. 3
o 3 . :3. u v 3‘
3.1.3.... ....\3 3-5.3....2ubf3 ...! .
guuhufikowfindhuv .3.
J :L.

I
9‘.
o

33.331353”?

v‘3

'3

 

-
O U.
. . 33 .

0 . C . 3
. . O D\ 3 I <13 23 ; . 3 I 3 . a .
3. .3 . 3%.33Wn3fifl... .. . . . 33 ..- Li“. 3 3 ... 3- - - .... .- . ..

o 2 A .v. 3 . y . 3 3. /.. . . . 3
. .3 33 ltnfiu‘uhnfl33 - .3 3 . 3 ....3 3... . ..3 3 333. . «HA3. 3...

3 . . \3 . . . 3 g
I c f. a . 3 . o . .
.7, 3

3
3

3

323 6 1 3.33“!“333334 . . -
fimwlfifihr- .. .3 . 3. .. ... .
...Invcl‘ttu-Isflr . 3 ..3.3.. . . 3 3 3- 3 3.31 3 . 3 .

. 3 , 3 . . r a 3 . 3 9.. _ H nu”: 33”....33 3‘7.

3

www.mmm

3t

33
1%

' ' fit:

.....

n
...
.\‘a

4..

.
3.. . L . .3. .... 333.3 . . 3 .
3 3 ‘9 . . . 3 .Il . 3 I
c .3. v n . A 3. , . 3
3 3 -3 3 3 . .3 3 3 - 3 33 . 3 . . . 133$ 3
4 n 3 3 3 It. . . . ob V . 3 3.
J. 3 3 .3 3 I .u~3 u 3
. 3. . 3 .33.. 2 uuuvl33 3 . 3. . . 3. 3 .. 33.3355.
0 Q 9 Or "I u ‘ .‘ .‘l I 4 .U Ill
3 33 0.331.333? 33 3014 33,3 3 o 3. . 3 . .3 1.3 .3 . ,IHOH? I 3 3‘
. . 33 . .. ..3. 33.13333 33333.33. 3 3. . ... .... 3 . ..... 3. 3. . .3. .3. 3333. “3333.533? 3- H
.3 3. . 3 .3 do . r3 . . .. 3 ..‘(b |3l.\. fill
I‘M. .I‘ I. 3 i 0- at v. A 3 I) 3h303
cY‘LIII.‘I§ '3 .\4 n 3 A3 3 I“ |¢.3.l 013.3 3\
Is 1'1 1- I‘ln‘o 13.033031 It! .13 I 3 3 3‘ . 1 33:3 . . .-
3030—!!‘3' Ylnl‘NIVXhififlNV-slvpuh 3 ..3 .- . 3 . 33. .3 3 3. 334. . I . 3 ifhln
33|.3.n.n3.fl3-3o333033.. 31.13333503331l3fl-n433“.%\3§ 333333.- . 3 ... . .. 33 3 3.3.... .. .3. 3 .3 . . . .3
.3 3333....“33433333333333 . 3 3 33 3.3 3. . . . . 3 .... . . . .. u 3 3.3 m“
I 3 3 - fit 3 . 3 3 . (I
. .
.

.313

{I33

.3‘83

3. .
.I.v

d 3.3.. no.

.3 u.
I'll-‘3 n

’3 \
Ink! \Q)- litu.

. Vlwdwfiflf. H333...) ill.
.3 .. 3.. . 3333.-. aflwmwri‘ 3.3
. 3 33.33.. .3 ..-. . . . ...:3... .33 3333““? \HIU.
3 - z . . 3 333 I l
-‘3‘I3‘ l3lm

3 3| I33. 3
.i

3333!.

f
33‘
U.313-

) r. .31 . . u . v
. I 4.. . . . . 3 .3 3 . . . 3 . . .... . 3. .
-33. . . . - 3 3. -- .. . -
. 13v - . 3 . L . . . . .. . . .3. ... .3. ..... 3.
3II.H«,A3.H.33I ---- Ian"? 3 3 3 - ... . . 3. .
l . 3 ’3. (I 333 3. 3.3.3.. 3 I . 3 3 . a1
3 3|)!!! 3|3l||.l.\ . L33. :3
$3 ”333L343u‘l33l‘ 3333313 on... ldh: mm‘t

. 4 ....3 “A 33 ll! 33 . 3
Vin 331333954413 .3 W H, I: H3 . ..l n I]. . 3 3. 3 33 33. \Ilhhtall
3 3 3. U333 {...-Kr 3,1 33 3 I r 3.1.. 3 3 333..“
\13 3 3 3 II

3 .I. 3 3'

   

    

3'3 4 .u I
AH...» 331 31 .
:1113 3.1.. 3| 3 3 .3333 33.3-- . -.. 3.33 , .3»......

Manny rlln'ch3cllw .13 tr... .]\.a.2.lhb.‘ifi 73 Ht: -3. l. . 3.1M 3. .D t“ 33 .,.| l'3 I3 [I 3 .3 33 '3 3 3 3 3733 . 3 . .3 rm

THEE-315

Date

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Negotiation Competence: Interpreting

Situational Differences in Code Choice 1

presented by ‘
Mary E. Diez

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D. degree in Communication

r ,L»c11./

Major professor

June 21, 1983

 

0—7639

 

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

3 1293 000802

 

 

)VIESI~J RETURNING MATERIALS:
Piace in book drop to
usamuzs remove this checkout from
.—,—-. your record. FINES Nil]

 

 

 

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped beiow.

 

. fimfiw
351:—

 

 

 

/¢//-— 3:737

NEGOTIATION COMPETENCE: INTERPRETING
SITUATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN CODE CHOICE

BY

Mary E. Diez

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Communication

1983

Copyright by
Mary E. Diez
° 1983

ABSTRACT

NEGOTIATION COMPETENCE: INTERPRETING
SITUATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN CODE CHOICE

BY

Mary E. Diez

The study of negotiation competence as a specific sub-
category of communicative competence encompasses both inter-
pretation and production of interaction within specific
situations of group agreement-making. This dissertation
focuses on the ability of native speakers of English to draw
upon their awareness of ranges of communicative code choice
to make distinctions between interactions typifying con-
trasts in bargaining situations.

The ability involved in negotiation competence is con-
ceptualized as involving three types of interaction work.
Coherence work establishes the connectedness of interaction,
defining the degree to which assumptions can be shared or
need to be explicitly stated. Distance work creates
relational aspects of the interaction, specifying goal
definitions, role relationships, and social parameters.
Structuring work involves larger exchange patterns within
the interaction, specifying the processes of interaction as
managed by the group, e.g., turn-taking procedures and
acceptable means of proposal formulation. The sets of rules
proposed for each type of work specify a range of communica-
tive code choices, including linguistic and nonlinguistic

elements of interaction.

An empirical study involving three excerpts of competi-
tive bargaining interaction between two teams and three
excerpts of cooperative caucus interaction within teams
(both produced by professional bargaining agents of the
Michigan Education Association in role-playing sessions) is
reported. Subjects (n = 252), nested in a 2 x 3 factorial
design, either viewed a videotape, listened to an audiotape,
or read a written transcript of one of the six excerpts.
All responded to 60 items on the Interpretation of Inter-
action Scale.

The hypothesis that there would be significant
differences between the two types of interaction, regardless
of the media condition, was supported by the responses to
the scale items related to distance work. Responses to the
items related to coherence and structuring work were less
clear, suggesting that observers are less conscious of
differences in connection-making and structuring, at least
as related to the bargaining situation. Some differences
related to structuring were found by medium, but these were
unrelated to situation.

The final discussion draws together the findings of this
study with previous studies of production, suggesting impli-

cations for further research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to a number of people who have contributed
to my growth as a scholar and professional woman. First of
all, I thank my parents, who encouraged and valued educa-
tion, and the School Sisters of St. Francis, particularly
the sisters of the Western Province and of Alverno College,
who have supported and challenged my growth for 25 years.

I am also indebted to the faculty at Michigan State
University, who have served as a composite model of scholar—
ship and professionalism and who helped me to develop criti-
cal conceptual and research skills in communication. I
especially thank the members of my doctoral committee: Dr.
William Dcnohue, Dr. Donald Ellis, Dr. Judee Burgoon, and
Dr. Ellen Strommen. I would also single out for special
thanks Dr. carol Scotton in linguistics and Dr. Frederick
Erickson in anthropology.

To my classmates and friends in the department and in
the Women's Research Group on campus, I am grateful to have
been able to share ideas and to dispute the nature and
methodology of the behavioral sciences with you. To the
people at St. John's Student Parish, particularly my room-
mate Jarrett DeWyse, I am grateful for the opportunity to
have been part of the St. John's community.

Finally, to Louis Diaz at the Michigan Education Associ-
ation, my thanks for the videotape of bargainer training

sessions used in this dissertation.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
I THEORETICAL DISCUSSION OF COMMUNICATIVE
COMPETENCE AND SITUATED CODE CHOICE .......... l
overView 00.00.00.000...0.000.000.0000... 1
Importance of the Question .............. 3
Theoretical and Conceptual Issues ....... 5
Definition of Negotiation Competence .... 7
II A SET OF RULES FOR NEGOTIATION COMPETENCE .... 9
Three Types of Interaction ”Work” in
Negotiation 0.0.0.0000...000.000.0000.. 10
COherence work 00000000000000.0000...000. 11
Distance work 0.....00000000.000.00.00... 15
Structuring work 00000000000000.00000000. 19
Rules: Mechanisms for Interpretation
and PrOdUCtion 00000000000000.000000000 23
Tests of the Rule Sets as Production
MeChanisms 0000.00.00.0.00.00.00.000000 25

III A STUDY OF THE INTERPRETATION OF
NEGOTIATION INTERACTION 0.00.00.00.00000000000 28

Criteria for Sample Interactions ........ 29
Information Conditions .................. 32
Hypotheses and Research Questions ....... 33
Method ................................ 35
Sample ................................ 35
Design ................................ 35
Procedure ............................. 35
Analysis .............................. 38
Results ............................... 43
Hypotheses and Research Question 3 ...... 43
Research Questions 1 and 2 .............. 47

iii

IV DISCUSSION OF THE INTERPRETATION STUDY ....... 51

Hypotheses .............................. 51
Research Question 1:

Projecting from Written Information ... 55
Research Question 2:

Projecting from Audio Information ..... 56
Analyses of Noncommon Items across

Media ................................. 57
Research Question 3:

Comparisons across Media .............. 60

V IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CONTINUED STUDY

OF NEGOTIATION COMPETENCE .................... 64
APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Written Transcripts of
Excerpts 1-6 .................. 71
B: Interpretation of Interaction
Scale Questionnaire for Three
Media Conditions .............. 88
C: Overall Factorial Design
Display ....................... 103

LIST OF REFERENCES 0000.00.00.00.00.00000000000000. 105

iv

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Page
Summary of Findings about Code Choice in
Two Bargaining Interaction Situations
(Diez, 19833) 0.0000000000000000.00.00.00000 26
Factor Analysis: Common Scale Items ......... 39
Factor Analysis: Total Scale Items .......... 40
Summary Table: Analysis of Variance with
Distance as Criterion Variable ............. 44
Summary Table: Analysis of Variance with
Stucturing as Criterion Variable ........... 46
Summary Table: Analysis of Variance with
Coherence as Criterion Variable ............ 48

E-Tests on Noncommon Items, Significance
TGBtS by "Gain!“ (DF=82) oooooooooooooooooo 50

Overall Factorial Design Display ............. 103

CHAPTER 1
THEORETICAL DISCUSSION OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
AND SITUATED CODE CHOICE

Overview

How native speakers of a language deve10p not only the
grammar and lexicon of that language, but also learn to
interpret and produce language appropriate to specific
culturally defined situations has been the object of much
study in recent years. Under the heading of "communicative
competence" (Hymes, 1972), this language ability has been
studied particularly in relationship to its development in
children (Cook—Gumperz, 1977: Keenan, 19740. Also of in-
terest to sociolinguists, however, has been the examination
of communicative competence as an adult skill, for example,
in the subtle meanings conveyed in bilingual or multilingual
societies through the use of code—switching (Blom & Gumperz,
1972: Scotton & Ury, 1977). While Labov (1972) studied
phonemic variation within a single language community, few
studies have addressed the situational variation of broader
aspects of code choice within specific, culturally defined
situations (see, however, Diez, 1983a, 1983b). Language
researchers have called for an extension of the examination
of variation in code choice in order to specify how the

interaction of situational factors and speaker goals is

2
reflected in the production of interaction appropriate to
the situation and focused on the speakers' mutual inter-
action work (Brown & Fraser, 1979: Hymes, 1974).

This study is an attempt to extend the examination
of communicative competence in a particular type of inter—
action within a: speech community: inter-organizational and
intra-organizational negotiation. Diez (1983a), using a
discourse analytic approach to naturalistic interaction,
identified three kinds of interaction work involved in these
two types of negotiation interaction and proposed rules to
account for code choices at poles of a competitive-
cooperative continuum. The rules for coherence work,
distance work, and structuring work, however, were
restricted to the areas observed in the written transcripts
and audiotapes of the interactions. This study extends
those rule sets to include nonlinguistic elements in the
three types of work.

In another study Diez (1983b) examined the production of
the two types of negotiation interaction, coding utterances
for speakers in three separate group training sessions
involving inter-organizational and intra-organizational
bargaining. The aspects of the rule sets tested included
differences in coherence work (measured in lexical and
structural complexity), distance work (as indicated by
markers of formality/informality or power/solidarity) and
structuring work (especially examined in turn-taking). A

discriminant analysis which included structural complexity,

3

syntactical complexity, vocabulary difficulty, and "listen-
ability” showed that the two situations were significantly
different, and the analysis successfully classified 77% of
the cases. This analysis supported several of the coherence
and distance rules. Other comparisons, using analysis of
variance, gave partial support to specific aspects of other
distance and structuring rules. Because only those aspects
of the recorded interaction that could be objectively coded
were included, the rule sets need to be further tested.

The present study probes the interpretation aspects of
communicative competence related to the two types of inter-
action. ZIt hypothesizes about native speakers' use of com-
municative code choice information in various channels in
order to make sense of variations in the interaction in the
two types of negotiation situations. Specifically, this
"making sense“ includes awareness of the interaction as
differentially fecused (n1 mutual or competing goals, i.e.,
recognizing the situational differences created by the two
types of interaction.

Importance of the Question

 

Understanding adult communicative competence as the
ability to produce and interpret situated language requires
systematic examination of how the same speakers make
adjustments in their code choices in different situations
and how other speakers interpret those adjustments. While

there is general agreement that situations are marked by

4
differences (both linguistic and nonlinguistic) in inter-
action, there has been little empirical testing of that
proposition.

With the previous work (Diez, 1983a, 1983b), this study
addresses another neglected area :hi the study of interac-
tion: situations that occur as interactions between groups
and within groups. Giles (1979) notes that most of the
research on the relationship between person and situation
has been in one-to-one exchanges. Perhaps the emphasis is a
result of the ease of control in study of one-to-one inter-
action: perhaps it is because most small group research has
not yet moved in the direction of language variation as a
focus. Combining the two, however, is important because of
the pervasiveness of the small group context and because of
the power of language to create relationships of one type or
another (see Ryan & Giles, 1982).

Aside from the more general question of adult communica-
tive competence, the study of code choices in the two types
of negotiation settings fills a gap in the literature con-
cerning negotiation. Most research in negotiation within
the disciplines of economics and social psychology has con-
trolled or even eliminated communication processes in order
to test for other factors (for a review of this literature,
see Putnam & Jones, 1982a). From a communication perspec-
tive, it seems apparent that a clear understanding of the
process of negotiation or agreement-making is tied to under—
standing the interactants' communicative behavior (Donohue,

1978), both in production and interpretation of code choice.

5
This understanding, in turn, may contribute to our under-
standing of the impact of communicative choices on other
agreement-making situations.

Theoretical and Conceptual Issues

 

If communicative competence is the ability to produce
and interpret situated language (Hymes, 1972), then "situa—
tion" is an important notion in its study. While recogniz-
ing the controversies surrounding the "definition of the
situation," this study will not address the degree to which
the situation exists in the explicit consciousness of inter-
actants. Rather, situation will be defined as a set of
elements that, by convention, operate to make a given inter-
action type recognizable -— both to interactants and to
observers -- as one type of interaction rather than another.
Drawing from discussions of situation by Argyle (1981),
Avedon (1982), Hymes (1967), and Levinson (1978), four
elements that appear consistently will be used to define
situation for the purposes of this study. These elements
comprise the set of goals, roles, defined structures, and
topical restrictions proper to an interaction and have been
shown to be related in specific ways to the negotiation
context (Diez, 1983b). In focusing the question of the
effect of situation on communicative code choice, the main
proposition guiding this work is that the interrelationships
among aspects of communicative code choice vary depending on
specific constraints embedded in these four elements of a

given situation.

6

While this study is based on the assumption that lin-
guistic code choices are a powerful source of meaning in
negotiation interaction, a second assumption is that code
choices in negotiation are multichanneled, including both
linguistic and nonlinguistic elements. While researchers
have focused on one or the other set of elements as primary
in more general studies outside the situation of negotia-
tion, proponents of neither the linguistic focus nor the
nonverbal focus would argue that any channel carries the
total sum of communicative information in interaction.
Extending Mehrabian's (1972) idea of a "display package" to
include linguistic elements seems to be an apprOpriate way
to conceptualize the way the variety of code choices work
together. Such a view is consistent with Owsley and
Scotton's (1982) notion that communicative competence
includes a component ”which can sum incidences of related
features and evaluate them as percentages in relation to
some probability framework." Thus, while the study looks at
specific aspects of code choice, an operating assumption is
that these choices are part of a total "gestalt” created by
the sum of all code choices in the available channels.

