“SECRET TESTS” Social Strategies for Acquiring Information ...download.xuebalib.com/xuebalib.com.47929.pdf · Social Strategies for Acquiring Information About the State of the

Human Communication Research Vol. 11, No. 2, Winter 1984, 771-201

“SECRET TESTS” Social Strategies for Acquiring Information

About the State of the Relationship

LESLIE A. BAXTER Lewis and Clark College WILLIAM W. WILMOT University of Montana

The current study was undertaken to develop a typology of “secret tests, ”--that is, social strategies that people use to acquire knowledge about the state of their opposite-sex relationships. Furthermore, the influences of relationship type and respondent sex on strategy use were assessed. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were employed with data obtained from a total of 181 respondents. Findings suggest 14 basic categories orsecret tests ”that comprise 7 cluster types in a two-dimensional spatial representation. Passive, active, and interactive strategy types were evident. Females reported more secret test strategies than did males, and people in opposite-sex relationships that were in transition from platonic to romantic reported more strategies than people in either platonic cross-sex or romantic cross-sex relationships. Differences were found as well in the type of secret test most likely to be employed as a function of respondent sex and relationship type.

Substantial research in the area of social cognition addresses the ways in which social knowledge is organized by people (Forgas, 1981; Harvey, Ickes, & Kidd, 1976, 1978, 1981; Heider, 1958; Higgins, Herman, & Zanna, 1981; Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1967; Kelly, 1955). How- ever, examination of how social knowledge is organized pre- supposes the logically prior research issue of how social information is acquired to begin with. Basically, two research traditions can be

Leslie A. Baxter (Ph.D., University o f Oregon, 1975) is an associate professor of communications at Lewis and Clark College, Portland, OR. William W. Wilmot (Ph.D., University of Washington, 1970) is a professor of interpersonal communication at the University of Montana, Missoula, MT.

0 1984 International Communication Assn

171

172 HUMAN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Winter 1984

identified that address the question of social information acquisition. The first and more prevalent research tradition focuses on cognitive strategies of information acquisition, such as perceptual selectivity (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). The second research tradition focuses on behavioral strategies that people employ in acquiring their information (Berger, 1979, 1982; Berger & Bradac, 1982; Berger & Douglas, 1981; Berger & Kellermann, 1983; Berger & Perkins, 1978, 1979; Kellermann & Berger, 1984; Snyder, 1981; Snyder & Campbell, 1980; Snyder & Cantor, 1979; Snyder & Swann, 1978a, 1978b; Trope & Bassok, 1982). The current study is consistent with the second tradition’s focus on behavioral strategies of information acquisition in its examination of the social strategies that people employ to acquire information about the state of their interpersonal relationships, or what we have come to call “secret tests.”

Extant work in the behavioral strategies of social information acquisition has concentrated on how people gain insight into a stranger’s personality. Snyder and his colleagues examined one information acquisition strategy in particular-the use of questions directed toward the target-stranger-and found that people ask questions seeking to confirm their operating hypotheses about the other’s character as opposed to asking neutral questions that might disconfirm their hypotheses (see, for example, Snyder, 1981). However, more recently Trope and Bassok (1982) failed to find evidence supportive of Snyder’s posited confirmatory bias.

Berger and his colleagues examined a broader domain of social strategies than the single strategy of direct questions asked of a stranger- acquaintance (for example, see Berger & Bradac, 1982). Collectively, this research program posits three basic types of strategies by which people acquire information about a stranger-target: (1) passive strategies, in which the person unobtrusively observes the target; (2) active strategies, characterized by intervention into the target-stranger’s environment in some way, including asking third parties about the target person or structuring the target’s environment in order to conduct an “experiment” in which to observe the target’s behavior; and (3) interactive strategies, in which the person directly interacts with the target-stranger, including interrogation of the target through use of questions, intentional deviation from social rules of interaction in order to observe the target’s reactions, and self-disclosure intended to evoke reciprocal disclosure from the target. To date, research has focused in

Baxter, Wilmot / SECRET TESTS 173

particular on passive strategies (Berger & Douglas, 1981; Berger & Perkins, 1978, 1979) and on direct interrogation strategies (Berger, Gardner, Clatterbuck, & Schulman, 1976; Berger & Kellermann, 1983; Kellermann & Berger, 1984).

Although both the Snyder and Berger research programs are insightful, they are limited to the acquisition of individual-level information and are confined to the relationship context of initial acquaintances. Berger (1982) has posited that the information acquisition strategies comprise basic elements of well-learned “information acquisition scripts” that may generalize to the acquisition of information about nonstrangers. However, extant work has not examined the validity of this claim. Furthermore, the parties in nonstranger relationships acquire information about the state of their relationship in addition to acquiring individual-level information about one another. Berger and Bradac (1982, p. 99) noted the difference between these two types of information that can be acquired:

Whereas previously John attempted to reduce his uncertainty about Mary, now he attempts to reduce his uncertainty about Mary and John as a unit. This is an important shift, because relational uncertainty is of a different “logical type” than is uncertainty about individuals. . . . A relationship is a higher-order abstraction than is one’s conception of an individual. Accordingly, relational uncertainty reduction should be comparatively difficult.

The extent to which these two “logical types”of information rely on the same basic repertoire of information acquisition strategies has not been determined to date.

Despite the absence of direct empirical work that speaks to the generalizability of tne information acquisition strategies repertoire to nonstranger relationships, substantial work indirectly supports this expectation. In general, regardless of the “logical type” of the information people should be motivated to increase their information- seeking behavior as a function of information uncertainty (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Although the initial statement of uncertainty theory focused on initial interactions, it suggested the presence of uncertainty about the other in later stages of relationship development as well (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Others have recognized the pervasiveness of relational uncertainty in relationships. As Parks and Adelman (1983) recently observed, the notion of relational uncertainty is implicit, if not


explicit, in all of the major theories of relationship development. Whether one is considering the experimenting stage that follows initial acquaintanceship, the transformations of relationships from acquaintances to friends or lovers, or the reverse transformations that charac- terize relationship disengagement, the significant feature to note about relationships is that they experience change and its shadow companion, uncertainty (Knapp, 1984; Wilmot, 1979). Even so-called stable relationships may be subject to relationship-level uncertainty. At a minimum, Kurth (1970, p. 164) noted, relationship parties periodically check to see if the other party is “holding up his [or her] end.”

Furthermore, existing relationships research suggests that people are likely to have a multifaceted repertoire of information strategies by which to cope with relationship uncertainty,just as they have developed a complex repertoire of passive, active, and interactive strategies in order to reduce uncertainty about strangers. Extant work suggests that relationship parties are hesitant to rely on direct talk about the state of their relationship. In a recent study, Baxter and Wilmot (1984) observed that the “state of the relationship” was the “taboo topic” mentioned most frequently among relationships at various stages of development, emerging as a taboo for about two-thirds of the study’s respondents. Overwhelmingly, these respondents provided negative conceptions of direct relationship talk as warrants for avoiding discussion of the state of the relationship. This absence of direct relationship talk is consistent with others’ work in metacommunication (Cline, 1979; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967; Wilmot, 1980). In the absence of exclusive reliance on direct talk about the relationship’s state parties must, by default, develop alternative information acquisition strategies if they are to cope successfully with relationship uncertainty.

