Some Evident Truths About Conversations in Everyday Relationships All Communications Are Not Created Equal

This article presents a program of studies that map out daily conversations and so establish a geography of everyday communication. A new method (the Iowa Communication Record) is offered to extend research using diary methods and focus the researcher on communication in daily life. Three studies collectively show (a) consistent sex differences in the quality and nature of conversations across different types of relationships, (b) a consistent rank ordering of relationship types that differs from that intuitively included in previous models of relationship formation, and (c) a consistent difference between conversations held on different days of the week, with Wednesdays associated with greater degrees of conflictive communication. Self-disclosure is much less frequent in everyday life than assumed on the basis of laboratory work, and the predominant form of communication in intimate relationships is not only nonintimate but not simply distinguishable from communication in other relationship types. Communication quality distinguishes female from male partners, suggesting that previous findings on preference for female partners are truly founded in communication variables, which have previously been underrated. The article shows that closer attention must in future be paid to communicative variations created by daily events and circumstances, and the role of routine communication in daily life must be explored in future studies of social participation.

[1]  J. Mccroskey,et al.  THE USE AND ABUSE OF FACTOR ANALYSIS IN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH , 1979 .

[2]  V. Derlega,et al.  Friendship and Social Interaction , 1986 .

[3]  John B. Nezlek,et al.  Physical attractiveness in social interaction. , 1980 .

[4]  L. Edna Rogers,et al.  Analysis of Relational Communication in Dyads: New Measurement Procedures , 1975 .

[5]  R. Kessler,et al.  Effects of daily stress on negative mood. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  John M. Neale,et al.  Prospective and cross-sectional mood reports offer no evidence of a "blue Monday" phenomenon. , 1985 .

[7]  S. Duck Human Relationships , 1991 .

[8]  H. Reis,et al.  Interpersonal processes in close relationships. , 1988, Annual review of psychology.

[9]  John B. Nezlek,et al.  Sex differences in social participation , 1977 .

[10]  L. Baxter,et al.  “Secret Tests”Social Strategies for Acquiring Information About the State of the Relationship , 1984 .

[11]  L. Wheeler,et al.  On specificity in the impact of social participation on physical and psychological health. , 1985 .

[12]  L. Wheeler,et al.  Loneliness, social interaction, and sex roles. , 1983, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  M. Knapp,et al.  Perceptions of communication behavior associated with relationship terms , 1980 .

[14]  R. Hays,et al.  The Day-to-Day Functioning of Close versus Casual Friendships , 1989 .

[15]  R. Edelmann,et al.  Book reviewThe anatomy of relationships: M. Argyle and M. Henderson: Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middx. (1985). 359 Pages, £3.95. , 1986 .

[16]  L. Baxter Symbols of Relationship Identity in Relationship Cultures , 1987 .

[17]  L. Baxter,et al.  Marital Partners' Perceptions of Marital Maintenance Strategies , 1990 .

[18]  T. Stephen Symbolic Interdependence and Post-Break-Up Distress:: A Reformulation of the Attachment Construct , 1984 .

[19]  P. Shaver,et al.  Prototypes of Intimacy and Distance in Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Relationships , 1987 .

[20]  James H. Tolhuizen Communication Strategies for Intensifying Dating Relationships: Identification, Use and Structure , 1989 .

[21]  S. Duck Relationships as Unfinished Business: Out of the Frying Pan and into the 1990s , 1990 .