A final conceptual element is the type of interaction
focused on in this study: negotiation. Researchers have
brought a variety of foci to negotiation research, but
common to all are elements of the situation described above.
Of particular importance is 2231, generally seen as falling

along a continuum from relatively more competitive to

7

relatively more cooperative (Bartos, 1974: Hagburg & Levine,
1976: King & Glidewell, 1980: Zartman, 1977), with negotia-
tion that takes place in the middle of the continuum, seen
as a "mixed-motive interaction" with elements of both
(Beisecker, 1970: Schelling, 1960: Walton & McKersie, 1965).
In relationship to goal, researchers have also focused on
degree of conflict and ways of handling conflict (Chertkoff
& Esser, 1976: Swingle, 1970), and on restrictions in the
possible resolution of conflict, e.g., zero—sum versus non-
zero-sum "games" (Roth & Malouf, 1979: Schelling, 1960).

Another aspect that often combines elements of role and
defined structures is the "setting" of the negotiation,
e.g., inter-organizational (Druckman, 1977: Hagburg &
Levine, 1976: Spector, 1977: Walton & McKersie, 1965),
intra-organizational (Walton & McKersie, 1965), interna-
tional politics (Schelling, 1960), and even interpersonal
problem solving (Fisher & Ury, 1981). Common to all is the
sense that, in the process of negotiation, the interactants
create or affirm relationships that fall (or move) along a
continuum from high conflict orientation (e.g., "distribu-
tive,” ”confrontational," or "competitive") to low conflict
orientation (e.g., ”integrative,” ”cooperative," or
”collaborative"), and that they arrive at decisions as
mutual outcomes.
Definition of Negotiation Competence

‘Combining this composite definition of negotiation as a

range of outcome-determining behavior along a continuum from

8

relatively more competitive to relatively more cooperative
goal orientation, with Hymes's (1972) notion of communica-
tive competence, a definition of negotiation competence can
be prOposed as

the ability of adult speakers to distinguish

and to draw upon a continuum of communicative

code choice in order to interpret and to

create or affirm both the relationships

between interactants and the limits of their

mutual decision-making processes.
This definition extends the earlier one in Diez (1983a) by
including elements of interpretation as well as of produc-
tion. Clearly, while interpretation is implied in produc-
tion, as a preliminary to knowing what can apprOpriately be
produced, the two skills are analytically separate compo-
nents of communicative competence. Having proposed this
conceptualization of negotiation competence, the next task
is to clarify more specifically what is involved in that
ability through the use of a set of rules to capture the

sense of a native speaker's tacit knowledge of the struc-

turing of interaction as negotiation.

CHAPTER II

A SET OF RULES FOR NEGOTIATION COMPETENCE

Communicative competence, the culturally determined
ability to use language functionally, in ways appropriate to
situations, is part of the native speaker's tacit knowledge.
Moreover, it is an ever-increasing capacity, through which
an adult speaker is able to adapt to requirements of new
situations, adding to his/her repertoire of social behavior.
"Rules" are conventionally used by ethnomethodologists and
conversational analysts to attempt to describe the organiza-
tion of this tacit knowledge (Erickson, 1982). Rules (also
called "norms" or ”principles”) are a means of accounting
for how the interactants' knowledge allows for the social
organization of interaction. Most researchers recognize
that, however the knowledge of communicative competence is
structured in the speaker-listener's cognitive equipment (as
schemata, for example), it is a flexible tool, Open to
ongoing refinement through experience and able to combine
rules for the very complex work of creating interaction with
others (see, for example, Erickson, 1982: Mehan, 1979).

Because the definition of negotiation competence implies
interaction taking place along a continuum, the proposed
rules are defined for the extreme ends of that continuum.

Of course, while much of interaction is conducted more

10

toward the center, the argument is that movement toward
either pole is interpreted by speaker-listeners out of their
tacit awareness of what choices and shifts in choice
communicate about the relationships being created. Rules,
then, are a kind of ”interpretative standard.” The more
talk is like either extreme condition of the continuum as
represented in the rule set, the more it will be interpreted
as that extreme. Similarly, when only partial signals are
available, those which are present provide an interpretive
frame, setting expectations about what is not available.

Three Types of Interaction ”Work" in Negotiation

 

Language scholars and social scientists have suggested
various ways of dividing up language function in order to
increase our understanding of it. Halliday (1973), for
example, identifies ideational, interpersonal, and textual
features as essential divisions. Others reflect only the
first two -- seen as content and relational aspects -- in
their own terminology (Ruesch & Bateson, 1951: Watzlawick,
Beavin & Jackson, 1967: Clark & Clark, 1977). Fewer, how-
ever, have shared Halliday's interest in the ”textual,"
although conversation/discourse analysts have begun to
explore questions of coherence in the text created in talk
(Ellis, Hamilton & Aho, 1983).

In an earlier study, Diez (1983a) combined a review of
negotiation and language literature with an examination of
three sets of naturalistic interactions, viz., inter-group

bargaining sessions (and intra-group» caucuses produced in

11

training exercises for experienced bargainers of the
Michigan Education Association. Setting aside the specific
content of the interactions (Halliday's ideational func-
tion), she proposed a conceptualization of three kinds of
interaction work exemplified in the interactions, work that
provided clear contrasts between the two situations.
”Coherence work” related to much of what Halliday discusses
in terms of his ”textual" function. "Distance work”
paralleled the interpersonal/relational categories in other
schemes. A new category, specific to the nature of the
interaction as an ongoing group process was also proposed --
"structuring work." This category included the means that
interactants use to regulate and direct larger “chunks” of
interaction and the ongoing patterns of organizing the
interactions. Following a brief review of the earlier
study, each type of work will be expanded to include non-
linguistic elements from the relevant literature and the set
of rules proposed by Diez (1983a) will be extended to
include those elements.

Coherence Work

 

Diez (1983a) argues that coherence work in interaction
is related to the goal position of the interactants relative
to each other. The more they share common goals, as well as
common background assumptions, the less need they will have
to make explicit what those goals and assumptions are. In
terms used by Halliday and Hasan (1976), the ”given” infor-

mation will tend to be both assumed and clear to the inter-

12
actants, and anything "new" will be interpreted within their
shared context. Thus, coherence work is often short-cut in
cooperative interaction, following Grice's (1975) maxim of
quantity: Don't say more than is necessary for the particu-
lar exchange.

When goals are not shared, or indeed are competing as in
zero-sum—game bargaining, then the need to make explicit
links is created and coherence work is elaborated. Compet—
itive bargainers cannot afford to be equivocal, lest the
other side interpret their point to the other side's
advantage. And, in competitive settings, argument cannot
easily stand on shared assumptions: even ”given” information
will be stressed to highlight the fact that both sides need
to recognize it as a basis for agreement. Grice's maxim is
still met, because the situation, the particular exchange,

defines differently what is necessary in the way of linking

 

and clarifying activity.

For linguistic choices, the impact was clear in the
analysis of the naturalistic group exchanges (Diez, 1983a)
and in the literature on language variation. Specifically,
links between ideas, and between "given" and ”new" informa-
tion will be more explicit in competitive interaction and
less explicit in cooperative interaction. The impact on
length of utterance and type of reference is detailed in the
rule set for each.

Extending the expectations to nonlinguistic elements

requires finding the correlates of explicit connections,

13
definitions and stress. In American English, for example,
prosody is an essential paraverbal carrier of connections
and stress, part of the redundancy built into speech along
with gestures and head movements (Bennett, 1982). Although
most of the literature on the use of the vocal channel has
been done in dyadic interaction, some expectations for
coherence work in group interaction that could be drawn
include differences in the two situations in use of voice.
When making connections clear for an audience that cannot be
assumed to share one's own position, speakers will likely
assume a firm, definite, and emphatic voice tone (Brandt,
1980: Costanzo, Markel, & Costanzo, 1969). In contrast, the
literature suggests that tentativeness in the vocal channel
would be expected when brainstorming or working out a
position -- combining with the linguistic structure element
of leaving sentences unfinished.

In other nonlinguistic channels, power-seeking /enacting
situations are usually marked by threatening or imposing
eye contact: in contrast, eye contact is more ”friendly” in
more cooperative or neutral settings (Druckman, Rozelle, &
Baxter, 1982: Henley, 1977). The impact of gesture is
likely two-fold: Given the shared understandings, the
interactants in a cooperative setting would be more likely
than those in the competitive setting to gesture in place of
words (for they can count on being able to say, implicitly,
"You know what I mean”). And the cooperative group's

gestures can be less controlled, for Goffman's (1959)

l4
observations about "back region” behavior would apply. Just
as their words can be irrelevant at times, they may show
less control in nonverbal behavior as well. The competitive
group, as "front region" actors in Goffman's terms, would be
likely to be more careful in creating their body appearance
and using body position and gesture to emphasize the
seriousness of their arguments.

In summary, the expectations are that the nonlinguistic
expressions will reinforce the coherence work of the lin-
guistic channel, creating synchrony in verbal, paraverbal,
and extraverbal elements. The creation of a gestalt
impression is an important factor in the reality of how
these elements work together in interaction, but it rakes
their separation difficult. Thus, while the rules attempt
to describe an analytical separation, they are not intended
to suggest that any one channel may be interpreted without
the functioning of the others being taken into account.

Two rule sets, one for each extreme position on the
negotiation continuum, are proposed for coherence work:

Rule Set Cl COHERENCE WORK RULES: Negotiation

Interaction at the Competitive Pole
If P (one negotiator or side) cannot assume knowledge on

the part of O (the other negotiator or side) or if P
does not want to allow 0 to redefine equivocal state-

ments

1) P will specify clearly what is ”given" and
what is "new” by structuring utterances with
clear referents and explicit relationships

2) P will tend to encode longer utterances

3) P's sentence structure will be, grammatically,
both complex and complete

4) P's vocal tone will be firm, definite, and

emphatic

15

5) P's gestures, body movement, and vocal stress
will be used to identify connection points and
major ideas in P's position

Rule Set C2 COHERENCE WORK RULES: Negotiation

Interaction at the COOperative Pole

If P (one speaker on a given side) can assume both
shared goals and shared frameworks for processing
information on the part of Q (another speaker on the
same side)

1) P will tend to leave connections implicit

2) P will use deictic references

3) P will tend to encode shorter utterances

4) P's sentence structure will often be ellip-
tical or incomplete

5) P's vocal tone will indicate some tentative-

ness when making suggestions (especially
during brainstorming stages of discussion)

6) P's voice will trail off, leaving utterances
unfinished

7) P will at times gesture in place of words

8) P's gestures and body movement or posture may

include undirected or uncontrolled elements

Distance Work

 

Distance work is closely tied to goal orientation of the
interactants: given shared and collaborative goals, inter-
actants will be relatively closer and reflect that psycho-
logical nearness in a variety of ways. Competitive goal
orientations, in contrast, will be expressed in increased
distance between the sides. While clearly parallel to what
others have called the interpersonal function (Halliday,
1973) or relational information (Watzlawick et al., 1967),
distance work in group settings is not simply interpersonal:
it involves the relationships between roles, positions,
and/or group identities as vufljd Diez (1983a) specified
three kinds of distance work characterizing exchanges in the

naturalistic interactions she examined. Each can be seen to

16
have nonlinguistic correlates of the aspects identified in
the earlier rule set for distance work.

Psychological distance, following Mehrabian's (1966,

 

1967: Wiener & Mehrabian, 1968) work on verbal immediacy, is
created by the relative directness of reference in inter-
action. IDiez notes the differences in teachers union
spokespersons' language when referring to the other side as
“you” versus ”the school board.” The latter is both more
indirect and more formal, a second indicator of psycholog-
ical distance. Formality and complexity of language and
sentence structure tend to create greater distance: infor-
mality and shared jargon minimize distance. Based on
Mehrabian's (1971, 1972) work; in exploring psychological
distance involving nonlinguistic features of interaction,
the expected correlates of increased linguistic distance
would be relatively erect posture, indirect body orientation
(including artifactual barriers like tables, books and
papers), the absence of touching, and serious or hostile (as
Opposed to friendly) eye contact. Those behaviors relating
to increased linguistic closeness would In: relatively re-
laxed posture, directness of body orientation, more friendly
eye contact, and the possibility of some touching (e.g., a
slap on the back, a punch as part of a joking exchange).
Restrictions against touching generally in group inter-
action, however, would be likely to apply in both inter-

action settings.

17

Social distance, or the creation of relative formality

 

/informality, is indicated in the verbal channel by some of
the same behaviors that do coherence work. Both Joos (1962)
and Gregory and Carroll (1978) link greater social distance
with increasingly complex vocabulary and sentence structure.
And Goffman (1959) notes that the use of humor, vulgarity,
slang and personal reference differentiates what he calls
"front region" and "back region" behavior -- only in the
latter, informal, setting are these forms expected. Non-
linguistic correlates of social distance work are parallel
to the expectations for coherence work. More controlled,
firm vocal tone would be expected in the creation of social
distance in the competitive situation. The greater freedom
of the cooperative setting is expected to allow ”looser”
speech patterns, with less attention to precision (for some
aspects of articulation differences, for example, see
Trager, 1958). The same freedom allows for occasional
irrelevancy and inattention, manifested in the verbal
channel in topic and in body movement in relaxation of
social constraints, for example, on the use of adaptors
(Goffman, 1959).

Finally, role distance adds a dimension of power/

 

solidarity, cued in linguistic choices by the use of
indirect versus direct forms. As noted in Diez (1983a),
role distance is also cued by the relative use of back-
channels and other supportive cues. Withholding reinforce-

ment is seen as a cue of a power differential being

18
recognized or created: increased supportive cues -- verbal,
vocal, and nonverbal -— create an increased sense of
solidarity.

In general, a review of the literature relating
nonverbal behavior and relational messages indicates that
nonlinguistic correlates of linguistic distance work
probably include manipulation of physical distance (see,
inter alia, Burgoon, 1978: Burgoon & Hale, 1981) use of
artifacts (Burgoon & Saine, 1978: Sommer, 1969), body
position (Burgoon, 1978: Henley, 1977: Kendon, 1970:
Scheflen, 1973), and gestures and facial expression (Burgoon
& Hale, 1981: Burgoon, Buller, Hale, & DeTurck, 1982). All
of these code choices may be involved in the production of
distance work. Again, however, it is the gestalt impression
of a variety of factors that appears to do the distance work
in interaction. So, while the rules suggest specific means,
they are not intended to suggest that these means operate
independently or that they are unaffected by other cues.
Rather, the cues operate in concert to produce the sense of
distance between interactants.

Again, two rule sets, one for each extreme position on
the negotiation continuum, are proposed for distance work:

Rule Set D1 DISTANCE WORK RULES: Negotiation

Interaction at the Competitive Pole

If P wants to establish a differential power relation-
ship with O

1) P will use linguistic forms to differentiate
between P and O (e.g., by using forms that
impose obligations on 0 while maintaining P's
rights)

2)

3)
4)
5)

6)

7)

Rule Set D

19

P will use less supportive language and fewer
supportive signals in the exchange (e.g.,
backchannels, head nods, eye contact)

I? will use more technical and formal vocabu-
lary in the exchange

P will use indirect references to both P and O
as teams

P will minimize direct body positions and
gestures of inclusion toward 0

P will maximize the use of controlling or
”power" indicators (e.g., body position, eye
contact, use of artifacts for separation or
distinction)

P will use a controlled vocal tone

2 DISTANCE WORK RULES: Negotiation

Interaction at the Cooperative Pole

If solidarity and shared goals are salient to P and Q in
the situation

1)

2)

3)
4)
5)

6)

7)

P and Q will use linguistic forms that empha-
size co-action and co-responsibility

P and Q will use supportive language and
frequent signs of support (e.g., backchannels,
nods, smiles, friendly eye contact)

P and Q will use informal vocabulary, includ-
ing humor and vulgarity as acceptable choices

P and Q will use more direct references to
each other and about 0

P and Q will orient toward one another in body
position, eye contact, and gestures

P and Q will create an atmosphere of friendly
interaction through their nonlinguistic
behavior choices, e.g., laughter, relaxed body
positions, relaxed vocal tone, and the possi-
bility of physical contact

I? and Q will show variation in attentiveness
tn) one another, occasionally segmenting into
subgroups engaging in separate (and possible
nontask focused) exchanges

Structuring Work

 

Differences in group interaction related to structuring

work are embedded in the differing goals of the two types of

interaction and in the presence or absence of constraints on

the form (i.e., the degree of ”definedness" of structure) of

each type.

Structuring work, as described by Diez (1983a)

involves larger patterns of exchange than those considered

20
by most discourse analysts. It specifically relates to the
process of interaction as managed by the group, including
allocation of floor time, procedures for turn—taking, types
of appropriate speech acts, and means of proposal formula-
tion and adjustment.

Diez noted a basic difference in turn-taking patterns in
the two types of negotiation situations, impacting the
definition of ”the floor" in the two situations. Competi-
tive interaction was marked by relatively smooth turn-
taking, with sides alternating in fairly fixed fashion.
Sides took lengthy turns at certain times in the interaction
-- for example, when presenting a series of proposals or
responding to a set of proposals that had been offered. The
cooperative interaction, in contrast, at times appeared to
be a "free-for-all,” with all the speakers talking at once,
overlapping in turns, or finishing each other's sentences.
Diez likened the c00perative interaction to Edelsky's (1981)
description of "shared floor” interaction. Of course, not
all parts of the cooperative interaction followed this
pattern: given the goal of setting a strategy for the inter-
group negotiation, the group had relatively long periods of
more "regular” allocation of the floor as well.

Clearly, these differences in ordering of the floor have
implications for any expectations about turn-taking signals.
Once again, more controlled and careful voice and gestural
cues in inter-organizational or ”front region" interaction

will be used to maintain the order appropriate to that

21
setting. Expected signals will more likely follow patterns
described in Duncan (1972). The overlaps in the intra-
organizational or "back region” situation will constitute a
different set of signals -- indicating synchrony of thought
and action as well as of the relaxation of constraints
present in the more formal situation (see related discuss-
ions in Kendon, 1982: West & Zimmerman, 1982). The
cooperative group interaction structuring work, while
tacitly clear to the participants, would probably be read by
outside observers as "chaotic," but Edelsky (1981) points to

its sui generis order.