Interestingly, the situational conditions that must be present in order to implement passive, active, and interactive strategies of information acquisition are even more pronounced in ongoing relationships than they are in initial interactions between strangers. The observation of the other party in the presence of others (a passive strategy) assumes that one has such social opportunities available. Similarly, asking third parties about the other party (an active strategy) assumes that one has familiarity with the other’s social network. In fact, Parks and Adelman (1983) recently posited that it is such strategic use of the other’s social network that may have produced their finding that contact with the social network of one’s relationship partner is the single best predictor of uncertainty reduction about the other person. Because relationship parties use more self-disclosure after the initial encounter (Knapp,

Baxter, Wilrnot / SECRET TESTS 175

1984), they should be afforded greater opportunity to use self-disclosure strategically in order to solicit a reciprocal disclosure from the other party (an interactive strategy). Similarly, the greater one’s familiarity with the other’s idiosyncratic rule system, the greater one’s opportunity for deviation testing (an interactive strategy). In short, nonstranger relationships provide even greater opportunities for imple- mentation of passive, active, and interactive information acquisition strategies than do initial encounters between strangers.

Although relationship uncertainty and the conditions conducive to the use of information acquisition strategies potentially are present in all relationship types and stages, this study focuses in particular on platonic and romantic cross-sex relationships and relationships that are in transit ion from platonic to romantic (“romantic potential” relationships).’ Relationship uncertainty seems especially likely among these relationship partners. As Rawlins (1982) noted, the opposite-sex relationship, in all of its forms, is especially problematic for people socialized in the American culture. The opposite-sex feature of the relationship predisposes people to categorize the relationship as romantic and sexual. Thus, a platonic cross-sex relationship requires careful monitoring to ensure that it does not become romantic, just as a romantic cross-sex relationship necessitates monitoring to assure that it does not become platonic. The definitional tension characteristic of cross-sex relationships is exacerbated by the fact that platonic and romantic relationship types overlap with many common attributes. As Wilmot and Baxter (1984) recently observed, platonic friendships and romantic relationships are not mutually exclusive; rather, they share certain qualities such as trust, openness, caring, and comfort. Such shared or conjunctive attributes often make for fuzzy distinctions between the categories of platonic and romantic relationships that produce relational uncertainty for the two parties. In addition, opposite sex pairs are often plagued by the presence of gender differences in the interpretive rules for social behaviors displayed in the relationship (Maltz & Borker, 1982). If the man interprets the woman’s touching as a signal of transformation of the relationship to a romantic basis and she only intended a friendly display of nonromantic affection, relationship uncertainty is likely to increase for the pair.

The discussion thus far can be summarized in the first research hypothesis undertaken in the study:

HI: Passive, active, and interactive information acquisition strategy types will generalize to the acquisition of information about the state of the relationship between opposite-sex relationship parties.


In addition to aglobal examination of the repertoire of strategies for acquiring information about the status of opposite-sex relationships, this study also considers possible differences in reported strategies as a function of respondent gender and relationship type. Specifically, the following hypothesis was advanced in terms of gender:

Hz: Females will report more information acquisition strategies by which to discern the state of the relationship, both with regard to strategies attributed to self as well as strategies attributed to the other, than wiI1 males.

First, females may be motivated more than males to seek information about the status of their relationships because of their greater socialization to value interpersonal relationships (Gilligan, 1982). Second, females may be more aware of relationship problems and sources of relational uncertainty than are their male counterparts (Hill, Rubin, 8c Peplau, 1976; Peplau, 1983). Thus, given the possibility of greater awareness of relationship uncertainty coupled with a greater motivation to reduce that uncertainty, females may employ more information acquisition strategies than do males. Furthermore, because females may monitor relationship dynamics more closely than males (Fishman, 1978; Peplau, 1983), they may also be more aware than males of the strategies used by their relationship partners.

In addition to a hypothesized difference in the number of reported strategies, we explore possible differences in the types of strategies that are employed by males and females. The compliance-gaining literature appears to support a stylistic gender difference, with females using less directness than males (see Baxter, 1984). However, the question of whether such a stylistic difference will generalize to the nonpersuasive goal of acquiring information about the state of the relationship remains unanswered. On one hand, females bring a greater expectation of openness to their relationships than do males (see Peplau, 1983), and such an expectation may lead to more directness in information acquisition on the part of females. On the other hand, however, Baxter and Wilmot (1984) recently observed a tendency for females more than males to report direct talk about the relationship as a taboo topic in their developing opposite-sex relationships. Although their female respondents displayed a tendency for fewer reservations in disclosing personal information, direct relationship talk was perceived as risky if not damaging. Because of the difficulty in predicting a gender difference in the directness of information acquisition strategy use, and because of


the desire to explore other possible strategy use differences as well, the following research question was advanced:

RQ1: Do males and females differ in the types of information acquisition strategies that they attribute to themselves?

Although cross-sex relationships are characterized in general by relational uncertainty, we argue that such uncertainty will be greatest for relationships that are in between platonic and romantic types (i.e., the romantic potential relationship). Unlike the more stable platonic and romantic types, in which both parties have agreed on the definition of the relationship, the romantic potential relationship is in transition. One or both of the relationship parties desires a romantic relationship, but such a transformation has not been explicitly negotiated by both parties. Thus, relational uncertainty is high because of the absence of recognized consensus on the relationship definition. Because information-seeking increases with uncertainty (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). we would expect a greater number of reported information acquisition strategies reported among romantic potential relationship partners as opposed to those in the other two relationship types. This argument is formalized as follows:

Hj: The transitional relationships (i.e., the romantic potential relationships) will have more reported information acquisition strategies than either the platonic or romantic relationship types.

The final goal of this study is to explore possible differences in the types of reported information acquisition strategies among platonic, romantic potential, and romantic relationships. Information acquisition is framed in underlying schemata that assist the actor in deciding which information is relevant and how it should be interpreted (Wilmot & Baxter, 1984). In acquiring information about the state of the relationship, opposite-sex relationship parties have implicit belief systems about what the relationship is and should be. To the extent that people have a confirmatory bias in their information acquisition behavior, and to the extent that platonic and romantic relationship types are characterized by different attributes, one might reasonably expect that different strategies would emerge reflecting the underlying schemata differences. However, as discussed above, platonic and romantic relationships are characterized by both conjunctive and disjunctive attributes, contributing to overlap in the two schemata. Furthermore, the confirmatory bias research has been limited to only


the strategy ofdirect interrogation (see Snyder, 1981) and results are not completely consistent across studies (Trope & Bassok, 1982). Hence, the issue of differences in strategy type as a function of relationship type is cast in the form of a research question rather than a research hypothesis:

RQzDo platonic, romantic potential, and romantic relationships differ in the types of reported information acquisition strategies by which the state of the relationship is discerned?

METHODS

The study is composed of three distinct stages in which qualitative and quantitative methodologies were triangulated against one another in order to afford richer insight into the information acquisition strategies by which persons discern the state of their relationships (Jick, 1983). The three research stages were as follows:

( I ) Qualitative analysis of 90 ethnographic interviews in which respondents discussed a current or recent opposite-sex relationship, resulting in a grounded typology of basic types of information acquisition strategies.

(2) Quantitative analysis through cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling (MDS) of prototypical strategies from Stage 1 that were sorted on the basis of similarity by an additional 91 research subjects.

