COMM 495: Capstone—p. 1
COMM 555: Conflict Management
Professor
Office
Office Hours
Dr. Brian H. Spitzberg
COMM Bldg 201
Tu-W-Th 10:30-11:30, & by appt.
Office Phone
E-mail
Text 1
619.594.7097 (email preferred)
Mailbox
COMM BLDG. 236/237
spitz@mail.sdsu.edu
Class Time
Tu 7-9:40 p.m.
Cupach, W. R., Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2010). Competence in interpersonal
conflict (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
This course seeks to introduce students to the social scientific approach to
conflict management. Theories, research, and relevant contexts of conflict (i.e.,
intrapersonal, interpersonal, group, organizational, negotiation, intergroup,
societal, international) are examined. Specifically, students are expected to:
Objectives
Semester
Schedule #
Classroom
Spring 2014
20865
PSFA 310
CORE CONTENT COMPETENCIES: Demonstrate ability to:
 CONFLICT CONCEPTS: Correctly identify, differentiate, and specify assumptions, core
concepts, definitions, and key empirical findings regarding the nature of conflict and its
conceptual relatives (e.g., negotiation, argument, coercion, violence, etc.)
 CONFLICT THEORIES: Correctly identify, differentiate, and specify unique principles,
propositions and implications of various theories of conflict management.
 STYLES/STRATEGIES/TACTICS: Correctly identify, differentiate, and specify typologies and
exemplars of conflict styles, strategies, tactics, and their correlates.
 CONTEXTS: Correctly identify, differentiate, and specify unique principles, propositions
and implications of various conflict contexts (e.g., interpersonal, group, societal, etc.)
CORE PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCIES: Demonstrate the following competencies.
 ABILITY TO WRITE: Demonstrates proficiency in grammar, syntax, semantics, academic
voice, and application of APA style guidelines.
 ABILITY TO FORMULATE CLAIMS: CLAIMS/PROPOSITIONS--CONTENT: Demonstrates
ability to articulate researchable claims specifying the interrelationship among variables.
 ABILITY TO ARGUE COMPETENTLY: CLAIMS/ARGUMENT: CONTENT: Demonstrates ability
to articulate comprehensive arguments that include relevant and appropriate claims,
warrants, and evidence.
 ABILITY TO CONDUCT SCHOLARLY RESEARCH/ DATA: CONTENT: Demonstrates ability to
locate and appropriately cite and list recent, relevant, and reasonable scholarly research,
consisting mostly of peer-reviewed journal sources.
 ABILITY TO SELECT RESEARCH TOPICS RELEVANT TO THE COURSE: TOPICALITY: Content
demonstrates relevance to the assignment and to the communication-based focus
expected of the assignment.
Course
Changes
 I reserve the right to make changes in the assignments, delivery, and content of this
course as needed, assuming adequate prior notice is provided through class
announcements.
 It is exclusively the student’s responsibility to become apprised of and obtain any (a)
materials or announcements missed in class due to absences, or (b) changes to syllabus,
assignments, or due dates announced in class.
 This syllabus does not bind the instructor to specific details of process or procedure.
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 2
COMM 555: CONFLICT MANAGEMENT SCHEDULE*
Week
1
Date
S: 14
01-28
2
02-04
3
02-11
4
02-18
5
02-25
6
03-04
7
03-11
8
SPRING 2014
Readings
Ch. 1
03-18
Course Overview
Essentials
Essentials
Importance of Conflict [Myths, Types, Causes]
Competence-Based Approach: Assertiveness, Content &
Relationship, Double Binds, Marital Conflict, Types of Arguments]
Competence, cont.
Conflict Messages/Processes [Conflict Assessment]
Power [Paradoxes, Koans, Goals, Trust (Propositions, Prisoner’s
Dilemma, Game Theory)]
Background Influences: Argumentativeness, taking conflict
personally, locus of control, sex, relational development
Proximal Influences
[Attribution Theory, Anger]
Conflict Outcomes: [Face]
9
03-25
Family Conflict
Ch. 9
10
04-01
Spring Break/Cesar Chavez Day
11
04-08
Intimate Partner Violence [Model]
Ch. 10
12
04-15
Ch. 7
13
04-22
14
04-29
15
05-06
Intercultural Conflict Competence
[Culture & Conflict (Model, Relational Models)]
Intergroup Conflict
[Model, Intergroup/Social Model, Principles]
Organizational Conflicts [Group Conflict, Bale’s Interaction Process
Analysis, Groupthink]
Third-Party Intervention
Bargaining, Negotiation, ADR/Mediation
FINAL EXAM***; 7-9 p.m., Tuesday May 13
***
*
**
***
Assignments
Ch. 2
Ch. 3
Ch. 4
Ch. 5
Ch. 6
Midterm
Exam (1-5)
Interim Prop
paper**
Ch. 8
Ch. 11
Ch. 12
Proposition
Paper Due**
05-13
Final Exam
(6-12) ***
This Schedule may be revised as the semester ensues. Fair notice will be announced in class and
Blackboard, and students are responsible for abiding by the most recent version of the schedule.
Papers are due at the beginning of class time, through Blackboard Turnitin submission
NOTE: This is the final exam date! Inform family, friends, and the people who are getting married that
travel during this time on this date is not possible because it is scheduled as of the first day of class!
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 3
COMM 555: Assignments & Assessment
Assignment
Overview
The points are accumulated from the following assignments:
 Interim Proposition page: 2 to 3 propositions and their rationale, with 2 to 3 A.P.A.
scholarly journal reference citations. The interim Proposition Paper is turned in for
detailed ungraded feedback on APA style and format, as well as basics of argument
and research competence. Thus, students are informed of the grading
expectations prior to the final paper, and will consequently be held to the highest
standards of argument, research, and writing (50 points).
 Proposition-Argument Paper: A research paper regarding a particular
communication topic in which an argument is developed in support of 8-10
hypotheses, with 8-10 relevant scholarly journal citations. Detailed instructions
provided (100 points).
 Midterm Exam: objective, multiple-choice format, covering lecture and texts (100
points).
 Final Exam: objective, multiple-choice format, covering lecture and texts (100
points).
 Extra credit: Up to 10 extra credit points may be available through participation in
School of Communication sponsored research projects. These points are added
into the total accumulation of points, not to exceed the potential points for the
course total indicated in the grade scale below. Further explanation of extra credit
procedures follows (up to 10 points).
 Deduction points: Any written assignments that have not been downloaded by
the student within a week of the graded assignments being available in Turnitin
to examine feedback will result in a deduction of 5 points from the assignment.
Grade Scale
Grades are based on a total point system (.60, .70, .80, .90 main cuts, with .x3,
and .x7 mid-grade cuts). There is no normative curving.
326-350 = A
305-314 = B+ 270-279 = C+ 235-244 = D+
315-325 = A- 294-304 = B
259-269 = C
224-234 = D
280-293 = B- 245-258 = C- 210-223 = D- 000-209 = F
Attendance is counted as participation in clicker activities. Any unexcused
absence on exam day will result in a letter grade reduction per school day
starting from the day of absence. Excuses are recognized for personal illness
serious enough to see a physician (thus, warranting an appointment slip),
family crisis, or participation in school-related activities (thus, warranting an
official notification from the activity coordinator). The latter requires that
prior arrangements be made. The former two are more credible with calls on
the day of absence, and personal conference as soon as possible thereafter.
Exams will not be given early for any reason. Record the dates of your final
exam NOW, and plan travel schedules accordingly. In particular, the final
exam date is set. DO NOT SCHEDULE ANYTHING AGAINST THIS DATE!
Attendance &
Participation
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 4
COMM 555: Assignments & Assessment
Exams
Exam Grading
Exam
Retention
Late Work
Incompletes
Writing Style
Guide
Students with
Disabilities
Exams are objective format (multiple-choice, true/false), covering lecture,
and any materials distributed to the class. The final exam may be cumulative
and comparative across topics of the semester. Detailed review sheets will
be made available prior to each exam. Optical scanning answer sheets
(ParSCORE “small red”) and No. 2 pencils are the student’s responsibility on
exam days. No electronic devices (i.e., cellphones, earphones, MP3 devices,
cameras, tape recorders, calculators, e-books, e-tablets, laptop computers, or
electronic dictionaries) are permitted during exams. Any evidence of any such
device in sight of a student will result in that student’s failure on that exam,
and if there is evidence of any attempt at recording or copying exam materials,
or making use of other stolen materials, the student may be failed for the
course and reported to Student Rights & Responsibilities.
Items that are overly difficult, not discriminating or unreliable are adjusted
based on statistical analyses (overall item discrimination, item reliability,
item difficulty, response options with greater reliability than the keyed
option). There will be no curving of grades after these adjustments are made.
Grades are uploaded to Blackboard only after these adjustments are made.
Please note that exams in this class will not be returned. However, you are
welcome to make an appointment to see and review your exam. All exams
will be destroyed at the end of the following semester.
Any paper turned in late will be reduced 10 points per weekday that passes
beyond the scheduled due date, excepted only for university or professor
recognized excuses. The credibility of excuse will depend in part on diligence
in apprising the instructor of the situation.
An “I” grade is assigned when a student cannot meet a clearly identifiable
portion of course requirements within the academic term for unforeseen
reasons. An incomplete is not provided because a course or schedule is too
difficult or because time was not managed sufficiently.
This course, like the entire School of Communication, requires all written
assignments to use the APA (5th ed.) style guide for references, headings,
and other format considerations not otherwise specified by the course
assignment. A brief APA style guide will be uploaded to Blackboard for this
course, but students are recommended to possess an APA style guide.
If you are a student with a disability and believe you will need
accommodations for this class, it is your responsibility to contact Student
Disability Services at (619) 594-6473. To avoid any delay in the receipt of
your accommodations, you should contact SDS as soon as possible.
Accommodations are not retroactive, and accommodations based upon
disability cannot be provided until DSS has received an accommodation letter
from Student Disability Services.
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 5
COMM 555: Assignments & Assessment
Tips for
Studying for
Exams
First, study comparatively. A multiple-choice good item has to present a condition
(i.e., root) that one and only one answer (i.e., stem) correctly fulfills. However, the
remaining stems (i.e., foils) must seem correct to the unstudied mind. For foils to
seem correct, they often use words and concepts that are legitimate content for the
course, but that do not uniquely fit the condition identified in the item root. A
student who merely skims or memorizes materials will see several stems that “look”
correct, when only one stem actually legitimately fulfills the item root. In order to
know which stem is correct requires not only that the stems are recognized, but also
what makes the concepts distinct and different from one another, and how they
relate to the condition specified in the root. This means studying comparatively,
which in turn suggests several study techniques.
 Memorization is important, but only a small part of the picture. Memorization
helps with definitions, lists, model components, and stages or sequences.
However, it does not help much with comparison, contrast, analysis and
synthesis.
 When studying a concept, ask how it relates to other similar but different
concepts. It is important to analyze the differences between concepts, rather
than just understanding the concept by itself.
 Successive integrative outlining may help. This means to outline the class notes
into a more concise set of notes, and then outline text chapters into a concise
set of notes, and then combining student outlines. This activity leads to
compare and contrast “where things belong in relation to each other.” The
resulting integrative outline can then serve as a final study document. This
practice is time-consuming, but can also be very beneficial.
Second, develop hypotheticals and examples. Not all objective exams use
hypothetical examples. However, it may help relate to materials by attempting to
apply the concepts of the course to practical experiences or situations. This also
helps differentiate subtle distinctions among related concepts.
Third, study past exams. The professor permits students to look over their
own exams. Such review can help “get into the mind” of the instructor. It can also
improve familiarity with the exam style, which can help preparation for the next
exam. Sometimes patterns are noticed (e.g., missing items later on an exam due to
fatigue, missing items earlier than later on the exam due to anxiety, missing syllabus
vs. textbook items, missing “second guess” items, etc.). Finally, occasionally a
student can demonstrate to the instructor that there is another way of interpreting
a concept that fits the conditions of the course materials, and as a result, there may
be credit given.
Finally, use study groups to assess preparation, but not to study. This is
clearly only an opinion, but study groups can be very inefficient, and are not likely to
do much good unless the members have studied hard prior to studying as a group.
The value of the group is to provide different ways of seeing the material, to test
knowledge with questions any given student would not ordinarily derive, and to
occasionally correct errors in thinking.
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 6
COMM 555: Assignments & Assessment
Extra Credit
Rationale: Because the School of Communication seeks not only to distribute
knowledge through teaching, but also generate it through original research, and
because participation in such research provides important insights into this process
of knowledge generation, students in this class will be allowed up to a total (not to
exceed) 10 extra credit points during the semester, out of the total number of
points available for the course, based on participation in School of Communication
authorized research projects. Points will be provided upon evidence of completed
participation, with 2 points for each half-hour of research participation. So, for
example, if you engage in 3 projects accumulating to 1.5 credit hours, that would
equate to 6 extra credit points (3 half-hours x 2 points = 6), added to the total
number of points for the semester.
1. Extra Credit: Students may obtain extra credit from participation in approved
departmental research IF research opportunities are made available. Extra
credit cannot be guaranteed as it is dependent on the NEED of research
participants in departmental research. If extra credit opportunities are made
available, students can receive 2 points for each half-hour of research
participation (max. 10 points). Research opportunities are presented on the
SONA Research Recruitment System which can be accessed through the School
of
Communication
Research
Participation
website,
https://sites.google.com/site/commsdsuresearch
2. Eligibility: Only research projects approved and listed on the site listed above
are eligible.
3. Announcement of Opportunities: It is the students' responsibility to avail
themselves of such opportunities--ongoing announcements and solicitations
on the part of the instructor may or may not be made during the semester as
opportunities arise.
4. Availability of Opportunities: Research in a program ebbs and flows.
Participation is only available during the active windows of time specified by
each study. Opportunities for participation may or may not be available in any
particular semester, or at any particular time of the semester.
5. Record of Participation: It is the responsibility of each individual researcher to
generate a valid list of student participation to return to the instructor of
record. It should be apparent in each research project how the student's
participation is to be recorded and evidenced.
6. Grade: No more credit is available than is indicated above—there are no
"additional" projects or sources for achieving extra credit in the course.
7. Ethics: Any attempt to falsify participation in research for the sake of receiving
unearned credit, or to surreptitiously claim credit for more than one course,
are forms of academic dishonesty, and will be a basis for failure of a course
and initiation of proceedings with the office of Student Rights &
Responsibilities.
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 7
Overview
SDSU
Definitions
THE ACADEMIC DISHONESTY POLICY OF
THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
In any case in which an instructor identifies evidence for charging a student
with violation of academic conduct standards or plagiarism, the presumption
will be with that instructor’s determination. The instructor(s) will confer with
the School Director to confirm the evidence. Once confirmed, the student will
be informed and presented with the evidence. Some conditions and terms
below clarify the School policy and procedure.
“Cheating: Cheating is defined as the act of obtaining or attempting to obtain
credit for academic work by the use of dishonest, deceptive, or fraud- ulent
means. Examples of cheating include, but are not limited to
 copying, in part or in whole, from another's test or other examination;
discussing answers or ideas relating to the answers on a test or other
examination without the permission of the instructor;
 obtaining copies of a test, an examination, or other course material
without the permission of the instructor;
 using notes, cheat sheets, or other devices considered inappropriate
under the prescribed testing condition;
 collaborating with another or others in work to be presented without the
permission of the instructor;
 falsifying records, laboratory work, or other course data;
 submitting work previously presented in another course, if contrary to the
rules of the course;
 altering or interfering with the grading procedures;
 plagiarizing, as defined; and
 knowingly and intentionally assisting another student in any of the above.
Plagiarism:
Plagiarism is defined as the act of incorporating ideas, words, or specific
substance of another, whether purchased, borrowed, or otherwise obtained,
and submitting same to the university as one's own work to fulfill academic
requirements without giving credit to the appropriate source. Plagiarism shall
include but not be limited to:
 submitting work, either in part or in whole, completed by another;
 omitting footnotes for ideas, statements, facts, or conclusions that belong
to another;
 omitting quotation marks when quoting directly from another, whether it
be a paragraph, sentence, or part thereof;
 close and lengthy paraphrasing of the writings of another;
 submitting another person's artistic works, such as musical compositions,
photographs, paintings, drawings, or sculptures; and
 submitting as one's own work papers purchased from research
companies.” (source: http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/srr/cheating-plagiarism.html)
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 8
Intellectual
contents
Intellectual contents include all forms of ‘text’ produced by another person or
persons. It includes: writings, course syllabi, course lectures and recordings of
lectures, visual information such as models, videos, lyrics, software, etc.
Intellectual
The syllabus, lectures and lecture outlines are personally-copyrighted
Property
intellectual property of the instructor, which means that any organized
recording for anything other than personal use, duplication, distribution, or
profit is a violation of copyright and fair use laws.
Proper source Proper attribution occurs by specifying the source of content or ideas. This is
attribution
done by (a) providing quotation marks around text, when directly quoted, and
(b) clearly designating the source of the text or information relied upon in an
assignment.
Self-plagiarism Students often practice some form of ‘double-dipping,’ in which they write on
a given topic across more than one course assignment. In general, there is
nothing wrong with double-dipping topics or sources, but there is a problem
with double-dipping exact and redundant text. It is common for scholars to
write on the same topic across many publication outlets; this is part of
developing expertise and the reputation of being a scholar on a topic.
Scholars, however, are not permitted to repeat exact text across papers or
publications except when noted and attributed, as this wastes precious
intellectual space with repetition and does a disservice to the particular
source of original presentation by ‘diluting’ the value of the original
presentation. Any time a writer simply ‘cuts-and-pastes’ exact text from
former papers into a new paper, it is a form of self-plagiarism. Consequently,
a given paper should never be turned in to multiple classes. Entire
paragraphs, or even sentences, should not be repeated word-for-word across
course assignments. Each new writing assignment is precisely that, a new
writing assignment, requiring new composition on the student’s part.
Solicitation for Any student who solicits any third party to write any portion of an assignment
ghost writing
for this class (whether for pay or not) violates the standards of academic
honesty. The penalty for solicitation (regardless of whether it can be
demonstrated the individual solicited wrote any sections of the assignment) is
F in the course and reporting to Student Rights and Responsibilities.
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 9
Secondary
citations
Useful Aides
Secondary citation is not strictly a form of plagiarism, but in blatant forms, it
can present similar ethical challenges. A secondary citation is citing source A,
which in turn cites source B, but it is source B’s ideas or content that provide
the unique basis for the claims the student intends to make in the
assignment. For example, assume there is an article by Jones (2006) in the
student’s hands, in which there is a discussion or quotation of an article by
Smith (1998). Assume further that what Smith seems to be saying is very
important to the student’s analysis. In such a situation, the student should
always try to locate the original Smith source. In general, if an idea is
important enough to discuss in an assignment, it is important enough to
locate and cite the original source for that idea. There are several reasons for
these policies: (a) Authors sometimes commit citation errors, which might be
replicated without knowing it; (b) Authors sometimes make interpretation
errors, which might be ignorantly reinforced (c) Therefore, reliability of
scholarly activity is made more difficult to assure and enforce; (d) By relying
on only a few sources of review, the learning process is short-circuited, and
the student’s own research competencies are diminished, which are integral
to any liberal education; (e) By masking the actual sources of ideas, readers
must second guess which sources come from which citations, making the
readers’ own research more difficult; (f) By masking the origin of the
information, the actual source of ideas is misrepresented. Some suggestions
that assist with this principle:
 When the ideas Jones discusses are clearly attributed to, or unique to,
Smith, then find the Smith source and citation.
 When the ideas Jones is discussing are historically associated more with
Smith than with Jones, then find the Smith source and citation.
 In contrast, Jones is sometimes merely using Smith to back up what Jones
is saying and believes, and is independently qualified to claim, whether or
not Smith would have also said it; in such a case, citing Jones is sufficient.
 Never simply copy a series of citations at the end of a statement by Jones,
and reproduce the reference list without actually going to look up what
those references report—the only guarantee that claims are valid is for a
student to read the original sources of those claims.
A good place to learn about plagiarism is the tutorial on academic integrity at
http://plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/overview/; and at
http://www.yorku.ca/tutorial/academic_integrity/caseintro.html
A good place to learn about APA writing and citation style is:
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/
A good place to learn about making better arguments is:
http://www.readwritethink.org/files/resources/interactives/persuasion_map/
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 10
TurnItIn.com
The papers in this course will be submitted electronically in Word (preferably
2007, .docx) on the due dates assigned, and will require verification of
submission to Turnitin.com.
“Students agree that by taking this course all required papers may be subject
to submission for textual similarity review to TurnItIn.com for the detection
of plagiarism. All submitted papers will be included as source documents in
the TurnItIn.com reference database solely for the purpose of detecting
plagiarism of such papers. You may submit your papers in such a way that no
identifying information about you is included. Another option is that you may
request, in writing, that your papers not be submitted to TurnItIn.com.
However, if you choose this option you will be required to provide
documentation to substantiate that the papers are your original work and do
not include any plagiarized material” (source: language suggested by the CSU
General Counsel and approved by the Center for Student’s Rights and
Responsibilities at SDSU).
Consequences
 Course failure: Soliciting or reproducing a whole paper, paragraph, or
of Plagiarism or
large portions of unattributed materials without proper attribution,
Cheating
whether represented by: (a) multiple sentences, images, or portions of
images; or (b) by percentage of assignment length, will result in
assignment of an “F” in the course in which the infraction occurred, and a
report to the Center for Student Rights and Responsibilities (CSRR2).
 Assignment failure: Reproducing a sentence or sentence fragment with no
quotation marks, but with source citation, or subsets of images without
source attribution, will minimally result in an “F” on the assignment, and
may result in greater penalty, including a report to the CSRR, depending
factors noted below. In this instance, an “F” may mean anything between
a zero (0) and 50%, depending on the extent of infraction.
 Exacerbating conditions—Amount: Evidence of infraction, even if
fragmentary, is increased with a greater: (a) number of infractions; (b)
distribution of infractions across an assignment; or (c) proportion of the
assignment consisting of infractions.
 Exacerbating conditions—Intent: Evidence of foreknowledge and intent
to deceive magnifies the seriousness of the offense and the grounds for
official response. Plagiarism, whether ‘by accident’ or ‘by ignorance,’ still
qualifies as plagiarism—it is all students’ responsibility to make sure their
assignments are not committing the offense.
 Assistance: Evidence that the student was not the original author of the
work, due to soliciting the assistance or composition of another person or
persons.
 Exceptions: Any exceptions to these policies will be considered on a caseby-case basis, and only under exceptional circumstances.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO EXCUSES ALLOWED BASED ON IGNORANCE OF
WHAT CONSTITUTES PLAGIARISM, OR OF WHAT THIS POLICY IS
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 11
Comportment
The School of Communication, as a representative of SDSU and higher education,
expects students to engage in behavior that enhances the classroom learning
environment. The Instructor is responsible not only to the individual student, but to
the collective group of students who constitute a class. This means that behavior
disruptive to the classroom instruction is not tolerated. For the sake of the other
students, the instructor may be required to intervene under various circumstances.
Among the actions that are considered disruptive to the learning environment are:
 The use of cellphones and/or computers/laptops/tablets, whether for
conversation, correspondence, emailing, texting, tweeting, or other activities
(e.g., social media/Facebook), and when not directly related to the course and
its instructional objectives, materials, or contents;
 Side conversations or discussion in a manner distracting to the instructor or
fellow students;
 Ongoing or unrestricted interruption of instructor or fellow students, or
otherwise attempting to monopolize classroom time or discussion;
 Reading, sleeping, snoring, moving about, yelling, harassing, bullying, or
otherwise engaging in activities disrespectful of the instructor or students, or
unrelated to the course, materials, or contents;
 Entering late, leaving early, or leaving often during lecture, especially when in a
disruptive manner;
 Activity that in any way could be considered grossly inappropriate, threatening
or dangerous.
Certain other activities may be acceptable, but only with permission or by direction
of the Instructor, who retains the authority to specify relevant restrictions. Such
activities include:
 Filming, taping, or otherwise recording the class;
 Accessing the Internet during class;
 Use of computers/laptops/tablets may be permitted, but only if the students
are seated in the front row(s) of the classroom.
The Instructor reserves the right to establish additional reasonable expectations
deemed necessary to maintain optimal learning conduct in the classroom. Each
faculty member is the primary arbiter of classroom comportment. The faculty
member has the authority to enforce this policy in a manner deemed suitable to the
particular class in question. For example
 a student texting in class may be requested to turn the phone in to the
instructor for the remainder of the class, or
 a student using a laptop or IPAD to access Facebook may be asked to close and
shut down the technology for the remainder of the period.
Should repeat offenses occur, with fair warning, each faculty member will
determine fair and appropriate consequences for these behaviors. Should an
emergency occur or require monitoring, or if students observe violations of this
policy, they are encouraged to inform the instructor as soon as possible.
Finally, all students are governed by the SDSU policy on cheating and plagiarism. See
their coda at: http://csrr.sdsu.edu/cheating-plagiarism.html
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 12
THIS IS
SERIOUS!
PLAGIARISM IS A CRIME OF CONDUCT, NOT OF INTENT.
THIS COURSE WILL HAVE ZERO-TOLERANCE FOR PLAGIARISM!
WHY? BECAUSE:
1. A PLAGIARISM POLICY IS PUBLISHED IN THE UNIVERSITY CATALOG;
2. THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION PLAGIARISM POLICY, COMPLETE
WITH ELABORATED EXAMPLES, DEFINITIONS, AND CONSEQUENCES
FOR TYPES OF PLAGIARISM, IS:
a. ON THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION BLACKBOARD SITE,
b. ON THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION WEBSITE, AND
c. IN THE COURSE SYLLABUS;
3. A POWERPOINT LECTURE PRESENTED IN THIS COURSE ON “THE
ESSENTIALS” FURTHER SPECIFIES THE NATURE OF PLAGIARISM;
4. YOU CAN TURN IN YOUR PAPER BEFORE IT IS DUE, SEE ITS
ORIGINALITY RATING, FIX IT, AND TURN IT IN AGAIN BY
SUBMISSION DEADLINE;
5. FINALLY, YOU SHOULD SIMPLY KNOW THAT IT IS UNETHICAL AND A
‘HIGH CRIME’ IN ACADEME TO MISREPRESENT ANYONE’S WORDS
OR IDEAS, THROUGH IMPLICATION, WHETHER INTENDED OR NOT,
a. THAT THEY ARE YOUR OWN, OR
b. THEY ARE SOMEONE ELSE’S WHEN THEY ARE NOT.
A final analogy:
If you are taking a driving test to get a license,
And you run a stop sign while the instructor is in the car,
You fail the test then and there,
and must wait for an opportunity to re-take the exam another time.
So it is with plagiarism.
THEREFORE, THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR PLAGIARISM,
AND NO EXCUSE WILL BE ACCEPTED.
YOU ARE FOREWARNED.
IF YOU PLAGIARIZE, YOU WILL FAIL THIS COURSE.
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 13
Source: http://plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/overview
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 14
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE “PROP” PAPER
A Propositional Parable
D:
F:
D:
F:
D:
F:
D:
F:
D:
F:
D:
F:
D:
F:
D:
F:
D:
F:
D:
F:
Daddy, what is an instinct?
An instinct, my dear, is an explanatory principle.
But what does it explain?
Anything – almost anything at all. Anything you want it to explain.
Don't be silly. It doesn't explain gravity.
No. But that is because nobody wants "instinct" to explain gravity. If they did, it would
explain it. We could simply say that the moon has an instinct whose strength varies
inversely as the square of the distance . . .
But that's nonsense, Daddy.
Yes, surely. But it was you who mentioned "instinct," not I.
All right – but then what does explain gravity?
Nothing my dear, because gravity is an explanatory principle.
Oh. Do you mean that you cannot use one explanatory principle to explain another?
Hmm . . . hardly ever. That is what Newton meant when he said, "hypotheses non
fingo."
And what does that mean? Please.
Well, you know what "hypotheses" are. Any statement linking together two
descriptive statements is an hypothesis. If you say that there was a full moon on
February 1st and another on March 1st; and then you link these two observations
together in any way, the statement that links them is an hypothesis.
Yes – and I know what 'non' means. But what's 'fingo.'
Well, 'fingo' is a late Latin word for 'make.' It forms a verbal noun 'fictio' from which
we get the word 'fiction.'
Daddy, do you mean that Sir Issac Newton thought that all hypotheses were just made
up like stories?
Yes – precisely that.
But didn't he discover gravity? With the apple?
No, dear. He invented it.
D: Oh.
Adapted from: Heinz Von Foerster (1981).
Rigor and imagination: Essays from the legacy of Gregory Bateson.
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 15
DON'T PANIC
“Hypotheses are the scaffolds which are erected in front of a building
and removed when the building is completed. They are indispensable to the worker;
but he must not mistake the scaffolding for the building.
J. W. von Goethe, Maxims and reflections, 1893 (in Kaplan: Science says)
“For every fact there is an infinity of hypotheses. The more you look, the more you see.
R. M. Pirsig, Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, 1974.
“Hypothesis, where successful, is a two-way street, extending back to explain the past and forward to
predict the future. What we try to do in framing hypotheses is to explain some otherwise unexplained
happenings by inventing a plausible story, a plausible description or history of relevant portions of the
world”
(Quine & Ullian, 1980, “Hypothesis,” p. 197)
“The purpose of models is not to fit the data but to sharpen the questions”
S. Karlin, 11th R. A. Fisher Memorial Lecture, Royal Society, April 20, 1983
(in Kaplan: Science says)
“Being able to examine our models, critically evaluate them, and even discard them is far more
scientifically literate than being able to regurgitate facts for a standardized test. … Ultimately, our
models and descriptions of reality must be subject to two overriding criteria. How useful is this
model, and how much does this model resemble our observations? Scientific literacy requires an
understanding that science is only a model. We have to be able to jettison our models when our
critical thinking leads us to that conclusion.
Saus, S. (2007). Camelot is only a model: Scientific literacy in the 21st century.
Seed, (Sept/Oct), 77-78.
“Without a sense, or without the thought,
a proposition would be an utterly dead and trivial thing.”
Wittgenstein, Blue and Brown Books, 1958, p. 4
“The meaning of exactness best founded in intellectual history
is the possibility of constructing a theoretical system of idealized models
containing abstract constructs of variables and of relations between variables,
from which most or all propositions concerning particular connections can be deduced.”
Machlup, 2004, Readings in the philosophy of social science p. 11
“All possible knowledge is only an approximation and does not reach ultimate reality. It only
reflects certain aspects of reality in more or less appropriate models.”
von Bertalanffy, 1975 Perspectives on general system theory, p. 114
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 16
Overview
The purpose of a proposition (i.e., hypothesis) paper is to develop a number of theoretical
propositions, a significant proportion of which concern communication in relationship to the
course topic (e.g., conflict, relationships, dark side of communication, communication theory,
etc.). The paper in some ways is a review of literature; it is different from typical literature
reviews in a few important ways. Most reviews just summarize research to provide a sense of
‘what is known’ in an area. In contrast, the proposition paper attempts to develop explanatory
arguments in support of a number of hypotheses.
Papers are primarily graded on four areas: (1) Writing: Good writing, composition, style,
voice, and format (APA); (2) Proposition wording: Conceptual soundness of the propositions and
their wording; (3) Scholarly research: Quality of the scholarly journal research brought to bear;
and (4) Explanatory argument: The quality of the explanatory arguments developed for each
proposition. For graduate student papers only, a fifth grading component is (5) Model value: The
quality of the visual model in summarizing or generating the hypotheses. It is very important to
emphasize that “evidence” and “argument” are separate elements of the assessment—evidence
backs an argument, but the argument itself has to explain the proposition, independent of the
evidence. Of course, papers must also be topical; that is, they must be relevant to the course
content.
Hypothesizing
A hypothesis is a verbal or symbolic statement of relationship between two or more
variables (e.g., Trust is positively related to the likelihood of using cooperative strategies during
conflicts). A variable is any construct or concept that can be observed to take on different values
(e.g., trust, anxiety, self-disclosure, assertiveness, strategy use, etc.). It takes the form of X = fY
(i.e., “The value of ‘X’ is a function of ‘Y’). A definition (e.g., self-esteem is the degree to which self
is perceived positively), in contrast, characterizes the nature of a variable, but not its relationship
to other variables. It takes the form X = Y.
All of this is just a fancy way of saying that the proposition paper attempts to develop,
through review of scholarly research and personally formulated argument, a series of hypotheses
on a given topic. Many of these hypotheses may be already in the existing research literature,
they may be derived from conceptual models, or the products of creativity and imagination.
There are two keys to this assignment: (1) Developing well-conceived and well-worded
hypotheses, and (2) developing reasonable arguments for each hypothesis. Like any argument, it
is made credible through the use of causal analysis, strong reasons, evidence, citations, and
example. The most important thing is that every hypothesis should be carefully worded (read all
these instructions to understand this warning) and arguments should answer two “why”
questions: (1) Why are the variables related this way? (2) Why is the hypothesis likely to be true?
The word “because” should figure prominently in every explanation.
To explain a hypothesis means to make sensible how and why things are related the way
they are. Hypotheses themselves explain nothing—they simply describe a relationship between
two or more things—not why the relationship exists. Theories are basically sets of interrelated
hypotheses that collectively provide an explanation for a phenomenon or process. For example, a
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 17
person may want to explain the hypothesis: “As jealousy increases, the likelihood of relational
violence increases.” Guided by an understanding of argument (e.g., see recommendations for
writing that follow later in these instructions), this hypothesis could be argued thusly: Jealousy is
a complex blend of emotions based on the perception that a person’s valued relationship is
threatened by a third party or rival. [Backing]: Retzinger (1991) has reviewed evidence
[Grounds]: that violence is likely to result from a combination of anger and shame, but neither
alone [Backing]. Because [Warrant]: anger creates an inner sense of expressive frustration and
arousal, and shame provides a target for this expression (i.e., the partner and/or the rival), the
jealous person is much more likely to engage in violence than non-jealous persons. [Claim]: This
hypothesis may not apply to contexts in which strong moral, religious, or public restraints are in
place (e.g., even jealous persons tend not to be overtly violent in public places). [Rebuttal]: The
rebuttal is not necessary, but sometimes illustrates relative objectivity and openness of the
author.
In this explanation, other concepts (i.e., the theory of rage as proposed by Retzinger, with
its components of anger and rage) are used to make the link between jealousy and violence
sensible. More explanation could be provided for these concepts, more evidence reviewed in
favor of Retzinger’s hypothesis, and so forth, but the basic elements of explanation and argument
are there. The point is that explanation is neither mere restatement nor mere review of research
or expert opinion. Please note, there is no need for quotations. CITE OFTEN, QUOTE SPARINGLY
(AND PREFERABLY, NOT AT ALL).
Form, Organization and Style
There are two versions of the proposition paper to be completed. The Interim Proposition Paper
is a 2-page “mini-version” of the Final Proposition Paper. Everything used in the interim paper
may be used verbatim in the final paper, accounting for instructor feedback on the interim paper.
The purpose of the interim paper is to provide feedback on writing, style, format, and substantive
direction on the topic, so that this feedback can be utilized to strengthen the final paper.
 Interim: 2-3 propositions (a 2-page assignment evaluated for the purpose of detailed
feedback—see example that follows these instructions);
 Final: 8-10 propositions (an 8-10 page assignment for upper division courses);
Use A.P.A. throughout (6th ed.). Do not leave big blank spaces between sections or
hypotheses. The text should run continuously. Save your work often during writing, and in
multiple destinations—there are no excuses for late work. All pages should be paginated with a
running head—use the insert running head procedure in Word—do not just type the header at
the top of the page for each page. Learn to use internally formatted hanging indents for the
references and hypotheses (as opposed to hitting ‘enter’ at the end of a line and tabbing in from
the next line), and page and section breaks for new pages (as opposed to just hitting ‘enter’ a
bunch of times). Everything is double-spaced (except figures and tables, if such are included).
There is no excuse for ignorance about Word—learn to use its formatting resources and tools!
Otherwise, some other general formatting considerations follow:
(1) Use normal 1-inch margins;
(2) Use 11-point Calibri or 12-point Times Roman font;
(3) Use double spacing throughout (except name/title section at the top of the paper);
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 18
(4)
Interim paper: no more than 2 pages text (not including reference page); Final paper:
no more than 10 pages text (not including references);
(5) Name/Title section: The top 3 lines of the first page of the paper includes five pieces of
information (name, course, email address, date, and title);
(6) Headers: program headers into the paper, indicating a brief title and page numbers;
(7) Interim paper: develops 2 or 3 propositions—if 3 are developed, they must be in the
form of a valid syllogism; otherwise, just develop 2 propositions;
(8) The interim paper must have a minimum of 5 scholarly journal publication
references, all of which must be cited in text, and properly listed on the third page
“References” list, all in proper APA style. There may be additional references to
scholarly books or chapters in scholarly books. The final paper must have a minimum
of 20 scholarly journal publication references listed in proper APA style.
(9) Appendix: A screen-print of the primary search engine summary (see example)
(10) The assignment will be submitted to Turnitin—no hardcopy is needed. It is
recommended you submit your paper at least 3 days early to receive a Turnitin
originality report so it is possible to correct and re-submit if there are any problems.
Use A.P.A. throughout (6th ed.), except for format specifications above. Do not leave big
blank spaces between sections or hypotheses. The text should run continuously. Save your work
often during writing—there are no excuses for late work. Use the insert running head procedure
in Word—do not just type the header at the top of the page for each page. Learn to use internally
formatted hanging indents for the references and hypotheses (as opposed to hitting ‘enter’ at the
end of a line and tabbing in from the next line), and page and section breaks for new pages (as
opposed to just hitting ‘enter’ a bunch of times). There is no excuse for ignorance about Word—
learn to use its formatting resources and tools!
There is no “Title Page;” at the top of the first page insert the following:
Last name, First name (Red ID#)
Email address
Course #: Brief course title
Date:
Title of Paper
Next, some form of introduction is presented. An introduction may briefly examine the
history and importance of the concepts, discuss the relevance of these concepts to the course
subject, introduce relevant theories, and/or explain any basic terms, assumptions, or limitations
that may be important. Assume this class as the audience, which means that the writing should
be clear enough for them to comprehend fully the content, and intent, of the paper.
Next, the body of the paper consists of the propositions and the arguments for each
proposition. This section of the paper proceeds by presenting a proposition and then developing
a paragraph (or two) of explanatory argument (warrants; explanations) and support (evidence).
The propositions should be numbered and set off from the text (e.g., bolded and/or italicized).
Propositions are never prima facie; that is, they never stand on their own. Propositions always
require some degree of explanation.
Next, the conclusion section develops any of several points, such as a brief summary, a
consideration of the limitations of the analysis, a critical conjecture about the status of the theory
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 19
