2.1 The post-World War II period

Interpersonal communication emerged as a research area within the larger project of erecting a social scientific discipline of communication during the years following World War II. This broader communication science initiative was inspired primarily by researchers interested in mass media effects (Schramm 1954) and its roots predated World War II (Bryant and Pribanic-Smith 2010; Delia 1987). Early mass media effects researchers were housed in other social science disciplines. These interdisciplinary origins were highlighted by Schramm (1963) when he designated Harold Lasswell (political science), Paul Lazarsfeld (sociology), Kurt Lewin (psychology) and Carl Hovland (psychology) as the discipline’s “founding fathers.” Lazarsfeld’s pioneering studies of media effects on voting behavior (Benoit and Holbert 2010) and his landmark study of personal influence (Katz and Lazarsfeld 1955) fueled interest in communication research within journalism departments. Lasswell’s work in political communication had a similar effect on the same audience. However, it was Lewin and Hovland’s work, among others, that served as the launching pad for the field of interpersonal communication. Lewin’s interests in group processes and their influence on individual behavior (Lewin 1945) and Hovland’s extensive, experimentally-driven research program focused on communication and persuasion that extended from the late 1940s until the early 1960s (Hovland, Janis and Kelley 1953; Sherif and Hovland 1961) both exerted significant impact on the first generation of interpersonal communication researchers who emerged primarily from speech departments during the late 1950s. Maccoby (1963) characterized Hovland’s communication and persuasion research program as the empirical core of the “new scientific rhetoric,” a label that comported closely with the emerging research orientation of social-scientifically inclined speech communication scholars.

Given these two, highly influential figures, it is not surprising that the first generation of interpersonal communication researchers who emerged from graduate programs housed in speech communication departments during the 1950s and early 1960s were primarily concerned with the study of communication and social influence processes (Berger 2005; Bryant and Pribanic-Smith 2010). Some of these researchers were inspired by Hovland’s work that focused on the role source, message and individual difference factors play in the process of persuasion, particularly persuasion in one-to-many contexts. Others looked to Lewin’s and other’s (Bales, 1950) group dynamics work to guide their research on influence processes within groups. Characterizations of the communication process reflected these early intellectual influences, for example, Berlo (1960: 12) proclaimed “… we communicate to influence – to affect with intent.”

2.2 Communication and relationships

Although these traditions of communication and social influence research continue to be important features of the current interpersonal communication landscape, as evidenced by such chapters as Dillard and Wilson’s (see Chapter 7) in the present volume, a significant turning point in these early lines of research occurred during the late 1960s and early 1970s. The emergence of the human potential movement during the late 1960s with its emphasis on authentic self-presentation through open and honest communication in some ways constituted a dialectical alternative to the more manipulative aspects of communication aimed at producing persuasive outcomes. In addition to research demonstrating the potential benefits of self-disclosure (Jourard 1971), a topic that continues to receive research attention and theoretical elaboration (Petronio 2002), research dealing with such topics as interpersonal attraction (Byrne 1971) and the development of interpersonal relationships (Altman and Taylor 1973) began to shift interpersonal communication researchers’ interests to the role communication plays in relationship development (Berger 1977). Several of this volume’s chapters reflect the continuing interest in relationship development processes (see Chapter 15, Vangelisti and Solomon) and such closely-related research areas as intergroup communication (see Chapter 2, Dragojevic and Giles), interpersonal conflict (see Chapter 8, Canary and Canary), negotiation (see Chapter 9, Roloff), interpersonal adaptation (see Chapter 10, Burgoon, Dunbar, and White), emotional expression (see Chapter 12, Planalp and Rosenberg), uncertainty management (see Chapter 13, Knobloch and McAninch), social support (see Chapter 16, Jones and Bodie) and social networks (see Chapter 17, Parks and Faw). This shift to relationship development-related research was accompanied by the then-emerging interest in nonverbal communication among interpersonal communication researchers (Knapp 1972), including the area of deceptive communication (Knapp, Hart, and Dennis 1974). These interpersonal communication research domains remain highly active ones and are represented in this volume’s chapters (see Chapter 3, Guerrero; Chapter 14, Vrij).

