OF PSYCHOT^ST, DOCTOR OF .MEOTS FOR AD ^CESSIOW TO THE DEGHEE OF IN OF HEQUIRE THE RSEERTORY HSRSONAL ;

HSRSONAL RSCONSTfiUCTION ; LCKGITDDINAL ST^JDIES USING THE RSEERTORY GRID

PHASER REIi) R-TO^TT,

A THESIS SUBI^aTTED I N F0LFIUIENT OF

HEQUIRE.MEOTS FOR AD ^CESSIOW TO THE DEGHEE OF DOCTOR OF FEILOSOrHY

DEPAJ^.IE:.T OF PSYCHOT^ST, BKU>EL UI. ilVERSITy

ABSTRACT

The aim o f t h i s r e s e a r c h i s t o d e v e l o p a rsinge of p r o c e d u r e s f o r enhancing c o n v e r s a t i o n a l s k i l l s . From a r e v i e w o f t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s e s o f s o c i a l encounters a model o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p r o c e s s i s developed t o d e s c r i b e mechanisms by which i n t e r a c t a n t s c o n s t r u c t , m a i n t a i n and r e v i s e c o g n i t i v e models o f t h e i r s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t . From t h i s model, t h r e e dimensions o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l competence a r e d e r i v e d and a t r a i n i n g paradigm d e v i s e d i n c o r p o r a t i n g t h e process o f c o g n i t i v e r e f l e c t i o n by w h i c h f u n c t i o n a l p r o p e r t i e s o f models a r e d i s p l a y e d t o i n t e r a c t a n t s . T h i s paradigm p r o v i d e s a r a t i o n a l e f o r d i s c r e t e i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s t o e f f e c t chamges on each dimension o f competence. P r e l i m i n a r y s t u d i e s r e p o r t a t t e m p t s t o implement the f i r s t i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g y i n a f r i e n d s h i p r e l a t i o n - s h i p ajid workshop g r o u p . Using t h e " c o n v e r s a t i o n a l c y c l e " and r e p e r t o r y g r i d t e c h n i q u e s , p r o c e d u r e s are developed t o e x h i b i t c r i t i c a l i n t e r p e r s o n a l events and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o m o d e l l i n g p r o c e s s e s . The main s t u d i e s i n v e s t i g a t e t h e second and t h i r d

i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s by d e v e l o p i n g s e r i a l r e p e r t o r y g r i d methods t o e x h i b i t the f u n c t i o n a l p r o p e r t i e s of c e n t r a l i t y t o s e l f -

c o g n i t i o n and s t a b i l i t y o f c o n s t r u c t i o n . The t r a i n i n g paradigm i s e l a b o r a t e d t o i n c l u d e these p r o p e r t i e s a t t h r e e l e v e l s o f o r g a n i s a - t i o n , and a s e q u e n t i a l Bayesian a n a l y s i s i s developed t o d e t e r m i n e the e x t e n t o f c e n t r a l i t y ajid s t a b i l i t y o f c o n s t r u c t i o n . The t r a i n i n g paradigm i s t e s t e d i n two c a s e - s t u d i e s and e v i d e n c e o f i n c r e a s e s i n i n s i g h t , c e n t r a l i t y and e l a b o r a t i o n o f p e r s o n a l

c o n s t r u c t i o n are f o u n d . T h i s methodology i s extended t o i n c o r p o r a t e r e p e r t o r y g r i d s produced by two i n t e r a c t a n t s yoked by e l e m e n t

sample and t e s t e d i n a case-study o f a m a r r i e d c o u p l e . E v i d e n c e o f

i n c r e a s e d i n s i g h t and s e l f - p a r t n e r r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s f o u n d , b u t

p r e d i c t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g i n c r e a s e d s e l f - p a r t n e r d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s

a.ve c o n t r a i n d i c a t e d . These f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t t h a t e v a l u a t i v e

c r i t e r i a may not be c o i n c i d e n t v;ith s u b j e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s , and

a l t e r n a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n m e t h o d o l o g i e s are proposed.

• i i -

OVERVIEW

4

Chapter o u t l i n e s a number o f t h e o r e t i c a l approaches w h i c h g i v e substajice t o a model o f c o n v e r s a t i o n s , s k e t c h e s t h e a c t i v i t i e s and o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e p s y c h o t h e r a p i s t and c o u n s e l l o r i n terms o f

t h e model, and c o n c l u d e s by d i s c u s s i n g t h e performance c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e model, f i r s t l y by a b s t r a c t i n g t h r e e d i m e n s i o n s o f c o n v e r s a - t i o n a l competence, and s e c o n d l y by d i s c u s s i n g t h e breakdown o f competence.

Chapter 1.2. d i s c u s s e s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i n t e r n a l m o d e l l i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n i n g r e a t e r d e t a i l , and i n t r o d u c e s t h e n o t i o n t h a t i n t e r a c t i v e procedures may s u b s t i t u t e f o r t h e p s y c h o t h e r a p i s t and c o u n s e l l o r . A s e t o f p r o c e d u r a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n s a r e enumerated t o s i m u l a t e t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s , and t h r e e e x i s t i n g m e t h o d o l o g i e s

examined i n terms o f t h e s e s p e c i f i c a t i o n s .

Chapters 2.1., 2.2., 2 . 3 » t and 2.4. r e p o r t a s e r i e s o f p i l o t s t u d i e s i n w h i c h these m e t h o d o l o g i e s were a p p l i e d t o a v a r i e t y o f ongoing c o n v e r s a t i o n s . The r e q u i r e m e n t s o f an i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g y

capable o f enhancing ongoing c o n v e r s a t i o n s are d i s c u s s e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o the i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e o f i n t e r n a l and i n t e r p e r s o n a l m o d e l l i n g , and problems e x p e r i e n c e d i n e x t e r i o r i s i n g i n t e r n a l c o n v e r s a t i o n s .

Chapter 3-1» focusses on p r o c e d u r e s and a s s u m p t i o n s i r : v o l v o d i n t h e r e p e r t o r y g r i d t e c h n i q u e , and t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e t e c h n i q u e meets t h e design s p e c i f i c a t i o n s o f Chapter 1.2. To d e v e l o p

a p p r o p r i a t e i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s , a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l t r a i n i n g

- I l l -

paradigm i 6 o u t l i n e d , and a model o f p r o c e d u r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n c o n s t r u c t e d .

Chapter 3*2., 3.3., 3*^. and 3.5. r e p o r t t h e development and

a p p l i c a t i o n o f an i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g y d e s i g n e d t o enhance i n s i g h t i n t o m o d e l l i n g p r o c e s s e s . The procedures d e v e l o p e d a r e t e s t e d i n a number o f c a s e - s t u d i e s , and a r e d i s c u s s e d i n terms o f t h e i r o u t - comes f o r c o n v e r s a t i o n a l t r a i n i n g . M e t h o d o l o g i c a l problems

e n c o u n t e r e d i n e v a l u a t i n g t h e p r o c e d u r e s a r e h i g h l i g h t e d .

C h a p t e r s 4.1., 4.2. and 4.3. r e p o r t t h e development and a p p l i c a t i o n o f an i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g y d e s i g n e d t o enheince i n t e r p e r s o n a l

m o d e l l i n g w i t h i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s . R e p e r t o r y g r i d p r o c e d u r e s f o r m e d i a t i n g between persons a r e developed and t e s t e d i n a c a s e - s t u d y o f a m a r r i e d c o u p l e .

C h a p t e r s 5.1. and 5.2. summarise t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e model o f c o n v e r s a t i o n s and t h e d e r i v a t i o n o f i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s . Procedures developed f o r enhancing t h r e e a s p e c t s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l competence a r e c r i t i c a l l y examined and t h e need f o r f u r t h e r

r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e d . F i n a l l y , t h e g e n e r a l i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e

approach a r e d i s c u s s e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o p s y c h o t h e r a p y ajid i t s

e v a l u a t i o n .

- I V -

ACKI^OV/LEDGEMENTS

My h e a r t f e l t thanks go t o my f r i e n d and s u p e r v i s o r , Dr. L a u r i e Thomas who, by b e i n g a much-needed s o u r c e

o f c r i t i c i s m and s u g g e s t i o n h a s g u i d e d me t h r o u g h t h i s work, and who u n f a i l i n g l y s u p p o r t e d me • a t moments o f c r i s i s . To Dr. C l i f f McKnight, o f Goldsmiths C o l l e g e , I am i n d e b t e d f o r h o u r s o f

f r u i t f u l d i s c u s s i o n and f o r h i s a s s i s t a n c e w i t h the development o f computer programmes. I s h o u l d l i k e t o thank Mr. B r i a n Champness, o f Plymouth P o l y t e c h n i c , f o r i n v a l u a b l e a s s i s t a n c e w i t h t h e f i r s t c h a p t e r , and a l l t h o s e who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e s t u d i e s , t o whom I hope I have g i v e n j u s t i c e i n t h e f o l l o w i n g pages.

I d e d i c a t e t h i s work t o my w i f e L o r i , who has n o t

o n l y p r o v i d e d h o u r s o f s e c r e t a r i a l a s s i s t a n c e , b u t

a l s o has t a u g h t me what i t means t o be competent

i n t h e t a s k s o f l i f e .

•V-

CONTENTS

A b s t r a c t fege i

Overview i i Acknowledgements i v

r ^ r t 1. I n t r o d u c t i o n

C h a p t e r 1.1. C o n v e r s a t i o n a l competence

1.1.1. C o n v e r s a t i o n s , i n t e r a c t i o n s and

r e l a t i o n s h i p s k 1-1.2. S o c i a l s k i l l s and s o c i a l performances l ^ " ' ' ^ ^

1.1.3- Symbolic i n t e r a c t i o n i s r a and

ethnomethodology 28 >-

1.1.4. The t h e r a p e u t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p ^0 1.1.5. Dimensions o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l competence 56

1.1.6. The breakdown o f competence 72

C h a p t e r 1.2. M o d e l l i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s

1 .2.1. The s t r u c t u r e o f m o d e l l i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s 84 1.2.2. F a c i l i t a t i n g m o d e l l i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s 102 1.2.3. S p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o r c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p r o c e d u r e s 112

1.2.4. The prograjnme o f r e s e a r c h 134

F ^ r t 2. P r e l i m i n a r y s t u d i e s

C h a p t e r 2 . 1 . Reference frames i n a f r i e n d s h i p

2.1 .1. The c o n v e r s a t i o n c y c l e l42

2.1.2. M o d e l l i n g events i n c o n v e r s a t i o n s l48 2.1.3. A c o d i n g frame f o r c o n v e r s a t i o n s l 6 2

2 .1.4. The u n f o l d i n g drama I78

2.1.5* E n c o u n t e r i n g one's s e l f 190

2 .1.6. Summary I96

- V I -

C h a p t e r 2 . 2 , Reference frames o f a g r o u p

2 . 2 . 1 . The c o n s t r u c t i o n and maintenemce o f

r e f e r e n c e frames i n t h e g r o u p I98 2 . 2 . 2 . M o d e l l i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s i n t h e g r o u p 206

2 . 2 . 5 . E x t e r i o r i s i n g t h e model o f t h e g r o u p 213

2.2.^*. Summary 227

C h a p t e r 2.3« Reference frames i n i n t e r v i e w s

2 . 3 . 1 . The r e p e r t o r y g r i d i n t e r v i e w 23I ; 2 . 3 » 2 . L i m i t a t i o n s on m o d e l l i n g a c t i v i t y 2^1 J

2 . 3 . 3 . Summary 2W

Chapter 2 . ^ . Summary

2.A-.1. I m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e p i l o t s t u d i e s 251 ^ 2.'+.2. The i n t e r n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f p r e o c e d u r e s 256

R t r t 3 . I n t r a p e r s o n a l m o d e l l i n g

Chapter 3.1. I n t e r v e n t i o n p r o c e d u r e s

3 . 1 . 1 . R e f l e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s 260 3 . 1 . 2 . An o u t l i n e o f t h e p r o c e d u r e s 27'*

Chapter 3 . 2 . The c o r e g r i d

3 . 2 . 1 . Stages i n t h e development o f c o r e g r i d

p r o c e d u r e s 283 3 . 2 . 2 . Stage 1: I n t r o d u c t i o n 286

3 . 2 . 3 . Stage 2: D e f i n i n g p r e d i c a t i o n c e n t r a l i t y 295 3 - 2 . ^ . Stage 3= D e v e l o p i n g t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s 312 3 . 2 . 5 . Stage 4: D e v e l o p i n g r e f l e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s 3 ^

3 . 2 . 6 . Summary 350

Chapter 3.3* The r e c o n s t i n j c t i o n g r i d

3 . 3 . 1 . Stages i n t h e development o f r e c o n s t r u c t i o n

g r i d procedures 354 3 . 3 . 2 . Stage 1: I n t r o d u c t i o n 356

3 . 3 . 3 . Stage 2: D e f i n i n g p r e d i c a t i o n s t a b i l i t y 377

3.3.^*. Stage 3: D e v e l o p i n g t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s 384

- V l l -

3 . 3 . 5 . s t a g e k: D e v e l o p i n g r e f l e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s 397

3 . 3 . 6 . Summary Zf15

Chapter 3-^. The i n s i g h t g r i d

3.^.1• L e v e l 1 r e f l e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s 3.'+.2. The i n s i g h t g r i d procedure 3 . ^ . 3 . Tom: An i l l u s t r a t i v e case s t u d y 3 . ^ . ^ . E v a l u a t i n g t h e p r o c e d u r e s

3 . ^ . 5 . Summary

^19

469;^

W9

Chapter 3 . 5 . Summary

3 . 5 . 1 . The d e s i g n o f p r o c e d u r e s

3 . 5 . 2 . M e t h o d o l o g i c a l problems i n e v a l u a t i o n

495 503

I ^ r t 4. I n t e r p e r s o n a l m o d e l l i n g

Chapter 4 . 1 . The a g g r e g a t e g r i d

4 . 1 . 1 . Stages i n t h e d e v e l o p n e n t o f t h e a g g r e g a t e

g r i d procedure 512 4.1.2. Stage 1 : The r a t i o n a l e o f t h e a g g r e g a t e

g r i d 51^

4 . 1 . 3 « Stage 2: D e f i n i n g t r a j i s f o r m a t i o n s and

outcomes 526 4 . 1 . 4 . Stage 3: D e v e l o p i n g r e f l e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s 539

4 . 1 . 5 . Summary 556

Chapter 4 . 2 . 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3.

4.2.4 4.2.5, 4.2.6, 4.2.7,

The r e c i p r o c a l i n s i g h t g r i d

M o d e l l i n g s e l f and p a r t n e r 559 P r i m a r y m o d e l l i n g a c t i v i t i e s 572 Secondary m o d e l l i n g a c t i v i t i e s 536 T r a n s f o r m a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s 590 Ruth and I s a a c : an i l l u s t r a t i v e ca.-be s t u d y 596

E v a l u a t i n g t h e p r o c e d u r e s 623

Summary 639

- V l l l -

C h a p t e r 4 . 3 . Summary

4 . 3 . 1 . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e i n t e r n a l m o d e l l i n g

c o n v e r s a t i o n s 64l 4 . 3 . 2 . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r i n t e r p e r s o n a l m o d e l l i n g

c o n v e r s a t i o n s 646

I ^ r t 5 . C o n c l u s i o n

Chapter 5 * 1 . The r a t i o n a l e and outcomes o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p r o c e d u r e s

5 . 1 . 1 . C o n v e r s a t i o n a l mechanisms 653 5 . 1 . 2 . The d e s i g n o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p r o c e d u r e s 661

5 . 1 . 3 . S t r a t e g y A p r o c e d u r e s 673 5 . 1 . 4 . S t r a t e g y C p r o c e d u r e s 700 5 . 1 . 5 - Combining S t r a t e g y B and C p r o c e d u r e s 742

Chapter 5*2. I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p r a c t i c e

5 . 2 . 1 . C o n d u c t i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s 7 6 I 5 . 2 . 2 . M e t h o d o l o g i e s o f e v a l u a t i o n 7 8 I

References 790

Appendix A Reference frames i n a f r i e n d s h i p 806

Appendix B Reference frames i n a g r o u p 807 Appendix C Reference frames i n i n t e r v i e w s 813 Appendix D A c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e f o r m a l p r o p e r t i e s

o f r e p e r t o r y g r i d s 822 Appendix E The c o r e g r i d 837 Appendix F The r e c o n s t r u c t i o n g r i d 863

Appendix G The i n s i g h t g r i d 87O

Appendix H The a g g r e g a t e g r i d 894

Appendix I The r e c i p r o c a l g r i d 9C6

1 -

\Vhere do t h e s e V o i c e s s t r a y , l.^^lich l o s e i n Woods t h e i r Way?

E r r i n g each S t e p anew,

V/hile t h e y f a l s e Paths p u r s u e . Through many W i n d i n g s l e d . Some c r o o k e d l y p r o c e e d , Some t o t h e E a r t u r n back, A s k i n g , w h i c h way t o t a k e . Wandring w i t h o u t a Guide, They h o l l a from each s i d e , And c a l l , and answer a l l • To one a n o t h e r ' s C a l l .

R i c h a r d L e i g h

•2-

Vart 1

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Chapter 1.1. C o n v e r s a t i o n a l competence,

C h a p t e r 1.2. M o d e l l i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n s ,

-3-

ChaT)ter 1.1

C o n v e r s a t i o n a l competence

1.1.1. C o n v e r s a t i o n s , i n t e r a c t i o n s and

r e l a t i o n s h i p s .

1.1.2. S o c i a l s k i l l s and s o c i a l performances

1.1.3^ Symbolic i n t e r a c t i o n i s m and ethnomethodologj-

1.1.4. The t h e r a p e u t i c r e l a t i o n s h i u .

1.1.5- Dimensions o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l competence.

1.1.6. The breakdown o f comDetence

-4-

1.1.1. C o n v e r s a t i o n s , i n t e r a c t i o n s and r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,

1,1.1.1. I t i s o f t e n s a i d t h a t t h e person i s o l a t e d f r o m h i s f e l l o w man i s n o t a whole p e r s o n , b u t i s i n c c a p l e t e and u n f u l - f i l l e d . E q u a l l y f a m i l i a r i s t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t o f u l l y p a r - t i c i p a t e i n t h e s o c i a l w o r l d i s t o s u b m i t t o t h e bondage o f o t h e r s , t o be. f a s h i o n e d by s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . Such v i e w s a r e r e a d i l y t r a n s l a t e d i n t o e x p e r i e n c e - a paradox o f human e x i s t e n c e i s t h a t we a l l d e s i r e a t d i f f e r e n t t i n e s e i t h e r t o be l e f t t o o u r s e l v e s , o r t o share t h e company o f o t h e r s . We w i s h f o r t h e f o r m e r when e v e n t s have o v e r t a k e n us t h a t make t h e comp- romises necessary t o s u s t a i n s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n t o l e r a b l e t o becir, and t h e l a t t e r when our e x p e r i e n c e i s so r e p l e t e w i t h , o r d e v o i d o f meaning and i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t t o comnunicate w i t h a n o t h e r i s t o express i t t h e b e t t e r f o r o u r s e l v e s . Experiences o f t h i s k i n d i n d i c a t e t h e e x t e n t t o v/hich our l i v e s o r e shaped by t h e presence o f o t h e r s , whether t h e y be r e a l o r i m a g i n a r y - t h e g u i l t y r a r e l y f i n d r e f u g e i n i s o l a t i o n , o r t h e l o n e l y c o m f o r t i n a crowd.

The purpose o f t h e r e s e a r c h r e p o r t e d i n t h e f o l l o v / i n g c h a p t e r s

i s , i n g e n e r a l , t o e x p l o r e t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f e x p e r i e n c e s such

as these f o r human r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and i n p a r t i c u l a r t o o u t l i n e

t h e meams f o r enhancing human r e l a t i o n s h i p s by f o c u s s i n g on t h e

n a t u r e o f c o n v e r s a t i o n as a f u n d a m e n t a l s o c i a l a c t i v i t y .

The r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s develop t w o themes i n p a r a l l e l - t h e e l a b o r a t i o n o f a g e n e r a l model o f c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p r o c e s s , and the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f i n t e r a c t i v e methods c a p a b l e o f f a c i l i t a t i n g t h i s p r o c e s s when c a r r i e d o u t by a p e r s o n o r p e r s o n s . - I t w i l l become e v i d e n t t h a t t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e l a t t e r i n many ways

resemble those o f t h e p s y c h o t h e r a p i s t and c o u n s e l l o r ; c o n s e q u e n t l y , d i s c u s s i o n s v / i l l f r e q u e n t l y seek t o c o n c e p t u a l i s e t h e i r p r o f e s s i o - n a l a c t i v i t i e s . Moreover, s i n c e t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s a r e c o n v e r s a t i o - n a l i n n a t u r e , t h e c o u n s e l l o r - c l i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p may be vicv;ed as a h i g h l y s p e c i a l i s e d c o n v e r s a t i o n i n which c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s o f e v e r y d a y c o n v e r s a t i o n s a r e p o t e n t i a t e d .

To h i g h l i g h t these f e a t u r e s and s e t t h e s t a g e f o r t h e d i s c u s s i o n s t h a t f o l l o v ; , we b e g i n by b r i e f l y s k e t c h i n g t h e elementairy components o f a model o f c o n v e r s a t i o n .

1.1.1.2. A c o n v e r s a t i o n a l e v e n t may be c h a r a c t e r i s e d b y t h e f o l l o w i n g f e a t u r e s

(a) t h a t a p a r t i t i o n between a t l e a s t t w o d i s t i n c t i n d i v i d u a l s

be i d e n t i f i e d . I n d i v i d u a l s may o r may n o t c o r r e s p o n d t o persons

i n t h e o r t h o d o x sense. D i a l o g u e s between g r o u p s , between a

person and a g r o u p , and most i m p o r t a n t l y , w i t h i n a p e r s o n , may

be c o n s i d e r e d as c o n v e r s a t i o n s p r o v i d e d t h a t as i n d i v i d u a l s such

g r o u p s , p e r s o n s , o r p a r t s o f p e r s o n s comprise i n d e p e n d e n t and

i n i t i a l l y asynchronous processes.

.6-

(b) t h a t i n d i v i d u e a s p a r t i t i o n e d i n t h i s way a r e engaged i n a r e c i p r o c a l a c t i v i t y , t h e e f f e c t o f w h i c h i s t o m o d i f y processes i n t e r n a l t o each i n d i v i d u a l . T h i s f e a t t i r e e x c l u d e s f r o m t h e

d e f i n i t i o n o f c o n v e r s a t i o n t h o s e i n t e r a c t i o n s i n w h i c h p a r t i c i p a n t s are c o u p l e d i n t i m e , b u t where t h e a c t i o n s o f one do n o t b r i n g about changes i n t h e i n t e r n a l p r o c e s s e s o f t h e o t h e r .

(c) t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s be capable o f c o n s t r u c t i n g i n t e r n a l r e p r e s - e n t a t i o n s o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e y a r e engaged, and t h e r e b y m o d i f y t h e i r own i n t e r n a l p r o c e s s e s . T h i s f e a t u r e d i s -

t i n g u i s h e s c o n v e r s a t i o n from p u r e l y mechanical i n t e r a c t i o n , and i i m p l i e s t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y i s m e d i a t e d by s e l f - a w a r e n e s s and s e l f - r e f e r e n c e .

C o n s i d e r these f e a t u r e s i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h an e n c o u n t e r between two p e r s o n s , A and B. As o n l o o k e r s , we may observe A and B s m i l e , g r e e t each o t h e r , and engage i n t a l k ( E i g . l ) . I t soon becomes e v i d e n t t h a t A and B each e n t e r t a i n a p a r t i c u l a r v i e w o f them- s e l v e s w h i c h p e r m i t s them t o a c t i n some ways b u t n o t o t h e r s . I n m e e t i n g f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e A and B m i g h t v i e w as a p p r o p r i a t e

conduct t h e exchange o f s o c i a l p l e a s a n t r i e s , f o r example, r a t h e r

t h a n engaging i n a f i s t - f i g h t . We may i n t r o d u c e i n t o t h e diagram

the boxes A^ and B^.^to denote A's and B's model o f t h e m s e l v e s .