 

Because inter-organizational negotiation is between
teams, it is a planned activity for the most part. The
nature of the exchange requires position or proposal making,
questioning, and repositioning as essential activities.
Paramount. in the inter-organizational distributive
bargaining setting is the goal of managing information and
its exchange in a way that will bring maximum benefit to
one's own side (Donohue & Diez, 1983). Thus, the careful
ordering of turn-taking is linked with the planned nature of
questioning and proposal making in moving the interaction in
the direction of the group's goals. Not surprisingly, many
of the expectations of the coherence work rules for this
kind of negotiation also bear upon structuring work rules
(see Keenan, 1978). The nonlinguistic cues will likely
include aspects of voice and gesture that also contribute to

a sense of control and orderly procedure.

22

The unplanned or "planning” nature of intra-organiza-
tional exchange creates a more diffuse, divergent structure,
reflected in the more simple coherence work rules first of
all. In larger structures, the same speech acts present in
more competitive interaction, especially questioning and
proposing, will also function, but they will be interpreted
differently in integrative intra-organizational bargaining,
given the group's shared goal orientation. combined with
the tentative, "planning" signals of the interaction will be
a sense that questions are attempts to share mutually bene-
ficial information and that proposals are on the floor as
shared formulations. Thus, while cooperative interaction
will appear spontaneous, it will also be unclear (or less
clear) where the "flow" is going, providing another contrast
with the more structured situation of inter-organizational
bargaining.

The rules proposed for structuring work combine expecta-
tions based on goal orientation and defined structures in

each of the two negotiation situations.

Rule 81 STRUCTURING WORK RULES: Negotiation
Interaction at the Competitive Pole
A. If P wants to manage information in the exchange

such that maximum information is elicited from O

l) P will use multiple question forms

2) P will follow answers to O's questions with
their own questions

3) P will maintain clear turn sequences with O

23

4) P's overall demeanor* will indicate the
"planned" nature of the interaction as well as
his/her seriousness

B. If P's purpose is to win as many arguments for
proposed actions as possible and to accept as few
of 0's prOposals as possible

1) P will avoid tentative expressions

2) P will conclude utterances firmly

3) P will not accept interruptions from O

4) P's manner will be formal and businesslike
Rule 52 STRUCTURING WORK RULES: Negotiation

Interaction at the COOperative Pole

A. If P and Q are focused on planning their joint
strategy with relationship to O

1) P and Q will use brief and varied utterance
types
2) The flow Of the interaction will appear un-

planned and spontaneous

3) P and Q's talk will be characterized by talk-
overs and interruptions

4) P and Q will at times talk at the same time
about the same idea

B. If P is Open to Q's modification of proposed
actions or statements

1) P will encode utterances with tentative ex-
pressions and expressions of solidarity with Q
2) P will leave utterances unfinished to invite

completion by Q
3) P will allow Q to interrupt
4) P's demeanor will be informal and relaxed

Rules: Mechanisms for Interpretation and Production

 

While these rule sets are proposed as descriptive of
negotiation interaction at the Opposing poles Of more compe-
titiwe and more COOperative interaction, it must be noted
that they represent a theorectical view of probable inter-
action at those poles, and not in general. As noted by

Putnanl and .Jones (1982b), inter-organizational bargaining

24

can and must be integrative as well as distributive if
groups are ever to come to agreements. There is, in the
most basic sense, a necessary "cooperation" if groups are to
produce interaction at all. Yet, in terms of a competitive
bargaining team's overall goals in a zero-sum-game situa-
tion, these rules will guide the teams' mutual structuring
of the interaction as competitive.

Similarly, intra-organizational bargaining does not
occur solely at what the rules describe as the COOperative
pole. There can be extremely tense and serious moments and
periods of conflict in intra-group bargaining, particularly
when the group is working out a plan or a decision in which
personal ideas or positions become competitive. Yet, again,
the overall description Of a group who share goals and are
engaged in attaining mutually beneficial outcomes will
reflect interaction in the direction Of the behaviors
described for the cooperative pole.

Indeed, the conception of there being two poles Of
interaction is the mechanism that allows us to describe what
is happening when a basically collegial group shifts toward
a situation Of conflict or when a group engaged in
distributive bargaining shifts in the final stages of
agreement-making toward a consensus. The rules function as
a standard against which speakers can interpret sets of

behavioral cues.

25
Tests of the Rules Sets as Production Mechanisms

In previous research, the three sets of rules have been
tested in relationship to the production of interaction as
negotiation along the continuum from relatively more coop-
erative to relatively more competitive. Diez's study
(1983b), for example, was an attempt to carefully analyze
elements Of the production of negotiation interaction,
particularly in relationship to lexical and structural
complexity, indications of solidarity, and turn-taking. In
general, the findings of that study provided initial support
for a number of elements in the rule sets. Table 1 sum-
marizes the findings of Diez (1983b) in relationship to
specific rules.

In other studies related to aspects of structuring work,
Donohue, Diez and Hamilton (1983) provided an analysis of
competitive negotiation interaction strategies. Their
findings indicate that bargainers use both responses to
others' utterances and cues intended to constrain the
others' next utterance in order to manage information,
position the issues in negotiation, and narrow the range of
Options for settlement. While these researchers have not
extended this work to the more COOperative situation, they
do note (as do Putnam & Jones, 1982b) that these patterns
shift as the bargainers enter into more integrative phases

of the negotiation.

26

H
m

Hoo. v a .mms.mmv

u
p

Hoo. v a .me.o

moo. v a .m.~m u Nx

H
h

Hoo. v a .sm~.m-

pmfimflmmmao wauoouuou
wwmmo wnu mo whh

«muHDmmm COflUMUflHflMOMHU

000. v a .mm.mom umx
mH.u«

 

wocmofiuficmfim ecu muasmmm

mZOHB<DBHm ZOHEU¢mmBZH UZHZHdUMflm

oucmfium>
mo mwm>amc¢

memos mo umwulu

wmumsdmlwzu

mucmwum>
mo mflm>aoc¢

mwm>amc¢
passwefluomwa

 

new: umme

muw>oxamu II
oocmmnm\mocommum

wucmuwuus
mo numcwa :mmz

meuwu
OwuuchIOwuomll
wamccmnoxomnll
mocmmnm\oocwmmum

ancH aufiawnmcwuqu
chcH mom m.m:wccsw
mufixmameou Hmofiuumuc>m
wufixoaaeou Housuonuum

 

mmumwa moanmfium>

AOwamulcusuv
COHuflmcouu no memos
ecu no can pooHu

mo COADOOOHHO

mo mousmmwz

 

Kmoz OZHMDBUDMBm

madness
asoum uo wufiumcfiaom
O>wumamu mo mwuzmmmz

 

MmOS MUZ<BmHD

nonwuummlmuucfi 0cm
HMCOwumNficmmuOIuoucfi
may zmflsmchumme
aaummao wufixwameou
Hmowuumucwm can
HMwawH mo mwusmmwz

 

KmOZ mvzmmmmou

Anmmma .waav

038 ZH MUHOEU mDOU BDOm¢ MOZHDZHm m0 dezZDm

.H OHDMB

27

Donohue and Diez (1983) examined specific speech acts in
relationship to the management of information in distribu-
tive bargaining. Their findings suggest that bargainers use
questions and directives to gain and maintain interaction
rights and to impose Obligations on their Opponents. Fin-
ally, Diez (1982) compared specific speech act forms in the
two types of bargaining interaction and found significant
differences in the use of directives, providing some support
for the aspects of the rule set related to speech act
choice. She also noted that these choices were patterned in
ways that clearly defined relational messages, a distance
work function.

The previous studies focused on aspects Of negotiation
competence related in) the production of negotiation inter-
action in one or both Of the extreme situations. If nego—
tiation competence is marked by the ability to both produce
and interpret interaction appropriate to a range Of bar—
gaining behavior, then the rule set also needs to be tested
through an examination of the responses of native speakers
to paradigm examples of these types of interaction (i.e.,
examples Of behavior close to the poles identified as coop—
erative and competitive). Such a test is provided in the
experimental study described and analyzed in the following

chapters.

CHAPTER III
A STUDY OF THE INTERPRETATION
OF NEGOTIATION INTERACTION

Using the expanded rule sets proposed in Chapter II, the
following study was undertaken as a test Of the rules pro-
posed for negotiation competence in relationship to the
interpretation of interaction. Interpretation of human
interaction is a process that operates on a multitude of
simultaneously occurring behaviors in real time. It can be
conceptualized as an ongoing "gestalt" process, with inter-
actants responding to and reflexively creating meaning
through choices in multiple communicative modes. Returning
to the image Of a continuum, this interpretive process may
be envisioned as a rapid-fire "summing” procedure, adding
all the behavioral indicators together and placing the total
along the continuum as a way Of inferring what kind of
interaction is being created. In the mutually constitutive
work of interactants, the production process draws upon the
same standard, as interactants make choices that affirm the
situational definithm: or attempt to shift aspects of the
current definition. It is thus hard to separate the two
skills of interpretation and production: in actual inter—
action the work guided by interactants' communicative compe—

tence occurs so quickly that it is never totally conscious.

28

29

In order to provide interpretation as an interactant's
skill, however, aspects may be separated out experimentally,
recognizing that the result may approximate but not
reproduce what actually happens within interactants in real
time experience of interaction. For such examination to be
useful, specific requirements must be met in any experi-
mental study Of interpretation skill as part of a speaker's
negotiation competence. First, any study of interpretation
of interaction in the two situations of contrast —- rela-
tively more competitive and relatively more cooperative goal
oriented interaction -- would need to establish a priori
that the target interactions represented examples of situa-
tions of those two types. Second, such a study would need
to be able to examine the use Of limited code choice infor—
mation as an interpretive standard in the assessment made by
Observers of that interaction.

Criteria for Sample Interactions

 

In order to examine whether native speakers recognize
the differences in situations based on the behaviors present
in the interaction, criteria to determine clear examples Of
relatively competitive and relatively cooperative inter-
action need to be identified and met by any sample inter-
action. For purposes of testing interpretation skill, it is

important that

1) the situations be of group interaction

2) the speakers represent the same general speech
community as the Observers

3) the same speakers be involved in all the sample (to

eliminate idiosyncratic speech differences that
might confound the results)

30
4) the interaction be as close to the poles of com-
petitive and cooperative goal—orientation as possi-
ble, representing the four situation-defining
elements of goals, roles, defined structures, and
topical constraints

These criteria were met in the use Of excerpts from
simulated negotiation interactions produced in a training
session conducted tut the Michigan Education Association as
an in-service, yearly training session for their regular,
professional bargaining staff. The session consisted of a
two-day bargaining marathon to reach agreement on a contract
dispute that was actually negotiated in a different state.
As a result the bargaining parameters were quite realistic.
Both sides of the case (management and union) were nego-
tiated by union people role-playing their respective sides,
five members on a side. The participants, five men and five
women, included persons of varied ethnic and racial back-
ground, similar to the background common in urban areas Of
Michigan. Thus, the interactions met the first three
criteria.

Fulfilling the last criterion, these interactions repre-
sented exchanges characteristic of the two poles of the
continuum described in the rule sets. Interactants in the
inter-organizational setting were directed to try to get the
best possible set of outcomes for their side, thus building
in a strong competitive goal definition Of the situation.
In the intra-organizational sessions, caucuses among members

(of a single side, the interactants had the common goal Of

planning their strategy to achieve the common goal. Thus,

31
these sessions tended toward the cooperative pole. Using
role-playing situations to examine interaction may be prob-
lematic, e.g., if the impact of constituent responses or
long-term effects constrain the possible use of behaviors.
But it can be argued that role-playing situations are par-
ticularly appropriate for establishing the goal orientation
of samples of interaction. First, because the interactions
were produced as training sessions, including explicit
directions about what the goals were to be, we may have
confidence that they represent a negotiation activity type,
as identified by those directions. Second, while many
exchanges Of naturalistic bargaining in actual contract
talks are complicated by relationships outside the bargain-
ing table (e.g., a history of past exchanges or relation-
ships with constituents), these role-played interactions are
relatively "clean." Factors that may alter interaction
patterns in unpredictable ways are removed by the role-

playing activity while still preserving the formal con-

 

straints of the bargaining situation. Third, these inter-
actions nonetheless represent "real" bargaining behavior
because the interactants, as professional bargaining staff
who have acted out this type of group interaction before,
are creating a situation that is familiar both in the issues

to be discussed (or topical constraints) and in the manner

 

of relating to others in the roles that are embedded in the

situation.

32

Information Conditions

 

Given situations that can confidently be identified as
paradigm examples of the two types of goal orientation in
negotiation situations, the second requirement is to separ-
ate Out the information used by observers to interpret the
interaction. Generally, observers in naturalistic negotia-
tion interaction are able to work from ”complete” inter—
action information: they not only have contextual background
information, but they can draw upon full sensory informa-
tion. While previous studies have examined only the written
mode record of interactions (Diez, 1982: Donohue & Diez,
1983: Donohue et al., 1983), only the audio mode (Putnam &
Jones, 1982b), or a combination of the written and audio
modes (Diez, 1983b), observers of interaction usually work
out meaning from visual information as well. Since it is
becoming more and more clear that the written mode creates a
different sort of "text“ (see Ong, 1982), any study of
interaction should extend the stimuli used to the audio and
visual modes.

The present study uses the same excerpts of the simu-
lated negotiation interaction in video, audio and written
conditions, to examine the degree to which the amount and
kind of code choice information affects the Observers'
ability to interpret the same interaction. For the more
limited information conditions, it also examines how accu-
rately the observers can predict what would be appropriate

behavior in the missing channels. Thus, one question of

33
interest is whether the rules as an ”interpretive standard”
operate not only to make sense of the information present in
the recorded interaction, but also serve as an interpretive
frame, "filling in" aspects Of interactive work unable to be
directly observed.

It should be noted, however, that even in the video
condition, no Observers in this study have access to as much
information as actual participants would have had. Due to
college students' limited experience with formal collective
bargaining as a specific subsituation within negotiation
contexts, they are lacking some essential contextual infor-
mation in all three situations. Moreover, the video condi-
tion is mediated, effectively removing the feedback present
between interactant as producer and interactant as observer
for the respondent as Observer. And the video condition is
also limited by the camera's choice of frame at any given
moment, recording only part of what could have been seen by
an interactant free to orient at will to various aspects of
the total scene. (For discussions of the limitations of
video recordings, see Erickson, 1982: Grimshaw, 1982).
Hypotheses and Research Questions

Based on the definition of negotiation competence as the
ability Of adult speakers to both interpret and produce
interaction appropriate to a range of negotiation situations
along a competitive-cooperative continuum, and on the rule
sets idescribed for interaction ‘work, the following hypo-

theses are proposed:

34

Hypothesis 1: Observations of communicative code choice
elements made by respondents reading transcripts Of
inter-organizational and intra-organizational
negotiation interaction will differ significantly

in the two situational conditions.
Because this condition will have the least information
available, a research question is proposed to examine what
expectations these Observers have about the missing code

choice information.

Research Question 1; Will projections Of behavior not

 

observed also distinguish between the two condi—
tions?

For the audio condition, the hypothesis and research
question proposed are:

Hypothesis 2: Observations of communicative code choice
elements made by respondents listening to trans-
cripts of inter-organizational and intra-organiza-
tional negotiation interacation will differ signi-
ficantly in the two situational conditions.

Research Question 2: Will projections Of behavior not
Observed also distinguish between the two situa-
tional conditions?

And finally, for the video condition:

Hypothesis 3: Observations of communicative code choice
elements made by respondents viewing video-tapes of
inter-organizational and intra-organizational
negotiation interaction will differ significantly
in the two situational conditions.

While hypothesizing the differences for each medium, the
study will investigate another research question regarding
the relationships among the three conditions.

Research Question 3: What will be the relationship, if
any, between the three conditions? E.g., will they
be parallel in their Observation and prediction Of
negotiation behavior in the two situational condi-
tions? Will the fuller information of the video
condition, for example, be more useful to Observers
in identifying differences between the two types of
interaction? Or will the interpretive framing of

35
the situation as a particular kind of negotiation
allow for accurate projection of the ”display pack-

age" regardless of the amount and kind of informa-
tion?

METHOD

Sample

Two hundred and fifty-two undergraduate volunteers were
randomly assigned to one of the three media conditions, and
to one Of the situation/excerpt conditions within the
medium. The volunteers were drawn from various undergradu-
ate courses at Michigan State University and an equal number
of male and female students were included in the sample.
Design

.A three (media condition) by two (inter- or intra-
organizational situation) factorial design, with three
stimulus excerpts nested within situation, was used to test
the proposed hypotheses. The use of three excerpts for each
situation was included as a random variable, to guard
against any findings being the result Of the specific
messages Of a given excerpt of interaction. The responses
of 252 subjects, 84 per medium (42 per situational condition
and 14 per excerpt), assured a power of .80 (Cohen & Cohen,
1975).

Procedure

 

Selection of subjects. Students in undergraduate

 

courses were recruited as volunteers: each received extra
credit for their participation. Participants were randomly

assigned to the experimental conditions. There were an

36
equal number of male and female students assigned to each
cell.

Selection of stimuli. Using videotapes of interaction

 

produced at training sessions for professional bargaining
staff Of the Michigan Education Association, three excerpts
approximately five minutes in length were chosen for each of
the two situations. The selection criteria included the
following:

1) The excerpt constitutes an ”episode” within the
larger interaction, i.e., the topic: of its
discussion is able to be followed without seeing
the earlier parts of the videotape

2) The camera work allows for Observers to see the
nonverbal behavior of most of the participants in
the interaction

3) The sound track of the video is relatively clear

4) The excerpt does NOT include ”out Of role” behavior
(e.g., the role-playing participants talking about
the role-play_3§_role-play, or about their ”other
identities" in contrast to the activity of the
role-play)

After selection Of the six excerpts, audio tapes and written
transcripts of each were prepared. Care was taken in deter-
mining the form Of the written transcripts to indicate where
in a current speaker's utterance another speaker began. The
six written excerpts are included in Appendix A.

Measures. Observations by the participants were made

 

through the use of a set of Likert-type scales, intended to
tap their interpretation of the interaction. These Inter-
pretation Of Interaction Scale items were constructed using
the rule set generated in Diez (1983a), with the additions
of nonlinguistic elements as discussed in Chapter II. The

scales used in each media condition are the same for items

37

not including direct observation of vocal or visual cues.
In the audio and written media conditions, the words ”I
imagine that” were inserted before measures that the parti—
cipants in those conditions could not have observed
directly. The use of this means of extrapolation allows for
some examination of the degree to which partial information
may be used by interactants to project expectations in
keeping with some interpretive frame. See Appendix B for
the scale items for each condition.

