Structuring the concept of relational communication

Dillard, James Price; Solomon, Denise Haunani; Palmer, Mark

doi:10.1080/03637759909376462

Cited by 129 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Dominance can be defined as the degree to which one actor attempts to regulate the behavior of the other [14]. We call robot motion dominant when the robot continues with its task despite possible collision with the co-working person, forcing the person to avoid it, and submissive when the robot interrupts its movement, allowing the person to complete their planned movement and work on the task.…”

Section: Dominant and Submissive Robot Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dominance and movement cues of robot motion: A user study on trust and predictability

Reinhardt¹,

Pereira

Beckert

et al. 2017

2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-We investigate the effect of dominant and submissive movement strategies and a movement cue in a human-robot cooperation scenario on perceived predictability and trust. Four different movement strategies in proximal cooperation between a robot manipulator and a human participant were tested in an experiment in which participants had to arrange small objects in a shared workspace working on the same product as the robot. The features of the robot motion were characterized by dominance or a movement cue. The robot modifies its motion in two ways resulting in four different movement strategies: either it stops when the human is in danger of collision (submissive) or not (dominant), and either it performs a backing-off movement cue or not. The participants evaluated the movement strategies in terms of trust and predictability in a questionnaire. We found that the submissive backing-off movement strategy significantly enhanced the users' trust compared to the dominant movement strategy without movement cue. Other strategies showed no significant differences in trust or predictability.

show abstract

Section: Dominant and Submissive Robot Movementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dominance and movement cues of robot motion: A user study on trust and predictability

Reinhardt¹,

Pereira

Beckert

et al. 2017

2017 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The dominance-submissiveness continuum is considered a prevalent aspect of communication within relationships (Burgoon and Hale 1984;Dillard et al 1999). Relatedly, the motivational and behavioral predispositions highlighted by Parental Investment Theory focus on the social behaviors of men and women, describing men's predilection toward dominance behaviors and women's displays of intimacy and attempts to build social alliances, and the preference of each sex with regard to the dominance and intimacy behaviors that are displayed by potential mates (Geary et al 2003).…”

Section: Relational Framing Theorymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In addition, Buunk et al (2002) found that women prefer mates who are dominant and of higher social positions than themselves, consistent with parental investment perspectives. Dominance and affiliation are cognitive structures resulting from our evolutionary heritage, and communication is guided by framing relational messages using the structures of dominance and affiliation (Dillard et al 1996;Dillard et al 1999). Evolutionary theories such as Parental Investment Theory (PIT) posit that needs to affiliate and/or dominate are survival and reproductive adaptations.…”

Section: Relational Framing Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Affiliation was measured using the similarity (e.g., The target made the other person feel that they were similar), affect (e.g., The target acted like s/he was good friends with the other person), and receptivity/trust (e.g., The target was sincere) subscales of the Relational Message Scale (Burgoon and Hale 1987), as suggested by Dillard et al (1999). The scale was modified as reflected above, so the items referred to the individual the participants observed.…”

Section: Instrumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Flirtatious Communication: An Experimental Examination of Perceptions of Social-Sexual Communication Motivated by Evolutionary Forces

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Guided by Relational Framing and Parental Investment Theories, this investigation examined experimentally induced flirtatious interactions. United States undergraduates (N=252) from the Mid-Atlantic region viewed a flirtatious interaction and rated a confederate on physical and social attraction, affiliation, dominance, and conversational effectiveness. Generally, it was hypothesized that different flirting motivations would lead to different evaluations of the flirters, and perceptions of flirters would vary based on gender. Results revealed that men were evaluated as more dominant and affiliative than women when flirting, but dominance in men was not perceived as attractive or conversationally effective. In addition, men's attraction to women increased significantly when women flirted for sexual motives, and women's attraction to men decreased significantly when men flirted for fun. Overall, the results provide mixed support for both theories.

show abstract

“…Dillard et al, (1999) suggested that similarity, affect, receptivity, and equality could be collapsed into an affiliative dimension. Dominance-related items loaded separately onto their own dimension.…”

Section: Relational Messagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Examination of Perceived Relational Messages that Accompany Interpersonal Communication Motivations

Hullman¹

2012

TOCOMMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Interpersonal scholars are concerned about what motivates people to communicate with one another, and how motivation manifests itself in dyadic interaction. Rubin, Perse, and Barbato (1988) identified the main motives for interpersonal communication: control, inclusion, affection, relaxation, pleasure, and escape. Although Myers and Ferry (2001) examined interpersonal communication motives and immediacy behaviors in general, there is a dearth of research addressing how nonverbal cues or messages correlate to motives in specific communication events. Examining the nonverbal layer that accompanies a verbal message is an important step in interpersonal communication motives research.Most of the meaning of a message is derived from the nonverbal layer of the message (Mehrabian, 1969). Incongruent verbal and nonverbal messages are more difficult to interpret than are congruent messages (Burgoon & Bacue, 2003). In addition, the sender of incongruent messages might "come across as smug, insincere, or patronizing" (p. 194). Schrader (1994) found, however, that messages attempting to convince an adversary were rated more appropriate when accompanied by nonverbal indicators of immediacy and intimacy, not dominance. In this case, incongruent behaviors preserved a favorable impression of the sender. Given these findings, it makes sense to examine whether or not nonverbal messages seem to complement or contradict the motivation of the message.Nonverbal cues normally tell us little about the messages when viewed in isolation from one another. Burgoon and Hale (1984) argued that relational messages encompass "both the verbal and nonverbal expression that indicate how two or more people regard each other, regard their relationship, or regard themselves" (p. 193). Although they identified several relational messages, Dillard, Solomon, and Palmer (1999) argued that substantive relational messages could be subsumed into two larger categories: dominance and affiliation.This study examines how nonverbal cues are interpreted in terms of dominance and affiliation for messages motivated by the three primary interpersonal communication motives: control, inclusion, and affection. The findings will illuminate how speakers package messages according to the motive for the communication.Keywords: Relational Messages, interpersonal communication, motivations. RELATIONAL MESSAGESRelational level messages represent meaning about a relationship between two people, but are separate from the verbal words of the message (Burgoon, 1994). Relational communication focuses on the meanings mainly associated with nonverbal behavior (Burgoon, 1994;Siegman, 1978;Thayer, 1986). Discreet nonverbal behaviors are normally packaged in such a way that their compositions constitute relational evident in the typology developed by Burgoon and Hale (1987).Interpersonal interactants can express a diverse set of relational messages (Burgoon & Hale, 1987). Burgoon and Hale (1987) developed a typology of themes to represent the meaning of messages (Relational D...

show abstract

Structuring the concept of relational communication

Cited by 129 publications

References 35 publications

Dominance and movement cues of robot motion: A user study on trust and predictability

Dominance and movement cues of robot motion: A user study on trust and predictability

Flirtatious Communication: An Experimental Examination of Perceptions of Social-Sexual Communication Motivated by Evolutionary Forces

An Examination of Perceived Relational Messages that Accompany Interpersonal Communication Motivations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About