Analysis of Functions of Talk and Reports of Imagined Interactions (Us) During Engagement and Marriage

Abstract

Research has revealed that individuals v a y in theirphilosophyabout marriage in terms of the amount of sharing and communication that is expected in the relationship. This study examined individual dzperences as a function of gender, marital status (engaged, married) and marital orientation (traditional, independent) on beliefs about talk based on afuncfionai approach and reports of various characteristics of imagined interactions (selftalk). A factor analysis was conducted on beliefs about thefunctions of talk with the relational partner and in social situations. There were 4 dimensions for talkfunctions: equality of power, talk about daily events, use of small talk to avoid discussion of conftict, and the enjoyment of serious discussion. Regression models were tested to predict relational satisfaction on the basis of talk functions and characteristics of internal dialogues that included thefrequency ofinternal dialogues, discrepancy, pleasantness, specificity, variety, compensation, and rehearsal. Results revealed di8erences as a consequence of gender, marital status, and orientation. 0 ne of the major complaints about relationalproblems is communication difficulties between partners. A number of researchers have summarized the vast body of literature on communication differences between stable and unstable marriages. Gottman (1994) reviewed numerous studies that painted a picture of communication distress and an inordinate number of communication behaviors that are seen as negative, such as whining, withdrawal, contempt, and lack of understanding, which characterize the communication of unhappy marriages.Despite the popularity of citing communication problems as a primary reason for relational problems, there has been little attention paid to partners' beliefs about talk. There is a need to explore individual beliefs about the functions of talk in close relationships. The observation and coding of communication behaviors among couples distinguished on the basis of Correspondence should be sent via e-mail to sphone@lsu.edu. John M. Wiemann (Ph.D., Purdue University, 1975) is associate vice-chancellor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The authors would like to thank Cynthia Gallois and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Students' Imagined Interactions as Intrapersonal Explanations for Instructional Dissent

“…For instance, as it pertains to frequency and pleasantness, researchers have found that these characteristics of IIs are related to positive relational outcomes (Honeycutt & Wiemann, 1999). Specifically, the authors found that individuals who have positive and frequent imagined interactions are more likely to enjoy serious discussions and are likely to believe that their relationships are more egalitarian than individuals who do not.…”

“…Imagined interactions have been studied across a variety of relationships including college roommates (Honeycutt & Patterson, 1997), parent=child relationships (Allen, Edwards, Hayhoe, & Leach, 2007), married couples (Honeycutt & Keaton, 2012Honeycutt & Wiemann, 1999), small groups (Turner, Crisp, & Lambert, 2007) and consumer=business relationships (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2011). However, important to our purposes is the fact that IIs play an important role in the college classroom as well.…”

“…Moreover, the functions of IIs are self-understanding (i.e., to better understand oneself), rehearsal (i.e., to mentally plan out what to say), catharsis (i.e., to relieve tension or uncertainty), compensation (i.e., to serve in place of a real conversation), relational maintenance (i.e., to keep a relationship alive), and conflict management (i.e., to address conflict). The functions and uses of IIs are predicted by individual differences such as the five factor model of personality (Honeycutt, Pence, & Gearhart, 2012, covert narcissism (Honeycutt, Pence, & Gearhart, 2013), attachment (Honeycutt, 1998(Honeycutt, -1999, argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2011), Machiavellianism (Allen, 1990), locus of control (Honeycutt, Edwards, & Zagacki, 1989-1990, communication apprehension (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2011;Honeycutt, Choi, & DeBerry, 2009), taking conflict personally (Wallenfelsz & Hample, 2010), and Myers-Briggs personality preferences (Honeycutt & Keaton, 2012. In addition, the use of IIs are associated with relational features such as uncertainty (Van Kelegom & Wright, 2013), anxiety (Allen & Honeycutt, 1997), emotional responses (Honeycutt et al, 1989(Honeycutt et al, -1990Honeycutt, Nasser, Banner, Mapp, & DuPont, 2008), loneliness (Honeycutt et al, 1990), marital ideology (Honeycutt, 1998(Honeycutt, -1999, relational quality (Honeycutt, -2009, talk in marriage (Honeycutt & Wiemann, 1999), and intrapersonal communication satisfaction (Honeycutt & McCann, 2008).…”

A Functional Approach to Interpersonal Argument: Differences between Public-Issue and Personal-Issue Arguments

“…A functional approach answers the question ''why'' rather than ''how'' or ''what'' (Herek, 1987). Such an approach has been utilized to examine talk (Honeycutt & Wiemann, 1999), attributions (Forsyth, 1980), conflict (Coser, 1956;Deutsch, 1973), and attitude change (e.g., Katz, 1960).…”

The Dutch Marital Satisfaction and Communication Questionnaire: A Validation study

“…Reversely, daily event talk and sharing thoughts and feelings about the relationship are considered as instrumental and functional for the relationship (Canary & Stafford, 1992;Wood, 1993). Evidence for the beneficial effect of this behaviour is obtained in several studies (Buunk & Nijskens, 1980;Canary, Stafford, & Semic, 2002;Honeycutt & Wiemann, 1999;Weigel & Ballard-Reisch, 1999.…”