( F i g . 2 ) . These models f u n c t i o n as s e l e c t i v e f i l t e r s m e d i a t i n g

i n t e n t i o n and a c t i o n s . A may f e e l he wants t o punch.B on t h e

nose, b u t p e r c e i v e s such b e h a v i o u r as i n c c n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s

model o f h i c i s e l f i n t h a t s i t u a t i o n .

• 7 -

As the i n t e r a c t i o n proceeds, each p a r t i c i p a n t develops a view of the other's f e e l i n g s , i n t e n t i o n s and perceptions of the encoun- t e r . That i s , A c o n s t r u c t s a view of B, and B a view o f A,

through which each seeks to p e r c e i v e the encoonter a s t h e other might. The diagram may then be extended to i n c o r p o r a t e the boxes

and B^, A's ^cind B's model of each other ( F i g . ^{3 ) .} Although A may be i r r i t a t e d by B's behaviour, A might conclude t h a t E n e i t h e r i n t e n d s nor i s aware of h i s provocation o f A.

A f i n a l f e a t u r e of t h i s preliminary' model i s that A's and B's models of themselves and each other a r e interdependent and s p e c i f i c to the encounter ( F i g . 4 ) . I n conversation w i t h C, f o r example, A may s e e h i m s e l f a s somebody quite d i f f e r e n t to the person he i s with B, and i n t e r a c t with C i n a way t h a t he would not view a s appropriate i n h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p vdth 3 - More- over, A's model o f h i m s e l f i n the context of 3 may be modified by h i s i n f e r e n c e s concerning B'e view of him, A may conclude, f o r example, t h a t B i s i n f a c t d e l i b e r a t e l y provoking him, and f e e l j u s t i f i e d i n punching B on the nose. I n r e d e f i n i n g h i m s e l f i n the context of B a s the v i c t i m of unwarranted provocation, A makes a v a i l a b l e a range of behaviours t h a t he would not other*rfise view a s a p p r o p r i a t e .

1 . 1 . 1 . 3 . The form the model now takes i s represented i n F i g . ^{5 ,}

and from i t a number o f key concepts may be d e r i v e d which w i l l be

developed i n the f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r s .

- 8 .

A B

F i g u r e 1

F i g u r e 2 .

F i g u r e 3

F i s u r e k

- 1 0 -

F i g u r e 3

A 3

A 3

A 3

F i g u r e 6,

- 1 1 -

F i r s t l y , the models t h a t a p a r t i c i p a n t c o n s t r u c t s may be c o l l e c t i v e l y viewed a s a r e f e r e n c e frame through v/hich h i s experience i n encounters i s organised. That i s , they comprise a system of v a l u e s w i t h i n which c o n v e r s a t i o n a l events may be perceived and i n t e r p r e t e d , and e v e n t s which i n p l y v a l u e s beyond the Reference frame a r e poorly or i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y p e r c e i v e d . Moreover, the r e f e r e n c e frame encompasses the perception of a l l events w i t h i n the c o n v e r s a t i o n ; A's model of 3 (A.^) ? i'or example, not only seeks to make B»s behaviour i n t e l l i g i b l e to A, but a l s o seeks A to a n t i c i p a t e B's modelling of A (B ) and B's modelling

a

of h i m s e l f ( B ^ ) * S i m i l a r l y , A's model of h i m s e l f governs h i s p e r c e p t i o n s of f e e l i n g s a r i s i n g i n conversation w i t h B, and makes i n t e l l i g i b l e h i s behaviour towards B.

Secondly, to the extent that A's model of B's experience of the c o n v e r s a t i o n i s not c o n s i s t e n t with B's experience, d i s j u n c t i o n s may a r i s e l e a d i n g A and B to i n t e r p r e t the same event i n

d i f f e r e n t ways. To minimise d i s j u n c t i o n s of t h i s kind, A and 3 may engage i n a more or l e s s e x p l i c i t n e g o t i a t i o n of a common frame of r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e i r experience of each other, which i s then r e i n t e r p r e t e d by each p a r t i c i p a n t and a s s i m i l a t e d i n t o t h e i r i n t e r n a l models ( F i g . 6 ) . By o f f e r i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of events r a t h e r than p a r t i c i p a t i n g on the b a s i s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , A and B may be s a i d to be engaged i n an i n t e r p e r s o n a l modelling

c o n v e r s a t i o n .

1 2 -

T h i r d l y , A and B may s e p a r a t e l y engage i n covert c o n v e r s a t i o n s vdth themselves, the purposes of which a r e to a c t i v e l y e l a b o r a t e t h e i r models o f themselves and each o t h e r . These i n t e r n a l

modelling c o n v e r s a t i o n s n e c e s s a r i l y e n t a i l the temporary c e s s a t i o n of p a r t i c i p a t i o n on the b a s i s of t h e models. Moreover, f o r such a c o n v e r s a t i o n to take place w i t h i n the person, an image of s e l f or o t h e r i s p a r t i t i o n e d , and engaged i n a dialogue mediated by an i n t e r n a l r e f e r e n c e frzyme. F i g s , 7 S r e p r e s e n t A's

modelling of h i m s e l f and of B r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n which A c o v e r t l y i n t e r r o g a t e s h i m s e l f (A') or B ( B * ) , a s , f o r example, when A

contemplates 'why d i d I do t h a t ? ' o r 'what made B say such-and- euch?'. Again, an i n t e r n a l r e f e r e n c e frame ( oC and fi ) comprises a secondary system of v a l u e s t h a t o r g a n i s e s the i n t e r n a l conver- s a t i o n .

1 . 1 . 1 . ^ . I t i s c l e a r tliat the model sketched out above i s a c o n s i d e r a b l e o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n , , and conceals many of t h e c o m p l e x i t i e s of human i n t e r a c t i o n . However, i t i s i n t r o d u c e d

f o r a s p e c i f i c purpose, and w h i l s t l i m i t e d i n g e n e r a i l i t y , s u f f i c e s as a f i r s t approximation, and provides a context f o r the d i s c u s s i o n s that follow, i n which c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s o f the model aire r e f i n e d . At t h i s point we may s u c c i n c t l y s t a t e t h e o b j e c t i v e s of the

reseairch s t u d i e s i n terms of the model, namely the developnent

of i n t e r a c t i v e procedures f o r enhancing the nature of i n t e r n a l

and i n t e r p e r s o n a l modelling c o n v e r s a t i o n s .

1 3 -

r-<5)

A'

F i g u r e 7

F i g u r e 8

1 , 1 . 2 . S o c i a l s k i l l s and s o c i a l performances.

1 . 1 . 2 . 1 . I n r e c e n t y e a r s r e s e a r c h has been s t i m u l a t e d by an e m p i r i c a l and t h e o r e t i c c d approach to i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n - s h i p s which has attempted to a n a l y s e s o c i a l performance a s a s k i l l e d a c t i v i t y . T h i s r e s e a r c h has centred on what has come to be known as the ' s o c i a l s k i l l model*(Argyle and Kendon, 1 9 6 ? ; Argyle, 1 9 6 ? , 1 9 6 9 , 1 9 7 5 ) - Few would cirgue v/ith the c l a i m that persons a r e more or l e s s s k i l l e d i n an i n t e r p e r s o n a l sense;

c e r t a i n l y many p r o f e s s i o n s , salesmen, c o u n s e l l o r s , p o l i t i c i a n s , f o r example, r e q u i r e a degree of s o c i a l adeptness that only some form of t r a i n i n g may produce. Many rright a l s o contend t h a t t r a i n i n g i n the s o c i a l graces i s u n d e s i r a b l e as i t c u l t i v a t e s the a b i l i t i e s of persons to manipulate other, l e s s fortunate persons- As a counter argument Argylc and ?Cendon ( 1 9 ^ 7 ) suggest t h a t some mental d i s o r d e r s may be remedied i n part by t r a i n i n g i n b a s i c s o c i a l s k i l l s , such a s when to encourage and vhen to a v o i d eye c o n t a c t . Indeed the l a c k of t h i s apparently elementary s o c i a l s k i l l may pi^ovoke q u i t e unexpected r e s u l t s , as i n ShaJ^espeare's

•The Rape of Lucrece' (Champness,. 1 9 7 0 ) .