(3) A reanalysis of the 90 ethnographic interviews from Stage 1 in light of the typology of strategies that emerged in Stage 2, examining respondent gender and relationship type against types of information acquisition strategies.

STAGE 1

The first stage of the research project involved the collection and analysis of interview data. A research team of 6 students was trained in ethnographic interviewing procedures by one of the authors. Three versions of an open-ended interview schedule were pilot tested in the field by this research team before the final interview schedule was developed to collect the actual data of the study. The schedule consisted of background information about a current (or recently concluded) opposite-sex relationship in which the respondent was involved, and open-ended questions that probed any information acquisition strategies that the respondent could recall using o r that were used by the other party in the opposite-sex relationship. Additional questions in the


interview addressed facets of the relationship beyond the focus of this particular study. The interviews were approximately 60 to 90 minutes long. Although interviewers approached each interview with a schedule of suggested questions and the order in which issues could be approached, the nature of ethnographic interviewing necessitated variation from interview to interview as adaptations were made to respondent remarks (Spradley, 1979). Nonetheless, all interviewers employed a common introduction of the portion of the interview relevant to this study:

When people want to assess their relationship, that is, where the relationship stands and how the parties feel about it, we suspect that they say or do things designed to shed insight on the matter. For ease of reference, let’s call these actions that people say or do tests. I’d like to ask you some questions about your experiences with testing in the opposite- sex relationship we’ve been talking about. Do you have any questions before we begin? Do you understand what I mean by a test?

Each interviewer composed detailed accounts based on notes taken during the interviews. All respondents were assured anonymity in their interview reponses.

A probability-based sample of 40 males and 50 females was drawn from the undergraduate population at the institution of one of the authors. Each interviewer completed 15 interviews from this sample during September and October of 1983, producing a data corpus of 90 total interviews. During the background portion of the interview respondents were given descriptions of platonic, romantic potential, and romantic relationships as the terms were used in the study (see below) and were asked to categorize appropriately the relationship they had selected for purposes of the interview. Based on the responses the sampled relationships were distributed as follows:

( 1 ) Platonic: Relationships in which the respondent indicated that both relationship parties viewed their relationship as platonic with no desire by either party to become romantic partners. (n = 12)

( 2 ) Romantic potential: Relationships that were described by the respondent as “more than friends” but that were not yet mutually recognized and defined as romantic. Typically, these relationships were in transition, with the respondent reporting that at least one of the parties wanted to become romantically involved but mutual consensus on redefinition had not yet been achieved. (n 25)


(3) Romantic. Relationships in which the respondent indicated that both parties explicitly agreed in defining their relationship as romantic. (n = 53)

Although it would have been more desirable to have the relationship perceptions of both parties from a given relationship, such dual perception data were not available. However, interviewers probed respondents for “evidence” of their perceptions to encourage carefully considered categorizing decisions. The frequency distribution of relationship types did not differ for males and females (x2 2.29; 2 df; p > .30). The mean duration of the relationships was 20.8 months, with no significant differences in duration as a function of respondent gender (F = .0004; 1,84 df; p > .90), relationship type (F = 2.03; 2,84 df; .10 < p < .20) or gender X type (F = 1.64; 2, 84 df; .20 < p < .30).

A total of 158 information acquisition strategies (or tests, as they were called in the interviews) were identified by the interview team members in reading the written records of the 90 interviews. Using Bulmer’s ( 1 979) method of analytic induction, we independently derived categories of tests and then sorted the tests into their respective category sets. Basically, the method of analytic induction involves the development of categories from a subset of the data that are then applied to additional data and modified as necessary until a category set is developed that captures the entire data set. A total of 143 of the 158 strategies were successfully categorized into 15 basic category types; the remaining 15 represented miscellaneous categories with small n’s. The overall agreement in the independent sortings of the tests was .67 (computed as the number of agrees divided by the total number of sorted items). That is, approximately two-thirds of the tests were placed in equivalent categories from our independently derived category sets. We jointly discussed the sorting discrepancies and decided on logical groupings of the category types into 7 broader types of strategies.

STAGE 2

Stage 2 of the study was undertaken in order to determine the representational validity (Poole & Folger, 1979) of the typology of tests developed in Stage 1 of the study. That is, we sought to determine whether our perceptual organization of the strategies corresponded to the structure perceived by members of the same population from which the ethnographic interviews were collected. Both methodological and theoretical reasons warrant the decision to engage in Stage 2 of the


study. Methodologically, the .67 sorting agreement is sufficiently low to make reliability suspect without additional evidence. Theoretically, the study is grounded in the ethnographic perspective (Spradley, 1979) and the social cognition perspective (Roloff & Berger, 1982), both of which argue the necessity of understanding a phenomenon from the viewpoint of the insider.

Two pure prototypical instances of each of the 15 categories from our Stage 1 typology were selected for presentation to an additional 91 undergraduates for sorting on the basis of perceived similarity. The rationale for selecting two prototypical instances per category is threefold: (1) The original set of 158 tests was regarded as too large for sorting by the second sample; (2) The researchers sought to reduce “noise” in the data by using category prototypes in order to maximize the opportunity for reliable category recognition; (3) More than one instance per category was often necessary to capture variations in the particulars by which a given strategy type was implemented.

The sorters, drawn from introductory communication classes, were each presented with a card deck composed of 30 tests (2 per type X 15 category types). They were asked to place similar strategies into the same pile and to use as many or as few piles of cards as they found necessary to capture their perceptions. After completing the sort participants were asked to provide labels and short descriptions/ explanations of each pile of tests/ cards.

A data matrix was derived from the sorts that represented the frequencies with which all pairs of strategies were sorted into the same category by the 91 sorters. This matrix provides a form of proximity data appropriate for submission to cluster analysis and multidimensional scaling (Shepard, 1972; Rapoport & Fillenbaum, 1972). An agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis (SPSS, 1983) was employed on the data matrix to determine the basic groupings of strategies. The average linkage method was used in the cluster analysis as the compromise between the extremes afforded by single-linkage and complete-linkage methods (Bailey, 1974; Krippendorff, 1980). The data matrix was also submitted to MDSCAL-SM, a nonmetric multidimensional scaling algorithm (Kruskal & Carmone, 1971), in order to provide a visual representation of the groupings or clusters.

STAGE 3

Of our 15 category types, 14 were validated in Stage 2 of the study. Because the researchers had already made test-by-test categorization


decisions in Stage I, those data were returned to in this final stage of the study; only the category that was not validated required reanalysis, but the instances of that category type in Stage 1 were relatively few in number. The tests from the original 90 interviews were thus organized into the 7 conceptual types that emerged from Stage 2 of the study and were assessed for possible differences by respondent gender and relationship type using the appropriate statistical procedures.

RESULTS

STAGE 1

As described above, we independently sorted the 158 tests generated in the 90 interviews into inductively derived categories; 15 categories emerged and were subsequently grouped into 7 basic conceptual types. Discussion of the 15 categories is presented below within the organi- zational framework of the 7 broader conceptual types. Each category is illustrated with the two prototype instances that were selected for presentation to research participants in Stage 2 of the study. Table 1 summarizes the typology.

The first of 7 conceptual types was labeled Direct Questioning. The category involves direct relationship talk initiated by one of the parties. This interview excerpt from a female respondent in a romantic potential relationship illustrates the category: [Interviewer: Have you ever used any tests in this relationship?] “Never. Whenever I wanted to know how he felt, I just asked him” (#103). A male in a platonic relationship provided the second prototypical response: “Usually, just point-blank asking questions-‘How do you feel about me?’ ‘How do you see our relationship?’ ” (#I 12).