Specific Instructions. For each group of participants

 

(all 14 in the case of the written mode for each message
condition, groups of 7 at a time for the audio and video
modes), the experimenter explained that they were to view/
listen to/ read an excerpt from a group interaction, using
the following directions:

"You are going to view/listen tO/read a short
excerpt of a group interaction. It is not the
entire tape/transcript of this group's meeting, and
it begins when the meeting is already in progress.
After you view/listen tO/read it, you will be asked
to fill out a questionnaire about your sense of the
meeting, so we ask that you view/listen tO/read
carefully. You will not be asked about factual
details of the topics under discussion.”

When the stimulus had been presented, the experimenter
gave instructions on filling out the scales, using the
following script:

"Here are a number of statements to be used in
judging the interaction that you have just viewed/
listened tO/read. Please circle the number from 1
to 7 that best reflects your opinion. For in-
stance, if you strongly agree with a statement,
circle a 1. If you disagree somewhat strongly,
circle a 6 and so on. If you are neutral or not
sure, circle a 4. Please do not leave any blank."

38

When the questionnaires had been collected, the experi-
menter debriefed the participants about the purposes Of the
experiment and asked for their cooperation in not talking
about the procedures to anyone else, since the experiment
was conducted over the period of a week.

Analysis

Principal components factor analysis with varimax
rotation was used to identify clusters of items in the
Interpretation of Interaction Scale. Three criteria were
used to determine the number of factors to be used in the

analysis. To be included, factors had to

l) have eigenvalues greater than 1
2) account for at least 10% of the common variance
3) met the scree test for the total number of factors.

Thirty-one items were recoded before the factor analysis
was conducted to make all the items equivalent on the 1 - 7
scale. The expected direction for items related to the
cooperative situation was toward 1 and that for items re-
lated to the competitive situation was toward 7.

Because the measures in the scales included both iden-
tical items across media conditions (36 items) and items
which differed in their use Of "I imagine that" with be-
haviors not able to be directly observed in audio and/or
written conditions (24 items), two separate factor analyses
were conducted. Ini both, there emerged a clear pattern Of
three factors, shown in Table 2 and Table 3. For the first
and largest factor, the two analyses produced quite similar

results. Items loading highly on this factor, distance,

39

Table

Factor Analysis:
SCALE ITEM F

Eager to cooperate

Turns short

(Thoughts unclear)*
Interchange friendly
(Interchange like debate)
. (Topic clear)

10. Interactants on same side
12. Control was in group

13. (Wanted different outcomes)
14. Vocabulary easy

16. (In conflict)

17. Sentences left unfinished
l9. (Interchange formal)

20. Flow of talk unclear

21. Um hum or ”Yes”

24. Same goals

27. Supportive of each other
28. (Turns long)

31. (Vocabulary difficult)
32. (Followup on comments)
34. Simple sentences

36. (Each wanted to control)
39. (Complex sentences)

40. United in what wanted

41. (Careful in speech acts)
42. (Divided into sides)

43. Repeated each other's words
45. (Tried to put each other
on the spot)

Wanted same outcomes
Spontaneous in speech acts
(Hostile or unfriendly)
(Not cooperative)
(Thoughts complete)

(Like debate)

(Careful in word choice)
Spontaneous

OU'IIbWNl-fl
o o o o

47.
50.
51.
S4.
55.
57.
58.
60.

Percentage of variance
accounted for

2.

ACTOR 1

.65987
-.27713
-.11390

.72753

.62248
-.01770

.73925

.16445

.45246

.03786

.49016

.02108

.52090
-.08426

.12580

.63143

.69634

.28583

.03610
-.l6484

.13116

.44703

.20643

.65718

.16188

.70582

.01710

.65814
.71801
.36268
.75444
.74353
.07254
.64411
.19756
.33950

58.4

Common Scale Items

FACTOR 2

-.02635
.16033
.61884
.04115
.12491
.61212
.08690
.07540
.09089

-.36225
.03222
.59402
.34750
.62918
.42858
.07401

-.08475
.19118
.14660
.13322

-.l2899

-.l7721

-.01074

-.01911
.60511
.14937
.07957

.03269
.15324
.49621
.00454
-.1ll77
.74191
.03639
.69433
.43711

28.8

FACTOR 3

-.l7476
-.05137
.05579
-.09368
.11389
.06865
.02530
-.21846
.06153
.41868
.14328
-.l7359
.04438
-.l4529
-.25375
-.06094
-.l4394
-.06503
.68021
.24924
.53722
.19442
.57434
.01360
.15886
-.01198
-.01875

.25080
-.Ol975
-.06213

.01824
-.05125
-.1l3l3

.16155

.28634
-.08180

13.6

 

*Items recoded with reverse values are enclosed in

parentheses

SCALE ITEM FACTOR 1
1. Eager to cooperate .60757
2. Turns short .25702
3. (Thoughts unclear)* -.08938
4. Interchange friendly .73593
5. (Interchange like debate) .59508
6. (Topic clear) -.00073
7. Voices friendly/relaxed .65148
8. (NO touching) .22205
9. (Spoke slowly/deliberately) .20240

10. Interactants on same side .70791
11. (Talked like politicians) .05750
12. Control was in group .11639
13. (Wanted different outcomes) .43393
14. Vocabulary easy .06495
15. Gestured in place of words .01549
16. (In conflict) .47906
17. Sentences left unfinished .01674
18. Talked like friends .58858
19. (Interchange formal) .59144
20. Flow of talk unclear -.10550
21. Um hum or "Yes” .09855
22. Relaxed posture/movements .58086
23. All said same thing at once .05978
24. Same goals .60246
25. (Voices carefully

controlled) .01305
26. (Gestures controlled) -.09477
27. Supportive of each other .67636
28. (Turns long) .25695
29. Left end Of turns hanging .09921
30. Nodded supportively .31331
31. (Vocabulary difficult) .07561
32. (Followup on comments) -.l3328
33. (Eye contact cold) .62102
34. Simple sentences .14340
35. Appeared warm/friendly .78840
36. (Each wanted to control) .46418
37. (Stress on important words) .04245
38. Eye contact relaxed/

friendly .78459
39. (Complex sentences) .22213
40. United in what wanted .61950
41. (Careful in speech acts) .18066
42. (Divided into sides) .66538
*Items recoded with reverse values

40

Table 3.

Factor Analysis:

parentheses

Total Scale Items

FACTOR 2

-.01153
.15104
.61977
.02329
.14908
.58068

-.08389
.22518
.55446
.09784
.24297
.06397
.07178

-.33109
.13295
.04960
.59192
.20635
.36074
.59682
.47002
.08626
.40207
.07360

.54485
.34524
-.10312
.19789
.65520
.17390
.17856
.12973
.20708
-.07611
.09599
-.19055
.13171

.12641
.00588
-.04259
.59649
.15999

are

FACTOR 3

.25596
.17076
.07330
.16468
.06883
.06750
.07189
.06730
.16309
.02677
.35880
.26039
.08093
.20976
.33460
.14633
.20178
.19933
.00255
.14249
.35553
.02914
.43102
.13806

.04020
.36573
.23844
.23642
.21833
.36301
.52607
.39494
.15460
.27401
.14468
.25716
.38228

.05071
.24529
.08968
.10528
.04104

enclosed in

41

Table 3 (cont'd)

43. Repeated each other's words .03003 .08350 .17475
44. Excited, talked at once .08896 .48337 .56365
45. (Tried to put each other

on the spot) .68599 -.01698 -.21458
46. (Appeared formal/stiff) .66973 .24200 -.07295
47. Wanted same outcomes .61296 .07203 .09743
48. (Ends turns decisively) .18235 .60249 -.03470
49. (Voices tense) .43686 .44485 -.l8742
50. Spontaneous in speech acts .35395 .47881 .13589
51. (Hostile or unfriendly) .78311 -.02477 .07363
52. Hesitated or stumbled -.08954 .63457 —.01468
53. (Tension in posture) .65456 -.02186 -.09870
54. (Not cooperative) .73734 -.12062 .08583
55. (Thoughts complete) .05621 .74569 .13536
56. Gave support signals .40064 .15131 .31266
57. (Like debate) .64263 .03970 -.13774
58. (Careful in word choice) .22846 .67669 -.23637
59. (Interruptions angry) .60379 -.13954 -.l9305
60. Spontaneous .33463 .41846 .13693

Percentage of variance
accounted for 67.0 21.7 11.3

 

were measures related to goal relationships between inter-
actants (e.g., items related to cooperation, being on the
”same side” Of the issues, relative amount of conflict,
likeness to debate, etc.) and measures related to affective
aspects (e.g., relative friendliness, formality and expres-
sion of supportiveness). These items loaded consistently on
distance in both analyses. In the total item analysis, the
distance factor accounted for 67% of the variance: in the
common item analysis, this factor accounted for 58.4% of the
variance. In the common item analysis, coefficient alpha
for the 17 items loading on the distance factor was .92.

For the other two factors, structuring and coherence,

 

 

there was some overlapping, with a few items loading on one

42

factor in the common items analysis and on the other in the
total items analysis. In general, however, structuring was
defined by measures related to relative spontaneity (e.g.,
the interactants' care in choice of speech acts and word-
ing), clarity Of direction (e.g., in the flow of the inter-
action and the completeness of sentences), and verbal back—
channels. In the total item analysis, floor issues also
loaded on this factor (e.g., the degree to which speakers
all talked at once). In the total item analysis, the
structuring factor accounted for 21.7% of the variance: in
the common items analysis, this factor accounted for 28% of
the variance. Coefficient alpha reliabilities for the ten
items included in this factor in the common items factor
analysis was .83.

The factor defining the third set of items, coherence,
was limited to elements of vocabulary and sentence structure
in the common items analysis (e.g., relative difficulty Of
vocabulary and complexity of sentences). Items appearing in
the total item analysis included other coherence work
descriptions like ”Speakers followed up on each other's
comments." But key coherence work expectations like length
of utterance did not load clearly on any factor in either
analysis. In the total item analysis, the coherence factor
accounted for 11.3% of the variance: in the common item

analysis, this factor accounted for 13.6% of the variance.

43
The coefficient alpha reliabilities for the four items
included in this factor in the common items analysis was
only .70.

Factor scores from the common items factor analysis were
computed, producing three scores per respondent and preserv-
ing the variation present from all 34 common items on each
factor. Because the use of factor scores in the analysis
made the three dependent variables necessarily orthogonal,
three separate analyses of variance were computed. With
excerpt-stimulus nested within situation and situation
crossed with medium, the model is

+

=u+d.+8j+(a8)ij+y ik(j) eijk

Yijk 1 ') + (a1)

k(J

Since the random variable excerpt-stimulus is nested within
situation, Bj is tested against Yk(j)° The appropriate
error term for ”1 and (a8)ij is the residual Of the Medium X
Situation two-way table, (ow ) ik(j)’ which is the inter-
action effect Of (1. and y k(j); (‘wy)ik(j) and Yk(j) are

1

tested against the within-cells error term.

Results

Hypotheses and Research Question 3

 

Hypotheses l, 2 and 3 predicted differences between
situational conditions in the observations made about
communicative code choice by respondents in each medium.

The summary for distance as the criterion variable (Table 4)

44

HO. v are

 

 

omem. vmm mmmor.mma AmHHwO :flcufixv Hospfimwm

va. mmmbm. bmmvm. m mmovm.v cofiumsuwm cflnufis usasefium x sawed:
HBO. mmwma.m vMHHN.H v bmmvm.v COAumsufim segues msHsEfium
vum. mmoma. mmvbo. N mnmva. cofiumsuflm x Snaps:
omo. mmwm~.m mammb.fi m Hmvwm.m Esficwz
*«Hoo. mmmoa.wh Ohwma.mm H Oboma.mm coflumsuwm
o H o acouncou

m .mO .ZOHm m mm<DOm Zfimz mn— mmmfioom .mO ZDm ZOHB<Hm¢> .mO mmumDOm

manmfium> COwuwufiuO

mm mocmumwo nufi3 mocmfium> wo wwwwfimc< “wanna wumEEsm

v magma

45

reveals a significant main effect for situation (p < .001).
Neither medium nor any of the interaction terms was signifi-
cant. Since the significance level Of medium was .09,
deviation contrasts were used to probe the effect of that
independent variable. EH1 a series of contrasts computed,
none of the three estimated parameters for the media condi-
tions was significantly different from the grand mean or
from either Of the others, indicating that situation
accounts for the variance in observations of code choices
related to distance. This supports hypotheses 1, 2 and 3
and it pmevides a partial answer for research question 3:
There appear to be no differences among media in the identi-
fication of communicative code choice elements related to
distance work.

For the second factor, structuring (Table 5), there were
no significant main effects and no interaction effect for
medium and situation. Both interactions including the
nested random variable, stimulus excerpt, were significant.
Due to the empty cells present, the parameters of these
interaction effects were not estimable (Hull & Nie, 1981)
and could not be probed through the use of contrasts. (See
Table 8 in Appendix C for the overall factorial design dis-
play, including the means for each factor by situation and
medium). Probing the effects for medium, however, revealed
a significant contrast between the written condition and the
grand mean (p < .007), but no significant contrasts for the

audio (p = .076) or video (p = .166) conditions. Helmert

46

mo. v Qt

 

 

vmmhm. vmm Vuwom.mmH AmHHmO chuHBV Hmschmm

«Hmo. whon.~ bHomm.H m mmmwm.oH coHumsuHm cngHs msHsEHum x ESHOO:
so vavm.m ommvb.m v ovvmm.mm coHumsuHm cHnuHa msHseHum
VNH. moan.~ Hmmmm.m m Hmhwm.h coHumsuHm x EDHOOZ
Hoo. MHHmo.v wmmHv.m m mmmmm.oH Esprz
mbo. SSMHm.m bonv.mm H bonv.mm coHumsuHm
o H o ucmumcoo

m m0 .ZOHm mmdDOm z¢mz he mmmdoom m0 20m ZOHB¢Hm<> m0 mmomDOm

anmHum> coHuwuHuO mm

mcHusuosuum zqu oucmHum> mo mHm>Hmc¢ uanmB wumEEsm

m anma

47

contrasts indicated differences between written and audio (p
= .007), written and video (p = .012), but not between audio
and video (p = .773). Thus, while the analysis of variance
with structuring as the criterion variable does not lend
support to the hypotheses, the deviation contrasts provide
some information for Research Question 3: There is an
indication of differences between media in relationship to
structuring work.

For the third factor, coherence (Table 6), there were no
significant main effects and no interaction effect for
medium and situation. Again, while both interactions
including the random nested variable, stimulus excerpt, were
significant, the presence of empty cells precluded
estimation of the parameters of these interaction effects:
no contrasts were able to be computed. (Again, see Table 8
in Appendix C for cell means by factor). Deviation
contrasts indicated IN) significant differences between any
medium and the grand mean, and no contrasts between media
were found using Helmert contrasts. The analysis of
variance with coherence as the criterion variable thus
provides no support for the three hypotheses. And, with
regard to Research Question 3, there appear to be no clear
contrasts among media related to coherance work.

Research Questions 1 and 2

 

Research Questions 1 and 2 addressed the 24 items not
included in the common item analysis. Since a factor

analysis conducted with the sample size of 84 for each

HO. v Q ««

 

 

mo. v Q «

OHmom. vmm mmmmm.NvH AOHHOU CHSUHBV HMDCHmwm

«kQRY HGMbw.N homN©.H m OvaO.MH COwumsuHm Cwnufi3 msHSEHum x Esfiwwz

so mhmOH.m Nthm.v v hmmvb.mH COwumsuwm cfinuw3 MDHDEHum

8 van. 505mm. NHowm. N mmmhb. COflumsuwm x ESHUOS
4

000. Ommmo.v mvooo.® N Nmomm.mH EDHCOS

who. Nwmom. mmooo.H H mmooo.H COMumzuHm

O H O ucmuwCOU

b m0 .ZUHm m mmflDOW Z<mz ha WMM€DOW m0 ZDW ZOHBflHm¢> ho mWUMDOm

wHemHum> coHuwuHuO mm mocwumcou cqu mocmHum> mo mHm>Hmc< uanme hnMEEsm

o OHDOB

49

medium would not produce stable factors, a series of t-tests
for each medium, including all 24 noncommon items, was con-
ducted. Because the items were all coded to reflect higher
values as expected for negotiation at the competitive pole
and lower values expected for negotiation at the COOperative
pole, one—tailed t-tests were used. The alpha level was
protected by computing the critical value of p at (.05/24),
p = .002.

