ~ ,
ents on children: Meta-analysis ofexisting research.Joum2
Bailey, J., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M., & Mikach, S. (1995). Sexualorientation of adult sons of
,
gay fathers. ~ e v e ~ o ~ ~P es ny ct ~u o~~3o1~, 124-139.
Bowers v. Hardwick, 106 S. Ct. 2841 (1986).
Bozett, E (1989). Gay fathers:
A review ofthe 1iterature.JournutO ~ H o ~ o s e18x(l-2),
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
137-162.
*Ca~eron,E,6. Cameron, K. (1996). Homosexual parents.Adolescence, 31, 757-776.

ameron, K. (1997). Did the APAmisrepresent the scienti~cliterature to

ort of homosexual custody?j o u of~P s~y c h o ~ o I3
~ ,l , 3 13-332.
powera n u ~ yfor
s ~ the ~ e ~ v ~sciences
o r u ~
(2nd ed.) .Hillsdale, NJ:
Cohen, J. (1987). Stat~st~ca~
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cramer, D.(1986) Cay parentsand their children: A review of research and practical ima~
C o ~ ~ e and
~ ~D ne vge ~ o ~ e n6.2,
t , 504-507.
plications.j o u ~ of
Dindia, K., Schuh, R., 6 Allen, M. (1998, ~ovember).Day care versus ~~e care: A
~ e t a - a n a ~ yrte~vc~ ePaper
~.
presentedat the National Council
on Family Relations convention, Milwaukee, WI.
*Flab, D., Ficher, I., Masterpasqua, E,6, Joseph, C. (1995). Lesbians choosing motherhood: A comparative study of lesbian andheterosexual parents andtheir children. Dee
~ e ~ o ~ epsycho
n t a lo^,
~ 31, 105-1 14.
*Colombok, S., Spencer, A., 6Rutter, M.(1983). Children in lesbian and single parent
households: Psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal.
j~~~ of Ch~ldP s ~ c h o and
~ o ~Psyc h ~ t24,551-572.
~ ,
Golombok, .,6, Tasker, F. (1996). Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their
a ~~
children? Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families.~ e v e ~ o ~P~s ~e cnh~o ~
O ~ Y 32,3-11.
,
*Green, R. (1978).
Sexual identity of 37 children raisedby homosexual or trans-sexualparents. A m e ~ c a jn o u of~P s~y c h ~ t1~35
, , 692-697.
Green, R., an del, J., Hotvedt, N., Gray, J., 6.Smith, L. (1986). Lesbian mothers and
their children: Acomparison withsolo parent heterosexual mothers andtheir children.
Archives of Sexual ~ e ~ vISi, 167o ~ 184.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1964).
a ~ o ~ o s e x ~ a12,
~~ty,
*Harris, M.,6 Turner, IF! (1986). Gay and lesbian parents. j o u ~ of
101-1 13.
Hedges, L.,&Olkin, I. (1985). Statisticalmethodsformeta-analysis.
Orlando, FL: Academic.
itchens, D., 6r Thomas, A, (Eds.). (1983). Lesbian others and their children~A n unnotuted
~ u Francisco:
t e r ~ ~ s Lesbian
.
Rights Projects.
~ ~ b ~ ~ofolegal
~ uand
~ ~h s yy c h o ~ o ~ a ~ San
Hoeffer, B. (1979). Lesbiun andh e t e r o s ~ u single
u ~ ~ o t h e r s ' i n ~ ~on
e ntheir
c e chi~dren'sacquia
sition o~sex.ro~e
traits and~ e h u ~ ~Unpublished
or.
doctoral dissertation,
University of California~sanFrancisco, San Francisco.
*Hoeffer, B. (198 1). Children's acquisitionof sex-role behavior inlesbian~motherfamilies.
Ame~cu~
n o u of~Ortho~sychiat~,
a ~
5 I ,536-544.
uggins, S. (1989). Acomparativestudy of self-esteemof adolescent childrenofdivorced lesbian mothers and divorced heterosexual mothers.
o
~
~18, 123-135.
~
o
y s ~ s ~ error and bias in reHunter, J, 6r Schmidt, E (1990). Methods o f ~ e t a ~ u ~ lCorrecting
search ~ ~ ~Beverly
~ g Hills,
s .CA: Sage,
Javaid, G.(1983). Sexual development of the adolescentdaughter of a homosexual mother.
j o ~ of~theaA ~~e r i c a n ~ c a d eofm ychi^ Psychiat~,22, 196-201.
~d
"Javaid, G. (1993). The children of homosexual andheterosexualsingle mothers.C h ~ Psyc h i u t ~and H ~ m u n ~ e v e ~ ~23,
~ m235--24&
ent,
Ketron v. Aguirre, 692 S.W.2d 261 (Ark. App. 1985).
Kirkpatrick,M.(1987). Clinicalimplications of lesbian mothers t u d i e s , ~o~f ~~ o~ ~a o~s e x ~ u ~ i14,
~ y201-21
,
1.
* ~ i r ~ p a t r i cM.,
k , Smith, C., &Roy, R.(198 1). Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparative survey. American j o u of~O ~~t h o ~ s y c h ~5 a1,t545-559.
~,
a

~~~~

Kleber, D., Howell, R.,6, ~ibbits-Kleber,A. (1992).The impact of par en^^ h ~ o s e x ~ ~ini t y
cases: A review of the literature. Paper from the Lesbian Mothers Defense
c h ~ custody
~d
Fund, Seattle, VVA.
Kweskin, S., 6; Cook, A. (1982). Heterosexualand homosexual mothers' self-described
sex-role behavior and ideal sex-role behaviorin children. Sex Roles, 8,967-975.
: An
biblio~uphyandguide to the ~iteruture,
~aggiore,D. (1988). ~ s b i a n ~ ~ annotated
1976-1986.. Metuchen, NJ:Scarecrow Press.
Maggiore, D. (1992). lesbian^^: An annotated b i b ~ ~ ~ u pand
h y~ i d to
e the ~iterature~
1976-1 991. Metuchen, NJ:Scarecrow Press.
"~ucklow,B. (1978).Adult r e s p o ~to
e chiM b e ~ v i oand
r se~f0c~cept:
Lesbian andt r a d i t i ~ ~
mothers. ~ n p u b ~ s h emaster's
d
thesis, ColoradoState University, Fort Collins, CO.
Nungesser, L.(1980).Theoretical bases forresearch on the acquisitionof social sex-rolesby
children of lesbian mothers.Jmml o ~ ~ ~ o s e x ~5,a 177-187.
~i&y,
Court rules against custody for lesbian mother.
~~~wa~kee~o~r0
ODell, L. (1995, April 22).
nul Sentinel, p. 3A.
"Ostrow, D. (1978). Children o f ~ r a n i Guy
a ~ parents rede~n~ng
thefamily. Unpublished bachelor's thesis, Hampshire College, Montreal, Canada.
Patterson, C. (1992). Children
of lesbianand gay parents. C h ~ d ~ e v e ~ 63,
o p 1025-1042.
m~t,
~~
the ch~~dren of~esbian
mothers and theChildren of
"Puryear, D.(1978). A c o m p a r between
heterosex~a~
mothers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California School of Profes.
sional Psych~logy,Berkeley, CA.
"Rand, C., Graham, D., & Rawlings, E.(1982). Psychological health and factors the court
seeks to control in lesbian mother custody trials.~0~~~ of ~ o ~ o s ~ 8,
~ 27-39.
~ i t y ,
S. v. S., 608 S.W.2d 64 (Ky. App., 1980).
S.E.G. v. R.A.G., 735 S.W.2d 164 (MO.
App. 1987).
e ~ ~ and b e ~ v in~ ~r
0 and
s
"Scallon, A. (1982). An investigat~ono f ~ a t att~&udes
of Professional Psynongay n at hers, Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, California School
chology, Los Angeles.
"Schwartz, J. (1985). An e x ~ l o r a t ~ ~ o f ~ e r straits
o n u in
~ ~~tuyg h t e rof
s lesbian mothers. Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,CaliforniaSchool
ofProfessionalPsychology, San
Diego, CA.
Sypher, H.,6Applegate,J. (Eds.). (1984).Cornm~n~cut~on
by c ~ ~ ~ dand
r e adu~ts~
n
Social cognitive and strategic processes. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
"Tasker E,& Golombok, S. (1997). Growing up in U ~ e s b ~ Effects
~
on
f achild
~ develop~ ~ y ~
ment. New York: Guilford.
Walters, J., &Stinnett, N.(197 1). Parent-child relationships:A decade review of research.
~
m of Marriuge
~
a and~Family, 33,70-1 l l.
Warren v. Warren, 386 So.2d 1166. (Ala. Cir. App., 1980).

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

ome posit that themost esta~lishedand well~known

fin
ersonal literature is that attitu

Smeaton, 1986; Byrne 6,Griffitt, 1973; Simons, Ber~owitz,

70),these summaries are limited to historical reviewsof the progression of
research in this area. As such, these accounts offer little assistance in deter4
mining the effect that attitudesimilarity has on interpersonal attraction.
In an effort to explore the differences in opinion with regardto the effect
that attitude similarity has on interpersonal attraction, ~
~
mMono-~
~
invited scholars (Byrne, 1992; Sunna~ank,1992) holding
views to discuss their ideas. Byrne (1992) maintainedin his article
tude similari~increases interpersonal attraction, whereas Sunnafran~
(1992) countered in his articleby arguing that theeffect of attitude similari~
on interpersonal attraction disappears in normal developing relatio~hips.
Unfortunately, these articles did little
to bridge the gap in ideolo~ical
di~er~
ences. In fact, researchon therelation betweenattitude similari~and interpersonal attra~tion contin~es
without apparent resolve (Tan 6,Singh,
19

~~~~~

Exploring discrepancies in theresearch between attitude similarity and

interpersonal attraction across studies should be of interest to interpersonal
scholars. Given that interpersonalattraction is a key d e t e ~ i n a n tin
whether people seek to pursue relationships withone another,understand0
ing important antecedentfactors such as attitude similarity will assistin ex0
plaining why some relationships succeed and others fail.
This chapterilluminates some of the issues in the attitudesimilarity debate by employing a meta0analytic approach to the attitude
similarity literature. Specifically, this review presents the uncorrected and corrected
effect
size (correlation coefficient) between attitude similarity and interpersonal
attraction. The review considers the effect that differences in themanipulation of attitude items across studies have on the relationbetween attitude
similarity and interpersonal attraction and
tests the extent to which initial
interaction moderates the effect that attitude similarity has on interperc
sonal attraction. The chapter offers suggestions for future research that
should be conducted toassess the nature of the relation between attitude
similarity and interpersonal attraction.
In addition to providing a more detailedaccount of the research concern,
ing the effect of attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction, using a
meta-analytic approachis warranted for several reasons. First,
at the individual study level, sampling
error exerts a si~ificanttoll on findings (Hunter
Schmidt, 1990). eta-analysis aids in overcoming samplingerror by combining findings from many studiesand weighting them by their sample size.As
such, the effect sizeobtained from a meta-analysis is a more accurate estimate
of the actual effect size than findings from any individual study. Second,
meta-analysis allows for
a summed effect size
that is corrected for errorof mea#
surement. Giventhat error of measurement systematically lowers
the correlation, meta-analysis allows for
the cumulation of studies as if they had perfect
measurement. Finally, meta-analysis enablesthe identification of moderating
variables in theliterature. If there is variance inthe effect sizes across studies,
meta-analysisprovides the tools to determine if these differences are
artifactual (Hunter 6r Schmidt, 1990). If the differences are not artifactual,
potential moderating variablescan be examined by dividing studiesinto ap0
propriate conditions.

As early as the 4th century BC, Aristotle (trans., 1932) suggested that
friends regardthe same things as goodand evil. Working fromthe similarity
principle introduced by Aristotle, several researchers successfully tested this

proposition (Hunt, 1935; Kirkpatrick 6.Stone, 1935; Newcomb

1937; Schiller, 1932; Schooley, 1936).
By 1960, research concerning attitude similarity and close relationships
merely examined the extent to which people in close relationships (e.g.,
spouses and ~ i e n d s )held
,
similar attitudes. In an attempt to broaden the
understanding of the potential eEects of attitude similarity,Newcomb
(1961) studied theeffect of attitude similari~ on
attraction longitudinally.
In his study,Newcomb assembled groupsof housemates and asked them to
complete attitude questionnaires. By collecting inte~ersonalattraction
data on all housemates toward one anotherat several time points, his findings revealed that attitudesimilarity predicted attraction in laterrelational
stages, but not early ones.
Conte~poraryresearch concerning attitude sixidarity and inte~ersonal
attraction has followed a similar pattern (Ebnd, Byrne, & Diamond, 196~;
Byme, 1992; Byrne, Ervin, & Lamberth; 1970; Byrne & Griffitt, 1966;
Byrne, Griffitt, 6.Golightly, 1966; Cherry, Byrne,
6:Mitchell, 1976;Curran
& Lippold, 1975; Griffitt, 1969). Tqically, participantscompleted a hostof
questions designed to represent their attitudes. Items used to assess attitudes measured issues such as school desegregation, politics, garden in^,
birth control,dating, and theadvisability of freshmen having cars on campus (Byrne & Rhamey, 1965). About 1 week after participants completed
attitude questionnaires, they were askedto evaluate theirinterpersonal ate
traction toward a bogus stranger given a list of the same attitude items that
the stranger supposedly completed previously. To induce varying levelsof ate
titude similarity, answers fromthe bogus strangersattitude items were varc
ied such that they were highly similar (e.g., six similar
and two dissimilar)or
highly dissimilar(e.g., two similarand six dissimilar)to theparticipants red
sponses to thesame attitude items. Finally,participants reported j u d ~ e n t s
of interpersonal attractiontoward the bogus stranger.
According to Byrne and Griffitt (1973), interpersonal attraction
is an in0
dividuals affectiveevaluation of another and interest ininterpersonal at-tractionhas received attention from communication scholars fortwo
primary reasons. First, interpersonal attraction is positively related to the
extent to which people communicate with others. Consequently, interper
sonal attraction is one antecedent to predict communication partners that
people have. Second, interpersonal attraction is positively related to the
amount of influence that others have on us in interpersonalexchanges, As
such, interpersonally attractive others can potentially play an in~uential
role in ourbehaviors. Given the significance of interpersonal attraction in
our lives, research concerning this variable is important.

UN

There are two major arguments

a g a i ~the
t lawlike relationthat has been
proclaimed between attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction. The
its that communication is a moderator that eliminates the effect that
similarity has on interpersonal attraction (unna~ank,
1984,1985,
1986; unna~ank6rMiller, 198l),by making attitudinally dissimilar others
appear more inter person all^ attractive during interaction processes. Specificallyt this argument ~ a i n t a i n sthat attitude dissimilarity can be an
aversive force in new relationships. More specifically, in~ividualsperceive
that an interaction with an attitudinally dissimilar other would prevent
cation interactionprior to interact0
d with an interaction opportunity,
d as a result, the aversive effectthat
nal attraction is not present.
A second argumentto this claim isthe repulsion h ~ o t h e s i (
s
1986). cording to the repulsion h ~ o t h e s i s attitude
t
similarity does not
heig~ten inte~ersonal
attraction, because similarity is expected. .However,
the discovery of attitude d~similarityis unexpected and aversive, resultingin
inte~ersonalrepulsiveness that decreases inte ersonalattractiveness* In
particular, this argument reveals
that attitude similarity has no effect on inter&

personal attrac~on
and attitu e d i s s i m i l a has
~ ~ a negative e
sonal at~action.
In short, the repulsion h ~ o t h e suggests
s~
that theimportant relation is
not between attitude similarity and inte~ersonalattraction,
e d i s s ~ i l a rand
i ~ inte~ersonalrepulsion. ~ l t h o u g hsome researc
n conducted to test the repulsion hypothesis(~osenbaum,1986), at
present an insu~cient
amount of evidence is available to con^^ it as a
plausible explanation. In particular, the testing of the repulsion h ~ o t h e s i s
re~uires that
a no~attitude0info~ation
condition exist. That is, acon
must exist in which a person receives
no information about the attit
another. Because peoplehave a tendency to make assumptionsabout the atc
titudes of others when they have n o i n f o ~ a t i oabout
n another, it has been
argued that it is impossible to create a no-attitude0information CO
(Byrne, 1992).

According to Byrnes (1969) reinforcement affect modelof attraction, peoc

ple have more positive affective responses toward people holding similar
attitudes, because they like people who view the world in the same way. In
short, Byrnes reinforcement affect model suggests a positive linear
relation
between perceived attitudesimi~arityand interpersonal attraction. Zf
Bymes model isaccurate, then variation in perceived similarityshould be
directly related to the degree to which people assess the interpersonal ate
tractiveness of another. More specifically, giventhat there are differences in
the degree to which peopleare presented as attitudinally similar, the greater
the percentag~
of agreement, the greater the effect it should have on interc
personal attraction.
A second reasonto expect that thegreater percentageof agreement in the
attitude similarity manipulationwill be positively related
to its co~esponding
effect size is with regard to restriction in range. Because restriction in the
range of an independent variable systematicallyattenuates the effect on the
dependent variable, it follows that as the range or percentageof agreement
between the attitude similarity and dissimilari~variable increases,it will produce a greater effect on the dependent variable of interpersonal attraction.
Given the apparent relation between
the percentage of agreement usedin the
attitude similarity manipulationand its effecton a persons judgment of interpersonal attraction, the following hypothesisis offered.

As the difference in percentage between attitude similar an

similar conditions increases across studies, so will the correlation
between attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction.

One reason to expect that thenumber of attitude items usedin a study will
influence the extent which
to
others are perceived asinte~ersonally attrace
tive is the idea that some issues are more important to people than others.
For example,an extremely religious person
who is disinterested in sports will
weigh attitude similarity on the belief that God exists as more important
than thebelief that Big Ten basketballteams are generally better than Pac
Ten bas~etballteams.
The idea that people givemore weight to important issues has been addressed by research. For example, Bowman and Fishbein (1978) examined
ividuals attitudes toward an Oregon nuclear safeguard initiative. This
study revealed that anindicator of voting behaviorwas the weight that people placedon reasons to vote for or against the initiative. That is, the stronger the weight of a beliefabout the initiative, the greater effect it had on a
persons overall voting decision.
So why should it be expected that thenumber of items usedin a study will
explain varying effect sizes
of interpersonal attraction found across studies?
One possible explanation is that as the number of attitude items increasesin
a study, so does the opportunity for people to agree or disagreeon anissue
that is important to them. Ad~itionally,if attitudes are revealed on issues
that a person regards as
important, then heor she is likelyto use this information to form a stronger judgment of interpersonal attraction than another who fails to uncover information about a topic that is important to
him or her.
A second reason that more attitude items might resultin a greater corresponding interpersonal attraction judgment concerns the reliability phec
nomena. That is, as the number of items increase in a measure, so does its
subsequent reliability of that measure. Consequently, when two variables
are correlated with one another andthe reliability of one of those variables
increases, by definition, so will the correlation between those two variables.
Because considerable variance exists in the number of attitude items
used across studies examinedin this meta-analysis (7 to 56) and thatinformation quantity can be expected to effect interpersonal judgments of others, the following hypothesisis presented:

Hz:h the

numberof attitude items used in astudy increasesso will the

co~elationbetween attitude s ~ i l a rand
i ~ inte~ersonalattraction.

Several studies (unnafrank, 1983,1984; Sunnafrank6r Miller, 1981) have

varied the design fromthe typical bogusstranger technique employed in the
attitude similarity-inte~ersonal attraction
research by adding the variable
of interaction. For example, Sunnafrank (1983,1984)first had participants
complete attitude inventories. ubsequently, attitude similar or dissimilar
partners were formed and provided with the attitude inventory completed
by their partner. After reading their partners attitude inventory items, couples werebrought together andthey engagedin a 5-min
get-acquainted interaction. On completion of the 5min interaction,interactants were
separated and asked to complete measures of interpersonal attraction toward their partner. Each of the dyads used here were same-sex pairs.
In anotherseries of studies researching the effect that interaction has on
the relationbetweenattitude
similarity andinterpersonalattraction,
Curran and Lippold (1975) had participants complete attitude similarity
measures, but did not make them aware of each others answers. Based on
the completed measures, participants were apportioned into either attitude
similar or dissimilar conditions. Subsequently, partners were providedwith
sufficient funds to go on a 30-min Coke date, where they were given the
chance to interact
with one anotheroutside of the laboratory setting. N t e r
their Coke date,
they were askedto complete a measure of interpersonal at*
traction toward their partner. Each of the Coke date dyads were oppoc
sitecsex partners.
Twokey elements in the preceding studies make them different from
Byrnes (1969) typical bogus stranger research technique. The first is the
presence of interaction. The second is that there were true attitude agree@
ments or disagreements with realothers. Consequently, the question here is
whether these differences will moderate the relation between attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction.
The first reasonto expect that initial interaction will influence the effect
that attitude similarity has on interpersonal attraction is because in normal
initial interactions, attitudes are usually not uncovered. Giventhe lack of attitude i n f o ~ a t i o nit, cannotbe used asa judgment of interpersonal attraction.
In their work on the types of i n f o ~ a t i o nrevealed in initial interactions,
Berger and Calabrese (1975)introduced their proposed stagesof interaction.
According to them, the first stagethat people encounter is the entry phase.In

thisphase, peopleare governed by social noms and rules that limit conversation to low-risk topicssuch as demographic~ f o m a t i o n .
explored in this phase, it is not ~
f
o
~
tends to focus on low~~volvement
issues.
ason to expect that initial i n t e ~ e r s o n a lattraction will
that attitude similari~
has on interpersona
rsational goals and societal norms that g
ecifically, in initialfaceeto-face interactions, people are
t. ~ o n s e ~ u e n t l y , t h
positive
e
effects of initial interace
rk to suppress potential negative feelings that people may
ttitudinally discrepant others. In their research on initial inc
rleson and Denton(1992) suggested that people
ions are just trying to enjoy the interaction. Be
onfrontation, people are likely to highlight similarities and
ilarities, which could potentially inflate perceived similare effectof initial interpersonal interaction on therelation between at+
nd interpersonal attraction can be examined in two ways,
actions (e.g., interactions lasting fewerthan 30 min) create situations where fewattitude issues are uncovered, and evenif they are
uncovered, social norms cause people to downplay these dissimilarities.
~onsequently, ininitial interpersonal interactions, the effect of attitude
similarity on interpersonal attraction should be lower than when no interace
n is present, because forcesare acting to mitigate the effect of attitudinal
agreements. Therefore, the following hypothesisis presented:
*

3a:

~ommunicationbetween people will moderate the effect of attil

tude similari~on interpersonal attraction in initial interactions,
such that thecorrelation between them will decrease.

~ l t h o u g hthe effect of attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction will

be attenuated in initial interpersonal interactions due to social forcessuch
as initial interaction n o m s and the lack of attitudinal i n f o ~ a t i o nthese
,
factors will be
overcome as interaction increases. In particular, if Berger and
Calabrese (1975) were correct in their idea that time elapsed in a relationship will resultin more attitudinal knowledge of others andif attitude similarity is indeed an indicator of interpersonal attraction, then the effect of
attitude similarity, at least in the initial stagesof interaction, should beposh
tively related to judgments of interpersonal attraction. Therefore, the following hypothesisis forwarded:

e similari~ on inter~ersonal
attraction wil
S in initial inter~ersonal
interactions.

initially starting with the

re searched. The bibli

ntil no further g e ~ a n earticles

arch in ~ e r s o ~ a ~~i t y , oof so^^^

~ ~ ~s ~ ac
ition, and The ~ e s t~0~~~
e ~ of ~o~~

itation Index, ~issertationAbstracts,

INFO ( ~ s y c h o l oliterature
~
an
re searched using the
ty, ~ i k i n ~ , a t t ~ ~ t i o
34 studies that CO
tained studies th
cess used might
not be a complete coverage of all studies,but
number of studies collected, it is unlikely that the omitted
change the general conclusions of this aggregation.

To be incl~dedin this meta-analysis, the study had to focus on therelation

e similarityand interpersonal attraction. Examples of stu

luded given the criterion established included those mead
f personality similarity(Atkinson 6r Schein, 1986) or use
nalattraction measures asthedependent
variable
,1981). Fortytwo of the studies collected were exclu
by this criterion.
Each study also was required to incl e original data. Articles reviewing
or re report in^ data were not includ inthe selection process(Byrne,
1992). Seven studies collected were excludedby this criterion.
Studies fail in^ to provide s u ~ c i e ninformation
t
to allow computation of
the correlation between attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction

~~

were excluded. For example, Currans (1973) study was excluded analfrom
ysis. Although he researched attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction, he did not providesufficient statistical information necessary to
reproduce the correlation coefficient. Five studies were excludedby this criterion. Given these criteria to include studies in this
meta-analysis, 80 stud..
ies remained, leaving 92 effect sizes forthe analyses (complete list available
from author)

Hunter, Schmidt, and Jackson

(1982) presented the general meta-analytic
approach used in this chapter, Essentially, the procedures advanced by
Hunter etal. involvesthe estimation of effect sizesbetween the variables being examined. After each of the effect sizes for individual studies are obtained, they are weighted by sample sizeand cumulated.
To provide a standard measure acrossstudies, each of the findings were
transformed into correlationcoefficients. The primary source for transform^
ing F values to correlations was Hunters FTOR program (Hunter, 1991).
When transforming other statistics (e.g., t tests) the formulas presented by
Hunter etal. (1982) were used.
The full meta-analysiswas performed using
Hunters VGBAN program (Hunter, 1993).
Most studies used Bymes (1969) two-item measure to assess interpersonal attraction. However, the reliability of these two items vary. Reported
reliabilities are aslowas
.75 (Sunnafran~,1986) and as highas .90
unnafrank, 1985).The most commonlyreported alpha is .85. Given that
the mean between the highest and lowest report of alpha for these items
(82.5) is extremely closeto thereliability presented by Byrne(1969), .85 was
used asthe reliability estimate for Byrnes(1969) twocitem interpersonal attraction measure. Several studies used only Byrnes (1969) liking question
to measure interpersonal attraction. For these studies, Spearman-Browns
prophecy formula for estimating the reliability of shortened scales from a
scale with a known reliability was employed (Brown, 1910; Spearman,
1910). Using Spearman-Browns prophecy formula, a reliability of .74 was
calculated as the reliability for onlythe liking item.
The reported reliabilities for studies not using Byrnes (1969) two-item
inte~ersonalattraction measure were employed
to correct theireffect sizes
for attenuation due toerror of measurement. In cases where no reliability
measure was presented and there was i ~ u ~ c i einformation
nt
to calculate
an estimate of the reliability measure,then perfect measurement was assumed. Only 2 of the 92 effect sizes usedin thisstudy requiredthe assumption of perfect measurement.

To estimate the effect of attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction across

all of the effect sizes used

in this meta-analysis (k = 92), the correlations come
puted for each of the individual studies were averaged. "he overall uncorc
rected and weighted effect size the
for relation between attitude s ~ i l a r i t yand
~terpersonalattraction is r = .46 (k = 91, SD = .19, n = 10,588).When core
rected for attenuation due to error of measurement, the weighted effect size
is
.5 1 (k = 91, SD = .22, n = 10,588). Because corrected correlations have
larger standard errors than corrected ones, a .95 confidence interval was calculated around the uncorrected effect size and each end was subsequently
corrected for error of measurement. For these data, theestimated c o ~ d e n c e
interval for the corrected correlation is p (.462MeanRho 2 56) = .95.

Hypothesis 1predicted a positive relation between the percentage of agreec

ment difference between the most similarand dissimilar attitude conditions
and thestudy effectsizes. To test this hypothesis a correlation was obtained
between the uncorrected effect sizes, with the percentage di~erencebee
tween the largest attitude similarity condition less the smallest attitude similarity condition. For example, for a study using 12 attitude items and
defining attitude similarity ashaving 9 of 12 items similar and attitude disc
similarity as having 3 of 12 items, the percentage of agreement was calcuc
lated. In this particular case, the percentage of attitude similarity was
calculated as .75 (9 +- 12) and attitudedissimilarity was calculated as 2.5(3 +
12). As such, thepercentage of difference in this example is .50 (.75 -.25).
For these data, the correlation
between the percentage of difference of attie
tude similarity conditions across studies and the uncorrected effect sizesis
$48and .53when corrected for error of measurement (k = 65,n = 7,282)
There were slightly fewer
studies used forthe analyses here than all of the
studies used in this meta-analysis (k = 92), because (a) data from interace
tion studies (k = 11) were not used in this analysis, and (b) some of the studies didnot report the data needed
to calculate strength(k = 16).Interaction
studies were analyzed separately, becauseif interaction attenuates therelac
tion between attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction, then their
lower effectsizes would blur the test of the relation between manipulation
strength andits effect size, becauseit is believed that theeffect size in these
)
.

analysis of all effect sizes use

and less than 10%of the va
sampling error.Gonsequen
at least one moderating variable in these data.
interaction mo~erates the
effect of
ng no interaction. Because all
meta analysis couldbe coded with respect

a
of the corothesis 3a was comparison
udies in which interaction was present
ata, thesubgroup analysis forthe no-interaction stu
8 1,n = ~ , ~ 7In~comparison,
) .
the interaction stu
11,n = 2,016) This comparison revealsthat absent
effect on inter persona^ attrace
similarity exerts a weaker efO
i ~i n t e ~ e r ~
ct of attitude s i ~ i l a ron
ease in the course of an initial ~ t e ~ e r s o ninterc
al
3b, a subgroup analysis breaking the interaction
conditions into either initial interaction only (5 min) or beyo
*

action (approxi~ately30 min) was calculated. For thesedata, the average effect sizefor initial inte
isr = .O+ (k = 5,n = 362) an
= 6, n = 1,654) for

The average corrected effect studies (r= .5 1) for allstu

a strong positive relation between attitude simil
traction. Given that thecorrelation between th
corrected correlation was large(r= .99), there was no evidence that error of
measurement was a factor in differences across studies.

Given the high co~elationbetween the strength of the attitudemanipulation

and effect sizes across studies(r== 53 when corrected for errorof measure^
ment), there is strong evidence to suggest that perceived percentage a
ment of items exerts a strong influence on interpersonal attraction.
reasons suggestthat a positive relation would be found between percent
agreement and interpersonal attraction. The first reasonstated that as attic
tude similarity increased,so would positive affective responses toward people
holdin similar attitudes, which would lead
to greater interpersonalattraction
1969). Although no directtestcouldbe
made to determine if
ally similar others had greater affective responsesto others in come
parison to attitudinally dissimilar others,
the effect of greater inte~ersonalat0
traction was found, Consequently, although this model was not entirely
affirmed, the evidence found is insufficient to discount it as an e~planation.
The second reasonsupporting the relation between percenta
ment and greater interpersonal attraction stated that as range rest~ction

decreased acrossattitude similar con itions, there would be agreater effect

on interpersonal attraction. Given the high correlation uncovered between
the percentage of agreement and interpersonal attraction, support is provided for this explanation.

The correlation between the number of attitude items used in each study
and the effect size (r= .05) was minimal. The evidence suggests that the
two variablesare not related in a positivelinear manner as hypothesized.
Two reasons supported the idea that thenumber of attitude items usedin
a study would
influence the interpersonal attraction effect sizes across
stu
ies. The first indicated that people weightthe importance of issues differentially. ~ o n s e ~ u e n t l y , greater
t h e the number of attitude items that are used
in a study,the more likely that animportant one would be found, causing a
more extreme judgment on interpersonal attraction. The findings did not
support the proposed relation,
The second reason was a simple methodological
explanation stating that
as the number of attitude items increased, so would the reliability of this
variable. ~ssuming that
a relation exists between attitude similarity and in0
terpersonal attraction, greater reliability of either of the variables wouldby
definition result in a larger correlation between the two variables. No evic
dence was found to support this rationale.
Given the low correlation between the number of attitude items and interpersonal attraction effect sizes across studies,
one of two conclusions can
be drawn. First, the preceding rationales usedto predict a positive linear effect between the use of greater
a
number of attitude items and stronger judgments of interpersonal attraction could be flawed.That is, the idea of issue
importance and the reliability phenomenon are incorrect in this context.
A second conclusion that can be drawn is that factors within this
meta-analysis prevented an accurate test of the relation between the number of attitude items and effect sizes across studies.
In particular, the limited
variance in number of attitude items acrossstudies could have prevented an
accurate test of this relation. Given strong support that there was a weaktest
of the relation between the number of attitude items and interpersonal atd
traction effect sizes in the studies used for this meta-analysis, any conclw
sions drawn from these findings should betaken with caution.

Two tests were employedto examine the effect that interaction has on the
relation between attitude similarity and inte~ersonalattraction. Not only

did the subgroup analysis of interaction present or absent in st

extreme differences in average effect sizes(r = .l8 and r = .58),
relation of varied interaction levels with the effect size also
sho
that interaction affects the relation between attitude simila
personal attraction (r = .04, r = . H 9 r = 5 8 ) . Because a
studies were done without any interaction, there was a su
in thenumber of studies used forthe comparison. Ho
extreme di~erences average
in
effect sizes across studies,
it seems reasonable
to conclude that interaction, at least in theearly stagesof relationships9less-.
ens the effect that attitude similarity has on interpersonal attraction.

Although the effect that attitu e similarityhas on interpersonal attraction

een examined in more than 100 studies, we have advanced little in our
rstanding of these variables except that inbogus stranger situations ate
titude similarity has a strong effect on interpersonal attractiveness and that
initial interactions moderate the effect of attitude similarity. Clearly9 are0
search program is needed to enhance ourunderstanding in this domain.
One area of research that has generated considerable controversyin attic
tude similarity concerns the effect of initial interactions. Within this chapter, it is suggested that people are operating within particular rules and
norms in initial interactions. Future research should test whether initial in,
teraction n o m s operate to suppress the effect of attitude similarity on inter,
personal attraction in newly formed relationships.
In additionto testing typesof conversations, research should also conc
be
ducted on interactions over longer time periodsthan have previously been
used. In particular, the research on initial interactions has had participants
engage in conversations between 5 min (Sunnafrank, 1985) and 30 min
(Curran 6r Lippold, 1975) long.Although this research has been useful in
helping us understand the effect of initial interactions in theshort term, it
does little to help us understand how attitude similarity influencesinterpersonal attraction in relationships that are more enduring.
An interesting finding in this meta-analysis is that as the time of interaction increases, so did the effect that attitudesimilarity has on interpersonal
attraction. Althoughthese findings are limited to comparing the 5-min interaction (r = .04) with the 300min interaction(r = .21)conditions, they do
add interesting insight into theattitude similarity effect.
To obtain a more complete
understanding of the effect that attitude simic
larity exertson interpersonal attraction over time, research needsto examc
ine interaction relationships greater than the 300min maximum that has

increase interpersonalattraction, but that attitude

that there were n o s i ~ i f i c a mean

nt
di~erencesbetween the attiilar and no attitude conditions with respect to theinterpersonal atresults showed that the
tractiveness of a bogus stranger. ~dditionally, the
attitude dissimilar others were rated a significantly less interpersonallyattractive than both theattitude similar and no0attitude0information condie
tions. ~ l t h o u g Rosenbaum9s
h
findings wereonsistent with his predictions,
some researchers (Byme, 1992) have argue that it is impossible to have a
no~informationcontrol condition. That is, it has been argued that in the
absence of attitudinal in~ormationabout others, people assumethat the anonshares similarattitudes to them,
one go about forming a true n o ~ i ~ o r m a t i ocontrol
n
group?
step would be to create individuals that partici~ants
believe that
they cannot makeinferences about their attitudes. For example, a re0
searcher might provideparticipants with a description of another in which
information is provi ed (e.g., only name and nondescriptive backi n f o ~ a t i o n ) .In th case, the lack of information about another
could pote~tiallyheighten the realization that there is insu~icienti n f o ~ a ~
tion to make attitudinal predictions. Once a no0inference condition is ese
tablished, further testing of the repulsion hypothesis can be undertaken.
A third area of research that should be conducted is testing the theories
to explain why some variables, such as interaction, influence the relation
between attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction. Forexample,
~ u n n a f r (1985,
a ~ ~ 1986, 1992) consistently argued across several articles
that initial interaction moderates the relation between attitude similarity

cribe the eEect thatinterpersonal interaction has on the re0

nonverbal cues displayed in interpersonal interactions toexplain why peole make certain interpersonal attraction jud~ments.
ploring the potential e ct that politeness theory an
I c o ~ m u n i ~ a t i ohas
n
the relation between attit
inter persona^ attractio~is importa~tto
standing inter~ersonalattraction in the earlystages of newlyformednships.
~ p e c i ~ c a l lifypolite,
oderate the relation between attit
and attraction, then it implies that individuals are not only

enced by social norms, but amongother things, are actively engaged in bale
ancing their desire to maintain a stable and tension4ree relationship with
the potentially aversive effect of attitude discrepancy that they may share
with another.

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies includedin the meta.

analysis.

Aristotle. (1932). The r h e t o ~(L.Cooper, Trans.). New York: App~eton-Centu~Crofts.

(Original work published 330 BC)
~Aronson,J. S., Davis, M. C., 6.Jones, L.C. (1983). Sequential effectsof attitudinal stim~ ) 257-260.
uli. 3~~~ of so cia^ P s y c ~ o ~lo19,
~ A r r o w oA.
~ ,J., 6.Short, J. A. (1973). Agreement,attraction, and self-esteem.Cana~ian
~
~of ~ehawiora~
~
aScience,
l 5, 242-252.
Atkinson, D.R., 6.Schein, S. (1986). Similarity in counseling. The C o u ~ e ~ ~ n g P s y c ~ o ~ o
14,319-357.
Berger C. R., 6r Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interactions and beu Corn~
n
yond: Toward a developmental theoryin interpersonal communication.~
r n u n ~ aResearch,
t~
1)99-1 12.
Berscheid, E.,&Walster,E. (1983).~ n t e ~ e r s ~ l a t t T Reading,
a c t ~ ~ . MA: Addison-Wesley.
"Bleda, E R.(1973). Attitude similarity~issimilarityand attraction in the middle eastern
culture. T h e 3 o u ~of~ Social
l
psycho lo^) 91,153-154.
Bochner, A.E (1991).On the paradigm that would not die. InJ. A. Anderson (Ed.), Cornrnunication y e a r ~ o ol4~ (pp. 484-491). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
*Bond, M., Byrne, D., & Diamond, M.J. (1968). Effect of occupational prestige and attitude similarity on attraction as a function of assumed similarity
of attitude. P s y c h o ~ ~ c a l
Re~orts)23, 1167-1 172.
Bowman, C. H., 6r Fishbein, M.(1978).Understanding public reaction
to energy proposals:
An application of the Fishbein model.~ o ~of A
~ ~a~ l~Social
i e dP s ~ c h o ~8,
o3
~19-340.
)
ofperson.
*Brink,J. H.(1977). Effect ofinterpersonalcommunicationon attraction.3ou~a~
ality and Social P s y c ~ o l o35,
~ , 783-790.
Brown, W.(1910). Some experimental results in
the correlation of mental abilities. ~ ~ t i s h
~ o u o ~f ~ as y ~
c h o ~3,o ~
,
296-322.
Burleson, B. R., &a Denton, W. H. (1992). A new look at similarity and attraction in marriage: Similaritiesin social-cognitive and communication skills aspredictors of attraction and satisfaction. ~omrnun~catzon
M o n o ~ a ~59,
~ s268-287.
,
Byrne, D.(1992). The transition from controlled laboratoryexperimentation to less con~ornrn~n~cation
Monotrolled settings: Surprise! Additional variables are operative.
g r a ~59,
~ )190-198.
"Byrne, D. (1961a). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. ~0~~~ of A ~ n o ~ a l
and Social P s y c h o ~ o62,
~ ) 7 13-7 15.
"Byrne, D.(1961b). Interpersonal attraction as a function of affiliation need and attitude
similarity. ~ u m a n R e ~ t i o3,n s283-289.
)
Byrne, D. (1969).Attitudes and attraction. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Ad~ancesin e ~ ~ e r ~ ~ e n t a l
~ s y c ~ (pp.
o ~ 178-224).
o ~
New York: Academic.

Byme, D.(1971). The u t t r a c t ~ ~ ~ New

a r a York:
d ~ ~ Academic.
.
*Byme, D., Baskett, G. D., & Hodges, L. H. (1971). Behavioral indicatorsof interpersonal
~ ~Psyc~lo#)
i e d 1, 137-149.
attraction. ~~~1 o ~ ~ ~Social
*Byrne, D.,6 Clore, G. L. (1967). Effectance arousaland attraction.
of per so^^^^
and S ~ i psycho^^,
a ~
6, 1-18,
*Byme, D., Clore., G. L.,&Griffitt, W. (1967). Response discrepancy versus
attitude similarity~issimilarityas determinants of attraction. P s ~ c h Science,
~ ~ ~7,c397-398.
Byme, D.,Clore, G. L., 6r Smeaton, G. (1986). The attraction hypothesis: Do similar atti~ ~S t ~y i Pus Y~c ~ o ~ #6,, 1167-1 170.
tudes affect any thing?^^^^ o ~ P e r s ~and
*Byrne, D.,&Ervin, C. R.(1969). Attraction toward a negro stranger aasfunctionof prejudice, attitude similarity, and the stranger's evaluation of the subject. H
~ R e ~~ ~ n s )
22,397404.
*Byrne, D.,Ervin, C. R., & Lamberth, J. (1970). Continuity between the expe~mental
study ofattraction and real-life computerd a t i n g . o~~~P ~e ~r s ~and
l iSocial
~ Ps~cho~~
O ~ Y ,16) 157-165.
*Byrne, D., Gouaux, C., Griffitt,
W., Lamberth,J., Murakawa, N., Prasad, M., Prasad, A.,&
Ramirez, M. (1971). The ubiquitous relationship: Attitude similarity and attraction.
H ~ ~ n
24,201-207.
R e ~ t ~ ,
*Byme, D., 6. Griffitt, W. (1966a).A developmental investigationof the law ofattraction.
~~~l ofpersonu~~ty
and Sociul Psycholo#, 4, 699-702.
*Byrne, D.,hGriffitt, W. (1966b). Similarity versus liking:
A clarification.P s y c h ~ o m
Scic
~
ence, 6, 295-296.
Byrne, D.,P;r Griffitt, W. (1973). Interpersonalattraction. ~ n nReview
~ l of Psycho~o#,24,
3 17-336.
*Byrne, D.,Griffitt, W., ~Golightly,C. (1966).Prestige asa factor in d e ~ e ~ i n i the
n g effect
of attitude similarity~issimilarityon attraction. ~~~l of P e r s o ~ ~ ~34,434-444.
ty)
*Byrne, D.,Griffitt,W., Hudgins, W., &Reeves, K.(1969). Attitude similarity~issimilarity
and attraction: Generality beyond the college sophomore.
of Social P s y c ~ o ~ o ~ ,
79,155-161.
"Byme, D., London, O., 6. Griffitt, W, (1968). The effect of topic importanceand attitude
similarity-dissimilarity on attraction in an intrastrangerdesign. Psychonom~cScience, 1I ,
303-304.
"Byrne, D., London, O., 6. Reeves, K. (1968). The effects of physical attractiveness, sex,
and attitude similarity on interpersonal attraction. ~~~l of P e r s ~ ~ i t36,
y ) 259-27 1.
"Byrne, D., 6. Nelson, D. (1965). Attraction as a linear function of proportion of positive
reinforcements.~ o u of~P ear s o~~ l ~and
t y Social P s y c h o ~ o6,
~ )659-663.
e positive and negative reinforcementsas a
"Byrne, D., & Rhamey, R. (1965). ~ a g n i t u d of
determinance of attraction. ~ o u ~ofaPersonu~~ty
l
and Social psycho lo^, 2, 884-889.
"Cappella, J.N., 6. Palmer, N.?
:(1990). Attitude similarity, relational history, and attractibn: The mediating effects of kinesic and vocalic behaviors. C ~ m ~ n ~ c aMonot~on
~
u57, 161-183.
~
~
,
*Cherry, E,Byrne, B., &Mitchell, H. E. (1976). Clogs in the bogus pipeline: Demandcharc ~P e r s ~ l i t y 10,
, 69-75.
acteristics and social desirability.3 o ~ o~~R ea~ e~u r in
"Clore, G. L., & Baldridge, B. (1970). The behavior of item weightsin attitude-attraction
~of E x ~
~ e ~ ~a eSocial
n tlaP~~ y c h o ~6,o ~177-186.
,
research. ~
"Clore, G. L., 6 Gormly, J. B. (1974). Knowing, feeling,and liking: A psychophysiological
a l in Personal~ty,8, 2 18-230.
study of attraction. ~ o ~of ~Research
~~~~

~~~~

*Condon,J. W., & Crano, W. D. (1988). Inferredevaluation and the relationship between
attitude similarity and interpersonala t t r a c t i o n . 3 0 ~of~P~e~r s o ~ l ~and
t y Social psycho^O ~ Y ,54, 789-797.
Coombs, L. C., & Chang, M. (1981). Do husbands and wives agree? Fertilityattitude and
t iEnviron~ent,
~
4, 109-127.
later behavior. P o ~ u ~and
Examination of various interpersonalattraction principles inthe datof ~ x ~ e ~ ~ e~eseurch
n t u l in P e r s o ~ ~ i t6,y ,347-356.
C u ~ a nJ., E,&Lippold, S. (1975).The effects of physicalattraction and attitude similarity
~ ~528-539.
~,
on attraction in dating dyads. 3~~~~of P e r s o ~ u43,
).Attraction to a group as a function of attitude similarity and geo~ ~
? e rr s ~ ~ i t 12,
y , 1-6.
graphic distance. Social ~ e h uand
*De Wolfe, 71: E., &Jackson, L. A. (1984).Birds ofa brighter feather:Level of moral
reasonin and similarity of attitude as determinants of interpersonal attraction. Psycho~o~cul
rts, 54, 789-797.
E! G. (1981). The role ofattitudinal similarity and perceived acceptanceevaluation
in interpersonal attraction. The 3~~~ of PsychologY, 100, 133-136.
*Erwin, E! G. (1982). The role ofattitudinal similarity and direct acceptance evaluations in
attraction. The 3 o u m a ~of Psycho~o#, I I I , 97-100.
*Franklin, B. J. (197 1). Attitude similarity~issimilarity,dogmatism, and interpersonal attraction. P s y c h o ~ o37,
~ , 4-1 1.
Gonzales, M. H., Davis, J. N., Loney, G. L., LuKens, C. K., & Junghans, C. M. (1983).
~ t ySocial PsyInteractional approach to interpersonal attraction. 3 o u ~ofl P e r s o ~ ~and
C. (1972). Role ofvindication motivation in the attitude similarship. Psycho~o~cul
~ e ~ o3~I ,s769-770.
,
*Good, L. R.,&Nelson, D. A. (1971). Effects of person-groupand intragroup attitude similarity on perceived group attractiveness and cohesiveness. psycho no^^ Science, 25,
215-217.
"Gormly, A.V., 6r Clore, G. L. (19691. Attraction, dogmatism, and attitude similarity-disSimilarity.3 o u m a ~of E x ~ e r ~ ~ e~eseurch
n t u ~ in Pe~sonu~~ty,
4, 9-13.
Gouaux, C. (1971). Induced affective statesand interpersonal attraction. 3 ~ m ofaPer~
s ~ u ~and
i tSocial
~
?sycho~ogY,20,37-43.
*Gouaux, C., & Summers, K. (1973). Interpersonal attraction as a function of affective
state and affective change.3ouma~o f ~ e s e ~inr Personu~~t~,
c~
7, 254-260.
Griffitt, W. B. (1969). Personality similarity and self-concept asdeterminants of interpersonal attraction. ~ o u of~Sociul
u ~Ps~cho~o#,78, 137-146.
"Hoyle, R. H. (1993). Interpersonal attraction in the absence of explicit attitudinal information. Social C o ~ ~ t i o1
nI ,,309-320.
Hunt, A. (1935). A study ofthe relative valueof certain ideals.Joumalo f A ~ o and
~ Sou ~
cial ?sycho~ogY,30, 222-228.
Hunter, J. E.,(1993).V G ~ A ~A~ o g~ r uto~
mdo bare
~ bones ~ e t ~ - u ~ ~
onyr.sEast
i s Lansing:
~ i c ~ i g State
a n University, Department of Psychology.
Hunter, J. E., (1991). F T O A
~~~ r o to ~convert
u ~
F to r. East Lansing: MichiganState University, Department of Psychology.
Hunter, J. E., &Schmidt, F. L. (1990).me tho^ ofme~u~anulys~s.
Newbury Park,CA: Sage.
lating
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F.L.,& Jackson, G. B. (1982). M e t a - u n u ~ y s ~ ~ C u ~ ~research
~ndingsacross studies. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

"Insko, C. A., & Wetzel, C. (1974). Preacquaintance attraction as an interactive function

i~e
in Social Psye
of the proportion and number of similar attitudes. R e ~ r e s e n ~ tResearch
c ~ o ~5,o27-33.
~ ,
*Jackson,L. A., &Mascaro,G. M. (1971). Interpersonalattraction as a function of attitude
similarity dissimilarity and attitude extremity. P s ~ c Science,
~ o 23,
~ 187-188.
~
*Jamieson, D. W., Lyndon, J. E., 6, Zanna, M. l? (1987). Attitude and activity preference
similarity: Differential bases
of interpersonal attraction for lowand high self-monitors.
of P e r s ~ a and
~ i Social
~
P s y c h o ~ o53,
~ , 1052-1060.
*Johnson,C. D. (197 1). Competence motivationand interpersonal evaluation.~ ~ ~of ~ e t ~
psych^^^ Society, 4, 199-200.
*Johnson,J., 6, Johnson, D.W. (1972). The effects of other's actions, attitude similarity,
and race on attraction toward others. ~~~n R e ~ t i o2,~ 121-130.
,
*Kaplan, M. E (1972). Interpersonalattraction as a function of relatedness of similar and
dissimilar attitudes.
of E x ~ e ~ ~ eResearch
n t a ~ in P e ~ s ~ ~6,~17-2
t y 1.
,
"Kaplan, M. F.,&Olcsak, F!V, (1970). Attitude similarity and direct reinforcement as de0 o f ~~ x ~ e~ ~ ~Research
e~ n t a in
~ Persona~ity,4, 186-189.
terminants of attraction. 1
Kirkpatrick, C., &Stone, S. (1935). Attitude measurement and the comparison ofgenerations. l~~~~ of kir lied psycho lo^, 5, 564-582.
"Kleck, R. E., 6, Rubenstein, C. (1975). Physical attractiveness, perceived attitude-similarity, and interpersonal attraction in an opposite-sex encounter.~0~~~ of Persona~~ty
and Social Psycho~o#, 3 I, 107-1 14.
"Layton, B,D., & Insko, C. A. (1974).Anticipated interaction and the similarity-attraction effect. S o c ~ o m e t2,
~ , 149-162.
"Lydon, J. E., Jamieson, D. W, & Zanna, M. l? (1988). Interpersonal similarityand the SOcial intellectual dimensions of first impressions. Socia2 C o ~ ~4, t269-286.
~ ~ ,
**McGinley, H.(1980). A test for artifactual effects in an attitude similari~/interpersonal
attraction study. ~ ~ l l e tofi nthe Psychono~~c
Society, 16, 137-139.
*McGinley, H., Nicholas,K., & McGinley, l? (1978). Effects of body position and attitude
c u ~ 42,
similarity on interpersonal attraction and opinion change. P s ~ c h o ~ o ~Reports,
127-138.
"McGinIey, H.,& Reiner, M. (1979).Contingency awarenessand interpersonal attraction.
~ u ~ ~ofethe
t ~Psychono~~c
n
Society, 13, 175-1 78.
process. New York:Holt, Rinehart, &Winston.
Newcomb, "EM.(196 l). The uc~~aintunce
Newcomb, "E,& Svehla, G. (1937). Intra-family relationshipsin attitude. S o c ~ o ~ eI,t ~ ,
659-667.
"Olczak, P.V,, & Goldman, J. A. (1975). Self-actualization as a moderator of the relau ~P s ~ c h o l o 89,
~,
tionship between attitude similarity and attraction. T h e ] o ~ r nof
195-202.
*Orpen, C. (1984).Attitude similarity, attraction, and decision-making in
the employment
interview. The ~ o u of~Ps~cho~o#,
u ~
I I7, 111-120.
"Palmer, D. L., &Kahn, R. (198.5). Dogmatic responsesto belief dissimilarityin the "bogus
stranger" paradigm. ~
o of P ~e r s~~ and
a u~Social
~ ~~ Psycho~o#,48, 17 1-179.
*Pander, J., 6,Rastogi, R. (1978).Intolerance of ambiguityand response to
attitude similar~ , 104-106.
ity-dissimilarity. P s y c h o ~ o22,
the development of
Parks, M. R., &Adelman, M. B. (1983). Communication networks and
romantic relationships:An expansionof uncertainty reduction theory. Human Comrnunication Research, I 0, 55-79.
~~~~

~~~~

Posavac, E. J., & Pasko, S. J. (197 1). Interpersonal attraction and confidence of attraction
ratings as afunction of number of attitudes and attitude simila~ty. Psychono~~c
Science,
23, 433435.
Rosenbaum, M. E. (1986). The repulsion hypothesis:O n the nondevelopment ofrelationships. ~ o u r n of
a ~P e r s o ~ and
I ~ ~Social psycho^#, 5I , 1156-1 166.
*Sachs, D.H. (1975). Belief similarity andattitude similarity as determinantsof interpersonal attraction. ~~m~
of ~esearchin P e r s ~ l ~ t y , 9 , 5 7 - 6 5 .
"Santee, R. I:(1976). The effect on attractionof attitude similarity as informationabout
interpersonal reinforcement contingencies, S o c ~ ~ e39,t ~153-156.
,
Schiller, B. (1932). A quantitative analysis of marriage selection in a smallg r o u p . ~ of~ ~ a ~
Social Psycho~o#, 3, 297-319.
Schooley, M. (1936). Personality resemblances among married
couples.Jouml o f A ~ n o ~ ~
and SocialPsycholo#, 3 1,340-347.
"Scott, W. C, (1973). The linear relationship between interpersonal attraction and similarity: An analysis of the "unique stranger" technique. ~ o ~ r nofa lSocial psycho lo^, 91,
117-125.
*Shaikh, T,& Kanekar, S. (1993). Attitudinal similarity and affiliation need as determi~ of Social
~ P sl y c ~ o ~134,
o ~ ,257-259.
nants of interpersonal attraction. J
"Shuntich, R.J. (1976). Some effects of attitudinal similarity and exposureof attraction
and aggression.J o u ~ofl ~esearchin Perso~lity,10, 155-165.
Simons, H. W, Berkowitz, N. N., 6. Moyer, J. (1970). Similarity, credibility, and attitude
change. P s y c h o ~ o ~~cu~ ll ~ e t73,
~ n1-16.
,
charac"Singh, R. (1973) Attraction as afunction of similarity in attitudes and personality
teris tics.
of Social psycho lo^, 9l , 87-95.
*Singh, R. (1974). Reinforcement and attraction: SpecifGing the effects of affective states.
~esearchin P e r s ~ l i8,~ 291-305.
,
"Singh, R. (1975). Reinforcement, affect, andinterpersonal attraction. psycho lo^, 18,
142-148.
*Smeaton, G., Byrne, D., & Murmen, S. K. (1989). The repulsion hypothesis revisited:
Similarity irrelevanceor dissimilarityb i a s ? ~ ~ r n a l o f P e r sand
o ~ ~Social
~ t yP s y c ~ o ~56,
o~,
54-59.
*Smith, R.E.,Meadow, B. L., &Sisk, "X K. (1970) Attitude similarity, interpersonalattraction, and evaluative social perception. Psychono~~c
Science, 18, 226-227.
~
to ~ P s~y c h o ~ o ~ , J
Spearman, C . (1910). Correlation calculated from faultydata. ~
3,271-295.
*Stroebe, W., Insko, C. A.,&Layton, B. (1971). Effects ofphysical attractiveness, attitude
of P e r s o ~ ~ ~ t y
similarity, and sex on various aspects of interpersonal attraction.
o ~ 79-9
,
1.
and Social P s ~ c ~ O l18,
*Sunna~ank,M. (1983) Attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction in communication processes: In pursuit of an ephemeral influence. C o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c u t ~ o50,
~
M o
273-284.
"Sunnafrank, N.(1984). A communication-based perspective on attitude similarity and
interpersonal attraction in early acquaintance. C o ~ ~ ~ n ~ c a t ~ o n M ~5o1 ,g r a ~ h
372-380.
*Sunnafrank, M. (1985). Attitude similarityand interpersonal attraction during earlycommunicative relationships: A research note on thegeneralizability of findings to oppooof Speech
~ C ~~ ~ ~ nl ~ c u4t9,~73-80.
on,
site-sex relationships. Western ~
~~~~

~~~~

"Sunnafrank, M. (1986). Communicative influenceson perceived similarity and attrace ~ of Speech

tion: An expansion of the interpersonal goals perspective, ~ e s t ~~~u~
~ O m m ~ n ~ U50,
t ~158-1
o ~ J 70.
Sunnafrank,M.(1992). On debunking the attitude similarity myth.C o ~ m ~ n ~ u t Monoion
~ u ~59,~ 164-179.
s J
*Sunna~ank,M., 6 Miller, G. R. (198l). Therole of initial conversationsin determining
attraction to similar and dissimilar strangers.~~~n C o m m ~ n ~ ~ue ~
s e~u ~
n c8,1625.
h,
Tan, D.Y., 6,Singh, R. (1995).Attitude and attraction: A developmental studyof the similarity-attraction and dissimilarity-repulsion hypotheses.per so^^^^ and Social Psyc~o~ogy 3 ~ ~ l e t i2n1,
, 975-986.
"Tesch, F.E., Huston, T:L., 6,Indenbaum, E. A.(1973). Attitude similarity, attraction, and
physical proximity in a dynamic space.~0~~~ o ~ ~ p psocial
~ ~ ePsycho~ogy,
d
3, 63-72.
"Tesser, A. (1971). Evaluativeand structuraI similarity of attitudes as determinants of interpersonal atrraction. ~~~u~ of P e ~ s ~and
~ ~Social
t y Psycho~ogy,18, 92-96.
"Touhey, J.C. (1974). Situated identities, attitude similarity, and interpersonal attraction.
S o c ~ e t37,363-374.
~ ,
"~illiams,S., Ryckman, R. M., Gold, J. A., 6,Lenney, E. (1982). The effects of sensation
of arousal on attraction toward similarand dissimilar strangseeking and misattribution
ers. ~0~~~ of ~ e s e a r icn~P e r s ~ ~ i t16,
y , 2 17-226.
"Yabrudi, F? E,Diaz, N.,6r Lufty, L. N.(1978). The effects of attitude similarity~issimilarity, religion,and topic importance on interpersonal attraction among Lebanese university students. The ~
o of Psycho~ogy,
~
~ 106,
u 167-7
~ l.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

elfcdisclosure refersto theprocess by which one person verbally revealsinc

f o ~ a t i o about
n
himself or herself (including
thoughts, feelings, and experi..
ences) to another person (Derlega, Metts, Petronio, 6.Margulis, 19
elf~~isclosure
is the focus of much quantitative research becauseit is a key
to the development and maintenance of relationships.
Three issues have dominated the quantitative research on selfcdiscloc
sure: (a) sex differences
in selfcdisclosure, (b) selfcdisclosureand liking, an
(c) reciprocityof selfcdisclosure. Meta-analyseshave been conducted on sex
differences in se1 isclosure(Dindia &L Allen, 1992), self0disclosurea
liking (Collins 6 ller, 1994.), and reciprocity of self-disclosure (Dindia
Allen, 19%). The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the results of the
three meta0analyses, and to compare and contrast the results of the three
meta-analyses for a comprehensive review
of the research on self-disclosure.

There are more studies on sex differences in selfcdisclosure than on any

other issue regarding self-disclosure.
Jourard (197 1)was the first to hypothesize that men disclose less than women. Dindia and Allen (1992) conc
ducted a meta-analysis of sex differences in selfedisclosure. The results of

the meta~analysiswere that women disclosed morethan men; however, the

difference was small, Y = .09 (d = .M, k = 205, N = 23,702), and theeffect
size was heterogeneous, meaning that the effect sizes varied more than
could be expected due to chanceacross the studies.
Hill and Stull(1987), ainnarrative review of the literature, noted
incon0
sistent findings in research on sex differencesin selfedisclosure. They argued
that various situational factors may account for inconsistencies in sex differ0
ences in self-disclosure. Speci~cally,they argued that a number of situs,
tional factors have been found to affect selfedisclosure(e.g., sex of target and
relationship to target) andthat these factors may interact with sex of the disclosure to mediate sex differencesin selfedisclosure. Thus, Dindia and Allen
(1992) tested sex of target, relationship to target, measure of self-disclosure
(as well aspublication date and status),and interactions among sex of tar,
get, relationship to target, and measure of selfedisclosureas potential mod,
erators of sex differencesin selfedisclosure.
Year of publication did not moderate sex differences in self-disclosure.
Sex differenceshave notdecreased in the past 30 years. Similarly, whether
or not a study was published didnot moderatesex differencesin self-disclo,
sure. There was no evidence that studies finding sex differences were more
likely to be published than studies finding no difference.
~ e a s u r of
e self-disclosure (self-report, other report, observational mea,
sure of self-disclosure) moderated sex differences in selfcdisclosure. b t h
self-report and observational measures of self-disclosure showed small sex
differences (r= ,085, d = .17, and Y = .l 1,d = ,212,respectively). However,
when participants were reporting on another persons self-disclosure to
them (disclosure received), they reported that women disclosed moderately
more than men(Y = 22, d == .44). Dindia and Allen (1992) interpreted this
as a result of gender stereotypes. We perceive that we receive more self-disclosure from women than men because there is a stereotype that women
self-disclose morethan men.
Sex of target (male, female, same sex,
opposite sex) moderated sex differe
ences in self-disclosure. Women disclosed more to women than men disclosed to women (r= .12, d = 24) ;women disclosed more to women than
men disclosed to men (r= ,155, d = .3 1); women disclosed more to men
than mendisclosed to women (r= .04, d = .08);but women didnot disclose
more to men than men disclosed to men (7 = .015, d = .03, confidence interval includes 0; see Table 10.1). In addition,
sex differencesin selfcdisclo-.
sure were significantly greater to female and same+ex partners than to
opposite-sex and male partners.

W to M vs. M to M

.03 (C1inc 0)

No sex differences to male recipients

W to M vs. M to W

.08

Very small sex differences to opposite-sex

recipients

.....................................*I.*..........*..............*...*.
'....*..*.........**....'..*......**.

W to W vs, M to W

24

Small sex differences to female

recipients

W to W vs. M to M

.3 1

Small
differences
sex

to same-sex
recipients

Note: Effect sizes for differences above the dotted line are significantly less than effect sizes for differences
below the dotted line.

There was a significant interaction effect between relationship to target

and measure of self-disclosure. Measureof self-disclosure (self-report vs. observation) didnot moderate sex differences
in self-disclosure to ~timates.In
intimate relationships, both self-report and observational data indicate that
women disclose slightly more
than men(r = .105, d = .21, and r= .115, d =
.23, respectively). However, measureof self-disclosure moderated sex differences when the target was a stranger.Men reported that they self-discloseto
strangers similarlyto women (r = -.01, d = -.02, not significantly different
from 0). However, observational studies
of self-disclosure to a stranger found
that women disclose slightly more
than men (r = .085, d = .l?, and the effect
size wasnot si~ificantlydifferent fromthe effect size for self-report
and observational measuresof self-disclosure to intimates. Dindiaand Allen (1992) interpreted the zero effect size for self-report measures of self-disclosure to
strangers as a spurious result based
on invalid self-report measures
of selfedisclosure whenthe target personis astranger (individualscannot validly report
their level of self#disclosureto a generalized stranger).
Thus, the results of the meta-analysis of sex differencesin self-disclosure
indicate that women disclose morethan men. However, sex differencesin
self-disclosure are small and are moderated by sex of recipient. Sex is not a
stable individualdifferencevariable
that consistentlypredictslevel
of
self-disclosure across sexof partner.

Interest in the relation between self-disclosure

and liking began with
the work
oflourard (1959),who found a positive relation between self-report measures

~uaintancestudies (one subset of experimental studies) i~volving partici~

pants who interacted (or believed they were
interacting) with a partner in a
nd a significantly smaller effect size, bu
rent from zero (r = .19, d = .38, k =
formation studies (a further subset of experimental studies) involving participants who observedor read about a target who disclosedat either a high
or low level found a small but sig~ificanteffect size that was s ~ a l l e than
r
that for ac~uaintancestudies or relationship survey studies
(r = 10,d = .19,

lation for male versus female recipients of disclosure. The results for the
interaction effect of sex of disclosure and sex of recipient were signifiize for self~disclosureon liking was highest for feS (d = ,485, r = .236, n =
r = ,123, n = 15). In
from zero. The effect
were not significant
5 , r = --,132,n = 2; male-fe
ver, these results must vie
be
tion given that two cells contained only two observations,th
between the two cells with larger observations did not reach S
the results for three of the four cells were heterogeneous. Thus, no
conclusions can be drawn about the interaction
effect of sex of disclosure
and sex of reci ient.
iller (1994) tested whether the level of disclosure
e-liking relation. They did not find evidence that
closure,relative to l
disclosure,leads to lessliking.
indicated that their fi ng is limited giventhe small numb
(k = 7) and thedifficulty in comparing disclosure levels
as perceived as personalistic was also teste
moderator. People can perceive another personsself0disclosureas
personalistic (revealed onlyto the disclosee) or nonpersonalistic (revealedto
many people) Collinsand Miller (1994) foundthat theeffect size forself

IN
closure where a personalisticatt~butionwas ma e was r= .22 (d ==
10) whereasthe e ct size for nonpersonalistic a t t n b u t i o was
~ r =.
23,k = 12). Alth h the difference was not statistically s i ~ i ~ c a nit twas
, in
icted direction. Collins and Miller (1994) concluded that these
ide some evidence
that therelation between disclosure
and likin
may be strongerif the recipient believesthat thedisclosure was given
of something unique or specialabout him- or herself (p. 20).
Collins andMiller (1994)also conducteda meta~analysisof whether
lose more to people we like (here the question is 4 4 1 ) ~liking
e~
isclosure? insteadof D o ~disclosure
s
cause liking?). The results of the meta-analysis indicated that we disclose more to people we
like (r = .34, d = .72, k = 31), a moderately large effectsize; but the re+
sultswereheterogeneous.Thestudieswereagaindividedinto
correlational studies and~experimental studies. The
results were that
the effect sizes for strong andweak experiments did
not differ from each
(r = .22, d = .45, k = 8 and r = .14, d = 2 8 , k = 7, respectively)
th were si~nificantlysmaller than theeffect size for correlational
studies (r= .48, d = 1.11, k = 16). The significant, yet smaller, effect
size for experimental studies indicatesa causal relation; liking causes
disclosure.
The only other moderator that could betested was sexof disclosure. The
results indicated little evidence that men and women differ in their tend
dency to disclose to people they like.
Finally, Collins and Miller (1994) tested whether we like people as a result of disclosing to them. The meta-analysis was based on only five studies,
all of them categorized asstrong experiments, so the results should be
interpreted with caution. The mean effect size was r = .l6 (d = .32),a modere
ately small effect size,
indicating a positiverelation between disclosure and
subsequent liking for the target. People who were induced to disclose at a
higher leveltended to like their partner more than people who didnot disclose or who disclosedat lower levels. However,the results were heterogeneous so again the results should be interpreted with caution. Collins and
Miller (1994) speculated that whether the participant believed he or she
acted freely may have moderated the effect size. However, the authors examined the studies and found no reason to believe that the studies that
showed no effect differed on this dimension compared with studies that
showed an effect.
Thus, the results of Collins and Millers (1994) meta-analysesof the disclosure-liking relation confirm that we like peoplewho self0disclose to us,
we disclose more to people we like, and we like others as a resultof having
disclosed to them (although the last findingshould be interpreted with cau-

cause

Allen ( 1 9 9 ~ )conducte ameta-analysis of recipro

re.Because this meta-a lysis has not been publishe
viewed here in more detail than the
preceding meta-analyses.
97 1) originated the idea that self-disclosure is reciprocal:
In orc
dinary social relationships, disclosure is a reciprocal p~enomenon.Participants in dialogue disclose their thoughts, feelings, actions, etc.,to the other
to in return. I called this reciprocity the dyadic
sclosure (p. 66). Several theories and perspe
been used to predict and explain reciproci~of self0disclosure. Trust-attraction is one explanation for reciprocity of self0disclosure. It has been ar
that disclosing intimate information makes the recipient feel trusted.
creates attraction andleads the recipient to r ~ t u r disclosure
n
as a sign
of liking
and a willingnessto trust the original disclosure.Another explanation is social
e x c h ~ ~ gReceiving
e.
disclosureis a rewarding experience. Because
the recipient has received somethingof value, he or she feels obligatedto return somez
thing of similar value (Archer, 1979).
imilarl~Gouldners (1960)notion of a
norm of reciprocity has been used to explain reciprocity of self~disclosure.
Derlega et al. (1993) attributed reciprocity of self-disclosure to the more
g l o ~ a l c o ~ t r of
a iconversatio~al
~ts
noms. That
is, when a speaker selfcloses, the recipient must be responsive
to the disclosures vulnerabilityan
the conversational demandto be topically relevant. Reciprocity
of self-discloO
sure addressesboth these conversational constraints.
dia and Allen (1995) conducted a meta-analysisof 67 studies involv173 participants o n r e c i ~ r o c iof
~ self0disclosure. The average
weighted eEect size for reciprocity of selfcdisclosure was
r = .32(d = .69) a
~oderatelylarge effectsize. However, the effect size wasnot homogenous

9.46, p S .05,indicating that thevariation of the e

S not solely due tosampling error.One outlier W
the analysis and all subsequent analyses and theresults
ing S 113 participants was r= .335(d = J O )
ot homogenous acrossst
easure of self~disclosurewere a
cts on reciprocity of self0

ciprocity of selfcdisclosure has been operationally

ing severalmethods.
e most common test of reci
experimenters or confederates self0
has a positive effecton a participants selfcdisclosure (whichis tes
test or one0way analysis ofva~ance).Typically, a participant is
o experimental conditions of self0disclosure: high or low disclo,
losure in response to theconfederates
e generalizability of the results from these studies has been seriously
questioned. As stated by Chelune (1979) Investigatorshave used superficial, per~nctoryremarks in thelow disclosure condition and explicit, per*
sonal comments on highly privatetopics ... for the high disclosure
conditions (p. 14). The results of these studies may not generalize to
real-life conversations.
On the other hand,
experimental studies are powerful in that isitpossible
to infer a causal relation; one persons selfcdisclosure causes another persons self~disclosure.However, it should be noted that the results of these
dies only provide evidence of a onecway effect (As S disclosure causes
self0disclosure). Strictly speaking, they do not prov evidence of reciprocity (mutual positive influence-As self-disclosure causes 13s selfcdisc
closure and Bs selfdisclosure causes As selfcdisclosure).
Reciprocity of self~disclosureis also teste
with the correlation between two persons selfdisclosure (Hill 6,Stull,
1982). A significant positive correlation is interpreted as reciprocity of
self~disclosure. This test
of reciprocity typically involves
a nonexperimental
laboratory study in which selfedisclosure is observed, or a questionnaire
in which selfdisclosure is measured through self orother report data.

A criticism leveled against using thecorrelationbetween partners

self0disclosure asa test of reciprocity is that it conhses base rates of selfclosure with reciprocity of selfcdisclosure.For example, two
self0disclosure may be
related dueto similar personalitytraits (e.g.,
John are bothhigh or low disclosures) rather than ones self~disclosureelicc
its the others self~disclosure, andvice versa. orr relation confounds indiifferences in self-disclosurewith reciprocity of self0disclosure.
is not a problem in laboratory studies where ~articipantsare randomly assigned partners (and arenot likely to be similarin their openness), but
it is
very proble~aticin self-report studies inwhich individuals report on their
self~disclosure to
a family member,fiiend, spouse, and so on.
Sequential analysis has been used to test re&
procity of self-disclosure. Whether an individuals selfcdisclosureelicits a
partners selfcdisclosurein the subsequent turn(or near subsequent tu^),
and vice versa,is tested. Sequentialanalysis can be used to test whether in#
fluence is mutual or twodway (reciproci~).Only a few studies have been
conducted testing reciprocity of selfcdisclosure using sequential analysis
(Dindia, 1982, 1988; Spencer, 1993; Strassberg, Gabel, 6r Anchor, 1976;
Van Lear, 1987).
A different problem ariseswhen using sequential analysis to test reciprocc
ity of selfcdisclosure. An individual may reciprocate self-disclosure at a later
point in the conversation,
or even ina later conversation.
m

The dyadic effect is assumed to be a time-boundprocess in which people mutually regulate their disclosure to one another, at some agreed upon pace.
But, little more is said about temporal aspects of reciprocity. The rate at
which it occurs, how it ebbs and flows, factors which accelerate or retard reciprocity of exchange are not discussed in detail. (Altman, 1973, p. 250)

Thus, reciproci~of self-disclosuremay occur in a manner other than one

persons selfcdisclosure increasing the probability of a partners self0discloe
sure in the
subsequent turn. Reciprocity of self-disclosure may not occur on
a tit-for-tat basis (My most embarrassing moment was ...and My most
embarrassing moment was ...).It may be that anindividuals selfcdiscloc
sure has a positive effect on a partners self-disclosure, and vice versa, in
some general sense that is not manifested on a turn-by-turn basis.

. Miller and Kenny (1986) provided an,

other methodfor testing reciprocity of selfMdisclosure.Miller and Kenny differentiated two types of reciprocity of selfcdisclosure:individual reciprocity

t the results were

analysis found large effect sizes. That studies employing social relations
analysis (which control for individual differences in self~disclosure)found
large. effect sizesindicates that reciprocity is not just the result of partners
ilar in their overall levelsof selfOdisclosure being paired with
one
perimental studies found a moderate effect of one persons
on another persons self-disclosure.Although the results may
izable beyondthe laboratory situation, they indicate a causal
ersons self-+disclosure causesthe other persons self-discloS for studies employing sequential analysis indicate that recie
t occur on a t u r n ~ b ~basis.
tu~

~elf~disclosure be
canmeasured using observationalperceptua
or
types of reciproci~of self-disclosure are studied with perce tual
there is what is referred in the literature to as perceiv
i ~ t r a s u b ~ e c tperceptions
iv~
of self0~isclosure.I ~ t r a s u ~ j e c tperceptions
i~e
of

isclosure refer to the

person perceives his or he

isclosure to a partner

~trasubjectivep e r ~ e p t i of
o ~selfOdisclosure,and nonexperimental studies
employing intersubjective perceptions
of selfcdisclosure.
The results indicate that theeffect size increases asone moves fromob0
a1 data to more and more subjectivedata: observational
closure, r = 283 (d = 59, k = 5 1, N = 3,420); self-red
port measure of dependent variable (self~disclosure),Y = .349 (d = .745, k
= 11,N = 1,207); intersubjective perceptions of selfddisclosure,r= . 5 6 (d
~
= 1.37, k = 10,N = 600);intras
ctive perceptions of self~disclosure,r =
,747 (d == 2.25, k = 5, N = 423)
the eRect sizes were heterogeneous ex0
cept for the effect size for intrasubjectiveperceptions of self0disclosure.

Dindia and Allen (1995) could not test the interaction effect between
method of testing reciprocityand measure of self~disclosurebecause not all
levels of each variable were crossed.
None theless, becauseof the lack of hoc
mogenei~)experimental studies were further divided on the basisof
whether they employedan observational measureof self-disclosure versus a
self-report measureof self-disclosure and correlational studies were divide^

IN
on thebasis of whether they employedan observational measure of self-disc
closure or intrasubjective or intersubjective perceptions of selfcdisclosure.
e effect size for experimental studies employing obse~ationalmeasures of self~d~closure
was smaller than theeffect size forexperimental studies employing selfereport measures
of self-d~closure(r = '27 1,d = 563, k =
39, N = 2,919 andr = ,349, d = .745, k = 11,N = 1,207, respectively). The
results for correlational studies indicated that as you move from observations of self-disclosure to more and more subjective data (intersubjective
perceptions of self-disclosure to intrasubjective p
tions of self-discloc
sure) the effect size for reciprocity of self-disclosur arger
(r = ,376, d =
.811, k = 6, N = 348; r = 566, d = 1.37, k = 1
6 0 ~r; = .747, d =
2.25, k = 5, N = 423, respectively). However,it should be noted that even
when the effect sizes were differentiated by method of testing reciprocity
measure of self-disclosure, the resulting effect sizes werestill heteroge.
neous(except forintrasubjectiveperceptions
of self-disclosure in
correlational studies), indicating that there are probably other variables
that moderate reciprocity of selfcdisclosure.

Altman (1973) hypothesized that reciprocity of selfcdisclosure decreases as

a relationship develops. Accordingto Altman, the
n o m of reciprocity isimportant in the
early stagesof a relationship but the obligation to reciprocate
diminishes in later stages. Alternatively, Hill and Stull (1982) argued that
reciprocity does not decrease as a relationship develops, but that the time
frame over which reciprocity occurs increases.
According to Hill and Stull,
as members of a relationship develop trust they do notneed to reciprocate
self-disclosure in agiven encounter because theytrust each other reciproto
cate in the
future. From this perspective, reciprocation is just asimportant in
intimate relationships as between strangers, but the time frame over which
reciprocity occurs is extended. Thus, according to Altman (1973), intimates should reciprocate selfcdisclosure less than strangers. According to
Hill and Stull, intimates should reciprocate selfcdisclosureas much as
strangers; however, reciprocity will not occur during a given conversation
but over an extended period of time.
Dindia and Allen (1995) studiedlevel of relationship, strangersversus
intimates, as a potential moderatorof reciprocity of self-disclosure. The
majority of studies examined reciprocity of self-disclosure between strangers (k = 52, N = 4,2 15) The heterogenous effect size forthese studieswas
T = ,317 (d = .67). Only five studies (N= 206) examined reciprocity of
s e l ~ ~ ~ i s c ~ ofor
s uintimates
re
(spouses or friends). The heterogenous effect
e

size forintimates was r = ,437 (d = 9 7 ) . Thus, it appears that intimates re-ciprocate self#disclosureas much as strangers.
iven the small numberof studies testing reciprocity
of self0discl
timates, it is impossible to test the competin~
hypotheses reg
owever, one of the
ial relationsanalysis to systematically analyze the effect of level of relationship on
self-disclosure, within conversations, using observational
sults were that there were no differences in reciprocity of
ersus opposite-sex strangers. In particular,
that spouses, as well as strangers, recipro
macy evaluative selfcdisclosure within conversations. This is in contrast
to predictions by both Altman(1973),who predictedthat intimateswill
not reciprocate ~elf~disclosure, andill and Stull(1982), who pred
that intimates will reciprocate self- sclosure but over an extende
riod of time.
In summa^, the results of the metaeanalysis on reciprocity of self~disclo~
sure indicate that selfedisclosure is reciprocal. In general, the effect sizes
range from moderate to very large, except for studies employing sequential
analysis, which found
no effect. The moderate large
to
effectsizes that were
heterogeneous suggest that reciprocity is normative,meaning it is a cornmon andexpected occurrence but is not invariant or automatic (Derlega et
al., 1993,37).
he effectsize for reciprocity
of selfcdisclosure was largerin correlational
studies than in experimental studies. It is important to note that t
ate effect size forexperimental studies indicates acausal relation,
causes disclosure. The effect size for reciprocity of self-disclosu
very large for
studies employing socialrelations analysis. This indicates that
the unique adjustment that oneperson makes in response to another persons self~disclosureis reciprocal. Takentogether, the results providestrong
evidence for reciprocityof selfedisclosure.
The results for the studies employing sequential analysis indicate that
selflcdisclosure isnot reciprocal on a titfor tat basis. One persons selfediscloc
sure does not increase the probability of the partners self-disclosure in the
subsequent utterance. Thus,the interpersonally competent respo
self-disclosure may not be to immediately reciprocate selfcdisclosure.
and Archer (1980)noted, informal observations suggest
that self-dis~losures
are met with a variety of responses. Indeed, a common reaction to hearing
about an intimate problem in anotherslife isto express concern or empa*
thy(pp. 246-247). Berg and Archer conducted an experiment in
which they examined participants perceptionsof an individual based

ividual's response to a self0disclosure.They (198~)foun

ost favorable impressions
of the respondent were forme
ent expressed concern for a disclosurerather than whe
level of self~disclosure.
h self~~isclosure
does not appear to be reciprocal on a turn0by
appear to be reciprocal within conversations. All the ex-.
S and the correlational studies em~loying obse~ational
closure weretests of reciprocity within a singlecon versa^
ilarly, two studies employing social relations analysis
(D
ight 6,Ingraham, 1985,1986) found reciprocity of se1
within conversations and Dindia et al.(1997)fou
this was true for
spouses as well as strangers.
ct size for reciprocity
of self0disclosure depends on how self-disclosure is measured. The more subjectivethe measure of self~disclosure,
larger the effect size for reciprocity
of self-disclosure. Thus, people may
hat self0disclosure is reciprocal morethan it actually is.
e results of the meta-analysis also indicate that intimates as well as
strangers reciprocate self-disclosure. However, this should be interpreted
with caution, as only fivestudies tested reciprocity of self~disclosurefor intithe resulting effect sizewas heterogeneous.

The purpose of this chapter was to summarize meta-analyseson sex differ0

ences in self-disclosure, self-disclosureand liking, and reciprocity of self-disclosure, and to compare and contrastthe results of the meta-analyses for a
comprehensive reviewof the research. The results of the meta-analyses suggest severaltheoretical and methodological implications.
A c o m p a ~ o of
n the results amongthe three meta-analyses has potential
implicatio~forhow one viewsself-disclosure.Selfcdisclosure has been
viewed as a personalitytrait and as an interpersonal process."he personality
trait perspective views selfcdisclosure as
an enduring characteristic orattribUte of an individual. Studies cast within this perspective
attempt to identiljr
high and low disclosers and correlate individual differences
in self-disclosure
with demo~aphicand biological characteristics (sex), sociocultural differ#
ences, and other personality traits (Archer, 19'79).The interpersonal process
perspective assumesthat it is the process that occurs when individuals
interact with each other, rather than thecharacteristics of either or both participants, that affects self-disclosure.The results of the meta-analyses provide
support for the interpersonal process perspectiveof self-disclosure, The effect sizes for reciprocity of self-disclosure and the disclosu~e-liking relation
were larger than theeffect size for sex difierences
in selfcdisclosure.

The results of the threemeta-analyses alsohave implications forthe issue

of self~disclosurean relationship development. There has been much the0
nd research on the role of self~disclosurein relations
results of the meta-analyses support the idea that S
are similar in the eginning stages of relationship
ed relational sta S. There were similarly small
reciprocS, self-disclosure
was
self-disclosure
cal between bo
there
some
was
evidence that
reciproci~of self~disclosureoccurs within conversations forboth stra
and intimates. ~nfortunately, the
meta-analyses of selfing did not explicitly test the moderating effect of le
tudies, which exclusively involved peo
larger effect sizes than experimental S
involved
strangers.
ver,
this was only one
en correlational an
rimental studies an
ot be attributed to level of relationship.
Another issue is the validity of d i ~ e r e n measu
t
The meta-analysis on sex differences in self-disclos
observational measures of self-disclosure yielded similar effect
wever, studies employing other-report measures (individuals are
asked how much othersdisclose to them) found significantly larger e
sizes than studies employing self-report or observational measur
self-disclosure. The authors argued that other-report measures may be
mostsusceptible to stereotypes of genderdifferences. T h e same
meta-analysis found that self-report measures of self-disclosure to strangers yielded significantl~different effect sizes than self-report measures of
self-disclosure to friends, spouses, and parents, and observational measures of self-disclosureto stringers andfriends, spouses,and parents. The
meta-analysis of reciprocity of self-disclosure found that self-report measures of self-disclosure yieldedhigher effect sizesthan observational measures of selfidisclosure. When intrasubjective (one persons perceptions of
disclosure given and received) and intersubjective (two persons perceptions of disclosure given or received) perceptions of self~disclosurewere
compared, intrasubjective perceptions of self-disclosure have a larger efc
fect size than intersubjective perceptions. The meta-analysis on selfcdisclosure and liking did not test for the moderating effect of measure of
selfedisclosure.
These results indicate that onemust pay attention tohow one measures
self-disclosure. Peoplehave generalizations, schemas, or stereotypes about
self-disclosure. People believe that women disclose more than men, that
self-disclosurecausesliking, that likingcausesself-disclosure, an
*

selfOdisclosureis recipr
generalizations are true.

general, the research i

ver, these generalizatio
ence it might be best to use obse~ational
measures of self0disclosure.When self-report measuresare used, it is impor0
rant to use intersu~jectiveperceptions of self0disclosure (i.e., ask
each parte
rate self0disclosure givenand received)
e results of the threemeta-analyses also have implications for gender
ces. Gender was examined asffect
inthe meta-analysis on
rences in self-disclosure a
moderator variable the
in
meta~analysison self~disclosureand l
meta0analysis on reciproci~
of self~disclosure id not testthe moderating effect of gender. Gender had a
small main effec on self-disclosure. It also had an effect on the disclorelation (but not the liking~isclosure
relation) but itdi
rate the disclosure-likin~relation. Thus, itappears that
not exert a large or stable influence on theprocess of selfcdisclosure.
The knowledge gained from these three meta-analyses indicates that the
importance place on self-disclosure in theinte~ersonalcommunication lit~ratureand the personal relationships literature is not unfounded. elf0dis0
closure appearsto be a key variable in theprocess ofrelationship development
mainten~nce.~elf0disclosureis reciprocal for both strangers and intimates. elf0disclosure causes liking, and vice versa,
and this appears to be true
for both stra~gersand intimates. Although women disclose slightly more
than
men, and the d ~ c l o s u r ~ relation
l ~ ~ g appears to be slightly stronger for female than male disclosures,in general, it appears that theprocess of self-disl
closure is more similarthan ~ifferentfor men and women.
(
.

Altman, I. (1973).Reciprocity of interpersonal e x c h a n g e . ~ o u ~ ~the

f oTheory
r
o f S o c Be~~
~ v i o r3,, 249-261.
Archer, R.L. (1979). Anatomicaland psychological sex differences.In G. J. Chelune &Associates (Eds.), Self disclosure: ~ g ip a ~t t e ~, sand
, i ~ p ~ ~ c aoft openness
i~s
in inter~ers o d re~at~onships
(pp. 80-109). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
at liking forthe
Berg, J. H., 6.Archer, R L. (1980). Disclosure or concern: A second look
o of Persona~~t~,
u
~ $8, ~245-257.
norm breaker.~
Chelune, G. J. (1979). Measuring openness in interpersonal communication. In G. J.
Chelune & Associates (Eds.), Se~f-d~sclosure~
Origins, p a t t e ~ sand
, ~ ~ p ~ ~ofcopena t ~ o ~
(pp. 1-27). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
ness in inte~ersonu~ re~at~onsh~~s
Collins, N. L.,& Miller, L.C. (1994). The disclosure-liking link: From meta-analysis tou ~457-475.
~etin,
ward a dynamic reconceptualization.P s ~ c h o ~ o ~ a ~ I~16,
Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., 6~argulis,S. X (1993). Se~f-d~c~osure,
Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Dindia, K. (1982). Reciprocity of self-disclosure: A sequential analysis. In M. Burgoon

(Ed.), C ~ ~ u n ~ a tyear
i o boo^
n 6 (pp. 506-530). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Dindia, K. (1988). A comparisonof severalstatistical tests of reciprocity of self-disclosure.
15, 726-752.
C o ~ ~ ~ n i c aResearch,
tim
Dindia, K., &Allen, M. (1992).Sex-differences in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis. Psychological ~ ~ l l e t i 1
n12,
, 106-124.
Dindia, K., 6 Allen, M. (1995, June). Reciproc~~
o f s e l ~ ~ d ~ c ~Ao ~s ~e ~
t ae -: a ~ l yPaper
s~.
presented at the International Network on Personal Relationships conference,
~illiamsburg,PA.
Dindia, K., Fitzpatrick, M. A., 6 Kenny, D. A. (1997). Self-disclosurein spouse and stranger
dyads: A social relations analysis.H u ~ n C o ~ ~ u nResearch,
i c a t i23,
~ 38
Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity:A preliminary statement. A ~ ~Socio~ a n
l o ~ c are
l vie^, 25,161-178.
Hill, C. "K,& Stull, D.E. (1982). Disclosure reciprocity:Conceptual and measure~entis~ u a ~ e r l45,
y , 238-244.
sues. Social Psycho~o~
Hill, C.X, 6 Stull, D. E. (1987).Gender and self-disclosure: Strategies for exploring
the issues. InV J. Derlega 6.J. H. Berg (Eds.),Se~f.d~c~os~re~
Theory, research, andt h e r u ~(pp.
81-100). New York: Plenum.
Jourard, S. M. (1959). Self-disclosure andother-cathexis.~~~l
of A b n o ~ und
a ~ Social
psycho lo^, 59, 428-43 1.
Jourard, S. M. (1971). Thet~ansparentself (rev. ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Miller, L. C., 6, Kenny, D. A. (1986). Reciprocity of self-disclosure at the individual and
50,
dyadic levels:A social relationsanalysis. ~0~~~ of Personality and SocialPsycho~o~,
713-719.
Spencer, 7: (1993, November).~ s t ~ the
n gsel~d~sc~os~re
reciprocity hypo~hes~
~ ~ t the
h ~
cmn
text o ~ c ~ v e r ssequences
a t ~ ~ ~~ n f a ~ ~ ~ y Paper
~ n t epresented
r ~ t i ~at. the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Miami,
FL.
Strassberg, D. S., Gabel, H., & Anchor, K.N. (1976). Patterns of self-disclosurein parent
discussion groups. S ~ a lGroup
l
~ e ~ v7,i369-378.
o ~
Van Lear, C. A.
(1987). The formation of social relationships: A longitudinal study
of social
penetration. ~ u ~ a n
~ o ~Research,
~ ~ n ~13,c 299-322.
a t ~ o n
Wright, 7: L., 6 Ingraham, L. J. (1985). The simultaneous studyof individual differences
and relationship effectsin social behaviorin g r o u p s . 3 o ~of
~ lPerso~l~ty
and Social Psyc h ~48,~ 1041-1047.
~ ~ ,
Wright, X L.,& Ingraham, L. J. (1986). Partners and relationships influenceselfeperceptions of self-disclosures in naturalistic interactions.3~~~~of Perso~~ity
and Social Psyc ~ o ~50,63
o ~ ,1-635.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

cholars in the communication iscipline have always un

rent sorts of things in different situations, e
ary goal isin force. ~e request favors from
ently than we ask strange ,we comfort lovedones differe
we persuade a child different
inating convention. This ch
ays in which we try
too, we would expect that we wou
~pproacha roma~tici ~ t i ~ adifferently
te
than a supervisor, that we
phrase t h i n ~ differently
s
under stress, and that thehist
ship with the otherperson woul make a difference
in our choice ofcommu0
nication and persuasive strate~ies.
As we might expect, therefore, interest in situational effects has been evic
S of work on complianceOgaining tactics
an
er, R0106 & Seibold, 1977). Manysit
variables have been studied, an individual experimental reports have of0
fered conclusions about the e ts of these variables on peoples choice of

compliance~gainingtactics. ~nfortunately,there are several quite substane

tial barriers to generalizing anyof those conclusions (D. 0

Without exception, those studies

have been vulnerable to some persuasive
critic~msinitially madeby Jackson and Backus (19~2),given more
Jackson (1992), and brought up to date by Brashers and Jacks
se investi~~tions
of compliance ~ a i n ~ g ~ use
i c one
a l lexample
y
of each
tion condition. For instance, a study crossing two situation variables
(e.g., personal relationshipand formality) mighthave one e x p e r ~ e n t astiml
ulus rewordedinto four versionsto represent c o ~ b i n a t i of~high
o~
and
low
values on each of the variables. The e x p e ~ e n t emight
r
write a base message
asking for a favor face to face, and then alter the
ructions so that some
people are told to direct their persuasion to either
d or a strange^ in either a formalor i n f o ~ asetting.
l
A variant design for this problem
has been to
have four difKerent basesituations, witheach situation representing one convalues on the situation variables (e.g., leaving aphone message
om work, speaking faceto face with a strangerin a bal; etc.).
Both designsare extremely problematic with regard
to the generalizability
of their conclusions. The one-situation-revised designmay not generalize to
other base situations becauseit is virtually inconceivablethat only the variables manipulatedin the study are relevant to situational efifects. One unstudc
ied variable mightin fact be interacting with thosein the design, makingthe
reported efifects misleading in comparison to other situations. Suppose the
base situation were a university librarys study area: This setting involves
quiet, has onlookers, and includes reasonably comfortable tablesand chairs.
~ o u l this
d situation necessarily producethe same effects forinte
sive appeals as situation
a
in which two runners approached the
l~~kilometer
race? Experimenters using this sort
of design hope that themac
nipulated variables will have
the same effectsin any situation,but this is more
a hope than an assurance. The four-situations design seems to o
chance of general~ingto situations in general, but in fact doesnot
fails even to demonstrate that the manipulated variables actually affect a
base situation systematically. The hope in this designis, again, that only
th manipulate^ variables make any difference,
and this is, again, implausible.
eaders maybe aware that Jacksons ~ethodologicalcritiques h
controversial (see the brief summaryand ~ibliograph~
in Brasher
son, 1999), but thedisagreements have mostly focusedon thedesign implications of her parallel criticisms about using single messages to represent
categories of messages. The arguments have been about
the feasibility of de&
signs that successfully sample message domains,
and whether meta-analysis
is areasonable community research strategy
in the search for generalization.

one of these disagreements9 so far as we know, seriously refute the basic

logical criticismsof either of the situation des
that omi in ate the com~liO
ance0gaining research.
conse~uenceof these
blems, the
general.
about the effects of si
themes,
produ
ive
daunting. The leading contributions in this vein have
claughlin, particularly their large -scale reviewsof
iterature on situation as it relates to interpersonal com~unication
85; L.C. Miller, Cody,&L ~ c L a u
t the main perceptible diff~renc
~iendliness, pleasan~ess9
minance (Cody 6x McLa
d a somewhat different list,the one used here and
in their more recent review (L.
C. Miller et al., 1994).
Cody has also
undertaken several studiesthat focus on ersuasive commu~
nication in particular (
6x ~ c ~ a u g h l i1980;
n, C
~ 9 ~ 3~ )0. t Cody
h et a1
3) and L. C. ille er et al.
situational dimensions that seem to summarize pe
factors arethe ones usedin this study; scale items
U
d i m e ~ i o nare
s in Table 11.1. The first variable pe
is
to whether the ~ersuader
expects to profit in some
is success~l.S i t ~ t ~ n indexes
u p the
~ degree
e ~ ~
of unease
n
the persuader
feels in that particular situation.Third is r e s ~ ~ ntocpe e ~ s ~which
~ n reprec
,
sents the persuaders estimate of whether the target will
sway.
refers in particular to thepersuaders perceiv
persuasion in thatcircumstance. Fifthis the ~ n tof i ~
cated in the persuasive situation.The ~ ~ i ~factor
n cis worded
e
to meaure
whether the target normally dominates
the persuader. Last,the r e ~con-t ~
se^^^^ scales assessthe persuaders perception that theeffort to persua~e
could have long term effects
on the persuader-target relatio~hip.
Cody et al. (1983) reported con fir ma to^ factor analyses for ~o situations, one intimate andone nonintimate. ~ l t h o u g htheir results are clear,
one might wish that the data summarized more than a pair of situations.
is weakness in the datarecord is repaired by Study 1 of this chapter.
~~~~~

