Verbal Response Modes as Intersubjective Categories

Abstract

INTRODUCTIONThe three-channel hypothesis (Russell & Stiles, 1979) distinguishes three classes of verbal process-coding categories and proposes that each class taps a different channel of interpersonal communication in psychotherapy. Content categories, such as body parts or separation anxiety, concern denotative or connotative meaning of discourse units. The content channel carries information about the speaker's current concerns, attitudes, and personality dynamics. Extralinguistic categories, such as laughter or hesitation, concern speaking behaviors that accompany or modify language, but are themselves neither semantic nor syntactic. The extralinguistic channel carries information about the speaker's current (and usually transitory) emotional state-a momentary state of anger, for example, in contrast to an enduring attitude of hostility toward someone. Intersubjective categories, such as question or blame, concern brief relationships of the speaker to the intended recipient; that is, unlike content or extralinguistic categories, intersubjective categories imply the existence of another person (e.g., one questions another person; one blames another person). The intersubjective channel carries information about interpersonal relationships and social roles, and, in psychotherapeutic communication, about the therapist's technique.The three-channel hypothesis does not require that any type of information be carried exclusively in one channel (nor are these three an exhaustive listing of possible channels). For example, information about

Adolescents' Physiological Reactions to Their Parents' Negative Disclosures About the Other Parent in Divorced and Nondivorced Families

“…However, there was no association between inappropriate disclosures and distress for parents who had a strained relationship. Even though the basic tenet of the fever model (Stiles, 1987;Stiles et al, 1992) did not hold true, it might be the case that some parents regretted disclosing information about the other parent's personality or their marriage and divorce to their children, especially if they had a good relationship with the other parent, and others felt cathartic disclosing this information, in effect, canceling out the significant findings in either direction. Interestingly, whether or not the parents were divorced was not a predictor of parents' anxiousness or arousal when they were disclosing.…”

“…For example, the fever model posits that individuals who are psychologically distressed tend to disclose more and that the act of disclosing relieves distress through catharsis and self-understanding (Stiles & Pennebaker, 1995;Stiles et al, 1992). Accordingly, the fever model (Stiles, 1987) would suggest that parents will be more likely to disclose when suffering from increased psychological distress and emotional burden and that such disclosure might alleviate accumulated tension for the parents. This line of thinking is supported by previous research on the physiological benefits of emotional disclosure.…”

“You Need to Stop Talking About This!”: Verbal Rumination and the Costs of Social Support

“…Research on the fever model (Stiles, 1987;Stiles, Shuster, & Harrigan, 1992) also demonstrates that when people disclose what they are ruminating about, disclosure tends to reduce their anxiety and ruminative tendencies. Moreover, self-disclosure helps build and maintain relationships because people develop emotional bonds through the sharing of private information (see Altman & Taylor, 1973;Pearce & Cronen, 1980;Petronio, 1991Petronio, , 2002Wheeless, 1976).…”

Rumination, Conflict Intensity, and Perceived Resolvability as Predictors of Motivation and Likelihood of Continuing Serial Arguments

“…Our investigation was informed by process models of serial argumentation (i.e., Bevan et al, 2008;Trapp & Hoff, 1985) and by social-cognitive explanations of thought suppression, intrusiveness, and disclosure (i.e., Stiles, 1987;Stiles, Shuster, & Harrigan, 1992). First, Trapp and Hoff (1985) advanced a model of serial argumentation by explicating (a) the antecedent conditions necessary for arguing, (b) the primary and secondary processes involved in the actual argument, and (c) the consequent conditions of the argumentative process.…”