and/or research associated with the concepts examined, future implications of the analysis, or
the importance of the analysis.
Finally, the References section will provide the complete citations in A.P.A. style.
Please save the paper with the following nomenclature: “C495-PROP-semester-yearLastname-BriefTopicTitle. For example, if it is the Fall 2013 semester, and the paper is on sexual
coercion, and your last name is Johnson, then the file would be saved as: “C495-PROP-SP13Johnson-Sexual Coercion”
Submission
The final version of the paper will be turned in electronically, in Word 2007, through
Turnitin in Blackboard. If difficulties are experienced turning it in online, it is essential to send an
email to the professor with the paper attached, by the time the assignment is due. No hard-copy
is required. Papers may be turned in 2-3 days early to check originality and resubmit if needed.
Types of Hypotheses
Below is a series of hypotheses to illustrate how they can differ. These hypotheses may seem
sophisticated right now. However, research of a topic has begun, hypothetical relations will begin
to emerge either stated directly (i.e., in the form of hypotheses being tested) or indirectly (i.e.,
implied by the explanation and discussion of the concepts).
The simplest, and weakest, form of hypothesis is a "non-directional" statement of relationship.
For example:
H1:
Self-esteem is related to communication competence.
While this is a hypothesis, it provides minimal information regarding the precise nature of the
relationship. Avoid such statements in the paper. A more precise form is:
H2: Self-esteem is positively related to interpersonal communication competence. (Note: This
can be reworded as: “Persons high in self-esteem are significantly higher in communication
competence than persons low in self-esteem”).
Hypotheses can also vary by the form (or shape) of the relationship:
H3: Motivation, knowledge and skills are curvilinear to perceived communication competence.
(That is, they are positively related up to a moderately high range of competence, after which
higher values lead to lower perceived competence).
Finally, deductive construction allows the development of stronger, and more tightly controlled,
theoretical arguments. For example,
H4:
As [TV exposure] increases, [verbal skills] decrease.
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 20
[A]
[B]
H5:
As [verbal skills] decrease, use of [physical violence] in conflict increases.
[B]
[C]
H6:
As [TV exposure] increases, use of [physical violence] in conflict increases.
[A]
[C]
On the Art of Explanation
“We cannot infer the events of the future from those of the present.
Belief in the causal nexus is superstition” (Wittgenstein, Tractatus, 5.1361)
Explanation implies the identification of some “bridge” (i.e., warrant, “because...,” etc.)
that serves as an account of why one concept is related to another concept. It is an “animating
mechanism,” that gives life to a concept. For example, one popular concept is that exposure to
violence in the media causes violence in society. The natural question is why. Answering the
“why” question gets at the concept of explanation. Even though seeing or hearing the equation:
“media violence causes societal violence” seems like an explanation, it is not. It is missing the
bridge, or animating mechanism.
To illustrate, consider a few “non-explanations.” It is not an explanation to say media
violence causes societal violence because: (1) media depictions of violence are increasing; (2)
societal violence is increasing; (3) some people have engaged in crimes they saw on TV (“copy
cat crimes”); (4) people believe what they see on TV; (5) research shows media violence
increases societal violence. Each of these merely suggests correlation (rather than causation),
repeats the original assertion, or simply provides backing for an explanation that is itself
missing.
To illustrate legitimate explanations, consider the following:
Cultivation: Social learning theory claims that people learn both by direct experience
(e.g., touching a hot stove) or observation of others (e.g., observing one’s sister touch a hot
stove). Since we cannot or do not always directly experience things (e.g., robbing a bank), we
look to real and imaginative role models (e.g., media figures and narratives). Thus, the crime
and violence in the media provide models, and rewarding ones at that, for us we otherwise
would not have had.
Cognitive Availability: Our brain can be viewed as a library. If 90% of this library is filled
with science fiction, and we are asked to respond to someone’s question for information, we
are most likely to give them a fanciful piece of information, because that is what is most
represented in our mind’s library. If, in watching media, most of the acts or ways of dealing with
conflict we observe are violent in nature, it simply supplies more acts of violence to store in our
mental repertoires, and thus, when we find ourselves in a conflict, violent acts are the most
“available” to draw upon.
Disinhibition: Growing up in a culture is largely about learning what one cannot or is not
supposed to do. The very nature of culture is conformity and normative action within a given
body of beliefs and behaviors. Exposure to violence in the media may make violence appear
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 21
more normative than it is, and thus, make engaging in violence seem less deviant. In essence, it
is not making violence seem more rewarding (cultivation) or available, but merely makes the
violence within a person more acceptable.
Fantasy Fulfillment: Freud and others might argue that daily life, as well as the normal
tortures of growing up, fill us with tensions that are constantly repressed. These tensions
struggle to “get out,” managing to manifest themselves mainly in the form of fantasy. Media
violence may give form to these fantasies, making them more vivid and “real,” thereby
stimulating the enactment of fantasies in life (e.g., who has not “fantasized” about hitting
someone in the face—seeing it done may both “suggest” it, but stimulate the enactment of it).
Desensitization: One of the reasons people avoid violence is that it hurts others.
However, when violence is everywhere in the media, it can numb one’s sensibilities, and lower
one’s ability to empathize. Further, the more cartoonish the violence, the more it seems it does
not really hurt anyone. Such exposure to violence may take the “brakes” off using by making
violence seem less hurtful, and thus, less costly to use.
Excitation: Violence is a thrill. Through 5 million years of evolution, we have come to
find violence a potential threat, a potential path to victory, and therefore, arousing. Thus,
seeing violence in the media is itself, arousing, and this arousal stimulates our own arousal. Our
arousal (adrenaline, muscular tension, etc.) needs to find an outlet, and is expressed in
violence.
Peer Group Mediation: Research on sexual violence indicates that people who engage
in sexual violence are much more likely to have friends who approve of, and have engaged in,
sexual violence. The suggestion is that peer groups mediate the transfer of violence. That is, if a
peer group watches violence in the media, this peer group may then become self-reinforcing
through its interaction, thereby serving as the proximal stimulus to its members’ violence.
Spillover: Violence in the media provides models of behavior in certain contexts that are
then available for generalization to contexts experienced in everyday life, both directly
comparable to those observed in the media, as well as contexts largely unrelated. Thus, for
example, a person may “copycat” behaviors witnessed in the media, but may also extend the
function of the behaviors observed in one context (e.g., a drop kick in a professional wrestling
program) to another context (e.g., a dispute with one’s brother).
Cultural Chaos: Violence in the media may reflect the very breakdown of society, norms,
and culture. If everyone is violent to everyone in the media, then this communicates a sense of
despair, hopelessness, alienation and angst to the viewing public. This has the effects of both
(1) inciting some to exploit the lawlessness (e.g., looting during natural disasters), (2) join the
crowd (e.g., mob violence during the L.A. riots), (3) bystander apathy providing a permissive
environment for violence.
Each of these explanations offers slightly and sometimes substantively distinct sources
of causation. For example, fantasy fulfillment, excitation and disinhibition tend to assume that
we are by nature violent, and all that is needed is something in the media to take the restraints
of society away. Cultivation and availability argue media instills violence in us. Peer-group
mediation and cultural chaos tend to view media as having an effect on society at large, which
only then affects our individual behavior.
In all these examples concepts are elaborated to make sensible the link between
violence in the media and in society. Co-occurrence makes no sense without an explanation,
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 22
and it matters which explanation is offered. Do all of the explanations above seem equally
believable? Were a politician to make a speech on fantasy fulfillment would it seem as
reasonable as the cultivation explanation? Why? The “theory” cannot be evaluated until its
explanatory rationale has been specified, and the brief examples above illustrate how
significant, and distinct, such explanations can be.
Finally, use theories, use concepts discussed in class, use concepts, rather than personal
experience, anecdotes, examples, or intuitive explanations. The concepts and theories
discussed in class represent an attempt to provide explanatory frameworks specifically to
explain hypotheses. So use theories when possible to help explain the hypotheses.
As Another Example
Some explanations seem, on the surface, to make complete sense. For example, the
following argument was offered by a student:
First-born children often reach a vocabulary of 50 words at a faster rate than later
born children, with a range variation of 14 to 21 months (Pine, 1995). First-born
children develop a greater range an understanding of respective words at a
younger age, while later born children tend to develop “frozen phrases.” “Frozen
phrases” are utterances that contain two or more words that have not previously
occurred alone in the child’s vocabulary, or that contain one such word, provided
it has not occurred in the same position in a previous multi-word utterance (Pine,
1995). Since first-born children achieve a greater vocabulary earlier, they tend to
take on a mentor role with younger siblings, thus mentally stimulating themselves
(Travis & Kohli, 1995). (Source: Anonymous.)
Here the student did a good job of evidencing that first-born children develop a higher
vocabulary level, but the student offered no explanation for why they do so. In this case, the
student could have provided explanatory arguments such as the following: Given an
assumption of a relatively fixed amount of time available to the parents, first-born children
receive more parental attention and interaction, which later born children may be relatively
deprived of, as larger numbers of children shrink the available time for any one child. Further, it
is reasonable to assume that parental vocabulary resources are more valuable than sibling
resources, due to the relatively advanced nature of parental grammar, and given the “mistakes”
that might be built into a sibling’s vocabulary. Further, an older sibling will play some role in
mentoring the younger sibling’s linguistic development, and the process of reflection and ruleconformity involved in teaching another person is likely to reinforce self-learning. Finally, the
competition brought about by potential older sibling resentment of younger siblings may
interfere with the learning of the younger sibling, as conflict and emotional disturbance
distracts attention away from the more fundamental aspects of vocabulary building. These
explanations build a conceptual substrate or foundation that bridges, or warrants, the claim
that first-born children develop higher levels of vocabulary, and prevent such a claim from
being purely tautological (i.e., tautology: first born children develop higher levels of vocabulary
earlier than later born children because first born children mature faster than later born
children). So explanations are the conceptual ladder that bridges evidence and claim so as to
make their relationship sensible. They answer the question why.
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 23
Yet Another Example
A student argued in a paper: “Berger and Calabrese (1975) also believe that uncertainty
plays a significant role in the preservation and dissolution of close relationships.” My question
to the student was: WHY do they say uncertainty is important? Because uncertainty means not
being able to predict things. Not being able to predict things means not knowing what effects
behaviors have in the world. Not knowing what effects behaviors or actions have means not
knowing how to control the world, or make the world work better through self-initiated
actions. This results in the potential for bad things to happen, which creates anxiety. So, Berger
and Calabrese say that uncertainty creates anxiety, and therefore we are motivated to reduce
this uncomfortable state of anxiety by reducing our uncertainty. This is what is meant by an
explanatory argument. It answers why people seek to reduce uncertainty, and it does this
through a chain of causal predicates, each of which is linked thematically, coherently to the
next, until a logical framework exists in which the proposition—the relationship between
concepts, is sensible and satisfies the question: “but why?”
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 24
SELECTED EXAMPLES OF PUBLISHED HYPOTHESIS PAPERS
Berelson, B., & Steiner, G. A. (1973). Human behavior: An inventory of scientific findings. New
York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond:
Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication
Research, 1, 99-112.
Burgoon, J. K., & Jones, S. B. (1976). Toward a theory of personal space expectations and their
violations. Human Communication Research, 2, 131-146.
Burr, W.R., Leigh, G. K., Day, R. D., & Constantine, J. (1979). Symbolic interaction and the family. In
W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (pp.
42-111). New York: Free Press.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of co-operation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129-152.
Fincham, F. D. (1992). The account episode in close relationships. In M. L. McLaughlin, M. J. Cody,
& S.J. Read (Eds.), Explaining one’s self to others: Reason-giving in social context (pp. 225244). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fisher, R. J. (1990). Chapter 5: An eclectic model of intergroup conflict. The social psychology of
intergroup and international conflict resolution (pp. 87-115). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Greene, J. (1984). A cognitive approach to human communication: An action assembly theory.
Communication Monographs, 51, 289-306.
Kaplowitz, S. A. (1978). Towards a systematic theory of power attribution. Social Psychology, 41,
131-148.
Keyton, J., Ford, D. J.,& Smith, F. L. (2008). A mesolevel communicative model of collaboration.
Communication Theory, 18, 376-406.
Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1988). Ingratiatory behaviors in organizational settings. Academy of
Management Review, 13, 572-587.
Mack, R. W., & Snyder, R. C. (1957). The analysis of social conflict--Toward an overview and
synthesis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1, 221-248.
Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1988). Power dynamics in marital relationships. In P. Noller & M. A.
Fitzpatrick (Eds.), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 98-120). Philadelphia: Multilingual
Matters Ltd.
Phillips, A. P., & Dipboye, R. L. (1989). Correlational tests of predictions from a process model of
the interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 41-52.
Rodgers, R. H. (1987). Postmarital reorganization of family relationships: A propositional theory.
In D. Perlman & S. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development, dynamics, and
deterioration (pp. 239-268). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A conceptualization
and model. Psychological Review, 92, 641-669.
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 25
Seibold, D. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1982). Attribution theory and research: Formalization, critique,
and implications for communication. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voight (Eds.), Progress in
communication sciences (Vol. 3, pp. 85-125). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1994). Intercultural effectiveness. In L. A. Samovar, & R. E. Porter (Eds.),
Intercultural communication: A reader (7th ed., pp. 347-359). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Stech, E. L. (1979). A grammar of conversation with a quantitative empirical test. Human
Communication Research, 5, 158-170.
Wyer, R. S., Jr. (1980). The acquisition and use of social knowledge: Basic postulates and
representative research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 558-573.
Wyer, R. S., Jr., & Srull, T. K. (1986). Human cognition in its social context. Psychological Review,
93, 322-359.
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 26
SELECTIONS FROM SPITZBERG'S "CHAMBER OF HORRORS"
Try to avoid the following pitfalls: (1) avoid statements of non-relationship (e.g., 'X is not related
to Y'); (2) avoid including explanations in the hypothesis itself (e.g., "X is positively related to Y
because of theory Z's rationale that..."); (3) avoid using prescriptive (e.g., "S's should do X when Y
occurs") or purely descriptive non-probabilistic (e.g., "X may/can be related to Y") wording; (4)
avoid introducing terms into the hypothesis that have not been adequately explained or defined
yet; and (5) avoid introducing categorical variables that distort the form of the relationship (e.g.,
"LOW X is positively related to HIGH Y's"); (6) avoid introducing set/subset redundancies in
multiple hypotheses (e.g., P1: Females disclose more than males; P2: Androgynous females
disclose more than androgynous males). Below are some of the "best of the worst" that have
crossed my tired eyes.
H1?: Knowledge also relates to mindlessness in an inverse parabolic function, in that they are
positively related to each other until the mindlessness ceases to be mindless.
H2?: Empathizing with co-workers strengths, weaknesses, and working style relates negatively
towards escalating conflict resulting in an inability to see another's view.
H3?: Equity restoring to a relationship is negatively related to low self-esteem individuals.
H4?: Reactions in adolescents relate back to anxious, neurotogenic, disparging, masochistic, and
manic depressive parents.
H5?: Individual’s interaction with a caregiver as a child affects their relationship bondage with a
potential partner as an adult.
H6?: The purpose of negotiation is to resolve a disagreement between two or more parties.
H7?: In certain negotiation circumstances nonverbal aspects of communication assume a greater
significance than does verbal language.
H8?: Levels of immediate physical and psychological trauma suffered by victims will vary.
H9?: Child abuse is determined by the factors involved.
H10?: The use of threats as an influence tactic does not exacerbate conflicts in general, but is
limited to the occasions on which they are used.
H11?: Conflicts are likely to be influenced by power.
H12?: Sex differences are loosely related to relationship goals.
H13?: Attraction is positively related and influential in choice of sexual partners.
H14?: Males are negatively related to female interviewers of equal status; whereas females are
not affected significantly to status and the sex of the interviewer.
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 27
H15?: Mindlessness is negatively related to information processing in interactions.
H16?: Deception is negatively related to the truth.
H17?: Proximity increases physical closeness.
H18?: Viewing the mediatior’s role as folkloric trickster is positively related to their job title.
H19?: Guests of a television talk show depend on the reaction of the audience for support of their
heinous actions, therefore after the show is over whether or not they take the advice of the
audience and change their way, depends on the reaction they received.
H20?: Family hour will need to be changed back to true family hour.
H21?: Hip hop is a response to conditions of property and disempowerment.
H22?: Media coverage of the violent topics in Rap music helps alert people to the possible
problems.
H23?: Families no longer have a need for face-to-face communication.
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 28
WHAT NOT TO DO WITH HYPOTHESES
What follows are examples of flawed hypotheses taken from previous student papers.
Each hypothesis is analyzed to illustrate common mistakes observed in the conceptualization and
verbalization of hypotheses. Students are responsible for studying these examples, and thereby
avoiding the types of mistakes indicated. If there are questions about any of the issues raised,
please raise them at the appropriate time in class or professor office hours.
Recall that a hypothesis is any statement of relationship between or among variables. A
variable is a concept that takes on different values. The entire function of science is to make the
nature of the relationships among things understandable. The more precise the statement of
relationship, the more understandable the hypothesis is. What follows is an effort to assist in
making the hypotheses more precise.
1. MOOD IS POSITIVELY RELATED TO SEXUAL INITIATION.
Overly generic variables: "Mood" may be positive or negative. Since mood is not specified, the
hypothesis, as worded, implies that any increase in mood state will correspond to an increase in
sexual initiation. Thus, as worded, an increase in depression increases sexual initiation, as would
sadness anger, and so forth. The key is to understand that the term "mood" is a concept that can
take on different values or levels (e.g., low to high, negative to neutral to positive, etc.). A
hypothesis is an attempt to specify how their values or levels correspond to the values or levels of
another concept, in this case, the occurrence of sexual initiation. The hypothesis intends to say:
"The experience of positively valenced or labeled states is positively related to the likelihood of
sexual initiation."
2. LOW SELF-ESTEEM IS POSITIVELY RELATED TO INTERPERSONAL HOSTILITY.
Mixing variable labels: This is one of the most common, yet subtle problems in writing
hypotheses. By specifying only "low" self-esteem, this hypothesis ignores "medium" and "high"
self-esteem. When two-thirds of a variable's possible values are removed, its ability to "relate" to
anything is eliminated because there is no real opportunity for the variable to vary beyond a very
narrow range of values. The above statement intends to say simply: "Self-esteem is negatively
related to interpersonal hostility" or "Low self-esteem persons are significantly more
interpersonally hostile than high self-esteem persons." Think about what the terminology means!
If something is categorized as "low" it needs to be compared to something that is "high." As an
additional note, it is unclear if self-esteem relates to the frequency with which all hostile actions
occur, the intensity of hostile actions, the duration of hostile actions, all three, some combination,
or some other aspect of hostility. Hostility is likely to take on many different features. It assists
the hypothesis to make these features clear in the hypothesis. Thus, "Self-esteem is negatively
related to the frequency and breadth of interpersonally hostile behaviors."
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 29
3. SELF-DISCLOSURE IS POSITIVELY RELATED TO INTIMACY.
Overly unidimensional concepts: On the face of it, this is sensible, right? Yet, this hypothesis is
deeply flawed. First, anyone looking into the two concepts involved here, self-disclosure and
intimacy, should soon find that they are multidimensional. This means that a valid use of the term
actually implies many distinct but related concepts. For example, self-disclosure has been found
to vary importantly in terms of breadth (number of topics), depth (intimacy of topics), reciprocity
(degree to which partner discloses in response), honesty, and valence (positive or negative).
Similarly, intimacy can be viewed in terms of domain (e.g., recreation I, sexual, social, emotional,
etc.) or type (e.g., caring, commitment, interdependence, physical, etc.). The point is not that
student papers have to agree with "the" view with which I am familiar, but that any responsible
research effort will uncover the complexity (i.e., multidimensionality) of the concepts. In this case,
the hypothesis implies that all forms of self-disclosure are equally related to all forms of intimacy.
Is this sensible? It seems unlikely that as disclosure of negative information increases that sexual
intimacy increases, yet this is exactly what the hypothesis implies until it is specified. Second, this
is a perfect candidate for a curvilinear relationship. That is, extremely low or extremely high
amounts of disclosure are likely to impede or inhibit intimacy respectively. Yet, this hypothesis
implies that even at extremely high levels of disclosiveness that intimacy will also be extremely
high. Third, would this hypothesis apply reasonably to all contexts? For example, does it apply to
task-oriented groups, or superior-subordinate, or disengaging, relationships? Unlikely.
4. MALES ARE POSITIVELY CORRELATED TO APPRECIATION OF OBSCENE HUMOR.
Concepts not variable: "People" are not variables; their characteristics are. This hypothesis
intends to compare 'maleness" to "femaleness. It makes the mistake of correlating categories.
Categories are nominal level variables, whereas correlation requires ordinal level variables (recall
COMM 350?). Gender, religion, ethnic group, etc. are categorical variables, and as such, should be
framed as "difference" hypotheses rather than correlational hypotheses. Thus: "Males appreciate
obscene humor significantly more than females."
5. FRIENDSHIPS ARE HIGHLY VALUABLE TO OLDER MALES AND FEMALES.
Overly definitional: This is overly definitional in form. First, does it imply the friendships are more
valuable to older persons than younger person? (e.g., "The value of friendships for males and
females increases as age increases"). Second, if a relationship is being identified that holds for all
members of a set (i.e., persons), there is no need to specify all categories of that set (i.e., "males
and females"). Thus, "The value of friendships increases as age increases." Third, to what is
friendship "valuable"? Valuable in psychological health, physical health, social health, etc.? Thus,
for example, "As age increases, the perceived value of friendship in preventing depression and
loneliness increases."
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 30
6. ADULTERY, ALCOHOL ABUSE, AND FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES ARE POSITIVELY RELATED TO
DIVORCE.
‘NS’ hypothesis: This qualifies in the realm of an “NS” hypothesis (“No Shit!”). Technically there is nothing wrong with this
hypothesis. However, it is about as unsurprising, and therefore, uninformative, as a statement can be. It’s a little like saying
“Oxygen is important to human life.” Science has a healthy respect for demonstrating what is supposed to be true actually is true.
But come on! Put a little imagination into the paper and come up with a statement that allows parents to think their children are
learning something not already known without the degree.
7. AS MISUNDERSTANDINGS INCREASE, POOR COMMUNICATION INCREASES.
Tautology: It is a little like saying that “X is true because it is X” (i.e., something is taken to be true
because of the way in which it is defined). In this hypothesis, the question arises because for most
commonsense notions, “misunderstanding” would be viewed as a form or subset of “poor
communication.” Thus, if X “includes” Y, then it tends to make little logical sense to say that with
more X, there will be more Y, since this is virtually true by definition of X.
8. A COWORKER WILL USE MORE INDIRECT COMPLIANCE-GAINING STRATEGIES WHEN
ADDRESSING A SUBORDINATE.
Lacking comparative condition: This sounds sensible. However, it is incomplete. Whenever the
words “more” or “less” are used, the question arises “less (or more) than what?” In this case, it is
not entirely clear which of the following phrases should be added to the end of the hypothesis:
“...THAN WHEN ADDRESSING A SUPERIOR,” “...THAN DIRECT STRATEGIES,” or “THAN A
COWORKER.” Complete the comparison implied by “more” or “less.”
9. SCHOLARS BELIEVE THAT ALCOHOLISM IS A DISEASE, WHILE OTHERS BELIEVE IT TO BE A BAD
HABIT.
Descriptive, not relational: This fails in three important senses. First, although it sounds like it is
saying something substantive about the nature of alcoholism, it really is only saying something
about what certain people believe about alcoholism, which was not the point of the paper.
Second, it is not about communication, and therefore is not very topical to the assignment or
major. Third, the hypothesis is definitional in content, not a hypothesis. There is no “relationship
between variables” being described here. This hypothesis is stating something about what
alcoholism is rather than what it is related to and how it is related.
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 31
A NOTE ABOUT STRUCTURALLY CORRECT SYLLOGISMS THAT ARE NOT THEORETICALLY SOUND.
A student constructed the following propositions in syllogistic form:
H1: A strong relationship with in-laws is positively related to the quality of a marriage.
H2: The quality of a marriage is positively related to the similarity of the partners’
socioeconomic status.
H3: Therefore, a strong relationship with in-laws is positively related to the socioeconomic
status of the couple.
This is a structurally sound syllogism (i.e., [A]  [B]  [C]), but it makes no conceptual or
explanatory sense as a coherent whole. It makes sense that similarity in socio-economic factors
might lead to a ‘stronger’ (e.g., more satisfying) relationship, but it makes little sense to suggest
that a stronger relationship would lead to a partner who was previously uneducated, poor, or
from male to become educated, rich, and female. SES factors (sex, education, wealth, etc.) are
distal variables—variables that have long duration and tend to precede current relationship
status. So the implicit order of the syllogism could easily be made more sensible:
H1: Similarity in partners’ SES is positively related to partner relationship satisfaction.
H2: Relationship satisfaction is positively related to satisfaction with in-law relationships.
H3: Therefore, similarity in partners’ SES is positively related to satisfaction with in-law
relationships.
Or:
H1: Similarity in partners’ SES is positively related to likelihood of satisfaction with in-law
relationships.
H2: In-law relationship satisfaction is positively related to satisfaction with relational
satisfaction.
H3: Therefore, similarity in partners’ SES is positively related to relational satisfaction.
The point is to consider the validity of a syllogism both at a structural (i.e., formal logic) and
explanatory (i.e., narrative) level.
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 32
Name: Mortimer Shnerd (Red ID: xxx-xx-xxx)
Class: COMM 495
Email: wild&crazy@girlsgonewild.com
Date: today’s date
YOUR PAPER TITLE HERE (e.g., “IT’S ALL ABOUT ME”:
NARCISSISM, ENTITLEMENT, AND SURVEILLANCE)
In mythology, Narcissus was a hunter renowned for his beauty and very self-aware of
this feature. Feeling himself so attractive, those who loved him were viewed as undeserving.
Nemesis, realizing this personal flaw, lured Narcissus to a body of water in which Narcissus was
able to gaze at his own reflection. Falling in love with the reflection, Narcissus perishes, unable
to remove himself from the gaze of self-love. In modern parlance, narcissism is a personality
trait indicating a grandiose sense of self, and it influences a variety of interpersonal behaviors.
H1:
Narcissism is positively related to relational proprietariness and entitlement.
New media have introduced the potential for anyone to construct an idealized identity
in online environments. In such a context, narcissism is both enabled and reinforced. Narcissism
is a grandiose and exaggerated sense of uniqueness, need for recognition, and entitlement
(Salzman, 1993). This need for love and recognition leads paradoxically to a defensiveness to
criticism or deprivation, resulting in reactionary aggression toward any source perceived as
threatening the face of the narcissist (Twenge & Campbell, 2003). Narcissistic defensiveness is
commonly manifest in strategies such as confrontation and derogation of others, while
reactions to a lack of positive feedback are often characterized by threats and antagonism
(Twenge & Campbell, 2003). Narcissism is likely to lead to a lack of empathy for partners, and a
belief that the partner is obliged to serve the narcissist’s needs. As such, narcissism is expected
to produce a tendency to view a partner as a type of relational object, or property. Therefore:
H2:
Relational proprietariness and entitlement are positively related to romantic cybersurveillance of relational partner(s).
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 33
Proprietariness refers to a set of beliefs and values that view a partner as a form of
property (Hannawa, Spitzberg, Wiering & Teranishi, 2006). Statements as benign as “you belong
to me,” can co-occur with more chilling statements such as “you’ll never escape from me.”
Closely related are beliefs representing rights or responsibilities that obtain to property, such as
“I have a right to know where you are all the time” and “if I can’t have you, no one can”
(Hannawa et al., 2006). The underlying beliefs and values reflect various forms of entitlement.
Entitlement is a belief that, like property, a person can legitimately control a partner’s behavior,
access and use information and social relationships. One way in which such entitlement could
find expression is cyber-surveillance, a process of frequent or obsessive monitoring of another’s
social network site(s) for the purposes of uncertainty reduction. It is distinct from cyberstalking, in which the intent is to evoke fear or communicate threat (Spitzberg & Hoobler,
2002). Instead, cyber-surveillance is primarily intended to provide the ‘lurker’ information
about a potential partner’s activities, commitment, or relational intentions. Therefore:
H3:
Narcissism is positively related to romantic cyber-surveillance of partner(s).
Cyber-surveillance is likely to increasingly become a source of conflict in people’s
relationships. Such surveillance not only potentially provides information that permits a
partner’s commitment to a relationship to be questioned, but when a partner’s surveillance is
discovered, it may communicate a lack of trust. The negotiation of self and of relationship will
likely continue to become a contested site for the emergence of relationship problems, as
people adjust to the ‘brave new world’ enabled by such media.
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 34
References
Hannawa, H. F., Spitzberg, B. H., Wiering, L., & Teranishi, C. (2006). “If I can’t have you, no one
can”: Development of a relational entitlement and proprietariness scale (REPS). Violence
and Victims, 21(5), 539-560. DOI:10.1891/vivi.21.5.539
Salzman, L. (1993). Narcissism and obsessionalism: An interpersonal psychoanalytic approach.
In J. Fiscalini & A. L. Grey (Eds.), Narcissism & the interpersonal self (pp. 241-253). New
York: Columbia University.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Hoobler, G. (2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal
terrorism. New Media & Society, 14, 67-88. DOI: 10.1177/14614440222226271
Stern, L. A., & Taylor, K. (2007). Social networking on Facebook. Journal of the Communication,
Speech, & Theatre Association of North Dakota, 20, 9-20.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2003). “Isn’t it fun to get the respect that we’re going to
deserve?” Narcissism, social rejection, and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 29(2), 261-272. DOI:10.1177/0146167202239051
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 35
Appendix: Search History
COMM 495: Capstone—p. 36
WRITING/APA: FORM:
Demonstrates proficiency in
grammar, syntax, semantics,
academic voice, and application of
APA style guidelines. Form
displays…:
ARGUMENT: CLAIMS:
Demonstrates ability to articulate
researchable claims specifying the
interrelationship among variables.
Form displays…:
ARGUMENT: COMPOSITION:
Demonstrates comprehensive
arguments that include relevant and
appropriate claims, warrants, &
evidence. Form displays…:
ARGUMENT: RESEARCH:
Demonstrates ability to locate and
appropriately cite and list recent,
relevant, and reasonable scholarly
research, consisting mostly of peerreviewed journal sources. Form
displays…:
CONTENT & SKILLS:
Demonstrates knowledge and skills
of a competent ‘citizen’
communicator germane to course in
applying learning objectives to
course-relevant topical or audience
domain. Form displays….
ORIGINALITY (note: By SDSU
policy, all instances of plagiarism
invoke mandatory reporting to the
Office of Student Rights and
Responsibilities.
1: 0-20 (F)
multiple types & instances within
type of writing errors in expository
text, &/or displays inconsistency in
rule application; frequent re-editing
or rephrasing to achieve more
professional voice is suggested.
1: 0-20 (F)
Key claims that are not clearly
articulated or delineated.
Propositions fail by level of scaling,
relationship, or entailment. “Object
lessons” are repeated.
1: 0-20 (F)
Key claims of source(s) not clearly
articulated or delineated. Specific
reference to passages are not
consistently or sufficiently provided,
in detail or accuracy to test the
claims.
1: 0-20 (F)
No more than 1 or 2 directly or
peripherally related external sources
establishing the validity of the
selected source claims, &/or those
sources applied are distantly
relevant to source claims; &/or
sources lack recency, relevance, or
scholarly imprimatur.
1: 0-20 (F)
no representation of lecture, text, or
syllabus-based content or learning
objectives of course in the content of
the paper. Paper lacks topicality or
internalization of principles or claims
established in course.
Course: F
COURSE FAILURE: Reproducing a
whole paper, paragraph, or large
portions of unattributed materials
without proper attribution, whether
represented by (a) multiple
sentences, images, or portions of
images, or (b) by percentage of
assignment length, will result in
assignment of an “F” for the course
in which the infraction occurred.
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT SCALE (PAS)
2: 21-40% (D)
3: 41-60% (C)
moderately low level of professional
Few types & instances within type of
voice, composition, and grammatical writing errors in expository text, &/or
form with moderate number of errors, inconsistency in rule application;
inconsistency of rule application, or
occasional re-editing or rephrasing
required editing (intermediate to
to achieve more professional voice is
scales 1 & 3).
suggested.
2: 21-40% (D)
3: 41-60% (C)
Moderately low level of relationship
Only minor or one or two claims or
specification or implications of
propositions need editing for sake of
claims or propositions, or makes
clarity.
several errors in wording
(intermediate to scales 1 & 3).
2: 21-40% (D)
3: 41-60% (C)
moderate level of incomplete, vague, Some key claims of the source(s)
or poorly evidenced arguments or
articulated or delineated, but there
claims (intermediate to scales 1 & 3). are some inconsistencies in the
detail, gravity, or evidential basis
provided in explicating the claims.
4: 61-80% (B)
Moderately high level of professional
voice, composition, and grammatical
form with moderately few errors,
inconsistency of rule application, or
required editing (intermediate to
scales 3 & 5).
4: 61-80% (B)
Moderately high level of relationship
specification or implications of
claims or propositions, or makes few
errors in wording (intermediate to
scales 3 & 5).
4: 61-80% (B)
Moderately high level of consistent,
coherent, and consistent
development of comprehensively
formulated arguments in support of
primary claims (intermediate to
scales 3 & 5).
4: 61-80% (B)
moderately high level of
development of sound, articulated,
and evidential warrants for claims,
with high status and appropriate
sources (intermediate to scales 3 &
5).
5: 81-100% (A)
Writing displays consistent use of
professional voice, composition, and
grammatical form.
5: 81-100% (A)
Propositions that are both logically
sound, and sophisticated in their
thematic connection &/or articulation
of complex relationships.
5: 81-100% (A)
Consistent, coherent, and consistent
development of comprehensively
formulated arguments in support of
primary claims.
2: 21-40% (D)
moderately low number and quality
of location, citation, and listing of
recent, relevant, and reasonable
scholarly sources (intermediate to
scales 1 & 3).
3: 41-60% (C)
At least 1 to 2 studies relevant to
each selected proposition,
argument, component, or source
claim, &/or some sources applied
are distantly relevant to source
claims; &/or sources lack recency,
relevance, or scholarly imprimatur.
2: 21-40% (D)
intermediary (to scales 1 & 3)
mastery of course content, claims &
established principles and practices,
and learning objectives.
3: 41-60% (C)
moderate representation of lecture,
text, or syllabus-based content or
learning objectives of course. Paper
demonstrates only moderate
topicality or internalization of
principles or claims established in
course.
4: 61-80% (B)
intermediary (to scales 3 & 5)
mastery of course content, claims &
established principles and practices,
and learning objectives.
5: 81-100% (A)
excellent representation of lecture,
text, or course content or learning
objectives of course in the content of
the paper. Paper demonstrates
direct and central topicality or
internalization of principles or claims
established in course.
Exacerbating conditions include:
Amount: Evidence of infraction, even
if fragmentary, is increased with a
greater: (a) number of infractions, (b)
distribution of infractions across an
assignment, or (c) proportion of the
assignment consisting of infractions.
Exacerbating conditions include:
Intent: Evidence of foreknowledge
and intent to deceive magnifies the
seriousness of offense and grounds
for official response. Plagiarism,
whether by accident or by ignorance
still constitutes plagiarism—it is all
students’ responsibility to make sure
their assignments are not committing
the offense.
Exceptions: Any exceptions to these
policies will be considered on a
case-by-case basis, and only under
exceptional circumstances.
Assignment: F
ASSIGNMENT FAILURE:
Reproducing a sentence or sentence
fragment with no quotation marks,
but with source citation, or subsets
of visual images without source
attribution, will minimally result in an
“F” on the assignment.
5: 81-100% (A)
Each major claim is evidenced by
sources high in scholarly credibility
(i.e., relevance, recency, peer
review, etc.)
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 37
PAPER GRADING FEEDBACK BOILERPLATE
Argument:
 Needs evidence/citation: This is a very specific empirical claim and needs evidence/backing (i.e.,
a citation).
 Comparative clause: If you have a “more than” or a “less than” formulation, you must specify
the comparison group; otherwise it the question arises: “more than what?” or “less than
what?”.
 Tautological: This is argument by definition—which makes the argument rather tautological—
entity X is more Y because X’s engage in more Y. It’s a little bit like saying “Democracies are
governments that engage in participative representation, so democracies are positively related
to greater participation.” This doesn’t tell us anything other than what a democracy is. We need
to know something about the nature of what factors lead to more democratic societies or
governments for us to understand what democracy is.
 Thin conclusion: A little thin as a conclusion. Future directions? Research limitations?
Theoretical implications?
Grammar/Style:
 Nonparallel pronouns: “They” and “them” and “their” are PLURAL pronouns. If they are used to
refer to “him,” “her,” “individual,” “you,” “me,” “I,” “one,” “person,” or other such singular
pronoun, then it is nonparallel, and grammatically incorrect.
 Personalized “pronouns”: Just me? Gee. Avoid the generic “you” (and other self-referential
pronouns, such as “we” and “our”). Of course it “personalizes” writing style [please note, the
former sentence could have been written “Of course, you may think it personalizes your writing
style.”]. But “you” also implies that whatever is being claimed [whatever you claiming] is specific
just to the reader, and not more generally. Removing the “you” transforms the [your] claims
into more universal and more assertive rhetorical forms. Rhetorically it is tempting to identify
with the reader/audience, but scholars are attempting to establish general principles, and their
writings are intended for not only a universal audience, but for all time. “We,” and “our,” “you,”
“us,” and “I”, etc., refer to particular people reading the text—not anyone else, which seems
exclusionary and temporary.
 Generic pronoun “one”: For the most part, it is best to avoid use or reliance on the generic
pronoun “one” (as in: “One should not use generic pronouns,” or “Pronouns are often misused
by someone”). The term is passive in construction, and creates complications because the word
has multiple potential referents or meanings.
 That/Which: The word “which” is intended for interrogatives (i.e., questions; e.g., “Which of the
following is not a style of conflict management?”) and for unrestricted clauses (e.g., “The word
‘which’ is intended for unrestricted clauses, which are set off by a comma.”). So, if the word
“that” fits the sentence, use it instead.
 Effect/Affect: OK, so I know that each term has two distinct meanings, but they are distinct both
within and between them. It really ought not be too difficult to learn the four meanings, and
when they are appropriate. Effect (verb): rarely used because it is awkward, it means “to cause”
(e.g., “The use of disclosure can effect positive change in relationships”). Effect (noun): an
outcome or result of some cause (e.g., “Disclosure has the effect of producing greater
satisfaction in relationships”). Affect (verb): to influence (not to cause, which is specific, but to
influence, have some unspecified ‘effect’ upon) or change something (e.g., “Disclosure affects
satisfaction in a variety of ways”). Affect (noun): a fairly technical term used in social sciences as
a synonym for “emotion” (e.g., “Jealousy is an affect blend of insecurity and fear”).
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 38

