<<
>>

Communication as a Process

Research that adopts a process perspective focuses on the development of interrelated pat­terns of communication and conflict over time. Thus, communication shapes the very nature of conflict through the evolution of social interaction.

Rather than examining message categories as variables that shape outcomes, scholars investigate the relationships among these messages, the patterns derived from these relationships, and the role of communication in constituting conflict. Research that embraces a process approach falls into four arenas: (1) serial arguing, (2) sequential patterns, (3) phase and stage research, and (4) issue development.

Serial Arguing. A growing body of literature examines the nature of serial arguments in interpersonal relationships. Serial arguments are repetitive conflicts on a single topic over a period of time without resolution. These pat­terns become predictable and dysfunctional, typically resorting to a demand/withdrawal pattern of communication (Roloff & Reznik, 2008). Demand/withdrawal occurs when one party nags or demands and the other with­draws or avoids the conflict (Caughlin, 2002; Caughlin & Scott, 2010). Both serial arguing and demand-withdrawal patterns influence relational quality and increase stress after con­flict episodes (Malis & Roloff, 2006).

Sequential Patterns. Serial arguments and demand-withdrawal patterns operate from a focus on action-reaction patterns or cue­response sequences that become predictable over time and define the nature of a conflict (Putnam, 1985). Three major types of pat­terns surface in these relationships: (1) recip­rocal, (2) opposite, and (3) complementary (Olekalns & Smith, 2000). Reciprocal pat­terns stem from matching the other person’s tactics, potentially leading to a lengthy cycle; thus, a threat would follow a threat, a rejec­tion would follow a rejection statement, and so on.

This pattern fosters the development of self­perpetuating cycles or serial arguments that can spiral out of control as a conflict gains momentum. Research across a wide array of contexts demonstrates that stalemates, no­agreement situations, and distressed interac­tions arise from reciprocity in contentious communication patterns that evolve into con­flict cycles (Donohue et al., 1984; Gottman, 1979; Krueger & Smith, 1982; Putnam & Jones, 1982a; Sillars, 1980b). Studies have replicated this important finding that reciproc­ity in contentious or competitive communica­tion escalates conflict (Brett, Shapiro, & Lytle, 1998; Olekalns & Smith, 2000; Weingart, Prietula, Hyder, & Genovese, 1999).

In contrast, disputants also develop reci­procity in cooperative, problem-solving com­munication that fosters productive conflict. Specifically, couples who match each other’s use of metacommunication, statements of con­cern, supportive messages, or multi-issue offers developed constructive patterns of communi­cation and conflict (Krueger & Smith, 1982; Olekalns & Smith, 2000). Scholars observe that these patterns are hard to sustain; however, they are more likely to occur when disputants display knowledge of effective conflict man­agement tactics or when negotiators have a cooperative orientation (Weingart et al., 1999).

Responding to the other party with an opposite move alters the development of a tight reciprocal pattern, especially an escalat­ing one. For example, giving information or making a procedural comment in response to the other party’s use of a contentious tactic may reduce the development of a conflict cycle (Donohue et al., 1984; Olekalns & Smith, 2000; Putnam & Jones, 1982a). Research on marital conflicts also reveals that normal couples as opposed to distressed ones respond in a variety of ways to contentious situations (Donohue, 1991; Krueger & Smith, 1982).

Two other patterns that deter the develop­ment of escalating conflict cycles are the use of complementary tactics and linguistic style matching.

A complementary tactic balances a partner’s typical response. For example, mari­tal couples develop complementary tactics when one of the pair asserts dominance and the other responds with a submissive reaction (Bavelas et al., 1985; Ting-Toomey, 1983). Labor-management negotiators engage in a complementary dance through balancing each other’s offensive-defensive approaches (Donohue et al., 1984; Putnam & Jones, 1982a). These complementary patterns paral­lel a concept known as linguistic style match­ing, which refers to the way that negotiators coordinate their word use throughout conflict interaction. High degrees of linguistic style matching sustain rapport development and foster coordination, which, in turn, results in successful outcomes in hostage negotiations (Taylor & Thomas, 2008).

In effect, research on sequential interaction patterns reveals that communication influences the nature of conflict. That is, reciprocal inter­actions take conflict in either a constructive or a destructive direction, while using an opposite tactic de-escalates a conflict spiral. Relying on complementary patterns and linguistic style matching also buffers against conflict escala­tion and fosters satisfactory agreements.

Phase and Stage Development. An extension of the work on sequential message patterns is the research on phases and stages of conflict development. Phases are lengthy constella­tions of sequential patterns that form coherent structures (Holmes, 1992). Studies of conflict phases reveal that particular communication patterns cluster into stages that develop over time. Research in this area initially embraces linear models of development in which the dis­putants pass through one stage before moving into the next one. Other studies suggest that conflict is characterized by multiple, cyclical phases and that dyads and groups often skip particular phases or cycle through them mul­tiple times (Holmes, 1992).

Phase development in negotiation initially posited separate stages of conflict activity, often testing a three-phase (Douglas, 1962) or an eight-stage model (Gulliver, 1979).

Theorists believed that distributive and inte­grative processes in negotiation occurred in distinct stages, often related to labor-man­agement or buyer-seller role specializations (Putnam, 1990; Putnam, Wilson, & Turner, 1990). Current research, however, suggests that bargainers moved back and forth through distributive and integrative processes and that dyads who keep both processes distinct are less likely to reach agreements than are the ones who mix them (Olekalns, Brett, & Weingart, 2003; Olekalns, Smith, & Walsh, 1996). Specifically, the use of reciprocal sequences during the second half of an employment negotiation was more predictive of joint profits (Liu, 2011). Overall, alignment and adjust­ment of negotiator’s strategies across phases, especially during process shifts, influence the quality of agreements (Olekalns & Weingart, 2008). These patterns depict a negotiation dance in which influence sequences and recip­rocal information-sharing sequences lay the groundwork for mutual gains, especially in the first two stages of negotiation (Adair & Brett, 2005). As a metaphor, negotiation dance refers to the alignment of positions, concession making, and empathy as parties engage in tac­tical interactions and in the rhythm and flow of conflict (Young & Schlie, 2011). In effect, adaptation in negotiation, especially for cross- cultural interactions, is an emergent process in which negotiators discover each other’s approaches, interpret each other’s goals, and gradually move in sync.

Research on phase development in crisis negotiations employs phase mapping to exam­ine simulated and authentic hostage negotia­tions. While simulated negotiations develop in patterns that resembled Gulliver’s eight stages, authentic cases are less orderly and unorga­nized (Holmes & Sykes, 1993). Events outside of the negotiation, such as changing negotia­tors or talking with family members, influence negotiation development in actual hostage sit­uations.

Rogan and Hammer (1995) reported that message affect increases during the initial contact stage and decreases as the interaction moves into a relational development stage. In suicide and domestic cases, however, mes­sage affect becomes increasingly negative and erratic as the negotiation progresses.

In mediation sessions, phase patterns dis­tinguish between successful and unsuccessful sessions. Specifically, in successful interac­tions, mediators excel in eliciting information by using extensive summaries, reframing the disputants’ defensive arguments, maintaining control of the process, and generating pro­posals, especially during Phases 2 and 3. In the latter stages of the mediation, successful mediators employ fewer structuring state­ments and rule enforcement behaviors, while mediators in no-agreement sessions increase their use of these tactics and make more pro­cess comments when they should have concen­trated on solutions and agreements (Donohue, 1991; Donohue, Weider-Hatfield, Hamilton, & Diez, 1985; Jones, 1988).

Overall, communication scholars have made substantial contributions to deciphering the patterns of conflict development over time. Different studies reveal similar patterns, even across contexts, particularly as to the way reciprocal contentious tactics lead to conflict cycles and the use of opposite, complementary, and linguistic matching styles to de-escalate these patterns. Even though phase research is primarily descriptive, it also demonstrates important findings as to the types of tactics that disputants employ early as opposed to later in a conflict’s development.

Process research has extended our knowledge of the microprocesses that escalate or de-escalate a conflict. Prior to this work, conflict scholars viewed escalation as primarily a perceptual con­cept linked to in-group/out-group relationships, stereotyping, and distortion (Pruitt, Rubin, & Kim, 1994). Communication scholars have demonstrated how reciprocity of contentious microbehaviors leads to conflict spirals and how using the opposite or a complementary tactic potentially buffers the development of this cycle. Studies of conflict development over time also yield important findings about the linearity and dimensionality of these patterns.

<< | >>
Source: Oetzel John, Ting-Toomey Stella. The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Communication: Integrating Theory, Research and Practice. SAGE Publications,2013. — 912 p.. 2013

More on the topic Communication as a Process: