Imagined Interactions and memorable messages

EdwardsHoneycuttZagacki.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Philosophy homework help >Imagined Interactions and memorable messages

Westem Journal of Speech Communication, 52 (Winter 1988), 23-45

Imagined Interaction as an Element of Social Cognition

RENEE EDWARDS, JAMES M. HONEYCUTT, and KENNETH S. ZAGACKI

The notion of "imagined interaction" is introduced as part ofthe social cognition process. Imagined interactions serve several functions including rehearsal for anticipated en- counters. Results ofa study indicate that imagined interactions tend to occur before real interactions, are dominated by the self, and are equally pleasant and unpleasant. Topics and partners are primarily relational. Imagined interactions may be dysfunctional for lonely individuals. Findings are related to theories of interpersonal communication and cognitive structuring, and implications for future studies are evaluated.

A N ASSUMPTION GUIDING MUCH COMMUNICATION RESEARCH is t h a t COm- / imunicat ion behavior is accompanied by social cognition. It is clear, for example, that social actors organize ongoing communicative interac- tion (Duval & Wicklund, 1972; Turner, 1978; Snyder, 1974,1979; Taylor & Fiske, 1978). Likewise, communicators appear to actively construct their realities by employing cognitive attitude structures (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), implicit theories (Heider, 1958; Kelly, 1955; Schutz, 1932; Piaget, 1932; Wegner & Vallacher, 1977; Jones & Davis, 1965), and cognitive scripts or schemas (Schank & Abelson, 1977; Tesser, 1978; Tversky & Kahneman, 1980; Shweder, 1975). Research has also explored how communicators monitor various situational stimuli, matching message strategies to situational constraints prior to message sending (McLaughlin, Cody, & O'Hair, 1983; Sillars 1980). Other studies have explored the role of social cognition during deception (Greene, O'Hair, Cody, & Yen, 1985), initial interaction (Douglas, 1984), persuasion (Smith, 1982) and group decision-making (Poole, 1983).

While this research has added to our general understanding of social cognition and its relationship to message production, interpretation Eind storage, little is known about the content of cognitive experiences preceding and following communicative encounters. This essay considers the role of "imagined interactions" in message selection and interpreta- tion. We suggest that the concept of imagined interaction captures a

RENEE EDWARDS, JAMES M. HONEYCUTT, and KENNETH S. ZAGACKI are Assis- tant Pr(^es8ar8 of Speech Conununicatian, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, 70803. Author order is alphabetical.

24 Western Journal of Speech Communication

dimension ofthe pre-communicative, cognitive process qualitatively dif- ferent from those discussed in present models. Further, we report the results of a study that indicates the prevalence of imagined interactions and relates them to various communicative functions.

A Definition of Imagined Interaction

Imagined interactions are different from cognitive decision-making. In cognitive decision-making, actors examine cognitive structures for appropriate message behaviors. Actors do not "imagine" or "represent" interactions as they expect them to occur; they match appropriate behaviors to situational contingencies in an "if-then" fashion. Imagined interaction refers to a related process of cognition whereby actors imag- ine themselves in interaction with others. Imagined interactions may precede, follow, or even help constitute the decision-making process. Imagined interactions are in principle different from decision-making processes insofar as they involve the actor in an imagined "strip" of ex- perience, in dialogue with anticipated others. As such, they reflect a distinct kind of thinking in which communicators experience or actually work through cognitive representations of conversation.

The notion of imagined interactions is derived from work in symbolic interaction. Mead (1934), for instance, cited an individual's ability to monitor social action as a distinguishing mark of human intelligence. He showed that individuals can have present, "in terms of attitudes or implicit responses, the alternative possible overt completions of any given act in which we are involved" (p. 117). This process is part of what Mead called one's internal conversation with oneself. These intemal dialogues may involve taking the role of others in an effort to see ourselves as others see us. This sort of pre-communicatlve mental re- hearsal, explain Manis and Meltzer (1978), "is a peculiar type of activ- ity that goes on in the experience of the person. The activity is that of the person responding to himself, of indicating things to himself (p. 21). Mead adds that such activity is essential to the constitution ofthe self, since one is provided information about how one would behave in a par- ticular social situation. This type of mental activity is important, because one may consciously take the role of others, imagining how they might respond to one's messages within particular situations, and thus one can imagine and test the consequences of altemative messages prior to communication.

Rosenblatt and Meyer (1986) have applied Mead's notion to counsel- ing situations. They suggest that imagined interactions possess many ofthe traits of real conversations: they may be fragmentary, extended, rambling, repetitive, or coherent. Actors in imagined interactions may control conversations or relinquish control to imagined others. Imag- ined interactions occur frequently during the courae of an actor's day. Most involve actors in conversation with significant others, such as fam- ily members, close friends, intimates, or work partners. We extend

Winter 1988 25

Rosenblatt and Meyer's conceptualization by proposing that imagined interactions are attempts to simulate real-life conversations with signifi- cant others.' Although imagined interactions may not picture fully the context of actual (or recalled) conversation, we believe individuals can accurately represent many of the physical and socio-emotional elements which are a part of real interaction.

Cognition and Imagined Interactions

Imagined interactions may be related to other cognitive processes in several ways. They may achieve the general function of developing or activating cognitive scripts or procedural records. Kellennann (1984) argues that the method by which cognitive scripts are acquired has received little attention. We suggest that individuals develop scripts par- tially through imagined interactions. Like scripts, imagined interactions may be abstractions of an ongoing stream of behavior which function to extract and store themes or central tendencies. These interactions may not be accurate renderings of real conversation. They may be both functional and dysfunctional. Nevertheless, engaging in imagined in- teractions may help assemble information for later script development or alteration.

Imagined interactions are probably similar to what Kellermann calls collections of "vignettes," or representations of events of short duration, "much like a panel in a cartoon strip where a visual image is accom- panied by a verbal caption" (p. 3). A coherent collection of vignettes forms a script, "much as the panels of a cartoon strip form a story" (p. 3; see also Abelson, 1976). As one engages in imagined interaction, a series of ttirn-taking or topic changes may correspond to panel (vignette) changes. An imagined interaction may progress like a cartoon, in logical sequence from one topic to the next. Like the cartoon reader, an in- dividual having an imagined interaction is afforded the luxury of mov- ing back and forth over the panel, even "rewriting" the strip if ap- propriate. The analogy to cetrtoon strips is important to understanding imagined interactions. For like these strips, imagined interactions may be visual and verbal. Moreover, interactants may possess, like cartoon characters, powers of conversational control (e.g., mind-reading, time- travel, pause) not afforded real-life interlocutors.

Imagined interactions, like scripts and vignettes, may provide infor- mation for actors to utilize during real conversation. This information- production function of cognition is what Greene (1984) attends to in his discussion of procedural records. Greene argues that much cognitive reseEirch assumes that cognitive systems have developed to facilitate action (see also Norman, 1980). As a kind of cognitive infonnation bank, a procedural record specifies certain communicative actions associated )wth particular outcomes. Procedural records provide infonnation about interaction goals and related behaviors. We propose that as individuals engage in imagined interaction, they activate (and perhaps reconstitute)

26 Western Journal of Speech Communication

procedural records which may inform behavior related to specific situa- tional exigencies.

Imagined Interactions and Interpersonal Communication

Imagined interactions may function most importantly to maintain relationships. For example, Duck (1980) has recommended that interper- sonal research move "outside" direct relational encounters, focusing on the time interactants spend "alone "replaying" relational events,... plan- ning future encounters, even fantasising about likely or possible (or im- possible) futinres for the relationship" (p. 118). If Duck is correct, it may be that important determinants of relational development occiir outside immediate conversation as imagined interactions. Rosenblatt and Meyer (1986) broaden the function of imagined interaction to include aiding •^he clarification of thinking.. . dealing with unfinished and emergent relationship business . . . preparing for a possibly difficult interaction, and . . . dealing with opposing aspects of self (p. 319). In short, imag- ined interactions may clarify one's expectations and interpretations of future and/or past interpersonal encounters.

Although imagined interactions may play a significant role in the development of social cognitions and serve a variety of functions, no systematic investigation has explored these issues. In the present study we address several research questions about imagined interactions. Of initial importance is the question of whether individuals actually ex- perience them. Thus we ask:

RQl. Do individuals report experiencing imagined interactions on a regular basis?

If individuals experience imagined interactions regularly, and if they perfonn important cognitive functions, then it is important to identify the characteristics of imagined interactions, such as with whom they occur, what topics are discussed, where they take place and their ac- companying emotions. This leads us to ask:

RQ2. What are the features of imagined interactions? Additional questions address the function(s) of imagined interactions.

If imagined interactions play a role in the development or activation of procedural records (Greene, 1984), they should serve an important rehearsal function (Rosenblatt & Meyer, 1986). As such, imagined in- teractions should bridge the gap between activation and action by pro- viding actors with a fully developed cognitive experience of a com- municative event. Communicators may also use imagined interactions to relive past encounters, perhaps to identify alternative courses of ac- tion which would have led to different outcomes (Rosenblatt & Meyer, 1986). Consequently, we ask:

RQ3. Are imagined interactions more likely to precede or follow an important actual interaction?

Mead (1934) addresses the development ofthe self through internal dialogue, while Rosenblatt and Meyer (1986) posit that imagined inter-

Winter 1988 27

actions function to help the actor obtain greater insight into his or her feelings. Both approaches suggest the importance of examining the level of self-involvement versus other-involvement in imagined interactions. Thus:

RQ4. Does the self or other dominate the talk in imagined interactions?

The emotional nature and tone of imagined interactions should also provide insight into how they function. If they are more commonly associated with conflict, they may serve primarily to help commimicators cope with problems in actual life; more pleasant imagined interactions may be more escapist. Therefore, we ask;

RQ5. Are imagined interactions more pleeisant or unpleasant? While imagined interactions may serve a rehearsal function, they

may not correspond to what actually happens. A conversational part- ner may not respond as imagined, forcing one to adjust or to continue an unworkable procedural record (Greene, 1984). On the other hand, individuals may be so skilled in anticipating the other's responses in imagined interactions that actual interactions do not differ from them. This leads to:

RQ6. When an actual interaction follows an imagined interaction, do the actual statements of the other differ more from their imagined counterparts than do the actual statements of the self?

We share with Duck (1980) the belief that many important deter- minants of relational development occur outside immediate conversa- tion and we suggest that imagined interactions may be part of this covert process of relational maintenance. On this basis, the following hypotheses are generated: Hi: Individuals will report that many of their im.agined interaction

topics deal with relational issues. H2: Individuals will report that many of their imagined interactions

occur with relational partners. A final research question addresses the relationship between imag-

ined interaction auid loneliness. Lonely individuals experience emotional distress as a result of a lack of social contact. They report not having intimates accessible with whom they can discuss personal problem.s, and they are characterized as less assertive and nonresponsive com- municators. Bell (1985) found that lonely individuals are also less com- petent during initial encounters than non-lonely individuals. Because actual communication varies with an individual's loneliness, imagined interaction may vary as well. Lonely individuals may experience more frequent imagined interactions because they are not experiencing ac- tuEil interactions. On the other hand, if imagined interactions function primarily as rehearsal for actual interactions, those individuals with less actual contact may have fewer imagined interactions.

28 Western Journal of Speech Communication

Thus loneliness may be associated with either heightened or reduced imagined interaction activity.

Loneliness may EIISO affect other aspects of imagined interactions. Non-lonely individuals may use imagined interactions primarily for rehearsal and review of actual conversations, while lonely people may experience them as substitutes for actual communication. Finally, the extent to which imagined interactions develop scripts or procedural records may be affected by loneliness. Scripts developed by lonely in- dividuals in their imagined interactions may not assist them with their actual interactions; those developed by non-Ionely individuals may he more helpful when preparing for real interactions.

Although existing theory and research do not provide a sufficient basis for making directionad predictions, loneliness should be associated with imagined interaction and its characteristics. Exploring the nature of the relationship will provide greater imderstanding of imagined in- teraction and its functions, as well as suggest underlying processes which promote loneliness. As a result, we propose a final research question:

RQ8. What are the relationships between imagined interaction and loneliness?

METHOD

Questionnaire Development

Because the only method for measuring imagined interactions is self report, a questionnaire was developed to examine occurrence and characteristics of imagined interactions, as described by individuals who experience them. Items were developed by examining what others had Avritten about imagined interactions (Rosenblatt & Meyer, 1986) and fii^m discussions of the concept with various graduate students and with undergraduates enrolled in interpersonal communication courses. These conversations were largely informal, and elicited students' perceptions of imagined interactions based on their own and their friends' ex- periences. For example, our students told us that they did have imag- ined interactions, especially before meetings with their professors, job interviews, and important dates. Based on these conversations, an in- strument was constructed which taps attitudes and experiences with imagined interactions.

The Survey of Imagined Interaction

The siuTrey instrument first presented respondents with a moderately detailed written introduction. Imagined interactions were defined for respondents as "those "mental' interactions we have with others who are not physically present." The introduction then described some "^ssible" characteristics of imagined interactions (e.g., "they may be ambiguous or detailed'^ and requested demographic information from the respon-

Winter 1988 29

dents. The remainder of the questionnaire was divided into two major sections.

Section 1 consisted of 21 statements about imagined interactions to which subjects responded on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from "very strong agreement" to "very strong disagreement." These items measured the frequency of having imagined interactions, whether they occur before or after interacting with others of importance, how deteiiled they are, how much the self and other talk in the interaction, if they tend to he plefLsant or full of conflict, their function in clarifying thoughts and feelings, their usefulness as a rehearsal device, and their similar- ity to actual interactions. The purpKjse of these items was to create a broad picture of imagined interaction, so that later research can focus on si)ecific features of imagined interactions.

Section 2 of the instrument consisted primarily of a series of open- ended questions about imagined interactions. First, subjects listed general topics of their imagined interactions. Next they listed the general relational partners with whom they imagine interactions. Then they were told to think of a specific imagined interaction they had ex- perienced, to indicate the topic and relational partner, and to identify^ when and where they had experienced it. Subjects were instructed to reconstruct the imagined interaction they recalled, and write out sam- ple lines of dialogue from it. They were asked to list the emotions they experienced from the interaction, etnd they completed ten closed-ended items which measured satisfaction with the imagined interaction. The ten items were adapted from Hecht's (1978) Communication Satisfac- tion Inventory.

Administration

The instrument was administered to several sections of an introduc- tory course in interpersonal communication at a large southern univer- sity. All participation was voluntary. Some respondents completed the instrument during class time, while others did not. Some received class credit for pjirticipating while others did not.

Respondents to the survey also completed the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russell, Peplau & Cutrona, 1980) within several days of responding to the survey of imagined interaction. This instrument was voluntary and was completed during class time; no participants received class credit.

A total of 70 subjects responded to both instruments. Subjects ranged in age from 17 to 62 with 22 being the mean age. The sample consisted of 48 percent males and 52 percent females.

Content Analysis

All responses to the open-ended questions in the Survey of Imagined Interaction were content anedyzed. Two undergraduate coders assisted

30 Western Journal of Speech Communication

with category development and coded the data. Categories for each open- ended question were created by transferring approximately 50% ofthe iten^ onto notecards. The coders individually sorted the cards into stacks and then worked together to integrate their category systems. The systems are assumed to be valid for two reasons: first, they are based directly on the data provided by subjects; and second, the coders were similar to the subjects and should have comparable cognitive structures.

Seventeen variables were coded from the data: 1. General Topics. Subjects listed topics they discuss in their imagined interactions. "The topics were coded into 11 categories: conflicts/problems, dating, school, work/job, activities, family, money, friends, ex-partners, small talk, and miscellaneous. 2. General I.I. Partners. Subjects listed the relational partners with whom they have imagined interactions. Responses were coded into 10 categories: romantic partner, family member, friends, work/job related, roommates, people in authority, ex-partners, strangers, prospective part- ners/acquaintances, and miscellaneous. 3. Dialogue Partner. Subjects were asked to identify the partner with whom they had the imagined interaction which they reported. Dialogue partner was coded into the same categories as for General I.I. Partners. 4. Recency. Subjects indicated when they had their imagined interac- tion. Responses were coded into 5 categories: today, yesterday, up to 1 week ago, up to 2 weeks ago, over 2 weeks ago. 5. Location. Subjects identified where they had their imagined interac- tion. Responses were coded into 7 categories: respondent's home, part- ner's home, in bed, on the phone, public place, work setting, and miscellaneous. 6. Reported Topic. Subjects listed the topics they discussed in their dialogue protocols. Responses were coded into the same 11 categories as for General Topics. 7. & 8. First Line and Last Line. Coders identified whether the first and last lines provided in the dialogue protocol were spoken by the respon- dent (Self) or interaction partner (Other). 9. & 10. Self Lines and Other Lines. Coders counted the number of lines of dialogue spoken by the respondent (Self) and the dialogue partner (Other). 11. & 12. Self Words and Other Words. Coders counted the number of words spoken by the respondent (Self) and dialogue partner (Other). 13. & 14. Self Questions and Other Questions. Coders counted the num- ber of questions asked by each interactant. 15. Emotional Level Coders rated the level of emotional arousal within the dialogue protocols, coding it into three levels: strong, medium, and neutral. 16. Observed Topics. Coders categorized the topics they observed in the dialogue protocols, and coded them into the same categories as for General Topics.

Winter 1988 31

17. Reported Emotion. Subjects were asked to list the emotions they felt concerning the imagined interactions they provided. Responses were coded into three categories: negative, positive, and mixed. Mixed responses occurred when respondents provided both positive and negative emotions.

Statistical Analysis

The 21 items in the questionnaire addressing a wide variety of issues related to imagined interaction were submitted to elementary linkage analysis (McQuitty, 1957). Elementary linkage analysis is similar to Thurstonian factor analysis, except that it yields a typal structure in- stead of a simple structure. The goal in linkage analysis is to create a correlagram that graphically displays the degree of relatedness among variables under study (McQuitty, 1957). A decision rule is set for inclu- sion into a potential correlagram. Here, the 21 variable correlation matrix from the Survey of Imagined Interaction was examined. Using Tukey's (1977) exploratory data analysis techniques, we made a deci- sion rule that allowed correlation coefficients that were greater than or equal to .40 to be graphed. When rank ordering the correlations, coef- ficients above .40 represented outlying values away from the median. Once the central links were identified, we calculated peripheral links in the correlagram.

In addition to the linkage analysis, several ^tests tested for dif- ferences between characteristics, and correlations were calculated be- tween loneliness and imagined interaction characteristics. The content data were analyzed by providing frequencies for the responses to the open-ended questions, crosstabulating responses and computing Chi squares and f-tests where appropriate. Criterion sdpha was .05. Power (two-tailed alpha, medium effect size) ranged from .28 to .98 (mean power = .44).

RESULTS

Figure 1 displays the correlagram. Solid lines reveal stronger rela- tionships between variables and dotted lines reflect periphered links. Variable numbers reflect the different items from the survey. Three variables form a highly cohesive inner core: having imagined interac- tions frequently (VI), having imagined interactions that are detailed and well-developed (V4), and having recurrent imagined interactions with the same individual (V5). Three closely related features are that the imagined interactions serve a rehearsal function (V17), they occur before as well as after important encoimters (V2, V3), and they occur before evaluative situations CV12). Taken together, these emerge as a cluster reflecting "imagined interaction activity." When treated as a scale, the reliability for imagined interaction activity is adequate (Cron- bach's alpha = .79). This suggests that having imagined interactions IS a variable; it occvu's with vauying levels of frequency for different individuals.

32 Western Journal of Speech Communication

Figure 1. Correlagram reflecting imagined interaction "Activity" and "Discrepancy" measures.

Vl: Imagined interaction (I.I.) activity ^2 : Have 1.1. before important encounter V3: Have LL after important encounter V4: I.L's are well-developed

V5: Have recurrent LI.'s with the same individual Vl2: Have 1.1. before evaluative situations ^17: I.L's serve a rehearsal function

V18: LI.'s are discrepant from real interaction in terms of what I say Vl9: LI.'s are discrepant from real interaction in terms of what the other

individual says.

This interpretation is further supported by the dii3covery ofa simplex in the data (Guttman, 1968). If all ofthe variables in a correlation matrix can be displayed so that the coefficients in both the rows and columns are monotonically decreasing away from the diagonal, a simplex is in evidence; that is, if the values were plotted, a line would result that would not bend back on itself. The correlagram reveals a five-vari- able simplex. The simplex includes imagined interaction activity

Winter 1988 33

as one anchor and having them before evaltiative situations as the other anchor. The simplex also includes having recurrent imagined interac- tions with the same individual and having well-developed imagined interactions.

A second cluster emerged consisting of two vEu-iables. This cluster seems to reflect discrepancy between imagined interactions and real in- teractions. Subjects reported that what the self and other say in a real interaction is often different from what was imagined (V18, V19). This cluster has a peripheral relationship to having imagined interactions before important encounters.

Reliabilities for Loneliness and Imagined Interaction Satisfaction

Reliahility for the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale was .89, using Cronbach's alpha. In addition, the mean and dispersion of scores were comparable to the normative data provided by Russell, Peplau and Cutrona (1980), revealing that the full range of loneliness was represented in our sample.

Reliability for the 10-item meeisure of communication satisfaction was also good (Cronbach's alpha = .89). The mean score on imagined interaction satisfaction was 46.9 [s.d = 13.97).

Content Analysis Coding Reliabilities

Coder reliability was good. Both assistants coded approximately 20% of the total responses; reliability was computed using Scott's pi, a con- servative test. Reliability was .84 for Topics; .94 for Imagined Interac- tion Partners; .44 for Recency; .79 for Location; .90 for First Line; 1.00 for Last Line; and .70 for Reported Emotion. Correlations were computed for the interval level data. Reliability was .92 for Self Lines; 1.0 for Other Lines; .99 for Self Words; 1.0 for Other Words; 1.0 for Self Questions; 1.0 for Other Questions; and .85 for Emotional Level. Reliability checks were also performed after the coding was concluded and all estimates were comparable to the initial coefficients.

Frequencies

This section of the results provides the frequencies for category use of the content analyzed data. These data address the second research question: What are the features of imagined interactions?

General Topics. Table 1 lists the frequencies of the general topics of imagined interactions. Because respondents listed more than one topic, the table identifies percentage of responses and percentage of cases as well as frequencies for each topic. Percentage of responses refers to the proportion of all responses which occurred in that category. Percentage of cases refers to the proportion of respondents who reported that topic. Consequently, the percentage of responses column stuns to 100%, while the percentage of cases column totals more than 100%. The most

34 Western Journal of Speech Communication

commonly occtirring topic is dating, followed rather distantly by con- flicts/problems and work/job topics.

TABLE 1 Frequencies of General Topics of Imagined Interactions

Category Count % Responses % Cases

Dating Conflicts/Prohlems Work/Job Activities School Miscellaneous Friends Family/Home Money Smail Talk Ex-Partners Total Responses

43 28 25 23 20 18 16 10 6 4 2

195

22.1 14.4 12.8 11.8 10.3 9.2 8.2 5.1 3.1 2.1 1.0

100.0

61.4 40.0 35.7 32.9 28.6 25.7 22.9 14.3 8.6 5.7 2.9

278.6

Specific topics listed by respondents included "fight with my girlfriend," "school," "marriage," "dating," "how to start a conversation," "questioning a friend about a gift they received," and "money."

General Partners. Table 2 lists the frequencies for the relational part- ners in imagined interactions. Romantic partners are the most common, followed by family members and friends. Ex-partners, seldom mentioned in other research in communication, were reported by 16% of all respondents.

TABLE 2 Frequencies of General Imagined Interaction Partners

Category

Dating Conflicts/Problems Activities Work/Job Friends School Miscellaneous Small Talk Ex-Partners Family/Home Money Total Responses

Count

19 13

10 9

8 8 6

5 2

111

% Responses

27.0 17.1 11.7 9.0 8.1

7.2

7.2 5.4

4.5

1.8 0.9

100.0

% Cases

45.5 28.8 19.7 15.2 13.6 12.1 12.1

9.1

7.6 3.0 1.5

168.2

36 Western Journal of Speech Communication

Observed Topics. The most commonly observed topics (observed within the dialogue by liie coders rather than repoj-ted by the respondents) were dating and conflicts/problems, identical to the respondents' reported topics. In addition, other categories appeared with about the same frequency as for reported topics.

First Line and Last Line. The self initiated the dialogues 69% ofthe time; the partner initiated 31% of the dialogues. The self ended the dialogues (i.e., spoke the last line) 46% of the time; the partner, 54%.

Self Lines and Other Lines. The self ^oke an average of 2.8 lines; the other spoke 2.6.

Self Words and Other Words. The self spoke an average of 44 words p»er dialogue; the other spoke 27 words.

Self Questions and Other Questions. The self and other each asked an average of .7 questions per dialogue.

Emotional Level Over half the time (56%), the emotional level ofthe dialogues was strong, 20% of the time it was medium, and 25% it was neutral.

Reported Emotion, Positive and negative emotions were reported almost equally, occurring 21 and 22 times respectively. Mixed emotions (both positive and negative) were reported in 19% of the cases.

Additional Research Questions and Hypotheses

The third research question asked if imagined interactions are more likely to follow or precede important actual interactions. This question was addressed by comparing the means of variables from Section 1 of the survey. The results of the *-test were significant (p = .(X)0); means revealed that imagined interactions are more likely to occur before an actual interaction rather than after it (see Table 5).

The fourth research question concemed whether the self or other dominates the talk in imagined interaction. This question was answered by comparing means from items from Section 1 of the survey, and by comparing the levels of talk by self and other from the content analyzed data from Section 2. Based on the closed-ended items, the difference be- tween self and other talk was significant (p = .000); means revealed that the self talks more (see Table 5). Analyses ofthe protocol data provide the same result. T-tests (see Table 5) revealed that the self spoke more words and more lines than did the other. In addition, the self initiated the dialogue about 70% of the time (binomial probability = .006).

Research question five asked if imagined interactions are primeuily pleasant, or whether they involve conflicts and arguments. This ques- tion was addressed by comparing means of items from Section 1, and by analyzing the Reported Emotions listed by respondents in Section 2. The results from Section 1 suggest that imagined interactions are perhaps more pleasant than conflictual; the probability level weis less than .10 but did not satisfy criterion alpha of .05 (see Table 5). The con- tent anal}rzed data do not support ttus trend. As noted above, rrapondente

Winter 1988 37

reported about the same number of positive and negative emotions. In fact, many respondents provided both positive and negative emotions. For example, one respondent experienced a conflict with his girlfriend and then imagined their next conversation. The emotion he reported about the imagined interaction was "I was depressed and worried about the outcome and if everything would come out O.K." Another male imag- ined himself making a date with a girl he had just met; his emotional response was T was very excited £ind distressed at the possibility of hear- ing 'no.' It was pleasant to think the ideal situation I'd created would work out."

TABLE 5 Descriptive Statistics and Results of <-tests for Imagined Interaction Characteristics

Characteristic

Level of Talk by Self

Level of Talk by Other

Self Words in Dialogue

Other Words in Dialogue

Self Lines in Dialogue

Other Lines in Dialogue

Pleasantness of I.I.'s

LI.'s Full of Conflict

Have I.I. Before Actual Interaction

Have LI. After Actual Interaction

4.79

3.60

43.49

27.33

2.76

2.56

4.98

4.43

5.71

5.08

1.41

1.25

33.06

20.55

1.32

1.22

1.59

.87

1.46

4.77**

3.42**

2.11*

1.81

3.88**

Actual Talk of Self Different from Imagined Talk 4.87 1.50

63 0.00 Actual Talk of Other Different from Imagined Talk 4.87 1.31

*p<.05 **p<.01

The sixth research question examined whether actual statements of the self differ more from those experienced in imagined interaction than actual statements ofthe other. This comparison was tested using items from Section 1 ofthe instrument. Results reveal no significant difference; in fact, the means for the self and other were identical and strongly cor- related (r = .71) (see Table 5).

38 Western Journal of Speech Communication

Two hypotheses addressed a relational emphasis in imagined interac- tions. Both of these hj^potheses were tested by examining data from the content analysis. The first hypothesis predicted that the content of the dialogues would concern primarily relational issues and topics. Approx- imately 56% of the reported topics concemed dating, conflicts/problems in relationships, family, friends, and ex-partners; 44% concemed school, work, activities, money and small talk<see Table 1). The binomial prob- ability for this distribution is .000; the difference is statistically signifi- cant, although the effect size is small.

The other hypothesis predicted that most of the dialogue partners would be existing relational partners. This received strong support. Ap- proximately 75% of the dialogue partners were romantic partners, family members, friends and roommates, while only 25% were work related, people in authority, ex-partners, strangers or prospective relational part- ners (see Table 2; binomial probability = .000).

The final research question addressed the relationship between loneliness and imagined interaction. Data from both sections of the in- strument were used to test the relationship. Several variables from Sec- tion 1 were correlated with scores on the UCLA Loneliness Scale using two-tailed levels of significance (see Table 6).

TABLE 6 Correlations Between Imagined Interaction Characteristics and Loneliness

Imagined Interaction Characteristics^ r

Frequency of Imagined Interactions -.30* Tendency of the Self to Talk in Imagined Interactions -.11 Tendency of the Other to Talk in Imagined Interactions .24 Pleasantness of Imagined Interactions .07 Role of I.I.'s in Helping the Self Talk ahout Feelings or

Problems -.40** Use of LI.'s to Relieve Stress -.22 Role of I.I.'s in Building Confidence for Actual Interactions -.30* Use ofl.I.'s as Practice for Conversations -.09 Degree of Diiference in Other's Statements between

Imagined and Actual Interactions .29* Degree of Difference in Self s Statements between

Imagined aud Actual Interactions .24

^ft=53 for each characteristic *p<.QS **p<.01

The data revealed a weak negative correlation between loneliness and the tendency to have imagined interactions (r = -.30). Loneliness is also negatively correlated with imagined interactionfi actually help- ing the self talk about feelings or problems later in actual conversations

Winter 1988 39

(r = -.40), and with imagined interactions making the self feel more confident (r = -.30). There is a weak positive correlation between loneliness and the extent to which imagined statements by self and other differ from what is said in actual conversations. In other words, greater loneliness is associated with more difference hetween actual and imag- ined interactions; less loneliness is associated with less difference.

Loneliness was not significantly correlated with the tendency to talk more in imagined interactions, the pleasantness of imagined interac- tions, their usefulness in relieving tension and stress, or their function for practicing for actual conversations. There may he a weak positive correlation between loneliness and the tendency for the other person to talk in imagined interactions; however the correlation fails to achieve statistical significance ip = .089).

Loneliness was dichotomized (using a mean split) to compare lonely and non-lonely groups on some variables from Section 2 of the instru- ment. There was no difference between the two groups in their amount of talk (self lines, other lines, self words or other words). But lonely and non-lonely groups did differ significantly in their reported emotions {see Table 7). A Chi square test was computed on the crosstabulation of loneliness and emotion using only the negative and positive emotions; probability is less than .01 (chi square = 7.57; df= 1). Lonely and non- lonely groups also differ significantly in their level of satisfaction with imagined interactions (see Table 8). Lonely individuals experience less satisfaction and more negative emotions with their imagined interac- tions than do non-lonely individuals.

TABLE 7 Reported Emotions by Lonely and Non-lonely Individuals

Negative Positive Total

Lonely 13 Non-Lonely 6 Total 19

Chi Square = 7.57; p < .01

TABLE 8 T-test Between Lonely and Non-Lonely Individuals on Satisfaction with Dialogue

6 11 17

19 17 36

Group

Lonely^

41.57

51.32

10.30

10.61

3.39**

49.95

'te. H i^e r values represent greater satisfaction.

= 28 *>n = 25 **p < .01

40 Western Journal of Speech Communication

DISCUSSION

Imagined interactions vary in at least two significant ways. First, they vary in degree of activity. Some individuals experience more imag- ined interactions than others. These individuals consistently experience detailed imagined interactions with the same person. These imagined interactions occur before and after important encounters. Imagined in- teractions may be quite different from actual interactions and are af- fected hy individual characteristics, such as loneliness. Results suggest that imagined interaction activity is negatively correlated with loneliness; the less lonely an individual, the more likely he or she will experience imagined interactions.

Second, the functions of imagined interactions vary. ReheEirsal is a more common fxmction than review. Although individuals use imagined interactions to rehearse actual interactions, imagined interactions may not always successfully prepare individuals for real encounters. Loneli- ness, for example, is associated with a greater difference between real and actual interactions. Lonely individuals also report that imagined interactions are less useful for preparing for actual interactions. Thus in this study, lonely individuals appeared to experience more dysfunc- tional imagined interactions. Perhaps for lonely individuals, proceduretl records activated by imagined interactions fail to prepare them ade- quately for real interaction. Imagined interactions may be dysfunctional for lonely individuals because they fail to act on the basis of their pro- cedural records, or they idealize outcomes in their imagined interactions.

Another function proposed by Rosenblatt and Meyer (1986) and ad- dressed in this research is the use of imagined interactions to clarify one's thoughts and feelings. We found that the self dominates the talk in imagined interactions. This would seem to indicate that imagined interactions provide opportunities for individuals to express emotions and to obtain a greater sense of their feelings. This finding may lend support to Mead's (1934) notion that internal dialogue contributes to the development of self. The fact that imagined interactions may be dominated by "self " as opposed to others allows the self opportunities for direct introspection and greater self-awareness. These processes can, in tum, lead to greater self-development.

The domination of the self in imagined interactions is also consis- tent with literatiu^e on attribution theory. Attribution theorists have examined the fundamental attribution error in which there are actor- observer differences in accounting for the cause of behavior (Nisbett & Ross, 1979; Ross, 1977; Kelley & Michela, 1980). Research indicates that information about self is more available than information about others, and that the self is relatively unable to take the perspectives of others. Thus, individuals should process primarily their own role and thoughts in imagined interactions and to a lesser extent the roles and thoughts of others.

Winter 1988 41

The present study indicates that imagined interactions are one mechanism allowing individuals to plan and to measure social action. Imagined interactions allow for the rehearsal, and perhaps discovery, of situation dependent behaviors. Individuals may use imagined interac- tions to search for or practice behaviors relevant to anticipated conver- sations. But this rehearsal or discovery process may proceed from or even help constitute the procedural records hypothesized by Greene (1984). For example, imagined interactions may activate specific procedural records for dealing with relational situations. They may key individuals into particular verbal and nonverbal utterances relevant to attaining conversational goals. In one example, an individual described an imag- ined interaction where he informed his roommate that he was moving out. This respondent listed several detailed reasons for his decision. The most important reasons concemed the roommate's friendship violations. "1 cannot go on living with someone who is pretending to be my friend," explained the respondent. "I find it really hard to even call you a friend because of the way you have treated m e . . . . There was a time when I would have died for you and our friendship." In this case, the strategy of documenting several reasons for relational termination seemed to count as appropriate communicative behavior for dealing with a per- son who had violated friendship norms. We suggest that not only did the imagined interaction allow the respondent to rehearse his interac- tion with his roommate, but it may have represented the respondent's view (i.e., schema) of friendship and how one copes with violations of friendship (roommate) expectations.

The restilts of this study reveal that imagined interactions have rela- tional significance. For this population, the topics of imagined interac- tions are generally concerned with dating and with issues arising in relationships such as conflict. Imagined interactions tend to be vnth romantic partners, friends and family members, and occur more fre- quently with known relational partners than with unknown individuals. Thus, they occur with significant others rather than with acquaintances or strangers. Our data ofifer support for Duck's (1980) speculation that individuals spend time alone replaying relational events, analyzing future encounters and even imagining potential outcomes for a given relationship.

Not surprisingly, imagined interactions occur primarily with roman- tic partners. This is important because it means that "covert dialogues" (Knapp, 1984) occur in more than just the stagnation stage of relation- ships. Our results reveal that they occur before initial contact is made, such as when an individual imagines asking (or being asked) for a date. Imagined interactions also occur with ex-partners. For example, one female reported an imagined interaction with an ex-lover who ter- minated the relationship. He apologized for the hurt he caused and ad- mitted he was wrong letting her go. She responded that she hated him ^d that she was better off with her present boyfriend. This is an ex- ample of imagined interactions occurring in what might be referred to

42 Western Journal of Speech Communication

as the "llth" interaction stage-post-termination. This imagined interac- tion appeared to prepare the respondent for future conversation with the ex-partner. Other imagined interactions during the "llth" stage may allow actors opportunities to redefine positively their own role in former relationships.

The relational emphasis of imagined interactions may explain why they do not tend to be primarily positive or negative. Subjects reported equal numbers of positive and negative emotions associated with their imagined interactions. The occurrence of negative emotions might be explained by Knapp's (1984) theory of relational development. He pro- poses that deteriorating relationships pass through a stagnation phase in which partners merely mark time and do not attempt to resolve rela- tional issues. The stage is characterized by the theme that "there is lit- tle sense bringing anything up because I know what will happen, and it won't be particularly pleasant" (Knapp, 1984, p. 42). Knapp speculates that during the stagnation stage, partners have covert dialogues with their partners about relational issues. Since these covert dialogues focus on the negative features ofthe relationship, the emotions which accom- pany them might be negative as well. Similar covert dialogues appear to continue even beyond the life of a relationship, with almost 16% of the respondents reporting that they engage in imagined interactions with ex-partners.

Positive emotions may be attributed to the natural excitement that accompsmies relational initiation and growth. Individuals imagine plea- sant activities with relational partners, such as engaging in small talk, planning dates, and discussing shared interests. In addition, imagined interactions tend to take place with significant others. Therefore, we would expect that these interactions would be satisfying. Finally, pleasantness may be associated with conversational control. Because individuals are able to control their imagined interactions, they can ac- complish their communicative goals within them.

Additionally, the findings indicate that imagined interactions may be used to develop what Berger (1979) refers to as proactive attributions. Based on current and previous knowledge, an individual reduces uncer- tainty by making predictions of the other's future behavior. In other words, as repositories for social knowledge, imagined interactions allow individuals to construct and test predictions against what they already believe to be a particular state of affairs.

The results of this investigation suggest a number of directions for future research. One which we are currently pursuing is romantic rela- tional development. Because we found imagined interactions to have relational significance, we are examining the role of imagined interac- tions in various developmental stages of romantic relationships. We are attempting to determine if the frequency, features, and functions of imagined interaction vary in growth and deteriorating stages.

Winter 1988 43

Another important avenue is the relationship between actual and imagined interaction. Since imagined interaction appears to function as a rehearsal for actual interaction, research should examine how ac- tual dialogue differs from (or is similar to) preceding imagined interac- tion. Under what conditions do imagined interactions facilitate or im- pair actual communication? In this regard, we found that loneliness was associated with a greater discrepancy between actual and imagined interaction.

Future studies might also examine the narrative point of view of p>er- sons reporting imagined interaction. One point of view may be an "om- niscient pterspective," where individuals see themselves along with other interactants in conversations, much as individuals see themselves on videotape. Another point of view is the "direct perspective" where in- dividuals see only other interactants much as they would diiring real conversation. These distinctions are important because they provide cognitive researchers with information about the quality of individual representational systems. They also address the extent to which cogni- tions about the external environment are verbally and/or visually mediated (see Lord, 1978).

ENDNOTES

1. We distinguish between imagined interactions and fantasies. Imagined interactions simulate communicative encounters that individuals expect to experience or have ex- perienced in real life. Of course, these "real life" interactions may never transpire or they may occur in a manner very different from their imagined counterparts. Fantasies, on the other hand, involve imagining highly improbable or even impossible communicative encounters; one may, for example, imagine oneself talking with a deceased friend. But a fantasy cannot serve as the basis for an actual communicative exchange with the friend. We are not dismissing the psychological importance of fantasies; however, we do not con- sider them central to this study.

REFEREI«:ES

Abelson, R. P. (1976). Script processing in attitude formation and decision-making. In J. S. CarroH & J. W. Payne (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior (pp. 33-46). Hiilsdaie, NJ: Lawrence Erlhaum.

Bell, E. A. (1985). Conversational involvement and loneliness. Communication Monographs, 52, 218-235.

Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding and the development of interpersonal relationshife. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 122-144). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Douglas, W. (1984). Initial interaction scripts: When knowing is behaving. Human Com- munication Research, 11, 203-219.

I>uck, S. W. (1980). Personal relationships research in the 1980s: Towards an underetand- ingofcomplex human sociality. Western Joumal of Speech CommuniccOion, 44, 114-119.

•^val, S., & R. A. Wicklund. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness. New York: Academic Press.

Fiahbein, M., & 1. Ajzen. (1975). Belief, attitttde, intention and behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

44 Western Journal of Speech Communication

Greene, J. O. (1984). A cognitive approach to human communication: An action-assembly theory. Communication Monographs, 51, 289-306.

Greene, J. O., H. D. OBair, M. J. Cody, & C. Yen. (1985). Planning and control of behavior during deception. Human Communication Research, 11, 335-364.

Guttman, L. (1968). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika, 33, 469-506.

Hecht, M. L. (1978). The conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal conununica- tion satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 4, 253-264.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: John Wiley. Jones, E., & K. Davis. (1965). Prom acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person

perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219-266). New York: Academic Press.

Kellermann, K. (1984, November). Scripts: What are they? How can you tell? And why should you care? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communica- tion Association, Chicago, IL.

Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton. Kelley, H. H., & J. L. Michela. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Revieui

of Psychology, 31, 457-501. Knapp, M. L. (1984). Interpersonal communication and human relationships. Boston: Allyn

and Bacon. Lord, C. (1978). Schemas and images as memory aids: Two models of processing social

information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 674-687. Manis, J. G., & Meitzer, B. N. (1978). Symbolic interaction: A reader in social psychology.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon. McLaughiin, M., M. J. Cody, & H. D. OBair. (1983). The management of failure events:

Some contextual determinants of accounting behavior. Human Communication Reserach, 9, 208-224.

McQuitty, L. (1957). Elementary linkage analysis for isolating orthogonal and oblique types and typal relevancies. EducatioTial and Psychological Measurement, 17, 207-229.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Nisbett, R., & L. Ross. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social jud^

ment Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ncmnan, D. A. (1980). Twelve issues for cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4. 1-32. Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Routledge, Kegan Paul. Poole, M. S. (1983). Decision development in small groups HI: A multiple sequence model

of group decision-making. Communication Monographs, 50, 321-341. Rosenblatt, P. C , & C. Meyer, (1986). Imagined interactions and the family. Family Kelor

tions, 35, 319-324. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings, in L. Berkowitz (Ed.),

Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press. Russell, D. W., L. A. Peplau, & C. E. Cutrona. (1980). The revised UCLA loneliness scale;

Concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 472-480.

Schank, R., & R. Abelson. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schutz, A. (1932). The phenomenology of the social world Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

SchwBder, R. (1975). How relevant is an individual diffra^nces theory of personality? Jour- nal of Personality, 43, 455-484.

Sillars, A, L. (1980). The sequential and distributional structure rf conflict interactions ea a function of attributions concerning the locus of responsibility and stability of con- flicts. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 4 (pp. 217-235). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Winter 1988 45

Smith, M. J. (1982). Persuasion and human action: A review and critique of social influence theories. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526-537.

. (1979). Self-monitoring processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimen- tal social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 85-128). New York: Academic Press.

Taylor, S., & S. Fiske. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 249-288). New York: Academic Press.

Tesser, A. (1978). Self-generated attitude change. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in ex- perimental social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 290-338). New York: Academic Press.

Tukey, J. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Beading, MA: Addison Wesley. Turner, R. (1978). Consistency, self-consciousness, and the predictive validity of typical

and maximal personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 12, 117-132. Tversky, A., & D. Kaimemaa. (1980). Causal schemata in judgments under uncertainty.

In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Progress in social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 49-72). Hiilsdaie, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wegner, D., & R. Vallacher. (1977). Implicit psychology: An introduction to socicd cogni- tion. New York: Oxford University Press.