Determinants of Integration and Confrontation in Internal Dialogues

Abstract

Interest in the distinction between integrative and confrontational internal dialogues has been growing, as research suggests numerous positive functions of the former compared to the latter. The article proposes a theoretical approach to integration and confrontation in internal dialogue and an empirical method of measuring these processes. Exploratory research is also presented that seeks to identify personality-related and situational determinants of integration and confrontation in internal dialogue simulating social relationships. Canonical correlation analysis did not establish personality determinants but it did reveal situational determinants (understood as cognitive interpretation of the enacted situation) behind integration and confrontation in internal dialogue. Perceiving the internal interlocutor as similar to the dialogue's author is associated with the author's integrative attitude. An increase in the wishfulness of the dialogue is accompanied by an increase in the author's confrontational attitude and the interlocutor's integrative attitude.

Similarity to imagined interlocutor and integration of viewpoints in internal dialogues

“…If we assume that increasing the frequency of integrative IDs is justified, we should consider whether (and under what conditions) similarity manipulation is an effective way to do it. On the one hand, a positive relationship between integrative attitudes of ID parties and their similarity has been observed previously (Puchalska‐Wasyl, ). On the other hand, an experiment in which similarity between ID parties was manipulated, did not reveal any differences among groups either in general integration or in the integrative attitudes of the ID parties (Puchalska‐Wasyl, ).…”

“…This questionnaire by Puchalska‐Wasyl (, ) is a 13‐item measure of the integrative and confrontational characteristics of an ID. ICON is based on the assumption that integration and confrontation are two independent dimensions of ID description (see Introduction).…”

“…In this article, it will be referred to as internal dialogue (ID). I assume that a person is engaged in ID when he/she adopts (at least) two different viewpoints in turn, and the utterances formulated (silently or aloud) from these viewpoints respond to one another (Hermans, ; Puchalska‐Wasyl, , ). The viewpoints adopted in ID can represent personal perspectives and/or someone else's perspectives.…”

“…First, when analysing IDs and interpersonal relationships, we can observe analogous links between analogous variables. For example, “integration based on similarity” has been found in IDs (Puchalska‐Wasyl, ). At the same time studies in social psychology confirm that perceived similarity between people positively influences the course of interactions between them.…”

“…In light of the two‐dimensional model of ID (Puchalska‐Wasyl, , , ) which is adopted in this paper, general integration depends on integrative attitudes of both parties. Therefore, two additional hypotheses, which are in fact supplementary to the H2, were posed:

H2a.

…”