COMM 620: INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION THEORY
Fall 2009: Monday 3:10 – 5:50

Prof. Jennifer Theiss
207 SCILS
732-932-7500 x8143
jtheiss@rutgers.edu
Office Hours: Wed. 3-5, or by appointment

Course Goals and Overview

This course is intended as an introduction to theories of interpersonal communication for graduate students in communication science and related disciplines. The content goal of the course is to examine several important theories of interpersonal communication. This course is also designed to facilitate an understanding of the relationship between a systematic program of empirical research and theory development. To these ends, this course will involve an in-depth review of programs of research that correspond with particular theories of interpersonal communication.			

Course Objectives

•	Develop a broad base of theoretical knowledge in the field of interpersonal communication.

•	Discuss main themes and implications of theoretical perspectives in a collegial environment.

•	Articulate the core assumptions of a theory and summarize empirical research that confirms or contradicts those assumptions.

•	Apply interpersonal communication theory to better understand communication phenomena.

•	Develop an understanding of the scholarly objectives that guide the field of interpersonal communication research.

Evaluation

Participation (15 points).  
Student participation is crucial to the operation of this course. Students are expected to engage course material each week in seminar discussions. Developing an ability to articulate your ideas to others is an important skill that seminar discussions allow you to practice. It is equally important to realize that your fellow students will learn from the things you say and from the need to form responses to the things you say. In other words, the whole class benefits to the extent that individual members are active participants. Although I expect all students to read every article that is assigned each week to promote rich and lively discussion about that theoretical perspective, we will assign “article experts” for each week who will be expected to familiarize themselves with the details on one specific reading each week and come prepared with questions about that article to keep the discussion moving.

Theory Summaries (40 points).  
Students are asked to provide summaries of two of the theories we examine as a class. These essays should be organized into two major subsections. The first section should provide an overview of the claims advanced by the theory. In the second section, provide a review of empirical research that tests the claims of the theory. The conclusion of each essay should summarize the state of the theoretical tradition as you see it based on the review of the empirical research. Papers should be no longer than 8 pages of text and are due within two weeks of our class discussion of the theory. If a student completes more than two theory summaries, the two highest scores will be used to compute the final grade. A list of suggested supplemental readings for each theory can be obtained from the instructor, which is a good starting point for adding empirical findings to the theory summary.

Assimilation Paper (Stage 1 = 10 points; Stage 2 = 15 points; Final Paper = 20 points).  
Students are required to turn in a final paper examining a communication phenomenon of their choosing from an interpersonal communication perspective. My expectation is that these papers will involve a review and assimilation of the theoretical and empirical work related to a particular phenomenon. This assignment is designed to provide an opportunity to apply the different approaches to studying interpersonal communication to a topic that is relevant to the student’s program of study; thus, you are encouraged to choose a topic that is of interest to you. For example, if your primary focus is organizational communication you might choose a phenomenon like leadership, networking, or power. If your primary focus is mediated communication you might choose a phenomenon like online social networking or mobile messaging. If your focus is health communication you might choose doctor/patient interaction, compliance gaining, or risk taking. And if your focus is interpersonal communication relationships you might choose something like conflict, sexual intimacy, or relational transitions. At the end of the semester, you should have a final product that would be suitable for a conference submission.

Stage 1 – The goal of the first part of the paper is to provide an explication of the phenomenon to be examined and a bibliography of research on the phenomenon. “Explication” is more than just a simple definition; it is a careful analysis of the labels attached to a phenomenon, the meaning of the labels, the operationalizations of the phenomenon, and the scope, specificity, and contextual elements that define the phenomenon. Students should make ample use of existing research to clarify how the phenomenon has been conceptualized in the literature. In addition to the resources cited in explicating the phenomenon, Stage 1 should include a separate bibliography of resources to be explored in developing the rest of the paper. Stage 1 is due in class on October 19.

