University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Communication during physical intimacy: A theoretical and methodological study of communication competence

(USC Thesis Other)

Communication during physical intimacy: A theoretical and methodological study of communication competence

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content COMMUNICATION DURING PHYSICAL INTIMACY:
A THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL STUDY
OF COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE
by
Laree S. Kiely
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Communication Arts and Sciences)
December 1988
Copyright 1988 Laree S. Kiely
\
UMI Number: DP22431
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publishing
UMI DP22431
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
TH E G R A D U A TE SC H O O L
UNIVER SITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, C A LIFO R N IA 90089
CM
y S8
K47
This dissertation, written by
........................... LAREE..S...KIELY.......................
under the direction of hex. Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of re
quirements fo r the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y
Dean of Graduate Studies
Date December 6, 1988
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
I K - ”
Chairperson
DEDICATION
For my husband, Dan Crary
For being everything of which I thought only dreams were made.
To my mother, Maxine Kiely
For teaching me love, courage, and how to be a whole person.
To my brother, Dan Kiely
For teaching me early in life about quality men. He is one.
To my late father, Bill Kiely
Because my heroes have always been cowboys-
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The acknowledgement section in a project of this magnitude has
the potential of being as boring and lengthy as the Academy Awards.
But, as my husband says about his guitar, this is my dissertation and
I'll write what I want.
Oddly enough the people I am most indebted to are nameless. But
I wish to thank in general the hundreds of anonymous participants who
were brave enough and disclosive enough to fill out my surveys. Most
specifically these people came from California State University at
Fullerton, Fullerton College, the University of Southern California,
the Fullerton and Brea Chambers of Commerce, the First Unitarian
Church of Los Angeles, and the Claremont United Church of Christ,
Congregational.
Secondly, I would like to thank my committee for their support,
assistance, patience, and expertise. Dr. Kenneth Sereno, my Chair,
demanded rigor and was very supportive throughout my graduate career.
It was he who taught me the valuable knowledge of theory building.
Dr. Patty Riley, taught me statistics with a great deal of patience.
Dr. Carlfred Broderick lent his valuable and positive perspective as
one of the leading experts in family and couple relationships. I have
so much respect for these three people, that if they believed in my
research, I guess it must have been okay.
I would like to thank all of my associates in Speech
Communication at California State University, Fullerton for helping
gather data, and specifically Dr. George Enell for his help at the
Unitarian Church as well.
My colleagues at the Communication Excellence Institute, Janet
and Neil Larsen-Palmer, Jeff Parker-Knight, and Rosemary Henderson,
also kept me going with their loving support.
Some individuals I would like to acknowledge here also had an
impact on my work. Dr. Michael Hecht, Arizona State University and I
first came up with the idea for this research. Phil Miller, my
teaching partner in the Sex, Love, and Happiness seminars helps me
teach people what we have learned here. Dr. Dan Canary, California
State University Fullerton, literally saved me by consulting on the
analysis and statistics portion of this project. I would also like to
express my gratitude to Dr. Walter Fisher, University of Southern
California, for being one of the finest educators I have ever been
privileged to know. His teachings expanded my mind and extend into
everything I do.
Of special appreciation here, I want to thank my colleagues in
the Business Communication Department at the University of Southern
California. Most specifically, I am forever indebted to
Dr. Douglas Andrews. His gift to me was two-fold. He gave me the
opportunity to teach communication in my best arena and to do what I
love most. Therefore, he also gave me a very important reason for
finishing this project.
i
And finally, once again, I thank my husband for reasons too
numerous and ironically, too intimate to write here.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1
A. Statement of the Problem................................ 2
1. What is Competent Communication (CC)
and How Should it be Studied?.................... 2
2. What is Competent Communication
During Physical Intimacy (CCPI)? ................ 3
B. S c o p e .................................................... 4
C. Significance ............................................. 5
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW . . . 6
A. Literature on Communication Competence (CC) ......... 6
1. Summing Up Competency: Dispositional
and Contextual Variables ........................ 8
2. Building a Model of C C ........................... 10
3. Expanding the Model: CC and
Relationship Types ............................... 13
4. Further Expansion: CC x Relationship x
Situation................. 16
5. Additional Recent Competency Research ..... 18
6. Assessing the Literature of Competency ..... 19
a. The Need to Study Specific
Situations and C C ........................... 20
b. The Need to Study Relationship
Types and C C ................................. 20
c. The Need to Study Components of
CC from Subjects Themselves................ 21
B. Defining Relationships .................................. 24
1. Kenneth Burke: Relationships
Defined Linguistically ............. 24
2. Relationships Systemically Defined ............. 27
v
Page
3. Recent Research in Linguistics,
Systemic Aspects of Relationships ............... 29
a. Differences in Behaviors.................... 29
b. Differences in Function.................... 30
c. Differences in Qualities .................. 30
4. Proposed Taxonomy of Relationships .............. 32
C. Defining Situations............................... 34
1. Context and Episode................................ 34
2. Research on Situations........................... 35
3. Proposed Taxonomy of Situations .... ......... 38
4. Relationships and Situations: The
Relational/Situational Paradigm (RSP) . ......... 39
D. Communication During Physical Intimacy (CCPI) .... 39
E. Conclusion............................................... 45
CHAPTER III: METHOD............................................... 47
A. Development of the Instrument......................... 47
1. Item Generation ................ 47
a. Interview.................................... 47
b. Questionnaire................................ 50
c. Inferred Items............................... 51
2. Final Instrumentation ............................. 51
a. Sample......................................... 51
b. Statistical Analyses ......................... 52
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS............................................... 55
A. Subject Population . . . .............................. 55
B. Factor Analysis Results.................... 57
1. Item Loading....................................... 57
2. Defining the Factors............................. 61
3. Individual Item Results by Factor................ 62
4. Item Statistics on Each F a c t o r .................. 62
5. Correlation Among Factors ......................... 62
C. Relationships Between Factors and Gender,
Age, and Marital S t a t u s ................................ 62
1. Gender ...................................... 65
vi
Page
2. Age ........................................ 66
3. Marital S t a t u s .................................... 67
4. Age and G e n d e r .................................... 68
5. Subject G r o u p s .................................... 70
D. Relationship Between "Frequency of Desired
Behaviors" and " Relational Satisfaction"
Variables............................................... 71
CHAPTER V: SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY ....................... 73
A. Interpretation of Results ............................. 73
1. Results of Factor Analysis ...................... 73
2. Interpretation of the Relationship
Between Factors and Gender, Age,
and Marital S t a t u s .............................. 75
a. Differences in G e n d e r ....................... 75
b. Differences in A g e ........................... 76
c. Differences in Marital Status .............. 77
3. Relationship Between Desired Behaviors
and Satisfaction................................. 78
B. Responses of the Research to Needs in Chapter II
Review of Literature ................................. 78
C. Implications for Further Research....................... 82
1. Further Research in Communication
Competence (CC)............... 82
2. Future Research in Communication
Competence During Physical Intimacy (CCPI) . . . 83
D. Communication in Intimate Relationships ............. 84
E. Conclusion...................... 86
BIBLIOGRAPHY............................. 89
APPENDIXES............................... 94
vii
LIST OF DIAGRAMS, TABLES, AND APPENDICES
Page
DIAGRAM I Level of Involvement Profile .................. 28
DIAGRAM II R / S / C C ........................................... 37
DIAGRAM III RSP G r i d ...................... 39
TABLE 1 Subject Demographics........................... 56-57
TABLE 2 Factor Loading Table . ......................... 59
TABLE 3 Item Loading of Factors......................... 60-61
TABLE 4 Desirability Analysis. Items .................. 63-64
TABLE 5 Combined Item Statistics on Factors............. 65
TABLE 6 Male/Female Differences ......................... 65
TABLE 7 Age Differences.................................. 66
TABLE 8 Marital/Single Differences .................... 67
TABLE 9 Summary of Explainable Differences ............ 68
TABLE 10 Age/Gender Interaction ......................... 68-70
TABLE 11 Group ANOVA....................................... 71
APPENDIX A Relational/Situational Paradigm
Questionnaire Level of Involvement Test .... 94-106
APPENDIX B Sample Level of Involvement Profile (LIP) . . . 107
APPENDIX C Interview Guide . . . ......................... 108
APPENDIX D Open-Ended Survey ................................ 109-114
APPENDIX E Card Sort Frequencies of Each
Retained Item.................................... 115
APPENDIX F Final Instrument ............................. . 116-127
viii
I CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A few years ago, Senator William Proxmire awarded his famous
"golden fleece" citation to the government-funded psychological study !
(
of human sexuality because (he believed) there are some things that we j
do not want to know about, things that need to remain mysterious. The
Senator's opinion seems not to be shared by social scientists who
continue to study sexuality or by ordinary human beings who
demonstrate a need for more information on the subject. But one
aspect of human sexuality does remain as mysterious as anyone could
require: little or no empirical study of communication as part of
sexual intimacy is to be found in published literature.
The study which follows is aimed at knowing more about competent
communication during physical intimacy (CCPI). It operates within the
context of interpersonal communication studies of communication
competence and relationship communication. The study attempts to
respond to recent published literature which says (a) competent|
t
I
communication is communication which is both effective and appropriate
and (b) communication competence must be studied using grounded
information which specifies both relationship type and situational
differences. It argues that a study of communication during physical
intimacy (CCPI) is both an appropriate arena for advancing the
1
slow-moving area of communication competence and that it is
desperately needed to improve the communication quality of human
relationships.
A. Statement of the Problem
This dissertation addresses two related problems: First, what is
communication competence and how should it be studied? And second,
what is competent communication during physical intimacy (CCPI)?
1. What is Competent Communication (CC) and How Should It Be
Studied?
The question of what is competent communication is actually a
sweeping and pervasive issue in the study of human communication. It
may be characterized as a question of, what are we really talking
about? Our published literature is full of ideas about qualities of
communication and characteristics of persons as communicators. But
the link between these qualities and actual improvements in
communication behavior has often been missing. Recent research in
competent communication seems aimed at greater specificity and
concreteness to be more rigorous theoretically and more useful
pragmatically.
The review of literature on communication competence argues that
competence should be understood as "effective and appropriate"
communication. But the same review also shows that the research has
been slow to operationalize both elements of effectiveness and
appropriateness, apparently because most studies focus either on types
of relationships or types of situations. Yet it is acknowledged that
2
| r competencies vary across both relationship types and situation types j
I in a way that is simultaneous and complete. j
1 |
2. What Is Competent Communication During Physical Intimacy (CCPI): j
i i
About ten years ago, texts on interpersonal and relational i
communication shifted from a focus only on sex differences and sexist
language to add a section on the importance of sexuality to
' I
relationships and persons themselves. The treatment these books gives j
) sexuality in interpersonal communication can only be described as ;
short. A need is acknowledged, but theory and research are not ■
I I
j developed. A typical passage would be: '
! i
Once a man and a woman have sexual contact, sexuality
becomes part of the symbolizing process. Sex is more than a I
simple physical act. It heavily influences a relationship *
: and reflects how partners feel about each other. Any time a I
I man and a woman come together they must agree on how to ,
, dispose of sexual issues. Both men and women must take care
j to recognize and resolve sexual issues so they are not
surprised later on, if they emerge (Phillips and Wood, 1983, '
| p. 76).
i
| The need for more information about CCPI is affirmed by this
i typical quotation not only directly, but also indirectly by the vague
i
I and thinly veiled "pussy-footing" approach it takes to a subject it .
|
| acknowledges to be important but about which the authors have very 1
I little to offer. We shall see in the literature review in Chapter II ,
I
| that much of the writing in interpersonal communication shares both 1
this lack of information and an apparent professional prissiness among j
I
human communication writers for a "touchy" or sensitive subject. (
i
The justification to be presented for this study of C C P I is j
| |
j twofold: First, CCPI is an appropriate and specific arena to study j
i communication competence as two-dimensional, and varying across
!
j relational and situational types; and second, human relationships will
be improved significantly by information about what is competent j
! i
communication during sex. In the first case, CCPI is intended to j
provide a case-in-point to test a proposed approach to the study of |
I
competence; in the second, studying CCPI is intended to provide this !
I i
! I
1 field information needed to improve the communication that defines and 1
I I
^vitalizes human relationships. '
B. Scope ]
Chapter III defines the scope of this study in terms of ;
' methodology. The general focus is to demonstrate that communication
j competence (embodying effectiveness and appropriateness), must now be
i studied in the light of carefully defined relationship types and ,
i
categories of situations. A Relational/Situational Paradigm (RSP) is
proposed. This paradigm identifies "cells," discreet relational
, situations, for the grounded study of competence.
' The specific "cell" or relational situation of communication ■
i ' '!
i during physical intimacy is intended to serve as the first of many ;
i productive areas in which competence can be researched and beneficial ,
1 human communication information may be learned. '
The study of CCPI is limited to heterosexual relationships, but j
, the paradigmatic clarification of relational and situational types and j
1 i
[ the experience of deriving grounded knowledge about CCPI should point i
the way to greater research productivity in many other types of
relationships and situations.
I C. Significance
I
To sum up the arguments for significance implicit in the
1 preceding description, this study intends to contribute to the
j advancing of our knowledge of communication competence at a crucial
I
j point where the research needs methodological clarification and
I
j direction. Testing the proposed method in the specific arena of CCPI
! demonstrates viability of the method and provides important knowledge
i
I
j about human communication in an arena which heretofore remains a great
j mystery.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
| This chapter seeks in recent published literature a justification
; and focus for a study of competent communication during physical
i intimacy (CCPI). There are four phases to this review:
' A. Communication Competency (CC); a review of recent,
| representative, theory-building research.
B. Defining Relationships.
C. Defining Situations.
i D. Communication during Physical Intimacy; the need for
| knowledge and a case-in-point for the study of CC.
I
! The first task is to provide a contemporary context for the study
of effective communication in human relationships. Communication
Competency (CC) research provides this context.
A. Literature on Communication Competence (CC)
j Communication competence has been defined as the "ability of an
! interactant to choose among available behaviors in order that he may
successfully accomplish his own personal goals during an encounter
! while maintaining the face and line of his fellow interactants within
i
! the constraint of a situation" (Wiemann, 1977; Cegala, 1981, p. 110).
| Definitions more within the transactional model of communication
j focus on the relationship between the competent communicator and the
! other interactant. Bennis jit _al. (1968) defined competence as "the
i
; capacities which lead to good interpersonal relationships, i.e., those
| which deepen and widen the emotional interchange and increase
understanding" (pp.75-76). Spitzberg (1982a) extends this concept to
the point of relabeling it "relational competence" and defines it as
l
j the "extent to which objectives functionally related to communication
I
\ are fulfilled through cooperative interaction appropriate to the
i
* interpersonal context" (p. 2), as well as changing the operational
t definition to include measures of self and other (Spitzberg, 1981a,
j 1981b).
! The most recent focus in studying communication competence and
! t i
relational competence has been on CC as "appropriate and effective" i
! (Spitzberg, 1982a, 1982b). The words "appropriate" and "effective" >
I ;
; and "choosing among various behaviors" imply that there are varieties
of behaviors and that certain ones are preferred for different
situations. Spitzberg (1981a,b) has shown empirically that context- '
specific measures of skill contribute significantly to amounts of
variance in his relational competence model and context-independent
i
measures do not, thus reinforcing the situational specificity of '
i
i competence. \
I |
| In the past five years, a handful of researchers have attempted 1
| i
i to contribute to a general model of CC. The representative results of j
|
some of their work follow.
1. Summing Up Competency: Dispositional and Contextual Variables
In 1983, Cupach and Spitzberg reviewed the literature on CC from
several disciplines and both academic and applied foci. Their review
concludes that the literature is still preoccupied with discovering >
dimensions or components, but there seems to be some thread of
agreement that CC consists either of appropriateness (adherence to J
contextual rules) or effectiveness (achievement or personal goals) or j
perhaps both. j
I
These authors report a study using multiple correlations and j
regression analysis to determine possible relationships among several !
dispositional and contextual variables which have been studied vis-a- i
vis competency. Placing subjects in a problem-solving dyadic
discussion and using "feeling good" as a criterion variable for CC,
they found that situational or contextual variables (rating of self's '
or others' CC in the present situation) were the strongest predictors :
of the criterion "feeling good." Dispositional characteristics of !
I
self-esteem, communicative adaptability, and trait CC were !
i
significantly related to the criterion, but significantly less so than j
the contextual elements. Multivariate analysis showed that |
dispositional qualities did not contribute additional variance when
added to contextual elements in the regression equation. *
Interpersonal attraction, thought by some researchers to function as a
sort of irrelevant confounding variable in CC, was found to be (a) 1
significantly related to the criterion, but (b) not a significant I
contributor of variance when added to contextual dimensions (Cupach &
i Spitzberg, 1983, pp. 371-374).
\
The authors conclude that both dispositional and contextual
t
j dimensions of CC are relevant, and that contextual elements are the
t
I
better predictors. They argue that this study sets a stage for
research which explores: (1) other criteria of CC as "effective and
j appropriate (their list of two, "feeling good" and "satisfaction"
i
needs to be expanded) and, (2) which criteria of CC, dispositional
I factors, and elements of self- and other-communication assessments are
I
relevant to what situations. Cupach and Spitzberg are no doubt
correct that a theory of CC requires answers to such questions. But
I they understate the complexity of the issues they study. Are
| I
; dispositional elements relevant? Yes, they are. Are contextual j
, issues powerful predictors? Their data indicate they are. Do we need !
■ a way of identifying and studying different contexts (a taxonomy of 1
; contexts) to determine the relevance of certain dispositions to j
; i
i certain outcomes? Cupach and Spitzberg answer that we do. j
i
Incredibly, however, they skirt the issue Of types of relationships.
Where they do it is under the issue of attraction. They see
interpersonal attraction as, at worst, a variable which masquerades as
; effectiveness or competence, or at best, mediates CC with a complex J
, !
; array of elements, including "relational history, task, or topic of ;
i I
| the conversation, and physical characteristics unrelated to :
i
j intentional communication" (p. 369). But is this plausible? Instead I
i :
| of brushing attractiveness off as irrelevant, the more plausible j
;response is that CC in high-attraction relationships may be different
ifrom CC in low-attraction relationships; the more rigorous response is
to follow Campbell and Stanley's (1970) advice to control confounding
