Researching Interactive Communication Behavior

A Sourcebook of Methods and Measures

C. Arthur VanLear, Daniel J. Canary, C. Arthur VanLear, Daniel J. Canary

• Publisher: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781483303024
• eBook ISBN: 9781483325019
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

A Comprehensive Guide to Studying and Interpreting Communication Interaction

 

This practical book provides students and experienced researchers with tools for studying communication behaviors through direct observation. The sourcebook provides sound coverage of both cutting-edge and well-established systems, measurements, and procedures, as well as detailed information on measurement selection, coding, reliability assessment, and analysis. In addition to offering theoretical discussions from leading researchers in the field, each chapter also focuses on how to apply systems and principles in conducting actual original research and uses examples and exemplars to help readers understand and apply the methods.

Part 1 Reviews of Behavioral Measures in Selected Domains of Study: Contexts and Modes of Behavior

1 Observing Relational Conflict

Daniel J. Canary

Introduction

Since the publication of Rausch, Barry, Hertel, and Swain’s (1974) observations of marital conflict, scholarly research on relational conflict has increased exponentially. As Gottman (1994) stated, “Nearly all the research on marital interaction has involved the observation of conflict resolution” (p. 66). In the past 40 years, researchers have elaborated what constitutes conflict; how conflict emerges, develops, and ends; factors that affect conflict processes; individual and relational differences in the management of conflict; dimensions and content of various typologies of conflict behavior; individual and relational outcomes of conflict communication behaviors; effects of conflict on people’s mental and physical health; effects of marital conflict on child adjustment; patterns of conflict strategies and tactics; and other relevant processes.

The purpose of this chapter is to address three broad concerns relevant to how researchers observe conflict communication. These concerns involve how researchers view conflict interaction, how participants’ experiences might not align with researchers’ observations, and how researchers investigate relational conflict patterns. Such issues are not necessarily unique to conflict researchers, but they nonetheless remain critically important to observing conflict interaction. These three concerns are elaborated in the following subsections: (a) units of analysis, (b) review of three observational coding systems, (c) comparing codes, (d) conflict behavioral dimensions, (e) procedures linked to conflict observation, (f) participant experiences versus researcher observation, (g) selection of topics for discussion, (h) locating conflict patterns, (i) questions about conflict patterns, and (j) the demand-withdraw pattern. Following this material, the reader will find a brief set of conclusions that emerge from the literature on these topics.

This chapter, however, omits discussion of other issues regarding conflict that are a “given” at this point in the game, are presented elsewhere, do not involve romantic relationships, are theoretical more than methodological, and are not centered on conflict communication processes. In addition, this chapter excludes the task of reviewing or even several conflict coding systems; inclusive analyses of conflict observation systems can be found elsewhere (e.g., Filsinger, 1983; Heyman, 2001; Humbad, Donnellan, Klump, & Burt, 2011; Kerig & Baucom, 2004; Margolin et al., 1998). The first section discusses issues one likely encounters when coding conflict communication.

Issues in Coding Conflict Interaction

The Unit of Analysis

A critical issue for studies of interaction research concerns the unit of analysis (Sillars & Overall, this volume). Units of analysis represent one’s conceptual understanding regarding where one can find the best information regarding communication (Heyman, 2001). Accordingly, units of analysis reflect one’s perspective regarding the nature, function, and scope of conflict interaction. One’s selection of the unit of analysis constitutes a critical first step in conducting interpersonal conflict processes.

Researchers tend to select one of three types of units. Time is one type of unit of analysis. Interpersonal conflict researchers tend to select very brief periods of time for observation (e.g., 15 seconds to 1 minute) (e.g., Sillars, Roberts, Leonard, & Dun, 2000). Although small units of time allow the application of codes in precise ways, time as a unit of analysis requires a researcher to punctuate conflict interaction according to predetermined durations, regardless of whether more or less time would help gain insights about conflict communication.

Other researchers rely on the thought unit for coding. The thought unit is the “smallest semantic unit” (Notarius, Markman, & Gottman, 1983, p. 119), for example, one-word responses, independent clauses, and even short nonverbal behaviors that convey an idea (e.g., “ugh” can mean “no”). Thought turns clearly portray shifts in ideas and arguments, which can assist researchers who examine how partners develop ideas with each other (Canary, Brossmann, Brossmann, & Weger, 1995). Yet thought turns vary in their inclusiveness across studies; for example, extensive development of one idea might entail one thought or a set of different subordinate thoughts. One way to constrain how much data one partner provides is to code for both time and thoughts. However, Bakeman and Gottman (1986) argued that duration of time is implied when coding behaviors.

