Interpersonal Communication

Santa Clara University Scholar Commons Communication College of Arts & Sciences 1992 Interpersonal communication Paul A. Soukup Santa Clara University, psoukup@scu.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/comm Part of the Communication Commons Recommended Citation Soukup, Paul A. (1992). Interpersonal communication. Communication Research Trends, 12(3), 2-33. CRT allows the authors to retain copyright. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts & Sciences at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Communication by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact rscroggin@scu.edu. OMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS A Quarter ly Informa tion Service from the Centre for the Study of Commu nication and Culture Vol. 12. (1992) No. 3 Interp ersona l Comm unicat ion by Paul Soukup , S.J. Santa Clara Univers ity ,,,p;,,: Husband and wife, parent and child, priest and penitent, supervisor and employee, "the~ 'happy hour' regulars at the corner pub - almost all of us communic ate interperso nallfJ every day. Important decisions can depend on success or failure in carrying out this.,'. process. Ultimately , it probably is of far more practical importanc e than mass media,, communic ation. But what do we really know about it? ,;I As the author of this issue points out, only three of the last forty issues of Trends havJ! focussed on topics which can be labelled 'interperso nal communication'. Most of the other's,,' have been devoted to various aspects of mass communication. '1J'. ' "I While trying to rectify this neglect, we have to recognize some obstacles. Those studying_·,,,; interperso nal communic ation often are not able to define just where it ends and other!': categories of communic ation begin. The field is handled differently in different countries_; ·•· In the United States it has been welcomed within the fold of communic ation science, c : although others, such as psychologists and anthropologists, have long been interested ·1_·_.n it. In Europe and elsewhere it is most often a part of psychology. £' ,,: . _""'·. _, 1 To describe the study of interperso nal communication on a worldwide basis theref~i~ is a challengin g task. We have elected, for the sake of coherence, to limit our survey to thi' .. North American perspectiv e: interperso nal communication treated as a subfield of com~ municatio n studies. The references , bibliography and current research sections do try to1f suggest the broader geographic and disciplinar y range of relevant efforts, and hopefully future is~u~ of Tren~s :,viii be able t~ deal. ~ith the same topic as it is mor_e_, t ._ character1 stically studied m other academic trad1t10ns. ~i :< ·. 1 :.'t,._:i Introduction Interpersonal textbooks tend to tell stories. Some begin by recounting how an oldster sat day by day in the park, never saying anything. Yet the neighbours came to know their companion's moods and dispositions. Communication occurred even without speech. Other texts recount tales of conversations gone awry or of successful ones, wondering just how people manage to talk. Still other stories narrate family events, highlighting differences in speech between the generations. Wives fret because their husbands don't talk; husbands resent being asked to discuss what to them is obvious. Put more abstractly, interpersonal communication study seeks to answer these kinds of questions: Does someone who ignores you communicate anything to you? How can the same word or phrase have such different meanings to people? How can people talk anyway? Are arguments and disagreements really summarized in the now-famous line from the film 'Cool Hand Luke': 'What we have here is a failure to communicate'? The difficulty for interpersonal communication has been to move from the anecdotal to the general. Near the beginning of the contemporary focus on communication between individuals, Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin, and Don Jackson published what became a seminal work. Examining case studies of psychiatric patients, they proposed five general axioms of interpersonal communication. These axioms, which find their way into almost every introductory text in communication, include: (1) One cannot not communicate; (2) every communication has a content and a relationship aspect such that the latter classifies the former; (3) interaction sequences, like word sequences, cannot be understood as a string of isolated elements; (4) human beings communicate both digitally and analogically; and (5) communication comprises both symmetrical and complementary interaction (1967). The tale of those axioms tells the story of some of the current thinking about interpersonal communication. 2 - CRT Vol 12 No. 3 A Look Back When Communication Research Trends last reviewed the area of interpersonal communication in 1986 (Vol. 7, number 1), it focused on general themes that emerge in the study of interaction between two people--particularly on 'studies of communicative interaction, communicators, communication in relationships, communicative situations and mediated interpersonal communication' (McDonnell, 1986, p. 1). Much of the research reported in that review emerged from psychology and communication studies which employed a variety of laboratory and experimental methods. Many of those studies also presumed that one cannot not communicate, judging communication, in other words, from the perspective of a receiver who interprets even unintentional individual actions as communicatively meaningful. Interpersonal communication study had emerged from a tradition rooted largely in anthropology and social psychology. Watzlawick and his colleagues acknowledge their debt to Gregory Bateson (1958) whose work informed their axioms. Another key movement in the early definition of interpersonal communication was symbolic interactionism, as proposed by George Herbert Mead in the 1930's and developed by Herbert Blumer (1969). These schools of thought provided theoretical beginnings; methodological foundations also came from both anthropology and psychology. The ethnography and ethnomethodology of the former have now somewhat eclipsed the laboratory experiments of the former. During the last 10 years interpersonal communication research has burgeoned, examining almost every aspect of communication including the mass media, which appear indirectly as a topic of interpersonal conversation (Kepplinger & Martin, 1986; Schenk, 1989). Interpersonal studies deal with personality factors and communicator style (Duck, 1985; Bell & Daly,1985; Richmond, Gohram, & Furia, 1987), emotion (Wowk, 1986; Shiminoff, 1988; Matsumoto, 1991), communication competence (Schrader, 1990), conversation (McLaughlin, 1984; Tannen, 1990), nonverbal behaviour (Burgoon, Birk, & Pfau, 1990; Burgoon & Walther, 1990), marriage (Noller, 1984; Fitzpatrick, 1988b), family relationships (Stephen 1990), work relationships (Goldsmith, 1992; Wayne, 1992), small groups (Gudykunst, 1986; Hirokawa & Poole, 1986), conflict (Cahn, 1990), gender (Fischer, 1988; Halterman, 1991; Gender and Verbal Communication, 1991), and so on. Perforce, this review takes a more modest and more restricted view of current work in interpersonal communication. It begins, first, by revisiting the classic axioms and using a debate surrounding them and other work to introduce some serious theoretical challenges to the whole tradition of interpersonal communication research. Second, it examines some of the building blocks of interpersonal communication--conversation and nonverbal communication. Third, it notes some research in specific areas of interpersonal behaviour: family relationships, marriage, and conflict. One must also add a caution at the beginning of this overview: not only is it incomplete; it reflects a distinctly North American and United States bias. Most of the work in interpersonal communication occurs in the United States. In fact, few other regions even use the separate term 'interpersonal communication' as a descriptor within communication studies. In Europe, Asia, and South America, the interpersonal concern falls into the domain of psychology, socio-linguistics, or social psychology. This is not to say that scholars in these regions do not attend to interpersonal communication; they do but with a different theoretical and methodological focus from their colleagues in the States. (For examples of this work, see Szopinski, 1976; Somlai, 1982; Katori, 1984; Caffarel Serra, 1986; Sainz Sanchez, 1986; Bgazhnokov, 1987; Joseph, 1987; Keppler, 1987; Knops, 1988; Borsoni, 1989; Geser, 1989; Ne!, 1989; Roiz, 1989; Huls, 1990; Klushina, 1990; Meunier, 1990; Andrade, 1991; Fruggeri, 1991; Ito, 1991; and Yoshitake, 1991.) I. The Critique of Communication Theories Stewart J. 1991. 'A Postmodern Look at Traditional Communication Postulates', Western Journal of Speech Communication, Vol. 55, pp. 354-379. Lannamann, J. W. 1991. 'Interpersonal Communication Research as Ideological Practice', Communication Theory, Vol 1., pp. 179-203. Rakow, L. F. 1986. 'Rethinking Gender Research in Communication', Journal of Communication, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 11-26. The Background to the Debate This section reviews some of the theoretical grounding for interpersonal research and then examines in more detail three specific critiques. Some scholars working in this area have become less and less comfortable with applying the information-theory model stemming from electronic communication (Shannon & Weaver, 1949) to interpersonal sources. Others note that social or linguistic practices within the research enterprise itself have kept us from noticing important issues. The three critiques--by Stewart, Lanamann, and Rakow-each change our perspective by calling attention to what people readily take for granted. Michael Motley (1990) began one recent reexamination of interpersonal communication by questioning the validity of the first of Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson's axioms, that one cannot not communicate. He acknowledges that 'equating behaviour and communication has ... been implicit in many other broad approaches to communication,' but then noted that such orientations favour the receiver over the sender. More serious, from a theoretical perspective, is his juxtaposition of this axiom with four basic information-theory assumptions about communication--'that communication is interactive, involves encoding, involves the exchange of symbols, and has a fidelity dimen- ~ CRT Vol 12 No. 3- 3 .. sion' (p. 1). On each of these counts, he argues, the axiom fails. The four information-theory assumptions imply a restricted range of behaviours: thus not all behaviours will satisfy their conditions for communication. To explain his argument, Motley presents a 3 x 3 matrix made up of source behaviour and receiver behaviour--only four of whose cells meet the requirements of interactivity, encoding, symbolic exchange, and fidelity. For better or worse, most communication research ignores the other five cells. Watzlawick et al's axiom includes them--hence the contradiction. Motley concludes by suggesting that communication scholars can't have things both ways: they must reject either the axiom or their common assumptions. Later that year Janet Beavin Bavelas (a coauthor of the original axioms) responded to Motley (Bavelas, 1990). She stresses the need to separate, on logical grounds, the two propositions that Motley had treated as equivalents: 'All behaviour is communication' and 'One cannot not communicate.' Because the former contains a universal quantifier while the latter has an existential quantifier (p. 593), the two cannot be equivalent. Beyond that she reconstructs the historical context of the 'one cannot not communicate' axiom. Interested in real world communication and working with verbally impaired individuals, Watzlawick's team focused on nonverbal communication. The research methods of the 1960's provided only introspection as an avenue to investigate nonverbal encoding and intentionality. The team finally rejected the information theory model of communication (whose assumptions Motley had employed) as applied to nonverbal behaviour. 'Given the choice between abandoning nonverbal behaviours and accepting an introspective criterion, we chose nonverbal behaviours, brashly enfranchising all of them' (p. 595). The choice put empirical observation ahead of theoretical niceties. An early critique of this approach (Wiener, Devoe, Rubinow, & Geller, 1972) attempted to resolve the impasse by distinguishing informative from communicative acts. Building on this, Bavelas argues that empirical research on these questions remains a possibil4 - CRT Vol 12 No. 3 ity, particularly after she and her colleagues developed a methodology that could examine nonverbal behaviour 'without requiring that intentionality be established' (p. 595). She concludes her response by suggesting that researchers treat both models as hypotheses rather than axioms or assumptions. They could then seek ways to test them empirically. Philosophical Critique Others entered the discussion as well (Beach, 1990;Anderson, 1991; Motley, 1991; Clevenger, 1991). However, John Stewart raises an important set of larger questions for this tradition of interpersonal communication theory through an examination of its philosophical grounding. In 'A Postmodern Look at Traditional Communication Postulates' (1991), he re-examines the issues from a perspective that challenges commonly accepted Enlightenment truths. He comments: One of these received truths is that, as Descartes and Kant insisted, questions of 'fact' can and should be rigorously separated from questions of 'value.' This belief was developed into what are sometimes called the 'modernist dualisms' between subject and object, theory and practice, art and science, art and reality, literature and criticism, form and content, will and reason. (p. 355) Following postmodernist thinkers such as Heidegger, Gadamer, Habermas, Lyotard, Foucault, and MacIntyre (as summarized by McCarthy, 1987), Stewart reviews four key themes of postmodernist thought. First, Stewart points out that these thinkers critique the traditional Cartesian-Kantian conceptions of reason, noting that reason is seldom independent of context and group interest. Second, postmodernists offer a critique of the sovereign, rational subject. 'The construct "the subject" is problematic both because it covers over unconscious factors and because it ignores the inherently social nature of human identity' (p. 357). Third, they criticize the notion of'knowledge as representation, according to which the subject stands over against an independent world of objects that it can more or less accurately represent' (p. 357). Instead, they argue, that humans are in the world and cannot give 'objective' accounts. Fourth, postmodernists reject philosophy's distanc ing itself from rhetoric and poetics. Followi ng a solid traditio n in speech communication, dating back to Aristotl e, they reasser t the role of discour se and dialogu e in the knowledge process. These four postmo dernist themes offer alternat ives to the informa tion-the ory model's four assump tions which Motley noted. Where the received model sees commu nication as symbolic behavio ur, the alterna tive model takes its lead from Gadam er who critique s the semiotic approac h to languag e because 'it inadequ ately capture s "the languag e that lives in speech" ' (p. 360). Both ordinar y languag e and hermen eutic philoso phy offer differen t constru cts of languag e, constru cts which are much more active, dialogic, and rooted in the human lifeworl d. Langua ge, then, 'is not represe ntation al but present ational; it is not symbolic but constitu tive' (p. 364). Similar ly, the encodin g process comes under fire for it presum es a represe ntation al basis of commu nication and thought . The encodin g postula te rests upon the Cartesi an-Kan tian assump tion of a rationa l subject who is cut off from a real world and who overcomes the subject- object dichoto my by encodin g informa tion. But this account ignores the fundam ental relatedn ess of human beings in the world. Further , it assume s that cognitio n and language can be separat ed. Postmo dernist thought notes that we humans 'are as much subject- to the linguist ic resourc es for defining our world as those resourc es are subject- to us' (p. 365). Most postmo dernist thinker s would accept the third informa tion-the ory postula te: communica tion is an interact ive, two-wa y process. Most see commu nication (and human life in general ) as charact erized by 'mutual ity, involvement , and context -depend ence' (p. 367). However, a few would substitu te 'transac tive' for 'interac tive' since the latter term implies that commu nicators have adequa tely grasped things prior to their exchang e wherea s the former highlig hts the fact that the subject matter constan tly changes even as people commu nicate. People underst and through commu nication , not prior to it. Finally, postmo dernist though t question s the fidelity postula te since that assump tion presum es a represe ntationa l view of the world. 'In order for a fidelity assessm ent to work, one has to assume a conside rable degree of both discrete ness and stability in the phenom ena being matche d or fitted' (p. 370). The sender and receiver propose d by the model must then have access to their own and each other's goals and messag es so that they can compar e them and assess fidelity. Postmo dernist thought asks whethe r humans do indeed assess the fidelity of claims in this way or whethe r communica tion is rather an ongoing process that comes clear only over time. The postmo dernist critique strikes at the heart of the traditio n of interper sonal communica tion research . Often assumin g the informa tion-the ory model (and seldom adverting to its origin in electronic commun ication) , interpe rsonal theorist s developed careful empirical studies that, as Motley pointed out, favoure d the receiver and validate d the Cartesi an/Kan tian worldview. The postmo dern position first moves all commun ication research (and especia lly interper sonal research ) towards an explicit ly transac tional model in which commu nication defines the identity of its particip ants. 