I n formulating t h e i r model Argyle and h i s c o l l e a g u e s have

borrowed h e a v i l y from r e s e a r c h i n an o s t e n s i b l y u n r e l a t e d f i e l d ,

namely sensorimotor s k i l l s i n i n d u s t r y and defence. Target

p u r s u i t , t r a c k i n g , and maze f o l l o w i n g s k i l l s do not seem

immediately to p a r e l l e l tlie c o m p l e x i t i e s of hunan i n t e r a c t i o n ,

however, and the question a r i s e s ; what feature of i n t e r p e r s o n a l

• 1 5 -

r e l a t i o n s h i p s may be accomodated by a model.of s k i l l d e r i v e d from t h i s source?

To £msv;er t h i s q u e s t i o n we must t r a c e the development of the model from i t s o r i g i n a l formulation (Argyle and Kendon, 1 9 6 ? ) to l a t e r accounts ( A r g y l e , 1 9 6 9 ) and i d e n t i f y the ways i n which the model i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h , or departs from, a sensorimotor s k i l l s approach. The aim i s not to present a c r i t i q u e of the s o c i a l s k i l l s but to h i g h l i g h t those f e a t u r e s of human i n t e r a c t i o n that a r e amenable to a sensorimotor s k i l l s a n a l y s i s and those t h a t are not.

1 . 1 . 2 . 2 . Argyle and Kendon ( 1 9 6 ? ) .

Although t a k i n g the form of a c o l l e c t i o n o f - e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s r a t h e r than a s e r i o u s attempt a t model b u i l d i n g , the s t a r t i n g point f o r the authors i s the i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g model of s k i l l developed by V.'elford ( 1 9 5 3 ) . F i g u r e ⁹ r e p r e s e n t s a l a t e r v e r s i o n of V/elford's o r i g i n a l scheme i n which the d i s c r e t e processes of perception, t r a n s l a t i o n and reponse are o r g a n i s e d as a c o n t r o l system. Considerable r e s e a r c h has i d e n t i f i e d the p r o p e r t i e s of these separate p r o c e s s e s and most workers i n the f i e l d would agree on the f o l l o w i n g f e a t u r e s : -

(a) Reception p r o c e s s e s ; s e l e c t i v i t y and o r g a n i s a t i o n of perception tov;ards a c r i t e r i o n of 'economy of e f f o r t ' ;

a n t i c i p a t i o n , e x p e c t a t i o n , the a b s t r a c t i o n of c o n s t a n t s , category

- 1 6 -

i s a t i o n and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n are a l l f e a t u r e s of a p e r c e p t u a l system t h a t optimises past e x p e r i e n c e s i n the o r g a n i s a t i o n of c u r r e n t s t i m u l a t i o n (Gibson, 1 9 6 9 ) *

(b) T r a n s l a t i o n p r o c e s s e s ; s e t s of r u l e s which govern the choice of response from a l t e r n a t i v e s ; d i s t i n g u i s h e d from per- c e p t u a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n by r e f r a c t o r y period following i d e n t i f i c - a t i o n (Hilgendorf, 1 9 6 6 ) ; as response a l t e r n a t i v e s i n c r e a s e choice r e a c t i o n time increaises ( H i c k , 1 9 5 2 ) .

(c) E f f e c t o r processes; motor a c t i v i t y , f r e q u e n t l y automatised such t h a t autonomuos c o n t r o l systems f r e e c e n t r a l processor of c o n t r o l a c t i v i t i e s ; perception a t t h i s stage predominantly k i n a e s t h e t i c and p r o p r i o c e p t i v e , and i s marked by a s h i f t from dependence on e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l s t i m u l i of i n t e r n a l o r i g i n (Holding, 1 9 6 5 ) .

Iflien t h i s model i s a p p l i e d to s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n four p e r s p e c - t i v e s emerge v;hich apparently c o n s o l i d a t e a great deal o f

re6e2irch f i n d i n g s , and which open up avenues f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h , namely ( a ) that i n t e r a c t a n t s i n encounters may be viewed as

•coupled systems' (Ashby, 1 9 5 6 ) , i n which behaviours emitted

by each i n t e r a c t a n t provide feedback to the other, enabling

c o n t i n u a l c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n , (b) t h a t s o c i a l responses may be

amenable to a f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s , y i e l d i n g a h i e r a r c h i c a l l y

ordered s e t of component s k i l l s , ( c ) t h a t such an a n a l y s i s may

prove to be a b a s i s f o r t r a i n i n g i n s o c i a l s k i l l s , and (d) t h a t

-17-

Receptor Stage

Perception

T r a n s l a t i o n Stage

E f f e c t o r Stage

Long Term Store

A

Short Term S t o r e

T r a n s l a t i o n From

Perception To A c t i o n ; Choice Of ReBvonse

C o n t r o l Of Response

E f f e c t o r s

E x t e r n a l Object

A A

F i g u r e 9 SGnsorimotor S k i l l iMcdel

W e i f c r d ( 1 9 6 8 , p . 1 9 )

- 1 8 -

the n o t i o n of s o c i a l competence p r o v i d e s a b a s i s f o r the a n a l y s i s and treatment of f c i i l u r e s of s o c i a l s k i l l s .

(a) A r g y l e and Kendon note t h a t the maiintenance of encounters i s mediated by behaviours c f which the i n t e r a c t a n t s a r e normally unaware, and v/hich appears to correspond to a communication mode i n v;hich e x p l i c i t messages a r e 'framed' by s i g n a l s of a h i g h e r l e v e l of a b s t r a c t i o n (Watzlawick, Beavin and J a c k s o n ,

1 9 6 8 ) . Thus cues £ire t r a n s m i t t e d which r e g u l a t e the e x p r e s s i o n of emotional s t a t e s , the t i m e - s t r u c t u r e of the i n t e r a c t i o n , i n - timacy and involvement l e v e l s , and maintain presented s e l f - images. The l e v e l of c o n t r o l t o which the s o c i a l s k i l l s model i s addressed i s then the context of r u l e s w i t h i n which i n t e r a c t - ion t a k e s p l a c e . Only r a r e l y a r e these s i g n a l s e x p l i c i t , and are moet f r e q u e n t l y non-verbal and p a r a l i n g u i s t i c . The a u t h o r s r e p o r t v a s t q u a n t i t i e s of r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s that d i s p l a y the r e l a x a t i o n between posture, p a t t e r n s of gaze and eye c o n t a c t , p r o x i m i t y , bodily movements and f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n s to the progress and outcome of encounters. The authors suggest that e s t a b l i s h i n g the frame or 'working consensus' (Goffman, 1 9 . 5 9 )

of the encounter i s a n e g o t i a t i o n i n which the i n t e r a c t a n t s

seek to achieve a s t e a d y - s t a t e c o n s i s t e n t with t h e i r g o a l s

i n i n t e r a c t i n g , and l i m i t e d by t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s t y l e and

c o m p a t i b i l i t y . T h i s s t e a d y - s t a t e i s c h a r a c t e r i s e d cis an

'intimacy e q u i l i b r i u m ' , which i s a c h i e v e d by r e c i p r o c a l s e l f -

d i s c l o s u r e u n t i l one or other i n t e r a c t a n t checks the p r o c e s s

by i n t r o d u c i n g negative feedback to p r o h i b i t f u r t h e r d i s c l o s u r e .

19-

However, the authors a r e unable to p r e d i c t from t h e i r model the l e v e l of intimacy a t which any p a i r of i n t e r a c t a n t s s t a b i l i s e .

(b) W h i l s t the authors suggest t h a t s o c i a l responses a r e

amenable to a f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s i n t o component s k i l l s , t h i s aspect of t h e i r model i s poorly developed. Tbey note, f o r

example, Scheflen's (196'f) a n a l y s i s of psychotherapy i n t e r v i e w s i n t o p r e s e n t a t i o n ( t o t a l performance), p o s i t i o n (monetsiry s t a n c e ) and p o i n t ( i n d i v i d u a l a c t ) v;ithout extending the a n a l y s i s by

a r t i c u l a t i n g i t a g a i n s t the f i m c t i o n of non-verbal c u e s .

