Post on 01-May-2023
Consequential Unscripted Interactions: A Conceptual and
Empirical Description
A consequential unscripted interaction (CUI) is a
conversation that a person understands to be important but
does not know how to do. Readers can probably remember
episodes such as being uncertain how to ask for a date, how
to require use of a condom, how to express romantic love for
the first time, how to ask for a job or promotion, or even
just how to explain that you would rather not play
shortstop. The two key features, consequentiality and
unscriptedness, are both subjective, and take their
definitional status solely from the viewpoint of a
particular interactant. Perhaps only a small group of
people regards some episode as a CUI (e.g., recent
immigrants having trouble asking police officers to help
them). Sometimes registering something as a CUI merely
indicates one’s life stage (e.g., asking for a date for the
first time). Or perhaps a CUI is relatively widespread
(e.g., learning to insist on safe sex practices in the
1980s). In other words, CUIs can be localized or
widespread. By definition, they are always consequential,
on a person-by-person basis.
Both scholarly and popular literature discusses a
related idea, the difficult conversation. CUIs and difficult
conversations probably overlap considerably in ordinary
life, but they are distinguishable conceptually. Difficult
conversations are simply hard to do. They might be
challenging because the person does not know how to do them,
making them also CUIs, but the difficulty may arise from
other sources as well. In fact, the literature commonly
suggests that what makes these conversations difficult is
their emotionality. For instance, nurses, even after
training, find it spiritually draining to give bad news to
patients or their families. A supervisor who knows exactly
what script to follow in giving a negative performance
appraisal may still stew over the experience and feel badly
about doing it. Difficult conversations are consequential,
just as CUIs are, but their oppressiveness may not derive
from being unscripted. Learning a script may not make these
episodes less difficult. CUIs by definition are unscripted
and consequential, and whatever emotional load they impose
derives from both of these features, not merely the second.
Consequentiality implies that CUIs will probably also have
emotional weight, but this is an empirical matter for CUIs
rather than a definitional attribute, as it is for difficult
conversations. Nonetheless, the likelihood is that most of
the relevant conversations will be both difficult and CUIs.
We will soon report on the emotionality of CUIs.
A great deal of the “difficult conversations” scholarly
work focuses on healthcare contexts, commonly giving bad
news to patients (e.g., Browning, Meyer, Truog, & Solomon,
2007; Lamiani, Meyer, Browning, Brodsky, & Todres, 2009;
Lamiani, Meyer, Leone, Vegni, Browning, Rider, Truog, &
Moja, 2011; Makoul, Zick, Aakhus, Neely, & Roemer, 2010).
Discussing racial matters in therapy has also been a matter
of investigation (Cardemil, & Battle, 2003). Another
substantial body of work deals with family and personal
issues (e.g., Keating, Russell, Cornacchione, & Smith, 2013;
Smith, Cornacchione, Keating, & Russell, 2014; Stone, Patton
& Heen, 1999). Some of this close relationships research
includes focused analysis of explaining racial matters to
children (Copenhaver-Johnson, 2006) or declaring one’s
sexual orientation (Manning, in press). Recent applied work
deals with teaching children and other family members to
deal with post-deployment problems among U.S. military
(e.g., Knobloch, & Theiss, 2012; Wilson, Wilkum, Chernichky,
MacDermid Wadsworth, & Broniarczyk, 2011). The commonness
of the term “difficult conversations” is almost certainly
due to a well-received advice book that often has workplace
interactions in mind (Stone, Patton, & Heen, 1999). All
these research topics range from the obviously heart-rending
(e.g., receiving a terminal diagnosis) to the mildly amusing
(e.g., explaining twerking to one’s parents; Wayne, 2013).
Many of the studies just cited involve the development
of interventions designed to guide people through difficult
conversations. From our point of view, it is interesting
that all those programs can be summarized as teaching
scripts to people. Not having a suitable script for an
episode is a defining feature of a CUI. But knowing a
script will not necessarily make it more pleasant to tell a
family their father is dying or telling an employee that
s/he is losing a job. The conversation can remain difficult
even when the participant is competently following good
instructions.
Even though difficult conversations are essentially
identified due to their emotionality, we notice that the
intervention scripts seem mainly aimed at improving
communicator competence rather than relieving communicator
distress (e.g., Browning et al., 2007; Lamiani, et al.,
2011; Villagran, et al., 2010). The motivation for these
interventions seems to be workplace-practical: how to get
the conversations done efficiently and clearly. Less
attention is being given to how it feels to say these
things, one after the other. The emotionality of these
conversations is sometimes felt most pointedly before the
episode, in some cases with a sense of relief or other
positive feeling appearing once the conversation is
completed (e.g., Keating, et al., 2013; Manning, in press).
Emotions before, during, and after the conversations are
separate phenomena, not to be elided.
By “scripts,” we have in mind a known set of directions
for behaving, normally less precise about prescribing actual
utterances than the script an actor in a play would have.
Honeycutt and Bryan (2011) have analyzed a great many
interpersonal scripts, approving of some and critiquing
others. Besides the Honeycutt and Bryan book, we have in
mind Schank (1982) as a theoretical frame and Kellermann,
Broetzmann, Lim, and Kitao (1989) and Honeycutt, Cantrill,
and Greene (1989) as research exemplars. A more unusual
example is Copes, Hochstetler, and Cherbonneau (2012), who
studied carjackers’ scripts (or lack of them) when
confronted with unexpected victim resistance. The present
investigation does not require an elaborate explanation of
the idea of scripts, however, and so we will move forward
with the general idea of script/schema/schemata that has
appeared in many lines of research over the decades.
While we do not move to the point of offering any
scripts in the current paper, we observe an oddity about the
interventions when CUIs and difficult conversations are
compared. The interventions offer scripts (and so are
apparently aimed at CUIs) but do so in the context of
difficult conversations (whose defining attribute, punishing
communicator emotionality, is not always addressed by the
scripts). The distinction between CUIs, notable for
participants’ uncertainty as to how to proceed, and
difficult conversations, defined by their emotionality,
would seem to be informative to several scholarly and
practical communities.
The ultimate aim of this research project is, in fact,
to generate scripts so that people can be instructed and/or
practiced in the important conversations for which they have
great uncertainty as to their competence. This paper begins
the project by obtaining useful descriptions of CUIs as they
actually appear in people’s lives. We will code open-ended
descriptions to find out what topics are involved in CUIs,
what consequences people are concerned about, with whom
people try to participate in a CUI, and various other
descriptive matters. These results should help researchers
identify and select particular CUIs for further work. In
addition, based on the material just reviewed, we
anticipated several elements of the CUI experience, and
formed closed-ended scales to measure people’s uncertainty,
their emotional reactions, how forceful the memory of the
CUI was, and various subjective outcomes from the
interactions. This is obviously an exploratory study, and
so we specify our immediate aims as research questions:
RQ1: What are the characteristics of CUIs, as recalled
by participants?
RQ2: How are uncertainties, feelings, rumination, and
outcomes related to one another, in the view of respondents?
RQ3: Are the topics and consequences of the recalled
CUIs distinguishable by reference to uncertainties,
feelings, rumination, and outcomes?
Method
Participants
We collected data online from two different samples.
The first was 257 undergraduates enrolled in communication
classes in a mid-Atlantic public university. They received
minor extra credit for their participation. Three
undergraduates gave such a limited description of their CUI
that the descriptions were not codable, and inspection
revealed that their closed-ended responses formed simple and
unlikely patterns, so they were dropped from the sample.
Undergraduate participants’ average age was 19.5 years (SD =
1.8). Women were 68% of the sample. Their most common
relational status was single (60%), followed by single in a
serious relationship now (29%) and single serious
relationship before (9%). Only 2% were married. Their most
common self-identified ethnicity was Euro-American (54%),
followed by Asian-American (9%), African-American (8%),
Hispanic-American (6%), and Asian (4%). Some (23%) declined
to estimate their family’s approximate annual income, but
45% thought it was more than $100,000.
The second sample was 230 Mechanical Turk workers,
recruited through Amazon’s mTurk system. Each was paid
$0.50 for completing the survey, using Amazon’s normal mTurk
procedures. Their average age was 36 years (SD = 12.9).
