A modern rhetoric has developed concerning itself with considerably more dimensions of speech than was the case with traditional rhetoric's concentration on persuasion and public address. Indeed, this modern rhetoric has expanded its domain to include the whole range of types of oral communication. But while this very basic kind of evolution has been taking place, it appears that a corresponding ethic ( a n interpersonal one) has not emerged. The authors make bold to try to stimulate that study.The interpersonal ethic proposed in the article can be stated as follows: A's communication is ethical to the extent that it accepts B's responses; it is unethical to the extent to which it develops hostility toward B's responses, or in some way tries to subjugate B. The ethic can be observed best, the authors believe, when A discovers that B rejects the message A is sending.Such an ethic springs from the following assumptions: (1) By virtue of the very nature of the communicative act, the two parties to a communication exercise control over each other. Both the listener and the speaker are, in part, at the other's mercy.( 2 ) One of the highest values in a democratic culture is that conditions be created and maintained in which the potential of the individual is best realized. ( 3) The individual will be able to realize his potential to the extent that psychological freedom can be increased for him.An interpersonal ethic, the article suggests, may have more to do with the attitude of the speaker and listener toward each other than with elements of the message (as in the more traditional rhetoric). It may concern itself more with loyalty to the person with whom one is in communication than to rationality or cosmic truth.

No abstract

This paper has two objectives. First, it presents a brief informal statement of a theory of the dynamic constructs of personality bearing upon conflicts within and between people. The six dynamics (range of feelings, task energy, respect for community, respect for others, desire for control, and concern for one's own self-uniqueness) are based on the concept-free research of Osgood et al. and Bales. Second, it reports the reliability and validity of an instrument which, using scales for the six dynamics, is designed to measure the degree to which one is predisposed to handle conflict constructively (win-win) or destructively (win-lose). Internal and test-retest reliability of the instrument are acceptable for basic research. Several field studies suggest criterion validity. Construct validity was examined by comparison with three other instruments, which were supportive.