Media/Medium: The term “media” refers to the plural—i.e., multiple means through which
communication occurs. The singular form is “medium.” It is common for laypersons to make this
mistake, but it would be nice if a major in communication might recognize the difference.
 Apostrophe: The apostrophe is your friend! No contractions are permitted in APA, but
possessives require the apostrophe.
 Contractions: APA does not allow contractions, except in quotations or deliberately informal
speech (e.g., in titles).
 Single ‘space’ after punctuation: APA calls for a single space after words and punctuation—not
two spaces.
 Page breaks: Learn to create page breaks rather than slop a bunch of empty spaces into the
formatting!
 Header: Learn to insert legitimately ‘embedded’ headers rather than just typing them at the
tops of page breaks.
 Often times: Given that “often” means something happening many “times,” isn’t this a
redundant phrase?
 It: Try not to begin paragraphs with the indefinite pronoun “It,” as “it” has no immediate
referent for the reader.
Quotation Practices:
 Voice: Part of developing your argumentative competence is promoting your own ‘voice’ in
formulating your writing. One of the ways of doing this is to subordinate authors whenever
reasonable to do so. This means putting them in a parenthetical position at the end of the
sentence, rather than drawing attention to the fact that you are relying on someone else to do
your thinking and writing for you. There are obvious reasons for noting authors explicitly, such
as when citing specific findings of specific studies, but otherwise, they can usually be
subordinated.
 Quotation bracketing: Quotation marks surround the quote—not the authors of the quote. The
authors are not part of the quotation itself.
 Page #!: Direct quotations require page numbers. Otherwise, you are expecting any reader to
have to read an entire article or even book in order to verify your quotation!
 Minimize quotations: Apparently you didn’t see the comment in the instructions: “please note,
there is no quotation, and no need for quotation. Quotations should be used extremely
sparingly—instructors want to see the students’ writing, not someone else’s.”
 Page #: You only use page numbers for direct quotations, but if there is a direct quotation, there
must be a page number (web-based html sources are not allowed as sources, so you should
have .pdf or hardcopy with pages).
 Scholarly sources: The paper instructions state: “Evidence claims with scholarly journal
sources… There must be a minimum of three A.P.A. style (6th ed.) citations* of scholarly journal
references you used to support your explanations of the propositions (there may be additional
citations and the additional sources do not need to be from journals).”
 Textbook cites: Undergraduate textbooks are not considered scholarly because they are written
for a relatively “lay” audience, rather than for scholars.
 URL: For any source available as a .pdf through the library search engines, there is no need to
provide a URL address. A .pdf is a digital scan of the original hard copy of the published work,
and therefore, it is the same as having the original source. The function of a URL is primarily to
assist reader review when the original is not available.
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 39
Citation/Reference Formatting Practices:
 Ruler Tabs!: Learn to use the ruler/tabs or [Ctl-T] to create ‘hanging indents’ for your
references—do NOT use hard returns and tab indents, because if there are any changes to font
or format, it screws up the formatting.
 Page #: Direct quotations require a specified page number.
 Volume #: The Volume # is italicized too in APA; the issue number is not part of APA references
(except when the journal is paginated from page 1 for every issue such as with popular
magazines; something that rarely occurs among scholarly journals).
 et al.: The first time you cite the source, cite all the authors (unless there are 6 or more authors).
 Secondary citations: There should be no secondary citations. If Jones cites Smith, and you only
have Jones informing you about what Smith says, but you want to cite Smith, then go find Smith.
If it is important enough to include as part of your argument, it is important enough to go find so
you can (a) verify its content and claims, and (b) learn more about the claim you are arguing.
 Retrieval: If you can download the .pdf of a document, this is a legitimate version of the
“hardcopy,” and therefore you do not need to include the online retrieval information. Citing
the online retrieval information is only necessary for “html” based documents.
 APA reference format: It is so extremely discouraging to see this. I lecture over it. I provide
elaborate instructions, and elaborate example. I even test over it. And yet, it appears that no
real attention is paid to the APA format requirements, thereby requiring extensive correction on
my part, taking my valuable time and effort away from providing more substantive commentary
on your ideas. Formatting matters!
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 40
DIFFERENTIATING SCHOLARLY JOURNALS FROM POPULAR PERIODICALS
FEATURES
Authorship
SCHOLARLY JOURNALS
POPULAR PERIODICALS
Author(s) typically experts or
specialists in field, from recognized
academic institution, with ‘terminal
academic degrees’
Articles usually reviewed and critically
evaluated by a board of experts in the
field (i.e., refereed, or “peer
reviewed”); statement of article
submission procedures provided. The
“gold standard”: blind peer review
A reference list (works cited) and/or
footnotes are always provided to
ground the article in the existing
research literature
Written in the technical or theoretical
jargon of the field for scholarly
readers (e.g., professors, researchers,
students, etc.)
Articles typically more structured, may
include ‘boilerplate’ sections (e.g.,
abstract, literature review, method,
results, conclusion, references or
bibliography)
Longer articles, providing in-depth
analysis
Author typically a staff writer or
journalist; credentials often not
provided
Special
Features
Illustrations that support the text such
as tables of statistics, graphs, maps, or
photographs, labeled numerically as
Table 1, Table 2, etc.
Illustrations with glossy or color
photographs; typically include
advertisements between articles
Serialization
Typically, “Vol.” and “Issue” numbers
are identified, and pagination of the
articles is continuous from one issue
to the next within a volume or year.
Each new issue begins with page 1, and
individual issues most likely referred to
by “month” and/or day/date rather than
volume(issue) numbers
Vs. Textbook
Textbooks, particularly undergraduate
textbooks, are written for students—
not for scholars. They are NOT
acceptable for citation in proposition
paper assignments.
Scholarly books and scholarly edited
books, are written for other scholars and
tend to be heavily referenced
throughout.
Editors
Credits/
Citations
Language/
Audience
Format/
Structure
Length
Articles are not evaluated by experts in
the field, but by the staff editors
A reference list is typically not provided,
although names of reports or references
may be listed for “suggested reading”
Written in non-technical language for
anyone to understand; written for broad
appeal
Articles often do not follow a specific
format or structure
Shorter articles, providing broader
overviews of topics
Adapted from SDSU Library handout
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 41
TYPES OF CONFLICTS (ILLUSTRATIVE DEFINITIONS)
I.
CONFLICT: an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who
perceive incompatible goals, scarce rewards, and interference from the other party in
achieving their goals (adapted from Hocker & Wilmot, 1985)
II.
BARGAINING & NEGOTIATION: “Bargaining means negotiating for someone else;
negotiation means arguing for your own outcomes” (Papa & Papa, 1997, p. 160). An
interaction process in which two or more parties pursue agreement (i.e., mutually
acceptable outcome) on outcome(s) in a situation of perceived divergent preferences
(Druckman, 1977; Morley & Stephenson, 1977)
III.
CONCILIATION: a process in which the parties are made ready for
conflict/negotiation/arbitration through tension reduction (adapted from Evarts et al.,
1983)
IV.
ARBITRATION: the intervention of a neutral third party who intervenes at the request of the
parties, and who is empowered to make a decision on the matters of controversy (adapted
from Evarts et al., 1983). Donahue suggests that arbitrators are non-binding, and
adjusticators are binding.
V.
MEDIATION: “a process involving two or more parties who are in conflict with each other
and an ‘uninvolved’ third party (the mediator). Ideally, the mediator serves as a neutral and
impartial guide, structuring an interaction that enables the conflicting parties to find a
mutually acceptable solution to their problems” (Hale & Thieme, 1997, p. 205).
VI.
ARGUMENT: Convergence-seeking discourse (adapted from Canary & Cody, 1994), in which
reasons are implicitly or explicitly employed to warrant propositions/assertions (Toulmin,
1956?).
VII. AGGRESSION/VIOLENCE: (Intentional) Behavior that attempts to inflict or inflicts injury on
person(s) or property (adapted from Bandura, 1973; Moyer, 1987)
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 42
TYPES OF CONFLICTS (A FOLK TAXONOMY)
In order of descending frequency:
1.
Civil Discussions: Conflict characterized by spirit of cooperation, and calm, non-accusatory,
clear discussion of party's positions.
2.
Escalatory Conflicts: An episode of conflict that goes through stages, from less serious to more
intense levels of emotion and frustration.
3.
Silent-Treatment Conflicts: Conflict ensues because one party becomes silent and withdrawn,
signaling that something is wrong and the partner should take remedial action.
4.
One-Sided Conflicts: One party expresses a complaint or attempts to start a serious fight but
the partner refuses to engage, often due to lack of opportunity (no good comeback) or
perceived futility (it wouldn't change things).
5.
Mock Conflicts: Conflict uniquely playful in intent, showing all the surface features of serious
conflict but engaged "just for the fun of it."
6.
Time-Out Conflicts: Issues are "laid out on the table" so that partners can spend time
reflecting, sleeping, or thinking about it before substantive discussion ensues.
7.
Indirect Conflicts: Involves the presence of conflict or tension without a word being spoken,
often about "understood" taboos, rule violations, or "don't talk about it" topics.
8.
Blow-Ups: Hostile and uncooperative conflict, characterized by an uncontrollable emotional
outburst, "can't hold it in scream and yell," or yelling match.
9.
Tacit Conflicts: "Cautious" conflict motivated by a desire to prevent escalation or hurting the
other party; treading on glass.
10. Déjà Vu Conflicts: Serious conflicts characterized by predictable repetition, enacting the same
fight over and over again.
11. Sarcastic Snipings: Hostile and uncooperative conflict, characterized by an "I'm right-you're
wrong" indirect sarcastic bickerings, typically about topics where minds are made up and
positions are known and disapproved of.
12. Third-Party Intervention: Conflicts erupting either because a third party takes sides (or is
invoked to take sides), or is the proximal attributed cause (e.g., the argument ensues because A
invites O over despite B not liking O)
Adapted from Baxter, L. A., Wilmot, W. W., Simmons, C., & Swartz, A. (1992). Ways of doing conflict,
I: A folk taxonomy of conflict events in personal relationships. WSCA, Albuquerque.
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 43
HOW THE FIGHT STARTED....
One year, a husband decided to buy his mother-in-law a cemetery plot as a
Christmas gift...
The next year, he didn't buy her a gift.
When she asked him why, he replied,
"Well, you still haven't used the gift I bought you last year!"
And that's how the fight started...
-----------------My wife and I are watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire while we were in bed.
I turned to her and said, 'Do you want to have Sex?'
'No,' she answered.
I then said, 'Is that your final answer?'
She didn't even look at me this time, simply saying 'Yes.'
So I said, 'Then I'd like to phone a friend.'
And that's how the fight started...
---------------My wife sat down on the couch next to me as I was flipping the channels.
She asked, 'What's on TV?'
I said, 'Dust.'
And that's how the fight started...
--------------------My wife was hinting about what she wanted for our upcoming anniversary.
She said, 'I want something shiny that goes from 0 to 200 in about 3 seconds.'
I bought her a scale.
And that's how the fight started...
--------------------I rear-ended a car this morning... So, there we were alongside the road and
slowly the other driver got out of his car.
You know how sometimes you just get soooo stressed and little things just seem funny?
Yeah, well I couldn't believe it... he was a DWARF!!!
He stormed over to my car, looked up at me, and shouted, 'I AM NOT HAPPY!'
So, I looked down at him and said, 'Well, then which one are you?'
And that's how the fight started...
--------------------When our lawn mower broke, my wife kept hinting to me that I should get it fixed.
But, somehow I always had something else to take care of first, the truck, the car, playing golf.
Always something more important to me.
Finally she thought of a clever way to make her point.
When I arrived home one day, I found her seated in the tall grass, busily
snipping away with a tiny pair of sewing scissors. I watched silently for a
short time and then went into the house. I was gone only a minute, and when
I came out again I handed her a toothbrush.
I said, 'When you finish cutting the grass, you might as well sweep the driveway.'
The doctors say I will walk again, but I will always have a limp.
Probable Source: http://www.facebook.com/pages/And-Thats-How-The-Fight-Started/109023846445?
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 44
COMPETENCE AND CONFLICT
1.
Axioms:
I. People are far, far, far, far more similar across cultures than they are different.
II.
Judgments of Competence Are Subject To Several Systemic Conditions
2.1—Equifinality. Many possible paths may lead to the same endpoint, or more
precisely, “the same final state can be reached from different initial conditions
and in different ways” (von Bertalanffy, 1968, p. 79).
2.2—Multifinality. A given path might lead to multiple possible endpoints
(Ramaprasad, 1983).
2.3—Locus. Different perceivers perceive a given performance or interactant
differently.
III.
Therefore, Competence is a Judgment
3.1—Competence is not inherent to behavior.
3.2—Competence is an impression or evaluative inference.
IV. Competence Is Evaluated Most Universally In Terms of “Quality”
4.1—Appropriateness. Appropriateness refers to the legitimacy or fit of behavior to
a given context.
4.2—Effectiveness. Effectiveness refers to the ability to achieve relatively rewarding
outcomes in a given context.
4.3—Probability conjecture. No behavior or behavioral script guarantees
competence—only a probability of competence.
4.4—Expectancy conjecture. Perceivers will evaluate communication more positively
to the extent that it fulfills positively valenced expectancies, or appropriately
violates negative expectancies. In contrast, communication will likely be viewed
as more incompetent to the extent it fulfills negatively valenced expectancies or
violates positively valenced expectancies.
4.5—Continuum conjecture. There are always degrees of competence to be
evaluated. Judgments of quality are likely arrayed along a continuum, from lower
to higher.
4.6—Curvilinearity conjecture. Any behavior or action can be performed to excess.
V. Competence Judgments Are Related To Skills. Equifinality and multifinality do not
prevent prediction—they just prevent perfect prediction. Certain skills are more
likely than others to predict impressions of competence across context types.
VI. Competence Judgments Are Related To Motivation and Knowledge
VII. People interact—Not Cultures
SEE MODEL & FIGURE
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 45
2.
Essential Propositions:
A. The relationship between conflict behavior and conflict outcomes (e.g., satisfaction,
control mutuality, attraction, trust, etc.) is indirect, moderated by the impression of
competence, rather than direct.
B. As perceptions of self’s and participants’ appropriateness and effectiveness increase,
satisfaction, trust, control mutuality and attraction increase.
C. In general, as integrative (i.e., compromising, collaborative) strategy use increases,
competence impressions increase (constrained by curvilinear effects at high ranges).
D. In general, as distributive (i.e., aggressive, competing) strategy use increases,
competence impressions decrease (constrained by curvilinear effects at high ranges).
E. In general, avoidant (i.e., avoiding, accommodating) strategy use is ambivalently related
to competence impressions (constrained by curvilinear effects at high ranges).
3.
Empirical Findings Relevant to the Model:
A. “Several participants …felt that their partners’ aggressive responses were appropriate
when done in self-defense or as a response to the participants’ initiated acts of
aggression…. [and] when they perceived it to be a learned behavior or innate
characteristic.” (Olsen, 2002, p. 181)
B. “For some, the use of aggression was actually viewed as a constructive way of dealing
with their conflicts because it helped them ‘clear the air,’ get their partner’s attention,
and reach resolution sooner. Others noted that a particularly aggressive episode was
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 46
C.
D.
E.
F.
constructive because it became a relationship-changing event, forever altering the way
they and their partners dealt with conflict.” (Olsen, 2002, p. 184)
“the use of aggression was most effective when it deviated from a relational partner’s
normal pattern of behavior….because it prompted the other partner to take notice”
(Olsen, 2002, p. 185)
“The use of aggression lost its effectiveness [over time in conflicts] because the partners
became desensitized to it” (Olsen, 2002, p. 181)
“The most frequent type of interaction was labeled ‘unyielding.’ This category was
operationalized as communication that was ineffective and inappropriate but was not a
form of avoiding or minimizing as defined by Spitzberg and colleagues (1994). Instead,
the individuals’ communication was engaging, direct, and aggressive.” (Olsen, 2002, p.
183). “Thus, three new dimensions of communication competence were identified and
labeled, unyielding, vindicating, and agitating” (Olsen, 185, p. 185)
Avoidance, negative handing [distributive], and no resolution conflict management
strategies had no direct relationship with relationship satisfaction, but were significantly
associated with satisfaction with the outcome of the conflict, which in turn was
significantly related to relationship satisfaction. That is, the relationship between
conflict behaviors and relationship satisfaction was mediated by effectiveness
perceptions (Cramer, 2002)
Selected references:
Canary, D. J., & Cupach, W. R. (1988). Relational and episodic characteristics associated with conflict
tactics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 305-325.
Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1987). Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of conflict
strategies. Human Communication Research, 14, 93-118.
Canary, D. J., Cupach, W. R., & Serpe, R. T. (2001). A competence-based approach to examining
interpersonal conflict: Test of a longitudinal model. Communication Research, 28, 79-104.
Cramer, D. (2002). Linking conflict management behaviours and relational satisfaction: The intervening
role of conflict outcome satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 425-432.
Gross, M. A., Guerrero, L. K., & Alberts, J. K. (2004). Perceptions of conflict strategies and communication
competence in task-oriented dyads. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 249-270.
Lakey, S. G., & Canary, D. J. (2002). Actor goal achievement and sensitivity to partner as critical factors in
understanding interpersonal communication competence and conflict strategies. Communication
Monographs, 69, 217-235.
Olsen, L. N. (2002). “As ugly and painful as it was, it was effective:” Individuals’ unique assessment of
communication competence during aggressive conflict episodes. Communication Studies, 53, 171-188.
Olsen, L. N., & Golish, T. D. (2002). Topics of conflict and patterns of aggression in romantic relationships.
Southern Communication Journal, 67, 180-200.
Papa, M. J., & Canary, D. J. (1995). Conflict in organizations: A competence-based approach. In A. M.
Nicotera (Ed.), Conflict and organizations: Communicative processes (pp. 153-179).
Spitzberg, B. H., Canary, D. J., & Cupach, W. R. (1994). A competence-based approach to the study of
interpersonal conflict. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.), Conflict in personal relationships (pp. 183-202). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 47
ASSERTION CONTEXTS
1. LOUD MUSIC: It's 11:00 p.m. on a weeknight and your roommate is playing the stereo very
loudly. You have an important exam at 8:30 tomorrow morning. It is impossible for you to study
or sleep.
2. FRIEND’S BETRAYAL: A week ago you and your steady partner of about a year broke up. You are
still in love with this person but she/he wanted to move on. You have just spent the weekend
with a good friend of yours who has patiently and helpfully listened to your hard luck stories.
Then, the phone rings. Your friend says, "Hey, guess what? I'm going to the game with your old
lover."
3. WAITING IN LINE: You've been waiting in line patiently for about an hour to get good seats for
the opening of a movie you are excited to see. A group of four people walking by see two
people directly in front of you who they know. The group starts a conversation with the pair in
front of you and you overhear one of the group say: "Hey, can we just join you rather than go all
the way to the back of the line?"
4. THE GROUP PROJECT: You are working on a group project with three other students. Your
schedules are all very different, and for good reasons, you missed two out of the last three
meetings that were held. You come to the next meeting and they inform you that they have
made several key decisions regarding the project in your absence. You are upset because they
did not seek your input or consult you and because you strongly disagree with some of the
decisions that they made.
5. POPCORN: Your roommate has been eating a lot of the food you buy and bring to your
apartment, despite the fact that you had agreed early in the semester to purchase your
groceries and food separately. This afternoon you come home to find your roommate eating
the last of your microwave popcorn you had intended to eat tonight.
6. BORROWED CD’s: A friend of yours, whom you see about 5-6 times a semester continually
"forgets" to return some CDs s/he borrowed over two months ago. In the past, the verbal
exchanges regarding this subject have gone something like: "Do you still have those albums I
lent you?" "Oh yeah. Sorry I haven't gotten them back to you. I'll return them soon." You see
your friend today and this verbal exchange is repeated.
7. HYPELAND: You are at Hypeland Appliance Store just looking at the MP3 players. You have
thought about upgrading your device, and probably could afford to right now. However, you
just want to do some comparative shopping at present. An aggressive salesperson has spotted
you and starts really giving you a sales pitch, despite the fact you said you were just looking. He
persists in trying to talk you into buying an MP3, when all you want is to look.
8. FIRST DATE: You are on a first date with someone you are very attracted to. So far the date has
gone well. You are at a club for some “after dinner” drinks and dancing. For about a half hour,
your date has done nothing but complain about and give grisly details of former relationships.
You get very uncomfortable hearing all this intimate and frequently unseemly information on
your first date, but find it difficult to get your date off the topic simply by changing subjects.
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 48
HOW TO ARGUE EFFECTIVELY
(adapted from Dave Barry)
I.
Drink liquor.
Suppose you are at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of
Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like
grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls
your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about
the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering
searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture.
II.
Make things up.
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove that Peruvians are
underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you'll be damned
if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are
underpaid." Say instead: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised
tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level." NOTE:
Always make up exact figures. If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make
THAT up too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford
Commission published on May 9, 2002. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice
you would use to say, "You left your soiled underwear in my bathroom."
III.
Use meaningless but weighty-sounding words and phrases.
Memorize this list: Let me put it this way,...[In terms of...; vis-a-vis...; per se…; as it were…;
qua..; so to speak…]. You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.",
"e.g.", and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don't." Here's how to use these
words and phrases. Suppose you want to say, "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more
often, but they don't have enough money." You never win arguments talking like that. But you
WILL win if you say, "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua
Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough
money per se, as it were. Q.E.D." Only a fool would challenge that statement.
IV.
Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks.
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they
make valid points. Among the best are: [You're begging the question; You're being defensive;
Don't compare apples to oranges; What are your parameters?]. This last one is especially
valuable. Nobody (other than engineers and policy wonks) has the vaguest idea what
"parameters" means. Here's how to use your comebacks:
You say:
Opponent says:
You say:
V.
As Abe Lincoln said in 1873…
Lincoln died in 1865.
You’re begging the question
You say:
Opponent says:
You say:
Liberians, like most Asians…
Liberia is in Africa.
Don’t be so defensive!
Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly
wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say, "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might
say," or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler." Do not try to pull any of this on people
who generally carry weapons or who are supposed to be medicated daily.
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 49
TYPES OF ARGUMENTS:
CONVERSATIONAL ARGUMENT CLASSIFICATION SCHEME
1. Assertion: Statements of belief or opinion. (e.g., “I think we trust each other”)
2. Proposition: Statements that call for discussion or action. (e.g., “I just wish we could save
more money”)
3. Elaboration: Statements that support other statements by providing evidence or clarification.
(e.g., “You’ve never given me any reason to worry about others”)
4. Amplification: Explicit inferential statements. (e.g., “Given the number of problems others
have, I’d say we’re pretty normal”)
5. Justification: Statements that offer norms, values, or rules of logic to support the validity of
other statements. (e.g., “So it all comes down to making family more important than work”)
6. Agreement: Statements that indicate acceptance, concurrence, agreement. (e.g., “All right, I
see”)
7. Acknowledgement: Messages that indicate recognition and/or understanding of, but not
agreement to, another’s point. (e.g., “I think you should work harder, OK?”)
8. Objection: Statements that deny the truth of accuracy of another statement. (e.g., “You’ll
never convince me of that”)
9. Challenge: Messages that present a problem, question, or reservation that must be addressed
to reach agreement. (“It doesn’t make sense to save at 10% with you running up the VISA bill
at 20%”)
10. Response: Statements that defend other statements that are met with objection or challenge.
(e.g., “That’s because you’re unreasonable”)
11. Frame: Messages that provide a context for and/or qualification of another statement. (e.g.,
“We’re not poor by most people’s standards”)
12. Forestall/Secure: Statements that attempt to postpone or delay discussion by securing
common ground. (e.g., “Ah, I see what you mean.”)
13. Forestall/Remove: Statements that attempt to postpone or delay discussion by not allowing
something to be discussed. (e.g., “Yeah, we don’t need to discuss this”)
Source:
Canary, D. J., Weger, H., Jr., & Stafford, L. (1991). Couples’ argument sequences and their
associations with relational characteristics. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55,
159-179.
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 50
ILLUSTRATION OF ATTRIBUTION THEORY THROUGH A COURTROOM EXAMPLE
A student accuses a fellow student she had been dating of engaging in date rape. How might the attorneys attempt to use attribution theory to make their
respective cases for their clients?
Attorney
Consistency
Distinctiveness
Locus
Controllability
Specific Attribution
Definition:
How often does event
occur when the other
event occurs?
To what extent does
one event occur only
when the other event
occurs?
Is the cause of the
event “inside” the
person or “outside”
the person?
To what extent is the
person able to change
or control what
happens?
Defense:
Low: My client never
tried this before with
this person
Low: My client never
tried this with any of
his other dating
partners
External: The girl
teased and led my
client on. She didn’t
say “please don’t” until
they were undressed,
and then only feebly
Uncontrollable: Both
my client and the
defendant had had
a lot to drink that
night
High: The defendant
has a reputation for
being very sexually
persistent and
aggressive
High: The defendant
clearly was uniquely
obsessed with my
client; he was more
aggressive with her
than with previous
partners
Internal: The defendant
bragged to friends
about how he intended
to score with my
client
Controllable: Actions
on the date—going to
a party, to his place
drinking, threatening
to leave her stranded
if she didn’t have sex
—reveal the
defendant’s intentions
Prosecution:
What caused this
person to do what
he or she did?
My client is not a
coercive person: he
simply got carried away
by the context due to
mixed signals from the
plaintiff (i.e., he should
not be held responsible)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------High: My client claims
Low: Previous dating
Internal: The defendant Controllable: The
The defendant clearly
that the defendant
partners testify that
talked and talked about defendant said to her:
intended to have sex
consistently persisted
the defendant was
how much he wanted
“I know what you
with my client, forcing
in pressuring her for
sexually aggressive
to have sex with my
need and I’m going to
himself on her against
sexual relations
with them
client
give it to you whether
her will (i.e., he should
you want it or not.”
be held responsible)
The defendant clearly
had planned to have
sex with my client,
regardless of her
consent and he did
things to assure this
outcome (i.e., he should
be held responsible)
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 51
ANGER
I.
MODES OF ANGER EXPRESSION (Guerrero, 1994):
DIRECT
INDIRECT
THREATENING
Distributive-Aggressive
NON-THREATENING
Integrative-Assertive