As shown in Table 7, not all items were significant in
distinguishing the two types of negotiation situations.
Five items failed to produce a significant difference
regardless of medium (#11, #15, #26, #37, #59). Of the 19
items for which a significant difference in the expected
direction was found in one or more Of the media conditions,
11 were correctly predicted by the written medium respon-
dents. <1f the items remaining in the audio medium condi-
tion, respondents identified ten for which they had informa-
tion in the audio channel (and identified them in the
expected direction) and predicted nine (all but one of the
remainder) in the expected direction. In the video
condition, where respondents had all the information
possible in mediated observation, only ten of the 19 were
identified as distinguishing the two situations, but all ten

were in the expected direction.

owooo omuw>wu««
moo. v Q "HO>OH manm uuououm ou Oceanusnomo

 

50

 

moo. mHHo. moo. Axumco mcoHumsuuouCHv .mm
mos. «moco. «coo. oHocoHo uuooooo o>oo .om
mmHo. mooo. «Hoo. Aooouooc co :oHoooao .mm
coo. «mocc. moo. ooHoeooo no cocooooom .mm
«coo. «coo. coo. “oncoo ooooo>o .co
mmco. «coo. MHo. AsHo>HoHooo ooooo ooomo .oo
«coo. «oco. «coo. Aoofloo\floeooo oooooooao .ov
«coo. «coo. moo. oooo co HHo ooxfloo .ooofioxo .vv
«oco. «coo. «coo. sHoooouoxooonou ooouooo osm .om
55H. com. HoH. Amoco: oooooooaa co ooooooo .sm
«coo. «coo. «ooc. saooocuo\eooz cocooooa .mm
«mooo. «ooo. «coo. AoHoo uooucoo osmo .mm
«No. «mHoc. moHo. >Ho>oooooooo cocooz .om
«mocc. «coo. «cho. cocoooo ooooo oo coo coma .cm
mcH. moo. com. AcoHHooocoo ooooooooo .om
mmoo. «mooo. «mo. AooHHouoooo sHHooouoo ooooo>o .mm
«moco. «mooo. pom. oooo uo mafia» oeoo oaoo HHa .mm
mmoo. «ooo. woo. mucwEO>OE\musumom noonwm .NN
«coo. «coo. «coo. moooHuo oxHH coxHoe .oH
com. moH. com. ooooz mo oooHo on oouooooo .mH
mmo. cNH. ooo. AooooouooHoo oxofi ooxfloeo .HH
«ccc. «coo. «coco. AsfloooooooHoo .sfiono oxoomo .o
omm. ch. «Hoo. ««Aooflnoooo ozo .o
mmoo. «coco. «mcoc. coonoo\sHoooHuo moooo> .s
oocH> oHooa zmaaHmz zmsH

Amo u may EsHowz >n «ounce oocmuHuHcme

meouH cossoucoz co cancel»

5 anmB

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION OF THE INTERPRETATION STUDY

Hypotheses

 

Hypotheses l, 2 and 3—-that, regardless of medium,
observations of communicative code choice elements made by
respondents reading, listening to or viewing sample excerpts
Of inter—organizational and intra-organizational negotiation
interaction will differ significantly in the two situational
conditions--were supported by the findings of this study in
relationship to the distance factor, but not in relationship
to the factors of structuring and coherence. How can this
discrepancy be explained? First of all, the rule sets were
described for the overall pattern Of skill involved in
negotiation competence, which includes both production and
interpretation aspects. For interpretation, it is likely
that the most salient aspect is not the £3323 by which one's
fellow interactants communicate the definition of the
situation -- but that definition itself, particularly as it
relates to mutual goals and role expectations. Distance
work, as proposed in the rule sets, as well as defined by
the items loading on the distance factor in this experiment,
is focused on the importance of goals and role relationships
as embedded in situation. Thus, it is not surprising that

the effect of distance shows up so strongly in the

51

52

Observations Of respondents to the excerpts of interaction
in contrasting goal-oriented situations. The fact that
situation accounts for the variation in interpretation of
distance, regardless of the medium, attests to the impor—
tance of the link between situation and distance work in the
interpretation process. Thus, given the results of this
study, one might argue that goal and goal-appropriate rela-
tional information constitute the major interpretive stan-
dard for Observers in making sense of situated differences
in interaction.

Nonetheless, the findings of this study require an
accounting of the poor showing of structuring and coherence
as factors available to Observers/interactants in the
interpretation of interaction. First, it may be argued that
the effect of an Observer's awareness of distance work as
the important defining element obscures the means by which
that definition is achieved in structuring and coherence
work. If the process of interpretation of interaction is a
kind of gestalt impression, then individual aspects of the
ongoing interaction may not be available to the conscious-
ness of Observer/interactants. The nature of the gestalt is
to put together a number of elements operating at once: thus
the overall distance work impression is the salient inter-
pretive measure.

Second, the fact that Observers interpreted the situa—
tions as different in their creation Of distance regardless

of any effect for media, may indicate that, with regard to

53
the interpretation of distance, the effects added by more
channels of information are simply redundant, again indicat-
ing the strength of the basic distance-creating factors.
The strength of the finding for distance may account for the
absence of other interpretive effects.

Nonetheless, the results also point to the differences
between media in structuring aspects Of interpretation. The
contrast Of the written medium with the grand mean and the
lack of such a contrast for audio and video conditions
indicates some recognition Of the presence Of a written-oral
contrast as part Of interactants' interpretive equipment
(Ong, 1982). As will be discussed in relationship to the
non-common item findings, there are specific aspects of the
requirements Of each medium that may be operative in an
observer's ability to extract information from that medium,
particularly regarding structuring work.

The experiment reported here does not provide the "best
test" Of Observers' ability to detect structuring work in
interaction. The brief excerpts, each five minutes or less,
did not provide the sense Of the larger patterns over the
course of the interaction between or among the teams. Thus,
Observers would not have been able to assess the impact of
some structuring moves. Moreover, each Observer saw only
one of the excerpts: without the comparison between several
excerpts of these interactants or the experience of a larger
chunk of the total interaction, they may have had no base-

line from which to assess the relative impact of structuring

54
moves (for a discussion of the need for comparison in the
assessment of structuring, see Erickson & Shultz, 1981).

As a check on the validity Of the Interpretation of
Interaction Scale, ten students who were unable to be
scheduled for the experiment itself were asked to view,
listen to or read 331E. of the excerpts, one from the more
competitive negotiation situation and one from the more
cooperative. In their "free comparisons” of the interaction
in the two situations, some structuring observations came
through quite clearly, indicating that the sort of infor-
mation used in applying an interpretive standard related to
structuring requires the ability to compare interaction
moves.

Coherence work is probably the most tacit of the three
factors when probed as part of the interpretive skill of
negotiation competence. In the rule sets, most of what is
described as coherence work is employed in the service Of
creating the goal definition Of the interaction situation,
for example the use of technical or formal word choice is at
once more explicit in defining connections and more distanc-
ing in creating relationships. Here again, interpretation
of the Egg was quite clear in the results of the study,
while awareness Of the means may have been eclipsed.

But the experiment itself may have made it difficult to
assess the impact of coherence work as an interpretive
standard. One of the important aspects of the coherence

work rule description is the awareness of the presence or

55
absence of shared assumptions as contributing to the
production/interpretation of coherence work in interaction.
While interactants themselves could be expected to assess
those assumptions and perhaps to evaluate the impact of
coherence work related to the context, Observers Of an
interaction would be at a disadvantage. Again, having non-

involved Observers view brief excerpts in medias res

 

obviated any awareness of this type of background knowledge.
And the tOpic -- school board and teachers union issues --
may have further constrained the ability of Observers to
interpret coherence-making works Thus, the experiment did
not provide a suitable test of the use of coherence work as
an interpretive standard.

Research Question 1: Projecting from Written Information

 

Research Question 1 asked how well the written medium
encodes information for interpretation. An examination of
the 11 items identified as distinguishing the two situations
in the predicted direction (p < .002) gives some limited
evidence for an interpretive frame, particularly if distance
work is seen as the source of that frame. Nine items
included descriptors that marked the predictions as clearly
or implicitly relational, thus connected to the other
distance work Observations in the common item analyses. For
example, in the written condition, Observers ”imagined that”
to a greater degree in the cooperative situation than in the
competitive situation, voices would be friendly, inter-

actants would talk like friends, their eye contact would be

56

warm, their appearance would be warm and friendly, they
would touch each other, and they would give support signals.
For two items the frame extended to items not specifically
tied to relational terms -- that interactants in the
cooperative situation would not use slow and deliberate
speech, and that they would leave the ends of their turns
hanging.

In this analysis of projected items,_gggl_appears to be
key in the interpretation Of interaction, given the written
medium condition, but there is some indication that an
overall interpretive frame has been applied to these
responses as well.

ResearchQngstion 2: Projecting from Audio Information

Research Question 2 asked how the added information of
the audio channel might affect interpretation, particularly
in predicting nonobserved items. Of the 19 items left after
the five items nonsignificant throughout had been elimin-
ated, 18 significantly distinguished the two situations in
the audio condition. Of these 18, however, ten were
responses to observed behavior, all related to the vocal
channel. For example, the respondents who operated with
audio channel information distinguished the two situations
as differing in the presence/absence of tension, deliber-
ation, or friendliness of the vocal channel and in relative

hesitation, tentativeness, and overlap of utterances.

57

In aspects projected to the visual channel, differences
which followed expectations of the rule sets included the
relative relaxation of posture and movement, degree of
warmth of eye contact, and overall warmth and supportiveness
communicated visually. The lone nonsignificant item related
to touching, where responses appeared random.

Only in this medium did items without some reference to
relational outcomes (e.g., ”friendly") indicate that
observers could identify patterns consistently parallel to
the expectations of coherence and structuring work (e.g., in
items related to deliberateness, tentativeness and overlap).
Perhaps the focusing of attention on the vocal channel
required by that medium created clear impressions for
Observers: for whatever reason, these data appear to support
the inference that an interpretive standard is being used to
project nonobserved behavior.

Analyses of Noncommon Items across Media

Finally, the puzzling results of the video medium set of
noncommon items give additional information about the
written and audio conditions. While the most information
relative to those two other conditions was available in this
condition, responses to only ten of the 19 items distin-
guished significantly between the two situations. Of
interest are the nine items which significantly distin-
guished situational differences in the audio condition but
failed to do so in the video condition. Four are items in

which the vocal channel is focused: Friendliness and

58
relative control of voices, amount of hesitation in speech,
and relative definiteness in turn endings. Four related to
the information present only in the video channel: relative
relaxation in posture and movements, and use of nods and
other supportive signals.

In 11 items, however, Observers in the video condition
agreed with observers in the audio condition, ten of them
identifying significant situation differences. Interes-
tingly, these items represented relational information
(e.g., talked like friends, eye contact warm), coherence
information (e.g., relative deliberateness of speech) and
structuring information (e.g., floor descriptions like
”talked all at once").

The fact that items identified or predicted in the audio
condition should conform to the rule expectations in more
cases than those same items in the more informative video
condition is puzzling at first. However, it may best be
accounted for in noting that the audio condition provided a
clear focus on one channel, allowing use of the interpretive
frame to predict unobserved behaviors. The video condition
requires harder work on the part Of the observers, or at
least provides them with more information to deal with, so
that, if another channel is given primary focus, important
cues related to the audio channel may be missed. In any
case, the overlap in more than half the items argues for
some consistency in the pattern, if not for the unambiguous

application Of a single interpretive standard.

59

Again, some attention should be paid to the limits Of
this study in probing interpretive skill of observers. One
potential problem is clear in an examination of the items
which were neither identified nor projected in gay medium in
the way predicted by the rules sets. Five items failed to
distinguish between the two situations in any medium: two
related to gestures, one to stress on important words, one
to characterization of the interaction as like that of
politicians, officials or professors, and one to the inter-
ruptions as angry.

That these fail across all three media conditions is
interesting. For those related to gesture and voice (where
the items appeared random), perhaps the explanation is found
in the group setting of the interactions: perhaps the
respondents interpreted “gestures" and especially ”controll-
ed gestures" as appropriate only to public speaking
situations. Or perhaps "control” is too strong a term,
implying a denial of the use Of other, more natural
gestures. Similarly, perhaps the identification of stress
was interpreted in such varying ways (from the normal stress
of emphatic speech to the histrionic stress of orators) that
any distinctions were wiped out. These items need to be
recast in other terms before one might evaluate whether the
tacit knowledge implied in the rule set has really been
tested. Both gesture and vocal stress Operate as naturally
redundant in conversational speech (Bennett, 1982), and both

are treated as mechanisms of oratory in other settings. The

60
results may reflect such a confusion of standards for these
observers. The item "Interactants talked like politicians,
Officials or professors" was intended to be a contrasting
item with "Interactants talked like I would in a group of
friendsC" The clear results for the latter indicate some-
thing wrong with the phrasing Of ”talked like politicians
..." Finally, while ”interruptions as angry" followed the
expected pattern, the scores were not strong enough to meet
the adjusted alpha requirement.

In summary, regarding Research Questions 1 and 2, there
are only seven of 24 items that vary in the same way across
all three conditions, giving very limited support to the
notion that the items not present as information still
follow the patterns of conditions Of more information, and
hence Of the rule set. However, those items which do not
follow such a pattern raise questions both about the ability
of observers to project nonobserved characteristics of
interaction and about the degree to which specific items in

the rule sets represent the tacit knowledge Of interactants.

ResearchQQuestion 3: Comparisons across Media

Research Question 3, concerned with the differences
between and among media, was tested by the three analyses of
variance using the factor scores from the common items anal-
ysis, as well as by the findings of the t-tests of noncommon
items in each medium. First of all, sufficient information

to distinguish between relatively more competitive and

61

relatively more cooperative negotiation interaction is
clearly there in each of the media when distance is used as
the criterion variable. Nor are there any significant
differences for media in relationship to distance. These
data provide evidence for a consistent standard by which
observers of stimulus exerpts of the two types of inter-
action are able to interpret that interaction on a set of
scales reflecting distance work elements-

The media, however, as demonstrated in both the analysis
Of variance using structuring as the criterion variable and
deviation contrasts for medium in that analysis, as well as
the noncommon items analysis, appear to provide different
problems for the observer making an interpretation. The
written medium clearly provides a sense of the goal defini-
tion of the situation (seen in the distance analysis), but
with regard to structuring, something is different with the
written medium in comparison to the other two. Most Of the
significant predictions in the noncommon items are tied to
distance cues as well.

The audio medium appears to focus attention on the vocal
channel. It was most consistent of the three media in
identification and prediction of behaviors as expected by
the rule sets for structuring. The video medium, while
providing the fullest information of the three media, did

not provide Observers with as clear a picture Of the

62
interaction as the audio medium. This may mean that the
movement Of structuring work is harder to ”track" when there
is more information to take in.

The analysis of variance with coherence as the criterion
variable provided almost no clear conclusions, except that
the mechanisms of coherence work are not consciously
monitored as part of the observer/interactant's interpre-
tation process. Perhaps more than the others, coherence
rules are recognized only in the breach -- they are so taken
for granted as working along with other aspects of the
creation of the definition of the interaction that only if
something goes very wrong do we as interactants consciously
attend to them at all (see Cook-Gumperz, 1975: Erickson &
Shultz, 1981, 1982).

In looking at the findings as a whole, another observa-
tion or conclusion may be made. The three kinds of work
involved in creating negotiation appear to Operate in very
different ways. If there is an interpretive standard
applied by interactants to determine what the goal defini-
tion and role relationships Of an interaction are in an
ongoing way, it is the distance work rules which provide the
mechanism to do so. Structuring work, present in the larger
patterns of the interaction may do so as well, but this was
not adequately tested in this study. What is clear, how-
ever, is that structuring work is sensitive tO the degree to
which different media provide information and to the

differing processes that interactant/Observers bring to

63
these differences in "text." Finally, the absence of clear
findings for coherence work may be seen as an argument for
its embeddedness in the overall patterns of interaction --
limited in its conscious interpretation by Observer/
interactants unless some problematic or troublesome breach

of expected patterns occurs.

CHAPTER V
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CONTINUED STUDY
OF NEGOTIATION COMPETENCE

The conceptualization Of negotiation competence as the
ability of adult speakers to distinguish and to draw upon a
continuum of communicative code choice in order to interpret
and to create or affirm both the relationships between
interactants and the limits of their decision-making pro-
cesses highlights the dual nature of this ability. Like
other human abilities, this competence is both tacit and
explicit, both unconscious and conscious in its functioning
in day to day interaction. Like other human abilities, too,
it may be partially or fully developed, applied carefully
and consistently or misapplied.

The specification of the kinds of negotiation work and
the rule sets for interaction at poles of a negotiation
continuum can allow researchers to probe the functioning Of
this ability and come to better understand its Operation in
communicative processes. This is important not only in
providing a deeper sense or understanding of how communica-
tion functions in everyday situations, but also in allowing
for development of ways to assist persons who have not
develOped or have not sufficiently refined their ability to
make their way in these everyday situations (see Argyle,
1980).

64

65

To be helpful in either way, however, the rule sets must
be tested and refined, reflecting more closely whatever is
that internal standard by which competent members of the
speech community interpret and produce situated interaction.
How well do the proposed rules for distance work, struc-
turing work and coherence work reflect that standard?

Three studies related to the production of negotiation
interaction provide some initial support for the rule sets
described for negotiation work. Diez (Table l, 1983a)
examined the talk produced in three different negotiation
interaction role-playing sessions, including both inter—
organizational and intra-organizational group interactions.
Her results confirmed that lexical and structural factors
distinguish between the kinds of talk produced in the two
situations, across three sets of individuals involved in the
interactions. While primarily providing support for the

coherence work rules, these differences positively reflected

rule patterns related to distance work as well. Her
analysis of two structural factors -- turn-taking and back-
channelling -- also provided initial support for the

distance and structuring rules involved. While the items
for distance work specifically related to pronoun use were
unable to produce such clear differences, the support of the
formality/informality distinction provided by the lexical

and syntactic structural measures was positive.

66

Taken together, Donohue et a1. (1983), Diez (1983) and
Putnam and Jones (1982b) provide positive support for the
structuring work rules about differences in choice of speech
acts and in ordering of speech tactics into strategies in
distributive and integrative bargaining settings. While
more needs to be done to probe the differences in this
larger organizational patterning of interaction, the initial
results provide positive impetus to continue such work.

The study reported in Chapters II - IV suggests that, to
observers, the rules for distance work are of primary
importance in the interpretation of interaction along the
continuum described. Regardless Of the medium involved,
observers identified the two situations as significantly
different in relationship to distance work, based on
responses to scales that tapped their observations of
communicative code elements. This may mean that, in these
situations at least, distance work or relational information
is most salient to persons viewing others in interaction
settings. And, although structuring and coherence work did
not contribute significantly to those perceived differences,
it may be that the elements identified in the production
study as markers both of coherence and distance are per-
ceived primarily in regard to their relational impact.

The examination of the items NOT Observed in the written
and audio conditions, moreover, provides some support for
the notion that these rule sets Operate as a ”frame" or a

set of expectations about what goes together in interaction

67
settings. Nine Of the items not included in the written and
eight of the items not included in the audio stimulus ex-
cerpts as available information nonetheless followed the
expected pattern for contrasting the two situations.

Overall, there is reason to continue to pursue examina-
tion of the proposed rule sets related to the conceptuali-
zation of negotiation interaction work at two poles of a
continuum. in“; rule sets are theoretically useful in
describing the tacit knowledge of competent adult speakers
in relationship to a specific type Of group interaction.
There are implications as well, however, for the practice of
interaction and for the development of more sensitive and
effective interaction skills. A. really' competent: inter-
actant not only recognizes that there are these polar
positions that help to define interaction -- he or she is
able to use that knowledge to engage in and to guide inter—
actions in effectively shaping and meeting group goals.

