Romantic Communication Among Married Couples, Research Paper Example

Abstract

Thefollowing paper investigates the connection between verbal and nonverbal forms of communication with married couples. Theauthors sharesupporting theories in that communication is the waycouples definetheir relationships. Thereare examples of the “languageof love”presented in the paper thatrepresents theaffection couples show to each other.  Thepaperfocuses oninterpersonal communication, interpretation/perception, and symbolismwithin ourrelationship with ourspouses and how to accomplish the balancewithin arelationship.  Finally, understanding different forms of communication is vital to a successful marriage.

Keywords:communication, relationship, understanding, couples, and dynamic

Romantic Communication Among Married Couples

Social realityisa, “…collective acceptanceorrecognition bytheindividuals acting collectively…”(Searle, 1998, p. 126).Notonlydoes this applyto society, but the groups that comprise asocietyfrom culture, to groups, to tribes, and even to the family dynamic. Within thefamilydynamicthereis themarried couple.Societyis a collection of symbols according Structuralist theory.Thesesigns maybecommunicated to a couple through verbal or nonverbal communication. Therelevanceto this dichotomyin communication is that therearepresent, in amarried couple’s relationship,verbal communication and quitepossiblyan underlying nonverbal communicationthat opens up the relationship to bedefined on different terms.

There aremanyforms ofcommunication that arepaired with humans’ capacity for emotion. Adler and Proctor (2013)examinetheseforms ofcommunication (and why humans feel theneed to communicate) and break them down into theirdifferent forms (e.g. interpersonal, identitythrough communication, interpretation/perception, nonverbal reactions, and symbolism). The authorsreport on communication byfirst understanding the syntax of common language and the barriers that can present as wellasfocusing on cultural structureof language, syntax, and pragmaticrules. Adler and Proctor (2013) examinehow married couple with avolatilerelationship still manageto be relatively affectionate with oneanotherdespitetheir apoplecticoutbursts. These “volcanic” outbursts areseen bytheauthors as not an anomalyin therelationship, butrather,apart of thewhole. Theseoutbursts areseen as asign ofpassion and the morerelish the couple havein fighting, themorepassion and “positiveinteractions”thecouple havein between.

Thus, the more anger that is expressed between them, themoreaffection and theyhave forone another ascompared with other “normal”couples (Adler &Proctor, 2013, p.296).The authors go on to state that couples that chooseto ignorean issuearemore proneto miscommunication, oralack of communication altogether(Adler&Proctor, 2013, p. 296). This literature expounds on thesubject of verbal vs. nonverbal communication within anew dynamic. Couples that areverbal, or voicetheir affectations and annoyances with oneanother as opposed to doing the opposite, of maintaining a cultureof silencewithin their relationship, haveamore “healthy”relationship.The literaturegoes on to arguethat “conflict style”is thebest choiceinarelationship, as compared to nonverbal communication (heredefined not as bodylanguagebut a lack of communication altogether). Theremusthowever beabalancebetween positive and negative“communication acts” within a relationship in order for hegemonyto be maintained. The authorsarguethat couples should maintain an “appropriateratio”of positiveto negative(Adler &Proctor, 2013,p. 296).

Adding to this idea of communication, Fisher(1987)arguesforamorepost- modernistapproachand routes in favor of positivism.Fisher rejects the“rational world paradigm” and instead follows Aristotle’s path of “practical reason”.In thesenew theories, Fisher argues that narration is an insight into a couple’s story.Thus, although narration can beseen asafigureof speech italso necessitates adeeper meaning within a couple’s relationship as it’s ameans theyusein which theyorganize and define theirrelationship to eachother as individuals. Thus, their narration is structureor symbol of their relationship within their “argumentative matrix”that in turn is demonstrative proofof theircoupling (Fisher, 1987, p. 12). Narration is awaythat structuralism persists in therelationship, as averbal tool that couples useto define their paradigms.Fisher’s argument supports Adler&Proctor’s argument inthat both relate communication as a waythat couples definetheir relationship.

Such Structuralist theories combinewith Rochberg-Halton (1982)in adding to the definition ofsymbolic interactionismas itrelates to verbal and nonverbalcommunication between marriedcouples. Signs and symbols between married couplesrelyheavilyon historywhich in turn relies heavilyon being communicated to one anotherthrough the definition ofhumans asHomo narrans. Thedynamicof acouple’s relationshipis defined byRochberg-Haltonas interpretive.It is interpretive through symbolsandthesesymbols haveadeep historybetween the couple(e.g. ifacan of soup symbolizes caring and one person makes itforanotherperson in amarriagethen that can of soupwillcontinueto be representative ofthe lovethat exists between themso thatwhenever it is mentioned or made, this feeling oflovepersists not onlythroughthe act butthrough themanifestation of love as represented bythe can of soup).Thus, buying acan of soupand lying iton the countertop in the kitchenand then it being seen bythe spouse is a nonverbal symbolof love. Rochberg-Halton goes on tocombine symbolicinteractionismand structuralism into aschool of thought wherebyhow humans understand asystem (such as society, job, or marriages) and theconcepts andtraditions thatunderliethat systemin anonverbal sense(Rochberg-Halton, 1982, p. 460).  This is also defined byAdler and Proctor asthe “LanguageofLove”thatincludewords ofaffirmation, qualitytime, gifts, acts of service, and physical touch. (Adler &Proctor, 2013, p.297)

Searle(1998) in turn presents a new wayto discuss the speech-act theorywithin a couple’s dynamic. Searlestates that thereis acommunication between themind and the bodythat in turn functions to createa conscious person fullof reactions andintent (on both a verbal andanonverbal level). Searlerelates thesetheorizeto socialconstructivism in a comprehensiblemanner. Therefore, Adler &Proctor’stheories on interpersonal, identitythrough communication, interpretation/perception, nonverbalreactions, and symbolismrelateto Searle’s interpretation of howaperson reacts to suchelements and in turn responds to thesereactions and symbolisms to theotherperson. Searlestretches his intentions byincluding sociology, psychologyand philosophyinto aread.In Searle’s theory,whena couple finds thecorrectform ofcommunication, orabalancebetween verbal and nonverbal,aperson’s consciousness is then revealed.

Cahn (2013) argues thata couple can haveavolatilerelationship without the balanceof affection thatAdler and Proctor petition for. Cahn’s theoryis that thereis a universal understandingas wellas aperceived understanding, and it is with thelatterthat miscommunication transpires and thereforethe argumentativephasethat Adler and Proctor relatetoas the passionate phasethat leadsto betterunderstanding within the relationship dynamic.InCahn’s research, intentional miscommunication in a relationship leads to the destruction of the corevalues oftrustwithin the relationship and ultimatelyto its deleterious conclusion. Theconclusion ofeachof thesetheorists combines (excluding Cahn and Adler&Proctor)to define verbaland nonverbal communicationwithin a married couple’s relationship dynamicin both how theyspeak, how theyact, and how theyusesymbolismwithin the context ofStructuralist theoryto definetheir boundaries, personalities, and interactions between each other.

The sum or power of conflict may be more noteworthy than the point of conflict, at minimum in marriage. Birchler (1979) discovered extraordinary similitude in the sorts of changes in behaviors that nondistressed or distressed couples wanted in their partners. This included initiating having sex, express appreciation, expressing more feelings, and over communication. Moreover, the quality of a relationship may be affected by the way people frame conflict issues. As Braiker and Kelley (1979) have watched, the same activity may be surrounded as a behavioral objection (e.g., not helping in housework) or an identity issue (e.g., not cleaning the dishes shows a flighty disposition). Braiker and Kelley inferred that encircling issues as identity issues heightens the conflict and may help a relationship trouble. This conclusion was upheld by Alberts (1988), who found that defectively balanced wedded couples were more probable than composed couples to run dissentions at expansive individual attributes of the accomplice. While relationship quality appears to reflect the general measure of conflict and the way issues are surrounded, it is hard to say what measure of conflict surpasses the discriminating limit for normally upbeat or balanced connections, in light of the fact that conflict baserates differ an incredible arrangement as per stages and occasions in family connections.