The second conceptual type-Asking Third Parties-involves interrogation of social network members about the perceptions of the relationship by one’s partner. A male respondent in a romantic relationship provided one prototypical instance of this test type: “I asked my girlfriend’s sister to tell me anything she could about how my girlfriend felt about me and our future” (#70). A female in a romantic potential relationship provided the second instance of this category: “I went to some of his friends and asked them what he thought of me after we had dated a few times” (#I43).

The third broad conceptual type of strategies is composed of 3 related categories of tests and is labeled Trial Intimacy Moves. The first category of tests contained in this conceptual type is Escalated Touch. A prototypical instance of this category was provided by a male

Baxter. Wilmot / SECRET TESTS 183

TABLE 1

Summary of Stage 1 Typology of Tests

Category Labels Test #‘s

I. Direct Questioning

II. Asking Third Parties

Ill. Trial Intimacy Moves A. Escalating Touch B. Self-Disclosures C. Public Presentation

IV. Taken for Granted Tests A. Joking B. Initiation Induction C. Self-Putdown D. Hinting

V. Endurance Tests A. Forced Choice B. Physical Separation C. Testing Limits

VI. Jealousy Tests A. Describing Alternatives B. Beginning Alternatives

VII. Fidelity Checks

103

70

21 39

110

10 105 27

5

69 91 17

6 60

73

112

143

31 114 115

47 128 88

156

151 94

155

148 72

86

respondent in a romantic potential relationship: “By touching her, I found out whether she was ready for our relationship to go beyond friends” (#21). A female in a romantic potential relationship described the second test categorized as Escalated Touch.

When we were just becoming romantic, he kept getting more and more bold with his touching-first his arm around my shoulder, then moving in real close, etc. He was waiting to see if I would tell him when to stop as a sign of how much I liked him. (#3 1)

The second category in the Trial Intimacy Moves group was labeled Self-Disclosures and involved personal disclosure with the hope of pressuring the partner into a reciprocal disclosure. A female in a romantic potential relationship provided one typical instance of this test type:

I was having trouble getting him to open up to me about his family and his background. So I started talking about my folks and my sisters, hoping


that he would reciprocate and tell me about himself as a sign that he trusted me and wanted me to know more about him. (#39)

A female in a romantic potential relationship described the Self- Disclosure test employed by her partner in the following way:

Yeah, he really spilled his guts, telling me how he felt about me. It was to back me into a corner, to get me to react by saying directly how I felt about him. (#114)

The final test category grouped in the cluster of Trial Intimacy Moves was Public Presentation. This test involves a public presentation of the relationship type by one party to see how the partner will react. Reflecting on his romantic relationship, a male respondent provided this illustration of the test type:

At the time, I didn’t know it was a test, but it was. She invited me to her family’s home for a week. They started to talk to me in terms of beingjust like a son, how much they hoped we wanted kids someday, etc. She knew that was coming from them and wanted to see if I would get scared by hearing her parents talk like that. (#I 10)

A female in a romantic potential relationship provided another instance of the test type:

1 intentionally introduced him as my boyfriend to my best friend who came to visit and then watched how he reacted at the time and then later-you know, did he seem embarrassed? Did he act upset later that I had made “us” public? (# 1 15)

The fourth conceptual grouping of tests was labeled Taken for Granted and consists of 4 test categories that collectively represent 2 meanings of the phrase, “taken for granted.” Consistent with Hopper’s (1981) use of the phrase, some of the categories in this grouping rely on the target’s tacit social knowledge. In addition, however, some of the categories test the target’s willingness to expend extra attention or effort directed toward the actor (i.e., not taking the person for granted). The first category in this grouping-the Joking Test-relies primarily on the first sense of the phrase. The test type is illustrated in this account excerpt from a female respondent describing her platonic relationship: “Whenever I wanted to know how he felt about the relationship, I wouldn’t ask him outright. Instead, I would use jokes, so that I could


back out of it if the topic made him uncomfortable” (#lo). Another female described the Joking Test that her boyfriend employed in their romantic relationship as follows:

He wants us to get married, but I don’t yet. So to see if I still feel the same about it, he will joke around and say things like “Figured out yet what we’ll do with the .5 child in our family of 2.5 children?” If I joke about it, he knows that I’m not ready to talk seriously about marriage yet, but also that I’m not pissed off that he keeps pushing me. (#47)

The second type of test grouped in the Taken for Granted category was labeled Initiation Induction and illustrates the second meaning of “taken for granted.” Basically, this test involves structuring the situation so that the burden of meeting rests on the other party. A female respondent in a romantic relationship described an instance of the test employed by her boyfriend: “When I returned from Switzerland, he didn’t call me even though he knew exactly when I was returning. He wanted to see if I still felt the same way about him by calling him first” (#105). A male described the same test that he used with his girlfriend: “I would often wait to see how long it would take her to make contact with me to see how serious she was about the relationship” (#128).

The third test type that was grouped with the Taken for Granted cluster was labeled Self-putdown and also illustrates the second sense of the phrase. In general, this test involves self-deprecation to elicit a positive statement from the other party. A female in a romantic potential relationship described the test type in her partner’s behavior: “He was really getting down on himself, saying that he wasn’t a very capable or nice person. He said it to get me to compliment him and verbalize how much I thought of him” (#27). A male described his actions in his romantic potential relationship as follows: “I sounded really down to see if she would give me any feedback about how much she cared for me” (#88).

The fourth category in the Taken for Granted type was labeled Hinting and presumes that tacit social knowledge will be brought to bear by the target in interpreting its use. A female in a romantic potential relationship described the test in this way: “I flirt a lot with him in letters-you get a lot of courage when you write instead of it being in person. I wait and see what his reaction is to the flirting-whether he’s ready to extend the relationship” (#5). A male in a romantic potential relationship described adifferent version of the same test: “I met her at a party. Later in the evening, I went up to her and asked her if she was


having a good time at the party and stuff-kind of hinting that I was ready to leave and was inviting her” (#156).

The fifth grouping of tests was labeled Endurance Tests and consists of 3 related categories of test types-Forced Choice, Physical Separa- tion¶ and Testing Limits. These 3 categories share the following logic: If the relationship is made costly to the other party and he or she still stays in the relationship, that demonstrates the other’s depth of commitment and feeling. The Forced Choice test type involves forcing the other party to make a costly choice on behalf of the relationship. A male in a romantic potential relationship described his partner’s use of the test type as follows:

During the break, she wrote me to see if she could come and visit me for a few days. The thing was that I would have to drive 500 miles to pick her up. It was a test to see how much inconvenience I would stand in the relationship. (#69)

Another male in a romantic relationship described the same test type from his girlfriend, but with different particulars:

She came to where I work out and said that she was really depressed but didn’t want to bother me. She really wanted to see if I would stop what I was doing and show my concern, indicating how much I care for her. (#151)

The Physical Separation test type involves a separation from the other party to determine whether the other’s feelings withstand the absence. A male respondent employed the test in his romantic relationship: “Although I didn’t intend it as a ‘test,’ I used our separation while away at school as a test of how much we cared about each other” (#91). A female illustrated an intentional use of the same test type in her romantic relationship: “To see if our relationship was really strong, I tested it by intentionally separating us by going overseas for a few months” (#94).

