Communication as a Variable

Early researchers in the field treated com­munication as one of the many variables that shaped conflict (Chatman, Putnam, & Sondak, 1991). Thus, communication directly influenced outcomes as well as mediated and moderated the effects of other variables such as culture, gender, or orientation on conflict management.

As a Structural Variable. As a structural vari­able, communication functions as or shapes the antecedent conditions in which conflict occurs; thus, it influences outcomes directly. Research on the effects of media, such as audio, written, or electronic channels, typically casts commu­nication as a structural variable (Purdy, Nye, & Balakrishnan, 2000). For example, researchers study the effects of face-to-face as opposed to audio communication on cooperation or concession making. Communication media, however, are complex, both in the existence of multiple channels and in the sensemaking about the media itself (Poole, Shannon, & De Sanctis, 1992). In the area of intergroup conflict, the use of computer-mediated com­munication offers the potential to improve rela­tionships between hostile and highly diverse groups, particularly by mitigating the anxiety that accompanies face-to-face meetings and by helping focus discussions (Walther, 2009). Hence, the research on media and conflict is moving beyond structural variables and begin­ning to center on relational features of virtual conflict management.

Studies of conflict styles also treat commu­nication as a structural variable that shapes conflict predispositions in particular ways. This research examines individual preferences for handling conflicts and the links between these preferences and other structural vari­ables, such as gender, organizational role, or type of marital relationship (Cai & Fink, 2002; Lee & Rogan, 1991). Other researchers ask respondents to recall the tactics or strate­gies they use in a particular conflict episode (Canary & Spitzberg, 1989), how accurate or biased spouses are in predicting their part­ner’s strategies (Segrin, Hanzal, & Domschke, 2009), and the information used in planning a negotiation session (Jordan & Roloff, 1997).

The major development in conflict styles in the past decade is work on conflict avoid­ance, especially in intimate situations (Afifi, McManus, Steuber, & Coho, 2009). The reasons that intimates withhold complaints or avoid conflicts include feelings of powerless­ness, fear of verbal or physical aggression, or lack of communication skills (Cloven & Roloff, 1993; Roloff & Solomon, 2002). Other partners wait until the time is right to approach a partner about a conflicting issue (Roloff & Wright, 2009). Scholars have developed sophisticated typologies of conflict avoidance, ones that relate to interaction goals as well relationships to other conflict styles. In particular, couples differ in their uses of withdrawal, pretending, exit, outflanking, passive dominance, and yielding as types of avoidance strategies (Wang, Fink, & Cai, 2012). The more dissatisfied couples are in their respective relationships, the more they avoid the conflict, and the more it effects rela­tional satisfaction, especially for women (Afifi et al., 2009). For many couples, however, conflict avoidance is a way that couples “pick their battles” and tolerate infrequent and minor irritants (Roloff & Solomon, 2002).

As an Interaction Variable.

Interaction variables were typically linked to conflict goals and outcomes. For instance, in cooperative negotiations, disputants who exchanged messages about underlying needs and priorities enhanced their chances of reach­ing high joint gains (Olekalns & Smith, 2000). In a similar way, Jones’s (1989b) taxonomy of mediation strategies stemmed from messages that functioned to facilitate interaction, intro­duce topics, and guide the disputes. Similarly, supervisors and subordinates who treat role negotiations as integrative as opposed to dis­tributive are likely to approach it through the use of elaboration and mutual concessions as opposed to withholding information or elicit­ing unilateral concessions (Meiners & Boster, 2012). Mediators also reframed disputants’ comments and helped parties expand on infor­mation (Donohue, Drake, & Roberto, 1994). In agreement sessions, mediators provided intense reframing in response to a disputant’s attack and used structuring and short interventions to enable both sides to speak equally (Donohue, 1991; Donohue et al., 1994).

Other lines of research that treated commu­nication as an interaction variable include stud­ies of arguments in conflict management, face management behaviors, and emotions in con­flict management. Communication researchers have coded arguments in roommate and friend­ship conflicts (Sillars et al., 1982; Trapp, 1986), in diplomatic disputes (Schuetz, 1978), and in bargaining proposal development (Putnam & Geist, 1985; Putnam & Wilson, 1989).

Treating communication as an interaction variable has shifted the direction of conflict studies in the field. Its growth in the early 1980s paved the way for scholars to inves­tigate the communicative functions of con­flict messages. Current scholars have moved away from equating interaction with conflict strategies and functions. One problem with this approach is that messages often fit multiple categories, particularly in how they are expressed, but scholars have developed very sophisticated and nuanced strategies that add complexity to examining commu­nication as an interaction variable (Jameson et al., 2010; Liu, 2009).