'Second , researc hers aware of the postmo dern critique s will certainl y continu e their efforts to study speech commu nication as-it-ac tually-h appens, and preferen ce will be given to researc h approac hes which minima lly impose predete rmined structur es ofration ality' (p. 373). Third, 'validity ' and 'proof will be seen more clearly as a function of pragma tic commu nication practice s. Finally, researc h will more explicit ly move away from the information- theory model toward one rooted, perhaps, in hermen eutics. Ideolo gical Critiqu e Althoug h he did not particip ate in the debate occasio ned by Motley, John Lannam ann, also writing in 1991, offers a critique of interper sonal commu nication research similar to that of Stewar t but from a differen t starting point. Focusin g on ideological practice , he notes that what is 'absent in the metathe oretical debates about interper sonal researc h has been the investig ation of how epistemological decisions are shaped by latent ideological commit ments' (p. 183). This omission stems from instituCRT Vol 12 No. 3 - 5 tional deman ds for special ization (which separate interpe rsonal researc h from social phenom ena), from an early empiri cal orienta tion, and from compe ting treatm ents of interpe rsonal power. Mainli ne interpe rsonal work treats power as 'a commu nicativ e produc t or proces s throug h which one person effects an intend ed behavi oral or attitud inal change in anothe r person ' (p. 184); the alterna tive view treats power from the system ic level. These three factors blind us to the ideological basis of interpe rsonal domina tion. Lanna mann identif ies four ideological charac teristic s which sugges t trends in interperson al commu nicatio n researc h. First, the researc h traditi on tends to select the individ ual as the locus of person hood. Empiri cal instruments (questi onnair es, conten t analys is, interviewin g) focus on the individ ual, even when theoris ts acknow ledge that interpe rsonal commu nicatio n takes place between individ uals. Such an approa ch ignores the social origins of the self (p. 187) and shifts explan ations to cogniti ve structu res and away from social proces ses (p. 188). AB a case in point, he notes that relatio nship- develo pment models accoun t for friends hip format ion by a cost/be nefit analys is carried out by individ ual actors, thus reduci ng 'relatio nships to isolate d individ uals pursui ng hedoni stic acts' (p. 190). Such a focus on the individ ual is itself ideological, he says, becaus e it reinfor ces a power model of relatio nships and then ratifies those power relatio nships by keepin g them from system atic analysis. Histor ical, social, and even geogra phical pattern ing in relatio nships disapp ears. Second , the researc h traditi on concen trates on the percep tions of the knowin g subject . Like the previou s charac teristic , this too neglec ts social proces ses and materi al conditions. For examp le, langua ge--a produc t of the human commu nity--b oth produc es and positions subjec ts within society. How we speak makes a differe nce but most people do not attend to how they speak. Only recentl y (spurre d on by femini st studies with its empha sis on langua ge inequa lity, for examp le) has commu nicatio n study shown an interes t in the ways that social institu tions such as langua ge actuall y determ ine interpe rsonal relatio ns (pp. 190-191). 6 - CRT Vol 12 No. 3 Third, interpe rsonal resear ch assum es a purpos eful behavi our in individ uals. 'Indivi duals are seen as contro lling their own destiny , and theorie s of social action based on subjective intenti onality work to shore up our lingering modern ist belief in the unitar y self' (p. 192). The function of social practic es, social roles, and social pattern s remain s hidden behind the ideological defens e of the autonomous individ ual. The researc h traditi on simply does not ask wheth er the behavi our is indeed autono mous. Finally , the researc h traditi on attend s only to the presen t when it comes to interpe rsonal behavi our. 'This pervas ive ahistor icism has severa l roots includi ng an early empha sis on proces s (Berlo, 1960), a pragm atic focus on the here and now (Watzlawick, Beavin & Jackso n, 1967), a microsocial focus that preclud es an examin ation of the prevai ling social epoch, and the lingeri ng effects of a thorou gh-goi ng reducti onism in experi mental method ' (p. 194). Whate ver the cause, we find few histori cal studies ofrelat ionship s and the commu nicatio n that charac terizes relatio nships . Lanna mann notes that only a few conflic t models sugges t that one needs to look at the roots or history of the conflict in order to unders tand a curren t situati on. As a respon se to this situati on, Lanna mann offers the alterna tive of critica l interpe rsonal researc h. One can avoid the four weakn esses by develo ping 'an explici t accoun t of the unintended conseq uences of social interac tion. By expand ing the unit of observ ation to include the ramific ations of interpe rsonal action, we are better able to see the recursi ve link betwee n interpe rsonal practic es and the emergent structu res of larger social system s' (p. 195). Social class and the experie nce of state author ity, for example, lead to styles of interpe rsonal behavi our--w hether among school drop-o uts, teenag e gang membe rs, or upwar dly mobile urban professionals. Second ly, Lanna mann urges a rethink ing of the concep t of power away from an energy model (where one person or thing exerts a force on anothe r) and toward s a sense of constra int applied recursi vely. For examp le, the enactm ent of power in a studen tteache r relatio nship depend s on histori cal pattern s of legitim ation, highlig hted by a status differe nce in a hierarc hical social structure. Each membe r of the studen t-teach er dyad comes into the relatio nship with a personal (and social) histori cal pattern which constr ains how they interac t (p. 197). Femin ist Critiq ue Severa l years before these theoret ical and philoso phical re-eval uation s, Lana Rakow (1986) had called into questio n the way that 'gende r has been operati onalize d as a pregiv en catego ry' (p. 11), to be used as a fundam ental variab le in interpe rsonal and mass commu nication researc h. In 'Rethin king Gende r Resear ch in Comm unicati on,' she argues , based on femini st schola rship, 'that gender should be seen as a verb, that is, work that we do to constru ct and mainta in a particu lar gender system , and as a meanin g system , that is, organi zing catego ries used to make sense of the world and experie nce' (pp. 12-13). [Rakow's more recent (1992) work on femini st directi ons in commu nicatio n researc h is treated in Communica tion Research Trends, Vol. 12, No. 1.] Using histori cal studies she notes that researc hers are more likely to assum e male and female differe nces than to observe them. Follow ing Putnam (1982) she claims that gender may well be more an effect of commu nication pattern s than a cause of them. 'She [Putna m] argues that sex difference resear ch rests on the assum ption that the researc hers know which traits and behavi ours are mascu line and which femini ne, and that gender is mutua lly exclusive and linked to biological opposi tes' (p. 16). Using anthro pologi cal, sociological, and biological data, she demon strates that creatin g two univer sal catego ries of people does not necess arily flow from human biology. Rather it stems from the Weste rn Enligh tenmen t's predilection for binary opposi tions and dualisms, from the need to mark individ uals in a hierarc hical system , and from the social requirem ent of a 'struct uring structu re' to give order to the world (pp. 21-22). She does not mentio n, though it may be relevan t, that a binary opposition like gender provid es an easily accessible indepe ndent variab le, one that can readily be utilized in unsoph isticate d statisti cal modelling in empiri cal studies . Her study of gender indicat es that the differe nt meanin gs of gender (in differe nt histori cal and cultura l setting s) show that gender 'has meanin g, is organi zed and structured, and takes place as interac tion and social practice, all of which are commu nicatio n processes' (p. '23). Theref ore commu nicatio n researc h must resist using gender as an explanato ry concept lest it presum e what it is trying to establi sh. Each of these three critiqu es poses a theoretical challenge to commu nicatio n researc h in interpe rsonal communication. Each in its own way asks that researc h and theoriz ing about commu nicatio n put the commu nicatio n process (a social activity) ahead of the particu lar individuals engaged in that process. Data gather ed about individ uals, throug h whatev er empiri cal means, still obscur e the social framework and reinforce the tenden cy to privilege individ ual behavi ours. These critiqu es-whethe r centred on postmo dernism , ideology, or gender --ask researc hers to develop ways to study the process rather than the commu nicator. IT. Bas ic Stud ies in Inte rper sona l Com mun icat ion Studie s of conver sation and nonver bal communic ation form two of the buildin g blocks in the edifice of interpe rsonal studies . Other blocks consis t of examin ations of motiva tion to commu nicate, commu nicator style, interpr etation, and so on (see Knapp & Miller, 1985 for an overvie w of the areas). As noted above, this review will look only briefly at verbal and nonver bal communication. These areas could well merit their own extend ed review s, as the bibliog raphies in each work demon strate. Furthe r, one should note that the theore tical debate outline d in section I occurre d only after the work reporte d here was completed. CRT Vol 12 No. 3 - 7 A. Conversation McLaughlin, M. L. 1984. Conversation: How Talk Is Organized. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Nofsinger, R. E. 1991. Everyday Conversation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Tannen, D. 1990. You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow. How People Talk Language and its everyday use makes up the foundation of all interpersonal communication. Following in the tradition of ordinary language philosophy, linguistics, and ethnomethodology, communication researchers have looked more and more at how conversation works. This focus has taken its place alongside the rhetorical analysis of verbal production: interested not so much in global interpretation as in structures and smaller-unit interpretation, students of conversation minutely analyze transcriptions of talk that might occur anywhere. Three good examples of this approach to interpersonal communication study come from McLaughlin (1984), Nofsinger (1991), and Tannen (1990). McLaughlin's book is more technical; Nofsinger planned his as an introductory textbook; and Tannen chose a popular style to make the fruits of this research tradition available to a wider audience. Each demonstrates the fact that day-to-day conversation requires an immense amount of communicative skill. In Conversation: How Talk is Organized, Margaret McLaughlin presents an overview of how people talk. Conversationalists, usually unconsciously, know a great deal about communication. Researchers have tried to make this knowledge explicit by describing it in terms of rules, interpretive procedures, and maxims. Rules specify behaviour in particular contexts. 'While most theorists seem to agree that rules prescribe the behaviour necessary to constitute a social act or to carry out an action sequence, none implies that rules prescribe particular behaviours, or reference idiosyncratic situations' (p. 16). People learn rules 8 - CRT Vol 12 No. 3 through modelling and use them to guide actions. For example, we learn that conversation follows a turn-taking rule. First one person talks, then the other. Conversationalists also follow sets of interpretive procedures to guide their reactions. For example, when someone observes that it is cold in the room, the conversational partner knows to interpret this not only as a statement but also as an indirect request to close the window (p. 30). Finally, following Grice (1975), McLaughlin notes that conversationalists also employ a set of common assumptions to facilitate the social interaction of talk. For example, the Quality maxim 'requires that one state only that which one believes to be true, and for which there is sufficient evidence' (p. 32). Both the rules and the maxims carry social sanctions: at minimum the rule violator is judged ignorant or impolite. Conversations work because they have patterns--they are somewhat predictable (Nofsinger, 1991, p. 9). Ultimately this makes the work of conversation easier so that speakers can attend to their meaning, without undue regard for the mechanics of coordinating their talk. In order to understand some of those mechanics, researchers have had to describe various aspects of language, often in great detail. Besides talking, conversationalists also perform a variety of actions, or speech acts, in their talk. Utterances (locutions) accomplish illocutionary acts (the terminology follows that of Austin, 1975, and Searle, 1969): promises, requests, commands, threats, offers, greetings, and so on. One can distinguish forms from one another through propositional content and situational rules (Nofsinger, 1991, pp. 14-45). Besides having coherence at the functional level, conversations also hold together on a structural level through sequences, turn-taking, and alignment. Sequences are series of three or more speech acts that form a unit. These include simple things like openings or greetings as well as more complex things like stories or arguments (McLaughlin, 1984, pp. 169-194; Nofsinger, 1991, pp. 49-77). On an even more basic level, turn-taking establishes conversation; it also strikes most people as elementary and rather obvious, and--as most transcriptions of normal conversation readily show--is observed more in the breach of its rules. Indeed, scholars have had trouble defining turns because turn boundarie s are so fluid (McLaugh lin, 1984, p. 93). Speakers construct turn units as they talk: 'the important thing about ... these ... units is that participan ts can project where they will end' (Nofsinger , 1991, pp. 80-81); usually transcripti ons indicate that a speaker did accomplish a speaking goal or was about to accomplish one when the turn ended. Noting turn organizati on helps specify the rules by which people take turns, refuse turns, or interrupt one another. Turn-takin g rules also help to clarify conversati onal events like hesitation pauses, switching pauses, simultaneous talk, and interruptio ns. One model that has emerged from the study of turns is an economic one: conversati on has its goods (the turn to speak) which entail certain costs and rewards and obligations . 'Market mechanism s' adapted from economic studies helps to explain and predict the occurrence s of turns in conversation (McLaugh lin, 1984, p. 92). Finally, alignment keeps turns on track by helping people to monitor or understan d one another. The process, consisting of verbal and nonverbal cues, conveys understan ding as well as synchronizati on. For example, nodding one's head and saying, 'uh-huh,' signals to the speaker to continue; establishin g eye contact may signal the handing over of a turn to speak. Sometimes more formal alignment s take place as when someone summarize s a conversati on, repairs a fault ('Sorry, I thought you were finished'), or prefaces an utterance with a disclaimer or explanatio n ('Usually I don't use this kind of language .. .'). Alignment , in general, refers to the ways speaking turns are fitted together by the speakers; more alignment takes place where there is a likelihood or an occurrence of misunders tanding (Nofsinger , 1991, pp. 111-137). Ultimately conversati onal analysts attempt to carefully describe the mechanics of talk in order to specify the rules people implicitly follow--rules which make communic ation possible. Conversat ional structures can indeed be complex and forbidding despite the fact that even children have managed the process. This empiricall y-based research sheds important light on human communic ation and, on a theoretical level, helps correct the informatio n theory models by insisting on rules drawn from empirical observatio ns. The conclusion s gained from the careful study of conversati on also bear fruit in diagnosing and understan ding the alltoo-real mis-comm unications that seem to characterize human interaction . Other studies combine with the study of conversati onal analysis in order to improve an understan ding of how communic ation works. These studies attempt to refine conversati onal methods as well as to develop new ones. Duck, Rutt, Hoy and Strejc (1991) propose an approach that focuses specifically on everyday talk, rather than talk recorded in laboratorie s or in other artificial settings. They also attempt to correct three common errors in the research: aggregatin g communic ation samples from different kinds of relationshi ps; treating any instance of communic ation in a given relationshi p as an indicator of the communication in the relationsh ip as a whole; and treating data gathered on a given day as equivalent to data gathered in other circumstan ces (p. 229). They proposed and tested the 'Iowa Communic ation Record,' a structured selfreport form that employs a diary technique in which participan ts record a wide variety of informatio n about their day-to-day conversations (p. 236). In the initial work Duck et al. note consistent gender differences in the quality and nature of conversati ons--'male s are unaffected by details that could actually create change in the relationsh ip' (p. 247). In addition they also find that groups commonly clustered as 'intimates ' for research purposes (close friends, best friends, lovers) show distinctly different patterns of communic ation (pp. 247, 253). This work calls attention to the real-world nature of conversati on and the impossibili ty of separating conversati on from relationshi ps. Gender and Conversa tion Deborah Tannen, a sociolingu ist, studies precisely these things: everyday conversati ons and their effects on relationshi ps. In You Just Don't Understan d: Women and Men in Conversation (1990), she provides a wonderfull y readable guide to gender differences in conversational styles. She argues that women and CRT Vol 12 No. 3 - 9 men often talk at cross-purposes, beginning with very different assumptions about the world and about the nature and purpose of talk. Writing of herself and her husband, she summarizes the differences: My husband was simply engaging the world in a way that many men do: as an individual in a hierarchical social order in which he was either one-up or one-down. In this world, conversations are negotiations in which people try to achieve and maintain the upper hand if they can, and protect themselves from others' attempts to put them down and push them around. Life, then, is a contest, a struggle to preserve independence and avoid failure. I, on the other hand, was approaching the world as many women do: as an individual in a network of connections. In this world, conversations are negotiations for closeness in which people try to seek and give confirmation and support, and to reach consensus. They try to protect themselves from others' attempts to push them away. Life, then, is a community, a struggle to preserve intimacy and avoid isolation. (pp. 24-25) The distinction translates into different Women seek what conversational styles. Tannen terms 'rapport-talk' while men prefer 'report-talk.' The former privileges private speaking--establishing connections, matching experiences, building a common world--while the latter favours public discourse, getting attention, arguing a point (pp. 76-77). Obviously, women and men can choose either style (and do, according to circumstances); in general, women choose rapport-talk while men choose the other. Tannen uses data generated by the kinds of conversational analysis presented by McLaughlin and Nofsinger throughout her book. For example, in discussing interruptions, especially in talk between intimates, she notes that interruption often transposes into questions of power and dominance. 'Interrupting carries a load of metamessages--that a partner doesn't care enough, doesn't listen, isn't interested' (p. 189). Transcriptions indicate that overlaps (the generic term for interruptions) 10 - CRT Vol 12 No. 3 can be cooperative or uncooperative. People usually regard only the latter as interruptions because such talk steals the turn away and often changes the subject as well. Cooperative overlaps occur when people work together to recount an event, share news, or help the conversation out. But individuals can fail in cooperative overlaps--here the data suggest that we should all be more careful in taking offense (pp. 192-200). Over and over again Tannen reminds us that individuals differ in their style of speaking. One style is not necessarily better than another. She concludes, 'Once people realize that their partners have different conversational styles, they are inclined to accept differences without blaming themselves, their partners, or their relationships. The biggest mistake is believing there is one right way to listen, to talk, to have a conversation--or a relationship' (p. 297). The ultimate benefit of conversational analysis results from an increased understanding of what happens implicitly in talk; knowing that, for example, frees people from letting arguments spiral out of control due to the misunderstandings of style that hide substance. B. Nonverbal Communication Knapp, M. L. 1978. Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Burgoon, J. K., T. Birk, & M. Pfau, 1990. 'Nonverbal Behaviours, Persuasion, and Credibility', Human Communication Research, Vol. 17, pp. 140-169. Burgoon, J. K., & J. B. Walther, 1990. 'Nonverbal Expectancies and the Evaluative Consequences of Violations', Human Communication Research, Vol 17., pp. 232-265. Burgoon, J. K., & D. A. Newton, 1991. 'Applying a Social Meaning Model to Relational Message Interpretations of Conversational Involvement: Comparing Observer and Participant Perspectives', The Southern Communication Journal, Vol. 56, pp. 96-113. Keeley-Dyreson, M., J. K. Burgoon, & W. Bailey, 1991. 'The Effects of Stress and Gender on Nonverbal Decoding Accuracy in Kinesic and Vocalic Channels', Human Communication Research, Vol. 17, pp. 584-605. Backg round Work Nonve rbal commu nicatio n comple ments, reinforces, or even contra dicts verbal messag es. Since the work of Watzla wick and his associates, interpe rsonal commu nicatio n study has examin ed nonver bal behavi our as a necess ary part of human interac tion. Much of the basic researc h in nonver bal commu nicatio n, which occurre d in the period of 1950 to 1975, examines somew hat self-co ntained areas of activity: enviro nment and person al space; physica l appear ance and clothin g; gestur es and other bodily movem ents; touchin g; eye behavi our; and vocal cues (Knapp , 1978). Before addres sing more specific studies , let us briefly review the commo nly accept ed terms and definit ions. Human s, as territo rial creatu res, react to enviro nmenta l and spatial cues. Althou gh archite cture does influen ce behavi our, person al space receive s more explici t resear ch attenti on. Resear chers have particu larly studied conversationa l distanc es which range from a few inches to severa l feet; closen ess of relatio nship and culture strong ly determ ine the exact distanc es (Knapp , 1978, pp. 123-124). Simila rly, physic al appear ance and clothin g styles signal willing ness to commu nicate- -at least on a stereot ypical level. Many nonver bal studies look at percep tions of clothin g or body shape in order to measu re differi ng interpr etation s (Knapp , 1978, pp. 175-185). Traditi onal studie s of gestur e, movem ent, and touch classif y these activit ies, often using an analog y to linguis tics first propos ed by Birdwh istell in the 1950's (see Birdwh istell, 1970, for a summa ry). Others prefer classifications that do not claim any kinshi p with linguistic practic e nor any particu lar inhere nt meani ng for any gestur e; these researc hers divide movem ents only to facilita te further researc h. Ekman and Friese n (1969) propose the most commo nly used catego ries: emblem s (action s which have a direct verbal transla tion, such as pointin g to an imagin ary wristw atch to ask the time), illustra tors (action s which illustrate speech , usually throug h accom panyin g gesture s), affect display s (action s which exhibit emotio ns), regula tors (action s which mainta in or regula te interac tive behavi our, such as noddin g one's head to let the speake r know that the messag e is unders tood), and adapto rs (action s which adapt to body or the environ ment, such as scratch ing an itch or moving things on one's desk). Simila r categor ies of touch classify types of touch and parts of the body commo nly touche d--such touchin g ranges from impers onal (a perfun ctory handsh ake) to highly intima te (sexua l touch); hands are the most commo nly touche d parts of the body (Knapp , 1978, pp. 250-252). Eye contac t and vocal cues (intona tion, pitch, volume , rate of speaki ng, and so forth) primar ily regula te commu nicatio n by signall ing turn-ta king. Howev er, both also expres s emotion (the long, loving gaze or the angry tone). Much of the researc h traditi on tries to integrate these factors into studies of larger communica tion interac tions-- family interac tion, persua sion, and so on (Knapp , 1978, pp. 298305, 340-355). Nonve rbal Comm unicat ion in Interp erson al Settin gs More curren t researc h has examin ed the nonver bal compo nent of differin g interpe rsonal situati ons. Judee Burgoo n and her colleagues have publish ed four studies that indicat e some of the directi ons which schola rs have taken in this area. First, Burgoo n, Thoma s Birk and Michae l Pfau (1990) explore d how nonver bal behavi ours interac ted with credibi lity and persua sion. Since past theory held that nonver bal behavi ours had little direct influence on persua sion, the group looked for an intervening effect. They found that nonver bal cues signall ing compo sure, sociability, and immediacy influen ced judgm ents of credibi lity which in turn influen ced the persua sion. In anothe r study Burgoo n and Joseph Walther (1990) examin ed expect ations. 'Comm unication expect ancies are cognitions about the anticip ated commu nicativ e behavi our of specific others, as embed ded within and shaped by the social norms for the contem porane ous roles, relatio nships , and contex t' (p. 236). They asked a random sample of subjec ts to report their impres sions of photog raphs of differe nt situations involv ing touch. Overal l they found CRT Vol 12 No. 3 - 11 •a•-'~•••- that expected nonverba l behaviou rs were judged positivel y by third-par ty judges; unexpected behaviou rs were judged variously depending on the attractiv eness, status, and gender of the communi cators. However , they also raise the more general issue of reliance on observer impressio ns--do observer s or participants better judge behavior al expectati ons? Burgoon and Deborah Newton (1991) addresse d precisely that question in a study which had observer s rate the nonverba l behaviours involved in five 2-minute videotap ed segment s in which one of the participa nts varied the level of involvem ent (through posture, eye contact, gestures, facial animatio n, laughter and so forth). In addition, the participants themselv es also rated the nonverba l behaviou rs. The observer s consisten tly rated the behaviou rs: 'the current results demonstrate unequivo cally that certain relationa l meaning s are associate d with the global construct, conversa tional involvem ent, as well as with particula r nonverba l cues .. .' (p. 108). However , the participa nts tended to be more favourab le in their assessme nts than were the observer s. Burgoon and Newton suggest several explanat ions, ranging from the differing cues available (particip ant vs. observer ) to the cooperat ive nature of conversa tion that would make the participa nts more sympath etic to each other. They note that this area, because of its importan ce, should be further studied. (Although it lies beyond the scope of this review, the entire winter 1991 (56:2] issue of The Southern Commun ication Journal addresse s question s of nonverba l behaviou rs. Several studies stress methodol ogical issues while others look to things as specific as head movemen t and ageing.) Finally, Maureen Keeley-D yreson, Burgoon , and William Bailey (1991) examine d how stress can influence one's judgmen ts of nonverba l behaviou rs. As one might expect, stress does interfere with one's judgmen ts; people have greater difficulty judging vocal tone, inflection , and other paralingu istic cues than they do gestures or bodily movemen ts. The relatively greater attention paid to overt behaviou rs may account for this difference. These four studies demonst rate the range of topics which the interpers onal aspects of nonverba l behaviou rs cover. They also indicate the difficulties in assessing how these behaviours interact with others in communi cation. As Bavelas noted in her reply to Motley, the Watzlaw ick group decided that--wh atever the difficulty--nonverbal data could not be ignored. Ill. Inter perso nal Comm unica tion Situa tions Interpers onal commun ication has also been studied within the context of common situations where people interact. Since interpersonal commun ication virtually defines personal relations hips, some recent work on relationa l commun ication in the family will be examined . Next comes marital communi cation. Finally, because it is so common, conflict will be examined. A. Family Commu nication Stephen, T. 1990. 'Research on the New Frontier: A Review of the Communication Literatur e on Marriage and the Family.' Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Dublin, Ireland. 12 - CRT Vol 12 No. 3 The study of the family has grown in importance over the last· several decades, with scholars from a host of disciplin es examinin g this vital relations hip. Initially the domain of sociologists and psycholo gists, the family has drawn the interest first of systems- analytic commun ication theorists . Much ofWatzla wick, Beavin, and Jackson' s early work, for example, addresse d treatmen t plans for dysfunct ional children by concentr ating on the commun icative interactio ns of their families. Other communicati on teachers and scholars have approach ed family commun ication as a narrower context of the larger interpers onal communicati on area. For example , Pearson' s text, Commun ication in the Family (1989), treats the same topics as most textbook s in interpersonal communi cation but adds sections which stress aspects more particu lar to the family (couples, roles, develop ment of the family, ageing) , children , and the home. Other interpersona l topics such as self-disclosure, conflict, and decisio n-makin g are also conside red from the perspec tive of the family unit. Others focus on the family as a site of commu nication behavio ur. Silverst one (1990) has investig ated the ways in which commu nication technol ogies are integrat ed into the family context . Similar researc h is reporte d by Lull (1988) and discuss ed by Crain (1989). Studies of family commun ication have acceler ated as more and more angles of study appear. In his review of the area Stephen (1990) notes the following themes: sibling interact ion, parent- child interact ion, marital and pre-ma rital pairs, child socializ ation, parenti ng, and family use of the media (p. 4). Howeve r, he also notes a lack of coheren ce among the studies of family commun ication, someth ing that may be 'natural in a field turning its attentio n in a new directio n' (p. 7). Stephen examin ed 116 articles on family commu nication publish ed in major commun ication journal s betwee n 1915 and 1987; 72 of these appeare d betwee n 1980 and 1986. He divides the articles into calls for researc h, proposa ls of typolog ies for classify ing families , investig ations into decision making (includi ng power, control, and conflict), explora tions of family use of the mass media, studies of mother -infant interact ion, and studies of parenting. In additio n he notes some articles that seem to fit no categor y, being 'quite diverse, ranging from a study of the effects of support ive family commu nication in a diet manage ment program to one of turn taking rigidity in families of drug addicts ' (p. 14). Stephe n also observe s that the studies report a wide range of researc h method s. A little over one-thi rd relied on questio nnaires , 20% used content coding, 12% included interviews, and smaller number s employed content analysi s, experim ental designs , or a mix of method s. This is an importa nt point because it indicate s the relative newnes s of the area as well as the inheren t difficult y in studyin g the family- -the relative ly close-kn it qualitie s of families make traditio nal method s of study (observ ation, laborato ry experim ent) almost impossi ble. Lack of Theory in Family Comm unicati on Despite the richnes s of theoreti cal develop ment regardi ng the family in other social sciences , commu nication study has not as yet develop ed a strong theoreti cal base. Stephen reports that some hold that it is too early for this kind of formatio n, 'that it will not be possible to construct useful theories until a strong foundat ion of descript ive findings has been laid' (p. 17). Others, includin g Stephen himself , hold that the descript ive research needs some focus: The [communication] field's contextual organization (organizational, mass, interpersonal, group, etc.) may perhaps inadvertently encourage the belief that once a context area has been delineated and formalized, normal science proceeds by discovering the relevant facts about communication taking place within it. Were the field organized by theoretical position (for example, symbolic interactionist theories, exchange theories, psychological theories, functional theories, information processing theories, etc.), it might be easier to coordinate research efforts toward the development of a sensible and inter-related knowledge base. (p. 18). This lack of theoreti cal focus is reflecte d in the fact that some questio n whethe r commu nication in family settings is any differen t from commu nication that occurs in other, less intimate, settings . Howeve r, some do argue that family settings clearly differ from other areas where people commu nicate. Trying to describe those differences has given rise to one interest ing area of theoreti cal develop ment: the attemp t of several scholar s to create taxonom ies of variable s influenc ing family commun ication. One typology, developed by Mary Anne Fitzpatr ick, classifie s marital couples and will be discusse d in the next section. Anothe r, develop ed by Chaffee and McLeod (see Tims & Maslan d, 1985), began in an attempt to underst and media use pattern s in children . Using measur es of high and low 'concep t-orient ation' and 'socio-o rientatio n,' they divided families into four groups. 'Concep t-orient ation describe s a commun ication environ ment in CRT Vol 12 No. 3 - 13 which children are stimulated to express ideas while socio-orientation describes an environment in which children are encouraged to maintain harmonious personal relations and to repress feelings on extrapersonal topics' (Stephen, 1990, p. 9). These basic orientations both result from communication and influence the kinds of communication which takes place in the home. Much remains for communication research to do within the locus of the family. Stephen's conclusion is well worth repeating: The promise of research on communication in marriage and the family lies in the possibility that it may further our understanding of basic social processes. Among the more important of these processes are (a) those in which children acquire knowledge of the world, (b) those related to the formation and maintenance of self, (c) those related to the transmission of culture, (d) those related to physical, social, and psychological well being, and (e) those related to important personal capacities (e.g., intelligence). There would seem to be ample reason at this time to suspect that communication plays an important, if not crucial, role in each of these areas. The challenge for the discipline, therefore, is to begin to conceptualize and carefully research these basic issues. (p. 24) B. Marital Communication Noller, P. 1984. Nonverbal Communication and Marital Interaction. Vol. 9, International Series in Experimental Social Psychology. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Fitzpatrick, M. A. 1988b. Between Husbands & Wives: Communication in Marriage. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Noller, P. & Fitzpatrick, MA. (Eds.). 1988. Perspectives on Marital Interaction. Monographs in Social Psychology of Language, Vol. 1. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Researchers and counsellors have long regarded communication as an essential ingredient for a successful marriage (Karlsson, 1951; Bolte, 1975; see also Noller, 1984, ch. 2 for a summary of this tradition). 'The role of communication in marriage has undergone changes in that communication between husbands and wives has moved from the periphery 14 - CRT Vol 12 No. 3 to centre stage in modern marriage (Kidd, 1975) .... [A]t least for middle class Americans, "communication" means close, supportive and flexible speech' (Fitzpatrick, 1988a, p. 1). This interest in communication has drawn communication researchers to more critically examine marriage and the communication that constitutes it. (One might ask whether good communication makes a marriage successful or whether a successful marriage creates good communication. That question, seldom investigated, will not be further discussed here except to note that while most studies explore the link between communication and marriage, they presume a causal direction in that linkage: that good communication helps to create a good marriage.) Tannen's studies of gender differences in conversation, which apply to marital relationships as well as to conversation, will not be repeated here. Patricia Noller (1984) examines the other building block of interpersonal research--nonverbal communication--as it appears in marriage. Mary Anne Fitzpatrick (1988b) proposes a different approach, characterizing couples according to their communication styles. Finally Noller and Fitzpatrick, in a jointly edited volume (1988), provide a wide-ranging look at communication in the context of marriage. Nonverbal Behaviours After sketching out a description of nonverbal communication (citing the Watzlawick et al. axiom regarding the impossibility of not communicating) and reviewing the links between marital communication and the marital relationship, Noller builds Nonverbal Communication and Marital Interaction around several key questions: Cl) What kind of communication system does nonverbal communication provide for couples? (2) Do happy couples differ from unhappy ones in their communication? (3) Do happy couples differ from unhappy couples in their perception of each other's communication? and (4) How important is nonverbal couple communication to marital satisfaction? (Noller, 1984, p. 30). She reports that couples low in marital adjustment misunderstand one another's nonverbal messages more than do other couples, thus supporting the idea that nonverbal communication does play a role in the 'private' communication system of each couple and in the satisfaction level of each couple. Further, more misunderstandings seem to be related to encoding messages than to decoding them. Her second two questions also receive positive answers: couples rating high on marital adjustment scales do tend to have better nonverbal communication. In addition some clear differences emerge in other areas as well. For example, wives are better message senders than husbands; wives tend to err in positive directions in decoding while husbands do so in negative directions. 'The nonverbal sending and receiving of husbands is more strongly related to marital adjustment than is that of wives, with low marital adjustment husbands making more errors in both sending and receiving than high marital adjustment husbands' (p. 87). In some instances low marital adjustment couples actually do better at decoding the messages of strangers than those of their spouses--this implies that basic communication skill may not generalize to the marital relationship (p. 101). Noller also describes some more specific evidence for her conclusions. Discrepant messages (those in which a positive visual or nonverbal meaning occurs joined to a negative verbal or vocal one) happen more frequently in low marital adjustment couples. But 'discrepant communications seem to be the preferred mode for sending negative messages, by subjects of both sexes, whether high or low in marital adjustment.' The negative communication of unhappy couples is more direct or intense in both verbal and nonverbal channels (p. 150). The differences between high and low adjustment couples also correlate with gaze behaviour: the pattern of looking at each other differs. 