Stage 2 – Stage 2 should include a revision of the explication presented in Stage 1 to reflect the feedback received and the student’s increasingly sophisticated understanding of the phenomenon. In addition, the student should examine the phenomenon from two of the theoretical perspectives discussed between Sept. 21 and Oct. 12. In each subsection addressing a perspective on the phenomenon, the student should review the main assumptions of the theory (based on class readings and other supplemental materials) and identify questions about your phenomenon that might be answered by this theoretical perspective. In other words, how might the theory explain some of the features of your phenomenon, how might it answer existing questions about the phenomenon, and what new questions are raised about the phenomenon in light of the theory’s assumptions? Stage 2 of the paper is due in class on November 16.

Final Paper – The final paper builds on the draft from Stage 2 by examining the phenomenon from two additional perspectives covered between Nov. 16 and Dec. 7. These subsections should follow the same structure as was used in Stage 2. In addition, the student should provide a commentary on the cumulative set of information on the phenomenon provided by the four perspectives. More specifically, the commentary should compare and contrast the different perspectives, highlight points of overlap and gaps, and discuss the strengths and limitations of each approach. Thus, this final section contributes to an integrated understanding of the phenomenon. The final paper is due on December 14.

Alternative for Masters students: In lieu of the assimilation paper, students who are enrolled in COMM 570 as a Masters student have the option of writing two additional theory summaries of theories that were covered in the class. If a student chooses this option, the student should choose two theories from the first half of the semester for their course theory summaries and two from the second half for their additional summaries. Similar to the regular theory summaries, the additional summaries are due two weeks after the theory was discussed in class.

Course Schedule

Background Information

Sept. 14	Introductions and a review of different approaches to theory construction and the construct of “interpersonal communication.”

Chaffee, S. H., & Berger, C. R. (1987). What communication scientists do. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 99-122). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Knapp, M. L., Daly, J. A., Fudge, K., & Miller, G. R. (2002). Background and current trends in the study of interpersonal communication. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 3-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cappella, J. N. (1987). Interpersonal communication: Definitions and fundamental questions. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 184-238). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Berger, C. R. (2005). Interpersonal Communication: Theoretical perspectives, future prospects. Journal of Communication, 55, 415-447.

Theories of Interpersonal Communication (reading lists for each theory follow)

Sept. 21	Action Assembly Theory

Sept. 28	Politeness Theory

Oct. 5	Constructivism / Message Design Logics

Oct. 12	Comforting as a Social Skill 

Oct. 19	Relational Framing Theory

Oct. 26	Theories of Uncertainty and Communication

Nov. 2	Theories of Disclosure

Nov. 9	Theories of Information Management

Nov. 16	Interpersonal Deception Theory

Nov. 23	Interaction Adaptation Theory  

Nov. 30	Communication Accommodation Theory

Dec. 7  	Relational Turbulence Model

Dec.14	Summary Day - Final Papers due

Action Assembly Theory

	Greene, J. O. (1984). A cognitive approach to human communication: An action assembly theory. Communication Monographs, 51, 290-306.

	Greene, J. O. (1984). Speech preparation processes and verbal fluency. Human Communication Research, 11, 61-84.

	Greene, J. O., & Cappella, J. N. (1986). Cognition and talk: The relationship of semantic units to temporal patterns of fluency in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 29, 141-157.

	Greene, J. O., Lindsey, A. E., & Hawn, J. J. (1990). Social goals and speech production: Effects of multiple goals on pausal phenomena. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9, 119-134.

	Greene, J. O., & Geddes, D. (1993). An action assembly perspective on social skill. Communication Theory, 3, 26-49.

	Greene, J. O. (1997). A second generation action assembly theory. In J. O. Greene (Ed.) Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 151-170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Politeness Theory

	Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978/1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (pp. 55-91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

	Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146.

	Dillard, J. P., Wilson, S. R., Tusing, K. J., & Kinney, T. A. (1997). Politeness judgments in personal relationships. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 297-325.

	Slugoski, B. R., & Turnbull, W. (1988). Cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel: Sarcasm, banter and social relations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 101-121.

	Lim, T., & Bowers, J. W. (1991). Facework: Solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research, 17, 415-450.

	Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. (1992). Interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 246-256.

Constructivism / Message Design Logics

   	Hale, C. L., & Delia, J. G. (1976). Cognitive complexity and social perspective-taking. Communication Monographs, 43, 195-203.