During the 1960s, interpersonal communication research concerned with social influence processes was informed by such social psychological theories as social comparison theory (Festinger 1954), dissonance theory (Festinger 1957, 1964), social judgment theory (Sherif and Hovland, 1961) and reactance theory (Brehm 1968). By the 1970s, however, evidence of increased interest in theory development began to manifest itself among interpersonal communication researchers. Formal theories devised by interpersonal communication researchers addressed such issues as the role uncertainty plays in communication during initial encounters between strangers and the development of relationships (Berger and Calabrese 1975; Berger 1979) and the consequences of proximic violations of personal space (Burgoon 1978). These early theoretical forays marked the beginning of a number of subsequent theoretical proposals by other interpersonal communication researchers and helped to establish a strong theory development ethic within the interpersonal communication research community. This volume’s chapters reflect this continuing commitment to theory development and contain lengthy lists of original theories concerned with such phenomena as communication accommodation, interaction adaptation, and uncertainty management.

2.3 The cognitive turn

During the 1980s, the cognitive revolution found its way into the communication science discipline in general and the interpersonal communication area in particular. It was heralded by the proclamation “Cognito ergo dico” (Planalp and Hewes 1982) and the individual’s place in communication science was subsequently reinforced by Hewes and Planalp (1987). This move sparked general interest in message production processes and the initial version of Action Assembly Theory (Greene 1984), a general account of action production. The notion that interpersonal communication is a goal-directed, plan-guided process was carried forward in work on Goal-Plan-Action (GPA) models (Dillard 1990), planning theory (Berger 1997), cognitive rules model (Wilson 1990), as well as others (Greene 1997). This research tradition is reflected in the chapters concerned with message production (see Chapter 4, Palomares) and imagined interactions (see Chapter 11, Honeycutt). However, the focus on the individual cognitive processes subserving message production that developed during this period was met with some skepticism because it failed to capture the fundamental dialogic and reciprocal nature of interpersonal communication and the non-linear dynamics of the process entailed by its inherent dialectical tensions (Burgoon and White 1997; Baxter and Braithwaite 2008; Baxter and Montgomery 1996). These critiques notwithstanding, the cognitively-informed message production focus has been carried forward into the new millennium by interpersonal communication researchers interested in such areas as supportive communication (Burleson and MacGeorge 2002; MacGeorge, Feng, and Burleson 2011), goal detection and planning (Berger and Palomares 2011), and skilled message production (Greene and Burleson 2003).

2.4 The era of diversification

The progressive expansion of the interpersonal communication field’s theoretical purview has naturally led to diversification of the contexts within which interpersonal communication processes are studied. Some of these contexts have become highly active sub-areas of study within their own right. Family communication (see Chapter 18, Koerner) and marital communication (see Chapter 19, Segrin and Flora) represent such sub-specialties within interpersonal communication. In addition, researchers whose primary foci seemingly lie beyond the boundaries of interpersonal communication have found interpersonal communication theory and research to be integral to understanding communication within their particular domains of interest. The chapters concerned with organizational communication (see Chapter 20, Kramer and Sias), health communication (see Chapter 21, Duggan and Thompson), intercultural communication (see Chapter 22, Kim) and technologically-mediated communication (see Chapter 23, Walther and Lee) exemplify the substantial reach and impact interpersonal communication theory and research has exerted well beyond the immediate boundaries of the sub-discipline.

3.1 What is interpersonal communication?

Posing this question may seem to be a somewhat odd way to begin a discussion about alternative approaches to interpersonal communication inquiry; however, it is probably the case that the way in which this question is answered has a great deal to do with the way in which one approaches the study of interpersonal communication. Some early interpersonal communication scholars defined interpersonal communication as communication between two people and no more (King 1979; Smith and Williamson 1979). During that same era, others took issue with this numerically-based definition (Berger and Bradac 1982) and still others argued that communication can be predicated on knowledge available at least three different levels: cultural, sociological and psychological (Miller and Steinberg 1975). Individuals may interact with each other primarily based on cultural norms or their membership in particular social-demographic categories such as sex, age or race. When interacting on the basis of cultural and sociological information, individuals do not know each other as individuals, thus their interactions tend to be impersonal or “non-interpersonal” (Miller and Steinberg 1975). When individuals increasingly predicate their behavioral choices during interactions on psychological level knowledge, that is, knowledge about the unique personal characteristics and history of their partners, their interactions become more interpersonal and less impersonal (Miller and Steinberg 1975). Thus, in contrast to the first, numerically-based definition, under this view of interpersonal communication many face-to-face interactions between two people do not entail interpersonal communication at all, for example, routine service-related interactions in which complete strangers use cultural and sociological information to guide their behavior.

Although one might view the knowledge-based definition of interpersonal communication to be more useful than the numerically-based definition, questions have been raised about its adequacy (Cappella, 1987). Specifically, the Miller and Steinberg (1975) definition seems to rule out social interaction between those involved in less close relationships as part of interpersonal communication, for example, passing acquaintances, customers and service providers, physicians and patients and teachers and students. This exclusion arises because the definition focuses more on the relationships between the social actors and their knowledge about each other than it does on their communication with each other; yet, communication in these less personal situations can be highly consequential. Thus, as an alternative, Cappella (1987: 189) proposed that in order for interpersonal communication to occur, “… each person must affect the other’s observable behavior patterns relative to their typical or baseline patterns.” That is, each person’s behavior must cause the other person’s behavior to be different than it would have been under ordinary circumstances; in short, their behaviors must mutually influence each other. For example, assume that two people each have characteristic levels of vocal intensity (voice loudness) when they converse with others (a baseline pattern), but as they converse on a particular occasion, one’s person’s increase in vocal intensity is followed by an increase in the other’s vocal intensity and vice versa, as might take place in a debate or an argument. Given such a pattern of reciprocal escalation of vocal intensity, interpersonal communication has taken place because mutual influence has occurred. Under this view, mutual influence along one or more behavioral parameters such as vocal intensity, smiling, speech rate, vocalized pauses, non-vocalized pauses is the sine qua non of interpersonal communication. Moreover, this definition places time in a central role in interpersonal communication because patters of action and reaction between social actors are ordered with respect to the time dimension. Cappella (1987) futher suggested that these patterns of mutual influence can be associated with relational states and such outcomes as relationship satisfaction; however, interpersonal communication concerns the patterns of mutual influence between those involved in social interaction.

In extending the notion that interpersonal communication involves the mutual exchange of messages and behaviors that eventuate in mutual influence, Burleson (2010: 151) proposed a message-centered approach to characterize interpersonal communication. This perspective posits that messages are exchanged “in an effort to generate shared meanings and to reach social goals.” Under this view, the interpersonal communication process involves message production (encoding), message reception (decoding), interaction coordination and social perception, a process by which individuals make sense of the social world. In seeking to accomplish social goals, message exchanges serve the functions of interaction management (conversational coherence), relationship management (relationship maintenance), and such instrumental functions as gaining compliance, acquiring information and entertaining. This message-centered approach emphasizes the pragmatic nature of interpersonal communication as a goal-satisfying endeavor.

Not only do these four approaches to defining interpersonal communication illustrate that definitional choices regarding the nature of interpersonal communication have significant implications for choices of phenomena studied in its name, they also suggest substantial variability in approaches to that study of interpersonal communication. Three of these general approaches are discussed below and each of them is represented in this volume’s chapters.

3.2 The individual level of analysis

Although Cappella’s (1987) definition of interpersonal communication hinges on mutual behavioral contingency and mutual influence between co-interlocutors, he recognized that phenomena occurring at other levels of analysis provide vital scaffolding for interpersonal communication as a mutual influence process. One of these levels concerns individual parameters responsible for the generation of observable, baseline behaviors. Individual parameters include biological and genetic factors, individual differences in personality and personal characteristics, emotional states and cognitive structures and processes. Each individual involved in a particular social interaction has some kind of standing on these parameters and their standing can influence their baseline behaviors. For example, individuals who are extraverted may characteristically talk more and be more nonverbally active when conversing with others than their introverted counterparts, and individuals may enter particular encounters with varying levels of uncertainty that may influence their behavior during the interaction. Of course, some of these individual parameters may not necessarily be related to the behavior being generated at the time.