'Low marital adjustment couples tended to look more when they were speaking and less when they were listening than other couples' (p. 164), particularly in the case of negative messages. This suggests either a desire for confrontation or a need to monitor the reactions of the spouse (p. 165). Finally, as Tannen found with verbal messages, Noller notes differences between the nonverbal behaviours of husbands and wives. Females better encode nonverbal messages (p. 167); females send more direct messages (messages agreeing in all channels) than do males (p. 168); males are less likely to express themselves nonverbally (p. 169). Both men and women contribute to communication problems in marriages. In summarizing the research Noller found that in couples rating low in marital satisfaction, both wives and husbands: 1. Are generally more negative in their interactions, and they not only send more negative messages than other spouses, but their negative messages seem to be more intense. 2. Send fewer positive messages than other spouses. 3. Send more discrepant messages ... 4. Are less able to predict whether the spouse will decode their message accurately. 5. Are less likely to look at the spouse when they, themselves, are listening, and are more likely to look at the spouse when they, themselves, are speaking ... 6. Show less reciprocity in their gaze patterns and are less similar to one another, particularly in their pattern of looking when they are listening. 7. Decode their spouses less accurately than they decode strangers. (pp. 177178) Despite the need for more theoretical work on the exact relation of communication (verbal and nonverbal) to marital satisfaction, the link between the two cannot be denied. Behavioral therapists could well make use of the wealth of data Noller reports in helping distressed couples with communication training. Types of Married Couples Fitzpatrick's Between Husbands & Wives presents conclusions built up through almost 15 years of research into the interactions of married couples. After reviewing models and perspectives on marital interaction, she presents a typology of couples developed from thousands of questionnaires and interviews. The typology, which helps to better understand the available data, has as its basis the Relational Dimensions Instrument, a 77-question form that asks spouses to agree or disagree with statements on marital ideology, interdeCRT Vol 12 No. 3 - 15 .....,_,~ pendence, and communication. Their answers allow the researchers to classify the couples as Traditionals, Independents, Separates, or Mixed. Traditionals hold conventional ideological values about relationships' and show high interdependence and a high degree of sharing. They tend not to avoid conflict, but the conflict is usually issue oriented since they tend to rely on their common (usually unspoken) ideology to ground their lives together. Independents are just that: they believe 'that relationships should not constrain an individual's freedom in any way. The independent maintains companionship and sharing in marriage but does so while preserving personal physical space and a minimal common schedule. Independents report more assertiveness than traditionals and also do not avoid conflict. Separates seem to hold two opposing ideological views on relationships at the same time. Whereas a separate is as conventional in marital and family issues as a traditional, he or she simultaneously supports the values upheld by independents and stresses individual freedom over relationship maintenance. Separates have Jess sharing in their marriages, maintain psychological distance, and avoid open conflicts (p. 76). Pure couples feature marriages in which both partners are the same type; mixed couples consist of partners who belong to different types. Fitzpatrick reports a number of studies conducted by herself, her students, and her colleagues which have validated the TraditionalsIndependents-Separates-Mixed typology. The typology helps to clarify other research as well: on gender differences in marriage, on power, on conflict, on persuasion, and on self-disclosure. Past studies sometimes showed puzzling inconsistencies in data gathered on married couples. Fitzpatrick's approach of categorizing communication behaviour according to marital type eliminates much of that inconsistency. The different marital types have different perspectives on marriage and on life and consequently react differently. Not all married couples find satisfaction or happiness in the same things; not all happy married couples have high levels of communication; not all married couples value confrontation or avoidance. 16- CRT Vol 12 No. 3 These are valuable research results for people working with married couples. At one point Fitzpatrick and her colleagues examined the Marriage Encounter programme from the perspective of the marital typology. Although somewhat critical of the programme because it does not teach communication skills in an effective way, they proceeded with a in-depth study of leader couples. As expected there were a high proportion of traditionals in the group, but not any higher than in the general population. However, there was a significantly higher proportion of separates than in the general population. They explain this by noting that the Marriage Encounter program provides an activity that the couple can do together while maintaining their emotional distance (p. 107). Fitzpatrick's final chapter goes beyond validating the typology. In it she: demonstrate[s] the psychological reality of this typology by proving that certain propositions about marriage cohere together. Such coherence in the minds of the members of this culture suggests the marital types are psychologically real categorizations of marriage (p. 227). Because there are competing conceptualizations of marriage, researchers should be careful in generalizing about the behaviour of married couples; marriage counsellors should realize that no one therapeutic course will prove effective. For example, happily married separates value things and behave in ways different from happily married traditionals. Mixed couples face perhaps greater difficulties since they blend different ideas about marriage. Fitzpatrick's work offers benefits to those trying to understand more about marital communication. The facts that it has a clear theoretical sense, that it builds on a very large data set, that it is supported by a consistent research agenda, and that it welcomes new validation make it an important tool for further research. Research Studies Noller and Fitzpatrick have jointly edited a volume of studies: Perspectives on Marital Interaction. The studies--research based and methodological m orientation--investigate -- aspects of communication which discriminate between different types of married couples, or different types of individuals (p. 323). By and large every study indicates that distressed couples differ markedly from non-stressed couples in terms of their communication patterns. In addition the studies report differences between male and female communication and male and female responses to marital stress, a link which deserves much more research (p. 344). Fitzpatrick provides a context for the research by reviewing various approaches to marital communication. Despite the centrality of the quality of marriage to this research tradition, that is not the only approach. Others include linking individual characteristics in both biological and psychological processes to the marital situation. Psychological differences manifest themselves in cognitive, conversational, and affective models. These, particularly in the case of conversation, provide significant windows through which to view the marriage. Another approach to marriage arises from theoretical models: some propose co-orientation models; others (including Fitzpatrick herse!D, typological models; and still others, interaction models. The first of these focuses on the psychological processes by which wives and husbands construct their common world. The second, as noted above, categorises couples according to their beliefs or behaviours. The third explains interaction in marriage in terms of some exchange: behavioral exchanges, social learning/reinforcement, or relational control, for example. Finally, another approach looks beyond the marriage to the larger social network of extended families, close relationships, and friends (1988a, pp. 1-20). Particular studies in the book are grouped into four sections: communication as a means to manage everyday living in marriage; communication of emotion; problem solving; and coping with other relationships. The first section presents research into day-to-day One project explores communication. dysfunctional patterns, especially the spirals in which each partner's communication seems to block any resolution. Another examines understanding and misunderstanding--how is it that couples can decode their messages? A third looks at power and control and the ways that these pass from partner to partner in the course of normal conversations. The second section of the book surveys the ways in which couples deal with emotion and presents three differing perspectives: the first covers couples' cognitive appraisals of emotional situations; the second, their perceptions of each others' communication of emotion; and the third, sex differences in the physiological responses of men and women to emotional situations. Part three of the volume presents two alternative ways of studying conflict resolution in marriage, one based on problem solving styles and the other on Fitzpatrick's typology. The last section of the book situates marital communication in terms of other relationships, either in terms of comparing communication patterns with spouses and strangers or in terms of the effects of family and friends' input on couples' understanding of their own relationships. The variety of studies and methods assembled by Noller and Fitzpatrick gives a good indication of the ways in which interpersonal communication research addresses larger social questions. It also illustrates that particular concerns of communication cut across a variety of areas. This review of interpersonal communication concludes with a closer look at one such particular concern: conflict. C. Conflict Hocker, J. L. & Wilmot, W.W. 1991. Interpersonal Conf1ict (3rd ed.). Dubuque, lA: Wm. C. Brown. Borisoff, D. & Victor, D. A. 1989. Conf1ict Management: A Communication Skills Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cahn, D. D. (Ed.). 1990. Intimates in Conf1ict: A Communication Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Although most people do not like conflict, it seems an unavoidable aspect of human life. Conflict usually results from competing claims on scarce resources or from competing claims for power; it may result from incompatible activities or from disagreements over values. From a communication perspective, conflict CRT Vol 12 No. 3 · 17 is an expressed strugg le between at least two interdependent partie s who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from the other party in achieving their goals (Hocker & Wilmot, 1991, p. 12). Comm unicat ion resear chers who explor e conflict usuall y do so with an eye to provid ing guidel ines to resolv e conflicts or at least to transf orm them from destru ctive experi ences into produ ctive ones. Joyce Hocke r and Willia m Wilmo t have published three editio ns of their text, Interp ersona l Conflict, since 1974 and it still stand s as an impor tant summ ary and resour ce. The book • first descri bes the compo nents of conflict and then offers partic ular course s for confli ct interventio n. In depict ing the chief compo nents of confli ct they call attent ion to comm on image s of conflict (war, explos ions, a trial, a strugg le, a mess, a game, an adven ture, a barga ining table, a tide) which influe nce people 's behav iour-- toward destru ction or collab oratio n. In additi on they note that, since confli ct stems from incom patibl e goals, an under stand ing of confli ct requir es specif ying just what the goals are; some goals are (to borrow Watzl awick , Beavi n, and Jackso n's langu age again) conten t goals and some, relatio nship goals. Becau se goals -- and how people see them -- chang e throug hout the conflict, Hocke r and Wilmo t recom mend clarify ing one's goals in as concre te a way as possible. A knowl edge of the power dimen sion of conflict also helps to clarify the relatio nship aspect of the disput e. Finall y, they descri be conflict tactics and styles ; these includ e avoida nce, engag ement , compe tition, threat s, and even violen ce. . The second part of Interp ersona l Confli ct provid es a manua l for dealin g with conflict. Takin g a system s theory perspe ctive, they advise identi fying confli ct patter ns throug h noting metap hors, strate gies, goals, and so forth. The 'Hocke r-Wilm ot Confli ct Asses sment Guide ' leads the reade r throug h a series of questi ons drawn from the analys is in part one. It includ es questi ons about the nature of the conflict, its trigge ring events , its histor ical contex t, the assum ptions each party makes , the expres sion of the conflict, the goals each party identi fies, any other conten t and relatio nal goals, the attitud es towar d power held by each 18 - CRT Vol 12 No. 3 party, the balanc e of power , the tactics and styles used by each party in expre ssing the conflict, their percep tions of the other' s tactics , the patter ns that charac terize the conflict, and possib ilities for chang e and resolu tion (pp. 173176). Hocke r and Wilmo t sugge st three main appro aches to resolv ing conflict. First, selfregula tion involv es chang ing from the inside out by chang ing one's own (or the situati on's) comm unicat ion patter ns, alteri ng one's ways of expres sing conflict, and adjus ting the conceptual patter ns with which the partie s appro ach conflict. Secon d, barga ining and negoti ation lead to partic ular comm unicat ion patter ns and behav iours which end in compr omise . Finall y, third- party interv ention leads to chang ing the conflict from the outsid e; this usuall y calls for a forma l proces s of some kind, most often adjudi cation , arbitr ation, media tion, or consultation . Interp ersona l Confli ct provid es a thorou gh overview of the conflict proces s and, amon g other things , the comm unicat ion dimen sions of that process. It contai ns many practi cal suggestio ns as well as a 25-pa ge biblio graph y for furthe r refere nce. Comm unica tion Skills and Confl ict Debor ah Boriso ff and David Victor offer a slightl y differ ent appro ach to conflict. Their Confiict Mana gemen t (1989) focuses more partic ularly on comm unicat ion skills, callin g attent ion to langua ge, verba l strate gies, and nonve rbal strate gies. First they propos e a fivestep model for confli ct mana geme nt (assessment of the situat ion, ackno wledg ement of the other party, adjus tment of one's attitud e to includ e a willin gness to comm unicat e, action to resolve the conflict, and analy sis of the process). Seeki ng long-t erm chang e, they sugge st verbal and nonve rbal strate gies to create a suppo rtive comm unicat ion enviro nment , one in which conflict is not a destru ctive eleme nt. For examp le, they sugge st avoid ing threat s and hostile joking , gener ating viable solutio ns rather than critici sm, and under stand ing the other party' s perspe ctive. Conflict Mana gemen t also explor es some specific contex ts of conflict. Gende r differe nces, as noted above, do affect comm unicat ion style; t' I' this, in turn, can affect conflict. Intercultural communication also introduces particular difficulties that can lead to misunderstanding and conflict. Finally, written materials and writing styles can contribute to conflict. In each situation Borisoff and Victor lead the reader through their five-step model, calling attention to communicative solutions to potential conflicts. I 1 Research Studies Intimates in Confiict differs from the other treatments of conflict noted here: it collects empirical studies of conflict within the particular setting of ongoing relationships: families, friendships, and social networks. Dudley Cahn, its editor, notes that: interpersonal conflict between intimate partners goes beyond differences regarding a specific problem, issue, or argument because of the emotional nature of their relationship (p. 1). In his opening review he suggests that researchers view such conflict as a communication process with multiple dimensions. Consequently, research might address questions such as these: Are patterns of conflict as a cause and as an effect both equally destructive in intimate relationships? ... Are the partners male or female? What psychological gender and sex type are they? ... What are [the] social contexts that function as antecedents in intimate conflict? (pp. 1819) Although each of the llessays in the collection sheds light on one aspect or another of the problem, space only permits discussion of a few. Jonathan Healey and Robert Bell assess various responses to conflict in friendship. Their work tests the applicability of two theories originally developed in studying romantic partners to relations among friends: investment theory and the 'exit-voice-loyalty-neglect' typology. Investment theory holds that every relationship is held together by an exchange of resources; one stays in a relationship if one has invested more than one hopes to get from alternative sources. The 'exit-voice-loyaltyneglect' typology describes reactions to conflict: constructive responses take the form of voice (an active discussing, solving the problem) or loyalty (a passive sticking it out); destructive responses take the form of exit (an active leaving, terminating the relationship) or neglect (a passive Jetting the relationship die). In measuring the responses among friends, Healey and Bell found weaknesses in the typology (namely that exit and neglect blended together) but found clear indications that investment theory did account for many friendships--at least among college students (pp. 2548). Their results have merit because so many studies use the 'exit-voice-loyalty-neglect' typology to examine conflict among intimates. Dolf Zillmann reviews a great deal of research on the interplay of cognition and excitation in aggravated or violent conflict (pp. 187-208). Citing statistics on domestic violence, he asks how disagreements breed anger leading to violence against intimates. Two factors seem to be at work: cognitive incapacitation (in which usual inhibitions do not work) and some triggering cause or excitation. While many things might act as trigger, the former might be caused by alcohol, habits of aggression, or reinforced strong emotions through escalation of the conflict itself. He concludes, 'The discussed research sensitizes us to critical events in the escalation of conflict and points to communicative intervention strategies' (p. 202). Among these strategies are (1) averting escalation of emotional arousal by communicating mitigating circumstances or by explaining how to cope with an adverse situation; (2) cautiously disengaging from argument with a person exhibiting 'cognitive deficit'; and (3) 'stressing passive · inhibition by avoiding aggressive habits or aggressive actions' (pp. 202-204). In his investigations of cultural diversity in intimate relationships, Guy Fontaine notes that: in intercultural relationships one does not interact with a nation, race, ethnicity, or culture on any macrolevel. One does so with specific people on the specific tasks required by the relationship (p. 211). CRT Vol 12 No. 3 - 19 .., He stresses that people should not rely on generalize d description s but instead work to develop 'intercultu ral microcultu res' within which individual s can negotiate, make decisions, and communic ate between their particular cultures as they themselve s embody them. He suggests a number of practical communication strategies to accomplish this. For example, people should match rituals--co mpare what they usually do in given situations: have a cup of tea or have a beer (p. 219). From these, individual s can understan d each other's perspectiv es and better go about their communicatio n in a way that avoids unnecessa ry conflict. Other essays in Intimates in Conflict deal with the reluctance to give voice to negative matters, nonverbal conflict behaviour s, the use of humour in managing conflict, and the influence of social networks. This last study raises the question whether having common friends tends to help people resolve conflicts (steering them away from terminatin g the relationshi p) lest they lose their place in the social group. Other researcher s report work on confrontat ion behaviours , teaching the communic ation skills of interperso nal confrontat ion, and measuring the psychological reality of marital conflict. Perspe ctive Many readers of Trends may not follow interpersonal communic ation, a fact that is not surprising considerin g only three issues of Trends since 1980 have touched on what might involve interperso nal topics while 40 issues have addressed the mass media and related topics. And yet the concerns with which interpersonal communic ation deals probably touch as much of people's lives as do the media. This imbalance reflects both a sociological approach to communic ation study and the inability of interperso nal communic ation scholars to find a clear focus on their aspect of communic ation. Sometimes it seems that everything which is not mass communic ation falls under the heading of interperso nal communication ; that practice confuses the issue of just what it is that they study. 