Males comprised 44% of the older adult sample. Their modal
marital status was married (40%), followed by single in
serious relationship now (21%), and single (21%). Most
(63%) self-described themselves as Euro-American, with 10%
Asian-American, and 9% African-American. Their modal family
income was $20,000 to $40,000 (29%), with 20% less than
that, 20% in the range $40,000 to $60,000, and 15% between
$60,000 and $80,000. Most (61%) were employed full time,
22% part time, 4% retired, and 18% unemployed (possibly
including full time students). The modal level of education
was university graduate (37%), followed by some university
(23%), at least some graduate education (15%), and community
college graduate (13%). Only 13% had a high school degree
or less.
Procedures
After completing demographic items, respondents were
instructed as follows:
This study is about important difficult
conversations. By “important” we mean that the
conversation had (or seemed to have) genuine
consequences for your life. Those consequences might
have been emotional, financial, relationship-oriented,
educational, or anything else you considered to be
important at the time. By “difficult” we mean
conversations that were challenging to participate in
because you weren’t sure how to conduct yourself, or
perhaps the other person didn’t know how to
participate. The conversation may have occurred when
you were adult or earlier – either is fine for the
purposes of the study.
The survey essentially asks you to describe one
conversation that was both important and difficult, a
conversation that you have actually had. You will be
asked to describe the conversation in your own words,
and then we will have some specific items for you to
fill out about it.
Their open-ended responses (“please describe the important
difficult conversation”) supplied the materials that were
coded. Remaining elements of the surveys were closed-ended
Likert items, detailed below.
Coding
Two of the authors coded the CUI descriptions. We
first read through all the descriptions from both samples to
see what seemed to be present, and then developed a draft
codebook. We anticipated some of the coded variables before
we examined the descriptions (e.g., topic) and others
appeared to us as we read (e.g., personal or institutional
identities). The two coders applied the codebook to 20
descriptions (combining both samples), calculated their
reliability, resolved their disagreements, revised the
codebook, and then did another round of coding. Some
variables (e.g., topic) were immediately easy to code but
others (e.g., emotion, consequences) took several rounds of
codebook revision. Eventually all variables were coded with
acceptable reliability. Tables 1 and 2 shows the coding
results for both samples, as well as the Krippendorf’s
alphas for each variable. All reliabilities exceeded
minimum acceptable levels for Krippendorf’s alpha.
The main codes were as follows. Topic was of course an
obvious concern, and we found a number of discernible
categories relating to sexual relations, illegal activity,
medical problems, financial issues, romantic matters,
work/job concerns, academic issues, and some conversations
dealing with death. The more specific categories are in
Table 1. We noticed that some of the descriptions were
ambiguous about whether or not the CUIs appeared to have
actually taken place, so we coded whether there was clear
evidence that the conversation happened. We coded settings
twice, once as to whether the conversation took place in a
private or public location (defined as whether others were
present who could hear or see the conversation), and once
into more specific settings, such as academic, workplace,
residence, and so forth. The channel within which the CUI
was conducted was coded, as was whether the participants in
the CUI were enacting personal or institutional identities. We
wondered whether the CUIs were consequential because they
were relevant to a decision. We noted the general tenor of the
respondent’s reaction, according to whether it was cooperative or
not (here, and for the next code, “respondent” refers to the
person responding to the CUI’s initiation, not necessarily
to the person who provided the data). Similarly, we coded
the respondent’s emotional status in a gross way, simply noting
whether it was expressed as being positive or negative.
Finally, we coded the nature of the CUI’s consequentiality,
finding subcategories dealing with self-image, close
relationships, resources (e.g., money), health, and the
future. These are detailed in Table 2, along with all the
other coding results except those bearing on topic, which
are in Table 1.
Closed-ended Instruments
Remaining measures were Likert items ranging from
strongly disagree to strongly agree on a 1-10 point scale.
Descriptive statistics, including Cronbach’s alphas, are in
Table 3.
We asked respondents to report self certainty before the
conversation began as well as to estimate the other’s certainty,
both with 3 items (e.g., I was expecting it to happen; the
other person knew how to conduct himself/herself). We also
solicited estimates of the same things during the
conversation (e.g., I knew what I was going to say next; the
other person seemed to know how it was going to end).
Respondents also recalled the degree and frequency with
which they reflected on the conversation after it was over,
using 7 items (e.g., I thought of things I could have done
better; I became more settled in my mind about what
happened).