For example, while the continuum presents interaction as
having two poles, interactants commonly realize and need to
be increasingly aware Of the need for interaction at any
point on the continuum to involve some level of cooperation.
The ”rules” of turn—taking described for dyadic interaction
(e.g., Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson, 1974) and applicable as
well to most formal exchanges are an orderly production
mechanism, but one that works only when all interactants
"cooperate." In the debriefing, some of the respondents

noted that cooperation seemed to be a hallmark of the

68

interactants 13 the competitive situation. When questioned

 

about what they meant, these respondents explained that the
interactants were very polite in letting each other speak.
In the cooperative negotiation interaction condition, in
contrast, some respondents indicated that the talk-overs and
interruptions of shared floor interaction appeared very
impolite and, hence, uncooperative to them. Fortunately,
the sense Of ”cooperative" as primarily relating to group
goal sharing was reflected in sufficiently unambiguous
statements in other scale items. But the confusion indi-
cates not only the complexity involved in the multiple
levels of interpretation possible, but also the potential
for "flawed" interaction if persons respond tO "apprOpriate"
behaviors as "inappropriate."

The need to include an element of multiple-leveled
interpretation is clear in another aspect of the interaction
typical of negotiation settings. A skill not explicitly
reflected in the rule sets but characteristic of an
effective interactant's ability to combine rules, is the
ability to disagree about issues without creating relational
messages of hostility. This, too, became clear in debrief-
ing remarks of respondents. Some identified the interaction
at the COOperative pole as being marked by conflict between
interactants. Here it became clear that, as the inter-
actants in the more cooperative situation hammered out their
group position by suggesting and testing ideas, they were

interpreted as being in conflict, or even hostile toward one

69

another. This suggests that part of the skill required Of a
competent negotiator is the ability to distinguish differ-
ences Of position that are at the heart of the goal—oriented
relationship among interactants from those that are on the
surface. Particularly important is to be able to recognize
that these surface disagreements are actually in the service
of the larger, shared-goal agreement.

Recent work by O'Keefe and Delia (1982) suggests the
importance of recognizing situated interaction as involving
multiple goals. They particularly point to situations that
involve social influence processes -u- a category' clearly
including negotiation interaction. Such a perspective is
needed in order to probe how the competent negotiator is
able to recognize the multiple levels of interaction work
that contribute to the ongoing definition of the situation
and the progress Of interactants in mutual decision-making
processes.

Besides consideration Of multiple goals in interaction,
there are other extensions needed in pursuing further tests
of the notion of negotiation competence and the rule sets
proposed here. Further study, for example, should involve
more naturalistic interaction settings. While, for the
purposes of this experiment the role playing situations were
quite useful, study must be extended to situations compli-
ga_t_e_g by ongoing relationships and expectations about the

long-term effects of the interaction. In such cases, the

70
need for multiple perspective-taking will certainly mark the
effective interactant.

Finally, further work must attempt to get closer to the
interpretations made by the interactants themselves. While
interactants operate to a degree on the same Observed
behaviors that Observers (like the respondents in this
study) have access to, the interactants in a given situation
have the invaluable resource of knowing the contextual
information that frames the interaction (see Gumperz, 1982).
A combination of using Observers' judgments and interac—
tants' own commentary in viewing completed interaction has
been shown to be effective in work by Erickson (1982: see
also Erickson & Shultz, 1981, 1982) in counseling inter-
views. Such a procedure would extend the findings of this
study and add to the test of the rules as interpretive
standard.

Clearly, negotiation as practiced by interactants is a
multifaceted, complex skill. Yet the fact that people
routinely do it and do it well makes it an appropriate tar-
get Of study for researchers interested in the processes of
communication. This study is a beginning contribution to
the necessary exploration of how the interpretation and
production Of negotiation interaction functions within the
larger ability of the native speaker to use his/her

language.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Written Transcripts of Excerpts 1-6

Excerpt 1: Written Transcript

This brief segment Of group interaction was recorded and
then transcribed. ZIt is not the entire transcript Of this
group's meeting. Read it through once, carefully, and then
respond to the questions which you will be given.

(FORMAT NOTE: Each speaker's turn is indicated by their
letter, e.g. A, B, C. If they began after a pause, the
transcript records their turn beginning at the left-hand
margin. If they began while another was still speaking, the
transcript indicates where the overlapping began with a *.)

A. Would you indicate to us the number ... hopefully a
little tighter than 5 to 10 for the teachers that would
be interested in the alternative career leave? Would
you please indicate where these teachers are on the
salary schedule?

B. Most of them are at the top step, ten.

A. The alternative career teachers ... not the retirement
folks.

*3. Yea:
I think that in both areas they are at the top step.

*A.Very
top?

*3. Because they are the people that would have other
spouses that have other jobs, that might want to try a
new career and could survive. The younger teachers
couldn't survive even if they took advantage of it.
They don't have enough money from a second income.

A. Well, I don't think you know that for sure, Mr. Giffin,
and I

*B. We have
done a survey, like I said, and we got some indication
that some people will take advantage of it.

A. They're at the top?

B. They are basically people near or at the top of the
schedule.

A. O.K. Now you've gone to near or at the top. I need to
know if they're at the top, are they at $19,500 or
$15,500 or $16,500 to $18,500?

B. They are at the last 3 to 4 areas, yes, and basically
they are all at the top step.

A. It would like to know exactly where they are, that is
what I am asking you.

B. O.K., we'll, we'll

*A. I'm not asking you for names, I'm asking
you for numbers.

71

72

We'll try to provide you with that information in the
future.

O.K. Another piece Of information we may need is a,
after the caucus, is the actual numbers that are retire
... that are going to take advantage of the early
incentive, and I think the reason for that is that it is
very important in deciding and developing the budget.
We cannot place in any budget which the state is going
to review a line item that would say "we think that 5
teachers are going to take advantage of our incentives."
Clearly it must be a red or black budget, and only a
black budget is legal. And if we had those numbers that
would help in providing money for those salary increases
you're requesting. SO we need to know how many teachers
in fact are going to take advantage of the early
incentives.

We understand that. We'll try to provide you with that
information.

I have two questions. One of your alternative career
leave ... is that locked into three total or can a
person take less than 3 years?

We're talking about um, maximum of ... that's a good
question, a good point, we're talking about a maximum of
three years, o.k.

But they could take less than three years.

Yes. One or two or three, o.k.

Second question is the only amount that you've given us
ix: regard to possible funds in our budget is about a
little $76,000. Did you have any other areas to where
you felt we could deal with changing or making adjust-
ments in our budget besides that, because $76,000 really
doesn't go anywhere in comparison to what you're asking.
I'm the one that made the indication to that amount of
money. All we are indicating is that, at this point, is
that the budget can be shifted. That responsibility is
yours. We're sure that if you take a close look at it
you can find other areas where the budget can be
shifted. We don't think it's necessarily either our
responsibility or our prerogative tO tell the board how
they ought to, you know, where every dollar ought to go.
We're not going to play that game. We feel that the
board, in taking a close look at the budget, can find
other funds. But that is something you're gonna have to
do.

I think that we've indicated to you, Darrell, that we're
down to the bare bones as far as the budget is con-
cerned, in looking a deficit in the face, uh, the board
has looked at alternatives to this budget, and I believe
my earlier statement was, that we're willing to listen
to any creative solutions to the money problem that the
E.A. has ... and we are looking in the face of a, a
reduction in staff, and also a budget deficit of
$683,000. I think I've made that quite clear to you, we
don't see where there can be any other adjustments at

73

this point other than reduction of staff, and that's why
we are here ... to see where or what it is you think can
be done to find some more money. That's why we're
listening to you now.

We do have some other proposals that will be coming up
which we hope, that will assist in gaining, not neces-
sarily gaining money for the district but reducing the
amount of money that has to be paid out. As we pro-
gress, we'll get through to them. We ... we already ...
to answer your question, Michelle, we have pointed out
to the board that we think that in light of the fact of
25 less teaching staff that certainly we don't need the
same number of dollars in all other areas of the budget.
And yet we've looked at the budget and that is the case.
And I think that the board has to look at those
priorities. And uh, yes, we're gonna provide you with
all the information that we can but in the same time,
the board has to take a look at some of the information
that we've given 'em here today and determine whether or
not it's valid, etc., and whether or not some changes
can be made in that area. And I'd like to have Linda
give you some other information, of some things in the
budget that we've taken a look at, along that line.

74
Excerpt 2: Written Transcript

This brief segment of group interaction was recorded and
then transcribed. It is not the entire transcript of this
group's meeting. Read it through once, carefully, and then
respond to the questions which you will be given.

(FORMAT NOTE: Each speaker's turn is indicated by their
letter, e.g. A, B, C. If they began after a pause, the
transcript records their turn beginning at the left-hand
margin. If they began while another was still speaking, the
transcript indicates where the overlapping began with a *.)

A. We think that it's only fair that teachers be Observed
over an: extended period of time, and not the hit and
Iniss kind Of thing. And that regard, that the 45
minutes of Observation be accomplished in one period.
Although we recognize that this cannot always be done,
we do suggest that no observation period be less than 15
minutes in duration. So we have flexibility there, and
we're saying that we'd like to see it done in one
setting, but if that isn't possible, that you set a
minimum period for the Observation to occur. So either
45 minutes or two separate segments or three segments of
time for observation. That the first observation must
be made thirty days prior to the final or the written
evaluation. This to prevent administrators from coming
in the last day of the semester and, and seeking to
evaluate a teacher. And considering the unusual circum-
stances of that, we've found several cases, teachers
have called, they're concerned that the administrator
waits to the very end of the year and then comes in to
do the evaluation when the board has a policy that books
must be collected by a certain date, the report cards
are due by a certain date, and pretty much in the second
semester Of the year, a lot of the actual teaching
process has already taken place prior to the collection
of the books. And we think that it's unfair, too, for
an administrator to come.

*8. How many incidences Of those do we have out of 375
teachers?

C. As far as we're concerned, if we have one incident, that
is significant.

B. Have we had one incident?

A. Yes, we have.

D. One incident? Who was the administrator? Yes, we need
to know that, because if that's clearly a problem, then
we need to deal with that administrator.

A. Based on the calls we've received ...

*B. You said one incident! Now you
say calls.
*C. What
I said was, is that one call, one problem in this area,
is significant ...

75

*B. I asked you how many problems we have had in this
area. And if you don't know, please say you do not
know.

O.K. It just does not matter.

*B. It matters to us! Yes, it
does matter to us, because if it is of significance that
if, if administrators are going in the last day of
school and evaluating teachers, and teachers are in
effect not doing any teaching at the time, but
collecting books and making preparations for the
check-out, then we need to know how many of those, or
how system-wide that is.

I think you can go back and look at the dates of your
evaluations and gain that information.
NO, we want that information from you. You indicate
that it's a problem, and we need that information from
you, so please provide it after the next caucus.
O.K. We will see if we can't get that ...
*B. We can't judge if it's
a problem or not if we don't know.
We're telling you that it is indeed a problem ...
*D. And we need
some data to support that
*E. Excuse me, we reached that
conclusion after surveying our people in the buildings
rand we did have one teacher in one elementary building
that, who specified that problem. That's the only one
that brought it to our attention. We are aware of that
one: we have no way of knowing if it happened to anyone
else. No one mentioned it or brought it up.
Thank you. And we're taking your word for it, if this
has been a problem. But if the problem is that the
administration is not doing their job, then the board Of
education, if we're not aware of that, we've got a lot
of administrators out there to deal with. Our question
is, who are they?
And we're not aware if it's board policy, for example,
that the evaluations be done by a certain time or not.
It did become a problem in at least one instance that we
are sure of. And we have no interest in getting into
personalities.
NO, that's not our interest either. Our interest is
dealing with problems.
*A. But you're
asking who is the person
And if not dealing with problems, and if we have an
administrator out there not doing his job, we'd want to
be aware of it. We're not going to allow you to deal
with the problem in an evaluation procedure -- which is
our job. And it's our job. That may be a widespread,
which is the indication that we're getting, but that
this is a problem, not that we have had an incident. An
incident does not indicate a problem. It indicates an
incident.

76

Let me reiterate. We can't, you know, we don't ... we
don't evaluate your administrators, we're not going to
point fingers at people, but we do represent 375
teachers. They perceive this to be a big problem. We
said it from the beginning, that it's a priority, and
they've said it to us in many different ways —— in the
surveys, through our discussions in bargaining, prior to
our presenting this proposal on this to you and so
forth. We just want to again reiterate to you that this
is a priority.
I don't want to get into a discussion on priority or
otherwise, because that's ... but could you furnish for
us the models you used to come up with that procedure?
Whose models are you putting that procedure on?
I don't understand what you're asking.
Basically, there are several evaluation models, and
that's one reason why consultants are used.
*B. Let me answer that

*F. And it may
not be an appropriate model for our kind of organiza-
tion.

*B. Let me
interrupt. The answer is that it's ... we, it's our
proposal based on the problems that we perceive in this
schoool district. We develOped the model ourselves. We
have not taken it from other sources.

Well, I understand it was done on research. And that's
basically what I'm asking, what research data have you
used?

*E. But we
have taken what we feel will solve the problems in the
district and developed our own proposal.

DO you have people who are educated highly in the areas
of personnel and knowing how to fit systems to
organizations? Is that what you're telling us?
Will you run that by me again?
I mean, you develop a model for evaluation, which is a
management function, and that does come under the area
Of personnel.
What we would

*B. You're not going to share how that model
developed?
No, no, I just shared ... I just shared with you that we
took that and developed it ourselves from what we felt
as a team, based on our surveys and what the input was
that came in to us, was a problem in our present
evaluation system. And we feel that since we have 375
members to evaluate that certainly is something that
ought to be a concern of ours. Because our members'
livelihood is on the line. Nothing is more serious than
evaluation.

77
Excerpt 3: Written Transcript

This brief segment of group interaction was recorded and
then transcribed. It is not the entire transcript Of this
group's meeting. Read it through once, carefully, and then
respond to the questions which you will be given.

(FORMAT NOTE: Each speaker's turn is indicated by their
letter, e.g. A, B, C. If they began after a pause, the
transcript records their turn beginning at the left-hand
margin. If they began while another was still speaking, the
transcript indicates where the overlapping began with a *.)

A. Well, I'm gonna, Darrell is gonna make a new proposal to
you. And I just wanted to preface that.

C. Fist Of all, I'm gonna couch my words very carefully, so
I want you to listen. We do understand the financial
status of the district. And I will be very blunt. We
view your proposal of 3% and then laying off teachers
right and left as a total slap in the face. We've been
trying to find ways to move. Yes, we very much do have
room to move in our salary proposal: we will not tie
that salary proposal to the massive layoffs that you say
are necessary. We do not believe that those layoffs are
necessary. I have a salary proposal to you, for you,
and I want you to read very carefully what we are trying
to tell you. What you see there is not much. What we
see before us on your proposal is not much. We want to
settle this contract, but as long as the board insists
on insulting the teachers Of this district with that
type of a salary proposal we are headed for war. And
neither side wants that. We do not want to be forced
into taking any kind of drastic action. However, we may
be forced into that posture if we do not see some
realistic movement on the part of this board very, very
soon. If we do in fact see realistic movement on the
part of this board, that is not an insult to the
integrity of the 375 teachers Of this district, we are
willing to bargain and you will find our salary proposal
also headed into the area of reality. 3% is not going
to do it. Just like lopping off $25, off our first
proposal is not going to do it. And I'm not going to
say anything more.

B. Thank you. I hope you listen very carefully also ...
That is, I think you've missed the point, and that is,
number one, we agree with you that 3% is an insult.
Agreed. At the same time we think that the 3% offered
by the board is a ridiculous offer, we also think you
deserve more. But given our priorities and that per-
cent, there is no other way tO get it out of the budget
than to layoff staff.

. Then perhaps you ought to rearrange your priorities.

Now listen. The insult to the teachers Of this district

Wt)

78

is not by the board Of education, but by the negotiating
team Of the teachers. And when they decide to get off
their high horse of not wanting to do our job, when
we're asking them to take a shot at it ... There may be
money in that budget to provide for the salary increases
without reducing staff. But as long as the negotiating
team for the teachers takes the position that they are
not willing, for whatever reason, to do our job, when we
are willing to listen to a counter budget proposal,
that's their problem. We agree that 3% is an insult, we
agree that you deserve more, and we think that your
teachers deserve the kind Of representation that would
be willing to give the proposal to the board which they
are willing to listen to. And until you're willing to
do that, we've set our priorities, and we are willing to
talk about the raises, but the cuts in the budget will
come from the teaching staff. And we don't have
anything else to say.

79
Excerpt 4: Written Transcript

This brief segment Of group interaction was recorded and
then transcribed. IIt is not the entire transcript of this
group's meeting. Read it through once, carefully, and then
respond to the questions which you will be given.

(FORMAT NOTE: Each speaker's turn is indicated by their
letter, e.g. A, B, C. If they began after a pause, the
transcript records their turn beginning at the left-hand
margin. If they began while another was still speaking, the
transcript indicates where the overlapping began with a *.)

A. Unless, I suggest that unless you pass this proposal,
then we'll put it in your handwriting.
B. Any effort to notify a member of a bargaining team
concerning the permissive
*C. Any effort
*D. Any attempt
B. nature of his or her fly shall be denied to the chief
spokesperson
*D. Shall be
directed to
*C. Shall be
directed to
B. Oh, directed to. . . who wrote this?
A. I did.
*B. Did you write this? You're awful.
C. This is my suggestion, Phyllis, that we take and come up
with a package
*A. We must
C. a package of the proposal together, but have the entire
cost Of that package with Kay's suggestion, that it's
done with the layoff of staff, combined with the layoff

of staff.
B. That, that's been our original intention . . . all the
time

A. Stay with that until they decide to reduce the budget.
And if they don't, then whatever package that we finally
deal with will be funded by the layoff of staff. And we
know that we already have to, what, layoff 9 or 22

*B. 11
*C. 11

A. Eleven just for the current budget. So we'll take it,
we'll come to an agreement. We'll package them and that
will be at the expense Of staff. And if they have
another suggestion, that's fine. We'll listen to it.

