Message Production

Theory and research indicate that people make two choices regarding how they com­municate to the other person in conflict (e.g., Putnam & Wilson, 1982; Sillars & Wilmot, 1994; van de Vliert & Euwema, 1994): first, people must decide how direct or indi­rect to be; and second, people must decide how cooperative or competitive they will be.

Table 10.2 Communication Codes

Negotiation: Direct and Cooperative

Accept responsibility (Weiss, 1993)

Statement that “I” or “we” are responsible for the problem

Analytic remarks (Sillars, 1986)

Descriptive statements, disclosive statements, qualifying statements, soliciting disclosure, soliciting criticism

Approve (Weiss, 1993)

Statement that favors couple’s or partner’s attributions, actions, or statement

Cognitive acts (Rausch, Barry, Hertel, & Swain, 1974)

Opening the issue/probe, seeking information, giving information, suggesting course of action, giving reasons, exploring consequences

Conciliatory remarks (Sillars, 1986)

Supportive remarks, concessions, acceptance of responsibility

Mindreading/positive (Gottman, 1979; Notarius & Markman, 1981)

Beliefs about the partner’s internal states, said with positive or neutral affect

Problem description (Weiss, 1993)

Problem-solving/information exchange (Gottman, 1979; Notarius & Markman, 1981)

Propose change (Weiss, 1993)

Compromise, negative solution (proposal for termination or decrease of behavior), positive solution (proposal for initiation or increase of behavior)

Reconciling acts (Raush et al., 1974)

Accepting blame or responsibility, showing concern for other’s feelings, seeking reassurance, attempting to make up, offering help or reassurance

Resolving acts (Raush et al., 1974)

Accepting the other’s plans, ideas, feelings; introducing a compromise, offering to collaborate in planning

Summarizing self/summarizing other (Gottman, 1979; Notarius & Markman, 1981)

Direct Fighting: Direct and Competitive

Avoiding blame or responsibility (Raush et al., 1974)

Blame (Weiss, 1993)

Criticize, mindread negative (statement assuming a negative mindset or motivation of the partner), put-down, threat, hostile or negative voice tone

Coercive acts/personal attacks (Raush et al., 1974)

Using external power, commanding, demanding compensation, inducing guilt or attacking other’s motives, disparaging the other, threatening the other

Confrontative remarks (Sillars, 1986)

Personal criticism, rejection, hostile imperatives, denial of responsibility, presumptive remarks

Denying validity of other’s arguments (Raush et al., 1974)

Excuse (Weiss, 1993)

Interrupt (Weiss, 1993)

Mindreading/negative (Gottman, 1979; Notarius & Markman, 1981)

Beliefs about the partner’s internal states, said with negative affect

Rejecting acts (Raush et al., 1974)

Recognizing other’s motive as a strategy or calling the other’s bluff, rejection

Table 10.2 (Continued)

Nonconfrontation: Indirect and Cooperative

Changing the subject (Raush et al., 1974)

Denial and equivocation (Sillars, 1986)

Direct or implicit denial (that a conflict exists), evasive remarks (failure to acknowledge or deny the presence of a conflict following a prompt)

Disengage (Weiss, 1993)

Expressing the desire not to talk about an issue

Off topic (Weiss, 1993)

Topic management (Sillars, 1986)

Topic shifts (terminating discussion before it has reached natural completion), topic avoidance (statements that explicitly avoid or limit discussion)

Indirect Fighting: Indirect and Competitive

Dysphoric affect (Weiss, 1993)

Affect communicating depression, sadness, self-complaint, or whiny voice

Giving up or leaving the field (Rausch et al., 1974)

Hostile jokes and questions (Sillars, 1986)

Turn off (Weiss, 1993)

Withdrawal (Weiss, 1993)

Polysemous: Variable Meanings

Agreement/disagreement (Gottman, 1979; Notarius & Markman, 1981; Raush et al., 1974; Weiss, 1993) Appealing acts (Raush et al., 1974)

Appealing to fairness, appealing to other’s motives, offering something else to win one’s goal, appealing to other’s love, pleading or coaxing

Communication talk (Gottman, 1979; Notarius & Markman, 1981)

Communication about communication

Compliancehnoncompliance (Gottman, 1979; Notarius & Markman, 1981; Weiss, 1993) Expressing feelings about a problem (Gottman, 1979; Notarius & Markman, 1981)

Facilitation (Weiss, 1993)

Assent (listener states “yeah,” nods head), humor (lighthearted, not sarcasm), metacommunication (statements that direct the flow of conversation), question, paraphrase/reflection

Friendly joking (Sillars, 1986)

Noncommittal remarks (Sillars, 1986)

Noncommittal statements, noncommittal questions, abstract remarks, procedural remarks

NOTE: Adapted from Sillars and Canary (in press).