We have conducted a seriesof studies on cognitive editing of arguments (see

Hample 6Dallinger, 1990). Our basic premise is that, in a situation that
calls out a persuasiveappeal, persuaders often have more than one option.
Either becausehe or she hasa repertoire of appropriate messages that canbe

enefits (high score means no personal benefits)

8. I will benefit personally from this persuasion.

10. I personally gain if successful in this situation.
11. I personally benefit from this persuasion.
it if I were successful in this situation.
20. I personally would get a lot out of
26, It would be to my personal advantageif I were successful in this situation.
Situation Apprehension (high score means no situational apprehension)
3. I would feel nervousin this situation.

4. I would feel tensein this situation.

6. I would feel apprehensivein this situation.
17. I would feel uneasyin this situation.

Resistance to Persuasion (high score means great resistance

to persuasion)
2. I think that the person in this situation would be very agreeable to this persuasion.

7. I feel that theperson in this situation would not be resistant to my persuasion.

13, I could talk the person in this situation
into doing this very easily.

14. I would have no troublein persuading the person in this situation,

Right to Persuade (high score means great rightto persuade)

9. I am not wa~antedin making this request.

22. I do not have a right to make this request.
23. I have no justification for making this request.
27. I have no reasonable grounds for making this request.
Intimacy (high score means highly intimate situation)

I. This situationinvolves an impersonalrelations hi^.

5. This situation involves a personally meaningless relationship.

21. This situation involves a shallow relationship.

25. This situation involves a superficial

rel~tionship.
Dominance (high score means other is not dominant over me)
15. The person in this situation controls many
ofmy behaviors.
16. The person in this situation has authority over me.
18. I am usually submissive to the person in this situation.

IN
24. The person in this situation usually dominates me.
~elational ~onse~uences
(high score meansnorelational consequences)
12. This persuasion has long-term consequences on the relationship between the
person in the situationand myself.

19. This persuasion has future consequences for the relationship between the person
in
the situation andmyself.

slightly to fit the circumstances, or because he orshe is

more than one pertinent appeal, several potential
e production process. One or more of these mes.
e others suppressed.
egan by trying to identify the
the suppressions (Hample, 1 9 ~ ~These
) . rea#
or standards, that appear relevant to themesc
of the cognitive editing st
t of possible messages (bas
ology) and a set of response scales su
choices. These response scales are se^
~
t the, decision to use the proffered message; e ~ e c t ~rejecting
~ ~ ~ the
~ s ,
message on thegrounds that it would not work; too ~ ~ u totwe,
~ rejecting
~ e
the message becauseit seem too distasteful or p r e s s u ~ nh
~am
; to self; reject,
ing the message to protect o m face;
to o t rejecting
~ ~ the mess
cause it is too face~threatening to target;
the hum to r e ~ trejec
~ ~ ~ ~
message to protect the intepersonal relationship between persuader
get; t ~ t rejecting
~ ,
the message on thegrounds that it is false or impossible;
r e ~ ~ rejecting
~ ~ c e the
, message becauseit does not seem pertinent,either to
the persuader orthe target; and a r~~~~category of suppression reasons.
ost of the research program hasconcen~ated on
associating individ~al
ence variables with preferences for
the different editorial criteria.This
alon with the early studies generating the editorial standards, isred
ample and Dallinger (1990). A secondary analysisof the cumud
doneto determine whether there are anysystematic sex
differences in editorialcriteriausage,wasalso
conducted (Dallinger 6r
ample, ~ ~ 9 4 ) .
Almost fromthe beginning of the research program, Jackson
and Backuss
(1982) analysis of situational effects was
taken into account. All but the
of the studies made use
of several stimulus situations.
These were include
increase the generaliza~ili~
of the individual differences results. The situa~~

tions werenot constructed in a systematic effortto vary any situational features, however. Dummy coding
of the different s i t u a t i o in
~ each study made
it possible to report the size ofthe situation9s effects
in the edito~al dec~ions,
t to interpret it in a theoreticallyinterest
e use of similar designsin many of the stud
S it possible to cumu~
late the data intoa secondarydata analysis (stu
in this way include Hample, 1984, 1991, 200
various s i t u a t i o used
~ in those studiescan be scale
rent sample of respondents than those participating
studies) with the Cody et al. ~$3)
situation d i m e ~ i o n
t can then be reanalyze determine what situatio
e original responden
In this chapter, we report the results of two studies that sho
a n s ~ e to
r our research question: What are the effects of sit
nance, intimacy, projected personal benefits, perceived relational consec
quences, expected resistance, right to persuade, and apprehension on the
decision to endorse or suppress apotential persuasive appeal?
enerates scale values for
the situations9and Stu

This initial study has two purposes: (a)to replicate the Cody et al. (1983) effort to scale the dimensions on which persuasive
generate actual scale values forthe situations us

Data were gathered from ~ 0 undergraduates

0
en+
rolled in communication classes at Western Illinois ~ n i v e r s iOf
~ .these, 99
( 4 ~ . ~ %were
) men, and 101 (50.5%) were women. Their median age
7 ~ . ~were
% juniors or seniors.~articipationwas voluntary, a
few declined to fill out the questionnaires.
e

Each respondent completed abooklet that askedfor

some ~ e ~ o g r a p hinformation,
ic
followedby four situations. Eachsituation
was accompanied by the 27 Cody et al. (1983) scales~ e s i ~ n to
e dassess the
dimensions on which persuasive situations diger. The study included total
a
of 25 situations that were randomly distributed throughout the booklets.
"he booklet took about half an hour to complete.'
e

situations were those used in the cognitive editing

in other persuasion research we have conducted.
With oneexception, the situationdescriptions are a few sentences long and
end with an explicit statement of persuasive goal (e.g., to get a landlord to
turn an apartment deposit).
The exception is B. J.OKeefes (1
der problem, which is more detailed. OKeefes situation, however, was
in thecognitive editing p r o ~ a mBecause
.
other researchers may
wish to use these situations, they are listed in Table 11.2, along with the
number of respondents who responded to eachstimulus, and thesituations
scores on the situationdimensions.
Cody et al. (1983) only published one end of their bipolar
scales. These halfcitems were reworked into S-point Likert scales, and appear in Table l 1.1, listedaccording to the dimensions they represent. The
Table 11.1 ordering corresponds to that in Table 11.3 (i.e., Table 11.3s
Dominl is the first dominance scale in Table 11+ 1).

A11 seven scales demonstrated reasonable reliabili~.

Cronbachs alphas are as follows: for dominance, .78; for intimacy, .76; for
personal benefit, .90; for
relational consequences, .7 1; for resistance, .81; for
rights to persuade, .79; and for situational apprehension, .88. Very minor ime
provements in reliabili~would have been obtained by dropping the second
resistance item (hom .8 1 to .82), and thefirst rightto persuade item (horn
.79 to .81). However, we decided to retain the items on the grounds that
they loaded wellin thefactor analysis, their deletions offer onlyminor increments to the
alphas, and their retention
might help to standardize the situation scales.
We conducted a principal components analysis
with varirnax rotation, andforced a sevencfactor solution (the seventhfacc
tor has an eigenvalue greater than 1, and the eighth is less than 1 anyway).
The results are r e m ~ r k a ~ clean
ly
and correspond exactly to the expected
factor structure. The loadings are given in Table 11.3, and the correlations
among thedimensions (calculatedby adding together item scores) are given
in Table 1 .1Lt.
With asingle minorexception, no scale has a loading of asmuch as .30 on
any factor except its appropriate one. The loadingsthemselves are all
greater than .60,with more than half greater than 80.

(~ituation1) You would like to spend the weekend of Ch~stmaswith your parents,
our spouse doesnt really want to do that,
so you are t ~ i n gto talk hi
= 30). (~allinger etal., 1990)

16.07 14.23 15.80 11.50 12.47 12.25

2.89

2.92 SD 4.32

3.88

(~ituation2) You have an older carwhich has problems regularly, an

of having it continuallyrepaired. You would like to buy a new or used car toreplace
it, butyour spouse thinks that its less expensive and just a better idea in general to
keep the old one. You are t ~ i n gto talk h i d e r into g e t t i ~ gthe new one (N = 26).
(Dallinger et al., 1990)
Sit
Ben
Per

App

Re1 Con

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy

10.89

14.46

11.23

15.89

13.35

16.15

5.96

4.14

3.43

2.89

2.64

3.06

2.60

1.89

(~ituation3)During the last year, you have become more and more aware t
spouse has poor eating habits. Therefore, you would like to convince himher to
eliminate snacks and eat healthier foods at regular mealtimes (N = 31). (~allinger
et al., 1990)
Sit
Ben
Per

App

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy
Con
Re1

13.32

15.03

12.26

15.55

15.13

16.71

4.13

3.77

4.08

3.68

3.59

3.20

3.68

1.88

(~itLlation4) It is about twoweeks before Christmas break and you need a ride
home. You live in Chicago andyour friend lives in Rockford. You would like your
friend to give you a ride to Chicago on hisher way home (and thusdrive about 50
miles out of hisher way) (N = 36). (Dallinger 6.HampIe, 198913)
it
Ben
Per

4 14.14 12.50 13.17

M
11.03 10.94
3.24

1 SD

3.5

5.28

App

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy

Re1 Con

company doing
then it
to talk your
ple, 1989b)
Ben
Per

Sit App

aking a class in how to make stai

Center, butyou would really like
union one
night
for each
Youof
this class with you (N = 29). (Pa
Resist
Rights
Domin

In~macy

41 14.48 10.90
M 15.19 11.31
3.73

2.91
SD 3.52

3.83

(~ituation6 ) Your youn~ersister is graduating from high school this spring an

says she doesn't plan to attend college because she is tired of going to school. You
feel that it is really important for her to startcollege next fall, and you are trying to
talk her intodoing it (N = 31). (Dallinger 6.Hample, 1989b)
Per Sit
Ben

App

14.71

14.77

SD

5.80

3.16

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy

Re1 Con

12.87

15.16

16.45

16.61

4.90

3.40

3.33

2.94

3.33

1.97

( ~ i t u a t ~ o7)n You are sure thatyou are getting the flu because you really feel awful?
but you realize that you have abook due at thelibrary TODAY. You don't want to
walk it over there so you want to get your roommate to returnit for you (N = 29).
(Pallinger 6.Hample, 1989a; Hample6.Dallinger, 1987a)
Ben
Per

8 15.48
1

9.66
M

Sit App

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy
Con
Re1

.
"

15.17 11.45

2.8SD 3.63

4.25

(Situation 8) You are taking aclass in which a group project accounts for a major
part of the grade. You have a Mendwho is also taking the class, so you want to talk
himher intoworking on. this projectwith you (N = 33). (Dallin~er& H a ~ p l e ,
1989a; Hample 6r Dallinger, 1987a)
Ben
Per

Sit App

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy
Con
Re1

12.33

15.27

8.79

15.27

15.70

13.82

6.18

SD

4.54

3.56

2.96

2.58

3.37

3.37

l +94

(Situation 9) You are shopping with oneof your friends and s h e has just tried on a
really nice looking suit whichyou think would be great for hisher job interviews,
which will be coming up soon. S h e cant decide whether or not to
buy it and you
want to talk h i d e r into getting it (N= 29). (Dallinger 6r. Hample, 1989a;
Hample 6:Dallinger, 1987a)
Sit
Ben
Per

M
SD

App

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy
Con
Re1

17.72

15.41

9.62

14.41

15.62

15.45

6.83

4.00

I3.62

3.11

2.67

3.31

2.95

1.95

(Situation 10) You have been dating the same person now forabout two years and you
are thinking about getting engaged. Christmas vacation is coming upsoon and you
want your b o ~ e n ~ ~ r l to
~ come
e n dhome with you. S h e initially disagreesbut you
are still tryingto convince him or her (N = 30). (Hample 6:Dallinger, 1987e)
Sit
Ben
Per

App

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy
Con
Re1

14.03 16.30 11.23

M 12.40 10.50

3.08

3.66 SD 4.90

4.89

(Situation 11) You have been living with your roommate in an apartmentfor several
months. You generally take turns cleaning the place up and now it is hisher turn,
but the apartmentis in a real mess and s h e hasnt done any cleaning for several
days. You want h i d e r to cleanup (N = 30). (Hample 6:Dallinger, 1987e)
Sit
Ben
Per

App

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy
Con
Re1

15.30 16.93 11.17

M 12.90 10.93

28

2.29

3.11
SD

3.77

3.11

4.56

2.12

(~ituation12) You have been living in an apartmentwith two friends for the school
year and now, since school is over for the year, you are getting ready to move out.
The landlord has come over to inspect theplace, and you are trying to convince
him to returnyour deposit money. Your roommates had towork so they arent there
with you (N = 33). (Hample &L Dallinger, 1987e)
Sit
Ben
Per

12.91 16.03 12.55

M 10.88
3.78

3.58SD

3.22

App

8.61

3.5
3.18
5

4.25

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy
Con
Re1

(Situation 13) Neither you nor your friend does a lot of exercise, and you want to
start jogging. You'd rather havesome company whenyou do it,so you want him or
her to go jogging with you (N = 33). (Hample &a Dallinger, 1987b)
Sit
Ben
Per

97 15.03 10.29
M 16.91

9.61

4.56

4.02 SD 2.89

App

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy
Con
Re1

(Situation 14) You are working on a big paper for a class that is due tomorrow, and
neither you nor your roommate has any typing paper.Since you don't have time to
go get any yourself, you want your roommate to go over to thebookstore and pick
some up (N = 33). (Hample 6,Dallinger, 1987b)
Sit
Ben
Per

App

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy
Con
Re1

h4

10.03

14.06

10.85

13.97

14.97

14.70

6.42

SD

4.65

3.83

3.24

2.98

3.37

2.78

2.05

(Situation 15) Itis the first semester of your roommate's senior year and so far, he or
she hasn't done anything abouttrying to find a job for after graduation. You want
him or her to get
started-writing a resume, finding potential em loyers, getting
placement papers in order (N = 34). (Hample 6, Dallinger, 1987 )

Sit
Ben
Per

App

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy
Con
Re1

5.4715.3913.47
M11.4711.5318.06

3.17 SD 3.40

"
.

"

5S 8

4.67

(Situation 16) Your close friend has been really depressed for about thelast month
because s h e broke up with hisher bo~riend/girlf~end.
You have noticed that s h e
can't study or concentrate onschoolwork, and you are worried, so you want himher
to go see a counselor (N = 35). (Hample 6,Dallinger, 1987c)
Sit
Ben
Per

App

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy

Re1 Con

80 14.74 13.83
M 12.74 15.86
2.3
SD

3.80

4.02

1.65

2.73

1
2.84

2.37

.
"

"

continue^ on next page

(Situation l?) You really want to go to see a particularmovie, and you want your
friend to come with you, even thoughyou know that s h e rarely goes to see this kin
of movie (N = 33). (Hample CTX. Dallinger, 1987~)
Sit
Ben
Per

App

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy
Re1

Con

13.63

14.79

11.63

14.52

15.50

14.61

6.94

SD

4.63

2.64

2.38

2.88

2.94

2.59

1.85

(Situation 18) It is the endof the school year and you and several of your friends
want to have aparty out at Lake Argyle to celebrate. Sinceyou know that lots of
other groups are planning to go out too, you want your friend to go out in theearly
afternoon andspend several hours alone saving a place for your party(N = 35).
(Hample & Dallinger, 1987~)
Sit
Ben
Per

App

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy
Re1

Con

15.74 11.56 13.66

M 12.63 13.23

4.18

4.19 SD 4.53

5.46

(Situation 19) Your little sister, who is 7 years old, has come to visit you for the
weekend. It is Saturday morning and suddenly you have a chanceto go out with
someone you would really liketo date,so you want your roommate to babysit your
sister for the eveningso you can go out (N = 38).
Sit
Ben
Per

Con

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy
Re1

11.50

10.71

12.89

12.05

14.63

14.79

5.29

SD

5.81

3.76

3.01

3.38

3.91

2.97

1.94

(~ituation20) You want your friend to go camping with you for the weekend, and
although itwont cost much money, s h e doesnt really like camping,so you are
trying to talk h i d e r into going with you (N = 31).
Sit
Ben
Per

16.45 14.61 12.71

M 14.78 11.90

.03

App

3.13 SD 3.71

4.06

App

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy
Re1

Con

(Situation 21)Your roommate has a habitof swearing allof the time. It really
doesnt bother you much, but you feel that s h e is givingother people a really bad
impression of himself~ersel~
so you want to geth i h e r to stopswearing (N= 38).
it
Ben
Per

h4

App

Resist
Rights
Dornin

Intimacy Re1 Con

16.34

11.32

13.74

13.05

15.55

14.18

5.05

4.56

3.80

2.78

4.10

3.09

3.30

1.89

(Situation 22) Imagine that you have been assigned to agroup project in oneof
your classes,The class is in your major and itis important toyou to get agood grade
in this class. Your final grade will depend to agreat extent onhow well the group
project turns out.You were assigned to your group by the instructor, whoalso
designated you to be the leader of your group. Each person will receive two grades
for the project: an overall grade to thegroup based on theoverall quality of the
project report and an
individual grade based on eachpersons contribution to the
group effort. Your duties as group leader will include telling the instructor what
grade you think eachindividual in the group deserves based on their individual
contributions.
One group member (whose name is Ron) has beencausing some problems.Ron
seldom makes it to group meetings on time and entirely skipped one meeting
without evencalling anyone in advance to let the
group know. When Ron missed
that meeting, two of the group members wanted you to have the instructor remove
Ron from your group,although another member ersuaded the group to give him
another chance. At the next meeting
Ron amveilate but apologized for missingthe
previous meeting and mentionedsomething about family problems. Ron did
volunteer to doall the background research on one importantaspect of the groups
topic, saying he had aspecial interest in that part of the project.
The group project is due next week. The group planned to put together thefinal ,
draft of its report at ameeting scheduled for tomorrow afternoon. Ron calls you up
today and says he doesnt have his library research done and cant get it finished
before the meeting. He says he just needs more time (N = 18). (B.J. OKeefe, 1988)
Ben
Per

Sit App

Resist
Rights
Domin

Intimacy Con
Rei

37 14.78 12.79
M 10.11 12.67

3.46 SD 3.90

4.10

(Situation 23) You have a friend who has been smoking for yearsand youre trying
to get h i d e r to stop (N= 34). (Hample 6,Dallinger, 1998)
Sit
Ben
Per

App

Resist
Rights
Domin

A4

13.50

12.88

16.00

SD

4.88

3.79

3.36

Intimacy Re1 Con

14.21
3-01

15.74

15.35

5.24

3.41

3.OO

2.19
.
.

contin~~d
on next page

(Situation 24) You are working on a big project for a class, which will count for a
large portion of the course grade. Of the four people in thegroup, one member has
not been showing up for grou meetings or doing any part of the work for the
project. You are trying to get Riimher to do hisherpart (N = 17). (Hample 6,
Dallinger, 1998)
Sit
Ben
Per

App

Resist
Rights
Domin
Intimacy
Re1

Con

15.65 15.24 11.94

M 13.77 11.47
3.68

2.82SD 4.79

4.20

(Situation 25) You have decided that itwould be fun to go to Padre Island for spring
break, You have a friend who can afford to go and has no other plans, but s h e is not
quite sure that is what s h e wants to do. You are trying to convinceh i d e r to go
with you (N = 32). (Hample 6.Dallinger, 1998)
Sit
Ben
Per

M
SD

App

Resist

Rights

Domin
Intimacy
Re1

Con

10.50

16.13

9.53

15.32

16.69

16.16

6.09

4.57

3.09

2.69

2.99

2.71

2.86

2.18

Values on each of the seven dimensions wereobtained for each of the situations in our sample by the normal
means of adding together the scores for each item. These values are disc
played in Table 11.2.

We consider that our results successfully replicate those of Cody et al.

(1983). Reliabilities are adequate, and the dimensional structure of the
scales is quite clear. The fact that our results summarizedata for 25 more situations may give other researchers additional confidence in thescales.

We now come to the core of this chapter,the effort to say how (or whether)
differences in situations affect how people undertake interpersonal persuasion. The other chapters in this bookare traditional meta-analyses,in which
the statistical resultsof earlier studiesare cumulated, for example,
by averagr
ing several studies' correlations between two variables.
Although what we do

Personal
S ~ t ~ t i ~
Right to
R e ~ t i ~ ~
B ~ e ~ iAt p p r e h e ~ i ~ Resistance P e ~ ~ d e ~ o ~ ~ n c eCro n~ et~ ie n~c ~
es

.82
.87

7.2

Dominl
Domin2
Domin3
Domin4
Intiml
Intim2
Intim3
Intim4
Perbenl
Perben2
.89
Perben3
l
Perben4
.8
Perben5
.82
Relconl
Relcon2
Resist1
Resist2
Resist3
Resist4
Rights1
Rights2
Rights3
Rights4
Sitappl
SitappZ
Sitapp3
Sitapp4
Eigenvalue
5.52 1.94
2.76
10.2
% Variance
13.9 20.5

.77
.8 1
.67
.75

.30

,69
.77
.73
*74

.86
.74
.68
.85
.83

.82

.62
.84
.82
75
*

.86
.88
.77
.72
3.76

Note. Loadings less than .30 are omitted from the table for clarity.

1.70

1.36
5.0

1.12

4.2

Dominance
.103***

Intimacy

.324"**
.194***

Personal
benefit
Relational
consequences

.284***
-.292***
-.037

Resistance

-.342*** -.5
0
.O
3
66
1*
'
1*9*

Right to
persuade

-.065**

~ituation
apprehension
Note.

N = 1,692.

*p

.05. **p

.20.77*2*6**'*

.095*** -.292***
-.207"**
--,369***
.076**

-.667***
.433***
.253***

.01. * ~ *
,001.~

ere is certainly in the spirit of meta-analysis, our procedure is somewhat difrent. Instead of analyzing prior studies' results, weare reanalyzing the raw
fiom those investigations, thus pe~orminga secondary data analysis.
has the advantage of permitting us to do new typesof analyses that were
not possible or anticipatedin the original studies. Secondarydata analysis is
quite common in other fields, as when sociologists search for relations
in U+.
Census databases, or when political scientists reexplore decades o f public
opinion polls, or when economists
try to reconstruct a nation's economic his4
aditional meta-analysisis largely constra
ors thought to test and report. By cum
nce~~aining investigatio~,
and adding the information from tudy 1,
le to conduct statistical tests that are only possiblein retrospect.
tained values foreach of the situations on all seven o f the Cody
cales, we are able to reevaluate the data from nine ea
er & Harnple, 1989a, 1989b,199l;Dallinger, Hample,
ple & Dallinger,1987a, 1987b, 1987c, 1987d, 1987e,1998).
Those studies used dummy variables
(e.g., ~ituation1would be coded as either present or absent) to represent the different situations. The studies often reported situational effects, but those results were not su~stantively

t know on what syste

say, for instance, th

f the students, 62% were juniorsor

22.9; the median age, whichis es

Our primary results are shown in Table 11.5, which reports the results o f a
canonical analysis relatingthe frequency with which repondents used each
editorial code to thesituations scoreson the Cody et al. (1983) scales. Cac
nonical correlations ( ~indicate
~ ) the correlations between two sets o f varie
ables. Just as an ordinary correlation shows the association between two
v a r i ~ ~ l easc, a n o ~ i ~correlation
al
measures the association between whatever one set of variables has in common andwhatever a secondset o f varic
ables has in commo~.These things in common (or variates) are what are
actually correlated. Complex ata sets may have more than one pair of
these are called roots. Roots are inter
vidual variables have the highest lo

,in this analysis three roots were significant, allhave

ing modest effect sizes. ~ l t o ~ e t h ethe
r , three canonical roots account for
15.9%of the variance in the canonical variates. Univariate analyses of varic

"

Root 1

Root 2

Root 3

Endorse***

-.867

.016

-.275

Ineffective***

-.295

7349

507

Too negative***

.42 l

-.072

.363

Harm self**

.242

.424

-.197

Harm other***

.453

-.001

-.690

Harm relationship**

.265

.l05

--.l30

False**

,236

.273

-.082

-.092

Irrelevant

.346

.122

Residual***

.l77

-.456

-.045

~ominance*~*

.275

-.700

-.317

Intimacy"

.l97

,074

.295

Personal benefic**

.3 16

-.16 1

-.387

Relational consequences***

S91

.087

--,303

Resistance***

"-64.2

-.226

.435

Right to persuade***

--.401

Situational apprehension**^

.486
.3 18***

R C

$346
"429
,215"'"

-.467
-.402
.l 10"

Note. The asterisks afterthe variables represent theresults of univariate analysesof variance. The degrees of

freedom for the editorial standards'

tests are 9, 1682, and are7, 1684 forthe situationdimension tests.The
overall test for the canonicalanalysis results is PillaisF = 4.85, df = 63, 11774, p = .OOO.

* p .05. *'p

.01. ***p .001.

ance indicate that all the situation dimensions participate significantly in

the roots, as do all the editorial criteria except relevance.
The first root is dominated by the decision to endorse, which ispri~arily
predicted by the relational consequences and resistance dimensions. The
prominence of endorse~entin this root suggests that these are the results
that will be of most interest to ~omplianceOgaining
researchers, who only
use endorsement as adependent variable. Peopleare least likelyto endorse

possible arguments when the situation is one thathas great relational consequences and little expected resistance. These are sensible results: People
are
more selective in choosi appeals when the matter is relationally delicate
when the target is expecte
eespeciallypliable ~ n ~ aOn
y .
t attractive strategies are
sensitive
circumstances;
pers
need not use any risky appeals becauseof the anticipated persuasibility of
the target. The high loading for
the harm to other criterion is also consistent
with the results for the resistance dimension: Low anticipated resistance
ts more sensitivity to the other's face.
e secondroot is less clear,in part because of the importance of the residual category to it. ~allinger et
al. (1990) suggested that theprominence
of this criterion in their study indicated that married coupleshad cooperac
iosyncratic rules for suppressing possible
arguments, but
generated either important results for this criterion or
persuasive explanations of it. Of thesituational dimensions, dominance is
arly the most important. In trying to persuade someone who is typically
inant over the persuader, people are unusually attentive to own face
and make great use of the harmto self standard. "hey are less concerned
with the effectiveness of their appeals. "his pattern suggests the possibili~
that people do nottry too hardto succeed when faced with a dominant tar0
get, and focus moreon minimizing their face lossesin such circumstances.
The third root is mainly constituted by loadings forthe effectiveness and
harm to other criteria, which are broadly predicted by all the situation dimensions. Persuadersconcentrate on effectiveness to theexclusion of harm
to other under these circumstances: when the target is not dominant; when
the situation holds out thepossibility ofgreat personal benefit,when considerable resistance is expected, when the persuader's right to persuade is unclear, and when the persuader has some apprehension about the task, This
pattern generally suggests that persuaders will be unusually taskeoriented
when they face the difficult prospect of obtaining quite valued outcomes.
The loadings for intimacyand relational consequences complicate this picc
ture: The same taskorientation appears when the situation is intimate and
has noticeable relational implications. Perhaps intimacy
and relational consequences are features of situation that cangenerate the possibility of personal benefits. In our data set (see Table 11.4), the personal benefits scale
correlates with intimacy (r = .32,p <.001), but not with relational consee
quences (r = -.04, m).The role of relational consequences in thethird root
therefore remains unclear,but the otherresults consistently suggestthe tire
cumstances under which persuaders will take on aneffectiveness orientac
tion to the possible detriment of other's face.

r results showthat thesituation d i m e n s i o ~are

endorsement and suppression choices our rep
th the exception of the relevance st
cantly associated wit
nger, 1990), all the e
of the situation.~imilarly,all the sit
cally relevant.
harm to relations
een the most d i ~ c u l to
t predict using individual differences variables.
er ( 1 9 ~ 0
speculated
~
tha
is that these are commo
are omnirelevant. In spite of their persistent involved
ment m utteror suppress decisions,truth and relevance seem to have little
n toperson or situation to situatio
the researchers intention to pro
persuasive appealson the ~uestionnaires;
it may betha
margin all^ relevant or marginally true appeals inthe S
ositions or situational stimuli

harm to other criteria.

elationship is nearly red
in respondents eyes. If so, it may bethat the rea at er co~cretenessof harm
to other leads to thatcriterion absorbing mostof the experimental effects.
The chief disappointment in our results has to dowith the modest effect
l variates associations in Table11.5.
sign n~cessitatedapplying consensu
tions to individual editorial decisions. The effect sizesreported her
be viewed as lowerbounds for the trueeffect sizes. Pres
individual situation perceptions with indivi
esult in larger estimates of the importance
sive choices.

een intended to serve two purposes:to illu~trate

second+
and tooffer conclusions about the effects of situation in ine
terpersonal persuasi~n.

Secondarydata analysis has certain advantages overtraditional

meta0analysis, because the original data are available in all their detail.
eta-analysts have to work with data summaries, in theform of reductive
tistics. That is, a metadanalyst takes,say, a series of correlations as hisor
her input data for the meta~analysis,but a secondary data analyst has the
raw data andcan recalculate thecorrelation. If only the average correlation
horn a group of studies were of interest, secondary data analysis would offer
no advantage and involve moretrouble. However, if issues beyondthose discussed inthe original reports are to be explored,secondary data analysis may
offer more o p p o r t u n i ~than does meta-analysis. If this study had been
meta0analytic, all we would have been able to add to the original reports
would have been a more
secure estimate of the size ofsituations effects;we
would not have been able to provide the details andexplanations that we
feel are the substantive value of this report. This study was only possible,
however, becausewe actually have access to all the raw data. Thisis an argue
ment for researchers not only preservingand documenting theirraw data,
but also being willingto share it.
In the course of presenting the results of our second study, we have alc
ready discussedthe details of our findings, and will not repeat themhere. We
wish to emphasize, however, that our findings are sensible and securely
based on a large sample.They constitutenew information that was unavail
able even to anyone who closely read everyone of the original papers. Per*
suasion is acommoncomponent
of interpersonalrelationshipsand
encounters, andthe way we go about trying to influence others depends in
part on the situation.We may take the situationas given, or try to reframe it
so as to change its values on the perceptual dimensions studied here. Either
way, we willreact to thesituation, just as we react to our personal goals and
to the other person.
Brashers, D. E.,& Jackson, S. (1999). Changing conceptions of message effects: A
24-year overview. ~~~n Communication Research,25, 457-477.
Cody, M.J., 6,McLaughlin) M. L. (1980). Perceptionsof compliance-gaining situations: A
dimensional analysis. Commun~cat~on
~ o ~ 47,
o 132-148.
~ a ~ ~ ,
Cody, M. J., 6,McLaughlin, M. L. (1985). The situation as a construct in interpersonal
communica~ionresearch. In M. L. Knapp 6,G. R.Miller (Eds.), ~ a n dof ~
in~
~e ~
o e~r sonal c o m m u ~ ~ c a (pp.
t ~ o 263-3
n
12). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cody, M.J., Woelfel, M. L., &Jordan, W J. (1983). Dimensionsof compliance-gainingsituations. ~ u m a n C o ~ m u n i c Research,
a t i o n 9, 99-1 13.
Dallinger, J. M,) &a Hample, D. (1989a). Biological and psychological gender effects upon
cognitive editing of arguments. In B. E, Gronbeck (Ed.),Spheres of a r ~ m (pp.
e ~ ~
563468). Annandale, VA:Speech Communication Association.

ample, D. (1989b, May).C o ~ ~ ted~ting

~ v e o f u r ~ ~ e nand
ts inte~erso~~
c ~ tdi~e~ent~tion.
~ ~ t Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International
Communication Association, San Francisco.
Dallinger, J. M., &a Hample, D. (1991). Cognitive editingof arg
struct differentiation: Refining the relationship. In
t~ndorst,J. A. Blair, ti C. A. ~ i l l a r d(Eds.), ~roceed~ngs
Con~e~ence
on A r ~ ~ e n(pp.
~ 567-574).
t i ~ Dordrecht, m ether lands: ~tichtingInternational Centrum voorde Studie van ~rgumentatie en
Taalbeheersing.
Dallinger, J. M., &a Hample, D. (1994). The effects of gender
on compliance gaining
s ~ a t e ~
endorsement and suppression.C o ~ ~ ~ n ~~e puo ~~t7,so,43-49.
n
ample, D., & Myers, .A. (1990, June). Sp~ses, ~nde~stun~ngs ofmar~
c ~ ~ ~Paper
c t .presentedat the annual meeting of the Internat~onal ~ommunication
Ass not en? a r ~ m e not
n ~made. Paper presented
at the anStates Co~mun~cation
Association, Chicago.
ample, D. (1991, May).C o ~ ~ ted~t~ng
~ v e in thep~od~ction o~conversut~ona~
~tterunces.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago.
Hample, D. (2000). Cognitive editing
of argu~ents
and reasons for requests: Evidence from
think-aloud protocols. A r ~ ~ e n t a t and
~ o nAdvoca~?
37, 98-108.
e, D., & Dallinger, J.M. (1985). Unused compliance gaining strategies.
In J. R. Cox,
0.Sillars, &G. B. Walker ( E d s . ) , A r ~ ~ eand
n t s o c ~ a ~ p ~ u(pp.
c t ~675-691).
e
Annane, VA: Speech Communication Association.
Hample, D., kDallinger, J.M. (1987a). Argument editing choices and argumentative com.W. Wenzel (Ed.), A ~ ~ ~and
e cr~tica~
n t p~uctices (pp. 455-464). Annanpetence. In ]
dale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
Hample, D., 6Dallinger, J. M. (1987b). Cognitive editingof argument strategies.
C o ~ ~ ~ n ~ cResearch,
u t ~ o n14, 123-144.
%ample,D., 6. Dallinger,J. M. (1987c, November).The effects O f M a c h ~ v e ~ ~s ~o nc ~
de~s~~ ,
s~rab~~
gender,
~ t y , and grade point
averuge on c o ~ ~ed~t~ng
t ~ o
~ f ea r ~ ~ e n tPaper
s.
presented
at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Boston.
Hample, D., 6,Dallinger, J. M. (1987d). The judgment phase of invention. In E
Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, 6,C. A. Willard (Eds.),A r ~ ~ e n t a t ~ o n ~
tives and approac~es(pp. 225-234). Dordrecht, Holland: Foris.
ample, D., 6Dallinger, J. M. (1987e). Self-monitoring andthe cognitive editingof arguments. Central States Speech3o~rna~,
38, 152-165.
ample, D., Cj, Dallinger, J.M. (1990). Arguers as editors.Arg~~entat~on)
4, 153-169.
ample, D., 6Dallinger, J. M. (1992). The use of multiple goals
in cognitive editingof arguments. A r ~ ~ e n t u t i and
o n Advocacy)28, 109-122.
ample, D., & Dallinger, J. M.(1998). O n the etiology ofthe rebuff p ~ e n o ~ e nWhy
o ~ : are
persuasive messages less polite after rebuffs?
C o ~ ~ ~ n ~ cSt~d~es,
u t ~ o49
n 305-321.
Princ~~~es
of design and a ~ ~ ~New
s ~York:
s .
Jackson, S. (1992). Messageeffects researc~~
Cuilford.
Jackson, S., 6.Backus, D. (1982). Are compliance-gaining strategiesdependent on situational variables? CentralStates S p e e c h ~ o ~33,469-479.
~a~,
Marwell, G., & Schmitt, D. R. (1967). ~imensionsof co~pliance-gainingbehavior: An
empirical analysis. S o c i o ~ e t30,
~ ) 350-3441.

an

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Researchers interested in ongoing interpersonal processes often choose to

examine message exchangesand sequences of messages.
the advantage of capturing relationship dynamicsthat may not be apparent
in investigations guidedby individual or dyadic perspectives.Of course, no
single approach adequately accounts for important r~lationshipintricacies.
The overviews to earlier sections providedgeneral
a
context for meta-analyses on individu~l
issues (self#esteem,communication competency, and la
guageusage) and dyadicissues(identity, attraction, selfddisclosure, an
influence) .
~e now turn our attention to the
interactional processes involvedin on0
going relational exchanges between two parties.In this section, we provide a
profile of the interactional perspective and review issuesthat have evolved
in the literature guided by this approach. As with earlier sections,our summ a is~intended to provide the general context for the meta~analysessec
lected for this section. Although hardly exhaustive, the issues of relational
support, conversational processes, and mutuality of control illustrate the
virtues of the interactional approach.

LE AND PKEISS

When viewed froman interactional perspective, interpersonal relationships

are redundant, interlocked cycles of messages, continuallynegotiated and
efined (Millar 6;Rogers, 1987, p. 118). ~ommunicativeexchanges
between two partners reflect the dynamics of the relationship, the current
de~nitionof the situation, and theintended or feared consequences the ex0
change may have on thetrajectory of the relationship. The interactional apl
proach stresses the interdependency of the partners and how a series of
behaviors, utterances, and reactions may have immediate and cumulative
effects. Frequentlyoccurring themes in the interactional approach to interpersonal communication concern relational support and maintenance (e.g.,
commitment, comfortingmessages, and social support), conversational
processes(e.g.,confirming
or disconfirmingmessages,facework,
and
argumentativeness), and mutuality of control (e.g., control, dominance,
and conflict). The six meta-analysesin this section address severalof these
themes: comforting behaviors, social
support, verbal aggression, safe sex nee
gotiation, conflict, and sexual coercion.After briefly discussingthe areas of
relational support, conversational processes, and mutual control, we provide a conceptual summary of these meta-analyses.

Individuals in close interpersonal relationships have expectations concerning the level of affection and commitment anticipated, the candor and honesty of positions stated, and the degree of relational support conveyed
during the exchange. These expectations are managed through interactions
that meet the day-to-day challenges of maintaining close personalconnections. Duck and Wood (1995) noted that ((relationalchallenges of all sorts
are practical and palpable experiencesthat are played out incomplex contexts shaped by large historical and cultural influences as well as by relational history and the projected future and also by present activities and
goals (p. 5). Thus, normal interactions between partners sometimes require addressing the mundane; as well as the unique, challenges to the
well-being of the relationship.
Most relational partners assume that expressions of affection will bepart
of the dialogue in their relationships. Dickensand Perlman (1981) claimed
that liking or affectionwas a basic foundation of an ongoing relationship,
Usually messages of affection involveintentional andovert enactment or
expression of feelings of
closeness, care, and fondness forthe relational part-

ner (Floyd & ~ o o r m a n 1998,

,
p. 145) These expressions of affection are
important for the development of personal relationships not only because
[they] can reduce uncertainty about the stateof the relationship, but also
because [they] cause relational partners to feel valuedand cared for (Floy
6.~ o o r m a n 1997,
,
p. 279).
~ u t u a l l yexchanged expressionsof affection usually signal some form
relational commitment or desire to continue the relationship ana^
StaRord, 1994). ~ommitmentrequires a deliberative choice to maintain
relationship (Acker &Davis, 1992) and is heightened by an individua~s
cision to invest time, energy, and resources in that relationship (Lund,
1985). According to ~usbult
and Buunk (1993),relational commitment is
influenced by relational satisfaction, length of the relationship, concern for
ones partner, the quality and availability of alternatives, and thesize of the
relational investments made or to be required. Lund (1985)found that com~ i t ~ eisnone
t of the better predictors of relational longevity. Fitzpatrick
and Badzinski (1994) noted that commitment to
anothers well~being(p.
7 ~ 9 is) a hallmark of affection.
One way relational partners contribute to each others psyc~ological
welLbeing isthrough the use of comfort in^ messages in times of motional
distress (Dolin &Booth*Butterfield, 1993).
Burleson (1994) defined these
verbal message strategies as alleviating or lessening the emotional distresses experienced by others ...arising from a variety of everyday hurts
and isa appointment^'^ (p. 136). Hebelieved that, although relational part*
ners providing the comforting message may experience some benefit or
self-gain as a result of their efforts (p. 137), theprimary goalis the comfort
of the otherperson. In his research, Burleson found that successful come
forcing strategies reveal a greater involvement
with the partner and her or
his problems, are nonevaluative,focus on possible causes forthe distress,
legitimize the partners feelings, and help the partner gain perspective.
Albrecht, Burleson, andGoldsmith (1994) maintained that the personccenteredness of effective comforting messages make them morecon0
soling and encouraging.
Dolin and Booth~Butte~eld
(1993) expanded the conceptualization to
include nonverbal behaviors. They identified 12 nonverbal strategies that
were routinely used as comforting strategies. Hugs, proxemics, facial
expresc
sions, attentiveness, and increased touch were used during comforting more
than 34% of the time. Bullis and Horn(1995) confirmed 11 of the 12 strategies Dolin and B o o t h 0 ~ u t t e ~ e (1993)
ld
isolated and detected 5 new strate0
gies. Bullisand Horn(1995) found that hugs, proxemics,attentiveness, and
increased touch were at1 used
at least 30% of the time during comforting epic

ests there are both ve

S the relation among comfor
ctive taking, and theage o

ng messages. Cogniti~edifferentiation and

ortant roles in this process, and Allen sugg
another meta0analysis in this sectio
concept of social support. Like comfort

nonverbal strategies designe

a1 benefits (Albrecht et al.,
n interaction, socia
rt is a communicative process through
in thecontext of specific relatio~hips
S (Albrecht et al., 199 Cutr
is consistent with Woodw
social supportmay be ta
mational (e.g., providing information about available resource^)^ or erno-+
tional (e.g., providing comforting words).
es ameta~analyticsumma^ of research on
tively reviewing theoretical and method
she finds evidence that former husbands and wivesreceive d i ~ e r e n t
sources and types of social support. Her results suggestthat divorce is not a
single event, buta seriesof events thatare in~uencedby the availabili~
of
social support netw ks. This pattern issimilar to Woodward et al.s
(1996) finding of se fferences in theuse of social support systems in so+
rorities and fraternities.
In summa^, research in the area of relational support suggests an interace
tive process in which relational partners both seek support and provide it.
This process involvesboth verbal and nonverbal aspects of communication
that are used to sustain or maintaininterpersonal relationships. Like come
forting behaviors, social
support conveys concern for the others psychological well-being at a time of stress or crisis. Unlike comforting, however, social
support usually involves accessto a larger socialnetwork. The meta-analyses indicate that individuals and networks of individuals can play an important role in this interactional process,
0

any c o ~ m u n i c a t i vacts
~ m a y int~ntionallyor i n a ~ ~ ~ r t ~run
n t count
ly

LE AND PREISS

(1994) found that inhostage negotiatio~,negotiators were concerned with

perpetrators face needs and avoided attacking their self-concept while
stressing positiveface needs. Perpetrators tended to engage in self-enhancement torestore or promote their self-image. Cupach andImahori (1993) inhow Americans and Japanese handled social predicaments. They
found no differences between the two groups in the social predicaments
faced, but did detect evidence that how individuals coped with FTAs depended on theagent of the social transgressionand thecircumstances surc
rounding it. In terns of responses, Americans employed devices such as
humor, accounts, andaggression, whereasJapanese participants used apologies and remediation in face-threatening situations. Finally, Leichty and
Applegate (1991) revealed that speakers used more face
support if they had
less powerand less face support if they were familiar
with their partner and
if
the request was small.
Taken together, the facework research suggests that as relational commit0
ment increases, the obligation to show concern for onesown face and the
partners face increases. Facework markers
are i n t e ~ o v e ninto the interactions between partners. Thisis consistent with Gohams (1967) observation that individuals desire to sustain both relational partners facework.
One meta~analysis in
this section deals withface-saving interactions as heterosexual partners negotiate conversations about safe sex practices.Allen,
Emmers-Sommer, and Crowell (chap. 5) explore the decisions partners
make concerning when, how, and where to discuss sexual practices. Conversations on this important and sensitive topic reflect choices designed
to protect ones own and the partners selfdimage. These interactions can be
effective in coordinating intimate situations, as individuals who do discuss
these topics are more likely to engage in safe sexpractices.
One way to sustain face needs during sensitive and risky conversations
involves the use ofconfirming messages.C o n ~ ~ i interactions
ng
display responsiveness to thepartners feelingsthrough theuse ofappropriate converc
sational and relational
skills (Cissna 6rSiebury 1981;
Wilmot, 1987) Much
like socialsupport or comforting, confirmingis a process through which an
individual recognizes, acknowledges,and endorses her or his partner inways
that lead the partnerto value her or his self-worth (Cissna
6rSiebury 1981)
On the other hand,
disconfirming messagescan involve indifference, imper0
viousness, or disquali~cation inways that make partners feel unworthy or
manipulated (Wilmot 1987).
One extensively studied pattern of disconfirming messages is verbal agc
gression, Infante andWigley (1986) defined verbal aggressiveness asa personality trait that predisposes persons to attack the self-concepts of other

people instead of, or inaddition to, theirpositions on topics (p. 61). Verbal
aggression has beenlinked to such disconfi~ingcommunication behaviors
as threats andw a ~ i n g s(Infante, Myers, &Buerkel, 1994; Rudd,Burant, 6,
eatty, 1994) Bayer and Cegala (1992)maintained that verbally aggressive
relational partners tendto perceive opposition from others as an assault and
respond communicativel~with messages that damage the partners face
throughembarrassment,anger,orhurtfeelings.Incontrast,
argu~entativenesshas been defined as the tendency to engage in discussions about controversial ideas and topics, to easily support ones viewpoint
without malice, and to refute the oppositions ideas (Infante & Rancer,
1996; Infante, Trebing, Shepherd, &Seeds,1984). Bayer and Cegala (1992)
found that parents who were more verbally argumentative employed a
parenting style that has been associated with increases in childrens social,
cognitive, and emotionaldevelopment.
h e H a ~ i l t oand
n ~ i n e (chap.
o
16)meta~analssisin this section investigates the relation between argumentativeness and verbal ag~ession.By exploring the dimensionali~of the argumentativeness scaleand theassumption
that argumentativeness inhibits verbal aggression,
Hamilton and Mineos results provide a critique of key theoretical and methodological issues. Moreover, theypresent eight meta-analyses relatedto issues frequently associated
with argumentativenessand verbalaggressiveness.Results
onthe
unidimensionality of the argumentativeness instrument and evidence on the
constructive learning process thought to produce argumentativeness and
lower verbal aggression provide
intrigu~gopportunities for future research.
Another way to look at conversational processes isto examine the types
of messagesexchanged by relational partners (positive or negative in orienc
tation) and how these messages serveto sustainor alter perceptions of the
relationship. Because ongoing interactions provide opportunities for partners to assess relational growth and evolution, researchers have described
episodes resulting in relationship change as turning points (Barge 6
~usambira,1992; Baxter &L Bullis, 1986; Bullis 6,Bach, 1989). Turning
point research tries to isolate specific events or occurrences that prompt a
change in the traj~ctory
of the relationship. Often these turning points are
explored by examining the reminiscences of relational partners.
Baxter and Bullis (1986) found that over 55% of all turning points involved explicittalk about the natureand status of the relationship. Among
other findings, they reported that partners agree on over 50%of the turning
points, that relational conversations vary basedon thetype of change event,
and that turningpoints differ in the amountof commitment change that is
observed. More relational conversations occurred during turning points inc

to assess the nature of an i n t e ~ ~ e r s o n ~ ~

orative or they can manipulate bot

ase their own controlof the interac

s
w o m e n ~ h o ~ i t i athe
t edate,
d went to a mans apartment, had a p r e ~ o uintimate relationship with the man, or consumed alcohol. In these situations,
o understand, if not endorse, men using control, power,an
ce sexual intercourse. Males reactions
to omen's attempts
ist sexual coercion appear to be shaped by traditional sexual script
ens verbal and nonverbal protests
are viewed as being d i s ~ ~ e n u o u s a n
a ~ o t i v a t i o n t o con ti nu^ the sexualpursuit. The ~ ~ e r s 0 ~ o m ~ e r

meta0analysis explores controversies regarding whothehas

right to exert control, the acceptance of control or dominanceby a relational partner, and the
use of coercive control and timida at ion in sexual episodes.
Sexual coercion is a particularly onerous example of the, conflicts that
may arise in relationships. Disagreements about appro~riateuse ofinfluence
the means and ends justikng force and coercion are not always likelyto
solved to thesatisfaction of one or both parties. Retzinger (19
that conflict does not always resolve differences, unify persons
or
result in constructivechange, sometimes it is destructive, erode
ships, and ends in violence (p. 26). Conflicts may result in enduring disagreements and profound emotions that warrant, in theview of one or both
parties) the t e ~ i n a t i o nof the relationship.
In less severe, manageable conflicts,
the study of inte~ersonalcommuni^
cation has fre~uentlyexamined ways to keep problematicevents from teminating the partnership. The goal is often to extend the relationship and keep
the response to a lapse inthebond between partnersconstructive
(Retzinger, 1995, p.
23).This may involvethe use ofstrategies to manage the
conflict or explorethe rationales individualsuse forenacting certain behaviors. Clovenand Roloff (1995) found that theanticipation of a
change can alter the response of the individuals involved.
~ i t t e m a n(1992) found that nonintimate individuals were more likely to
blame their partner for causinga conflict and were more likely
to hold negac
tive feelingsabout the partner than were individuals involvedin an intimate
relationship. Regardlessof the intimacy level, however,
Schutz (1999) discovc
ered that partners tended to blame the other for initiating the conflict and
sought to legitimize their own reaction by pointing to the partners past infractions as evidence of responsibili~for the currentconflict. It appears that indb
viduals focus more
on their own feelings or needs
than those of their partners.
As the conflictevolves, the strategies that areemployed to copewith
conflictual exchangemay varyaccording to the patterns of interactio~estab0
lished during their relationship (Sillars6.Wilmot, 1993).
In addition to examining attributions of blame, researchers have ex*
the types of interpersonal conflict management strategies partners
employ. Kluwer, de Dreu, andBuunk (1998) found that both male and fed
male partners reported using cooperative tactics to a greater extent and
competitive tactics to a lesser extent than their opposite sex opponent (p.
64.6)) especially when the partners were involved in an intimate relation0
ship. ~ i t t e m a n(1992) also found that partners in intimaterelationships reported using moresolution-orientedstrategies,whereasthosein
nonintimate relationships engaged in more
controlling or Competitive strat#

egies. Emmers~~ommer
(1999) reporte a similar pattern regardless of the
intimacylevel of the relationsame-sexfriends,oppositeasexfrie
and romantic partners ies
engag
~ollowing
and,
a
negative or conflictual event,
rtners reported a higher level of relac
tional intimacy.
Messman
a
l1 (2000) focused on sexdifferences
and strategy use rather an relationship type and strategy use. They fo
that w o ~ e used
n more tributive and integrative strategies than me
searchers investigating
ict are still exploring who uses what stra
which situation.
A meta0analysisin this section a resses the use ofcon
strategies by men and women in intimate and nonintimate relationships.
Gayle, Preiss, and Allen (chap. 18) examine the evidence for commonly
held beliefs that
men
us
competitive
or
strategi
nonintimate relationships
strategies
a
in intimate c
and women use compromising strategiesin nonintimate relationships and
coercivestrategies in intimate r e l a t i o ~ .They found that extraneous
variables such as stereotypical attitudes a
ender-role enactments ma inuence the contradictory pattern of effects in theprimary studies.In
tlon to finding small effect sizes for sex differences
in conflict management
selection, Gayle et al. point to emoti l affect, situational constraints, and
relational factorsas areas meriting
itional study. Much moreresearch
into interactional conflict processes iswarranted.
In general, the research on control, dominance, and conflict revealsthe
n e c e s s i ~of a shared vision of the way a relationshipis enacted. Partners netiate therange of relational issues, including who
has the right to exert inuence, who may control relational resources, what goals and outcomes are
preferred, and how conflicts or disagreements may be managed.
*

This overview summarizes a sample

of topics and issues associated withthe
interactional approach to interpersonal communication. Researchers taking this view emphasize how cycles
of messages allowrelational realities to
be codefinedand understood. Themes evident in interactional processes include relational support, conversational processes such aspoliteness,
facework, and c o n f i ~ a t i o nand
; mutuality of control. The issue coveredin
this section might wellbe viewed froman individual or dyadic perspective.It
seems clear, however,
that theframework of ongoing, unfolding relationship
development providesinsights that are not emphasized by other approaches. The six meta-analysesin this section address aspectsof these dye
namic relational processes by exploring comfortingcommunication, social

(1993)- You, me, and us: Perspectives on interpersonal awareness.In S.

i d ~ in~r es ~ a t ~ o n s(pp.
~ i ~144-174).
s
~ e w b u r yPark, CA: Sage.
.(1992). Intimacy, passion, and commitment in adult romantic
re~ationships:A test of the t~angulartheory of love.
of so cia^ and F e r s o ~
~ ~e ~ a ~~~~

in chair/facul~ relationship.~our~

n ~ a t i o n ~ e s e a20,
r c 54-77.
~,
).Turning pointsin evel loping romantic relationships. ~ u
man ~ o m m u n i c a t ~ ~ ~ e22,
s e469-493.
arc~,

tic approach to themeasurement of dominance in human

unicat~n~ ~ r t e r28,
~ y3 1-43.
,
entor relationships helping organizations?
An explo-

Canary, D. J., &Stafford, L. (1994). ~aintainingrelationships through strategic and rouand r e ~ a t ~ ~

tine interactions. In D. J. Canary & L. Stafford (Eds.), Commun~ca~on
m a ~ n t e ~ n(pp.
c e 3-22). New York: Academic.
Cissna, K.N. L.,6rSiebury, E. (1981).Patterns of interactional confirma~ionand disconfir~
~Essa~s
~ fromt
~
mation. In C. Wilder-~ott6. J. H. Weakland (Eds.), Rigor and ~
of Gregory Bateson (pp. 253-282). New York: Praeger.
.,6rRoloff, M. E. (1995). Cognitive tuning effectsof anticipating communicapo~,
tion on thought about an interpersonal conflict. C o m m ~ n ~ c a ~ i o n R8,e 1-9.
created by others: A
Cupach, W. R.,& Imahori, T.T, (1993). Managing social predica~ents
comparison ofJapanese and American facework. ~ e s t e ~of ~Communication,
o ~ ~ a ~57,
43 1-444.
Cupach, W. R., 6r Metts, S. (1994). ~ a c e ~ oThousand
r~.
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cutrona, C. E. (1996). Social s ~ ~ ~inocouples.
r t
Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

319-352). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

,Trebing, J. D., Shepherd, E E.,6. Seeds, D.E. (1984). The relationship of
tiveness to verbal aggression.The S o ~ t h e ~
S~eech
C o ~50,
~~n~cat

E (1998). Conflict in intimate vs. non-'

*-

C o ~ ~ ~ n i c a tKesearch,
ion
2 7, 4 15-450.
Lund, M.(1985). The d e v e l ~ ~ ~ofe investment
nt
and com~itmentscales for p~edicting
continui~
of personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . ~oo ~~~S~ O
~and
CP~~ r~s o n a ~ K e ~ u t2~,3
o-n23
s.~ ~ ~ s ,

Messman, S. J., & Mikesell, R.L. ( 2 ~ 0 )Competition

.
and interpersonal conflict
in dating
R te p
i oo ~
n13,
, 2 1-34.
relationships. C o ~ ~ ~ n ~ c u
the study of personal
rela~onships.In S.
Metts, S. (1997).Face and facework: Implications for
Duck (Ed.), H u ~ o ~~ p~e rk s ~ ~
r(2nd
e ~ ed.,
m pp.
h ~373-390).
p
New York: Wiley.
Millar, EE., &Rogers, L. E. (1987). Relational dimensions
of interpersonal dynamics. In
M.
E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.),~ n t e ~ e rprocesses:
s o ~ ~ New d i r e c m in c o ~ ~ ~ n i c u t
research (pp. 117-139). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Palmer, M, X, & Lack, A. M. (1993). Topics, turns, and interpersonal control using serial
judgment methods. The S o ~ t h e ~
~ o ~ 58,
~ 156-168.
~ n i c u t ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~
Retzinger, S. M. (1995). Shamein anger in personal relationships. InS. Duck & J. ?
:Wood
e~s 22-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
(Eds.), C ~ f r o ~ tr~ neg ~c h ut ~ ~~n g (pp.
Rogan, R.G., 6r Hammer, M. R.(1994).Crisis negotiations: A preliminary investigation
of
facework in naturalistic discourse. ~0~~~ of A p p ~ ~ d C o ~ ~ Reseurch,
~ n ~ c u22,
t~n
2 16-23 l.
Rudd, J. E., Burant, F!A., & Beatty, M. J. (1994). Battered womens comp~iance-gaining
strategies as a function of argumentativeness and verbal aggression.C o ~ ~ ~Re-n ~ u
seurch Repo~s,11, 13-22.
Rusbult, C. E.,& Buunk, B. F! (1993). Commitmentprocesses in closerelationships:An interdependency analysis.
o ~ S o c i aand
~ per so nu^ ~ e ~ u t ~ o n s 10,
~ i p175-204.
s,
Schutz, A. (1999). It was your fault: Self-serving biases in autobiographical accounts of
conflicts in married couples.
of Social and P e T s o ~R~e ~ t ~ ~ h16,
~ p193-208.
s,
Sillars, A.L.,& Wilmot, W. W. (1993). Communication strategiesin conflict and mediation. In J. A.Daly & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Strute~c~ n t e ~ e r s ~ u ~ c o ~ ~(pp.
~nicut~
163-190). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tracy, K. (1990). The many faces of facework. In H. Giles
& W. l? Robinson (Eds.), Hundbook o f ~ u n ~and
g esocial p s ~ c h o ~
(pp.
o ~209-223). Chichester, UK:Wiley.
Wilmot, W.W. (1987). ~ ~ u dc ioc~ ~ ~ n ~ c uNew
t~o
York:
n . Random House.
Wittema~,H.(1992).Ana~yzinginterpersonal conflict: Nature of awareness, typeof initiating event, situationalperceptions, and ~anagement
styles. ~ e s t e ~ o ~ ~o C~ o~ ~
u ~~
nic~tion,56, 248-280.
Woodward, N.S., Rosenfeld, L. B., &May, S. K. (1996).Sex differencesin social supportin
sororities and fraternities.
~0~~~ of A p ~ ~ ~ d
C Roe s ~
e u ~ c24,
~ , n260-272.
~ c u t ~ ~
~~~~

~~~~

From the late 1970s constructivist theory proposed analyzing messagesan

relationships based on thecognitive trait of cognitive complexity as aprec
dictor of various message features and outcomes (Littlejohn, 1989). This
chapter provides a synthesis
of some the available researchand thetest of a
causal model consistent with the predictions of this theory. The goal of this
chapter is to take the existing data consistent with the theory and combine
the data to conduct a test of the underlying tenets.
"here is much debate about the measurement of cognitive complexity
using the Role Category ~uestionnaire(RCQ; Allen, Mabry, Ba
Preiss,1991; Allen, Mabry,Banski,Carter, 6,Stoneman, 1990;
1987; Beatty 6,Payne, 1984, 1985; Burleson, Applegate, &L Neuwirth,
1981; Burleson,Waltman, 6,Samter, 1987; Kellermann, Burrell, &L Allen,
1987; Powers,Jordan, 6,Street, 1979). Even among constructivists there is
disagreement about how to measure cognitive complexity (Fransella &Bane
nister, 1977,1979; D. O'Keefe &LSypher, 198l), and how to interpret cognb
tivecomplexity within a theory of commu~ication(Applegate,Burke,
Burleson, Delia, 6,Kline, 1985; B. O'Keefe 6,Delia, 1982). The measure#
ment issues remainat this date unresolved and the implications of using the
RCQ remain unclear,

~onstructivistresearch typicallydoes not consider the question of

whether a person will provide supportbut investigates the action people
offer support. The reuse to providesupport once a decision ism
search designsestablish a situation where a
has encountered some

negative event an instruct theparticipant to provi e an appropriate mesc

e goal forthe message is establishedas an obligation to
which is d i ~ e r e nfrom
t
realelife settings, where the go
not be so clear1 defined.

ledge without the motivation may not

elia, 1982,p. SS), which indicates that ones cognitive systemis an evolve
lng structure that is changed as a result
of interaction with the environment.

large changesin cognitive complexity were

routine, most of the research involving cognitive complexity would be invalid because
the measurement o
xity would occur before or after the targeted behavior in
possibili~of rapid changes seems empiricallydenied by
orrelations (particularly those waiting weeks or months
between the tests) of measurement assessment (D.0
1981). Because the position of rapidly changing scores
has
port andthe exi
of high test-retestreliabilities hasbeen demon0
strated for the
(the
principal
measurement
instrument
of
communication S
S measuring
cognitivecomplexity;
D.0
Sypher, 1981), the assumption is that changes in anindividuals levelof cognitive complexity occur gradually and are not ongoing during some single
comm~nicationencounter.
The assumption of constructivist research that a radicalchange in anindividuals level of cognitive complexity is unlikely
during a comforti~gen0
counter establishes cognitive complexity as a preexistingcondition to any
situation. However, age appearsto be a predictorof the cognitive complexity of children, with older children being more cognitively complex than
younger children. This finding is consistent with the theories about cognic
tive development that suggest that as an individual grows older cognitive
complexity should increase (Turiel, 1978; Vygotsky, 1962, 1978). Burleson

1984b)stated thatage is really

a sum of more important characterising to development. He suggested that a eis an indication ofcogni.
lopment because a crucial point to this theory is that progression is
nd will occur with experience (Burleson, 1981). In a very real
sense, age or experience causes the development of the cognitive system,
riments have operationalized age as the year in school (Burleson,
a), which seems a reasonable indicator of both age and some measure
of environmental exposure. ~ s s u m i n ga child is
environment, the expectation exists that the ch
cognitivesystem will
mature (onemeasure of this is the level of cognitive complexity)*This sugc
gests that any situation will naturally assist, longerterm, in thedevelopment
of the cognitive system.
Constructivist research has concentrated on demonstrating that those
individuals with more highly developed cognitive structures will produce
superior comforting strategies (and messages in general) Crockett (1982)
ued that people with greater cognitive complexity possess more highly
cognitive systems.claimed
that even if there is not a more
eloped hierarchical rem for a more sophisticated dimensional
structure, thesophistication of each dimension is greater when the number
in thatdimension increases (this corresponds to more descripn ameasurement device likethe RCQ) This viewpoint issimb
lar, in may ways, to the developmental view of interpersonal relationships
that suggests that interpersonal relationships are based on each individuals
learning psycholo~icali n f o ~ a t i o nabout each other that differentiates a
person from a stereotype (G. Miller & Steinberg, 1975). As people learn
about otherindividuals, information increases, as doesthe ability to differc
entiate one person from another. The more sophisticated or developed a
ive system is,the more likelyan individual can be di~erentiatedfrom
eople and treated as a unique entity.
is view ofinterpersonal relationship development corresponds to the
constructivist position that individuals with greater cognitive complexity
better understand anotherpersons feelings because they
have a greater caM
pacity to understand a different perspective (Burleson, 1984a). When en0
gaged in an interaction requiring comforting messages, the cognitively
complex person can provide more comfort because he or she knows what
the other person is feeling (Samter, Burleson,&L Murphy, 1987). More imO
portant, cognitively complex individuals have a greater understanding of
the perspectives of others and can
provide superior responses to other indi,
viduals. ~ ~ d i t i o n a l lthe
y , cognitive complexperson will have a wider repertoire of strategies available. If nothing else, the cognitively complex person

can keep tryingstrategies until onestrategy or tactic succe

cognitive complexity are desirable because highly compl
able to communicate more effectivelyand understandpeople and situations
in a muchmore sophisticated manner.
Cognitive complexi~can be divided into two components: cognitive
ferentiation and cognitive abstractness. ~ o ~ ~~ t ~~ ~v ee ~ e ~ & ~ t ~ o
the number of dimensions (or indivi~ualterms) providing a cr
the cognitive organizational system breadth. As previous
Crockett (1982) assumed that thelarger the numberof constructs, the more
differentiated the cognitive system.In practice, researchers believe
higher the score (asgenerated by the RCQ),the more developedth
tive system.
~ o ~ ~u~st~uc&~ess
t ~ v e denotes the quality of the elements in th
system (Burleson,1983).The more abstract thesystem, the grea
ibility to appropriately handle a variety of situations. Burleson (19
ateda systemforcoding
the descriptions generated by the
abstractness, demonstrating that abstractness (construct quality) is unrec
lated to construct differentiation (the quantityof constructs). The abstract0
ness deals with the sense of whether the descriptive properties address or
consider underlying motivations or features. Suppose I describe John as a
person who gives Rowersto his wife.This isan observable behaviorthat ind
dicates one method of how my system makes judgments. This statement
would beconsidered less abstract than if I wrote, John is a kind personthat
thinks of the well-being of his family.The second statement wou
sidered moreabstract because the reference is to anunderlying u
ing of the persons motivation, whereas the first statement only indicates a
specific behavior from whichone caninfer a value.
Cognitive complexity,as a personality characteristic, should enable
highly complex people
to generate qualitatively better comforting messages.
That is, when people are in a situation
requiring the generation of comforte
ing messages,they will generate more successful comforting messages
if they
have a higher level of cognitive differentiation or cognitive abstractness (as
measured by the RCQ) This means that thehigher the cognitive complex.
ity, the greater the ability to take the perspective of the person in need of
comfort (called the affective perspective-ta~ingability). Cognitive come
plexity (both abstraction and differentiation) should predict the ability of a
person to feel for the other person (affective perspectivetaking) and the
ability to generate highly comforting messages.
The final implication is that older children should possess greater levels
of cognitive complexity (abstractness and differentiation) and therefore a
e

the quality of comforting message,"he predictor variables usually include

some measureof the individual generatingthe messages' c o ~ i t i v complex.
e
ity (measured either by di~erentiationor abstractness). Other predictors,
when included, are treated as dependent or predictor variables
in the equac
tion. The path d i a ~ a min Fig.13.2shows an example of atested
by
multipleregression(Burleson,1984.a). In thismodel the dep
variable,
comfort in^ message quality, is predicted by a combination of the following
ables: (a) age, (b) construct di~erentiation,(c) construct abstractness,
(d) ~ e r s p e c t i v e ~ tability.
a ~ ~ gAnother feature c o ~ m o to
n constructivist
comfort in^ research is to partial the relation between CO

Construct Abstrstnoss

FIG. 13.1 Diagram of model.

ity

IG. 13.2 Current o~erationa~ize~

test of the model.

tion of reality and result in misleading or meaningless results

1982, p. 110). In this particular se, the theory and the data sug~est
a more
comprehensive andexact m l of the underlyingprocesses. Duncan
(1975)claimed that,the nicalresult
is intelligible in terms of the
model, while the onefor the partial correlation is misleading (p. 23).
conclusion is,that when we attempt to reason fromthe values of two corre,
lations to thevalue of a third, we must actually be wor
causal model (p.
13).A better solution for comforting r
make explicit the implicit causal models and test the
A~ditionally,previous research us
pendent variable. Duncan (1975) and
of multiple regression assumes a specific causal model.
The critical assumption that thepredictor variables are additive (Heise, 1975; Monge, 1980) is
not met if there are causal relations among the predictor
sult is that the ~ u l t i p l eregression will generate standa
*

ect onespecific theoretical model. In this chapter, I argue that a different theoretical model is implied by the literature and therefore argue
against the use ofmultiple regression techniques inprior studies. The set of
theoretical assumptions inherent in themultiple regression doesnot seem
to match the
theoretical assumptions outlined in the
text. Operational slippage occurs between the conceptualization of the theory and the specific
models operationalized in the statisticaltests.
More sophisticated techniques are required when thereexist extended
systems ofpropositions (McPhee &Babrow, 1987,p. 350). Given the theoretical emphasis of constructivism and the amount of writing devoted to
outlinin~ thetheoretical tenets, causal modeling is warranted. Burleson
(1987) suggested the need for moresophisticated techniques to understand
the underlyin~
processes at work, going beyond simply
correlating cognitive
complexity withcertain types of behavior. Therefore, the application of path
model diagrams using more
causal modeling matching theunderlying theoretical assumptions becomesjusti~ed.

The current datafrom priorconstructivist research canbe used to test the

proposed theoretical model. The test would differ fiom current analyses of
the datausing multiple regression modelsby using manypredictor variables
for one dependentvariable. The test involves two steps: (a) an accumulation of data using meta-analysis,and (b)a test of the theoreticalmodel using
the average observed correlations derived from the first step.
The difference between this test and previous tests of the theory is the use
of indirect relations among the variables rather than assuming onlythe direct relations incorporated as a partof multiple regression. For example, affective perspective taking becomes a dependent variable in this model as
opposed to a causal or predictor variable in theprevious tests using multiple
regression. The connection of ageto the quality of the comforting messageis
not direct in theproposed model; age functions as the exogenous variable
that creates inputfor the system.
The model tested is not the only model that will fit the available data;
many possible models would probablyconsistent
be
with the model. Testing
a model, however, should be a process that evaluates models generated by
existing theories rather than post hoc or ad hoc attempts to fit models to
data. Models will alwaysneed to be refined, as the data donot conform to
expectations; the questionis the degree to which new modelsare similar to
existing models,The construction of mathematically acceptable alternative
models fromthe current datais possible, but the acceptanceor rejection of
any particular configuration should be basedon theunderlying theoretical

presuppositions for those models. No claim will be made that the m0

tested here is the definitive model for
constructivist comforting resear
This is one inte~retationthe datasuggests, but otherinterpretations can be
and should be tested. The goal of this test is to serve as astarting point for
the process of model buildingrather than o ring a final word
on the interpretation of the available data.

The data analysis consists oftwo steps: (a) summarizing past researchinto
average effect sizes
and establishing the homogeneity of results from experic
ment to experiment, and (b) testing the proposed model usingthe summa,
rized results.