'Of course, the communica tion discipline's contextual structure is not haphazard . The lines of division actually imply a simple theory of communic ation, which, at its most basic level, suggests that audience size and intimacy are variables of paramoun t importance in understan ding and predicting human communic ation' (Stephen, 1990, p. 19). Forced to begin their research with this reasoning about audience size, scholars studying interperso nal communic ation began with a transmissi on model better suited to mass audiences. That transmissi on model has influenced thinking about communic ation ever since. Students beginning classes in communic ation 20 - CRT Vol 12 No. 3 dutifully read about source-me ssage-rece iver models of communic ation and note down the elements of Shannon and Weaver's informatio n theory model. They take in a sender-bas ed idea of communic ation in which the key measurable variables are audience size and audience characteris tics; few question the notion and primacy of the sender. The transmissi on and informatio n theory models exerted such fascination that even the anthropolo gical and social psychology backgroun ds of interperso nal study attempted to adapt them. Interperso nal communic ation study has perhaps never been completely comfortabl e with its pedigree. That backgroun d may well have led to a long period in which it lacked a sense of purpose. And that backgroun d did inhibit theoretical developme nt because it led people to look in the wrong direction. Human beings are not machines nor do they imitate technical systems when they communic ate. But all the theories began by describing technologically driven systems. Even this incomplete review of interperso nal communic ation research suggests a change in focus from those earlier days. Thought-p rovoking theoretical critiques invite scholars to re-examine their work and to re-think what we mean by communic ation between people. Specific human areas of interaction call attention to how different people are from their technical systems. Sustained thought about these differences begins to lead to new research method s--meth ods better suited to underst anding the complex interact ions that constitu te day-to-d ay living. Perhap s inevitab ly, and certainl y most welcom e, interpe rsonal commu nicatio n researc h is now in a position to shed new light on mediate d commu nication . Television viewing, for exampl e, often happen s in an interper sonal context (Lull, 1988); people constru ct meanin g from media messag es as these are filtered though their social network s--some thing Katz and Lazarsf eld first suggest ed in the 1950's (1955) but which seems forgotte n by subsequ ent investig ators until recently. However, the questio ns about context will not go away now. And such question s may be more easily answer ed because the research tools of interpe rsonal study have found their way into the kits of those more interest ed in mass commu nication . These develop ments are welcome news indeed. Referen ces Anderson , P.A. 1991. 'When One Cannot Not Commun i cate: A Challeng e to Motleys Tradition al Commun ication Postulate s', Commun icatum Studies, Vol. 42, pp. 309325. Andrade, V. M. 1991. 'O mundo interno como afeto e represen ta¢o: Uma descrii;ao metapsicologica da communicai;ao interpess oal como um processo de identifica l"io [The internal world as affect and representation : A metapsyc hological description of interpersonal communication as a process of identification),' Reuista Brasileir a de Psicanalise, Vol. 25, pp. 467-484. Austin, J. L. 1975. How To Do Things with Words (2nd ed.). Cambridg e, MA: Harvard Universit y Press. Bateson, G. 1958. Nauen (2nd ed.). [Palo Alto, CA]: Stanford Universi ty Press. Bavelas, J. B. 1990. 'Behavin g and Communicating: A Reply to Motley', Western Journal ofSpeech Communication, Vol. 54, pp. 593-602. Beach, W. 1990. 'On (Not) Observin g Behavior Interactionally', Western Journal of Speech Communication, Vol. 54, pp. 603-612. Bell, R. A. & J. A. Daly, 1985. 'Some Commun icator Correlates of Lonelines s', Southern Speech Commun ication Journal, Vol. 50, pp. 121-142. Berlo, D. K. 1960. The Process of Communication: An Introduct ion to Theory and Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bgazhnokov, B. Kh. 1987. 'Obshche nie glazami etnografa' [Interper sonal Communication: The Ethnologist's Point of View]', Vestnik Akademi i Nauk SSSR, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 87-97. Birdwhis tell, R. 1970. Kinesics and Context. Philadelphia: Universi ty of Pennsylv ania Press. Blumer, H. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspectives and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hal], Inc. Bolte, G. L. 1975. 'A Communications Approach to Marital Counselling', In A. S. Gurman, & D. G. Rice(eds.). Couples in Conflict. New York: Jason Aronson. Borisoff, D. & D. A. Victor, 1989. Conflict Management: A Communication Skills Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Borsoni, P. 1989. 'Metacomunicazione, disconfer ma, doppio legame, nelle teorie di G. Bateson, R. Laing, P. Watzlawick [Metacommunication, Disconfir mation, and Double Connections in the Theories of G. Bateson, R. Laing, and P. Watz]awick]', La Critica Sociologica, Vol. 90-91, pp. 206-221. Burgoon, J. K., T. Birk, & M. Pfau, 1990. 'Nonverb al Behaviors, Persuasio n, and Credibility', Human Communication Research, Vol. 17, pp. 140-169. Burgoon, J. K., & D. A. Newton, 1991. 'Applying a Social Meaning Model to Relational Message Interpret ations of Conversational Involvement: Comparing Observer and Participa nt Perspectives', The Southern Commun ication Journal, Vol. 56, pp. 96-113. Burgoon, J. K., & J.B. Walther, 1990. 'Nonverb al Expectancies and the Evaluativ e Consequences of Violation s\ Human Communication Research, Vol 17., pp. 232-265. Caffarel Serra, C. 1986. 'Algunos metodos clasicos en investiga cion social y su posibilidad de aplicacio n a la comunicacion interpersonal' [Some Classic Methods of Social Research and the Possibilit y of Applying Them to Interpersonal Communication}', Revista Internaci onal de Sociologia, Vol. 44, pp. 65-80. Cahn, D. D. (Ed.). 1990. Intimates in Conflict: A Communicati on Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Clevenge r, Jr., T. 1991. 'Can One Not Commun icate? A Conflict of Models', Communication Studies, Vol. 42, pp. 340-353. Crain, M. 1989. 'Home, Home on the Remote: Is Male Fascinati on with TV Technology Creating Male Domination of Family Entertainment?' lv[edia & Values, Vol. 48, pp. 2-5. Duck, S. 1985. 'Social and Personal Relations hips,' in M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (eds.). Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Duck, S., D. J. Rutt, M. H. Hurst, & H. Strejc, 1991. 'Some Evident Truths About Conversations in Everyday Relationships: All Communications Are Not Created Equal'. Human Communication Research, Vol. 18, pp. 228-267. Ekman, P. & W. V. Friesen, 1969. 'The Repertoir e of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories, Origins, Usage, and Ccxling', Semiotica, Vol. 1, pp. 49-98. Fischer, C. 1988. 'Gender and the Resident ial Telephon e, 1890-1940: Technologies of Sociability', Sociological Forum, Vol. 3, pp. 211-233. Fitzpatric k, M. A. 1988a. 'Approac hes to Marital Interaction', In P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatric k (eds.). Perspectives on Marital Interaction. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters Ltd., pp. 1-28. CRT Vol 12 No. 3 - 21 ,.- Fitzpa trick, M. A. 1988b. Between Husbands & Wives: Communication in Marriage. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Frugg eri, L. 1991. 'La ricerc a psicologica sulle dinam iche familiari prima e dopo l'introduzione del divorz io. Biblio grafla ragion ata [Psychological resear ch on family dynamics before and after the introduction of divorc e: Annotat.ed biblio graph y]', Eta evolutiva, No. 39, pp. 114-126. 'Gender and Verbal Communication in Professional Settings: A Revie w of Resea rch'. 1991. Management Communic ation Quarterly, Vol. 5, pp. 36-63. Geser, H. 1989. 'Der PC als Intera ktions partne r [The Personal Comp uter as Intera ction Partne r]', Zeitschrift fii.r Soziologie, Vol. 18, pp. 230-243. Golds mith, D. 1992. 'Mana ging Conflicting Goals in Suppo rtive Intera ction: An Integr ative Theoretical . Framework', Communication Research, Vol. 19, pp. 264-286. Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morga n (eds.). Synta x and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. Gudyk unst, W. B. (ed.). 1986. Intergroup Communi cation. London: Edwa rd Arnold, Ltd. Halte rman, C. 1991. 'Men and Women on the Job: Gender Bias in Work Teams', Journal of Business and Technical Comm unica tion, Vol. 5, pp. 469-481. Hirok awa, R. Y. & M. S. Poole, (eds.). 1986. Communi cation and Group Decision-Making. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hocker, J. L. & W. W. Wilmot, 1991. Interpersonal Conflict (3rd ed.). Dubu que, IA: Wm. C. Brown. Huls, E. 1990. 'Communicatiepatronen in Turkse gezinnen; een case study [Communication Patterns in Turki sh Famil ies; a Case Study]', Sociologische Gids, Vol. 37, pp. 351-371. Ito, T. 1991. '[The charac teristi cs of unit nonve rbal behaviors in face-to-face interaction}', Japanese Journal of Exper iment al Social Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 85-93. Joseph , I. 1987. 'Les Convictions de la coquette [The Convictions oft.he Coquette]', Communications, Vol. 46, pp. 221-228. Karlss on, G. 1951. Adapt abilit y and Communication in Marriage. Uppsa la: Almq uist and Wiksells Aktie belag Bektry cheri. Katori, A. 1984. 'Rogin no komyunikeishon shisut emu [Comm unicat ion System of the Elderly]', Soshioroji, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 83-104. Katz, E. & P. F. Lazar sfeld, 1955. Personal Influen ce: The Part Playe d by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. New York: The Free Press. Keeley-Dyreson, M., J. K. Burgoon, & W. Bailey, 1991. 'The Effect s of Stress and Gende r on Nonverbal Decoding Accuracy in Kinesic and Vocalic Channels', Huma n Communication Research, Vol. 17, pp. 584-605. Keppler, A. 1987. 'Der Verla uf von K!atsc hgessp rachen [The Seque ntial Organ izatio n of Gossip]', Zeitschrift fii.r Soziologie, Vol. 16, pp. 288-302. Kidd, V. 1975. 'Happ ily Ever After and Other Relati on ship Styles: Advice on Interpersonal Relations in Popul ar Magazines (1951-1973)', Quart erlyJo umal ofSpeech, Vol 61, pp. 31-37. 22 - CRT Vol 12 No. 3 Klush ina, N. A. 1990. 'Prichiny, vyzyv ayush chie otkaz ot otveta [The Cause s of Refus al to Answer]', Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya, Vol. 17, pp. 98-105. Knapp , M. L., & G. R. Miller, (Eds.). 1985. Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. Bever ly Hills, CA: Sage. Knapp, M. L. 1978. Nonverbal Communication in Huma n Interaction (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rineh art & Winst on. Knops, U. 1988. 'Een verwa arloos d thema in de sociolinguistiek: het taalgedrag van en tegenover ouderen [A Negle cted Topic in Sociolinguistics: Langu age Behav ior of and Toward Elders]', Gram ma, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 85-99. Lannamann, J. W. 1991. 'Int.erpersonal Communicat ion Research as Ideological Practice', Communication Theory, Vol l., pp. 179-203. Lull, J. (ed.). 1988. World Families Watch Television. Newb ury Park, CA: Sage. Matsu moto, D. 1991. 'Cultu ral Influe nces on Facial Expressions of Emotion', The Southern Communicat ion Journal, Vol. 56, No. 2, pp. 128-137. McCa rthy, T. 1987. 'General Introd uction '. In K. Bayne s, J. Bohm an, & T. McCarthy (eds.), After Philosophy: End or Transformation? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. McDonnell, J. 1986 'Interpersonal Communication', Communication Research Trends, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-8. McLa ughlin , M. L. 1984. Conversation: How Talk Is Organized. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicag o: Unive rsity of Chicago Press. Meunier, J.-P. 1990. 'Nouveaux modeles de oommunica tion, nouvelles questions [New Models of Communication, New Questions]', Recherches Sociologiques, Vol. 21, pp. 267-288. Motley, M. T. 1990. 'On Wheth er One Can(n ot) Not Communicate: An Examination via Traditional Communication Postulates', Western Journ al of Speech Communication, Vol. 54, pp. 1-20. Motley, M. T. 1991. 'How One May Not Comm unicat e: A Reply to Ander son', Communication Studie s, Vol. 42, pp. 326-339. Ne!, C. M. 1989. 'Wit-Swart komm unika sie onder versil]ende hound ingsto estand e [White-Black Comm unicat ion under Differ ent Attitu dinal Conditions]',Suid-Afrikaanse Tydsk rif vir Sosiologie [The South Africa n Journ al of Socidogy], Vol. 20, pp. 38-46. Nofsinger, R. E. 1991. Everyday Conversation. Newb ury Park, CA: Sage. Noller, P. & M. A. Fitzpa trick, (Eds.). 1988. Perspe ctives on Marit al Interaction. Monographs in Social Psychology of Language, Vol. 1. Clevedon, Avon: Multi lingua l Matte rs Ltd. Noller, P. 1984. Nonverbal Communication and Marit al Interaction. Vol. 9, International Series in Experiment al Social Psychology. Oxford: Perga mon Press. Pearson, J. C. 1989. Communication in the Famil y: Seekin g Satisfaction in Changing Times. New York: Harpe r & Row. Putna m, L. 1982. 'In Search of Gender: A Critiq ue of Communication and Sex-roles Research', Wome n's Studie s in Communication, Vol. 5 (Sprin g), pp. 1-9. ..... ..,,____ _ I I I i I, I Rakow, L. F. (ed.). 1992. Women Making Meaning: New Feminist Directions in Communication. New York: Routledge. Rakow, L. F. 1986. 'Rethinking Gender Research in Communication', Journal of Communication, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 11-26. Richmond, V. P., J. S. Gorham, & B. J. Furio, 1987. 'Affinity-Seeking Communication in Collegiate Female-Male Relationships', Communication Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 334-348. Roiz, M. 1989. 'La familia, desde la teoria de la comunicaci6n de Palo Alto [The Family, according to the Theory of Communication of Palo Alto]', Revista Espanola de Investigaciones Sociologicas, Vol. 48, pp. 117-136. Sainz Sanchez, F. J. 1986. 'Conocimiento y comunicaci6n: analisis de los efectos de las expresiones comunicativas en la representacion [Knowledge and Communication: Analysis of the Effects of Communicative Expressions on Representation]', Revista Internacional de Sociologia, Vol. 44, pp. 145-161. Schenk, M. 1989. 'Massenkommunikation und interpersonale Kommunikation [Mass Communication and Interpersonal Communication]', KOlner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Vol. 30 (supplement), pp. 406-417. Schrader, D. 1990. 'A Refined Measure of Interpersonal Communication Competence: The Inventory of Communi- cator Characteristics', Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 5, pp. 343-355. Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shannon, C. E., & W. Weaver, 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Shimanoff, S. 1988. 'Degree of Emotional Expressiveness as a Function of Face-Needs, Gender, and Interpersonal Relationship', Communication Reports, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 43-53. Silverstone, R. 1990. 'The Household and the Domestic Consumption of Information and Communication Tech- niques.' Presentation at the 40th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Dublin, Ireland. Somlai, P. 1982. 'A csaladi stabilitas kapcsolati szem!elete [Relationship Concepts and Family Stabilityf, Szociologia, Vol. 4, pp. 503-520. Stephen, T. 1990. 'Research on the New Frontier: A Review of the Communication Literature on Marriage and the Family.' Paper presented at the 40th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Dublin, Ireland. Stewart J. 1991. 'A Postmodern Look at Traditional Communication Postulates\ Western Joumal of Speech Communication, Vol. 55, pp. 354-379. 1976. 'Komunikacja interpersonalna Szopinski, J. w malzenstwie [Interpersonal communication within marriage]', Roczniki Filozoficzne: Psychologia, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 79-91. Tannen, D. 1990. You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow. Tims, A. & J. Masland, 1985. 'Measurement of Family Communication Patterns', Communication Research, Vol. 12, pp. 35-57. Watzlawick, P., J. Beavin, & D. Jackson, 1967. The Pragmatics of Human Communication. New York: Norton. Wayne, F. S. 1992. 'Vital Communication Skills and Competencies in the Workforce of the 1990s', Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 67, No. 3, pp. 141-146. Wiener, M., S. Devoe, S. Rubinow, & J. Geller, 1972 'Nonverbal Behavior and Nonverbal Communication', Psychological Review, Vol. 79, pp. 185-214. Wowk, M. 1986. 'Talk in an Organisation: Organisation in Talk'. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Sociological Association. Yoshitake, K. 1991. (Japanese title unavailable)'[The advantage of active conformity as a communication strategy for compatibility between self-assertion and smooth interpersonal relationship]', Japanese Journal of Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 229-234. Current Research on Interpersonal Communication Australia Patricia N oiler (Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072. Univ.Tel No. (07) 377-1111). Interests: marital communication. Christina O'Sullivan (Department of Communication, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6. Univ.Tel. No.(604) 291-3111. Univ.Fax No.