One approach to conceptualizing how partners in relationships oversee conflict is considering how communication differs along two continua. Certainty versus backhandedness and level of collaboration versus rivalry (or positive, or valence, /negative influence).  Appropriately, they determined four general conflict administration approaches:  arrangement (helpful/dynamic), nonconfrontational (agreeable/not dynamic), immediate battling (aggressive/dynamic), and aberrant battling (focused/not dynamic). Looking at research over the behaviors, conflicts, and communication methods used in romantic couples, the incorporated informative acts that are accounted for in a few of the most mainstream coding plans utilized as a part of observational research on couple conflict. As for the unequivocal quality measurement, exploration recommends that the effects of communication are truly variable, contingent upon various components. A few studies hold that roundabout (versus immediate) communication is connected with an impression of congeniality and good manners. (Knapp, Daly 2011) Though different studies recommend that direct communication the conflict in discoveries concerning stems partially from not differentiating circuitous acts into their helpful versus aggressive structures.  Also, indirectness can be utilitarian in a few connections and an issue that is expounded underneath. Inclination for certainty can likewise be a capacity of the society (Kim and Leung, 2000), albeit social standards.

Concerning in romantic relationships are unpredictable and don’t generally reflect social Inclination for aberrance out in the open settings. At long last, age presumably influences the usefulness of unequivocal quality, insofar as grown-ups frequently utilize indirect communication with kids and teenagers (Laursen et al., 2001). In a standout amongst the unique and mindful articulations about indirect communication in conflict. Studies found that the romantic couples they watched were uniformly part between the individuals who were agreeable and capable at communicating the conflict and the individuals who kept away from it. Both subgroups communicated fulfillment in the marriage managed conflict productively and collaborated in a kindhearted and positive way. Noted that the mates who evaded meeting regularly conspired by supporting each other’s externalization and disavowal of conflict. Separated from having diverse baserates for evasion and engagement strategies, it was discovered as an alternate relationship in the middle of communication and fulfillment for romantic couples. (Ackerman et al 2011) The fulfilled; separate couples occupied with a lot of shirking amid conflict talks, including verbal refusal of conflict and subject movements. They once in a while talked with a negative manner of speaking, keeping up rather, and reliably unbiased, nonverbal influence. In this way, satisfaction may be anticipated either by avoidance or engagement, contingent upon how the example of communication fits with the couple’s favored example of relating. This means a reliance attained through talk versus self-governance kept up through conversational limitation and key separation.

Seemingly the easiest clarification for why a marriage disintegrates could be concluded that one of the other partners gets to be progressively disappointed, lessening the nature of couples interaction and provoking a partition or divorce thusly.  Nonverbal communication harms connections in various ways. At the point when there are no communication individuals unending requests. Models of conflict, for example, the Process Mode, look to help researchers better comprehend conflict as a procedure. From a social inclination, the Relational Escalation Approach, the Personal-Relational Equilibrium Model, and the Relational Turbulence Model, consider a concentrate on conflict emerging from social motion. A few communication researchers concentrate on concentrating on conflict in a particular social setting. Case in point, there are sizeable collections of examination on conflict in the settings of conjugal connections and interpersonal organizations. Regarding communication impacts, explore reliable connections conflict and social conclusions, for example, fulfillment and social quality. Case in point, Gottman and Levenson (2000) found that pessimism and energy amid a contention anticipate social disintegration. Further, Caughlin and Vangelisti (2006) related conflict conduct and examples in marriage and dating relationships to different social conclusions like disappointment and disintegration. An alternate line of exploration demonstrates that conjugal and family sorts vary in the ways they oversee conflict.

For instance, Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2009) concluded that  families are high in similarity introduction have a tendency to maintain a strategic distance from conflict through families that are high in discussion introduction have a tendency to display more social backing in conflict circumstances. Communication researchers have likewise attached the conflict to a few negative wellbeing results. Caughlin and Malis (2004) discovered associations between examples of substance and conflict utilization. Additionally, Shimkowski and Schrodt (2012) found that the co-parental communication intervened the connection between parental conflict and kids’ mental prosperity. Despite the fact that there can’t be a one-size-fits-all guidance for overseeing conflict keeping in mind the end goal to maintain a strategic distance from negative wellbeing conclusions.  Researchers have distinguished a few open to instruction conflict communication aptitudes that frequently do have positive social results have a tendency to make their concept of what the issue is. Accomplices’ assessments of marriage may be bargained by anxiety outside the marriage, either as intense occasions or progressing.