*C. NO, 16. We've
got to layoff 16 teachers to balance, in order to
balance the budget.

*B. To balance?
C. In order to balance the budget.
A. We can come up with an agreement on all the items, and

80

we can go through all the regular, you know, negotia-
tions, and then that will be totally funded by layoffs.
*B. B y
the layoff of staff.
*C. Right
And then they have a legitimate choice. They can either
accept that or reject that.
*D. Yeah.
What if we use their ... Excuse me. In an effort that
we made an attempt to cut the budget, what if we use
their budget cuts, or part of them? And then layoff
staff
*C. Well, you
accepted them, but as you told them ...
I agree, though. That's good, 'cause if we accept what
they said, then we can really show our intent.
*D. But you can't
*B. But $283,000?
Could part of our rationale be that we're going to look
to the consultant relative to making some recommenda-
tions about class size? That, since we're going
$150,000, class size ought to be at
*B. I don't think we should deal with
the rationale.
I think we should muddy the water ...
*D. No rationale, we're just keeping things the way
it is, and taking away their big fear
*B. Yeah, yeah. We don't have to deal with
rationale ... we ... we're trading Off our evaulation
language for the $150,000 we're going to give them when
we cut
*C. Yeah, it seems like we're paying to buy language
*B. Yes, but it's costing them teachers
*C. But we're still
not going to have a balanced budget ...
*A. Yes we will! We're going to
cut staff to have a balanced budget.
*C. We're gonna
give 'em their money, cut staff and we'll
We're gonna cut staff ... and one Of the cuts we're
gonna make is that they requested -- is gonna be our
consultant ... we're making a concession
*A. It's against the law
not to have a balanced budget
And that's gonna keep them from having to lose more
teachers than they would have
And it gives us our proposal on evaulation.
Considering their evaluation procedure also has ... but
we weren't gonna give them that anyway. But was an
ultimate, the grievance procedure, now how many
grievance procedures do you know where you can grieve
procedure but you can't grieve content. And they're
talking about grieving everything, which, in the darn
thing and how it's done.

81

Oh, we have grieved content before and won
*A. With just cause
*C. Yeah
Yeah ... I'm talking about if well, Mariann needs a
little bit of help with this
*C. Oh] no
NO] O.K., n0! that's O.K.
I'm talking about these petty kinds of things that
peOple do
*B. O.K. *A. A t: d
you should come out with the fly gloves
But. I think the whole thing with that language is ...
the fact that you are retaining a major management right
and you're putting the association back into its, quote,
place. Not being able to tell management what they can
do
*B. N o t
being able, what they can do, how they can evaluate.
I'm hungry
*C. And that's more important ... we're not willing to
do
That's more important to do than the money. That's
right, that $150,000 is nothing compared to keeping
those rights.
Well, let's go eat now and then meet back here at 7:00.
*B. Yes
*C. Good, now
I can take my aspirins.

82
Excerpt 5: Written Transcript

This brief segment of group interaction was recorded and
then transcribed. IIt is not the entire transcript of this
group's meeting. Read it through once, carefully, and then
respond to the questions which you will be given.

(FORMAT NOTE: Each speaker's turn is indicated by their
letter, e.g. A, B, C. If they began after a pause, the
transcript records their turn beginning at the left-hand
margin. If they began while another was still speaking, the
transcript indicates where the overlapping began with a *.)

A. Should we ... should we at this time, tell 'em, is this
the time right now to, on workload, to say "Look, we can
live with the present contract language and pupil—
teacher ratio and the duty free lunch hours”? Is this
the time to do it? On workload? The only reason we did
this is because we felt they were gonna come in with
something less and we wanted current conract.

D. They are agreeing, they are agreeing to a committee, and

*B. I n
reduction in staff, isn't that where the committee comes
in?

D. Yeah, in the reduction Of staff, and we wanted to know
assignments.

B. Why? We want something definite on this.

A. NO, but we can't agree to this proposal at all. I'm
just saying, can we say on 1 and 2 and 3 in our proposal
that we'll go back to the current pupil-teacher ratio of
approximately 32 to l and we'll live with the duty free
lunch time as it is, one hour, uh, fifty minute, period
divided between 25 minutes for lunch and 25 minutes of
duty free time?

D. They haven't spoken to that, so I would assume that ...
we wanted to go back to the original contract.

A. Yeah, that all, the reason we made a proposal, in case
they did.

D. So if they haven't spoken to that, then we go back to
status quO.

A. Should I explore that one when they come in? Or should
we package that with the reduction of staff language?
”We'll give up this if you'll give up that”?

D. Well, we could do that

*B. We're, with reduction Of staff
*A. All we want is the status
quo on 4.1 and 4.4

B. Well, reduction of staff needs to be spoken to, I mean,
there is nothing in writing that says that seniority
prevails, or this

*A. NO, it's an absolute biggie
*B. And having that committee and
allowing someone to sit there and say that doesn't do

B.
A.

A.
B.

83

anything unless it's written down
*A. Not that bullshit proposal. Ain't
no way that we can accept that.
SO I'm saying should I back Off on this, back off on
this now, or should I wait?
I'd wait
*A. And explore it with them?
Make them respond to it.
Well, Trav, get a reading for us on this staff reduction
thing. If they would be willing to divide this issue
into the committee being, speaking totally to assign-
ments
*A. Here you go, Bob, that's part of the thing I was
gonna give you. This is just a copy. Just go back and
make them answer to our reduction of staff proposal.
.Just tell them that there won't be any settlement till
we get some answers on that!
Well, it's upsetting that they did not respond to some
Of the issues. It makes it really hard to put them
together. You know the package that
*C. Yeah
we had outlined.
I think what I'll tell them is this. How about this,
Bob? I want to say, all right, the workload provisions,
the provisions on ... Our proposal on workload, we're
willing to look at some Of the current contract, and the
pupil-teacher ratio, 'cause we know you have a problem
with the money. We're, want to look at return to the
previous contract and the duty free lunch time and split
it between the 25 minute lunch and the 25 minutes duty
free
*B. Status quo
*A. And as
long as we can, you can, satisfactorily, we can satis-
factorily resolve the reduction of staff proposal that
we gave you.
*B. And we can work from that, find where the
problems are.
See, where we're at
*B. What are the problems that they have
with the language we gave them?
Yeah, O.K.
If they're with the substance of it, or just some minor
part? Because there is no indication
*A. O.K. Yeah, O.K. Can
you send them a message when you give them the salary?
Send them
*8. I sure as hell intend
to send 'em a really strong message that "Hey, there
ain't gonna be no contract, folks ... unless your get
off you bullshit proposals ..."
*D. NO problem
It seems that it is something that we all are assuming,
that everyone would understand, that people aren't gonna

84

teach, reduce 25 more staff, and take on that whole load
for a 3% increase in pay?
Bullshit. We might as well be walking: it's good
exercise.

*B. The people are, first
Of all, they're gonna be learning that there's gonna be
another major reduction

*D. I don't think we have to buy into that reduction
I don't buy into it, but I'm saying that, you know, that
no matter what we agree to in wages, the board is gonna
have the ability to reduce staff
*D. Um hum, I think
*B. They are
*A. They have that
now.
They have that now. And so just settling for some kind
of a salary proposal of the 3% or something is not gonna
guarantee that that's not gonna happen.
*D. Um hum
*A. Exactly

There are no guarantees in that area.

85
Excerpt 6: Written Transcript

This brief segment of group interaction was recorded and
then transcribed. IIt is not the entire transcript Of this
group's meeting. Read it through once, carefully, and then
respond to the questions which you will be given.

(FORMAT NOTE: Each speaker's turn is indicated by their
letter, e.g. A, B, C. If they began after a pause, the
transcript records their turn beginning at the left-hand
margin. If they began while another was still speaking, the
transcript indicates where the overlapping began with a *.)

C. Number three. All evaluations and/or observations shall
be conducted by the teacher's immediate supervisor,
and/or the administrator who is familiar with the
teacher's work. Number four. All evaluations shall be
based on valid criteria for evaluating professional
persons' performance. And, Number five. That says that
in the event that the teacher feels his/her evaluation
is incomplete or unjust, within two weeks following the
conference with the principal, he/she may put his/her
objections in writing and have them attached to the
evaluation report place in the personnel file.

D. DO you want to throw in something there, something there
just sets of bells right away ... and that's the word
”valid criteria." Have no idea what that means.

*B. As estab-
lished by who?

D. Maybe we want to throw in a committee to establish what
exactly constitutes valid criteria.

C. Well, I figured to leave it ambiguous, because then it
opens the door in a grievance procedure for the burden
of proof to be on the board to prove valid criteria.

*D. NO, no,
because
*8. I f
the board sets a policy and establishes that
*D. A grievance
procedure isn't gonna take care of that
C. O.K., what do you want me to do, eliminate it?
D. No, no, the language is
*C. ”Cause it says
*A. "All evaluations shall be based upon
valid criteria as established by professional committee

B. Professional study committee maybe

*A. Professional study
committee made up of

B. Three administrators and three teachers ... five
teachers

*A. Fine, three
administrators and three teachers

86

*D. 379 teachers and one
administrator
*B. Teachers and janitors
*A. Y e a: h ,
yeah. All will be based upon valid criteria as
established by a professional study committee made up of
three teachers and three administrators ... and we can
put what's his name on there -- Joe Schmo
Joe Schlemiel
*B. What was the guy?
*C. Bernie, Bernie can be on the committeee
*A. Yeah, Bernie's
a good 01' boy. Put Bernie on there and let him get
charged up
*D. Give him
something to do
They have a real concern, you know, the management
rights, that whole ... but I think that since we're
dealing with all board members, I think that that's
gonna be too burning, it's gonna set them on fire or
anything
*A. We 1 l I
we can back Off
It doesn't sound like it's attacking their rights.
We could even gnu: six teachers, three administrators,
and three board members on there, if that's their
concern.

*C. O.K., O.K. By a special study committee of three
board representatives and three teachers. O.K. What I
said, uh, arguing number five and then number six, is
"all final evaluations are subject to all levels Of the
grievance procedure, up to and including binding arb."

O.K. SO I came down off of observations being
grievable, to just final evaluations being grievable
*D. Well, you

have to understand that what you would arbitrate would
be procedure, not content.

*A. We could try it.
We don't have to tell them that.
Well, look, if we get binding arb, you know, if we get
binding arb, we're gonna be able to evaluate that
anyway. Do we even want to put that in there? Auto-

*B. Pressure

(A.)matically arbitable?

C.
A.

C.

A.

O.K. So scratch this?

Yeah

*B. Yeah, the part about submitting to binding arb

O.K. But we, you sure we don't need to say that, 'cause
that's one of their priorities, to get to make it
grievable.

NO, no because we are going to insist on binding
arbitration. As the final step. And if we don't
include it from the binding arbitration clauses, which
we haven't and they haven't, they haven't added any

D.

87

inclusions to the binding arb
*D. Exclusions
Exclusions, I'm sorry. It's automatically in,

it's excluded.

*D. There's a difference
going to get anywhere: I don't think

Look, we're not
they're gonna.
*A. NO, no.

I don't think they're gonna.

see any hope. Period.

I don't either.

We're so damn far apart.

unless

I don't

APPENDIX B

Interpretation of Interaction Scale
Questionnaires for Three Media Conditions

(Video Medium)
Group Communication Study

Instructions

On the next four pages are a number of statements to be used
in judging the interaction you have just viewed. Please
circle the number from 1 to 7 that best reflects your Opin-
ion. For instance, if you strongly agree with a statement,
circle a 1. If you disagree somewhat strongly, circle a 7,
and so on. If you are neutral or not sure, circle a 4.
Please do not leave any items blank.

1. The interactants seemed eager to cooperate with each
other.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

2. (hi the average, the individual turns at talk were
relatively short.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

3. The speakers' thoughts appeared clear and complete.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

4. The interchange seemed friendly.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

5. The interchange was like a debate -- one side versus the
other.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

6. The topic of the discussion was always clear.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

7. The interactants' voices were friendly and relaxed.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

8. There was no touching among interactants.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

9. The speakers often spoke slowly and deliberately.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

10. The interactants appeared to be on the same side of the
issues.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

11. The interactants talked like politicians, Officials, or

professors.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

88

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

89

Control of the discussion seemed to be more in the group
than in any one speaker.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants wanted different outcomes.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The vocabulary used was easy to understand.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers sometimes gestured in place of words.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants seemed to be in conflict.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

Many sentences seemed to be left unfinished.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants talked like I might in a group with
friends working on a task.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interchange seemed formal or distant.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The flow of talk was hard to follow.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers often broke in with ”um hm" or ”yes” while
another spoke.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers were relaxed ix: their posture and
movements.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

At times, the speakers all said the same thing "at
once."
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants shared the same goals.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants' voices were carefully controlled.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants' gestures were controlled, used to
emphasize important points.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers seemed supportive of each other.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

90
On the average, the turns at talk were relatively long.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers often left the end of their turns hanging.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers nodded supportively when others spoke.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The vocabulary used was college-level or above.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

Speakers followed up on each other's comments.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers' eye contact was cold and distant.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers used simple sentences.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

Overall, the interactants appeared warm and friendly
toward each other.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

Each speaker seemed to want to control the talk.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers used stress on important words.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers' eye contact was relaxed and friendly.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers used complex or difficult sentences.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants seemed united in what they wanted.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

Speakers seemed to be careful in their choice of
questions or comments.

Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly disagree

The interactants seemed divided into ”sides.”
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants repeated each other's words or ideas.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers at times were excited, all talking at once
about the same idea.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

91
The interactants tried to put each other on the spot.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

Overall, the interactants appeared formal and stiff.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants wanted the same outcomes.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers ended each turn decisively or firmly.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants' voices were tense and controlled.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

Speakers seemed spontaneous ix: their choices of
questions or comments.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers seemed to be hostile or unfriendly.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants often hesitated or stumbled in their
speech.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

There was a certain tension in the interactants' posture
and movements.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants did not appear cooperative.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers' thoughts were clear and complete.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants gave many support or agreement signals
to each other.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

This activity seemed more like a debate than a
discussion.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants were careful in their choice of words.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

When the interactants interrupted each other, they
seemed angry.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interchange seemed spontaneous.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

92

Finally, we would like some additional information about
yourself. Please circle the appropriate response as it
pertains to you.

61.

62.

63.
64.

65.

Are you male or female? 1) male 2) female

DO you belong to organizations or groups that meet on a
regular basis?

1) No, I belong to no groups

2) Yes, 1-5 groups

3) Yes, 6-10 groups

4) Yes, more than 10 groups

What is your age to the nearest year?

 

What is your GPA?

 

What is your major?

 

93
(Audio Medium)
Group Communication Study

Instructions

On the next four pages are a number of statements to be used
in judging the interaction you have just viewed. Please
circle the number from 1 to 7 that best reflects your
opinion. For instance, if you strongly agree with a state-
ment, circle a 1. If you disagree somewhat strongly, circle
a 7, and so on. If you are neutral or not sure, circle a 4.
Please do not leave any items blank.

1. The interactants seemed eager to cooperate with each
other.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

2. (h: the average, the individual turns at talk were
relatively short.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

3. The speakers' thoughts appeared clear and complete.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

4. The interchange seemed friendly.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

5. The interchange was like a debate -- one side versus the
other. _
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

6. The topic of the discussion was always clear.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

7. The interactants' voices were friendly and relaxed.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

8. I imagine that there was no touching among interactants.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

9. The speakers often spoke slowly and deliberately.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

10. The interactants appeared to be on the same side of the
issues.

Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

11. The interactants talked like politicians, officials, or
professors.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

12. Control Of the discussion seemed to be more in the group
than in any one speaker.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

13.

140

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

94
The interactants wanted different outcomes.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The vocabulary used was easy to understand.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that the speakers sometimes gestured in place
of words.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants seemed to be in conflict.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

Many sentences seemed to be left unfinished.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants talked like I might in a group with
friends working on a task.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interchange seemed formal or distant.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The flow of talk was hard to follow.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers Often broke in with "um hm' or "yes" while
another spoke.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that the speakers were relaxed in their
posture and movements.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

At times, the speakers all said the same thing "at
once."
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants shared the same goals.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants' voices were carefully controlled.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that the interactants' gestures were
controlled, used to emphasize important points.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers seemed supportive of each other.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

On the average, the turns at talk were relatively long.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

95

The speakers often left the end of their turns hanging.

Strongly agree: 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that the speakers nodded supportively when

others spoke.

Strongly agree: 1 2 3
The vocabulary used was
Strongly agree: 1 2 3

Speakers followed
Strongly agree:

up on
1 2 3

The speakers' eye
Strongly agree:

The speakers used
Strongly agree: 1 2 3
Overall, I imagine
and friendly toward
Strongly agree: 1 2 3
Each speaker seemed

Strongly agree: 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

college-level or above.
4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

each other's comments.
4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

contact was cold and distant.
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 :

Strongly disagree

simple sentences.

4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

that the interactants appeared
each other.

4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

to want to control the talk.

4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers used stress on important words.

Strongly agree: 1 2 3

I imagine that the speakers'

friendly.

Strongly agree: 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers used complex or difficult sentences.

Strongly agree: 1 2 3

The interactants seemed
Strongly agree: 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

united in what they wanted.
4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

warm

eye contact was relaxed and

Speakers seemed to be careful in their choice of ques-

tions or comments.
Strongly agree:

The interactants seemed
Strongly agree: 1 2 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :

Strongly disagree

divided into "sides."
4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants repeated each other's words or ideas.

Strongly agree: 1 2 3

The speakers at times were excited,

about the same idea.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree
all talking at

4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

once

The interactants tried to put each other on the spot.

