Verbal response modes and dimensions of interpersonal roles: A method of discourse analysis.

Stiles, William B.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.36.7.693

Cited by 140 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Conversation is the first and most basic site for the use of language (Clark, 1996). And although the nature and structure of conversation has been extensively studied (e.g., Clark, 1992;Krauss & Fussell, 1991;Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977;Stiles, 1978), the cognitive processes of people involved in a conversation have not. 1 Research on comprehending conversation has been limited to approaches in which participants process the conversational utterances of others (Gibbs & Mueller, 1988;Holtgraves, 1994Holtgraves, , 1998Holtgraves, , 1999Holtgraves, , 2000Keysar, 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A procedure for studying online conversational processing using a chat bot

Holtgraves

Han

2007

Behav Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A procedure for studying online conversational processing using a chat bot

Holtgraves

Han

2007

Behav Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These proportions, or "role dimensions," have been given names (Stiles, 1978b). The proportion of utterances concerning the other's experience (i.e., Question, Interpretation, Acknowledgment, or Reflection) is called attentiveness (versus informativeness); the proportion of utterances using the other's frame of reference (i.e., Edification, Confirmation, Acknowledgment, or Reflection) is called acquiescence or nondirectiveness (versus control or directiveness); and the proportion of utterances focused on the other (i.e., Advisement, Confirmation, Interpretation, or Reflection) is called presumptuousness (versus unassumingness or deference).…”

Section: Quantitative Indices Of Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The verbal response mode (VRM) taxonomy (Stiles, 1978b(Stiles, , 1978(Stiles, -79, 1979) is a purely intersubjective system. Each of its eight basic categories, Disclosure, Advisement, Edification, Confirmation, Question, Interpretation, Acknowledgment, and Reflection, implies a particular "microrelationship" of speaker to other.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verbal Response Modes as Intersubjective Categories

Stiles

1987

Language in Psychotherapy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

“…Thus, systems such as Bales's (1950) interaction process analysis, which was developed to code small group interaction, were eliminated. For this same reason, Stiles's (1978) verbal response modes were not discussed. Jones's (1988) mediation process analysis (MPA) was a system developed for discourse occurring in divorce mediation cases; it codifies communication of not only the negotiators of such a case but also that of the mediators and additional parties (e.g., attorneys for the negotiators).…”

Section: Content Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Content analysis in negotiation research: A review and guide

Harris

1996

Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Content analysis, a technique in which inferences are derived from the communication of interacting parties, is not utilized enough in mainstream negotiation research. The purpose of the present article is to outline the benefits and limitations inherent in the content analysis technique, to provide a comprehensive review of content analysis systems that have been used in the past, and to evaluate the existing systems in an effort to guide readers in the decision process. This article aids the potential consumer-any person considering the use of content analysis in negotiation research-in making informed choices regarding this technique. Choice among existing systems should be based upon one's research question and upon accepted standards of quality.A system that is relatively comprehensive, well grounded in theory, and demonstrates acceptable levels of reliability is advocated. Specific recommendations regarding quality systems are provided.Negotiation is pervasive in nearly all forms of human social interaction. Whenever the desires of two or more people are perceived to be mutually exclusive and the players involved choose to develop an agreement to satisfy their needs, a form of negotiation is at work. Negotiation can be applied to all levels ofsocial conflict, ranging from a quarrel between friends or family members to full-scale warfare between nations. As a result, social scientists have long been interested in the processes and outcomes associated with negotiation.Performance is a major issue for much of the negotiation literature. Optimal performance, in the form of an agreement that objectively maximizes the interests of all parties involved, is regarded as highly desirable. As such, most of the investigation to date has focused upon two forms of dependent measures: economic measures and social-psychological measures (Thompson, 1990). Economic measures focus solely upon outcomes of a negotiation. They do not take into consideration the process by which those outcomes are achieved, and a standard of optimal performance is often used as a comparison by which to judge the effectiveness of a negotiation. Socialpsychological measures focus on both the process and the outcome of negotiation. They are usually in the form of a set of ratings of the outcome, of one's opponent, and of oneself (Thompson & Hastie, 1990). Social-psychological This material is based upon work supported by a faculty research grant from the University Research Council at Western Illinois University. The helpful comments from class members of the graduate seminar on conflict resolution held at Western Illinois University-Ronelle Allen, Bobby Bailey,Joan Holgate, Eboni House, and Alan Rhea-are gratefully acknowledged. The author also thanks Nimet Beriker, Laurie Weingart, and an anonymous reviewer for their suggestions, which resulted in a much improved manuscript. Correspondence should be sent to K. L. Harris, Department of Psychology, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL 61455 (e-mail: karen_harris@ccmail.wiu.edu). measures r...

show abstract

Verbal response modes and dimensions of interpersonal roles: A method of discourse analysis.

Cited by 140 publications

References 34 publications

A procedure for studying online conversational processing using a chat bot

A procedure for studying online conversational processing using a chat bot

Verbal Response Modes as Intersubjective Categories

Content analysis in negotiation research: A review and guide

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About