variables by incorporating them into the design of a study. This is
.consistent with the authors' recognition that possible outcomes of CC
iare specific to specific relationship types (recall their insistence
i
ithat CC involved effectiveness in the context of a relationship).
To sum up this point, this otherwise clarifying, theory-building
»
(research unintentionally shows the need to add relational types to its
J
| list of taxonomies to be developed for the study of competence. The
istudy's own data suggest that what is competent both dispositionally
i
jand behaviorably may differ in different contexts and different types
i
\
jof relationships.
(2. Building a Model of CC
i
j In response to a growing body of research on several factors of
IcC, Spitzberg and Hecht set out in 1984 to sum up previous research
I
jand test the resulting "Component Model of Relational Competence" (p.
575). This is a valuable study which elicited subject participation
from dyads interrupted in the middle of conversations in public places
l
;and asked to respond to questionnaires about self- and other-
i
I competencies suggested by CC literature. Components included
i
imotivation (perceived rewards vs. costs in the present interaction),
^knowledge (of other, situation, and topic discussion), skill
i
!(including other-orientation, interaction management, and others), and
i
(outcomes (results, such as satisfaction).
i
I 10
Existing measures were utilized where available; measures of |
i I
I
1 "knowledge" and "motivation" were constructed by the authors !
I
( consistent with the model, based on published literature (pp. j
. 580-583). j
^ I
. The questionnaires were given to dyads found by research j
; assistants in public places while actually engaged in conversation. J
Multiple regression analysis of data was used to estimate the
I contribution of subjects; estimates of motivation, knowledge, and
: !
i skills to the criterion measure of satisfaction. Analysis was based j
. on a random selection of either self or other data in each dyad; later ;
| a correlational comparison was made between self- and other- i
assessments in the same dyads (pp. 583-586).
! The greatest contributors to satisfaction were motivation and I
| skills, with knowledge failing to show a significant effect on j
t relational satisfaction. i
More precisely, the study found that subject A's motivation, :
. coupled with subject B's assessment of A's skills combined to form !
; highly significant prediction of A's satisfaction with self, other,
! and overall interaction. The results also showed, however, that B's
satisfaction was affected very significantly by A's skills (55% of
variance accounted for), but not significantly by A's motivation and
j knowledge (p. 584). ;
To test this difference, correlations between A's and B's 1
preceptions on all variables were calculated, resulting in "moderate i
to small" relationships (p. 594).
! 11 i
I It is in their discussion of results that these authors make,
|
' perhaps unwittingly, their greatest contribution to further research.
Concerning the result that motivation is important to "self"
. primarily, not so much to "other," and that skills are much more
important to "other," the authors note the result, but conclude that
I both skills and motivation are worth retaining in the model. And to
i the admittedly "surprising" result that overall perceptions of
f
conversational behaviors differ widely between interactants, the
i
I authors conclude confidently that these findings support their
I
i
! position that "competence is . . . interpersonal" (p. 594).
i
1 This is a point which must be attended to closely: This summary
i study, this paradigm--building research has generated data which shows
; that interactants disagree with each other about what is competent.
To the extent this study does represent and sum up a dozen years1
! research in competency, its own data suggest that a dozen years of
; self-reports of one's own CC have led to the realization that at
; worst, we have been asking the wrong people about CC, or at best, we
I
t
I have failed to ask some of the right people. The implications of
j research are profound. If we have taken our concept of CC from
J subjects who report data to which their partners do not agree, it is
i
J time either to choose one interactant's view of what is competent or
I find some way of defining CC through a reconciliation of the different
I
I views.
3. Expanding the Model: CC and Relationship Types 1
| Hazleton and Cupach (1986) report data which relate to the
I ;
question of others' assessment of CC. Responding to Spitzberg and \
I 1
\ Hecht (1984), who failed to find that "knowledge" contributed to'j
i
i "satisfaction," these authors attempt to create a situation in which ;
^ i
i ,
knowledge is relevant. The original study between subjects well-known
!
I
1 to each other may have failed to find the expected relationship,
' because the knowledge element may have been relatively high in all :
i !
| subject dyads. These authors seek to find correlations between 1
| subject's self-reports of CC and their ability to demonstrate |
, "knowledge" in describing communication elements in a published case \
i study of a hypothetical conversation between two persons in a [
i
i :
j relationship.
j The purpose of this study was to revive the place of knowledge in |
i
i the Spitzberg and Hecht model (1984). The data show that more I
: competent communicators" (as measured by the authors' self-report '
i
i instrument) did provide significantly more complex and sophisticated :
j explanations of the dynamics of the case study (p. 127, ff). One ,
j problem remains, however. As these authors seek to remove the
"familiarity" variable which prevented knowledge from predicting
communication satisfaction, they also removed their subjects from any
! other variable relevant to the original study. Spitzberg and Hecht
; (1984) studied self- and other-reported CC in a conversation. These |
, authors report "knowledge" demonstrated in somebody else's !
i conversation (case study). Many people have opinions about peoples' j
t-------------------------- : -------------------- : — : ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : ---------------------------------------- : ---------------------------------------- 1
I
behavior with whom they are not directly involved. The "richness" of
those opinions is not shown by this study to translate to how
"knowledge" in a subject's behavior affects the communication
satisfaction of his/her conversation partner.
’ The precise criticism is, the situation of analyzing a case study
is not necessarily analogous to participation in an actual
1 conversation. In the context of this review, we see again that the
]
published research flirts with, but does not address, the question of |
locus of CC, i.e., whose assessment of one's CC is most valid? That
it may be in third-party role playing is assumed, but not defended in
I
' the method of this study. J
j
| Pavitt and Haight (1985) address the question of whether |
I
| perceivers assess CC in terms of an "ideal" competent communicator.
I
1 In a study aimed at determining whether such a comparison is '
; consistent with psychological research on taxonomic potential of basic
, and subordinate categories; that is, how many characteristics subjects !
i
are able to identify for more specific vs. more general categories of
persons. They show that "subordinate" categories of competence are
more differentiated in subjects' descriptions. This study takes its
| types of relationships from published studies in perceived personality
i
traits and judgements of other person types related to "goodness" of a !
category. Consequently, the study shows only that CC may be a basic
j level (context-free) divisible by subordinated types (context-
i
; specific) . The study does not discuss the possibility of more than j
one level of subordination, or that there may be additional categories
of subordination, such as relationship type.
A 1987 study by Bell, ^t _al. attempts to introduce a relational
perspective as cross-confirmation of a series of studies arrived at
affinity-building competence. Arguing that affinity-building should
be seen as the effective application of a repertoire of communication
skills chosen strategically and based on the communicator's
"understanding” of the appropriateness of each in varying situations
and relationships" (p. 3), this study reports a series of studies
arrived at confirming, replicating, and demonstrating validity of an
affinity-seeking instrument (ASI).
For our purposes, the significance of this study is that it
attempts to cross-check the elements of ASI as reported by subjects
with reports by subjects' friends. The authors claim that the
friends' agreement with subjects' self-report on the SI provides both
an "other's" perspective and a check across situations.
Unfortunately, these claims are unverified. In this study, friends
were chosen by subjects themselves. Affinity-seeking is an area in
which systematic agreement by friends cannot be considered a rigorous
cross-check of self-report. These researchers acknowledge the
validity of others' views of CC, but the. bias of established friends
is apparent when the criterion variable is affinity.
To sum up, the need to study CC x relationship types is
acknowledged by several authors, but the published research represents
| only a beginning and lacks a defensible and coherent development of
i
relationship types.
4. Further Expansion: CC x Relationship x Situation
Eadie and Paulson report a (1984) study in which the relationship
among "communicator attitudes" (from the RHETSEN scale of rhetorical
sensitivity), communicator style, and what they call "situation,"
consisting of intimate vs. non-intimate conversants and one-up, one-
j down, and symmetrical relationships. The method was to present i
j subjects with hypothetical dialogues presumably representing the
! "situational" variables. Rhetorical sensitivity was operationalized
i
j by assigning persons identified by RHETSEN as "rhetorical sensitive,"
| "noble self," or "rhetorical reflector" to author the dialogues
! ;
! (p. 395). Competency was assessed by subjects on a scale derived by I
I >
I (
I the authors from published CC research. Subjects were asked to rate j
J the CC not of participants in the dialogue, but of the authors of the !
|
: dialogue. The study found somewhat mixed but generally supportive j
I !
I confirmation that situational differences would show differences in j
I perceived competency and the relationship between competency and j
!
| levels of RHETSEN. I
1 The focus of the study is on behavioral differences presumably i
caused by different RHETSEN types; secondarily, the study contributes ■
| j
1 something to the discussion of person x context x relationship.
|
! However, this study presents problems relating to operationalizing i
! I
! i
; variables and internal validity. In a research context where i
1 i
, researchers are arguing about the possible unrealism of self-reports i
of competence, these authors raise the level of abstraction by a
i
I
' factor of two: subjects function as third parties to a hypothetical ,
I i
dialogue, then rate not even the dialogue participants, but the author :
of the dialogue.
I
Eadie and Paulson argue that such hypothetical dialogues are a
| "purer representation of the authors’ preferred meaning of handling 1
( *
these rhetorical situations . . . because the authors are unencumbered |
: by the constraints that any live counterpart would impose on them"
j
(p. 396). This is an unequivocal admission of internal invalidity of !
this study. The purpose of the study is to see if these "preferred .
I ? t J
means of handling rhetorical situations produce observably different
behaviors across situations. The plausibility of either of two j
possibilities invalidates the study: the experimenters' !
"purification" of the dialogues produces results the researchers admit •
i would not likely occur in realistic situations. In addition, which 1
• "situation" is perceived by subjects is not assessed, therefore, the
i
1 task of assessing CC of the writer of a dialogue may suggest to
i
j subjects one situation (somebody writes a dialogue) rather than many ;
j (dialogues describe intimate, one-up, etc.). This study asks many of
I the right questions, but as a study of competency, it takes measured
! perceptions away from realistic, relational situations which the CC
i
i literature as a body strives to understand.
I
\ Again, CC x situation is not developed thoroughly or
; systematically in this research.
17
5. Additional Recent Competency Research
Two very recent studies (Canary & Spitzberg, 1 9 8 7 ; Canary and
Cupach, 1 9 8 7 ) elaborate on the effectiveness-appropriateness model of
CC and relate it specifically to conflict. Although several
' acknowledgements in these studies are made to situational and
* relational type-specificity (Canary & Cupach, p. 2 1 ; Canary &
j Spitzberg, pp. 30, etc.), the studies are not designed to
I differentiate either situational or relational types. Instead the
i
| focus is to confirm effectiveness (achieving one's goals) and j
| appropriateness (adherence to situational rules) as the factors of j
! j
competency. Further, the authors' aim is to demonstrate that |
I
preceptions of competence mediate between actual conflict message J
| i
I behavior choices and relational issues such as trust, intimacy, and !
i i
i i
relational satisfaction. The results of this sophisticated and .
interesting research not only reaffirm the two proposed dimensions of !
I >
i competence, but show perceptions of competence to be very powerful in !
i 1
I .
| contributing to interactants perception that the relationship is j
I satisfying, even in the midst of conflict.
! 1
! It is notable that Canary and Spitzberg utilize subjects' 1
i i
recollection of a recent (actual) conflict situation as a realistic ;
I
. source of data. Another contribution to the research in CC made by !
these studies is that appropriateness was found to be two-dimensional:
I
general appropriateness relates to perceptions that the observed I
i
specific appropriateness was found to be based on confirmation of the |
I
' observer's expectations within the particular conversation assessed. |
; I
1 8 i
This is not situation-specific or relationship-specific research;
' however, the method of Canary and Spitzberg allowed subjects to choose
; their own conflict; no data on relational types or situations were
J
i
! collected. It can be argued that how we handle conflict is situation-
. specific and relationship-specific.
| 6. Assessing the Literature of Competency
l
I Many problems, many "opportunities for further research" emerge
from this review. In fact, most researchers admit that there are
i
: fundamental questions yet to be answered before a coherent theory of
! CC can be formulated. Although the main body of research seems to
|
j acknowledge a view of CC as communication which is effective and
: appropriate, most of the research remains focused on "effective,"
looking for a taxonomy of qualities or traits of dispositions (self-
reported by subjects) that result in CC. My position in what follows
is that the research has not been very fruitful. The needle-in-a-
' haystack search for all possible (experimenter-hypothesized)
dispositional qualities of CC is overwhelmed by a potentially vast
I list of possibilities to check out. Further, the recognition that
, what is competent differs across situations and types of relationships
complicates the quest by a factor of possible situations x possible
I relationship types. The enormity of such a task and the research we
have reviewed suggest a different approach, a grounded, subject
1
■ defined search for CC components in the contexts of situations and
i
| relationships.
19
a. The Need to Study Specific Situations and CC
Virtually every researcher cited above acknowledges that
situations may be different enough to modify the role or effect of one
or more factors in CC, and "further research" is recommended. This
unanimous recognition carries important implications for method. If
situations are different enough to modify the effect of any particular
variable (knowledge, Spitzberg and Hecht 1984; apprehension, shyness,
etc., Bell et aJL. , 1987; etc.), this would suggest that as the list of
CC variables subject to situational influences grows, it is reasonable
that competency itself may be situationally different. What is
competent in one situation may be incompetent in another. Components
or factors or variables of CC which may be present in one situation or
relationship may be absent in another. Up to now, we have approached
this issue by searching for a general competency profile and
explaining anomalies in terms of the "maybe1s" of different situations
or relationships. It now is time to take the advice implicit in these
competency studies and examine the situation x competency question
directly.
b . The Need to Study Relationship Types and CC
It is Hazleton and Cupach (1986) and Bell et _al. , (1987) who
argue most directly that what is competent in one type of relationship
may be irrelevant or non-competent in another. This review has
indicted Bell, et al. , for failing to find a means of assessing
differences in situations, and Hazleton and Cupach fall into
invalidity by attempting to equate a variable which may be relevant to
j a relationship of which they might be a part, to a variable in a case
*
: study of which they are not a part, except as observers. But what j
these studies fail to accomplish themselves, they succeed at showing a i
need for. The search for global, dispositional qualities of competent '
communicators has produced mixed results; a shift to a relationally
i grounded focus true to the "effective and appropriate" definition is
now warranted and belated.
c. The Need to Study Components of CC from Subjects Themselves
, The problem which is evident in CC research is, what is the locus
| of competency? Notable among the various researchers is the ,
recognition by Spitzberg and Hecht (1984) and Bell, Tremblay, and
I
i Buerkel-Rothfuss (1987) that CC must be assessed by someone in a 1
relationship designated as "other." Most CC research reported here
1 (the latter studies included) is based on self-reports and
: assessments; the latter studies at least cross-check with perceptions
' of CC by dyad partners or friends.
The definition of CC as "appropriate and effective" would seem to
| have suggested a more "other" focus from the outset, but such has
| rarely been the case. Apparently because self-report data is more
r
1 accessible, it predominates in the literature overwhelmingly. It
leaves unanswered an important question and suggests a source of
invalidity in CC research. The question is, what if I think my
[ communication with you is competent (on several researcher-generated j
criteria), but you believe that it is not? Another version of the |
* same question is, what if the researcher-generated criteria on which I ;
base my self-reports on CC with you are different from the criteria
I you apply, resulting potentially in the false-positive of "I'm
. competent" (when you disagree) or the false-negative of "I'm not
competent" (when you believe I am) .
The source of invalidity in this is that the multivariate
i
analysis in these studies may be finding only relationships among
variables of self-perception which may be irrelevant to
appropriateness (defined by situations) and effectiveness (determined
by the other person).
Spitzberg and Hecht (1984) claim a "transactional" solution by
asking both "selves" and "others" to report on CC in actual dyadic
i
| conversations. When they find significant differences, they claim
j
J they have measured the dyad as the unit of analysis (p. 594). In
; fact, the correlations between self and other were small, suggesting
I that several dyadic partners saw the conversation very differently.
I
I We may agree with their conclusion that competence is interpersonal,
| but the data they report are not data on a relationship, but
I
1 conflicting data generated by two individuals in a relationship. This
does not lay the question to rest as these authors imply. It asks it
j again, only louder. What is the significance of the self-report "i
j was satisfied with my communication toward him," while he reports, "i
I
was not satisfied with her communication toward me?" The only
conclusion to be drawn from this is that self-reports alone are
i
j invalid.
Worse even than invalid, self-reports of CC may be tautological.
; We have seen that Bell et al. (1987) conducted a study cross-checking
I
self-reports with reports of subjects' friends, one of each subject,
! selected by subjects themselves! The authors are confident that these
| friends have information on subjects across many situations
j (unverified in this study, and implausible, since friendships may be
I
j maintained in specific social or work situations), and that as
t
! observers of subjects, their information will correct the bias of
I self-reports. This latter assumption is likewise unverified and
; ignores the well-known bias implicit in friend selection. This is
1 especially relevant since Bell, jit _al. are studying affinity-building
' competencies, making friends a highly biased source of information.
' The question from this review is glaring: shall competency be
assessed by asking subjects about themselves or by asking persons to
! whom communication was addressed, "Was what he said effective to/for
I
' you and appropriate to this situation?"
I
! What is the locus of CC? Surely not in message senders alone.
|
j Perhaps in message receivers. Ultimately, it is in the relationship
I itself, studied transactionally. Until we generate sophisticated
I relational criteria as dependent variables, our next step would seem
! b
.^be be, look to message receivers as participants in relationships,
j The research heretofore has seldom taken this step.
(
I
23
B. Defining Relationships
I
i
| 1. Kenneth Burke: Relationships Defined Linguistically
' Kenneth Burke (1962) identifies a "generic divisiveness which,
I
| common to all men, is a universal fact about them, prior to any
; divisiveness caused by social classes" (p. 670). Because of this
l
j condition, we strive for "consubstantiality," or connectedness through
j "identification" which Burke states "is compensatory to division. If
j humans were wholly and truly of one substance, absolute communication
j would be of man's very essence" (p. 546). One of the ways we realize
I consubstantiality and identification is in personal relationships with
I ■
i
' other people.
i
i The way people perceive their relationships directly affects
their communication choices in all areas of life: work, home, love,
conflict, etc. Since the human is the symbol-making and symbol-using
animal (Burke, 1966, p. 16), the labels people give to these
relationships are directly related to the ways they are perceived.
I Once labeled, that label then begins to further create the perception,
j The concept can best be described by the following diagram:
! EXPERIENCE
PERCEPTION
CATEGORIZATION
* t
LABEL
This system creates a loop which forms a symbolic personal and social
i
j reality.
This symbolic reality is explained in Burke's concept of
"termanistic screens" (1966). These are the linguistic filters
j through which people screen their experiences. "Any nomenclature
I
I necessarily directs the attention into some channels rather than
other" (p. 45). He goes on:
j Not only does the nature of our terms affect the nature of
our observations in the sense that the terms direct the