Yelling, screaming
Criticize partner
Try to prove you are right
Slam door, throw things
Try to get even
Threaten other
Be hostile
Listen to other’s side
Discuss problems
Try to be fair
Share feelings
Try to patch it up
Solicit disclosure(s)
Calm discussion
Passive-Aggressive
Nonassertive-Denial










Silent treatment
Ignore partner
Cold/dirty looks
Leave scene
Act coldly, brood
Hide feelings
Deny feeling angry
Act calm
“Poo-pooh” feelings
Say nothing
II.
Fuzzy Clusters of Anger types (review in Canary, Spitzberg & Semic, 1998)
A. Rage (i.e., outrage, fury, wrath, hostility, bitterness, hate, etc.)
B. Irritation (i.e., aggravation, agitation, annoyance, grumpiness, grouchiness, etc.)
C. Exasperation (i.e., similar to irritation and frustration)
D. Disgust (i.e., revulsion and contempt)
E. Envy/Jealousy
F. Torment (i.e., anguish)
III.
Causes of Anger (see Canary et al, 1998, for review):
A. Identity management (e.g., self-esteem threat, insult, condescension, blame/reproach)
B. Aggression (e.g., physical threat or harm, verbal harassment or abuse, etc.)
C. Frustration (e.g., goal interference, expectation violation, powerlessness, etc.)
D. Fairness (e.g., inequity, unfairness, illegitimate treatment, etc.)
E. Incompetence (e.g., other’s incompetence, thoughtlessness, moodiness or emotional
constriction, self-centeredness, other’s insensitivity, other’s lack of attentiveness, etc.)
F. Relational threat (e.g., jealousy, betrayal, unfaithfulness, etc.)
G. Predispositions (e.g., alcoholism, scripts, stressed out, fatigued, personality, etc.)
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 52
IV.
A General Model of Anger  Aggression Link:
A. Aggression arises from initial situation appraisal (i.e., an arousing situation is interpreted or
labeled as threatening/frustrating/aggravating, etc.)
B. Aggression arises from learned responses (i.e., we “model” the behavior that seems rewarding
to others, so to the extent that anger expression “works” for others, we imitate it, and then
sustain it to the extent it is rewarded for us)
C. Aggression is moderated by higher-order interpretations/attributions:
1. The more global, stable, internal and selfish anger expression attributions are, the more
negative the interpretations of the angry person and the relational outcomes
2. The more personal (i.e., internal, controllable) self-attributions for an event, the less
aggressive one’s response.
3. The more unstable and unselfish the attribution, the less likely an aggressive response.
D. Aggression arises from communication skills deficiencies
V.
Miscellaneous Findings:
A. Integrative expressions of anger are positively related to competence and relational satisfaction;
nonassertive-denial expressions are negatively related to competence. No significant relationship
was found for distributive or passive-aggressive expressions. (Guerrero, '93)
B. People perceive themselves as more competent in their anger expression than their partners
(Guerrero, '93)
C. As justification of anger increases, perceptions of incompetence of anger expression decrease (see
Face/Accounts lecture) (Sereno et al.)
D. About 1/5th of perpetrators recall apologizing, whereas only 5% of victims recall apologies (BS&W,
'90)
VI.
Recommendations (Averill, 1993):
A. People have the right to become angry in the face of intentional wrongdoing or unintended
misdeeds if those misdeeds can be corrected (e.g., negligence);
B. People should direct anger at people or objects responsible for the action(s):
C. People should not displace anger onto innocent third parties, “nor should it be directed at the
target for reasons other than the instigation;”
D. The goal should be to correct the situation and restore fairness—not to intimidate
E. The response to anger should be in proportion to the instigation;
F. The response to anger should closely follow the provoking event
G. The expression of anger should entail resolve and follow through when necessary
References:
Canary, D. J., Spitzberg, B. H., & Semic, B. A. (1998). The experience and expression of anger in
interpersonal settings. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Communication and emotion:
Theory, research and applications (pp. 189-213). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Cupach, W. R., & Canary, D. J. (1995). Managing conflict and anger: Investigating the sex stereotype
hypothesis. In Kalbfleisch, P. J., & Cody, M. J. (Eds.). Gender, power, and communication in human
relationships (pp. 223-252). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guerrero, L. K. (1994). "I'm so mad I could scream:" The effects of anger expression on relational
satisfaction and communication competence. Southern Communication Journal, 59, 125-141.
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 53
APOLOGIA
(Apo—from, off; Logia-logos—speech)