The third category of Endurance Tests-Testing Limits-involves rule deviation to determine how much the other party will withstand. A female in a romantic potential relationship described the test type in her partner’s behavior: “To see if I Really liked him a lot, he kept pushing me too far to see if I would still like him despite his actions”(#17). Another female described the same test employed by her boyfriend: “He will test


how much I love him by showing his worst side to me. If I’m still around after that, it means that my feelings are not just superficial” (#155).

Two test categories comprise the sixth grouping of Jealousy Tests. The first category-Describing Alternatives-involves the verbal description of a potential competitor to the other party. A female respondent in a romantic relationship provided a typical instance of the test category: “I talked about my other boyfriend back home in his presence to see how he’d react-whether he would get jealous or not” (#6). Another female provided this description.

When we had been dating a while and I had decided that I was serious about him, I talked about my ex-boyfriend to see if I would make him angry. That way, I’d know that he was serious about me, too (#148)

The second category of Jealousy Tests was labeled Beginning Alterna- tives. In contrast to simply describing possible rivals, this test type involves the physical presence of a potential competitor. A male respondent described the test type as follows in reflecting on his behavior in a romantic relationship: “I tested her limits by going out with other women and making sure that she found out about it. I wanted to know what kind of relationship commitment she wanted” (#60). A female used the same test against her boyfriend-to-be: “Before we became boyfriend and girlfriend, I intentionally went out with another guy and made sure that he would find out about it. I wanted him to get jealous” (#72).

The final conceptual cluster was labeled Fidelity Checks, and consists of a single category of the same label. A female respondent provided a detailed description of the test type in reflecting on her romantic relationship:

I would intentionally leave him alone in the room with my roommate and then ask him when I returned“What have the two of you been up to?”If he acted uncomfortable, I’d know that he wasn’t faithful (or at least that he was thinking of being unfaithful to me). (#73)

A male provided an equally detailed description of the same test used against his girlfriend:

We went for a walk with two brothers who are friends of mine. I walked ahead with the younger brother and left her to walk with the older brother who had expressed a more than passing interest in her as a lover. I wanted to see her reactions. (#86)


The 15 categories of tests, and their logical grouping into 7 broader conceptual types, reflected the analyses of the researchers. As discussed above, the second stage of the study was conducted to determine the representational validity of this inductively derived typology.

STAGE 2

The 30 tests presented above were given to 91 additional undergraduates who were asked to sort the tests into piles on the basis of their similarity. The composite frequencies of all pairwise test combinations were submitted to hierarchical cluster analysis, Figure 1 presents the dendrogram of successive clusters that emerged from this statistical procedure. The figure displays the emergence of hierarchical clusters, beginning with the left-most margin in which there are 30 “clusters,” each of which has a within-group distance of zero. Obviously, the distance for each of these 30 clusters is zero, because each of these initial clusters consists of a single test item. As one scans Figure 1 from left to right, it is possible to trace the successive emergence of larger clusters through combinations of items.

Of the 15 basic categories identified in Stage 1, 14 were validated by the research participants who sorted tests. The category of Forced Choice (tests #69 and #151) did not emerge in the cluster analysis. Instead, the category was split, with each item clustering with a different grouping. Test #69, a request that the other party drive 500 miles to provide a ride, displays a physical separation of the relationship parties that perhaps accounts for its clustering with other tests involving physical separation. Item #151, inconveniencing the other party by suggesting that he sacrifice his workout, tests the other’s limits and hence was associated with the other endurance-related tests.

The process of determining the number of clusters to interpret is highly subjective (Bailey, 1974). In examining Figure 1, it is apparent that anywhere from 5 to 14 clusters could be used to summarize the data. However, the primary goal of cluster analysis is parsimony, suggesting the interpretation of a smaller as opposed to a larger number of clusters. Simultaneously, however, the number of clusters that is accepted should be easily interpretable (i.e., the accepted clusters should each be characterized by logical coherence). Given these two criteria, a 7-cluster solution was accepted. These 7 clusters are indicated in Figure 1 and are also listed in Table 2. As Figure 1 illustrates, an alternative analysis would be the acceptance of 5 rather than 7 clusters. In the 5-cluster

Baxter. Wilmot / SECRET TESTS 189

SPSS-X Re-scaled Distance for Cluster ComMnatlons

Test tl

I 7 70

~ 112 1 1 1 1 39

94 IV 1 105

' 155

88 v i 27

Figure 1 Dendrogram of emergent hierarchical clusters with average linkage method.

solution, Separation Tests and Endurance Tests merge into a single cluster and Public Presentation Tests merge with Indirect Suggestion Tests. Although more parsimonious, this 5-cluster solution lacks the theoretical coherence of the 7-cluster solution that was accepted. Both of the mergers involved in the 5-cluster solution involve ignoring the distinction between active and interactive strategies that is evident in extant work in information acquisition strategies (see Berger & Bradac, 1982). Separation Tests and Public Presentation Tests are active strategies, whereas the other two clusters represent interactive strategies.

The 7 clusters both confirm and alter the typology developed in Stage 1 of the study. The first Stage 2 cluster-Asking Third Parties-is identical to grouping I1 from the Stage 1 analysis. The second cluster- labeled Triangle Tests because they involve 3-person triangles-is a merging of groupings VI and VII (Jealousy Tests and Fidelity Checks, respectively) from the Stage 1 analysis. The third cluster-labeled

190 H U M A N COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Winter 1984

TABLE 2 Summary of Stage 2 Typology of Tests

-~

Category Labels

- ~~.

Test ##'s ~

I. Asking Third Part Tests

It. Triangle Tests A. Fidelity Checks B. Jealousy Tests

Ill. Directness Tests A. Direct Questioning B . Self -Disclosures

IV. Separation Tests A. Physical Separation B. Initiation Induction C. Forced Choice #1

V. Endurance Tests A. Testing Limits 6. Self-putdown C. Forced Choice #2

VI: Public Presentation Tests

VI I . Indirect Suggestion Tests A. Joking 8. Escalating Touch C. Hinting

-

70

73 6

72

103 39

91 105 69

17 27

151

110

10 21

5

143

86 60

148

112 114

94 128

155 88

115

47 31

1 56

Directness Tests-consists of Direct Questioning (group I from Stage 1 analysis) and the Self-Disclosures category. Rather than perceiving Self-Disclosures as Trial Intimacy Moves, the sorters clearly focused on the openness quality of the disclosures. The fourth cluster to emerge- Separation Tests-consists of the categories of Physical Separation and Initiation Induction, plus test #69 from the Forced Choice category. All of these tests involve physical distance between the relationship parties, and it is this feature that is captured in the cluster label. The fifth cluster-Endurance Tests-consists of tests that dramatically reduce the rewards to the other party in the relationship. The category of Testing Limits is consistent with the Stage 1 analysis. However, it is apparent that the sorters perceived an endurance test in the Self- Putdown tests as well as in Forced Test #151. Public Presentation emerged as a unique cluster in Stage 2, in contrast to its categorization as


a Trial Intimacy Move in the Stage 1 analysis. The last cluster-Zndirect Suggestion Tests-contains the Joking and Hinting categories that were grouped as Taken for Granted in the Stage 1 analysis. However, the category of Escalated Touch was perceived as indirect suggestion rather than as a trial intimacy move. Furthermore, the category of Initiation Induction was not perceived by sorters as a Taken for Granted test.