In a study illustrative of the individual level of analysis, high school students were asked three thought-provoking questions during a videotaped face-to-face interview, for example, “What should be the role of the media, like TV, radio, and newspaper, in today’s world?” (Reynolds and Gifford 2001). Such paralinguistic parameters as speech rate, number of words spoken, pauses, and ease of understanding as well as visual judgments of attractiveness and self-assurance were scored from the videotaped interviews. These parameters and then correlated with their intelligence test scores. The study revealed significant and positive correlations (r) between measured intelligence and number of words spoken (.50), speech rate (.40) and ease of understanding (.33) and significant negative correlations between measured intelligence and rated attractiveness (–.35) and self-assuredness (–.31). However, the degree to which speech was halting and judged to be non-standard was unrelated to measured intelligence. Thus, the intelligence parameter appears to promote different levels of communication-related behaviors; however, before one were to declare that the behavioral differences observed among individuals with different levels of intelligence qualify as “baselines”, one would want to have a wider sampling of communication situations in which the behaviors were elicited. The question is whether the same correlations between measured intelligence and behaviors would be obtained in communication contexts that do not involve answering thought-provoking questions. The crucial point is that individual and situational factors can influence baseline rates of behaviors and must be taken into account in determining whether or not deviations from baselines have occurred.

In addition to personality and personal characteristics, individual cognitive structures activated during social interactions significantly influence behavioral output. Ample evidence suggests that when individuals engage in conversations, a relatively large percentage of their utterances are routine and formulaic, for example, “In my opinion …,” “The point is …” and “I understand what you are saying, but …” Some have estimated that up to 70% of the utterances made during conversations are of this nature (Altenberg, 1990). These formulaic utterances arise because the goals social actors pursue in their daily commerce with each other frequently recur and because preformulated utterances reduce conversationalists’ cognitive load (Coulmas 1981; Smith 2000; Wray and Perkins 2000). This reduction in cognitive load enables conversationalists to deploy scarce attentional resources to such tasks as monitoring progress toward their interaction goals and attending to their partner’s nonverbal behavior. At a more molecular level, in pursuing their everyday goals, individuals’ behavior is guided by scripts (Schank and Abelson 1977) and plans (Berger 1997), cognitive structures that hierarchically organize knowledge about actions that accomplish goals. Thus, many routine social interactions, such as service encounters, entail the mutual activation of social actors’ scripts that are acted out with minimal conscious attention to interaction details. Such interactions involve the interleaving of social actors’ behaviors and, to the outside observer, are well coordinated with respect to turn-taking; however, they may not necessarily involve mutual influence in the sense that individuals’ behaviors induce deviations from each other’s baseline behavior rates. Social interactions such as these are akin to co-interlocutors’ scripts passing in the night. When enacting such interaction routines, individuals can become attentive to interaction details when there are perceptible deviations from scripted actions or when their goals fail to be realized (Berger 1997).

As the above examples make amply clear, individual-level factors cannot be ignored in the study of interpersonal communication. Individual knowledge and the skill sets that social actors bring with them to social interactions, as well as their dispositional and emotional proclivities, together determine the possibilities and constraints they will experience in their social commerce with others. These individual-level factors play a potentially critical role in the degree to which individuals are able to adapt to the contingencies they may encounter during their social interactions with others. Moreover, efforts to improve interpersonal communication are frequently focused on honing individual-level communication skills such as perspective taking (MacGeorge, Feng, and Burleson 2011) and empathic accuracy (Ickes 1997); although, there are interventions, such as conjoint marital and family therapy, that seek to increase communication quality by focusing on social units such as the conjugal dyad or the family.

3.3 The interactional level of analysis

Interpersonal communication researchers address the interactional level of analysis in at least two different ways. Consistent with the previous discussion, some researchers examine sequences of behavior that interacting social actors manifest during their encounters. Other researchers ask participants to make individual judgments about past interactions or global judgments that presumably reflect the residues of prior interactions. These two approaches are considered below.

3.4 The societal level

The vast body of theory and research subsumed under the interpersonal communication rubric has been conducted at the individual and interactional levels of analysis. However, it is clear that societal level phenomena impinge on personal relationships in highly significant ways. To cite just a few of many potential examples, consider the impact of increasing participation of married women in the work force on both spousal and family communication patterns over the past 60 years, or the degree to which occupational demands on parents influence interactions with their children. Parents who return home from their workplace exhausted by the physical, emotional or intellectual demands of their work may find their interactions with each other and with their children significantly attenuated. Finally, consider the impact of mobile communication technologies on the communication that takes place between spouses and among family members and friends. While one might argue that the use of such mobile technologies enhances communicative opportunities among people and may serve to overcome some of the communicative opportunity costs that have been incurred by large-scale changes in time spent at work, at the same time, these mobile technologies allow employers to keep their employees “on call” 24 hours a day, seven days a week, thus raising the specter of a kind of occupational bondage that may curtail social interaction in the personal sphere. Moreover, the mere threat of such work-related intrusions into the personal domain and the potentially obsessive monitoring of technologies for such intrusions that may be motivated by fear of job loss, may serve to distract parents, even when they are physically, but not psychologically, present with their families.