This summa^ of the previous literature wasaccomplishedusing

the
nter variance-centered f o m of meta-analysis ( ~ a n g e r t ~ p r o ~ ,
r, Schmidt, 6r Jackson, 1982). This form of meta-analysis uses
the metric of the correlation coefficient and tests the sample of correlations
for homogeneity using a chi-square statistic.
Thistechnique has been shown
by Monte Carlo simulations to be an acceptable method of detecting the exis0
tence of heterogeneity caused bypossible moderatorvariables (0
Callender,Greener, 6r Ashworth, 1983; Spector 6.Levine,1987).
~chmidt-Huntertechnique establishes that 75% of the observed variability
should bedue to random sampling error (as established
by the average correlation). The chi-square testwas included becauseit is an even more powerful
test for variability.
One possible concern is that multiple effectsizes taken from the same data
set arenot independent. Thismay create conditionsthat adversely effectthe
estimation of the mean effect sizeor change the observed variancein the observed average correlation.A. Monte Carlo simulation showsthat themean
effect size and the associated estimatesof the variance are unaffected even
when nonindepen~entsamples are used (Tracz, 1984).
In principle, the use of
multiple correlations from a single instudy
meta-analysisis no different than a
single study using
the same sampleto estimate allthe correlations for multiple
regression. If independence is a problem for meta-analysis, then independence is a problem for all procedures using any tosample
derive multiple math0
ematicalestimates. This means that individual investigatio~ obtai~ing
estimates are affected by this problem of nonindependence of estimates because the correlation matrix (or covariance matrix) used
to generate the results is generated from the same sample. The real issue is whether multiple

st research on the10
~ t i ~ a t i o nAs .ran^^

2. Construct ~ifferentiation

355

Average r

,465

Var. r

.0062

3. Construct abstractness
k

355

472

Average r

,445

.268

Var. r

.0051

.0265

23S

Average r

.663

4. Perspective taking
2

23384

S55

.621

.0627

Var. r
5. Comforting message quality

S37

547

207

434

Average r

.593

.270

.422

.477

Var. r

.0547

LLE
cause
all
are positive, the ifference is found betwe
where th
he same,
the but
magnit
r between the two
to use the average correlation because it rep
ups and therest of the
correlations were also
anner. This averaging obtains
the best estimate poss
pulation correlation an
average correlations
ent pathanalysis.
*

The firstmodel tested was that pr

by the originalhypothesis and it
= 18.53, p <.05. This indicates
generated asignificant chi-square,
t the proposed model didnot work as originallyh~othesized. The
data
icated that eliminating the direct connections between construct abstractness and construct differentiation to comforting skill message would
improve the model. The analysis of differences
between reproduced correlac
tions and original correlations suggests that addition of a direct path from
age to perspective taking and from construct differentiation to construct a b
stractness was necessary.
e considerationof the change in d i a ~ a m
must be justi~edon the basis of
theoretical argument.The changes in the model arguethat construct differe
entiation and construct abstractness affect message quality
but only as a result
of the ability to take a perspective.This is cons~tentwith the original model
in content by focusing the connection on how the organ~ation
of the cogni,
rive system operates to change ones ability to take a different perspective.
The addition of a path from age to perspective taking indicates
that there are
probably other changes, in addition to changes in construct differentiation
and construct abstraction, that occur with ageto predict perspective taking.
The last path is less obvious.The argument that differentiation would predict
or cause abstractness could simplify
the ~ n c t i o n
of the impact neededto cred
ate a meansto organize and reorganize a cognitive systemit as
becomes larger
and more so~histicated. The
larger the number of elements, the greater the
necessity of generating meansof organizing the series of judgments that the
system entails.The new modelwas subsequently tested.
The chi-square goodness&of-fittest for the overall model indicates that
the matrix of correlations predicted by the model deviates from the observed matrix of correlations by an amount attributable to sampling error
~ ( ~=)8.7, p >.05. This indicates that thehypothesized model is not inconsistent with the data. All of the path coefficients in themodel are significant. See Fig. 13.3 for a visualdepiction of this information. This indicates

FIG. 13.3 Final model (all path coefficients are

s~gni~cant,
p C .05).

es an adequate explanation for th

ed, althou~hthe abili to construct
The statistical tests
nfirm that no inconsis
ere may exist other
o comprehensive theor
set of findings exists.

e firstconclusion to be rawn is that constructivist theory provi

equate account of the availa~le
data. The difference between previous as0
sessments and this report is the shift from multiple regression
more complex struct~ralequation models as sum in^ multivariat
y among the variables. The shiftanswers the challenge
leson (1987) for more sophisticationand makes the availabl
fying explanation consistent with the assumptions of
ically, the developmental argument that persons over
time and by experience under st an^ the perspective of another person permits the quality of messages to improve. The role of cognitive complexity be-.
comes that of a structure that develops over time for indivi~uals, but
like
many features develops differently for
each person. Personswith gre
els of development understand the perspective of others better a
fore may generate higher quality messages.
One important issue at this stageof research is the need to draw a cornetween this model of comforting behavior and one ot
( ~ t i f fai.,
~ t 1988).The Stiffet al. (1988) modelis intere

rocess of motivation in actually producing comforting behavior.

ndent variable wasthe willingness to volu
asks for a social service organization. (Se
esentation of the model.) Th
whether that cognit
ality comforting beh
measure the willingness of a personto vole
l predicts the quality of that participation.
amter (1984) recognized, there is a difference between
ow to comfort and themotivation or willingness to en@
examination of the two models reveals one crucial point of conver..
gence. One of the variables in this investigationof constructivist comforting
ata is affective perspective taking. Bothc o n s t ~ cdifferentiation
t
and cone
struct abstractness predictedthis personality feature,In the Stiff et al. (1988)
model, the initial variablein the sequence is perspective ta
the sequence predictingthe willingness to volunteer to W
This suggests that thetwo parts of comforting behavior(howltivation) may both be connected to one underl~ngfeature, CO
nitive complexity (as measured by cognitive differentiation and construct
abstractness). These findings maymean the c o ~ t r u c t i v ~research
m
has uric
derstated the importance that cognitive complexity playsin comfort~gbehavior becauseit predicts both knowledge and eventually motivation.
T'he next stepin comforting researchshould be to engage in testing some
combination of the process involving knowledge and motivation. n i s
would require experiments testing both the knowledge of an indivi
about how to comfort and themotivation or willingness to engage in
behavior, Bothsets of information are required for acomplete understand0
of this important communicative event. The feature making this project
possible should be requirement
a
of future research-the reporting of cornplete correlation matrices. "his permits future researchers to consider and
test other possibilities. Manyof the investigations usedin this report only re+
ported one correlation, the use of multivariate techniques or multiple re0
gression, without reporting a complete correlation matrix, which severely
restricts the ability t o i n c o ~ o r a data.
te
One controversy, still unresolved,is the relation between emotional ernpathy and prosocial behaviors.Two separate meta-analyses have been conducted with conflicting results, Underwood and Moore (1982) found no
relation between empathy and prosocial behaviorin a meta0analysisof the
literature. Eisenberg and Miller (1987) however, in a later meta~anal~sis,

found low to moderate relations existing between emp

haviors. The later metaOanalysisclaimed the divergen
meta~analysiswere the result of the inclusion of methodolog
between groups of studies not considered in theearly metathe need exiefine
and reexamine assumptions when t
complete ththe
motivational aspects of comfortingbehavior.
urleson (1987) suggested that more detailed accounts
understand the place of i
idual differences like c
communication behavio
S efiort has been an a
understanding of constructivist theory by retesting the original data using a
specific theoretical model. The next stepshould beto complete the process
and examine the connectionbetween motivation and knowledge. The une
derlying processesby which knowledgeis gained during the developmental
process of childhood should be examined. The data point to theimportance
of age as a factor in the development of a sophisticated cognitive system,
which leadsto a more sophisticated understanding of the world. Nothing in
the data presented in this analysis explains how
this process takes place over
time. Knowledge of this process would permit a specific application of
constructivist theory by educators, medical practitioners, and par
Futureresearchalsoshouldaddress
one concern raised by
(19~4c)-whether or not thefindings are domain specific. Does
the
tinction between motivation and knowledge exist in areas
of persuas
pliance gaining, and interpersonal communication? The division may only
exist inthe area of comforting behaviorand any generalization
of this the
ical model should consider what areasof com~unicativebehavior cou
included. The results of this chapter suggest a direction for hture research in
areas like persuasion, compliance gaining, and
other interaction contexts
where an individual adapts a message to a particular person oraudience.
Many potential areas for intervention exist where the ability to take the
perspective of the target and generate high0~uality
messages wouldbe beneficial. Consider suicide hotlines, drug counseling, treatment of depression,
and other circumstances where one person needs to provide another with
an appropriate message designedto facilitate some outcome. The term semi0
& i ~ ihas
t ~ taken on a negative connotation when dealing with training individuals to consider the perspective o f another person, but in a world where
confro~tationsand communication misinterpretations can result in sexual
harassment, date rape, police brutality, and other escalations, the need for
individuals to be able to appreciate the perspective of another is essential.
Constructivism in thedecade of the 1990s wasnot so much. disprovedas
it was simplyabandoned without muchefTort to replace or synthesize
the ex0

,Banski, M., Carter, IC?,6 Stoneman,(1990).

ng cognition using the Role cat ego^

A thoughtfulreapestionnaire. Cornrn~n~cut~on

.(1991). Valid and constructive thoughts:

Continuing the dialog about the RCQ. C o r n r n ~ ~ ~ c u ~ ~ o n4,~120-1
e p o r t25.
s,
*Applegate, J. (1982). The impact of construct system development on CO
andimpression f o ~ a t i o nin persuasive context. C o r n r n ~ ~ ~ MO
ut~o~
277-289.
Applegate, J., Burke, J., Burleson, B., Delia, J., &Kline, S. (1985). InI. Siege1 (Ed.), ~urentu~
~ e ~s~sterns;
~ e f The p s ~ c h o ~ oconse~~ences
~cu~
for children (pp. 107-142). Hillsdale, NJ:
ence Erlbaum Associates.
Review of developments in meta~analyticmethod. ~ s y c h o ~ o ~ S

assumptions underlying Burlesons critique.C ~ r n ~ n ~ c u t ~ o n

.,6.Payne, .(1984). Loquacity and quantityof constructs as predictors of social

~ 207-209.
y,
perspective taking. C o ~ r n ~ n ~ c u~t ~~ornt e r32,
Payne, S. (1985). Is construct di~erentiationloquacity? ~ ~ r n Cornrn~~~cu
un
tion Reseurch, 11, 605-61 2.
198 1)+ A cognitive-developmental perspective on social reasoning processes,
~ e s~0~~~
~ e of~Speech C o ~ r n ~ n ~ c u45,
t ~ o133-147.
n,
*Burleson, B. (1982a). The affective perspective-taking process:A test ofTuriels roleetaking model.In N. Burgoon (Ed.), C o ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~c euutr~~ o6on(pp.
k 473-488). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Burleson, B. (1982b). The development of comforting communication skills in childhood
53, 1578-1588.
and adolescence. Child ~eve~oprnent,
strateBurleson, B. (1983). Socialcognition, empathic motivation, and adults comforting
gies. H
~ C o~~ ~n~ n ~Research,
c u ~ ~10,
o n
295-304.
*Burleson, B. (1984a). Age, social-cognitive development, and the use of comforting strat.
egies. Cornrn~n~cut~o~
~ o n o ~ u p h5 1
s ,, 140-1 53.
Burleson, B. (1984b). Comforting communication, In H. Sypher 6.J. Applegate (Eds.),
C o ~ ~ ~
by c~h ~ ~~ rand
ec n uu d ~t ~(pp.
~
t s 63-105).
~
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

le-taking and communication skills in childhood: Why they aren't

48,
be done about it. ~ e s t e ~ of Speech Communicat~~,
~~~~

155-170.
ple~ate,J., 6.~euwirth,C. (1981).Is cognitive complexityl ~ ~ a cArei ~ ?
,Powers, and Street. ~~~n C o ~ m ~ n i c u t~eseurch,
~on
7, 212-225,

Burleson, B., Waltman, M., 6.amter, W (19$7). More evidence

that cognitive complexity
is not loquacity: A reply to Beatty and Payne. Co~mun~cat~on
~ ~ r t e r35,3
~ y17-328.
,
The organization of construct systems. In J. Man~uso6. J. Ad,The c o n s t ~ ~person
n g (pp. 62-95). New York: Praeger.
(1977). ~ognitivecomplexity, social perception, and the development of listener-a~aptedcommunication in six#, eight-, ten-, ~elve~year-old
boys.
Communication ~ o n o ~24,326345,
a ~ ~ ,
*Delia,J., Kline, S., 6.Burleson, B, (1979).The development of persuasive communication
strategies in kindergartners through twelfth graders. Communicat~o~
M o n o ~ a ~ h46,
s,
241-256.
*Delia, J., OKeefe, B., ~ O K e e f eD.
, (1982).The constructivist approachto communication. In F. Dance (Ed.),~~~n communication theory(pp. 148-191). New York:Harper
6r Row.
to s t ~ c t u r a ~ emodels.
~ ~ t i oNew
n York: Academic.
Duncan, 0. (1975). ~n~rod~ction
Eisenberg, N., &x Miller, E (1987).The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. ~ s y c ~ o ~ o ~ c 101,
u ~ 91-1~ 19.
u~~e~~n,
Franselfa,E, 6. Bannister, D. (1977).A ~
nf o repertory
~ ~

grid~ e c h n ~ ~San
e s Francisco:
.
Jossey-Bass.
Fransella, F.,&x Bannister, D. (Eds.). (1979). C o ~ t r ~ c t s o f s oand
c ~ ~~~nt yd ~ ~ ~ New
d~~ity.
York: Academic.
*Hale, C., &Delia, J. (1976).Cognitive complexity and social perspective-taking.
Communication ~ o n o ~ a ~43,
h 195-203.
s,
Hamilton, M., 6. Hunter, J. (1986).P A C ~ An
G u~~ ~~ tversion
e d ofrout~nes for
doing conf ~ ~ a t o ~ f a c t o r u n d ~ a t hUnpublished
u n a ~ y s ~manuscript,
,
Department of Communication, Universityof Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
Heise, D. (1975). Causal ana~ysis.
New York: Wiley.
Hunter, J., Cohen, S., &Nicol, 1:(1982).P A C ~ AGsystem
~ ~ofro~t~nes
to do c o r r e ~ u t ~ o ~ ~
a n u ~ ~ s~~ns ,c ~ ~ da n~ an~ ~~ s~~us ,~ hc ofuctor
n ~ ~ tanalysis,
o r y and e x ~ ~ o r ufactor
t o ~a ~ ~ y s i s ,
Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI.
Hunter, J., Schmidt, F., &x Jackson, S. (1982). Meta-analysis: Cum~lut~ng
reseurch ~ n d ~ n g s
across studies. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

K e l l e ~ a n nK.,
, Burrell, N., & Allen, M. (1987, May). The role category ~ u e s t ~ ~ A
~ire:
measure in search oju constrmct? Paper presented at the International Communication
Association Convention, Montreal, Canada.
~ ed.).
u ~Belmont,
~
CA: Wadsworth.
Littlejohn,S. (1989).Theories o j h u ~ cn ~ m u (3rd.
McPhee, R., & Babrow, A. (1987). Causal modeling
in communication research:Use, disuse, and misuse. C ~ m u n ~ u tMonogruphs,
io~
54,344-366.
Miller, G.,&Steinberg, M. (1975). ~ e t ~ e e ~ p e oChicago:
p ~ e . Science Research Associates.
Miller, K., Stiff,J., &Ellis, B. (1988).Communication and empathy as precursorsto burnout
among human service workers. ~ ~ ~ u ~M i~ oc ~a u55,
~p 250-265.
~n ,
Monge, I? (1980). Multivariate multiple regression. In F? Monge & J. Cappella (Eds.),
Multivu~te techni~ues
in h u m u ~ c o m m u n i c uresearch
ti~
(pp. 14-56). NewYork: Aca.
demic.
n message pr~uction.In M. Roloff&
OKeefe, B., & Delia, J. (1982).Impression f o ~ a t i o and
C. Berger(Ms.),Social c o ~ ~andt ci ~~ m u n (pp.
~ u33-72).
~
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
*OKeefe, B., Murphy, M., Meyers, R., & Babrow, A. (1989). The development of persuasive communication skills:The influence of developments in interpersonal constructs
on the ability to generate communication.relevant beliefs and level of persuasivestrategy. C ~ m u n i c a t i o nStudies, 40, 29-40.
OKeefe, D., & Sypher, H. (1981). Cognitive complexity measures andthe relationship of
C ~ m u Ren ~ c a t
cognitive complexityto communication: A criticalreview. H u ~ n
search, 8, 72-92.
Osburn, H., Callender,J., Greener, J., & Ashworth, S. (1983). Statistical power of tests of
the situational specificity hypothesis in validity generalization studies: A cautiona~
Ps~cholo~,
68, 115-122.
note. ~ o u ~ofuApplied
l
r u ~ (2nd Ed). New York: Holt,
Pedhazur, E. (1982). Multiple regression in ~ e ~ v i o research
Rinehart, 6,Winston.
Powers, W., Jordan, W., &Street, R. (1979). Language indices in the measurement of cognitive complexity:Is complexity loquacity?Humun C ~ m u n i c a t ~ Kesearch,
on
6, 69-73.
"Rubin, R., 6,Henzl, S. (1984). Cognitive complexity, communication competence, and
~ ~ ,
verbal ability. C ~ m u n ~ a t i ~o na ~ e32,r 263-270.
on spontaneous
Samter, W., 6,Burleson, B. (1984).Cognitive and motivational influences
comforting behavior. ~
u Communicution
~
n
Keseurch, 2 2, 23 1-260.
"Samter, W., Burleson, B., 6,Basden~Murphy,
L. (1989). Behavioral complexity in
is the eye
of the beholder: Effects of cognitive complexity
and message complexityon impressions of
the source of comforting messages.~
u C ~~ m un n Research,
~ u ~ 25,612-629.
Samter, W., Burleson, B., 6,Murphy, L. (1987). Comforting conversations:The effects of
strategy typeon evaluations of messagesand message producers. sou the^ Speech Communicat~on~
~52, 263-284.
~
~
a
~
,
Spector, R., 6,Levine, E. (1987). Meta-analysis for integrating study outcomes:
A Monte
o uf ~
A~~~~ed Ps~ch
Carlo studyof its susceptibility to typeI and type I1e r r o r s . ~ o u ~
72,3-9.
*Stiff, J., Dillard, J., Somera, L., Kim, H., 6r Sleight, C. (1988). Empathy, communication,
o ~ 198-2
a ~ h s13.
,
and prosocial behavior. C o ~ ~ u n i c a t i o n ~ o n55,
~ o n~ s u m ~ t i of~nde~endence
on
o hen c o m ~ ~ n i n g c o ~ r e ~
Tracz, S. (1984).The effect o f v i o ~ ~ofthe
ti on c o e f ~ c ~ ein~ tasmetu-una~~sis.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Southern Illinois
University, Carbondale, IL.

Turiel, E.(1978).Distinct conceptual and developmental domains: Social

convention and
~ on ~o&~vation
~
(pp.~21-52), Lincoln:
0
s
morality. In C. Keasey (Ed.), ~e~~~~ ~
University of Nebraska Press.
~ ~ c a ~
Underwood, B., & Moore, E. (1982). Perspective-takingand altruism. P s ~ c ~ o~~~~e~
tin, 92, 143-173.
Vygots~,L. (1962). T ~ o and
~ ~g n ~~ ~g Cambridge,
e .
MA: MIT Press.
Vygots~,L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

An obvious outcome of a broken relationship is divorce, which causes major

distress in a family. Both children andparents are directly affecte
riousness of a divorce:
In recentyears, Americasdivorce ratehas actually been in decline.
When it
peaked in theearly 1980s, the Centersfor DiseaseControl and~ r e ~ e n t i o n
estimated that half of allmarriages would end indivorce. Now that number is
down to four in ten. Still, the rate is far higher than it was in the 1940s,
1950s and 1960s. (Holt, 1999, pp. L-1,4)

The decision to divorce is almost universallyaccepted as an unfortunate

yet regrettable necessity, regardless
of the potential for both community and
societal disapproval, as
evidenced by the relative easeof obtaining a divorce
itson & Raschke, 1981). The decision to divorce represents merely a
practical concessionto the frailty of mankind, caught in a webof social relationships and cultural expectations that often impose intolerable pressure
on theindividual personality(Murdock, 1950,p. 201). Rather than focusc
ing on thesystemic needs of the family, divorcing spouses
center on their individual needs (e.g., self-esteem, health,and well-being).Moreover9
research increasingly focuses
on the process of divorce. Many scholars argue
that developing new relationships and cultivating interpersonal resources

ivotal to the process of divorce (

nry 6z.Price, 1991; Pett,1982;
to, 1 9 ~ 9 ) . Tpurpose
he
of this chapter is to review someof the
to social support for divorcing spouses as they attempt to
re0create balance in their lives through workplace, family, social, and other
interpersonal relationships. The central question for this chapterand
eta0analysis, do spouses draw on social support networks differentl~,focuses on potential gender differences during the process of divorce.

~ u m e r o ueducators,
s
therapists,and researchers have focused on the trauma
with divorce( ~ c ~&ePrice,
n ~1991) any reasons exist for disc
divorced families.One reason for dist S is tied to the loss of the
other spouse orparent. Even after a painful
and conflictual ma~iage,individO
uals continue to feel attachment to the excspouse and sadness and loneliness
at his orher absence (Stinson, 1991).Another problem lead
anxiety after divorce
is the tremendous amount of responsibil
single parent. Single parents suffer from task, emotional,and responsibility
overload. The sheer number of tasks and problems related to household
maintenance, economic and occupational difficulties that one person must
address day-to-dayis ove~helming(Vaux, 1988). Single-parent families
eat
more fast foodand pickup mealsand children are likely to have erratic bedtimes and are more often late to school (Stinson, 1991). A third problem
faced by primarily mothers and children following divorce is economic.O n
average, mens economic positionimprovesfollowingdivorcewhereas
womens financial status worsens (Stinson, 1991). Even
in middle~classfamilies, mothersand children experience as i ~ i ~ c adecline
nt
in their standard of
living that occurs rapidly following separation (Stinson, 1991).
Marital dissolution is widely recognized as a significant disruptiveinforce
the lives of families. The postdivorce adjustment period isthe time innmedie
ately followingthe termination of a marriage (Thiessen, Avery, CjrJoanning,
1981).This period is described asthe time when family membersexperience
depression, self-doubt, and depreciation. Variables that affect
justment period include the divorcees age, income, prior
marital
relationship, who initiated the divorce, self-esteem,and social support system (Thiessen et al., 1981).
~ u m e r o u investigations
s
have indicated that for a variety
of populations,
inte~entionsdesigned to improve communication skills are critical in the
initiation, development, and maintenance of interpersonal relationships
(Satir, 1972;Schauble 6r Hill, 1976; Wood, 1999). For example, several
re0

searchers designed a training program to provide recent divorcees with

communication skills to increase the possibili~
of developing and maintaining a positive social
support system (Thiessenet al., 1981). Results c o ~ p a r ~
ing the experimental and controlgroups indicated that participants in the
experimental group increased in divorce adjustment and empathy skills
did not improve in perceived social support or selfcdisclosure skills W
contrasted with the control group (Thiessenet al., 1981). These researchers
account for their results because theyare based on a small sample size, parwere women and only recently divorcedor separated, and the re#
ct only a shortcterm assessment of the variables. Thiessen et al.
(198 1) suggested
that perhaps the training wouldhave beenmore meaningful and would have had moreimpact with the pass
of time.Perhaps
women needed more time to adjust to their divorces would
have been
more receptive to improvin~
their communicative skills.
Clearly, divorce causes numerous types
of stress for those going through it.
Bilge and Kaufman (1983) argued
that Increasing maritali ~ t a b i l iescalate
~,
ing divorce rates,
and the resulting dissolution
of myriadnuclear families have
left roughly20% of all U.S. children under18years of age-some 12,000,000
of them in onecparent households(p. 59). However, onecparent family systems are no more detrimental to thedevelopment and adjustment of children
than other family forms, and divorce and separation can leave children unharmed in single-parent systems. Single-parent households are not pathological or incomplete
but rather are createdby situational contingencies to
which individuals must
adapt (Bilge C j , Kaufman, 1983).In short, it is not the
family formbut rather the
support systemand means of socialization that have
the greatest influence on children (Cutrona, 1996).
Various socialsupport networks can alleviate the stress causedby divorce
for both parents and children. A persons social support network includes
those peoplewith whom he or she interacts on a regular basis(e.g., friends,
neighbors, coworkers,and family members). Members
of the social network
are potential sources of support. Some research indicates that individuals
with helpfulsupport networks characterizethem as smalland deriving from
their spouse and close family relationships (McFarlane, Norman, Streiner,
6r Roy, 1984). Conversely, individuals describing the least helpful social
support also reported significantly more stressfulevents in the past 5 years
and significantly more childhood crises (McFarlane et al., 1984). In conc
trast, other researchers conclude that although a large socialnetwork does
not ensure that thekey functions of social relationships will
be provided for
the person in need, there is generally a significant positive
relation between,
for example, network size and perceived social support (Cutrona, 1996).

strates its stability over time, its perception of being available for access
by

are asked to recall spec

availability, expressions of i n t i m a c ~ )(c)

~ positive social interaction (e.g.,
joking, engaging in diversionary actions), and (d) tangible assistance (e.g.,
providing shelter,sharing tasks) Clearly, not as much is left to the imagina0
tion as the events to recall are framed more concretely. Received social
sup0
port as a measure, however,
is not without its critics.The critical indictment
is simply that thefrequency of reported suppor
count for the quality of supportive behaviors an
these actions may be perceivedas demeaning,
(Turner,Frankel, Csr Levin,1983;Wor
~Unkel~Schetter
and Bennett (1990) provid
hs andweaknesses of received social support.
ore recently researchershave developed coding schemes
to track what
say and do to show support andconcern(Cutrona,
Suhr,
rlane, 1990). Typically, individuals (e.g., relational partners, marrie
) are asked to participate in videotaped interactions designe
elicit supportive behaviors. After the interactions, relational partner
out a varietyof questionnaires tracking perceived socialsupport, marita
justment, and personality a depressive symptoms. Use of these observational techniques isdesi
to cataloguespecificverbal and nonverbal
at are indexes of caring, concern, and supp
hr, 1992).An application for this research is to
ventions d e s i ~ e dto improve social support when individuals are experie
encing depression, loneliness, and distress (Cutrona, 1996) ~ractitioners
involved in marital and family therapy, divorce counselors,
health carecproviders could utilize research on designing effective support inte~entions.
What follows is a discussion summarizing typical theoretical approaches
that researchers may use to account for social support.

When social support is seen as a necessary

and valued commodity, resource
theory isthe theoretical frame. A basic tenet of resource theoryis that power
is attributed to those who can provide the greatest amount of valued or der
sired commodities and resources to meet specific needs and desires. Die
vorcing spouses maylook to close friends, colleagues,and extended family
embers for support because they are lonely, frightened about not being
able to buy groceries, or angry about being unable to cope with day-to-day
parenting problems. Clearly, the social support sought is an i ~ ~ o r t ared
nt
source for emotional and possibly physical well-being, Embattled spouses
may perceive socialsupport as a necessary
and highly valued source
of power

ne spouse has more s ~ p a t h e t i c a nresponsive friends, cowor

ily members than theother,
about social support is asa personali~characteris0
ial support could be considered a perso
on attachment theory, ear
childhood experiences sh
ships. In other words, as i
our future relationships are based on those very earlyrelational experid
attachments. For e~ample9
siblings may observeparents as
alue on large family gatherings to celebrate holidays9birt
rites of passage acrossthe life span of the family. These children9
having observed and experienced social support from an extended family, as
eventually marry individuals from similarly
Other scholars have looked social support in the development of relac
behavioral routines, sets of expectations,
scenarios; ~aldwin91992; Berscheid, 1994; Plan
e assumption driving
this perspective is that as we enter intoi
ationships, we have a seriesof expectations or rules about being arelational
ample, when someone assures adistraught mother, communicates concern9 oroffers to help with child care, the recipient frames these
pportive acts not only as means
a
to ease the immediate situation9 but
also
contributing to therecipient's view of her relationship with the support
vider. Another partof a relational schema is whether or not someone can
capable of providing the necessary support.
intimate relationships, specifically marriage,
is the expectation of being emotionally supported. Scholars
have suggested
that thesurvival of intimate relationships is linked with partners being re*
sponsive in times of need (Baxter, 1986; Cutrona, 1996).
~ l t h o u this
~ h is not an exhaustive discussion of how socialsupport has
been framed theoreticallyby scholars, important characteristics of intimate
relationships are closelylinked with social support (e.g., trust, interdepenO
dence, love, and commitment) When spouses decideto d
out tovarious members of' their so a1 networks. Mutual
vorcing couple are s o m e t i ~ e aske
s
to take sides based on t
history and loyalty. Furthermore9grandparents, aunts anduncles, and even
cousins are calledon to rally around the feuding spouses. Even coworkers
and their spouses becomesupport providers when the process of
comes overwhelminglyugly for embattled spouses.
e

some ways marriage constrains

ltivate new relatio
over time relation

work relationships over nurturing neighborhoo

question the following meta~anal~sis

was conducted.

A search was ma e of ~SYGHLitand E G using the terms s o c i ~s ~ ~

~ ~ o

and ~ ~ w o From
~ c ~the
. articles obtained, references wereidenti~ed that
con0
tributed to additional, relevant citations. In addition, reviews of the social
ortliterature(Cutrona,
1996; Gerstel,1988a; Go~tting,1981;
lieb, 1983, 1988; House, 1987; Johnston &L Campbell, 1986; Leavy,
Price, I99 1) contribu
to identification of sources. To
in this report, a ~anuscript to meet the f o l ~ o ~ i ncriteria:
g
script had to containquan
e information, (b) the manuc
script had to explore the relation between gender and type of social support
received, and (c) there hadto be enough informatian to calculate an effkct
size. A complete ibliography of manuscripts excluded and the reasons for
exclusion is available fromthe author.

anuscripts werecoded to identify the source of social support.~ategories

r sourceof support included family, lovers, friends,and social. The family
ory included parents, siblings, children, relatives, in-laws,and kin.
category refersto current romantic partners including coha~iting
viduals, boyfriends, girlfriends,and fiances, Friends were those individuals
who had an ongoing relationship with the divorcingspouse. Studies
aperation~lized in this categorywerecoworkers,friends,
and acquain

1 cat ego^ was social, which included all other sources of

clubs, social activities, CO
en multiple terms occurr
hat only one representation per categorywas entere
ily category, ifthere were separate estimates for parents,
S of the divorcing spouse, the effect size was average
at one effect was entered for that specific source

The analysis took place in three stages: transformation, averaging, an

nce-centered technique of
idt (1990)wasemploye
process of converting statistical information to
c employedin this review is the correlation coefficient. All studies had thestatistical inform~tion tra~formed ainto
cord
relation coefficient usingthe procedures outlined by ~ u n t eand
r ~chmidt.
A second step, the averaging process,computes a weighted average using
the sample size of the individual effect as the weight. Theoretically, estimates of the overall effectwith larger sample sizesshould be moreaccurate
than estimates of the effect with smaller samplesizes. ~ e i g h t i n gby sample
size simply reflects
the improved accuracyof estimation of the population efc
fect that studies with larger sample sizes possess. For example, a study with a
sample size of
1,000generates a correlation coefficient with half
of the Sampling error that a study with 200 participants generates.
Finally, the third step, te g for homogeneity, examinesw ~ e t h e the
r inconsistency in observedts
can be attributed to samplingerror. A
chi-square test compares the observed variabilityto theexpected variability
due to sampling error.A nonsignificant chi-squareindicates that the sample
of correlations can be CO
ered homogenous. Homogeneity simply means
that the average correl
coefficient is the best estimate of the population parameter and that moderator
no
variable probably exists.
As i ~ i ~ c a n t
heterogeneity amongthe effects, Hetero~eneitymeans
ct should be interpreted cautiously. H e t e r o g e ~ eiridic
i~
cates the possi~le
existence of moderator variables. An adequate solution to
heterogeneity is a system that creates subgroups that are all homogenous
ut heterogeneous between groups. For example, Allen,
gezel(1995) found that anaverage effectof the relation
between exposure to pornography and aggressive behavior was heterogeneous. However, reclassification
of effects basedon the contentof the mate0

rial(violent, nonviolent, nude pictures) generate a solution that was

homogenous.

is chapter compares the various sourcesof social support (fami~y, lovers,

S, social) during the process of divorce.

he first typeof social support looke at family as a source

of social support.
men are more likelyto use their families (r = .166, k
examination finds that theeffects are heterogeneo~s,
.OS.The average correlation indicates that women receive mo
from familiesthan men.
owever, the effects should be interpreted cautiously because the aver0
ct is based on a sample of correlations that may h
tor variable, This effect usingR.Rosentha19s(1984)
Size Display (BESD)
indicates that women receive38% more socialsupport
then men, A sub~nalysiscompared elements within the family as potential
a
f moderator variable. Sixstudies examined the social support pro*
parents by adult childre omen received even more
the average effect WO
indicate (r = -232, N =
ct was computed using a homogenous sampleof correlati
4.72, p .05. In other words, these findings demonstrate tha
more heavily on their adult children (60%9 using BESD) than
support during the divorce process.
e second moderator variable centered on studies that c
S a sourceof social support.The average effect(r = .l
1,911) indicates that women receive more social
support from their parents
than men. The observed effectis based on a homogenousset of effects,
= 7.2 1,p 2 .05. This average effect reflects
the general tendency of women
to receive 38% more socialsupport from their families than men.
*

The second category involves the social support that men an

ceive fromtheir romantic partners and lovers. The two studiesin this catec
gory generate a positive correlation (r = . l O l , N = 1,473), based on a
homogenous set of effects (t = 1.37, p >.OS).In contrast to thefamily find
ings, men receive 22% more socialsupport from their romantic partners and
lovers than women.

is cat ego^ involves iends, coworkers, and acquaintances when come

paring spouses socialS port during divorce. Women receivedmore social
supportfromfriends thanmen (r= 4 7 4 , k = 13,N = 3,177).Anexamina~
tion of the distribution of effects findsheterogeneity across the sample,
(12) = 35.48, p .05. In contrast to the findings for lovers, women receiv
40% more social support fiom their friends than men. hanalysis wasmade
coworkers and acquaintances and using only studies t
nds. Across the six studies the average effect increase
-295, N = 2)093) and was homogenous, (5) = 6 . 2 5 , ~ .05. Frie
cluding coworkers and acquaintances) p ided more social suppo
to women than men.

This category includes clubs, social activities, community, social

participa~
ensity, and network size. Men received more socialsupport
from this source than women did(r= .083, k = 6,N = 2,467) based on a hoc
mogenous set of effects, (5) == 1.07, p >.05. In other words, men are red
support fiom their social networks than women

esults are easily summarizedin thatwomen received more socialsupport

fiom their families and friends, whereas men received more support from
lovers and social networks.Of great importance to the following discussion
are two well-documented patterns. First, women are more likely
than men
to obtain custody of the children. Second, women are far more likelythan
men to experience reductions in income (Gerstel, 1988a). These two patc
terns createdifferent experiencesthat result in varying kindsof opportuni~
ties for social ties
and relationships formen andwomen. What follows are a
series of explanationsregardingthese
findings. The results of this
meta~analysisindicate relations but do not
explain why they exist.This discussion providesan interpretation of those relations as well as
the theoretical and practical implications.
Findings indicate that women tend to rely moreon maintaining kinship
ties than men. These results are consistent with Gerstels (1988a) findings
that menare more likelythan women to diminish their reliance on kin over
time. Because more women than men are the custodial parent, it may be

went wrong relationallyand turn inward to their families

Finally, women may wish
to talk about their relational failu
more omf fort able sorting out the details with their families.

Future meta~analysesmight lookat thediversity ofsources of social supc

port and the relationship to satisfactory adjustment. Relia
sources of social support may not indicate better adjustmen
stems encourage i~teractio nd i n f o ~ a t i o n e ~wit
cha~~e
the system, whereas clos
family systems constrain an
hi~hlyrestrict outs
indicate more ope
own their support systems, adjust to the
relationally, or just the opposite,
e insightinto therole of socia
~ e l o p ~ eof
n tnew relationships, the quality and rene
ships, and adjustment p a t t e ~ of
s divorcing spousesover time. Clearly, the
challen~eis ours.

ferences marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in themeta0

analysis.
*Albrecht, S. (1980) Reactionsand adjustment to divorce: Differencesin the experiences
of males and females. Fumi~yR e ~ ~ n29,
s ,59-68.
Allen, M., D'Allesio, D., & Bregezel, K. (1995). A meta-analysiss u m ~ the
~ effects
~ g of
po~ography11: Aggression after exposure.
Humn C ~ m u n ~~eseurcfi,
u t ~ 22,258-283.
Auerbach, S. M.,& Kilmann, l? R. (1977). Crisis intervention: A review of outcome re+
search. P s y c ~ o ~ ~~ cu u~~ ~84,t 1189-1217.
~ n ,
*Baker, M. (1984). Women helping women: The transition from separation to divorce.
~
~
cCarts
i R e~v ~ w~22,
~
n
, 53-63.
Baldwin, M.W. (1992). Relational schemas
and the processing of socialinfo~ation.Psyc f i o ~ o ~~uu~~l e tI~12,
n ,461484.
Barrera, M.,& Ainlay, S. L. (1983). The structure of socialsupport: Aconceptual and empirical analysis.~~~~1of C o ~ ~~ suy c f~i o lioI~~
l,, 133-143.
Baxter, L. A. (1986). Gender differences in the heterosexual relationship rules embedded
in
breakup accounts.J~~~ of S o c and
~ ~per so nu^ R e ~ t ~ f i i3,~ 289-306.
s,
ann^^ Review ofPsycfio~o~,
45,79-129.
Berscheid, E.(1994). Interpersonal relationships.
. Kaufman, G. (1983). Children of divorce and one-parent families: Cross-culBilge, B., &
tural perspectives. F u m i ~R~e ~ t i 32,
~ ,59-71.
Bowlby, J. (1969).Att~fimentand loss: Vol. I. A r ~ c f i ~ e nNew
r . York: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking ofaffectional bonds.~ ~ t ~ s f i J o ofPsycfi~uuml
try, 130, 201-2 10.
Bowlby, J. (1980).Attucfiment and loss: Vol. 3.Loss: Sadness and depress~o~.
New York: Basic
Books.
"Caldwel, R., & Bloom, B. (1982) Social supports:Its structure and impact on maritaI disruption. Ame~cunJ o u ~ofuCommun~~
~
Psycfio~o~,
IO, 647-667.
*Cargan, L.,& Whitehurst, R. (1990). Adjustment differencesin the divorced and the
redivorced.J o u m t of Divorce and~ e ~ ~ u14,
g 49-78.
e ,
Cassel, J. (1976).The contributionof socialenvironmentin host resistance. Amer~cunJournal of ~ p i d e m i o ~ 104,
o ~ , 107-1 23.
*Chiriboga, D.,Coho, A., Stein, J., & Roberts, J. (1979). Divorce, stress
and the social supports: A study in helpseeking behavior.J o u of~~ v
~ o ~ c13,
e , 75-94.
"Clark-Stewart, A., & Bailey, B. (1989). Adjusting to divorce: Why do men have
it easier?
~
o of Divorce,
u
~ 13, 75-94.
~
as a moderator of life stress.
P
~
cMedicine,
~ 38,3W3
s
~ 14.
Cobb, S. (1976). Social support
Cohen, S,, & Syme, S. L. (1985).Issues in the study and application of socialsupport. In S.
Cohen &S. L. Syme (Eds.),S o c ~ ~ s u ~ pund~eu~tfi
ort
(pp. 3-22). NewYork: Academic.
Cutrona, G. E. (1996). Social support in couples.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
of stressfulevents and satisfaction with
Cutrona, C. E., &Suhr, J.A. (1992).Control~abili~
spouse support behaviors.C o ~ m u n Reseurc~,
~ u ~ ~19,
~ 154-176.
Cutrona, C. E., Suhr, J. A., & MacFarlane, R. (1990). Interpersonal transactionsand the
and
psychological sense of support. InS. Duck & R. Silver (Eds.),per so nu^ relut~on~fiips
social s u p ~ (pp.
o ~ 30-45). London: Sage.
Dunkel-Schetter,C., &Bennett, T, (1990).Differentiatingthe cognitive and behavioral aspects of social support. InB. Sarason, I. Sarason, 6,G,Pierce (Eds.),Social support: An
~nteruct~
view
o ~(pp.
~ 267-296). New York: Wiley.

CIAL SU
Fischer, C. (1982). To d w e umongfr~nds.
~~
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
u n i c a tand
~~
change
~
(4th
Galvin, K. M., & Brommel, B. J. (1995). F u m ~ ~ ~ c o ~ m Cohesion
ed.). New York: Ha~erCollins.
and
Gerstel, N. (1988;). Divorceand kin ties: The importanceof g e n d e r . 3 o u ~ofManiage
~
the F u ~ i ~50,
y , 209-219.
Gerstel, N. (1988b). Divorce, gender, and social
integration. Gender S o ~ e t2,343-367.
~,
*Gerstel,N., Riessman, C.,& R o s e n ~ ~ lS.d ,(1985).Explaining the symptomato~o~
of separated and divorced women and men: The role of material conditions and social
networks. Social Fmces, 64, 84-101.
Goetting, A. (1981). Divorce outcomer e s e a r c h . 3 ~ ~ of
u lF u m i ~Issues,
~
2,350-378.
Gottlieb, B. H. (1983). Social support as a focus for integrative research in psychology.
Ame~canPsycholo~t,38, 278-287.
Gottlieb, B, H. (Ed.).(1988). Marshaling social s ~ ~ ~Foo r~ tt ~s processes
,
andeffects.
N e w b u ~Park, CA: Sage.
*Hammond, R., 6.Muller, G. (1992). The late-life divorced:Another look. 3
~of Di-~
1
vorce and R e m u r ~ g e17,
; 135-150.
House, J. S. (1987). Social support and social
structure. S o c ~ o ~ Forum
o ~ u ~2, 135-146.
Hunter, J. E., 6r Schmidt, E L. (1990). Methods o f ~ e t u - a Conect~ng
~ ~ ~ s enor
~ ~ and bias in
research ~ndings.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Johnston,J. R., & Campbell, L. E. (1986).Tribal warfare:The involvement of extended kin
i a Review,
t ~ 24,1-16.
and signi~cantothers in custody and access disputes.C o ~ ~ ~Courts
Kitson, G., & Holmes, W. (1992). Portruit of divorce^ A d 3 ~ t ~ eton mu~tu~
t
b r e a ~ d oNew
~.
York: Guilford.
What we know; what weneed to
Kitson, G. C., & Raschke, H. J. (1981). Divorce research:
know. ~
o of Divorce,
u
~
4(3), 1-37.
~
*Kurdek, L., 6.Bisk, D.(1983). Dimensionsand correlates of mothers' divorce experiences.
3~~~ o ~ ~ ~ v o 6,
r c 1-24.
e,
review.^^^^
A
o ~ C ~ ~ u Leavy, R.L. (1983).Social support and psychological disorder:
nity P s ~ c ~ o2~1,o3-2
~ ,l,
Leppin, A., & Schwarzer,R. (1990). Social support and physical health: An updated
cu~
a p ~ ~ iaspects
ed
o~~eult~
meta-analysis. In J. Weinman 6.S. Maes (Eds.), T h e ~ e t ~and
p s y c h o ~ o(pp.
~ 185-202). London: Marwood.
McFarlane, A. H., Norman,G. R., Streiner, D. L., &Roy, R. G. (1984). Characteristicsand
correlates of effectiveand ineffective social supports.
of Psychosomut~c~eseurch,
28,501-5 10.
McKenry, I? C., 6.Price, S. J. (1991). Alternativesfor support:Life after divorce-A literature review. 3 o u ~ of
u~
Divorce @ R e ~ u ~ ' u g15
e ,(3-4) 1-19.
Hoit, N. (1999, February 28). Divorce reform: States search for ways to strengthen marriage. M ~ ~ w u u ~S e n~~ ~o npp.
ue ~~L-l,
, ~ 4.
Murdock, G. l? (1950). Family stability in non-European cultures.Annals of the Amekun
Acade~
of ~P o ~ ~ t and
~ c uSoctal
~
Science, 272, 195-201.
O'Donneli, L. (1985). The ~nhe~ulded
~ 3 o ~ tLexington,
y.
MA: Lexington.
Pearson, R. E.(1990). C o ~ ~ e ~and
i nsocial
g support: Pers~ect~ves
and practice. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
"Pett, M. (1982). Predictors of satisfactory social adjustment of divorced single parents.
3
0 o ~ D~~ v o r c~5,
e , 1-17.
~
~
Planalp, S. (1987). Interplay between relational knowledge and events. In R. Burnett, I?
McGhee, Csr. D. D.Clarke (Eds.),~ c c o u n t i n g f o ~ r e ~ ~ t ~ o n s h ~ ~representution
s~ ~xp~u~tions,
e d 175-191).
g e
New York: Methuen.
and ~ ~ o ~ ~ (pp.
~

~~~~

L
Procidano, M., & Heller, K. (1983). Measures of perceived socialsupport from friends and
family. A m e ~ c a Jn o u ~ aof~Commun~typsycho lo^, I I , 1-24.
*Raschke,H.(1977).The role ofsocialparticipationin postseparation and post divorceadjustment. J o u of~D ~~ v ~ cI e, 129-140.
)
the lonely and socially
Rook, K. S. (1984). Promoting social bonding: Strategies for helping
isolated. A ~ e r i c a n P s y c h o l o39,
~ t , 1389-1407.
senthal, C. (1985).Kinkeeping in the familial division 1abor.Jou~al
of
ofA4arriage andthe
Fami~y)47, 965-974.
Rosenthal, R.(1984).Meta-ana~yt~c
procedures for social research. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.
Sarason, B., Pierce, G., & Sarason, I. (1990). Social support:
The sense of acceptance and
role of relationships. In B. Sarason, I. Sarason, & G. Pierce (Ms.),Social suppo~t:A n
~ n t e r a cview
t ~ ~(pp.
~ 97-128). New York: Wiley.
Sarason, B., Sarason, I., & Pierce, G. (Eds.) .(1990). Social support: A n ~ n t e r a c tview.
~~a~
New York: Wiley.
Satir, V. (1972). Peoplemak~ng.Palo Alto, CA: Science& Behavior Books.
Schauble, I?, &Hill, C. (1976). A laboratory approachto treatment in marriage counseling:
Training in communication skills. F a m Coord~nato~
~ ~ ~
25, 277-284.
health: A meta-analysis. P s ~ c h o ~ o ~
arzer, R.,& Leppin, A.(1989).Social support and
~ e a ~ t3,h1-15.
,
Spanier, G. B.,
kcasto, R. (1979).Adjustment to separation and divorce: An analysis of50
cast studies. Journalo f ~ ~ v o r c2,e ,241-253.
*Spanier, G.,& Hanson, S. (1982). The role of extended kin in the adjustment to marital
separation. Journalof ~ ~ v o r c5,e ,33-48.
"Spanier, G.,& Lachman, M. (1980).Factors associated with adjustment
to marital separation. S o c ~ o ~ o ~Focus,
c a ~ I 3, 369-38 1.
e
"Spicer, J., & Hampe, G. (1975). Kinship interaction after divorce..Joumalo f M a ~ i a g and
the F a ~ i ~37,
y , 113-1 19.
Stinson, K. (1991).Ado~escents,~ a a n~d f ~~e nNew
~~. York:
y
Praeger.
Thiessen, J. D., Avery,A.W., & Joanning, H. (1981). Facilitating postdivorce adjustment
among women:A communication skills training
a p p r 0 a c h . J o~f~~ ~
v o r c e4(2),
,
35-44.
Turner, R.J., Frankel, B. G., & Levin, D.M. (1983). Social support: Conceptualization,
measurement, and implicationsfor mental health. In J. R. Greenley (Ed.), Resea~chin
hea~th(pp. 67-1 11). Greenwich, C?":JAI.
c o m ~ ~ nand
~ t mental
y
Twaite,J.A., Silitsky,D., &Luchow, A.K. (1998).C ~ ~ r ~ o f d Northvale,
~ v ~ c e NJ:
. Aronson.
Vaux, A.(1988). Social s u ~ ~ o rtheory,
t,
research, and i n t e r ~ e n t iNew
~ . York: Praeger.
to therapeutic touch in a
Whitcher, S. J., & Fisher, J. D.(1979). Multidimensional reaction
i t ~ Social P s ~ c h o ~36,
o ~87-96.
,
hospital setting.. J o u r ~ofl P e ~ s o n a ~and
'Wood, J. (1999). Re~t~onal com~unication~
Continuity and change in per so^^ relationsh~ps
(2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,
Wortman, C. B., & Lehman, D.R. (1985). Reactions to victims of life crises: Support attempts that fail. In I,G. Sarason & B. R.Sarason (Eds.),Social s u ~ ~ oTheory,
r t ~ research
and cations (pp. 463-489). The Hague, The Netherlands: MartinusNijhoff.
"Wright, C., & Maxwell, J. (1991). Social support during adjustment
to later-life divorce:
Wow adult children help parents.J o u of~Divorce
~
and Rema~~age,
15, 21-48.

In 1981, AIDS was first diagnos in the United States. Since then, more
than 2~0,000
Americans have di ofAIDS and by the yea
mated that 40 million people worldwide would
be diagnose
[CDC'J, 1994. HIV represents a potentiallyfatal health risk
ally active person in the world.' Fortunately,until a cure or va
an indi~idual'srisk of HIV infection due to sexual transmission can be
greatly reduced through the use of condoms. Despite the effectiveness of
consistent and careful con
use, many sexually activeA ~ e r i ~ aare
n s sti
engaging in unprotected
a1 activities.Bruce, Shrum, Trefethen, an
Slovik (1990)indicated that 97% of young adults are ~ n o ~ l e d g e aabout
~le
IV and how to curtail trans~issionbut many persons still engage
in risky
sexual behaviors.
'The two other principle methods of transmission are blood transfusions and needle sharing
among intravenous drug users.

e ~ n d a m e n t aconcern
l
for IV prevention via sexual transmission is
gettingpartners to discuss method
eduction.Barriers to acouplesdis
cussion of issuesrelating to reduinfectionrisk
create somechallenges. These problems include the perception that ~ s i s t i n g o nusing a
condom constitutes a formof accusation againstthe partner c o n c e ~ sex#
~g
ual in~delityor other behavior that would put the partner at risk. Consider
that for most married couples,
the discussion would seem
out of p1
there was a known infection or risk by one of the partners. Man:
usually assume monogamy,or at least that thepartner is not e n ~ a ~ in
n beg
havior that puts the other person at risk. Females have the possibility in the
context of a heterosexual relationshipof a r g u ~ gthat a condom provides a
safe alternative to pregnancy prevention without the health risks of other
methods. However, homosexuals, as well as heterosexual
men, do not necesI
sarily havethat same option in providing a reason for a change
in sexual behavior when involved in a committed relationship. A part of the concern
about relying on monogamy is that persons may and do conceal either HIV
seropositivi~or participation in risky behaviors (either currently in
or the recent past). Stebleton and Rothenberger (1993) foundthat 36% of men and
21% of women at a M i d w e s t e ~university reported being sexually
unfaith~l
to their partner,that 75% of men and 33% of women never did
ask partners
about past sexual history,and that men admitted they liedto sexual partners
more often than women. Cochran and May (1990) reported that both men
and women have lied to a partner to obtain sex and frequently reportedthat
they would actively or passively deceive a datingThe
partner.
use or insistence
on theuse of acondom may constitute an admission of previous undesirable
behavior oran unspoken accusation againstthe otherperson.
In response, several countries and stateshave considered enacting laws
that require disclosureto domestic partners of HIV test results, In Texas, for
example, it is against the law foran HI~infected
person to purposely have
sex with others to spread the disease, The problem with unprotected sex is
that one person literally trying
to kill the other can
now use sex as a weapon.
Even if sex is not intended as a weapon, one domestic partners behavior
may have permanent consequences for the other partner. The need for protection and trustgoes beyondthe emotional part of a relationship and ime
pinges on physical safety.The need for co~municationbetween the couple
becomes not just a matter of convenience but a matter of safety.
The willin~ess
to ask questions about prior sexual behavior is difficult
given taboos most people
have about discussing prior sexual behavior
with a
potential partner. Baxter and Wilmot (1985) foundthat past relationships,
other present relationships, sexual habits,and sexual experiencesare often

taboo topics in relational development. n e t h e r the onset of

HIV infection can s i ~ i ~ c a n talter

l y thatdynamic in a relationship r e m a ~ s
unclear (particularly for heterosexuals). The barrier means that onesource
of i n f o ~ a t i o n(assuming that a member of a dyad would behonest or that
they have even been tested and
know their HIV status)is unavailable to a
owever, the failure to consider issuesof sexuality potentially put a
alth atrisk. The result is a sense of privacy or a desire of not wanting to know about the prior sexual historyof the otherperson. The current
social expectations aboutconversation make such discussions for most
couc
ples inappropriate?awkward, and difficult to conduct. The notion that one
should not kiss and tell? meansthat people maynot want to reveal specific
or full information. The couple may tacitly agree therefore not to discuss
past relationships, an unspoken relational conversational rule reinforced
through social practice.
e problem of even attempting todiscuss the subject requires an elec
ment of timing. To bring upthe topic too soon in a conversation, date,
or re0
lationship may assume or promote the possibility of a sexual interaction
when none is intended or the statusof a relationship is still ambiguous. To
discuss the topic may create anassumption by one partnerthat sexual relations will occur, which is not shared by the othermember of the dyad. Merely
including the topic in adiscussion with someonegenerates atopic, the introduction of which may beor may seemto be inappropriate. The problem
focuses on dealing with the nature of timing and confidence as well asdealing withthe impact that a disclosure may have on theemerging relationship.
The literature on date rape indicates that a primary consideration is a
misperception between males and females about the sexual implications of
any conversation (Abbey, 1987).A female introducing thetopic of safer sex
risks misinte~retation,because her partnermay assume an interest insex0
ual interaction when noneis intended.
Currently, little information exists about how couplesdeal with this issue.
In many situations couples may not handle this issue and ignore the exis#
tence of safer sex issues
in personal relationships and putthemselves at risk.
People may not talk about safe sex issues because
they do notbelieve them,
selves at risk. Adelman (1991 1992) examined how couplescreate conver
sations and games to handle issues of safesexual practices. The couple about
to engage in sex must find
a methodof introducing the practice of safer sex*
ual conduct withoutof5ending the otherperson or implicitly violating an as0
sumption that either person shares about the conduct of the relationship.
The goal of educational interventionis to generate a routinebehavior that
individuals can adoptthat permits the introductionof the safe sex topic and

n additionto relational issues, contextual or situational

features may ine
uence thediscussion of sexual practices between partners. ~ i t h i the
n cone

tion pro~rams.In addition, many states do not have mandat~s on

instruction, and therefore, school districts have local o~tionin

on theworthiness an
out that
e to change behavior on infor~ation
of their own
ed ~nowl~dge
should includei n f o ~ a t i
access to services, includin

ers, is associated wt

ehavior occurs can be conditions that often are the most difficultin which
o implement that particular change. This creates an enormous challenge
in education who are trying to create a behavioralroutine
least likely to permit their implementation.

planning that would generate minimal~risksexual behaviors. The issue is

an individual may feel a desire
not to have a conversatio~al
eloped becausesuch a plan means confronting ones sexual
desires and behaviors. The first step in any educational int
ally convincin~a person that the develop~ent
of a script
the development of some type of antisocialor undesirable practice.

~ompliance0gain~g
research focuses on how communication strate~es
are usedto accomplish behavioral outcomesand examines howcommunica~
es can be used to create the motivation to engage in a behavior.In
e goal is for
one member of the dyad to engage in a particularbe+
havior. The problem iswhether these activities are vie
ed as one person gain0
ing compliance or whether the actions are conside negotiated behaviors
between two individuals. Viewing this as a negotiated behavior
that each person will generate reasons for a particular action.
In a ne
there exists the possibility for compromise
or alte~atives.In compliance gaining, the goal is a behaviorthat is evaluated as a desirable
or necessary outcome
to judge the effectiveness of the message. Individua~must be convinced
that
the use of condom
a
is not simply a behavior
that is negotiated, but a behavior
that should be viewed as somethingthat is ~ o ~ e g o t i a b lThus,
e.
educators
need to help people view this
interaction as not only important,
in creating effective interactio~ that
lead to safer sex practice
~ommunicationresearch demonstrates that theinitial view of an interaction may be changed as a result
of ongoing communication.This is partic@
ularly true for situations involving efforts at persuasion or compliance
gaining. For some efforts, the goal of a communicator may be to create a
change in perceptions to increase the effectiveness of the outcome. The
question related to sexual behavioris the development of a communication
script or patternthat will increase the probability of condom use.
Little work has examined about the perceptual framework of sexual interaction to illustrate whether eachmember of the dyad feels asthough the
interaction uses negotiation or compliance gaining. Insistence
on a particw
lar sexualact orform of sexual act represents something that cancreate real
problems for a relationship,
depending on theview that each member has of
the dynamics of that relationship. The need for one member of the dyad to
insist on a particularmethod of sexual behaviorcreates some potentiallyantagonistic dynamicsin a developing relationship.
Some important considerations for framingthe issues of safe sexual practiceswarrant investigation.
Gender remainsan important consideration in sexual issues. Many define
the role of women in a sexualencounter as being responsible forp r e ~ a n c y
prevention, and the role of women typically involves
the regulation and cone
duct of sexual behaviorthat theman accepts or rejects.
One feature of inter,
est is the degree to which both men and women accept or reject responsibility
of a condom. Unlike pregnancy,
both parmers areat risk fi-om the
this represents a joint responsibility
that has implications forboth
individuals. The question is to what degreeboth members of a heterosexual
dyad accept responsibility for practicing safer sexual behaviors.

series of meta~analysesdealin
ucation and prevention
rrent database contains mor
re dealing with AIDS educa
a
information is
vention. A copy of the complete bi~liographyas well coding
available from the first author. The issues involve considerable attempts
urage the reduction of risk behaviorsin a varietyof
t persons examined the titles of the articles in the
ermined the suitability forthis analysis.
accumulation, even with more than 2,
begin to tap the reservoir of potential manuscripts that exist. Currently) the
unowned material listed in thebibliography will, when
obtained, add at least
another 2,500 manuscriptsto this effort. The immense sizeof this literature
ined with the nume
dexes that must be searched and number of
manuscripts notcontain
any index means that any literature search
will alwaysbe inefficient. The number of manuscripts in foreign journals and
those published in a languageother thanEnglish presents great
a
challenge
when assem~lingthis database. Both interlibrary loan at theinternational
level or attemptsto purchase manuscripts, as well as problems
in generating
an accurate translation of the material, represent unusual and lengthy de,
lays forthis project.
To be included in the current analysis an investigation had to contain
~uantitativeinformation dealing with couples negotiation of safer sexbee
haviors. The data had to deal with the willingness of a member of a dyad
considering sexualintercourse to address the issues of safer sex, including:
(a) useof a condom, (b) past sexual practices, (c) past
drug use, or (d) issues
relating to a discussionof the serious riskof HIV infection. The critical focus
had to concern some aspectof discussing the issues or the failure to discuss
the issue of safe sex or
HIV with the potential sexual partner.The goal of this
meta-analysis is to examine the content of interpersonal communications
on safe sex practices. Some manuscripts, although meeting the content
standards, could not be used due to deficient or incomplete statistical reporting that did not permit the recovery of an effect size (Eldridge et al.,
1997; Engelbert, Flora, 6,Nass, 1995; Freimuth, Hammond, Edgar, McDonald, & Fink, 1992; Gordon & Carey, 1996; Hobfall, Jackson, Lavin,
Britton, & Shepherd, 1993; Kalichman, Rompa,6,Coley, 1997; Malow
Ireland, 1996; Walter et al., 1993a; Z i m ~ e ~ &
a nOlson, 1994) dealing

Abraham
Basen-Engquist
Bryan
Chen
Cline
Cohen
Deren
DiClemente
Edgar
F. Fisher
W Fisher

Goldman
G ~ ~ ~ e y
Helweg
Herold
Johnson
Kasen
Kinnick
Knaus
Magura
Malow (1993)
Malow (1994)
Marin
Overby
Reel
Sacco
Sheer
Shoop
Valdiserri
Waldron
Walter (1 993)

.050
-.070

.l85
.l26
-.201
-.248
.282
,357
-.l00
-.07 1
.l25
.274
,421
.3 16
.375
-.288
"$206
.206

.ooo

.l05
.388
-.190
-.030
-.l91
.348
.394
.363
,420
.302
-.062
,249
-.216
-.195
.l50
.322
.050
.210
.311

35 1
60
198
202
588
509
106
112
75
204
290
39
62
50
33
602
95
95
239
169
108
274
834
184
21 1
136
235
594
72
26 1
74
229
465
290
89
759
120
53 1

Gender
Conversation
Conversation
Conversation
Gender
Gender
Conversation
Conversation
Gender
Gender
Conversation
Conversation
Conversation
Conversation
Conversation
Gender
Gender
Conversation
Gender
Gender
Conversation
Gender
Gender
Gender
Conversation
Conversation
Conversation
Conversation
Conversation
Gender
Conversa~ion
Gender
Gender
Conversation
Conversation
Conversation
Conversation
Gender

926

249

Walter (1994)
Wilson
Wulfert
Yesmont

--.273
-.110

.OW
-.254
* 180
.244

97 1
403
177

Gender
Conversation
Conversation
Gender
Conversation
Conversation

Note. For gender, a negative correlation indicates the women are more likely to discuss safer sex issues.

with other forms of interaction (patient~octor;Vanderfor

lis, 1992), dealing with determining reactions to existing messages or sec
quencing of behaviors(Edgar & Fitzpatrick,1993;Sheer,
1995), not
co~idering the
conversation's implications (e.g., ~ a t i c k a ~ T ~ d a1991;
le,
~ e u w i r t h6~unwoody,1989; Weisse, Turbiasz,& Whitney, 1995; Winett
et al., 1992), or using qualitative methods (Adelman, 1991, 1992; Wight,
1994; Willig, 1994). No study was excluded on the basis of sexual preference; however, although thereare an enormous number of studies examine
ing homosexual (particularly males') safer sex practices,
no study focused on
conversational issues. Therefore, the entire database consists of studies that
only included heterosexual participants.

The statistical analysis was conducted using a variance-centered form of

meta-analysis developed by Hunter and Schmidt(1990). This analysis assembles the available data, and thentransforms the observed effectsinto a
common metric (in this case r).The transformed data arethen averaged to
establish an overall effect.Then, theoverall effect issubjected to some examination of the variability.

The average effect across 26 studies

demonstrates that persons talking
about condoms prior to sex are more likely(r= .156, N = 5,5 11, variance=
.0107) than nontalkers to use condoms. The effect was heterogeneous,
~'(25,N = 5,511) = 192.23, p C .05, indicating the possible existenceof a
moderator variable. The size of the effect indicates that persons talking
about HIV infection and condom use with a potential sexual partner are
more likelyto use condoms than nontalking couples. "his confirms the argument that there exists aneed to develop abehavioral script about the dis-

ms as part of the sexual act that promotes the use of

ere were 18 studies comparing the willin~essof men

age in safer sexual communication.The average effect d
p omen are more likely(r = --.124,N = ~ , ~variance
8 ~ ,=
ehavior. The effect washeterogeneous,
,indicating the possible existence of a
f the 10effects were negative,indicating that theeffect is fairly con0
in favoring women.The moderator variable may distinguish between
aller effectsrather than differentiating on the
basis of direction
ale conversation.
be effective with females and
nsider the relative
failure
males to engage or initiate such conversations.

of

The findings providean important backdrop for understanding why couples

choose to discuss and not discuss various issueswithin a relationship. The
key to any educational effort designedto improve the willingness of couples
to engage in open discussions prior to sexual behavior requires an understanding of the factors both inhibiting and promoting a discussionof
infection and transmission. Any method attemptingto decrease the wil
ness of persons to engage in risky behaviorsmust assess increased conversations between partners as one possibility. A meta-analysis of educational
inte~entions(Soglolowet al., 1998)indicates that safe sex does increase afO
ter educational efforts.
A problem remainswhen dealing with moral and social stigmas regard
taboo topics. The problem with discussionof sexual behavior orthe CO
tions of sexual behavioris that sexual talk carries with it assumptions about
the nature of the relationship that must exist prior to the discussion. No
amount of educational effort is likelyto change the basic set of assumptions
about the nature of relationships generated by social mores. The educational efforts must work within those
cultural assumptions by capitalizin~ on
the values heldby the individuals that are reflected in their behavioral prac-

uld have regarding a woman saying

no to sex ~ t h o uat

creasing the level of individual assertiveness, particularlyon sexual issues.

Assertive individualsare able to speak their minds and they act in their own
best interests without denying or infringing on the rights of others. From an
interactionist perspective, assertiveness is likely to be a key variable in the
social interaction of discussing condom use (Treffke, Tiggemann,
,1992). Ross (1988) suggested that the ability to raise the issue of
use in sexual encounters withoutfear of rebuff
nent of a general assertive personality style.
assertive communication strategies successfu
ompliance gaining(e.g., Edgar, Freimuth, H
1992;Freimuth et al., 1992; Yesmont,
African ~ m e r i c a nwomen who took sexual assertiveness classes were
twice as likely
to use condoms consistentlyafter war^ than those who took a
standard 2ehour AIDS in~ormationcourse taught in a clinic.~ m o n other
g
things, the assertiveness classestaught how to puta condom on a partner,
how to express sexual desires
firmly, and how to cope with sexualsituati~ns
when one or both
participants have beendrin~ing.Thus, itis expecte
individuals, and especially a womans levelof assertiveness, should have a

direct impact on communication regarding condom use and hence actual

condom use.
This pool of research studies did not include homosexuals or intravenous
drug users as an explicit grouping. Some highOriskpopulations are not in.
cluded in this set of data. Because intravenous drug users are engaged in an,
other setof behaviors that may involve risk,
this indicates that onepotential
set of the groups behaviors are unknown. The risk of transmission comes
from the intravenous drug users potential to infect the otherperson, and
the lover may not know about the use of such substances.
The lack of an identified homosexualpopulation in thestudy means that
one specific groupwith a unique risk potential is not included in this analysis. The homosexual malecommunity may have developed anorm through
socialization that makes such conversation unnecessary. Consider that in
virtually any bar gay
for men thereis a bowlof free condoms next to the pea0
nuts, as well as
AIDS and HlV informational posters and pamphlets that are
conspicuous. Virtually all heterosexual bars have condoms for sale in the
restrooms. The social patterns may be such that sexual behavior provides a
script or expectation that involves acondom for gay men andnot for heterosexual couples.This process of accepting the need for condoms may be one
that could be incorporated for heterosexuals as well. However, empirical
studies need to be conducted on thedevelopment and application of safe
sex practices and discussions by gay men.
One limitation to the simple application of these findings involvesthe is0
sue of not considering the ethnographic trap inherent in a meta0analysis.
The e t ~ ~ o ~trup
u prefers
~ ~toc the inability to simply take the findings of any
particular meta-analysis and apply them to some cultural setting. The find*
ings of any meta-analysis involve establishing
the degree of connection between abstract theoretical entities called variables, The manifest~tionof
those variables in any given society requiresan understanding of how that
social system enacts the properties of those variables. Such knowledge is
cultural, situated in theshared experiences of the community and theuse of
common symbols and meanings that defines that community. The key to
successful applicationis the translation and application of the general find0
ings of the meta-analysis to meet the symbolic requirements and needs of
the particular language community.
This implies aconnection between varc
ious levels of knowledge, which is explained elsewhere (Allen 6L Silver,
1997). The truly successful implementation of any program of education
that seeks achange in fundamental social behavior will require a great
deal
of consideration about the various needs of the community forwhich it is intended. The current lack of sophisticated effortsof combining such levels of
knowledge generates a potential pitfall that is often unaddressed,

An examination of several interpersonal communication textbooks rec

veals little i n f o ~ a t i about
o ~ A I D S or HIV communication in relationships.
~ g the i~portanceof the topic, especiallyto college stuc
This is s u r p ~ given
dents on US.campuses. The need to reduce the risk ofinfection by the use of
condoms or abstinence is high,and still textbooks failto mention this topic.
The finding is surprising becausethe topic is obviously relevant to a variety of
issues in interpersonal communication (intimacy, relational escalation,
self0disclosure, turning points, relational history, etc.). The communication
surrounding safersex introduces the need to consider a variety of sexual preferences and practices in a manner that increases the likelihood of open disc
cussion by partners in an interpersonal relationship. The failure to include
these topics after morethan a decade of research and given the need of the
readers of the text for such information deservescontinued discussion and exploration. The failure of interpersonal communication textbooks to include
what should become
a fundamental consideration currently and in the fbture
proves troublesome. Given the growing body of research available on this
topic, the ability to incorporate the material exists.
Educational efforts must not only target increasing knowledgeabout the
nature of HIV infection and themethods of reducing risk. The educational
efforts must involvea method of examining how each partner can create
a
behavioral routine to permit a conve~sationaldynamic encouraging the discussion of sexual matters ina meaningful manner.If educational efforts focus simply on increasing knowledge about the risk of HIV without creating
the knowledge necessaryto create a behavioral routine that permits members of dyads to identify mechanismsto communicate about this risk, efforts
will probably fail. Styker et al. (1995) argued, Social and behavioral scic
ences have pointed out effective HIV prevention programs; the prospects
for altering the course of the HIV epidemic will turn on whether we have the
courage to implement them and the fortitude to sustain them
(p. 282).

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the metac

analysis. In thecase wherea data setappears in more than onemanuscript,
the earliest representation is indicated in the text andtable.
Abbey, A. (1987).Misperceptions of fiiendly behavioras sexual interest: A survey of naturally occurring incidents. ~ s ~ c of~~ oo r~n~oe ~~ ~
1
~I, 173-194.
t
e
~
~
~
,
Abraham, C., Sheeran, E,Spears, R., 6.Abrams, D.(1992).Health beliefs and promotion
of HIV-preventive intentions among teenagers: A Scottish perspective. Health Comrnuco cut^^, I I , 363-3 70.
Adelman, M. (1991).Play and incongruity: Framing safe-sex talk. ~ e uC ~
o r nt r ~
n~~~cu~~on,
3, 139-155.

Adelman, M. (1992).Sustaining passion: Eroticismand safe-sex talk.Archives of S~~~ Be~ v i 2ol , 48

~ 1494.
Allen, M., & Emmers-Sommer, 71: (1998, April).AIDS Reseurch~A n agendafor ~ e t u - u ~ l ~ sis. Report presented at the Central States Co~municationAssociation Convention,
Chicago.
~ v~e ~ ~ i t uupprouches
t ~ v e to know~edge~
Allen, M., & Silver, C. (1997, April).~ u n t i ~ tand
n c ~for~the ~r e ~ t i o ~ hbetween
ip
e ~ ~ me
i ~
tho^.
c u ~
Proposing U eth hod o ~ ~ uinte~ution
Paper presented at the Central States Communication Association Convention, St.
Louis, MO. (ERIC Document Reproduction ServiceNo. ED 405 628)
asen-Engquist, K. (1992). Psychosocial predictors of "safer sex" behaviors in young
t ~
Prevention,
~
4, 120-134.
adults. AIDS E d ~ uand
axter, L.A., & Wilmot, W.W. (1985).Taboo topicsin close relationships.Jou~~
ofSoc~~
and P e r s R~e ~~ t i ~ h i p2,s ,253-269.
Bruce, K.,Shrum, J., Trefethen, C., & SIovik, L. (1990). Students3attitudes about AIDS,
homosexuali~,and condoms. A I D S ~ d u c u t ~and
o n Prevention, 2, 220-234.
"Bryan, A., Aiken, L., & West, S. (1996). Increasing condom use: Evaluation
of a theorybased intervention to prevent sexually transmitted diseases in young women. Heu~th
P s ~ c h o ~lo5,37
~ , 1-382.
*Chen,71: (1997,May) College students' ~ e ex~osure
d ~t o A I D S / I n t e ~ e r s o ~ ~ c o ~ ~ u n ~ c u
ubout AIDS and their ~erceptionsand uda~tiveresponses t o w u r ~AIDS prevent^^^ Does
"tu~k~ng u~out
AIDS" r e u help?
~ ~Paper
~ presented at the International Communi~tion
Association Convention, Montreal, Canada.
*Cline, R., Freeman, K., & Johnson, S. (1990). Talk among sexual partners about AIDS:
Factors differentiating those who talk from those do
who
not. C ~ ~ u n ~ c uResearch,
t~on
f 7,792-808.
*Cline,R., Johnson, S., &Freeman, K.(1992).Talk amongsexual partnersabout AIDS: Interpersonal communication risk reduction or risk enhancement? ~ e u ~Ct oh ~ ~ u n ~ c u 0
tion, 4, 39-56.
Cochran, S., & Mays, V. (1990, March15). Sex, lies,and HIV. New E ~ ~ ~ n dofMediJ o u ~ ~
cine, 322, 774-775.
*Cohen, D., 6. Dent, C. (1992).The validity ofself-reported condom
use. A~er~cunJournul
of Public Heu~th,82, 1563-1564.
*Deren, S., Shedlin, M., 6r. Beardsley, M. (1996). HIV-related concerns and behaviors
among Hispanic women.AIDS Educution and P~event~on,
8, 335-343.
"DiCiernente, R. (1991). Predictors of HIV-preventive sexual behavior ina high-risk adolescent population:The influence of perceived peer normsand sexual communication
ofAdolescent H e u ~ t12,
~,
on incarcerated adolescents' consistentuse of condoms.JournuE
385-390.
"Edgar, '"E,&Fitzpatrick, M. (1993).Expectationsfor sexualinteraction: A cognitivetest of
Heu~thC o ~ ~ u n ~ u t 5,239-261.
ion,
the sequencingof sexual communication behaviors.
*Edgar, T,Freimuth, V., Hammond, S., McDonald, D., & Fink, E. (1992). Strategic sexual
communication: Condom use resistance and response.
~ e u ~~o t~ ~~ u n ~ 4,83-104.
c u t i ~ ,
Eldridge, G., St. Lawrence, J., Little, C., Shelby, M., Brasfield, X,Service, J., 6r Sly, K.
(1997).Evaluation of an HIV riskreduction intervention for womenentering inpatient
substance abusetreatment. AIDS Educution and Prevent~on,9(Supp. A), 62-76.
Engelbert, M., Flora, J., & Nass, C. (1995). AIDS knowledge: Effects of channel involven ~73-91.
cut~on,
ment and interpersonal communication. H e u ~ t ~ C o ~ ~ ~ 7,

*Fisher, J., Fisher, W., Williams, S., & Malloy, X (1994). Empirical tests of an i n f o ~ a 0
tion-motivation-behavioral skills model of AIDS-preventive behavior with gay men
and heterosexual university students. H e u ~ t ~ P s y c h13,
o ~ 238-250.
o~,
*Fisher, W., Fisher, W., & Rye, B. (1995). Understanding and promoting AIDS-preventive
~,
behavior: Insightsfrom the theory ofreasoned action. ~ e uP s~y ct ~~o l o14,255-264.
Freimuth, V., Hammond, S., Edgar, X, McDonald, D.,&Fink, E.(1992). Factors explaining
intent, discussion and use of condomsin first-time sexualencounters. H e u ~ t ~ ~ d u c u t ~
~ e s e u r c7,
~ ,203-2 15.
Goldman, J., & Harlow, L. (1993). Self-perception variables
that mediate A~D~0preven0
tive behavior in college students. H e u ~ psycho
t~
lo^, 12, 489-498.
reduction in
Gordon, C., &Carey, M. (1996). Alcohol's effects on requisites for sexual risk
men: An initial experimental investigation.H e u ~ t ~ P s ~ c15,
h o56-60.
~o~,
*Grimley, D., Prochaska,J., Velicer, W., &Prochaska, G. (1995). Contraceptivean
A stage paradigm approach.H e a ~ & ~ E d u c u t i ~
use: Adoption and maintenance:
22, 20-35.
*Helwe~Larsen,
M., &Collins, B. (1994). The UCLA multidimensional condom
attitudes
scale: Documenting the complex determinants of condom use in college students.
Heulth Psycho~o#, f3, 224-237.
"Herold, E., & Mewhinney, D. (1993). Gender differences in casual sexand AIDS prevention: A survey of dating bars. ~
o of Sexu ~esearch,
~
30,
~ 36-42.
Hobfall, S., Jackson, A., Lavin,J., Britton, E, &Shepherd, J. (1993). Safer sex knowledge,
~ t ~ 12,481-488.
behavior, and attitudes of inner-city women.~ e uPsycho~o#,
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, J. (1990). Methods o f m e ~ - u ~ l Correcting
y s ~ ~ error and bias in research ~ndings.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
*Johnson,E.,Hinkle, Y., Gilbert, D., & Gant, L. (1992). Black maleswho always use condoms: Their attitudes, knowledge about AIDS, and sexual behavior.
of the Nut
~ Medical
o
~ s o~c ~ t ~84,
o n341-352.
,
Kalichman, S., Rompa, D., & Coley, B. (1997). Lack of positive outcomes from a cognitive-behavioral HIV and AIDS prevention intervention for inner-city men: Lessons
from a controlled pilotstudy. AIDS E d u c u t i ~and Prewen&~on,
9, 299-3 13.
"Kasen, S., Vaughan, R., & Walter, H.(1992). Self-efficacy for AIDS preventive behaviors
~ t ~ er^^, f9, 187-202.
among tenth grade students. ~ e uEducut~on
"Kinnick, B., Smart, D., Bell, D., Blank, W., Gray,
X, &Schoeber, J. (1989). As assessment
of AIDS-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors among selected college
and university students. AIDS B Pub~icPolicy ~ o u ~4,u 112-1
~ , 19.
*Magura, S., Shapiro, J., Siddiqui, Q., & Lipton, D. (1990). Variables influencing condom
use amongintravenous drug users. American
of Pubkc ~ e a ~80,t 82-84.
~ ,
"Maibach, E., & Flora, J. (1993). Symbolic modeling and cognitive rehearsal: Using video
to promote AIDS prevention self-efficacy.Communicut~onResearch, 20, 517-545.
"Malow, R., Corrigan, S., Cunningham, S., West, J., &Pena, J. (1993).Psychosocial factors
associated with condom use among African-American drug in
abusers
treatment. A I ~ S
Eaucution and Prewention, 5, 244-253.
Malow, R.,& Ireland, S. (1996). HIV riskcorrelates amongnon-injectioncocaine dependent men in treatment. AIDS Ea~cationand Prewention, 8, 226-235.
"Malow, R., West, J., Corrigan, S., Pena, J., &L Cunningham, S. (1994). Outcome of
psychoeducation for HIV risk education. AIDS Education and Prevention, 6, 113-125.
"Marin, B., Gbmez, C., Tshann, J., & Gregorich, S. (1997). Condom use in unmarried La~ o458-467.
~,
tino men: A test of cultural constructs.~ e a ~Pt sh ~ c ~ o 16,
~~~~

~~~~

Maticka-Tyndale, E. (1991). Sexual scripts andAIDS prevention: Variationsin adherence

to safer-sex guidelinesby heterosexual adolescents. ~~~l of Sex ~eseurch,28, 45-66.
Metts, S., & Fitzpatrick, M. (1992). Thinking about safer sex:The risky business of "know
your partner" advice.In 'XEdgar, M.Fitzpatrick, &V,
Freimuth (Eds.),AIDS: A commun~utionperspect~ve(pp. 1-19). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Neuwirth, K., & Dunwoody, S. (1989). The complexity of AIDS-related behavioral
change: The interaction between communica~ionand noncommunication variables.
Pub~icP o l i ~4,
, 20-30.
urban populationofhigh-risk
*Overby, K., & Kegeles, S. (1994). The impact ofAIDS on an
female minority adolescents: Implications Ifor
n t e ~ e n t i o n . ~ oofAdo~escent
u~l
Heu~th,
15, 216-227.
*Reel, B., &Thompson, 'X(1994). A test of the effectiveness of strategies for talkingabout
AIDS and condom use.
of A p p l ~ dCommun~cutionReseurch, 22, 127-140.
Ross, M. (1988). Prevalence of classes of risk behaviors forHIV infection in a randomlyselected Australian population.~ o uof Sex
~ lResearch, 25, 441-450.
rs
*Rye, B. (1990). Affective and cognitive~redictorsof AIDS ~reventiveb e ~ v ~umongfemu~e
~ n ~ v e r sstudents.
it~
Unpublished master's thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
*Sacco, W., Rickman, R., Thompson, K., Levine, B., & Reed, D. (1993). Gender differences in AIDS-relevant
condom attitudes and condom use.AIDS ~ducutionand Prevention, 5, 31 1-326.
*Sheer, V. (1995). Sensation seeking predispositionsand susceptibility to a sexual partner's
appeals for condomu s e . ~ ofApp~ied
~ ~ u ~ Commun~ut~on
Research, 23, 212-229.
"Sheer, V., &Cline, R. (1994). The development and validationof a model explainingsexualbehavioramongcollegestudents:
Implications for AIDS communication campaigns. Human Co~mun~cution ~eseurch,
2 I , 280-304.
"Shoop, D., & Davidson, E (1 994). AIDSand adolescents:The relation of parent and partner com~unication to
adolescent condom use. ~~~u~ of Ado~escence,I 7, 137-148.
Sogolow, E., Semaan, S., Johnson, W., Neumann, M,, Ramirez, G., Sweat, M,, & Doll, L.
safer sex: Metu-analyses, overu~~
and for
(1998). Efiects of US-bused HIV ~ n t e r v e n t ~ono ~
p o ~ l u t i ouge
~ , groups, and settings (International Conference on AIDS, Abstract No.
14283). Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control.
"Stebleton, M., & Rothenberger, J. (1993). Truth or consequences: Dishonesty in dating
and HIVIAIDS-related issues in collegepopulation. ~ o u m
~
of Americun
College
Hea~th,42, 51-54.
Stryker, J.,Coates, 'X,
DeCarlo, E,Haynes-Sanstad, K., Shriver, M,,
& Makadon, H.(1995).
Prevention of HIVinfection: Looking back, looking ahead.Jouml ofthe Americun Medical ~ s o c ~ t i o273,
n , 1143-1 148.
Treffke, H., Tiggerman, M,, & Ross, M. (1992). The relationship between attitude, asser~o~
Heult~,6, 45-52.
tiveness, and condom use. P s ~ c h o and
Unks, G. (1996). Will schools risk teaching about the risk of AIDS?The C~euringh~se,
69(4), 205-2 l 1.
"Valdiserri, R.,Arena, V., Proctor,D., & Bonati, E (1989). The relationshipbetween
women's attitudes and condoms andtheir use: Implications for condom promotion programs. American J~~~ of P ~ b ~ i c H e79,
u ~499-500.
t~,
~~~~

IplCr SAFER SEX

Vanderford, M,,Smith, D.,&Harris, W. (1992). Value identification in narrative discourse:

o o ~ uA ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ e d
~ n ~ c
Evaluation of an HIV education demonstrationproject. ~
tion Research, 20, 123-160.
~ a l d r o nV,,
, Caughiin, J., 6.Jackson, D. (1995). Talking specifics: Facilitating effects
of
u ~ n ,
planning on AIDS talk in peer dyads. Heu~thC o ~ ~ ~ n ~7,c249-266.
*Walter, H., Vaughan, R., Gladis, M., Ragin, D., Kasen, S., ticohall, A . (1993a). Factors
associated withAIDS-related behavioral intentions among high schoolstudents in an
~ 409-420.
~ r t e r ~ ~ ,
AIDS epicenter. Heu~thE d ~ a t ~ ~ 20,
*Walter, H., Vaughan, R., Gladis, M., Ragin,
D., Kasen, S., & Cohall, A. (1993b). Factors
associated with AIDS-related behaviors among high schoolstudents in an AIDS epicenter. A ~ e ~ c u n of~ Po~ u~ ~H~ e~iu ~
c t82,
~ , 528-532"Walter, H., Vaughan, R., Ragin, D.,
Cohall, A.,& Kasen, S. (1994). Prevalence and correlates of AIDS6related behavioral intentions among urban minority high school students. AIDS Educut~onand prevent^^, 6,339-350.
Weisse, C., Turbiasz,A,, 6 ~ h i t n e yD.
, (1995). Behavioral trainingand AIDS risk reduction: erc coming barriers to condom use. AIDS Ed~cut~on
and P r e v e ~ t i7,5049.
~,
Wight, D, (1994). Assimilating safer sex:
Young heterosexual men's understanding of "safer
sex." In I? Aggleton, I? Davies, & G. Hart (Eds.), AIDS: F ~ n ~ fort the~ future
o ~(pp.
97-109). London: Taylor & Francis.
Willig, C. (1994). Marital discourseand condom use. In I? Aggleton, E Davies, & G. Hart
i othe
~ future (pp. 110-121). London: Taylor & Francis.
(Eds.), AIDS: F o ~ n ~ tfor
"Wilson, '
E,Jaccard,J., Endias, R.,6 Minkoff, H. (1993). Reducing the risk of HIV infection for women:
An attitudinal analysis ofcondom-ca~ing behavior.~ou~u~
o ~ A ~ ~ ~
So~hialP s ~ c ~ o 23,
~ o 1093-1
~,
110.
Winett, R., Anderson,E., Moore,J., Sikkema,K., Hook, R., Webster, D., Taylor, C.,Dalton,
J., Ollendick,T, 6.Eider, R.(1992).Family/media approach to HIV prevention: Results
with a home-based, parent-teen video program.Health P s ~ c h o ~IoI ~, 203-206,
,
"Wulfert, E., &Wan, C. (1995).Safer sexintentions and condom use viewed froma health
belief, reasoned action, and social cognitive perspective. ~
o of Sex
u ~eseurch,
~
~32, ~
299-3 11.
*Yesmont, G.(1992). The relationship of assertivenessto college students' safer sex behaviors. Ado~escence,27, 253-272.
~immerman,R., &Olson, K. (1994). AIDS-related risk behavior and behavior change
a
in
sexually active, heterosexual sample: test
A of three models of prevention.AIDS Education and Preve~t~on,
6, 189-205.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

A ~ a n ist~to^i of~the~Dawn
~ of ~e~~
Two furry Neanderthals, Vag and Arg, were facing off, brandishing their
clubs and snarling. Arg knew he could never beatVag in a fight, but then he
remembered that he had achieved some success in the past resolving disputes without resorting to violence. He attempted that technique
in thismomentous encounter,saying to Vag, Wait! Can we talk about this?Vag was
somewhat surprised by Args suggestion, so he decided to listen, although he
remained wary. Oddly enough, after some discussion, Vag decided that it
wouldnt make senseto smash Argover the headif he didnt have to, and he
went away strangely relieved.
Some days later, Arg heard aruckus and went toinvestigate. He found Vag
and another Neanderthal, Meeg, shouting at eachother. Vag was making
some sense, but mostly he was hurling insults and threats at Meeg. Meeg fie
nally gavein and left,shaking his head, grumbling under his breath. Afterward, Vag proudly boasted to Arg that he had beatenMeeg with words, just
like Arg had taughthim.
Arg was deeply troubled. Meeg plainlyhad not left satisfied with the encounter. Argthought thatthis would surelylead to more conflict between Vag and

Meeg in the future, This

was not how Arg thought his talking strategy should
be used. It should be used to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution; it
should not be usedto beatpeople. Arg decided he had
better find away to
clearly distinguish between talking to achieve cooperative solutions and
talking as just
another way of bullying people because some people, like Vag,
had clearly confused the two.
Arg wanted a convincing to
way
make his point,
so he invented meta-analysis.
Argumentativeness theory (Infante, 1987) proposes that sources choose
between messages that are ar~mentativeand those that are verbally aggressive (Infante, 1981,1982,1985; Infante & Rancer, 1982,1993). Argumentative messages attack the positions that others take on given issues, whereas
verbally aggressive messages attack the self-concepts of others rather than
their positions (Infante & Rancer, 1982)+ As Dowling and Flint (1990)noted,
the theory depicts this choice
as dichotomous: A source must choose between
attacking issues or people. A central proposition of argumentativeness theory
is that by developing procedures that foster enlightened debate, researchers
can provide recommenda~onsfor the control of verbal aggression (Infante,
Hartley, Martin, Higgins, Bruning, &L Hur, 1992;Infante, Trebing, Shepherd,
eeds, 1984).We refer to this hypothesized causalchain as the c ~ ~ ~ c
~~~i~~ ~ o c e s s .Advocates of the theory believe that the accumulation of
knowledge about argumentation has beena defining feature of the communi0
cation discipline and that this pursuit should
play an important part in the disciplines future (Infante &L Rancer, 1996). If the advocates are correct about
the constructive learning process,then thetheory hasimportant social, political, and interpersonal ramifications.
~rgumentativenesstheory (Infante 63,Rancer, 1982) identifies personal.
ity and situationalvariables that determine how likely peopleare to choose
argu~entativeor verbally aggressive messages.
The theory specifies twomotivational factors: one that leads people to approach arguments and the
other that leads them to avoid arguments. These motivational factors are
thought to be key antecedents of whether an individual engages in arguments with others or falls back on pernicious, verbally aggressiveattacks.
In this chapter, we pose two important questions for argumentativeness
theory. The firstresearch question concerns the dimensionality of the
argumentativeness scale. Suppose
that thescale consistsof a single d ~ e n s i o n
that measures the generalpersonalitytrait
of motivation to argue.
Ar~me~tativeness
theorists representthe general trait of argumentativeness
with the abbreviation ARG,,. All individuals could berated as highto low on
this one motive. Conversely, suppose
that thescale consistsof two or morein-

dependent d i m e ~ i that
o ~ measure difterentmotivatio~to argue. Individuals could be clustered along these multiple dimensions, If the scale were
found to be m u l t i d ~ e ~ i o n athen
l , it would make sense for researchers to
classify people into different types of argumentatives as Infante and Rancer
(1996) suggested. Twine individuals in this waywouldprovide a coarse
means of capturing the interactionof the A R G a p and ARGavfactors on important criterion variables. If the scale were found to be unidimensional, however, then it would make little sense for researchersto classify people into a
variety of types.That would require selecting arbitrary
cutoftpoints along the
single dimension.
We begin by reviewing the conceptualization and operationalization of
argumentativeness, exposing what appears to be a logical inconsistency in
the theory that stems from the theorysproposalof a general trait of
argumentativeness. Argumentativeness theorists represent the motivation
to approach arguments with the abbreviation ARGap, and themotivation to
avoid arguments with the abbreviation ARG,,. The generaltrait of
argumentativeness is computed as the difference between scores on the approach-argument scale and scores on the avoid-argument scale as follows:

Computation of a single trait score is the correct procedure if the general

trait scale can be shown to be unidimensional; that is, the scale measures
one andonly one underlying trait. Ina unidimensional scale, scores on the
approach0ar~umentscale would be negatively
correlated with scoreson the
avoid-argument scale. That is, a person who is high on the general trait of
argumentativeness would tend to agree with items indicating that heor she
is motivated to approach arguments and disagree withitems indicating that
he or she is motivated to avoid arguments. Conversely,a person who is low
on general trait argumentativeness would tend to disagree with items indicating that he or she is motivated to approach arguments and agree with
items indicating that heor sheis motivated to avoid arguments.
Yet argumentativeness theorists claim that theARGap scale is independent of the ARC?,, scale. In other words, scores on the A R G a p scale are
uncorrelated with scores on theARGav scale. If they are correct,then the
ARG,, scale would contain several distinct subscales, making it multidimensional. Thus, argumentativeness theory claims that the ARC?,, scale is
both unidimensional and multidimensional. This inconsistency can be addressed by examining the correlation between the ARGap and ARGav scales:
A moderately negative correlation between the two scales would be prima

ivation to argue i
r~umentativ~ness

negative correlation rep

than therule. All other

her ability to argue increases his orher verbal a~~ressivenes.

is apersonsmotivation to argue.Infante an
umentativeness as a stable
trait that predisposes a source
to
controversies, advocate positions on controversial issues, and vert
bally attack the positions that others take. Their theory of ar~u~entativeness
was closely patterned after the achievement motivation theoryof Atkinson
(1964.). In Atkinsons model, the achievement motive was defined as acac
S

pacity for taking pridein ac~omplishment~

(p. 24.1) Winning an argument
ay be co~idereda form of inte rsonalaccomplishment. Infante
ncer (1982)describedengagingargumentas
an exciting intellec
llenge, a competitive situation (p. 72).
In his motivation theory, Atkinson (1964, 1974) proposed that
ment p e ~ o ~ a is~a c~ ne c t i o of
n the motivation to achieve success,
the motivation to avoid failure,
e conce~tual~ed
MSas the motivation
to approach c h a l l e n ~ tasks
g as
the motivation to avoid challen
motives combine to predict p e ~ o ~ a n on
c e chall
S operationalized as need for achievement (n Ach) an
test anxiety.
Similarly, Infante an
r (1982) identitwo sets of motivesassociatedwith arguin~:the
ion to a~proach
motivation to avoid arguments. In Atkinsons mo
ndent of one another, an ether the
two motives create
achievement s i t u a t i o ~
eferred to this clash of moconflict or an excitation-i
2) used precisely the same languaget
d ARGav.As evidence that MSand MAFare indeto studies that show that n Achis uncorrelated
suit, Infante and h n c e r (1982)
ndent of one another. We
ntially increase ARGq a
ly decrease ARGq and increa
achievement does appearto increase ARG,.
)
.