attention to one field rather than to another. Also, many
of the 'observations' are but implications of the particular
terminology in terms of which the observations are made. In
brief, much that we take as observations about 'reality' may
be but the spinning out of possibilities implicit in our
particular choice of terms (p. 46).
For the purpose of this paper, relationships are defined as being
grounded in at least two-way communication. In other words, I could
not say that I have a relationship with Walt Whitman simply because I
have read his work, even though his work may have helped me achieve
consubstantiality and identification. We experience people with whom
we relate on a communication basis. The perception of encounters as
well as the amount of time to add and change data on the people we
encounter determines what category we place them in. But, it is not
that simple. We categorize in hierarchies. Therefore, categories
range in different degrees such as more/less and is/is not. The
ability to state things linguistically in the negative gives the human
the ability to place things into hierarchies. But one is not just
capable of using this ability to create order; one is "goaded by this
spirit" (Burke, 1966, p. 16).
In addition to this motivation, the human is also "rotten with
perfection" (p. 16). This principle "is central to the nature of
25
language as motive. The mere desire to name something by its 'proper'
| name, or to speak a language in its distinctive ways is intrinsically
1 'perfectionistic1" (p. 16). This spirit of hierarchy necessitates
! different labels for different types of relationships. It manifests
i
j itself in the symbols one chooses, and the need for perfection
necessitates the use of perfect choices of words to express those
I relationships, i.e., "This person is my friend," "We're just
1 acquaintances," "You're my best friend," etc.
j Thus, the labels we place on phenomena both reflect and create
! the category in which we place them. We communicate the new "reality"
| Cybernetically as feedback into our intrapersonal and interpersonal
I
systems. In addition to communicating the category, the labels also
state the hierarchy of the category both to ourselves and to others.
i For example, we intuitively know that a friend is more of something
; than an acquaintance, but more of what?
1
[ I am arguing that the human hierarchy is not a simple linear set
of categories. We assess and "chunk" experiences by comparing them
with each other systematically, not randomly. The criteria on which
we compare relationships do not fit into a neat, linear continuum.
I
! For example, I may be more interdependent (e.g., mutually dependent to
1
I accomplish tasks/outcomes) with a person who is easily replaced, such
I as a boss, and less interdependent with a person who is not easily
I
I replaced, such as a lover. Therefore, each experience and category is
compared against the other, and interacts and affects the others.
Instead of a linear hierarchy, then, relationships must be viewed as a
j system with dimensions which are arranged hierarchically (see
| Diagram I for an example).
It would follow that the human's experiences, perceptions,
l
1 categorizations, and labels for these categories could best be studied j
! systemically. People have a hierarchial, non-linear system of l
j
i categories which is symbolic in nature in that they have labels which ;
i !
I have specific meaning to the person. This symbolic categorization t
aids the person in ordering relationships and reality. It is because
i
of this interaction between the symbolic and systemic nature of
relationships that this paper proposes a Relational/Situational j
j Paradigm (RSP). This model utilizes research on relational types,
I
| combined with literature on situations to isolate physical intimacy
i
i (PI) as a heuristic and beneficial arena in which to study CC, (thus,
! CCPI).
i
2. Relationships Systemically Defined
i
A whole phenomenon is more than the simple sum of its parts.
Systems are "explained in terms of the interactions or relations J
, between the parts . . . This means one is forced to conceptualize in j
. terms of wholes forming connections to other wholes, heretofore :
I i
i thought to be isolated phenomena" (Allen, 1978, p. 17). The "wholes"
i ;
; in the case of the RSP are the categories we place relationships into
I which linguistically are labeled "stranger," "acquaintance," "friend,"
l
j "lover," "intimate," etc., which have been previously researched as if ,
' < they were isolated phenomena. Relational categories connect and [
I J
interact with one another in that their definitions exist in j
DIAGRAM I
LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT PROFILE (LIP):
'
SAMPLE
WORK RELATIONSHIP
BEST FRIEND
HIGH LI
. ►---
0
0
•
0
•
•
#
«
«
• 0 1
* '
* -
•
MODERATE LI_ •
«
> • • • • • • • • • <
LOW LI
i I "T ' 1 ... 1
1
T T I
s r
V E R
E E N U M E
M M T L 0 P
P P E N T L
0 0 R E I A
R R D R 0 C
A A E A N E
L L P B A A
E I L B
I I N L I I
I D I T L
E T Y I
LENGTH DAILY N Y T
OF TIME C Y
RELATION SPENT E
SHIP TOGETHER
28
: comparison to one another. Relational categories interact with one
i another systematically, not randomly; RSP attempts to explain
I
1
; interpersonal relational categories according to how they interact
i
! with one another symbolically and definitionally.
A system can be defined as "a set of elements that are
interdependent . . . Interdependence means that the elements of the
■ system interact, and, more importantly, whatever affects one element
! will in some way affect all the other elements. The elements are the
I
i components or parts of the system"1 (Allen, p. 22). The elements of
the RCS are the relational categories which are affected by the
t dimensions of those categories. For example, the elements are
l stranger, acquaintance, friend, etc., and the dimensions (to be
! explained more fully later) are such things as interdependence, time,
I
j vulnerability, etc.
! 3. Recent Research in Linguistic, Systemic Aspects of Relationships
a. Differences in Behavior
Several articles are available which measure behaviors and how
, they differ in different relationships. Keiser and Altman (1976)
i
measured the differences of nonverbal behaviors between good friends
| and acquaintances. Krivonos and Knapp (1975) studied the differences
of greeting behavior between acquaintances and strangers. McCroskey
j and McCain (1974) measured interpersonal attraction according to
acquaintances. Berger, Weber, Munley, and Dixon (1977) measured
interpersonal attraction in formal relationships, acquaintances,
friends, close friends, and lovers. Gilbert (1976) studied self
disclosure differences in stranger, acquaintance, parent, friend, and (
I
1 spousal relationships. None of these works actually defines the J
|
, categories clearly, although Berger, et al. , cite a previous work by
I Munley which did attempt to define them. The studies which use
several relational categories seem to assume a linear continuum.
1 Gilbert's study of self-disclosure, interestingly enough, shows
i disclosure to be curvilinear, based on degrees of intimacy from |
j 1
j stranger to spouse and within intimate relationships. It may be that J
I i
i curvilinear results such as this are caused by the nonlinear, .
| interactive nature of relational categories. ;
; i
b. Differences in Function :
------------------------ I
i
The second group of studies are those which define relationships 1
! according to their function. Fitzpatrick and Best (1979) created a !
i !
| typology of spousal relationships: Independents, Separates,
I
I Traditionals, and Separate/Traditionals. Villard and Whipple (1976)
I
| call relationships social, casual encounters, and task. Bennis,
i Schein, Steele, and Berlew (1968) categorize relationships into ;
| emotional-expressive, confirmatory, change-influence, and instrumental |
j
! types. All these are researcher-generated; none came from people
I ^ “
t
! actually describing their own interpersonal relationships.
c. Differences in Qualities j
I
The third research focus, that of discovering actual dimensions !
i to different relational categories, has only been attempted by a few
i
i researchers. Carson (cited in Wilmot, 1980) defined relationships in ;
I
1
j terms of love/hate and dominance/submission dimensions. Munley (1976) J
• i
i |
I 30 I
comes closest to the purpose of this paper in her research on a
taxonomy of interpersonal relationships. First, she asked people to
define their "role," "acquaintance," "friend," "good friend," and
"lover" relationships. Next, she explicated different dimensions in
j each category.
j Based on intensive interviews with a small subject N, Munley
! identifies two dimensions: the first dimension is that of
' "commitment." She defines commitment as the consistent behavior which
I
i characterizes a relationship between two persons. The "values toward
commitment" are: safety (the feeling that a relationship can keep a
, person from feeling lonely or awkward in a situation); validation (the
j ability to be one's self without having to worry about evaluation);
i
; reliance (the feeling that the other person will always be there in
I
! case of need); mutual dependability; stimulation (interestingness of
J one's friends); and specified needs (the specific needs that
■ particular relationship meets). Munley claims implausibly that these
i
; dimensions do not differ in intensity, but do differ in type. It
i
seems obvious that these dimensions exist in varying degrees in
! different relational categories.
i
I Munley's second set of dimensions are called "intensity
! properties." These are the dimensions of: personalness (the degree
1
i of role-boundedness and the extent to which personality is involved in
i
the relationship); diversity (the range of situations and contexts
I
j within which people relate to each other); openness (the voluntary
j offering of information about self); centrality (the replaceability of
I that person); mutuality (the degree of- shared experience in the j
relationship); and duration (the amount of time spend in the '
relationship and the frequency of encounters). Munley cannot verify
her belief that these dimensions vary from low to high equally between
j categories of stranger and lover. But she may be wrong in the
i assumption that all of the dimensions she discovered fit a linear,
' hierarchical continuum. That may explain her claim (unsubstantiated) !
i that the commitment dimensions do not differ in intensity. Their ]
j failure to fit neatly into a step-wise linear pattern suggests that j
' i
I
j they are all intensity measures, and that real relational categories
) I
1 are non-linear and systemic.
I '
4. Proposed Taxonomy of Relationships
j
j Because the above research has been both researcher and subject
j defined, it is possible that there is enough known about relational
| dimensions to make a start by synthesizing that material into a model ;
j with which to explore personal category systems. The various j
I I
j relational labels include: stranger, acquaintance, role, proxemic, 1
J task, work, colleague, friend, close friend, best friend, lover, ;
j spouse, intimate, enemy, parent, child, relative, and so on.
t
j Some narrowing and summarizing of these categories follows. ,
j Because our focus is on adult relationships which are viewed as j
positive, the terms "parent," "child," and "enemy" will not be ,
!
included. Because "relative" simply means a generic relationship, it '
! will not be used (relatives can be placed into other relational j
categories, however, if they fit). Because "spouse" is a term
I relating to a legal state, it will not be used (again, a spouse may
i
i fit into one of the other categories). The terms "role," "task," i
I
' . . » » !
"work," and "colleague" all refer to working situations and, j
; t
: therefore, the term "work relationship" will be used to cover all of j
those labels. The terms "close friend" and "best friend" are ^
difficult to distinguish, so the term "best friend" will be used, as
j i
1 it is the more distinct category. The term "lover" will be used as j
| I
opposed to the term "intimate" because intimacy is considered to be a j
I dimension rather than a label. "Proxemic" is included here to include |
! i
i i
, a means of describing a relationship which is frequent simply due to j
I i
| being in the same place at the same time, which did not seem to be (
j i
' covered in either the acquaintance or friend categories. i
i
I |
| For the purposes of this study, a list of relational categories '
i I
' is proposed, based on the following criteria:
I
' 1. Categories are derived from the research on behaviors,
functions, and qualities of relational types.
j
2. Categories fit the description above of elements in a
life system with both overlapping and distinguishing [
dimensions. i
\ 1
i i
j 3. Categories are reduced in number by the discussion of |
duplication or confusion with situations (above).
This tentative working list of relational categories, based on a |
; conceptual refinement of existing research, must depend for ultimate i
validation on additional research, including that to be proposed here. ;
i
CCPI research will be justified as a test of one of these categories
in the context of one of the situations justified in the next section !
of this review.
To summarize the above, the following labels are defined thusly:
A one-time meeting with someone for the first time.
A person whom one sees more than once, but not
often, such as a friend of a friend.
A person one sees on a regular basis due to often
being in the same place, more often than an
acquaintance, but less involved with than a friend,
such as students in the same classroom, secretaries
in a secretarial pool, neighbors, etc.
A person someone sees occasionally and enjoys, and
is moderately open and attached.
A friend with whom one is very open and who is not
easily replaceable.
A consistent role-relationship or work relationship
which is interdependent.
A person usually of the opposite sex with whom one
is open and vulnerable, emotionally attracted, sees
often, and shares a sexual relationship, and who is
not easily replaceable.
C. Defining Situations
1. Context and Episode
To begin a definition of situation, the more general concept of
"context" needs to be discussed. Frentz and Farrell (1976) define
context as the "criteria for interpreting the meaningfulness and
propriety of any communication event" (p. 334), and divide context
into an heirarchical structure of form of life, encounters, and
episodes. "Form of life" is the cultural and attitudinal
predisposition a person brings into a communication interaction.
Encounters are "points of contact among conscious human actors," i.e.,
a certain place and a certain time. Episodes are "fundamental
- Stranger:
- Acquaintance:
- Proxemic:
- Friend:
- Best Friend:
- Task:
- Lover:
j communication sequences of action which are understandable only in
' terms of the context in which they occur" (pp. 334-335). Episodes
j
' have a beginning, a middle, and an end (pp. 338-339). These episodes
!
j are comprised of three elements: (1) rules, (2) goal-orientation (a
i
i
: purpose or desired outcome which is emergent), and (3) developmental
I
j structure (the structure of the sequence of behaviors determine the
!
I communicative significance and is not reducible to individual acts)
j (pp. 336-337).
I
Accordingly, "situation” may be defined as synonymous with
i
>
! "episode." I suggest changing the word "goal-orientation" to the word
I
j "function," a term which suggests the dynamic rather than the static
1 and, therefore, includes the concept of emergence. Thus, a situation
i
; is: (1) an episode which takes place at a certain time in a certain
■ place, (2) consists of rules, (3) consists of a sequence of
i
j communication behaviors between interactants, and (4) serves a
I
1 particular function which is not necessarily predetermined,
i 2. Research on Situations
’ The above definition is supported by Mischel's (1973) work on
: situations versus traits in personality research. He defines a highly
I constrained and "powerful" situation as one in which everyone has
knowledge of the appropriate behavior, the skills for appropriate
1 behavior, sufficient rewards and/or punishments for the appropriate
j behavior and knowledge about the outcomes for appropriate behaviors.
i
! Inferentially, "knowledge of the appropriate behavior" assumes that
I
I there are rules for the appropriate or inappropriate behavior in a
given situation. "Skills for appropriate behavior" assumes the acting
out within a situation (behaviors), "rewards and/or punishments"
I
! assumes motivations and outcomes, and "knowledge of outcomes" assumes
; predictions and outcomes. "Outcomes" and "rewards/punishments" are
I
j barely distinguishable and collapse into the category of, perhaps,
"functions." These three components of a situation are closely
similar to Spitzberg's (1981a) components of competence, knowledge,
l 1
| skills, and motivation. This suggests that all situations are ,
. 1
; definable by certain dimensions and that relational competence (CC
; within a relationship type) is one of the possible ways, the most
1 optimal way, to enact a situation. It would follow that competence is j
i
subordinate to situation, and situation is subordinate to relationship 1
(see Diagram II).
Thus, when rules, behaviors and perceptions of satisfaction, etc. ,
1 are observed by social researchers and measured as dependent J
! variables, the independent variable in the situation, then, could be !
J
I
■ function. If we can understand the function of a situation and the ,
i ;
| type of relationship, we can study competence situationally with the 1
I I
I 1
t hope of gaining knowledge about situationally specific, relationally |
' competent behaviors and rules. !
i
It is insisted here that a relationship is not a situation. A I
i
1 relationship exists in and across various situations. The more j
! l
complex a relationship becomes, the more various the situations become 1
, (Munley, 1976). j
36
DIAGRAM II
RELATIONAL
SITUATIONAL
(COMP)
APPROPRIATE
RULES AND BEHAVIORS
RULES AND BEHAVIORS
INAPPROPRIATE
t 3. Proposed Taxonomy of Situations
I
j To achieve an identifiable, measurable paradigm of situation,
! then, the functions of a situation must be taxonomized. As we have
| seen, Bennis, et al. , (1968) define relationships according to their
t
! function. To apply function as a criterion of situation, and
i
t combining the work of situation theorists, the categories would be:
instrumental (task), change-influence, (of self or other or the
I environment), and emotional-expressive (affect). In addition, a
I social category must be added to account for those situations which
j
I function strictly for pleasure and for the purpose of the encounter
i
>
itself; a proxemic category must be added to account for interactions
j which exist simply because interactants are frequently and
j consistently in the same place at the same time. These categories of
' situation would be placed in a heirarchical continuum from lower to
i
higher levels of functional complexity and necessity. The order would
i
j be: proxemic function, social function, task function, change
I
i function, confirmatory function, and emotional function. These
l
j determine the functions or purposes or desired outcomes for the
I
j situation which may be emergent and not predetermined. These
! situations may not be distinct and probably overlap, which once again
I
argues for the systemic nature of the model. Certainly the overlap
occurs within specific relationships. Situations, therefore, occur in
! and across various relationships.
4. Relationships and Situations:____The Relational/Situational
j Paradigm (RSP)
! To sum up, the literature seems to point to a relational x
; situational grid combining types of situations and functions of
situations, something like as follows:
SITUATION TYPES
EMOTIONAL
CONFIRMATORY
CHANGE
I
I TASK
I
1
| SOCIAL
i PROXEMIC
DIAGRAM III
T S T A T P T F T B T T T L
Y T Y C Y R Y R Y E Y A Y 0
P R P
Q
P 0 P I P S P S P V
E A E u E X E E E T E K E E
N A E N R
I G I I I M I D V F V V
E I N I I V R I I
R T I C I I
A E
N N
C D
E
RELATIONSHIP TYPES
D. Communication During Physical Intimacy (CCPI)
i
I It will be the position of this research that the need for a
j study of the relationally and situationally specific CCPI arises
I
t
| clearly out of the published literature's recognition of a failure to
do so heretofore.
i
One implication of the foregoing review is that relationships and
| situations have been studied too simplistically in the past. It is
not difficult to document the point that understanding and improving
; male/female communication is not a simple task. Eakins and Eakins
i
1 (1978) found significant communication differences between men and
i
i women:
i
' ■ One basic role separation in communication seems to be that
| of task-directed versus socio-emotionally directed behavior.
I Men have tended to perform the task role and women the
socio-emotional role. The verbal performance of males is
I most often a goal-directed, "all-out" effort, characterized
j by analyzing, clarifying, evaluating, and controlling,
j Women's communication has involved reacting, positively and
j negatively, to the general situation and to others, with a
‘ tendency to be concerned with the problems of
| decision-making, rather than the decision itself; with
i reducing tension, and with restoring unity (pp. 77-78).
| The concept of roles and differences between men and women is a
' pressing issue. One only has to look at the magazine racks and
self-help bookshelves, listen to conversations on the street, or look
at the divorce statistics from the last ten years and predictions for
i
; the next ten, to know that there are problems between men and women.
, Taken one step further, a society in which men and women cannot
!
I
, communicate is a society in trouble. Cronkhite (1976) discusses this
I
! problem in terms of roles which are accepted without conscious choice,
i
' creating an apparent division which does not exist in reality:
j . . . communicators of opposite sex may unwittingly adopt
; socially stereotyped roles which hinder their communication.
1 Sometimes both communicators play the game, so that they
! "act out" socially prescribed communication roles without
really coming to terms with their respective needs and
goals, feigning a divisiveness which need not exist.
Sometimes one communicator assumes that the social roles are
| in effect while the other will reject the roles. That can j
i be very destructive to communication (p. 90). i
This passage argues for the need to open up communication in
| order to dispel myths and connect more honestly with persons of the
J opposite sex. Upon viewing the statistics showing the dissillusion-
I
| ment of relationships, it becomes critical that the field of
i
i i
i communication focus on healthy male-female interactions. Sexual 1
i I
behavior is one of the major aspects of a male-female, lover-type |
I :
relationship. The conclusion must be to study CCPI. ;
Sidney Jourard also argues the necessity for information in this
■ area:
| Not sex as mere coupling, but sex as an expression of joie-
! de-vivre of a sharing of the good things in life. Sex that
| is deeply enjoyed, freely given and taken, . . . the kind
; that makes a well-married couple look at each other from
j time to time and wink or grin or become humble at the
| remembrance of joys past and expectant of those yet to be
' enjoyed. Marriage counselors and psychotherapists seldom