(604) 2914455). Interests: interpersonal communication, gender and communication. Belgium Jean-Pierre Meunier (Dept. Communication Sociale, Univ. Catholique de Louvain, Place de l'Universite, B-1348 Louvain-La-Neuve. Univ. Tel No. (010) 43-21-11). Interests: communication theory. Canada Janet Beavin Bavelas (P.O. Box 1700, Victoria, BC VSW 2Y2). Interests: communication in relationships, interpersonal interaction. Claude Tousignant (Service de la documentation, Tele-universite, 2635 Hochelaga, 7e etage, Ste-Foy, Quebec GlV 4V9). Interests: interpersonal communication. Croatia Pavao Brajsa (Zavod za Socijalni Rad, Zagreb). Interests: family communication. CRT Vol 12 No. 3 - 23 Franc e Denis Guigo (Cent re recher che gestio n, Ecole polytechnique, F-911 28 Palais eau Cedex). Intere sts: conversation. Franc is Jacqu es (Universit.e de Rennes II, 6 ave. Gaston Berge r, F-350 43 Renne s Cedex. Univ.Tel. No. 99- 33-52-52). Interests: conve rsatio n, discourse. (0521) 2041. Fax No. (0521) 207521. Tix. 530327). Interests: marriage and family communication. Japa n Yuich i Iizuk a (Fuku yama City Junio r College for Women, Fukuyama). Interests: nonverbal com- munic ation, gaze, emotion. Georg ia M. I. Harsh iladze (Inst of Psychology, Tbilisi). Inter- Tetsu ji Ito (Nago ya Univ., Furo-<:ho, Chiku sa-ku, Nagoya. Univ. Tel.No. (052) 781-5111. Fax. No. (052) 781-1754). Intere sts: nonve rbal comm unicat ion. Germ any Alois Hahn (Univ ersita t Trier. Postfa ch 3825. D-550 0 Trier. Univ.Tel. No.0651 2011. Fax No. 0651 30051 9). Pedro Garci a del Valle y D. (Shizu oka-k en, Hama matsu -shi, Takam achi 200-17, Abita 08-205, 432 Japan . E-Mail. gardaCwcs.shizuoka.ac.jp. Intere sts: desicion-making and relatio nship improvement. Ange la Kepp ler Mino ru Wada (Tokyo Gakug ei U, Tokyo). Intere sts: nonverbal communication. ests: small group comm unicat ion. Interests: discourse, conversation. (Sozia lwisse nscha ftliche Fakul tiit Fachgruppe Soziologie, Universit.at Konstanz, Postfa ch 5560, D-7750 Konst anz. Univ.Tel. No. (07531) 881. Fax No: (07531) 88-3688). Intere sts: conve rsation . Hube rt Knob lauch (Sozia lwisse nscha ftliche Fakul tat, Unive rsitiit Konst anz, Postfa ch 5560, D-775 0 Konst anz). Interests: sociolinguistics. Jan Kunz ler (Inst. Soziologie, Bayer ische. Julius Max:imilians-U nivers itat, Sande rring 2, D-870 0 Wurzburg. Univ.Tel. No. (931) 311: Fax No. (931) 15123 ). Intere sts: theory , langu age. Mexi co Juan Jose Coro nado Villa nueva (Univ ersida d ITESO ; Apart ado postal 31-175; Zapop an, Jalisco ; 45051 Mexic o). Intere sts: interp erson al comm unica tion theor y, integrating communication studie s Y-ith humanistic perspe ctives , partic ularly drawn from philos ophy and theology. The Nethe rland s Uus Knop s (Nijm eegse Centr ale dialec t-en naam kunde Katho lieke U Nijme gen, Come niusla an 4, POB 9102, NL-6500 HD Nijme gen. Univ.T el. No. 51-93-33. Fax (080) 564606. Tix. 48211 KUNM NL). Intere sts: langu age Micha Schac k (Depa rtmen t of Sociology, Unive rsity of Kiel, Olsha usens tr. 40, D-230 0 Kiel). Intere sts: interp er- behaviour, sociolinguistics. Mich ael Schen k (Inst. Sozia lwisse nscha ften, Unive rsitiit Hohen heim, Postfa ch 70 05 62, D-700 0 Stuttg art 70. Univ.Tel. No. 4590). Intere sts: intera ction Tuen A. Van Dijk (Univ . of Amste rdam, Spui 21, 1012 WX Amste rdam. Univ.Tel. No. (020) 525 9111. Fax No. (020) 525-2136). Intere sts: conve rsation , langu age and social interaction. sonal communication, gende r and communication. of mass comm unicat ion and interp ersona l communicat ion. India Uday a Nara yana Singh (Univ. Hyder abad, Centr al Univ. P.O., Hyder abad 50013 4, Andh ra Prade sh. Univ.Tel. No. 253901. Tlx. 0425-2050). Intere sts: con- versation, discourse. Italy Sergi o Belar dinel li (Facoltii Science Politic he, Univ. degli Studi di Triest e, Piazz ale Europ a,!, I-3412 7 Triest e. Univ.Tel. No. (040) 56038: Tix. 460855). Intere sts: communicative competence, Habermas. Franc o Bona zzi (Inst. Sociology, Univ. degli Studi di Bologna, Via Zamb oni 33, I-4012 6 Bologna. Univ.T el. No.(051) 272933: Tlx. 511650). Intere sts: nonve rbal communication, clothing. Laura Frugg eri (lstitu to di Psico!ogia, Univ. degli Studi, Via Unive rsita 12, I-4310 0 Parma . Univ.Tel. No. 24 · CRT Vol 12 No. 3 . Polan d Anna Zalew ska (Uniw ersyte t L6dzki, 90-131 L6dz, Narut owicz a 65. Univ.T el. No. 34-98-85. Fax No. 783958. Tix. 886291). Intere sts: self disclo sure. Repu blic of South Afric a C. M. Nel (Inst. Komm unika sienav orsing , Privat e Bag X41, Pretor ia 0001). Intere sts: interr acial, interc ultura l aspect s of communication. Russi a R. L. Krich evski y and Ye. A. Sokol ova (USSR Acade my of Pedag ogical Scienc es (Scientific Resea rch Inst of Gener al & Educa tional Psychology), Ul. Pogod inskay a 8, Moscow 119905. Tel. No. 245-16-41). Intere sts: conve rsatio n, interp ersona l status . Spain Migu el Roiz Celix (Facultad Ciencias Informaci6n, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria, E-28040 Madri d. Univ. Tel. No. (4J 49-02-56. Fax No. 2438643. Tix. 22459). Interests: small groups, family communication, Palo Alto school. John A. Daly (Dept. of Speech Communication, Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712. Univ.Tel. No. (512) 471-1232). Interests: interpersonal communication. F. Javier Sainz Sanchez (Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria, E-28040 Madrid. Univ.Tel. No. (4) 49-02-56. Fax No. 2438643. Tlx. 22459). Interests: discourse. Carmen Caffarel Serra (Univ. Complutense, Madrid, E-28040). Interests: research methods in interpersonal communication. Switzerland Michael Charlton and Klaus Neumann (Universite de Fribourg, CH-1700 Fribourg. Univ.Tel. No. (037) 21-9111). Interests: interaction of mass communication and Steve Duck (University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242. Univ.Tel. No. (319) 335-3549). Interests: communication in relationships. Ray Fenton (Assessment and Evaluation; Anchorage School District; Anchorage, AK. Tel. No. (907) 269-2211; Fax (907) 269-2222). Interests: how the school environment may be manipulated to provide positive interethnic relationships. Mary Anne Fitzpatrick (Center for Communication Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706. interpersonal communication, family communication. Univ.Tel. No. (608) 262-1234. Tix. (608) 263- 5595). Interests: marital communication. Hans Geser (Soziologisches Instit, Universitat Zurich, Ramistr. 71, CH-8056 Zurich. Univ.Tel. No. (01) 257-1111). Interests: technology and personal communication. United States Krystyna Strzyzewski Aune, Dept. of Speech, George Hall 329, 2560 Campus Road, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI 96822. Univ.Tel. No. (808) 956-3322. e-mail: Krystyna@uhccvx. Interests: the area Howard Giles (University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106. Univ.Tel. No. (805) 961-2311). Interests: language and social interaction, discourse, ethnolinguistics. Richard D. Halley (Dept. of Communication, Weber State Univ., Ogden, UT 84408-1903. Univ.Tel. No. (801) 626-7072). E-mail. Rhalley@l:c.weber.edu. Interests: of emotion expression, emotion management and how it evolves throughout relationship development, behavioral study of experienced and expressed emotions in dating vs. marital relationships (expanding to include all levels of relationship development). theory of listening, relationship development, and communication via e-mail. Joe Ayres (School of Communication, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-2520. Univ.Tel. No. (509) 335-3564). Interests: the relationship between communication anxiety, language use, nonverbal behaviour, interpersonal communication, gender and communication. David Holquist (CAS Dept., Calvin College, 3201 Burton St. S.E., Grand Rapids, Ml 49546. Univ.Tel. No. (517) 774-4000. Fax No. (517) 774-4499). Interests: Robert Hopper (Dept. of Speech Communication, Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712. Univ.Tel. No. (512) 471-1232). Interests: conversational analysis, interpersonal communication. perceptions, and relational trajectories. Judy Burgoon (University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721. Univ.Tel. No. (602) 965-9011). Interests: Mark Knapp nonverbal communication, interpersonal communication. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX (Dept. of Speech Communication, The 78712. Univ.Tel. No. (512) 471-1232). Interests: interpersonal Donald J. Cegala (Dept. of Communication, The Ohio State University, 319 Neil Hall, 1634 Neil Ave. Columbus, OH 43210. Univ.Tel. No. (614) 292-6446). Interests: understanding the relationship between cogni- communication, nonverbal communication. tive/affective processes and message production. 932-1766), Interests: conversation, language and social interaction. He applies that roncern to communicative competence in various settings and is currently working on a model of competence that attempts to use thought/feeling protocols to account for differences in communicative performance Jenny Mandelbaum (Rutgers University, P.O. Box 2101, New Brunswick, NJ 08903. Univ.Tel. No. (210) among doctor-patient dyads. Deborah Socha McGee (Dept. of Communication, The Ohio State University, 319 Neil Hall, 1634 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210. Univ.Tel. No. (614) 292-6446). John Crawford (Dept. of Communication, Arizona State Interests: interpersonal communication, compliancegaining, impression management. University, Tempe, Arizona 85283. Univ.Tel. No. (602) 965-9011). Interests: conflict, negotiation, interpersonal communication. Margaret McLaughlin (Dept. of Communication Arts & Sciences, Univ ofS. California, Los Angeles, CA 90089. Univ.Tel. No. (213) 743-2311). Interests: conversation. CRT Vol 12 No. 3 - 25 Kelly S. McNeilis (Dept of Communic ation, 319 Neil Hall, The Ohio State University , Columbus, OH 43210. Univ.Te l. No. (614) 292-644 6. e-mail: kmcneili@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu). Interests: broadly interperson al communic ation, with a specific interest within health communic ation--issu es relating to care-provider patient communic ation. Currently, working on assessing physician and patient communic ation competence, student nurse socializatio n, and social support among families of haemophel iacs. (415) 338-1111). Interests: rules, conversatio n. Timothy J. Simpson (Departme nt of Communication; Barry University ; 11300 N. E. Second Avenue; Miami Shores, FL 33161-6695; tel: (305) 899-3453; fax: (305) 899-3451). Interests: the encoding process taking advantage of the informatio n processing capabilitie s and selective perception s of the decoder. Timothy Stephen (Dept. of Language, Literature , and Communication, Rensselaer Polytechni c Institute, Troy, New York 12180. Univ.Tel. No. (518) 276-6000. Fax No. (518) 276-6003). Interests: interperso nal communication. Eugenia Meimarid is (Ph.D. student; Departme nt of Communication; The Ohio State University ; Columbus, OH 43210). Interests: interperso nal communic ation in health care, in particular pedagogica l issues surroundin g the communica tion and psychosocial skills taught to medical students, interns, and medical residents. John Stewart (Univ. of Washingto n, Seattle, WA 98195. Univ.Tel. No. (206) 543-2100). Interests: interperso nal communication. Michael D. Miller (Dept. of Speech, University of Hawaii, 2560 Campus Road, GRG 329, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822. Univ.Tel. No. (808) 956-8111. Tix. 7238409). Interests: persuasion , social influence, compliance. Howard Syphes (Universit y of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506. Univ.Tel. No. (606) 257-9000. Fax No. (606) 257-4000. Tix. 204009). Interests: interperso nal communication. Judy Pearson (Ohio University , Athens, OH 45701. Univ.Tel. No. (614-593-1000. Tlx.810-239-2992). Interests: interperson al communic ation, gender and communica tion, family communication. Karen Tracy (Universit y of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309. Univ.Tel. No. (303) 492-8908). Interests: language and social interaction . Rodney A. Reynolds (Dept. of Speech, 326 George Hall, 2560 Campus Rd, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822, Univ.Tel. No. (808) 956-8317). Interests: Message effects and processing, interperso nal influence, measurem ent and methods .. Marshall Rosenste in (Dept. of Communic ation Sciences, Univ. of Connecticu t, Storrs, CT 06269. Univ.Tel. No. (203) 486-2000). Interests: interperso nal communication, nonverbal communic ation. Judith A. Sanders (Dept. of Communic ation, California State Polytechnic Univ. 3801 W. Temple, Pomona, CA 91768. Univ.Tel. No. (714) 869-2000. e-mail: JASANDERS(.dCSUPOMONA.EDU). Interests: interpersonal communica tion in the intercultur al setting. She is examining how people from different cultures use communication to reduce uncertaint ies (Uncertain ty Reduction Theory) in establishin g relationshi ps with culturally similar and culturally dissimilar others. Susan Shimanof f (San Francisco State Univ. 1600 Holloway Ave., San Francisco, CA 94132. Univ.Tel. No. Joseph B. Walther (Dept. of Communic ation Studies, Northwest ern University , 1815 Chicago Ave., Evanston, IL 60208-1340, Tel. No. (708) 491-7532. e-mail: JWALTHER@NWU.EDU). Interests: interperso nal aspects of computer- mediated communic ation. His research in progress is exploring evidence for and extensions of a social informatio n-processi ng theory of computer-m ediation effects on group interaction . Larger issues involve relational communic ation using different verbal and nonverbal cue systems. Dennis Wignall (either: Metropolit an State College of Denver, Dept of Speech Communic ation, Cam.pus Box 34 • Arts, 269, Denver, CO 80203, or Univ. of Denver, Dept of Human Communic ation Studies, Spruce Hall North rm 142,Denve r, CO 80208. Univ.Tel. No. (303) 871-2000. Tix. 910 931 0586. e-mail: bitnet%"DWIGNALL@DUCAIR"). Interests: the investigati on of the role of language in mediated messages and how it affects both the treatment of messages and the relational concerns of the interactant s. Additi onal Bibliog raphy Journals . Many journals publish material on interperso nal communic ation. Among those regularly publishin g research reports dealing specifical ly with the topic from the perspectiv e of communi cation science are these: Human Communi cation Research The Journal of Communi cation Reseaux, Nov 1983: Commun ication interperso n- Communi cation Quarterly The Southern Communi cation Journal 26 - CRTVol 12 No. 3 nelle. This special issue reviews work on the topic in France. ~ I:. i I Western Journal of Speech Communica tion Book Series Communica tion Yearbook: This series, published by various houses since 1978, is 'an annual review published for the Internation al Communication Association ' as a reference work in the area of communica tion. It serves as 'a professional forum for leading communica tion specialists' to share their work. Each year the volumes include sections on interperson al communication, mass communication , organizati onal communica tion, intercultura l communica tion, political communication, instruction al communication, and other related fields. Only the volumes since the 1986 review in Trends are included here. McLaughlin, Margaret L. (ed.). 1987. Communication Yearbook 10. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. The interperson al section deals with communication networks in adolescent friendship or romantic relationship s and with pragmatic connectedness in conversation. Anderson, James A. (ed.). 1988. Communication Yearbook 11. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sections address conversatio nal analysis and its attendant methods and the "texts" of interperson al communication. Anderson, James A. (ed.). 1989. Communication Yearbook 12. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. The interperson al section reviews discourse and relationships: structures of power, coherence, communication in young adult friendships, and second guessing. Anderson, James A. (ed.). 1990. Communication Yearbook 13. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. The relevant section of this volume contains essays on interperson al conversatio ns, arguments, embarrassments, and negotiation s. Anderson, James A. (ed.). 1991. Communication Yearbook 14. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. The interperson al influence section treats social confrontation, strategies of reasoning in spontaneous discourse, and interperson al attraction and attitude similarity. Deetz, Stanley A. (ed.). 1992. Communication Yearbook 15. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. The 'interaction in the social context' essays deal with dominance- seeking language strategies, communication as the interface between couples and culture, and articulation theory. Sage Series in Interpersonal Communication: Norton, Robert. 1983. Communicator Style: Theory, Applications, and Measures. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1983. Craig, Robert T. & Karen Tracy (eds). 1983. Conversational Coherence: Form, Structure, and Strategy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage,. McLaughlin, Margaret L. 1984. Conversation: How Talk is Organized. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. [Discussed in this issue of Trends.] Spitzberg, Brian H., & William R. Cupach. 1984. Interpersonal Communica tion Competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Communica tion competence is the ability of communicators to accomplish tasks successfully. The book reviews past research on the issue, sketches models, and proposes directions for future research. Sypher, Howard E., & James L. Applegate. (eds.). 1984. Communica tion by Children and Adults: Social Cognitive and Strategic Processes. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. The essays in this collection explore the relationship between social cognition and interperson al communication . The first sections of the book address questions of children and their communicative development; the latter sections examine the communication processes in adults. Bavelas, Janet B., Alex Black, Nicole Chovil, & Jennifer Mullett. 1990. Equivocal Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. This research study focusses on contextualized nature of communication through an examinatio n of ambiguity and equivocation. Interpersonal Commtexts Series: Nofsinger, Robert E. 1991. Everyday Conversation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Using a conversatio nal analysis approach, this text discusses conversatio nal action, turn taking, repairs, misunderst andings, and argument and story patterns. Clark, Ruth Anne. 1991. Studying Interpersonal Communica tion: The Research Experience. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Beginning with everyday observations, this text leads the reader through the process of a systematic empirical study of interperson al communication with an emphasis on experiment al methodology. It includes chapters on internal and external validity, treatment of subjects, dependent measures, describCRT Vol 12 No. 3 - 27 ing data sets, describ ing association, and generalizing from a sample to a population. Gudyku nst, William B. 1991. Bridgin g Differences: Effective Intergroup Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. This text describes a rommon process underly ing rommu nicatio n betwee n people of different groups; it emphas izes practica l applica tions and include s self-ass essmen t questio nnaires . Textbo oks This selectio n of current textbooks used for collegelevel interpe rsonal rommu nication courses notes book which summa rize much current researc h from the perspec tive of U.S. rommu nication studies . DeVito, Joseph A. 1992. Messages: Buildin g Interpe rsonal Commu nicatio n Skills. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Harper & Row. Knapp, Mark L., & Anita L. Vangel isti, 1992. Interpe rsonal Communication & Human Relationships (2nd ed.). Needha m Heights , MA: Allyn & Baron. Mader, Thoma s F., & Diane C. Mader. 1990. Unders tanding One Another: Commu nicatin g Interpersona lly. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. Pearson , Judy, & Brian H. Spitzberg. 1990. Interpersona l Communication: Concepts, Components, & Contexts. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. Trenho lm, Sarah, & Arthur D. Jensen . 1992. Interpersonal Commu nicatio n (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsw orth Publishing. Gener al Books Boden, Deirdre , & Don H. Zimme rman (eds.). 