Although interpersonal communication researchers have invested considerable energy in delineating the ways in which the use of technologies that involve computer mediation of interpersonal communication impact the conduct of social interaction and its outcomes (see Chapter 23, Walther and Lee), they have tended not to examine these larger-scale effects. The increased popularity of such methodological developments as multi-level modeling (MLM), a statistical technique that requires researchers to think in multi-level terms and to acquire multi-level data, may encourage interpersonal communication researchers to adopt a more expansive view of their research domain (Hayes 2006; see Chapter 6, Liu). Some movement in the direction of using MLM has occurred among interpersonal communication researchers (Theiss and Solomon 2006), but societal-levels of analyses generally remain unexplored.

4.1 Blurring individual and interaction levels

As previously noted, some interpersonal communication researchers have decried individually-focused approaches to the study of interpersonal communication on such grounds as their failure to deal with behavioral contingencies and mutual influence phenomena that are unique to social interaction (Cappella, 1987) and their failure to capture relationship-level phenomena (Baxter and Montgomery 1996). Although it has been possible in the past to make sharp distinctions between individual and interactional levels of analysis, developments in cognitive and social neuroscience have raised questions about this erstwhile fundamental distinction. Some neuroscientists have argued that rather than being separate processes, perception and action production are intimately intertwined in terms of brain functioning. This idea is embodied in common coding theory which asserts that the same mental representations are involved in observing actions and performing them (Eskenazi et al. 2009). Advocates of this theoretical stance point to evidence suggesting that human and primate brains have mirror neuron systems that are activated both when individuals perceive and when they act, thus raising questions about the traditional distinction between neurons responsible for processing perceptual inputs (afferent neurons) and motor neurons (efferent neurons) responsible for the production of action, including speech and nonverbal behaviors.

There is suggestive evidence for such “dual use” neurons in speech perception and production. As people listen to words being uttered one at a time and the level of activity of the motor neurons that control their tongue movements is measured, the level of activity of these motor neurons mimics the specific words to which they are listening. When people hear the words that require more tongue movements to pronounce, they show higher levels of neural activity in their tongue muscles, even though they do not utter the words to which they are listening (Fadiga et al. 2002). Apparently, neural activity germane to speech production mimics what others are saying as they say it. Automatic mimicry and anticipatory neural activity in motor neurons may explain why social interaction can be carried out relatively smoothly and efficiently, even though social actors may speak rapidly and quickly switch conversational roles from speaker to listener (Gallese 2009; Greene 2003; Pezullo & Castelfranchi 2009). Moreover, neurologically-based mimicry could explain why individuals sometimes use the same words and phrases that their co-interlocutors have just uttered when it is their turn to speak in a conversation. While they listen to their conversational partners, social actors neurologically rehearse what it is they have heard. Reciprocity with respect to dialect, accent, speech rate, vocal intensity, vocal intonation and other nonverbal parameters is the rule rather than the exception when humans interact with each other (Burgoon, Stern, and Dillman 1995; see Chapter 10, Burgoon, Dunbar and White). The activity of mirror neurons may be responsible for the reciprocity’s pervasiveness in interpersonal communication. Motor mimicry in speech production may be an ongoing, default process but it is generally modulated by the action of other neurological systems to produce unique messages.

Although these processes take place within the brains of individual social actors, the fact that automatically-activated mimicry is a ubiquitous feature of social interaction and may serve to explain several phenomena of interest to interpersonal communication researchers, including verbal and nonnverbal reciprocity, conversational coordination and empathic skills, strongly suggests that interpersonal communication researchers of necessity will have to play greater heed to the rapid developments in this area. Furthermore, these advances in understanding the mirror neuron system have significant implications for the way in which interpersonal communication competence or interpersonal communication skill is conceived (Wilson and Sabee 2003). These insights suggest that social interaction skill can be usefully conceptualized as at least two distinct but related levels (Berger and Palomares 2011). The most fundamental of these is concerned with the production of fluent speech and associated nonverbal behaviors as well as the perceptual processes aligned with these motor acts. These Level 1 skills are strongly determined by neurological processes which, if compromised by damage to critical neural circuits, can result in the debilitation of fundamental interpersonal communication capabilities, as manifested in autism spectrum disorders. In the extreme, these disorders can render the accomplishment of even routine social interaction extremely difficult, if not impossible. However, even if these fundamental, Level 1 skills are granted, there can be wide variation in the degree to which social actors are successful in achieving their interaction goals. Variation in Level 2 skills is the product of the degree to which knowledge structures, build mainly thorough experience, are well articulated; that is, the degree to which social actors have detailed funds of knowledge about the goals that individuals pursue and the plans they use to achieve them within social specific domains. Although it may be difficult to ameliorate skill deficits emanating from problems occurring at Level 1, Level 2 many skills can be acquired with sufficient learning practice (Berger and Palomares 2011).