Theory and research on the comparability and physical fascination unmistakably outline the centrality of interpersonal communication to the launch of romantic relationships.  At the point when individuals start romantic coupling, they need to convey whether to assemble data about potential accomplices, to give data about themselves to accomplices or to present themselves as alluring and agreeable. Clearly these and other, interpersonal practices don’t stop once sentimental connections are secured. The particular practices instituted by individual accomplices may change about whether, and positively the path in which individuals ponder and react to specific practices will change. When relationships develop, couples additionally will start to participate in examples of connection that they didn’t establish when they initially met.

Research on the interpersonal methods that happen in the connection of romantic couples have centered both on the conduct of individual accomplices and additionally on the examples of conduct sanctioned by sentimental dyads. People’s communication examples and the examples of communication authorized by dyads are impacted by the cognitive and emotional attributes that people bring to their beginning connections. (Ackermen, Li, Griskevicius 2011) Besides, on the grounds that sentimental connections are reflexive and dynamic, the cognitive and emotional attributes that rise out of accomplices’ communications impact, and are impacted by, their relationship. The writing on sentimental accomplices’ outflows of influence by and large proposes that people in bothered connections show more adverse influence. Less constructive influence, and more correspondence of the contrary influence than do the individuals who are not troubled. What’s more, in spite of the fact that accomplices who are glad have a tendency to take part in more positive practices than the individuals who are miserable. Negative practices regularly are regarded the most delicate atmospheric gauge of satisfaction in marriage. Studies show that accomplices’ negative practices are more emphatically connected to the satisfaction in marriage than are their behaviors that are positive, especially when couples are disappointed with their relationship.

Interpersonal communication confusions can originate from our prejudgment of the individuals and things that encompass us. We have a tendency to take a gander at things in our own particular way and translate them in the way that we need to. This is not a decent attribute to practice. As opposed to accepting things, an individual ought to just get some information about what they don’t get it. Along these lines, you are definitely not left befuddled or pondering about the subject. “Communication includes cognizant decisions and oblivious impacts” (Sole, 2011). Cognizant and oblivious decisions assume a real part in distinguishing the obstructions to viable interpersonal collaborations. There are several inadequate theories delineating an orderly process between the relationships of individuals. Albeit any framework is apparently orderly, connections are intricate enough to shroud the existent conflict. Society can be seen on two levels: the joining and working of social foundations and the character of interest of people in establishments. Here the standards (principles of conduct) for interest and change become an integral factor. The vitality of considering conflict lies in its esteem as a change executor. Each time conflict is determined; the social framework inside which the clash emerged is perpetually changed. Changes and adjustments to the social framework happen about whether (pretty much as the development and change seen in dyadic connections require significant investment). Along these lines, an evolutionary or dialectic point of view is taken. Consequently, conflict ought to be contemplated for its own particular purpose. Conflict can be either determined, or it can be overseen. Administration just facilitates strain for now, while determination evaluates a specific purpose of conflict from the framework. Conflict is typical, even certain, in every romantic relationships in which take time in developing, and dealing with different behaviors, and types of communication.

The romantic relationships is not so much a gathering portrayed by accord. It might be held together via imperative or compulsion. Conflict may even reinforce connections, making them remunerating in the last examination. Individuals enter most connections as genuine or potential contenders, in light of the fact that assets are constantly seen as restricted. Case in point, in looking at communication affection, it is not obvious in which cues that people that have been in relationship longer, can try to discern, compared to younger couples nonverbal and verbal communication. Along these lines, there is constantly sharp competition among young men and young ladies to stimulate one another with deeds of quality and properties of excellence and appeal separately. Marriages later on, between couples that have been in a relationship for a while have different assets (e.g., cash, choice-making power, time, et cetera) get to be more notable and in short supply. Contradictions result when one’s sentiments of being scammed impact alternate’s unwillingness to pay up. The methods of family and marriage development are seen as a component of the social framework, inside which parts are confronting the ceaseless issue of grappling with one another’s conflicting diversions. It is through transaction and trade off that change in the family happens, permitting it to adjust to changing requests being done.