Remaining measures were straightforward single-item
instruments, used instead of multi-item instruments out of
concern for respondent fatigue or annoyance. All of these
were developed in Hample (in press). Politeness (we were both
polite to one another) and rudeness (at least one of us was
rude to the other) were both measured because a conversation
can have both qualities or neither. Participants also rated
CUIs both for their argumentative (at least one person gave
his/her reasons for what s/he said or wanted) and conflictive
(the conversation contained clear disagreement) qualities.
The distinction is that argumentative exchanges require
reasoning and conflicts require explicit notice of
incompatible goals. A series of discrete emotions were
found to be most common in everyday conversations in Hample
(in press). These were assessed both during and after the
CUI. These were anger (I was angry), uncertainty (I was
uncertain), disappointed (I was disappointed in myself), happy
(I was happy with the conversation), sad (the conversation
made me feel sad), guilty (I felt guilty during the
interaction), surprised (I felt some surprise during the
conversation), worried (I was worried during the
interaction), thankful (I was thankful that I had this
conversation), bored (I felt the conversation to be boring),
and concerned for self image (I was concerned about giving a
negative impression of myself). In addition, during the CUI
we also assessed carefully edited messages (I was carefully
editing what I was saying).
A few other descriptive items (e.g., how many people
were involved in the conversation?) were also gathered and
will be reported momentarily.
Results
Research Question 1: Characteristics of CUIs
Here are the leading characteristics of the CUI
interactions in our two samples. Information on zero or
very low-frequency results is available from the authors.
First we present some contextualizing descriptions, and then
proceed to Tables 1 and 2.
Undergraduates reported that they had the CUI about two
years before the survey, when they were 17.7 years old (SD =
2.8), and estimated that the other main person in the CUI
was noticeably older, 35.2 years (SD = 15.1). More than
half (58%) of the CUIs were dyadic, but 27% had a third
person present, and 15% had four or more people
participating. The most common other main person was parent
(42%), followed by romantic partner (22%), and friend (13%).
More had CUIs with a subordinate (7%) than with a supervisor
(1%). The other main conversant was somewhat more likely to
be male (51%). The respondent (49%) and other main person
(48%) were about equally likely to have initiated the CUI,
with only 3% being instigated by a third party.
The mTurk respondents reported that on average, they
had the CUI when they were 31 years old (SD = 11.9; i.e.,
about 5 years prior to the survey), and they estimated that
the other main person was 40 years old (SD = 16.6). Nearly
three-quarters (74%) of the CUIs were dyadic, with 18%
involving a third person, and 9% involving four or more
people. The main other participant was most commonly a
romantic partner (34%) or a parent (27%). Friends were less
frequent partners (9%), having about the same frequency as
one’s supervisor (10%). Acquaintances (3%) and strangers
(4%) were about as common as one’s child (4%), but somewhat
more rare than one’s sibling (6%). The other main
participant was most often female (54%). The CUI was most
often initiated by the respondent (59%), followed by the
other main person (37%) and a third party (4%).
The mTurk respondents were older and their longer life
experience may have given rise to several of the obvious
differences between the two samples. Their CUIs were more
distant in time from the data collection, perhaps suggesting
that they do not have as many recent CUIs to recall. Their
average age at the time of the CUIs was well beyond ordinary
university graduation age, implying that some of the things
registered as CUIs by the undergraduate respondents may have
been replaced or lessened in importance as respondents moved
into their next decade. The older adults were more likely to
have experienced the CUI in a dyadic interaction. Romantic
partners were more likely interactants for them than
parents, compared to the undergraduates, but these were
still the most common CUI partners for both groups. The
older adults were more likely to have initiated the CUI than
the undergraduates were. This point about initiation needs
some reflection: why would a person (49% of the
undergraduates and 59% of the mTurk respondents) initiate a
consequential unscripted conversation? Perhaps the topic’s
consequentiality impelled the interaction, or perhaps the
conversations moved in unanticipated directions; our data do
not distinguish these possibilities.
Table 1 reports our classifications of the CUI topics
for both groups. The largest general topic categories for
both groups were romantic relationships (25% of
undergraduate topics and 24% for mTurk respondents), work or
job issues (10% and 11%), medical matters (9% and 16%),
finances (9% and 13%), and academic matters (14% and 5%).