I n s t e a d , s o c i a l responses a r e broadly c a t e g o r i s e d i n t o •st£inding f e a t u r e s ' , such a s the p h y s i c a l boundaries of a focussed i n t e r a c - ' t i o n , and tiie p h y s i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n o f the i n t e r a c t a n t s , and

•dynamic f e a t u r e s ' , such a s i n d i c a t i o n s of r e a d i n e s s to engage i n c o n v e r s a t i o n , the t a k i n g of t u r n s i n speaking, the e x p r e s s i o n of a t t e n d i n g , and so on. L i t t l e i n the way of a t h e o r e t i c a l frame- work i s o f f e r e d , ^{a j i d} r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s a r e grouped together by modality of commiuiication r a t h e r than by f u n c t i o n . Although the authors p o s t u l a t e that the maintenance c f other i n t e r a c t a n t s ' perceptions of s e l f i s a s k i l l e d a c t i v i t y the f u n c t i o n o f p a r t - i c u l a r s o c i a l responses i n a c h i e v i n g t h i s i s only b r i e f l y i n d i c a t e d :

•a person's s t y l e of behaviour can i n d i c a t e by g e s t u r e , manner of speech and general demeanor what kind of a person he t h i n k s he i s and the vray he i s used to b e i n g t r e a t e d ' .

( p . 8 2 ) .

- 2 0 -

However, i n d i s c u s s i n g the f a i l u r e t o mainteiin a presented s e l f - image the authors note that the a v e r s i o n of gaze during embarrass- ment appears t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the r e d u c t i o n of smxiety

r e s u l t i n g from the removal of audience feedback ( A r g y l e , L a l l j e e , Cook and Latane, 1 9 6 ? ) .

(c) T r a i n i n g i n s o c i e i l s k i l l s might be a p o s s i b i l i t y o n l y i f the f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of s o c i a l s k i l l s can achieve the same degree of throughness as component a n a l y s e s of motor s k i l l s . However, the authors do s p e c u l a t e on the n e c e s s a r y methodological

c o n d i t i o n s f o r such t r a i n i n g , and on p o s s i b l e t r a i n i n g t e c h n i q u e s . They note, f o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t measures of competence a r e r e q u i r e d . and t h a t the amount, q u a l i t y and frequency of feedback t o the

l e a r n e r a r e c r u c i a l determinants of s k i l l a c q u i s i o n . Supplemen- t a r y and augmented feedback i n the form of s u p e r v i s o r y assessment • and video r e c o r d i n g s of the r o l e - p l a y i n g episodes a r e e f f e c t i v e only to the extent that the t r a i n e e l e a r n s to d i f f e r e n t i a t e cues

a r i s i n g d i r e c t l y f5:-om the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n and from h i s ovm s o c i a l responses (Holding, 1 9 6 5 ) * S i m i l a r l y , t r a i n i n g would e n t a i l the e l a b o r a t i o n of a response r e p e r t o i r e and g r e a t e r f l e x i b i l i t y of the t r a n s l a t i o n r u l e s . A c e n t r a l problem however,-in the

m o d i f i c a t i o n of e x i s t i n g s o c i a l s k i l l s , and p a r a l l e l e d i n the sensorimotor s k i l l s , i s t h a t s k i l l s once e s t a b l i s h e d a r e executed autonomously, f r e q u e n t l y without r e c o u r s e to c o g n i t i v e monitoring.

That i s , the exacution of a s k i l l i s regulated l e s s by i n t r i n s i c

cues a r i s i n g from the environ-nent than by i n t r i n s i c cues a r i s i n g

w i t h i n the operator. The m o d i f i c a t i o n of s k i l l w i l l thtts r e q u i r e

conscious i n t e r v e n t i o n i n t o r e l a t i v e l y c l o s e d p e r c e p t i o n - a c t i o n

- 2 1 .

systems, the 'unleeirning' of e x i s t i n g stimulus-response l i n k s , and the r e o r g a n i s a t i o n of d i s c r e t e o p e r a t i o r ^ .

(d) Argyle and Kendon note t h a t mental d i s o r d e r s display-

f a i l u r e s i n s o c i a l performances, and that d i s o r d e r s may a r i s e from s o c i a l f a i l u r e or t h a t s o c i a l f a i l u r e may be a secondary r e s u l t of other p e r s o n a l i t y d i s t u r b a n c e s . The authors report s t u d i e s which demonstrate i n a v a r i e t y of mental d i s o r d e r s instcmces of the l a c k or poor c o o r d i n a t i o n of s p e c i f i c s o c i a l r e s p o n s e s . For example, a u t i s t i c c h i l d r e n d i s p l a y complete gaze avoidance (Hutt and Ounsted, I 9 6 6 ) , schir.ophrenics an i n a b i l i t y to d i s t i n g u i s h non-verbal cues (Bateson, Jackson, Haley and V/eakland, 1 9 5 6 ) ,

d e p r e s s i v e s a low-pitched, monotonous voice q u a l i t y (Ostwald, 1 9 6 5 ) ,

and so on. The authors i n d i c a t e t h a t these f a i l u r e s i n s o c i a l perfornance may be c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to d i s t u r b a n c e s a t

d i f f e r e n t points i n the s o c i a l s k i l l model, nam.ely, ( a ) p e r c e p t u a l f a i l u r e s a r i s i n g from the m i s a t t e n t i o n t o or i n a b i l i t y t o d i s c r i m - i n a t e betv/een s o c i a l s t i m u l i , (b) m o t i v a t i o n a l d i s t u r b a n c e s , such as the l a c k of a f f i l i a t i v e raotivation, l e a d i n g to an i n a b i l i t y to e s t a b l i s h goals i n a s o c i a l a c t i v i t y , ( c ) d i s t u r b a n c e s of t r a n s - . l a t i o n a r i s i n g from an i n a b i l i t y to c o r r e c t s o c i a l techniques i n the l i g h t of feedback, or from a l i m i t e d response s e t , and (d) d i s t u r b a n c e s of self-image a r i s i n g e i t h e r from i n a p p r o p r i a t e

c l a i m s f o r c o n i i n a a t i o n or from u n c e r t a i n t y as to what c l a i m s may be made.

I n summary, the view of human i n t e r a c t i o n engendered by the

s o c i a l s k i l l s model i s that of meshing of s k i l l e d o p e r a t o r s ;

- 2 2 -

•We suggest t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l engaged'in i n t e r a c t i o n i s engaged i n a more or l e s s s k i l l e d performance.

H i s behaviour h e r e , a s when he i s d r i v i n g a c a r , i s d i r e c t e d , a d a p t i v e , and f a r from automatic, though "

i t may be seen to be b u i l t of elements that a r e a u t o - matized. Here, too, vie have an i n d i v i d u a l c a r r y i n g out a s e r i e s of a c t i o n s t h a t a r e r e l a t e d to the consequences t h a t he has i n mind t o b r i n g about; i n order to do t h i s , he h a s t o match h i s output v/ith the input a v a i l a b l e t o him and must c o r r e c t h i s output i n the l i g h t of h i s matching p r o c e s s , Thus he may be d i s c u s s i n g c u r r e n t a f f a i r s with an a c q u a i n t a n c e , and be concerned perhaps merely to s u s t a i n a p l e a s a n t flov/ of tcxlk. He must be on the v/atch, then, f o r s i g n s of emotional d i s t u r b a n c e i n h i s acquaintajice, v;hich might s i g n a l that he had s a i d something that might provoke an argument. At another l e v e l , he must be on the l o o k o u t f o r s i g n a l s t h a t h i s acquaintance i s ready to t a l k to him or f o r him to l i s t e n . He must make s u r e h i s tone of v o i c e and c h o i c e of words, h i s g e s t u r e s , ajid the l e v e l of involvement i n what he i s s a y i n g , a r e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the k i n d of o c c a s i o n of the encounter'•

A r g y l e & Keudon ( 1 9 6 ? , p-56-57)

1 . 1 . 2 . 3 . Argyle 0 9 6 9 , 1 9 7 5 ) -

The f o r e g o i n g d i s c u s s i o n makes c l e a r that the s o c i a l s k i l l s

model f e a t u r e d the i n t e r a c t a n t a s a s k i l l e d operator, g o a l -

o r i e n t a t e d , e m i t t i n g s o c i a l r e s p o n s e s which a r e consiunmated

by g o a l attciinment. Such a model i s e f f e c t i v e f o r d e s c r i b i n g ,

those a s p e c t s of s o c i a l behaviour concerned with the maintenance

of r u l e s that govern the p r o g r e s s of the encounter. V/hat a s p e c t s

-23-

of human i n t e r a c t i o n a r e not accomodated by t h i s model?