The reader might wonder which of these behaviors are seen as optimally competent.

Importantly, message codes are not behav­iors in a literal sense (i.e., mere sounds readily subsumed to van de Vliert & Euwema’s, 1994, categories). The functions of some acts are always contextual (Duck, 2002), subject to negotiation (Montgomery, 1992), resting heavily on interaction and ambigu­ous to some degree (Sillars & Vangelisti, 2006). Although the codes vary in degree of ambiguity, all are polysemous to an extent (Sillars & Canary, in press). Polysemous references how the same code can reflect multiple contexts, functions, and meanings. For example, a single message (e.g., “That’s not going to work”) can potentially serve as criticism, stonewalling, problem solving, or even validation, depending on how the state­ment is positioned within the interaction and other factors. To resolve this ambiguity, the listener or observer must go beyond surface features of the message and infer speaker intent utilizing implicit cultural and con­textual knowledge (Jacobs, 2002). Various biases may affect the way participants in conflict interpret speaker intent.

Certain codes in Table 10.2 appear to open more than one interpretation. So we (Sillars & Canary, in press) refined the Sillars et al. (2004) typology to include those categories that clearly qualified as “polysemous.” For example, con­sider how appeals to fairness or to one’s motives can reflect a very face-threatening mes­sage event or an appropriate point to be raised that implies no face threat (“This argument does not consider how many years one has been here”). Note as well how metacommuni­cation can function for positive (“well said”) or negative (“that was stupid”) purposes. Finally, consider how noncommittal statements/ques- tions may represent a circumspect and face­honoring point of view or the opposite given the issue and context (“Let me think about it”).

In terms of directness, people often state a preference for being direct. However, as indi­cated above, some research indicates that being indirect is more functional for people with certain self-concepts, in certain kinds of rela­tionships, and in particular kinds of cultures, as indicated previously. For example, people who have an interdependent self-construal are more likely to use directness than individuals with an interdependent self-construal (Kim & Leung, 2000; see also Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001, for a description of bioconstruals and ambivalents). Interdependent people see their own identities as tied to other people, whereas independent persons view themselves more as isolated agents. In addition, the use of indi­rectness can be functional in relationships that contain affection, though it is dysfunctional in relationships where avoidance is used to mask ongoing tensions and problems (Sillars et al., 2004). Finally, indirect communica­tion appears to be more desired in cultures that value collectivistic versus individualistic tendencies (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001), though the research on this point has been mixed (Cai & Fink, 2002).

In terms of c ooperation, most research indicates that cooperative conflict is posi­tively linked to assessments of communication competence and that competitive messages are usually seen as both inappropriate and ineffective (e.g., Lakey & Canary, 2002). One major category of conflict behavior identi­fied by van de Vliert and Euwema (1994) is negotiation, which includes tactics that are positive and direct. People choose tactics that will not offend or cause the other to respond in a hostile manner and therefore are likely to be viewed as effective and appropriate.

Some research, however, indicates that com­petitive communication in terms of demanding conversation and showing anger can be func­tional insofar as issues are dealt with and rela­tionship quality increases as a result of such confrontations (e.g., Gottman & Krokoff, 1989). Fincham and Beach (1999) speculate that a curvilinear relationship exists between conflict competitiveness and relational quality, such that too little competitive confrontation and too much competitive confrontation lead to poorer outcomes. An alternative expla­nation is that people learn how to balance their negative and competitive behaviors with more positive and cooperative behaviors. As a radical example, Marshall, Weston, and Honeycutt (2000) found that the use of posi­tivity by husbands who abused their wives verbally, physically, or sexually almost entirely filtered the effects of abuse on relational satis­faction. That is, the wives of abusive husbands who showed love, stated how proud they were of their wives, were gentle, and so forth did not experience declines in relational satisfac­tion as the result of being abused. Referring to nonabusive marriages, Gottman (1994) found that satisfied couples engaged in a 5:1 ratio of positive/negative conflict behaviors, whereas dissatisfied couples engaged in a 1:1 ratio of positive/negative behaviors, underscoring the salving quality of positivity.

In short, people make strategic choices that become manifest in conflict tactics and related nonverbal behaviors. Accordingly, individuals should exercise strategy control. When behav­ing mindfully, people have more information, more options, and, therefore, more under­standing of the conflict and the partner. These characteristics of mindful behavior should help people choose tactics and nonverbal behaviors that work with the partner and pro­vide increased possibility for compromise and cooperation. If a person had to place a bet, then cooperative behaviors (direct or indirect) are clearly seen as more competent than com­petitive behaviors. In addition, cooperative actions are functional in limiting the negative effects of competitive behaviors.