Structure of apologies (Exline et al., 2007; Harris et al., 2006):
o Enactment token: a ‘performance’ token (i.e., “I’m sorry” or “I apologize” one
data set found 79% of natural language apologies used the word “sorry” Holmes,
1998, cited in Harris et al.);
o Responsibility: an expression indicating acceptance of responsibility or blame;
o Remorse: expression of contrition, regret, and/or remorse;
o Account: an explanation or account;
o Reparation: an offer of reparation; and
o Future Forbearance: a promise of future forbearance.
Functions of apologies (Risen & Gilovich, 2007):
o Identification and reaffirmation of social rules
o Restoration of victim standing or status
o Reestablishing and repairing of social interaction
o Manage the face of the offender and offended
o Establish grounds for ongoing cooperation (and avoidance of aggression)
Effects of apology:
o People more easily forgive and achieve reconciliation when apologized to
(Bachman & Guerrero, 2006; Exline et al. 2007; May & Jones, 2007)
o The more that responsibility is accepted by an account, the less blame,
punishment, and remorse, and the more credibility and morality is attributed to
the harm-doer (Benoit et al., 2004)
o People are more likely to respond with more cooperative behavior, and less
aggressive behavior, when apologized to (Bachman & Guerrero, 2006)
o Apologizing is more effective a response for integrity violations than silence,
refusal, or reticence (Ferrin et al., 2007)
o Systolic blood pressure recovery from verbal harassment among hostile persons
occurred more rapidly when apologized to (Anderson et al., 2006)
 But, subjective anger did not decrease after verbal harassment among
hostile persons when apologized to (Anderson et al., 2006)
o Apologizers experience less regret about harm-doing than non-apologizers
(Exline et al., 2007)
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 54