	Delia, J. G. (1977). Constructivism and the study of human communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 63, 66-83.

	Clark, R. A., & Delia, J. G. (1977). Cognitive complexity, social perspective-taking, and functional persuasive skills in second-to-ninth-grade children. Human Communication Research, 3, 128-134.

	O’Keefe, B. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication. Communication Monographs, 55, 80-103.

	O’Keefe, B., & McCornack, S. A. (1987). Message design logic and message goal structure: Effects on perceptions of message quality in regulative communication situations. Human Communication Research, 14, 68-92.

Comforting as a Social Skill

  	Burleson, B. R. (1982). The development of comforting communication skills in childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 53, 1578-1588.

	Burleson, B. R. (1983). Social cognition, empathic motivation, and adults’ comforting strategies. Human Communication Research, 10, 295-304.

	Burleson, B. R. (1989). The constructivist approach to person-centered communication: Analysis of a research examplar. In B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. O’Keefe, & E. Wartella (Eds.), Rethinking communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

	Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1996). Similarity in the communication skills of young adults: Foundations of attraction, friendship, and relationships satisfaction. Communication Reports, 9, 127-139.

	Burleson, B. R. (2003). The experience and effects of emotional support: What the study of cultural and gender differences can tell us about close relationships, emotion and interpersonal communication. Personal Relationships, 10, 1-23.

	Holmstrom, A. J., Burleson, B. R., & Jones, S. M. (2005). Some consequences for helpers who deliver cold comfort: Why it’s worse for women than men to be inept when providing social support.

Relational Framing Theory

	Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L.  (1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 193-214.

	Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L.  (1987). Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 54, 19-41.

	Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Samp, J. A. (1996). Framing social reality: The relevance of relational judgments. Communication Research, 23, 703-723.

	Dillard, J. P., Solomon, D. H., & Palmer, M. T. (1999). Structuring the concept of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 66, 49-65.

	Lannutti, P. J., & Monahan, J. L. (2002). When the frame paints the picture: Alcohol consumption, relational framing, and sexual communication. Communication Research, 29, 390-421.

	Henningsen, M. L. M., Henningsen, D. D., Cruz, M. G., & Morrill, J. (2003). Social influence in groups: A comparative application of relational framing theory and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Communication Monographs, 70, 175-197.

Theories of Uncertainty and Communication

	Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112.

Berger, C. R. (1997). Producing messages under uncertainty. 

	Sunnafrank, M. (1990). Predicted outcome value and uncertainty reduction theories: A test of competing perspectives. Human Communication Research, 17, 76-103.

	Brashers, D. E. (2001). Communication and uncertainty management. Journal of Communication, 51, 477-497.

      	Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2002). Information seeking beyond initial interaction: Negotiating
		relational uncertainty within close relationships. Human Communication Research, 28, 243-257.

Theiss, J. A., & Solomon, D. H. (2008). Parsing the mechanisms that increase relational intimacy: The effects of uncertainty amount, open communication about uncertainty, and the reduction of uncertainty. Human Communication Research, 34, 625-654.

Theories of Disclosure

Taylor, D. A. (1968). The development of interpersonal relationships: Social penetration processes. Journal of Social Psychology, 75, 79-90.

Taylor, D. A., & Altman, I. (1987). Communication in interpersonal relationships: Social penetration processes. In Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication (pp. 257-277). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

VanLear, C. A. (1987). The formation of social relationships: A longitudinal study of social penetration. Human Communication Research, 13, 299-322.

Greene, K., Derlaga, V. J., & Matthews, A. (2006). Self-disclosure in personal relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti and D. Perlman (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 409-427). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Greene, K. (2009). An integrated model of health-disclosure decision making. In T. Afifi & W. Afifi (Eds.), Uncertainty and information regulation: Theories and applications.

Theories of Information Management

	Petronio, S. (1991). Communication boundary management: A theoretical model of managing disclosure of private information. Communication Theory, 1, 311-335.

     Afifi, W. A. & Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Some things are better left unsaid II: Topic avoidance in friendships. Communication Quarterly, 36, 231-249.