Argumentativeness theorists suggest three components to theARG,, scale

ncer, 1982). The first component is orientation towar
tions in which arguing may occur. An approach orientation is founded on
the perception that ar~umentis an intellectual challenge, a competitive situation that involves winningpoints and defending positions.The theory is
less clear about how those with an avoidance orientation perceive situations
in which arguingmay occur. Wesuspect that this orientation componentis
largely a function of ~o~petitiveness. The
second component is affective re#

Grade point average (GPA) could be taken as an indicator of n Ach. Infante (1982) reported
that the efTect ofcolleg4PA on ARG was .43. Infante and Rancer(1982) found that communication apprehension correlated .41 witk ARGav. These two findings are consistent with the m
shown in Fig. 16.1. However, Infante and Rancer also found that communication apprehension
correlated .45 with ARG,,-a finding inconsistent with the model in Fig. 16.1.

FIG.16.1. Modelproposed by argu~entativenesstheory.

sponse to arguing. Those who have an approach orientation experience feel*

ings of excitement as they anticipate arguing,aswellasfeelings
of
invigoration, satisfaction, and a sense of accomplishment following an argument. Thosewho have an avoidance orientation experience anxiety as they
anticipate arguing, as well as unpleasant feelings following an argument.
The theory does not indicate the nature of these unpleasant feelings. They
could be guiltor recrimination, hostility, sadness,or fear. The third motivac
tion concerns individuals' confidence in their ability to argue.

geneous content requires that any content themes that exist within a scale
should form a secondcorder factor. Tobe internally consistent, the items
should correlate with one another toapproximately the same degree, orthe
items should show a strong-weak adient if the items vary considerably in
quality. If the items are of approximately equal quality,then the correlation
matrix amongthe items should be relatively flat (all correlations are roughly
equal). If the items dif6er considerably in quality, then thecorrelations among

the items should f o m a pattern that reflects a gradient.* To be parallel, the

correlate with variablesthat are external to the scale to approxi"
me degree, or
the items can vary alonga strong-weak gradientin
their relation to the externa
le, If the items on the scale are all ofape
~roximatelyequalquality,itemswillall
correlate withoutside vari..
ables to approximately the
degree. If the itemsvaryconside
qualityalong a s~ong-we
t, then the strongest
items sho
the largest correlations with
the external variables, andthe weakest itemsthe
st correlatio~with the e ~ t e ~variables.
al
Parallel~mis the most pow01 in i d e n t i ~ i nnonunidimensional
~
it
a" as a measure of ARG, as shorn in E~uation1.
endation is appropriate only on theassumption that the
ale is unid~ensional.
av as distinct variables
av represented indepen~ent motiva~
ommendations in mind, we examined the conscale. The 20 items werei ~ p e c t e dfor content themes that
ensions. The second criterion we applied to the
,scale was internal consistency. Useof Equation 1implies that theitems
ally con~tent.
It is possiblethat ar~mentative0
ness researchers have c o n ~ s e da strong-weak gradient on the scale with
multidimensionality. As we show later, a number of researchers have discarded ARG, items in an egortto boost the scale's reliability.The third and
most important criterion was parallelism. Useof Equation 1 implies that the
items on the argumentativeness scaleare parallel.

ar~u~entativeness
theorists should use the term ~ e ~o ~
~ er ~
urather
~
~ t ~ o ~
than ~ e ~trait.
~ More
r u important,
~
treatinga multidimensional general oric
entation scale as a unidimensional, general trait scale could su~~tantially
decrease the correlation. of argumentative~esswith other variables.
Advocates of argumentativenes theoryare persistently unclearabout the
d i m e ~ i o n a lofi ~the ARG,, scale. They implythat
is unidimensional
when they routinely employ the formula in Equation 1 to compute A ~ G , ~

ARG,,

'The

technical name for this pattern is a G

ex,
t

t they make three c

that there are distinc

suggest five categories of argumen

equal ~equency. The
five argumentative groups are highs (high approach
with low avoidance), lows (low approach with high avoidance), apathetic
erates (low approach with l
voidance) ,conflicte
approach with high avoidance) , neutral moderates (
the neutral point on the ARC,,
RG,, scales) The categorical scheme
illustrated in Fig. 16.2 is necessa searchers
are to capture the nature of
ction between the ARG, and ~ R G , "scales.
e groupsare located along two axes, as shown
in Fig. 16.2.
mary axis runs through the low, neutral oder rate, and high clust
primaryaxisrepresentstheinfluence
of the general trait
o
argumentativeness. Low argumentatives are anxious about engaging in arc
guments, and feel no compulsion to argue. High argumentatives are comc
pelled to argue and experience little anxiety about engaging in argument. If
the argumentativeness items form a unidimensional scale,
then most people
will fall into one of these three clusters.
axis runs through the apathetic moderate, neutral moderate,
d moderate clusters. The secondary axis representsemotional
with arguing. The conflicted moderates are emotionally in#
volved with arguing.On the onehand, they are compelled to argue, driven
PS by competitiveness. On the other hand,
they are anxious about arc
perhaps gripped by the fear of failure. The apathetic moderates a
emotionally uninvolved with arguing. 'They feel
no compulsion to argue an
no anxiety over arguing. If the argumentativeness items are multidimen~
sional, forming two or more subscales,
then chances are that as many people
will fallinto either the apatheticmoderate and conflicted moderate clusters
.
)

FIG. 16.2. Five hypothesized types of orientation toward argu~entativeness.

h i ~ clusters.
h
That is, wew o u l ~ex
of appro~imatelyequal size.

scales are uncorrel

motivations as dis
c~iterionvariables. If argumentativeness
en multiple regression woul
for ~~~~~,
the main effect
by the product of
rion variables. If a r g u ~ e
then ~iscriminant
analy
low the researcher to examine the effect of relevant predictor variables on
membership in thefive clusters shownin Fig. 16.2.
It can be mislead in^ to combine hetero~eneoussubscales to form a
summative scale that is then correlated with other variables of inte~est

(Briggs, 1992). If A R G a p and ARGav are uncorrelated, they may correlate

rently with important predictor or criterion variables. If a multidimen0
l scale is summarized with
a single score, it will beprone to reduced cor#
relations with these important variables when researchers average across
the disparate subscales, Supposethat a teamof researchers employs a sample of 200 undergraduates. They find that their predictor variable X correc
lates -.26 with the A R G a v and .OO with the ARGap. The average acrossthe
two argument scales computed as the general trait score, -.13, would not
achieve statistical si~ificance0, > .05). If the correlations of X with the
ARGap and ARGav scales are reported, then thecorrect conclusion can be
retrieved. I( however, the difference formula is usedto obtain ARG,,, an
only the correlationbetween X and ARC,, isreported, then the correct conclusion is lost. "he researcher and perhaps the reader woul
conclude that there is no relation between X and ARG, .Thus
of whether theARG,, scale is unidimensional or multidimensional has seric
ous consequences for argumentativeness theory. If the ARGap and ARC&"
subscales were found to be uncorrelated, then most of the literature on
argum~ntativenesswouldbeof questiona
uebecause it reports correlations with ARG, rather than ARC,, o

Drawing on thework ofZillmann (1979) and Geen(1990), we define

~~~~

f f ~ T e s s ~aso an
~ activity that an aggressor intentionally directs toward in-+

tended victims that inflicts destruction on those victims or their property.

Three features of this definition have implications for the study of aggressive
com~unication.First, aggressivebehavior is intended to harm thevictim,
which rulesout accidental damage and implies a striving toward selfcasser..
tion (Storr, 1968) The intended harmcan range from mild,as in competitive activities, to severe, asin life~and~death
struggles. Second, destruction
can vary by degree, ranging from partial to complete. There should be at
least a moderately positive correlation between damage intended and dam0
age inflicted. Third, damage can be inflicted directly to the victim or indirectly to the victim'sproperty(Boelkins 6r Heiser, 1970), suggesting a
~ ~ T e c of
~ ~u ~ tsuscc~~ n t i n u u m . ~ I n t h e i r n a r r a t i v e review of the

31nan effort to develop a model of aggressive

com~u~ication,
Infante and Rancer
(1996) characterized argumentativeness as aofform
aggression. If we were
to accept an attack on another's
POsirion asan actof aggression, however, we would needto define a person's position on
impo~tant
social issues as their intellectual property. However, this definition seemed only to apply to co
of argumentation as an act of aggression,
right lawyers,so we rejected their characterization

argumentativeness literature, Infante and Rancer (1996) conch

males score are higher on both ARC, and verbal aggressiveness than fee
males. We included their gender-based predictions in that portion of
argumentativeness theory tested in our meta~analysis(see Fig. 16.1)

The constructive learning process depicted in Fig. 16.1 proposesthat arguc

mentation training has a chilling effect on verbal aggressiveness. Rancer,
Kosberg, and Silvestri (1992) proposed that training in argumentationen#
hances argumentativeness, argumentativeness enhances positive outcomes
during argument, positive outcomes during argument enhance self~esteem,
and self-esteemlowers verbal aggression. Indeed, Infante
(1996) claimed that teachers could reduce the level of verbal a
aggression in society by developing students argumentativene
hances positive outcomes of argument by improving argumentation skills,
such that ARC,, increases argumentation skill, and argumentation skill ind
creases positive outcomes from argument. Argumentativeness theory also
hypothesizes that argumentation skill inhibits verbal aggressiveness.
variable of positive outcomes from argument has rarely if ever been mead
sured. To s i m p l i ~the model shown in Fig. 16.1, we deleted the positive outc
comesvariable, and note that it
is supposed to mediate the effect of
argumentation skill on selfcesteem. Thus, themodel shownin Fig. 16.1 pose
its that argumentationtraining is connected to verbal aggressiveness
through the four-step causal chain.
To develop a hypothesized model from which
we could work,we sought to
estimate the size ofeach of the effects in themodel shownin Fig. 16.1.The efc
fect of argumentation training on ARG,, is actually small. Despitethe small
size of this effect, Infante and Rancer (1996) optimistically h i ~ h l i ~ h t eitdas
the most notable social ramification
of their theory. They emphasized
that the
promotion of ar~mentativenessis a major justification for
the past, present,
and future existence of the communication discipline. Data from ~nfante
(1982) indicate that high schooldebate training hada slight positive effect
on
ARC&,; ~(710)= .12. Data from Sanders, Wiseman, and Gass (1994)
su est
thatar~umentation instruction decreases ARGgr; ~ ( 3 =~-,04.
~ )
weighted correlation averaged acrossthese two studies is T( 1,067) = .07. The
Sanderset al. study contains apotentialproblemwithrespect
to
argumentativeness-the control group consistedof those enrolled in an
terpersonal communication course.
The course in interpersonal communicac
tion may have stressed the advantages of open com~unication,including
inc

to resolve conflict,Thus the ~nfante

result may be more accurate, or
ive effect o f ar umentation

the pathcoefficients

32) = 25, and with verbal

increases con~idence

uct rule of causal modelingto the data

used to test our working model.
ARCgt
and
verbal aggressivenessin this
predicted correlation between
model is -.01. This value is wellwithin sampling errorof the -.04 value we
as the observed correlation between ARG,, and verbal aggressive0
nce, the hypothesized model seemed promising. Our prelimina~
test of the working model revealedtwo unanticipated effects.
First, it appears that argumentation training inhibits verbal aggressive0
=.13) through a processmediated by none of the variab
argumentativeness theory. The size o f this effect is small.
the effect of argu~entationtraining on verbal aggressiveness via
the proce
proposed in Fig. 16.1 (with ARC,,,confidence in argumentative skill, an
selfcesteem asthe mediating variables)is zero. ence, thediscovery of a pare
allel inhibition process suggeststhat argumentativeness plays a trivial role
in
the re~uction
of verbal aggressiveness, and that other variables that have
yet to be identified play a moreintegral role.

Second, it appears that ARG,, has a small negativeef5ect (

self-esteem that is mediated by a variable other than argumentation skill.
Argumentativeness theory suggests that ARG,, bolsters people's selfcesteem by increasing their confidence in theirability to argue. U
ever, that the consequences of ARG,, are not all positive.
decrease a person's inte~ersonalattractiveness. Self-esteem
part, on appearing attractive to others. It may therefore be tha
mentative individuals are less popular; that is, ARGg could inhibit self-esteem by decreasing attractiveness.

Two sets of meta-analyses were conducted. The first set addresse

research question concerning the unidimensionality of the ARG,, scale.
Four meta-analyses were performed in this set. We began by estimating the
correlation between the ARGap and ARGav scales, but only five stu
were available. Fortunately, many more studies provided reliability estimates for the ARGap scale, the ARC,, scale, and theARG,, scale. These
reliabilities allowed usto estimate the correlation betweenthe ARGap a
ARGav scales. Hence, our second and thirdmeta-analyses examined
average interitem correlation on the ARC,, subscale and t
interitemcorrelation on the ARGav subscale, respective
meta-analysis in this set examined the average interitem correlation on
the ARG,, scale, where the ARGav items had been reverse coded so that
they would have positive part-whole correlations. The results of
four meta-analyses were combined to determine whether the A
ARGav scales should be kept separate and treated
as in depend en^ scores or
combined as a measure of ARG,, .
"he second set of meta-analyses addressed the second research question
concerning the correlationbetween ARG,, and verbal aggressiveness.Fo
meta-analyses were performedin this set. Our fifth meta-analysisestimate
the reliability of the verbal aggressiveness scale, and our sixth the effect of
ARG,, on verbal aggressiveness.A large degreeof variability across samples
in eitherof these two meta-analyses would suggestthe presence of modera*
tor variables. If the average correlation between ARG,, and verbal aggres"
sivenesswere negative, this would support the proposed constructive
learning process. If the average correlation were positive, however, this
would suggest that argu~entativenesstheory should be revised. "he sevc
enth and eighth meta-analyses estimated the effect of male gender on
argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness, respectively.

levant studies for our two sets of meta#analyseswere obtained from reiew articles and akeyword search of PsychInfo. The meta-analytic proceures used followed the variance-centered method recommended by
unter and Schmidt(1990).We determined the weighted average correlac
tion (r)for the total number
of ~articipants(T~).
When three or more Samc
ples were available,we calculated the standard deviation
of the correlation
for the sample of studies (SD,),the standarddeviation of the correlationes-.
timated for the population of studies (SDP),and thepercentage of variance
explain
mplingerror, We also calculated a chi-square test for heteroc
geneity
ect variance beyond that expected fromsamplingerror, and
~0~ confidence intervals around the meancorrelation.
Researchers have used several different versions of the ARC,, scale. The
most common is the full 20-item scale proposed by Infante and Rancer
(1982). Shorter versions were also used, including 1Ocitem and 8-item
forms. The standard score coefficient alphas were reported by most re#
searchers. Coefficient a reliability estimates depend on thenumber of items
on the scale and theaverage within-scale correlations,.
,
,
? The number of
nonredundant within~scalecorrelations, i, is calculated as follows:
i

where n is the number of items. Applying Equation 2, the 10-item approach0argument or avoid-argument scales would yield 45 nonredundant
correlations for the calculation of?,,. By contrast, for the +itemARGq and
av scales, there would be a mere 6 nonredundant correlations used to
ith the alpha reliability and the number of items in a given
work backwardto calculate TWs.Thus, we could comparethe
Y,, across samples regardless of the number of items used in a particular
study. We used meta-analysisto summarize acrossstudies and thenestimate
across studies for the approach-argument items, the Tw, for the
rgument items, and the
,,? for the general trait items. We then used
these three values to estimate the average betweenescalecorrelations, ?;bs, in
the ARC,, scale.
The reader might object that the values of Y,, for studies that used the
short forms of the general trait scale shouldnot be comparedto the values of

,
,
? for studies that used the long formsbecause the ratio of T,, to 6, will be
substantially larger for the long form than the short forme4However, researchers who used the short forms of the ARG,, scale did not ran
eliminate items. Instead, a number of these researchers (Blic~le,
Blickle, Habasch, & Senft, 1998) tested for heterogeneous items, and then
eliminated those that had the lowest quality. That is, they discarded the
items that had theweakest correlations with the other items on thescale.
Presumably, this would substantially boostthe for the shortcform studies,
raising it to thelevel of the long-form studies.
We assumed that thesmaller withinOscaleto betweenmaleratio for the
short forms was offset by
the boost in the within-scale correlations when the
low0quality items were eliminated. Consider a few examples of researchers
who eliminated low-quality items. Kazoleas (1993) reduced the 200item
scale down to 12 items and his?;,, was a rather large .35. Infante andGor
(1985) used a lO-item scale that had an T,, of .31. Infante (Infante
Gordon, 1987) usedan evenshorter 5ditem scale with an TWs of +31, ina ally,
Boster, Levine, and Kozleas (1993) reduced the 20-item scale do^ to 13
items and theirTw,was .30.

We employed three criteria to assess the degree of unidime~ionalityof the

ARG,, scale: homogeneityof item content, internalconsistency, and para10
lelism.
., The ARG,, scale may contain a small
subscale (Items 16 and 18)that measures argumentative skill (Blickleet al.,
1998). Blickle et al. (1998) used the Argumentativeness Compete~ceForm
(Trapp, Yingling,& Wanner, 1987) asa measure of argumentative skill. In
fact, Blickle (1995) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis of the ARG,,
scale and concluded that the two argumentative skill items formeda sepae
rate factor. To determine whether there was evidence of an ar~umentation
4For the 20-item general trait scale, there would be 90 nonredundant within-scale correlations (45 from the approach-argument scale and 45 from the avoid-argument scale) and 100
nonredundant between-scale correlations (approach items correlated
with avoid items). Thus,
for the 20-item scale, the ofratio
within-scaleto between-scale correlations is .90. For the 8-item
general trait scale, therewould be 12 nonredundant within-scale correlations(6 from the approach-argumentscaleand 6 fiom theavoid-argumentscale)and
64 nonredundantbetween-scale correlations. Thus, for
the 8-item scale,the ratio of within-scale to between-scale
Correlations is .19.

subscale among the argu ntativeness items, we regenerated the correlation matrix from
Suzuki a
based the
on
factorOloading
atrix they provided. Our r
that Items 16 and 18 were
htly correlated in the Suzuki and Rancer data, and this
was the case
the US.and Japanese samples. In fact, the alpha reliabilities forthe
mentative skill scalein theSuzuki and Rancer da
.sample and .26 for the Japanese sample. Although
tion skill scale didnot replicate, his study d
er (1994) studyin that Blickle et al. (1998) randomly i n t e ~ i x e d
e survey. Nearly allother studies present the ARG,, and verbal
aggressiveness scalesintact, encouraging response set, as evidenced by the
lowerreliabilities on the Blickle et al.(1998)argumentativeRessscale
scores. Other subscales might exist
within the argumentativeness items, one
related to hostility guilt (Items 1 and 5) and another to curiosi~
(Items 2
15).These clusters might showhigher correlations with standard mea#
sures of hostility guilt and Need for Gognition (Gacioppo (5r Petty, 1982)
than they do with the ARG,, and ARC,, scales, respectively.
detected other potential content themes in the ARGap and A
On the ARGap scale, the majority of the items should be a functi
n Ach or more specifically competitiveness (Items 4, 7, 9, 1l, 13, 17, and
20). Infante and Rancer (1982) stated that motives that inhibit argument
the anxiety associated with arguing. We found that such items
uped into two themes: anxiety over consequences such as retria
ution (Items 3,6,8, 10, and 12), andactive avoidance (Items 14 and 19).
Item 14 may correlate highly with empathy scales. Given that our content
anal sis uncovered seven content themes, it was quite possible that the
gt scale could bemultidimensional.
We began by estimating the correlation befive sample
correlations. Infante andRancer (1982) reported a correlation of .07 (N= 692).
Suzuki and Rancer (1994) reported correlations of-.39 for their U.S. sample
(N= 755) and -.34 for their Japanese sample (N= 716).Blickle (1995,
udy 1) reported a correlation of -.64 (N= WO), and Rancer, Whitecap,
sberb, and Avtgis (1997) reported a correlation of -5 1 (N= 296) The
average weightedcorrelation was --,28, k = 5, TN = 2,557. There was mas)
p<
sive variance across studies, SD, = .22, and SDP= .22, ~ ~ ( =4 50.23,
.0001, so much so that it seemedimplausiblegiven the hypothesized
trait-like quality of responses to theARC?,, with ARG,, scales. The lone positive correlation was the r = .07 obtained by Infante and Rancer (1982)
e

,
scales. We could locate only

ext, we p e r f o ~ e dthe meta-analys~ on7,, the

values for
ues forthe samples usedin the meta0analys
eaveragefor
ARC, was .39,k 17,

Next, we performed t
values for the sampl
16.1.The average T,, for ARC,, was .33, k = 17, TN = 5,746. There was little variance across samples,with SD,= .06, and SDP= .03,Sampling error
73% of the variance across samples
dence interval ranged from.29 to .3
an F, of .33 would have a coe
10-item ARGap scale would thus have adequate
Once we had estimates of the correlation betw
scales (7 = --.28), and the
for ARC,, (.39) a
then estimate what the FW,would be for a 20citern
A R ~ ~ ~ m e a sasu r follows:
e

where the Twsvalues forARG,, and ARGa, are weighted by the number of
nonre~undantwithin-scale correlations in the matrix, and the 6, for the
ARCa, with ARGav correlations is weighted by the number of nonredu
betweemscale correlations in thematrix.

Infante and Rancer (1982) reportedthat the .07 value was obtained from an oblique factor
analysis. The ARGa, with ARG, correlations from the other studies were negative. They
the used
OBLIMIN procedure withinSPSS to estimate the correlation between the two factors
(D. A. Infante, personal communication, August, 15, 1998).
The OBLIMIN program reversesthe sign of
the correlation it reports between factor scores.
may Itbethat Infante and Rancer mistakenly reported the reverse-coded factor score correlation rather
than the factor correlation. Thus, the actual correlation between the ARGa with ARG,, scales may haver been
= -.07. We ran a simulation using theDOSversion ofSPSg to compare the factor correlations reported
by the OBLIMIN
routine to those obtained
from raw score correlations. In each case, the OBLIMIN estimated correlation was lessthan theraw score correlation, suffering
a attenuation. Thus,we believethe
16%
actual correlation between ARG,, with ARG,,in the Infante and Rancer (1982) study may have
been more liker = -.08.

Blickle 1995 (1)

140

.36

10

.37

10

Canary et al., 1988

434

.33

10

.27

10

Dowling 6: Flint, 1990

564

.4 1

10

.33

10

Infante 6: Gordon, 1985

216

.42

10

.36

Infante 6: Rancer ,1982

692

.50

10

.38

10

Klopf et al., 1991 (Finns)

247

.43

10

.36

10

Klopf et al., l991 (U.S.)

154

.36

10

.33

10

Nicotera 6r Rancer, 1994

175

*55

.45

4.

Onyekwere et al., 1991

240

.44

10

.40

10

Nicotera et al., 1990

164

.40

10

.42

10

Prunty et al., 1990

32 1

.32

10

.26

10

Rancer et al., 1986

31

.29

10

,25

10

Rancer et al., 1992

132

.42

10

.3 1

10

Roach, 1992

203

.40

10

.37

10

Sanders et al., 1994

357

.38

10

.35

10

Stewart 6r Roach, 1993

526

.26

10

.3 1

10

Suzuki 6Rancer, 1994 (Japan)

716

.33

10

.22

10

Suzuki 6Rancer, 1994 (U.S.)

755

.39

10

.33

10

5,746

.39

Total

.33

Our last meta-analysisin this setwas conducted to obtain an observed value

for TWson the ARC, scale. The values forthe samples usedin the meta-analy
sis can be foundin Table 16.2,The average,
,
? for ARGgtwas2 7 , k = 12, TN ==
2,362. There was little variance across samples, with
SDr = .05,and SDP= .OO.
ampl ling error explained 100% of the variance across samples. To put these
findings in perspective, a200item
scale withan i;ws of 2'7 would have a
coefficient alpha reliability
of .88. The difference betweenthe predicted value
for the ARGgtYW(.32)andtheobtainedvaluefor
the
(2'7) was only

ARG,,

.Os."he small size ofthis errorsuggests that the assumptio~that went into the
reliabili~analysis were well
founded, andthat theestimated correlation
of--,2$
scales is relatively accurate. Correcting this
o b t a ~ e dfiom our meta-analyses (.$7 for
elds a correlation of -.33 b e ~ e e n
imensional ARG@
e

If the ARG,, and ARG,, scales are part o

1ARG,, scale, then they should correlate w

other variables to approximately the same degree. Blickle(1995) correlated

the ARG,, and ARG,, scales with the Big Fivesecondcorder personali~factors. We reverse coded the ARG, correlations with the five secondcorder
factors. The diffierence between the ARG,, and ARG,, correlations was .15
for neuroticism (7 = -.32), .04 for extraversion (7= .3 l),.l lfor openness to
experience (7 = .38),.03 for agreeableness(7 = --,07), and
tiousness (7 = .l$). The average differencein theARGapan

N Items

Study

rws

Beatty et al., 1994

7420

18

Blickle et al., 1998.28(1)

119

18

.27(2)
Blickle et al., 1998

112

16

Boster & Levine, .27

1988

196

.30
Boster et al., 1993

46

Downs et al., 1990

148

.l 1

Infante & Gordon, 1987 .3

131

Infante & Gordon, 1989

146

10

13

.3

28

20

.221991
Infante & Gordon,

216

10

.22
Infante et al., 1989

295

10

12

Kazoleas, 1993 .35

188

20

.29
Martin et al., 1997

276

Prunty et al., 1990.22

321

Rudd, 1996

174

20

.l7

10

as ac o ~ e ~ u e nof
c eextra

argumentativeness theorists asserted.. This finding is consistent with a

unidimensional ARC,, scale.The limited external consistency evidence in,
dicates that the ARC,, and ARC,, scales are parallel when other theoretie
cally important variables are usedas the criteria. This ~ n d i n gis also
consistent with au~idime~sional
measure of ARC,, .The moderately strong
negative correlation indicates that themajority of people belong to one of
three clusters: lows, neutral moderates, or highs. A su~stantiallysmaller
er of people belongto the
two remaining clusters,
apathetic moderates
nflicted moderates (see Fig. 16.2).

The second setof meta0analyses concerned verbal aggressiveness-its reli,

ability and ARC,, as itsantecedent, The reliability of the verbal aggressive^
ness scale for the samples we obtained can be found in Table 16.3. The

Sarnb~e

N Items

Beatty et al., 1994

74

.83

20

Self

Not Random

Blickle et al., 1998

153

.73

20

Self

Random

Boster & Levine, 1988

196

.79

Boster et al., 1993

46

.90

11

Self

Random

Downs et al., 1990

148

.71

20

Other

NR

Infante & Gordon, 1985

216

.78

Other

NR

Infanre & Gordon, 1987

131

.69

Other

NR

Infante & Gordon, 1989

146

.90

10

Other

NR

Infante et al., 1992

181

.87

20

Self

NR

Infante & Wigley, 1986

209

.81

20

Self

NR

Lim, 1990

76

.8S

20

Self

NR

Martin & Anderson, 1995

403

.82

Self

NR

Martin & Anderson, 1996

665

-87

10

Self

NR

Martin er al., 1997

276

.88

20

Self

NR

Nicotera 6Rancer, 1994

175

83

Self

NR

Rancer et al., 1986

31

.72

NR

Rancer et ai., 1992

132

.85

NR

Rudd, 1996

87

.67

10

Self

NR

Sanders et al., 1994

357

-85

20

Self

NR

Suzuki & Rancer, 1994

@pan)

716

.89

Suzuki & Rancer, 1994

.85763

~ e ~ r t Intact

~t~~

Order

NR
NR

(U.S.)

Total

5,181

.84

Eta = .33 Era = .31

Era = .47

Eta = .38

We explored four variables as moderators of

aggressiveness scale.The four moderators were
number of items on the scale, whether the scale had resp
themselves or others, whether the scale had been specially
articular context, andwhether the items hadbeenr
f a larger ~uestionnaire. The
value of the reliab
3 1with self-rating, .33 with number of items, -.47 with adaptation of
the scale, and -.38 with random present tion of the items. Th
high correlation betweenself-rating and a aptation, r = "-31,a
tion appeared to be the better predictorof the reliability value in a multiple
regression. Hence, we did not enter theself-rating variable asa predictor
of the reliability value. Excluding t
elatively few participants who rea survey with the items in r
m order, we regressed number
items and ada~tation on the reliavalue.
Scale reliabilit~increase
h number of items (p= .2
ased with adaptation (
th the studies that adapte
special contexts and
ed theitems randomly with items from other scales excluded, the
ty values were homogenous: ;5" = .85, SL), = .03, with sampling error explaining most of the variance across samples.
e

obtained can be found in Table 16.4. The average correlation was .IQ,k =
12, TN = 3,397. There was modest variance across samples, with SD, =
p = .07. Sampling error explained 41% of the variance across
11) = 29.10, p < .01. The 90% confidence interval ranged
from .07 to .25. Much of the variance was due to theInfante and Wigley
(1986) study that found a correlation of -.04 between ARC,, and verbal
aggressiveness. This value is 3.33 SL) away fromthe average correlation. In
that study, verbal aggressiveness correlated .60 with the Buss-Pur~ee
(BD) measure of verbal aggression. ARC,,correlated .09 with the BD ver0
bal aggression measure, which is more in keeping with the average correlation. Thus, the old BD verbal aggression measure appeared to be more
valid than thenew Infante-Wigley ( W ) verbal aggressiveness measure.
This is ironic given that use ofthe IW verbal aggressiveness scalehas been
justified on thegrounds that it is more valid than theBD verbal aggression
scale. Without theIW outlier, the correlation betweenARG,, and verbal
a~~ressiveness
increased to .U, SDP= .06, with sampling error ex~laining
48% of the variance across studies.

Study

Blickle, 1995

153

.06

Boster et al., 1993

46

.19

Downs et al., 1990

148

.36

Infante et al., 1989

295

,22

Infante & Gordon, 199 l

216

.10

Infante & Wigley, 1986 (1)

209

.10

Infante 6r Wigley, 1986 (2)

104

Martin et al., 1997

276

.08

Nicotera & Rancer, 1994

175

.2 1

Rancer et al., 1997

296

.29

Suzuki 6r Rancer, 1994 (Japan)

716

.09

Suzuki & Rancer, 1994 (U.S.)

763

.22

3,397

.16

Total

-.04

The correlation of male gender with ARC, and verbal aggressiveness for
the
samples we obtained can be found in Table 16.5. The average effectof male
gender on ARC,, was .15, k = 4, TN = 1,284. There was notable variance
across samples,with SDr = .lo, and SDP= .08, X, 2(3)= 14.41, P .01. The
average effectof male genderon verbal aggressiveness was
.13,k = 6, TN =
1,552. As with ARG,,, there was notable variance across samples,with SDr
= .IO,and SDP= .08, X, 2(3)= 1 6 . 5 2 , ~
<.Ol. Despite the variance, the corc
relations in Table 16.5 show that male gender does increase
both ARG,, and
verbal aggressiveness, as predicted by argumentativeness theory.

The first setof meta-analyses in this chapter offered evidencethat theARG,

scale is unidimensional. The second setof meta-analyses showedthat theXW

SdY

Dowling 6. Flint,
1131990

ARG,

Harrnan
308 et al., 1990
701
et

168
Infante

r~ e ~
s s i vae ~ e~ s s

Infante, 1982
Infante et al., 1989

.35
15

.l2
295

.04

295

al., 1984

.oo
.l8

Infante Csr Wigley, 1986 (Study l )

209

.l0

Infante Csr Wigley, 1986 (Study 2)

397

.l 1

Nicotera 6. Rancer, 1994

175

.32

175

.37

1,284

.l5

1,552

.l3

Rancer 6r Bierks-Stewart, 1985

Schultz 6r Anderson, 1984
Total

scale is a reliable measureof verbal aggressiveness,although the extentof the

reliability depends somewhat on theintactpresentation of the items.
Adapting the ARGs items for special
contexts appears to reduce the reliabiL
ity of the IW scale. The meta-analyses also foundthat verbal ag~essiveness
has a positive correlation with argumentativeness.Infante and his colleagues
have placed considerable weight on the argumentativeness construct, both
for its rolein argumentation theory and for the practical significanceof its social role of improving
argumentation practice (seeInfante & Rancer, 1996 for
a review). The meta-analytic findings presentedhereindicate
that
argumentativeness theory requires some
rethinking to retrieve its usefulness.

The first issue we addressedconcerned the dimensionality of the ARG,scale.

Infante and his colleagues assumed that the ARGapand ARGavscales are
uncorrelated. This would suggestthat the ARC?#scale is multidimensional and
that the concept of a unidime~ional,general trait of argumentativeness be
abandoned in favor of a two-dimensional orientation toward arguing. If the
argumentativeness scale is multidimensional, thencomputation of
argumentativeness as shown in Equation 1 is ~appropnate.The ~ ~ e r e n c e

score ignoresthe efiiect ofan i n t e ~ c ~ o n

on ~ ~ r t acriterion
n t
variables, raising
geneous efiiects.
Our content analysis of the ARG, scale uncovered a m
sted thepossibility of multidimensionality. Meta~analysis
rrelation between ARGapand ARC,, averaged --.B,expo
findings of the introductorystudy by Infante andRancer as an estreme outc
lier. We inte~reted the
Infante andRancer finding asan artifact emanating
from their use offactor score correlations. Thus, themeta-analytic evidence
indicates that the correlation
between the ARGap and A R G a v scales is negative, although some question remains concerning the m a ~ i t u d of
e this negative correlation. call that the proposition that AKG,, and ARGav are
uncorrelated was tterned after the assumption that MS and M m are
uncorrelated. In fact, a meta-analysis by Hamilton and Mineo(1999) foun
that the correlation between MS(as indicated by objective measures of nee
for achievement) and MAFis positiveand moderately strong. If there is linkage between the motivation to achieve and the motivation to argue, it is
mostlikely in the positiveeffect of need for achievement on ARC,,.
Achievement motivation theory is thus a poor foundation on which to build
a theory about the motivationto argue. In summary, not only is the proposi"
tion that ARGap and A R G a v are uncorrelated false; the rationaleon which
the proposition was based is false.
The meta0analysis ofthe average withincscale correlations (generated from
reliability values) for the ARGav scale found them to be homogenous across
samples, Tw8,= .33. The T would yieldan average coefficient alphareliab~ityof
.83 fora 10-item version the
of scale. However,the meta-analysisof the average
within-scale correlations for
the A R G a p scale found them
to be slightlyheteroO
geneous, witha 90%confidence intervalthat ranged fromTm, = .32 to .45. "he
T would yieldan average coefficient alpha reliability
of .86 for a loflitem version
of the scale. To obtain the estirnate of the average between-scale correlation,
&
= --+28,
we usedthe correlation betweenthe A R G a p and ARC, scales. We then
used the average withhescale correlations for ARG,, and A R G a V along with
the to produce the predicted average correlationof -32 amongthe items on
the ARG, scale. Finally, we meta-analyzedthe within-scale correlations (generated from reliability values) the
for ARG, scale and found
that the average Tm
for ARG, was .27, yielding a coefficient alpha reliability of .88 for a 20-item
scale. The difference between the predicted and obtained F, for the ARG@
scale was therefore only
.OS.This analysis providedfurther supportfor ourconc
clusion that the correlation between the ARGap and A R G a v scales is at least
moderately negative (r-.30) rather than zero.

a1 step we reviewed the external consistency of the ARC,, and

scales. The difference in the correlation
between the two scaleswith
measures of predisposition to communicate and theBig Fivepersonality facs only .07. We summarize the effects of these personality variablesin
.3.If the within-scale correlation matrix for ARG, is relatively flat
ap and ARC&, scales cor late with important variables such as
ommunication a personality antecedents to approxiegree, thenthe
ence for unidimensional
evidence for separating the scale into ARC,, a
om the introducto~study of Infante and Ranc
we suggested that thefinding of that study was due toartifact, theresult of
the statistical procedures used in theanalysis. Thus, we conclude that the
vast majority of the empirical evidence indicates that the ARG,, scale is
unidimensional rather than multidimensional. This led us to hypothesize
that the number
of people who are apathetic moderates or conflicted modc
argumentatives typology (see Fig. 16.2) is relatively small.
scale that is unidimensional wouldbegoodnews
for
ar~umentativenesstheorists. any of the studies theyhave conducted have
reported statistics summar~ingthe relation between ARG,, and other varie
the ARG,, scale multidime~ional,nearly all of the studies e m
ation 1would have been suspect and of limited value because they
would have collapsed across potentially heterogeneous efKects. We suspect

FIG.16.3. Revised model of argumenta~iveness and verbal aggressiveness.

that Infante and Rancer (1982) confuseda strong-weak gradient amongthe

withmultidime~ionality.Those who have performed con fir ma^
tory factor analyses
of the ARG, scale have eliminated morethan a few items
because those items appeared to be internally inconsistent (Blickle, 1995;
Blickle et al., 1998; Bosteret al., 1993; Kazoleas,1993).

ARC,, items

Our meta-analysis found that the reliability of the verbal aggressiveness

scale increased with the number of items on thescale but decreased withadaptation of the scale fiom its original format. Generally,the scale showed
satisfactory internal consistency with an average reliability of .85. Those
who are adapting the scale for special purposes
such as organizational or
relational contexts should be aware that their adaptations have somewhat
lower reliabilities than the original scale.
e

The average correlation between ARG,, and verbal aggressiveness was posie
tive, r = .20 corrected for attenuation. In fact,
the only studyto find a negative correlation between the two variables was the introductory study by
Infante and Rancer (1982) The fact that this correlation is positive indicates that theconstructive learning process does not operate as proposedby
argumentativeness theory. ARG,, appears to enhanceverbal aggressiveness,
although theeffect is modest. The enhancing eEect of ARG,, on verbal agc
gressiveness is most likely mediatedby confidence in argumentation skills.
Within the context
of the hypothesized model (seeFig. 16,l), ARG,, should
increase confidence, with confidencehaving antagonistic effects on verbal
aggressiveness. The enhancing effect of confidence on verbal aggressiveness
would need to be very large(p= .64) to explain the positive correlation between ARG,, and verbal aggressiveness:25 *.64 = .16. We illustrate this effect within the revised model shown in Fig. 16.3.
We suspect the large positive effectof confidence on verbal aggressive0
ness is due to the increased availability or appeal of negative compliance@gaining
strategies. That is, as speakers become more
confident in their
ability to argue, they are willing to try strategies that may elicit forcefulre@
sponses fromtheir targets. Speakers who feel less
competent inarguing may
prefer to confine themselves to more positivecompliance~gainingstrategies
that are not likely to generate a strong retort from their targets. The inhibit0
ing effect of confidence on verbal aggressiveness, as shown in Fig. 16.3,
would be mediated by selfcesteem. Note that the enhancement effect of

con~dence on
verbal aggressiveness(.64.) is more than 10 times largerthan
the inhibition effect (.56 *-.09 = -.05). If true, this would discon~rm the
main thesis of the theory. The social implicationsof this conclusion are not
appealing to argumentation instructors. In the absence of additional inford
mation, it suggests that they should undermine their students confidence in
their ability to argue in the interest of s~uelchingverbal aggression.
e

An altemative expla-

nd verbal aggressiveness is
is inhibiting effectis s u p
and verbal aggres-

veness. We referto this explanation asthe s ~ ~ ~ eus s ~o ~~ ~ c ~ e ~ ~ 0 ~

uppose that ARG,, inhibits verbal aggressiveness,
but thenegative effectis
suppressed at the
level of the zero-order co~elationby an antecedent
such as male gender.
To suppress a negative effect
of ARC& on verba
siveness, the product of the effects of male genderon ARG,, and verbal a g
eness would need to be positive. In fact, this is the case with male
The problem, however, is
that both of these enhancement effects are
small, and this leads to a trivialamount of suppression (.15 * .13 = .02).
The findings of the meta-analysis suggestthat thereis a positive effect
of
male gender on verbal aggressiveness that is not mediated by ARG,. As
shown in Fig. 16.3, male gender would increase ARGgt (p = .M),with
producing an indirect effect on verbal aggressivenessof 16)for an ingender effect of .02 (.14.* -16). Malegender would also increase vere
siveness (p = .lo) without mediation from ARC,,. We suspect
irect positive effectof male genderis due to hostility. That is, male
gender increaseshostility, and hostility increases verbal aggressiveness.
Note thatdespite its small size,
the hostility effectis five times as largethe
as
effect of male gender on verbal aggressiveness mediated by ARG,,.

It possible
is
that anas yet undiscovered variable has a enhancing
strong
effect (p= $50)on
e

both ARCgt and verbal aggressiveness,

and that this variableis responsible for
the positive zero-order correlation between
ARG,, and verbal ag~ressiveness.
upp press ion could also occur
if a commonantecedent variable had strong inhibitory effects(p=:4 0 ) on both ARC& and verbal aggressiveness. Negative
effects ofthis size would suppressthe zero-order correlation betweenARG,,
verbal aggressivenessby 25.Given the zero-order correlationof. 17 obtained fiomthe meta-analysis, a small negative effect
of ARG, on verbal ag(-.08 -t~essiveness on order
the of p = --.OBcould be completely suppressed

personality trait of agreeableness couldoperate in this fashere are two more types of common antecedent variables:
ARC, while decreasing verbal aggressiveness,
a
while ~ c r e a s verbal
~ g aggressiveness.If these l
types of antecedents are prevalent, then we are back to the first explana~
tion-that ARC, increases verbal aggressiveness.
The correlation between ARC,, and verbal aggressiveness was fairly
heterogeneous across studies. In some studies the correlation was less positive
than inothers. This heterogeneity is due, in part, tofact
thethat a numberof
researchers have used different subsets of the original 20 argumentativeness
items in theirinstruments. A negative effect of ARG,, on verbal aggressiveness might be possible,
but operating only within a limited domain
review article, Infante andRancer (1996) concluded that culture in
both ARCgtand verbal aggressiveness. Suzuki and Rancer (1994
lated that themore externalizeda culture, the
less likelyits membe
to engage in argument and verbal aggression. They characterized
as a confound of external contextualizationof culture with verbal aggressiveness. Actually, the effect they described is range restriction in both the
ARCgtand verbal aggressiveness variables. The difference between confounding and range restriction is important. Suppose thatexternal
contextualization of culture decreases both ARG,, and verbal aggressiveness, resulting in skewed distributions on bothvariables. This would reduce
the size of the correlation of ARG,, with verbal aggressiveness,but itwould
also reduce the correlations of the two variables with the antecedent an
consequence variables of ARC,, and verbal aggressiveness, makingthe sup&
pressor antecedent hypothesis less plausible.

The meta-analyses reported here do not support the original o~timismre0

garding the projected social effects
of decreasing verbal aggressivenessby increasing argumentativeness. The results indicated thatthe effect of
argumentativ~ness onverbal aggression is positive and moderately small.
Teaching argument skills may beone methodof reducing verbal aggresc
siveness. Previous studies (Sanders et al., 1994) seem to indicate a small
negative effect for argumentation training on verbal aggressiveness. More
correctly, we should think in terms of retraining argument skills. In the
broadest sense of skills necessaryto survive disagreements,students come to
the college classroom with wellchonedargument skills. Verbal aggression is
one suchskill, as it allows these students the
appearance of having preserved
their position, although they do so at theexpense of rational discourse and

to the possible detriment of interpersonal relationships. However,there are

other nonaggressive means that students use for dealing with
argumentative
situations, and these must be counted as part of the repertoire of argument
skills they bringto the classroom. Among these are possible passive avoid0
ance strategies (e.g., equivocation) in which people preservetheir position
by rendering it ambiguous enough to be immune from attack.
In the light of these alternative strategies, teachingargument skills can be
redefined as teaching competence in conflict resolution through rational
discourse. This amounts to providing rational strategies for resolving disa ~ e e m e n tas
s an attractive replacement for the aggressive and passive strat+
egies currently in thestudents repertoire. A program for developingsuch
competencies should emphasize argumentation in real-life contexts rather
than emphasizing the formal analysisof arguments. Argumentation theory
has too long concentrated on formal reasoningstructures at theexpense of
the p r a ~ a t i goal
c
of rationally resolving disagreements in everyday life.
This misdirection has in large part been responsible forthe weak effectsobtained for argument instruction.
Unless teaching argument becomes more practical, students will con,
tinue to be motivated to use aggressiveand passive strategies because
those
strategies appear effective for defendingand protecting belief systems. Be+
yond the apparent practical effectiveness of irrational strategies, however,
argument instruction must also overcome the psychological and social
forces that support the use of those irrational strategies.
Verbal aggressiveness and the motivation to argue rationally are pree
sumed to be anchored within asystem of basicpersonality traits like
extraversion and neuroticism. Aside from
the questions of whether teachers
have the ethical responsibility or clinical qualification to implement programs of basic motivational restructuring, such programs may be unrealistic.
These personality traits are the result of a complex processof cognitive development, reinforced by social factors deeply embedded
in thecultural matrix. Cultures, and thepolitical formsthat are their expression, may foster or
militate against aggressiveness, assertiveness, or rationality.
Aristotle believed that therationality of the polis could deteriorate. Far
from taking the melioristic position often incorrectly attributed to him, he
was ever the political realist, endorsing a form
of government that would ale
low the rational critic to flourish, because only in such a political atmospherecould the communityslevel of rhetoric improve. Aristotle
recognized that theprocess of improving the rationality of the polis depends
on a slow, difficult change in thepolitical structure, which in turndepends
on cultural ideals. As long asthe rational critic is freeto criticize, irrational

with an asterisk indicate studies inch

ana~~sis.
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). A n introd~ctionto ~ o t i v a t i oPrinceton,
~.
NJ: Van Nostrand.
Atkinson, J. W. (1974). The mainsprings of achievement-orientedactivity. In J. W.
(pp. 13-42). Was~ington,
Atkinson 6.J.0. Raynor (Eds.), Motivation and ach~eve~ent,
DC: Winston.
"Beatry, M. J., Zelly, J. R., Dobos, J. A., &a Rudd, J. E. (1994). Fathers'trait verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness as predictors
of adult sons' perceptionof fathers' sarcasm,
criticism, and verbal aggressiveness,
C o ~ ~ ~ n i c a t ~ o n ~42,
~ a407-4
r t e r 15.
~y,
"Blickle, G. (1995). Conceptualization and measurement
of argumentativeness: A decade
ca~
77, 99-1 10.
later. P s y c h o ~ o ~ Reports,
"Blickle, G., Mabasch, A., 6,Senft, W. (1998). Verbal aggressiveness: Conceptualization
~ c a ~ 82, 287-298.
and measurement: A decade later. P s ~ c h o ~ o Reports,
Boelkins, R. C., 6.Heiser, J. ]E (1970). Biological bases
of aggression. In D. N. Daniels, M. F.
Gilula, 6.F. M.Ocvhberg (Eds.), ~ o ~ e n and
c e the s t ~ for~ existence
~ e
(pp. 15-52).
Boston: Little, Brown.

ster, E,& Levine, 7;: (1988). Individual differences and

compliance-gaining message selection: The effects of verbal aggressiveness, argumentativeness, dogmatism, and negativism. C ~ ~ u nResearch
~ u Reports,
t ~ 5, 114-1 19.
*Boster, EJ., Levine, X, 6, Kazoleas, D. (1993). The impact of argumentativeness and verbal aggressivenesson strategic diversity and persistencein compliance-gaining behavior. C ~ ~ u n i c u t ~
~41,
r 405-415.
t e r ~ y ,
Briggs, S. R. (1992). Assessing the five-factor model of personality description.J ~of m
Perso~~ity,
60, 253-294.
Cacioppo, J. X , 6, Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for c o g n i t i o n . J ~ mo~f P e r s o ~ and
u ~ So~~
cial Psycho~o#, 42, 116-13 l.
*Canary, D. J., Cunningham, E. M., 6.Cody, M.J. (1988). Goal types, gender and locusof
control in managing interpersonal conflict. C o ~ ~ u n ~ c a tResearch,
ion
15,426-446.
"Dowling, R.E.,6, Flint, L. J.(1990).The argumentativeness scale: Problems and promise.
C o ~ ~ u n i c Studies,
u t ~ 41, 183-198.
*Downs, V R., Kaid, L.L., 6.Ragan, S. (1990). The impact of argumentativeness andverbal aggressivenesson communicator image: The exchange between George Bush and
Dan Rather. ~ e s t eof Speech
~ J C~ ~ ~~ u~n i c u54,
t ~
99-1
, 12.
Geen, R.G. (1990). ~ u ~ uwession.
a n
Pacific Grove, CA: BrookslCole.
Hamilton, M. A. & Mineo, F! J. (1999, May). A m e t u - u ~ u ~ y s the
~ orf e ~ t i o ~ h i p ~ e t ~ e e
Pa~ch~evement
motivution and tusk
u~~ety;
Z ~for
p the
~ ~study
u t iofur~~entutiveness.
~s
per presented to the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA.
"Harman, C. M,, Klopf, D.W.,
& Satoshi, I. (1990). Verbal aggression among
Japanese and
American students. percept^^ and Motor Skil~s,70, 1130.
Hunter, J. E. (1980). Factor analysis. In l? R. Monge & J.N. Cappella (Eds.), M u ~ t i v u ~ t e
techn~uesin h u ~ u n c ~ m u n ~ c uresearch
t i o n (pp. 229-257). New York: Academic.
Hunter, J.E., &Schmidt, E L. (1990).Methods o f ~ e t u . u ~ ~Newbury
y s ~ . Park, CA: Sage.
Infante, D. A. (1981).Trait argumentativeness as a predictorof communicative behavior in
situations requiring argument.Central Stutes SpeechJouml, 32, 265-2'72.
*Infante, D. A. (1982). The argumentative student in the speech communication classroom: An investigation and implications. C ~ ~ u n ~ c uEduc~tion,
t ~ o n 31,141-148.
Infante, D. A. (1985). Inducing women to be more argumentative: Source credibility efof App~ied
C ~ m u n ~ u t i Reseurch,
on
13, 33-44.
fects. J o u m ~
Infante, D. A. (1987). Enhancing the prediction of response to a communication situation
from communication traits. Commun~cut~on
~ r ~ e r l135,
y , 308-3 16.
*Infante, D. A., Chandler, T,A., 6, Rudd, J. E. (1989). Test of an argumentative skill defi56, 165-177.
ciency model of interspousal violence. Communicut~n Mono~uphs,
*Infante, D. A., & Gordon, W. I. (1985). Superiors' argumentativeness and verbal aggresu Commun~cutio~
~
n
Reseurch, 12,
siveness as predictors of subordinates' satisfaction.~
117-125.
*Infante, D. A., 6. Gordon, W. I. (1987). Superior and subordinate communication profiles: Implications for independent-mindedness and
upward effectiveness. Central Stutes
Speech ~ o u ~ 38,
u ~73-80.
,
*Infante, D. A., 6.Gordon, W.I. (1989). Argumentativeness and affirming communicator
style as predictors of satisfaction/dissatisfaction withsubordinates. C o ~ ~ u n ~ c a t
~ ~ r t e r l37,
y , 81-90.

Infante, D.A., &Gordon, W. (1991). How employees see

the boss: Test ofan argumentative
o u ~ ~
and af~rmingmodel of supervisors'communication behavior.~ e s t e ~of~Speech
C o m m u n ~ u t55,
~ , 294-303.
Infante, D.A., Hartley, K. C., Martin, M, M., Higgins, M. A., Bruning, S. D., & Hur, C.
(1992). Initiating and reciprocating verbalaggression: Effects on credibility and credu t ~ 43, 182-190.
ited valid arguments. C o r n r n u ~ ~Studies,
Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of
of ers so^^^^ Assessment, 46, 72-80.
argumentativeness.
argumentativemotivation, and
Infante, D.A., & Rancer, A.S. (1993). Relations between
advocacy and refutation on controversial issues. Commun~cut~onQuurte~~y,
41,
415-426.
Infante, D.A., & Rancer, A. (1996). Argumentativenessand verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research, In B. Burleson (Ed.), C o m m u n ~ c u t i ~ ~ e u ~19b o o k
(pp. 319-35 1). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
*Infante, D. A., Riddle, B. L.,Horvath, C. L.,(5rTumlin, S. A. (1992). Verbal aggressiveness: Messages and reasons. C ~ m u n ~ u t ~ n Q ~40,
r t116-1
e r ~ 26.
y,
*Infante, D.A., Trebing, J. D., Shepherd, l? E.,& Seeds, D.E. (1984). The relationship of
~~~~,
argumentativenessto verbal aggression. The sou the^ Speech C o m r n u n ~ u t i o n50,
67-7 7.
*Infante, D.A., & Wigley, C. J.(1986). Verbal aggressiveness:An interpersonalmodel and
measure. Communication ~ ~ o ~ u p53,h 61-69.
s ,
*Kazoleas, D. (1993). The impact of argumentativeness on resistance to persuasion. Hu20, 118- 137.
man C o m ~ u n ~ u tReseurch,
io~
"Klopf, D. W., Thompson, C. A., &Kuparinin,A. S. (1991). Argumentativeness among selected Finnish and American collegestudents. P s ~ c h o ~ Reports,
o ~ u ~ 6 8 , 161-162.
*Lim, T: (1990). The influences of receivers' resistance on persuader4 verbal aggressivey , 170-188.
ness. Communicution Q ~ r t e r ~38,
Martin, M. M., Anderson, C. M. (1995). Roommate similarity:Are roommates who are
similar in their communication traits more satisfied?C o m m ~ n i c u Reseu~ch
t~~
Reports,
12, 46-52.
Martin, M. M.,& Anderson, C. M. (1996). Argumentativenessand verbal aggressiveness.
~ o uof ~
S o lc ~~l e ~ u v iand
o r P e r s ~ ~ i t1y1,, 547-554.
Martin, M. MS,Anderson, C. M,, & Thweatt, K. S. (1997, November).~ n d i ~percep~ d ~ ~ '
~~~~

t h s of their communication behuvior:A vulidity studyof the r e ~ t ~ n s h etw

i p wee^ the CO@-

tive ~ ~ i b i ~scale
i t yand the commun~cution~ ~ b i ~scale
i t y
with a ~ e s s i v e c o m ~ ~ n i c u t i ~
traits. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago.
*Nicotera, A. N., & Rancer, A.S. (1994). The influence of sexon self-perceptionsand social stereotypingof aggressivecommunication predispositions.~ e s t ~e ~ o of Comu
~
~
m ~ n i c u t i58,
~ , 283-307.
& Pearson, J. (1990). Ambiguitytolerance, conflict manage"Nicotera, A., Smilowitz, M,,
ment style and argumentativeness as predictors of innovativeness, C o m ~ u n i c a t i Reo~
search Reports, 7, 125-13 1.
*Onyekwere, E. O., Rubin, R. B., &L Infante, D.A. (1991). Interpersonal perception and
communication satisfactionas a function of argumentativeness and ego-involvement.
C o ~ ~ u n i c a t i ~ ~ 39,
a ~35-47.
erly,

6r Olbrechts-Tyteca,L. (1969). The new r h e t o A

~~
treat~eon a r ~ m e n t a ~
relman 6r L.Olbrechts-Tyteca, Trans.).Notre Dame, IN: University Noof
tre Dame Press. (Original work published 1958)
*Runty, A. M , Klopf, D. W,,6r Ishii, S. (1990).Argumentativeness: Japaneseand Amerin tendencies to approach and avoid conflict. C ~ m u n ~ c a t i o n R e7,~ 75-79.
or~,
A., Baukus, R., 6, Amato, l? (1986). Argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness,
and marital satisfaction.C ~ r n u n ~ c aResearch
t~n
R e ~ o ~3,s 28-32.
,
A., tsr Dierks-Stewart, K. (1985).The influence of sexand sex-role o~entationon
argumentativeness.
of per so^^^^ Assessment, 49, 69-70.
er, A. S. 6, Infante, D. A. (1985). Relations between motivation to argue and the
r t209-2
e r ~ y18.
,
argumentativeness of adversaries.C ~ r n u n i c u t ~ o n ~ ~33,
*lancer, A, S., Kosberg, R. L.,6r, Silvestri,V. 'N.(1992). The relationship between self-esteem and aggressive communication predispositions.C o m m u n ~ a t i ~ ~ e s e Re~orts?
arch
9, 23-32.
lancer, A. S., Whitecap, V. G., &L Kosberb, R. L.,6r. Avtgis, T, A. (1997).Testing the efficacy ofa communication training program
to increase argumentativeness
and argumenu~~~
46, 273-286.
adolescents. C o m m u n ~ c Educat~on,
1992). Teacherdemographic characteristics and levels of teacher
S. cornmunicut~n
Research ~ e ~ o r t9,s ,65-7 1.
Rudd, J. E. (1996). Communication effects on divorce mediation: How participants'
argumentativeness, verbalaggression and compliance-gaining strategy choice mediate
outcome satisfac~ion.~ e d ~ t ~~u ao rnt e r ~14,
y , 65-78.
Sanders, J. A., Wiseman, R.L.,6, Gass, R. H.(1994). Does teaching argumentation facilitate critical thinking? C ~ r n u n ~ c aReports,
t i ~ 7, 27-35.
Schultz, B., 6,Anderson,J. (1984). Trainingin the management of conflict: A communicav ~ o ~
tion theory perspective.S~~~ Group ~ e ~ 15,333-348.
Stewart, R. A., 6, Roach, K.D.(1993).Argumentativeness, religiousorientation, and reactions to argument situations involving religious versus nonreligious issues.
Comrnu~~cation ~ ~ r t e r l41
y,
, 26-39.
Storr, A. (1968).H u ~ an~ e s s ~ oNew
n . York: Atheneum.
Suzuki, S., &lancer, A. S. (1994).Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: Testing
for conceptual and measurement equivalence across cultures.Cornrnun~cutionMono~
a61, 256-279.
~
~
,
Toulmin, S. E.(1959). The uses o f a r ~ m e ~Cambridge,
t.
UK:Cambridge University Press.
Trapp, R., Yingling,
J. M., &Wanner, J. (1987). Measuring argumentative competence.
In E
H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, tsr C. A. Willard (Eds.), A r ~ r n e n t a ~ i o ~
across the lines of d
~ (pp. 25c 1-261). ~New York:
~ Foris.~
~
~
~
"Wigley, C.I., 111, Gayle, H.l?,6r Watt, M.G. (1989).Conversationalsensi~ivityas a correlate of trait verbal aggressiveness and the predisposition to verbally praiseothers. Comrnunicati~ Re~orts,
2, 92-95.
u ~ d a ~ e s s ~Hillsdale,
on.
NJ: Lawrence
E r l b a u ~Associates.
~ i l l ~ a nDn.,(1979).Hosti~zt~
~~~~

Smart Dateis a Web site

that enables womento leave a bread
crumb trail, of
sorts, regardingthe etails of a date (Temple, 1997).he purpose of the site
is to provide womenwith a placeto send their upcoming date plans to an
electronic message systemthat lets users document their dating plans for use
by police if the unthinkable happens and they never return home (Temple,
1997, p. 4D). The goal of the Web site is to reduce date rape and date as0
saults. DuringSmart Dates first24 hours of service in thefall of 1997,more
than 1,000submissions were received, as were
numerous supportive e-mails
(Temple, 1997).

Sexual coercion and rape are pervasive in our society, with both men and
women serving as perpetrators (Sigelman, Berry, &L Wiles, 1984). In add&
tion, both men and
women are the targets of unwanted sexual advancesand
sexually coercive behaviors (e.g., ~ u e h l e n h a r d6,Cook, 1988; Poppen &L
Segal, 1988; C.J. Struckman0Johnson, 1988). According to Poppen and
Segal(l988), some studiesreported as many as 75%
of women being victimized by sexual coercion and as many as63% of men having engagedin unO
wanted sex (~uehlenhard6,Cook, 1988).

Although both men andwomen experience coercive situations, the statistics indicate that women are typically the targets of such acts. Becchofer
Parrot (1991) observed:
Both males and females can be either assailants or victims of acquaintance
rape. Although it is statistically unusual for malesto be victims and females
to be assailants,it does occur. Men report being forced into sexual encounters by other men (sometimes gangs) as well as by females. Because these
types of sexual assaults are rarely reported to the police, many believe that
they do not occur. The Federal Bureau ofInvestigation (FBI, 1982)estimated
that 10%of all sexual assault victims aremale, although male victims rarely
report the crime unless they are physically injured. (pp. 13-14)

Other researchers concurred that few studies examine mens victimization

Segal, 1988).Of the few studies that do, the perpetrator is typb
cally another man ratherthan a woman (~uehlenhard,Coggins, Jones, &
S a t t e ~ e l d1991).
,
The United States Bureau of Justice Statistics (1996)
on victim characteristics indicated that rape and sexual assault are the only violent crimes for
which women experience higher
rates of ~ictimization than
men. The Bureau
also reportedthat women areat higher riskthan men for falling victimto an
intimate (e.g., husband, boyfriend) forboth fatal and nodatal violence.
The majority of studies on sexual coercion in interpersonal relationships
examined the man as the perpetrator and the woman as the victim (e.g.,
Koss, 1988; ~uehlenhard,1988). In a study with a sampleof nearly 1,500,
Koss (1988) found7 1% of women reported their dates as perpetrators in instances of sexual contact and85% reported their dates as perpetrating sexual coercion. Similarly,70% reported their dateas attempting rape and 57%
reported their date as committing rape. The FBIs Uniform Crime Report
(1992), basedon reports representing 96% of the U.S. population, indicated
that there were 105,593 reported rapes in 1991 or approximately one rape
every 5 minutes (Kuhn, 1996).The report also indicated that between 1972
and 1991, reported rape increased128%and therewere 1.5 million women
who had survived forcible rape or attempted rape. In 1994, 1 out of every
270 wornen was raped (Bureauof Justice Statistics, 1996).These statistics
are staggering, but what we must remember is that these figures unfortunately only reflectreported rapes or rape attempts.
Although thescholarly community argues that sexual coercion is a probe
lem, controversy centers on what sexual coercion is, specifically,and what
theoretical approaches explain the profile of a sexually coercive situation.
Similarly, controversy exists regarding
what variables, specifically,are asso#

ciated with sexual coercion and resistance. The purpose of this chapter is to
review the literature regarding sexual coercion and what metaeanalyses
have found regarding contributors to coercion and resistance. Individual
studies exist that examine a womans perspective or a mans perspective
on
this issue, but only a minimal amount of research examined mens and
womens perspectives meta-analytically. Meta-analysis enables researchers
to statistically evaluate the individual studies cumulatively, thus reducing
the potential for Type I1error. First, however,
theoretical approaches, definitions, and profiles of pe~etratorsare presented.

Much of the research examining sexual coercion,date rape, acquaintance

rape, wife rape, gang rape,and unwanted sex approached these issues from
varied, often opposing, perspectives. For example,one perspective regard.
ing sexually coercive beliefs
is that theman is just being a guy, he was led
on, was teased, was only givingin tohormonal urges, misunderstoodthe situation, a miscommunication between he and his date, spouse, or friend,
real men are supposed to pursue sex,and so on. Many of these beliefs are
reflected in thevarious scales examiningaccepted beliefs and attitudestoc
ward rape. For example,in a meta-analysis on attitudes toward rape, K. B.
Anderson, Cooper, and Okamura (1997) found that men held greater rape
acceptance than women. Similarly, variables
such as traditional gender-role
beliefs, adversarial sexual beliefs, powerand dominance needs, aggression
and anger, and conservatism predicted rape acceptance. Items from such
scales, someofwhich were usedin theK.B. Anderson et al. (1997) study,
ofe
ten suggested that responsibilityfor the sexual act resides with the
woman-that she either asked for it or she could and should have conc
trolled the situation if she really wanted to.

Several existing measures assessing mens

and womens beliefs focus
on attitudes toward women, rape myth acceptance, and rape attitudes; particue
larly, mensand womens attitudes toward women who
have been the target
of some sexually coercive
act and the men
who perpetrated the act.Some of
these measures include the RMA, AIV; Sexual Callousness, and the ASB
scales. What follows are brief descriptionsof these measures and scales and
examples of questions from these indexes.

males in male~femalerelationships and beliefs that such behaviors lead to

sexual gratification.Items from the ASB include men are only out for one
a woman will only respect aman who will lay
Although these scales and measures certainly
not an exhaustive re#
view of measures assessingattitudes tow women, they are recognized and
oftencused measures in research on sex oercion.
As illustrated, items on
the various scalesshare common characteristics: (a)
a serious crime,or evena crimeat all; (b) men acting a
oing what men do or what
women expector evenwant men to do;
(c) womenoften engage in token resistance (i.e., saynowhen they really
mean yes) in an effort to preserve their re~utation;and (d) if a woman
does not want to engage in sex, she could get out of the situation.
Many of the arguments and explanations for sexually coercive
situations
just presented (e.g., the man was only giving in to uncontrollable urges, a
perceived sexual invitation, societal expectations) are not adequate in ex#
~ l ~ i n i all
n g sexually coercivesituations, however, Stock (1991) argued:

n this approach is applied

to rape, for example,
it becomes evident that
is not only the result of uncontrolled lust, exaggerated gender roles,
miscommu~ication,or a misgui~eddesire for sexual intimacy. These factors
o not suffici~ntly
explain why rape occurs when alternative sexual outlets
available, includin~masturbation, when the aggression could be
by a nonsexual attack, or where direct communication b the
woman is often ignored, notmisunderstoo~by the rapist.
other forms of sexual coercion can be viewed
both
as theex
firmation of male power, ~ominance,and controlof women. (p. 62)
pective argues that unwa

(1991) argued that power inequ

pt to maintain that imbalance

l dating scripts (Check6.Malamuth, 1983).

The TSS is learned through social~ationand provides the ~ameworkfor

very di~erent
sexual expectations for
men and women in our society.Such expectations have o
been associated with mens sexual coercion of women
(e.g.,Byers, 1996
m a n 6.Leslie,1982). Cast withinheterosexualrelationships, Byers (1996) arguedthat theTSS prescribes the following beliefs:

1.
2.
3.

en are oversexed a women

are undersexed.
Women9s value
and status are decreasedby sexual experience,mens
are increased. In a word, women are promiscu~us~
or a slut,)
whereas men are studs.
Men initiate sexual situations, whereas women are the recipients.
must pursue sexual activity to reinforce their masculi~ity,
eas women must remain passive and protective of their reputation.
Due to their supposed lackof interest in sex, women should remain
reluctant to engage in sexual activityor allow itto proceed beyon

5.

6.

a certainpoint. In response to a womans reluctance, a man

is justil
fled in being coerciveto get her past her anxiety. Becausethe TSS
gests that women often engage in token resistance (i.e., saying
no when there
is every intention to have
sex), men may bemore
coercive to get past the game~playingwomen engage in to prea
serve their reputations.
A womans value is increased by being romantically involved. She
must resist sex to preserve her reputation, but not to the degree
that the man
loses interest inher. Thus, the TSS promotes coyness,
teasing, and promises of reward
on thepart of the woman if the man
remains in the relationship.
TheTSS promotes emotionality andnurturing forwomen and
coldness and insensitivity for men. In sexual situations, this as0
sumption suggests that a woman put amans needs before her own
and that the man
neednt worry how hisactions affect her.

Byers (1996) tested the theoreticalrelevance of the TSSby examining if

the TSSwas the normative sexual script. She found mixed support for the
theory. Specifically,although men initiated dates sex
andmorethan women,
womens initiation was not out of the ordinary; agreement about the level
and amountof sexual activity was more common among heterosexual couples than was disagreement; disagreement about sexual activity did
not necc
esiarily lead to sexual coercion; men were inclined to pursue further sexual
activity if the woman refused and tended to accept her no
as a no. Byers
concluded that theTSS provided a useful framework,but that itis not the
normative dating script. Specifically, many of the ass~mptionsof the TSS
did not hold when tested.
If the TSSis not thenormative dating script,then controversy existsregarding what, specifically, predicts sexual coercion. Many of the variables
associated with sexual coercion prevalence relate to the traditional sexual
script (e.g., who askedand who paid, gender,location of the date, etc.). A
more feminist perspective argues
that menengage in sexual coercion due to
dominance and power but does not necessarily explain coercion. For exam#
ple, Byerss (1996) results indicated that disagreement about sexual activity
did not necessarily leadto sexual coercion and that men were inclined to ace
cept no for an answer. Along the same lines, Mac Donald (1995) argued
that Most daterapists are motivated by a desire for sex than wanting to
show their power over their victims or over women in general (p. 52).
In an attempt to examine the various predictors cumulatively (rather
than case by case)several of the aforementioned variables are tested

meta~analytically laterin the chapter. Prior to examining variables associ0

ated with coercion, it is first necessaryto define types of coercion. Lack of
consistency on definitions and operationalizations could be detrimental to
the validity of a meta~analysis
on thetopic.

Of all the various termsand definitions regarding sexualrelations, the only

form that exists and does not involve crimeor violation of any sort is consen#
sua1 sex. ~~e~~~ sex is sexual relations with both partners desiring
sex(Parrot, 1991,p. 4). ~nfortunately,many instances involving sexualbehavior occur that donot involve mutual consent.Problematically, in the literature, anothercontroversy exists regardingdefinitions and language used
in studies on sexual coercion because various terms are used interchangeably when they do notrepresent the same thing (e.g., daterape and u c ~
tame rape are used interchangeably) The purpose of this section is to review
the related terms as defined in the literature.

Several terms exist regardingsexual coercion and illustrations are provided

for someof the terms here. For example, a c ~ ~ ~ rape
~ t as
a is~often
c e defined
as nonconsensual sex between adults who know each other (~ecchofer6r
Parrot, 1991; Parrot, 1991). An illustration of acquaintance rape follows.
Sally and Johnare college classmates.John sees Sallyat thelibrary and offers
her aride home. Although Sally doesnot know John well, she feels comfortc
able accepting his offerto drive her homebecause she recognizes him from
class, Enroute to her home, John parks hiscar in an abandoned lot and has
nonconsensual sex with Sally, Date rape involves individuals who are inc
volved in a dating
relationship or who are on a date. Daterape is defined as
nonconsensual sex between people whoare dating or on a date(Becchofer
&Parrot, 1991; Parrot, 1991).For example, Sallyand Johnare out on a date.
John drives Sallyhome and sheinvites him into herhome for a drink,John
has nonconsensual sex with Sally. Unlike ac~uaintancerape or date rape, a
woman who is raped does not know her assailant. Rape is defined as ped
nis-vagina intercourse against a womans will and without her consent
(Parrot, 1991, p. 4.) Variations of rape exist.For example, soft rupe is coerc
cion used to engage a victim in intercourse against hisher will (Parrot,
1991, p. 4). S ~ ~rape
p ~is rape
e
withoutviolence or force, with a single asc
sailant or without any other accompanying crime (kidnapping, murder,as+
sault, etc.) (Parrot,1991, p. 4). ~ r a ~ u rape
~ e isdrape which occurs with

han one assailant orin conjunction with another crime (

r, assault, etc.) (Parrot, 991, p. 4). S~~~ ~
s is d ~

a1 coercion involves

compulsory
heterosexuali~,gender
and Schrag (199l), example
roles,assumptions about the
ex,assumptions about thenature of
marriage, fear of male violence, status coercion, economic coercion, discrimination against lesbians,verbal sexual coercion, alcoholand drugs, and
rape without force.
As evident from this review, many definitions existin the
literature. Probr
lematicall~,researchers often interchange definitions. As noted, many of
the studies reviewedand used in meta-analyses operationalizea term differently. Unless the authors clearly define how terms(e.g., ~~e ~ ~were~de#e
fined and operationalized, it is not clear to readers or those conducting a
meta-analysis what, specifically, is being addressed conceptually. For
examc
night, Fabes, and Higgins (1996)cautioned against makingcausal in-ferences from metaeanalyses.
In their meta-analysis on gender differences in
aggr~ssion, theauthors observed that inconsistencies in definitions and
measures of a concept (i.e., aggression) lead to problems in inte~retation
and conclusion. Particular to their study, A more cautious conclusion is
that the most reliable moderators of gender differences in aggression are

dies themselves (e.g., h

t et al, 199~,
p. 417).
at inconsistencies likely exist amongthe de~nitions
use
this chapter associated with sex
e formsof coercion (verbal, phys
r in thereview of the TS
oken, verbal, and physical
ry nature of gender itself e
for adate, who pays, unspoken soci
relationships? etc.). Simil
ed to request sex and WO
the TSS, men are social
denied-and such pursuits may involve
e between noncriminal and criminal purc
Aspects of coercion (e.g., unspoken, verbal, and physical) encapsulate all
of the various forms discussed
thus far because all forms involve some
or all
of these aspects of coercion. us, for clarityand brevitys sake,such behave
iors are referred to as coerc
the remainder of this chapter unless other-.
defined by certain pieces of research.
om the more physical aspect
of coercion, several profiles
of male sexual
perpetrators exist, most of which reinforce a feminist perspective
mans violationof a woman reflects feelings of power or anger (e.g.,
1991). The following section provides an overview of the various types of
male offenders.Just as various types
of coercion exist, various types
of perped
trators exist. Their motives and behaviors vary to a degree, but there is a
consistent theme of power, violation,and degradation.

ac Donald (1995) interviewed more

than 200 rape offenders,including 10
who killed their targets, as well as targets
of sexual assault.Along with
mation from the Behavioral Science Unit of the FBI Academy, he o
five rapist profiles.
Those profiles are briefly reviewed below (see
ald, 1995, for a moreextensive description) .
*

Such individuals are the least violent sexual offenders. This type often
wants to reassure his masculinity
and may be a closet homosexual.

ically a loner, has few friends, and has difficulty relating to women. The sexual act is typically brief and the perpetrator often asks for reassurance
regarding hissexual performance. This type of rapist keeps a souvenir from
the scene and may keepa record of his conquests (Mac Donald, 1995). The
various formsof sexual assault, coercion, and rape describedearlier could fit
this description (e.g., acquaintance rape, date rape, simple rape, soft rape,
rape, sexual assault, verbal or physical coercion).

This sort of man is asserting his masculinity and is more violent than the
power0reassurance rapist. He oftendrives a flashy car,hits the bar scene, and
uses a con approach. He will resort to verbal or physical violence if necesc
sary and there is no distinct pattern tohis rapes. Sex acts ofteninvolve re,
peated vaginal sex or oral sex following anal sex. Such a man is often
impersonal, demanding, threatening, domineering, and degrading (Maconald, 1995, p. 159).Previously describedacts that fit thisdescription in&
clude the forms mentioned earlier, as well
the possibility of aggravated rape,

This rapist uses excessiveviolence and force and his goal is to demean and
make womenpay. When hefeels that aninjustice has been done him,
to
he gets even, possibly through sexual retaliation. Often, a domestic violence
or speeding report was issued to him earlier on theday of a rape. This type
will usea weapon, beat the woman during the act,use a lot of profanity, and
oral sex often follows anal sex. Although the aim of this attacker is not to
kill, death can occur due
to the level of violence and anger associated with
the attack (Mac
Donald, 1995). The aggravated rape definition fits the pro0
file of this perpetrator.

This sort of rapist isthe most violent and fatality may result if the target re0
sists the attacker. His goalsinclude domination, control, andemotional and
physical harm. According to Mac Donald (1995), he is probablyin his third
ties, hasa good marriage,a whitedcollar job,and no arrest record (p. 160)
This perpetrator carefully plans his attacks and enjoyment is gained from
the targets reaction to thetorture. The act may be taped or photo~raphed
and levels of sex may vary,although anal sex is typically used(Mac Donald,
1995).The aggravated rapedefinition also fitsthe profile of this per~etrator.