Actor/Observer differences:
o Receivers of apologies will tend to respond with acceptance, more so than
observers (Risen & Gilovich, 2007)
o Receivers of apologies will tend not to distinguish, and hence differentially
punish, coerced from spontaneous apologies, whereas observers will (Risen &
Gilovich, 2007)
To be valid (Exline et al., 2007; Harris et al., 2006), apologies need:
o Structure: Any or all of the factors listed above in the “Structure” of an apology;
o Proportionality: elaborateness and tone are proportional to the context;
o Sincerity: To appear sincere (i.e., not manipulative) (but, see Risen & Gilovich,
2007);
o Forgiveness: If appropriate, the solicitation of an acknowledgement of
forgiveness
References
Anderson, J. C., Linden, W., & Habra, M. E. (2006). Influence of apologies and trait hostility on recovery from anger.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29, 347-???
Bachman, G. F., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006). Forgiveness, apology, and communicative responses to hurtful events.
Communication Reports, 19, 45-56.
Benoit, W. L., Allen, M., Burrell, N., Chattopadhyay, S., Cherry, K., Daulton, A., Comeau, T., Hansen, G. J., Jergens, R.
P., Piazza, J. A., & Prentice, C. M. (2004, November). Evaluating accounts: A meta-analysis. Paper presented
at the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
Exline, J. J., Deshea, L, & Holeman, V. T. (2007). Is apology worth the risk? Predictors, outcomes, and ways to avoid
regret. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 479-504.
Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2007). Silence speaks volumes: The effectiveness of reticence
in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity- and competence-based trust violations.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 893-908.
Green, M. S. (2009). Speech acts, the handicap principle and the expression of psychological states. Mind &
Language, 24(2), 139-163. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01357.x
Harris, S., Grainger, K., & Mullany, L. (2006). The pragmatics of political apologies. Discourse & Society, 17, 715-737.
Kramer-Moore, D., & Moore, M. (2003). Pardon me for breathing: Seven types of apology. ETC.: A Review of
General Semantics, 60, 160–9.
Kramer-Moore, D., & Moore, M. (2003). Pardon Me for Breathing: Seven Types of Apology. ETC.: A Review Of
General Semantics, 60(2), 160-169.
May, L. N., & Jones, W. H. (2007). Does hurt linger? Exploring the nature of hurt feelings over time. Current
Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 25, 245-256.
Ohtsubo, Y., & Watanabe, E. (2009). Do sincere apologies need to be costly? Test of a costly signaling model of
apology. Evolution And Human Behavior, 30(2), 114-123. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.09.004
Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2007). Target and observer differences in the acceptance of questionable apologies.
Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 92(3), 418-433. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.418
Takaku, S. (2001). The effects of apology and perspective taking on interpersonal forgiveness: A dissonance–
attribution model of interpersonal forgiveness. The Journal Of Social Psychology, 141(4), 494-508.
doi:10.1080/00224540109600567
Tomlinson, E. C., Dineen, B. R., & Lewicki, R. J. (2004). The Road to Reconciliation: Antecedents of Victim
Willingness to Reconcile Following a Broken Promise. Journal Of Management, 30(2), 165-187.
doi:10.1016/j.jm.2003.01.003
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 55
CULTURE & CONFLICT
1. Culture: enduring intergenerational patterns of behavior, value, belief, interpretation, and ritual that
provide perceived boundaries of “groupness”
2. Types of Research:
A. Cross-Cultural (e.g., the dimensions of perception across all cultures)
B. Intercultural (e.g., the influence of perceptual differences in Japanese-U.S. negotiations)
C. Co-Cultural (e.g., the influence of perceptual differences in African-American and MexicanAmerican interactions)
D. “Cultural” (e.g., the ways in which U.S. Americans perceptually make sense of other cultures)
3. Dimensional Perspectives:
A. Individualism: valuing personal identity over group identity
B. Collectivism: valuing group identity over personal identity
4. Manifestations:
CHARACTERISTIC
INDIVIDUALISM
COLLECTIVISM