To provide an alternative representation of the clusters, the data matrix submitted to hierarchical cluster analysis was also submitted to nonmetric multidimensional scaling (MDS). According to Krippen- dorff (1980, p. 276):

By far the most appealing form of representation depicts the proximities among objects in some space and indicates clusters by drawing their boundaries. Since proximities are an essential ingredient of Gestalt perception, groupings are much easier to visualize when similarities, correlation, and the like are expressed as distances.

MDS solutions were obtained for 1 to 5 dimensions, with stress (formula 2) values of .453, .240, .188, .162, and .144, respectively. The criteria for selecting the appropriate MDS solution are numerous and could all be characterized as rules of thumb. All 5 of the solutions have sufficient recovery capability based on the ratio of the number of stimulus points to number of dimensions (Sherman, 1972). Shepard’s (1972) visualizability criterion suggests no more than a three-dimensional solution. Kruskal’s (1964) guideline of a .05 stress value for an excellent solution and a .10 level for a good solution leads to the rejection of all 5 solutions; however, as Young (1970) has observed, this guideline is unnecessarily stringent. The “elbow of the stress curve” criterion (Kruskal, 1964; Isaac & Poor, 1974) suggests acceptance of the two-dimensional solution. The constraint index advanced by Isaac and Poor (1974) also suggests adoption of the two-dimensional solution.

The two-dimensional solution was accepted and is reported in Figure 2. This figure provides avisual display of the Stage 2 results. Boundaries are drawn around the 7 clusters based on the results of the hierarchical cluster analysis presented above. Based on a subjective reading of the labels and descriptions/ explanations that sorters provided with their card sort decks, the X-axis in Figure 2 appears to capture the perceived directness of the test, with Triangle Tests and Directness Tests representing the two polar extremes. The Y-axis in Figure 2 appears to reflect whether or not the parties were in one another’s presence for the


200

100

D

-100

-200

I

Figure 2 2-Dimensional MDS solution for 30 test prototypes.

test, with Separation Tests and Indirect Suggestion Tests representing the extremes along this dimension.

Stage 3

Because the 158 tests generated in the Stage 1 interviews had already been categorized into the I5 basic test types, they were simply recoded during this phase of the study into the appropriate cluster based on the results of the Stage 2 hierarchical cluster analysis that indicated which cluster a given test category was in. The single exception to this procedure was the category that was not validated in Stage 2-Forced Choice. The 8 tests in addition to #69 and #151 were categorized into either Cluster IV or Cluster V.


A two-way ANOVA was used to assess possible gender and relationship type differences in the number of reported strategies. The sex X type interaction was not significant ( F = .19; 2, 84 df; p > .80). However, both main effects were significant beyond the .05 level.

Females (mean = 1.98) reported significantly more tests than males (mean = 1.48; F = 7.96; I , 84 df; p < .01; eta2 = .078). However, the number of reported tests included tests attributed to self as well as tests attributed to the other. A paired t-test indicated that respondents were significantly more likely to report self-enacted tests (mean = 1.32) as opposed to other-enacted tests (mean = .43; t = 7.23, 89df; p = .001). Males (mean = .425) and females (mean = .440) did not differ on the number of reported tests attributed to their relationship partners (t = .26, 88df; p > .70). However, females (mean = 1.54) reported significantly more self-attributed tests than did males (mean = 1.05; t = 2.92, 88df; p=.005).

The main effect for relationship type was significant as well (F = 6.41, 2, 84df; p < .01; eta2 = .13). Subsequent Schefft: tests indicated that romantic potential relationships (mean = 2.32) reported significantly more tests than either platonic relationships (mean = 1.17) or romantic relationships (mean = 1.62). Self-attributed and other-attributed tests were not distinguished from one another because the analysis of relationship type is a relationship-level, not individual-level, variable.

Table 3 reports the proportion of respondents who reported at least one test in each of the 7 test clusters. Overall, Endurance Tests were the most widely reported, followed closely by Triangle Tests and Indirect Suggestion Tests. Overwhelmingly, respondents employed secret tests, given that only 20.9% of them reported a test that was perceived as direct.

Table 4 provides a breakdown of the proportion of each gender reporting at least one self-enacted test in each of the 7 clusters. Because there were only 39 total tests attributed to the other party, a table reporting other-enacted test types by respondent gender is not provided. Because respondents could report multiple tests, including more than one test in a given cluster, chi-square tests were performed on each cluster type separately, comparing the proportions of males who did and did not report at least one test in a given cluster against the proportions of females who did and did not report at least one test in the cluster. Females were significantly more likely to report self-enacted Triangle Tests and Separation Tests than were males.

Table 5 provides a summary of the proportions of platonic, romantic potential, and romantic relationship types reporting at least one test in

194 H U M A N COMMUNICATION RESEARCH / Winter 1984

TABLE 3 Proportion of Respondents Reporting a t Least

One Test in Each Cluster

PToportion of Cluster Respondents

Asking Third Party Tests Triangle Tests Directness Tests Separation Tests Endurance Tests Public Presentation Tests Indirect Suggestion Tests

12.8 31.4 20.9 24.4 34.9 5.8

27.9

NOTE: Proportions do not sum to 100.0 because a given respondent could report multieie tests.

each of the 7 clusters. Because of the same nonindependence issue in the data described above for gender comparisons, separate chi-square tests were performed for each cluster type and are reported in Table 5 . Romantic potential relationships were more likely to employ Separa- tion Tests and Indirect Suggestion Tests than were the platonic and romantic relationship types.

DISCUSSION

Through a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, we developed a set of 14 types of information acquisition strategies that were also perceived by members of the respondent population, by which people determine the state of their opposite-sex relationships. These 14 strategy types were further reduced to 7 clusters of strategies, with some discrepancy between our “outsider” organizing framework and the “insider” organizing framework of the undergraduate participants. Given the grounding of the current study in ethnographic and social cognition perspectives, we opted for insider perceptions above our own in assessing reported strategy use as a function of respondent gender and relationship type. After all, it was the use of the strategies by our research participants that was of interest, and their actions were guided by their own perceptual frames, not ours.

The participants’ perceptions were also configured through MDS analysis, producing two apparent underlying dimensions by which the strategy types and clusters were perceptually organized: Direct/ Indirect

Baxter, Wilmot / S E C R E T T E S T S 195

TABLE 4

Summary of Proportion of Males and Females Reporting Self-Enacted Test Types

Cluster Label Chi-square

Males Females Value‘

- ** Asking Third Party 7.5 10.0 Triangle Tests 7.5 28 .O 4.83*** Directness Tests 25 .O 12.0 1.76 Separation Tests 10.0 30.0 4.19*** Endurance Tests 15.0 20.0 .1 1 Public Presentation 2.5 2.0 Indirect Suggestion 20.0 24.0 .04

- *I

*All chi-square tests Include Vate’s correction with 1 df. **Chl-square violatlon with more than 20% of cells wlth expected frequency less than 5 . * * * p < .05.

and Interactive/Not Interactive. However, the relatively informal procedure brought to bear in labeling these two underlying dimensions should lead to caution in their acceptance. Subsequent work needs to employ more structured methods, such as rating scales, to determine the dimensions of strategy perceptions. Nonetheless, these two dimensions have been noted by others. The Interactive/ Not Interactive dimension appears to correspond to the distinction between active and interactive strategies made by Berger and his colleagues in their work on information acquisition strategies (see Berger & Bradac, 1982). And the Direct/ Indirect dimension has been posited as a universal feature of communicative behavior (Brown & Levinson, 1978).