This attacker did not plan the rape and oftendoes not commit rape again.
Typically, a rape results when theman, for example, robs a home and finds a
woman there. Often, the man
will leave evidence at thescene andis under
the influence of alcohol or drugs( ~ a c ~ o n a l1995).
d,
Similarly, the oppor,
tunist rape qualifiesas aggravated rape because
it typically involvesan unree
lated crime (e.g.,robbery)fromwhich
a rape will occur. Unlike the
angereretaliatory rapist or the sadistic rapist-who also qualify asenacting
aggravated rape~pportunisticrapists do notset out with the intent to
use
excessive violence or torture against women.
To summarize, powerereassuranceand power-assertive rapists hold attitudes andengage in actions that appear to be more specific
to many theoret.
ical assumptions of the TSS than anger-retaliatory,sadistic, or opportunistic
rapists. That is, powerereassurance rapists typicallywant to be reassured of
their manliness and often keep score of their conquests. Moreover,
power-assertive rapists seemto follow a more extreme aspect of the sexual
script. Specifically, the man is in control of the sexual situation, picks up
dates and has his way with them, andexercises dominance in the relatiow
ship. The TSS prescribes that menassert their manliness, engagein multiple
sexual experiences to reinforce their manliness, are justified in coercing a
woman to have sex because theyare men, and need not be sensitive or at0
tentive to thewomans feelings about the situation (e.g., Byers, 1996).
One can see the complexities involved in examining sexual coercion
phenomena. Specifically, definitions of sexual coercion vary, perceptions of
what is coercive vary from both the perpetrator andthe victim perspecc
tives, and various typesof perpetrators exist. Similarly,contradict in^ theoc
retical perspectives exist explainingwhy sexual coercion occurs.
After reviewing the various theoretical fiameworks explaining sexual coercion, definitions and typesof coercion, and profiles of perpetrators, we next
discuss the variables identifiedin theliterature as relating to sexual coercion
and resistance. The following variables are reported often as contributors to
sexual coercion (e.g., Bostwick 6r Delucia, 1992; ~uehlenhard,1988).

When considering gender as a variable in regard to sexual coercion, we must

consider mens and womens conditioning (e.g., gender roles, attitudes) as
well as mens
and womens perceptions of what sexual coercion and rape are.

ider the act of rape, we ofien

at 60% to '75% of the rapes re
~ u ~ were
e ystrang~rrapes; however, 84% of
ac~~aintances
or dates had committe~unw
women are more likely
to fall victimto an int
ics, 1996) It is possible that many womendo not report acquainc
te rape to law enforcement as readily stra~ger
as
rape becausethe
are less clear (Becchofer 6.Parrot, 1991). Specifically, a woman
*

L
who is the victim of date rape may be more likely to question herself (e.g.,
Maybe I asked forit?Maybe I led him on?;Parrot, 1991)than a woman who
gh rape is rape, regardlessof the relationship with
may not perceive it in this way. Women whoare
often do notrealize that rape occurr
S victims, but notas legitimate crim
cchofer 6.Parrot, 1991, pp.9-25).
rcedcsex episode is less likelyto be vi
had engaged in sex withthe man before. For
ein (1992) found that participants were les
sex asdate rape if the woman had engage^ in sex with
the man 10 times priorto theepisode (as opposedto onceor twice).
tional research also suggeststhat women and menare less likelyto view unwanted sex on a traditional date ora date ina closer relationship (vs.
stranger or pickup date) as rape (e.g., Jenkins 6.Dambrot, 1987;
1~85).
Regarding sexua
rcion, the findings suggest that being in a close
relationship is associate
a lessenedlikelihood of perceiving that anything untoward occurred. T~ically,as relationships advance, greater levels
of trust, in~imacy, and commitment
develop. Unfortunately, such relational
aspects may convolute whatis right and wrong.

Research regard in^ who initiates and pays for a date suggested that the
woman is in an awkward position regardless ofwhether she was the initiator
or receiver of the dateproposal. Some men perceive a willing acceptance of
ate proposal, transportation, andexpenses asjustification for sexualage
gressiveness ( ~ a r n e y& Muehlenhar~,1991). Muehlenhard, ~riedman,
and Thomas (198s) found that if a woman allows the man to pa for the
date, the man
may perceive the oma an as beinginterested insex.
also suggestedthat men perceive a woman more willingto engage in sex and
are also more likely
to j u s t i ~
their pursuing sexwithout a womans consent if
the man paid forthe date(~uehlenhard,1988). These findings support the
notion that the manfeels asthough heis owed something or the woman
may feel as though she owes compliance to his unwanted advances
(Korman, 1983).
Conversely, findings suggestedthat women who initiate datesor pay for
them are also often perceived negatively. Specifically, men may perceive
such women as experienced, loose, or interested in sex, For example,
~ u e h l e n h a r d(1988) found that men often interpret
a womans date invita#
tion as an invitationfor sex.~ u e h l e n h a r dand Scardino (1985) found that

enter into first dates withparticularly high sexual expectations when

ated the date. Other research supports these

ests that women are in a precarious position whether or not they initiate
accept a date proposal. ~pecifically,women are perceived as owing
compliance to unwanted sexual advances if they accept a date proposal an
paid expensesand are also perceived as being
interested insex if they initiate
orpay for the date.

ding complications to anoften already ambiguousdating situation

are intoxicants. Specifically, one thirdto two thirds of pe~etratorsand vice
nder the influence of alcohol at thetime of the sexual assault (e.g.,
inero, 1989).Often, menwill use drugs or
alcohol to lower the inhibitions of their victims (~uehlenhard al.,
et 1991).Mosher and Anderson
(1986) found that 75% of men in their
sample used drugsor alcohol to persuade unwilling women to engage in sex. Levine and Kanin (1987) found
that pe~etratorsoften used beingunder theinfluence as an excuse fortheir
behavior. Other findings supported the notion that drugs and alcohol are
used as coercive tools with unwilling partners (~hristopher6,Frandsen,
truc~maneJohnson,1988) In a sample of nearly 1,500 respon(1988)found that a mans use ofalcohol or drugs playeda role in
sexual contact 35% of the time, in sexual coercion 64% of the time, in ate
tempted rape 54% of the time, and 73% of the time in thecase of actual rape.
In addition, Koss (1988) found that women had been using alcohol or drugs
in 29% of the sexual contact incidents, in31%of the sexual coercion incic
dents, in 58% of the attempted rape incidents, and in 55% of the actual
rapes. Thus, the findings suggestthat for both the perpetrator andvictim,
use ofintoxicants is related to anincreased li~elihood that
u n ~ a n t e dsexual
behavior will occur.
/.

e surroundings in which an unwanted sexual incident transpires relates

to the perpetrators perception that nothing untoward has occurred. That
is, location of the encounter often contributes
to a mans ~ustificationfor the
sexual incident. Research indicated that a mans ~ustifiabili~
and a womans
perceived willingness are highest when the dateis at the mans apartment
(as opposed to a movie or a religious function; ~ u e h l e n h a r det al., 1985).

Both men andwomen are morelikely to report a date rape as more justified
if
the incidentoccurred at themans apartment (as opposedto a movie
8). Xn terms of occurrence, Muehlenhard and Linton
t date rapes are most likelyto take place in the perpetrators home, car, or in anisolated location. Bart and OBrien (1985)reported
that rapes are more likely to occur indoors than outdoors and thatwomen
have a decreased chance of getting away if the incidentoccurs indoors.
summarize, these findings suggestthat a woman increases risk by going to
mans apartment or home, hasa decreased likelihoodof avoiding the rape if
she does go to such locations, and is perceived as more willingto engage in
sex by deciding to go to themans apartment.

Just as various formsof coercion exist (e.g., verbal, physical),several forms of

resistance also exist regardingreaction to the unwantedcoercive behavior.
Specifically, r e s ~ ~ can
~ c take
e the form of verbal resistance (e.g., NO),
physical resistance (e.g., fighting, hitting, slapping), and token resistance
(e.g.,saying no when what is really meant is yes; Muehlenhar
Hollabaugh, 198$). Although evidence exists suggestingthat both men
and
women engage in token resistant behaviors (Sprecher, Hatfield, Cortese,
Potapova, & Levitskaya, 1994), the notion of token resistance is often focused on women. Muehlenhard and Hollabaugh (1988) reported that as
many as 39% of women have admitted to engaging in token resistance at
least once and 17% have admitted to
practicing it regularly. Problematica~ly,
many men i n t e ~ r eat womans no to mean yes (Check 15r Malamuth,
1983). Such behavior reflects prescriptions of the TSS or arguments that
men are just being men andresponding to womens equivocal overtures.
Findings on verbal or physical resistance to sexual coercion
lack of consistent results (e.g., Atkeson, Calhoun, & Morris, 19
OBrien, 1985; Brady, Chrisler, Hosdale, Osowiecki, 6r Veal, 1991). Disagreements exist regardingwhether women should resist an attack or acquit
esce. Some research indicated that men or women who resist
an attack are
less likelyto be raped (Kleck62. Sayles, 1990).Other research suggested that
resistance could be fatal (MacDonald, 1995). The findings are also mixed
regarding the effectiveness of physical and verbal strategies. Ullman
Knight (1993)found that physical resistance strategies were most effective,
whereas others found that these behaviors instigated contact (Siegel,
Sorenson, Golding, Burnam,6rStein, 1989). Siegel et al. (1989) found that
verbal resistance strategies were more effectivein resisting sexual coercion.

onald (1971) fou

ination of physical an
verbal strategies was more eRective,
To summarize9several of these variables (e.g., gender,
who initiated or paid, location of the encounter) are relate
by the TSS. Other variables considered are
women, Justifiabili~of the coercion, perceived willin
actual or perceived levels of coercion used. w on side ring the previous re+
certain patternsare expected to exist among the variables. peci~cally,
to have more negative attitud
and paying fora dateis expec
tion for the sexual incident, particularly if the WO
for it. Initiation and
payment forthe dateare expected to negatively re0
to perceptions that coercion occurred. imilarly9the literature suggests
that if the dateoccurs at amore private location (as oppo
tion), thereis a greater likelihood that thewoman will
ing to engage in sex. It is expected that relational level w
to perceptions of coercion occurring, such that themore
tionship, the less likely one will perceive that coercion took place. ina ally,
the literaturesuggests that use of intoxicants will relate to reduced percepc
tions that coercion occurred. The next section involves the meta-analyses
nd resistance. Studies on bothcoercion and resistance
n overall discussion follows.

Studies included in this meta0analysis (see Emmers & Allen, 1995a) were
initially amassed from
computer searches using keywordssuch as s e x ~ coera~
cion, s ~ a ~~r e s as ~and
o~~ date
, rape. Computer databases utilized included
Psychlit, ERIC, ~ ~ Y ~ H I nDissertation
fo,
Abstracts International and lie
brary reference databases to locate books, articles, and dissertations on sex#
ual coercion, ac~uaintancerape, anddate rape. The purposes of the
literature searchwere to pinpoint research that investigated this topic area
and to examine the repetitive reporting the impact of certain key variables
(e.g., who asked or who paid, gender) on sexual coercion across studies.
Each articles, chapters, and dissertations reference section was examined
to locate additional articles. Of the articles examined, the ones meeting the
following criteria were included in this investigation:

1.
2.

The manuscript examined nonstranger sexually coercivesituations.

The manuscript examined all or some of the independent variables
previously reviewed as being potential contributors to a sexually

3.

4.

coercive situation (e.g., who paid,location of date, level of the relac

tionship, etc.).
The manuscript examined all or som
variables: justifiabili~,willingness, a
The manuscri~t
held data involving mens or womens use ofsexw
ally coercive behaviors and reported usable statistical i n f o ~ a t i o n
that enabled an estimate between the aforementioned indepen
ent variables and justifiability, willingness,and coercion.

ina ally, an effort wasmade to examine articles which involvedboth male

female pe~etration an
not be met because all studies included in
male victimization and male perpetration, I
majority of studies included in this investigation involved scenarios (Le
participants ratings of coercion based on forcedesex depictions) as oppose
to reports of actual coercive situations. Nevertheless, both mens an
womens perceptions are included in this analysis.

The following section overviews the variables examined and code

meta-analys~ on
coercion, Specifically, sex,justifiabili~ and
willin
coho1 and drugs, whoinitiated andwho paid,location of the encounter,an
relationship level wereinvestigated.
Several
studies
examined
justifiabili~for date rape or for sexually coercive
behavior (the perpetrators
justifiabili~for the behavior) and perceived victim willingness
(the v i c t i ~ , s
willingness to engage in sex; e.g., Bostwick&DeLucia, 1992;Muehlenhard,
1988; Muehlenhard et al., 1985). All three of the aforementioned studies
provided two questions which were answered on a scale ranging from1-7
following date rape vignettes. The first question addressed victim willingness-Given this information, do you think Mary wants to have inter,
course with John? Justifiabili~
was assessedby answering, If it turnedout
that Mary did not want to
have intercourse with John, would John be justid
fied in doing it against her wishes? (Muehlenhard, 1988, p. 23).
e

Much of theliterature examines coercive

strategies (e.g., Christopher & Frandsen, 1990; McCormick, 1979; C. J.
Struckman~Johnson,1988).As mentioned earlier in the chapter, coercion
can take verbal (e.g., threats, requests, ~anipulation,profanities), physical
e

(e.g., forced sex, physicalforce), or unspoken forms (e.g., makingthe other

feel asthough sheowes sex, making
the otherfeel asthough the relationship will be jeopardized without sex, etc.). Threats,persuasion tactics, direct
and indirectrequests, and explanations provided by men in an
effort to gain
sex were coded as verbal strategies. Pushing, hitting, holding the victim
down, or physically overcomingthe victim to gain sex werecoded as physical strategies. Finally, unspokencoercive strategies were coded from
participants reports of the other making them feel (void of verbal or physical
strategies) that they should engage in sex.
Sex was coded according to each articles report of men and
women in theirsample,

Attitudes toward women were assesse

by e ~ a m i n i nthe
~ various measuresof attitudes (e.g., AIY M A ) in theliterature. The higher the score on the scale, the more negative the attitude
toward women..
Alcohol and drugswerecoded according to
each articles report that intoxicants had been
used by the pe~etrator, the
target, or both in conjunction
with the sexual incident.
W

Location of the encounterwas coded

according to thearticles reports that theincident occurred at a private location (e.g., an apartment) as opposed to a public location (e.g., a rock concert) .Overall, Emmers and Allen (1995a) had 98% coding agreement.

Sirnilar to other meta-analyses (e.g., Allen, Emmers, Cebhardt,

1993, this study used Hunter and Schmidts (1990) methodology. Briefly,
Hunter and Schmidts method is a variance~centeredform of meta-analysis
(Bangert- ow^, 1986).This form ofmeta-analysis extracts an average effect
from a population of effects and sampling error is responsible for deviations
from the average effect.Correlation coefficients calculatedin this investigae
tion represent effect sizes. h overall correlation was calculated for each
study aswell ascorrelation for justifia~ility,willingness, verbal, physical,and
unspoken coercive strategies resulting fromeach of the predictor variables.
Chi-squares were calculatedto test homogeneity of groups suchthat a significant chi-square indicates n o ~ o m o g e n e and
i ~ a nonsi~ificantchi-square
indicates homogeneity.

Overall, 19 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Results indicate

positive correlationsbetween initiation andperceived victim willingness
(N
= 1,266,r = .350, k = 4, p .05) and perpetrators justification (N= 326, r
= .228, k = 4, p >.05). Thus, initiation of a date related to perceiving the
victim as willing
to engage in sex. Initiation of a date also related to the
petrator believing he was justifiedin pursuing sex.Initiation was negati
related to coercion (N= 326, r = -.239, k = 4, p .05). Overall, both men
and women perceived sex as
more justified if the woman initiated the
than if the mandid. Also, both men and women perceived the woman as
more willingto engage in sex if she initiated the date and
were less likelyto
perceive that coercion occurred.
Who paid forthe datewas positivelyrelated to perceived vict
ness to engage in sex (N= 1,653,T = .248, k = 3, p <.05) and p
justification (N= 1098, r = .097, k = 3, p .05), and was negat
to coercion (N= 1013, r = 4 9 3 , k = 2, p C .05). Thus, both men an
women perceived the woman as being more willing
to engage in sex when
the manpaid forthe date. ~imilarly,both sexes viewedthe coercion as more
justified when the man
paid forthe date and
were also less likely
to perceive
that coercion had occurred.
Analysis of the gender variable compared mens and womens percepc
tions of j u s t i f i a ~ i l iwillingness,
~,
and coercion. Results indicated that men
perceived the female victim as more willing to engage in sex than women
did (N= 1,981,r = ,290,k = 5, p e .05). Men also perceived the coercion
as more justified than women did (N= 1,576,r = .167, k = 5, p e ,05)
were less likelythan women to perceive that coercion occurred (N =
r = - 418, k = 5).
Regarding relational level, both men andwomen were less likelyto perceive that coercion had occurred (N= 1,268,T = -.036, k = 4, p >.O~)
if
the couple had a relationshipor hadengaged in sex priorto the forced sexual
episode than if the couple didnot have a prior relationshipor hadnever enc
gaged in sex.
Drug and alcohol use alsocontributed to reduced perceptions that coercion occurred. Specifically, both men and women perceived forced sex as
less coerciveif drugs and alcohol were usedby the involved parties than if
the parties were sober (N= 3,038, r = -.093, k = 3, p e ,05).
Finally, resultsof the location of the dateindicate that going to anapartc
ment for adate, as opposedto a religiousfunction, movie, or rockconcert,
greatly contributed to theperceptions of the woman being willing
to engage

in sex (N= 808,T = .58, k = 3,p C .05) and indivi uals perceivedthe coer-.
cion as being more justified(N = 808, T = ,267, k == 3,p c .05).

iterature search process for this metaeanalysis (Emmers 6r Allen,

the procedure used in the previously mentioned
metacanalys~(Emmers 6rAllen, 1995a). All articles meeting the following
criteria were included in the investigation:

1.

The manuscript examined nonstranger sexuallycoercive situations.

The manuscript examined victim resistance (e.g., verbal, physical
strategies) in response to sexual coercion.
The manuscript included data for male and female participants.
The manuscript include data for both males and females resisc
tance behaviors.
The data from each manuscript had to report adequate statistical
~ f o ~ a t i to
o allow
n
an estimate of the relation between sexual c06
ercion and males and females resistance behaviors,

2.
3.

The following sections overview the variables examinedin themetaeanaly.

sis on resistance to coercion. Specifically, verbaland physical resistanceand
sex diserences were examined and coded.
This code determinedwhether
the strategies exercisedby men orwomen were verbal
or physical in nature.
Verbal strategies involvedthe victims use of threats, explanations, or per+
suasive strategies to resist the sexual coercion. Token resistance was not
coded as a verbal resistance strategy because of its disingenuous nature.
Physical strategies involved flight
or some physicalbehavior used to halt the
sexual coercion (e.g., pushing the pursuer away, removing the perpetrators
hand from the targets body, etc.).
e

This variable was coded based on each articles reports of men

and women in their sample. Emmers and Allen (1995b) had 100% agree#
ment on the
studies involving mens
and womens resistanceto sexual coercion as well asthe types of strategies used.
e

The overall analysis of

the six studies with 993 participants indicated an ave
erage negative correlation (T = --.045) between gender di~erencesin resisc
tance to sexual coercion. The effect size washomogenous,
= 5, p >.05. ender di~erences(N = 910) in exercising
behaviors to sexual coercion correlated at T = ,008 and h
= 2.78, k = 5, p >.05. Finally, the average effect for gen
= ~ 0 9in
) using physicalresistance to sexual coercion W
and was also homo~enous,x2 (4) = 7.23, k = 4, p >$05.
No s i ~ i f i c a n differences
t
existed between men and women, in overall
strategy use or in verbal strategy use. However, compared to men, women
were more likely to exercise physical resistance behaviors (e.g., fight or
flight) in response to sexual coercion. Thus, although men and women
might have equal choices in terns of responses to unwanted sexual coerc
cion, the effectiveness of those choices differs between the sexes. Specifically, womenin sexually coercivesituations more often resort to physical
resistance, whereas verbal resistance appears to be sufficient for men.

Byers (1996) found only mixed support for the TSS; however, Byerss work
was not meta0analytical. everth he less, results of these meta0analyses sugc
gest similarsupport for the TSS, specifically that mixed support for the TSS
about maleefemale relationships exists.
Recall that the TSS argued that sexual pursuit is acceptable, even ex0
pected, for men, whereas sexual abstinence or passivity is anticipate
women. Although some of the correlations in these analyses were small,re0
sults suggested that both menand women generally perceive sexualcoercion as moreacceptable, the victim as more willing,and the erp pet rat or as
more justifiedwhether thewoman followsthe TSS orviolates expectations.
Research previouslyfound that a man paying fora date follows a tra~itional
script (e.g., Check &L Malamuth, 1983). Results of Emmers and Allens
(1995a) meta0analysis suggested that both men and women perceive the
woman as more willing to engage in sex if the manpaid for the date. This
finding supported previous research that found that men perceived women
as more interested insex if the men paid for the date (Muehlenhard et
al.,
1985)and thatwomen maybe more willingto engage in sex or feel asthough
they owe sexif the manpaid for the date (Korman, 1983).
Previous research found that a woman initiating the date
violates the trad
ditional script (e.g., Check &L Malamuth, 1983; Mongeau 6r Carey, 1996;

6.Scardino, 1985). Results of the meta-analysis indicated

eived the woman as more willingto engage
the date, consistent with ~uehlenhards
on thatmen oftenperceive a womans invitation for a date
as an invitation for sex.
Traditional dates ofteninvolve goingout todinner, a movie, a concert, or
a mans apartment for the date. Muehlenhard et
al. (1985) found that men
women as more willingto engage in sex if the ate took place at
the mans apartment. Findings of this study, however, indicated that both
men and women perceive a woman as more willingto engage in sex if the
date took place at themans apartment. ~ccording to the
TSS, a womans
involvement in a romantic relationship increases her valuesocially; she
must keep the man interested without being perceived as promiscuous
(~yers,1996). One of the problems with ongoingromantic relationships is
that sex is less likely
to be viewed as rape
if the couple has engaged in sex prec
(Shotland 6.Coodstein, 1992). Resultsof this meta-analysis found
th men andwomen perceived forced sex
to be less coercive
if the couc
ple had engaged in sex before as opposed
to if they were not ina relationship
or never had sex, omen are less likely to acknowledge a forcedesex inti+
dent as rape if they know the assailant (Koss, 1985; Parrot, 1991) and
women are more likely to be accosted in some form by an intimate as opposed to a nonintimate ( ~ u r e a uof Justice Statistics,1996).Thus, similar to
past research, the findings of this meta-analysis indicated that unwanted
sex
in anadvanced relationship is less likely to be perceived as a violation.
Although the effect was small, results of this study indicated that both
men andwomen were significantly inclined
less
to perceive that sexual Goer-.
cion occurred if alcohol or drugs were involved
in the incident
than if the in#
dividuals were sober,
These findings shed some newlight on themixture of
intoxicants andsexual activity. Specifically, past
research has found that alcohol is often involved in cases of unwanted sex (e.g., Koss, 1988; Koss 6.
Dinero, 1989), is used to persuade unwilling partners (e.g., Christopher 6.
Frandsen, 1990; Mosher 6r. ~ n d e r s o n ,1986; C. 3. Struckman~Johnson,
1988)and has been used by men tojustify their behavior (Levine 6rKanin,
1987).However, the results of thisanalysis found that both men and
women, as opposed to only men, were lessinclined to perceive that coercion
had occurred if intoxicants were involved.
The findings of this study supported past findings revealing some
gender
differences (Emmers 6.Allen, 1995a). Specifically, men perceived women
as more willingto engage in sex than women and theeffect was moderate.
Consistent with the TSS, men are expected to see through a womans sup+

posed token resistance and persist sexually (Byers,1996) Thus, a man rea
a womans resistance as disingenuous and continuessexually with her. The
eCfects for gender, particularly for
men perceiving forced sex
as less coercive
than women, were particularly strong.
~ o ~ i s t ewith
n t ~uehlenhard et
al. (1985), results of this analysis indicated that men perceived forced sex asmore justifiable. According to the
TSS, men aresupposed to pursue sex,even if the woman is somewhat ambivalent (Byers, 1996). Men who believe that women lead them on often
feel more justified
in exercising coercivebehaviors (~oodchilds
1984; ~ u e h l e n h a r d& ~acNaughton,1988).
In examining how men and women react to sexually coercivesituations,
results indicated that men and women do notsignificantly differin overall
strategies or in verbal strategies. However, findings suggested
a small, significant effect for women being more likely
to exercise physical resistance behaviors than men did, as Emmersand Allen (1995b) found. Other research
has found that women are more likely to be faced with physical coer
than men (C. J. truc~man0Johnson91988) and women may be forc
fight fire with fire by responding physically to physically coerciveovertures
and behaviors. These findings are not surprising, considering that theTSS
suggests that men pursue sex, even if met with resistance (Byers, 1996).

The results of these meta-analyses suggest that women, in particular, risk

potential negative evaluation whether they follow or deviate from the TSS
Whether converging with (i.e.,letting the manpay for the date)or diverging from (i.e., the woman initiating the date)the script, a possible outcome
of either behavior is the sexual coercion of women. A troubling outcome of
these findings is that men and women share many perceptions regarding
justifiabili~,willingness, and coercion. This is particularly distur~ingconsidering that those involved in advanced relationships are less likelyto perceive that anything untoward has occurred in the eventof unwanted sex.
As insightful as these findings may be, limitations do exist. A.main limitation is that many of the studies on sexual coercion rely on perceptual rather
than experiential data. However, it may be that experiential data do notpro*
duce different results. K.B.Anderson et al. (1997) onlyfound small effects
for slightly lessacceptance of rape attitudes when examining w o ~ e nwho
had beencoerced or knew someonewho had experienced coercion. Nonetheless, an exploration of experiential data is necessary.
Another limitation is that meta-analyses are only as good as
the original
investigations ~ e t h o d o l o ~ i crigor.
a l If each study does not care full^ iden

operationalize, or attenuate accordingly, those conducting a metacana

on the topic may grapple with validity issues.
~ethodological an
statistical improvements and standardization across studies are needed
ondrick, 6r.Hirschman, 1993; Knight et al., 1996).
on the findings presented here, future research should examine
prevalence of sexual coercion in both heterosexual and homosexual relac
tionships. In heterosexual relationships, particularly traditional relationmore predictive theoretical framework is nee d to explain the
oercion phenomenon. Althoughsupport was fo d for the TSS to a
the findin S om this study were mixed, as were Byerss (1996). In
(1996),the TSS is useful in explaining coercion, but
ework is desired.
xists in nontraditionalrelationships, more research
is
test the various theoretical frameworks. Forexample,
ion be explained by the TSS or feminist theory in
same0sex relationships,in heterosexual relationshi~s in
which the woman is
the
or, or
in
relationships
involving
individuals
who
hold
fewer
sex0efs
andengage in lesssex-typedbehaviors?Researchexamining
something other than male perpetration and female victim~ationexists (e.g.,
ureau of Justice Statistics, 1996;Mac Donald, 1993, but more research is
needed for the sake of both theory and practicality. A more solidtheoretical
amework could better explain sexually coercive situations and aid in the
practical implementation of educational and intervention programs.
onet the less, the results of this study offer insights salient to interper0
sonal relations hips^ and several findings are particular to romantic relatione
ships. Although we are at the start
of the 2 1st century, stereotypes
continue
to exist forwomen who initiate or pay fordates andfor women who engage
in a date ata private locale versusa public locale. Specifically,it is assumed
that thewoman who engagesin thesebehaviors is interested in sex and, ale
thou h mens perceptions were stronger than womens, both sexes per*
the victim to bewilling and the behavior asjustified in such
situations. Being in an advanced relationship also clouded the perception
that unwantedsex occurred for both men andwomen. Although men and
women shared many ofthe same perceptions regarding unwanted sexual ace
tivity, the effects formen were stronger than they were for women.In fact,
the strongest effect in theanalysis occurred for men perceiving that forced
sex was lesscoercive than women did. Considering that men also perceived
the woman as more willingto engage in sex and perceived the forced sex as
more justifiedthan women, this finding is disturbing.This finding may link
to the result that women engage in significantly more physical resistance
H

strate~iesthan men. ese results offer support for

the necessi ofcommuO
tion in interpersonal relationships. Rather thanrelying o
ocial stereotypes, it is imperative for partners
to ne~otiat
and behavior throu~houtthe course of the relationship such that partners
are clear on what is acceptable and what is not.

with an asteriskindicate studies usedin the ~ e t a - a n a ~ y s ~ .

"Abbey, A. (1987). Misperceptions

of friendly behavior as sexual interest: A survey
ofnatu~ oWmen
~
~uurterly,
I I , 17 1-194.
rally occurring incidents,P s y c ~ o of
Allen, M,, Emmers,'XM., Cebhardt, L.J., & Giery, M. (1995). Exposure to pornography
and acceptance of rape myths: A summa^ of research using meta-analysis.
of
C ~ m u n i c u t i45,
~ , 5-26
Anderson, K. B., Cooper, H., Okamura, L. (1997). Indiiddual differences and attitudes toward rape: m
A e ~ ~ a n a lreview.
y ~ c P e r s o ~ land
i ~ Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,295-3 15.
Anderson, W. l?,&Cummings, K. (1993). Women's acceptance of rape myths and their sexual experiences.~ o u of~College
u ~ Student Deve~opment,34,53-57.
Atkeson, B. M., Calhoun, K., & Morris, K.T. (1989).Victim resistanceto rape: The relationships of previous victimization, demographics, and situational factors.A r c ~ ~ v of
es
Sexual ~ e ~ u 18,497-507.
v ~ o ~
Bangert-Downs,R. (1986). Reviewof developments in meta-analytic method.~ s y c ~ o l o ~ c u ~
~ulletin)99, 388-399.
Bart, l? B., & OBrien, IF! H. (1985). Stopping rape: Successful surv~vulstrategies. New York:
Pergamon.
Becchofer, L.,6r Parrot, A.(1991). What is acquaintance rape?In A. Parrot6.L,Becchofer
a n The
c e ~ ~ d dcrime
e n (pp. 9-25). NewYork: Wiley.
(Eds.), A c ~ ~ ~ ~ trupe:
"Belk, S. S., &Snell, W. E. (1988). Avoidance strategy use
in intimate relationships.~ou~~
of Social and C~inicu~
P s y c h o ~ o7,
~ )80-96.
Bostwick, T, D., & DeLucia, J. L. (1992). Effects of genderand specific dating behaviors
on
date rape.~ o u ofSociu1
~ a ~and C ~ ~ n ~ c u ~ PI sI,y c ~ o ~ o ~
perceptions of sex willingness and
14-25.
"Brady, E. C., Chrisler,J. C., Hosdale,D. C., Osowiecki, X,&Veal, 'XA. (1991).Date rape:
o of so ucia^ Psyc
~
~
Expectations, avoidance strategies, andattitudes toward victims.~
~ ~ 0 1I 30I,~427-429.
)
"Bridges, J. (1991).Perceptions of date andstranger rape: A difference
in sex roleexpectad
tions and beliefs. Sex Roles, 24, 291-307.
Bureau of Justice Statistics(1996). Female victimsof crime. RetrievedJune 8,1998 from
the World Wide Web: http://~.ojp.usdoj.gov~js/
Burke, l? J., Stets,J. E., &Pirog-Good,M.A. (1989).Gender identity, self-esteem, phys.
and
ical and sexual abuse
in dating relationships.In M. A. Pirog-Good (Ed.),V~o~ence
in dm
ing re~tionshi~s:
~ ~ e r social
~ n issues
g
(pp. 72-93). New York: Praeger.
r a p e . ~ o ~ofr Personu~~ty
~l
and Social Psyc
Burt, M.(1980).Cultural myths and supports for
c ~ o ~ 38,
o ~2 17-230.
,
Burt, M.,6r Albin, R. (1981). Rape myths, rape definitions, and probability
of conviction.
~ o uo~~
Ap~lied
l
Social psycho lo^, I I , 2 12-230.
~~~~

Byers, E. A.(1996). How welldoes the traditional sexual script explain sexual
coercion?Review ofa program ofresearch. In E.S. Byers & L. E O'Sullivan (Eds.),Sexua~ coerc~on
in
~ t i n g r e l a t ~ ~(pp.
h i p7-26).
s
New York: Hawthorne.
Check, J. V., 6:Malamuth, N. M. (1983). Sex role
s t e r e o ~ i n gand reactionsto depictions of
stranger vs. acquaintance rape.~~~l of P e ~ andsSocial
~ PS~ ~
Christopher,F. S., 6.Frandsen, M,M. (1990).Strategiesof influence
nal of S o c and
~ ~P e r s ~ l R e ~ t i ~ 7,
h i89-105.
ps,
*Dull, 'X,
6:Giacopassi, D. (1987). Demographic correlatesof sexual and dating attitudes:
l ~~ ~e hea v i o14,
~ 175-193.
A study ofdate rape. C r i ~ i n a ~and
*Emmers,'XM,, &Allen, M. (1995a, November).Factors contri~ting
t o s e x ~coercive
~ ~ y behaviors: A m e ~ ~ u ~
Paper
l ~ presented
s ~ .
at the Speech Communication Association
convention, San Antonio, TX.
Emmers, 'XM., 6:Allen, M.(1995b, February).Res~tanceto sexual coercion behav~rs:A
metu-unalys~.Paper presentedat the Western States Communication Associationconvention, Portland, OR.
Federal Bureau ofInvestigation. (1992, August
30). Crime in the~ n i t e States,
a
f 991. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.
*Feltey, K., Ainslie, J., &Geib, A. (1991). Sexua
dents: The influence of gender in rape educ
Fischer, G.J. (1987).Hispanic and majority stu
a function of differences in attitudes toward women. Sex Roles, 17, 93-100.
by
"Garcia, L., Milano, L., & Quijano, A, (1989). Perceptions of coercive sexual behavior
males and females.Sex Roles, 21, 569-577.
and sexual aggression in ado.
Goodchilds,J. D., &L Zellman, G. L. (1984). Sexual signaling
lescent relationships.In N. M. Malamuth 6,E. Donnerstein (Eds.),P o ~ o ~ a p and
h y sexual a g ~ e s s ~
(pp.
n 233-243). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Hall, G. C. N., Shondrick,D. D., & Hirschman, R.(1993).The role of sexual arousalin sexually aggressivebehavior: A meta-analysis.
of C ~ s ~ ~and
t ~
C ~n~gn i c a ~ F s ~ c h o l o
61, 1091-1095.
Harney, F!A., 6:Muehlenhard, C. L. (1991). Factorsthat increase the likelihoodofvictimization. In A. Parrot 6,L. Becchofer (Eds.), ~ c ~ u a ~ nrape:
~ n cThe
e hiaden crime (pp.
159-1 75). New York: Wiley.
Hunter, J., 6. Schmidt, F, (1990). Methods o f ~ e t a 0 u ~Newbury
~ ~ s ~ Park,
.
CA:Sage.
"Jenkins, M. J., & Dambrot, F.H. (1987).The attribution of date rape: Observer'sattitudes
and sexual experiencesand the dating situation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
17,875-895.
Kanin, E.J. (1967).An examination of sexual aggression in response to sexual frustration.
1~~~ of Marriuge and the F a ~ i l y29,428-433.
,
Kleck, G., & Sayles, S. (1990). Rape and resistance. Social P r o ~ ~ e37,
~ s149-162.
,
Knight, G. E,Fabes, R. A., 6:Higgins, D. A. (1996). Concernsabout drawing causal inferences from meta-analyses: An example in the study of gender differencesin aggression.
P s ~ c ~ o ~ o ~ c a l 1~19,
u ~410-42
l e t ~ n1.,
Korman, S. K. (1983). Nontraditional dating behavior: Date initiation and date expense
sharing among feministsand nonfeminists. fa^^^^ R e ~ t ~32,575-581.
o ~ ,
Korman, S. K.,& Leslie, G. R. (1982). The relationship of feminist ideology and date expense sharingto perceptions of sexual aggression indating. T h e ] o u of~ S~ex Researc~,
18, 114-129.
~~~~

ss, M.l? (1985). The hidden rape victim: Personali~,attitudinal, and situational characd
~ oomen
~
~ ~ ~ e9, 193-212.
r ~ y ,
teristics. ~ s y c h o of
Koss, M. l? (1988). Hidden rape: Incidence, prevalence,and descriptive characteristicsof
sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of college students. In A. W.
Burgess (Ed.), sex^^ assau~tV01.2,pp. 3-25). New York: Garland.
Koss, M.E,& Dinero, 71: E. (1989). ~iscriminantanalysis of riskfactors for sexual victimization among anational sample of college women.
o ~ C o ~ u ~and
t ~Cn~ g~ n i cPsyd
al
~~~~

c ~ o ~57,
o 242-250.
~ ,

Koss, M. l?,Gidycz, C. A., 6r.Wisniewski, N.(1987). The scope of rape:Incidence and prev.
alence of sexual aggressionand victimization in a national sample of higher education
students. ~~~a~ of C ~ s u ~ t iand
n g C ~ ~ n ~ a l P s y55,
c ~162-170.
olo~)
Kuhn, L. (1996). Exposing a woman-hatingculture. In J. Andrzejewski (Ed,), O p p r e s s i ~
a n d s o c justice:
~~
C ~ t i c a ~ ~ a(5th
~ eed.,
~ opp.
r ~335-346).Needham Heights,MA: Sic
mon 6.Schuster.
"Langley, "E,Beatty, G,, Yost, E. A.,& O'Neal, E. C. (1991). How behavioral cuesin a date
rape scenario influence judgments regarding victim
and perpetrator. Forensic R e p o ~4,,
355-358.
Levine, E. N.,
& Kanin, E. J. (1987). Sexual violence among dates and acquaintances:
Trends and their implications for marriage and family.
of fa^^^^ ~ o ~ e n c2,
e)
55-65.
Mac Donald,J. M. (1971). Rape: O ~ e n ~and
r s their ~ ~ c t ~Spring~eld,
ms.
IL: Thomas.
Mac Donald, J.M.(1995). Rape: Controversiu~issues. Spring~eld,IL: Thomas.
Mahoney, E. R., Shively, M. D., &Traw, M.(1986). Sexual coercion
and assault: Male socialization and female risk. Sexual Coercion and Assault, I, 2-8.
"Makepeace, J. M. (1987). Social factorand v i c t i m ~ ~ e n ddifferences
er
in courtship violence. Fami~y~ e ~ ~ 36,
i o 87-91.
~ s )
Malamuth, N.M. (1993). Predictingmen's antisocial behavior against
women. The interaction model ofsexual aggression. G.
In C. Nagayama Hall, R. Hirschman, J. R. Graham,
& M. S. Zaragoza (Eds.),S~~~ aggression: Issues in e t ~ o ~~sessment,
o~,
and t r e a t ~ n(pp.
t
63-97). Washington, DC: Taylor6r Francis.
"McCormick, N.B. (1979). Come-ons and put-offs: Unmarried students' strategies for
having and avoiding sexual intercourse.psycho lo^ of Women Quarterly, 4, 194-211.
Mongeau, l? A., 6.Carey, C. M. (1996). Who's wooing whom
II?:An experimental investigation of date-initiation and expectancy violation.~ e s t~0~~~
e ~ of C o ~ m ~ n ~ c a t ~ o n ,
60, 195-213.
Mongeau, l? A., Hale, J. L.,Johnson, K.L., 6 Hillis, J.D. (1993).Who's wooing whom?An
investigation of female initiated dating. InEJ. Kalbfleisch (Ed.),~ n t e ~ e rcs~om~~~u n i cation: ~ v o ~ v i n g ~ n t ~ ~ e ~ s o n(pp.
a ~ 5 r1-68).
e ~ t iHillsdale,
o ~ h ~NJ:
~ s Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Mosher, D. L., & Anderson, R. D. (1986). Macho personality, sexual aggression,and reactions to guided imagery ofrealistic rape.~
o of Research
u
~in P e r~s o ~ ~ i t20,
y ) 77-94.
"Muehlenhard, C. L. (1988). is interpreting dating behaviors and the risk of date rape.
~ o u of~Sociul
a ~and Clinical P s y c ~ o l o6,
~ )20-37.
The
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Cook, S. W. (1988). Men's reports of unwanted sexual activity.
~
o of Sex
u ~esearch)
~
24,
~ 58-72.
*Muehlenhard,C . L.,&Falcon, l? L. (1991).Men's heterosexual skilland attitudes toward
Roles,23,24 1-259.
women aspredictors of verbal sexual coercion and forceful Sex
rape.
~~~~

Muehlenhard, C. L., Friedman, D. E., & Thomas, C. M. (1985). Is date rape justifiable?
The effects of dating activity, who initiated, who paid, and mens attitudes toward
y 10.
,
women. psycho lo^ of Women ~ ~ e r9, ~297-3
Muehlenhard, C. L., Goggins, M. E,Jones, J. M,, & Satterfield, A. 1:(1991). Sexual violence and coercion in close relationships.In K. Kinney 6.S. Sprecher (Eds.) ,S ~ u l ~int y
close r e ~ t i o ~ h ~
(pp.
p s 155-175). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Muehlenhard, C. L., 6.Hollabaugh, L. C. (1988). Do women sometimes say
no when they
mean yes?The prevalence and correlates of womenstoken resistance to sex,j o u ~ofl
Pers~ulityand Social psycho lo^, 54, 872-879.
Muehlenhard,C,L., 6Linton,M. A.(1987). Date rape and sexual aggression
in dating situas Social
~ ~ psycho^^,
~ ~
34,186-196.
tions: Incidence andrisk f a c t 0 r s . j o~ ~~ ~P e rand
Muehlenhard, C. L., & MacNaughton, J. S. (1988). Womens beliefs about women who
a ~C ~ i n ~~ suy~c h o7,65-79.
~~,
lead meno n . j ~of~S l ~ iand
Muehlenhard, C. L., 6.Scardino, XJ. (1985). What will he think? Mens impressions of
women whoinitiate dates and achieve a c a d e m i c a l 1 y . j ~o ~~~C ~ ~ e lpsycho^^,
ing
32,
560-569.
Muehlenhard, C. L., &Schrag, J. L. (1991). Nonviolent sexual coercion. In A. Parrot
&L.
Bechhofer (Eds.),Ac~uaintuncerupe: The h ~ d e crime
n
(pp. 1 15-128). New York: Wiley.
*Murnen,S. K., Perot, A., &Byme, D. (1989). Coping with unwanted sexual activity:
Normative responses, situational determinants, and individual differences. The j~~~ of
Sex Reseurch, 26, 85-106.
*Mynatt,C., &Allgeier,E. (1990). The risk factors, self-attributions,and adjustment problems among victims of sexual
c o e r c i 0 n . j o~f~A~~ ~ ~Social
i e d Psycho~o~,
20,130-153.
u ~ and
c e sexual ~ s u u l t(5th ed.). HolmesBeach,FL:
Parrot, A. (1991). A c ~ u u ~ ~ t rupe
Learning Publications.
Poppen, I? J., 6, Segal, N.J. (1988). The influence of sexand sex role orientation on sexual
coercion. Sex Roles, 19, 689-701.
Sanver, D. B., Kalichman, S, C., Johnson,J., & Early, J. (1993). Sexual aggression and love
styles: An exploratory study. Archives of sex^^ ~ e ~ 22,v 265-275.
~ o ~
the perceived legiti*Shotland, R. L., 6r Goodstein, L. (1992). Sexual precedence reduces
macy of sexual refusal:An examination of attributions concerning date rape andconsensual sex.P~rsonulity and Socialpsycho lo^ ~ u l ~ e t18,
i ~756764.
,
Siegel, J. M., Sorenson, S. B., Golding, J. M., Burnam, M. A., &Stein, J. A. (1989). Resistance to sexual assault: Who resists and what happens? A m e ~ u jn o ~ of~P ~l ~ l ~ c
H ~ u ~ t79,
h , 27-3 1.
Sigelman, C. K., Berry, C. J.,6Wiles, K. A.(1984).Violence in college studentsrelationof Ap~lied
Social psycho lo^, 5,530-548.
ships.
Sprecher,S., Hatfield, E., Cortese, A., Potapova, E.,& Levitskaya, A. (1994). Token resistance to sexual intercourse and consent to unwanted sexual intercourse: College
studentsdating experiencesin three countries. T h e j o u ~ofsex
l
Research,3 1,125-132.
Stock, W. E. (1991). Feminist explanations: Male power, hostility,
and sexual coercion. InE.
Crauerholz &M. A, Koralewski (Ms.),S e ~ l c o e r c(pp.
i ~ 61-73). Toronto: Lexington.
Struckman-Johnson, C. J. (1988).Forced sexon dates: It happens to men, too.T ~ e j o ~ ~ l
of Sex Researc~,24, 234-241,
Struckman-Johnson, D.L,, &Struckman-Johnson,C. J. (1991). Menand womens acceptance of coercive strategies varied
by initiator gender and couple intimacy.Sex Roles,25,
661-676.
~~~~

Temple, L. (1997, September 18). Safety site keeps tabson women. USA to^^) p.
Ullman, S. E.,6r Knight, R.A.(1993). The efficacy of womensresistance strategiesin rape
situations. P s y c ~ o o~ o ~~ ~ o ~ e ~2 7, 23-28.
~ ~ r t e r ~ ~ ,
andtrivializationof
Zillmann, D,, 6r Bryant, J. (1982). Pornography, sexual callousness, the
rape.
of C o ~ ~ ~ ~ 32,
~ c 10-2
u t l.~ o ~ )
~~~~

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

~ a r ~ aMae
r a Gayle, ~

y W~Preiss,
o and
~ Mike
~
le^

Over thelast 20 years, researchers have examined gender- and sex-based

differences in theselection of conflict management strategies. Yet the con0
ditions underwhich women and mendiffer or are similar in theirselection
of conflict management strategies in interpersonal relationships have not
been clearly delineated. The underlying stereotypical assumptions of this
literaturearethatmenusemorecompetitive-typestrategiesin
nonintimate interpersonalrelationships and more withdrawal strategies in
intimate interpersonalrelationships. Similarly, the stereotypical beliefs are
that women use more compromising strategies in nonintimate interpersonal relationships and more demanding strategies in intimate interper,
sonal relationships.
However,results do not provide consistent support forgender- or
sex0based stereotypes.Some studies identify genderor sex as asalient issue
in interpersonal conflicts regardless of whether the relationships are intimate or nonintimate. Even then, however, researchersdo notagree on the
patterns of,or situations involving, genderor sex differencesin thepreference for particular conflictmanagement strategies. Other researchers sugc

gest that men and womenemploy quite similar conflict management

strategies acrossinte~ersonalrelationship types.
review of gender differences in inte~ersonalconflict management
st rate^ selection literature reveals af r a ~ e n t e body
d
of results replete with
theoretical and methodological inco~istencies.These contradictory findhinder the ability of researchers to determine whether men and
women
loy unique or similar conflict management styles. The purpose of this
is to meta0analytically reviewthe primary conflictmanagement strate
egy studies in intimate and non imate conflicts to produce a U
spective on the impact that ge r
or sex has on the selection
management strategies. A brief e~aminationof the theoretical perspectives
driving this line of inquiry is followed byresults of a meta~analyticreview of
the sex differencesin inte~ersonal
conflicts and a meta~analyticreview of
the sex di~erences conflict
in
management strategy selection in marital relationships. These investi~ationsof the magnitude of gender differences in
conflict management are followed by an interpretation of the findings.

Three di~tinctive
theoretical approaches have been used to explain gender
or sex differencesin conflict management strategy selection. Whether researchers exploreintimate or nonintimate
interpersonal conflicts, the theoc
retical rationale focuses on either trait differences, gender socialization, or
social stru~tureexpectations.

Some researchers argue that conflict management strategy selection patterns are the result of the different personality characteristics of men and
en (Chanin 6r Schneer, 1984; Christensen 6r Heavey, 1 9 ~ 0 ;
evenson, 1992; Temkin & ~ummings,1986).The traits appr
gests that people respondto conflict in ways consistent with their personality regardless of the situation or other
person involved.The reasoning here is
that anindividuals perceptions of conflict are influenced by her orhis per*
sonality predis~ositions.For example, Cottman and Levenson (1992) arc
gued that men are more physiologically reactive to stress and thus more
comfortable with conflicts. Stemberg and Soriano (1984) argued that the
way an in~ividual
perceives a conflict
situation is based on theintensity of a
cular personality trait.
esearchers embracingthe traitapproach argue that mens and womens
personality traits are relatively stable, so that men more often display strong

independent personality traitsandwomenmoreoften

displaymore
'liative and emotionally expressivepersonality traits (Christensen
avey, 1990). Unfortunately, a consistent set of personality traits assoc10
with male and female conflict management strategy selection has not
emerged. Even the three studies investigating an~rogyny~ ~ a ~&t Shepe r
herd, 1978; Nowak, 1984; Yelsma & Brown, 1985) failed to produce any
attern of conflict management strategy selection based on personality traits.

Some
researchers
their conflict
management
strategy
selection
re&
search inthe idealigan
(~982).'This line of reasoningsuggests that
women's and men's identities are developed by the societal messa
ceive about being female or male (Euwema 6, Van de Vliert, 19
Lame, 6,Christensen, 1993; ~ a r g o l i nGr Wampold, 1981;Rub1
1994). Rubleand Schneer (1994) arguedthat girls and boys are
ferently that itaffects their conflict management strategy preferences. Several
researchers foundthat because girls are socialized
to play with other girls and
value relationshi S they are more likelyto be cooperative (Bond& Vinache,
Tedeschi, 197 1; RapoportGr Chammah, 1965). On the
hers posited because boysare socialized into teams, they
value competition and winning, and are more likely to maximize their
selfeinterest in a conflictual situation (Bond 6,Vinache, 1961; Linksko
Tedeschi, 1971; Rapoport 6,Chammah, 1965).
These di~erencesin socialization make it more likely that men and
women will diRerin theirapproaches to conflict management strategy selecc
tion (Christensen & Heavey, 1990; Ruble & Schneer, 1994). However, results using this approach are inconsistent and do not reveal a pattern of
conflict management common to females and males.

The social structural approach positsthat men and women conformto thepositions they hold in the social structure (Eagly, 1987; Jacobson, 19$9). This
reasoning focuseson thedistinctive rolemen and women enact in marriage or
the distinctive role womenand men assume as managers
at work. For exam0
ple, in marital roles women carry
the responsibility for maintaining family relationships,householdmanagement,andchildrearing.
Usually the
responsi~ilitymen have in marriage is to complete home and car repairs, provide financial security forthe family, and make decisions that benefit the wel-

fare of their families (Jacobson, 1989). At work, however, both men and
women who occupy
a managers role will likely succumb
to the role demands
of that position (Eagly, 1987). The underl~ng
assumption is that women and
men behave the way they do because of the social role they
occupy, and they
enact theconflict management strategiesconsistent with their social roles.
n (1986), Ruble and Schneer (199q, Ruble and Stander (199O),
smir and Mills (1989) investigated whether women and men employed different conflict management strategies depending on their roles as
family membersor theirroles asorganizational workers. The results werein+
conclusive.
none of the currenttheoretical explanations for conflict strategy
rences betweenmen and women provide
a consistent pictureof
either differences or similarities, Thus, a meta-analytic review ofthe conflict
management strategy selectionliterature is a necessary step in co~olidating
owledge claims and providing a quantitative summary that is much less
vulnerable to biases stemming fiom
the reviewers o m preference concern..
ing the presence or absence of sex differences (Eagly, 1987, p. 36).

Most of the research on sex differencesin nonintimate interpersonal con0

flicts used surveys
and relied on some formof the Blake and Mouton(1964)
fivecfactor model: avoid,accommodate, compete, compromise, and collab0
orate. Thomas (1988) suggested that each conflict strategy is composed of
some balance between concern for self (assertiveness)and concern for others (cooperativeness). This model is based on the underlying assumption
that individuals develop fairly stable preferences for certain conflict strategies regardless of situations or topics. The studies examined inthis
meta~analysisalso assumedthat gender or sex differencesare a prime reason
for onespreference for certain strategies. However, the research does not
consistently show any differences or similarities
between men andwomens
preferences to be aggressive or cooperative in their conflict management
strategy selection in nonintimaterelationships.

To explorethe effect of gender digerenceson theselection of conflict manage0

ment strategies, relevant studies were located
and a ~ ~ e g a t e d m e t a ~ a n ~ l ~ i c a l
into a c o ~ o metric
n
to estimate the direction and magnitudeof an average
(Cooper 6r.Rosenthal, 1986; Eagly, 1987; Glass, M c ~ r a ~ ,
1; Hunter, Schmidt,&L Jackson, 1983). The search procedure

resulted in the
location of 33 ma nu scrip^ with 39 studies relevant
to thevariables ofinterest (see Table 18.1). Five studiesnot
didprovide s u ~ c i e n t i n f o ~ a ~
a g ~ e g a t i o n ( F i t ~ a&
~ iWinke)
ck
1979;
89; Rahim, 1983;Rolo~&Greenberg,197
no, 1984).The remaining 28 manuscripts with
the definitions of Blake and outo on's (1
n study definitions digered, definitions weretoused
m
the five-factor model. Inthe six: studies (Gayle, 1991
1982;Schuekle & McDowell,1990;Tempkin
6, C
T i n ~ T ~ m e1986;
y , Ugbah& DeWine, 1986) usinga threenoncon~ontationstrategywas entered as both accommodation and avoidance)
the control s~ategy
was coded as
compe~tive,and the solution-oriented strategies werecounted both as collabo~tionand compromise.
The summa^ statistics of each study were
converted to correlations so that themagnitude of outcomes attributable to
sex or gender differences in conflict management strategy selection could be
quantified. A positive correlation (a randomly assignedd e s i ~ a t i o n )indicates that male means werehigher on a particular strategy, whereasa negative correlation indicates female means were higher.
The correlations were weighted for sample
size and thenaveraged. Each
average correlation was assessed to determine if the variance in the observed samplecorrelations was larger than expected by random sample error
(Hedges 6.Olkin, 1985). To detect a moderator variable, the sum of the
squared error was tested using a chi-square test. ~ n o n s i g n i ~ c achi-square
nt
indicates that the amount of variability is probably the result of chance,
whereas a s i ~ i ~ cchi-square
a~t
indicates that the amountof variability is
probably the result of some type ofmoderating variable.

"he effect size foreach conflict management strategy reportkdin all studies
is listed in Table 18.2. Overall, most findings reveal smallefTect sizes. The

'When authors used different samples or situations in the same manuscript and reported se
rate analyses,we reported all the findings. For example, Chusmir and (l
Mills
989) and Ruble and
Stander (1990) both examined the gender differences
in conflict management strategy selection
between work and home.
Sh~kle~Zalabak
and Morley (1984) used a college student sample and
an employee sampleto investigate gender differences
in the choice of conflict
~anagement
strategies, Kofion (1986) looked
at gender differences in choosing conflict strategies if the other person
was an authority figure or a friend. Ruble and Schneer (1994) compared three different samples
and two instruments looking for a gender difference pattern in conflict management selection.

Baxter 6. Shepherd
Be~an- ink 6. Bruner
Chanin 6. Schneer
Chusmir 6. Mills
Euwema 6 Vande Vliert
Fitzpatrick 6. Winke
Gayle
Goering
Howell
Kilmann 6. Thomas
Kofion
Konovosky et al.
Monroe et al.
Nadler 6. Nadler
Papa 6. Natalle
Putnam 6. Wilson
Rahim
Renwick
Revilla
Roloff 6. Greenberg
Ruble 6. Schneer

Ruble 6. Stander
Scheukle 6. McDowell
Shockle~Zalabak
Shockle~Zalabak
6. Morley
Sone
Sternberg &I. Soriano
Temkin 6. Cummings
Thomas
TingToorney
Ugbah 6. DeWine

1978
1987
1984
1989a
1989b
1994
1979
1991
1986
1981
1977
1986a
198613
1988
1989
1988
1989
1982
1983
1977
1984
1979
1987
1994a
1994b
1994c
1990a
1990b
1990
1981
1984a
198413
1981
1984
1986
1971
1986
1986

57
147
94
201
215
170
304
22
52
205
300
586
38 1
160
26
120
100
95
113
175
80
21 1
174
198
62
62
217
69
61
100
l10
32
162
253
303
175

Student
Student
Student
Workers
Workers
Workers
Student
Workers
Student
Workers
Student
Workers
Workers
Workers
Workers
Workers
Workers
Workers
Workers
Workers
Workers
Student
Workers
Student
Studenr
Student
Workers
Workers
Student
Workers
Student
Workers
Workers
Student
Workers
Workers
Student
Student

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No

Yes
No
Yes
No
No

Yes
Yes
Yes

MODE
MODE
MODE
MODE
MODE
Survey
Survey
OCCI
Survey
MODE
MODE
MODE
MODE
MODE
Describe
Scenario
Observe
OCCI
Survey
Survey
MODE
Survey
Scenario
MODE
Survey
Survey
MODE
MODE
OCCI
Survey
MODE
MODE
Survey
Survey
OCCI
Survey
OCCI
Survey

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
NO

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No

A
Baxter & Shepherd
Berryman-Fink 6r Brunner
Chanin 6 Schneer
Chusmir 6. Mills
Euwema 6r Van de Vliert
Gayle
Goering
Howell
Kilmann & Thomas
Kofron
Konovosky et al.
Nadler & Nadler
Papa 6r Natalle
Putnam & Wilson
Renwick
Revilla
Rossi et al.

~ of Study
~

Avoidance
-.001
-.020
.012
-.114
,016
-.052
-. 106
-.5 20
-071
,069
7205
-.167
-.080

.153
.016
-.013
-. 155
-.191
.oo1

Accommodation
-. 106
-.074
.042
.028
,007
.007

-.055
3.25
-.233
-.069
-.327
-.099
-.005
,181
.070
-.013
,056
,034
-.210

Effect Size and Varianceby Strategy

Compete
.394
.171
,064
,086

.OM
,166
,212
.209
.098
,441
.249
-.040
-. 199
,129
,030
-.075
.07 1
2.25

Compromise

Coliizborution

-. 106
-. 130

-.lo6
-.180
-.297
.091
-.102
-.132
-.I47

.220
-.084
-.010

-,08 1

-. 235

-.lo4
-.05 1
-.099
-.040

-.224
.172
-. 129
-.2oo
.028

-.007

-.oo1
,098
.028

Coaruriance

3.49
3.49
2.65
3-06
3.14
2.86
3.53
3.44
2.90
2.92

,007

2.79
3.06
3.53
-. 129
,152
.019

3.25
3.53
3.25

LE 18.2 ( c o n ~ n ~ ~ ~
Effect Size and Variance by Strategy

Author(s) of Study

Ruble & Schneer

.013

Ruble & Stander

Scheukle 6. McDowell
Shockley-Zalabak
S~~kle~Zalabak
& Morley
Sone
Temkin & Cummings
Thomas
Ting-Toomey
Ugbah & DeWine
Zammuto et al.

-.013
-.050
-.114
-.019
-.098
-.002

-.042

1
-.246

,190
.303
.136
.254
-126
.123
.oo1
.235
,112
.157

-.001

-.001

.oo 1

-.033

-.040

.154
.160
.059
.26 1

-.010

-.066
-.082
,034
-.002
-.001

.oo1
.001

.001

-. 189
-.034

.001
.001

-.oo

.oo1
-.184
-.164

-. 162

-. 108

-.235
-. 123
-.343
-. 136
-. 200

-.017
-044
.053
.120
-. 200

-.001

.OOl

-.289
-.05 7
-. 172
-.001
-. 126
-. 108
-. 189
-.017

3.88
3.1 1

-.001
.001

-.098
-.001

.044

-. 108
-.184
-. 164

2.38
2.5 7
3.06
3.14
3.14
2.87

Note. *A positive correlation (a randomly assigned designation) indicates that male means were higher on a particular strategy,whereas a negative correlation indicates female
means were higher.

average effectsizes for each conflict management strategy are displayed in

Table 18.3. Each of the five effectsizes merit separate discussion.

., An overall frequency analysis ofthe avoidance strategy re(16%) reporteda s i ~ ~ n thigher

l y use of avoid
,1986,sample b; bnovosky, Jastel; 6.M
,1982; Ugbah &Dewhe, 1
Rowland,1979). T h ~ T ~ m e(1986)
y reported a
avoiding strategiesby men. The r e ~ 26 ~studie
g
cant gender d~erencein the use of avoidance strategies.
In themeta-analysis of 31studies employing 5,155 respondents the average correlation (r= -.053) was extremely small (see Table 18.3).
A formal
significance test revealed that the amountof variation is probably due to
samplingerror, x2 = 34.52, p .05.
ee

., An overall
frequency
analysis

of the
accommoda~
tion strategy results revealsthat four studies (13%) reported a significantly

EHect Sizes

Avoidance

-.053

34.525,155

31

Accommodate

"068

4,435

30

40.36

5,261

33

71.54

Compete

,147

Compromise

-.1 19

35.63
5,283

34

Collaborate

-.04 1

42.735,181

32

Note.

A positive correlation (a randomly assigned designation)indicates thatmale means were higher

on a
particular strategy, whereasa negative correlation indicatesfemale means were higher.
p' =

.05

'Baxter and Shepherd (1978), Berryman-Fink and Brunner (1987), Chanin and Schneer
(1 984), Chusmir and Mills(1989, samples a and b),Euwema and Van de Vliert(1994), Gayle
(1991), Howell (1981), Kilmann and Thomas (1977), Kokon (1986, sample
b), Nadler and
Nadler (1 988), Renwick (1 977), Revilla
(l 984), Ruble and Schneer (1994, samples a, b, and c),
Ruble and Stander (1990, samples a and
b),Schuekle and McDowell (1990), Shockley-Zalabak
(198l), Shockley-Zalabak and Morley (1984, samples a and b), Sone (198
l), Sternberg and
(1986), and Thomas
(1971) found no significant gender
Soriano (1984), Temkin and Cummings
differencein the use of avoidance Strategies.

higher use of accommodatingstrategies by women (Kofron,1986, sample a;

Wilson,1982; Sone,1981;Ugbah
6.DeWine,1986).
Tin~Toomey(1986) reported a significantl~higher use of accommodating
strategies by men. The remaining 27 stu s3 (84%) reported no S
rence in theuse of accomm
ta-analysis of 30 studies em
ndents the average correlation (r = --,068) was extremely small (see Table 18.3).
A formal
significance test revealed that the amountof variation is probably due to
= 40.36, p >.05.
overall frequency analysis of the competing strategy remuto etal. (1979) reported a significant1 hi her use
of competitive strategies by women and 16 studies4 (44%) repor
cantly higher use ofcompeting strategies by men. The remainin
( ~ 3 % )reported no significant gender difference in the use of competing
strategies.
In themeta-analysis of 33 studies employing 5,261 respondents the avere correlation (r = .147) was small (see Table18.3).A formal s i ~ i ~ c a n c e
test revealed that the amountof variation is probablynot due to sampling
= 71.54, p <.OS.The impact of the moderating variable was difficult to assess given the variety of instruments, the various sample populations, and thevariety of different i ~ t r u c t i o n sgiven.
An overall frequency analysis of the compromising
strategy results revealsthat nostudies found men touse more compromising

3Baxter and Shepherd (1978), Berryman-Fink and Brunner (1987), Chanin and Schneer
(1 984), Chusmir and Mills
(1989, samples a and b)
,Euwema and Van de Vliert (1 994)
,Gayle
(199l), Howell (198 1)
,Kilmann and Thomas(1977),Kofron (1986, sample a)
,Konovosky et al.
(1988),Nadler and Nadler (1988), Renwick (1977),Revilla (1984), Ruble and Schneer (1994,
samples a, b, and c)
,Ruble and Stander (1990, samples a and b), Schuekle and McDowell(1990
Shockle~Zalabak(1981), Shockley-Zalabak and Morley (1984, samples a and
b), Sone (1981),
Stemberg and Soriano (1984), Temkin and Cummings (1986), and Zamrnuto
et al. (1979) found
no significant gender difference in the use of accommodation strategies.
4Baxter and Shepherd (1978),B e r ~ a n - F i n kand Brunner (1987), Kilmann and Thomas
(1977), Kofron (1986, samples a and
b), Nadler and Nadler (1988), Papa and Natalle (1989),
Putnamand Wilson(1982),Rahim
(1983), RoloffandGreenberg(1979),Rossiand
Todd-Mancillas (1987), Ruble and Schneer (1994, samples a and b), Ruble and Stander (1990,
sample a),Schuekle and McDowel1(1990),
Shockle~Zalabak
and Morley (1984, sample,and
a)
Thomas (197l ) found significant male usage of competing strategies.
'Chanin and Schneer (1984), Chusmir and Mills (1989, samples a and b), Gayle (1991),
Howell (1981), Kofron (1986, sample a), Konovosky et al. (1988), Nowak (1984), Renwick
(1977), Revilla (1984), Ruble and Schneer (1994, sample
c), Ruble and Stander (1990, sample
b), Shockle~Zalabak(1981), Shockle~~alabak
and Morley (1984, sample b), Sone (1981),
Stemberg and Soriano
(1984), Temkin and Cummings
(1986), Ting-Toomey
(1986), and Ugbah
and DeWine (1986) found no significant gender difference in the use of competing strategies.

15 studies6 (43%) reported a significantly higher use of come

tegies by women, Twenty studies7(57%) reported no s i ~ i f i ~
cant gender difference in the use of compromising strategies.
In the meta~analysis
o 34 studies employing 5,283 respondents the aver.11 )was small (see Table18.3). A forma
age orr relation (r= d that the amountof variation is probably due toS
An overall frequency analysis of the collaboration
str
eals that
Chanin
and
Schneer
(1984) found a s i ~ i ~ O
cantly higher use ofcollaboration strategies by men and4 studies (12%) re#
d a s i ~ i ~ c a n thigher
ly
use ofcollaboration strategies by women (Papa
atalle, 1989; Schuekle M c ~ o ~ e l1990;
l , Tin~Toomey,1986; Ugbah
Wine, 1986).The remaining 28 studies8 (85%)reported no signi~cant
r difference in the use of collaboration strategies,
In themeta0analysis of 32 studies employing 5,181respondents the average correlation (r= -.041) was extremely small (see Table 18.3).A formal
revealed that the amount of variation is probably due to
= 42.73, p >.05.

Most of the marital conflict research focuses on the demand-withdr~wal

conflict strategy selection sequence using observational analysis(e.g.,

B e ~ a n - F i n kand Brunner (1987), Chanin and Schneer (1984), Euwema and Van de Vliert
(1994), Kilmann and Thomas (1977), Nadler andNadler (1988), Papa and Natalle (1989), Roloff
and Greenberg (1979), Ruble and Schneer (1994, samples a and b), Ruble and Stander (1 990,
sample a), Schuekle and McDowell (1990), Shockley-Zalabak and Morley (1984, sample
a),
Thomas (197l), TingTmmey (1986), and Ugbah and DeWine (1986) found significant female
usage of compromising strategies.
7Baxter and Shepherd (1978), Chusmir and Mills (1989, samples a and b), Cayle (1991),
Howell (198 l), Kofron (1986 samples a and b), Kofron (1986, sample
a), Konovosky et al.
(1988), Nowak (1 984), Renwick
(1977), Revilla (1 9841, Ruble and Schneer (1 994, sample
c),
Ruble and Stander (1990, sampleb), Shockley-Zalabak (1981), Shockley-Zalabak and Morley
(1984, sampleb), Sone (1981), Sternberg and Soriano (1984), Temkin and Cummings (1986),
and Zammuto et al. (1979) found no significant gender differencein the use of compromising
strategies.
*Baxter and Shepherd (1978), Berryman-Fink and Brunner (1987), Chusmir and Mills
(1989, samples a and b), Euwema and Van de Vliert (1994), Gayle (1991), Howell (1981),
Kilmann and Thomas (1 97 7), Kofron (1986, samplesb),
a Konovosky
and
et al. (1 988), Nadler
and Nadler (1988), Nowak (1984), Renwick (1977), Revilla (1984), Ruble and Schneer (1994,
samples a, b, and c), Ruble and Stander (1990, samples a and b), Shockley-Zalabak (1981),
Shockley-Zalabak and Morley (1984, samples a and b), Sone (1981), Sternberg and Soriano
(1984), Temkin and Cummings (1 986), Thomas (197
l), and Zammutoet al. (1979) foundno
significant gender difference in
the use of collaboration strategies.

,PWISS, AND ALL

Christensen 6Heavey, 1990;Gottman 6rCarre, 1994; Heaveyet al. 1991).
This interactionalprocess between wives and husbands is characterized by
one spouse makingdemands and the other
spouse withdrawing(Jacobson,
1989, p. 29). The underlying assumptionhas been thatwives employ more
manding strategies in their quest to change relationships or seek more
seness or involvement, and husbands use more withdrawal strategies as
they seek more autonomyor seekto preserve the status quo (Christensen,
1987; Jacobson, 1989). However, Roberts and Krokoff (1990) argued that
reciprocity may be a more likelyexplanation of why women use demanding
strategies. These authorsargued that wives employdemanding strategies as
a response to husbands who withdraw rather tha
itiating the strategy to
fulfill their own needs. Other researchers suggest is the issue that det
mines the demand-withdrawal pattern (Bill
1979;
Christensen
Heavey, 1990; Heavey et al., 1991).
Jacobson (1989) argued that power is at the core of the demand- with^
drawal conflict pattern. He claimed that mens withdrawal patterns are
both a manifestation of and a factor which perpetuates their dominance
and thatwomens demand patternsarise froma position of weakness (pp.
30-3 1) within the relationship. Christensen (1987),on the other hand, argued it is the partners different needs and preference for intimacyand independence (p. 261) that triggers the use of the demand-withdrawal
conflict pattern and thatgender-role socializationis most likely responsible
for women seeking morerelational intimacy and menrequiring moreindependence.

To explore the effect of gender differenceson theselection of marital conflict management strategies, relevant studies were located and aggregated
meta0analytically into acommon metric following procedures employed for
the nonintimate interpersonal meta-analysis in Study l.The search procedure resulted in thelocation of 16 manuscripts relevant to the variables of
interest (see Table 18.4).
Two studies did not provide sufficientstatistical in0
formation to allow meta-analytic aggre~ation(Nowak, 1984; Resicket al.,
1981). Two other studies employed the same data set (Gottman &L Carre,
1994; Gottman 6r Levenson, 1992), so only one study was included in the
analysis. The remaining 13 manuscripts were
coded using power, accommodation, cognitive, and emotional strategies. Power strategies were coded if
either partner used demands, withdrawals, or rejection to exert control as
Jacobson (1989) suggested. Accommodation strategies were coded if attempts were made to reconcile, resolve,or engage in thepositive behaviorof

S a ~ ~ ~ Sex
e
Size
~ ~ e r e n c eMethod Used

P~~~is~ed

Author (S) o ~ S t ~ y

Year

Barry

1968

96

Yes

Coding audio

No

Bell et al.

1982

60

Yes

Yes

Billings

1979

48

Yes

Coding
interview
Coding
video

Christensen

110

1987

Yes

Survey

Yes
Yes

Heavey
1990
Ch~tensen&124

Yes

Coding
video

Yes

Gottman 6r Levenson
146
1992

Yes

Coding
video

Yes

Yes

video
Coding

Yes

58
Heavey
1993et al.
Nargolin
Yes
video
Coding
Yes 6r78Wampold
1981

94

Miller
1984

Yes

Survey

Yes

Nowak
Perregaux

1971

64

Yes

Coding
No
audio

Raush et al.

1974

92

Yes

Coding
audio

Yes

Resick et al.

No1981

38

Coding
video

Yes

Roberts & Krokoff

Yes1990

44

Coding
video

Yes

Yes
1985

182

Yelsma 6t Brown

Survey

Yes

conciliation. Cognitive strategies were coded if individuals accepted re,

sponsibili~
or engaged in mutual attempts to problem solve or compromise.
Emotional strategies were codedif appeals were made in theform of nagging, whining,or complaining.

. The same statistical procedureswere employed as in Study 1.

e effect size for

each conflict management strategy reportedin all studies
are listed in Table 18.5 Overall, most findings reveal small effect
sizes. The
average effect sizes foreach conflict management strategy are displayed in
Table 18.6. Each of the four effect sizesmerit separate discussion.

E ~ e c Size
t by Strategy
A ~ t ~o r~ ~S ts ~~~ y

Power

Barry

-.037

Bell et al.

~ c c ~ r n o ~ t ~i ~o ~ i ~ i ~E e~ o t ~
-065

.032

"087

.oo 1

.095

"-075

.270

Billings

-.003

Christensen

404

C h r ~ t ~6n Heavey
s~~

-*l25

Cottman &a Levenson

--.l71

-.130

Heavey et al.

-.l54

.W1

-.162

Margoli~& Wampold

-.264

--.l87

Miller

S10

.001

~e~egaux

.oo 1
-. 103

-.027

-.629

.011

Raush et al.

-.140

Roberts &a Krokoff

Yelsma 6 Brown

.oo 1

.068

.oo 1
--.062

,136-.120
,088

-.088

Note. A positive correlation (a randomly assigned designation) indicatesthat male means were higheron a
particular strategy, whereas a negative correlation indicates female means were higher.

An overall frequency analysisof the power st rate^ results reveals that Bell, Chaftez, and Horn (1982) reported a higher use of power
strategies by men and seven studies (54%) reported a higher useof power
strategies by wives (Barry, 1968; Christensen, 1987; Christensen &Heavey,
1990; Gottman 6r Levenson,1992;Heavey et al., 1993; Margolin &a
W a m p o ~1981;
~ , b u s h , Barry, Hertel, CSr Swain, 1974).The remaining five
)reported no significant gender difference in the use of power
9; Miller, 1994.;Nowak, 1984;Perregaux, 1971;RobIn therneta-analysis of 11studies employing 918 ~espondents the
average
correlation (r = . 124) was extremely small (see Table 18.6).A formal sigO
nificanc~test revealed that theamount of variation is probablydue to Sam0
piing error, x2 = 27.59, p >.05.

Effect Sires

Power

-.124

942

11

8 -.069

Emotional
Cognitive
Accommodation

68

-.035

654

.031

704

__

.
.

Y2

". ".

27.59
2.04

3.72
56.66*

Note. A positive correlation(a randomly assigned designation) indicates that male means were higher
on a
particular strategy, whereas a negative correlation indicates female means were higher.

*p >.05.

An overall frequency analysisof the accommodac

ti
eals that two studies (22%) reported a higher use of
accommodating
strategies
by women
(Margolin
6.
1981;
Perregaux,197 1). Four studies (45%) reported a higher U
modatin strategies by men bar^, 1968; iller, 1994; Raush et al., 1974, Yelsma
rown, 1985).Three studies (33%)reported no signi~cant
gender differ0
ence in theuse of accommodation strategies (Billings, 1979; Nowak, 1984;
Roberts & Krokoff,1990).
In themeta-analysis of eight studies employing 680 respondents the averz
age correlation (r = .031) was extremely small (see Table 18.6). A formal
significance test revealed that the amountof variation is probably not due to
= ~ 6 . 6p~C, .05. Due to the
small number of studies and
the vast coding differences,
the moderator variable couldnot be thoroughly
assessed.
,
, An overall frequency analysis of the cognitive strategy re0
sults reveals that two studies (25%) reported a higher useof cognitive strate..
gies by women ( ~ a r g o ~&
i nW a ~ p o l d 198
, 1; Yelsma & Brown, 1985) Four
studies (50%) reported a higher use of cognitive strategies by men (Barry,
1968; Heaveyet al., 1993; Miller,1994; Raush et al., 1974). The remaining
two studies (25%) reported no significant gender difference in the use of
cognitive strategies (Billings, 1979; Nowak, 1984).
In themeta-analysis of seven studies employing 630 respondents the avO
erage correlation (r = --.035) wasextremely small (see Table
18.6). A formal

ISS,

LL

signi~cancetest revealed that the amountof variation is probably due to

= 3.72, p >.05.

An overall ~equencyanalysis of the emotional strategy

at four studies (50%) reported a higher use of emotional
strategies by women (Barry, 1968; ~ o t t ~ 6r
a Levenson,
n
1992; Heaveyet
1993; ~ a r g o l i n6r Wampold, 1981; Raush et al., 1974). Two studies
%) reported no s i ~ i f i c a n gender
t
difference in the use of emotional
strategies (~illings,1919;Nowak, 1984).Two stud
ing moreemotional strategies than women iller er,
In the meta~analysis
of eight studies employing 658 respondents the
average correlation (r= -.069) was extremely small (see Table18.6). A formal
significance test revealed that the amountof variation is pro~ably due to
s a ~ p l i n gerror, x2 = 2.04, p >.OS.
e

Not surprisingly, results do notprovide unequivocal support for gender- or

sexdbased s t e r e o ~ ~ eOverall
s.
findings revealed small average effect
sizes in
both intimate and nonintimate inte~ersonalconflicts. These results support Raush et al.s (1974) argument that differences between mens and
womens approach to conflict accounted for very little of the behavior of
wives and husbands. owever, it is questionable whether a static standard
can fully illuminate the complex factors involved with gender differences in
conflict strategy selection.
Cohen (1977) suggested that the lack of goode~perimentalor measure
ment controlor both (p. 25) could account for the creationof small effect
sizes. This is an important consideration because manyconflict researchers
have questioned the lack of systematic correlation between i ~ t r u m e n t s ,
the social desirabili~of some instruments, theoverall lack of predictive va*
lidity of the conflict management strategy selection instruments, theover#
si~~lification
of thecurrent strategy con~guration, and the fact that
conflicts are initiated by events or responded to inways that will not occur
during observations (Christensen, 1987; Thomas, 19$$; Weider0Hatfield,
1 ~ $ 8Wilson
;
& ~ a l t m a n 1988;
,
~ o m a c 19$~).
~,
Another way to assess the results involvedis to use a binomial effectsize
display (Rosenthal 6r Rubin, 1982) for a more practical interpretation of
n competing, compromisin~,and power strategies are selected (see
.cl).This analysis revealed that employing c o ~ ~ r o m i s i nstrategies
g
in nonintimate interpersonal
conflicts would beassociated with an increase

Sex ~
Strategy

Compromising
Competing
Power

Male

F e ~ ~ e

-.1 19

44
56

56
44

.l47

57
43

43

-.124

44
56

56
44

57

in the percentage of women usingthese strategies fromabout 44% to 56%.

Also in nonintimate interpersonal conflicts, employingcompetitive strategies would be associated with an increase in the percentage of men using
those strategies from 43% to 57%. In marital conflict, the interpretation
suggests that the percentage of women employing power strategies would
increase from 44% to 56%. These figures may suggest that compromising,
competing, and power strategies might separate
be
orientations more closely
linked to appropriate gender-role behavior than processes that emerge
over the duration of the conflict interaction. Therefore, females and males
in some situations may act according to their prescribed gender roles. In
other situations, the norms associated with the social rolesthey occupy (e.g.,
membership in anorganization or family) may regulateand alter behavior
(Eagly, 1987), in this case conflict strategy selection.
One might also try to clarify these findings by comparing the results to
several related meta-analyses. Even though the overall effect sizes of the
comparison analysescan be classified as small
(compliance-~aining:T <.07;
aggression: r = .14; influenceability: r = .08),the direction and ma~nitude
of the effect sizes indicated a pattern of responses consistent with both
meta-analyses conducted in this article. The findings that menmore often
select c o m p e t i t i v e - ~ estrategies and women select more compromising
strategies, parallelsKrone, Allen, and Ludlums (1994.) managerial compliance~gaining
meta-analysis results,in which female managers
tended to use
more soft tactics such as helping and counseling and male mangers re0
ported using slightly more harsh
tactics such as threats andpunishments.
The results of the marital meta-analysis are consistent with Eagly and Carlis
(1981) meta-analytic findings that women are more impacted by in~uence

LL
~ a g l yand Steffens ( 1 ~ 8meta-analytic
~)
fin ings that men re#
iver more aggression.
could also beinfluenced by the respondents perce~tionsof
the strategies and contextsor situations employed in thepr
tions or the obse~ationalcoders categorization schem
old (1981)argued that coders seemto describe the
more pejoratively than e husbands negative b
thors suggested that some ge er bias maybe the result of the coders
ereotypes. Thus, it m
e that gender or sex0role biase
ri~inalstudies could
t the results of the meta~analy~
if the conflict management strategies or the
ed in theoriginal studies elicited a gender or
e was d e s i ~ e dand an independ~nt
experiment was con*
nintimate inte~eronalconflict studies.

of the ~uestionnairecontained the conceptual an

ons of the five conflict management strategies, Using ~ v e ~ s t e ~
rential scales, respondents were asked to rate: (a) the pereness of each strategy from a l ~ a effectiv~
~s
to er effectiw~,
d positive and negative social consequences of each strategy
eo^^ ill like me a lot to eo^^ ill not like me, and (c) the perceiv
er bias of the strategy fromt ~ ~ i c a l l ~to ~ ~ ~ c u The
l ~ goal
~
~ e
this assessment was to deternine whetherrespondents viewed any of the
strategies as being more typically associated with male
or female communi^
cation behavior and whether any of the strategies were viewed more positively than theother strategies.
In the second part of the questionnaire, each of the contextsor situations
described in the original experiments was listed? The goal of the rating in
this section was to identiG whether the situations reported in the original
studies represented circumstances biased in favor of male or female roles.
For example, if in theminds of the respondents, a situation involving a manr
ager having to discipline a worker represents a typical malesituation, then
the direction and
size ofthe effect should be correlated with that finding. A
(malesituation should demonstrate larger positivecorrelations than a fer
male situation. A (femalesituation should produce effects that are smaller
or negative.
~~

%?ot all studies providedthis information or were availableto be tested.

r ~ n i n students
e
from a small private college in the
out the ~uestionnaire.
Res ondents read each situa
the original expe~menta
those situations on a
points d e t e ~ i n i n g
whethertuation
was one ~ i c a l l encountere
y
r females. The ~uestionnaire
gener d a rating for each situation re0
in each of the original studies us in the meta~analysis.The reto produce a meanvalue fo
tween effetct sizes for
each st
r eachstudy represented a correlation
the meanrating of the situationprovi
orrelation indicatedthat male ty
ere more likelyto produce respo
ict style utilized by males.1

e covariate figures calculated for each study are presented in Table 18.2.
ates ranged from2.25 to 3.88. The 15 t tests investi~atingstratrespondent sex revealed no si~ificantrelation between re0
and perceptions of strategy effkctiveness, c o ~ e ~ u e n c of
es
strategy selection, and theperceived gender appropriateness of each S
The Pearson correlation revealed a significant relation between e
S and the selection of competing strategies (r = .4099, p
.05).
finding suggests that certain contexts and situations are more likely perceived as typically male. No other conflict strategies were si~nificantly
correlate^ with changes in themasculine-feminine covariate.