4.2 Societal level influences

Just as the study of interpersonal communication is likely to be strongly influenced from the bottom up by individual-level, neuroscience research that elucidates the fundamental structures and processes enabling social interaction, future societal-level phenomena are likely to impinge on communication at the interpersonal level from the top down. Some of these trends are already well in place but their effects are likely to be enhanced in the future. One of these is the use of technologies to mediate social interaction (see Chapter 23, Walther and Lee). Although the use of technologies for social networking and other forms of mediated interpersonal communication is already well established, people may increase their reliance on these technologies for reasons that transcend their current novelty. For example, as the cost of fossil fuels rises, thus increasing transportation costs for both long-distance and local travel, individuals may be more motivated to use various communication technologies to interact with those in their social networks (see Chapter 17, Parks and Faw) and within the commercial sphere, on-line shopping and teleconferencing will become even more prevalent. Of course, the development of alternative transportation technologies may allow individuals to maintain their current levels of physical mobility at an acceptable cost. However, developing such alternative, non-fossil fuel technologies for high-speed air travel appears to be a far-off goal and potential alternatives to fossil fuel-burning jet engines may increase significantly the costs of air travel, thus discouraging mobility. In any case, restrictions in physical mobility would almost certainly prompt increased reliance on communication technologies to enable interpersonal communication in both informal and formal social contexts. Moreover, as the communication technology revolution continues to play out, more sophisticated technologies will be placed in the hands of more people. This trend seems destined for a relatively long run.

Other societal-level changes may impact communication at the interpersonal level. As the nature of societies change because of socio-demographic changes in the compositions of their populations, interpersonal communication norms and social interaction conventions will also change. As people from various cultural and ethnic backgrounds interact with each other on a daily basis, accommodations in conversational conventions will occur and social actors’ expectations for each other’s interpersonal behavior will change. Of course, such phenomena are hardly new ones in the history of humanity; however, since World War II, the world has become a much smaller place, partially because of developments in communication technologies. International telephone calls that were both expensive and difficult to complete in the 1950s, even with the required assistance of international telephone operators, are now both cheaply and easily accomplished. Continuing increases in the amount of contact between cultural and ethnic groups should motivate greater research interest in the changes that such contact potentiates in interpersonal communication norms and social interaction conventions.

4.3 Finding uniqueness in the mundane

As previously discussed, a considerable amount of daily interpersonal commerce is directed at satisfying recurring goals by marshalling efficiently-enacted communication routines that employ formulaic language. Such daily encounters as customer-service provider transactions, greeting rituals and the like readily come to mind as exemplars. Parenthetically, it is these routine commercial encounters that are increasingly being conducted through the use of various technologies such as ATM machines, self-service gas pumps and supermarket check-out lines, as well as interactive computer speech systems used to handle telephone inquiries. However, even interpersonal communication episodes that at first blush appear to be somewhat less mundane than the communication that takes place during these routine encounters, for example, episodes involving intense interpersonal conflict, many entail the enactment of routines along at least two dimensions.

First, individuals involved in relationships may engage in serial arguing, a phenomenon in which arguments focused on a particular issue are carried out over two or more episodes. Evidence suggests that such patterns of conflict may undermine the physical and mental health of those who engage in them (Malis and Roloff 2006; Roloff and Johnson 2002; Roloff and Reznik 2008). If such arguments are repeated over a number of episodes, there is a significant likelihood that an argument routine will develop that will lead the parties involved to repeat the same complaints, justifications, and demands that they have voiced in previous episodes. For those who have been involved in relationships for long periods of time, such argument routines could be repeated over many years; the argument becomes a well-established interaction routine.

