Examining the Effects of Planning and Empathic Accuracy on Communication in Relational and Nonrelational Conflict Interactions

Abstract

Grounded in message production research, we considered the effects of planning (plan vs. not plan), discussion type (relational vs. nonrelational), and perceived empathic accuracy on the likelihood of conflict resolution in close relationships. Eighty-two “dating” couples from a southeastern university participated in two conflict discussions; one concerned a relational problem, while the other focused on a nonrelational problem-solving task. As predicted, individuals were more likely to report the nonrelational task as resolved, compared to the relational discussion. While discussion type was not associated with empathic accuracy, there was a positive association between perceived empathic accuracy and conflict resolution. Surprisingly, planning was not associated with perceived conflict resolution. Implications for message production and interpersonal conflict research are discussed.

Keywords:

• Conflict
• Empathic Accuracy
• Goals
• Message Production
• Planning
• Romantic Relationships

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Lijiang Shen for his generous assistance with this project. The authors would also like to thank Andrew Beggs, Phillip Butler, Catherine Hawley, Molly Kennedy, Terica Lyles, Cate Mahoney, Caitlin McLaughlin, Megan Tomlinson, and Megan Vosburgh for their assistance.

Notes

Prior to the conflict discussions, participants individually completed measures of conflict locus of control, relational closeness, relationship commitment, and likelihood of marriage. These measures were included as a means of understanding factors of individual differences that may potentially influence discussion resolution for another study.

All planning sheets were content analyzed by independent coders. To fully process the information given by participants, their planning statements were unitized by two independent coders into conceptual action units (CAUs) that reflect clauses that depict a single action where each unit was assessed according to its content (Berger, 2007). Unitization was acceptable (Guetzkow's U = .04; Guetzkow, 1950). All participants in the planning condition included information that they wished to discuss with their relational partner. Therefore, all participants in the planning condition took part in the planning process and were not simply left alone to think over the situation. Therefore, the planning statements generated by participants represent the planning process rather than “mere exposure.”

Hypothesis 5 was also tested using several paired samples t tests comparing the two discussion types among all participants. These tests included: (1) a comparison of one's perception of one's own empathic accuracy for each discussion type, (2) perception of one's partner's empathic accuracy for each discussion type, (3) the difference between perception of one's own empathic accuracy and one's partner's empathic accuracy, and (4) the difference in overall perceived empathic accuracy for the discussion types. None of the analyses were significant, bolstering the HLM findings for H5.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Christin E. Bates

Christin E. Bates (MA, University of Georgia, 2010) is a doctoral student in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Georgia

Jennifer A. Samp

Jennifer A. Samp (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison) is Associate Professor. Part of the data reported herein was collected for the first author's master's thesis under the direction of the second author.