The si~ificant
correlation between competing strategies and contextualor
situational descriptions of the original studies suggests that in certaincircumstances respondents expect competitive gender-role behavior because
they perceive the situationor context to be masculine.These findings indie
cate that some of the i~entifiable
gender differences in conflict strategy se0

Such a rating system contains a potential The

defect.
students doing the ratings are removed
by more than 10 years fromthe actual ratingof the original respondents. This creates some difficulty in that the participants view of the current applicability of the contexts or
notsituations ma
be the same as past views,Also, some of the original studies used nonstudent samples that may
have had a different orientation toward the contexts or situations than the current undergraduate
population. This limitation, however, should minimize the impact
of the rating becausethe respondents are probably more sensitized
to the entranceof women in the workforce and
the larger
number of roles available for women. The fact
that such a correlation exists probably understates
the impo~tance
of such effects.

lection begin withrespondents perception of the contextsor situations that

are inherently male or female. Thus, gender roles are enacted in the
mind of
the respondent and this Stereotypical thinking may influence their conflict
management strategy selection. As agly (1987) argued, gender differences
in social behaviorsare likely to be inconsiste~tbecause the d e f ~ i t i o n
of the
situation inwhich the behavior occurs must be considered in orderto ace
count for the variability (pp. 2-3).

Taken together,the results of these meta~analyses and the covariate

analysis
suggest that other extraneous variables may have an impact on the per#
ceived gender or sex differences
in interpersonal conflict management strate
egy selection, Results seem to suggest that the situation or context an
stereotypical expectations play a distinct role in unraveling the sex or gem
der diRerence claimsmade in this body of literature.
Interestingly, several authors in the marital conflict literature suggested
that theuse of powerstrategies varied depending
on whether the wifes issues
or the husbands issues were being discussed (Billings, 1979;
~ h ~ t e Csr.
~ e n
eavey? 1990). Christensen and Heavey (1990) argued that both husband
and wife were more likely to be demanding when discussing a change they
wanted and more likely to be withdra~ngwhen discussing a change their
partner wanted (p. 73). Thus, it may be the situation or context that influences conflict management strategy selection
rather than thegender or social
role of either individual involvedin the interpersonal conflict.
It is also apparent that stereotypical expectations do play a part in thesec
lection of conflict management behavior. Allen (1998) suggested that re#
spondents oftenremember the extreme examples of a particular behavior so
that their gender stereotypes have a basis in fact. He argued that these stec
reotypes are applied to everyone and assigned based on gender even when
the stereotype is inaccurate.
~et~odologically,
the findings of our investigation indicate the need to
consider and explore the nature of situations that people encounter and
when those situations evoke strong, generalized gender-role expectations.
Gender differences in any given body of literature may reflect more of a
sense of appropriateness of the stimuli for the particular gender than actual
behavioral indexes. Rather than exploring the nature of communication
that assumes a crossesituationalconsistency, our results suggest the importance of establishing a situational or contextual view of gender enactment.
The data inthis study indicate that therespondents did in fact consider gene
der in their determination
of the appropriate conflict ~anagementstrategy.

owever, their responses were linkedto their perceptions of how a particuer ought to behave in particular situations.

with one asterisk indicate studies inclu

mate m~ta~analysis.
~eferences
marked withtwo asterisks indicate studies inclu~edin the maric
tal meta0analysis.
Allen, M. (1998).Methodological considerations when examining a gendered
world. In D,
Canary 6. K. Dindia (Eds"),Hand~ookof sex ~ ~ e r e n cand
e s simi~arit~s
in c o m m u n i c a t ~ ~
(pp. 427-444). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
~rlbaumAssociates.
~ a cr ~ tg eA
; study of the i n t e r ~ tofi ~newly~ed
coup~esin
**Barry, W.A, (1968). C ~ ~in m
~ p e r i m e n ~ ~ l y ~con^^^.
nd~ced
Unpublished doctoraldissertation,University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
*Baxter, L.A., 6r Shepherd, 1:L. (1978). Sex-role identity, sex
of other, and affective relationship as determinants of interpersonal conflict-management styles. SexRoles, 6,
813-825.
**Bell, D.C., Chafetz, J. S., &a Horn, L.H. (1982). Marital conflict resolution:A study of
strategies and outcomes.~
o of Fam~~y
u
Issues,
~
3,
~ 111-13 1.
*Ber~man-Fink,
C., 6.Brunner, C.C. (1987). The effects of sex of
source and target on interpersonal conflict management styles. S o ~ t h Speech
e~
Communication J ~ ~53, l ,
38-48.
**Billings, A.(1979). Conflict resolution
in distressed and nondistressed couples.Journalof
~ o ~ s u l t i and
n g Clinical P s ~ c h o ~47,368-376.
o~,
Blake, R. R., 6r Mouton, J. S. (1964). The ~
~grid. Houston,
g
TX:
e Gulf. ~
~
Bond, J. R., &Vinache,W. E. (1961). Coalitionsinmixed-sextriads. S o c ~ ~ e34,61-75.
t ~ ,
relationship between
Jungianpersonal"Chanin, M. N.,&a Schneer,J. A. (1984).A study of
Human R e ~ t ~ o n37,865-879.
s,
ity dimensions and conflict-handling behavior.
""Christensen, A.(1987). Detection of conflict patterns in couples. InK. Hahlweg &a M. J.
Goldstein (Eds.),Understandingmjw mental d ~ s o r ~(pp.
r s 250-265). New York: Family
Processes.
**Christensen, A., 6. Heavey, C. L. (1990). Genderand social structure in demand/withdraw patterns of marital c o ~ ~ i c to f.r e~r soo ~~~~iand
t y~ Socialpsycho lo^, 59,73-8 1.
*Chusmir, L. H., &a Mills, J. (1989).Gender differences in conflict resolution styles
of managers: At work and at home. Sex Roles, 20, 149-163.
r u ~ New York: Academic.
Cohen, J. (1977).Stut~ticalpower anaEysisfor the ~ e ~ v i osciences.
Cooper, H. M,,6r Rosenthal, R. (1986). Statistical versus traditional procedures for sum~ u ~ ~87,
e 442-449.
~ ~ n ,
marizing research findings.Psycholo~ca~
Eagly, A. H.(1987). Sex d~~erences
in social ~ehavior;A social-role ~ n t e ~ r e ~ tHillsdale,
~on.
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eagly, A. H.,6r Carli, L.L. (1981). Sexof researcher and sex-typed communications as determinants of sex differences in influenceability: A meta-analysis of social influence
studies. Psycholo~al~ u ~ l e t90,
~ n1-20.
,

Eagly, A. H., 6 Steffen, V. J. (1986). Gender and aggressivebehavior: A meta~analytic

rein)
view of the socialpsychological literature. P s y c ~ l o ~ c u ~ ~ u1~0 l0e, t309-330.
*Euwema, M. C., &Vande Vliert, E.(1994). Theinfluence ofsex on manager's reactions in
c tgender
conflict with their subordinates. In A. Taylor 6J. B. Miller (Eds.), C ~ ~ iand
(pp. 119-140). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Winke, J. (1979). You alwayshurt the oneyou love: Strategiesand tactics in inte~ersonalconflict. C o m m ~ n i c u t ~ ~ ~27,
~ r3-1
t e 1.
r~y,
Gayle, B. M. (1991). Sexequity in workplaceconflict management.^^^^ ofApp~ied Communicuti~,19, 152-169.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In U d ~ ~ evoice,
r ~ Cambridge,
t
MA: Harvard University Press.
Class, G. V., McGraw, B., 6Smith, M.L. (1981). M e ~ 0 u ~ in~ social
y s ~research. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
"Coering, E.M. (1986, November). Context,d e ~ n i tundsexofuctorus
~,
v u ~ ~ line cso n ~ ~ c t
~ ~ g e m estyle.
n t Paper presented at theannual meeting of the SpeechCommunication
Association, Chicago.
Gottman, J. M., 6Carre, S. (1994). Why can't men and womenget along? Developmental
and reroots and marital inequities. In D. J. Canary6.L. Stafford (Eds.), Co~m~nicution
~ t ~muinte~nce
u l
(pp. 203-229). San Diego, CA: Academic.
"Cottman, J. M., 6Levenson, R.W. (1992) . Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior physiology and health.
of P e r s ~ u ~ and
~ t yS o c ~ l P s y c h o ~63,
o~,
221-223.
*Heavey, C. L., Layne, C., & Christensen, A. (1993). Gender and conflict structure in
of C ~ u ~ t iand
n g ~ l i n i c Psyu~
marital interaction: A replication and extension.
c h ~61,~16-27.
~ ~ ,
Hedges, L. V., 6 Olkin, I. (1985). Stut~ticulme tho^ for m e t u ~ u ~ ~ y Orlando,
sis.
FL: Academic.
~n,
and u ~ l y of
s c~~ p e t e n c i e s f o con
~ed
Howell, J. L. (1981). The i d e n t ~ ~ c u tdesc~ption
c ~ ~~ n~u gce mt e n in
t U h~munservices orguni~ution~
An e x p ~ o r u study.
t ~ Unpublished
doctoral dissertation,University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Hunter, J., Schmidt, E,6. Jackson, G. (1983). Metu-unu~ys~~
~ c c ~ m ~ ~reseurch
t i n gfind~ngs
across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jacobson, N. S. (1989). The politics of intimacy. The ~ e ~ v i oTherup~t,
ru~
12, 29-32.
*Kilmann, R.H., & Thomas, K.W. (1977). Developing a forced-choice measure of con~ict-handlingbehavior: The "mode" instrument. Ed~cutionuland Fsycho~o~cul
Meusurement, 37,309-323.
Kofi-on, C. l? (1986). A s ~ ~ c t uperspective
ru~
of i ~ t e ~ e r scon~ict
~ u l ~ ~ g e mUnpub~ t .
lished doctoral dissertation, St.Louis University, St. Louis, MO.
"Konovosky, M. A., Jaster,F., &McDonald, M.A. (1988,November). ~ s i ~ g ~ u r u ~ e t r ~ c s t u
tistics to explore the~ n d e r ~ y i n g s t ~ c tofthe
~ r e sT h o ~ - K i ~ m u ncon~ict
n
MODE
survey. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the SpeechCommunication Association, New
Orleans, LA.
Krone, K.,Allen, M,,& Ludlum, J.(1994). Ameta-analysisof gender research in managerial influence. In L. H. Turner6H. M.Sterk (Eds.), D~fferencesthat make U differe~ce(pp.
73-84). Westport, a:
Bergin 6,Garvey.
Linkskold, S., & Tedeschi, J. 'X(197 1). Reward power and attraction in interpersonal conflict. Psychonomic Science, 22, 21 1-213.
~~~~

~~~~

**Margolin, G., 6,Wampold, B. E. (198l). Sequentialanalysis ofconflict and accord in disc

~~~l of Consu~ting and
~ ~ i Psycho~o~,
n ~ u ~
tressed and nondistressed marital partners.
49,554-567.
**Miller,J.B. (1994). Conflict management
and marital adjustment among African-Amer~ ~ t
ican and White middle-class couples.In A. Taylor6J. B. Miller (Eds.),~ o nund~ender (pp. 141-154). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Monroe, C., DiSalvo, V, S., Lewis, J. J., 6,Borzi, M. G.(1989). Conflict behaviors
of difficult
subordinates: Interactive effects of gender.
S ~ t h e ~
C ~ m u n54,12-23.
i c u t i ~ ~ ~ ~
*Nadler, M.K.,&Nadler, L.B. (1988, November).Sex d ~ ~ e r ein~ percept^^
es
o f u orien~
t~~
Paper presented
~tions twurd con~ict
resolvingbe~viorsin the o r g u n i ~ uenvir~ment.
at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association,
New Orleans, LA.
Nowak, M. (1984). ~~~~t reso~ut~n
and power seeking b e ~ v of~urn d r o ~ n und
~ s trudinu^ ~ ~ ' couples.
e d Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI.
*Papa, M. J., &Natalle, E. J. (1989). Gender, strategy
selection,and discussion satisfaction
in interpersonal conflict. Western
of Speech Communicut~~,
53, 260-272.
in the ~ u ~ t u ~
**Perregaux, J. L. (1971). ~y~~ inteructkm: A study ofdisu~eementreso~ut~n
dyud. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
IN.
*Putnam, L,L.,&Wilson, C. E. (1982). Communicative strategies
in organizational conflicts: Reliabili~and validity of a measurement scale.
In M. Burgoon (Ed.),~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ c
tion yeurbook 6 (pp. 629-652). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rahim, A.(1983). A measure of styles ofhandling interpersonalconflict. Acudemy of Man~26,368-376.
~
u
~
,
ugement ~
Iiapoport, A., 6. Chammah, A. M. (1965). Sex differencesin factors contributingto the
i ~ Social Psylevel of cooperationin the prisoner's dilemmag a m e . ~ o u ~~fuP~e r s o ~ land
chology, 2,831-838.
c
**bush, H. L., Barry, W. A., Hertel, R. K., &Swain, M. A. (1974).~ ~ ~ ~ n i c u t ~ ,
and murriuge.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
enw wick, E! A. (1977). Effectsof sex differences on the perception and management of
conflict: An exploratory study. O r g u n ~ ~ ~u et ~~ v~ i~
and
o r ~~~n P e r ~ o ~ n c 19,
e,
403-4 15. Resick,E! A., Barr,F? K., Sweet,J. J., Kieffer, D. M., Riby, N.L.,6Spiegel, D.K.
(1981). Perceivedand actual discriminatorsof conflict from accordin marital communication. American ~
oo ~ F~ u T~h~~e r~u ~y9,
l, 56-68.
*Revilla, V, M. (1984).C o n ~ ~ t
~styles
~ gofemen
~ eand
n twomen in higher
ed~cut~on.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh,PA.
of withdrawal, hostility,and
**Roberts, L.J., 6r Krokoff,L.J. (1990).A time series analysis
displeasurein satisfied and dissatisfied ma~iages.~ournu~
ofMurdge and the F ~ ~52,~ ~ y ,
95-105.
Roloff,M. E.,&Greenberg, B. S. (1979).Sex differencesin choice of modesof conflict resolutions in real-life and television. ~ o ~ m u n ~ c u t ~ o n ~27,
u r3-12.
ter~y)
of magnitude ofex+
Rosenthal, R., 6Rubin, D.B. (1982).A simple general response display
perimental effect.~ ~ r o nf ~ ud ~~c u t ~ o n u ~ P s74,
~ c h166-169.
o~o~)
*Rossi, A.M., 6 T~d-Mancillas,W. R. (1987). Maleand female differencesin managing
conflicts. In L.E!Stewart 6,S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), ~ ~ ~ u n i c ugender,
t ~ nand
, sex roles
in diverse ~nteruct~n
contexts (pp.-96-104). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
~~~~

Ruble, ?
:L., (5rSchneer, J. A. (1994). Gender differences to conflict-handlingstyles: Less
than meets the eye? InA. Taylor &.J. B.Miller (Eds.),C o n ~ ~undgender
ct
(pp. 155-165).
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
"Ruble, K
' L., &.Stander, N.E. (1990, June). Effects of role and gender on c o n ~ ~ t - ~ n d ~ ~ n
styles. Paperpresented at the meeting ofthe International Association for Conflict
Management, Vancouver, Canada.
McDowell, E. (1990, May). A study
ofthe r e ~ t ~ ~e t ~~ eh e ~
n ~ to~ i ~ ~ ~
nd refe~edc o n ~strategy:
~ t ~ m ~ ~fm~teuching
u t commun~ution
~ s
and
conflict. Paper presented at the International Communication Association conference,
Chicago.
Shockle~Zalabak,E (1981).The effects of sex differenceson the preference for utilization
of conflict stylesof managers in a work setting: An exploratory study. P u Personnel
~ ~ ~
~unugement3
~ 10,289-295.
~
~
,
*Shockle~Zalabak,
E,&Morley, D. D.(1984). Sex differences
in conflict style preferences.
Communicut~Reseurch R e ~ o r l~,28-32.
,
Sone, E G. (1981). The effects o ~ g ~ done ~r n u g e r sreso~ution
'
o ~ s u ~ e ~ o r - s u ~ oconrd~~te
~ ~ cUnpublished
t.
doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
Sternberg, R. J., 6r. Soriano, L.J. (1984). Stylesof conflict resolution.3~~~ of per so^^^^
and S o c Psycho~gy,
~ ~
47, 115-126,
*Ternkin, X, (5rCummings, H.W. (1986). "he use of conflict management behaviors
in voluntary organizations:An exploratory s t u d y . 3 ~ ~ ~
o f VReseurch,
o ~ u ~ 15,5-18.
~~
Ac~
"Thomas, K.W. (197 1).C o n f l ~ c t - ~ n dmodes
~ ~ n gin~nterde~urtmentu~
r e ~ u tUnpubl~hed
~ ~ .
doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Thomas, K.W. (1988).The conflict handlingmodes: Toward more precise theory.
~unuge~
ment Comm~n~ution
~ r t e r ~l ,
y430-436,
,
in black and white subjective
culTing-Tmmey, S. (1986). Conflict communication styles
tures. In Y. Y. Kim(Ed.), ~nterethn~ commun~ut~on~
Current research (pp.75-88).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
g e re~ut~onu~
m e n t &sen" ~ g b a h S.
, D., (5rDeWine, S. (1986, November).~ o n ~ i c t ~ ~ and
the same? Paper presented at the annual meetgugement: Arethe c~municution strure~s
ing of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago.
Weider-Hat~eld,D. (1988). Assessing the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-I1
(ROC-11). M u ~ g e m e~~ t ~ m u n~ u~r t eur ~tl,y 35C-366.
,~
Wilson, S. R., 6.Waltman, M.S. (1988). Assessing the Putnam-Wilson Organizational
~ommunicationConflict Instrument (OCCI).Mu~gement~ o m ~ ~ n ~ c u t ~ o n ~ u
l , 367-386.
Womack, D.E (1988).A review ofconflict instruments in organizational settings.
~unugement Com~~nicution
~ ~ ~ el, 43
r 7-445.
~ y ,
**Yelsma, E, &Brown, C.?
:(1985).Gender roles, biological sex, and predisposition
to conflict management.Sex Roles, 12, 28-32.
*Zammuto, M. L.,London, M , 6 Rowland, K.W. (1979). Effects of sex on commitment
and conflict resolution.3~~~~ of A ~ ~ ~Ps~c~o~ogy,
ied
6 4 , 227-23 1.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Textbooks are a source of i n f o ~ a t i o nfor the students that read them.

educators and scientists, we expect that textbook authors report relevant
and accurate information. Authors review, critique,and revise textbooksto
provide moreaccurate andunderstandable material. The normal course of
events for textbooks is that eachsubsequent edition is supposed to provi~e
an improvement in thecontent. Textbooks are revised for many reasons
and
to accomplish a variety of purposes, including clarity,
addition of material,
deletion of material, inclusionof topics, and simplification of material. The
goal of this ongoing eRortis to improve the i n f o ~ a t i o available
n
to teachers
and students.
As i n f o ~ a t i o in
n thesciences is updated and verifie ,textbooks begin to
reflect the updated and more accurate infor~ation.Recently, the transition
to viewing the study of human behavior as a formof science is gaining accept
edgess (1987) observation that thevariability in theoutcomes of
psychological experiments is slightly lessthan experiments in particle phys-

ics suggeststhat humanbehavior can be studied scientifically.As doubts diminish about whether theinvestigation of human behavior can meet the
rigor of science, the requirement that scholars and textbooks begin to con*
form to thescientific ideal becomes increasinglyurgent and inevitable.
e logic of the scientific method pivots on the use of induction as a
means of proof. That is, learning about aparticular case or cases should prod
vide information for understanding the next
case or occurrence. When the
requirement moves from certain^ to probabili~) the
information on one
case or set of cases only providesan inference (based on p r o ~ a b i l i ~
about
)
the tendency of the nextcase to exhibit the same property or tendency. The
basis of scientific inference involves the reliance on experience (data) to
gene rat^ and help evaluate
an understanding ( t h e o ~ )that eventually
translates into improved practice (application). The progression and imd
provement is not linear or predictable, but thelong-term expectation is that
improvement is an inevitable result of adherence to the method,

The logic for analyzing the textbooks in interpersonal communication is

similar to that used when comparing textbooks in persuasion to relevant
meta-analyses (Allen &LPreiss, 1990,1998; Allenet al., 1997).The method
examines whether therepresentations of scientific literature in atextbook
are consistent or inconsistent with a particular meta-analysis about that issue. This procedure permits an examination of the advice that scientists intend to create for textbook writers (Allen & Preiss, 1997). If a textbook
author is making claimsabout theexistence of particular relationships based
on empirical evidence, then theclaim can be evaluated on the basis ofaccuracy. In this case, the level of consistency with a relevantmeta-analysis determines accuracy. Such a procedure provides the basisfor eventual
improvement in textbooks by creating a consensus about the infor~ation
that any textbook could represent accurately.
The evaluation of a textbook requiresa set of criteria that have as much to
do with the style and format of the presentation as with the accuracy of the ace
tual material. For example, the author may attempt to provide a readable and
accessible text that does not fundamentally compromisethe theoretical positions developedin thechapters. The textbook author wants to maintain the
intellectual quality of the theory without dumbing down
the material, but at
the same time to make the information accessibleto students that lack the
years of experience (sometimes decades) of a professional scholar. Although thetheory andthe elements may not initially be understandable,

textbook author creates a presentation that proves t

overall comprehensionof the content.
Textbook authors must also spond to the ever~changing
dema
market~lace thatmay require
ergent sets of criteria. For exa
ete against rivaltextbooks and ~ g hfor
t market share. The
he textbook market creates marketing plans that involve
Web page access, test banks, instructors manuals, workbooks,
sup~lements,videotapes, and many other types of classroom a
nal supportfor the course. The choice of a textbook involves not simply a
cision about the representation of content, but also issues of cost, the
level of support available for the material, an sues such as the matchbee
tween book content and course curriculum. re we advance accuracy of
the contentas another importantcriteria for
uating the textbooks available in themarketplace.
~ c i e n t i ~ c ~ n dshould
i n g s not be required to play a centralrole in all
agogy. For example, one criterionincreasingly
rsity. Evaluations of textbooks have considere
esentation of a variety of groups by commu
Lovelace, 1998;Yook, 1998),and theissue
mains an important one. owever, meta-analysis is focused on the ability of
content toaccurately reflect the research material, rather than reflect other
im~ortantinclusion criteria. On this level, meta0analyses can contributeto
the discussion of other criteria. In thearea of self~disclosure,Dindia and Allen (19~2)
observed that virtually all of the more than ZOO data sets were
conducted in North
America and thatvirtually no analysis S
sidered various minority groups
and whether thedisclosure
e or ethnicity. The result is that any metac
ty of the original conditions of data collec
any textbook author representing the literatureshould still provide the conclusion of the meta-analysis, decide explicitly whether or not to accept the
generaliza~ilityof the conclusion, and document therationale for an altere
native interpretation.
In other pedagogical decisions, the role of meta-analysis is much more
limited. For example, an issue of ~
~
~ ~ ~~ ~
published
~ ~ u~a s pt +~~
posium on The Womens University. When examining the articles
(~eFrancisco,1996;Cregg, 1996;Houston, 1996;Jenefsky, 1996;E Johnson, 1996;Kramarae, 1996)the expectationsmay not involve a high degree
of requirements for scientific accuracy because the goals focuson the out&
comes of e m p o w e ~ e nand
t cultural transformation. The collection of artb
cles providesa snapshot of expectations and requirements for a vision of the

ou

N
university. It is unclear how the scientific requirements of accuracy in representation would fallwithin this framework. ~cientificaccuracy or the nee
for the accuracy of depictions of material may be subordinate to other out0
comes in some types of investigations. The importance of metaeanalysis as
an evaluative tool must be placed
within the context of the particular pedaa1 goals sought by the^ educational system. We subscribe to thenotion
formation should be represented as accurately as possibleor
is not an endorsement
or requirement for objectivity, as sci~ntificconsensus is not objective. ~ c i e n t i ~consensus
c
only represents
agreem~nt that the
data do indicate that a relation exists.

is section of the chapterprovides a short summa^ of the previous chapers for the purposes of evaluating the various textbooks. The intent is to
he conclusions offered by the various meta-analythe i n f o ~ a t i o nin textbooks. Theoretically, the
textbooks should offer conclusions consistent with the available research in
ta-analysis, as a literature review technique, provides a system^
prehensive review processes that others can choose to repliantage of meta-analysis liesin itsability to handle Type I an
a systematic fashion. When this is combined withthe ability
of others to replicate the procedures and outcomes, the basisof an
intersubjective knowledge claimis met. That is, other scholars can verifv for
themselves whether the claims and outcomes can be stipulated as a result of
independent summaries of the same literature.
is review isnot concerned directly with theoretical evaluation, as that
i n f o ~ a t i o nas
, well as a pers tive on thefield, is offeredby Roloff (chap.
22), Fitzpat~ck(chap. 21), rger (chap. 2), and Canary and att trey
(chap. 20) in this book. The treatment of the information in this analysis is
less targeted at theoretical or methodolo~icallevels of analysis, but is pedagogical in nature. The information in the otherchapters just mentioned is
important andessential, but it meets different goals by providing a sense of
ur~encyand coherency to theavailable information on interpersonal come
munication for the purpose of research and theory construction. Thosefour
chapters set the agenda for research and theories for the scholars yet to
This chapter provides an evaluation of current information conin classroom textbooks.
"he contents of this book, in terms of the topics c o ~ i d e r eare
~ , not ex*
haustive or necessarily indicative of the corpus of interpersonal communi-

cation research. Not included are issues surrounding compliance gainin

communication apprehension, discourse sequences (action assemblies,
emory ~rganizationPacket or schema), dialectics, marital or family
communication, uncertaintyuction,
or research related to th
stages)of relationships (this list could probably fill several pages).
A. lot of
the n o ~ a l ate rial included in most textbooks is not re~ectedin the
available research or examined in this analysis. Thus, the sample of topics
used to evaluate the textbooks should not be considered a randomsample of
available research or topics in interpersonal communication. The diversity
of topics in research programs would require hundreds of meta-analyses
these are slowly being assembled) and are beyond the scope of this
.However, the review providedin this analysis represents a beginning
of the evaluationprocess and systematic reassessmentof research material
that will be ongoingin thefuture.

Textbooks selected for this evaluation do

not represent a systematic or come
prehensive inclusion of i n f o ~ a t i o n Instead,
.
the choice of books wasliterally dictated by what was on the shelves of the chapter authors as made
available by various book company
representatives. In some cases,the selections were textbooks we had used asundergraduate or graduate studentsor
as instructors. The goal ofthis analysis should betaken as more illustrative
than definitive. The purpose is to illustrate the potential application of
meta~analysisto pedagogical issuesin interpersonal communication, rather
than toprovide an exhaustive and authoritativereview of available materials. Such a review will eventually be necessary and beneficial for the ~ e l d )
but is not the intentof this analysis.
The textbooks were intended to represent a wide variety of books and
should include authors oftextbooks and titles familiar to anyone teachin
interpersonal com~unication.A s such, thetextbooks represent, in varied
a
and inconsistent manner, a limited snapshot of the field of interpersonal
communication undergraduate textbooks. The bookswere obtaine
rather ordinary ways. More often than not, thescope of choices was dictated
by which textbooks were mailedto theinstructors offices, provided asSamples by pu~~ishers
representatives, or ordered at apublishers table at a conc
ference. The selection of the textbooks for inclusion in this analysis, in many
respects, reflects the competitionamong textbooks in themarketplace.

Each interpersonalc o ~ u n i c a t i o textbook

n
was examined and thefollowing
ratings were completed: (a) consistent with the meta0analysis, indicated by a
+,(b)inconsistent withthe meta-analysis, indicatedby a -, and (c) failureto
mention the topic in the text, indicated by leaving the space in the table
blank. As d e m o ~ ~ a t in
e dTable 19.1, the most frequent or modal value
is the
failure to mention a particular topic.The majority of to ics consi
t appear in most interpersonal textbooks.
f textbooks in public speaking and pers
re the vast majorityof research topics were
notlikely to be re-

Adler (1998)

Adler (1996)
Anderson
Berko
DeVito
Gamble

+
+

+
+
_.

Gudykunst

9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3

+ -

+ + +

+
+
+

D. Johnson
KnaPP
Pearson

Trenholm
Verderber
Wood (1996)
Wood (1998)
Wood (1999)
Wright

+ +
+ +

_.

+
+ +

+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+

Note. Only thefirst author is listed;please consult theReferences for complete citations. The ratings reflect
the complexity of the analysis providedby the author. A positive (t-indicates
)
that theissue ismentioned
and nothing was stated thatdirectly contradicts themeta-analysis. A negative (-) appears whensomething
occurs in the text that is clearly contradicted by the available meta-analysis.

flected in the content of a textbook. A caveat is needed because the coding

may have missed info~ation. Theproblem with a textbook of about ~ 0 0
pages is that formation may not be well indexed and issues can appear in
multiple places.Every effort wasmade to ensure accuracy of the coding and
inspection of all relevant passages; however, oversights
do occur. The CO
represents a human process subjectto error and oversight.

A total of 16 textbooks were examined using the 13 meta-analyses contained inthis book. That creates a total series of 208 judgments. A totalof
49 codes were assigned out of a possible 208 (about 24%). This indicates
only about a 24% probabili~that any conclusion reviewed by a meta-analysis would appear as an issue in a textbook. Three of the topics
(argumentativeness, cognitive editing, and social support during divorce)
did not appear in any textbook in a manner thatcould becoded against the
conclusions of the meta-analysis. The inclusion, exclusion, or noninclusion
of content was highly variable.
Other than not
including any of the informac
tion, no two textbooks commented exactly on the same set of issues. In
other words, the exposure to particular content was not replicated in any
book. This means that exposure to any particular set of information was dependent onwhich particular book an instructor chose.
A cursory inspection of Table 19.2 provides a sense of the scope and imO
plication of the various ~ndingsas laidout by the authors inthe respective
chapters. The summary offered is only a thumbnail sketch of the concluc
sions and each chapter
should be read for
the methodological and theoretical discussion necessary to contextualize and interpret the scope of the
findings. The Table 19.2 summary is only intended to provide a simple statement against whichthe textbooks examined could be
compared. In thecase
of more complex representations in the textbooks, a more thorough come
parison to theparticular chapter was undertaken to determine theaccuracy
of the representation.
Of the 49 items coded, 4.1 (84%) of them were considered consistent and
8 were considered inconsistent with the available meta-analysis.The results
indicate a more positive accuracy
rate than the63% of the persuasion books
reviewed using meta-analysis(Allen et al., 1997) However, the larger number of missingentries suggests somepotential areas for discussion.The problem in interpersonal research maybe that the larger and more diverse
terrain of content permits wider latitude in thepossible inclusion or exclusion of various topics.The result is that there becomes less focuswithin the

1. AIDS and HIV-This

chapter examines the degree

to which persons communicating
about HIV and AIDS increases the probability
of the use of a condom. In addition,
the comparativewillin~essof men and womento engage in such discussions was
examined.

2. Argumentativeness and Verbal Aggression-This chapter finds that thescale usedto

measure argumentativeness is unidimensional. Only

a small correlation exists between
argumentativeness and verbal aggression.

3. Attitudinal Similarity and Attraction-The findings indicatethat persons are more

attracted to thosewith more similar attitudes.

4. Cognitive Editingof Statements-The canonical analysis demonstrates that persons
are more selectivein choosing appeals when the matter is relationally delicate and the
target is expected to be pliable, people do not trytohard
persuade a dominant target
to maintain face, and finally, the persuaders consider the possible relational
consequences as trade-offs against the choice of effective strategies.
5. Constructivism and Comforting-The model indicates that age predicts the levelof

cognitive complexity (as measuredby cognitive differentiation and cognitive

abstraction). In turn,cognitive complexity predicts perspective taking, which pgedicts
the qualityof the comforting message generated,

6. Gay and Heterosexual Parents-This summary finds that the sexual practiceof the
parent (homosexual or heterosexual) does not differentiate various outcome measures
(cognitive, social, sexual orientation).

7. Gender and Conflict Strategies-Little difference exists on the choice of conflict

strategy basedon the biological gender of the individual.
The small difference
indicates that men are slightly more competitive and women are slightly more
compromising.
8. Gender and Levels of Self-Esteem-Little difference exists on the basis
of biological

gender, except for levels of self-esteem related

to body image. Females demonstrate
significantly lower levels of self-esteem based on body image.
9. Gender and the Production
of Powerless Language-f omen produce less powerful

utterances than men.

10. Self~Disclosure-Wo~en disclose slightly more than men do, but the effect
is not

stable and related to the methodology of the investigation, and self-disclosure tends
to
be reciprocal.

11. Sexual Coercion andResistance~upportwas found for the traditional dating script

for encounters between men and women. The perception of

an event as coercive is
related to the status of the relationship between the partners and the circumstances
of
the particular incident.

12. Social Skills-There is a substantial association between various behaviors as the

evaluation of social skills during aninteraction.

13. Sources of Social Support During Divorce-Women seek and receive more social

is that men seek more support from

support during a divorce than men. The exception
lovers and romantic partners than women.

Note. The findingspresented in this chapter are simple summaries

of the major findings the
of mera-analyses.
The reader shouldconsult the original chapters and published articles for
additional explanations and other
pertinent informa~ion.

core issues that are subject to voluminous research capable of accuc

n and synthesis.
examination of in ividual topicsfound only four
ooks: social skills, attitude simil
trategies, and self0disclosure a
rsally wasthe issue of social sk
in the meta~a~alysis
was the
as competent. Eve
unication compe
erber ( ~ 9 9speci~cally
~)
mentioned and emph
g as an aspect of the textbook. If there is any
topic or characteristic itis the conceptof ~ommunic
cia1 skills); however,the application of this concept
fers from textbook to textbook.
er and self~disclosure was consiste
at women disclose more
fference is not particularly large.The methodolog
india (chap. 10) receive little attention in the
tex
era1conclusion is represented. Verderber and Verderber
on thegeneral difference but did not acknowledge the S
or the problems of observer versus self~reportedmeasurement.
pretation of this conclusion receives varied discussion in terns of ment
healthand relational issues. ~udykunst,TingToomey,Sudweeks, an
Stewart (1995) commented on thedifference but did not ~ontextualize the
issues in terms of importance to relational development. rigi in ally, the arc
t gender differences in selfc sclosure focused on whether
make better therapistsbecau patients would be more likely
male therapists rather than male therapists.
The attitude similarity relation to attraction is a f u n d a ~ e n t a l c o ninc e ~
many interpersonal textbooks because it is the basis for explaining
why some
people choose to form relationships. The reason for the inconsistency (
consistent out of 7) was the use ofcomple~entarityor the notionthat opposites attract. The inconsistent cases revealed that similarity lea
tion, but then failed to point out that this research generally
similarity position as opposedto theopposites attract orcomplementa~PO,
sition. Verderber and Verderber (1998) stated, The more interests people
have in common, themore theyare attracted to each other(p. 8 ~ )which
,
is accurate. However, in the nextparagraph they went on to conclude that
opposites attract is as accurate as birds of a feather flock together (p.
8). This is similar to the statements in the Adler, Rosenfeld, Towne,and

Proctor ( 1 % ~book,
)
which concludes that this forms the basis formuch of
the relational development literature. owever, when Adler et al. (1988),
discussed complementarity in the next section, the text states that this
seems to contradict the similarity section and concludes that, in truth,
though, bothare valid (p. 280). The presentation of these positions with0
out a clear preference for similarity asa stronger predictor is i n c o ~ i s t e n t
with the metaeanalysis.
The final issue involvesgender and conflictstrategies. The inconsistency
of results (4 positive out of 7)comes from the mixing of general conflict tenencies with behavior in established relationships where the attack-withraw pattern is prevalent. The isolation of methodological, theoretical, and
contextual parameters is necessary in themeta-analysis to understand the
synthesis of the available research. he tendency, when inconsistent,was to
ignore the dual truths that men generally
are
morecompetitive but only for
as masculine. In relationships or s i t u a t i o ~defined as
male preference for outcome over relatio~hipsdoes not
appear to be valid.This complicated representation was not representedin
the literature; thetextbooks coded as consistent usually onlyincluded one
set of i n f o ~ a t i o nand were technically not i n c o ~ i s t e nbut
t ratherincomc
plete whencompared to theavailable data. For example, Gamble
ble ( 1 9 9 ~ pointed
)
out thatmen aremore focused on thegoal a
ained by resolving the conflict and women are more relationship focuse
and more sensitive to interpret~gmoods and feelings. The next sentence;
oes point out that menare more competitive and women more
ing and accommodating, which makes the section consistent.
The other meta-analyses, powerless language andgenderand
the
constructivist model of comforting behavior, are covered correctly but only
appear in3 of the texts(19%). AIDS andHIY sexual coercion, and the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents were less frequently men#
tioned, but were covered in either one or two of the textbooks. The only
issue forwhich there was no agreement with the meta~analysis
was the comparison of gender on thebasis ofself-esteem. Both books p en ti on in^ the issuestatedthat
females selfeesteem is lower than males,which is
contradicted by the evidence from the meta-analysis.

Our prelimina~
investigation provides i n f o ~ a t i o nregarding the state of
interpersonal communicationtextbooks. The results should be discussedin
terms of the accuracy of the reporting, the consistency of the reporting

the natureof the issues not covere by the textbooks.

an initial step inassessing the accuracy of text

ividual textbooks did extremely well

in assessing an
ion available in research studies, when that information was
ictment or endorsement
of any textbook is intended by this
analysis. The scope of the review is so limited that therating system cannot
be said to provide sis for
the selection or rejection of any particular text
for classroom use. ever,
when hundreds ofmetaManal ses exist, the basis
for a more thorou
ete evaluation of te
an evaluation, wh
that
at
level,
should p
basis to evaluate the value or accu
timately as a basis forthe rejection or
S more and more meta-analyses become
r future editions, the accuracy an
clusion rates will increase.

~ndividualtextbooks vary in therepresentations of ater rial. One common

factor in thel 6 books reviewed wasthe lack of consistency acrossthe texts,
rather than any consistent handling or inclusion of particular issues. The
Adler et al. (1998) bookhad themost topics mentioned (five) and was con#
sistent with the research on every topic (attitudinal similari~and attracc
tion, constructivism, con ict and gender, gender and self~disclosure, an
sexual coercion). The only books with more than one inconsistency were
Wood (1996) and Gamble and Gamble (1998), with two inconsistent statements each. The Gamble and Gamble text had four relevant conclusions
and two were inaccurate for a ~0~ inconsistency rate. The Wood (1999)
only comments on two issues (genderand self-esteem and gender and
isclosure) and is inconsistent with both meta-analyses.

The most obviousconclusion is that the topics and conclusions involved in

the various meta-analysesare not widely incorporated in the inte~ersonal
communication textbooks of the field. The only consistency among the
textbooks was the noninclusion of information. "he failure to include matec
rial reflects the distance etween research and pedagogy. The failure to in0

e topics indicates alack of connection between the bodies of research

literature andclassroom instruction aboutinterpersonal communication. If
these issues are not being taught inthe classroom, the relevance of the cordies of research being produced must bequestioned. To continue
t research that ultimately is disconnected from the pedagogical
experience of our studentsis to deny what should bethe co~erstone
value
of research, the improvement in,the ability to increase or improve student
understanding of interpersonal communication. Some of the issues, like
se1f0disclosureiattraction and s i m i l a ~and
~ , conflict, involve content that
rally beexpected to be included in textbooks. Some of the issues
)were included but without reference to theparticular
self-disclosure, or selfcesteem ~selfOconcept~ and
genhe case of self-disclosure, morethan 200 reports of data were not
,a surprisingly large bodyof research not incorporated inthe textl
ooks. The continued bifurcation between the research and the teaching
community creates an interesting paradox forgraduate students. Graduate
students continue to receive training in the development of information
that is not reflect in course content and theresearch agendas embarked
on by graduate st nts do notreflect the accepted state of knowledge evic
ent in theclassroom.

Perhaps the largest issue isthe failure of many of the textbooks to include
any information on a variety of social issues.HIV infection and thesafe sex
ialogue received virtually
no attention in the
textbooks and neitherdid issues of sexual coercion. The lack of inclusion of research information on
these two issues is surprising, particularly becausethe population targeted
for the textbooks is college students who are typically between 18 and 22
years old. Reasonably, a scholar would expect that the incidenceof sexually
transmitted diseases and the continued problem of date rape on campus
would generate a rush to include such information in textbooks. Given the
growth and emphasis by the research communi^ on these issues, one would
expect to find these outcomes included in introductory textbooks. The proc
cess of making interpersonal communication relevant to thelives of the stuc
dents would seemto necessitate the inclusion of two issuesthat represent a
rn to virtually every person.
e failure to incorporate i n f o ~ a t i o non socially relevant issues in interpersonal communication represents a large omission for
a variety of reasons.
Much of the research community has targeted these issues because of the so-

cia1 importance that these topics have for relational issues. The omission of
this research from textbooks makes the study of relationships disconnecte
from the reality of conducting relationships for students. The possibility of
HIV infection relates to relational development, intimacy, self-disclosure,
trust, and a host of inte~ersonalcommunication issue
orientation). The reality of sexual coercion on campus a
as resistance strategies, generates orientation training
seling effortson almost every campus.The incidence of sexual coercion includes a large percentage of the population and should therefore be an
important interpersonal communication understanding. Given that coercion happens within an existing or developing relationship, as the term date
Tape indicates, this topic should certainly be inco~oratedas part of an interc
personal communicationcourse. Becausethe research often defines this is0
sue as involving a problem of communicating intention, sexual coercion is
certainly a relevant issue to the communication discipline.

The logic developed in this chapter and the

results of our preliminary assessment of textbooks lead to the inescapable conclusion that accuracy stanards can play a vital role in communication pedagogy. Aut
routinely employ criteria for accurate portrayal of research in t
as they prepare manuscripts for publication. Such expectationsare consistent with the norms for professionalism within the scientific communi^)
and standards for accuracy are prudent and reasonable expectations for
evaluating assertions that use scientific findings asthe basis for knowled
claims. The eventual outcomewill bethe introductionof textbooks that
vertise, as a standard practice, the degree to which the content can
be verified asaccurate and current.The consensus of scientific findings pr~sented
should increase the standardization among textbooks. The existence of a
common body of knowledge in otherfields, such as chemistry, permitstextbook writers to concentrate on the best means of presenting the available
information. In the social sciences, textbook authors often have to create
the synthesis of information as well as
find the best means of presentation for
that information. Too often, the outcome of both objectives could bemuch
more effective,
The use of standards should be viewed as simultaneously liberating and
constraining. The textbook author, armed with scientific consensus,
can now
concentrate on the development of clear and simple understandingsthat ime
prove the students learning.This constraint happens at thelevel of content;

M
the meta0analysis providescertain restrictions on
ting the natureof that
relation. To saythat a relation is positive when th
nce demonstrates the
relation is negative generatesan inconsistency w
best availablesynthethe data.The reliance on the meta-analysis asa means of
ting i n f o ~ a t i o ncarries some risk, but those risks are
ter when considering the possibili~ that Twe
I
ositive) andTwe I1
e negative) errorsmay bebleeding
eta~analys~,
far from
constituting the optimal reviewmeth
ts the best availab~e
of a~cumulatingand ~ t h e s ~ i literature.
ng
her issue concerning textbook writing is the nature of integrati~g
ion using alternative methods of gen
lays a set of relations for nowl ledge bas

FIG 19.1. Elements of knowledge.

LO

. T
d (1999) that h~othesi%es
four divergent but necessary metho
t must be employed. Any good
textbook will, in some manner,incor-

r elements or approaches to knowledge to provide a complete

nderstanding of information. Increased attention has been
elopment of critical and qualitativesources of information to
reflect the concernsof diversity and theinclusion of various voices part
as of
the pedagogy. The challenge for the quantitative methodologists is the inclusion of i n f o ~ a t i o nthat is factual and in onesense treated as objective
(even though the method
of generating the conclusion is intersubjective).
The denial of an objective basis for
a conclusion creates a ~ n d a m e n t achall
lenge to ~uantitative
methods because it denies the ability of the method to
fulfill its own goal. ~ ~ o t h e s i % that
i n g a complete system of knowledge contains information with multiple goalsand applications generated by a wide
variety of methodologies redefines the problem to one that seeks to interate rather than refute.
Similar interdependencies exist between other methods of generating inc
formation that contribute to creating knowledge. The problem is that such
interdependence at the level of knowledge is countered by the independence of each methodas a means of generating i n f o ~ a t i o nthat must meet
the internal requirements of the method. The goal of the textbook is the
synthesis and creationof some sense of integration among all the various elements. ~ e t a ~ a n a l y scontributes
is
to this process by providing a basis for
synthesis of quantitative information. The ability of this particular method
to generate asynthesis permitsthe scientific community to generate a consensus about information that permits ease of representation and a more
complete analysis.
Pedagogy does not always trail the research findings. Common sense or
informed and reflected insight into the human conditionmay prove more
accurate and often are established long before the scientific community
reaches the same conclusion.One problem with reliance on rationally discussed or philosophically derived systems occurs when such systems are inconsistent with each other. When one system recommends one action or
generates one conclusion and another system generates an inconsistent
conclusion the problem of resolving such contradictions and i n c o ~ i s t e n l
cies becomesimportant. Scientific evidence provides empiricalexperience
collected across a large number of diverse cases(when the body of research
is properly conducted) and generates a standardfor evaluation of the r e o
ommendations. If the recommendations are said to reflect an empirical reall
ity (as opposed to some type of moral or ethical code) then the empirical
evaluation is clearly warrante~.

at thee~amination
nts by providing a r
eryday. We may even be able to help tudents improve
communication skills in some smallbut importantways,
ccumulates about inte~ersonalcommunication, the00
S should continue to improve. The i~format
S a relatively accurate portrayal of
istent portrayal from bookto book
ther chapters in this
volume shou
ral improvement in our instruction of inte~ersonalcommunication.
(chap. 22, this volume) makes the case for a cholarship more situsociety's members. Berger(chap. 22, this volume)
roto) theoreticalapproach that provides the basis
he s e ~ e n t e areas
d
of communication scholarship.

Adler, R., Rosenfeld,L.,Towne, N., & Proctor, R. (1998). ~ n t eThe

~ process
~ ~ o; ~ i n t e ~ e r 0
sow2 c o m ~ ~ n i c u t (7th
~ o n ed.). Fort Worth,TX: Harcourt Brace College.
Adler, R., &Towne,N.(1996). ~ o k i n g o ~ t ~ o o k i n g i n ~ ~ n t e r p e r s o ~(8th
~ ced.).
om~~nicu
Fort Worth,TX: Harcourt Brace College.
Allen, M., & Bradford, L. (1999). Creating a ~ h o k~n oe ~ ~ e dpicture.
ge
Unpublished manuscript, Universityof Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI.
Allen, N., Cj, Preiss, R. (1990). Using meta-analysisto evaluate curriculum: An examina38, 103-1 16.
tion of selected college textbooks.Co~m~nicution Ed~cution,
Allen, M,,Cj, Preiss, R. (1997). Persuasion, public address, and progression
theinsciences:
Where we are at what we do. InG. Barnett & E Boster (Eds.),Progress in commu~icutio~
sciences (Vol. 13, pp. 107-13 1). Greenwich, C'E Ablex.
Allen, M., & Preiss, R. (1998). Evaluatingthe advice offeredby the tool users. InM. Allen
& R, Preiss (Eds.),P e r s ~ i o nAdorunces
;
through m e t u ~ u n u (pp.
~ ~ s243-256).
~
Cresskill,
NJ: Hampton.
Allen, M., Preiss, R., Bielski, N., Cooper, E., Fechner, D., Henry, L.,Jacobi, N., Kuhn, J.,
McClellan, W., &Patterson,K.(1997, April).E ~ u ~ i ntextbooks:
~ng
A n u ~ 2 y s i exum~n~ng
s
c ~ n g e over
s time. Paper presented at the Central States Communica~ionAssociation
convention, St. Louis, MO. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. 406 702)
Anderson, R., & Ross, V. (1994). ~uestionso ~ c ~ ~ ~ An pructicu~
~ u t introducti~
i ~ ;
to theory. New York: St. Martin's.
A c u ~ t ~ r e 0 s e n s ~ t i ~ e u to
~p~ouch
Berko, R., Rosenfeld,L.,& Somovar, L. (1997). Connect~ng~
i n t e ~ e r s o ~ ~ c o m m ~competenc~
~ i c ~ t i o n(2nd ed.). Fort Worth,'"X:Harcourt Brace.
DeFrancisco, V. (1996). The world of designing women:A narrative accountof focus group
ucut~~,
plans fora women's university. C ~ m ~ n i c u t i ~ E d 45,330-337.
DeVito,J. (1983). The i n t e ~ e r s o ~ ~ c o m ~ book
u n i c(3rd
uti~
ed.).New York:Harper & Row.
A meta-analysis. P s ~ c ~ o Dindia, K., &Allen, M. (1992).Sex differences in self-disclosure:
~ o ~ ~c ~
u ~ ~
112,
e 106-124.
t ~ n ,

Gamble, X, & Gamble, M. (1998). Contacts: Commun~uting~ n t e ~ e r s ~Boston:

l l y . Ailyn
& Bacon.
Gregg, N. (1996). What Id want: Communication studies in ~ h i c hwomens university
here? Communicution Educution, 45, 356-366,
ges:
Gudykunst,W., Ting-Toomey,S., Sudweeks, S., &Stewart, L. (1995). B u i ~ d i n g ~ ~Inter.
ers so^^ s~~~~for U chan~ng or^. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hanson, E,
& Lovelace, C. (1998, November).
Gender se~it~vity,
divers^^ issues, and use of
I n t e ~ esmrces
t
in se~ected~ u s ~ c ~s~euking
u ~ ~ texts.
i c Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the National ~ommunicationAssociation, New York.
Hedges, L. (1987). How hard is hard science, how soft is soft science: The empirical
cumulativenessof research. A ~ e ~ Pus ync h o ~ o ~42,
t ) 443-455.
Houston, M. (1996). Beyond survival on campus: Envisioning communication studiesat
women~centereduniversities. C~municutionEducution, 45, 338-342.
at visionary university.C o m ~ u n i c u ~
Jenefsky, C. (1996). Public speaking as empowerment
tion Educution)45,343-355.
Johnson, D.(1997). ~ e u c h ~ out:
n g ~ n t e r ~ ee~ect~veness
~ s o ~ ~ and s e ~ f - u c t ~ l ~ ~ u
(6th
t i o ed.).
n
Boston: Ailyn & Bacon.
Johnson, E (1996). Losing the boundaries of communication study: Lessons forthe academy from womensstudies. Commun~cutionEducu~ion,45, 322-329.
Knapp, M. (1984). I n t e ~ e r s o ~ ~ c ~ and
~ ~ humun
n ~ c ure~utio~hips.
t~on
Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Kramarae, C. (1996).
Centers of change: An introduction to womens owncommunication
programs. Co~municut~on
~ d ~ u t i o45,3
n , 15-32 1.
to speech cmmuPearson, J., &Nelson, I!(1985). ~nderstandingundsharing: An introduction
nicution (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Brown.
Trenholm, S., & Jensen, A. (1992). Inte~ersonul co~municution
(2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
(8th
Verderber, R., &Verderber, K. (1998).Interat: sing inte~ersonu~ cmmunicutions~i~~
ed.), Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Wood, J. (1996). ~ v e encounters:
~ ~ yAnintroduction
to ~ n t e ~ e r s o ncommunicution.
u~
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Wood, J. (1998). But I thmght you meant ...e is under stun dings in human co~mun~cution~
Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
gender, and culture(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wood, J. (1999).Gendered lives: Com~un~cution,
Wadsworth.
i ~ s~: n t e r d ~u ~~~ ri o~u cMountain
~h . i ~ ~ View, CA:
Wright, D. (1999).Personal r e ~ t i o ~ h An
Mayfield.
textbooks coverugeofdiversity.Paper
Yook, E. (1998, November).A crit~ue ofcommun~ution
presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, New
York.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Originating in clinical psychology (Thomas,1998), the use of meta0analysis

has flourished in thesocial sciences~ a n o u sSullivan,
,
6r Malinak, 1989).
As this volume documents, meta-analysis naturally has flourished in the
field ofinterpersonal communication. Meta-analysis has influenced the way
we think aboutinterpersonal communication, the ways we goabout studying it, and the credence we give to research findings.
As an analytical strategy, meta-analysis provides a wide-angleof emview
pirical findings.Wolf (1986) suggestedthat If we viewscience as the accumulation and refinement of information and knowledge ...it then becomes
critical to establish guidelines for reliable and valid reviews, integrations,
and syntheses of studies e~aminingsimilar research questions (p. 10). He
and others(Glass, 1976,1977) contended that meta-analysis offers a powerful and systematic means of combining the results of many studiesto derive
reliable answersto research question. As Grob andAllen (1996) indicated,
meta-analyses portray pictures
in quantitative terms instead of the more trac
ditional narrative manner. As this volume illustrates, meta-analyses provide
statistical summaries and thenumbers associatedwith those summaries are

then used asa basis to make inferences an provide a better, more systematic
sense of understanding the phenomenon under
investigation.
Although statisticsinvolved in summarizing the findings are not complicated, they do require a familiari~with the language of quantitative analye
sis. Of course, those who resist statistical analyses as a desired m a ~ e r
summarizing informationaboutcommunication
wouldprobably fin
meta0analyses doubly confusing. For
those of uswho find statisti
legitimate and even necessary to the gene ratio^ of verifiable
meta-analysis represents a critical advancement in theway we h o w what
we know about inter~ersonalcommunication.
In this chapter we discuss how meta-analysis
represents our nowl ledge of
interpersonal communication. To provide a thumbnail sketchof the topics
discussed, we b r i e ~ yoverview meta~analyticstudies that we have seen on a
number of issues regarding interpersonal communication.
also serves as
one meansfor ~ a m i n how
g meta~analyticfind
enced thestudy of interpersonal communication. Second,
criteria that we hope can be used to examine the knowledge claims pred
sented indiscussions of meta-analytic studies. These criteria are not meant
as an exhaustive checklist; rather, they appear to us as the most important
factors we found useful when reading the materials we reviewed. Next, we
apply our criteria in anevaluation of a published meta~analysison interper,
sonal c o n ~ i cmanagement
t
strategies. Finally, we offer some suggestions re,
garding the continued use of meta0analysis as a way to build empirical
~ n o w l e ~ gabout
e
communicative behavior.

Specific to interpersonal communication, metaeanalytic research has been

con~ucted on
a massive range of topics, including social skills (Spitzberg
6r
Dillard, chap.6, this volume), nonverbalcommunicatio~(Hall, Halberstadt,
6,O'Brien, 1997), persuasion (BarNir, 1998; Dillard, Hunter, &
1984; Hample & Dallinger, chap. 1l, this volume; Johns
f a ~ i communication
~y
(Allen &Burrell) 1996; Leaper,
munication apprehension (Allen, 1989; Allen 6,Bourhis, 1996;
er, 6r Donohue, 1989; Bourhis& Allen, 1992), sexual coercion
(E~mers,1995a, 1995b, Emmers-Sommer & Allen, 1997), sex differences
(Eagly, 1994, 1995; Eagly & Wood, 1991; Hyde, 1990), gender and leaders
Johnson, 1990;Eagly 6r Karau, 1991;Eagly, ~ a ~ i j a n&i ,
ne, Allen, & Ludlum, 1994; Wilkins
& Andersen, 199 1)
,S
ences inself~disclosure(Dindia &Allen, 1992),conflict (Gayle, Preiss,&Ale

len, 1994, 1997), effects of divorce on children (Amato 6,Keith, 1991),

language use (Grob Allen, 1996), self0esteem (Sahlstein6,Allen, chap. 4,
this volume) ,computer-mediated communication (VValther, ~ d e r s o n ,
Park, 1994), and comfort~gcommunication (Allen, chap. 13, this volume).
'These studies, which overlap with only
a few ofthose presentedin this antholom, partially illustrate the full range of metaOanalysesthat have been conc
ducted regarding ~terpersonalcommunication.
In addition, meta-analysis providesan excellent tool to compare alternac
tive ~ypothesesderived fromcompeting theoretical explanations and pree
dictions. We discuss this issue later in the presentation of criteria for the
evaluation of interpersonal communication meta0analyses.
~

In terns of communicative behaviors, meta0analysis has been used to test a

number of hypotheses. For example, meta-analyseshave revealed the come
municative behaviors most predictive of social skill ratings (Spitzberg &
Dillard, chap. 6, this volume), that subordinate people are probably deficient in theirnonverbal sensitivity (Hall et al., 1997), and thatwhen indie
viduals are unrestricted in theiro p p o r t u n i ~to exchange messagesthrough
computer0mediated channels, they are less likelyto restrict their c o ~ m u n i O
cation to impersonal task issues(Walther et al., 1994).
Group differences in communication have also been explored using
metaeanalysis. For instance, Leaper et al. (1998) used meta-analysisto compare mothers and fathers in amount and type of communication with offspring. They concluded that mothers tend
to talk more, use moresupportive
and negative speech, useless directive speech, and useless inform in^
speech. Further, Leaperet al. found that mothers tend talk
to more and use
more supportive speech with girlsthan with boys. Allen and Burrell (1996)
used meta-analysisto support their contentionthat there areno di~erences
between heterosexual and homosexual parents in relation to parenting
style, emotional adjustment, and sexual orientation of the children.
Persuasion (i.e., persuasive messages as well as their antecedents and
consequenc~s)illustrates another topic salient to interpersonal c o m m u ~ i ~
cation. Meta-analytic findings of persuasion research indicate that involvec
ment is relatedto persuasibility (Johnson & Eagly, 1989),that
foot0in~the0door and
doorh-theeface strategies have small effectson perc
suasion ( ~ i l l a r det al., 1984), andthat choice shift is related to issue knowledge and issue significance (BarNir,
1998).Further, the use or suppressionof
possible compliance0gaining appeals
is i n ~ u e ~ c by
e dsituational dimensions
(Hample 6,Dallinger, chap. 11, this volume).

In thearea of communication apprehe~ion,

m
attempt to s~mmarize thema
ect. For example, Bourhis an
apprehension was negatively correl
er, they found that more apprehe
unication behavior than their less
rhis, 1996). Other metaeanalytic
or forms o f t r e a ~ e n t c o ~ i t i v e
ification, systematic desensitization, and skills training)are
but comb~ationso
ication ap~rehensio~,
prove to be the most effective (Allen,
assessing level of public sp
confirms that self-report measurements show the most
tion apprehension as a result of therapy fol
cal measurement

e research on sex differences makes extensi~euse of meta~analysisin at-+

ng to draw together the fin
. use of metaca
la, 1 9 9 ~ )The
in communicati~ebehavior has its roots in psychology.

of the variance is accounted for and these effect

variables99(p. 140). The debate over how to int
is one that plagues much of the sex difference literature, a point we

f interest to many sex difference researchers is leadership. In terms of

leadership emergence, Eagly and Karau (1991) argued for the presence of
sex differences with men emerging as leaders moreo
cept in situations wherein social leadership is required
the communication field indicates few sex differences
rone et al., 1994) or managerial communication ( W i l k i ~
1991). Wil~insand ~ n d e r s e n(199 l) reported that less than .
of superiors message
behavior is accounted for by sex di~erences.
~ohnson( 1 ~ 9 0 )however, contended that although sex differences do not
appear in studies conducted in organizational settings, they do appear in
l a b o r a t o ~experiments and assessment studies.
This finding would support

(chap. 5, this volume) providedmeta~analytic

evide

taken into account before accepting this conclusion.

In sum, the research literature reveals that meta-analysis can summarize
dings in several domains relative to interpersonal communication. Perceptualand behavioral variables of m a n y kinds appear amenable to
meta-analytic synthesis. In ad~ition,meta-analysis has been used
various h otheses, with research on sex differences, lea~ershi a
ring proto~picalexamples of the kind of issues a
meta~analysis.

Summaries basedon meta-analytic evidence provide compelling answers

to
important questions pursued by interpersonal communicationresearchers.
As indicated earlier, peoplewho are acquainted with the language of statistics and who acknowledgethe veracity of statistical inference making would
mostlikely consider as worthconsidering the claims madethrough
meta-analyses. It is alsoclear that those with an acquaintance of statistical
knowledge and a skeptical eye would not accept conclusions based on
meta-analytic research if that research did not meet certain criteria. In other
words, whether or not a reader accepts the results of any meta~analysis
should be determined by the quality of the meta-analysis.
In this section, we offer fivecriteria for examiningmeta+analysesin interpersonal communication. Other scholars have offered similar evaluative
standards with regard to meta-analysis, although we should also indicate
that suchstandardsare not necessarily unique to meta-analysis(e.g.,
Hunter, Schmidt, 6,Jackson, 1982; Wolf, 1986). Four generic standards,
which are connected to each other, are as follows: (a) conceptual framework, (b) quality of sample, (c) soundness of decision rules,and (d)interpret
tation of effect sizes. In addition to these, we wish to add the following
criterion that specifically concerns interpersonal communication: (e) expli.
cation of communication processes.
The first standard for evaluation concerns the studys conceptual framework. Aswith any scholarly endeavor,
researchers using meta-analyses must
provide a ~ ~ ~ f u
argument
c i e for the study and a coherentframework for
conceptualizing the behavior under investigation. In other words, summarizing statistical findings without asense of understanding what those findings represent constitutes a penultimateexample of dust-bowl empiricism.
It is far more desirable
to provide a conceptual backdrop that lends a sense of
understanding. For instance, Allen (chap. 13,this volume) uses meta-analysis to support the use of constructivist theory as a meansof understan~ing
comforting behavior.In brief, the goals ofmeta~analysisremain the same as
any typeof empirical investigation; namely, the study should help advance
explanation and predictionof the phenomenon(i.e., theory).
Directly related to this criterion is the presumption that certainmethods
are required to make causal inferences. For instance, studies of particular
types (e.g., observation or peer report) may offer significantly differentout-

comes than other types of studies (e.g., experiments or self-report assess0

ments; e.g., Dindia & Allen, 1992).If one type of study was popular in the
past and a diRerent type is currently more frequently performed, it appears
likely that thecause forchange is due to the
type ofresearch rather than any
real change in human behavior. As an example, research on gender differ0
ences in aggression has shown a decrease in sex diRerences over time.
However, night, Fabes, and Higgins (1996) argued that this decrease may be
due tochanges in research me tho do lo^ over time and not social
to trends.
The second criterion we offer regards quality of sample. It is clear that
meta-analytic findings are only as strong as the studies that constitute them.
One criticism that has often been leveled is that meta-analysis researchers
sample various studies for nonsystematic, subjective reasons.
For example, establishing criteria for review,searching for relevant studies, and selecting the
final set of studies all require
the researcher to make judgment calls
that af5ect
meta-analytic findings. Thus, unpublished research is often not included for
study becausesuch research is simply too difficult forthe researcher to access.
The same contention canbe made with regard
to papers publishedin foreign
languages or other countries. Addi~onally,researchers are reluctant to submit
papers that donot support predicted hypotheses (i.e.,
the tests show no signif
icant findings or findings opposite of those anticipated), and editors are less
likely to publish those same types
of papers (Coursol& Wagner, 1986).Such
studies, of course, represent an u n d e t e ~ i n e dnumber and quality. Accord..
ingly, and understandably, a given meta-analysis could
rely on a sample of re0
search that does not represent allthe research on a given topic. Nevertheless,
the strengthof the inferences drawn directly
depends on the representativeness of the studies sampled, and it is the researchers burden to report the
manner inwhich studies are sampled.
A third criterion of meta-analyses concerns the adequacy of decision
rules. As with any research, decision rules(including judgment calls regarding sampling) affect metaeanalysis (Wanous et al., 1989). Wanous et al.
(1989) noted a tendency for readersand authorsof meta-analytic studies to
adhere to the view that a given meta-analysis produces the answer (p.
259). They indicated that certain meta-analyses published on the same
topic do notagree, contending that decisions made throughout theprocess
of conducting meta-analyses affect their outcomes,
Providing the reader with clearly stated decision rules should assist
in as#
sessing the equivalence of findings. Several decision rules regarding same
plingwere mentioned earlier. In addition. to these, researchers should
indicate how moderating variables were coded, whether and how coders
were trained, whether andhow study attributes (e.g., date of publication)

gs depends on the e~position

of and rationale for the

ever, is not an easy

e meanin~ulnessof an effect size also depends on the natureof ones

theoretical assumption about the strength of the relation. Unfortunately,
many peopledo nothold ~~~~0~assum~tionsconcerning the strengthof the
relation being e~amined;most researchers appear pleased if a statistically
finding supports the hypothesis. However, when presumed beconfirmed, then onemust take asecond look at such beliefs. For
instance, many vocal people arguethat childrensuffer when gay or lesbian
parents raise them. However, Allen and Burrell (1996) found that a
meta~analysisof both adult andchild ratings indicate that children overall
are slightly moreadjusted when living with homosexual (vs.heterosexual)
parents. Allen and Burrell (1996)were ableto conclude, The results failto
support the assumption of widespread differences, or any differences
on the
asis ofthe particular outcome studied, between parents on the basis of sex0
ual orientation (p. 28). As a second example,if people holdthat sex differences are large and invariant,then they would probably be puzzled oreven
to learn that the average of sex difference research only shows
difference between men andwomen (Le., d = .23), which is what
india (1998) indeed found in hermeta-analysis of more than 300 studies.
owever, those who assume sex similarities
over differences have little trow
ble interpreting the 1%) findingthat figure corresponds to our experiences

expectations that men a women are similar creatures 9

time.
The fifth and final criterion concemsinterpersonal interaction-the
tent to which, if at all, the meta-analysis explicates commun
cesses. As most social scientists know, it is hard to breath
correlation coefficient, especiallyif it is below.30.Yet, making the summ
come to life is precisely
the burdenof the meta-analytic researc
cussing communicative behaviors.
w one persons behavior affectsanother persons b
art of the discipline of communication, and mutu
ence provides a ~ n d a m e n t adefin
l
on of interpersonal commu
particular (Cappella, 1987). ACCO ng to Cappella (1987),Pers
his or herbehavior when in the
company of Perso
behaviors that Person Bor Person A enact indiv
faction, then, constitutes the
most rudimenta
exchange and, accordingly, the most basic senseof observing communica0
tion as a process. All studies of interpersonal communication, including
metaOanalyti~
efforts, should re ect its processes. We are not conten
that onemust directly measure cesses per se; rather, meta-analysis (especially one concerning interpersonal communication) should reveal so
thing about the natureof s ~ b o l i cexchange. For instance, Spitzberg
illard (chap. 6, this volume) report 12 studies that linke specific commu~
nicative behaviors (e.g., speech latency, eyecontact) toperceptions of social
skill. Their study clearly implies how ones behavior might affecta second
persons perception of social skill-a case in Cappellas (1987)point regard0
ing m ~ t u a l i n ~ u e n c e .
Certainly, the criteria we offer are not necessarily solely applicable to
meta-analytic efforts. In addition, other texts report more sophisticated,
technical criteria. Still, these standards appear to us as particularly impor#
tant when assessing the v a l i d i ~of any meta-analysis regarding interper
sonal communication. The extentto which authors provide a clear account
of conceptual framework, samplingand otherdecision rules,and communi0
cation as process signals how confident one should be in the inferences
drawn from meta~analyses.The following section presents an app~ication
of
these criteria to a research example regardingsex differences in managing
interpersonal conflict.

As mentioned earlier, Gayle et al. (1994) reported a much-nee

gation regarding sex differences in interpersonal conflict strategies. At the

outset, we want to indicate that our view of the Gayle et al. (1994) paper is
quite positive in terms of what it setout toaccomplish-a summary of sex
differences in peoples stylesat managing conflict.Of course, the paper also
allows usto show howparticular decision rules regarding sampling
can lead
to very different results regardin how findings should ibe
n t e ~ r e t e dA. s the
reader will come to understand, this exercise is a bit unfair, because Gayleet
al. (1994) meant to discuss styles and not necessarily behaviors. In other
words, we hope this exercise is taken as instructive instead of an indictment.
Gayle et al. (1994) relied on standard indexes and abstracts to obtain
their sample of studies, Moreover, the authors coded for several possible

ctors. In the results, Gayle et al. reported a very small averc

to sex differenceson five conflict styles (r = -.054). The negative sign indicates that women more often reported the behavior. Yet two
strategies~ompetition(i.e., direct and negative behaviors) and compromising(i.e., direct and positive behaviors) yielded larger, although still
small, effects (rs = ,115 and .114, respectively). These findings indicate
that approximately 1% ofcompetitive and compromising behaviors are due
to sex differences, with
men being morecompetitive and women being more
compromising.
The authors relied on expectancy theory as well asan interaction0con0
flict perspective (Gayle et al., 1994, p. 14), which concerns the contextual
constraints on behavior. For this latter conceptualframework, Gayleet al.
(1994) cited Eaglys (1987) social roletheory among other researchers. The
authors concluded:
Thus, thefindings of this study lendsome credence to theidea that individuals employ stable conflict management strategiesacross varying situations
and contexts.
The conflict model that emerges suggeststhat comprom~ing
and competitive
strategies may beseparate orientations intrinsically tiedto gender roles rather
than processes that emerge over the lengthof the conflict interaction. (p. 19)

In terms of the criteria for evaluating the quality of this meta-analysis, the
paper generally succeeds.In brief, Gayleet al. (1994) relied on two alternative theoretical approaches to establish the conceptual framework for the
study. They used standard indexes to construct thesample. They clearly reported decision rules regarding
their exclusion of somestudies and how they
recoded behaviors fromthree categories into thefive-category scheme that
they opted to use asa primary scheme to divide conflict strategies.To assess
contextual issues, they offered and coded for moderating factors. They
clearly interpreted the effect sizesto argue that men are more competitive

and women are more compromising, tying

their interpretationback to their
original conceptual framework that indicated competing points of view.
Had it not beenfor several other quantitative studies and narrative reviews of these studies, we could accept this metaeanalysis as an accurate
summary of the literatureon conflict management behaviors. ~nderstand0
ably, given their purpose, Gayleet al. (1994)incorporated self-reported conflict ~trategies(30 of 32 studies examined conflict styles o~erationally
defined through survey data). The uncritical reader might overgeneralize
the findings of Gayleet al. to include research that observes actual CO
ehaviors, but such aconclusion is unwarranted.
Most ~ ~ o r t a nwet ,should note that the
Gayle et al. (1994) paper does
not
include studies that examine conflict interactions in close relationshi~s(for
reviews, see Cupach
Canary,
1995;
Gottman, 1994;
~hristensen,6xHeavey, 98; Schaap, Buunk, 6x Kerkstra, 198
ple, ~ a r g o l i nand Wampold (198
1)found that wives engagedin more smiling
and laughter, complaining,
and criticizing, whereas husbands presented more
excuses. Also, distressed husbands appeared more withdrawn (i.e., paid less
attention to the conversation). Yet, husbands andwives didnot differ on 75%
of the codes, includingthe categories of problem solving, positive verbal comments, negative verbal comments,
and negative nonverbal behaviors.
ioral research on the demand-withdrawal pattern (e.g., Heavey, hyne, 6x
Christensen, 1993), wherein wives more likelyconfiont theirhusbands?who
avoid their wives, is omitted from this meta-analysis. Moreover,other obsere
vational methodolo~es thatdocument no sex differences (e.g., Burggraf 6r
Sillars?1 9 8 ~are
) not included in the Gayle et al. (1994) paper.
The emphasis on the self-reported research provides no guarantee
about knowledge regarding actual interaction behaviors, at least in the
case of examining conflict behaviors from the conflict styles literature.
Following their review of the marital literature, Schaapet al. ( 1 9 8 ~ cone
)
cluded, omen tend tobe more emotional andshow more negative af+
fect, while men are inclinedto be more rational and withdrawn (p. 236).
Self-reported data permit people to project themselves as they might
stereotypically imagine men and women interacting, rather than how
partners actually behave. For example, Markman, Silvern, Clements, and
KrafteHanak (1993) observed actual interaction and self-reported ace
counts of marital partnerwithdrawal and demand complaints
(which they
called withdrawaland pursuit) As arkm man et al. (1993) concluded,
In eithercase, the present results add to otherfindings that ~~e~c o ~ ~ ~ e s
are a c t ~ ~ ~ y o b s e r ~
[sex]
e ~ ~, i f f eer~e ~e cremerge
es
t~~ i ~ ~ i c aby
t et ~ e i r
s e ~ f - r e ~ o ~(p.
t s 120,

italicsin original)

e omission of the observational research is certainly understandable

given the authors focus on conflict styles. At the same time, the observac
tional literaturealso comes wrapped
in itsown conceptual framework to exmenaremore
negative and c
ontativein marriage.
e theoretical points ofviewprby
Gayle et al+(1994)
theorizing regarding how
men andwomen manage conflict in
hips. For example, one popular explanation emphasiz
lo ical responses of men versus women, re men experience grea
physiologicalarousal to conflict
therefore, morelike
competitive interactions with their ang
uses (Gottman 1994
e explanation is that theperson who is ine~uitablytreated is more
complain to thepartner; because women suffer from greater ineqc
become more negative and forceful
t al., 1993). Accordingly, the knowb
edge claimsderived from Gayleet al. (1994) relyon self~reportedbehaviors
that indicate predisposition towardconflict. Readers might mistakenly generalize the findings from predispositions
of what people think they would say
do toactual interactionbehaviors. Also,it appears that some of the cone
t interaction patterns recently researched are not represented,thereby
not fully elaborating on communicative processes. This
whereas the Gayle et al. paper is a sound benchmark for sex
ispositions for behavior,
the relation to how peoplein~uenceeach other
tual interactionis lesscertain.
In sum, this section stressed how fivecriteria for evaluation canbe used
to examine the knowledge claimsof particular meta-analyses.
r i a ~ o n c e p t u a framework,
l
qualityof sample, soundness of d
interpretation of effectsizes, and explication of communication pro+
cesses-were then applied to anexcellent paper on conflict styles (Gayleet
is exercise shows how
a choice in one standard (the
definition
procedure or rules for inclusion and exclusion of studies) can
alizability of the findings, as well asinfluence other criteria
(in this case, conceptual framework and explication of com~unicationpro0
cesses). At this juncture, we turn our attention
to conclusions and consider4
ations for the future.

us far, a general description of the literature and guidelinesfor evaluation

have been offered.
This h a 1 section presents some ideas regarding
how we can
advance the study of interpersonal com~unicationthrough meta-analysis,

e previous sections.
a1featuresof metathis by c o m p a ~ what
g
meta-analys~o
e close this chapter by p o ~ t t~ g

In this section, we con

limitatio~
of meta
ments, with the CO

ummarizes quantitative information, which isamec

e apropensi~to use such information; et it cannot
with the statistics use
ust acknowledge that
particular form of knowledge and is mute with r
n, ones understanding of the quanti
ones familiari~with metacan
elations, effect sizes, and the like.
oes not rest onlyon the sum
reveals behavioraltrends in
es as effectively as do othe
analysis permits aquick and encompassing lookat
ver, meta-analysis does not permit a closeins
aviors emerge in time. For instan
various patterns of interaction t
conflict evolves in time (for a review, see Messman& Can
partners reciprocate and compensate conflict tactics i
constitutes a complex processthat has been variously
and that accor~ingly
resists efficient summa^.
Third, meta~analysisprovides systematic analysiso
les regarding sampling
and otherprocedures should be care0
but it cannot
presume that objective proceduressupport the
ality underscores the idea that meta-analyses on the
topic might reveal diflerent
~ndingsdue to the many decision rules
an
cific analytical toolsthat researchers decide to use. In addition, this state*
ment calls for careful
examination of the methods that underlie the res
This statementalso remindsus not to lend credence that might be place
a givenmeta-analysis .
Fourth, meta-analysis can be applied to many, if not all, facets of inter@
personal communication; it cannotbe readily appliedto minute examinaO

tions of interactions. This pointdiffers from the second one in the

sense
that meta-analysis allows forthe investigation of a great numberof different kinds of topics more than a detailed understanding of interactional
processes, For example, conversational analysis of couple interaction behavior reveals precise, nuanced, and perhaps largely idiosyncratic processes that cannotbe readily examined using meta-analysis (e.g., Alberts
Fifth, meta-analysiscan offer compelling answers
to questions debated in
narrative form; it cannot presume that thesummary statistic itself is persuasive. The heuristic natureof meta-analysis is both a boon and
bane.a On the
positive side, a summary statistic helps the scientific community make clear
statements. On the negative side, eristic research is lessvalued than heuristic endeavors that generate more curiosityand attention.In addition, itis a
mistake to presume the value of a summary statistic on others-especially
on scholars steeped in alternativeparadigms. In reference to this fifth point,
meta-analysis is an argument that works only when delivered before ones
own methodological choir.
Sixth, meta-analysisallowsfordiscussion
and debate regarding the
meaning~lnessof effect sizes;but it provides little guidance regarding the
range of whatone considersmeaningful. The currentdebate on the
meaningfulness of effect sizes in sex difference meta-analyses
illustrates this
point (e.g., Eagly, 1995). Anotherway of saying this is that objective Stan0
dards for assessing the strength of effect sizes do not exist, and even the
intersubjectively agreed-to standards (e.g., Cohens, 1977) can still be used
as springboards forcontention.
Finally, meta-analysispresents a powerful way to test and to advance theory; it does not generate new theory. This seventh and
final observation presumes that conventional uses ofmeta-analyses entail posttheoreticaltesting
and refinement. Of course, given the powerful nature of meta-analysis, it
could alsobe used to testnew theory. However,whether or not it canSUO
cessfully lead to bottom-up constructionof theory remains to be seen. For
example, only future efforts will reveal
if meta-analyses can be usedto gener,
ate models of interaction behavior.
These paradoxical conclusions should indicate that, given an understanding of its limitations, meta-analysis offersan important analytical tool
for the advancementof interpersonal communicationresearch. The knowledge that we acquire from such a tool is clearly an empirical abstraction,
based on studies with countless variation in samples, methods, and analyses.
Nevertheless,the knowledge that meta0analysis providesoverrides
within-study variance and offers a general map of the specific territory.Of

course, the question before us concerns how we can make better use of the
general map.
First, we believe that itis necessary to consider meta0analytic findings as
complementing qualitative research, as well as quantitative research and
narrative reviews. Becausemeta-analytic findings can only utilizequantitative results, one way to check thefindings is to determine if they coincide
with other findings. A difierence in findings between two types of research
would probably suggest that more than one way exists to understand any
given communicative behavior.
A second consideration for future interpersonal researchers concerns
narrowing the perspective ofieredby meta-analytic findings. Meta~analysis
tends to ofier a macro perspective of communicative behavior. For example,
meta-analytic research on communication apprehension suggests that all
three of the major approaches to dealing with communication apprehension
are efiective in bringing about a decrease in communication apprehension
level. However, the findings do not offer a detailed understanding of the
more specific, microelements that constitute eachof the approaches.
A third and final consideration for interpersonal communication research is greater concentration of the process of communication. As stated
earlier, meta-analyses do not tend to explore minute communicative proc
cesses, although they could do so given carefully reasoned decision rules
that help categorize various typesof interaction patterns.More often than
not, communication researchers concentrate on single communicative
events rather than on communicationas an ongoing process. Such underc
standing of interpersonal communication as a singular occurrence does not
provide a complete picture of that behavior, It is time forinterpersonal cornmunication researchers to focus on ways that interactive processes are capc
tured in a way that canbe summarized,

Alberts, J. K.,& Driscoll, G. (1992). Containment versus escalation:The trajectory ofcouples conversation complaints.Western~
o of C ~u ~ u n~i c u t~~56,
o n394-4
,
12.
Allen, M. (1989). A comparisonof self-report, observer,and physiological assessments of
publicspeakinganxiety reduction techniques usingmeta-analysis. C o ~ ~ u n ~ c a t ~
Studies, 40, 127-139.
Allen, M. (1998).Methodological concerns when examining a gendered world.
In D. J. Canary C j , K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex d~~erences
and s ~ ~ ~in c~~ ~
u ~~n ~r c~a rs i o nessays
~ C~r~c
and e ~ ~ ~nvesr~gur~ons
~ r ~ of
u sex
~ and gender in ~nte~ucr~on
(pp. 427-444). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Allen, M., & Bourhis, J. (1996).The relationship of communication apprehensionto cornmunication behavior: A meta-analysis. C o ~ ~ ~ n ~ c u~ t i o~ n ~44, e2 14-226.
~
~
y
,

urrell, N. (1996). Comparingthe impact of homosexualand heterosexual pare

lysis ofexistingr e s e a r c h . ~o~ f~Hl ~ o s e x32,19-35.
~ ~ ~ ,
nohue, W. A. (1989). Meta-analysisof self-reportdata on the
aking anxiety treatment techniques. C ~ m ~ n ~ c uEtd~~ co unand the well being of children: A
~ u~~ ~ ~I IeO,t2 ~ ~ ,
meta-analysis. P s y c h o ~ o B
BarNir, A. (1998). Canpredict
gro
choice
shift:
A meta0analysis
of group decisionson life dilemmas.S~~~ G r o ~~e s~e u r c29,
~ , 308-338.
urggraf, C. S,, 6r Sillars, A.L. (1987). A critical examinationof sex differencesin marital

ewbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cohen, J. (1977).S t u t ~ t ~~e~
~ ~ u u~ ~ ~for~thes~ ~e ~
s vsciences
~ r u(rev.
~ ed.). New York: AcWagner, E. E. (1986). Effectof positive findingson submission and accep
und Pructice,
tance rates: A note on meta-analysisbias. profess^^^ Psycho~o~: Reseurc~
conflict and anger: Investigatingthe sex
Cody (E&.))Gen~er,
power, und c
~
~
c uin h~ ~ r e ~
~ t i ~n s(pp.
h ~2~ 1-233).
1s
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dillard, J. E,Hunter, J. E., 6r Burgoon, M. (1984).Sequential-requestpersuasive strategies:
Meta~analysisof foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. H ~ m u n~ ~ m ~ n ~ cRe.
u t ~ o n
Men arefrom S ~~ t u~ en~are ~ ~ ,~~ u t~ tPaper
hu . presented at the InternationalNetwork on Personal elations ship conference, ~ o ~ a0n )
Dindia, K., & Allen, M.(1992). Sex differences
in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis. P s y c ~ ~
~ o ~ ~c ~
u ~ ~
I 12,
e 106-124.
t ~ n ,
A.H. (1987). Sex ~~fferences
in social ~ e ~ uA~socia~-ro~e
~ o r ~~ n t e r ~ e t uHillsdale,
t~~.
:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
.(1994).On comparing womenand men. ~ e m ~ und
n ~Pms y c ~ o ~4,5
o ~13-522.
,
Eagly, A.H. (1995). The science and politics of comparing women
and men. A m e ~ u Psy
n
c ~ ~t, 50,
o ~145s 15 8.
Eagly, A.H., 6.Johnson, B. 1:(1990).Gender and leadership style:A meta-analysis. psycho^
~ o B ~~~ ~ ue208,
t ~~233-256.
n,
Eagly)A.H., 6.Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of leaders:A meta-analysis.
~
o of P e~ ~ s o~n and
u ~ u~
Social
~ ~ ~P s y c h o ~ o60,
~ , 685-7 10.
Eagly, A. H., Ma~hijani,M. G.,6rKlonsky, 3.G, (1992).Gender andthe evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. P s ~ c ~ o ~Bo ~~ ~c ~u e~
I1
t I~, 3-22.
n,
Eagly, A. H.) &Wood,W. (1991). Explaining sex differencesin social behavior: Ameta-analyric perspective. Personu~~ty
and Social P s ~ c h o l ~
o ~~ ~ ~
I 7,e306-3
t ~ 15.
n ,
~~

