All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

"Are you lying to me?"Suspicious Receivers' Interaction Goals and Strategic Behaviors within Dating Relationship
Unformatted Document Text:  Suspicious Receivers’ Goals and Behaviors 19 were a significant concern for them. On the basis of the participants’ reports, two new goal categories (i.e., influence goals and affect-driven goals) were identified. Some participants (14.4%) indicated that they wanted to change the partner’s behavior (8.9%) or strengthen the relationship (6.2%) as they experience suspicion. To this end, a category labeled as influence goal was added. In addition, a number of participants (24.0%) indicated that they simply wanted to let their partner feel guilty about making them sad (8.9%) or they wanted to vent their frustration (17.1%) to their partner. Such interaction goals were classified into affect-driven goals category. Strategic Behaviors The present study attempted to identify a suspicious receiver’s strategic behaviors (RQ3). Berger and Kellermann’s (1994) uncertainty reduction strategies are adopted to categorize a suspicious receiver’s strategic behaviors. The number of behaviors reported by participants ranged from one to four, indicating that a suspicious receiver engages in multiple layers of behaviors. The behavioral categories are presented in Table 2. Participants reported that they deployed interactive strategies the most (80.1%). The most frequently used was bold confrontation (56.8%). Individuals simply asked their partner whether they are lying and what exactly happened. A number of participants (32.2%) also gave their partner the silence treatment or behaved cold and mean to have their partner think back his or her behavior and alter the behavior in question. Another significant portion of participants (17.1%) indicated that they talked around the issue, leaving room for various interpretation of one’s suspicion display. Some non-interactive behavioral strategies were reported as well. Observing their partner interacting with others (4.1%), accepting the uncertainty by letting the issue go (15.8%) or by withdrawing from the person (10.3%), and interacting with third parties (6.8%) were those often utilized.

Authors: Kim, Induk.
first   previous   Page 19 of 30   next   last



background image
Suspicious Receivers’ Goals and Behaviors 19
were a significant concern for them.
On the basis of the participants’ reports, two new goal categories (i.e., influence goals
and affect-driven goals) were identified. Some participants (14.4%) indicated that they wanted to
change the partner’s behavior (8.9%) or strengthen the relationship (6.2%) as they experience
suspicion. To this end, a category labeled as influence goal was added. In addition, a number of
participants (24.0%) indicated that they simply wanted to let their partner feel guilty about
making them sad (8.9%) or they wanted to vent their frustration (17.1%) to their partner. Such
interaction goals were classified into affect-driven goals category.
Strategic Behaviors
The present study attempted to identify a suspicious receiver’s strategic behaviors (RQ3).
Berger and Kellermann’s (1994) uncertainty reduction strategies are adopted to categorize a
suspicious receiver’s strategic behaviors. The number of behaviors reported by participants
ranged from one to four, indicating that a suspicious receiver engages in multiple layers of
behaviors. The behavioral categories are presented in Table 2.
Participants reported that they deployed interactive strategies the most (80.1%). The
most frequently used was bold confrontation (56.8%). Individuals simply asked their partner
whether they are lying and what exactly happened. A number of participants (32.2%) also gave
their partner the silence treatment or behaved cold and mean to have their partner think back his
or her behavior and alter the behavior in question. Another significant portion of participants
(17.1%) indicated that they talked around the issue, leaving room for various interpretation of
one’s suspicion display. Some non-interactive behavioral strategies were reported as well.
Observing their partner interacting with others (4.1%), accepting the uncertainty by letting the
issue go (15.8%) or by withdrawing from the person (10.3%), and interacting with third parties
(6.8%) were those often utilized.


Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 19 of 30   next   last

©2008 All Academic, Inc.