Strongly agree: 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

96
Overall, I imagine that the interactants appeared formal
and stiff.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants wanted the same outcomes.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers ended each turn decisively or firmly.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants' voices were tense and controlled.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

Speakers seemed spontaneous in their choices of ques-
tions or comments.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers seemed to be hostile or unfriendly.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants often hesitated or stumbled in their
speech.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that there was a certain tension in the
interactants' posture and movements.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants did not appear COOperative.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers' thoughts were clear and complete.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that the interactants gave many support or
agreement signals to each other.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

This activity seemed more like a debate than a dis-
cussion.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants were careful in their choice of words.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

When the interactants interrupted each other, they
seemed angry.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interchange seemed spontaneous.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

97
Finally, we would like some additional information about
yourself. Please circle the appropriate response as it
pertains to you.

61. Are you male or female? 1) male 2) female

62. Do you belong to organizations or groups that meet on a
regular basis?
1) No, I belong to no groups
2) Yes, 1-5 groups
3) Yes, 6-10 groups
4) Yes, more than 10 groups

63. What is your age to the nearest year?

 

64. What is your GPA?

 

65. What is your major?

 

98
(Written Medium)
Group Communication Study

Instructions

On the next four pages are a number of statements to be used
in judging the interaction you have just viewed. Please
circle the number from 1 to 7 that best reflects your
Opinion. For instance, if you strongly agree with a state-
ment, circle a 1. If you disagree somewhat strongly, circle
a 7, and so on. If you are neutral or not sure, circle a 4.
Please do not leave any items blank.

1. The interactants seemed eager to cooperate with each
other.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

2. On the average, the individual turns at talk were rela-
tively short.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

3. The speakers' thoughts appeared clear and complete.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

4. The interchange seemed friendly.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

5. The interchange was like a debate -- one side versus the
other.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

6. The topic of the discussion was always clear.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

7. I imagine that the interactants' voices were friendly
and relaxed.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

8. I imagine that there was no touching among interactants.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

9. I imagine that the speakers often spoke slowly and
deliberately.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

10. The interactants appeared to be on the same side of the
issues.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

11. I imagine that the interactants talked like politicians,
Officials, or professors.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

12. Control of the discussion seemed to be more in the group
than in any one speaker.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

13.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

99
The interactants wanted different outcomes.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The vocabulary used was easy to understand.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that the speakers sometimes gestured in place
of words.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants seemed to be in conflict.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

Many sentences seemed to be left unfinished.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that the interactants talked like I might in a
group with friends working on a task.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interchange seemed formal or distant.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The flow of talk was hard to follow.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers Often broke in with "um hm” or ”yes" while
another spoke.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that the speakers were relaxed in their
posture and movements.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that, at times, the speakers all said the same
thing ”at once."
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants shared the same goals.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that the interactants' voices were carefully
controlled.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that the interactants' gestures were
controlled, used to emphasize important points.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers seemed supportive of each other.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

On the average, the turns at talk were relatively long.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

340

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

100
I imagine that the speakers often left the end of their
turns hanging.
strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : strongly disagree

I imagine that the speakers nodded supportively when
others spoke.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The vocabulary used was college-level or above.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

Speakers followed up on each other's comments.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that the speakers' eye contact was cold and
distant.
strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : strongly disagree

The speakers used simple sentences.
strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : strongly disagree

Overall, I imagine that the interactants appeared warm
and friendly toward each other.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

Each speaker seemed to want to control the talk.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that the speakers used stress on important
words.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that the speakers' eye contact was relaxed and
friendly.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers used complex or difficult sentences.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants seemed united in what they wanted.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

Speakers seemed to be careful in their choice of ques-
tions or comments.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants seemed divided into "sides.”
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants repeated each other's words or ideas.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that the speakers at times were excited, all
talking at once about the same idea.
strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : strongly disagree

the interactants tried to put each other on the spot.
strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : strongly disagree

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

101
overall, I imagine that the interactants appeared formal
and stiff.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants wanted the same outcomes.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that the speakers ended each turn decisively
or firmly.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that the interactants' voices were tense and
controlled.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

Speakers seemed spontaneous in their choices of ques-
tions or comments.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers seemed to be hostile or unfriendly.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that the interactants often hesitated or
stumbled in their speech.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that there was a certain tension in the
interactants' posture and movements.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants did not appear COOperative.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The speakers' thoughts were clear and complete.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that the interactants gave many support or
agreement signals to each other.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

This activity seemed more like a debate than a dis-
cussion.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interactants were careful in their choice of words.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

I imagine that when the interactants interrupted each
other, they seemed angry.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

The interchange seemed spontaneous.
Strongly agree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 : Strongly disagree

102
Finally, we would like some additional information about
yourself. Please circle the appropriate response as it
pertains to you.

61. Are you male or female? 1) male 2) female

62. Do you belong to organizations or groups that meet on a
regular basis?
1) No, I belong to no groups
2) Yes, 1-5 groups
3) Yes, 6-10 groups
4) Yes, more than 10 groups

63. What is your age to the nearest year?

 

64. What is your GPA?

 

65. What is your major?

 

APPENDIX C

Overall Factorial Design Display

103

mmva. hOhOh.I HmmoN.l

vmon.l mnmoH.l mmwom.l
MNNmH.HI Hmmmm.l ohwmv.l
mmo¢n.l HNhoH. ovmmm.l
monm.H mHmoH. mmmNm.
Hmcmm. mohmo. vvmmo.
mwmhm. thmm. hvvmo.l
oHomm.l mvva.l mwmwo.l
ohHhm.l mmbmm.l NGMHV.I
mvam.I MHomN. mvmmm.
whomm.H Obvom. mmmmm.
mmhmm. mHmmm. NmOVB.
mNNom. VVMMO. moovH.
Hova.! mmHHm.l vaNv.l
omcvo.l cmmom.l hoovb.l
vamo.l mmwmo. mmmhv.
Nommo.l mvva.l cvmmo.
ommmm. mmmmb. NbvNN.
m N H
mammmuxm

mmmoom moau¢h ho mz¢mz

oucouonoo
mcHnsuusuum
oocmunHo

oucmumcoo
mcHusuusuum
mucoumHo

oucwuwnoo
mcHusuusuum
oucmumHo

mucouwcoo
ocHusuosuum
mucoumHo

mucoumsoo
mcHusuuswum
oucmumHo

oucouonoo
ccHusuosuum
oucmumHo

mmmDmdmz

hmHQnHo ccHnoo HoHuouomm HHmumbo

o oHooa

HmcoHuoNHcmmuo
ImuucH

HmcoHumNHcmcuo
thoucH

HmcoHuoNHcmcuo
ImuucH

HmcoHumuHcmmwo
IuoucH

HscoHDMNHcmcuo
ImuucH

HmcoHuoNHcmmuo
luoucH

ZOHB<DBHW

ZOHB¢HBOUmZ

oooo>

OH©D¢

couoHuz

ZDHQHZ

LI ST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Argyle, M., Interaction skills and social competence. In P.
Feldman and J. Orford (Eds.), The social psychology of
gpsychological problems. New York: John Wiley and Sons,
1980.

Argyle, M., The experimental study of the basic features of
situations. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Toward a psychology,
of situations: An interactional perspective. Hills-
dale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1981.

 

Avedon, E.M., The structural elements of games. In A.

Furnham & M. Argyle (Eds.), The psychology of social
situations. New York: Pergamon Press, 1981.

 

Bartos, I.J., Process and outcome of negotiation. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1974.

Beisecker, T., Verbal persuasive strategies in mixed-motive
interactions. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1970, 56,
149-160.

Bennett, A.T., Melodies bristling with change: prosody and
understanding conversation. Sociological Methods and
Research, 1982, 11, 195-212.

 

Blom, J. & Gumperz, J., Social meaning in linguistic struc-
tures: Code-switching in Norway. In J. Gumperz & D.
Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sogiolinguistics. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972.

Brandt, D.R., A systematic approach to the measurement of
dominance in human face-to-face interaction. Communi-
cation Quarterly, 1980, 28, 31-43.

 

 

Brown, P. & Fraser C., Speech as a marker of situation. In
K. Scherer & H. Giles (Eds.), Social markers in speech.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

 

Burgoon, J.K., A communication model of personal space
violations: Explication and an initial test. Human
Communication Research, 1978, 4, 129-142.

 

Burgoon, J.K., Buller, D.B., Hale, J.L. & DeTurck, M.A.,
Relational messages associated with immediacy behaviors.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Inter-
national Communication Association, Boston, Massachu-
setts, 1982.

1n

105

Burgoon, J.K. & Hale, J.L., Dimensions of relational mes-
sages. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Speech Communication Association, Anaheim, California,
1981.

Burgoon, J.K. & Saine, T., The unspoken dialogue: An intro—

duction tx: nonverbal communication. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1978.

 

 

Chertkoff, J.M. & Esser, J.K., A review of experiments in
explicit bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social

 

Psychology, 1976, 12, 464-486.

 

Clark, H.H. & Clark, E.V., Psychology _and language. New
York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977.

 

Cohen, J. & Cohen, P., Applied multiple regression/correla-
tion analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale,
N.J.: Erlbaum, 1975.

 

 

Cook-Gumperz, J., The child as practical reasoner. In Nb
Sanches & B.G. Blount (Eds.), Sociocultural dimensions

 

of language use. New York: Academic Press, 1975.

 

Cook-Gumperz, J., Situated instructions: Language socializa-
tion Of school age children. In S. Ervin-Tripp & C.
Mitchell-Kernan (Eds.), Child discourse. New York:
Academic Press, 1977.

 

Costanzo, F.S., Markel, N.N., & Costanzo, P.R., Voice quali-
ty profile and perceived emotion. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 1969, $9! 267-270.

 

 

Diez, M.E., The role of directives in the construction of
negotiation and caucus interaction. Unpublished manu-
script, Michigan State University, 1982.

Diez, M.E., Negotiation competence: A conceptualization Of
the constitutive rules of negotiation interaction. Pa-
per presented at the Annual Meeting of the International
Communication Assocation, Dallas, Texas, 1983 (a).

Diez, M.E., Situated code choice: An empirical examination
of two types of bargaining interactions. Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting Of the Speech Communication
Association, Washington, D.C., 1983 (b).

Donohue, W.A., An empirical framework for examining negotia-
tion processes and outcomes. Communication Monographs,
1978, flé, 247-256.

 

Donohue, W.A. & Diez, M.E. Information management in nego-
tiation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of The
International Communication Association, Dallas, 1983.

106

Donohue, W.A., Diez, M.E. & Hamilton, M., Development of a
coding system to analyze naturalistic negotiation inter-
action. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State Univer-
sity, 1983.

Druckman, D., Negotiations: Social:psychological perspec-
tives. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1977.

 

Druckman, D., Rozelle, R.M. & Baxter, J.C., Nonverbal com-
munication. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982.

 

 

Duncan, S.D., Jr., Toward a grammar for dyadic conversation.
Semiotica, 1973, 9, 29-46.

 

Edelsky, C., Who's got the floor? Language in Society,

 

Ellis, D.G., Hamilton, M., & Aho, L., Some issues in conver-
sation coherence. Human Communication Research, 1983,
9, 267-282.

 

Erickson, F., Audiovisual records as a primary data source.
Sociological Methods and Research, 1982, 11, 213-232.

 

Erickson, F., & Shultz, J., When is a context? Some issues
and methods in the analysis of social competence. In
J.L. Green & C. Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language

 

in educational settings. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex, 1981.

 

Erickson, F., & Shultz, J., The counselor as gatekeeper:
Social interaction in interviews. New York: Academic
Press, 1982.

 

 

Fisher, R. & Ury, W., Getting to yes. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1981.

 

Giles, H., Sociolinguistics and social psychology: An intro-
ductory essay. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.),
Language and social psychology. Baltimore: University
Park Press, 1979.

 

Goffman, E., The presentation of self in everyday life.
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1959.

 

Gregory, M. & Carroll, 5., Language and situation. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978.

 

Grice, H.P., Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan
(Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts. New York:
Academic Press, 1975.

 

Grimshaw, A.D., Sound-image data records for research on

social interaction. Sociological Methods and Research,
1982, 11, 121-144.

 

107

Gumperz, J.J., The linguistic bases of communicative compe-
tence. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and
talk. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press,
1982.

 

Hagburg, E.C. & Levine, J.G., Labor relations: An integrated
perspective. St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1978.

 

 

Halliday, M.A.K., Explorations in the functions of language.
London: Edward Arnold, 1973.

 

Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R., Cohesion in English. London:
Longmans, 1976.

 

Henley, N.M., Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal com-

 

 

 

 

munication. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
1977.

Hull, C.H. & Nie, N.H., SPSS deate 7-9: New Procedures and
facilities for releases 7-9. New York: McGraw Hill,
1981.

Hymes, D., Models of the interaction Of language and social
setting. Journal of Social Issues, 1967, 23, 8-28.

 

Hymes, D., On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J.
Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. London: Penguin, 1972.

 

Hymes, D., Ways of speaking. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer
(Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974.

 

Joos, M., The five clocks. Supplement 22 to the Interna-
tional Journal of American Linguistics, 1962.

 

Keenan, E.O., Conversational competence in children. Child
Language, 1974, 1, 163-183.

Keenan, E.C., Unplanned and planned discourse. Pragmatics
micrOfiChel 1978] 2’ 1’ A3.

 

 

Kendon, A., Movement coordination in social interaction:
Some examples described. Acta Psychologica, 1970, 32,
100-125.

 

Kendon, A., The organization of behavior in face-to-face
interaction: Observations on the development of a metho-
dology. In K.R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Handbook of

 

methods in nonverbal behavior research. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1982.

 

King, D.C. & Glidewell, J.C., Dyadic bargaining outcomes
under individualistic and competitive orientations.
Human Relations, 1980, §§, 781-803.

 

108

Labov, W., The social stratification of (r) in New York City
department stores. In W. Labov (Ed.), Sociolinguistic

 

patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 1972.

 

Levinson, S.C., Activity types and language. Pragmatics
Microfiche, 1978, 3, 3.3.

 

 

Mehan, H., Learning Lessons. Cambridge: Harvard University
press, 1979.

 

Mehrabian, A., Immediacy: An indicator of attitudes in lin-
guistic communication. Journal of Personality, 1966,
a, 26-34.

 

Mehrabian, A., Attitudes inferred from non-immediacy of
verbal communications. Journal of Verbal Learning and

 

Verbal Behavior, 1967, g. 294-305.

 

Mehrabian, A., Silent messages. Belmont, California: Wads-
worth, 1971.

 

Mehrabian, A., Nonverbal communication. Chicago, Aldine,
1972.

 

O'Keefe, B.J. & Delia, J.G., Impression formation processes
and message production. 1n: M.E. Roloff & C.R. Berger
(Eds.), Social cognition. and (communication. Beverly
Hills: Sage, 1982.

 

Ong, W.J., Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the
word. New York: Methuen, 1982.

 

Owsley, H. & Scotton, C.M., What's my line? Conversational
expression of power by TV interviewers. Unpublished
manuscript, Michigan State University, 1982.

Putnam, L.L. & Jones, T.S., The role of communication in
bargaining. Human Communication Research, 1982 (a),_§!

 

Putnam, L.L. & Jones, T.S., Reciprocity in negotiations: An
analysis of bargaining interaction. Communication

 

Monographs, 1982 (b), 22, 171-191.

 

Roth, A.E. & Malouf, M.W.F., Game-theoretic models and the
role of information in bargaining. Psychological Re-

 

ViGW, 1979' £1 574-594.

Ruesch, J. & Bateson, 6., Communication: The social matrix
of psychiatry. New York? W.W. Norton, 1951.

 

 

Ryan, E.B. & Giles, H. (Eds.), Attitudes towards language
variation: Social and applied contexts. Baltimore:
Edward Arnold, 1982.

 

 

109

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G., A simplest syste-
matics for the organization of turn—taking for conver-
sation. Language, 1974, ég, 696-735.

Scheflen, A.E., How behavior means. New York: Doubleday,
1974.

 

Schelling, T.C., The strategy of conflict. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1960.

Scotton, C.M. & Ury, W., Bilingual strategies: The social
functions of code-switching. International Journal of

fl

the Sociology of Language, 1977, 1;, 5-20.

Sommer, R., Personal space. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1969.

 

Spector, B.I., Negotiation as a psychological process.
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1977, 21, 607-618.

Swingle, P., The structure of conflict. New York: Academic
Press, 1978.

Trager, G.L., Paralanguage: A first approximation. Studies
in Linguistics, 1958, 12, 1-12.

 

Walton, R.E. & McKersie, R.B., A behavioral theory of labor
negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction
system. New York: McGraw Hill, 1965.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H., & Jackson, D.D., Pragmatics of
human communiation. New York: W.W. Norton, 1967.

 

West, (2 & Zimmerman, D.H., Conversation analysis. In K.R.
Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Handbook of methods in non-
verbal behavior research. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1982.

 

Wiener, M. & Mehrabian, A., Language within language:
Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.

Zartman, I.W., The negotiation process: Theories and appli-
cations. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1978.

110

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G., A simplest syste-
matics for the organization of turn-taking for conver-
sation. Language, 1974, 29, 696-735.

Scheflen, A.E., How behavior means. New York: Doubleday,
1974.

 

Schelling, T.C., The strategy of conflict. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1960.

 

Scotton, C.M. & Ury, W., Bilingual strategies: The social
functions of code-switching. International Journal of

 

the Sociology of Language, 1977, ll, 5-20.

 

Sommer, R., Personal space. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1969.

 

Spector, B.I., Negotiation as a psychological process.
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1977, ll, 607-618.

 

Swingle, P., The structure of conflict. New York: Academic
Press, 1978.

Trager, G.L., Paralanguage: A first approximation. Studies
in Linguistics, 1958, ll, 1-12.

 

Walton, R.E. & McKersie, R.B., A behavioral theory of labor
negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction

 

 

system. New York: McGraw Hill, 1965.

Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H., & Jackson, D.D., Pragmatics of
human communiation. New York: W.W. Norton, 1967.

 

West, (2 & Zimmerman, D.H., Conversation analysis. In K.R.
Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Handbook of methods in non—
verbal behavior research. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1982.

 

Wiener, M. & Mehrabian, A., Language within language:
Immediacy, a channel in verbal communication. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.

 

 

Zartman, I.W., The negotiation process: Theories and appli-
cations. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1978.

”Illllfllifllll'flfllfllflllflr