Some differences between the samples are evident but the
same general kinds of issues seemed to resonate with both
groups. Within these larger categories, some differences
between the samples appeared, but most of the observed
frequencies were too low to make statistical significance
testing worthwhile. In fact, if our aim had been to do such
analyses, we would have condensed or omitted many of the
codes in the table. Instead, we want to communicate as many
details as possible, even if they are rare, so that future
work can pick up one or another of these topics and explore
it in view of its nature as a CUI.
Table 2 contains the results of the rest of our coding
for the open-ended CUI descriptions. In Table 2, sometimes
the “other” or “uncodable” categories are the most
interesting, precisely because these matters were not
important enough for respondents to mention spontaneously.
For example, few thought that whether the CUI’s setting was
private or public was very salient (is this truly
unimportant, or is it just assumed that the CUIs will be
done in private?). The physical setting of the
conversations was most often unmentioned, whether we were
coding privacy or location. The possibility that the
respondent was cooperative or avoidant during the
conversation was not described about half the time, and the
valence of the CUI respondents’ emotional reactions was not
apparent to us two thirds of the time. We need to think
about whether these unmentioned things are genuinely
unimportant, under what circumstances they become salient,
and whether encouraging awareness of these matters might be
a first step in an intervention.
The Table 2 results are more affirmatively informative
in other respects. Some of the descriptions did not give
clear evidence that the CUIs actually took place (2% for
undergraduates and 7% for mTurk informants). Perhaps their
nature was foreseen and a threat avoided, or perhaps the
descriptions were just not well written. Respondent
reaction is relevant to this point, because there we found
that about a quarter of the time people in both samples were
uncooperative or somehow avoidant during the conversation.
More than a quarter displayed a negative emotional tone to
us, compared to only a handful who had positive affect. The
most common consequentiality for both samples concerned the
relationship between the two conversants: this was our code
for 37% of the undergraduate reports and 39% of the mTurk
descriptions. No other consequentiality approaches this one
in frequency. However, utilitarian matters (in contrast to
relational ones) also appeared: career and academic matters
were important, along with health issues in both samples.
Settings were more often private than public (but mostly not
inferable from the descriptions), and CUIs were most
commonly conducted face to face (with both samples often not
finding this important to mention, either because it never
mattered or perhaps because they assumed that such
conversations would be private and face to face; however,
some respondents indicated that they chose texting or social
media because face to face contact was not feasible).
People participated in CUIs out of their personal
identities, rather than as supervisors, police officers, or
other institutional role occupants. Scripts may be more
commonly available for institutional identities than
personal ones.
So we have a general sense that CUIs are private
experiences, emotionally negative to recall or participate
in, and involve key matters of personal and relational
identity. However, these are only simple generalizations,
and some readers may find that the most interesting CUIs are
public events, tap institutional identities, and result in
positive feelings such as satisfaction.
Research Question 2: Relationships Among Uncertainties,
Feelings, Rumination, and Outcomes
Besides asking for free-form descriptions of CUIs, we
also requested that respondents provide us with some
specific information that we felt pointed directly to our
theorized nature for CUIs. These included people’s
(un)certainty about participating in the conversations,
their perceptions of the CUI’s characters, and their
feelings while participating. Table 3 provides descriptive
information on these measures (along with comparisons of the
two samples), and Table 4 shows their correlations.
Correlations involving the self-reports of emotions are in
Table 5.
In reading Table 3, readers should remember that the
theoretical midpoint of these scales is 5.5, because this
will help contextualize which matters stood out for
respondents (e.g., politeness, argumentativeness,
uncertainty, thankfulness) and which seemed irrelevant or
rare to the CUI experience (e.g., rudeness, boredom). The
two samples had quite comparable scores on nearly all the
measures. The only real pattern of note is that the
undergraduates had higher estimates of whether the other
participant knew what was going on. While undergraduates
and the older adults had somewhat different patterns of
topic (Table 1) and consequentiality (Table 2), the general
nature of CUIs seems not to have been very different for
them.
Table 4 shows how these subjective ratings of the CUI
experience (excluding emotions, which are in Table 5)
related to one another. The two samples have very
comparable correlation matrices, with only a few
coefficients being as much as .10 different between the two
samples. Let us mention some of the most interesting
results.
An initial interest is the four certainty measures,
because these implement our idea that CUIs are unscripted.
