Analysis of Relational Communication in Dyads: New Measurement Procedures

Abstract

Relational communication refers to the control or dominance aspects of message exchange in dyads, as distinct from an emphasis on the report or referential aspects of communication. In relational communication analysis, the focus is on messages as transacrions, and the major theoretic concepts which emerge in this analysis are symmetry, transitory, and Complementarity of control. This paper contains a brief review and critique of existing interaction analysis techniques, followed by a detailed discussion of new measurement procedures that capture both the control and processual (time-varying) nature of dyadic interaction. The first step in these procedures yields a code (by speaker) based on the grammatical format of each sequential utterance. The second step yields a translation of each message format and response made into acontrol code, based on the relationship between the message and its immediate predecessor. These codes are next translated into transactional codes, which can then be analyzed in terms of the three major theoretic concepts. These measurement procedures require minimal subjective judgment, particularly at the initial coding level. The paper concludes with a discussion of the ways we are attempting to operationalize major "themes" or patterns of control in lengthy, ongoing dyadic exchanges. This paper describes recently developed procedures for coding and analyzing the relational and processual aspects of interpersonal communication systems. Relational communication refers to the control aspects of message exchange-those elements in message exchange by which interactors reciprocally define the nature of their relative "position" or dominance in their interaction. In popular terms, the notion of being "one-up" or "onedown" indicates two examples of relational control. The theoretic concepts of symmetry, transitory, and complementarity reflect basic types of relational control, and are defined in terms of the similarities or differences in control maneuvers appearing in an interaction; more precise definitions will be given below.An emphasis on the processual aspect of interpersonal communication is equally important in this research, since our goal is to develop operational measures of relational control "patterns" in ongoing interaction systems. In achieving this goal, methodological problems arise in the analysis of sequentially linked messages that differ from those encountered in developing analysis schemes for coding discrete interaction events. We will indicate these problems and discuss how they may be solved.At the conceptual level, the major inputs to relational control analysis come from the work of Bateson (1958), Jackson (1959, 1965), Haley (1963), and Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967). At the operational level, the most significant work has been provided by Sluzki and Beavin (1965).Relational communication analysis requires a perspective that differs from the monadic or individual difference orientation that dominates existing analytic techniques. Relational analysis focuses o...

Behavioral parent-teacher consultation: Conceptual and research considerations

“…In the behavioral consultation literature, the Consultant Analysis Record (CAR) is available to examine verbal exchanges between a consultant and consultee in regard to message source, content, and process . Other systems include the Consultant Verbal Analysis System (CVAS) (Curtis & Zins, 1988), Relational Communication (RELCOM) (Fisher & Drecksel, 1983;Rogers & Farace, 1975), and Social Information Processing Analysis (SIPA) (Fisher, Drecksel, & Werbel, 1979). The most heuristic way to examine process variables in parent-teacher consultation has not been identified; it may or may not include some components of these systems.…”

Patterns of relational communication in conjoint behavioral consultation.

“…First, because audiotapes rather than videotapes were used (thereby minimizing the number of cues available to identify speakers and listeners), the fi rst author specifi ed all direct and indirect targets for each message prior to coding. Second, Heatherington and Friedlander's format category of "unsuccessful talkover" was not used for two reasons: Rogers and Farace (1975) did not designate this category in their original description of the RCCCS and, although during the coding process it was not generally diffi cult to specify who executed a successful talkover, at times the poorer quality of the au dio recordings made it diffi cult to identify a speaker whose talkover was unsuc cessful.…”

“…The FRCCCS focuses on the interpersonal control functions of speech turns between participants in a conversation (i.e., process) rather than on the meaning of specifi c messages made by group members (i.e., content). The FRCCCS is an extension of the Rogers and Farace (1975) relational communication coding system (RCCCS), used previously in consultation research by Erchul (1987) and Martens et al (1992).…”

“…Perhaps the best known of the relational coding systems is Rogers and Farace's (1975) relational communication control coding system (RCCCS). Within the RCCCS, each message is assigned a three-digit code.…”

“…An example of a one-across message is an asser tion that continues the theme of the current discussion. Control codes are then analyzed in the context of previous and succeeding messages in order to operationalize complementarity (e.g., one-up, one-down exchanges) and sym metry (e.g., one-up, one-up exchanges) (Heatherington & Friedlander, 1987;Rogers & Farace, 1975).…”