| hear about this kind of sex. While I cannot agree that sex
i solves anything, it surely is a sensitive gauge of a person I
i or of a relationship. Sex deteriorates with deterioration .
j of the capacity of a person to establish a close, mutually ,
j disclosing, nonsexual relationship with another person. !
I . . . Trouble is normal, even desirable. It begins in bed
i or is reflected in bed. There are two classes of sexual
j difficulty, one growing out of prudery and the other
I stemming from impasses in the overall relationship of a
j couple (1971, p. 43). ’
I Note that the kind of sex Jourard describes has more to do with
I :
i
I the ability to communicate than with the physical pleasures of the 1
!
i i
I partners, ,
41
This area is virtually untouched in the field of communication. I
|
Researchers have studied sexuality in relationships concerning (
• i
physical pleasures and physiological responses (see Masters and j
i
j Johnson, 1966, 1970, 1974; Lips and Colwill, 1978). Wood (1982) ■
’ I
discussed relational culture and communication functions within each
i
j type of relational culture in terms of escalating and deescalating ;
! relationships. Miller, Nunnally, and Wachman (1975, 1976) have done j
i
| extensive research on communication training programs for couples.'j
Many others have studied frequencies and types of interacts between j
marital couples or intimate couples (see for example Olds, 1985; ;
l
t Schultz, 1984; Blumstein and Schwartz, 1983; Ayres, 1982; Knapp, Hart, 1
i :
! Friedrich, and Shulman, 1980; Krain, 1975). Still others have studied
i
< the differences in communication in the developmental stages of
J
, relationships (see for example Wheeless et al., 1984; Knapp, 1978;
; Berger and Calabrese, 1975; Altman and Taylor, 1973; Davis, 1973).
, Farb (in Cronkhite, 1976) has more directly researched communication
strategies toward sexual ends in his work on obscene language and
' "dirty jokes" which shows its function as "demonstrating verbal
i >
ability and wit, of covering and simultaneously relieving sexual ■
, anxiety and, in the game of sexual seduction, of testing another
; person's sexual values and predicting his or her readiness for further
; advances" (pp. 280-281). His focus, however, is the communication
• which occurs prior to the actual act of physical intimacy. 1
i
Hopper, Knapp, and Scott (1981) are among the few researchers who j
even touch on the area of physical intimacy in their work on idiomatic 1
talk between couples, such as their information on the use of
nicknames, expressions of affection, sexual references and euphemisms,
sexual invitations, and teasing insults. Still, none of these areas
were studied within the actual context of physical intimacy.
Another study must be discussed here. Phillips and Metzger
(1976) note:
We began to get the idea that another bit of research that
was needed was a study of the rhetorical symbolization of
sex . . . As to the role of intercourse in cementing
relationships, for most women, the sex act was tantamount to
the ratification of a constitution. Once the act had been
consummated, females felt that they had rights to the
company, and preferably the exclusive company, of the male.
Most of the men preferred to see intercourse as somewhat
more casual, something to be done and enjoyed by consenting
adults for mutual gratification with no strings attached.
Those who were married saw their role as primarily that of
head of family, rather than as lover. Among the few
middle-aged men we had in our population, we began to get
glimmerings of discontent, a syndrome of concern about how
exciting life had been up to that point--and wasn't there
something more that could be obtained from it? The
rhetorical issue emerges clearly:
Female: Resolved that sex should be a component
of a regular and exclusive relationship.
Male: Resolved that sex should be practiced
between consenting adults with no
strings attached (p. 239).
As a rhetorical issue, Phillips and Metzger further interviewed
their subjects as to their feelings about defining the word "love,"
the obligations involved with sexual activity, aggression towards the
"opposite sex and from the opposite sex,' possessiveness, the feeling
of being used, the necessity and nature of physical contact in close
male-female relationships, the meanings placed on sex by self and
perceived meanings of sex to the other, the effects of sex on a
43
relationship, and attitudes toward "the new sexual morality." Their
conclusions lead to the assertion that "sex is another form of
rhetorical argument" (p. 248). Their conclusions were: 1
Sex emerged as a kind of symbol usable in rhetoric, and
suitable as an argumentative strategy or form of support.
Males and females do not relate in the same ways that males
relate to males or females to females. There is always the
barrier of sexual intercourse and its meaning to resolve
before constitutions of intimacy can be worked out. Or,
conversely, any constitution worked out between male and
female has to deal with sexuality in some way.
!
Our sample was not particularly avant-garde in its sexual j
orientations. There was no advocacy for alternative j
lifestyles, new forms of marriage, or even women's |
liberation. There was, instead, a consistent gnawing at the
problem of the meaning of the sex act and how it fit into
the building of self-esteem and personal security. Females
were considerably more sensitive and bewildered at this
point than males. Most males understood that they could
garner esteem from their peers by being sexually successful.
Most males also felt bound by the norms of the greater
social system, so that concern for the family of the future
and for personal responsibility lurked around the corner of
every sexual act.
Basically, what we have uncovered here is still another
rhetorical arena. Males and females do not achieve ,
contentment in their relationships with one another until j
they have resolved the basic problems of the nature of their i
life together, and central to that problem is the question !
of what to make of sexual intercourse (pp. 248-249). ,
Although this is not exactly the focus of this paper, it does i
directly relate. For one thing it states that men and women have
differences in the way they view the significance of the sex act. The 1
question related here is: Do those differences occur within the j
context of the sex act as well as in the thoughts about the sex act?
And secondly: If men and women cannot achieve contentment in their
relationships with one another until they figure out what to make of
44
I the sex act, how is this striving for mutual meaning manifested in the
' communication during physical intimacy? My focus, then, is to
discover the positive and negative experiences of communication during
! physical intimacy for those who have chosen to be sexual partners and
1 to learn how this experience relates to relational enhancement.
| Very little additional literature on the subject is available.
! Even in view of all the literature on the shelves on couple
communication and sexual information, very little is ever mentioned
i
j combining the two. One self-help book on couple communication, for
I example, devotes 19 pages to solving sexual problems and less than two
j of these pages actually deal with how to communicate about the
i
subject. Typically, the rest is a basic sex education course on how
!
■ to please each other, anatomical parts, etc. (Gottman et al. , 1979).
i
Without examining any answers, they, too, point out the problem by
I quoting Masters and Johnson:
It should be underscored constantly that what really is
j happening in their private sessions of physical expression
I is that a man and a woman committed to each other are
1 learning to communicate their physical pleasures and their
| physical irritations in an area that heretofore in our
culture has been denied the dignity of freedom of
! communication (p. 106).
l
! E. Conclusion
I ' 1 ■
i
| The diverse literature on CC, situation and relationship types,
1 and CCPI converges in a set of three conclusions:
I
1. Communication competence research will produce the greatest
results when CC constructs are generated by interactants
themselves in specific relationship types and situations, as
! conceptualized in the Relational/Situational Paradigm (RSP).
2. Research in communication during physical intimacy would
meet a documented need for knowledge in a vital area of
human relationships, and a heuristic need for a
demonstration that CC should be studied situationally and i
relationally. i
i |
j 3. CCPI as a case-in-point of the relational and situational j
; specificity of the Relational/Situational Paradigm (RSP) ;
would provide a test of RSP's ability to focus the quest for
; dimensions of CC in a way that avoids the problems of j
existing research documented in this review. !
: That CCPI fits the proposal for relational and situational j
specificity of CC research is demonstrated by its isomorphism with one |
I |
[ category from among those proposed in the RSP. That it is a ,
! l
I necessary, desirable area of research is unequivocally demonstrated by :
t I
i ,
the literature. 1
I
, In the chapters which follow, I present and utilize a design and ■
■ method for studying competent communication in the vital and
( archetypal category of CCPI.
f
I
46
t
CHAPTER III
| METHOD
I
I
!
{ Consistent with grounded, subject-generated research, the
I
definition of a variable such as CCPI needs to come from the source of !
! !
| study. This is especially true with a variable which is both process |
I I
I and outcome oriented. Munley states that: j
j i
j ...subjects and researchers should interact more openly, ;
that data should be more representative of experience, and
' that rigor in methods and analysis should be maintained.
i t
1 . . . If researchers fail to fully tap and understand human
i experience, they offer a base for theory construction which !
. is removed from actuality and produce a science in which
complexities are seen as taboo and final products rendered (
1 absurd by experiencers of human interactions (1976, p. 6).
« <
! The present researcher intends to take Munley's advice and heed her
<
(warnings. The best possible operational and conceptual definition of !
I
■ CCPI was derived from the following sources. ;
I i
i :
j A. Development of the Instrument
I 1. Item Generation i
( - t
' j
! a. Interview ,
! ' 1
, The first method used in this scale development was the I
i
| preparatory, free-style interview (Gorden, 1977, p. 61). Kerlinger 1
I
; (1964) defends the use of the interview as a viable technique for use >
in generating hypotheses and identifying variables as well as using j
I
j
the interview to help guide research (p. 468).
I
Using Munley's (1976) technique of intensive interviewing to |
i i
I elicit information, an open-ended interview schedule was developed ;
I (see Appendix C). Intensive interviewing chooses respondents on the j
I (
basis of "richness" of information rather than randomness (p. 5). The
advantages to this method are" (1) the time and ability to build
rapport with respondents, (2) the gathering of "'richer' data from the
grounding of theories about interpersonal communication," and (3) the i
i
i
data produces "first order concepts representative of the informants' j
!
perceptions." The researcher then "explicates second order concepts, |
I
I
1 schemes which make sense theoretically" (p. 6). I
I
1 Six intensive interviews (3 men, 3 women) were conducted :
I
l
according to the schedule attached. The respondents were chosen on j
i the basis of sex (male/female), marital status (married/single), '
occupation 1 male counselor/1 female counselor, 1 male Communication !
. Ph.D./I female Communication Ph.D., and 1 general male/1 general j
i I
j :
j female). Each was given the Level of Involvement Scale, LIS, to j
' determine the level of involvement of the relationship in the i
! i
! situation they are asked to describe (see Appendix A and B). The ;
| interview was unstructured and included two parts: (1) each '
i
| respondent described an actual experience, (2) each described the j
j ideal experience he/she would like to have. The first was designed to J
| elicit descriptive information about what is real in the respondent's j
i
i experience. Part two was included to account for the possibility that i
j respondents may never have had the experience they would desire.
I
| There are two assumptions operating here: (1) some physically
1 intimate partners do experience CCPI, and (2) since little is known
' about CCPI, it is possible that it is achieved rarely and at best,
^ minimally. It is fairly recent that people have been formally
' educated in sexual matters. It is assumed here that CCPI is not
taught and is, at best, a skill learned haphazardly and
idiosyncratically, if at all.
i
| Each of the two parts of the interview was broken down into self-
| communication and other communication. Each of these parts was again
J broken down into verbal and non-verbal behaviors. The most important
I
i concern for the interviewer was to stay focused on communication
i
' skills and competence as the variables rather than physical pleasure
or physical needs.
The content of these interviews was used to construct an
open-ended question survey. The results of the interviews determined
what areas needed to be covered in the more extensive questionnaire.
; It was found that the interview schedule had limitations and caused
some confusion. Therefore, a written questionnaire was made more
' precise and more easily answerable. (See Appendix D.) It was found
j
| that focusing on only one sexual encounter was difficult due to
' problems in remembering specifics. The written questionnaire,
• therefore, did not demand the recollection of only one episode, but
i rather a collective memory of episodes or construction of the ideal
j
[ situation. In addition, it was found that more questions needed to be
t added to the questionnaire since there would be no interview to probe
| for more information.
b. Questionnaire
|
| The second preparatory instrument, therefore, was the written
j survey in the form of an open-ended questionnaire based on the
j necessary revisions to the interview schedule (see Appendix D). The
I
| respondents were requested simply to write communication behaviors
i
t
j (both verbal and nonverbal) that they recalled or imagined which were
| especially effective and appropriate. The purpose here was to elicit
i observable behaviors. The disadvantage to this method is that it is
not possible to direct or use question probes as in the interview.
■ The advantage is, that, since this is a very personal topic, it is
■ possible to gather data from larger numbers of respondents who might
I otherwise be uncomfortable with a face-to-face interview.
f
j Forty survey respondents were chosen on the basis of (1) sex
i
i (male/female), marital status (single/married), and occupation
(counselors, sex therapists, and general respondents), (2) the
* "richness" of their information and willingness to participate, and
j (3) the degree of satisfaction with the relationship. Since the
ultimate purpose of this study is to help make relationships
healthier, the greater proportion of subjects were those who were at
least moderately satisfied with their partners as a criterion.
The data was then transposed onto cards and sorted into
categories of similarity by three separate individuals. All items
which contained an understandable message were retained regardless of
their frequency. Items considered redundant then were omitted from
I
the data after their frequencies were recorded. The remaining data ;
I
then became most of the items for the final Likert-type scale. For |
frequencies see Appendix E . :
c. Inferred Items ■
The third preliminary method used to generate items was a search ■
through all current popular written works which related to the concept :
of sexual enhancement. These works did not deal directly with the
subject of communication per se. The search was to elicit any ■
additional items which might be inferred as effective and appropriate :
during physical intimacy. The items were placed in the same j
categories as the interview and survey data and added to the final I
instrument.
2. Final Instrumentation
a. Sample
I
Several possible sampling techniques were considered for this 1
study. The singular use of undergraduate student populations would !
have made the study more easily replicable, but two problems made this [
group undesirable as the sole subject population. First,
undergraduate students are usually under the age of twenty-five. This
study assumes that people 25 and older have more sexual history and
can provide richer data. Requesting that students take the .
questionnaire to adults to fill out and return has a lack of subject
control, i.e., there is no guarantee that the students actually used 1
an older respondent. This problem would make validity questionable, j
j Actual random sampling such as mailing to every 100th person in the
I
phone book has even more problems in a study such as this. Return
rates in survey mailings are usually very low even in non-
\
j controversial surveys. The CCPI questionnaire asks for very intimate
information. Some people would be offended by this content, and it
i
can be assumed that those who did respond would probably demonstrate a
respondant bias that would be difficult to trace. This sampling j
! possibility was also eliminated. Simply distributing the
questionnaire to friends and colleagues and their friends would make
replicability impossible and would have no control. The final option !
; which allowed for replicability, validity and control was the use of 1
| intact groups. The use of only one intact group would still have the ,
| problem of possible bias, therefore the use of three intact groups was ,
I chosen. The mean scores of each group were compared to reduce the
I
I possible bias. The three group types chosen were (1) church groups,
i i
■ (2) Chambers of Commerce, and (3) students (graduate and ;
i :
; undergraduate) over the age of twenty-five. I
i I
I ;
b. Statistical Analyses :
J ;
Step 1. After generating 72 items during the first phase, all j
nonverbal items were dropped because no message could be attributed to j
' these items. Thirty-four items remained for the final scale. Thus,
; meeting the criterion of a least 20-30 items for respectable
1 reliability (Nunnally, 1978, p 275). (See Appendix E for item
1 frequencies in card sort.) Each item was then written in statement j
i form with six items reversed and stated as negative (Emmert and j
i 52 !
Brooks, 1970, p. 203). They were placed in a Likert-type rating scale
; according to "very undesirable" (1) to "very desirable" (7) with seven
possible responses. These bipolar adjectives were chosen to elicit an
evaluative, subjective, affective response rather than a potency
response such as strong-weak (Nunnally, 1978, p. 609).
»
I The seven possible responses were clearly delineated and labeled
I
! according to the suggestion made by Nunnally (1978, p. 612). This
• aided in the treatment of the scale as interval data. The instrument
1 was given to 343 respondents, thus reducing sampling error (Nunnally,
: 1978, p. 275). (For Instrument, see Appendix F.)
i
Step 2. Statistical analyses of the subject population were
; calculated to determine the demographic differences among
participants.
Step 3. Negative item responses were reversed in analysis to
elicit positive, statistical data.
' Step 4. Factor analyses were run to determine item loading and
; possible number of factors or underlying patterns. Individual item
i
l
* results by factor and combined item statistics for each factor as well
I
j as correlations among factors were then obtained.
1 Step 5. The relationship between the factors and the
! demographics were calculated using ANOVA (one-way analysis of
1
jvariance). The effects of gender, age, and marital status on the
i
I outcome of desirability of each factor were calculated to determine
j any possible differences within the subject population. One-way
I
5 3
I analysis of variance was used to explore any group-to-group
I
differences in the intact populations.
i
; Step 6. Finally, the relationship between "frequency of desired
behaviors" and "relational satisfaction" was explored to determine any
I
j interaction effect between these variables and the results of the j
final instrument. j
Chapter IV explains the results of these analyses. t
CHAPTER IV |
I
I
RESULTS
I
i
I
The purpose of this chapter is to report the results of the final !
I |
! survey. Because the relevant findings are two-fold, both the factor !
; i
analysis results and various individual item results are reported |
here. Specifically, this chapter will report on the following:
| A. Subject/Sample Demographics
i
1 B. Factor Analysis Results
l
| C. Individual Item Results By Factor
I
i
D. Interaction of Factors and Predictors of Variance
E. Effects of Desired Behaviors and Relational Satisfaction
i
A. Subject Population
I
For purposes of replicability, reliability, and validity, ;
!
■ subjects were accessed within the use of intact groups. Three types !
| of groups were chosen: (1) university students (graduate and
j undergraduate) over the age of twenty-five, (2) church groups, and (3) .
! professional business organizations. Additional demographic data
gathered included gender, age, type of group, marital status, and
i educational level. Table 1 reports the frequencies for each. j
1 There were thirty-four items on the final instrument j
, necessitating an N of at least 340; 343 subjects completed |
55
Variable
1 Gender
i
Female
Male
Missing
Total
»
I
|
I Age
1
25-29
! 30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
Missing
Total
Group
School
Professional
Church
Other
Missing
! Total
i
I
1 Marital Status
Single
I Married
Separated
Divorced
i Widowed
\ Live-in
! Missing
I
Total
TABLE 1
Subject Demographics
Frequency Valid %
184 55
153 45
__6
343
119 39
86 28
55 18
27 9
13 4
7 2
36
343
236 70
38 11
52 16
10 3
7
343
132 39
153 46
8 2
33 10 ■
2 1 !
8 2
7
343
r
Valid %
57
18
10
8
6
' questionnaires. For purposes of determining and comparing possible ,
i
< i
i demographic differences and to assure a representative sample, ■
participants break down into the following categories: 55% female,
45% male; 39% under the age of 30, 6 1 % over the age of 30; 70%
, i
students, 30% other groups (church and professional); 48% married or
t living together, 52% single (divorced, separated, or widowed);
I
| educational level consisted mostly of some college, 57%; 42% had a
I *
Bachelor's or above.
B. Factor Analysis Results
1. Item Loading
The data were factor analyzed in order to determine any possible
[ underlying dimensions of CCPI. Verimax Orthogonal Principal-Component
j Factor Analysis Method was used. A priori standards for determining a ;
j factor and a loading were: ( 1 ) an item must have at least a . 4 0
I loading on a specific factor (Kerlinger, 1 9 6 4 , p. 6 5 4 ) ; (2) if an item I
l ;
; loaded on a second factor of < .20 difference, it was considered a ■
I
! 57
Variable
Education Level
High School
Some College
Bachelor's Degree
Some Graduate School
Master's Degree
Ph.D.
Missing
TABLE 1 (continued)
Frequency
5
1 9 0
6 1
3 2
2 6
21
8
Total 343
second order loading. Second order loading items were not included in
■ the final analyses, as they were not considered discreet. They are,
i
however, displayed (in parentheses) in Table 3; (3) for a factor to be
j considered meaningful, at least two items had to load on that factor; j
i and (4) that factor had to account for at least 3.5 percent of the i
! I