Emmers, EM.,&Allen, M.(1995a, November).Factors cont~butingto s e x ~ coercive

~ ~ y behaviors;A ~ e t u - a n u l y sPaper
~.
presentedat the annual meeting of the Speech Communication Association,San Antonio, T?L
Allen, M. (1995b) February).R e s ~ ~ nto
c esex^^ coercion ~ e ~ v ~ oAr s :
~ e t a - a ~ ~Paper
y s ~ presented
.
at the annual meet~ngof the Western States Communication Association, ~ortland,OR.
Emmers-Sommer, X M., &Allen, M. (1997, November).~ u r ~ brelated
~ e s to sexual coercion:
A ~ u t ~h 0Paper~ presented
~
. at the annual meeting of the National Communication
Association, Chicago,IL.
Gayle, B. M., Preiss, R. W., &Allen, M.(1994). Gender differences and the use of conflict
c e s~~e a ~ ~ e r e n c e ; E x uthe
~~n~ng
strategies.In L. Turner &H. Sterk (Eds.), ~ ~ ~ e r e nthat
~ s u ~ p tini gender
o ~ reseurch (pp. 13-26). Westport, CT Bergin 6Garvey.
Gayle, B. M,, Preiss, R. W., &Allen, M.(1997, November)T h e c o ~ i t iprocessing
ve
ofgen~r
s
c and c~ o n ~~ ~ t
~s t~r ugt ee~
selection.
~ e n Paper
t
presented at the annual meeting
of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago,
IL.
Glass, G.(1976). Primary, secondary,and meta-analysis ofresearch. E d u c u t ~ Researche~
o~~
5, 3-8.
Glass, G.(1977). Integrating ~ndings: The
meta-analysis of research. Review of Research in
E d ~ a t5,351-379.
~ )
Gottman, J. M. (1994). ut p r e d ~ divorce?
c~
The relationship between ~ u ~processes
t u ~and
~ r ~outcomes.
t u ~ Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
in powe~ul/powerless
~ n ~we:
g Ae
Grob, L. M,, &Allen, M. (1996, April).Sex d~f~erences
~ e ~ -review.
u ~
Paper
~ presented
y ~ at the annual meeting of the Central States Communication Association, Minneapolis,MN.
Hall,J. A., Halberstadt, A.G., &OBrien, C. E.(1997). S u ~ r d i n a ~ oand
n nonverbal sensitivity: A study and synthesis of findings based
on traitmeasures. Sex Roles, 37,295-3 17.
Heavey, C. L., Layne, C.,&Christensen, A. (1993).Gender and conflict structure in marital interaction: A replication and e x t e n s i o n . ~ of
~ Consu~ting
~a~
und C ~ ~ nP~s yccah o~~ o ~ )
62, 16-27.
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, E L.,6r.Jackson, G. B. (1982). M e t a - a ~ ~ y s ~ : C u ~research
ulat~~g
~ n d ~ nacross
gs
studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage,.
Hyde, J. S. (1990). Metadanalysis and the psychology of gender differences. ~ o u ~ofa l
~ o ~ ineCulture
n
and Society, 16, 55-73.
Hyde, J. S., & Plant, E. A. (1995). Magnitude of psychological gender differences:Another
~ s50,
y c159-161.
~ ~ o ~ t )
side to the story. A ~ e ~ u n
Johnson, B.X,6r Eagly, A. H.(1989).Effects ofinvolvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. P s ~ c h o l o ~ c a ~ ~206,
u l ~ 290-3
t i n , 14.
Knight, G. I?, Fabes, R. A., & Higgins, D.A. (1996).Concerns about drawing causal inferences from meta-analyses:An example inthe study ofgender differencesin aggression.
P s ~ c ~ ~ et^^,
o ~ c u129,
~ 4 10-42 1,
Krone, K.J., Allen, N., & Ludlum, J. (1994). A meta-analysis of gender research in manage~ cmake
e s a d~~erence:
Examrial influence. InL.Turner & H. Sterk (Eds.), ~ ~ f ~ e r ethat
ining the assu~pt~ons
in gender research (pp. 73-84). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Leaper, C.,Anderson, K. J., & Sanders, I! (1998). Moderators of gender effectson parents
~ o3-27.
~)
talk to their children: A meta0analysis. ~ e v e ~ oP~s ~e cn ~~o34,
Margolin, G., & Wampold, B. E. (1981). Sequential analysisof conflict and accord in distressed and nondistressed marital partners,
~
o o ~ C~o n s u ~
l t and
~ n ~C
a ~ i n~~ c a ~ P s ~ c h o ~ o
49,554-567.
.
/

Markman, H. J., Silvern, L., Clements, M., & Kraft-Hanak, S. (1993). Men and women
of Social Issues, 49,107-125.
dealing with conflict
in heterosexual relationships.~ou~~
Messman, S. J., 6.Canary, R. J. (1998).Patterns of conflict and argument. InW. R. Cupach
& B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The ~ r ~ iofd~ e r s o n ra ~e ~ t ~ h(pp.
i ~154-179).
s
Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sagrestano, L.M., Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1998). Sex differences in managing
conflict. In R. J. Canary & K. Rindia(Eds.), Sex d~~erences
and s i m i ~ ~ (t pp.
~s
287-302). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schaap, C., Buunk, B., & Kerkstra, A. (1988). Marital conflict resolution.
ENoller
In 6M.
on m a ~ t a ~ i n t e ~ a(pp.
c t 203-244).
i~
Philadelphia:
A. Fitzpatrick (Eds,), Pers~ect~ves
Multilingual Matters.
Thomas, J.C. (1998).How science takes stock:
The story ofmeta-analysisby Morton Hunt
is reviewed. P e r s ~ n Pe s~y c h o ~ o51
~ ,,476-479.
~ a l t h e rJ., B.,Anderson, J. E,&Park, D.W. (1994). Interpersonaleffects in computer-mediated interaction: A meta-analysis of social
and anti-socialcommunication. C ~ m ~ n ~ cation Research, 2I , 460487.
~ a n o u sJ., E,Sullivan,S. E.,& Malinak, J. (1989). The role of judgment callsin meta-analof A ~ ~ ~ i e d P s 74,
y c 259-264.
~o~o~,
ysis.
Wilkins, B. N., 6, Andersen, E A. (1991). Gender differencesand similarities in management communication. Management C o m m u n ~ c u t ~ ~ Q ~ u T5,t e6r3~5.
y,
W016 E M. (1986). Metu-analysis: Quunt~tuti~e
me tho^ for research s y ~ t h e sNewbury
~.
Park,
CA: Sage.
~~~~

It is reasonable to argue that this book could not have been written more
than 30 years ago for two major reasons. First,
the topics examinedin the research on inte~ersonalcommunication would have been quite different
from those pursued by the authors here, Puring the 1950s and 1960s, the
study of interpersonal communication moved not only into thestudy of so#
cia1 and personal relationships but also into consideration of a number of
different kinds of facedto-face communication events(Fitzpatrick, 1999)
Current research in interpersonal co~municationfocuses on core strategic
(e.g., compliance gaining, deception) and nonstrategic(e.g., self-disc~osure,
emotional messages) communication processes that occur between people
in avariety of contexts. Social influence and persuasion are still central arc
eas of study within interpersonal communicationalthough they are not the
only venues for research.
Second, meta-analysis, a way to average results across studies, onlybecame a widespread technique in the mid4970s. Meta-analysis is a tech..
nique to review the empirical literature in which summary statistics from
each study (e.g., means orcorrelations) are treated as units of analysis, and
(
.

data are then analyze

ative tests of the propositions
eration. ~ccording
ta-analysis are conc
sampling error,error of measurement, and range variation or
rest~ction.
The promise of this volume isto advance our unders
sonal commu~cationthrough the use ofmeta~analysis.
the technique herald a new erainthestu
terpersonal communica0
tion, Inmy own research career, I have cho
interaction insocial and personal relationships. Li
greeted the emergence of meta0analys
attraction to meta-analysis went through pr
relationship. In thefirst stage,I perceived the tec
resolve many problemsin the social sciences, F
tool that could help clear away the cobwebs of sloppy,sometimes PO
think in^ and help scholars make sense of a voluminous literature.
there were numerous otherreasons to fall in love with this technique.
First, meta-analysis allowed a researcher to aggregate findings across
studies and samples. Second, meta-analysis promisedto yield m
estimates of efiects. Third, the technique
examined how a meth
(mis)leading us to accept one interpretation over anot
meta0analysis considered moderator effects in thehope of resolving theoretical disputes. Fifth, meta-analysis implicitly promised that the entire red
rprisewouldbeupliftedas
old, tired questions and m
e
as dead ends for understanding
human behavior.
e
technique allowed individuals workingin environmentswhere it was diffic
cult to conductprimary research to participate inthe social science commu~
nity by aggregating and making sense of the empirical work of others
ever, see ~urgoon,1998, for a contrasting slant).
S many examplesof the power ofmeta-analysis. Let
my favorite examples of the genre and try to explicate what I find especially
ealing about them.

Oliver and Hyde (1993) examined gender differences in sexuality (see also
de, 1995; Whitely 6,Kite, 1995) in theirmeta6analysis of 177
usable sources, yielding 239independent samples testing 128,363 responc
dents on eight sexual attitudes (i.e., premarital intercourse, homosexuali~,
extramarital sex, sex a1 permissiveness, anxiety about sex, sexu
tion, double~standa attitudes, and masturbation attitu~es)a

out emotional c o ~ m i
article, those ~ i t ~ai n

some interest in^ p

to theory aswellas

theconclusion that

research, explainedthe dings from the analysis in referenceto those theories, and ofliered suggestions for
future theoretical development and research.
Anotherexample forresearchersinterested
inthetechnique
of
meta-analysis is the original work on self-disclosure by Dindia and Allen
(19%) that is updated inthis volume (Dindia, chap. 10, this volume). With
the publication of Jourards (1971) classic statement, self-disclosure or the
sharing of personal feelings and i n f o ~ a t i o nabout the self has become a vi0
tal area of study of interpersonal communication. Considered the hallmark
of the development of a healthy personality and a relationship to others,
self~disclosurehas been approached as a personality trait and process
a
varie
able. As a personality trait, disclosure has beenlinked to race, gender, and
ethnic and culturalbackground. As a process variable, selfLdisclosure has
been studied as the facilitator of the development of personal relationships.
the beginning, gender has been focal
a point of study in thearena of
self~disclosure.Dindia andAllen (1992) examined sex differences in
self-disclosure and evaluated themajor variablesfound to moderate theefe
fect. Included in thislist werethe sex of the target, the speakers relationship
to thetarget, and themeasure of self-disclosure (i.e., self-report
inventories
and selfOratings,observer orrecipient ratings, objective metrics). ~mploying
a sample of 23,702 respondents, women wereindeed found to selfcdisclose
more than men (d = .184).
Because the variationacross studies was not solely due tosampling error,
tests for moderator variables wereconducted. n e sex of the targetdid moderate the effect of sex on selfcdisclosure. Specifically, women disclosed more
than men to same-sex partners andslightly morethan men to oppositedsex
partners. Although the relationship to thetarget did not by itself moderate
the effect of sexon self*disclosure,the measure of self-disclosure did have an
effect. s om pared to self-reportsor trained observer perceptions, individuals
(i.e., respondents reporting on their partners disclosures) clearlyreport that
women disclose morethan men.
The strength of this meta-analysis was that it carefully examined moderator variables and clearly linked these findings to directions for future research. Dindia and Allen (1992) critiqued a previous meta-analysis fornot
including unpublished research as well asnot taking into account thevarie
ous moderators proposed by extant theories, Along the same line, Collins
and Miller (1994) used meta-analysis to answer three important questions
about the relation between self-disclosure and liking. Of note for this discus#
sion is how these authors link the rneta-analysis findings backto an integrated model of personal relationships that views self-disclosure aspart of a
d ~ a ~interpersonal
i c
system.

A third example of a wellcconducted meta-analysis isthat of

1998),who explored sex differencesin nonverbalcommunication. She concluded that the sex differences for smiling and nonverbal sensitivi~are
large and favor women. Hall (1998) made the case that we need to formu+
late a way to thinkabout the size ofthe sex differencesin nonverbal commuO
nication. One way to evaluate the sizeof the differences we find is to
compare these differences to other established empirical find
parative approach offers three kinds of questions to frame the discussion:
l.
3.

How do sex differences compare to effects in other domains?

ow does one sex difference(or class of sex differences) compare
to
other sex differences?
How does the magnitude of a particular sex difference compare to
the m a ~ i t u d e of
s other correlates of that same traitor behavior?

Although Halls (1998) three questions relate to the size of sex

ences in nonverbalcommunication, they can andshould be general
other domains. The real value of a meta-analysis isthat it yields an estimate
not only of a difference, but also of the magnitude of the difference. How#
ever, the researcher must be prepared to discuss these magnitude estimates
(1998) questions can helpthe analyst to frame a case
ences uncovered are substantial ortrivial. In essence,
Hall proposed some rhetorical guidelines for meta~analysts tohelp them
frame a reasonable ar~ument about
the magnitude estimates. The basic empirical workof a meta-analysis mustbe supplemented with the theorist
cussion and evaluationof the magnitude of the difference. This discus
involves a consideration of the degree to which theory predicts
tude of the difference, the practical impact of the difference, an
tual perspective.
For example, going back to the Oliver and Hyde (1993) meta-analysis,
that article made clear comparisons among the differences they uncovered
in male and female sexual attitudes and behaviors and related these differ,
ences to theory. Following Halls(1998) advice, Oliver and Hydes discussions of the magnitude of the differences couldhave been profitably framed
in reference not only to oneanother butto other gender or social dieerences
as well asfactors other than gender that may be related to sexual attitudes
(e.g., religiosity) and behaviors (e.g., physical attractiveness).
Unfortunately, like all affairs, disaffection with meta-analysis
set in gradually. Perhaps I was requiring too much, asking that thetechnique solve too
many problems.Indeed, thevery structure of science works a~ainstthe use

the world of Fisherian hypothesis testi

as an arbiter of what can be publi
they uncover studies
er problem is often readily acknowledge
is ishandled so the reader can judge the
many researchers incl
ational ~learinghous
luded in this computerized database.
Other research@
iller, 1994) expressly evaluate the
unately, the approachof many of the ch
gin by defining studiesand whole ~rogramof research
eration rather than working to be as inclusive of as
erature, published and unpu hed, as possible. Althou
is understandable, it leaves
authors open to criticis
cal findings have not been taken into
consideration. A
oblem may be the onesurrounding the org
e words in the databases that are search
example Sillarss
rs, 1982; Sillars,
Fitzpatric~s(Fitzpatrick, Fallis,
in conflict in couples was igno
rk is not included because the conceptual labels an
The work wasnot included becauseonly self#reportdat
re used and behavioral data were not included. Howlar decision about
the criteriafor inclusion leavesout res the self-report data on interpersonal conflict into
behavioralcodes for conflictmanagement.Ignoring
highly relate
streams of work prevents the authorsfrom examining potentially important moderators (e.g., type of relationship) or methods factors (e.g.,
self-report or be~avioralcodes) that may affect the outcom~s.Indeed,
zpatrick(1991)theorized thatgender di
ces inmaritalconflict
mphasized and
the
ideological
conflict
models were
ctors of what couples didin conflict. The chapter in
this volurne corrects that decision by including the behavioral data and in
doing
so generates a very different set of conclusions,
e narrowing of the focus in the chapter
on self-esteem may workto its
antage (Sahlstein &Allen, chap. 4, this volume). Feingold (1994)examined gender di~erencesin personality: self-esteem, internal locus of conc
trol, anxiety, and assertiveness. Of particular interest are his findings on

1.

selfaesteem asthey are related to those of Sahlstein andAllen (

volume). Feingold reanalyzed the classic studies of ~ a c c o b y
(1974) and found that the meaneffect size forgender differenc
teem was .lo; inHall (1984) it was .l2 and in the
replication and updatin of
11's work that heconducted, theunweighted mean effect size wa
sex difference in self esteem (k = 27, N = 10,755; 48% m
higher self-esteem but to a small degree.Sahlstein andAllen9sfigures
in specifics withthose of Feingold(1994). The Sahlstein and Allen fige
ures for selfeesteem indicate that women have higher overall self esteem
(-.009) ;cognitive self-esteem(-.026), and comprehensive self-esteem
(-.021), whereas men have higher social (.028) and physical (.201) selfeesO
teem, Both works arguethat male self-esteem seems to be on therise. Like
Allen (1992), Sahlstein and Allen(chap. 4, this volume) nee
to resolve the discrepancies between their work and thatof Feingold(1
From the stage of disa~ectioncomes an acceptance of the good an
points of the object of my affection. eta-analysis is best when it is U
cumulate a clear amount of evidence on a topic (Hamilton6,~ i n e o ,
16, this volume; Hample 6r Dallinger, chap. 11, this volume) is closely tied
to theory and theoretical tests and expansions (Ahhn, chap. 9, this vole
ume); presents final data in clear, tabulated forms (Spitzberg 6,Dillar
chap. 6, this volume); notes any changes in results over time (Sahlstein
Allen, chap. 4, this volume); and compares its results to other meta~analyti~
cal results (Dindia, chap. 10, this volume).
One of the latent effects of the development of meta0analysis is that it
provides an interesting window on the issues that preoccupy the research
community. Researchers conduct meta-analyses to answer pressin
tions, to weigh in on conceptual
disputes, and todecide what empirica~road
to travel, Within this volume, there seem to be two major pressingmeta-is#
sues forthe researchers in thediscipline asrepresented in two themes. The
rst theme centerson what have been core questions in thestudy of inter+
personal communi~ationfor at least 25 years. The second theme focuses on
gender di~erences in inte~e~sonal
processes asits leitmotif, Letus take up
each themeand see what it tells us about interpersonalcommunication as
well as the field of communication study.

"he chapters on attitude similarity and attraction, compliance gaining, social

skills ma~festation,and verbalag~essivenessrepresent interesting attempts
to deal with key issuesin interpersonal communication.
The sophistication of

IC
these meta0analyses representsthe maturity of the conceptual~ations
around
these core questions.In these chapters, the authors use meta-analysisin the
service of improving both the research and theory.

key question for the study of inte~ersonalcommunication is how we

rm, maintain, and dissolve(or rede~ne)interpersonal relationships.
Clearly the role of communication is central in theprocess of f o ~ i n gand
maintaining relationships. Communication is the process of developing
intersubjecti~ty
on; a partner
through
the
of
use verbal
itzpatrick, 1993). Some theorists have
he interactionbetween people over an
gh others have viewed
The study of attitude similarity and attractionwas a natural move forstu-.
ents of interpersonal communication in the 1970s.~ l t h o u g hthere was a
t in the movement away from the study of attitude
t variable, it was easyto consider the study of attitudes
pendent variable and examine its eEects on interpersonal outcomes like attraction. So, rather than developing explanatory frames for
how variousfactors influenced attitudes, studentsof interpersonal cornmu-nication became interested inhow variousattitudinal frames influenced interperson~loutcomes.
In the 1960s, a group of theorists using a reinforcement paradigm coined
what was considered by many the first law ofinterpersonal attraction: Atti0
tude s ~ i l a r i t ycauses interpersonal attraction (see Byme, 1!997).Communi-.
cation researchers argued that simila~ty worksonly if it translates into
interaction. In other words, if potential partners have a chance to interact,
the interaction becomes far more predictiveof the relational outcome than
does the initial starting attitudinal set. This~ i g hwas
t a powerful addition to
the typical social psychological model
of relationships andone that continuO
ously echoes todayin a number of chambers. ~ommunicationresearchers like
&Yun (chap. 9, this volume)are part of that important tradition in demonstrating the role c o ~ u n i c a t i o nplays in theattitude-attraction relation.

~ o m m ~ n i c a t i otheory
n
and communication researchers have
been centrally
interested in how in~ivi~uals
gain compliance from
others. In the early 1970s,
some of the interest in persuasionin mass media moved
into theinterpersonal

21.

realm asa concern for the processes of persuasion in a variety of ~terpersonal

relationships. A feminist sociologyof knowledge would say
that the~ t e r e sin
t
power and the manipulation of others toward a given courseof action could
only have come fi-oma m a l e ~ d o m ~ a t efield,
d as menare preoccupie
control. As more female researchers rose
to the forefront in the~ e l dre,
questions addressedthe expression of feelings, self-disclosure,and val
of the conversational partner.Whether oneaccepts this analysis not,
or there
has been a good deal of knowledge accumulated about how face-toeface
interactants interact to persuade one another.
Included in this volumeis a metadanalysis on sexual coercion and
(Emmers~Sommer)
chap. 19, this volume). The author grapples with impor..
tant issues and their theoretical implications. Perhaps it is unusual that I
have included the research on sexual coercion and resistance in this section
rather than in the treatment
of gender differences. Sexual coerci
a man forcing a woman to engage in unwantedsexual activity a
a major facet of any consideration of gender, power)and relatio~hips.I have
grouped it with these chapters, however, becausewhen entering this arena,
the theorist is faced with the same core question as the social actor: When
does seduction become rape? Is any persuasive attempt a violation of the
rights of the partner?A s theorists, we must grapple with
these questions and
what seems to be the most applied area actually requires posing essential
conceptual questions.

The study of communication competence or social skills also emerged at

about the same time. Increasingly, communication theorists became concerned with the smooth and easy flow of interaction and the manner in
which communica~ionmaintained the face and line of the partner during
the interaction. Conceptual distinctions
had to be drawn between communication styles like assertiveness, argumentativeness, and aggressiveness.
An examination of the skilled accomplishment of a conversation ~emanded
that researchers actually focus on verbal and nonverbal behavioral exe
changes during interaction.
It may bethat oneof the major accomplishmentsof the field of communi^
cation rests in the delineation
of how conversation works to accomplish various ends. Involved in the careful, empirical delineation would be specific
discussions of various verbal and nonverbal strategies and tacticsthat individuals use to accomplish their goals. The meta-analyses in this volume
move us closer to this goal and allow usto begin to speak with someauthorc
ity about how communication can be used to accomplish specific goals (see

IT

IC

Allen, chap. 13, this volume; Hample & ~allinger,chap. 11, this volume;
~ i l l a r dchap.
,
6, this volume).
us ofall the chapters in this
section has as its unde~inningthe bar
c communication question: What works, when,and why?Whether we are
iscussing winningan argument without damaging a relatio~hipor accom,
smooth social p e r f o ~ a n c eour
, research has autility to thememe
e larger culture, including but not limited to, our students. The
only way in which theory can become use
what people do under what conditions a
In many ways, thesechapters are stro
S tothe social science literature because they bring a communication point of view to the foreround. These authorsdo notbemoan thefact that inm a n ~social science
disciplines communicationprocesses are considered error variance. Rather,
through the power oftheir a~guments and
their data,they demonstrate how
communication functions theoretically and how messagesdramatically impact a variety of outcomes for social actors.

A number of the chapters inthis book focuson some aspect of ge

ences in interpersonalcommunication. The meta~analysesof gender differencesin self-esteem, safeesex talk, power in language,liking and
self~disclosure,sources of social support, and interpersonalconflict represent core instances of an analysis of gender and power relations. It is probably not surprising that much of the intellectual energy in this book is taken
up withquestions surrounding gender differences. It is exciting to see communication researchers weighing in on one
of the central debates in sod
the
cia1 sciences. Questions of gender and power permeate not only academic
debate, butalso the culture at
large. Scholars are embedded in their cultures
and this influences the questions they pose, if not the
Our culture is as preoccupiedwith sex differences as it is with dieting and
exercise. Since the 1960s, everydecade has seen the emergence of popular
books and articles on sex differences (e.g., Gray, 1992) and dieting (e.g.,
Stewart, Bethea, Andrews, Andrews, & Leighton, 199$). These books
mentative features. Both offer a few simple explanations
problem, develop vivid examples
through personal testb
mony, weave in a few scientific citations, and offer simple and straightforward solutions for communicationdifficulties in personal relationships (e.g.,

hen a man is in a nega e state, treat him like a passing torna

ow) or having ones sha
grow bulkier (e.g., eat no sugar).
~ommunicationtheorists like olds smith and Fulfs (1999)
outstanding job of analyzing the claims and evidence present
popular
book
on
differences in communication. S
c~ticallyexamine
scourse of weightloss and cleverly deconstructe
the messages sent to women by the popular media. Alt
fine critical work continues, communication scholars
rch on gender differences in communica~
in rigorous meta~analyses.
minism, as one of the most important intellectual a social movements
the 20th c e n t u ~ ,
rful albeit indirect impact on t
nication research ag
1998). Eagly (1995) express
ism created a political climatethat led to researc
psychological gender di~erences.In response,
that fem~istsdid not have a uniform positionon the
Dindia, 199~).
In the l?1 meta~analysesof
exP
and Plant (1995),
many
as
femin~~
owever, a number of feminists in this discipline rou
tivism because it relies on what they deem patriarch
method and coun~ing(B~air,Brown, &L Baxter, 1994).According to this line
of argument, womens ways ofk n o ~ are
n ~inherently u ~ c i e n t i a~ c
on insight and personal experience translated through personal st
,personal narrati~eis the major form ofproof,Anyone can use the lens of
er, race, or class to illuminate social life,
but I do not grant that being an
insider givesone a better picture of social r e a l i t y ~ i ~ e r e nperhaps,
t,
but not
necessarily better.The wholesale movein thedirection of idiosyncratic, personal insight leavesout an entireimportant methodological realm of the social sciences, namelyethnogra~hyand ethnomethodolo~.
Ethnography is a method of unstructured obse~ationalresearch
oped by anthropologists for studyingthe work of groups from within. The researcher participates in the everydaylives of the groups under study.
Ethnomethodolo~treats even the mundaneaspects of social life as puzzling
and tries to explain how a particular type of conduct occurs. In other words,
this approach studies the everyday methods of practical reasoning use
the ~roductionand interpretation of social action. Focused as they are on
the inte~retationof the meaning of social actions, these approaches are
very i m p o r ~ a for
~ t communication theorists who must be concerned
the development of intersubjectivi~as well as
the mutualinfluence an
ordination of behavior (Fitzpatrick 6.Ritchie, 1990).

As a university professor and a student of interpersonal relationships,

perhaps the most disturbing book I have read in thepast decade is Holland
E i s e ~ a r t s(1990) study of women, achievement, and thecollege culture. In this ne-grained ethnogr~phicanalysis, the authorsfollow the lives
women in two Southern universities, one historically Black,the
other White. The authors
questioned past theories that attributedwomens
struggles with success to class resistance or academic barriers. Rather, the
authors argued that a high-pressure peer system propels
women into a world
in college where their attractiveness to men counts most. The life of the
mind counts for verylittle prestige; what mattersis the manyou attract. Any
unrewarding academic experience or difficulty in a subject area leads these
young women to devote more timeand energy to ~nding,
keeping, or manip+
ulating a romantic partner. Eventually, this cycle erodes any visions of careers forthese young women.
powerful descriptions, combined with a trenchant theoretical
an
,canand should inform the development of specifichypotheses
about gender and power relations in interpersonalcommunication. Indeed,
many new insights can be gained by more in-depth ~nderstandingof the
lives of our research participants outside of the laboratory. Descriptive
ethnographies andethnomethodologies can putflesh on the empirical skeleton andhelp us to understand the meanings that social acts and outcomes
have for membersof our culture. Such work, however,demands thatwe go
beyond our own experiences and reactions.
In addition to these descriptive social scientists, many empirical social
scientists reject the argument that rigorous research is by definition not fern0
inist. Indeed, Hyde (1994) persuasively argued that the very technique of
is can make feminist tra~formationsin social science. Accord-.
,the proper use ofmeta-analysis can challenge l o n ~ s t a n d i nbe~
liefs of gender differences; demonstrate the extent to which gendered
behavior is context dependent and the product
of gender roles; examinethe
intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity; and
finally provide powerful
data
to counter assertions of difference and female inferioritythat proliferate in
the popular media (see Andersen, 1998).
In their metactheoretical statement, Deaux and La France (1988) persuasively argued that gender differences are not manifest in allsituational
contexts. In otherwords, perceivers,individuals, and situationsvary in the
content and salience of gender expectations. Thus, after decades of research, we must specify the conditions under which we can expect gender
differences andgender similarities incommunication behavior. In a
thou~htfultreatment, Aries (1996) argued that how men and women be0

have in interactiondepends on such moderating factors as the demandsof

the task, the length of the interaction,the sex compositionof the group, and
the relationship between the participants. These factors are, of course, the
type of factors that make gender more or less salient in aninteraction.
A major problem for
the meta-analysis chapters on gender in this book is
that they have neglected to consider larger theoretical claims asthey make
their arguments. The entire gender studies enterprise is nowboth personalized and politicized to such a degree that the accumulation of findings
through meta-analyses without a disciplined concern for theory and for the
assessment of the meaning and the m a ~ i t u d eof gender differences and
similarities is doomed to failure. ~ommunicationresearchers need to be at
the forefront of the debates about gender, power,and human relationships,
but those at the forefront must come armedwith data. Both the academic
community and the culture large
at
demand specific,
documented answers
to questions about how the microprocesses of language and communication
relate to this centralquestion in the social sciences.

My approach inthis chapter has been abroad one. I have tried to discuss the
rhetorical structureofmeta0analysis and demonstrateby exemplars the best
way to utilize the information gathered with this technique to advance the
building of theories about interpersonal communication. My major concern
centered on how scholars could best structure their arguments about the
magnitudes of the differences they uncover. AsI have summarized the various meta-analyses in this chapter, however, I have simply adopted the land
guage of the authors to describe the magnitude of the differences they
uncovered. However, there is a Mad Hatter quality to my use of this lane
guage (Wordsmean what I want them to mean). discussion
A
of the magc
nitude of these effects demands thedevelopment of arguments requiring a
number of different types of comparative data. The knowledge of science,
however, is the knowledge of difference and anunderstanding of the mag&
tude of the difference cannot help but make our theories stronger and capac
ble of greater specification. In other words, I wonder if I have created
another layer of interpretation that creates more questions than it answers.
Another problem forthese chapters is the narrowness of some of the red
views of the literature. ~etaOanalysis
demands that the researcher access
the population of studies on a given topic. As such, the searching of databases and the consideration of key terms and words that are used in the
search becomes central to the
research enterprise. Everyone seems awareof

Andersen, E! A. (1998). Researching sex differences within sex similarities:

The evolutionary consequences of reproductive differences. InD. J. Cana
~ ~ ~in tc ~ ~e ~s n ~ u(pp.
t i 83-100)
o n
*

S.

en and w m n in ~nteruct~on.
New York: Oxford ~ n i v e r sPress.
i~
6.Baxter, L. (1994). D~scipliningthe feminine. ~ ~ ~ t e rof ~ y 3

Speech, 80, 383-409.

M. (1998).Social influence research: the

At helm, on the edge, or over
the abyss?
enim malvut homo verum est id potius
credit, In J. S. Trent (Ed.), ~ o ~ ~ ~ n ~ c u t
e (pp. 88-93).
~
Needham
t
~ Heights,
~
MA: Allyn &
Views from the he~mfor the 21st ~
Bacon.
~ ndu~t~~en~ e ninc mudes
Burgraf~C., & Sillars, A. (1986, November).A c r i ~ ~ c a ~ e x uof~sex
tal comm~nicution.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech ~ o m m u n i c a ~
tion Association, Chicago.
Byrne, D.(1997). An overview(and underview) of research and theory withinthe attraction to paradigm, 3~~~~ of Social and per so^^ ~ e ~ u t ~ o ~14,
h ~4 17-43
p s , 1.
Collins, R., & Miller, L. (1994). Self-disclosure
and liking: A meta-analytic review. Ps~cho~
o ~ ~~ ~a116,
~ ~457-475.
t ~ n ,
Deaux, K.,&La France, M. (1998).Gender. InD. 'X Gilbert 6,S. "K Fiske (Eds.),~ u n d ~ o o k
o ~ s o pcs ~
y c~h o ~ o (Vol.
~ , 2, pp. 78~-827).Boston: McGraw0Hill.
Dillard,J. (1998 ).Evaluating and using meta-analyticknowledge claims(pp. 257-270).In
M. Allen 6,R. W. Preiss (Eds.),Persuasion:A d ~ a n c e s t ~ rmo ~e tguh. u ~ ~ y sCresskill,
~s.
NJ:
Hampton.
in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis. PsychoDindia, K.,&Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences
~~u~ ~ ~ ~112,~106-124.
t ~ n ,
of comparing menand women. Amedcan P s y ~ ~ o ~
Eagly, A. (1995).The science and politics
ogist, SO, 145-158.
Feingold, A.(1994). Gender differences
in personality: A meta-analysis. P s ~ c h o ~ o ~ c a ~ ~
tin, 116,429-456.

~itzpatrick,M. A. (1988). ~ e t w e e nh ~ ~ and

awives:
n ~ Comm~nicationin ~ r r ~ g e .
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
~itzpatnck,M. A. (1991). Sex differencesin marital conflict: Social psychophysio~ogical
versus cognitive explanations.Text, 1I , 341-364.
~itzpatrick,M. A. (1999). Racing toward
the millennium: Twenty-five years of
research on
~ a t25,~443-448,
~
communication inrela~onships. man C ~ m ~ nResearch,
A.,Fallis, S., &Vance, L. (1982).Multifunctional codingof conflict resoiuies in marital dyads.Fami~yR e ~ t31,
~ 61
, 1-670.
itzpatrick, M. A., & Ritchie, D. (1990). Communication theoryand the family. In R G.
Boss, W. J. Doherty, R.La Rossa, W. R. Schumm, &S. K.Steinmetz (Us.), S ~ r c e b o o k o f
~ a m ~ ~ y and
t h tho^^
e o ~ A c o ~ t e x t ~ ~ a ~(pp.
~ r 565-585).
oach
New York: Plenum.
c ~ social
~
origins o ~ h ~ msa n~ ~ ~Chi~ t y .
Gagnon, J. H., &Simon, W. (1973). sex^^ c o n d ~ The
cago: Aldine.
Gayle, B., Preiss, R., & Allen, M. (1994). Gender differences and the use ofconflict stratec e smake a d ~ f f e r e ~ e ~ ~ xthe
a as~~ning
gies. In L. Turner 6.H. Sterk (Eds.), ~ ~ ~ e r e nthat
s ~ m ~ t ~in
o ngender
s
research (pp. 13-26). Westport, CT Bergin & Garvey.
Goldsmith, D. & Fulfs, l? (1999). You just dont havethe evidence: An analysis of claims
and evidence in Deborah Tannens
You Just Dont Understand. In M. Roloff (Ed.),Corn~ ~ n ~ ayearbook
t ~ o n22. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Gray, J. (1992). Men are from Mars: omen are from Venus. New York: Harper Collins.
Hall, J. A. (1984) ~ o n v e r b sex
a ~ di~erences.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
and sensitivity
Hall, J. A.(1998). How bigare nonverbal sex differences:The case of smiling
to nonverbal cues. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.) Sex d~fferencesand s i m i ~ ~ t iin
es
c ~ m ~ n ~ c a(pp.
t ~ o155-178).
n
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hinde, R. (1979). T o ~ a r ~ ~ n d e r re~tionshi~s.
s t a n ~ ~ g London: Academic Press.
Holland, D .C. & Eisenhart, M. A. (1990) ~ d ~ c a tin
e dRomance: omen, A c h i e ~ e m eand
~t
College C ~ ~ t u rChicago:
e.
University of Chicago Press.
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, E (1982). Metu-analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hyde, J. (1994). Can meta-analysismake feminist transformationsin psychology? Psychology of ~ o ~~ e~ anr t e r1~8,y45
, 1-462.
Hyde. J.,&L Plant, E.A.(1995).Magnitude of psychological sex differences:
Another side to
the story. Arne~cun~ s y c h o ~ o50(3),
~ t , 159-161.
Jourard, S. M. (1971). The trans~arentself. New York: Van Rostrand Reinhold.
Maccoby, E.E., 6.Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The ~ s y c ~ of
o sex
~ odi~ferences.
~
Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Noller, l?, 6.Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). C o ~ ~ u n ~ c aint ~
fum~~y
on
re~at~onshi~s.
Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Oliver, M.B., 6x. Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis.Psyc ~ o ~ o ~~cua~l ~ e lt 14,
i n }29-5 l.
Oliver, M. B., 6. Hyde, J. (1995). Gender differences inattitudes toward homosexuality:A
reply to Whitley and Kite. P s y c h o ~ ~Bu~letin}
ca~
117, 155-158.
Sillars, A. L.,Colletti, S. E, Parry, D., & Rogers, M. A.(1982).Coding verbal conflicttactics: Nonverbal and perceptual correlates of the avoidance~distributive~integrative~~
distinction. ~~~n C o m ~ ~ n ~ c a~esearch,
~ i o n 9, 83-95.
Sillars, A,,Pike, G. R.,Jones, 1:S., & Redmon, K. (1983). Com~unicationand conflict in
marriage: One style is not satisfying to all. InR.Bergstrom (Ed.), C o ~ ~ ~ ~year~ c a t ~
book 7 (pp. 414-43 1). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Spitzack, C. (1990).
C~fess~~gex~
c e so s ~
mand
e t~h e ~ o ~ ~ t ~ s o f ~ Albany:
o d ~ State
reduc~~.
University of New York Press.
Stewart, H. L., Bethea, M. C., Andrews,S. S.,Andrews, S. S., &Leighton, S, (1998).Sugur
busters: Cut sugur to trim fat. New York: Ballantine.
Whitely, B. E., & Kite, M. E. (1995). Sex differencesin attitudes toward homosexuality: A
o ~u u~~~t e17,
t ~146-154.
~,
comment on Oliver and Hyde (1993). P s ~ c h o ~ B
Wood, J.1:(1998). From isolation to integration: Genders place
in the core of communication knowledge. In
J. S, Trent (Ed.),C o m m u ~ ~ c uViews
~ ~ oform
~ ; the helmof the 2 1st century (pp. 184-188). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
W&, J. X & Dindia, K. (1998).Whats the difference? A dialogue about differencessim0
and
ilarities between women and men. InJ. D.
Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.),Sex d ~ ~ e r eand
~es
s
~
~in c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ u(pp.19-40).
t ~ ~ ~ s Mahwah,
u t ~NJ:Lawrence
~
Erlbaum Associates.

The task of writing astate of the art essay focusedon inte~ersonal

cornc
munication research is a formidableone. The writer confronts multiple obstacles, the first of which is to decide how broadlyto cast the review. Initially,
my penchant for completeness prompted
me to consider writingan omnibus
evaluation of the li~erature.
However, with a research area as diverse and
large as that focu
on interpersonal communication and being mindful of
page limitations, re was
the distinct possibili~I would overlook impore
tant bodies of research, or that I would giveshort shrift to the key issues in
ons. Fortunately, selected volumesof The ~ o ~ ~ ~ n i c u ~ ~
rleson, 1999, the two editions of The ~ u n ~of~Inter~ o k
ers so^^ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ i (Knapp
c u t i o&nMiller, 1985, 1994), and of course,
volume contain excellent reviews of specialized research areasthat re
unnecess~rya single review focused
on each andevery one of our specializations. Hence, I chose to cast this chapter at a high level of a~straction in
which I i ~ e n tissues
i ~ facing allinterpersonal communication researchers

ess oftheir specialization. Although I mention specific research pro#

illustrations of my points rather than toimply
of inte~ersonalcommunication scholarship.
y choice to focus on general trends a issues solved some ofmy problems but had little egect on others, Fore
research in a manner thatwas not large
ast c o m m e n t a ~Over the past two decades, communication scholars
ave not been shy about e n g a ~ i none
~ anotherover perceived problems
in the
esearch. Lively debates have centered
q u a n t i ~of
,1998; Chautauqua, 1992;
Shields,
1998)
of theories
e, 1977) that we employ. Clashes have occurred over issues
esirabili~of the ideolo~esimplicit
Lannamann, 1991; Parks, 1982,1995
to whether or not our commitment to
social scienti~cmethvaluable insightsinto communication phenomena ( ~ i l l e ~
led to the premature abandonment of
ergraduates (Phillips, 1981)and has
(Chautauqua, 1990a). Finally, it is clear that rese
that they are ~ l l i n gto accept as
(Chautauqua, 1990b; Fisher, 1977; Petronio, 1994).
lthough those issues just discussed form onlya partial list of critiques
ontroversies, it should be clear that thestate of the artis a contest#
able issue.Ones conclusion reflects his or herassessment of the underlying
value systemsof our approaches, the quantityand quality of the theoretical
perspectives that inform our research, and the limitations imposed by the
methods used to acquire our data. However valuable, these critiques have
a critical standard for evaluating ourresearch: To what degree
ersonal communication research inform as to the cause and
management of socially s i ~ i f i c a nproblems?
t
In otherwords, holding aside
the quality of our ideologies, theories, and methods, are we directly address
in issues that are important to andbenefit individuals other than those of
U
ucting the research?
concern for this issue emergedduring a panel at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association in 1995. I was part of a
group of scholars who wereinvited to speak at a preconvention conference
by the Interpersonal and Small Group ~nteraction
Division that
d Beyond 2000: Visions forthe Future. Being the last speaker,I
portunity to ponder the messages of all of the other ~ r ~ s e n t e r s
prior to delivering my own observations. Each speaker addressed one or
more issues of central i~portanceto researchers w o r ~ i nin~ a given area.

FT

owever, as I listened to each presenter, I became increasingly unsett

lthough each presentation was well crafted, reasoned, and delivere
found myself askingthe ~uestion,

en if we settle these issues, what of so0

ificance willbe achieved? couldeasilysee the contribution to
scholars working in thearea, but I was unclear about the benefit to anyone
else. This is not to say that interpersonal communication researchers are
any more self-a~sorbed and self~interested than
are those resear
other areas of commun ation or in academegeneral;
in
indeed, I d
lieve that we are. Inste ,by and large, we have notbeen challenge
the social significance of our research. Therefore, we have been
the luxury of setting ouro m research agenda and evaluatin~its
significance. Indeed, textbooks about research methods a
ars to choose topics forinvestigation that are interesting
to thefield (e.g., Tucker,~ e a v e r 9 & B e r ~ a n O F198
i n1).
k , However, the re0
cent economic problems plaguingU.S. uni~ersitieshave challenged the way
we do our business. One such change is that citizens, state legislators, unic
versity administrators, a our colleagues in other departments are re
in that we show that o esearch is of use to individuals outside the
the universi~,
lest scarce resources be reallocated from us to those in
more deserving or powerfulspecializations,fields, and disciplines(see
Avery, 1995; Bach, 1997; Koester, 1 9 9 ~ ) .
My objective in this chapter is to examine the extent towhich research in
inte~ersonalcommunication addresses sociallysigni~cantissues. To do so,
I first articulate thecharacteristics of socially s i ~ i ~ c aresearch
nt
and then
present several examples that seem to fit my conception. I end with an asc
sessment of the p r o b l e ~ sassociated with conducting such scholarship.
*

In my view,socially signi~cantresearch is scholarship that addresses issues

of importance to society. In effect, such researchexplores the causes and
solutions to problems that are on thenational agenda. Consequently, soe
cially significant scholarship is problem centered, and the problems choc
sen for study arisefrom macro~social concerns (Burgoon 6,Miller,
1990). In my view, conducting socially significant scholarship will not re0
quire substantialchanges in the technical manner in
which research is performed. Indeed, I suspect that researchers could employ many of the same
methodolo~ical andstatistical tools that are currently used. Instead, it
forces us to p e r ~ o research
r~
that emo on st rates how i~terpersonalcorn~ u n i c a t i o nis linked to problems deemed by society to require action. To

have four characteristics.

want to see a conceptual framewor that informs as to our logic.

Third, we must provide relevant ata. Interpersonal communication researchers have vigorouslycritiqued d debated aspectsof our methods, in*

effects fallacy (~olloquy,~

ckson, OKeefe, Jacobs,
6r
perational clarityof our measures
es have raised important issues
ty to the quality of our methods,
owever, my experience with individuals outside
of our field leads me
to be-=
lieve that theseissues arenot of great importanceto them. Instead, external

udiences are more concerne with the relevancy of our

mean that the nature
of our mples and our measures
rectly to theissue at hand. For example, if a researcher wishes to uncov~r
the
communication processes that lead to divorce, then investigating interac~
tion
pat
ed with the
end o
rting relationships will
ficient.
social bonds associa
marriage mitigateagainst uncritically generalizing fiom
in~ividualswho are ter ating their dating
relationshi
ever, that is not to say that
ever relevant. Ascholar might
S that occur during courting p
79,1981) andcertainly, ther
ire our attention(e.g., Stets
it thescope of our inquiry to oneS
onstrate that thesample beingS
vide relevant insights into theproblem.
eyond the relevancy of our samples, we must also
ee towhich we are ~irectlyassessing the problem
communication researchers have relied heavily on dependent meas~res
that assess satisfaction with the relationship or the interaction,perceptions
of communicator competency, attraction, mood, or understan
the purview of researchers in ourspecialization, each of these measures has
led to useful knowledge about interaction. However, these measures may
not always speak directly to socially significant problems.To stay with my
earlier example, a researcher whose ultimate aim isto inform asto thecorn#
munication processes that lead to divorce may encounter skepticism if he or
she exclusively studies marital satisfaction. Certainly, marital satisfaction
and the likelihood of divorce are negatively related, but not perfectly. In0
deed, one can
identify long-term, stable marriages in which both spouses are
dissatisfied (Heaton 6:Albrecht, 1991; Lauer & Lauer, 1986) and some
marriages end in divorce regardless of their level of marital satis~action
(Udry, 1981).Hence, interactionpredictors of marital satisfaction may not
completely inform asto thelike~ihoodof divorce. Of course, one might arc
gue that thereis a pathleading from interaction todissatisfactionto divorce,
but a skeptic would require that we empirically demonstrate such a sequence, which of course means including a measure of divorce along with
our measures of interaction and satisfaction.
Even if we have a distinct focus on interaction that is informed by theory
and we are able to generate relevant data, we still mightnot be deemedto be
socially relevant; we also must choose some areaof inquiry that is of social
*

final re~uirementis d i ~ c u l tfor

, it requires the researcher to
monitor the concern of society, and we maynot be accustomedto looking exc
ternally forour research agenda. Sources
of such data include calls for
action
ocietal leaders as
well as legislation.In addition, the mass media constic
rich sourceof such i n f o ~ a t i o n .though I am not advoca
use the contentof talk showsto dictate our research agendas, public opinion
polls are reported that identify the important issues the nation faces. More*
over, there is evidence that media news coverage
and commenta~can create,
t, or reflect the national agenda (e.g.,
1995). Although not perfect ~dicators
m which we might assess the issues th
described what I believe to be defe
socially significant research, the next task isto determine whether there
are
areas of interpersonal communication research that fit my conception. I
turn to that next.

In choosing exemplars,I focused on research that demonstrated a clear imd

pact of interaction on socially S
cant problems. In doing so, I do not wish
to imply that my list of social p
S is complete, nor do I want to suggest
that any unmentioned research is necessarily deficient. My sole purpose to
is
esent the clearest examples from those areas with which I am familiar.
wen that goal, I can identify four socially significant problems
that are red
to interaction processes: (a) divorce, (b)violent crime, (c) health care,
and (d) incivili~.I consider each in turn.

In the United States, marriage affords a variety of advantages. I n d i ~ ~ u a l s

who mar^ and stay married experience greater psychological wellebeing (e.g.,
orwitz, White, 6rHowellOWhite, 1996)and lower mortality (e.g., Lillard
Waite, 1995) than dothose who remain single
or divorce. F u r t h e ~ o r erelac
,
tive to children living in intactfamilies, children whose parents are divorced
or separated evidence somewhat lower levels of
psycholo~icaland social
wellbeing m ma to 6r Keith, 1991b) and such ~ecrementsmay be greater
when they becomeadults ( h a t o &Keith, 1991a).Given these patterns, it is
not su~risingthat thepopulace is disturbed by a divorce rate thatis estimated
to be as high as6~~ (Martin 6rBumpass, 1989)and appears to be increasing
(Gottman, 1994a). Indeed, some surveys findthat many individuals believe

e mored i ~ c u l t ( ~ a t i o~n pa l ~ i o n
have considered le 'slationthat wou

e both lack of communicati

of concurrent arguing a

are committed to their relatio~hipwill voice concerns over their partner's

undesirable behaviors, whereas
uncommitted individuals will neglect or e
the association. This implies that couples moving towar divorce may initially confront one anotherover problems; however,one hey conclude the
association cannot or should not be repaired, they are more likelyto
withdraw from conflict. ~onsistentwith this notion, ~ourtright
Rogers, and Bagarozzi (1990) found among a sample
of married couples going through counseling that those who ultimately divorced became lessin*
volved and moreavoidant and indirect during their discussions of relational
issues, whereas those who stayed together remained con~ontational.
Perhaps ~ o t t m a n(1993b) offeredthe clearest explanation of the l i n ~ ~ e ~
tween interaction and divorce. It is clear that even individuals
marriages enact everyday beha~iors that
upset their spouses (e.g.,
Wiess,
nt, 1975). However, the impact of such negativebehavior
can be
the positive actions that are performed by apartner.Based
on empirical evidence, marriages remain stable when partners perceive aratio of five positiveactions for everynegative one ( ~ o t t m a n199
,
this ratio falls belowthat level, relational partners have feelings
indi~nation and innocent victimhoo~,
which inturn increase p
arousal. As time goes on, negative feelingsand arousal further re

tive to negative actions. At some point, individuals come to feel

th their spouses negative affect, whichresults in distance and is00
the spouse and recasting of the history of the marriage. From
eparation anddivorce follow.
mportantly, the previously cited process can be set off by an imbalance in
the ratio of positive to negative behaviors enacted during marital interactional problems (Gottman, 1994a). In otherwords, to remain
als should maintain the ratio of five positives to eachnegative interaction behavior, This does not mean that all married couples
achieve this balance in thesame way. Gottman (1993a) identified three stac
le marriages that have distinct ways of maintaining the balance. Volatile
couples enact a great deal of negative emotional behavior during an argue
t balance it with substantial positive actions suchas humor andafc
Validating spouses areintermediateintheir
overall level of
emotionality and balance their negative actions with statements that ac#
nowl ledge each others concerns. The conversations of conflict avoiders
are very unemotional and often involve each person describing his or her
concems with no clash or attempted persuasion. Conversely, unstable cow
ples are unable to maintain the balance of positive to negative interaction
havior either because their criticisms typicallyprompt def~nsiveness, or
rough cycles of mutual uninvolvement in the conversation foleciprocal attacks and defensiveness.
rementioned program of research also i n f o ~ as
s to thecontribue
tion of sex differencesto divorce. Gottman andLevenson (1988) reviewe
evidence showing that men are more likely than women to respond to the
ative affect that often occurs in marriage by withdrawing emotionally.In
effect, men attempt to escape physiologically punitive situations. The aue
thors speculated that this pattern is due to thegreater physical sensitivity
that men have to stressful situations relative to women. Because malewithdrawal can be viewed negativelyby women, the womans perception of the
balance of positive to negative actions is threatened. A key element in prel
venting the manfrom withdrawingstems from soothing his negative affect
during theargument ( ~ o t t m a n ,1994a).Consistent withthis view,
~ o t t m a nCoan,
,
Carrere, and
(1998) found that newlyweds are
less likelyto divorce when eitherthe manor the woman engagein interace
tion behaviors that reduce his physiological arousal.These included the de*
gree to which the wifeemployedhumor, and the extent to which the
husband responded to hernegative affect with neutral affect, validated her
position, and expressed affection for her. Indeed, theaforementioned varic
ables predicted remaining married or divorcing in 83% of the cases.

wans son

FT
~ o t t m a et
n al. (1998)concluded that a key to predicting marital stability is
egree to which husbands accept influence from their wives. When husc
S resist their wives influence attempts, an escalating pattern of negative affect results, whichin turnpredicts divorce.
Although my discussion of research on divorce is brief, it indicatesth
interaction processes play an important role in causing divorce. Indee
~ottmansresearch suggests that it is a role of sufficient magnitude that it
cannot be ignored. Furthermore, if negative interaction patterns continue
after a divorce, they can aversively impact the subsequent well
exespouses (Beman cir Turk, 1981) and their children ( ~ a t o
1991a, 1991b). Hence, we have clear evidence of the social s i ~ i ~ c a n of
ce
marital interaction.

Surveys indicate that many Ame~cansfeel truly desperate about crime

(herman, 1994),and attimes, the populace view crime asthe most impore
tant problem facingthe country(Flanagan, 1996). Moreover, in onesurvey,
roughly 20% reported that they worry about being murdered; 26% are conc
cerned that they might bebeaten up, knifed, or shot; and 3 1% fear that they
could be physically attacked while driving (Haghighi 6r. o r e ~ o n ,1996).
Although theirapprehension may be exaggerated due to television coverage of violent crime (e.g., Chiricos, Eschholz, & Certz, 1997; Haghighi
orensen, 1996)the physical and psychological toll inflicted on thevictims
of violent crime warrants concern. Hence, researchers have explore
causes and prevention of violent crimes.
There is evidence that interaction processes are one factorthe l
violence. In anearly study,~uckenbill(l977) content
analyzed the
documents related to
77 homicides. He uncovered evidence of a si
sequence thatleads to a murder. Initially, the murdervictim enga
behavior that was an affront to themurderers image. In threequarters of
the cases, the affront was an insult or refusal
a
to comply with a request. At
the secondstage, the murderer interpreted the
victims action as personal
(i.e., intentionally offensive) often because the victim confirmed such an
impression. Afterward, most murderers issued a physical or verbal chalc
lenge to the victim (Stage 3) and 14% killed the victim at this point. Of
those cases in which no murder hadyet been committed, the victims ace
tion implied a willingness to enter into
a working agreement tobe violent
(Stage 4). At this stage, the victim continued to engage in theoffensive acc
tion, although many physically retaliated or counter challenge^ the murc
derer. At Stage 5, the murderer accepted the victims definition of the

rm the crime. The last stage focused

d the scene, although
witnesses. In 7 0 of~

the police investigation. Taken asa whole, these stages

ion management the
teraction processe
on ones face.By retaliating, one candem
haps force the perpetratorofthe face atta
sult.
er, not all
face attacks pro
retali
h~othesized
to increase
intentional andille itimate, (b) when others observe the affront or encoure
(c) the insult attacke an especially important part of
ts someof Felsons(197
assaults, manslaughte
ur earlyin a violent en
andnoncomplianc
eats appear to be used asa measu
pted late inthe sequence (Felson
an important role in thesequence. Onlookers are sometimes alliesof the ofer or the victim or may have instigated a violent episo
ssistance of the offender orthe victim (Felson, Ribner,
oreo over, when thir parties enacted aggressive behaviors,the offender be(Felson et al., 1984).
ariety of disput~sincluding somein which (a) no cone
)only verbal aggression occurred, hitting
(c) occurred,
sed, Felson (1982, 1984) identi~eda three-stage sequence leading to severe violence. First,a person is observed committing a
rule violation and
the witness choosesto confiont him or her. Typically,
orders
to cease the behavior are met with noncompliance
and reproaches tend to esc
calate the conflict. However,if the rule violatoroffers an account for his or
her
action, escalation is much less likely. ~econd,individuals moveto a stage of
threats and insults that escalate to physical violence. Finallyone party subc
mits or a third party mediatesthe dispute, which bringsthe encounter toan

end short of ~ o l e n c eIf

. third parties areneutral or encourage aggressive re0
sponses, then a violent outcome results.
The previously cited research suggests that violent crimes emerge from
an interaction inwhich a person unsuccess~llyattempts to control thebee
havior of another, which leadsto identity attacks. To overcome and punish
resistance as well as to restore face, ag~essiveresponses result.
cesses are also found in episodes of domestic abuse (Rolog 1996) Clearly
then, interaction processes play an important role in violentcrime.

With increasing life span and rapidly expanding health care costs, the
United States faces a problem of how to deliver a~ordable,'~uality
health
care to all of its citizens. This issue has occupied publico cials and citizens
alike and is not likely to go away. '"here is evidence that interaction processes are related to health care issues.
Everyday lifein the ~ n i t e dStates canbe stress 1.When describing a recent emotional experience, more than two-thir
veyed describeda negative event (Scherer 6.Ta
the reported aversive events were those in which the respondentsfelt fear or
anxiety accompanied by physical s ~ p t o m ssuch as shortness of breath,
stomach cramps, shivers, changes in heartbeat,muscle t e ~ i or
n shaking,
~
and profuse sweating. Also, some respondents indicated situationsinvolving profoundsadness, which was manifested by a wavering voice, crying, and
sometimes stomach cramps and shivers. Interestingly,respondents also re4
ported that they activelytried to hide these feelings fromothers, This latter
reaction could seriously and aversively impact a person's health. There is
ample evidence that individuals who represstheir emotionalexpression retard theability of their immunesystem to combat disease (see, Petrie, Booth,
6.Davison, 1 9 9 ~ ) .
Pennebaker (1989) offered a theory that describes the link b e ~ e e nexpression of emotional trauma and health. Essentially, individuals who ace
tively attempt to inhibit theirfeelings, thoughts, and behavior arising firom
an emotionally traumatic event must engage in considerable physiolog
effort. In the short term,
this effort increasesthe person's stress level, a
continued for quite some time becomes a s i ~ i ~ c aadditional
nt
stressor that
makes him or her more susceptible to stresserelated physical and mental
problems. Moreover,by not confront in^ the emotionalturmoil, the
ual is prevented from gaininginsight into his orher problem, and the
cannot achieve resolution. In contrast,althou confronting emotional ture
moil may be immediately stressful, sustained confrontation reduces stress

creases the likelihood of gaining self-insightinto thesource

hus, confrontation may facilitate a persons psycholo~cal
being. Although not withoutmethodological limitations,
hat individuals whotalk or writeabout theirfeelings conevents in their
lives showincreased immune system active
se who do not disclose them (see Petrie et al., 1995).
inhibit their emotionalexpression
S of muscle tension related to headc

gh insightful, the aforementioned research is only suggestive of

le healthcrelated benefits of interacting about emotional
turmoil.
are asked to talk or write about their
ntext (Pennebaker, 1989). Although
the researchers make every attempt to create rapport with participants in
r to their description of their problems (i.e.,they indicate conrticipants),the disclosure occurswithout anyone being presstrong assurances that no attempt will e made to link the
losure to the nameof the participant. In art,researchers are
more natural contextualcues such as having anothe
disclosure would sociallyinhibit communication, a
is some evidence in support of this conjecture (Pennebaker,
ron, 1987). This implies that to be helpful, those who interact with
uals who have undergone emotional trauma must findways ofmakre easier. Indeed, individuals who have lost a loved one report
g the opportuni~to emotionally vent is one of the most helpful
gestures they received from others (Lehman, Ellard, 6,~ o r t m a n , 1 9 8 ~ ) .
Onemeans might be for
the helper to also engagein emotional expression.
y doing so, the helper might make the individual feel more comfortable
ing his orher feelings. Indeed, several studies have found that
alth outcomes are related to emotional exchan between
e
phylemens 6,Lapkins~a,1984;
Although expressing emotional reactions to stressful situations seems to
be an important factor in health care, it is also important that i n f o ~ a t i o n
exchange occur. Research on doctor-patient interaction finds that a pa,
tients health improves when the physician not only provides information
andbut
alsosuccessfullysolicits information from thepatient (see
Tho
,1994).~nfortunately,some research indicatesthat information
exchange tends to be limited in scope. For example, Makoul,Arnts
~chofield(1995) found that in videotaped interactions between

ults, $ $felt
~ that incivility was a ser

onsequences of uncivil speech

e~periencingnegative intera

l well0being (Lakey,T a r d i ~&Drew, ~ 9 9Ro

~;
als who receive inconsiderate criticism of their task perfor.
eangry, try to avoid or resist the critic, and have lower
who receiveconsiderate criticism (
rate negative feedback from an inity, individuals suffergreater loss of self-esteem and felt respect within the
social system than when receiving considerate negative feedback ( ~ m i t h ,
Tyler, Muo, Ortiz, 6r Lind, 1998). Even individuals who engage in uncivil
speech often e~periencenegative outcomes.Direct verbal attacks a
cism figure prominently among statements people regret having
sonal and relational harm that they do
Although the aforemention~d
research focuses on i ~ d i v i d uW
a~
it is possiblethat incivility impacts society as a whole.
Tyler and
a model that posits that a persons commitment and voluntary
co~plianceto the authorities of a social system
is partially afunction of the

ee to which such figures treat the person with dignity and politeness.
en treated inan inconsiderate manner by authority figures, the individ~
ual may feel that those in charge follow unfair decision-makingprocedures
and do not
consider him or her to be a valuable member of the group. Consec
quently, an individual perceives authorities to be illegitimate and has little
desire to voluntarily comply with their directives. Indeed, if seen as a general
pattern of inconsiderateness, a single rude encounter with an authority fig+
cient to reduce commitment to the social system (Tyler,
ecause incivility can reduce the well~being
of individuals and thesocial
system in which they reside, it is essential that we identify its causes. To do
so, it is helpful to define what might be considered incivility. At its core, incivility impliesthat a person has violated an expectation for sociallyapproprir
ate behavior. One such expectation is that an individual should honor
rojected image or at least try to avoid violating his or her face
Simmons, 1978).Although theprecise nature of face is complex
ers, 1991) and expectations for being face-supportive are not
equal for all individuals (Burgoon, Dillard, &x Doran, 1983), thereis a general expectationthat individuals should communicate ina polite and cone
siderate manner.
In some cases,the cause of incivility resides withinthe speaker. Forexample, some individuals have
a predisposition to attack the
self-concepts of others (Infante &x Rancer, 1996) and consequently intentionally enact a variety
offormsofverbalaggression
(I
ddle, Horvath, &xTulmin, 1.99~).
A16
te~atively,the tendency to
incivility to
another may also
vary
individuals. Hample (1999) noted that some individuals are prediso perceive any formof opposition to their stances and positions asan
attack on their self-concepts, and hence, they may see any criticismdirected
toward their positions as being more verbally aggressivethan doothers.
It is also possiblethat incivility emergesout of a pattern of interac~onbe+
tween two people. Baumeister, Stillwell,
and ~ o t m a n(1990) asked individu0
als to provide accounts of situations in which someonehad angered them and
of incidences in which they had angered someone else.
The two setsof narratives suggested diRerent outlooks
on the interaction. W e n having been an0
gered by someone else, individuals were more
likely to perceive the situation
as having resulted from accumulating provocation,
attempts to avoid a cone
ont tat ion on their part, and continued harm after the con~ontation than
if
they had angered another. When having angered someone else, individuals
were more likelyto perceive the problem as beingan isolated incident, that
the con~ontersanger was exaggerated and
unjusti~ed,and that theproblem

the victim that the provocatio~

seven steps: requests

to stop
plaints,angry statements,

lly acceptable fashion,a

an important part of incional communication researchers continue t

investigate new ones.

X must admitthat at the outset

of this project I was uncertain as to what
would find. ~ o s literature
t
reviews of inte~ersonalcommunication re0
search are organized by co~municationphenomena (e.g., nonverbal come
munication, language) or by context (e.g., family communication) rather
than by societal problem. Often reviewers do noteven address issuesof so@
cial relevancy. I was pleased and relieved to find examples of researchers
who are addressing socia~lys i ~ i f i c a n issues,
t
and who often produce starc
tling evidence that int~ractionprocesses play a substantial role in social
problems. That is not toimply that theresearch I reviewed is perfect. I am
sure that a more detailed analysis ofthe aforementioned scholarship would
reveal shortcomings. Regardless,they provide plausible evidence of our so-cial relevancy.
However, I also uncovered some badnews. The reader who is familiar
with the research I cited will have noted that the
majority of studies were
conducted by scholars whoare not in com~unication
departments, and itis

that they would label themselves

interpersonal communication re.Although this could simply reflecta selection bias on my part,
tually reflectsthe fact that researchers outside of communication
have historically done a better job addressing social s i ~ i f i c a nissues.
t
This
is not tosay that our research is of low quality. Inde had I approached this
task in a traditional way, I could id en ti^ research programs conducted by
scholars in comm~nicationdepartments that are theoretically grounded,
methodologically rigorous,and importantto thefie1
ip often falls short of directly addressing social probl
h its signifi~ance, one
must argumentatively finess
relevancy by noting possible im~licationsfor social problems
rather than by
presenting direct empirical links. In my opinio~)this strate
ence, we need more research that provi
uct socially s i ~ i ~ c a research
nt
will not
ems and challenges. First, our research
will
c ~ l l a ~ r a t i vMany
e.
social problems
have b
disciplines, and they have strong interes~,extensive literatures, and methodological resources (e.g., relevant samples
and measurement
at canbe broughtto bear in conducting research. For example,
orce is an ~ ~ o r t a area
n t for scholarsin cli
S. Professors in medical schools are
interest
tient interaction. ~ r ~ i n o l o g i shave
t s explored violent crime. If we remain
isolated from these groups) our research will be d i ~ c u lto
t conduct and will
not be visible to those who have strongtraditional interests in the area. Although establishing such interdisciplinaryconnections can be d i ~ c u l tthey
,
are a necessary ingredient for establishing
our social significance.
Second, we must expand the focus of our current theory and research.
Appropriately, manyof our theoreticalframeworks have focused on theproduction of verbal and nonverbal stimuli, and they have served us well.
ever, those ~ameworksstop short of drawing explicit conceptual l
social consequences. Alte~atively,conceptualizations include
view cast interaction processes asinitiators of causal sequences
social problem(e ,Tyler & Lind, 1992) whereas in others, interaction
proc
cesses serve asm iators between initiating events andconsequences (e.g.,
Felson, 1984). Regardless of the role of interaction portrayed by these
frameworks, they provide clarity with regard to how interaction processes
influence social problems.
Third, we must shift our research designs to gather socially relevant data.
I noted from the outset that we have become sophisticated with respect to
methodolo~ical and
statistical issues, and I do notbelieve that doing socially
)

relevant research woul require abandonment of our current methods.

ever, such a shift requires that we include direct measures of the probe are researching and draw samples fromthe populations that are afvex, we may have to shift our interests from
longitudinal research, which might unc
more serious problems.I suspect that theinteraction processes that le
ivorce, violent crime, and incivility may come to a hea
e nature of prior interactions heavi
reover, we might findthat many p
It in socially relevant outcomes.
mestic violencefrequently escalates from a verbally aggressiveact, most verc
bally aggressive interactions do not result in physical aggression ( R o l o ~
rocesses longitudinally,we will evelop an income
of the process. Such longitudinal research will be
mething that current tenurepractices does not afc
ers. Moreover, it will require resources garnered
,which few of ushave sought (~urgoon,~ 9 ~ ~ ) .
Fourth, we mustlearntospeaktocitizens,practitioners,and
policymakers. ~urrently,our research does not seem to diffuse much further
ence, we must findways ofgetting the i n f o ~ a t i o nto inter*
ould note that many ofthe researchers I cited inmy review
have produced books that are intended for nonacademic markets (e.g.,
~ o t t m a n1994b;
,
Pennebaker,1990). Furthermore, we may have to address
issues related to the treatmentof social problemsand conductresearch that
evaluates such interventions. Withfew exceptions (e.g., Motley
1994), most interpersonal communication researchers have not
issues related to treatment and policy.
Fifth, we will need to monitor the social problemsof the day and this may
prove to be problematic. The national agenda is a negotiated phenomenon,
and itscontent canchange. Hence, an porta ant topic could be rendered
in6
si~ificantbefore a research programcan be completed. Moreover,
to dictate
ones research agendaby the needs of society could resultin becoming a sere
vant to the
interests of those groups who are able
to gain the attentionof the
media and gove~ment.Also, p~vilegingnational issues could shift our
attention from the needs of local constituencies (e.g., training u n d e r ~ a ~ u a t e s ) .
Although the aforementioned are serious concerns, I am doubtful that
they would be significant obstacles.
The social problemsidentified in this re*
view have been on the
national agenda for some
time, and I doubt they will
ever become irrelevant. Moreover, it is possible to construe societal problems in a manner thatserves localconstituencies. For example, to the extent

that one can

demonstrate thatcommunication apprehension aversively ime
pacts educational performance, whichin turn retarS employment opportuc
nities, then one canmake a strongcase for imple nting programs to help
undergraduates overcome their apprehension.
Finally, we willneed to overcome our own inertia. Most researchers, in0
~luding
myself, are comfortable with what they do.
r all, it is what has rec
sulted in professional and personal career succeswever,
it wouldbe a
mistake to suggest to young scholars and graduate studentsthat thetried
and truepath tosuccess will workin thefuture. ~ l t h o u g hI do notwish to
overstate the case, I suspect that current practices will beine~ectivefor the
next generation of scholars. External accountabili~pressures are increas0
ing, and they will render less relevant ~eld-drivenevaluations of research
ence, academic survival and success will increas
on theability to demonstrate that one conductsresearch that makes a difference to society. In doing so, we not only ensure our own survival, but we
simultaneously improve the quality of our scholarship and the society in
which we live.

I wish to acknowledge the assistance of each of the following peoplein in0

completing this project: Professors Peter Miller, Charles
Joseph Cappella, and Gaylen Paulson.

Amato, E!R., &Keith, B. (1991a). Parental divorceand adult w e l l - b e i n g . 3 0 o~ f~M

~ u~ge
and the ~ u ~ i53,
~ 43-58.
y ,
Amato, E R., & Keith, B. (1991b). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A
cu~
I IO, 2 6 - 4 6
meta-analysis. P s y c h o ~ o ~~~lletin,
Avery, R. K. (1995). Mining the mother load.~ e s t eo ~f ~3 ~ ~~ ~~ n~59,246-25
i c~ u t ~1. ~ ,
Bach, B. W. (1997). Putting an end to arrogance: Tips for climbing down from the ivory
a ~ ,
tower. ~ e s t3e o~ ~of ~C ol m ~ ~ n ~61,c 338-342.
Baron, R. A. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efi0of A ~~ ~P~~
s ~ ~c ~h eo ~d73,
o ~199-207.
,
cacy, and task performance. 3
Baumeister, R. E,Stillwell, A., ~ ~ o t m aS.nR., (1990). Victim and perpetrator accounts of
interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives about anger. 3
0 of P ~
e r s o ~~l ~ t y ~
o~,
and S o c P~ s ~~ c h o ~59,994-1005.
Benson, T W., 6Pearce, W. B. (1977). Alternative theoretical bases forthe study of human
communication: A symposium [Special issue]. ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~i ~c rut et r25
~~(1)
yo , ~
Berger, C. R. (1991). Communication theories and other curios. C o m ~ ~ n ~ c uMonot~on
~ u ~ h58,
s ,101-1 13.
~ t ~ o nPaper presentedat
Berger, C. R. (1998, April). Are therereally sofew c o m ~ ~ n ~ ctheo~es?
the annual meeting of the Central StatesCommunication Association, Chicago.
I

Berman, W. H., 6. Turk, D. S. (1981). Adaptation to divorce: Problems and coping strategies. ] ~ ~ of uMurriuge
l
and the Fu~ily,42, 179-189.
Birchler, G. R.,Wiess, R. L., 6. Vincent, J. E (1975). Multimethod analysis of social reinforcement exchangebetweenmaritallydistressed
and nondistressedspouse and
stranger dyads. ]
~ of P ~e r s ~u~and
~ t ~Social
y
P s ~ c h o ~3o1~, 349-360.
,
Boster, E J. (1988). Comments on the utility of compliance-gaining message selections
tasks. ~~~n ~ o ~ ~ u n i c u tResearch,
ion
15, 169-177.
to inducBoster, E J., StifT, J.B., 6. Reynolds, R. A. (1985). Do persons respond difTerently
tivel~derivedand deductively derived lists
of compliance-gainingmessages strategies:
A reply to Wiseman and Schenk-Hamlin. ~ e s t e ~of]S~eech
~ ~ Cl ~ ~ ~ n ~ c u 49,
tion,
177-187.
Burgoon, M.(1988). Extramural funding
or extracurricularresearch: That is the choice. A
research editorial.~ e s t e ~ of] Speech
o ~ ~
C o~~ ~ ~ n ~ u 52,
t i o252-258.
n,
Burgoon, M.(1995). Akinder, gentler discipline: Feeling good
about being mediocre.In B. R.
Burleson (Ed.), C ~ ~ ~ n iyeur~ok
c u t 18
~ (pp. 464478). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
urgoon, N.,
Dillard,J. E,CSS. Doran, N.E. (1983). Friendlyor unfriendly persuasion:The effects of violations of expectations by males and females. ~
~ C o ~~~ u n ui c u t ~Reno n
seurch, IO,283-294.
Burgoon, M., 6r Miller, G. R. (1990). Paths. C ~ ~ ~ n i cMono~u~hs,
u t ~ n 57, 152-160.
Burleson, B. R. (Ed.). (1995). C ~ ~ ~y e u~r ~ o~o18.
~ Thousand
c u tOaks,
~ CA:
~ Sage.
Burleson, B. R., G3, Wilson, S. (1988).On the continued undesirability of item desirability:
A reply to Boster, Hunter and Seibold. H ~ ~ ~u ~n ~ ~ nReseu~ch,
~ c 1
u5, 178-191.
t ~ n
Burleson, B. R.,Wilson, S. R., Waltman, M. S., Goering, E. M., Ely, 71: K., 6r. Whaley, B.B.
(1988). Item desirability of effects in compliance-gaining research: Seven studies
documenting artifactsin the strategy selection procedures.
~~~n C o ~ ~ ~ n ~ cReseurch,
ut~on
14,429486.
Chautauqua. (1990a).Are rhetoric and scienceincompatible?C o ~ ~ u n ~ c uMt ~ o~n o ~ u ~ ~
57,309-332.
Chautauqua. (1990b). On the validity and generalizability of conversation analysis
methods. C o ~ ~ ~ n i c u t i o n M ~ o57,
~ u23
p h1-249.
s,
Chautauqua. (1992). A reprise
of whyare there so few communication theories?
C o ~ ~ ~
cution M o n o ~ u p59,
~ , 79-107.
Chiricos, T,Eschholz, S., 6r Gertz, M.(1997). Crime, news and fear of crime: Towardan
e ~ ,
identification of audience effects.Social ~ r o ~44,~ 342-358.
~ u ~ Cuo nm ~ ~ n ~ Res~rch,
c u t i ~ 9,169-191.
Colloquy. (1983). Generalizing about messages.
Colloquy. (1988). On generalization.~~~n C o ~ ~ ~ n ~ c uReseurch,
t i o n 15, 112-151.
Courtright, J. A., Millar,EE., Rogers,L.E,, &Bagarozzi,D.(1990).Interactiond~amicsof
relational negotiation: Reconciliation versus termination of distressed relationships.
~ o429-453.
n,
~ e s t e ~ l oof~Speech
~ u lC ~ ~ ~ n i c u t54,
Felson, R.B. (1978).Aggression as impression
management. SocialPs~cholo~,
41,205-2 13.
Felson, R. B. (1982). Impression management and the escalation of aggression and violence. Social P s y c h o ~ o ~ ~ u r t45,
e r ~245-254.
y,
interaction. In A. ~ummendey(Ed.),SoFelson, R.B. (1984). Patterns of aggressive social
cial ~ s ~ c h of
o u~go~ e~s s ~ oFrom
n ; ~ndivid~u~ ~ehuv~or
social i~teruct~on
(pp. 108-124).
Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Felson, R. B., Ribner, S. A., 6. Siegel, M.S. (1984).Age and the effect of third parties during
criminal violence.S o c ~ o ~and
o ~Social Research, 68, 452-462.