Uncertainty about how to proceed was a shared experience,
with self and other uncertainty before and during the
conversation mostly having modest positive associations (the
only exception being before the CUI for the mTurk
respondents). Shared variance was only about 4%, however,
so these are not strong associations. Own uncertainty
dissipated in both samples (see the means in Table 3), but
still had very large positive correlations between the
before and during measures for both samples. Estimates of
the other person’s certainty followed this same
correlational pattern. Own certainty predicted that the
conversation would be argumentative (that is, reason-filled)
but not particularly conflictive (i.e., characterized by
disagreement).
The distinction between recalling that a CUI was
argumentative and that it was conflictive has immediate
implications for how to design interventions. Use of
reasons implies that people are honestly try to think their
way through the problem, but simple disagreement suggests
that either they have little idea how to start or have lost
hope as the episode progresses. Participants’ uncertainty
had negligible associations with conflictual episodic
character, but the more confident people were about how to
proceed, the more they participated in exchanges of reasons
and evidence. Both argumentative and conflictive episodes
were recalled as stimulating reflection after the episode,
implying that people might be open to instruction.
Another element that points toward whether
interventions will be more or less challenging is the
emotionality of the episodes. Own certainty (i.e.,
knowledge of scripts) tended to produce slightly more polite
exchanges, but rudeness was associated with the other person
seeming not to know how to act. Rudeness was strongly
associated with being conflictive, but not with being
argumentative. The Table 3 results about emotional levels
indicate that most of the self-reported feelings were around
the theoretical midpoint of the scales or lower. Besides
uncertainty, only sadness and worry seemed to stand out as
potential barriers to help, and these were somewhat balanced
by surprise and thankfulness.
Table 5 deals explicitly with the interrelationships
among the discrete emotions. We chose to analyze the
correlations between the “during” and “after” recalled
feelings for both samples. Since these were all single-item
measures, it is worthwhile to begin by pointing out that the
diagonals in the matrices indicate very high correlations
between the measures at the two time points. Since these
are conceptually separated by the experience of the CUI,
these are not quite test-retest correlations, so they
indicate at best a basement measure of reliability, and we
judge those measures to be satisfactory. Those diagonal
coefficients indicate a considerable stability of feelings
during and after the CUIs.
The emotions differed in their levels of mutual
connectedness. Boredom, for example, was not associated
with any of the other feelings (and Table 3 indicates that
this feeling was pretty much never associated with CUIs).
Concern for self-image was also largely independent of the
other feelings, except for guilt and disappointment. All of
the other self-reported discrete emotions had substantial
connections with other elements of our battery. We will
take notice here of the connections that seem most
interesting to us.
Self-reported uncertainty, one of the more salient
feelings in Table 3, was directly connected to several other
emotions. In both samples, higher feelings of uncertainty
predicted more anger, disappointment, sadness, guilt,
surprise, and worry. More certainty produced more happiness
and thankfulness.
Although Table 3 does not indicate that anger was very
commonly felt, Table 5 shows that it was emotionally
dangerous. High anger predicted more uncertainty,
disappointment, sadness, surprise, and worry. Lower anger
was associated with more happiness and thankfulness.
Happiness and thankfulness regarding the conversation
might well be two epiphenomena of successful interventions.
They have fairly similar emotional profiles here. Greater
happiness and thankfulness were associated with less anger,
uncertainty, disappointment, sadness, guilt, and worry.
This is a coherent emotional profile for helpers to target,
and possibly an entry at any point in this dynamic pattern
will ripple out to the other feelings.
Table 5 reports many more associations but we will
leave these to interested readers. Our overall answer to
the second research question is as follows. CUIs tended to
be experienced as having fairly routine (or absent) levels
of emotions, except for uncertainty, argumentativeness,
politeness, and thankfulness, all of which seem encouraging
for the project of intervention. In fact, these tend to be
positively correlated and so might constitute a single
experiential density. Uncertainty about the conversation, a
defining feature of CUIs, was one of the most central
feelings in our emotional matrices (Table 5). It had
implications or associations for all the other discrete
emotions except boredom. Our theoretical orientation
implies that interventions should aim at the absence of
scripts for CUIs, but here is empirical evidence that this
is also a central feature of people’s experience of them.