! variance. i
I
I
| The first orthogonal analysis yielded nine factors. The scew
: diagram yielded seven factors of 1.0 and above eigen values. Six
{ i
1
factors met all of the above criteria and 20 items loaded i
significantly. To determine whether or not the concepts might be made |
I
: more informative and stable, it was decided to limit the rotations to j
j
j six. This rotation stabilized the concepts without changing the |
* loadings significantly, thus clarifying the conceptual issues. During I
! this rotation, all factors met all of the above criteria with 23 of
I
j the 34 items loading significantly on one of the six factors. Of the ,
i i
| remaining 11 items, 9 loaded at at least the .40 level, but also j
! i
, loaded at a < .20 difference on a second factor. The remaining 2 j
j items loaded at .30. (See Table 2 - Factor Loading - Six Factors.)
All factors had at least two items loading, and each accounted for at ;
1
j least 3.5 percent of the variance. ;
<
i Table 2 shows loadings of all items on all six factors. j
I J
| Table 3 identifies first and second (in parentheses) order item ;
loading for each factor.
TABLE 2
Factor Loading Table
Factor
I
Factor
II
Factor
III
Factor
IV
Factor
V
Factor
VI
VI .402 .170 -.023 .298 .423 .209
V2 .691* .077 . 158 -.101 .094 .202
V3 .696* .107 -.145 .273 .102 .061
V4 .727* .093 .043 .064 .037 .052
V5 .238 -.121 .293 .237 - .078 .526*
V6 .075 .085 . 155 .018 .786* .021
V7 .469 -.096 .298 .247 .214 .073
V8 .214 . 125 .001 .318 .069 -.011
V9 .391 .268 .041 .451 .082 -.038
V10 .054 . 117 -.093 .039 .266 .640*
Vll . 174 .021 .210 .201 .453* .023
V12 .764* -.012 .216 .098 .078 .041
V13 .593* .171 .076 . 155 .233 -.001
V14 .241 .238 -.006 .671* .026 -.042
V15 .029 .012 .022 .528 .378 .258
V16 .529 .021 .570 .099 .070 . 119
V17 .209 .173 .671* .187 .213 .066
V18 .098 .145 . 727* .062 .126 .063
V19 .492 .280 .333 .270 .074 -.133
V20 .729* -.004 .255 . 129 .060 -.048
V21 .512 . 126 .457 - .016 .142 .141
V22 .338 .098 . 167 .087 .633* -. 036
V23 . 104 .038 .159 .084 -.142 .568*
V24 . 177 .542* -.031 .304 .227 -.289
V25 .139 .396 .125 .469 . 152 -.293
V26 - . 039 .002 .180 .427 . 166 .375
V27 . 126 .713* .023 .088 . 198 .061
V28 -.057 .660* .222 . 175 -.005 -.001
V29 .047 .540* .316 .229 .031 .063
V30 .302 .679* -.271 -.012 .016 .041
V31 .013 .580* .140 .079 -.041 . 141
V32 .051 . 128 .116 .538* -.007 .211
V33 .157 .053 .673* -.068 .101 . 122
V34 -.008 .288 .162 -.277 .249 .374
Eigen
Value 8.17 2.63 2.06 1.58 1.36 1.33
Percent
of
Variance 24.0 7.7 6.1 4.7 4.0 3.9
Meets primary loading of (a) .40 and (b) no secondary loading.
59
l
TABLE 3
Items Loading on Factors
(Responses to negative items reversed in analyses)
! Factor I
# 2 Tells me I am attractive.
# 3 Tells me he/she likes what I am doing.
# 4 Tells me he/she likes sex with me.
#12 Tells me I'm sexy/exciting.
#13 Tells me what parts of my body he/she likes.
#20 Tells me that he/she desires me or that I am desirable.
(# 7 Expresses in words how much he/she enjoys the holding or the
closeness.)
(#19 Tells me he/she wants me to feel pleasure/satisfaction.)
(#21 Uses affectionate/romantic words.)
Factor II
#24 Tells me what he/she is going to do to/with me.
#27 Verbally plays out/talks me through a fantasy.
#28 Describes how he/she feels by using an example or metaphor.
#29 Refers to previous, satisfying sexual encounters with me.
#30 Uses sexually explicit language (slightly dirty talk).
#31 States what he/she wants with code phrases that only the two
of us understand.
Factor III
#17 Discloses very intimate feelings or thoughts.
#18 Tells me about serious or spiritual emotions or feelings.
#33 Talks about the future of our relationship.
(#16 Tells me how special or important I am for him/her.)
Factor IV
#14
#32
(# 9
(#15
(#25
(#26
(# 8
Factor V
# 6
#11
#22
(# 1
Tells me in words what he/she wants me to do.
Does not verbally encourage my orgasm.
Describes his/her physical feelings.)
Does not talk very much.)
Asks me questions about what I want him/her to do.)
Does not smile when he/she talks to me.)
Says something to initiate sex, "Makes the first moves.")
Uses a lot of eye contact while talking to^b€T during sex.
Uses my first name.
Says he/she likes to look at me during sex.
Communicates verbally.)
I
!
j TABLE 3 (continued)
! Factor VI
I
*
# 5 Does not say I love you.
: #10 Does not say things that are funny or playful.
#23 Does not call me endearing nicknames.
(#34 Kids or teases me.)
j 2. Defining the Factors j
I
! Factor I: "Me." Items loading on this factor demonstrate a 1
l
I '
| focus on what my partner says about me (I'm attractive, parts of my j
! body, I’m exciting, likes sex with me, etc.). j
’ Factor II: "Us." Items loading on this factor emphasize very j
I
: private things shared by and known only to the subject and his/her I
i i
i
i partner (my partner uses metaphors, talks through fantasies, refers to ;
I previous times with me, uses code phrases, etc.).
i
I Factor III: "Serious." Items loading on this factor emphasize -
!
I long-term, important, philosophical issues (my partner talks about :
: intimate thoughts, spiritual/serious feelings, the future, etc.).
Factor IV: "Directive." Items loading on this factor emphasize
directing or choreographing the action and giving directions (my ;
| partner encourages my orgasm, tells me what to do, etc.). j
, Factor V : "Personal." Items loading on this factor demonstrate ,
i ;
1 qualities of directness and intimacy (my partner looks at me, first
j name, eye contact).
j Factor VI: "Playful." Items loading on this factor seem to mix
i
: the serious with the lighthearted (my partner says "I love you," calls ;
me nicknames, is funny, etc.). ;
3. Individual Item Results by Factor
To more clearly understand each factor, frequencies were
^ calculated on each item determining the general desirability for the
j whole population and male/female, age, and marital status differences.
1 Table 4 reports these results.
1
4. Item Statistics on Each Factor
j The mean, median, and standard deviation of all items loaded on I
I !
each factor are listed in Table 5.
i
The mean scores in each case suggests at least neutral to
moderate desirability for the group as a whole. The medians and S.D.,
j however, suggest differing opinions within the groups of subjects. |
High standard deviations such as these demanded further investigation j
; l
into the group differences which are reported later in this chapter.
1 ►
)
j 5. Correlation Among Factors
To assess independence of factors, Pearson Correlation
Coefficients were calculated among mean scores of items loading on
J each factor. No significant correlation was found among any factor
i
I
item means. j
i
I
l f
| C. Relationships Between Factors and Gender, Age, and Marital Status j
Indications from literature reviewed in Chapter II and some j
relatively wide standard deviations displayed in Table 5 led to an !
i ;
I examination of possible gender, age, and marital status differences in ,
; mean favorability of each factor. j
62
Item
Group
Mean S.D.
cn
w
FACTOR I: "Me"
2. I'm attractive 5.7
3. Likes what I'm doing 6.3
it. Likes sex with me 6.2
12. I'm sexy/exciting 5.9
13. Parts of my body 5.5
20. I'm desirable 6.1
{ 7.) Holding/closeness 6.1
(19.) Pleasure/sati sfacti on 5.7
(21.) Romantic words 5.9
FACTOR II: "Us"
24. Goi ng to do 4.7
27. Talks fantasy 4.5
28. Talks metaphor 4.1
29. Previous with me 4.3
30. Dirty talk 4.3
31. Code phrases 4.4
FACTOR III: "Serious"
17. Intimate thoughts 5.8
18. Spi ri tual/seri ous 4.8
33. Future 4.8
(16.) I'm special/important 5.8
FACTOR IV: "Directive"
14. Wants me to do 5.6
32. Encourages orgasm 4.7
( 9.)
Describes physical 5.7
(15.) Talks 4.7
(25.) Asks what 1 want 4.9
(26.) Smi1es 5.4
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1 .4
1.1
1.2
1.*
1.2
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.8
1 A
2.0
1.9
1 A
1.5
1.9
1A
1.7
1.7
1.6
TABLE 4
Desirability Analysis
Group
Median
Female
Mean
Male
Mean
Younger
Mean
Older
Mean
Si ngle
Mean
Married
Mean
6.0 6.0 5.3 5.6 5.5 5.8 5.6
7.0 6.3 6.3 6.5 6.2 6.6 6.1
7.0 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.4 6.0
6.0 6.1 5.6 6.0 5.8 6.0 5.8
6.6 5.7 5.4 5.7 5.4 5.6 5.5
6.0 6.3 5.9 6.1 6.1 6.2 6.0
7.0 6.3 5.9 6.2 6.1 6.3 6.0
6.0 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.6
6.0 6.1 5.7 6.0 5.9 5.9 5.9
5.0 4.6 5.2 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.7
4.0 4.4 4.6 4.8 4.2 4.7 4.2
4.0 3.8 4.4 4.2 4.0 4.3 3.8
4.0 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.1
5.0 3.9 4.8 4.5 4.2 4.4 4.2
4.0 4.2 4.5 4.6 4.2 4.5 4.2
6.0 6.0 5.7 6.0 5.8 5.9 5.8
5.0 5.1 4.4 4.7 4.8 5.0 4.8
5.0 5.1 4.5 5.0 4.7 5.0 4.6
6.0 6.0 5.6 5.9 5.8 5.9 5.8
6.0 5.4 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.7 5.5
5.0 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7
6.0 5.6 5.9 5.9 5.6 5.9 5.6
5.0 4.8 4.7 5.0 4.6 4.9 4.6
5.0 4.7 5.2 5.1 4.8 5.0 4.8
6.0 5.4 5.3 5.6 5.1 5.6 5.0
Item
FACTOR V: "Personal"
Group
Mean S.D.
6. Eye contact 5.0 1.7
11. First name 5.3 1.6
22. Looks at me 5.2 1.5
( 1.)
Communicates verbally 5.8 1.4
: ACT0R VI: "Playful"
5. I love you 5.3 1.8
10. Funny/playful 4.9 1.7
23. Nicknames 4.3 1.7
(3*.)
Teases 4.5 1.9
cn
TABLE 4 (continued)
Group Female Male Younger Older Si ngle Married
Median Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
6.0 5.1 5.0 5.5 4.7 5.4 4.7
6.0 5.5 5.1 5.5 5.2 5.6 4.8
5.0 5.3 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.4 4.9
6.0 6.0 5.7 6.1 5.6 5.9 5.7
6.0 5.5 5.0 5.6 5.0 5.4 5.2
5.0 5.0 4.9 5.4 4.6 5.1 4.7
4.0 4.5 4.1 4.2 4.5 4.3 4.4
5.0 4.6 4.3 4.6 4.4 4.7 4.1
TABLE 5
Combined Item Statistics on Factors
Factor Mean Median
Standard
Deviation
I. 5.96 6.17 .92
II. 4.37 4.50 1.22
III. 5.14 5.33 1.38
IV. 5.14 5.50 1.35
V. 5. 18 5.33 1.24
VI. 4.85 5.0 1. 19
1. Gender
t-tests were calculated to ascertain possible gender differences
in factor favorableness (Table 6).
TABLE 6
Male/Female Differences
Factor I
"Me"
Factor II
"Us"
Factor III
"Serious"
Factor IV
"Directive"
Factor V
"Personal"
Factor VI
"Playful"
Female
Mean/S.D .
6.10/.92
4.19/1.29
5.39/137
5.03/1.38
5.32/1.25
4.96/1.26
Male
Mean/S.D.
5.78/.89
4.60/1.10
4.87/1.35
5.27/1.28
5.03/1.21
4.69/1.10
t Deg.
Value Free
3.24
-3.05
3.46
-1.60
335
326
332
322
2.14 333
2.10 329
2-Tailed
Prob.
.001
.002
.001
. Ill
.033
.036
All factors except Factor IV show significant gender differences in
mean favorability of factors. Note also that standard deviations
j
within gender are wide, suggesting a look at other demographic ]
i
1 variables.
\
| 2. Age
To determine possible differences among age groups, the data were
I
'compared between younger groups (I; age 25-39, 39% of respondents) and
i
an older group (II; age 30 and above, 61% of respondents). Table 7
reports differences between age groups regarding factor favorableness.
i
i
i
TABLE 7
Age Differences
Younger
Mean/S.D.
Older
Mean/S.D.
t
Value
Deg.
Free
2-Tailed
Prob.
Factor I
Ifw t f
Me
6.08/.79 5.85/1.0 2.24 341 .026
Factor II
"Us"
4.55/4.22 1.09/1.3 2.47 332 .014
Factor III
"Serious"
5.21/1.37 5.08/1.4 .83 337 .407
Factor IV
"Directive"
5.15/1.28 5.13.1.4 . 19 338 .850
Factor V
"Personal"
5.47/1.12 4.94/1.28 3.99 339 <.001
Factor VI
"Playful"
5.04/1.05 4.69/1.23 2.74 335 .007
These analyses show that for factors I, II, V, and VI age difference
accounts for significant differences in factor favorableness. Four
factors are related significantly more favorable by younger subjects.
66
3. Marital Status
To determine whether marital status is a predictor of
favorability, t-test analyses were conducted (married or
together) vs. (single, divorced, separated, or widowed).
TABLE 8
Marital/Single Differences
factor
1iving
Single
Mean/S.D.
Married
Mean/S.D .
t
Value
Deg.
Free
2-Tailed
Prob.
Factor I
"Me"
6.08/.77 5.82/1.04 2.65 341 .008
Factor II
"Us"
4.53/1.2 4.19/1.22 2.60 332 .010
Factor III
"Serious"
5.29/1.38 4.98/1.38 2.06 337 .040
Factor IV
"Directive"
5.17/1.30 5.10/1.40 .46 338 .645
Factor V
"Personal"
5.5/1.10 4.82/1.28 5.32 339 <.001
Factor VI
"Playful"
4.92/1.17 4.76/1.21 1.29 335 . 196
Marital status is seen to predict significant variance in factors
I, II, III, and V. The relatively wide standard deviations in this
could be explained by the previous analyses on gender and age.
67
TABLE 9
Summary of Explainable Differences
Factor
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
Gender
X
X
X
X
X
Age
X
X
X
X
Marital
Status
X
X
X
4. Age and Gender
I Wide standard deviations within gender and age suggest a possible
1
,interaction between these variables and factor favorableness. To
jcheck for interaction effects, 2-way ANOVAS were calculated for age
{ and gender on each factor. Tables 10 demonstrates the results.
Source
FACTOR I
TABLE 10
Age/Gender Interaction
Sum of
Square DF
Mean
Square
Significance
of F
, Main Effects
j Age
I Gender
12.42
4.74
8.41
2
1
1
6.21
4.74
8.41
7.59
5.79
10.28
.001
.017
.001
! 2-way Interact
I Age/Gender
.43
.43
,43
.43
-53
.53
,47
.47
Explained 12.85 4.28 5.23 ,002
TABLE 10 (continued)
Sum of Mean
Source Square DF Square F
FACTOR II
Main Effects 23.34 2 11.67 8.16
Age 8.88 1 8.88 6.21
Gender 13.04 1 13.04 9.19
2-way Interact 1.57 1 1.57 1.10
i Age/Gender 1.57 1 1.57 1.10
Explained 24.91 3 8.30 5.80
FACTOR III
Main Effects 24.70 2 12.35 6.61
Age 3.22 1 3.22 1.72
Gender 22.44 1 22.44 12.00
2-way Interact 2.58 1 2.58 1.38
Age/Gender 2.58 1 2.58 1.38
Explained 27.28 3 3.09 4.86
'ACTOR IV
Main Effects 3.80 2 1.90 1.05
Age .00 1 .00 .00
Gender 3.78 1 3.78 2.09
2-way Interact 3.13 1 3.13 1.73
Age/Gender 3.13 1 3.13 1.73
Explained 6.93 3 2.31 1.28
'ACTOR V
Main Effects 34.16 2 17 .08 12.00
Age 27.73 1 27.73 19 .49
Gender 8.16 1 8.16 5.74
2-way Interact .98 1 .98 .69
Age/Gender .98 1 .98 .69
Explained 35.14 3 11.71 8.23
Significance
of F
.000
.013
.003
.296
.296
.001
.002
. 191
.001
.003
.35
.98
.15
. 189
.189
.282
.00
.00
.02
.41
.00
69
TABLE 10 (continued)
Sum of Mean Significance |
Source Square DF Square F of F_____ j
!
FACTOR VI
Main Effects 16.63 2 8.31 6.00 .003
: Age 10.37 1 10.37 7.47 .007
j Gender 7.15 1 7.15 5.15 .024
j 2-way Interact 1.41 1 1.41 1.02 .314
| Age/Gender 1.41 1 1.41 1.02 .314
i
i Explained
i
18.04 3 6.01 4.33 .005
j
j These results of 2-way ANOVA show significant main effects of
1
| and gender in all factors except Factor IV. In no factor , however
a significant interaction effect present. To sum up these data: j
1 1. Age differences on each factor seem not to change across
gender. For both males and females, the importance of these
■ factors seems to diminish somewhat with age.
!
| 2. Gender differences on each factor seem not to vary with >
! increased age. For both older and younger subjects, the !
relative importance of these factors for men and women
remained the same. I
i i
|5. Subject Groups !
' One last test was conducted on the data to determine whether ,
i i
!
|possible differences in intact subject groups might interact with !
factors or influence the gender, age, and marital status differences. 1
1 I
The Scheffe' test is appropriate for this purpose because it compares ,
i
all possible group mean combinations. The results of this analysis .
i
1 follow in Table 11. !
70
Factor
TABLE 11
Group ANOVA
F Prob Schef
I. .59 .65
II. .58 .86
III. .23 .98
IV. .87 .95
V. . 11 .86
VI. .33 .84
Table 11 shows no significant differences on any factor among
subject groups. These data suggest that the validity of the factors
of CCPI and the differences in age, gender, and marital status are not
affected by any subject group differences. The inference that
subjects from churches, chambers of commerce, and student groups view
CCPI similarly is supported by these data.
D. Relationship Between "Frequency of Desired Behaviors” and
"Relational Satisfaction" Variables
Item 35 in the questionnaire asked respondents how often their
most current partner used the behaviors they found desirable from
1 (very rarely) to 7 (very often). The mean for all cases was 5.3,
median 6.0, and standard deviation 1.7.
Item 36 asked the respondents to rate the same relationship from
1 (very unsatisfying) to 7 (very satisfying). For all cases, the mean
was 5.6, median 6.0, and standard deviation 1.7.
To determine the relationship between frequency of desired
behaviors and relational satisfaction, a Pearson Correlation
Coefficient was calculated equalling .69. Squaring the coefficient
equals .48 percent. This figure shows a high correlation between
71
| receiving the desired communication behaviors during sex and the
!amount of satisfaction felt within the relationship.
The discussion of these statistical analyses follows in
Chapter V.
i
i
i
t
i
I
i
I
72
! CHAPTER V
i
1
! SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY
1
|
\ The purpose of this chapter is to sum up the results of the
I
j research reported here, discuss how this research responds to the
i
needs articulated in Chapters I and II, consider implications for
further research, and extend, test, and apply the results of this
j
| study.
I
I - "
This chapter points to three significant areas of knowledge
i
i contributed by this study: development and testing of a new method of
studying communication competence, discovery of dimensions of
communication competence during physical intimacy (CCPI), and a wealth
I
I
J of specific information on the role of messages about sex exchange by
*
I intimate partners.
I
i
A. Interpretation of Results
j1. Results of Factor Analysis
1
! The six factors which emerged each loaded at least two items;
each item loaded at .40 or above. These conservative limits coupled
j with the use of Verimax Orthogonal rotation suggests that these
i
! factors are relatively independent, a conclusion supported by Pearson
■ "rH comparisons which failed to find correlations between any factors.
| In addition, it should be noted that of the 34 items derived from
| initial interviews, no less than 23 loaded significantly and uniquely
ion one of the six resulting factors. It is significant that, taken as
I
' a whole, these items comprising these six factors account for 50.4% of
l
variance overall.
Factor I ("Me") is unequivocally focused on messages sent by
t
1 i i
jone s partner about one s self; attractiveness, desirability, parts of
!
ibody, what I'm doing, and so on. It demonstrates overwhelmingly that
i
I competent communication is defined powerfully by the dimension of
i
jmessages affirming the desirability and attractiveness of the message
i
1
j receiver (accounting for 24% of total variance).
j Factor II ("Us") is clearly characterized by messages which
|
■affirm the relationship, with an emphasis on things known only to the
partners (code phrases, previous experiences, personal metaphors, and
I fantasies). For this subject population, affirming "Us" is an
j
important dimension of CCPI, accounting for 7.7% of the total
!variance.
I
Factor III ("Serious") recapitulates what some of the speculative
literature on intimate relationships had suggested, namely, that
i
I
j serious talk about the spiritual and enduring aspects of the
.relationship is an important dimension of competent communication
jduring physical intimacy for these subjects (variance accounted for
6.1%).
Factor IV ("Directive") suggests the favorableness in sexual
j communication and sending messages which guide or lead the partner
,into desirable behaviors (4.7% of variance accounted for).
Factor V ("Personal") confirms that CCPI includes the dimension
of communication which conveys direct and straightforward messages to
the partner (accounting for 4.0% of variance).
I
Factor VI ("Playful") couples "I love you" messages with
nicknames and funny elements to a sort of serious-but-not-too-serious
dimension of CCPI (variance accounted for 3.9%).
As a general statement, it should be noted both that these
dimensions were generally favorable to subjects, irrespective of
demographic differences, and also that standard deviations (S.D.) were
relatively high. This suggests that these six factors represent the
fundamental issues of competent sexual communication, and that where
there are differences among subjects they are individual,
idiosyncratic differences as to how desirable messages based on these
factors may be. The factor analysis demonstrates powerfully that
these are the underlying elements of CCPI, that people find them
generally favorable, and how favorable varies with individuals (and
to some extend with gender and age). These six factors represent what
343 subjects report are the criteria which determine whether their
partners' communication during physical intimacy is effective and
appropriate.
2. Interpretation of the Relationship Between Factors and Gender,
Age, and Marital Status
a. Differences in Gender
Gender differences are significant in all factors except IV
("Directive"). Generalized favorableness of the dimension is found
for both sexes, with wide S.D.’s Factors I, II, III, and V seem to
75
add up to the conclusion that talk during sex is important to both
sexes, but especially so to females [note highly significant
differences on I, II, and III (Me, Us, and Serious)].
Only on VI (Playful) do we see a kind of sex talk which is
slightly more important to men than women; again it is a factor
generally favorable to both sexes and the difference is significant to
a lesser degree that the differences found on factors where gender
differences are greatest.
b . Differences in Age
Generally, favorableness of the factors of CCPI seemed negatively
related to age. For both older and younger groups, sexual messages
are generally quite favorable, but on the factors where a significant
difference is found, (I, II, V, VI) the greater importance or
desirability of messages relating to Me, Us, Personal, and Playful
dimensions was greater for younger respondents. The cause of these
differences is not available to us in these data; they may have to do
with a decreasing necessity for these sorts of messages in long-term
relationships, or perhaps younger respondents have been influenced by
some changes in sexual education or societal patterns. In any event,
the data do not indicate increased age as an absolute predictor of
favorableness of these dimensions (note that III, Serious, and IV,
Directive, show no difference with age), rather that a trend
minimizing importance of four factors of CCPI is connected with
increased age.
76
c. Differences in Marital Status
Somewhat parallel to the age issue, the results show that where
significant differences in factor favorableness are predicted by
marital status (Factors I, II, III, and V), single subjects related
these kinds of messages more desirable than married persons. The data
do not necessarily guide our speculations as to the reason; but they
do not preclude possibilities of changes due to long-term
relationships or perhaps other situations within marriage
relationships where partners affirm some of the things generally
desirable in sexual CCPI.
No significant interaction effect between age and gender was
found vis-a-vis favorableness on the factors (Table 11 shows
non-significant results of two-way ANOVA).
While differences in subject demographic groups may account for
some of the wide S.D.'s found in factor favorableness, one difference
is significant by its absence. Table 11 shows no difference between
university, church, and Chamber of Commerce groups. This argues for
the external validity of the factors themselves; intact subject group
differences accounted for no significant differences in favorableness
of any factor emerging from these data.
Wide standard deviations suggest that individuals differed on how
important some of the factors were to them, and gender, age, and
marital status helped explain some of the idiosyncratic differences.
This is especially true on Factors I, II, and V, but the diversity of