The authors recognise t h a t much of s o c i a l behaviour i s concerned v/ith maintaining a presented s e l f - i m a g e • Thus behaviours

a s s o c i a t e d v/ith • p r o j e c t i n g an i d e n t i t y ' , 'seeking c o n f i r m a t i o n of a self-image', ' e s t a b l i s h i n g a s i t u a t e d i d e n t i t y ' may be i d e n t i f i e d by t h e i r f u n c t i o n w i t h i n the encounter. Hov/ever, the s o c i a l s k i l l s model f a i l s to i d e n t i f y behaviours a s s o c i a t e d with four a s p e c t s of s e l f - i m a g e maintenance:-

(a) behaviours a s s o c i a t e d with t h e formation of a s e l f - i m a g e ; why i s a self-image c o n s t r u c t e d i n one way r a t h e r than another?

(b) behaviours a s s c c i a t c d with m o d i f i c a t i o n s to a s e l f - i m a g e ; f o l l o w i n g d i s c o n f i r m a t i o n , what determines the c h o i c e o r

c o n s t r u c t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e s e l f - i m a g e s ?

(c) behaviours a s s o c i a t e d with t r a n s i t i o n s of s e l f - image between encounters; v/hat determines the s h i f t .betv;een presented s e l f - i m a g e s as the i n t e r a c t a n t moves from one encounter to another?

(d) behaviours a s s o c i a t e d vd.th t h e extent of s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e i n the attainment of e q u i l i b r i u m ; a t what point and v/hy does an i n t e r a c t a n t p r o h i b i t f u r t h e r s e l f - d i s c l o s u r e ?

I n s h o r t , these f e a t u r e s of human i n t e r a c t i o n c e n t r e cn t h e

i n t e r a c t a n t ' s c a p a c i t y t c a c t i v e l y model an image of h i m s e l f

i n s e p a r a t e encounters, and most importantly an image of t h e

- 2 ^

other with whom he i n t e r a c t s . Beiiavioura a s s o c i a t e d w i t h

empatny, understanding, sympatny -una oo on, cannot be accounted for without recourse t o the i n t e r a c t a n t ' s modelling of t h e

o t h e r . S i m i l a r l y , behaviours a s s o c i a t e d with d e c e i t , h o s t i l i t y , t h r e a t s , and a n x i e t y cemnot be accounted f o r without r e c o u r s e t o a model of s e l f .

I n h i s l a t e r formulations, Argyle (1969, 1975) c l e a r l y r e c o g n i s e s the r o l e of these modelling p r o c e s s e s ;

''According to t h e s o c i a l s k i l l model, each person i n an encounter i s t r y i n g t o meinipulate the other person, i n order to a t t a i n h i s om g o a l s . The model l i k e n s d e a l i n g w i t h people to the manipulation of a machine - which i s probably how psychopaths d e a l w i t h people, but t h i s doesn't q u i t e f i t the s o c i a l behaviour and experience of normal people. The model can be

extended i n two ways to make i t l e s s p s y c h o p a t h e t i c . (1) An i n t c r a c t o r ' s immediate goals may be f o r the other to b e n e f i t i n some way (2) During s o c i a l behaviour wc a r e usu£illy aware of being the object of i n t e n t i o n s , perceptions and a t t i t u d e s on t h e part of the others present to take account of concern vn.th the o t h e r ' s point of view, t h i s use of an imaginary c o g n i t i v e model of the other, some a d d i t i o n seems necessary to the s o c i a l s k i l l model i t s e l f , perhaps a s an e x t r a loop at the • t r c i n s l a t i o n ' stage One formulation of the missing process i s to p o s t u l a t e that a c t o r s i n a c o g n i t i v e sense 'take the r o l e of the other'".

(1969, p . i 8 3 . i 3 9 )

-25-

and, i n commenting on Goffman»s (1959) model of s o c i a l behaviour a s dramatic performance:

" t h e r e i s communication d i r e c t e d towards others, and there i s continuous use of feedback and

c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n i n both c a s e s . The main o b j e c t i o n to t h e . s o c i a l behaviour a s drama model i s that f i r s t , tlie p a r t s are only psirtly s c r i p t e d beforehand, and have to be made up,as one goes £LLong, and secondly, the part the a c t o r i s p l a y i n g i s h i s own p e r s o n a l i t y , not that of another".

(1975, P-53).

The s t a t u s of the s o c i a l s k i l l model has, f o r Argyle, undergone some a l t e r a t i o n ; s o c i a l behaviour i s now viewea as a n i e r a r c n i c a l system, i n which * the l o w e r - i e v e i elements are automatic and h a b i t u a l , while the h i g h e r - l e v e l sequences are under c o g n i t i v e c o n t r o l * ( T h i s view rem.-ains c o n s i s t e n t v/ith the sensorimotor s i c i l l model; r o u t i n e a c t i v i t i e s proceed smoozniy with the minimum of a t t e n t i o n being given to them, but i f an unusual s i t u a t i o n a r i s e s c o n t r o l p a s s e s to a h i g h e r l e v e l , and c o g n i t i v e processes inter*vene. The analogy of the t r a n s f e r of c o n t r o l witliin aji o r g a n i s a t i o n (Borger and Seabourne, 1966) from the operator l e v e l to the foreman l e v e l when the former encounters a s i t u a t i o n he i s not competent to d e a l v/ith seems appropriate here-

liowcver, such a viev/ suggests that modelling of s e l f and other

i s avoided liiiloss events occur v;hich demand conscious a t t e n t i o n .

-26-

Whilst Argyle acknowledges t h a t • t a k i n g the r o l e of the other*

l e a d s to g r e a t e r accuracy i n p r e d i c t i n g responses of o t h e r

i n t e r a c t a n t s ( F e f f e r and S u c h o t l i f f , 1966), l i t t l e s i g n i f i c a n c e i s a t t a c h e d to processes i n t e r n a l to i n t e r a c t a n t s other than those n e c e s s a r y to account f o r the o r g a n i s a t i o n and c o o r d i n a t i o n of

behaviour. I n terms of t h e model o f conversation o u t l i n e d i n the s o c i a l s k i l l s model i s p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h the a r t i c u l a t i o n of s o c i a l behaviour ( F i g . 1 0 ) , and only p r o c e s s e s concerned v/ith tne maintenance of models of s e l f and o t h e r a r e c o n s i d e r e d . The b a s i s on which t h e s e models a r e c o n s t r u c t e d i s not a f e a t u r e of the . s o c i a l s k i l l s model.

PercJ ^ — Rest)) <

C ^Trans

Rest) Fcrc^ >

F i f T u r e 10

What s i g n i f i c a n c e have other v / r i t e r s attached to the p r o c e s s of

modelling s e l f and other i n human i n t e r a c t i o n ? T h i s f e a t u r e

of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s has been fundariental to the s:>-inbolic

-27-

i n t e r a c t i o n i s m t r a d i t i o n s i n c e t h e w r i t i n g s o f G.H, Mead, cuid i s

o u t l i n e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n .

-28.

1.1.3- Symbolic i n t e r a c t i o n i s m and eth^omethodology.

