Suspicious Receivers’ Goals and Behaviors 13
the interactive ways people adopt to manage uncertainty. For the test of relationship status, some
people reported that they directly questioned their partner about his or her commitment, whereas
others reported that they indirectly altered their behavior during the interaction (Baxter &
Wilmot, 1985; Bell & Buerkel-Ruthfuss, 1990). In other cases, individuals engaged in a “state of
relationship talk” with their partner (Baxter & Wilmot, 1985; Emmers & Canary, 1996), or spent
more time with the partner and listened to the partner (Emmers & Canary, 1996).
Similar interactive strategies are expected to be initiated by a suspicious receiver. An
individual may boldly confront one’s partner and ask whether he or she is lying. A suspicious
receiver would also disclose one’s concern about being less trusting and talk over the issue. It is
also possible that a person would indirectly talk around the issue, hoping that the partner would
release further information. Adopting Berger and Kellermann’s (1994) classification of
behavioral strategies, following research question is derived:
RQ3. What are the specific behavioral strategies of suspicious receivers falling under
each of the passive, active, and interactive category?
The diverse uncertainty reduction strategies reviewed above differ in terms of how
directly individuals pursue information and how clear the gained information is (Knobloch &
Solomon, 2002). That is, interactive questioning is more direct and provides clearer information
about the issue than passive observation. Berger and Kellermann (1994) contend that indirect
strategies are more appropriate than direct strategies in terms of face protection. It is stated that
face threats are inherent in information exchange and individuals employ indirect
communication strategies to avoid face-threatening action.
In sum, it is indicated that conflicting goals lead people to hedge their message. In the
context of suspicion, it is possible that one’s goal to reduce uncertainty may conflict with the
goal to sustain the relational harmony and to protect self- and other-face. Thus, it is likely that a
Convention