On the off chance that we were to depend on the customary generalization that men are from Mars and ladies are from Venus, and then the communication would be left to women. (Ackermen, Li, Griskevicius2011)Without a doubt, individuals’ convictions about the relationship in the regards to women and affection help this thought. Research shows that it frequently takes men longer to feel love than it accomplishes for ladies. Men prepare their feelings all the more gradually; they’re generally more mindful about taking their sentiments and connections to the following level. Supporting this idea, both men and ladies stated that it is ladies who both contemplate getting serious sooner than men and admit love first in excess of three weeks sooner than men as a rule. Yet these convictions may not reflect the sentimental reality. At the point when looking at what really happened in their past and current connections. It was men who were more prone to admit love first. This was not just the capacity of ladies holding up for their accomplices to make the first move (Ackermen, Li, Griskevicius 2011)  First considered communicating were men, in expressing their emotions six prior week’s ladies did. These recent discoveries fit in with this conclusion, which proposes that men will regularly take the activity in advancing sentimental connections, so they don’t acquire the expenses of missing the door to opportunity with the partner.

When looking at the form of communication that is present in romantic relationships, one must go back to the process view of communication. This entails how individuals handle conflict as a result from verbal or nonverbal communication. Both are a part of the way in which people interact, including talking and departing, or just their behavior around each other in their daily lives. This process view of conflict communication is seen as a reality in which reflects the awareness between romantic couples that consist of the events influencing other subsequent events throughout their relationships. This type of view allows for individuals to see behaviors and stations as stages, or phases, which direct to a process orientation. If the events continue to repeat it becomes a cycle. In which the cycle can create conflict within relationships and breaks down the relationship or marriage. Conflict management or better ways of communication can help to mitigate the cycle before it begins.

Women utilize verbal communication for affection, more than a man, and can pick up on the communication cues of others.  As a consequence of this, ladies have a tendency to handle conflict issues better than men and attempt to address conflicts. Ladies are likewise more disclosure toward oneself in their marriages than men, accordingly imparting a greater amount of themselves to their partner. Revelation toward oneself that is responded by the partner helps the relationship advance to deeper levels, in this way, anticipating more satisfaction and making a two-way communication. It serves to engage every part of the dyad and considers the type of communication needed.Each communication message has a relational and substance element.  The social part tells how one ought to get the message. It relates to what affiliation the sender of the message has to the beneficiary and how the substance, or denotive implications of their message ought to be perused. These implications and messages are utilized to characterize the relationship. These verbal cues are then used to situated rules or set up requests. In a romantic relationship, there are desires that individuals situated for one another. Whether these desires comprise of a one helping out around the house, or letting one know when they won’t be home for some time, or expecting the other to have goals for their life. Whatever they are, all the same, communication is needed in a relationship.

When the latter half of the century, the society has seen the rate of divorce between married couples consistent increase, then 50 years before.  In spite of the fact that the eighties had encountered a slight decrease in divorce rates, a large portion of marriages were still required to break down one of them died. In thinking about the vows of till death do us part, there are many driving factors behind the divorce rates. Maybe youthful wedded couples do not develop enough to be occupied with such a colossal obligation, or, possibly, the couples truly don’t have any acquaintance with one another and also they thought. Perhaps, they have been blinded by captivation as opposed to by genuine romance, or, basically, the couples erroneously have distinctive social desires. Eventually, all the potential outcomes point to one thing, which is the absence of communication. Apparently, the married couples have not utilized the right communication examples required to support their relationship. Somehow, for a partner, they did not assess their partner precisely enough to guarantee that this picked individual is, indeed, genuinely their long lasting husband or wife.

In no way, shape or form, is this the primary purpose behind divorce, however it unquestionably assumes a tremendous part. Indeed, could not accurately pinpoint the true reason for divorce since every circumstance is one of a kind and is generally truly convoluted. Nonetheless, it would be nonsensical not to accept that interpersonal communication does have basic impact in satisfaction in a relationship. Since interpersonal communication influences just about all features of a relationship, it has an enormous effect on every last piece of both people’s lives. Communication between married individuals is something that everybody might want to discover a mathematical statement for, is the objective that all hitched couples characteristically wish to attain. Since communication clearly has an immediate relationship to satisfaction in marriage, the more communication that is accomplished inside a marriage, the steadier and more positive the relationship. Communication has regularly been referred to as the primary indicator’ to the satisfaction in marriage.