1991. Talk & Social Struct ure: Studie s in Ethnom ethodol ogy and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. The contrib utors to this collection discuss the ways in which conversational mechan isms generat e structu res of society and structu res of social action. Charvin , Franc;ois & Jean-P ierre Marhue nda. 1991. Commu nicatio n et Entreprises. Paris: Eyrolles. Conein, Bernar d, Michel De Fornel, & Louis Quere. (eds.). 1990-1991. Les formes de la conversation. 2 vols. Paris: CNET, Collection Reseaux. 28 - CRT Vol 12 No. 3 Conference papers from the 1987 Paris conference on conversational analysi s and ethnomethodology, this collection introdu ces the French reader to the main themes of conversation, verbal action, and the theory of ronvers ational interac tion. Coronado, Juan Jose. 1992. La comunicaci6n interpesonal mas alla de la apariencia. Zapopan, Jalisro (Mexico): Univer sidad Iteso. A communication textbook, this volume provide s an overview of the commu nicatio n process as well as materi al more specifi c to interpe rsonal relationships. Written from an interdis ciplina ry perspective, the text differs from others by providing a philosophic as well as a scientific foundation. Each chapter include s a list of further readings. Cosnier, J. & C. Kerbra t-Orrec hioni. (eds.). 1991. Decrire la conversation. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon. The edited volume deals with method s of conversationa l analysis. Durand , Jacques . 1981. Les fonnes de la communication. Paris: Dunod. In this overview of commu nicatio n one section treats interpe rsonal rommu nicatio n and situate s it within the larger field of commu nicatio n study as envisioned in a French academ ic rontext . Ferder, Fran. 1986. Words Made Flesh: Scripture, Psychology & Human Commu nicatio n. Notre Dame, IN: Ave Maria Press. Beginn ing from the perspec tive of spiritua lity and using Biblical texts as introdu ctions, Ferder takes the reader through reflections on listenin g, emotion, anger, ronflict, and self-disclosure. Franc;ois, Frederic. (ed.). 1990. La Commu nicatio n Inegale: Heurs et malheu rs de /'interaction verbale. Lausan ne: Delach aux et Niestle . By exploring asymm etrical commu nicatio n situations (parent-child, native- immigr ant, etc.), the essays in this rollection attemp t to describ e the mechan isms of control and coopera tion active in daily communication. Frey, Siegfried. 1984. Die nonverbale Kommu nikation. Stuttga rt. Gilgun, Jane F., Kerry Daly, & Gerald Handel. (eds.). 1992. Qualitative Method s in Family Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Although not aimed exclusively at communication research, this guidebook takes the reader through a variety of techniques to gather data about families and family interaction, including interviews, observations, document analysis, and other qualitative and quantitative methods. Hernandez-Pinz6n, Fernando Jimenez. 1991. La comunicaci6n interpersonal: Ejercicios educativos (3rd ed, rev.). Madrid: Publicaciones I.C.C.E. [Instituto Calasanz de Ciencias de la Educaci6n]. The 37 exercises assembled here cover various aspects of interpersonal communication and group dynamics; the focus tends towards business communication. Knapp, Mark L., & Gerald R. Miller. (eds.). 1985. Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. The 15 essays collected here present a sweeping overview of research and issues in interpersonal communication study. Chapters deal with methodological issues as well as address specific aspects such as communication codes, nonverbal signals, and basic processes of conversation and social influence. Maffesoli, Michel. 1990. Au creux des apparences: Pour une ethique de l'esthetique. Paris: Pion. Within a philosophical framework of epistemology, this study explores the impact of various nonverbal and cultural features on communication, thought, and public life. Of particular interest here is the section on proximity. Melendo, Maite. 1985. Comunicaci6n e integraci6n personal (3rd ed.). Santander, Spain: Editorial Sal Terrae. Drawn from the author's experiences as a counselor, the lectures collected in this book have a practical orientation. Among the topics addressed are interpersonal relationships, dialogue, openness, and family communication. Pueblito Canada, Inc. 1981?. La comunicaci6n interpersonal: Manual practico. Santa Domingo: Editora Corripio C. As an illnstrated text designed to accompany a distance education program, the seven units cover basic themes in interpersonal communication: the nature of communication, verbal and nonverbal communication, interpretation, motivation, personal characteristics of the communicator, and the process of communication. Each unit includes practical exercises. Roloff, Michael E., & Gerald R. Miller. (eds.). 1987. Interpersonal Processes: New Directions in Com- munication Research. Sage Annual Reviews of Communication Research, Vol. 14. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. This collection provides an overview of a wide range of interpersonal topics: uncertainty reduction, communicating emotion, interpersonal dynamics, conflict, social interaction, social penetration, and the breakdowns in friendships. Scharry, Leo. 1989. Etude comparative de las communication interpersonnelle entre personnes agees. Montreal: Universite de Montreal. Siegman, A. W. & S. Feldstein. (eds.). 1987. Nonverbal Behavior and Communication (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. An interdisciplinary look at nonverbal communication, the book includes studies of physiological processes, coding bodily movement, gestures, facial expression, pupillary behaviour, and paralanguage. It addition several essays explore the functions of nonverbal behaviours. Stewart, John (ed.). 1989. Bridges Not Walls: A Book About Interpersonal Communication (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Stewart has collected essays about interpersonal communication to provide a reader for an undergraduate course in the area. Sections address basic aspects of interpersonal communication (language, verbal codes, nonverbal cues), listening, self-disclosure, conflict, and gender. Touliatos, J., B. F. Perlmutter, & M. A. Straus. (eds.). 1990. Handbook of Family Measurement Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. The handbook not only guides researchers but provides basic information on available measurement instruments. Van Dijk, Teun A. 1987. Communicating Racism: Ethnic Prejudice in Thought and Talk. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Based on research in Holland and the U.SA., Van Dijk's study analyzes how racism is produced and reproduced in daily talk. Chapters address how ethnic attitudes are represented in memory and discourse, how they are interpreted by in-groups through interpersonal communication, and how they are diffused to groups beyond the level of a single interpersonal conversation. Wardhaugh, Ronald. 1985. How Conversation Works. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wardhaugh provides a general introduction to discourse analysis and examines--among other CRT Vol 12 No. 3 - 29 things--social context, cooperation in talk, turntaking, topics, termination, and doing things with language. Wilkinson, Louise Cherry, & Cora B. Marrett. (eds). 1985. Gerukr Influences in Classroom Interaction. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. This research report features 11 essays on aspects of classroom interaction; while many of them go beyond interpersonal communication, the set does address some basic interpersonal communication questions such as peer interaction, student-teacher interaction, and small group interaction. The age group discussed is primarily elementary school . children. Journal articles This section lists resources or studies published primarily in non-English language journals. While not complete, it does give a sense of the breadth of the topic. English language materials can be found by consulting the bibliographies included in any of the books listed above. Andrade, V. M. 1991. 'O mundo interno como afeto e representacao: Uma descricao metapsicologica da communicacao interpessoal como um processo de identificacao [The Internal World as Affect and Representation: A Metapsychological Description of Interpersonal Communication as a Process of Identification],' Revista Brasileira de Psicanalise, Vol. 25, pp. 467-484. A theoretical essay, it proposes a link between intrapersonal and interpersonal communication based on the Freudian concept of affect and the ability of interlocutors to identify with bodily manifestations of affective experiences. Avello Florez, Jose. 1986. La comunicaci6n interpersonal como objeto: problemas para su analisis y modelizaci6n [Interpersonal Communication as Object: Problems in Its Analysis and Modeling]', Revista Internacional de Sociologia, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 35-56. This theoretical piece evaluates traditional interpersonal models and proposes alternatives drawn from more recent work in the social sciences, particularly from semiotics and communicative competence and from the work of Benveniste, Bakhtin, Habermas, Bateson, and Goffman. Bgazhnokov, B. Kh. 1987. 'Obshchenie glazami etnografa [Interpersonal Communication: The Ethnologist's Point of View]', Vestnik Akademii Nauk SSSR, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 87-97. 30 - CRT Vol 12 No. 3 Bgazhnokov discusses the social and cultural contexts of interpersonal communication from a theoretical perspective, noting the importance of considering gestures, customs, metaphors, and even etiquette. Bonazzi, Franco. 1981. 'Moda e comunicazione nei processi socio-culturali [Fashion and Communication in Sociocultural Processes]', Studi di Sociologia, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 319-330. Starting from a consideration of contemporruy fashion, Bonazzi examines the relationship between fashion and myth systems in order to better understand how fashion works as a medium of interpersonal communication. Borsoni, Paolo. 1989. 'Metacomunicazione, disconferma, doppio legame, nelle teorie di G. Bateson, R. Laing, P. Watzlawick [Metacommunication, Disconfirmation, and Double Binds in the Theories of G. Bateson, R. Laing, and P. Watzlawick]', La Critica Sociologica, Vol. 90-91, pp. 206-221. The theories of Bateson, Laing, and Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson are used to ground a view of interpersonal communication which takes metacommunication as a fundamental aspect. This relational communication brings with it issues of power, identity, and autonomy. Brajsa, Pavao. 1991. 'Interpersonalna komunikacija u obitelji [Family Interpersonal Communication]', Socijalna Psihijatrija, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 161-168. This study of 468 Serbian teenagers asked questions regarding different aspects of family communication, including communication as system activity, as a relational act, and as an adaptive action. Caffarel Serra, C. 1986. 'Algunos metodos clasicos en investigacion social y su posibilidad de aplicacion a la comunicacion interpersonal [Some Classic Methods of Social Research and the Possibility of Applying Them to Interpersonal Communication]', Revista Internacional de Sociologia, Vol. 44, pp. 65-80. The author reviews and evaluates functionalist, formalist, and structuralist social science models for their applicability to interpersonal communication. Guigo, Denis. 1991. 'Les Termes d'adresse dans un bureau parisien [How Colleagues Address Each Other in a Parisian Office]', L'Homme, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 41-59. This conversational study classed usage in eight categories: friendly, amicable, American, studentlike, polite, respectful, military, and distant. Employees kept to a general pattern of correct distance with one another. Hahn, Alois. 1991. 'Rede und Schweigeverbote [Prohibitions of Speech and Silence]', Koiner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 86-105. Based on conversational analysis, this study focusses on aspects of communication taboos and notes the ways that speech is prohibited through turntaking, rhythms of speech synchronization, and the social standing of listeners. Harshiladze, M. I. 1990. (Russian title.) '[Influence of Interpersonal Communication on the Effectiveness of Group]', Voprosy Psikhologii, No. 5, pp. 144-149. In performance tests of small groups, the groups' success on tasks varied according to two factors: the type of task and the interpersonal relationships among the group members. Hoeflich, Joachim R. 1988. 'Kommunikationsregeln und interpersonale Kommunikation; Ausgangspunkte einer regelorientierten Kommunikationsperspektive', Communications, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 61-83. This paper introduces the rules approach to communication and uses it to account for some aspects of interpersonal communication (especially coordinating action and meaning). Hoeflich, Joachim R., & Georg Wiest. 1990. 'Neue Kommunikationstechnologien und interpersonael Kommunikation in Organisationen', Publizistik, Vol. 35, pp. 62-79. Both positive and negative effects result from the introduction of new communication technologies into organizations. The authors sketch out a theoretical model to account for those effects. 1990. 'Communicatiepatronen in Huls, Erica Turkse gezinnen; een case study [Communication Patterns in Turkish Families; a Case Study]', Sociologische Gids, Vol. 37, pp. 351-371. A qualitative study of two Turkish families in the Netherlands indicates that turn-taking patterns compare with those of lower socioeconomic Dutch families and not with the highly patriarchal hierarchies stereotypically assumed to be common in Turkish families. Iizuka, Yuichi. 1991. (Japanese title.) '[On the Relationship of Gaze to Emotional Expression]', Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 147-154. This study investigated the interaction of nonverbal (eye) behaviour, emotional messages (friendly or hostile, intense or weak), and the sex of the receiver. Ito, T. 1991. (Japanese title.) '[The Characteristics of Unit Nonverbal Behaviors in Face-to-face Interaction]', Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 85-93. Ito examined nonverbal behaviours during conversation, attending particularly to sequences of actions. The study focusses on smiles, head nods, gaze, lean, bodily movement, and gestures. Ito, Tetsuji. 1991. (Japanese title.) '[An Examination of Fundamental Dimensions of Expression of Nonverbal Behavior]', Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 1-11. Based on videotapes of conversations, this study catalogues 16 nonverbal behaviours, comparing their frequency between groups of acquainted and unacquainted, male and female dyads. Fruggeri, Laura. 1991. 'La ricerca psicologica sulle dinamiche familiari prima e dopa l'introduzione de! divorzio. Bibliografia ragionata [Psychological Research on Family Dynamics Before and After the Introduction of Divorce: Annotated Bibliography]', Eta evolutiva, No. 39, pp. 114-126. Compiled by a researcher at the Institute of Psychology in Parma, Italy, the annotated bibliography notes titles from 1960 to 1988 on family communication and family dynamics in families experiencing divorce. Joseph, Isaac. 1987. 'Les Convictions de la coquette [The Convictions of the Coquette]', Communications, Vol. 46, pp. 221-228. Flirting is a specific kind of communication, characterized by irony, manners, play, acting, and double deception. Katori, Atsuko. 1984. 'Ragin no komyunikeishon shisutemu [Communication System of the Elderly]', Soshioroji, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 83-104. A study of interpersonal and mass media use among elderly residents of Tokyo indicated that those living alone watched the most television while those living with spouses or with children watched progressively less and had more interaction with others. Keppler, Angela. 1987. 'Der Verlauf von Klatschgesprachen [The Sequential Organization of Gos- CRT Vol 12 No. 3 - 31 sip]', Zeitschrift fur Soziologie, Vol. 16, pp. 288-302. This discourse analysis of gossip notes three common stages: preliminary (a negotiation of interest between the parties), story (the account), and conclusion (generalizations acrording to social types. The entire activity occurs within an interpretive frame that situates the individuals and their activity within social and moral rules. Kepplinger, Hans Mathias, & Verena Martin. 1986. 'Die Funktionen der Massenmedien in der Alltagskommunikation', Publizistik, Vol. 31, pp. 118-128. . An empirical study of the ways in which the topic of the mass media appears in conversation showed that it occurs frequently as a well-integrated aspect of conversation; this phenomenon lends support to both the uses and gratifications and agenda-setting functions of the media. Knops, Uus. 1988. 'Een verwaarloosd thema in de sociolinguistiek: het taalgedrag van en tegenover ouderen [A Neglected Topic in Sociolinguistics: Language Behavior of and Toward Elders)', Gramma, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 85-99. A review of the literature (primarily from Englishspeaking countries) indicates that the language difficulties of elderly stem not only from physiological causes but also from psychological and social factors. Krichevskiy, R. L., & Ye. A. Sokolova. 1990. (Russian title) '[Dialogic Communication as a Factor in Interpersonal Status in a Collective of Older Students]', Novye lssledovaniya v Psikhologii i Vozrastnoi Fiziologii, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 65-69. Using questionnaire data from 362 10th grade students, Krichevskiy and Sokolova compared conversational ability with various status indicators, including peer evaluation, classroom relationships, and classroom activity. Meunier, Jean-Pierre. 1990. 'Nouveaux modeles de communication, nouvelles questions [New Models of Communication, New Questions]', &cherches Sociologiques, Vol. 21, pp. 267-288. Beginning with a critique of the Saussurean and sender-message-receiver models of communication, this essay argues for a more complex model which incorporates coproduction of meaning as well as the links between verbal and nonverbal communication practices. The proposed model also accounts for public communication and participatory discourse. 32- CRTVol 12 No. 3 Ne!, C. M. 1989. 'Wit-Swart kommunikasie onder verskillende houndingstoestande [White-Black Communication under Different Attitudinal Conditions]', Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrifvir Sosiologie [The South African Journal of Sociology], Vol. 20, pp. 38-46. The author, writing from tbe Institute for Communication Research in Pretoria, reports a study in which interracial groups interacted and later completed semantic differential measures to determine the extent of stereotypes, prejudice, ethnocentrism, and authoritarianism. Neumann, Klaus, & Michael Charlton. 1989 . 'Massen- und Interpersonale Kommunikation im Alltag van Kind und Familie. Ergebnisse der Freiburger Langsschnittuntersuchung zur Medienrezeption von Kindern [Mass and Interpersonal Communication in Children's and Families' Everyday Life. Results of tbe Freiburg Longitudinal Study of Children's Media Reception)', Koiner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Vol. 30 (supplement), pp. 364-378. This article presents the results of a five-year study of six preschool children and their use of mass and interpersonal communication. It focussed especially on the coordination of action, power and self-assertion, and emotional regulation of relationships. Roiz Celix, Miguel. 1986. 