     Afifi, W. A. & Weiner, J. L. (2004). Toward a Theory of Motivated Information Management. Communication Theory, 14, 167-190.

     Afifi, W. A., Dillow, M. & Morse, C. (2004). Seeking information in relational contexts: A test of the Theory of Motivated Information Management. Personal Relationships, 11, 429-450.

    Caughlin, J. P., Afifi, W. A., Carpenter-Theune, K. E., & Miller, L. E (2005). Reasons for and consequences of revealing personal secrets in close relationships: A longitudinal study. Personal Relationships, 12, 43-60.

Interpersonal Deception Theory

	Burgoon, J. K., & Buller, D. B. (1994). Interpersonal deception: III. Effects of deceit on perceived communication and nonverbal behavior dynamics. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 155-184.

	Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203-242.

	Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Ebesu, A. S., White, C. H., & Rockwell, P. A. (1996). Testing interpersonal deception theory: Effects of suspicion on communication behaviors and perceptions. Communication Theory, 6, 243-267.

	Burgoon, J. K., & Buller, D. B. (1996). Reflections on the nature of theory building and the theoretical status of interpersonal deception theory. Communication Theory, 6, 311-328.

	Dunbar, N. E., Ramirez, A., Jr., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). The effects of participation on the ability to judge deceit. Communication Reports, 16, 23-34.

Interaction Adaptation Theory

	Burgoon, J. K., & Jones, S. B. (1976). Toward a theory of personal space expectations and their violations. Human Communication Research, 2, 131-146.

	Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55, 58-79.

	Burgoon, J. K., LePoire, B. A., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). Effects of preinteraction expectancies and target communication on perceiver reciprocity and compensation in dyadic interaction.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 287-321.

	LePoire, B. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Usefulness of differentiating arousal responses within communication theories: Orienting response or defensive arousal within nonverbal theories of expectancy violation. Communication Monographs, 63, 208-229.

	LePoire, B. A., & Yoshimura, S. M. (1999). The effects of expectancies and actual communication on nonverbal adaptation and communication outcomes: A test of interaction adaptation theory. Communication Monographs, 66, 1-30. 

	Floyd, K., &Burgoon, J. K. (2002). Reacting to nonverbal expressions of liking: A test of interaction adaptation theory. Communication Monographs, 66, 219-239.

Speech/Communication Accommodation Theory

	Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Johnson, P. (1987). Speech accommodation theory: The first decade and beyond. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 10 (pp. 13-48). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

	Williams, A., Giles, H., Coupland, N., Dalby, M., & Manasse, H. (1990). The communicative contexts of elderly social support and health: A theoretical model. Health Communications, 2, 123-143. 

	Ryan, E. B., Hummert, M. L., & Boich, L. H. (1995). Communication predicaments of aging: Patronizing behavior toward older adults. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 144-166.

	Williams, A., & Giles, H. (1996). Intergenerational conversations: Young adults’ retrospective accounts. Human Communication Research, 23, 220-250.

	Fox, S. A., & Giles, H. (1996). Interability communication: Evaluating patronizing encounters. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 265-290.

	Watson, B., & Gallois, C. (1998). Nurturing communication by health professionals toward patients: A communication accommodation theory approach. Health Communication, 10, 343-355.

Relational Turbulence Model

	Solomon, D. H., & Knobloch, L. K. (2001). Relationship uncertainty, partner interference, and intimacy within dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 804-820. 

	Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2002). Intimacy and the magnitude and experience of episodic relational uncertainty within romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 9, 457-478.

      Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2004). Interference and facilitation from partners in the development of interdependence within romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 11, 115-130.

	Solomon, D. H., & Knobloch, L. K. (2004). A model of relational turbulence: The role of intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners in appraisals of irritations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 795-816.

      Theiss, J. A., & Solomon, D. H. (2006). Coupling longitudinal data and hierarchical linear modeling to examine the antecedents and consequences of jealousy experiences in romantic relationships: A test of the relational turbulence model. Human Communication Research, 32, 469-503.

Solomon, D. H., & Theiss, J. A. (2008). A longitudinal test of the relational turbulence model of romantic relationship development. Personal Relationships, 15, 339-357.