Verbal person centeredness (VPC) is a long-dominant conceptualization of quality in supportive communication, but prior work provides limited guidance for researchers seeking to examine its impact in interaction. This study examined the extent to which overall VPC for an interaction is predicted by support providers’ specific behaviors. In a laboratory setting, pairs of friends (320 dyads) discussed a problem that one of them was currently experiencing. Transcripts of these interactions were coded by separate research teams for overall VPC of support provision and for the topic, function, and experiential focus of each discrete thought-unit produced by the support provider. Regression analyses showed that VPC was predicted by units representing specific, theoretically interpretable combinations of topical, functional, and experiential focus. The findings provide evidence of validity for procedures used to code VPC for supportive interactions while also displaying ways in which person centeredness is accomplished somewhat differently in interaction than in discrete messages.

This study tested status-contingency theory and conversion theory on a task in which members made ordered judgments instead of dichotomous judgments. In groups, participants discussed whether “under God” should be in the pledge of allegiance and reached consensus on an ordered scale. Members’ contributions were scored for integrative complexity. In groups with more dispersion of opinion, members with opinions less discrepant from other group members did not have higher integrative complexity than members with more discrepancy of opinion, failing to support status-contingency theory for nondichotomous decisions. In support of conversion theory, members with more discrepant opinions were more influential when they had higher integrative complexity in their arguments. Replicating past research, groups with longer discussions had higher integrative complexity.