Assessing the interpersonal transaction cycle: Convergence of action and reaction interpersonal circumplex measures.

Abstract

Contemporary interpersonal theory uses 2 models to represent the process and content of interpersonal transactions. The interpersonal transaction cycle is a dynamic model demonstrating the interaction between the overt behaviors and the covert intrapsychic experiences of 2 interacting individuals in action-reaction event chains. The interpersonal circle is a static model codifying individual differences across various interpersonal content domains (e.g., traits, acts, problems, impacts). The present study used 150 pairs of undergraduates to demonstrate cross-observer structural convergence of 2 separate interpersonal circumplex inventories measuring the "action" and "reaction" components of the transaction cycle, providing evidence that both components of the cycle can be captured by existing circumplex measures, and allowing researchers to proceed on to more comprehensive tests of interpersonal theory.

The Content and Dimensionality of Communication Styles

“…In contrast, niceness, threateningness, and supportiveness are "transitive" in the sense that they do refer to a fixed person, such as in to be nice to someone, to threaten someone, and to support someone. 14 Nonetheless, the interpersonal action-reaction mechanisms (Wagner, Kiesler, & Schmidt, 1995) suggested for the Interpersonal Circumplex may actually incorporate the intransitive communicative behaviors. For instance, the transitive threateningness expressed by a communication partner may evoke intransitive emotionality in the other communication partner.…”

Nutritional implications of patient–provider interactions in hospital settings: evidence from a within-subject assessment of mealtime exchanges and food intake in elderly patients

“…The assessment of participants' and providers' interpersonal behaviour was based on the Interpersonal Circumplex Model, a well-established theoretical approach that maps interpersonal behaviours into two basic dimensions namely agency, with dominance and submissiveness interpersonal domains at its poles, and communion, with agreeableness and quarrelsomeness interpersonal domains at its extremes (Wiggins, 1991;Wagner et al, 1995). Twelve research assistants were trained to perform observations of participants' behaviour toward providers and providers' behaviour toward participants.…”

“…Evidence indeed exists that these different types of relationships have interactions that vary along two dimensions known to capture fundamental modalities of human interaction (Moskowitz, 1994;Moskowitz et al, 1994). The first dimension, agency, reflects one's striving for mastery and power, with 'agentic' behaviours being represented by frequent dominant and infrequent submissive behaviour, whereas the second dimension, communion, reflects efforts to promote intimacy and union with others, with 'communal' behaviours being characterized by frequent agreeable and infrequent quarrelsome acts (Wiggins, 1991;Wagner et al, 1995). In addition to differences in behavioural patterns across specific types of relationships, behavioural variations have also been observed over repeated occasions within a given type of relationship, with variations arising in either the amount of exchanged communal and agentic behaviours (Moskowitz, 1994) or the extent to which these behaviours complement each other (Kiesler, 1983).…”

Interpersonal Problems and Interpersonal Expectations in Everyday Life

“…Thus, the current study's IRR assessed only a subset of the types of reactions, counter-reactions, and feelings that could be assessed. A related limitation is that while interpersonal interactions are an "unbroken causal loop" in which the responses of each person are both a cause and an effect of the responses of the other (Carson, 1969), the current study only assessed expectations for one part of the "interpersonal transaction cycle" (Wagner, Kiesler, & Schmidt, 1995)-namely, the effect of others' reactions on the self's feelings and counter-reactions. Consider, for example, a perplexing finding from the current study: overly communal behaviors were related both to images of others being dismissive and images of others being supportive.…”