Third, researchers can rely on speaker turns as their unit of analysis. That is, switches in who holds the communication floor determine one’s unit of observation. Although speaker turns appear clear and reliable, they remain vulnerable to within- and between-partner variability. For example, it is not uncommon for one person to talk more than does his or her partner. In such cases, the loquacious person could be elaborating quite a bit on one idea in long speaker turns, whereas the less verbal partner might offer only a couple of sentences in short speaker turns, yet both persons’ speaker turns would be seen as equal.

One important decision concerns whether microanalytic units of observation or macroscopic units offer the better choice to observe interpersonal conflict. Naturally, data analyses depend on and are constrained by one’s unit of analysis (e.g., coding every 30 seconds vs. paragraphs of speaker turns; Floyd, O’Farrell, & Goldberg, 1987). Analysis of microanalytic conflict communication yields very precise results regarding specific behaviors. Researchers often build macro-level measures from micro-level units; that is, they decide to observe communication as it emerges in small units (e.g., at the tactical level, such as problem description, solution proposal, positive metacommunication, among many others) and then compile these small tactical units into relevant and more inclusive strategies (integrative behaviors, withdrawal, etc.). Naturally, one cannot deconstruct macro-level codes into micro-level behaviors, because the more specific information simply is not there.

Additionally, researchers have constructed rating systems. One clear advantage of rating systems versus coding systems is that rating systems require much less time for rater training (Floyd et al., 1987). Moreover, rating systems tend to provide mezzo-level data (i.e., ratings of data are more abstract than are codes of the same data).

Three Popular Conflict Coding Systems

As indicated, specific microanalytic codes researchers use to categorize conflict communication systematically operationalize conflict behaviors (see Sillars & Overall, this volume). Over 20 conflict coding systems exist (Woodin, 2011). To provide the reader a concrete grasp of conflict coding systems, in this subsection I summarize three popular coding systems. For other schemes and in-depth analyses of codes, see Kerig and Baucom (2004), Filsinger (1983), and Sillars and Overall (this volume).

First, Rausch et al. (1974) pioneered observational conflict research and derived a coding scheme that contained cognitive acts, affiliative acts, and coercive acts. Cognitive acts include the following behaviors: opening the issue or probe, seeking information, suggesting a course of action, agreeing with the other’s statement, and others. Affiliative acts involve using humor; accepting the other person’s plans, actions, ideas, motives, or feelings; seeking reassurance; introducing a compromise; and so on. Finally, coercive acts include using power to force the other person to agree, rejecting the other, demanding compensation, disparaging the other, and the like.

Second, the most widely used conflict coding system is the Marital Interaction Coding System (MICS) (Weiss, 1993). Heyman, Eddy, Weiss, and Vivian (1995) conducted a factor analysis of the MICS-IV codes, using archived interactions from 995 couples. Four factors defined the specific codes from the MICS: Hostility, Humor, Constructive Problem Discussion, and Responsibility Discussion. Hostility involves a priori blame (with a hostile voice), put-down, criticize, negati...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Publisher Note
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Part 1 Reviews of Behavioral Measures in Selected Domains of Study: Contexts and Modes of Behavior
• 1 Observing Relational Conflict
• 2 Observing Family Communication
• 3 Analyzing Video and Audio Nonverbal Dynamics Kinesics, Proxemics, Haptics, and Vocalics
• 4 Physiological Outcomes of Communication Behavior
• Part 2 Specific Observational Research Systems
• 5 Conceptualizing and Operationalizing Nonverbal Immediacy
• 6 The Relational Linking System and Other Systems for Studying Self-Presentation (Self-Disclosure), Acceptance-Rejection, and Confirmation-Disconfirmation
• 7 Relational Communication Control
• 8 Coding Comforting Behavior for Verbal Person Centeredness
• 9 Microanalysis of Face-to-Face Dialogue An Inductive Approach
• 10 The Conversational Argument Coding Scheme
• 11 Automated Video-Based Analysis of Facial Expressions in Schizophrenia
• Part 3 General Issues Regarding Methods and Measures of Observational Research
• 12 Coding Observed Interaction
• 13 Reliability and Validity in the Measurement of Social Interaction
• 14 Modeling and Analyzing Behaviors and the Dynamics of Behavioral Interaction
• 15 Modeling Behavioral Interaction as a Nonlinear Dynamical System Cross-Recurrence Quantification Analysis
• Index
• About the Editors
• About the Contributors