'Modelos psicosociologicos y antropologicos de la comunicacion en los pequenos grupos [Psychosociological and Anthropological Models of Communication in Small Groups)', Revista Espanola de Investigaciones Sociologicas, Vol. 33, pp. 121-142. Roiz Celix compares theoretical concepts of interpersonal and small group communication, arguing that interpersonal communication can be subsumed in group communication. Among the models addressed are interactionism, systems theory, and anthropological-cultural theory. He also addresses the impact of new communication technologies on group interaction. Roiz, Miguel. 1989. 'La familia, desde la teoria de la comunicacion de Palo Alto [The Family, according to the Theory of Communication of Palo Alto]', Revista Espanola de Investigaciones Sociologicas, Vol. 48, pp. 117-136. This essay provides an overview of family communication theories based on the work of Bateson, Ruesch, and Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson; it also reviews contributions from cybernetics and systems theory. Some key concepts developed include metacommunication, double binds, and homeostasis. Roiz, Miguel. 1989. 'La teoria de la comunicaci6n de Palo Alto y sus posibilidades y limitaciones teoricas [The Palo Alto Theory of Communication and Its Theoretical Possibilities and Limitations]', Revista Internacional de Sociologia, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 87-98. The author sketches the communication theories associated with Gregory Bateson and his followers, arguing that the integration of perspectives drawn from cultural anthropology, psychiatry, cybernetics, systems theory, information theory, and small group theory provides a good grounding for interpersonal communication study but not for mass communication study. Schenk, M. 1989. 'Massenkommunikation und interpersonale Kommunikation [Mass Communication and Interpersonal Communication]', Koiner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialps-ychologie, Vol. 30 (supplement), pp. 406-417. This essay reviews theoretical connections between interpersonal and mass communication, beginning with Lazarsfeld's identification of opinion leaders and the 'two-step flow of communication' and including later theories proposed by network analysis methodologies. Siddiqui, Mohammad A. 1988. 'Interpersonal Communication: Modeling Interpersonal Relationship, an Islamic Perspective', The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 239246. Siddiqui compares commonly accepted concepts from interpersonal communication research (including small groups) with a communication model based on the texts of the Qur'an. Somlai, Peter. 1982. 'A csaladi stabilitas kapcsolati szemlelete [Relationship Concepts and Family Stability]', Szociologia, Vol. 4, pp. 503-520. The author, writing from Hungary, discusses the relative merits of consensus theories and conflict theories in accounting for family stability. He suggests that the empirical evidence supports neither and proposes that an examination of relationship oontexts provides a better theoretical basis. Wada, Minoru. 1991. (Japanese title.) '[A Study of Interpersonal Competence: Construction of Nonverbal Skill Scale and Social Skill Scale]', Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 49-59. This essay reports a study of nonverbal interpersonal skills based on self-reports of communication and interpersonal competence. Yoshitake, K. 1991. (Japanese title.) '[The Advantage of Active Conformity as a Communication Strategy for Compatibility Between Self-assertion and Smooth Interpersonal Relationship]', Japanese Journal of Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 229-234. Yoshitake oonducted an experimental, comparative study of Japanese undergraduates to gauge the differences in satisfaction between assertion and agreement as communication strategies. AFTERWORD By W. E. Biernatzki, SJ Editor, Communication Research Trends A Widely Useful Topic In a sense, all our knowledge of communication begins with our primordial experiences of interpersonal communication. It is the first kind of communication we know, and even radio or television broadcasts to mass audiences follow something of the patterns observable in face-to-face conversations. Consequently, our understanding of the process of interpersonal communication is basic to any serious investigation of other forms of communication. Even those concerned with the most sophisticated technologies of mass communication need to pay some attention to what goes on at the interpersonal level. Some hypotheses in the field which have been called into question by later researchers neverthless can be worth thinking about because of the insights into concrete communication problems which they may suggest. The axioms of Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson (1967), for example, are highly suggestive. 'One cannot not communicate' raises the question, what does someone 'in the news' communicate when he or she says 'No comment'? In some situations, it can be an admission of 'guilt'. Attempts at cover-ups whether in politics, business, or religion - eventually fail if the issue is of sustained interest to the mass media; and the embarrassing facts will become public knowledge, often with more damagCRT Vol 12 No. 3 - 33 ing consequences than if they had been discussed fully and truthfully from the start. 'Every communication has a context and relationship aspect such that the latter classifies the former.' One cannot say exactly the same thing with exactly the same meaning to different people, since differing relationships with them affect and alter the meaning of the message's content. This applies, with even greater force, to mass media messages, which often are understood by their audiences in ways vastly different from that intended by the producer or editor. 'Interaction sequences, like word sequences, cannot be understood as a string of isolated elements.' A sermon will be differently received by someone who went to church direct from a family argument and by one who did not. A priest in the confessional might say things to one penitent occasioned by his encounter with the previous penitent. More could be drawn out of the axioms, but the above examples will serve to illustrate how the simple act of reading discussions of the process of interpersonal communication can provide stimuli to help us see new and different dimensions of our particular communication situation. Although this is mainly true of our own interpersonal communication it is not limited to it, since the insights can easily begin to involve other kinds of communication, as well. If we are engaged in work with the mass media, they will almost certainly encompass that, too. Postmodern Insights Although an uncritical acceptance of the whole programme of postmodernism would amount to intellectual suicide, the perspectives of deconstructionism and postmodernism have yielded insights to which all should pay attention. For example, they stress 'the fundamental relatedness of human beings in the world', the social origins of much of the way we experience ourselves, and the consequent futility of studies of interpersonal communication which are limited to data drawn from individuals, not from the living context of real interaction among persons. Humans are immersed in the world, and have difficulty making judgements which are not influenced by their social, cultural and ideological milieux. This problem is not as insurmountable as the deconstructionists would have us believe, but transcending it remains exceedingly difficult. Accordingly, the real state of communication relationships is equally difficult to Furthermore, those relationships are fathom. constantly changing. So any deficiency in our recognition that we are fully a part of the changing 34 - CRT Vol 12 No. 3 social, cultural and ideological environment we are trying to evaluate will, to that degree, make our evaluations less accurate. Contemporary theorists in interpersonal communication - as in mass communication and many other sub-disciplines of communication studies have generally abandoned the so-called 'information-theory model' of communication, suggested by Shannon and Weaver (1949) for electronic communications. Its description of a one-way flow from source through message to receiver ignores the complex webs of feedback and dialogue which typify interpersonal communication. Less mechanical, more 'hermeneutic' methods of analysis are held, by many, to be the best direction in which future analyses of interpersonal communication should move. Lannamann (1991) suggests that research should move away from its preoccupation with the individual and towards a more meaningful focus on the social relationships among individuals; that it should pay more attention to social and material influences on individual action; that it should recognize that much human behavior is not really intentional or autonomous; and that research must become more historical in order to ferret out the emerging relationships between the interpersonal · communication of individuals and the larger structures of societies and cultures. All these suggestions - except possibly the last - can be carried too far, resulting in a self-destructive relativism, but their moderate application can help rectify mistakes caused by extreme emphasis on their contraries. Feminist Studies Feminist studies have alerted us to the danger of creating stereotypes, a danger which exists even in the assignment of arbitrary categories - such as 'male' and 'female' - in the analysis of research data. Uncritical use of such categories can create false perceptions of differences among groups, defined a priori, which do not in fact reflect the most salient distribution of those differences in society. Conversational Analysis Conversational analysis can give us heightened sensitivity to the various 'rules' which govern conversations - sequencing, turn-taking, alignment, etc. - which can make an individual a more effective communication partner and thereby make others more receptive to his or her ideas. The same thing can be said about the analysis of the communicative dimensions of nonverbal behavior. Burgoon and Newton's (1991) finding that participants judged nonverbal behavior more favorably than did third party observers should be taken into account by counsellors or others involved in mediating and 'peacemaking' roles. bargaininwnegotiation, and third-party intervention - do not go very far by themselves towards yielding practical solutions to concrete cases. Family and Marriage Two of the most important and most practical areas of interpersonal communication research are those of family and marital communication. The intensity of family interactions and the fact that they are inescapable and seemingly interminable, make these areas arguably different from other forms of interpersonal communication. Despite the weakness of the theoretical side of family communication studies, various research findings promise to yield useful insights into 'family problems' and can be of use to counsellors. Differences in a family's 'culture', such as high and low 'concept-orientation' and 'socio-orientation' studied by Chaffee and McLeod (Tims and Masland 1985), can give clues to the ways family members communicate and the ways they deal with conflicts. The differing sensitivities of men and women to different kinds of verbal and nonverbal Jues (Noller 1984) could help solve some kinds of marital problems when called to the attention of the couple. Research into communication differences between well-adjusted and poorly adjusted couples also could assist marriage counsellors, clergy and others, as well as the spouses themselves, in working to improve marital harmony. Typologies of expectations of marital 'ideology', independence and communication, such as that developed by Fitzpatrick (1988b) might be developed to the point where they can predict the success or failure of a proposed marriage with some accuracy; but generalizations are especially problematic in this field, and spouses with apparently conflicting styles may sometimes actually complement each other. Fitzpatrick's criticism of the lack of effective communication skill teaching in the Marriage Encounter movement might well be considered by leaders of that movement in their efforts to improve the programme's effectiveness. Mass Media Finally, the findings of interpersonal communication research can throw light on mass media behaviour. A recent trend towards more research on reception analysis contains an implicit acknowledgement that mass media almost always are received in reference to some sort of interpersonal situation. Even if there is no actual viewing or listening group, the interpersonal dimension at least functions in informal discussions of programmes and in the total interpersonal experience which has done so much to shape the psychology of the viewer or listener. Conflict Conflict studies are another area of interpersonal communication studies with obvious practical applications. As with the findings of family and marital communication studies, the conclusions of the conflict researchers are valuable but must be applied with discretion and sensitivity to particular circumstances which may involve many complex and interwoven variables. Models like that of Hocker and Wilmot (1991) are useful in suggesting potential avenues to solving all kinds of conflicts; but their three approaches - self regulation, BOOK NOTES Hahn, J. G., and H. Hoekstra (eds.). In gesprek over film en televisie: Ouer de theorie en de praktijk van 'het mediagesprek' (In discussion about film and television: Concerning the theory and practice of 'the media discussion'). Kampen: Uitgevermaatschappij J. H. Kok, 1991. pp.200. ISBN 90-242-6818-4. Six authors, including the editors, deal with different aspects of 'the media discussion' which are relevant for teachers and lay religious workers in the Netherlands. The book is intended for use by both Catholics and Protestants. Two of the authors are from the Dutch Reformed Church and the other four, including the editors, are Catholics. The 'media discussion' concerns the new audiovisual language, which appeals to the contemporary person. It is shaping the whole environment of human communication and must be taken into account and used in religious education if that education is to be effective. The fundamental elements of the 'discussion' are the characteristics of the audio-visual product, dialogue about the media within groups, religious belief and spirituality, pedagogical methods, and supervision - the ways in which the discussion is led or guided. as its fundamental elements. After introducing relevant communication theory, the book presents practical approaches useful for teachers, catechists and other religious workers at the parish level. A list of television programmes and films pertinent to various aspects of religious teaching is provided, including such pop treatments of religion as Madonna's Like a Prayer. Nieske Witlox Hart, Andrew. Understanding the Media: A Practical Guide. London/New York: Routledge, 1991. Pp. xvi, 267. ISBN 0-415-05712-4 (HB.) £35.00; ISBN 0-41505713-2 9 <pb.) £10.99. CRT Vol 12 No. 3 - 35 Although a considerable number of media education and media studies books are in.print, the author, a lecturer in Education in the School of Education, University of Southampton, finds many of them 'either too inaccessible for teachers or too detached from any coherent concepts and theories about both the media and about teaching'. In this book he strives to provide 'both a grasp of the issues and practical guidance in a way which is easy for teachers to select from and follow'. It is based on a BBC Radio 4 series and draws on the experience provided by the wide use which has been made of those programmes and related notes in various teacher-training contexts. After a brief introduction to the rationale for media awareness education, a chapter gives practical advice to the teacher a9<)ut how to get started - incluqing the everpresent question of how to fit media edu~tion into the curriculum. Later chapters deal with medl'a audiences, the formation of facts (the ways media filter and distort information about real events), the forms of media fiction, promotion and persuasion, and how new developments in media technology, forms and structures may affect the role of the teacher. The text is illustrated by both photographs and diagrams, and each chapter is followed by several 'teaching ideas' as guidance for actual classes. Appendix I gives practical sources for help in media teaching available to teachers in the U.K. Appendix II provides questions for group study of each chapter. A substantial bibliography contains mostly British references. Craggs, Carol E. Media Education In the Primary School. London/New York: Routledge, 1992. Pp. x, 185. ISBN 0-415-06370-1 9 (hb.) £35.00; ISBN 0-415-06371-X (pb.) £9.99. This book, like the one by Andrew Hart, also reviewed in this issue of Trends, is a response to a felt need, in Britain, for 'a clear, practical guide for teachers on how to approach media education'. Hart's lx>ok is targeted more broadly, at all educational levels, while Craggs aims specifically at the primary school level. Her book is especially intended as a response to the new National Curriculum, which calls for serious teaching about the mass media in schools, particularly in the English curriculum. The author, who has taught for twenty years, presents detailed methods for media education which will both fulfil the aims of the National Curriculum and show the way for individual teachers to go beyond its bare requirements. Chapters deal with teaching visual literacy, news advertising, representations of reality, and media institutions. An appendix discusses the relationship of each chapter to the National Curriculum. An extensive annotated bibliography 'is an attempt to provide a balanced reading list representing the various schools of thought'. Ishikawa, Sakae, and Yasuko Muramatsu (eds.). Studies of Broadca.sting: An International Annual of Broadcasting Science. Special Issue: Quality Assessment ofBroadcast Programming. Tokyo: Theoretical Research Center, NHK Broadcasting Culture Research Institute, 36 - CRTVol 12 No. 3 1991. Pp. 243 (plus two foldout tables). (No ISSN. No Price.) This volume represents one of the few attempts to tackle the thorny but critical issue of quality in television. It grew out of an international joint research project begun by NHK in 1990, which included leading scholars in Sweden, Canada, Britain and the United States, as well as Japan. Senior authors of papers in the volume from those oountries are Karl Erik Rosengren, Marc Ra.boy, Timothy Leggatt, Jay Blumler, Bradley S. Greenberg and Sakae Ishikawa. W. E. Biernatzki, S.J. COMMUNICATION RESEARCH TRENDS Published four times a year by the Centre for the Study of Communication and Culture ISSN 0144-4646 Publisher: Kevin F. Kersten, S.J. Editor: William E. Biernatzki, S.J. Assoc. Editor for Latin America, Spain & Portugal: Jose Martinez Terrero, S.J. Assistant Editor: Maria Way Subscription: Annual Subscription US$28.00 (UK£!5.00) Student US$20.00 (UK£11.00) Set of Volumes Nos. 7-12 US$75.00 (UK£40.00) Set of Volumes Nos. 1-6 US$65.00 (UK£35.00) Complete set and Vol.13 US$130.00 (UK£70.00) Payment in US$, UK£, International Money Order or Giro Transfer 52 596 0805. Address all correspondence to: Communirotion Research Trends 221 Goldhurst Terrace Fax No: +44-71-372-1193 London NW6 3EP,England Tel No, +44-71-328-2868 E-Mail: mway@uk.ac.ulcc.clusl Printing: Roebuck Press, Mitcham, Surrey, England The Centre for the Study of Communication and Culture is an international service for communication research established by the Jesuits in 1977. Director: Kevin F. Kersten, S.J. Documentation: Simone Donnelly, O.P. International Board of Advisors: Brendan Callaghan, S.J .(London), Jean Bianchi (Lyon), Thomas Connelly (Glasgow), Nim Gonzalez, S.J. (Manila), Henk Hoekstra,O.Carm. (Amsterdam), Raymond Parent, S.J. (Rome), Carlos Valle (London), Robert A. White, S.J. (Rome)