2.2 What is subtle about social interaction?  (Page 16/26)

Mutuality of control

A final theme involving interactional processes emphasizes the ways relational partners struggle to negotiate the parameters of the relationship that play out in day-to-day interactions. These discussions may explicitly or implicitly involve issues of control and dominance or the management of disagreements. Ideally, the interactions lead to mutual acceptance or general agreement about specific decisions and the way in which those decisions are reached. This mutuality refers to partners having a shared understanding of the way their relationship works.

One specific kind of mutuality, control mutuality, reflects consensus in the relationship about who is to take charge of specific relational issues. Indvik and Fitzpatrick Indvik, J., and Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1986). Perceptions of inclusion, affiliation, and control in five interpersonal relationships. Communication Quarterly, 34, 1–13. (1986) noted that control involves relational partners' ability to influence one another. Canary and Stafford Canary, D. J., and Stafford, L. (1994). Maintaining relationships through strategic and routine interactions. In D. J. Canary and L. Stafford (Eds.), Communication and relational maintenance (pp. 3–22). New York: Academic. (1994) defined control mutuality as the “extent to which couples agree on who has the right to influence the other and establish relational goals” (p. 6). They believed that information about control mutuality, along with trust, liking, and commitment, can be used to assess the nature of an interpersonal relationship and its stability.

This area includes legitimacy or the acceptance of one's partner's right to be controlling or domineering, exclusivity or the partner's commitment to the relationship regardless of control issues, and dependence or the recognition of the partners' interdependence in establishing control (Indvik and Fitzpatrick, 1986). Individuals in a relationship can exert control in ways that are adaptive and collaborative or they can manipulate both verbal and nonverbal messages to increase their own control of the interaction. Canary and Stafford (1994) maintained that a lack of “control mutuality or unilateral control is displayed in domineering behaviors” (p. 6) that are less productive for long-term relationships.

Dominance has been conceptualized as encompassing both verbal and nonverbal behaviors that are “recognized and interpreted by observers as part of an interactant's attempt to increase his/her control of an interaction” (Brandt Brandt, D. R. (1980). A systematic approach to the measurement of dominance in human face-to-face interaction. Communication Quarterly, 28, 31–43. , 1980, p. 32). Relational dominance has been characterized as “an emergent property of social interaction” and as having an immediate “relational impact” at the time the behavior was enacted during some “critical moment in the interaction” (Palmer and Lack Palmer, M. T., and Lack, A. M. (1993). Topics, turns, and interpersonal control using serial judgment methods. The Southern Communication Journal, 58, 156–168. , 1993, p. 167). This suggests that dominance or control can be a product of the interaction between relational partners where one partner demonstrates her or his ability to exercise power, as well as a product of the other partner's reactions to the dominance (Berger Berger, C. R. (1994). Power, dominance, and social interaction. In M. L. Knapp and G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 450–507). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. , 1994). This reaction informs the perpetrator about her or his own ability to exercise control or domination. Outcomes of this process might include legitimate power (the right to influence others based on one's status or role), linguistic power (providing reasonable explanations for the right to influence others), expert power (having specialized knowledge), referent power (others wanting to identify with the person), reward power (having the ability to meet others' needs), or coercive power (the ability to shape others' behavior; Berger, 1994).