Felson, R. B., 6, Steadman, H. J. (1983). Situational factors in disputes leadingto criminal

o ~59-74.
,
violence. C ~ m i n o ~21,
Fisher, B. A. (Ed.). (1977).What criteria shouldbe used to judge the admissibility of evie
dence to support theoretical propositions regarding communicationresearch? [Special
0of Speech
~ C~~ m ~~ n ~ 4ul (t1).
i ~ ,
issue]. Western 3
~itzpatrick,M. A. (1988). ~ e t w e e nh ~ b u and
n ~wives: C o m m u n ~ c uin
t ~m~u r ~ g eThou.
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Flanagan, 'XJ. (1996) Public opinionand public policyin criminal justice. In
?
:J. Flanagan
6,D. R. Longmire (Eds.),
A m ~ view
u crime
~ u n d ~ ~ t i cAe ~
: t i ~ ~o~inion
p usurvey
b ~ ~
(pp. 15 1-158).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
~ o t t m a nJ., M. (1993a). The roles of conflict engagement, escalation,and avoidance in
marital interaction: A longitudinalview of five types couples.~ou~u~
of
ofC~su~t~ngund
C ~ i n ~psycho
c u ~ lo^, 61, 6-15.
s t a b i l i t y . 3 ~o ~
f ~~ u m Psy~~y
~ o t t m a nJ., M. (1993b). A theory ofmarital dissolution and
C ~ O ~ 7,
O 57-75.
~ ,
~ o t t m a nJ., M. (1994a). ~t
red^^ divorce? The re~utionship~ e t ~ e e n ~ r i ~ ~ p rand
ocesses
~ r i t o~tcomes.
u ~
Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
~ o t t m a nJ., M. (1994b). Why ~ ~ gsucceed
e sor fail. New York: Simon6 Schuster.
Gottman, J.M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., 6, Swanson, C. (1998). Predicting marital happiness
and stability from newlywed interactions.3 o ~ r n uo ~f ~ u ~and
g ethe ~ u m i ~60,
y , 5-22.
Gottman, J. M., 6Levenson, R. W. (1988).The social psychophysiolo~of marriage. In I?
Noller 6 M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspect~~es
on mur~tu~
~nteruction(pp. 182-200).
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ha~highi,B., & Sorensen, J. (1996). America's fear of crime. In T J. Flanagan & D. R.
~ crime and j ~ s t A~ nut~onu~
e ~
p~blic
o p i n survey
~
(pp.
Longmire (Eds.), A m e r ~ c uwiew
16-30). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Hample, D. (1999). The life space of personalized
conflicts.In M. E. Roloff(Ed.),C ~ m u n ~ ~
cut^^ yeurbook 23 (pp. 17 1-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Heaton, 'XB,, &Albrecht, S. L. (1991). Stable unhappy marriages.3ou~lo ~ ~ u ~ ~ e u n
the Fumi~y,53, 747-758.
Heszen-Klemens, I., 6, Lapkinska, E. (1984). Doctor-patient interaction, patients' health
behavior and effectsof treatment. Social Science and Medicine, 19, 9-18.
S. (1996). Becoming married and mental
Horwitz, A. V,,White, H. R., 6Ho~ell~White,
~ the
g Fame
health: A longitudinal studyof a cohort of younga d u l t s . 3 0 o~ ~f ~~ u ~and
ily, 58, 895-907.
Hunter,J. E., Hamilton, M. A., 6,Allen, M. (1989).The design and analysis of language
exh s ,
periments in communication. ~ o m m u n ~ c u t ~Mo n~ o ~ u ~56,3
and verbal aggressiveness:A reInfante, D. A., &LRancer, A.S. (1996). Argumentativeness
19
view of recent theory and research. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Co~m~nicution yeurboo~
(pp. 3 19-352). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Infante, D.A., Riddle,B. L., Horvath, C. L., 6,Tulmin, S. A. (1992). Verbal aggressiveness:
~ ~ ,
Messages and reasons. C o m m u n ~ u t ~ n~ r t e40,r 116-126.
Jackson, S., O'Keefe, D.I., Jacobs, S., 6Bashers, D. E.(1989).Messages asreplications: Toward a message-centered design strategy.Communicution M o n o ~ u ~ h56,
s , 364-384.
Kaplan, S. H.,Greenfield, S., 6, Ware, J. E. (1989). Impact of the doctor-patient relationship on the outcomes of chronic disease. InM. Stewart (Sr.D. Roter (Eds.), Com~unicuting with medicu~~ u t ~ n(pp.
t s 228-245). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kellermann, K., & Cole, 71: (1994). Classifying compliance gaining messages: Taxonomic
c u t 4,3-60.
~ ~
disorder and strategic conhsion. C o ~ ~ ~ n iTheory,
Kitson, G. C., & Sussman, M.B. (1982). Marital complaints, demographiccharacter~tics,
e F u ~ ~43,87-100.
y,
and symptoms ofmental distress dini v o r c e . ~ o~ f~ ~f u ~U&g the
napp, M. L., & Miller, G. R. (1985). ~ u n d & o o k o f ~ n t e ~ e r sco no u~l ~ ~ n Thousand
~ c u t ~ ~ .
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Knapp, M. L., & Miller, G. R. (1994). Hund&ooko f i n t e r ~ e ~ s o ~ ~ c o ~(2nd
~ ~ ed.).
n~cut~on
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Knapp, M.L., Miller, G. R., 6 Fudge, K. (1994). Background and current trends in the
study of inte~ersonalcommunication. In N. L. Knapp& G. R. Miller (Eds.),~ u n d & o o k
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
o f ~ n t e r ~ e r s ~ ~ c o ~ (2nd
~ ~ ned.,
~ c upp.
t i 3-20).
on
L., 6Daly, J. A. (1986). Regrettablemessages: Things people wish
napp, M. L,,Sta~ord,
they hadnt said.
of C ~ ~ ~ n ~ c u 36,
t i o40-58.
n,
ester,J. (1996).On disciplining ourselves.~ e s t e ~ ~ ~ ~ f
60,285-289.
o f C o ~ ~ ~ n
~ssessmentand
Lakey, B., Tardiff, 7: A,, & Drew, J.B. (1994). Negative social interactions:
relations to social support, cognition, and psychological distress. ~0~~~ of so cia^ und
~ ~ i P sny c~~ ou~2o3,
~~63-85.
,
Lannamann, J.W. (1991). Interpersonal communication research as ideological practice.
C o ~ ~ ~ n i Theory,
c a t i ~
I , 179-203.
Lauer, R. H.,& Lauer, J.C. (1986). Factors
in long-term marriage.~o~~uf
o f ~ u ~Issues,
~ f y7,
382-390.
Lehman, D. R., Ellard,J. H., & ~ o r t m a nC.
, B. (1986). Social support
for the bereaved: Recipientsand providers perspectives
on what is h e l p h l . ~ o~ f~C uo ~ ~ 2 t ~ n g u n d C ~ i n ~
P s y c h o ~ o54,438-446.
~,
Waite, L. J. (1995). Till death do us part: Marital disruption
and mortality.
A ~ e ~ u of S~ o c~~ o o~ 200,
o~
~ , 113
~ 1-1
u 156.
~
Lim, X, & Bowers, J.W. (1991). Facework: Solidarity, approbation,
and tact. H
~ C m~n
~ ~ n ~ cResearch,
a t i ~17,415-450.
Luckenbill, D. F, (1977). Criminal homicideas a situated transaction. Socia2 P r o & ~ e ~25,
s,
176-186.
MakouI, G.,Arntson, E,& Schofield, 71: (1995). Health promotion in primary care: Physic
cian-patient comm~nicationand decision making about prescription medications.
Social Science und Medicine, 4 1, 124 1-1 254.
Markman, M.J. (1979). Application of a behavioralmodel of marriage in predicting relationship satisfaction
of couples planningmarriage.~o~~uf
o ~ c o n s ~ ~and
t ~ Cn g
~ ~ nPsy~u2
c h o ~ o47,
~ , 743-749.
Markman, H.J. (1981). Prediction of marital distress:A 5-year follow-up.~~~f
of Cons ~ ~ t i and
n g Cfinicu~
P s ~ c49,~ 760-762.
~ ~ ,
Martin, 7: C., & Bumpass, L. (1989). Recent trends in marital disruption.~ e ~ o ~26,u ~ ~ y
37-51.
NcCall, G. I., & Simmons, J. L. (1978). Identities and interact~ons;
A n e x u ~0~~~~~
~ ~ t ~ ~
~ s o c ~ tini eo v~ e ~ life
~ y(rev. ed.). New York: The Free Press.
McCombs, M.,Danielian, L., & Wanta, W. (1995). Issues in the news and the public
agenda: The agenda-setting tradition. In 71: L. Glasser 6 C. T. Salmon (Eds.), P ~ & ~ ~ c
o ~ ~ n i and
o n the c ~ ~ ~ n ~ cofuconsent
t ~ o (pp.
n 281-300). New York: Guilford.
McGonagle, K. A., Kessler, R. C., & Gotlib, I. H.(1993). The effects of marital disagreement style, frequency, andoutcome on marital disruption.~ o ~
o ~ ~S Oand
u CfP~e r~s o ~ f
R e ~ t i o ~ s10,
~~
385-404.
~s,
~~~~

Mikolic, J.M., Parker, J. C., & Pruitt, D. C. (1997). Escalation in response to persistent annoyance: Groups versus individuals
and gender effects.3
~of Perso~l~ty
~
l and Social
Psycholo#, 72, 151-163.
Miller, G. R.
(1981). Tis the season to be jolly: A Yuletide 1980 assessment of communication
7, 371-377.
tion research.~ u m a n C ~ m u n ~ c aResearch,
Motley, M. X , & Molloy, J. L. (1994). An efficacy test of a new therapy (communica~
tionorientati0n motivation) for public speaking anxiety.
J o u of~A ~ ~ Commun~~
~
~
cation Research, 22,48-58.
National Opinion Research Center. (1994). General social survey codebook variable:
DIVLAW [Online]. Retrieved http://icpsr.umich.edu/GSS/codebook/div1aw.htm
From The World Wide Web: 8/98.
Parks, M. l? (1982). Ideology in interpersonalcommunication: Off the couch andinto the
world. In M.Burgoon (Ed.), C ~ m u n ~ cyea~~ook
a t ~ 5 (pp. 79-107). New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction.
Parks, M. l? (1995). Ideology in interpersonal co~munication:Beyond the couches, talk
shows, and bunkers. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.),C o m ~ u n ~ a t i year~ook
on
I8 (pp. 480-497).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1989). Confession,hib bit ion, and disease. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),A d v a ~ e s
~ ~ 22,
~ pp. 21 1-244). San Diego, CA: Academic.
in e ~ e ~ ~social
e np t s ~ y c (Vol.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1990). O ~ e n ~ up:
n g The heal~ngpower of c ~ ~ d in~ others.
n g New York:
Morrow.
Pennebaker, J. W., Hughes, C.,& OHeeron, R. C. (1987). The psychophysiolo~
of confession: Linkinginhibitor and psychosomatic p r o c e s s e s . 3 ~
o f~p~e r~s ~ l i t and
y SocialPsychO~o#, 52, 781-793.
Petrie, J., Booth, R. J., &Davison, K.l? (1995). Repression, disclosure,
andimmune funce
~,
tion: Recent findings and methodologicalissues. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.),E ~ o t i odishea~th(pp. 223-240). Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.
Petronio, S. (Ed.). (1994).The dialogue of evidence: A topic revisited [Special issue].
West.
ern 3 o u of~C ~o m ~ u n ~ c a58t (l).
~~,
Phillips, G.N.(1981). Science and the study of human communication:An inquiry Erom
u C~m
~ u n ~nc a t Research,
~on
7,361-370.
the other side of the two cultures. ~
Poole, M.S., &L Folger, J. l? (1981). A method
for establishingthe representational validity of
u C ~ ~m u n ~ a~esearch,
t i ~ 8,
interaction coding systems: Do we see what they
see?~
26-42.
Pruitt, D. G., Parker,J. C., CFX. Mikolic, J.M.(1997). Escalationas a reaction to persistent ant ~ o of
~ C~o n ~ ~Management,
ct
8, 252-270.
noyance. The ~ n t e ~ a3~~~
Roioff, M.E. (1996).The catalyst hypothesis: Conditions under which coercive
co~muni0
cation leads to physical aggression.In D. D. Cahn & S. A. Lloyd (Eds.),Fam~ly~ ~ o ~ e n c e
from a c o ~ ~ u n ~ c a~t e~ros ~
n e c t ~(pp.
v e 20-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rook, K. S. (1984). The negative side of social interaction. Impact on psychological
well-being. 3 o u of~Persona~~t~
~
and Social psycho^#, 46, 1097-1 108.
G. A., Slovik, L. F., &Lipkus, I. (1991). AccommodaRusbult, C. E.,Verette, J., Whitney,
Jour.
tion processesin close relationships: Theoryand preliminary empirical evidence.
nal of Persona~ity and Social Psycho~o#,60, 53-78.
in everyday life:A surScherer, K,R.,& Tannenbaurn, l? H. (1986).Emotional experiences
vey approach. Motivation and E ~ o t ~ oInO,
, 295-3 14.

K.

Seibold, R. R.(1988). A response to itemdesirability in compliance gaining research.

Hw
w n c Q ~ ~ ~ n Reseurch,
~ c u t ~1
o5,n152-161.
Sherman, R. (1994, April18).Crimes toll on the US: Fears, despair and guns. ~ u t ~ oLaw
nu~
pp. Al, A19-A20.
Shields, D. E. (1998, April). Are there reu~~y
so few c o ~ ~ ~ n ~ ctheories?
u t ~ o Paper
n
presented
at the annual meeting of the Central States Communication Association, Chicago.
Smith, H. J., Tyler, T R., Huo, Y. J., Ortiz, D. J., & Lind, E. A.(1998). The self-relevantimplications of the group-value model: Groups membership, self-worth, and treatment
quality. ~~~u~ of ~ ~ ~ e ~so cia^
~ epsycho^^,
n t u 34,
~ 470-493.
Stets, J. E., &Henderson, D. A. (1991). Contextual factors surrounding conflict resolution
~ 29-36.
~ ,
while dating: Resu~tsfrom anational study. ~u~~~~R e ~ t40,
Thompson, T L. (1994). Inte~ersonalcommunication andhealth. In M. L.
Miller (Eds.), ~ u n d ~ o o kf ~ n t e ~ e r s o ~ ~ c (2nd
o ~ ~ed.,
~ npp.
~ 696-725).
u t ~ o n Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Traue, H. C. (1995). Inhibition and muscle tensionin myogenic pain, In J. W. Pennebaker
(Ed.), ~ ~ o t i do ~~ c,~ o s ~ r e , ~ e(pp.
u ~155-1
t h 76). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tucker, R. K.,Weaver, R. L., 6r ~ e ~ a n - F i nC.
k ,(1981). ~eseurchin speech c o ~ ~ ~ n ~ c u tion. Englew~dCliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Tyler, T.R., Degoey, E,&Smith, H. (1996). Understanding
why the justice of group procedures matters: test
A of the psychological dynamics of
the group-value model.^^^^ of
o ~ 913-930.
,
~ e r s o ~and
~ ~Social
t y P s y c ~ o ~70,
Tyler, X R., & Lind, E. A.(1992). A relational
model ofauthority in groups. In M. IF! Zanna
(Ed.), Ad~uncesin e x ~ e ~ ~social
e n pt s~y ~c ~ o (Vol.
~ o ~ 25, pp. 115-192).San Diego, CA:
Academic.
arital alternatives and marital disruption.~
o of ~ ~
u~u d the
u~
~ ~
~ u ~ i43,
~ y
889-897.
,
US.News and or^ Report. (1996).Specialreport:Civilitypoll [Online]. Retrieved
http://~.usnews.co~usnews/news/reudpol~.htm
From the World Wide Web: 8/98.
Wiseman, R.L.,& Schenk-Ham~in,W. (1981). A multidimensional scaling validation
of an
inductively-derived set of compliance0gaining strategies.C o ~ ~ ~ n ~ u t ~ o ~
48, 25 1-270.
~~~~)

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

PhD, ~ i c h i g a nState University, 1996)is an Assistan

epartment of Communication Studies at ~alifornia
Universi~ at
Sacramento. In addition to studying the effect that atti
similarity has on interpersonal attraction, his research has also focuse
compliance gaining in interpersonal relationships and thepersuasiveness of
narrative evidence, Dr. AhYun has published in journals such as t h e ~ o ~ ~ l
of ~ p p l i e ~ C ~ ~ u n iReseurc~,
c u t i o n C ~ ~ u n i c u t iStudies,
on
and C o ~ ~ u n i ~
cation Reseurc~Reports.
(PhD, ~ i c h i ~ State
a n Uni~ersity,
1987) is Professor in the
Communication at the University of W i s c o n s ~ O ~ i l w a u
His morethan 100 published works
deal with issues of HIVIAIDS education
and prevention,drug use, persuasion,and othersources of social in~uence.
His workhas appeared in ~ e u l t ~ E d and
~ c u~ ~e~ ~
o nv ~ o C~ o, ~ ~ ~ ~
~
o of ~ eu r s oand
~~ l Social
~ R e ~ t i o n s ~Law
i ~ s ,u n ~~~n
~
cutio~ Reseurc~,
~ e ~and~C oi ~ ~o ~ ~
n i cEduc~tion.
ut~n
~~~~

~ i c h i g a nState University, 1968)is Professorin the

cation, University of California, Davis. His research
interests include the roles cognitivestructures and processes playin social in,
teraction and the ways apprehension and estimates of personal riskare influenced by various featuresof news reports. He is the former presidentof the
Intemational ~ommunicationAssociation, editor of ~
u C ~~ ~ n~ n ~ u
i c u tHis
~ book
n P ~ n n ~Sn gt r u ~ ~
Reseurc~and codeditor of ~ ~ ~ ~ n Reseurc~.

t (Erlbaum)
e ~ compiled
~ ~ his
~ researchon plans, plann
recent articles ~~0~~~ of C
~
~an
h have presented his workon threatening
~erception.

rently investigating the impact

systems for organizations.

or Canary is the Editor~Elect

of the ~ e s t~0~~~
e ~ of ~o~~
serves asan editorial board member for several
other schole

PhD, University of Oklahoma, 1999 is a n ~ s s i s t aProfesnt

rd Stockton College of New Jersey. er major areasof inter
sonal, Health, and I~tructionalC munication. Professor
Crovvell continues to investigate HIV positive heterosexualscommunica~
tion, attitudes andbehaviors prior to heterosexually contracting the virus,
in order to link the communication, attitudes a
individuals to those who are not infected. Her
to motivate heterosexually individuals to start to personalize the risk of
IV and engage in safer sexualcommunication and behaviors.

er (PhD, Universi~of Nebraska,

at ~ e s t e r nIllinois University. Her research interests fa
areas of conflict and sex differencesin communication.
ecutive Secretary for the ~rganizationfor the ~ t u of
~ Communication,
y
~ a n g u a and
~ e Gender. Her work has been pu~lished ~~~n
in
C
tion R e s e a ~ c ~ , ~ o ~ ~ ~Researc~
n i c a t i~
o n e ~~ oo~ ~~ ~ n
~ i c, a t i o n
and C o ~ ~ ~ n i c u t i o n R e ~ o ~ t s .

,Michigan State University, 1983) is

Director of the Center for Commu

search at the University of Wisco~in~Madison
His research interests re0
volve around thestudy of influence and persuasion with a special emphasis
on therole of emotion in ~ersuasion.addition
In
to the any research articles and book chapters he has authored, isheresponsible forthe book entitled seek in^ c ~ ~ l i a n cThe
e : ~ r o d u c &of~i nn t e ~ e r s o ~ l i ~
n e~sus ae ~~ees .
is co-editor of the f o r t ~ c o m i nP~e r s ~ i o n ~ a n d ~ o o k ~ in~T e v e~ l o ~o e n ~
a d Pr~tice.
Dillard has served asthe Chairof the Inte~ersonalDivision of
ional ~ommunication~sociation
and currently sits on theedifor five socialscience journals. In recognition of his research
achievements, he receiv the Villas
Associate
Award
fro
ison
in 1994 and the John E. unter Award for ~eta*Analysis

University of Washington, 1981) isa Professor in the

~ e p a r t m e nof
t Co~munication at University
the
of Wisc
She has served on theeditorial board f o r l o u ~ofl S o c ~ l
t i o ~ h i ~~s , u C o ~~~ u nn~ c a tResearch,
ion
~~~l of A ~ ~ ~~i e od ~ ~ ~ ~
tion,] o u ~ aof
l C ~ ~ u n i c a & i and
o n 9W o ~ e n ' s S t ~ini eCs m
co-edited Sex di~erencesan^ s i ~ i ~ ~ in
t i ceos~ ~ u n i c a tai o ~
tion in ~ e r s o ~ l r e ~ t i Dinda
o ~ h i ~has
s published
.
a~pro~imately
30 arti~les
and book chapters including articles in P s y c ~ ~ ~ c a~~~n
~
C~ ~o l ~~ t~i
~ u n i c a t i ~ ~ e s~e aor cu~of, Social
~ l and Personal R e ~ t i o ~ ~
i ~persona^
s,
and
Re~tions~i~s.

er (PhD, Ohio University, 1995) is Associate Pro*

fessor in the Departmentof Communication at the~ n i v e r s of
i ~Arizona,
Emmers0Sornme~sarea of research is "problematic communication'' in sod
cia1 and personal relationships
be found in journals such as
ion ~ a r ~ o o]ko, u ~ofl Social
a d P e r s o ~Rl e ~ t i o ~ h i pCs ,
rterly, ] o ~of C
~ o ~l ~ u n i c u 0
tion, and
the ~
oof Sex~
~
l
o the
co-author,
along
with
Daniel J. Canary9of the 1997 ~uilfordbook, Sex and ~ e d edifferences
r
in persona~r e ~ t i o ~ h i ~ s .

(PhD, Temple ~ n i v e r s i ~
1976)
,
is Professor of corn0
for the Social Sciencesat theU ~ v e r sofi Wiscon~
sin. Her research interests are
interaction
in
in personal and social
rela~o~hips.
She has ~ u b l i s h ein~ numerous journals such asC ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~a ~ n
1~~ of socia
~
~
~
~ ] n ~of ~
a ~ P~ ~ s ~ eetc.c ~ ~ ~
~ ~ cn and
l Social

ommunicut~on,
]ournul o f ~ ~ ~ l i e d ~ ~ m u nMan,
icution,
terly and ~ o ~ m u n i c u tResearch
io~
R e ~ o ~ .

language in social interacti

~ommu~icution
Reseurch,
o ~ m ~ n i c u and
t i ~~, ~ m ~ n i c u tTi o~n o ~ .

,1975) is Professor of ~ o m m u n i c a ~
search interests are primarily argua
conflict management. His
~

~u~ ~~ d ~ n o c ~~ .

(PhD, Michigan State University, 1991) isa n ~ s s i s t aPront

rch interests focus on message features and his workhas been published in theJournul o f ~ n ~ uand
ge
Social ~ s y c h o l o ~ .

(PhD, Michigan State University, 1975) is Professor of

Communication Studies at Northwestern University. His primary research
area is i n t e ~ e r s o n influence
a~
with a specific focus
on conflict m a n a ~ e ~ e n t
and bargaining and ne~otiation. He
is currently is coceditor of ~
~
~
u
o wrote
~ . InReseurch and has been the editor of the C o m ~ u n i c u t ~ nu r ~ oHe
o~~ ~ ~ m u nThe
~ Social
u ~E x~c ~;n ~ e A ~and
~ ohas
u c cocedited
h
.His articleshave appeared in ~ ~ m u n ~ a t ~ o Cnome M o
Reseurc~,~~~n ~ ~ m u n i c a t i Research,
on
I n ~ ~ t i o ~ l Iofo u ~
~ e ~ t ~ ~ h i ~ s .

~ ~ i (PhD,
s s University of Oregon, 1988) is Professor and
Chair of the Department of ~ommunicationand Theater at the
University

of Iowa, 2 0 0 ~is) an~ssistant

r in
~ommunicationStudiesth
at
sity
theory and research focuses on
nce relationshi~s,
lished co-authore

r e l a t i o ~ s h commitment.
i~

Universi~of outh hem ~alifomia,1981) is

~ o m m u ~ i c a t i o n San
a t Diego State ~niversty.
is scholarly interests are in inte
ct, relational violence, sexualc
~ e ~ ~ e ~ s o n f f ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~
(1984,
i c f f t i o n ~ o ~ ~ e t e ~

xas, 2QQl) is an ~ s i s t a n t
e University of Wise
ation inromantic re0
at include roma~tic
S, and ~ r e ~ ~ a r icome
tal
~ o n o ~ f f ~ ~ ,

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Anderson, K. B., 317,337

Anderson, W.F?, 326
Andrews, E H.,77,416
Abbey, A., 265
Applegate, J. A., 26,31, 140, 218, 227
Abrahams, M.E,26
Archer, R.L., 175, 181, 182
Acitelli, L. K.,220
Argyle, M,,93
Acker, M.,215
Aries, E.,418
Adams, H. E.,49
Arnkoff,D. B., 78
Adelman, M.B., 114, 145, 265
Ashmore, R.D., 93
Adler, R.,379,380,381
Ah Yun, K.,10, 113, 115, 117, 118, 120, Ashworth, S., 235
Atkeson, B. M,,329
145-162,413,414
Atkinson, D. R., 153
Ainlay, S. L.,251
Atkinson, J. W.,
284, 285
Alawyie, C. Z., 60,61
Auerbach, S. N.,250
Alawyie, O., 60,61
Avery, A. W.,
248
Alberts, J. K.,402
Avery, R.K.,425
Albin, R.,318
Avtgis, T, A., 296
Albrecht, S. L.,427
Allen, M.,3-11, 7,9, 10, 13,35,36,46,
48, 50,54,59-71,61,62, 70,
112,115, 118,125-141,134,
Babrow, A.,234, 236
140, 170, 171, 175, 179, 180,
219,425
Bach, B. W.,
216,218,220,223,227-242,
Bachman,
G.,
52
255,263-215,269,330,332,
Backes, J., 60
334,335,336,337,345-364,
Backus, D., 188, 192
345-365,361,371-386,372,
Badzek, L.,l15
373,377,384,389,390,391,
Badzinski, 2 15
392,393,394,395,396,410,
Bagarozzi, D.,429
412,413,416,426
Bahk, C., 47
Alpert-Gillis, L.J., 60
Altman, I., 115, 116, 117, 177, 180, 181 Bailey, B., 139
Baldwin, M.W., 253
Amato, F? R.,391,428,431
~angert-Downs,R.,235,332
Anchor, K.N.,177
Bannister,
D., 227
Andersen, P A., 390,392,418
Banski, M.,227
Barge, J. K.,219

Bargh, J. A.,18, 23
Barker, R. C., 28,30
BarNir, A., 390,391
Baron, R.A., 435
Barrera, M,,251
Barry, W. A., 358,359,360
Bart, E B., 329
Bashers, D. E,,426
aumeister, R. E,49, 50,436
Bavelas, J. B., 23, 24
Baxter, L.A.,33,5 1,219, 220, 253,
264,347,417
Bayer, C. L.,219
Beatty, C., 219, 227
Beavin, J. H., 24
Becchofer, L.,316,321,326,327
Beck, K.,84
Beelmann, A.,94
Bell, 358
Bell, R.A., 5 1, 78
Bellack, A. S., 95,96
Bennett, X, 251,252
Benson, X W,, 424
Benton, M.K.,94
Berg, J. H., 181
Berger, C. R.,13-37, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21,
26,30,36, 114, 151,220, 221,
374,386,424
Berkowitz, N.N.,145
Berman, W. H., 431
Bernstein, D.A.,96
Berry, C. J., 315
B e ~ m a n 0 ~ i nC.,
k , 425
Berscheid, E., 145, 253
Berschied, E.,117
Bethea, M.C,, 416
Bilge, B., 249
Billings, A., 356,358,359,360
Bilous, F. R.,82
Birchler, G. R.,429
Black, A.,23
Blair, C., 4 17
Blake, R.R.,348
Blau, E, 117
Blickle, G., 295, 296,307
Blumstein, E, 75
Biust, R. S., 60
Bobrow, D., 139
Bochner, A. E, 145
Boelkins, R.C., 290
Bohan, J. S., 60

Bond, J. R.,347
Bond, M.,147,148
Booth, R.J., 433
Booth0Butte~eld,M,,113,215
Booth-Butte~eld,S., 113
Borzi, M.C., 349
Boster, F:J., 25, 187, 295,307,426
Bostwick, X D.,325,328,331
Bourhis, J., 390, 392
Bowers, J. W., 217
Bowlby, J., 250, 253
Bowman, C. H., 150
Bradac, J. J., 53, 78
Braden, N.,49
Bradford, L., 18,385
Bradley, E H., 78
Brady, E. C., 329
Brandt, D. R., 221
Brashers, D. E., 115, 188
Braunwald, C. J., 78
Bregezel, K.,255
Brewer, W. E, 17,26, 29,30
Bringle, R.G., 49
Britton, E, 269
Brommel, B. J., 259
Brooks, C. I., 60
Brouwer, D.,77,84
Brown, B. A.,116
Brown, C. J., 417
Brown, C. X, 347,359
Brown, K. E, 60
Brown, E, 217
Brown, W., 154
Bruce, B., 27
Bruce, K.,263
Bruning, S. D.,282
Bryant, B., 93
Bryant, J., 318
Buerkel, R.A.,219
Bukowski, W. N.,93
Bullis, C., 215, 219, 220
Bumpass, L.,428
Burant, E! A., 219
Burggraf, C. S., 34,399
50, 119,390,408,424,
Burgoon, N.,
425,436,439
BurgrafT, C., 412
Burke, J., 227
Burke, E J., 326

R., 14, 16, 17, 18,31, 36, Chodorow, 409

47, 152, 215, 227, 228, Chovil,
229, N.,23
230,231,234,239,240, 241, Chrisler, J. C., 329
423,426
Christensen, A., 346,347,356,358,

Burleson, B.

Burnam, M.A.,329
360,399
Burrel1,N. A., 53,77,83, 112, 115, Christopher,
118,
E S., 328,331
125-141,134,216,227,
Chusmir, L. H.,348
247-259,390,391,396
Cienki, S. J., 60
Burt, M.,318
Cissna, K.N.L., 218
Buunk, B., 215,222,399
Clark, M.L., 60
Byers, E. A., 319,320,325,326,335,
Clements, N.,
399
336,337,338
Clifton, A.K., 76
Byrne, D.,21, 145
147,
, 148, 149, 151,
Cline, R., 117, 118
154,157,160,161,414
Clore, G. L., 19, 145
Cloven, D.H.,222
Coan, J., 430
Cobb, S., 250
Cacioppo, J. T,296
Cochran, S., 264
Calabrese, R.J., 114, 151, 152
Cody, M.J., 20, 22,29, 189, 192, 193,
Cafhoun, K.,329
202,203
Callender, J., 235
Cohen, J., 5,360,396,402
Camden, C. T,75
Cohen, S., 250
Campbell, D.T,28,254
Coldiron, R., 60
Canary, D.J., 10,47,48, 74,93,94, 118,
Cole, T,426
215,220,221,374,389-403,
Coley, B., 269
393,399,401
Colletti, S. E,412
Cantor, N., 32
Collins, N. L., 169, 172, 174
173,
Capella, J. N., 33, 145,397
Collins, R.,410,412
Carbonell, J. G., 27
Conger, J. C., 96
Cardello, L.L.,53
Conley, J., 78
Carey, C. N.,
328,335
Connell, J. E,60
Carey, M.,269
Conway, T, 78
Carli, L. L,,
75, 76
77,
, 78, 113, 361 Cook, S. W.,
315,322,326
Carre, S., 356
Cook, T,11
Carrere, S., 430
Coombs, L. C., 153
Carter, E, 227
Cooper, H., 317
Casey, R.J., 113
Cooper, H.N.,
3,45,348
Cassel, J., 250
Coopersmith, S. A.,59
Casto, R.,248
Corrigan, F! W., 94
Caughlin, J., 26
Corriveau, D.E, 96
Cegala, D.J., 26, 219
Cortese, A.,329
Chaffee, S.H.,
14
Coursol, A.,395
Chaftez, 358
Courtright, J. A.,429
Chambliss, J., 61
Cox, S. A., 118
Chammah, A.M.,347
Cramer, D.,132
Chang, N.,153
Crockett, W., 230, 231
Chanin, M.N., 346,355
Crosby, F., 76, 77,84
Chautaugua, 424
Crowell, T L., 10, 218, 263-275
Check, J. V., 319,329,335
Cummings, H.W.,
346,349
Chelune, G. J., 176
Cummings, K.,326
Cherry, E, 147, 148
Cupach, W.R.,90,93,217,218,399
Chiricos, T,431
Curran, J. R, 96, 147, 148, 151, 154, 159

Cutrona, C. E,, 216,249, 250,251, 252, Dukes, R. L., 60

253,254,259
Duncan, O., 233,236
D u ~ k e l ~ S c ~ e t tC.,
e r ,251, 252
Duquesne, E, 84
Duran, R.L., l 1 3
ISAllessio, D., 255
Dallinger, J. M.,36, 114, 115, 118, 119,

187-207,189,191,192,202,

203, 205, 206,390,391,413,

416
Daly, J.A., 5 1 , 4 3 5
Dam~rot,E H., 327
Danielian, L., 428
Daniels, 1:D., 118
Davies, R.A., 78
Davis, M.H., 215
Davis, R. M,,49
Davison, K. E,433
Deaux, K.,7 7 , 4 1 8
de Dreu, C. K.W., 222
DeFrancisco, V., 373
Degauquier, C., 84
Degoey, E,436
DeHaan, D., 77
Delia, J., 227, 229
DeLucia, J. L.,3 2 5 , 3 2 8 , 3 3 1
Denton, W. H., 152
Derlega, V. J., 169, 175, 181
Deutsch, M.,20
DeWine, S., 3 4 9 , 3 5 3 , 3 5 4 , 3 5 5
DeWolfe, T E., 145
Diamond, M.J., 147
diBattista, I?, 26
Dickens, W.J., 214
Dillard, J. E, 17,22,27,35,36,48,50,52,
54,89-104, 93,104,119,229,
390,391,397,412,413,416
Dindia, K.,10, 74, 75, 112, 1x5, 117,

118,120,140,169-184,170,
171, 175, 177, 179, 180, 181,

182,373,379,390,392,393,
395,396,410,413,417
Dinero, T E., 3 2 8 , 3 3 6
DiSalvo, V. S., 349
Dolin, D. J., 215
Donohue, W.A., 1 3 , 3 9 0 , 3 9 2
Doran, N.E.,436
21,52
Douglas, W,
Dowling, R. E., 282
Drew, J. B., 435
Driscoll, G., 402
Duck, S., 2 1 , 3 3 , 1 1 1 , 214

Eagly, A. H., 9 3 , 3 4 7 , 3 4 8 , 3 6 1 , 3 6 2 ,
390,391,392,396,398,402,
417
Eccles, J. S., 60
Edelstein, B. A., 96
Edgar, T,269,273
Edwards, R.,50
Eisenberg, N.,240
Eisenhart, M.A.,418
Eldridge, G., 269
Ellard, J. H., 434
Elliott, N.K.,78
Ellis, B., 236
Emmers, T M.,3 5 , 3 3 0 , 3 3 2 , 3 3 4 , 3 3 5 ,
336,337,390,393
Emmers-Sommer, XM.,10,35, 218,
221,223,263-275,269,
315-339,390,393,415
Engelbert, M.,269
Entwisle, D. R., 76, 84
Ervin, C , R., l47
Eschholz, S., 431
Eskilson, A., 78
Euwema, M.C., 347
Ezeilo, B. N.,
61

Fabes, R. A., 322,395

Falcon, IF! L.,326
Fallis, S., 412
Farace, R. B., 24
Farrell, A. D., 96
Faulkner, S., 393
Feingold, A., 1 1 3 , 4 1 2 , 4 1 3
Felson, R.B., 432,438
Festinger, L., 18
Fincham, F. D.,47
Fink, E., 269, 273
Fischer, C., 254
Fishbein, M.,150
Fisher, B. A., 424
Fisher, l. D., 250
,

Fitz~atrick,M.A.,51, 181, 215, 220,

221, 266, 267,349,374,
407-420,412,414,417,429
Flanagan, T J., 43 1
Flint, L.J., 53, 282
Flora, J., 269
Floyd, K.,215
Foa, E., 117
Foa, U., 117

Gabel, H., 177

Gagnon, J. H., 409
Gale, W.S., 76
Galvin, K,N.,259
Gamble, N.,380,381
Gamble, T,380, 381
Ganley, R.,113
Garvey, C., 76,84
Gass, R. H., 291
Gayle, B. M.,10,45-54,49,53,
111-120,213--224, 223,
345-364,345-365,349,390,
393,397,398,399,400,412
Gebhardt, L.J., 332
Geen, R. G., 290
Gerritsen, M.,77
Gerstel, N.,254,257,259
Gertz, N.,431
Gibson, T, W.,
75
Gidycz, C. A.,322
Giery, M,,332
Giles, H., 18,46,50, 78
Gilley, H., 77, 84
Gilligan, C., 347
Glass, G., 348,389
Clover, J., l15
Goetting, A.,254, 259
Goflman, E.,50,217,218
Goggins, M.E, 316

Golding, J. M.,329
Goldsmith, D.,215,417
Golightly, C., 147
Golombok, S., 132
Goodchilds, J. D.,337
Goodstein, L.,327, 336
Gordon, C., 269
Cordon, W.,
295
Gormally, J., 96
Gotlib, I. H., 429
Gottlieb, B. H., 254
Gottman, J. N.,34,346,356,358,360,
399,400, 428,429,430,431,
439
Could, R.J., 78
Gouldner, A.W.,
175
Graham, D.,27
Gray, J., 73, 134,416
Green, G. M,,29, 134
Greenberg, B. S., 49,349
Greene, J. 0.)16
Greener, J., 235
Greenfield, S., 434
Gregg, N.,373
Griffitt, W B., 145, 147, 148
Grob, L. M.,61,389,391
Gropper, N.B., 62
Gudykunst, W.,
116,379

Haas, A.,77
Habasch, A.,295
Haghighi, B.,431
Halberstadt, A. G., 390
Hale, J. L.,328
Haleta, L. L.,
78
Hall, G. C. N.,338
Hall, J. A.,78, 390, 391,411, 413
Hamilton, M.A.,219,236,281-311,
305,413,426
Hammer, M.R.,217
Hammond, S., 269,273
Hample, D.,36, 114, 115, 119,
187-207,189, 191,202,206,
390,391,413,416,436
Hansford, B. C,, 46
Hanson, T,373
Harden, J. M,,119
Harney, E A.., 327
Hartley, K.C., 282
Harvey, J.H., 47

Hatfield, E., 113,329

Hattie, J. A.,46
Hause, K. S., 10
Hayes, D. l?, 103
Heaton, 71: B.,427
Heavey, C. L., 346,347,356,358,360,
399,400
Hedges, L.,3, 11
Hedges, L.V, 134,371
Heider, F., 21,47
Heise, D., 233
Heiser, J. F., 290
Heller, K.,251
Helmreich, R.,60
Henderson, D. A.,427
He~ett-Skjellum,
J., 62, 70
Hertel, R. K.,358
Heszen-Klemens, L.,434
Hewes, D. E.,16, 27
Higgins, D. A.,322, 395
Higgins, M.A.,282
Hill, C., 248
Hill, C. "K,170, 176, 180, 181
Hillis, J. D., 328
Hinde, R.,414
Hines, E, l15
Hirschman, R.,338
Hitchens, D., 133
Hobfall, S., 269
Hodge, C. N.,61
Hogg, M.A.,78
Hollabau~h,L. C., 329
Holland, D. C., 418
Homans, G., 117
Honeycutt, J. M.,17
Hopper, R.,74,78
Horn, L. H., 215,358
Horvath, C. L.,436
Honvitz, A.V, 428
Hosdale, D. C., 329
Hosman, L.A.,78
Hotvedt, M.,134
House, J. S., 254
Houston, M.,373
Howell, J. L.,132
S., 428
Howell~~hite,
Hughes, C., 434
Hulnick, R.,61
Hunt, A.,147
Hunter, J., 3
Hunter, J. E.,13,98, 134, 146, 154, 235,
236, 255, 271, 286, 287, 294,

332,348,390,392,394,408,
426
Huo, Y. J., 435
Hur, G., 282
Hyde, J., 10
Hyde, J. S., 396,408,409,411,417,418
Imahori, ?:T,218
Incontro, C. R.,84
Indvik, J., 51,220, 221
Infante, D. A.,49, 218,219, 282,283,
284,285,287,288,291,292,
294,295,304,305,307,309,
436
Ingraham, L.J., 182
Ingram,J. M.,61
Ireland, S., 269
Jacklin, C. N.,60,413
Jackson,A.,269
Jackson, D., 24,26
Jackson, G., 98
Jackson, G. B., 154,394
Jackson, L. A.,61,69, 145
Jackson,S., 188, 191,235,426
Jacobs, S., 52,53,426
Jacobson, N.S., 347,348,356
James, M.R.,84
Jaster, F., 353
Javaid, G., 134
Jenefsky, C., 373
Jenkins, M,J., 113,327
Joanning,H., 248
Johnson, B. "K,390,391,392
Johnson, C., 78
Johnson, F., 373
Johnson, G. N.,
113
Johnson, K, L.,328
Johnston,J. R.,254
Jones,J. M.,316
Jones, II S., 412
Jordan,J. M.,20, 189
Josephs, L.,49
Jourard,S. M,,169, 171, 175, 178,410
Kalichman, S. C., 269
Kanin, R.,322,328,336

Kaplan, S. H., 434

Kaplan, S. J., 20
Karau, S. J., 390,392
Kaufinan, G., 249
Kazoleas, D.,295,307
Keith, B., 3 9 1 , 4 2 8 , 4 3 1
Kellermann, K., 2 2 7 , 4 2 6
Kelley, H., 117
Kelly, L., 113
Kennedy, C. W., 75
Kenny, D.A., 1 7 7 , 1 7 8 , 1 8 1
Kerkstra, A., 399
Kessler, R. C., 429
Ketelaar, T,19
Kihlstrom, J. E,32
Kilmann, E R.,250
Kim, H., 229
Kirkpatrick, C., 147
Kirkpatrick, M.,132
Kite, M.E., 408
Kitson, G. C., 2 4 7 , 4 2 9
Kleber, D.,132
Kleck, G., 329
Klein, H.A.,61
Kleinke, C. L., 9 0
Kline, S., 227
Klonsky, B. G., 390
Kluwer, E,S., 222
Knapp, M.L., 4 2 3 , 4 2 6 , 4 3 5
Knight, G. E,3 2 2 , 3 2 3 , 3 2 9 , 3 3 8 , 3 9 5
Knowlton, S. W., 26
Koester, J., 425
Kofron, C. E,3 4 8 , 3 5 3 , 3 5 4
Kohr, R. L., 6 0 , 6 8
Kolb, D.M.,83
Kollock, E?,75
Konovosky, M.A., 353
Konsky, C. W., 78
Koper, R.J., 5 3 , 7 7 , 8 3
Korrnan, S. K., 3 1 9 , 3 2 7 , 3 3 5
Kom, C . J., 116
Kosberb, R. L., 296
Kosberg, R.L., 291
Koss, M,E,3 1 6 , 3 2 2 , 3 2 6 , 3 2 7 , 3 2 8 , 3 3 6
Kraft-Hanak, S., 399
Kramarae, C., 373
Kramer, C,, 83, 118
Krauss, S., 82
Kreissen, E O., 51
Kreitler, H.,31
Kreitler, S., 31
Krokoff, L. J., 3 5 6 , 3 5 8 , 3 5 9

Krone, K. J., 3 6 1 , 3 9 0 , 3 9 2
Kuhn, L., 3 1 6 , 3 2 6

Lack, A. M.,221
La France, M.,418
Laing, R.D.,47
Lakey, B., 435
Lakoff, R.,6 1 , 7 4 , 7 5 , 8 2 , 8 3
Lamberth, J., 147
Langer, E.J., 18
Langlois, J. H., 113
Lannamann, J. W., 424
Lapkinska, E.,434
Lauer, J. C., 427
Lauer, R. H., 427
Lavin, J., 269
Layne, C., 3 4 7 , 3 9 9
Leaper, C., 3 9 0 , 3 9 1
Leary, 50
Leavy, R.L., 254
Lee, E C., 47, 62
LeGette, H. R.,60, 61
Lehman, D.R.,2 5 2 , 4 3 4
Leichty, G., 218
Leighton, S., 416
Leppin, A., 250, 251
Lerner, R. M.,60
Leslie, G. R., 115,3 19
~
~
~
3
Levin, D.M.,252
Levine, E.,235
Levine, E.M.,3 2 8 , 3 3 6
Levine, T,295
Levinson, S., 217
Leviton, L., 1 1
Levitskaya, A., 329
Lewis, J. J., 349
Lichtenstein, E. H., 17, 26, 29, 3 0
Lillard, L. A., 428
Lirn, T,217
Lind, E. A.,7 8 , 4 3 5 , 4 3 8
Linkskold, S., 347
Linton, M.A., 329
Lipkus, I., 429
Lippold, S., 147, 148, 151, 159
Littlejohn, S., 227
London, M.,353
Longo, L. C., 93
Lasel, F., 9 4
Lovelace, C., 373

Luchow, A. K.,259
Luckenbill, D. F., 431
Ludlum, J., 361,390
Lund, M,, 215
Lundell, X L., 78,84

Mabry, E.,227
Maccoby, E. E.,60,413
Mac Donald,J. M., 320,323,324,325,
329,330,338
MacFarlane, R.,252
MacNaughton, J. S., 337
Maggiore, D.,134
Ma~oney,E. R.,322
Major, B., 77
Mak~ijani,M.G., 93,390
Malamuth, N.M., 329,335
Malanuth, N. M., 319
Malinak, J., 389
Malone, S., 93
Malow, R.,269
Man~el,J., 134
Manusov, V., 48
Margolin, G., 347,358,359, 360,399
Mar~ulis,S. 'X,169
Markman, H. J., 399,427
Martin, D.,53
Martin, M. M., 52, 282
Martin, X C., 428
Martinez, R.,60.
Martinez0Diaz, J. A.,96
Marwell, G., 191
Masters, J. R.,60
Mathes, E. W., 49
Mattrey, M. J., 374, 389-403
May, S. K., 216
Mays, V., 264
McCain, X A.,113
McCall, G. J., 112,436
McCombs, M., 428
McCormick, N.B., 331
McCros~ey,J. C., 113
Mc~onald,D., 269, 273
McDonald, M. A.,353
McDowell, E.,349,355
McFarlane, A,H.,249
McGee, R.,60
McGonagle, K. A.,429

~ c G r a t hD.,
, 76
McGraw, B., 348
McKenry, E C., 248,254
McLaugh~in,M, L., 22,29, 189
McMillan, J. R.,76, 77, 81
McPhee, R.,234,236
Meeker, F. B.,90
Meltzer, L., 103
Menees, M. M., 49
Messman, S. J., 223,401
Metts, S., 47, 169, 217, 266, 267
Mikach, 139
Mikesell, R. L.,223
Mikolic, J. M., 437
Millar, E E.,24, 214,429
Miller, C., 25
Miller, G., 230
Miller, G. R.,26, 33, 148, 151, 187,423,
424,425,426
Miller, J. B., 358,359,360
Miller, K., 236
Miller, L.,410,412
Miller, L. C., 29, 169, 172, 173, 174,
177,178,189
Miller, E, 240
Miller, R.L., 18
Mills, J., 348
Mineo, l? J., 219,281-311,305,413
Mitchell, H. E.,147
Molloy, J. L.,439
Monge, E, 233
Mongeau, F? A.,328,335
Monroe, C., 349
Montgomery, B. M., 33
Moore, E., 240
M o o ~ a nM.
, T,215
Morris, K.X, 329
Morrow, L.A.,61
Mosher, D. L., 322,328,336
Motley, M. X, 439
Mouton, J. S., 348
Moyer, J., 145
Muehlenhard, C. L.,315,316,322,325,
326,327,328,329,331,335,
336,337
Mulac, A.,75,76, 77, 78,84
Muller, D.,6 1
Mullett, J., 23
Mullis, A.K., 60
Mullis, R. L., 60
Mungas, D. M., 96
Munroe, S. M., 96

Murdock, C. E,247
Murphy, L., 230
Musambira, C. W., 219
Musolc K. E., 117, 118
Myers, K. A., 202,219

Nass, C., 269

Natalle, E.J., 355
Nelson, D,A,, 148
Neuliep, J. W., 115
~euwirth,C., 227
Newcomb, A. E,93
Newcomb, "K,147
Newcomb, "K M., 21
new comb^, N., 78
Newman, D.,27
Newton, D.A., 119
Newtson, D.,29,30
Nicotera, A. M,, 49,50
Nietzel, M. "K,96
Nishid~,"K,116
Noller, E,414
Norman, G. R.,49,249
Normandin, D.,60
Norton, ,R'W., 53
Nowak, M,, 347,356,358,359,360
Nungesser, L., 132
Nunnally, J., 98
Nyquist, L.,76, 77,84

O'Barr, W. M,,74, 78
O'Brien, C. E.,390
O'Brien, E H., 329
O'Dell, L., 12'7
O'Ronnell, L.,258
O'Heeron, R.C., 434
Okamura, L.,317
O'Keefe, B., 229
O'Keefe, D.,
188, 193
O'Keefe, D.J., 227, 229,426
Olbrechts0Tyteca, L.,3 11
Oliver, M.B., 408,409,411
Olkin, I., 134
Olson, K.,269
Ortiz, D,J., 435
Osborne, W. L.,60, 61
Osburn, H., 235

Osgmd, C. E.,20
Osowiecki, Z,329
Palmer, M. Z,145,221
Papa, M. J., 355
Park, D.W., 391
Parker, J. C., 437
Parks, M.E, 424
Parks, M.R.,48,53, 114, 145
Parrot, A., 316,321, 322,326,327,336
Parry, D.,53,412
Pattee, L.,93
Patterson, C., 132
Patterson, M. L.,93
Paxson, M. A., 96
Payne, S., 227
Pearce, W. B., 424
Pearson, J. C., 75, 259
Pedhazur, E.,233
Pennebaker, J. W., 433,434,439
Perelman, C. H.,31l
Perlman, D.,214
Perregaux, J. L.,358,359,360
Petrie, K. J., 433, 434
Petronio, S., 18, 169,424
Pett, M., 248
Pettey, G. E.,53
Petty, R.E.,296
Pfingsten, U.,94
Phillips, G. N., 424
Phillipson, 47
Pierce, G., 25 1, 253
Pierce-Otay,A., 113
Pietrornonaco, E,93
Pike, G. R.,412
Pillon, A., 84
Pirog-Good, M. A., 326
Pitman, G., 1l1
Planalp, S., 18, 19, 253
Plant, E. A., 10,396,417
Poole, M,S,, 426
Poppen, E J., 315,316
Potapova, E., 329
Predmore, S. C , , 50
Preiss, R.W., 3-11, 10,45-54, 46,49,
111-120,213-224,223,227,
345-364,345-365,371-386,
372,391,412
Price, S. J., 248, 254
Procidano, M.E., 93, 251

Proctor, R., 380

Pruitt, D. C., 437
Putnam, L, L.,
349,353,354
Pyszczynski, T,49

Query, J. L., 53

Rahim, A.,349
Rancer, A.S., 219, 282, 283, 284,285,
287,288, 291,292, 294,296,
304,305,307,309,436
Rapoport, A.,347
Raschke, H. J., 247
Raush, H. L.,358,359,360
Ray, E. B., 53
Reddy, M.J., 23
Redmon, K,,412
Reeder, G. D.,47
Reichel, L.S., 113
Resick, l? A.,356
Retzinger, S, M.,222
Reynolds,R. A.,426
Rhamey, R., 147
Rhodewalt, F. W, 50
Ribner, S. A.,432
Richman, C. L.,60,61
Riddle, B, L,,436
Riesner-Danner, L.A.,113
Ritchie, D., 417
Ritts, V., 93
Roach, K. D., 52
Roberts, L.J., 356,358,359
Rogan, R. G., 217
Rogers, L. E., 24,214,429
Rogers, M.A.,412
RogersMillar, L.E., 24
Roggman, L.A.,113
Rohrle, B.,93
Roloff, M.E., 117, 187, 222, 349, 374,
386,423440,433,439
Romano, J. M.,96
Rompa, D.,269
Rook, K. S., 93,435
Rosenbaum, M.E.,148, 149,160
Rosenberg, M.,49, 59
Rosenfeld, L.,216,379
Rosenthal, C., 45, 103, 258,348,360
l

Ross, V., 273

Rothenberger, J., 264
Rowland, K. W., 353
Roy, R. G., 249
Rubin, D. B., 360
Rubin, R, B., 52
Ruble, T L., 347,348
Rudd, J. E.,219
Rusbult, C. E.,215,429
Ryan, C. M,,61,115

Sadker, D., 60,61,62,70

Sadker, N.,60,61,62,70
Sagrestano,L. M.,399
Sahlstein, E., 7, 10,48,50,54,59-71,
391,393,412,413
Samp, J. A.,22
Sarnter, W.,
227,228, 230,240
Sanders,J. A.,291, 292,309, 390
Sarason, B., 25 1,253
Satir, V., 248
Satterfield,A.X, 316
Sayles, S., 329
Scardino, '
K J., 327,336
Schaap, C., 399
Schachter, S., 18,21
Schaefer, K.,53
Schauble, E,248
Schein, S., 153
Schenk-Hamlin, W.,
426
Scherer, K. R.,433
Schiller, B., 147
Schmidt, F., 3,98, 1341, 235,332,348,
408
Schmidt, F. L., 146, 154,255, 271, 294,
394
Schmitt, D. R., 191
Schneer, J. A.,346,347,348,355
Schofield, T,434
Scholes, J., 78
Schooley, M,,147
Schrag, J. L.,322,326
Schroeder, H.E.,94
Schuekle, D.,349,355
Schuh, R., 140
Schutz, W.C., 20,222
Schwartz, E?, 75
Schwartz, R. D., 28
Schwarzer, R., 250, 251

Scudder,J. N.,77
Sechrest, L.,28
Seeds, D.E., 219,282
Segal, N.J., 315,316
Segrin, C., 93,94, 119
Seibold, D.R., 187,426
Senft, W., 295
Sharkey, W. E,26
Shaw, C. M.,50
Shepherd, J., 269
Shepherd, El E., 219,282
Shepherd, X L.,347
Sherk, D.L.,78
Sherman, R.,431
Shields, D.E., 424
Shively, M.D.,322
D.,
Shondrick, D, 338
Shotland, R. L.,327,336
Shrum, J., 263
Siebury, E., 218
Siegel, J. M.,329
Siegel, M.S., 432
Siegler, R. S., 78
Sigelman, C. K.,315
Silitsky, D.,259
Sillars,A.L.,23,34,47,48, 222,399,
412
Silvern, L.,399
Silvestri, V N.,291
Simkins0Bullock,J. A.,75
Simmons, J. L.,49,436
Simon, W., 409
Simons, H. W., 145
Singer, J. L., 18
Singh, R.,145
Skifington, E. W., 60
Sleight, C.,229
Slovik, L.E, 263,429
Smeaton, G., 145
Smith, H. J., 435,436
Smith, L., 134
Smith, M.L.,348
Snyder, E., 18,50
Soglolow,E.,272
Solomon, D.H., 22,49
Somera, L,,229
Sommer, G., 93
Somoza, M,,29
Sone, El G., 354
Sorell, G. X, 60
Sorenson, S. B., 329,431
Soriano, L.J., 346,349

Spanier, G. B., 248

Spearman,C., 154
Spector, R.,235
Spence,J. X , 60
Spence, S. H.,96
Spencer, X , 177
Spiker, B. K., 118
Spitzack, C., 417
BK35,3647,
!B,%,IcJ3,l
Sprague, J., 70
Sprecher, S., 113,329
Srull, 'X K.,19
Stafford, L., 118,215, 220,221,435
Staley, C. M.,76,83, 84
Stander, N.E.,348
Staneski, R.A.,90
S ~ ~ PJ., P60
,
Steadman, H.J., 432
Stebleton, M,,264
Steffen, V J., 362
Stein,J. A.,329
Steinberg, M.,33, 230
Stemberg, R.J., 346,349
Stets, J. E., 326,427
Stewart, H. L.,416
Stewart, L,,379
Stiff, J. B., 229, 236, 239, 240,426
Stillwell, A.,436
Stinnett, N.,132
Stinson, K.,248
Stock, W. E.,318,319,323
Stone, C. G., 78, 147
Stoneman, M.,227
Storr, A.,290
Straf, M,,11
Strassberg, D.S., 4, 177
Street, R.,46,50
Streiner, D.L,,249
Struckman0Johnson,C. J., 315,322,
326,328,331,336,337
Stryker, J., 275
Stull, D.E., 170, 176, 180, 181
Stutman, R. K.,76,84
Suci, G. S,, 20
Sudweeks, S., 379
Suhr, J.A.,252
Sullivan, S. E., 389
Suls, J. M,,18
Summers, C., 77, 84
Sunnafrank, M,,145,148,151,154,
159,160, 161

Sussman, M.B., 429

Suzuki, S., 296,309
Svehla, G., 147
Swain, M.A., 358
Swann, C , M.,50
Swann, W. B. Jr., 112
Swanson, C., 430
S~anson,H. L.,93
Syme, S. L.,250
Sypher, H.,
140,227,229

Tajfel, H.,
112
Tan, D.Y., 145
Tannen, D.,73
Tannenbaum, E H., 20,433
Tardig, 'CA., 435
Tasker, E, 132
Taylor, D.A., 115, 116, 117
Taylor, S., 94
Teboul, B., 26
Tedeschi, J. 'C,49,347
Temkin, 'C,346,349
Temple, L.,315
Thibaut, J., 117
Thiessen, J. D.,248, 249
Thomas, A., 134
Thomas, C. M,,327
Thomas, J. C., 389
Thomas, K.W,
348,360
Thompson, C. A., 103
Thompson, 'CL.,434,435
Tibbits0Kleber, A., 132
Tiggermann, M,,273
T i m m e ~ aL.
~ N.,
, 10,48,50,52,53,
73-85,393
TingpToomey, S., 349,353,354,355,
379
Toulmin, S. E.,311
Towne, N.,379
Tracy, K.,217
Tracz, S., 235
Trapp, R.,295
Traue, H. C., 434
Traw, M.,322
Trebing, J. D.,219, 282
Trefethen, C., 263
Trefke, H., 273
Trower, E, 93
Tubbs, M.E.,93
Tucker, R.K,,425

Tulmin, S. A., 436

Turiel, E.,229
Turk, D.S., 431
Turner, L. H., 49, 75,76,77,252
Twaite, J. A., 259
Tyler, R.T,435,436,438

Udry, J. R.,427
Ugbah, S. D.,349,353,354,355
Ullman, S. E.,329
Underwood, B., 240
Unks, G., 266

Vallacher, R,R.,29
Vance, L.,412
Van de Vliert, E.,347
Vangelisti, A. L.,47
Van bar, C. A., 116,171
Vaux, A., 248,259
Veal, 'CA., 329
Verderber, K.,379
Verderber, R.,379
Verette, J., 429
Vinache, W. E.,347
Vincent, J. R, 429
Vinsel, A., 116
Vinson, L.,78
von Baeyer, C. L.,78
Vygotsky, L.,229

Wachter, K., 11
Wagner, E. E.,
395
Waite, L.J., 428
Waldron, V. R.,26,27
Wallander, J. L.,96
Walster, E.,117, 145
Walter, H., 269
Walters, H.A., 96
Walters, J., 132
Walther, J. B., 391
~ a l t m a nM.
, S., 227,360
Wampold, B. E.,347,358,359,360,399
Wanner, J., 295
Wanous, J. E, 389,395
Wanta, W., 428

UT
Wanzer, M.B., 113
Ware, J. E.,434
Warfel, K. A.,78
Watzla~ick,E,24
Weary, G., 47
Weaver, R. L.,425
Webb, E.J., 28
Wegner, D.M.,29
D.,360
Weid~r~~atfield,
West, C., 75,81
Wheeless, L.R.,103, 113
Whitcher, S. J., 250
White, W. R.,428
Whitecap, V. G., 296
Whitely, B. E., 408
Whiteside, M.,60
Whitney, G. A., 429
Widenmann, S. J., 75
Wiemann, J. M.,18,53, 75
Wiess, R.L.,429
Wigley, C. J., 218, 292
Wildman, B. C., 75
Wiles, K,A.,315
Wiley, M.G., 78
Wilkins, B. M.,390,392
Williams, S. J., 60
Wilmot, W. W., 51, 111,218, 222,264
Wilson, C. E.,349,353,354
~ i l s o nE,
, 78
Wilson, S., 426
Wilson, S. R.,360
Winke, J., 349
Winter, D.G., 22
Wiseman, R. L.,
291,426
Wish, M.,20, 21
Wisnie~ski,N.,322
Witteman, H.,222

IM

Woelfel, M,.L., 20, 189

Wolf, E M.,389,394
Wolf, N.,62
Wolfe, M,,139
Womack, D.F., 360
Wood, J., 248,381
Wood, J. 17,47,62,214,417
Wood, N.,61
Wood, W., 390
Wood, J. 17,63
Woodward, M.S., 216
C. B., 252,434
~ortman,
Wotman, S. R.,436
Wright, D.,78
Wright, 17 L., 182
Wyer, R.S., 19

Yelsma, E,347,359
Yesmont, G., 273
Yingling, J. M.,295
Yook, E.,373
Young, L.,78

Zahahi, W. R.,52
Zahn, C. J., 78
Zammuto, M.L.,353,354
Zanna, M.E,78
Zellman, G. L.,337
Zillmann, D.,290,3 18
Zimmerman, D.H., 75,81
Zimmerman, R.,269

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

Acceptance of Interpersonal Violence

Scale, 318
achievement motivationtheory, 284
ethnographic study of, 418
acquaintance
acquaintance rape, 317,321
and disclosure~likinghypothesis, 172
Adversarial Sexual Beliefs Scale, 318
affective processes
affective exchange stage and
relationship
development,116
affective perspective -taking ability,
23 1,240
and conflict management strategy,
223
and motivation to
argumentativeness, 285
and proto-theory context,18-20
interactions, 19
affiliation
acceptance andindividual processes,
51
and conflict management strategies,

347
and individual processes, 46,50-52
and proto-theory context,22
evaluation in inclusion vs. affiliation,
51
openness in affiliation and individual
processes, 51

affinity-seeking
as individual process, 5 1-52
and individual processes, 46,50-52
autonomy establishmentas affinity
seeking strategy, 5 1
equality-seeking as affinityseeking
strategy, 51
third party networking as affinity
seeking test, 52
secret testing, 51
aggression and anger
and conflict management strategies,
362
research in, 4 1 5 4 1 6
and sexual coercion, 317
and violent retaliation,432
alcohol and drug use
and rape, 325
and safe sex negotiation, 267
and sexual coercion, 332
as sexual coercion variable, 328
sexual coercion meta-analysis results,
336
altercentrism in communication
and affini~seeking,52
and social skill competency, 104
argumentativeness, 282-284
argumentativeness scale research,
282
as cause for divorce, 429
extraversion and argumentation
motivation, 3 10
lack of pedagogical reference to, 377

research in, 4 1 5 4 1 6
meta-analysis results, 295-300
motivation and argumentativeness,
282-283,284-290
multidimensional scaling studies in
argumentativeness, 283,
28~-288
neuroticism and argumentation
motivation, 3 10
self-confidence in argumentation, 307
typologies, 288
verbal aggression link, 219, 282-284,
290,307
Aristotle
attitude s i m i l a r i ~theory, 146, 161
and rationality principles, 310-3 1 1
attachment theory
and social support, 250, 251
attitude similarity, 113, 120
entry phase and attitude similarity
studies, 15 1
manipulation, 149
attraction
and a ~ i n i ~ s e e k i n g , 5 1 , 5 2
in dyadic processes, 1 12
and individual processes, 47
and proto-theory context, 19
and similarity analysis textbook
inclusion, 382
oppos~tes attracttheory, 379
theories of, 113-1 14
attractiveness
and quality of social skills, 93
and self-esteem conceptual~ation,
62,70
and argumentativeness theory, 293
in dyadic processes, 113
as self-esteem factor, 6 0 , 6 9
att~butionalapproach, 47-48

behavioral processes
adaptor behavior in social skills
meta-analysis, 9 8
behavior unit analysis, 28
configurations o f behaviors and
proto-theory context, 36
courting behavior theory
development of, 427
negative behavior
and attribution approach, 48

"
"

-. -

"

and causes o f divorce, 429-430

40 1
predictors and me ta-analysis,
predictors social skills meta~ana~ysis,

97

production and proto-theorycontext,

36
stereotypical behavior reactions, 364
uncertain^, 114
Blake and ~ o u t conflict
o ~
management
model, 347
blame assignment
conflict management, 222
and in~ividualprocesses, 47
Byrne's InterpersonalJudgment Scale, 148
~ e r t a i n ~ u n c e r t a i n axis
ty
meta-analysis of, 79, 81
and power in language, 76
children
abuse, 94
adult childr~nof gay parents, 140
and sexual identity of parents, 112,
125-141
cognitive development and sexual
id en ti^ of parents, 136
Chodorow's n e o a n a ~ ~theory,
ic
409
cognitive complexity
and comf~rtingmessages research,
2 29-23 2
cognitive abstractness, 23 1
meta-analy~is findin~s in, 392
predictive role for, 240
structures
and comforting messages, 216
differentiation, 231
and goals and plans, 29
relationship to social interaction,
25
uncertain^, 114
cognitive editing
and comp~iance-gaining
strategies,
189-191
and proto-theory context,36
endorsement criteria as cognitive
editing process, 191
lack of pedagogical reference to, 377
meta-analysis findings in, 392
too negative to use criteria as
cognitive editing process,

191

cognitive processes
cognitive perspective and social
interaction research, 23
cognitive self+esteem,413. see ako
self-esteem
cognitive skill and strategy and
marital conflict
management) 359
cognitive skill and strategy as
self-esteem factor, 60, 69
memory function andcognitive
process research, 24
relevant to proto-theory, 14-18
comforting behavior
and constructivist theory and
research, 227-242
and relationship maintenance,215
as interactional process, 2 14
comforting behavior domain, 36
causal model test comforting
message research, 236
listener knowledge and comforting
messages research, 228
messages and pedagogical reference
to, 380
metacommunicative knowledge and
comforting message
research, 228
motivation andcomforting messages
research, 228, 229
rhetorical knowledge and comforting
message research, 228
Stiff modelcomforting messages,
motivation for, 239
topic knowledge and comforting
message research, 228
commitment (relational), 429
and messages of affection, 215
communication apprehension
and meta#analysis, 13,403
apprehension as situational effect, 189
meta0analysis findingsin, 392
public speaking anxiety, 392
communication behaviors
and self-esteem, 50
and self-worth conceptualizations, 49
gender differences in, 391
meta-analysis findingsin, 392,393,397
communication competence
and i~dividualprocesses, 48,52-54
and postdivorce adjustment period, 248

and self-esteem, 50
communication skills, 89-104
competence andargumentativeness
theory, 292
pedagogical reference to, 319
communication theory
analysis of pedagogy in, 37 1-386
analysis of research in,4 2 3 4 4 0
and argumentativeness promotion,
284,291
and meta-analysis process, 14
and meta-analysis results, 139-14~
research goals in, 71
and similarity and attraction
meta-analysis, 161
communicative satisfaction
and attribution approach, 48
and relational influence theory, 119
and similarity and liking, 147
communicator style
and power in language, 76,83
and self-esteem conceptual~ation,60
and and social skills, 391
and task attraction, 113
doctor-patient relationship and
communicator style, 53
meta-analysis of, 80,81
multidimensional components of, 53
perception of others and
communicator style, 53-54
research in,4 15-4 16
complementarity, 379
compliance~gainingstrategies
and individual-level plan, 27
and proto-theory context,20
and safe sex negotiation, 268
and situational effects, 187-207
and URT 115
compliments and offers as
compliance-gaining
strategy, 27
endorsing or suppressing) 189-192
meta-analyses in, 4 14
pleasantness as complianceegaining
strategy, 27
composure in com~unication
and affinity-seeking, 52
and self-esteem, 50
and social skill competency, 104
comprehension
as condition of social interaction, 15

~
.
~
.

compromise
compromisin~typestrategies in
conflict management,345
results of meta-analysis, 353,360
con~rmationmessages, 2 18
conflict management
and attribution approach,48
and mutuality of control, 222
and relational stages, 116
and quality of social skills, 93
conflict, 222
conflict style and gender, 10
conflict managementmeta-analysis,
397-400
cooperation-competition axis, 20
demand~withdrawal pattern,399
i n t i ~ a t eand non-intimate
interpretation, 345-365
marital
demand-withdrawal patternas
conflict strategy, 355
demand-withdrawalresults of
meta-analysis, 353
demand =withdrawal vs.
argumentat~onskills, 310
emotional strategy and marital
conflict management,

and comforting messages, 2 16

and verbal aggressiveness, 29l-293,307
comforting messages, 227-242
current tests of, 232
past research in, 235
control dimension, 20
and affinity-seeking, 52
as interactional process, 220
and relational control perspective, 24
conversational processes, 213
as interactional process, 217-220
and intimate relationships, 399
and reciprocity of self-disclosure, 175
closings and talk time, 103
openings and talk time, 103
courts
and child custody decisions, 126-131
custody decisions, 137, 139
and HIV test result disclosure, 264
state-based custody decisions, 127
criticism
and incivility, 435
and self-worth conceptualizations, 49
cultural differences
and dyadic processes, 115,116
and textbook evaluation, 373

359

meta-analysis of, 355-360

meta-analysis findings in, 393
pedagogical reference to, 380,382
results of meta-analysis, 353,360
strategies, 113
accommodation and marital
conflict management, 359
accommodation results of
meta-analysis, 353
avoidance, 429
avoidance as interactional
process, 2 14
collaboration results of
meta-analysis, 353
collaboration andsocially
significant research, 438
competitive andmotivation to
argumentativeness, 285
conflict management, 345
passive avoidance strategies, 3 10
solution-orientation strategies, 113
stress and conflict management
strategy selection, 345
constructivist theory and research

date rape
date rape, 3 17,32 1
textbook inclusion of, 383
day care vs. home care theory, 140
developmental processes
and affective perspective taking
ability, 231-232
and argumentativeness, 219
and behavior unit analysis, 28
and cognitive complexity, 229-230,
239,241
and innate social skills,91
and power in language, 83
and power markers in language, 76
and social support, 250, 253
cognitive, 136
communicative skills, 3 1
d'worce
and interactional processes, 216
and sexual identity of parents,
125-131
and social support seeking, 247-259
and social support analysis, 377

social significance of research on,

427,428-43 1
dominance criteria
and rape, 319
and interactional processes, 220
and situation effects research, 205
as situational effect, 189
dominance~power-controlaxis and
proto-theory context,20
dominance0power-control axis and
relational control
perspective, 24
dyadic process
as approach tometa-analysis, 46
and reciprocity of self-disclosure
studies, 178
dyadic effect, 175
overview, 111-1 20

educational system
and argumentationpractice, 309
and safe sex negotiation behavior,
265,266,272
and self-esteem, 69-70
and self-esteem conceptual~ation,
60,62
HIV communication needs in, 275
emotions
and empathy, 240
and motivation to
argumentativeness, 240
and proto-theory context,18, 19
and stress, 433
of children of gay parents, 141
empathy
and individual processes, 51
and prosocial behavior, 240
equivocation, 310
and mental stateresearch, 24
expectancy theory, 398
expectations inrelationships and
sexual coercion, 326
expectations in relationships
violations in, 34
expressions
and affini~seeking,52
and conflictmanage~entstrategies,
347
and proto-theory context,35
and self-concept, 50

and social skill competency, 104

and stress, 433-434
of affection as interactional process,
2 14
research in, 415

facework, 2 l 7-2 18
and cognitive process research, 24
and incivilities, 436
and situation effects research, 205
and violent retaliation,432
corrective facework, 2 17
defensive facework, 217,430
face-threatening act,217
hostage negotiations and facework,
218
Japanese culture andfacework, 218
negative face, 217
positive face, 217
preventive facework, 2 17
protective facework, 217
feedback
feedback sensitivity and self-concept,

50

responses and individual processes, 48

gaze behavior
and individual processes, 48
in social skillsmeta-analysis, 97, 99
gender differences
argumentativeness meta-analysis
results, 300-303,308
and communication with offspring,
391
and post-divorce finances, 248, 257
and power in language, 48,53
and safe sex negotiation, 220, 264,
268,272,273
and self-esteem, 59-71,413
meta-analytic results on, 69
and social-support seeking after
divorce, 248
and verbal aggressiveness, 291
conflict management strategies, 345,
346,360-364
rape definition, 326
research in, 4 16-4 19

roles
and visual/written forms, 29
and conflict management
HIV infection
strategies, 347
and custody decision-making, 128
and self-esteem conceptualization,
and disclosure laws, 264
60,62
and safe sex negotiation, 263, 271
and sexual coercion, 319
communi~ationregarding
sexual coercion andresistance, 3 15,
textbook inclusion of, 382
316,325-326,327
negotiation analysis
meta~analysisresults, 336
lack of pedagogical reference to, 380
sexuality
homosexuality
benchmark studies in, 408-413
and coercive sex, 316
socialization approach
and safe sex negotiation, 274
as conflict management strategy
attitudes toward, 409
selection, 347
criminalization of, 127-128
theory confidence in, 10
goals and plans
and conversationalprocesses, 2 17
and proto-theory context, 17-18,22, identity construction
and causes of violence, 432
36,37
in dyadic processes, l12
and relational influence theory, 119
impression formation studies
children and, 31
and disclosure~likinghypothesis, 172
effectiveness in, 91
impression management behaviors,
embedded, 33
46,49-50
hierarchy for, 26
impression management theory, 432
and behavior unit analysis, 29
inclusion vs. affiliation, 5 1
later recall of, 26
inference
long-tern, 29
and individual processes, 47
non-interactive, 30
and long-termgoals and plans, 29
shifts during interaction, 22-23
information-seekingbehavior, 114.
significance to proto-theory, 25
in health care interaction, 434
initial interpersonal interaction, 156, 158
and attitude similarity studies,
151-153
harm
interactional processes, 46
harm-to-other criteria
and attitude similarity studies, 151
and situation effects research, 205
and causes of crime, 43 1-433
as cognitive editing process, 191
and causes of divorce, 429
harmto-relationship criteria
and incivilities, 435-436
and situation effects research, 206
and proto-theory context,23-30
as cognitive editing process, 191
and reciprocity in selfddisclosure, 182
harm-to-self criteria
as research characteristic, 426
as cognitive editing process, 191
and social skills, 90
health carecommunicatio~
initial interpersonal interaction,156,
as social support source, 250
158
and URT 115
interaction sequence analysis and
health and quality of social skills,93
goals and plans hierarchy, 29
health and social support, 250
interaction sequence analysis and
social significance of research on,
~ i ~ i t a t ~ of
o nmeta-analysis,
s
433-435
402
style of, 53
mutuality of control as interactional
hierarchy principle, 26
process, 213,215,220-223

T IN
overview, 2 13-224

descriptive/predictive/ex~lanatory,

114
intercultural theo
and dyadic processes, 116
and power in language studies, 84
interpersonal communication
perspective
and meta-analysis, 389403,397
and pedagogy, 371-386
and proto0theory context, 33
future of, 407-420
meta0analysis topics, 390-393
state of the art, 423-440
traditional core questionsof,
413-416
intersubjective reciprocity, 179
intervention (therapeutic)
and meta~analysisprocess, 14
and postdivorce social support, 259
and social skills training, 101
intimate relationships
and blame assignment, 222
and conflict management metaanalysis, 355-360, 399
and conflict managementstrategies,

345-365
and postdivorce social support, 253
and rape definition, 327
and reciprocity in self-disclosure,
180, 182
and safe sex negotiation, 264
and sexual coercion, 326
as situational effect, 189
regulation
and dyadic processes, 115
intrasubjective reciprocity, 178
involved~uninvo~ved
axis
and persuasion, 391
and proto-theory context,22
cycles, in maritaldiscord, 430

Knowledge
knowledge acquisition, 3 1
and me ta-analysis, 40 1-403
and meta-analysis theory,
389-403
quality
and meta-analysis theory,
394-397
knowledge alteration

and individual social skills

variations, 32
knowledge gaps and meta-analysis
process, 14
knowledge prerequisite and
proto-theory context,31
motivation and comforti~g
messages
research, 228
motivation andpersuasion research,

391

la~sequentialanalysis, 27
language use
credibility and power in language,

77,83
declarative knowledge as interaction
prerequisite, 3 1
declaratives and power in language, 74
disclaimers and power in language, 76
empty adjectives and power in
language, 74,76
forms of uncertainty andpower in
language, 74
hedges in speaking and individual
processes, 48
hedges in speaking and power in
language, 74, 76
hyperbole and power in language, 77
hypercorrect grammar and power in
language, 74
imperative form and power in
language, 74
intensifiers and powerin language,

74,77
female register and power in
language, 76
floor allocation and interruptions, 48
floor allocation and meta~analysis
of,
78,81
floor allocation and and power in
language, 75
friendl~hostileaxis
and power in language, 77
and proto-theory context, 20
incivility in, 435
and individual processes, 48,52
parental, gender differences in, 391
linguistic discrimination, 74

linguistic power, 221

questioning behavior and power in
language, 74
social status and powerin language, 74
swearing and power in language, 77
tag questions
and individual processes, 48
and power in language, 7 4 7 6
vocabulary items and power in
language, 74

meaning and inference,23,47

messages
message clarity confirmations, 218
message composition
and computer-mediated
communication, 391
vs. strategy selection as research
characteristic, 426
message comprehension social interaction precondition, 15
message elicitation and power in
language, 84
message exchange research, 25-26
and dyadic processes, 117-1 19
and interactional processes,
213-224
and relational processes, 119
message features
and facework, 217
and mental state research,24
message output, encodingskills and
language use
and proto-theory context, 36
and situational effects, 187-207
social interaction precondition, 15
me ta-analysis, 10-1 1
.aggregation for meta-analysis, 46,
407-408
aggregation through meta-analysis, 3
averaging process, 8
bench mar^ examples of, 4 0 8 4 1 3
criteria for evaluation of, 394-397
definition, 407
function andapplicability, 3-1 1
hypotheses tested by, 391
and interpersonal communication,
9-1 1 , 3 8 9 4 0 3
steps one to five, 7-9
utility of, 13, 413

National OpinionResearch Center, 429

need achievement
in dyadic processes, 112
nonconfrontation, 113
nonverbal communication
and attribution approach,48
benchmark study in,41 1
and proto-theory context, 35
and relationship maintenance,215
and similarity and attraction
me ta-analysis, 161
and subordination, 39
1
nonverbal sensitivity, 4 11
social interaction precondition,15
nonviolent sexual coercion, 322

parenting
meta-analysis findings in, 391
and sexual identity of parents,
125-141
perception
of others andindividual processes,
46,4749
personality traits
and argumentation motivation, 3 10
and reciprocity in self-disclosure, 182
and social support, 251
perspective-taking ability
and comforting messages, 216, 230
and comfortingmessages research,
228
and protoetheory context, 31
persuasion
meta-analysis findings in, 39 1
and relational processes, 119
resistance to persuasion as
situational effect, 189
response scales persuasion
repression, 191
politeness
civilities/incivilities and power in
language, 7 7
civilities/incivilities and social
significance research, 435
inferences and individual processes, 48
norms as affinityseeking strategy, 51
theory and facework, 217

theory and similarity and attraction

meta-analysis, 161
politeness-impoliteness axis
and cognitive process research, 24
meta-analysis of, 80, 81
and power in language, 77
power
and argumentativeness theory, 292
and conflict management strategies,
364
and marital conflict management,
356,358
asymmetries
and facework, 218
and proto-theory context, 21
and rape, 319
and research goals, 415,416
and self-esteem, 50
in language use
and affini~seeking,52
and gender, 10
and individual processes, 48
and selfeesteem
conceptualization, 61
sex-based differences in, 73-85
legitimacy, 221
referent power, 221
reward power, 221
powerless language and perceived
competence, 54
powerless speech
and individual processes, 53
and self-esteem conceptualization, 61
power motive
and anger-retaliatory rapist, 324
and power-assertive rapist, 324
and power-reassurance rapist, 323
and proto-theory context,22
and sadistic rapist, 324,325
and sexual coercion, 3 17,323
proto-theory of interpersonal
communication, 13-37

Rape
aggravated rape, 321
anger-excitationrapist, 324
anger-retaliatory rapist, 324
gang rape, 317
gender-based differences on, 326

opportunistic rapist, 325

perpetrators of rape, 323-325
power-assertive rapist, 324
power-reassurance rapist, 323
rape and assault, definition of, 321,
393
resistance to rape, 329
sadistic rapist, 324
sexual assault, definition of, 322
simple rape, 321
stranger rape, 326
token resistance behavior (rape), 329
victim theory characteristics, 316
victim theory and resistance to rape,
329
wife rape, 3 17
Rape Myth Acceptance Scale,
318
reciprocated affinity stages, 116
secret tests for, 5 1
reciprocity
actual reciprocity, 179
and dyadic processes, 117, 119
and marital conflict management
strategy, 356
and self-disclosure research, 169
of self-disclosure, 175-182
methods of testing for, 176
perceived reciprocity, 178
rates of, 114
relational processes
consequences
criteria and situationeffects
research, 205
as situational effect, 189
orientation stage and relationship
development, 116
relational control perspective, 24,
220-223
relational influence
and dyadic processes, 119-120
and safe sex negotiation, 266
and self-disclosure research, 171
in dyadic processes, 112
relational level and sexual coercion, 333
relational potential in inclusion
vs,
affiliation, 5 1
relational stage
and sexual coercion, 326
and sexual coercion research goals,
338
sexual coercion meta-analysis results,
336

relational support domain and interactional processes, 214-216

relational uncertainty, 114-1 15
relationship closeness continuum, 34
relationship development
and individual processes, 47-48
and learning about other, 230
and proto-theory context,19,33
and rape definition, 327
and reciprocity in self-disclosure,
180,183
and safe sexnegotiation, 263-267
acquaintance rape, 317,321
relationship formation, 93
and individual processes, 46
post divorce, 254
relationship maintenance
and cycles and stages, 116
and facework, 218
and messages of affection, 2 15
and self-disclosure research, 169
and similarity and attraction, 145
and turning point research, 219-220
cycles and stages and relationship
maintenance, 116
relations~ips, 33
intimate relationships
and interactional processes overview,

impact of conversation andgender,

263-275
negotiating safe sex, 263-275
pregnancy prevention andsafe sex
negotiation, 268
safe sex negotiation analysis
textbook inclusion of, 382
sexual history and safe sex
negotiation, 263-267
sharing information and safe sex
negotiation, 263-275
taboo topics and safe sex negotiation,
264,272
timing and safe sex negotiation, 265
self-assertions, 119
self-concept
and relationship maintenance,50
and self-esteem, 49
damage to, and violence, 432
encoding skills and self-concept,50
response of others and self-concept,

50

and noninterpersonalaxis, 33
and quality of social skills, 93
and self-concept, 49
exploration stage and relationship
development, 116
repulsion hypothesis, 148-149, 160
response latency
and individual processes, 48
and proto-theory context, 35
Role Category ~uestionnaire,227, 229

self-disclosure, 114
benchmark study in, 4 10
and dyadic processes, 115
and gender, 10
and textbook evaluation, 373
disclosure~likinghypothesis,
172-1 74
floor allocation and reciprocity of
selfedisclosure,177
in dyadic processes, 112
liking and self-disclosure, 120, 169,
171-175,184
meta-analysis findings in, 393
of HIV status, 264
of sexual identity andcustody
decision-making, 130-131
patterns of and dyadic processes,

safe sex negotiation

and condomuse, 263-264,264,266,
268,273,274
and facework, 218
and gender, 10
as interactional process, 214
assertiveness and safe sex
negotiation, 273
drug and alcohol use and safe sex
negotiation, 267

research in, 169-184,415

reciprocity of self-disclosure studies,
178
stranger status andreciprocity in
self-disclosure, 180, 182
theory confidence in, 10
self-esteem
and argumentativeness theory, 293
and gender, 10
contradicting pedagogical reference
to, 380
and incivility, 435

2 14

114-1 17

and individual processes, 46,49-50

and perceived competence, 54
and sex differences, 59-7 1
comprehensive self-esteem, 413
depression as self-esteem factor, 60,
70
Jealousy and low self-esteem, 49
limitations of, 412
marginalization and self-esteem, 50
mass media
and self-esteem conceptualization, 62
as self-esteem factor, 70
measures of self-esteem, 6 4 4 9
me ta-analysis findings in, 393
multi-dimensional factors of, 70
physical self-esteem, 413
sense of self, 59
textbook inclusion of, 382
self-image
and facework, 217
in hostage negotiations, 218
self-interest
and dyadic processes, 117, 118
self-presentation
and individual processes, 46,49-50
self-worth
conceptualization
and individual processes, 49
and self-esteem, 59, 60
sex-based differences
and causes of divorce, 430
and conflict strategy use, 223
and disclosure0liking hypothesis,
173,174
and individual processes, 48
and meta-analysis findings, 392-393
and postdivorce social support, 257
and power in language, 73-85
and reciprocity in self-disclosure, 183
and relationship maintenance, 118
and self-disclosure research, 169-17 1
and self-esteem, 50,59-7 1
and self-esteem conceptualization, 50
conflict management meta-analysis,
397-400
cultural interest in,416
sex of target and self-disclosure
research, 170
Sexual Callousness Scale, 318
sexual coercion and resistance, 315-339
and safe sex negotiation, 273
coercive power, 221-222

coercive strategies, 33 1
forms of, 322
as interactional process, 214
measures, 3 17-321
pervasiveness, 3 15-3 17
prediction tools for, 3 19-3 2 l
research in, 4 15
types of, 321-323
variables affecting, 325-330
conservatism and sexual coercion,

317
in initiating the date
and sexual coercion, 333
lack of pedagogicalreference to,
380
meta-analysis findings in, 393
sexual coercion meta-analysis results,
335
justifiability and willingness
and sexual coercion
meta-analysis, 33 1
location of date
sexual coercion meta-analysis
results, 336
and sexual coercion research
goals, 338
location of rape, 332
as sexual coercion variable, 328
paying for the date
sexual coercion meta+analysis
results, 335
as sexual coercion variable, 327,
333
psychological sexual coercion, 322
sexual coercion research goals, 338
unspoken sexual coercion, 323
sexual identity
depression and sexual identity of
parents, 138
of parents, 112
impact onchild, 125-141
lack of pedagogical reference to, 380
sexual identity of parents analysis,
396
sexual orientation of children
effect of sexual identityof parents, 135
similarity
and attraction, 145-161
inclusion vs. affiliation, 51
perceived and proto-theory context,
21
see king,5 1

similarity and attraction

me ta-analyses in, 4 14
similarity and attraction pedagogical
reference to, 379
situational effects, 187-200
and conflict management strategies,

363
dimensions affecting, 189
meta-analysis findings in, 391,393
social affinity
in dyadic processes, 113
social exchange
and dyadic processes, 116
and reciprocity of selfedisclosure, 175
social interaction processes
and female powerless speech, 62
and incivilities, 435436
and individual-level plan, 27
and proto-theory context,25
and psychological perspective, 23,25
and relationship studies, 33
relationship to cognitive structures, 25
socialization
and self-esteem, 50
and social exchange theory, 118
and TSS, 319
socially significant research, 4 2 5 4 2 8
and interpersonal communication
research, 424
and interpersonal communication
research goals, 428437,
438440
problems studying, 4 3 7 4 4 0
social penetration theory, 115-1 17
Japanese culture andsocial
penetration theory, 116
Korean culture and social
penetration theory, 116
social power, 221
social skills
anxiety and quality of social skills, 94
appropriateness and quality in social
skills, 92
compliments and offers in social
skills meta-analysis, 98,99
coordination in communication and
social skill competency, 104
depression and qualityof socialskills, 93
face recognition and innatesocial
skills, 91
eye contact behavior in social skills
meta-analysis, 9697,99

expertise and individual social skills

variations, 32
gesture behavior in social skills
meta*analysis, 97,99
goal-directed action and social
skills, 90
head movement behavior in social
skills meta-analysis, 98,99
inconsistency and social skills
research, 96
individual social skills levels, 32
and attribution approach,47-48
and combined effects research, 102
meta-analysis findings in, 397
pedagogical reference to theories,

379
and proto-theory context,35-37
research in, 415416
latency behavior in social skills
meta-analysis, 97,99
learning disabilities and quality of
social skills, 93
loneliness and quality
of social skills,93
mental illness and quality of social
skills, 93
molar-level analysis
and quality in social skills, 92
and social skills research, 95
molecular actions
and quality in social skills, 92
and social skills research, 95
movements unmotivated insocial
skills meta-analysis, 99
nervous behavior
in social skills meta-analysis, 99
observer variability and quality in
social skills, 92
passivity in conversation
and social skill competence, 103
perception of others andsocial skills,
102-1 04
popularity and quality
of social skills, 93
process and outcome andsocial skills
goals, 91
94
psychiatric problems and social skills,
psychosocial problems and quality of
social skills, 93
quality in social skills, 91-93
questioning behavior in social skills,

98,99
repeatability and social skills, 91
silence in conversation andsocial
skill competence,103

smiling behavior in social skills

meta-analysis, 97,99
social status and quality of social
skills, 93
unmotivated movements insocial
skills meta-analysis, 99
volume of speech in social skills
meta-analysis, 98,99
social support, 257
and interactional processes, 216
anxiety andsocial support seeking
after divorce, 248
as interactional process, 2 14
custody and postdivorce social
support, 257
definition, 256252
family-based social support, 256
tiiend-based social support, 257
illness and social support, 250
networks, 249
perceived social support, 25 1
received social support, 251
resource theory and postdivorce
social support, 252
single parent households and social
support seeking after
divorce, 248, 249
seeking and divorce, 247-259

talk time behavior

and perceived competence, 54
in social skills meta-analysis, 98, 99,
102-1 03
social skills research in, 96
textbooks
accuracy and consistency in,
371-386
evaluation of,372-374
omissions in, 381-383
ratings and results, 376-380
and research goals, 425
selection for analysis, 375
threat enactment
and causes of violence, 432
and co-interactantplans, 28
as verbal aggression, 219
traditional sexual script perspective,
319-321,325,326,330
and incidenceof masturbation, 409

sexual coercion meta-analysis results,

335,336337,337
and victim resistance, 329
trust
and safe sex negotiation, 266
and social skills impact, 93
attraction andreciprocity of
self-disclosure, 175
worthiness
as affinityseeking strategy, 5 X
truth criteria
as cognitive editing process, 191
and situation effects research, 206
turning points
inte~retationand conversational
processes, 2 17
research in, 219-220

uncertainty reductiontheory, 114-1 15

closure, avoidance of
entry phase (URT), 114
exit phase (URT), 114
personal phase (URT), 114
relation uncertainty reduction
strategies in dyadic
processes, 112
~ n i d i m e n s i o n a l~rgumentativeness
i~
Scale, 304-307

verbal aggression
and argumentativeness, 281-3 11
effect of argumentativeness on,
290-293
and escalation phenomena, 439
and incivilities, 436
as interactional process, 214, 218
meta-analysis results in, 300-303
and violence, 432
verbal behaviors
and intimate relationships, 399
and proto-theory context,35
in social skills meta-analysis, 102
encouragement insocial skills
meta-analysis, 98, 99
message output andsocial interaction precondition,15
sexual coercion, 323

violent crime
and incivilities, 435
prevalence of, 3 16
social signi~canceof research on,
43 1-433
3 stages leading432
and
to,
violent crime survivors, 47

workplace
and a ~ i n i ~ s e e k i n 52
g,
power in language, 73
and social exchange theory, 118