Second, even within first-time conflict episodes, communication routines may come into play. Parties involved in the conflict may employ formulaic utterances to achieve various conversational and instrumental goals. For example, after listening to a relationship partner express a complaint with considerable emotional negativity, an individual might utter “I understand where you are coming from” or “I understand your concern” in an attempt to mollify the partner’s negative emotional state. As previously observed, these “off the shelf” pre-formulated utterances can be deployed with minimal conscious calculation and may serve to buy them time to plan more elaborate strategies for dealing with the issue at hand. Of course, there is a host of other accusatory formulaic utterances that individuals may invoke during conflicts such as “You never listen to me”, “You never ask for my opinion about anything”, and “You don’t support me.”

The critical point is that seemingly non-routine social interaction that has the apparent earmarks of being “special” and “unique” may be constructed from the conjunction of formulaic utterances and routines. If the reader remains unconvinced of this proposition’s validity based on the examples from interpersonal conflict arena, consider the legion of formulaic utterances that are part and parcel of falling-in-love talk. Such locutions as, “You are wonderful”, “I have never met anyone like you”, “You are really special” and “You are the person of my dreams” should all have a familiar ring to them. Finally, politicians and negotiators frequently conjure such formulaic utterances as “It’s a win-win for everyone”, “We must have all stakeholders on board” and “All options are on the table” to the point that they become tired, hackneyed expressions. Perhaps creatively-crafted communication involves the unique configuration of such formulaic utterances and routines as well as their violation. Given the ubiquity of formulaic utterances, the interweaving of communication routines to accomplish instrumental and communication goals during social interaction appears to be an area ripe for future investigation.

4.4 Interpersonal communication and personal well-being

An important vector along which the aforementioned era of diversification (1.4) has moved is concern for the relationships between the quality of interpersonal communication and a variety of outcomes related to physical and psychological well-being. A substantial amount of research done under the health communication rubric is aimed at improving communication between physicians and patients in the service of several goals (Cegala and Street 2010; see Chapter 21, Duggan and Thompson). Improved communication between physicians and patients not only promotes greater patient satisfaction but also such health-related goals as compliance with treatment regimens. While health communication research focused on physician-patient interaction provides an obvious example of efforts to link interpersonal communication with specific outcomes, there are several other examples of such efforts.

Research aimed at increasing marital satisfaction and marital and family stability has provided guidance to those seeking to develop therapies designed to reach these goals (see Chapter 18, Koerner; Chapter 19, Segrin and Flora). Conflict management theory and research (see Chapter 8, Canary and Canary) has also exerted a major influence in the marital and family communication areas. The identification of dysfunctional communication patters in interactions between spouses and among family members has led to more productive interventions to modify them. Efforts to ameliorate inter-ethnic conflicts, some of them highly intense, deeply ingrained and seemingly intractable (Ellis 2010), have drawn heavily upon insights gleaned from the conflict literature, as well as work done under the aegis of intergroup communication (see Chapter 2, Dragojevic and Giles) and bargaining and negotiation (see Chapter 9, Roloff). Finding strategies for bringing conflicting parties together and encouraging them to negotiate with each other in good faith are vital to promoting positive outcomes that prevent or stop hostilities between them. Although communication surely is not a magic elixir that will ensure world peace, functional negotiation strategies are highly significant features of regimens designed to achieve desired outcomes in managing conflict and reducing hostility.

Over the past two decades, interpersonal communication research has made valuable contributions to efforts aimed at improving the quality of communication in situations in which individuals seek to provide social and emotional support to those experiencing distress. In particular, research concerned with the construction of comforting messages and their relative effectiveness has shown that messages exhibiting the quality of being person-centered and focused on the distress of the victim are more likely to be effective than comforting messages that attempt to minimize the other’s distress or reassure them that they will soon feel better (see Chapter 16, Jones and Bodie). This approach has been augmented by dual-process theorizing postulating that the more extensively comforting messages are processed by those who receive them the more likely they are to have greater and long-lasting impact (Bodie, Burleson and Jones 2012).

The roles played by interpersonal communication in the acculturation of both recently arrived immigrants (see Chapter 22, Kim) and new employees in formal organizations (see Chapter 20, Kramer and Sias) are ones that will continue to receive substantial attention from those interested in understanding communication’s role in adaptation to new environments. The desired outcomes of these acculturation processes are little different from those associated with marital and family communication, supportive communication and the like: a sense of satisfaction and well being.