subject groups supports the proposition that these factors may
77
represent the dimensions of CCPI for a possibly limited, yet
significant cross-section of society.
3. Relationship Between Desired Behaviors and Satisfaction
A Pearson correlation was calculated between the question item
which asked subjects to report how often their partners engaged in the
desired communication behaviors and the item which asked subjects to
rate their satisfaction with the relationship. The Pearson r
correlation of .69 with 299 degrees of freedom is highly significant
(p = < .001). This correlation on these one-item issues is not
capable of showing a precise causal relationship between desired
behaviors and satisfaction. It does indicate, however, that the
issues are powerfully related. I will argue below that this suggests
a promising direction for future research in CCPI. Here it should be
noted that, whether the connection is causal or not, the relationship
is powerful. Whether increased frequency of desired behaviors
produces greater satisfaction, or the desired behaviors are a part of
relationships which (for other reasons) are more satisfying, either
way, the relationship between these variables corroborates the general
favorableness and strong contribution of total variance of these six
factors.
B. Responses of the Research to Needs in
Chapter II Review of Literature
Chapter III identifies two areas of need arising out of an
examination of the literature in communication competence (CC).
First, a need is shown for a method for studying CC which will answer
78
some of the unanswered questions and resolve some of the problems the
review found. Second, a need is established in Chapter II for
specific information about CC during physical intimacy; a need whichj
the literature universally acknowledges and does little to answer.
In Chapter II we observed in the literature a recognition for a
model of competency which might account for differences in competent
communication across different types of relationships. The present
study aimed at creating a method capable of doing precisely that. In
addition, the literature review found evidence that there is a need
for a method which is capable of testing CC differences across
situations. The present research aims to respond to both of these
concerns with an approach to CC which can take relational and
situational differences into account. In Chapter III, I argued that a
relational/situational paradigm and research strategy which would
isolate cells or arenas of CC which would be relationally and
situationally specific should be developed. The present research is
intended to respond to these needs and to begin development of just
such a research approach.
I argued in Chapter III that the place to begin in is an arena of
communication which seemed likely to be different from possible others
because of apparent relational and situational specificity. CCPI,
communication during physical intimacy, was selected to meet those
criteria. Chapter II demonstrated additional justification: CCPI is
something that literature agrees is vital, and about which we know
almost nothing empirically verified. To sum up, communication
79
competence during physical intimacy is an appropriate arena because
(a) it is likely to be a unique relational/situational area where a
relatively "pure" test of a paradigm of competence might be fruitful
and (b) it is an area of communication where there is significant
human need.
There were some additional needs this research attempted to meet.
We saw in Chapter II that the best research in competence was
achieving results which are equivocal at best and invalid at worst.
At the core of this problem it seemed that researchers were asking for
the right data (grounded data based on real experience), but were
asking the wrong persons (message senders, third parties, and so on).
The results of these unproductive research directions included
anomalies such as respondents to surveys reporting behaviors they
thought were competent, and communication partners who disagreed.
The present research provides what appear to be the first answers
to all these needs. There are several ways in which this research
responds to these needs:
1. Subjects in this study were the right people to ask about
competence; they reported on experiences where they were the
receivers of messages which they judged to be competent or
not competent. When it comes to that which is competent
communication, these subjects know what they are talking
about. They know whether their partners’ messages felt or
otherwise seemed competent.
2. Interview subjects were asked to describe communication
situations; thus items for later factor analysis were
derived from grounded information.
3. Subjects were interviewed and tested on communication
competence during physical intimacy CCPI: the data thus
derived are therefore likely to be relationally and
situationally specific.
80
4. Factor analysis is capable of determining whether subjects'
assessment of messages received in a relationally/
situationally specific setting represent only random,
idiosyncratic impressions, or whether instead, their
impressions reflect underlying similarities, dimensions,
"factors."
The results of this study confirm that this is a productive
method for studying competence. The statistically powerful and
"clean" factors which emerged here support the proposition that highly
significant, fundamentally definitional and normative commonalities
among diverse people in similar relational/situational contexts exist.
Further, these factors and their general favorability argue that they
are significantly linked by several hundred subjects to their
satisfaction in this vital, highly personal relationship arena.
Judging by the review in Chapter II, representing an exhaustive
examination of available published literature, this is the first
empirical data which explores communication competence from inside its
locus, the message receiver. And it is the first study with data from
a large subject population and put to a statistically rigorous
analysis which illuminates what ordinary people (whose only
"qualifications" are that they experience the phenomenon we would
study) know, first-hand about What is and is not competent sexual
communicat ion.
To sum up: In addition to the attempt in this study to ask the
right people the right questions, it is claimed here that the
clear-cut results of factor analysis show that this is a valid
methodological approach to communication competence. In the bargain,
we have discovered that partners in sexual relationships place great
81
importance bn messages from their partners which affirm "Me"
(Factor I), validate "Us" (Factor II), acknowledge a "Serious"
dimension (Factor III), include "directive" content (Factor IV),
emphasize "Personal" touches (Factor V), and remember the very human
and intimate "Playful" aspect (Factor VI) of communication competence
during physical intimacy.
C. Implications for Further Research
1. Future Research in Communication Competence (CC)
The factor results point to the viability of this method for
identifying dimensions of CC. The next research step in CC would seem
to be to utilize this method to discover factors of CC in other
relationally and situationally specific arenas. This would contribute
knowledge in two sub-areas: first, it would show whether the method
is adaptable to other communication arenas, and second, it would
potentially demonstrate similarities and/or differences between the
competencies subjects report in CCPI and other arenas. Among the
possibilities of such research would be possible results that:
a. CC is so different across arenas that the study of
competence will be seen to be vastly more complex than
originally anticipated, or . . .
b. The results might show that "Me," "Us," "Serious,"
"Directive," etc. are general, even universal factors
of CC for which types and contents of messages
themselves vary across relational/situational contexts.
Either finding would provide powerful information as a basis for
communication training in such diverse settings as therapy,
professional communication training, and school curricula.
82
2. Future Research in Communication Competency During Physical
Intimacy (CCPI)
If I am right when I conclude above that this research represents
l the first significant empirical investigation into competent sexual
I
communication, the research path ahead is multi-faceted, fascinating,
and rich in potential contributions to human relational satisfaction
and happiness. Any genuine dimensions of CCPI suggest further
validation in therapeutic applications and clinical research tests.
Dimensions of CCPI are subject to testing in the broader field of
communication competence in the sense that tests of CC may refine what
we have found here about CCPI. Similar factors in other arenas would
suggest further research into the message contents of CCPI. Different
factors in other areas would suggest refined, perhaps replicative
inquiry into whether these are indeed the underlying dimensions of
CCPI.
The question of the relationships between some of the variables
studied here suggest possibly fruitful areas of inquiry: What is the
precise relationship between use of desired behaviors by one's partner
and satisfaction with the relationship? Are both created by something
else? Does one mediate the relationship of the other to yet another,
as yet unexamined, issue in intimate relationships? Is it possible to
teach intimate partners to strategically alter their use of CCPI to
increase mutual satisfaction? What ethical questions arise out of
possible manipulative applications of the knowledge of CCPI? Why does
the perceived favorableness of the factors seem to decrease with
t
longevity of the relationship, age, and marital status? Is CCPI vital
83
in establishing a relationship, but decreasingly a factor in
"successful" relationships? Or, equally provocative, does the
familiarity of long-term relationships which are generally satisfying
mask the possibility that CCPI could facilitate growth beyond what
satisfied partners imagine possible? Or, again, is CCPI a necessary,
but not a sufficient condition of relational satisfaction which must
be studied as practiced along with other, perhaps equally important
aspects?
I am not saying that these are questions which must be answered
before we can state anything important. This study's discovery of
fundamental dimensions of CCPI can contribute to improved
communication today and provide first answers now to immediate,
documented human needs. But I am saying that these promising,
potentially important future research answers are much nearer to our
reach because we now have data identifying five or six fundamental
elements of CCPI.
And I am saying that those disciplines whose mission is teaching
and training human beings to be competent communicators now have new,
important information which can suggest new behaviors for greater
relational effectiveness and satisfaction.
D. Communication in Intimate Relationships
In addition to identification of factors of CCPI, this study
discovered insights of communication in intimate relationships that
are worthy of note.
84
Whereas the factors described represent what subjects reported
were the main issues of competent sexual communication, it should be
observed that not all subjects were favorable or equally favorable to
these kinds of communication. Overall, as we have seen, the mean
response to each factor was very favorable. In addition, the data
suggested:
1. Generally, the frequency of messages on the subject matter
of these factors is a significant predictor of satisfaction
with the relationship.
2. Male subjects were more favorable on average than females to
factors II ("Us”) and IV ("Directive"). Contrary to popular
stereotypes, this suggests males find affirmations of the
relationship and satisfying their partners to be highly
important (on several items even more than female
respondents, although both sexes were favorable to these
dimensions).
3. Females were more favorable to factors I ("Me"), III
("Serious"), V ("Personal"), and VI ("Playful"). Again,
males and females as groups found all of these dimensions
favorable, but they were relatively more important to female
respondents. This suggests the importance to females of
serious talk, about the relationship, first name use and
eye-contact, affirmation of attractiveness, and playfulness
(although "slightly dirty talk" on the "playful" factor was
significantly less desirable to females than males; for both
sexes the standard deviation of responses was wide,
suggesting that the item is controversial... many like it,
many do not) .
4. There is an inverse relationship between desirability of
these factors and length of relationship and age factors.
This may be due to the relatively recent public discussion
and education around sexual communication issues, or it may
be that long-term relationships have found ways to
communicate these important messages in other relational
settings as well as during sex.
Subjects' favorability towards these factors suggests that their
use as topics during sexual communication would increase the
probability of partner satisfaction. At the same time, since
85
individual respondents report different preferences, partners desiring
to be competent communicators during physical intimacy need to learn
their partners' preferences, perhaps asking, certainly paying
attention to their responses and adapting to them.
In short, the method by which these competencies were derived
brings the formal researcher to a position of making very practical
recommendations to ordinary people. To the extent of the validity of
these factors, we know with some certainty what people should talk
about to each other in order to improve and enhance their intimate
relationships.
E. Conclusion
When the discipline of Speech Communication entered what was, for
it, a brave new world of social scientific inquiry a few decades ago,
it may not have anticipated the complexity of the task. Still, as the
various arenas of inquiry produced for us far more new questions than
answers, more frustrations than consolations, more ambiguities than
certainties; we showed we were made of good stuff by pressing on.
When it seemed we would lose our unique mission and become hopelessly
mired in psychological or sociological details peripheral to
communication, there were those among us like the pioneers in CC
research cited (and criticized) in Chapter II, who reminded us that
our core and our mission had to do with messages sent and received.
And when our various inquiries seemed to produce results so complex or
contradictory we dispared of getting anywhere, there have been those
86
colleagues who found a new paradigm or new research method or new
subject population to get us unstuck and keep us moving.
It has been the intent of this research to make a contribution to
that process. The new approach to CC suggested here is offered in the
spirit of joining in a task begun courageously and enterprisingly by
others whose work I respect and would enhance, if possible. These are
colleagues and mentors whose vision is that we can learn from people
themselves what qualities of communication behavior are effective and
appropriate. Implicit in their vision is that the knowledge gained
will make human life better, relationships more satisfying, societies
more humane and noble.
Thus, this study aims to contribute to the quality and
significance of the published work in communication competence
reviewed in Chapter II. Like those researchers and writers, it
presumes that understanding the effects of what people say to each
other is important because it is fundamental and can make things
better. It shares with those writers the commitment that grounded
information analyzed by statistical tools puts us in touch both with
what is real and with what Kerlinger calls the qualities of what is;
qualities which are knowable independently of our opinions about them.
With respect to communication during physical intimacy, this
study is founded on the conviction that nothing that is human is so
remote or "sacred" that it should not, with all appreciation of the
limits of our methods, be studied rigorously. This research in CCPI
is dedicated to the end that our science, our profession, our ethics,
and our relationships should be united in the common enterprise of
humanity.
To men and women everywhere, young and old alike, it's time to
stop focusing on what divides us and to start building bridges.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, T. H. New methods in social science research. New York:
Praeger Special Studies, 1978, pp. 15-30.
Altman, I. and Taylor, D. A. Social penetration: The development of
interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1973.
Ayres, J. Perceived use of evaluative statements in developing,
stable, and deteriorating relationships with a person of the same
or opposite sex. The Western Journal of Speech Communication,
1982, 46 (Winter), 20-31.
Bell, R. A. Tremblay, S. W. , and Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. L.
Interpersonal attraction as a communication accomplishment:
Development of a measure of affinity-seeking competence. The
Western Journal of Speech Communication, 1987, 5_1 (Winter), 1-18.
Bennis, W. G., Schein, E. T., Steele, F. A., and Berlew, D. E.
Towards better interpersonal relationships. In B. W. Morse &
L. Phelps (Eds.), Interpersonal communication: A relational
perspective. Minneapolis: Burgess, 1980, 65-80.
Berger, C. R. and Calabrese, R. J. Some explorations in initial
interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of
interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1975,
1, 99-112.
Berger, C. R. , Weber, M. D. , Munley, M. E., and Dixon, J. T.
Interpersonal relationship levels and interpersonal attraction.
In B. W. Morse and L. A. Phelps (Eds.), Interpersonal
Communication. Minneapolis: Burgess, 1980, 132-150.
Blumstein, P. and Schwartz, P. American couples. New York: William
Morrow and Company, 1983.
Burke, K. A grammar of motives and a rhetoric of motives. Cleveland,
New York: World Publishing Co., 1962.
Burke, K. Language as symbolic action. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1966.
Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co.,
1970.
Canary, D. J. and Cupach, W. R. Relational and episodic
characteristics associated with conflict tacts. Paper submitted
for publication, 1987.
89
Canary, D. J. and Spitzberg, B. H. Appropriateness and effectiveness
perceptions of conflict strategies II: A correlation analysis.
Paper presented at the Western Speech Communication Association
Convention, Salt Lake City, Utah, February, 1987.
Cegala, J. J. Interaction involvement: A cognitive dimension of
communication involvement. Communication Education, 1981, 30(2),
109-121.
Cronkhite, G. Communication and awareness. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings
Publishers, 1976.
Cupach, W. R. and Spitzberg, B. H. Trait versus state: A comparison
of dispositional and situational measures of interpersonal
competence. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 1983,
47 (Fall), 364-379.
Davis, M. Intimate relations. 1973, New York: The Free Press.
Eadie, W. F. and Paulson, J. W. Communicator attitudes, communicator
style, and communication competence. The Western Journal of
Speech Communication, 1984, 48 (Fall), 390-407.
Eakins, B. W. and Eakins, R. G. Sex differences in human
communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1978.
Emmert, P. and Brooks, W. D. (Eds). Methods of research in
communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1970.
Fitzpatrick, M. A. and Best, P. Dyadic adjustment in relational
types: Consensus, cohesion, affectional expression, and
satisfaction in enduring relationships. Communication
Monographs, 1979, 46, 167-178.
Frentz, T. S. and Farrell, T. B. Language-action: A paradigm for
communication. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1976, 62(4),
333-349.
Gilbert, S. J. Empirical and theoretical extensions of self-
disclosure. In B. Morse and L. Phelps (Eds.), Interpersonal
Communication. Minneapolis: Burgess, 1980, 336-347.
Gorden, R. L. Interviewing: Strategy, techniques, and tactics.
Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press, 1977.
Gottman J., Notarius, C., Gonso, J., and Markman, H. A couples guide
to communication. Campaign, 111.: Research Press, 1979.
Hawes, L. C. Pragmatics of analoguing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley, 1975.
90
Hazleton, V., Jr. and Cupach, W. R. An exploration of ontological
knowledge: Communication competence as a function of the ability
to describe, predict, and explain. The Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 1986, 50 (Winter), 119-132.
Hopper, R. Knapp, M. L., and Scott, L. Couples' personal idioms:
Exploring intimate talk. Journal of Communication, 1981, 31(1),
23-33.
Jourard, S. M. The transparent self. New York: D. Van Nostrand Co.,
1971.
Keiser, G. J. , and Altman, I. Relationship of nonverbal behavior to
social penetration process. Human Communication Research, 1976,
2(2), 147-161.
Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral research. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1964, 467-479.
Knapp, M. L. Social intercourse. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1976.
Knapp, M. L., Hart, R. P., Friedreich, G. W. and Shulman, G. M. The
rhetoric of goodbye: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of human
leave-taking. Speech Monographs, 1980, 47, 262-278.
Krain, M. Communication among premarital couples at three stages of
dating. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1975, (August).
Krivonos, P. D., and Knapp, M. L. Initiating communication: What do
you say when you say hello? Central States Speech Journal, 1975,
26(2), 115-125.
Lips, H. M. and Colwill N. L. The psychology of sex differences.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1978.
Masters, W. H. and Johnson, V. E. Human sexual response. Boston:
Little Brown, 1966.
Masters, W. H. and Johnson, V. E. Human sexual inadequacy. Boston:
Little Brown, 1970.
Masters, W. H. and Johnson, V. E. The pleasure bond. Boston: Little
Brown, 1974.
I
McCroskey, J. D. and McCain. The measurement of interpersonal
attraction. Speech Monographs, 1974, 41, 261-266.
McCroskey, J. D. Communication competence and performance: A
research and pedogogical perspective. Communication Education,
1982, 31(1), 1-7.
91
Miller, S., Nunnally, E. W. , and Wachman, D. B. Alive and aware:
Improving communication in relationships. Minneapolis:
Interpersonal Communication Programs, 1975.
Miller, S., Nunnally, E. W. , and Wachman, D. B. Minnesota couples
communication program (MCCP): premarital and marital groups. In
D. H. L Olson (Ed.), Treating Relationships. Lake Mills, Iowa:
Graphic Publishing. 1976, 21-39.
Mischel, W. Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of
personality. Psychological Review, 30(4), 1973, 252-283.
Munley, M. E. Intensive interviewing: Toward a taxonomy of inter
personal communication relationships. Paper presented at the
Speech Communication Association San Francisco Conference, 1976.
Nunally, J. C. Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1978, 565-566.
Olds, S. W. The eternal garden. New York: Times Books, 1985.
Pavitt, C. and Haight, L. The "competent communicator" as cognitive
prototypes. Human Communication Research, 1985, _12(2), 225-241.
Pearce, W. B., Cronen, V. E., and Harris, L. M. Methodological