The repertoire of information acquisition strategies that people employ to discern the state of their opposite-sex relationships can aptly be referred to as secret tests given the relatively low proportion of Stage 1 respondents who reported direct strategies. Perhaps the interview procedure of Stage 1 biased respondents against reporting straight- forward relationship talk in its use of the term test. However, the apparent pervasiveness of secret tests is consistent with extant work in metacommunication that suggests that direct relationship talk is an infrequent phenomenon (Cline, 1979; Wilmot, 1980).

The widespread reporting of Endurance Tests and Triangle Tests by Stage 1 respondents perhaps suggests that these are the most likely “scripted”strategies that will be called up when a person is experiencing relational uncertainty. On the assumption that secret tests are framed in


TABLE 5

Summary Proportions of Relationship Types Reporting Test Types

Romantic Chi-square Cluster Label Platonic Potential Roman tic Value

Asking Third Parties a .3 a .o 15.1 - Triangle Tests 16.7 28 .o 34.0 1.46 Directness Tests 16.7 16.0 22.6 .56 Separation Tests 8.3 44.0 17.0 8.67** Endurance Tests 41.7 32.0 32.1 .43 Public Presentation 8.3 4.0 5.7 - * Indirect Suggestion 16.7 52.0 17.0 12.85""' - *Chi-square violation with more than 20% of the cells havlng expected frequenctes less than 5. * * p < .05. * * *p < .01. underlying relationship schemata, these secret test types perhaps suggest that fidelity and loyalty at all costs are salient attributes in these respondents' opposite-sex relationship schemata. However, one cannot dismiss the possibility that these test types were reported by many simply because of a method artifact. By asking Stage 1 respondents to report test instances retrospectively, interviewers were likely to solicit only the most salient and memorable examples (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). Certainly, jealousy and escalated relational costs are likely to be memorable.

In turning to the hypotheses and research questions, it is apparent that the first hypothesis was supported. Both Stage 1 and Stage 2 typologies contain features similar to those discussed in existing work (Snyder, 198 1; Berger & Bradac, 1982). Several of the specific secret test categories replicate strategies noted in extant research; specifically, Asking Third Parties, Direct Questioning, Testing Limits, and Self- Disclosures. At a more general level passive, active, and interactive features are also evident in the secret test types. Fidelity Checks and Physical Separation Tests may be either passive or active in nature, depending on whether the actor takes advantage of conditions already present or proactively creates appropriate circumstances for the tests. Asking Third Parties, Triangle Tests, Separation Tests, and Public Presentation Tests are likely to involve proactive environmental structuring of one kind or another. Last, Directness Tests, Endurance Tests, and Indirect Suggestion Tests are characterized by their interactive quality. 'Thus, all of the features posited by Berger and his colleagues have emerged in the secret test strategies, and several of the specific strategies have emerged as well.


On the face of it, then, it would appear that the information acquisition strategies do generalize across different logical types of information-knowledge about an individual person in extant work and knowledge of the state of the relationship in the current study. However, a closer examination of the secret tests indicates that most were strategies directed at understanding an individual-level phenomenon-another person’s attitudes and feelings toward the relationship. With the possible exception of the Separation Tests, actors did not test the relationship as a unit; rather, the other party was tested. To test the relationship as a unit, a person would have to consider jointly enacted actions by the two parties.

The second hypothesis was partially supported. Females reported significantly more self-attributed secret tests than did males. However, females and males did not differ in the number of secret tests attributed to their relationship partner. The use of tests by females more than by males may reflect their greater relationship monitoring that was referenced in the first part of the article. It is through secret tests that females monitor a relationship’s pulse. Furthermore, one might expect the monitoring female to report more tests by her partner, whereas there were no differences between males and females in attributing tests to the other. This may be accounted for in two ways. First, females are more relationally attuned, but males use fewer tests. The net result is no difference because the less attuned males do not perceive the presence of more tests by the females, and the more sensitive females have fewer male tests to identify. Or, alternatively, it may simply be that secret tests are so secret that the test recipient does not categorize the behavior as a test, thereby obviating any male-female differences in detection of tests.

The third hypothesis was supported. Relationships in transition between platonic and romantic types had the largest number of secret tests. This finding may reflect the high uncertainty that characterizes a relationship undergoing change. However, the uncertainty may be intensified for opposite-sex relationships that are shrouded in a “sexual agenda” (Rawlins, 1982) that complicates the platonic-romantic transformation.

In response to the first research question, gender differences were noted on the type of secret test reported. Females more often than males reported use of Triangle Tests and Separation Tests. The difference on Separation Tests may be a function of the lingering belief that males, not females, should be relationship initiators. And the difference on


Triangle Tests may be a by-product of gender socialization difference in which boys function easily in social groups of three or more, whereas girls organize their social network in dyads and experience greater difficulty with triads or larger social units (Maltz & Borker, 1982). However, no significant difference emerged in the use of Directness Tests. When the topic is the state of the relationship, females do not appear to display the openness identified with them in other communication situations.

The second research question received an affirmative response as well. Romantic potential relationships were more likely than platonic or romantic relationships to display two test types, Separation Tests and Indirect Suggestion Tests. The more widespread use of separation- related tests is understandable given that the parties are probably still in the process of negotiating time together versus time apart. Unlike in established relationships, the failure to initiate contact may still be a relatively common behavior that allows the test to be secret and, thus, safe. Indirect tests, such as joking and hinting, also appear to be relatively low-risk secret tests. Relationships undergoing change are likely to be fragile, with the parties unwilling to engage in risky behavior.

Directions for subsequent work are several. First, it would be useful to determine the extent to which people display Snyder’s (1981) confirmatory bias in their testing behavior. If a person wants to see evidence of transformation to a romantic relationship, will biased tests be employed that make it more difficult for the other party to “fail’? Second, as noted above, it would be useful to determine whether and how people test their relationship as a unit in contrast to acquiring information about the other party’s feelings. Third, research should consider possible links between the underlying relationship schemata that people hold and their secret testing behavior; secret tests may provide rich meta-information about the beliefs that people have about relationships.

NOTE

1. We recognize that relationships can also experience a transition from romantic to platonic status. However, as Duck (1982) has observed, former romantic partners may describe their status as one of friendship for purposes of public “gravedressing” only. Because of the difficulty in distinguishing actual friendship from grave-dressing friendship, we avoided this form of relationship transition.


REFERENCES

BAILEY, K. D. (1974). Cluster analysis. In D. R. Heise (Ed.), Sociologicalmethodology 1975. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

BAXTER, L. A. (1984). An investigation of compliance-gaining as politeness. Human Communication Research, 10,427-456.

BAXTER, L. A., & WILMOT, W. W. (in press). “‘Taboo topics’in close relationships: An exploratory investigation.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

BERGER, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the development of interpersonal relationships. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.

BERGER, C. R. (1982). Social cognition and the development of interpersonal relationships: The quest for social knowledge. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Personal Relationships, Madison, WI.

BERGER, C. R. & BRADAC, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal relations. London: Arnold.

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. 99-1 12.