1.1.3-1* The view of s o c i a a a c t i o n sis conduct which i s c o n s t r u c t e d by t h e a c t o r i n f a c i n g and d e a l i n g w i t h s o c i a l encoointers, by

i n d i c a t i n g to h i m s e l f and i n t e r p r e t i n g what he i n d i c a t e s , by

p e r c e i v i n g himself i n s t e a d of merely g i v i n g expression t o h i m s e l f , has long been a s s o c i a t e d with O.K.Mead. The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s o u t l i n e the c o n t r i b u t i o n of Head's symbolic i n t e r a c t i o n i s m to an understanding of the modelling of s e l f and other. I n a d d i t i o n , recent trends s i n c e Goffman's f i r s t p u b l i c a t i o n s (1955) have developed a new i n t e r a c t i o n i s m , o r i g i n a l l y providing an image of persons a c t i n g out d i s p l a y s aimed a t communicating images of s e l f , d e f i n i t i o n s of s i t u a t i o n s , and demonstrations of s o c i a l membership and s o l i d a r i t y . More r e c e n t l y a t t e n t i o n has once again been

s h i f t e d , i n the s o c i o l o g i c a l f i e l d a t l e a s t , away from i n t e r a c t a n t * s c o n s t r u c t i o n of meaning i n encounters towards i n v a r i a n t i n t e r p r e t a - t i v e procedures by v;hich these meanings a r e constructed ( G a r f i n k e l ,

1967).

1.1.3*2, G.H. Mead.

Mead's views on human i n t e r a c t i o n and t h e i r o r i g i n s i n Cooley's

(1902) w r i t i n g s begin with man a s c o n s t r u c t i n g a ' s e l f , t h i s

c o n s t r u c t i o n transforming h i s a b i l i t i e s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e

p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l world. I n c o n s t i ^ i c t i n g a s e l f , Mead r e f e r s

t c the c a p a c i t y f o r r e f l e x i v e consciousness i n which the person

becomes an object of h i s own awareness. S e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s , then,

becomes the means by which the person p e r c e i v e s h i m s e l f a s he might

perceive another:

-29-

"The apparatus of reason would not be complete u n l e s s i t swept i t s e l f i n t o i t s ov/n a n a l y s i s of the f i e l d of experience or u n l e s s the i n d i v i d u a l brought i n t o the same e x p e r i e n t i a l f i e l d as t h a t of the other i n d i v i d u a l s e l v e s i n r e l a t i o n to whom he a c t s i n any given s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n . Reason cannot become impersonal u n l e s s i t

t a k e s an o b j e c t i v e , n o n - a f f e c t i v e a t t i t u d e towards i t s e l f ; otherv/ise v/e have j u s t c o n s c i o u s n e s s , not s e l f - c o n s c i o u s n e s s "

G.H. Mead (196^, p.202)

But c o n s t r u c t i n g a model of s e l f i s not a once and f o r a l l

achievement. I n s t e a d , the s e l f i s c o n s t i t u t e d only i n the process of s e l f - i n t e r a c t i o n , and does not e x i s t as an enduring p s y c h o l o g i c a l or p e r s o n a l i t y s t r u c t u r e . To be s u r e , the s e l f t h a t i s c o n s t i t u t e d does bear c o n s i d e r a b l e invariemce from c o n s t r u c t i o n to c o n s t r u c t i o n , but t h i s i s seen as a function of s o c i a l r a t h e r than d i s p o s i t i o n a l c o n t i n g e n c i e s . From the s i m i l a r i t y between the process of

c o n s t r u c t i n g a model of s e l f and the process of c o n s t r u c t i n g a model of other i n experience i t becomes evi.dent t h a t the s e l f a r i s e s only from s o c i a l experience, and that the ' c o n v e r s a t i o n of g e s t u r e s with o n e s e l f i s a c o n d i t i o n t h a t a r i s e s from the p r i m i t i v e experience of e x p r e s s i o n being f o r another.

I n d e s c r i b i n g s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n Mead d i s t i n g u i s h e s ncn-symbolic process. I n the former, persons respond d i r e c t l y to one

another's gestures or a c t i o n s , a f e a t u r e which i s t r e a t e d i n l e n g t h

i n the s o c i a l s k i l l s model d i s c u s s e d above. However, i n symbolic

i n t e r a c t i o n s persons a c t i v e l y interpa^et each other's g e s t u r e s

-30-

and a c t on those mecinings c o n s t i t u t e d by t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , the i n t e r a c t a n t conveys to the other i n d i c a t i o n s or d e f i n i t i o n s a s to how he i s t o a c t . The dual processes of

d e f i n i t i o n and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n operate to maintain and transform the 'working consensus' of the encounter; should the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s t h a t provide the b a s i c assumptions f o r an encounter be undermined the e n t i r e v/orking consensus w i l l c o l l a p s e and r e q u i r e a j o i n t e f f o r t a t r e d e f i n i t i o n . Thus the s o c i a l a c t has an i n h e r e n t

xmcertainty which may be manifested i n s e v e r a l v:ays; j o i n t a c t i o n s have t o be i n i t i a t e d and they may not be, they may be i n t e r r u p t e d , abandoned or transformed, i n t e r a c t a n t s may e n t e r t a i n d i s j u n c t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s without r e a l i s i n g i t , new s i t u a t i o n s may a r i s e , c a l l i n g f o r novel forms of j o i n t a c t i o n , and so on.

Consciousness of the s e l f d i s t i n g u i s h e s the ' I ' that i s av/are of the s o c i a l 'me' , and i t i s fundamentally the same ' I * t h a t i s aware of s o c i a l 'others'. Thus f o r Head, l i k e H u s s e r l before him and l a t e r V T i t i n g s of S a r t r e , c o n s c i o u s n e s s i s a monad i n which experience of s e l f and other perpetuate the d i s j u n c t i o n betv;een the i r r e c o n c i l a b l e s u b j e c t and o b j e c t ;

" I t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o e x i s t i n a n environment of men without t h e i r becoming o b j e c t s f o r me, and f o r them through me, v;ithout my being an object f o r them,

without my s u b j e c t i v i t y t a k i n g on i t s o b j e c t i v e r e a l i t y through them a s the i n t e r i o r i s a t i o n of my human o b j e c t i v i t y " .

S a r t r e (I96O, p.l36)

•31-

Thus t h e 'me' ( e n - s o i , o r s e l f as p a s t ) remains unknown t o ( p o u r - s o i , e x i s t e n c e ) u n l e s s i t i s l o o k e d a t as ' o t h e r * (hence Rimbaud*s "Je e s t u n a u t r e " ) , a n d a s we have seen Mead a s s e r t s t h i s may be a c h i e v e d o n l y by c o n s t i t u t i n g i n t h e s o c i a l c o n t e x t t h e

a t t i t u d e s o f a r e a l o r imaginsiry o t h e r ;

"The »I' does n o t g e t i n t o t h e l i m e l i g h t ; we t a l k t o o u r s e l v e s b u t do n o t see o u r s e l v e s . The ' I ' r e a c t s t o t h e s e l f w h i c h a r i s e s thi-ough t h e t a k i n g o f t h e a t t i t u d e s o f o t h e r s " .

Mead (196^, p.229)

Thus t h e variety o f ' l o o k i n g - g l a s s s e l v e s ' (Cooley, 1902)

c o n s t i t u t e d by t h e person i s a d i r e c t f u n c t i o n o f t h e v a r i e t y o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s he subtends w i t h o t h e r s . The 'me' t h a t i s c o n s t i t - u t e d i s t h e ' I ' o f a moment figo, t h e ' I ' o f t h e p r e s e n t i s n o t g i v e n d i r e c t l y i n e x p e r i e n c e . N e i t h e r i s t h e 'I» o f t h e o t h e r g i v e n d i r e c t l y i n e x p e r i e n c e . I n s t e a d , t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e

o t h e r i s i n f e r r e d f r o m h i s b e h a v i o u r . These r e c i p r o c a l p r o c e s s e s

o f r e p r e s e n t i n g , o r m o d e l l i n g , t h e o t h e r f o r ' I ' , and t h e s e l f

f o r t h e o t h e r bear a c l o s e resemblance t o Lacan's schema f o r

a r t i c u l a t i n g t h e r e l a t i o r ^ h i p s betv/een t h e s u b j e c t (Mead's ' I ' )

and t h e ego (Mead's 'me') i n t h e ' m i r r o r - s t a g e ' o f t h e develotxnent

o f t h e s e l f - c o n c e p t i n c h i l d i ' e n ;