considerations in building human communication theory. In
F. E. X. Dance (Ed.), Human Communication Theory. New York:
Harper and Row, 1982, 1-41.
Phillips, G. M. and Metzger, N. J. Intimate communication. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, 1976.
Phillips, G. M. and Wood, J. T. Communication and human
relationships. New York: Macmillan, 1983.
Schultz, D. A. Human sexuality. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1984.
Spitzberg, B. H. Relational competence: An empirical test of a
conceptual model. Unpublished manuscript, University of Southern
California, 1981a.
Spitzberg, B. H. Relational competence: Measurement and validation-
Paper presented at the Western Speech Communication Association
Convention, San Jose, California, February 1981b.
Spitzberg, B. H. Conversational appropriateness and effectiveness:
Validation of a criterion measure of relational competence.
Paper presented at the Western Communication Association
Convention, Denver, Colorado, February 1982a.
92
Spitzberg, B. H. Other-orientation and relational competence. Paper
presented at the Western Speech Communication Association
Convention, Denver, Colorado, February 1982b.
Spitzberg, B. H. Communication competence as knowledge, skill, and
impression. Communication Education, 1983, 31 (July), 323-329.
Spitzberg, B. H. and Hecht, M. L. A competent model of relational
competence. Human Communication Research, 1984, 1J)(4) , 575-599.
Villard, K. L., and Whipple, L. J. Beginnings in relational
communication. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1976.
Wiemann, J. M. Explication and test of a model of communication
competence. In B. Morse and L. Phelps (Eds.), Interpersonal
Communication: A Relational Perspective. Minneapolis: Burgess,
1980, 100-116.
Wheeless, L. R., Wheeless, V. E., and Baus, R. Sexual communication,
communication satisfaction, and solidarity in the developmental
stages of intimate relationships. The Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 1984, 48 (Summer), 217-230.
Wilmot, W. W. Dyadic communication (2nd ed.). Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley, 1980.
Wood, J. T. Communication and relational culture: Bases for the
study of human relationships. Communication Quarterly, 1982,
30(2), 75-83.
93
APPENDIX A
Relational/Situational Paradigm Questionnaire
Level of Involvement Test
Please put the initials of one person
in your life for each category. You
may keep this card or throw it away.
No on else will see it.
A. Stranger
B. Acquaintance
C. Proxemic
D. Friend
E. Best friend
F. Work relationship
G. Lover/intimate
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
PART I. Instructions: please place
describes each person you
blank provided.
the number that most corre<
identified on your card in
1. How long have you known this person?
stranger 1. Under 1 year
acqua int anc e 2. 1-5 years
proxemic 3. 5-10 years
friend 4. 10-20 years
best friend 5. 20-30 years
work relationship 6. 30+ years
lover/intimate
2. How frequently are you in contact with this person?
stranger 1. Nearly every day
acquaintance 2. Once or twice a week
proxemic 3. Once or twice a month
friend 4. Several times a year
best friend 5. About once a year
work relationship 6. Rarely
lover/intimate
3. When you see this person, how much time do you spend together
stranger 1. Less than one hour
acquaintance 2. 1-2 hours
proxemic 3. 3-10 hours
friend 4. 10-18 hours
best friend 5. 24 hours
work relationship 6. Days
lover/intimate
95
PART II. Instructions: please circle the number which best answers
the question asked about each person.
\ means low, 3 means moderate, and 5 is high.
The number of important decisions L M
you make with this person. 0 0 H
W
D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
Amount of activities you share L M
with this person. 0 0 H
W
D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
The number of different types of L M
activities you can share with 0 0 H
this person. w D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
96
The amount of power this person L M
has over you when you disagree. 0 0 H
W D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
The amount of power you have L M
over this person when you 0 0 H
disagree.
V
D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
Amount this person influences you. L M
0 0 H
w
D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
The amount you influence L M"
this person. 0 0
w
D
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4
D. Friend 1 2 3 4
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4
11. The amount you can tell this
person of what you are thinking L M
and feeling (personal 0 0
information). W D
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4
D. Friend 1 2 3 4
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4
The amount that you can really L M
be yourself with this person. 0 0
w
D
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4
D. Friend 1 2 3 4
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4
H
I
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
H
I
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
H
I
5
5
5
5
.5
5
5
98
The amount of harm this person L M
could do to your life if s/he 0 0 H
wanted to. w D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
The amount this person is L M
critical of you. 0 0 H
w
D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
The amount that you can count L M
on this person if you need them. 0 0 H
w
D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
99
How interesting is this person? L M
0 0 H
W D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/int imate 1 2 3 4 5
How frequently do you tell this L M
person how you feel about 0 0 H
him/he]r? w D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
How frequently do you and this L M
person touch each other? 0 0 H
w D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
100
The amount that you like this L M
person. 0 0 H
W D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
The amount of difficulty you L M
would have in replacing this 0 0 H
person in your life. W D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
The amount of interdependence L M
between you and this person. 0 0 H
W D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
101
The amount of vulnerability you L M
feel in this relationship. 0 0 H
w
D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D.. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
The amount of your emotions L M
which are involved in this 0 0 H
relat ionship. W D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
G. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
The amount of affection you L M
feel for this person. 0 0 H
w
D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
102
25.
26.
27.
The amount of trust you place in L M
this person. 0 0 H
w
D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5.
E. Best friend 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
The amount this person trusts L M
you. 0 0 H
W D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
The amount that you and this L M
person are alike. 0 0 H
w
D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
103
28.
29.
30.
The amount of this person s use L M
and sense of humor. 0 0 H
W D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
The amount this person knows L M
about who you really are. 0 0 H
W D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
The number of times you have L M
been angry with this person. 0 0 H
W D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 2 3 4 5
104
31.
32.
33.
amount this person brings L M
the best in you. 0 0 H
W D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C . Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
The amount of loss you would L M
feel if this person were no 0 0 H
longer in your life.
w
D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Love r/int imat e 1 2 3 4 5
The amount of respect you have L M
for this person. 0 0 H
W D I
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4 5
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4 5
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4 5
D. Friend 1 2 3 4 5
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4 5
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4 5
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4 5
105
The amount of change you desire L M
in this relationship. 0 0
W D
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4
D. Friend 1 2 3 4
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4
The amount that you envy this L M
person. 0 0
W D
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4
D. Friend 1 2 3 4
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4
The amount of satisfaction you L M
feel in this relationship. 0 0
W D
A. Stranger 1 2 3 4
B. Acquaintance 1 2 3 4
C. Proxemic 1 2 3 4
D. Friend 1 2 3 4
E. Best friend 1 2 3 4
F. Work relationship 1 2 3 4
G. Lover/intimate 1 2 3 4
H
I
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
H
I
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
H
I
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
37. Are there any other dimensions you can think of that we have not
asked about?
106
APPENDIX B
Sample Level of Involvement Profile (LIP)
Scoring on Intimate /Lover Relationship
I
N
T V
E U E
R L M
D N 0
E E T
T P R I
E D A 0
M N B N
P D I A
0 E L L
R N I I
A C T T
L E Y Y
LI
SCORE
STRANGER
! --
1 1
1 1
1
1 |
I
4
ACQUAINTANCE
1 2
1 1
1
1 |
I
5
PROXEMIC
I
1 3
1
2 2
1
1 |
1
8
FRIEND
1
1 3
I
3 3
I
3 I
I
12
BEST FRIEND
1
1 4
I
4 4
1
4 |
I
16
TASK
1
| 5
I
5 5
1
2 I
I
17
LOVER
1
1 5
i
5 5 5 I
i
20
One item to note here is the place in the continuum of task
according to the LI score. It is placed toward the higher end of the
continuum because the time spent together and the interdependence
scores are even higher than in best friend relationships. This is
considerably different from the way other taxonomies have treated it.
107
Part
Part
APPENDIX C
Interview Guide
Sex __________ .
Age _________________________
Occupation _________________
Marital Status __________.
Geographic Location ______
LIS ___________________ _ _
I. Think of a time when you had a sexual experience during
which you felt that the communication was especially
appropriate and effective. Describe how you communicated
verbally.
Describe how you communicated nonverbally:
How did you partner communicate verbally:
How did you partner communicate nonverbally:
II. Imagine a sexual experience during which communication
would be especially appropriate, effective, and desirable.
Describe how you would communicate verbally:
How would you communicate nonverbally:
How would your partner communicate verbally:
How would your partner communicate nonverbally:
108
APPENDIX D
PLEASE SPEND THE NEXT FEW MOMENTS
THINKING ABOUT SOME OF THE MOST
SATISFYING
SEXUAL EXPERIENCES YOU HAVE HAD
Try to remember them in as much detail as you can
It doesn't matter if you confuse one encounter
with another
Just sit back and reflect for a moment
ENJOY!
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Now tell me about your communication with your partner. Communication
j may be both verbal and nonverbal. Please answer the questions in your
own words and thoughts.
1. Please describe some of the settings you are remembering. (Where
you were and the circumstances involved.)
2. Who initiated the experiences?
3. What verbal and/or nonverbal messages were sent to initiate sex?
110
After initiation, how did you know that your partner wanted to
share a sexual experience with you? What did you see, hear, and
feel that let you know?
If you initiate sex with your partner, what do you say and do?
If your partner initiates, what do you like him/her to say and
do?
What are some things your partner communicated to you both
verbally and nonverbally before intercourse that you liked?
Ill
8. What were some things your partner communicated to you during
intercourse that you liked?
9. What were some things your partner communicated to you after
intercourse that you liked?
10. During which phases (pre/during/and post intercourse) do you
prefer your partner to talk to you? Why?
11. Is there a phase (pre/during/post intercourse) when you prefer
your partner not to talk to you? Why? I
112
12. For this question, I'd like you to paint a word picture of what
sex is like, to compare sex to something else. For example, I
might say, "Sex is like getting to eat all the cotton candy I
ever wanted."
13. If you could create your "dream partner" or "fantasy partner" or
"ideal" partner, how would he/she communicate with you both
verbally and nonverbally in each phase? What would he/she say
and do?
14. In addition to the sexual aspect of the relationships with your
partner/s you have been describing, how would you rate your
overall relationship with him/her/them?
1. Very satisfying
2. Satisfying
3. Moderately satisfying
4. Unsatisfying
5. Very unsatisfying
15. Are there any other thoughts that come to your mind that might be
helpful to our research?
113
16. Why do you think people participate in sex? What needs do you
think are being met?
RESPONDENT INFORMATION
Please circle the correct answer or provide the information in the
blank space provided. This information is about you, the respondent.
It is totally confidential.
1. Your sex: 6. Your citizenship:
1. Male
2. Female
2. Your age: 7. Your formal education:
3. Your occupation: 8. Your geographic location:
Your religion: Is the person you are
answering about your
1. Protestant spouse?
2. Catholic
3. Jewish 1. Yes
4. Other 2. No
marital status: 10. Is the person you
answering about:
1. Single
2. Married 1. Male
3. Separated 2. Female
4. Divorced
5. Widowed
6. Live-in
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR HELP
114
APPENDIX E
Card Sort Frequencies on Each Retained Item
Item Frequency
1. Communicates verbally. 35
2. Tells me I am attractive. 25
3. Tells me he/she likes what I am doing. 90
4. Tells me he/she likes sex with me. 65
5. Says I love you. 28
6. Uses Eye contact while talking to me. 28
7. Expresses enjoying the holding/closeness. 45
8. Initiates sex. 24
9. Describes physical feelings. 21
10. Says playful or funny things. 40
11. Uses my first name. 10
12. Tells me I'm sexy/exciting 11
13. What parts of my body are like. 11
14. What he/she wants me to do. 24
15. Talks. 35
16. How special/important I am. 37
17. Discloses intimate thoughts. 11
18. Serious or spiritual feelings. 10
19. Wants me to feel pleasure. 20
20. Desires me/am desirable. 14
21. Affectionate romantic words. 10
22. Looks at me. 7
23. Endearing nicknames. 5
24. Going to do with me. 5
25. Asks what I wand them to do. 5
26. Smiles when talking. 4
27. Talks through a fantasy. 4
28. Uses metaphor. 4
29. Refers to previous times with me. 4
30. Sexually explicit language. 37
31. Code phrases. 4
32. Encourages my orgasm. 9
33. Talks about future. 1
34. Kids or teases. 2
115
APPENDIX F
K/C ASSOCIATES
528 W. Jacaranda PI.
Fullerton, CA 92632
(714) 447-3370
Dear Respondent,
The goal of much research is toward more satisfying and effective
relationships for human beings. The purpose of this survey is to
learn more about how people communicate with each other in intimate
situations.
You may be assured of complete confidentiality. Your name will never
be placed on the questionnaire.
By asking you these questions we hope to learn more about the positive
experiences people have in order to enhance the quality of life for
all people. Previous respondents have remarked that they enjoyed
filling out the survey because it gave them insights into their
relationships.
Your voluntary participation in this survey is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Laree Kiely
University of Southern California
K/C Associates
Female version
116
PLEASE SPEND THE NEXT FEW MOMENTS
THINKING ABOUT SOME OF THE
MOST SATISFYING
SEXUAL EXPERIENCES YOU HAVE HAD
OR WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
Try to think about them in as much detail as you can.
It doesn't matter if you confuse one encounter
with another.
Just sit back and reflect for a moment.
ENJOY!
INSTRUCTIONS
Please place your response on the blank in front of each statement
using a number from 1 to 7 according to the following scale:
1 = strongly undesirable
2 = moderately undesirable
3 = slightly undesirable
4 = neutral/undecided
5 = slightly desirable
6 = moderately desirable
7 = strongly desirable
Each statement refers to how you would like your partner to
communicate DURING SEX.
DURING SEX, MY PARTNER . . .
1. ...Communicates verbally.
2. ...Tells me I am attractive.
3. ...Tells me he likes what I am doing.
4. ...Tells me he likes sex with me.
5. ...Does not say "I love you."
6. . . .Uses a lot of eye contact while talking to me during sex.
7. ...Expresses in words how much he enjoys the holding and/or
the closeness.
8. ...Says something to initiate sex, "makes the first move."
9. ...Describes his physical feelings (pleasure, orgasm, etc.).
10. ...Does not say things that are funny or playful.
11. ...Uses my first name.
12. ...Tells me I'm sexy/exciting.
13. ...Tells me what parts of my body he likes.
14. ...Tells me in words what he wants me to do.
15. ...Does not talk very much.
16. ...Tells me how special or important I am to him.
17. ...Discloses very intimate feelings or thoughts.
18. ...Tells me about serious or spiritual emotions or feelings.
118
19. . . .Tells me that he wants me to feel pleasure/satisfaction.
20. . . .Tells me that he desires me or that I am desirable.
21. ...Uses affectionate/romantic words.
22. ...Says he likes to look at me during sex.
23. . . .Does not call me endearing nicknames.
24. . . .Tells me what he is going to do to/with me.
25. . . .Asks me questions about what I want him to do.
26. ...Does not smile when he talks to me.
27. ...Verbally plays out/talks me through a fantasy.
28. ...Describes how he feels by using an example or metaphor,
like "I'm at the top of the mountain."
29. ...Refers to previous, satisfying sexual encounters with me
30. ...Uses sexually explicit language (slightly dirty talk).
31. . . .States what he wants with code phrases that only the two
of us understand.
32. ...Does not verbally encourage my orgasm.
33. ...Talks about the future of our relationship.
34. ...Kids or teases me.
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE OPTIONAL
PLEASE CIRCLE THE CORRECT ANSWER:
35. Currently, my partner uses the behaviors I find desirable:
1. Very rarely
2. Rarely
3. Occasionally
4. Neutral/undecided
5. Sometimes
6. Often
7. Very often.
119
36. Currently, my relationship with my partner is:
1. Very unsatisfying
2. Moderately unsatisfying
3. Slightly unsatisfying
4. Neutral/undecided
5. Slightly satisfying
6. Moderately satisfying
7. Very satisfying.
37. Your sex:
1. Female
2. Male
38. Your age:
1. 25-29
2. 30-39
3. 40-49
4. 50-59
5. 60-69
6. 70-79
39. Where were you given this survey?
1. School related activity
2. Professional organization
3. Church related activity
4. Other
40. Your marital status:
1. Single
2. Married
3. Separated
4. Divorced
5. Widowed
6. Living together
120l
41.'
42.
Your education:
1. High school
2. Some college
3. B.A./B.S.
4. Some graduate school
5. Masters degree
6. Ph.D.
Is the person you are answering about your spouse?
1. Yes
2. No
121
K/C ASSOCIATES
528 W. Jacaranda PI.
Fullerton, CA 92632
(714) 447-3370
Dear Respondent,
The goal of much research is toward more satisfying and effective
relationships for human beings. The purpose of this survey is to
learn more about how people communicate with each other in intimate
situations.
You may be assured of complete confidentiality. Your name will never
be placed on the questionnaire.
By asking you these questions we hope to learn more about the positive
experiences people have in order to enhance the quality of life for
all people. Previous respondents have remarked that they enjoyed
filling out the survey because it gave them insights into their
relationships.
Your voluntary participation in this survey is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Laree Kiely
University of Southern California
K/C Associates
Male version
122
PLEASE SPEND THE NEXT FEW MOMENTS
THINKING ABOUT SOME OF THE
MOST SATISFYING
SEXUAL EXPERIENCES YOU HAVE HAD
OR WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
Try to think about them in as much detail as you can.
It doesn’t matter if you confuse one encounter
with another.
Just sit back and reflect for a moment.
ENJOY!
INSTRUCTIONS
Please place your response on the blank in front of each statement
using a number from 1 to 7 according to the following scale:
1 = strongly undesirable
2 = moderately undesirable
3 = slightly undesirable
4 = neutral/undecided
5 = slightly desirable
6 = moderately desirable
7 = strongly desirable
Each statement refers to how you would like your partner to
communicate DURING SEX.
DURING SEX, MY PARTNER . . .
1. ...Communicates verbally.
2. ...Tells me I am attractive.
3. ...Tells me she likes what I am doing.
4. ...Tells me she likes sex with me.
5. ...Does not say "I love you."
6. . . .Uses a lot of eye contact while talking to me during sex.
7. ...Expresses in words how much she enjoys the holding and/or
the closeness.
8. ...Says something to initiate sex, "makes the first move."
9. ...Describes her physical feelings (pleasure, orgasm, etc.).
10. ...Does not say things that are funny or playful.
11. ...Uses my first name.
12. ...Tells me I’m sexy/exciting.
13. ...Tells me what parts of my body she likes.
14. ...Tells me in words what she wants me to do.
15. ...Does not talk very much.
16. ...Tells me how special or important I am to her.
17. ...Discloses very intimate feelings or thoughts.
18. ...Tells me about serious or spiritual emotions or feelings.
I
124!
I
_19. ...Tells me that she wants me to feel pleasure/satisfaction.
_20. . . .Tells me that she desires me or that I am desirable.
_21. ...Uses affectionate/romantic words.
_22. . ..Says she likes to look at me during sex.
_23. . . .Does not call me endearing nicknames.
_24. . . .Tells me what she is going to do to/with me.
_25. . . .Asks me questions about what I want her to do.
_26. . . .Does not smile when she talks to me.
_27. ...Verbally plays out/talks me through a fantasy.
_28. ...Describes how she feels by using an example or metaphor,
like "I'm at the top of the mountain."
_29. ...Refers to previous, satisfying sexual encounters with me.
_30. ...Uses sexually explicit language (slightly dirty talk).
_31. . . .States what she wants with code phrases that only the two
of us understand.
_32. ...Does not verbally encourage my orgasm.
_33. ...Talks about the future of our relationship.
_34. ...Kids or teases me.
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS ARE OPTIONAL
PLEASE CIRCLE THE CORRECT ANSWER:
35. Currently, my partner uses the behaviors I find desirable:
1. Very rarely
2. Rarely
3. Occasionally
4. Neutral/undecided
5. Sometimes
6. Often
7. Very often.
125
36. Currently, my relationship with my partner is:
1. Very unsatisfying
2. Moderately unsatisfying
3. Slightly unsatisfying
4. Neutral/undecided
5. Slightly satisfying
6. Moderately satisfying
7. Very satisfying.
37. Your sex:
1. Female
2. Male
38. Your age:
1. 25-29
2. 30-39
3. 40-49
4. 50-59
5. 60-69
6. 70-79
39 . Where were you given this survey?
1. School related activity
2. Professional organization
3. Church related activity
4. Other
40. Your marital status:
1. Single
2. Married
3. Separated
4. Divorced
5. Widowed
6. Living together
126
41. Your education:
1. High school
2. Some college
3. B.A./B.S.
4. Some graduate school
5. Masters degree
6. Ph.D.
42. Is the person you are answering about your spouse?
1.
2 .
Yes
No
127