Self-Concept

Independent

Interdependent

Meaning

Low Context

High Context

Goal-Orientation

Outcome-Oriented

Process-Oriented

Time-Orientation

Monochronic

Polychronic

Justice Norms

Equity

Communal

Attributions

Dispositional

Situational

Conflicts

Competitive

Collaborative,
compromising,
mediative
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 56
CULTURE & CONFLICT MODEL
SITUATIONAL FEATURES
 In-group/Outgroup Boundaries
(e.g., ethnocentrism)
 Relational Definition
(e.g., control vs. affiliation)
 Conflict Goal Assessments
(e.g., task vs. relational issues)
 Conflict Intensity/Resources
(e.g., high vs. low intensity)
ACTOR’S
ORIENTATIONS
 Cultural Values
(e.g., individualism)
 Personal Traits
(e.g., independent self)
 Conflict Norms (e.g.,
(equity-merit norms)
 Face Concerns
(e.g., negative face)
CONFLICT PROCESS
FACTORS
 Conflict Interaction Style
(e.g., competition vs. avoidance)
 Emotional Expressions
(e.g., engaged vs. restrained)
 Facework Behaviors
(e.g., defending vs. apologizing),
COACTOR’S
ORIENTATIONS
Cultural Values
(e.g., collectivism)
Personal Traits
(e.g., interdependent self)
Conflict Norms (e.g.,
communal-equality norms)
Face Concerns
(e.g., positive face)
CONFLICT SKILLS
(e.g., Dialogue vs. monologue)
CONFLICT COMPETENCE
CRITERIA






Appropriateness
Effectiveness
Satisfaction
Productivity
Efficiency
Clarity/Accuracy
Note: equity norm--rewards
distributed on merit (i.e., what
is ‘equitable to the individual;
vs. communal norm--rewards
distributed evenly across all.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage (p. 29)
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 57
CULTURE & CONFLICT: RELATIONAL MODELS
Which set of descriptions best describes your different significant social relationships?
I.
Communal Sharing
1. If either of you needs something, the other gives it without expecting anything in return.
2. You share many important responsibilities jointly, without assigning them to either of you
alone.
3. You make decisions together by consensus.
II.
Equality Matching
1. We keep track of what we give to each other in order to try to give back the same kind of
things in return eventually; we each know when things are uneven.
2. You typically divide things up into shares that are the same
3. If you have work to do, you usually split it evenly
III.
Authority Ranking:
1. One of you is entitled to more than the other
2. One of you makes the decisions and the other generally goes along
3. One of you is the leader, the other loyally follows their will
IV.
Market Pricing:
1. What you get from this person is directly proportional to how much you give them
2. You divide things up according to how much each of you has paid or contributed
3. You have a right (you are entitled) to a fair rate of return for what you put into this
relationship
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 58
CULTURE & CONFLICT: RELATIONAL MODELS, continued
Fiske gives the following examples of relational models leading to conflicts: Communal Sharing
(Mediterranean cultures engaged in blood feuds due to the perceived dishonor of extramarital or
premarital relations leading to the killing of the woman and the 'despoiler'; many of the 'ethnic
and racial conflicts, wars, atrocities, or genocide in the last 30 years in the United States, the
Soviet Union, Zaire, Uganda, Burundi, Soudan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, India, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, the
Middle East, and many other parts of the world, as well as religious conflicts and wars. An
element of many such conflicts is that people feel injured and threatened by harm to members of
their own ethnic group or religion, and consequently strike out at the perpetrating group. This is
based on a sense of identity: harming any of us harms me" (p. 131).
“In parts of Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere around the world, people are executed or
‘disappeared’ for refusal to accept the legitimacy of political authorities or their edicts” (p. 132)
“Adherence to Equality Matching may produce endless reciprocal bloodshed in feuds, or lead to
tit-for-tat reprisals between groups or nations. For example, … the Kaluli of New Guinea balance
violence for violence very precisely, based on their explicitly elaborated cultural sense of evenly
matched reciprocation. Reagan held Libya responsible for bombing Americans, so he bombed
them in retaliation, as the Israeli air force bombs ‘Palestinian guerilla bases’ in revenge for
terrorist attacks” (p. 132)
“American military leaders in the Vietnam war devised and justified operations in terms of
favorable ‘kill ratios,’ as if deaths were commodities on which one could make a profit” (p. 133)
So, it does not entirely do to pin any given relational model on a given culture, so much as to
identify which relational model is most characteristic of the cultures involved in a given conflict.
The U.S. has been party to any or all of these relational models in some conflict or another,
whereas other cultures may tend to be more uniform in their adherence to a given model.
Adapted from:
Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations. NY:
Free Press.
Haslam, N. (1995). Factor structure of social relationships: An examination of relational models
and resource exchange theories. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 217-227.
Haslam, N., & Fiske, A. P. (1999). Relational models theory: A confirmatory factor analysis.
Personal Relationships, 6, 241-250.
Haslam, N., & Fiske, A. P. (1992). Implicit relationship prototypes: Investigating five theories of the
cognitive organization of social relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
28, 441-474.
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 59
CULTURE & CONFLICT: RELATIONAL MODELS
Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures
of social life.
NY: Free Press.
COMMUNAL SHARING
AUTHORITY
RANKING
EQUALITY
MATCHING
MARKET
PRICING
RECIPROCAL
EXCHANGE
People give what they can
and freely take what they
need from pooled resources
Superiors appropriate or
preempt what they wish, but
have pastoral/parental role
Balanced, in-kind reciprocity;
give and get back same thing
in return
Pay (or exchange) in
proportion to what is
received, based on market
DISTRIBUTIVE
JUSTICE
Corporate use of resources
regarded as a commons;
everything belongs to all
The higher a party’s rank,
the more the party gets, and
the more choice there is
To each the same; everyone
gets identical share
independent of need/wish
To each in due proportion
based on some standard
(e.g., investment, utility)
SOCIAL
INFLUENCE
Conformity: desire to be
similar, to agree, to maintain
collective identity
Obedience to authority or
deference to status
Compliance to return a
favor, taking turns deciding,
or keeping things balanced
Cost/benefit incentives
(contracts, negotiated
exchange terms, etc.)
SOCIAL IDENTITY
& RELATIONAL
SELF
MOTIVATION
Membership in natural kind
(e.g., ancestry, race,
ethnicity, personal relations)
Self as revered leader or
loyal follower; identity as
social rank
Self as separate but co-equal
peer; staying equal with
reference group
Self as occupation or
economic role,
entrepreneurial success
Intimacy, nurturance,
succorance motivation
Power motivation
Desire for equality
Achievement motivation
NATRUAL SELECTION
MECHANISM
Kin selection according to
inclusive fitness
Adaptive value of submission
and dominance hierarchy
“Tit-for-tat” in-kind
reciprocity and/or symbiosis
Adaptive value of
specialization and
commodity exchange
CHARACTERISTIC
MODE OF MARKING
RELATIONSHIPS
AGGRESSION
& CONFLICT
Enactive, kinesthetic,
sensorimotor rituals, esp.
meals, communion, etc.
Spatiotemporal ordered
arrays (e.g., who comes first,
who gets more)
Concrete operations to
balance, match, synchronize
one-to-one correspondence
Abstract symbolic
representation in language
(verbal negotiations, lists)
Racism, genocide, killing to
maintain group honor
Wars to extend political
hegemony, execution and
political assassination
Eye-for-an-eye feuding,
revenge, retaliation
Mercantile wars, slaving,
exploitation of workers,
robbery, extortion
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 60
GROUP CONFLICT
I.
Developmental Assumptions (ala Poole):
A. Task Progression is Sequential: The group engages those task process activities required
for task completion, in relative priority of sequence as task completion demands.
B. Task Failure  Recycling: Failure to succeed in produces recycling interaction patterns
and an increase in procedural task processes.
C. Goal Ambiguity Impedes Task Progression: Goal ambiguity is positively related to levels
of problem definition, diagnosis, and procedural task discussions.
D. Coordination Requirements  Conflict: As coordination requirements increase, conflict
and bargaining frequency increase.
E. Domineeringness  Conflict: As domineering interaction patterns increases in the
context of low consensus, conflict increases.
F.
II.
Lack of Consensus  Conflict: As consensus decreases, conflict and conflict
breakpoints increase.
Interactional Approach (ala Bales):
A. Interaction evolves over time
B. Interaction behavior is functional:
1. Input vs. Output (assert, seek)
2. Speech Act (interpret, substantiate, clarify, modify, summarize, agree)
3. Valence (favorable, unfavorable, ambiguous/ambivalent)
C. Interaction functions to influence both task and relational (i.e., socioemotional)
dimensions
1. Task: a statement pursues influence on task or group objective
2. Relationship: a statement pursues influence on socioemotional climate or relations
among members
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 61
D. Group Phases (code zero-history group behavior over time, and either divide total time
into equal segments and compare act frequencies, or empirically look for significant
interact frequency shifts) (ala Fisher):
E. Orientation (i.e., getting acquainted, clarifying, tentative attitude expression):
1. Greater clarification and agreement, particularly…
2. High levels of ambiguous statements, and highest agreement with previous
ambiguous statements, and
3. Agreement with unfavorable comments
4. Overall, few favorable comments, or reinforcements (i.e., favorable comments
following favorable comments), presumably because proposals are not yet available
F. Conflict (dissent and polarization of attitudes):
1. Highest unfavorable comments
2. Highest unfavorable substantiation comments
3. Significant increases in favorable comments, favorable interpretations, and
favorable substantiations over phase 1
4. Significant increase in unfavorable followed by unfavorable comments, and
unfavorable comments followed by favorable comments, suggesting direct disputes
G. Emergence (group members proceed to change their attitudes from disfavor to favor of
the decision proposals through the mediation of ambiguity” (Fisher, p. 217):
1. The “hallmark” of this phase is ambiguous comment, including reinforcement of
ambiguous comments
2. Significant decrease in unfavorable comments, and unfavorable substantiation and
interpretation,
3. Highest level of substantiations followed by substantiations, suggesting residues of
argument and refinement, but
4. Lower direct conflict than phases 1 or 2
H. Emergence
1. Highest favorable interpretation and favorable substantiation
2. Arguments form as favorable substantiations of proposal(s)
3. With high levels of reinforcements
4. Dissent and conflict has virtually disappeared
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 62
I. Dynamic group conflict development (ala Jehn & Mannix): Conflict evolves in groups as a
function of (A) type of conflict, (B) quality of performance, and (C) phase.
J. Types of conflict:
1. Relationship: awareness of interpersonal facets, including affective components
(e.g., tension, dislike, etc.)
2. Task: awareness of differences regarding the group task (by definition, devoid of
negative emotions typifying relationship conflict)
3. Process: awareness of how task achievement will proceed, including duty and
resource delegation and rules of procedure
K. Quality of Performance (or group climate): Trust, respect, liking, openness of discussion,
cohesiveness
L. Phases (see Figure, next page):
1. High performing groups experience a “midpoint” peak of task conflict but more
moderated conflict of all forms in general
2. Low performing groups seem to “suppress” conflict in the early phases, resulting in a
stark increase in all forms of conflict in the latter phases.
References:
Bales, R. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1951). Phases in group problem-solving. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 46, 485-495.
Ellis, D. G., & Fisher, B. A. (1975). Phases of conflict in small group development: A Markov
analysis. Human Communication Research, 1, 195-212.
Fisher, B. A. (1973). Decision emergence: Phases in group decision-making. In F. E. Jandt (Ed.),
Conflict resolution through communication (pp. 198-220). New York: Harper & Row.
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of
intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238251.
Pavitt, C., & Johnson, K. K. (2002). Scheidel and Crowell revisited: A descriptive study of group
proposal sequencing. Communication Monographs, 69, p. 19- 32.
Poole, M. S., & Doelger, J. A. (1986). Developmental processes in group decision-making. In R. Y.
Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision-making (pp. 35-62).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 63
GROUPTHINK
Ahlfinger, N., & Esser, J. K. (2001). Testing the groupthink model: Effects of promotional
leadership and conformity predisposition. Social Behavior and Personality, 29(1), 31-41.
doi:10.2224/sbp.2001.29.1.31
Chapman, J. (2006). Anxiety and defective decision making: An elaboration of the groupthink
model. Management Decision, 44(10), 1391-1404. doi:10.1108/00251740610715713
Chen, Z., Lawson, R. B., Gordon, L. R., & McIntosh, B. (1996). Groupthink: Deciding with the leader
and the devil. Psychological Record, 46(4), 581-590.
Eaton, J. (2001). Management communication: The threat of groupthink. Corporate
Communications, 6(4), 183-192. doi:10.1108/13563280110409791
Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 116-141. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2758
Granström, K., & Stiwne, D. (1998). A bipolar model of groupthink: An expansion of Janis's
concept. Small Group Research, 29(1), 32-56. doi:10.1177/1046496498291002
Henningsen, D., Henningsen, M., Eden, J., & Cruz, M. G. (2006). Examining the symptoms of
groupthink and retrospective sensemaking. Small Group Research, 37(1), 36-64.
doi:10.1177/1046496405281772
Kramer, R. M. (1998). Revisiting the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam decisions 25 years later: How well
has the groupthink hypothesis stood the test of time? Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 236-271. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2762
McCauley, C. (1998). Groupthink dynamics in Janis's theory of groupthink: Backward and forward.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 142-162.
doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2759
Mohamed, A., & Wiebe, F. A. (1996). Toward a process theory of groupthink. Small Group
Research, 27(3), 416-430. doi:10.1177/1046496496273005
Moorhead, G., Neck, C. P., & West, M. S. (1998). The tendency toward defective decision making
within self-managing teams: The relevance of groupthink for the 21st century.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 327-351.
doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2765
Packer, D. J. (2009). Avoiding groupthink: Whereas weakly identified members remain silent,
strongly identified members dissent about collective problems. Psychological Science,
20(5), 546-548. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02333.x
Park, W. (2000). A comprehensive empirical investigation of the relationships among variables of
the groupthink model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(8), 873-887.
doi:10.1002/1099-1379(200012)21:8<873::AID-JOB56>3.0.CO;2-8
Paulus, P. B. (1998). Developing consensus about groupthink after all these years. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 362-374. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2767
Peterson, R. S., Owens, P. D., Tetlock, P. E., Fan, E. T., & Martorana, P. (1998). Group dynamics in
top management teams: Groupthink, vigilance, and alternative models of organizational
failure and success. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 272305. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2763
Post, J. M. (2011). Crimes of obedience: 'Groupthink' at Abu Ghraib. International Journal of
Group Psychotherapy, 61(1), 49-66. doi:10.1521/ijgp.2011.61.1.48
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 64
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Cihangir, S. (2001). Quality of decision making and group norms. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 918-930. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.918
Rosander, M., Stiwne, D., & Granström, K. (1998). 'Bipolar groupthink': Assessing groupthink
tendencies in authentic work groups. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 39(2), 81-92.
doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00060
Street, M. D. (1997). Groupthink: An examination of theoretical issues, implications, and future
research suggestions. Small Group Research, 28(1), 72-93.
doi:10.1177/1046496497281003
Street, M. D., & Anthony, W. P. (1997). A conceptual framework establishing the relationship
between groupthink and escalating commitment behavior. Small Group Research, 28(2),
267-293. doi:10.1177/1046496497282005
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). A social identity maintenance model of groupthink.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 210-235.
doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2757
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1998). Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and research:
Lessons from the evaluation of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 73(2-3), 105-115. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2756
Turner, M. E., Pratkanis, A. R., Probasco, P., & Leve, C. (1992). Threat, cohesion, and group
effectiveness: Testing a social identity maintenance perspective on groupthink. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63(5), 781-796. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.5.781
Whyte, G. (1998). Recasting Janis's groupthink model: The key role of collective efficacy in
decision fiascoes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3), 185209. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2761
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 65
INTERGROUP CONFLICT
I.
Overview of Individuals in Groups (ala Tajfel & Turner, 1979):
A. Self-Esteem: Individuals strive to maintain or enhance their self-esteem
B. Group Identity Value: Groups are associated with valenced social value. Thus, individuals
strive to achieve or maintain their desired social identities from group identification
C. Group Differentiation: Favorable social identity is based largely upon favorable, positive
differential comparisons made between in-group position and status and relevant outgroups
D. Identity Pursuit: When social identity is unsatisfactory, individuals will strive to either
leave their group in favor of a more positively distinct group, and/or will strive to make
their group more positively distinct
E. Identity Relevance: Not all comparisons are considered relevant (e.g., skin color in the U.S.
is significant, whereas in England it is dialect)
II.
Causes:
A. Theoretical possibilities (ala Cargile et al., 2006):
1. Natural disposition (e.g., biological)
2. Mindlessness (i.e., “following others”)
3. Social identity (i.e., “stubborn superiority”)
4. Functionalist (i.e., “deep differences”)
B. Types:
1. Emotional:
 Emotional reaction: groups provoked by their emotions, feelings, or gut responses
 Fear: groups are afraid or feel threatened
2. Rational:
 Greedy domination: groups are selfish, want more power, or enjoy exercising the
control they already have
 Economic factors: groups want to acquire or maintain control over economic
resources, such as oil, money, territory, etc.
3. Psychological:
 Prejudice: groups are prejudiced against other groups
 Narrow-minded ignorance: groups are not thinking, do not know any better, or are
simply intolerant
 Need for independence: groups want to win (or protect) their own or another’s
freedom and/or autonomy
 Stubborn superiority: groups think they are best (or know what is best) and resist
change or challenge to their relative position
 Following others: simply because others are fighting or “calling to arms”
4. Ethical:
 Countering injustice: groups ‘wronged’ in the past or are presently deprived
5. Expressive:
 Communication problems: groups experience difficulties or ‘breakdown’ in talk,
communication, information exchange, or interaction
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 66
III.
Intergroup Conflict (ala Turner, 1982):
A. Structure and Status: Interdependent goals and group interaction produce group
structure, consisting of differentiated status, role positions, and social norms.
B. Symptoms of Intergroup Conflict: When two or more groups face incompatible goals and
interaction opportunity, competition tends to produce the following symptoms:
1. Outgroup Vilification: Unfavorable attitudes and stereotypes of relevant outgroup(s)
develop; the converse is in-group favoritism
2. Differentiation/Distancing: Various features will be perceived or encouraged that
distinguish the outgroup(s) from the in-group; The outgroup will be perceived as
socially distant; i.e., as further away in status and desirability than they objectively are
3. Stimulus Generalization: Members of the outgroup will be perceived as "of a mind;"
such that any individual member will have all the characteristics of the outgroup
stereotypes
4. In-Group Cohesion: Intergroup conflict enhances in-group cohesiveness (assuming the
groups' goals continue to be incompatible)
5. In-Group Pressure: Intergroup conflict leads to greater sanctioning of deviants
6. Hierarchical Structure: Intergroup conflict leads to greater in-group status
differentiation and definition
7. Group Outcomes: Intergroup competition leads to greater in-group morale,
cooperation, and work motivation
C. Mediating Factors:
1. Opportunities for Interaction: As proximity and interaction decrease, intergroup
conflict symptoms tend to decrease
2. Salience of Differences: As the importance and/or perceptual significance of group
differences diminish, so do the symptoms of intergroup conflict
IV.
Stages:
A. Initial Contact: Decategorization
1.
2.
3.
4.
Initial anxiety
Optimal situation
Development of friendship & liking
Low level of generalization
B. Established Contact: Salient categorization
1. Optimal situation
2. Development of reduced prejudice
3. Development of generalization
C. Unified group: Recategorization
1. Optimal situation
2. Development of maximum reduction in prejudice
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 67
V.
Model:
Facilitating
Situational
Factors
Participants’
Characteristics
Initial
Contact:
Established
Contact:
Unified
Group:
Decategorization
Salient
Categorization
Recategorization
Outcomes
Time
VI.
Managing Intergroup Conflict:
A. Superordinate Goals: When goals can be viewed by the groups as superordinate, and
entailing mutually desirable bases for interdependence, cooperation ensues, reducing the
symptoms of intergroup conflict
1. Functional Interdependence: Redefine work group roles (or group member roles) in
such a way that they must work with each other toward common goals
2. Common Enemy: Redefine new outgroup(s) as a threat to all groups
B. Superordinate Identity: Given the dominant influence of social identities, superordinate
goals may not be (1) perceived, (2) internalized, or (3) relevant to relative status. Thus,
rather than recreate functional roles for groups, a superordinate desirable social identity
that "contains" all groups can be established
C. Third-Party Intervention (Fisher, 1983): Mediation, as a helping relationship, functions
best under conditions of credibility, neutrality, isolation, informality, and flexibility in time
and agenda. The role is two-fold: to facilitate mending the relationship, and to seek
creative opportunities for substantive cooperation
VII. Empirical Findings:
A. Across 713 samples in 515 studies, the overall effect of intergroup contact on reducing
prejudice is -.21 (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006, p. 757).
B. The effect is larger (-.28) for groups with no choice over assignments than those with
some (-.19) or full (-.22) choice (p. 758)
C. Those with “optimal contact conditions” (i.e., Allport’s equal status in the situation,
common goals, intergroup cooperation, authoritative support) (“the inverse relationship
between contact and prejudice persists—though not as strongly—even when the contact
situation is not structured to match Allport’s conditions” (p. 761) produced a larger effect
(-.29) than those without (-.20) (p. 760)
D. Authority sanction alone seems sufficient to account for the reduction in prejudice (i.e.,
the other conditions add no unique variance to the model, p. 761)
E. The smallest effects occur in tourism/travel programs (-.11), and larger effects occur for
recreational and laboratory settings (-.29) (p. 765).
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 68
References:
Cargile, A. C., Bradac, J. J., & Cole, T. (2006). Theories of intergroup conflict: A report of lay
attributions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25, 47-63.
Fisher, R. J. (1983). Third party consultation as a method of intergroup conflict resolution. Journal
of Conflict Resolution, 27, 301-334.
Janis, I. L., & Katz, D. (1959). The reduction of intergroup hostility: Research problems and
hypotheses. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 3, 85-100.
Mitchell, R. C., & Mitchell, R. R. (1984). Constructive management of conflict in groups. Journal for
Specialists in Group Work, 9, 137-144.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and
cooperation: The robber's cave experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin & S.
Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey:
Brooks/Cole.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Intergroup conflict and cooperation. In A. Colman (Ed.), Cooperation and
competition in humans and animals (pp. 218-249). Berkshire: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Watson, G., & Johnson, D. (1979). Intergroup conflict. In G. P. Cross, J. H. Names, & D. Beck (Eds.),
Conflict and human interaction (pp. 146-173). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 69
INTERGROUP CONFLICT: A MODEL OF INTERGROUP CONFLICT
I.
INTERGROUP LEVEL PROPOSITIONS:
1. Real conflicts of interests, values, needs, or power are positively related to intergroup conflict.
2. Real conflicts are positively related to a mutually competitive orientation and reciprocal
competitive interaction.
3. Real conflict, cultural differences, a history of antagonism, and competitive orientation are
positively related to perceived threat.
4. Perceived threats are positively related to ethnocentrism, including in-group solidarity and outgroup hostility.
5. Ethnocentrism reduces trust and thus are positively related to conflict escalation.
6. Competitive orientation, perceived threat, ethnocentrism, and mistrust escalate conflict through
ineffective communication, inadequate coordination, contentious tactics, and reduced
productivity.
7. Ethnocentrism increases perceptual and cognitive biases, which escalate conflict.
8. Ethnocentrism decreases problem-solving competence and increases constituent pressure, which
escalates conflict.
9. Intergroup conflict initially increases group cohesion and affects the social organization of the
group in competitive directions.
10. Outcome satisfaction in intergroup conflict is positively related to group cohesion, satisfaction
with group and leader, and self-esteem of group members.
II.
GROUP LEVEL PROPOSITIONS:
11. Group identity and group cohesion are positively and reciprocally related to ethnocentrism.
12. In-group solidarity is positively related to overestimation of in-group achievements and
underestimation of out-group achievements.
13. Group cohesion is positively related to constituent pressure on representatives during intergroup
conflict.
14. Increased cohesion fosters concurrence seeking, which leads to ineffective problem-solving.
15. Inadequate problem solving and competitive constituent pressure result in ineffective intergroup
interaction.
III.
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL PROPOSITIONS:
16. Self-esteem is positively related to group identity and cohesion, and negatively related to
perceived threat and ethnocentrism.
17. Authoritarianism is positively related to perceived threat and to ethnocentrism.
18. Need for dominance is positively related to a competitive, controlling personal style.
19. Need for achievement is positively related to a participative and collaborative personal style.
20. A controlling and competitive personal style contributes to inadequate problem-solving
competence and to ineffective communication, contentious tactics, and counterproductive
intergroup dispute resolution.
Source: Fisher, R. J. (1990). Chapter 5: An eclectic model of intergroup conflict. The social
psychology of intergroup and international conflict resolution (pp. 87-115). New
York: Springer-Verlag.
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 70
Increased superimposition of
resources &
resource
discontinuities
Power use by
those with
needed or
valued
resources
Disruption of
routines of
resource
disadvantaged
by advantaged
Withdrawal of
legitimacy by
resource
disadvantaged
Escalated potential
for violent
outbursts by
resource
disadvantaged
Rebalancing
efforts by
resource
advantaged
Efforts to
manipulate
norms
Inequality in
the distribution
of resources
among actors
Emergence of
norms of fair
exchange and
reciprocity
Differential
dependence of
some actors on
others for needed
valued resources
Exchanges of
resources
among actors
with varying
resources and
resource levels
Escalated sense of
deprivation among
resource
disadvantaged
Emergence of
ideology & unifying
symbols among
resource
disadvantaged
Density of
network ties
among resource
disadvantaged
Increased
organization by
resource
disadvantaged
A SYNTHESIS MODEL OF INTERGROUP CONFLICT.
Adapted from: Turner, J. H. (1990). The misuse and use of metatheory. Sociological Forum, 5, 37-53.
Regulated conflict
between
advantaged and
disadvantaged
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 71
INTERGROUP CONFLICT
PHASES OF INTERGROUP CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Phase I:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Phase II:
Conflict Analysis:
Focus on and identify the causes of the conflict, both material and interactional
Distinguish needs, values, interests, and positions vis-à-vis major issues in question
Focus on the meanings involved for the parties
Allow parties full expression and clarification of their meanings
Facilitate accurate and empathic communication
Employ a third-party if needed to regulate analysis and interaction
Conflict Confrontation:
1. Assure mutual respect and opportunity during face-to-face interaction
2. Assure no fixed agenda during initial interactions
3. Assure facilitative conditions (e.g., equal status, high acquaintance potential, positive
institutional supports, cooperative task structures, involvement of competent and motivated
parties, etc.)
4. Assure productive confrontation (e.g., accurate representation, recognition of intragroup
diversity, integration of all parties’ skills, sensitivity to cultural differences, patience and
persistence, etc.)
5. Assure collaboration (i.e., see the problem as one requiring mutual cooperation for mutual
gain)
Phase III: Resolution:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Resolution should transform conflict in enduring manner (vs. settling “disputes”)
Be open to a range of complementary strategies and tactics
Be open to a range of potential solutions
Address and account for basic human needs (e.g., face, security, etc.)
Integrate collaborative conflict resolution processes into the resolution itself
Create social structures capable of maintaining the resolution (e.g., equality among identity
groups, multicultural representation and/or recognition, etc.)
Adapted from:
Fisher, R. J. (1994). Generic principles for resolving intergroup conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 50,
47-66.
.
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 72
THIRD-PARTY INTERVENTION GUIDELINES
(Adapted from W.A. Donahue & R. Kolt, Managing interpersonal conflict. Newbury Park: Sage.)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TYPE
GOALS
STRUCTURE
EX. CONTEXTS
STRATEGIES
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
RECOMMENDATIONS
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Conciliator
1. Relational stability 1. Informal
2. Party controlled
2. Quite variable
Psychologists
Social workers
Feelings-based vs.
problem-based
Mediator
1. Resolve specific
2. Party controlled
1. Semi-formal
2. Flexible
3. Specific process
Divorce/Family
Criminal/Civil
Community
Problem-based vs.
1. Parties control
relationship-based 2. High success rate
3. Less costly
Arbitrator
1. Decides problem
2. Not Binding
3. Third-party
controlled
1. Formal process
Divorce/Family
2. Arbitrator latitude Labor-Management
Consumer/
community
Information-gathering 1. Speed/Efficiency 1. Overused
No relationship issues 2. Outcome-oriented 2. Third-party controlled
1. Use after mediation
2. Use before court
3. Use when time is crucial
1. Highly formal
2. Case law based
Evidence gathering
Determine fact(s)
Decision-making
1. Use as last resort
2. Use attorneys/experts
3. Be active in process
Adjusticator 1. Legally binding
2. Permanent
Courtroom
Types: probate,
appeals, etc.
1. “stock-taking”
2. preconditioning
1. Finality
2. Enforceability
1. Time consuming
2. Emotionally hard
1. Use proactively
2. Do as soon as possible
1. Can be blocked
by relational issues
2. Biased by power
1. Use for specific problems
2. Use before court
3. Check qualifications
1. Win-Lose Oriented
2. Third-party controlled
THIRD-PARTY INTERVENTION PHASES
(Adapted from W.A. Donahue, 1991, Communication, marital dispute, and divorce mediation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.)
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
MEDIATOR
ORIENTATION
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ISSUES PROCESSING
PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1.Kessler (1978)
Setting the stage
Defining the issues
Processing the issues
Resolving the issues
2. Black & Joffee (1978)
Engagement
Assessment & direction
Negotiation; Education
3. Haynes (1981)
Set the tone;
Collect basic data; Identify goals;
Negotiating basic issues;
Gaining accommodations
Orientation
Expose hidden agendas; Develop profiles
Reviewing progress
4. Bienenfeld (1983)
Intake;
Preliminary conference
Parental interviews to identify concerns
Negotiating an agreement;
Meeting the family
Children’s interviews
Wrap-up conference
5. Saposnek (1983)
Gather information
Family conference
Describe options; Shape proposals
6. Folberg & Taylor (1984)
Creating trust &
Fact finding
Isolation of issues
Creating options & alternatives;
structure
Negotiating
7. Moore (1986)
Setting the agenda; Collecting background information
Defining issues; Generating options;
Final bargaining;
Orientation
Assessing options
Achieving formal settlement
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 73
THIRD-PARTY INTERVENTION: MEDIATOR COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUES
TECHNIQUE
Restatement
Paraphrase
Active Listening
Summarization
Expansion
Ordering
Grouping
Structuring
Fractionating
Generalization
Probing Questions
Clarifying
DESCRIPTION
The mediator listens to what has been said and feeds back the
content to the party in the party’s own words.
Restate content using different words that have the same
meaning as the original statement.
The mediator decodes a spoken message and then feeds back to
the speaker the emotional meaning of the message.
The mediator condenses the message of a speaker.
The mediator receives a message, expands and elaborates on it,
feeds it back to the listener, and then checks its accuracy.
The mediator helps a speaker order ideas into a sequential
pattern (e.g., size, historical/chronological, amount, etc.).
The mediator helps a speaker identify common ideas or issues
and combine them into logical categories/units.
The mediator assists a speaker to organize and arrange thoughts
and speech into a more coherent message.
The mediator divides an idea or an issue into smaller component
parts.
The mediator identifies general points or principles in a speaker’s
presentation.
The mediator asks questions to encourage a speaker to elaborate
on an idea.
The mediator asks questions to encourage the speaker to give
further information about a point in question.
Adapted from:
McKinney, B. C., Kimsey, W. D., & Fuller, R. M. (1992). Mediator communication competencies (3rd
ed.). Edina, MN: Bellwether/Burgess International.
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 74
“ALL PURPOSE” HEURISTIC FOR MANAGING CONFLICT
I. PROBLEM ANALYSIS
A. Background:
1. What exactly is wrong?
2. How are you affected? How are others affected?
3. How extensive/serious is the problem?
4. Is the problem enduring/frequent or brief/infrequent?
5. Is critical information missing, such that an informed decision cannot be
made at present?
B. Essential Problem:
1. What are you currently doing to resolve the problem?
2. What are the causes of the problem?
II. GOAL FORMATION
A. What, precisely, are your objectives or goals?
B. What criteria would an ideal solution meet?
C. What is the relative importance of these criteria?
D. Important considerations:
1. Does the solution need to alleviate the causes or symptoms?
2. Can current efforts successfully be expanded?
3. Does the utility rule apply?
Outcome =
Outcome
X Outcome
Utility
Probability
Value
4. Does the solution resolve the problem in both the short and long term?
5. Does the solution benefit both yourself and others?
6. Is the solution cost-efficient?
III. SOLUTION DEVELOPMENT
A. Brainstorm a list of solutions
B. Clarify each solution
C. Assess solution compatibility
IV. SOLUTION SELECTION
A. Specify the steps of implementation
B. Specify the possible problems with implementation
C. Specify best options for contingency plans
V. SOLUTION TESTING
A. Specify the nature of feedback regarding plan's effectiveness
B. Monitor actively the feedback to gauge need for modification
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 75
“ALL PURPOSE” HEURISTIC FOR MANAGING CONFLICT:
MANAGING INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT (MIC) TECHNIQUE*
PHASE 1.
SELF ANALYSIS
A. Identify Feelings: identify, own, and describe one's feelings:
1. Ignoring One's Feelings: e.g., "I'm fed up with his whole attitude.”
2. Confronting One's Feelings: e.g., "I feel angry, hurt, and unimportant.“
B. Identify Behavior: describe rather than evaluate behavior:
1. Evaluation: e.g., "Joe always thinks he's right, and never thinks of me.“
2. Description: e.g., “That’s the 3rd decision you’ve made without consulting
me.”
C. Identify Facts: distinguish fact from inference:
1. Inference: e.g., “You act this way because you resent my promotion."
2. Facticity: e.g., “We seem to have more arguments since my promotion.“
D. Identify Perspectives: take other's perspective:
1. Nonempathic: e.g., "I can't imagine what you’re thinking--it seems so crazy"
2. Empathic: e.g., "I can see, from your perspective, at least two concerns."
PHASE 2.
ANALYZING THE CONFLICT (all previous abilities, plus):
A. Withhold of Judgment: ask nonjudgmental questions:
1. Judgmental: e.g., "Why are you so inconsiderate?"
2. Nonjudgmental: e.g., "Why didn't you talk with me about your plans?"
B. Paraphrase: paraphrase other's statements:
1. Evaluative/Reductive: e.g., “So you think my idea is worthless?”
2. Paraphrased: e.g., “So you think the proposal will be too little too late?"
C. Provide Empathic Feedback: check inferences re: other's feelings:
1. Conclusionary: e.g., “If you’re going to get bent out of shape every time I
disagree with you, Maybe you’re in the wrong business."
2. Checking: e.g., “Are you OK about this? Do you want to talk about it?"
D. Maintain Congruence: consistency and genuineness communication:
1. Incongruent: e.g., "I'm listening to you!" (while looking out window);
2. Congruent: e.g., “Sorry, I was distracted. I’m listening now.”)
E. Be Direct: direct and relevant responses:
1. Tangential: e.g., Manager: "Why should I include you in these kinds of
decisions? Staff-person: “Why do I bother coming to work?";
2. Relevant: e.g., Manager: "Why should I include you in these decisions?
Staff-person: "Because it determines what hours I schedule at work."
F. Fractionate Issues: parse general problems into smaller parts:
1. Generalizing: e.g., Employee: “These work assignments are so screwed up!
Co-worker: “If you think they’re unfair, why don’t you talk to the boss?”
2. Fractionating: e.g., “These work assignments are so screwed up!” “Is it the
amount of work, the distribution among workers, the time-line, or
something else that’s bothering you?”
COMM 555: Conflict Management—p. 76
G. Prioritize Issues: interests rather than wants:
1. Wants: “I should have more overtime or free time” vs.
2. Interests: “A staff assistant will be a great help.”
PHASE 3.
IDENTIFYING SHARED GOALS (all previous abilities, plus):
A. Productive Orientation: view conflict as an opportunity;
1. Unproductive: e.g., “Tell me what you want so we can get this over with";
2. Productive: e.g., "Look, we have an opportunity to really do something really
innovative here.“
B. Problem-Orientation: seek resolution rather than control:
1. Control-Oriented: e.g., “One goal you and I should both have is…”
2. Problem-Oriented: e.g., "What do you think would work best in this
situation, and why?"
PHASE 4.
IDENTIFYING POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS (all previous abilities, plus):
A. Maintain Provisionalism: open-minded to possibilities:
1. Dogmatic: e.g., "Well, the only solution I can see to this situation is...“
2. Provisional: e.g., "I don't know if that would work or not, but we can at least
discuss it and figure it out"
PHASE 5.
EVALUATING POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS BY GOALS (all previous abilities,
plus):
B. Spontaneity: appear natural and avoid appearing strategic;
1. Strategic: e.g., "Look, I already spoke to others about it, and they thought
my idea was good";
2. Spontaneous: e.g., “Hey, what if we …”
PHASE 6.
CONSIDER ADR IF ALL ELSE FAILS
Adapted from:
Weider-Hatfield, D. (1981). A unit in conflict management skills. Communication
Education, 30, 265-273.