BERGER, C. R., & DOUGLAS, W. (1981). Studies in interpersonal epistemology, 111: Anticipated interaction, self-monitoring, and observational context selection. Commu- nication Monographs, 48, 183-196.

BERGER, C. R., GARDNER, R. R., CLATTERBUCK, G. W., & SCHULMAN, L. S. (1976). Perceptions of information sequencing in relationship development. Human Communication Research, 3, 29-46.

BERGER, C. R., & KELLERMANN, K. A. (1983). To ask or not to ask Is that a question? In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook 7. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

BEKGER, C. R., & PERKINS, J. W. (1978). Studies in interpersonal epistemology, I: Situational attributes in observational context selection. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook 2. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

BERGER, C. R., & PERKINS, J. W. (1979). Studies in interpersonal epistemology, II: Selfmonitoring, involvement, facial affect, similarity. and observational context selection. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.

BROWN, P., & LEVINSON, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.

BULMER, M. (1979). Concepts in the analysis of qualitative data. Sociological Review,

CLINE, T. (1979). A Markhov analysis of strangers’, room-mates’,and married couples’ conversational focus on their relationships. Southern Speech Communication Jour- nal, 45, 55-68.

DUCK, S. (1982). A typology of relationship disengagement and dissolution. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationship 4: Dissolving personal relationships. New York: Academic.

27, 651-677.


FISHMAN, P. (1978). Interaction: The work women do. Social Problems, 25, 397-406. FORGAS, J. P. (1981). Social cognition: Perspectives in everyday understanding. New

GILLIGAN, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. HARVEY, J. H., ICKES, W., & KIDD, R. F. (1976). New directions in affriburion

HARVEY, J. H., ICKES, W., & KIDD, R. F. (1978). New directions in attribution

HARVEY, J. H., ICKES, W., & KIDD, R. F. (1981). New directions in attribution

HEIDER, F. (1958). Thepsychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley. HIGGINS, E. T., HERMAN, C. P., & ZANNA, M. P. (1981). Social cognition: The

HILL, C. T., RUBIN, Z., & PEPLAU, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of

HOPPER, R. (1981). The taken-for-granted. Human Communication Research, 7,

ISAAC, R., & POOR, D. (1974). On the determination of appropriate dimensionality in data with error. Psychometrika, 39, 91-109.

JICK, T. D. (1983). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Qualirative methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

JONES, E. E., & DAVIS, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychotogy. New York: Academic.

KELLERMANN, K. A., & BERGER, C. R. (1984). Affecr and the acquisition of social information: Sit back, relax. and tell me about yourself: Paper presented at the International Communication Association Convention, San Francisco.

KELLEY, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

KELLY, G. H. (1955). The psychology ofpersonal constructs. New York: Academic. KNAPP, M. L. (1984). Interpersonal communication and human relationships. Boston:

Allyn & Bacon. KRIPPENDORFF, K. (1980). Clustering. In P. R. Monge & J. N. Cappella (Eds.),

Multivariate techniques in human communication research. New York: Academic. KRUSKAL, J . B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a

nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 3-10. KRUSKAL, J . B., & CARMONE, F. (1971). How to use M-D-SCAL (version SM) and

other useful information. Murray Hill, NJ: Bell Telephone Laboratories. KURTH, S. (1970). Friendships and friendly relations. In G. McCall et al., Social

relationships. Chicago: Aldine. MALTZ, D. N., & BORKER, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female

miscommunication. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and social identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

NISBETT, R. E., & ROSS, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

PARKS, M. R., & ADELMAN, M. B. (1983). Communication networks and the development of romantic relationships: An expansion of uncertainty reduction theory. Human Communication Research, 10, 55-79.

York: Academic.

research (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.



Ontario symposium (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues. 32, 147-167.

195-211.


PEPLAU, L. A. (1983). Roles and gender. In H. H. Kelleyet al., Closerelationships. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

POOLE, M. S., & FOLGER, J. P. (1979). A model for establishing the representational validity of interaction coding schemes, opus I: Do we see what they see? Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.

RAPOPORT, A., & FILLENBAUM, S. (1972). An experimental study of semantic structures. In A. K. Romney, R. N. Shepard, & S. B. Nerlove (Eds.), Multidimensional scaling: Theory and applications in the behavioral sciences (Vol. 2). New York: Seminar Press.

RAWLINS, W. (1982). Cross-sex friendship and the communicative management of sex-role expectations. Communication Quarterly, 30, 343-352.

ROLOFF, M. E., & BERGER, C. R. (1982). Social cognition and communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

SHEPARD, R. N. (1972). A taxonomy of some principal types of data and of multidimensional methods for their analysis. In R. N. Shepard, A. K. Romney, & S. B. Nerlove (Eds.), Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and applications in the behavioral science (Vol. 1). New York: Seminar Press.

SHERMAN, C. R. (1972). Nonmetric MDS: A Monte Carlo study of the basic parameters. Psychometrika, 37,323-355.

SNYDER, M. (1981). Seek and ye shall find: Testing hypotheses about other people. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

SNYDER, M., & CAMPBELL, B. (1980). Testing hypotheses about other people: The role of the hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6,421-426.

SNYDER, M., & CANTOR, N. (1979). Testing hypotheses about other people: The use of historical knowledge. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 330-342.

SNYDER, M., & SWANN, W. B., Jr. (1978a). Behavioral confirmation in social interaction: From social perception to social reality. Journal of Experimental Social

SNYDER, M., & SWANN, W. B., Jr. (1978b). Hypothesis-testing processes in social

SPRADLEY, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York Holt, Rinehart &

SPSS, Inc. (1983). SPSSX: User’s guide. New York: McGraw-Hill. TROPE, Y., & BASSOK, M. (1982). Confirmatory and diagnosing strategies in social

information gathering. Journal of Personality and Sociaf Psychology, 43, 22-34. WATZLAWICK, P., BEAVIN, J., & JACKSON, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human

communication. New York: Norton. WILMOT, W. (1979). Dyadic communication (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. WILMOT, W. (1980). Metacommunication: A re-examination and extension. In D.

Nmmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 4. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. WILMOT, W., & BAXTER, L. (1984). Definingrelationships: The interplay of cognitive

schemata and communication. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Western Speech Communication Association, Seattle, WA.

YOUNG, F. W. (1970). Nonmetric MDS: Recovery of metric information. Psycho- metrika, 35,455-473.

Psychology, 14, 148- 162.

interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1202-1212.

Winston.

本文献由“学霸图书馆-文献云下载”收集自网络，仅供学习交流使用。

学霸图书馆（www.xuebalib.com）是一个“整合众多图书馆数据库资源，

提供一站式文献检索和下载服务”的24 小时在线不限IP

图书馆。

图书馆致力于便利、促进学习与科研，提供最强文献下载服务。

图书馆导航：

图书馆首页文献云下载图书馆入口外文数据库大全疑难文献辅助工具

http://www.xuebalib.com/cloud/

http://www.xuebalib.com/

http://www.xuebalib.com/cloud/


http://www.xuebalib.com/vip.html

http://www.xuebalib.com/db.php

http://www.xuebalib.com/zixun/2014-08-15/44.html


Documents

“SECRET TESTS” Social Strategies for Acquiring Information ...download.xuebalib.com/xuebalib.com.47929.pdf · Social Strategies for Acquiring Information About the State of the