Topic Valence and Ambiguity in Parent-Emerging Adult Child Postdivorce Discussions

Abstract

Communication privacy management theory maintains permeability rules manifest as communication strategies used during conversation. Although postdivorce families tend to privilege openness, this conclusion is based on recalled reports and single discussions about negatively valenced topics. To determine whether ambiguity functions as a manifestation of permeability rules and its effects on relational satisfaction and psychological well-being, 39 parent-emerging adult child dyads discussed one negatively valenced and one positively valenced postdivorce topic. Results indicated parents were ambiguous while discussing negatively and positively valenced topics, and children were perceptive of parents' ambiguity during the conversations. No differences were found between parents' use and children's perceptions of parents' ambiguity. Further, children's relational satisfaction and psychological well-being were affected by ambiguity in both discussions.

Keywords:

• Ambiguity
• Communication Privacy Management
• Divorce
• Parent-Child Relationships
• Topic Valence

Acknowledgments

This study is a part of the first author's dissertation directed by Jon F. Nussbaum at Penn State. The dissertation was conducted with the support of the Sparks Fellowship awarded by the College of the Liberal Arts at Penn State. The authors would like to thank the first author's dissertation committee: Michelle Miller-Day, Denise Solomon, and Paul Amato, and our reviewers for their useful feedback.

Notes

† p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

†p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

To assess children's perceptions of parents' ambiguity, 26 items were created:

	1. The meaning was vague.
	2. My parent's statements had only one possible meaning (R).
	3. My parent's message had multiple meanings.
	4. My parent seemed to contradict him/herself when we talked.
	5. My parent seemed evasive in our conversation.
	6. My parent tried to change the subject during our conversation.
	7. My parent tried to avoid my questions.
	8. My parent was vague about whether he or she was expressing his/her own opinions.
	9. My parent clearly articulated whose position he or she expressed (R).
	10. My parent was not clear about who was responsible for the ideas he or she expressed.
	11. My parent was unclear about whether he or she agreed with the statements he or she made.
	12. My parent said “I believe … ”, “I think … ”, and “I feel … to show that the ideas were his/her own (R).
	13. My parent was clear about his/her own position (R).
	14. My parent was vague about what his/her own thoughts were.
	15. My parent was honest about his/her thoughts and feelings (R).
	16. My parent very clearly stated his/her own thoughts (R).
	17. My parent was clearly talking to me (R).
	18. My parent sounded like he or she might be talking to someone else.
	19. My parent sounded like he or she was talking to me, but looked as though he or she was talking to someone else.
	20. My parent was looking at me, but he or she did not sound like he or she was talking to me.
	21. My parent clearly addressed this message to me (R).
	22. My parent's statements made sense with what we were discussing (R).
	23. Overall, my parent's ideas fit together, making him/her easy to understand (R).
	24. My parent's responses were “way” off from the statement or question that came before it.
	25. My parent's statements sometimes did not seem connected with what we were talking about.
	26. My parent's statements fit into the discussion we were having (R).

Items followed by “(R)” were reverse coded so that higher scores reflected greater perceived ambiguity. Items were reworded for parents to reflect their self-reported use of ambiguity.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Tara G. McManus

Tara G. McManus is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Jon F. Nussbaum

Jon F. Nussbaum is a Professor in the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences at Pennsylvania State University.