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A model of the witness communication process

PDF

Communicating at the bonding stage of relationships: The role of self-disclosure and relational competence in dyadic adjustment.

PDF

AIDS preventive sexual behavior in college students: An empirical test of the health belief model

PDF

An empirical investigation of attitudinal, relational, and situational predictors of interpersonal strategy intentions

PDF

Building a model of organization acculturation: an interpretive study of organizational culture and stories

PDF

Communication rules and perceived outcomes within and between domestic culture groups: A comparison of intracultural and intercultural conversations among acquaintances

PDF

Communication strategies in barricade-hostage confrontations: Theory, research, and police experience

PDF

A formulation and partial test of a rules-based theory of interpersonal persuasion

PDF

An empirical investigation of the communicative rules which should guide the use of deceptive messages within non-interpersonal and interpersonal relationships

PDF

A critical analysis of ideology and discourse in two hotels

PDF

An organizational culture approach to the study of individual power and its use

PDF

A ship in a bottle: How communication builds the lifeboats of the world's largest A.A. group

PDF

A behavioral comparison of the nonverbal and verbal communication of distressed and nondistressed marital couples

PDF

Atomism and social control: Causes and consequences of alcohol use.

PDF

A coherence analysis of deception detection

PDF

An interpretive communication study of images and roles of women in selected situation comedies from 1950-1975

PDF

A system of participation and allocation preferences in organizations

PDF

Cooperative tactics theory

PDF

A structurational analysis of labor negotiations

PDF

A comparison of real-time and post hoc evaluation of a media presentation

Asset Metadata

Creator Kiely, Laree S (author)

Core Title Communication during physical intimacy: A theoretical and methodological study of communication competence

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Communication Arts and Sciences

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Speech Communication

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Sereno, Kenneth (committee chair), Broderick, Carlfred (committee member), Riley, Patricia (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-714951

Unique identifier UC11344545

Identifier DP22431.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-714951 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP22431.pdf

Dmrecord 714951

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Kiely, Laree S.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA