Goals and Conflict Communication

Goals and conflict communication are intricately related. Sedikides (1990) stated that communication is the means through which people achieve their interper­sonal goals. In turn, goals are important to communicative behavior because they cause people to act (especially in interpersonal conflicts).

One way in which goals and communication connect is the influence of interaction goals on the information people observe as well as on the manner in which they process and evaluate it (Lipkus & Rusbult, 1993). For example, basic-level goals, such as defending oneself against criticism, affect people’s per­ceptions of compliance-gaining situations, as well as the strategies they choose (Canary, Cody, & Marston, 1987). The subjectively perceived characteristics of the situation affect the language people choose. Bingham and Burleson (1989) explained that the primary goal activates related knowledge structures and con­cepts stored in long-term memory; the activation of relevant knowledge struc­tures thereby creates expectations about the interaction. These expectations then infuence what features of the interaction are most salient to the communicator. Clearly, different primary goals would produce different messages because goals guide the production and enactment of behaviors and language choices (Berger & DeBattista, 1993).

Critically, goals provide meaning for interaction and an acceptable explanation for why people engage in particular activities and continue to engage in them (Dillard, 1990b).

Cegala and Waldron (1990) found that people using moderately direct mes­sages seemed able to achieve a balance between appropriateness and effectiveness, because they thought about instrumental, relational, and self-presentation goals or both people. Those using direct messages focused on instrumental goals and had few goal-oriented thoughts. People using indirect messages seemed to have to devote most of their attention to designing more elaborate messages to make their point. Finally, Samp and Solomon (1999) contend that the structure of people’s messages provides some information about both their primary and sec­ondary goals. Their research revealed that the focal center of a message was related to the primary goal and that the existence of multiple goals encouraged message embellishment.

Goals connect to choices people make about conflict strategies and tactics. By using dyadic data and a dyadic analysis technique Lakey and Canary (2002) found that goals of both people in a conflict connect to both people’s behavior; that is, people’s strategy choices associate with their own goals and their partner’s goals. As far as your own goals are concerned, the more you want to achieve your instrumental goal, the more you want to present yourself in a positive way. Importantly, the more you care about the relationship you have with the other person, the more likely you are to choose cooperative conflict strategies. Also, the more you want to present yourself as threatening or intimidating, the more you are likely to promote yourself as powerful and willing to use that power. On the other hand, the more you want to appear in a negative way (e.g., as selfish) and the more you care about the instrumental goals, the more likely you are to choose competitive strategies. Still, your own goals are not the only influence on your choices. You also respond to your partner’s goals. The more you think that person cares about the relationship and the less you think they want to present themselves negatively, the more likely you are to choose cooperative, integrative strategies. But if you think someone wants to appear dangerous through threats and the less you think they care about the relationship, the more likely you are to choose distributive strategies (Lakey & Canary, 1997).