Marriages or relationships are a lot of diligent work, and they get to be harder when a sets relationship blooms. It takes two in number individuals to put work into making the marriage get to be more prominent by the day. So as to succeed in a marriage the few must be eager to bargain, and cooperate to maintain communication and the relationship. It is not generally simple to settle on choices and consider someone else before settling on a decision in your life. Equalization trust and comprehension are things that are required to make a cheerful and durable sound relationship. In interpersonal connections is communications, between two or more individuals. “The ability to structure and create sound interpersonal associations with others is key for human advancement” (Paat, 2013). Permitting this communication between each partner, is to impart who they are “No manifestation of communication is basic. As a result of the quantity of variables included, indeed basic appeals are amazingly complex (King, 2000). There are nonverbal communication and practices for verbal communication. Once in a while we are uninformed that we are corresponding with others with actually talking. We have a tendency to correspond with words, images, signals, and so on. The standards of communications are important so to avoid conflict within relationships. Using alternatives to conflict management is important in relationships, as conflicts are evitable, and good interpersonal communication is essential to a satisfied relationship.

References

Adler, R., &ProctorII,R. (2013).Looking out, looking in.University of Kentucky.

Alberts, J. K. (1988).  An analysis of couples’ conversational complaints.  Communication Monographs, 55, 184-197. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03637758809376165

Ackerman, Joshua M., Li, Norman P, Griskevicisus, Vladas. (2011). Let’s Get Serious: Communicating Commitment in Romantic Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. VOL. 100. VO. 6 pg. 1079-1094. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/joshack/www/Ackerman_Lets-get-serious2011.pdf

Birchler, G. R. (1979). Communication skills in married couples. Research and Practice in Social Skills Training. New York: Plenum Pres

Braiker, H. B., & Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. Social exchange in developing relationships (pp. 135- 168). New York: Academic Press.

Cahn, D.D. (2013). Intimates in Conflict: ACommunicativePerspective. New York City: State University of New York.

Caughlin, J. P. and Malis, R. S. (2004). Demand/withdraw communication between parents and adolescents: Connections with self-esteem and substance use. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 125-148.

Caughlin, J. P., andVangelisti, A. L. (2006). Conflict in dating and marital relationships. The SAGE handbook of conflict communication (pp. 130-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Fisher, W.R. (1987). Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Valueand Action.Columbia:Universityof South CarolinaPress.

Gottman, J. M., and Levenson, R. W. (2000). The timing of divorce: Predicting when a couple will divorce over a 14-year period. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 737-745.

King, D. (2000). Four Principles of Interpersonal Communication. PSTCC. Retrieved from http://www.pstcc.edu/facstaff/dking/interpr.htm

Kim, M-S., & Leung, T. (2000).  A multicultural view of conflict management styles: Review and critical synthesis.  Communication Yearbook, 23 (pp. 227- 269).  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Knapp, Mark L, Daly, John. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. SAGE Publications, Inc; Fourth Edition.

Koerner, A. F. and Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2009). Family type and conflict: The impact of conversation orientation and conformity orientation on conflict in the family. Communication Studies, 48, 59-75.

Laursen, B., Finkelstein, B. D., & Betts, N. T. (2001).  A developmental meta-analysis of peer conflict resolution.  Developmental Review, 21, 423-449.

Paat, Y. (2013). Relationship Dynamics and Healthy Exchange across the Family Life Cycle: Implications for Practice. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23(8), pg. 938-953.

Rochberg-Halton, E. (Autumn 1982).Situation, Structure, and theContextof Meaning. TheSociological Quarterly. Vol. 23, No. 4. Pp.455-476.

Searle, J. R. (1998). Mind, Languageand Society:Philosophyin theReal World. Basic  Books. New York

Sole, K. (2011). Making connections: Understanding interpersonal communication. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Shimkowski, J. R. andSchrodt, P. (2012). Co-parental Communication as a Mediator of Interparental Conflict and Young Adult Children’s Mental Well-being. Communication Monographs, 79, 48-71.