Research Question 3: Associations between CUI
Characteristics and Uncertainties, Feelings, Rumination, and
Outcomes
Our final research question seeks to connect the
leading CUI characteristics (those that we coded) with the
self-reports we also gathered. To simplify the analyses and
increase cell counts (and because we have not been impressed
with many of the differences between our samples), we
combined our two samples for these analyses, which are
summarized in Tables 6, 7, and 8. We found it most useful
to combine many of our codes and to focus on those that
seemed most informative and frequent. Within each focused
set of comparisons, we sought to determine whether there
were mean differences on the closed-ended measures.
Table 6 shows how the various self-reports varied
according to the general topic category of the CUI.
Respondents’ certainty was highest (and higher than the
theoretical midpoint, 5.5) for CUIs dealing with academic,
workplace, and financial matters. The greatest uncertainty
was reported when the conversations concerned sex, medical,
or death issues. This was roughly the same pattern
regardless of whether certainty was being reported as felt
before or during the CUI. The other person’s levels of
certainty followed almost the identical pattern, indicating
that topics had the same level of estimated scriptedness for
both participants. Politeness and rudeness had opposite
patterns, of course, with the death, work, financial, and
medical conversations being conducted the most pleasantly.
The CUIs that were least characterized by reason-giving were
those dealing with death. All the other topics had scores
well above the theoretical midpoint. Death was also least
conflictive, and romantic relationships stood out as having
the most disagreement. Topic was not significantly
associated with the degree to which people reviewed or
mulled over the CUIs afterwards. Table 6 also reports all
the emotional effects. Nearly all of these were
statistically significant. Details are left to the readers,
especially those particularly interested in one of the
topical categories.
Table 7 is parallel to Table 6, except that the topical
categories have been replaced with other codings of interest
and reasonably balanced frequencies. Because so many of the
comparisons were weak and essentially null, only the means
for the significant comparisons are displayed.
A glance shows that the codes that distinguished the
various self-reported reactions most clearly were those
involved with consequences, which were reduced to
relationship between the parties, health concerns, and
issues about someone’s future. CUIs that bore on
interpersonal relationships were associated with the
greatest uncertainty about how to proceed, and people
reported more security in their thinking about their
futures. Relational consequences also led to the least
politeness and most conflict. The emotional patterns are
not simple to summarize, and so are again left to the
reader.
We were able to code whether the respondent conversed
from a personal identity or an institutional one (e.g.,
teacher, subordinate). Participating in a CUI from a
personal footing meant that the other person was more
uncertain about the conversation, the interaction was less
polite, and was more conflictive. Prior to the engagement,
people acting out of their personal identities felt more
uncertainty, disappointment, sadness, and guilt. After the
CUI was finished, people in personal identities still had
more anger, sadness, and guilt.
Finally we simplified our respondent’s reaction codes
to indicate merely whether the person conversed
cooperatively or not (e.g., avoided the topic). Cooperation
was associated with the other person being more certain how
the conversation would go, more politeness, and less
conflict. Cooperative respondents reported having less
anger and more happiness and thankfulness prior to the CUI.
After the CUI, cooperative people self-reported less anger,
uncertainty, and worry, and more happiness and thankfulness.
The least important of these codes was channel.
Whether the CUI occurred face-to-face or not seemed to make
little difference. Whether the CUI’s setting was public or
private was not important across the board, but private
exchanges were nonetheless associated with more reflection
afterwards, more politeness during the conversation, less
conflict, and less anger, uncertainty, and disappointment
prior to the exchange.
Finally, Table 8 reports results of several ANOVAs
using relational effects as a predictor variable. This was
respondents’ self-report of the CUI’s effect on the
relationship between the people involved. The categories
were the relationship ended, changed importantly for the
worse, got a little worse, continued unchanged, improved a
little, and changed in an important way for the better.
Table 8 shows that relational outcome was generally
predictive of the other self-reports. These tended to be
ordered by the positivity of the relational outcome, but it
should be noticed that at many points respondents seemed to
favor stability or small changes in the relationships over
larger improvements. Certainty was an exception, because
for several of the measures, ending the relationship was
associated with great clarity. Argumentativeness and
conflictiveness were also high when the relationship ended
as a result of the CUI. Thankfulness had an interesting
curvilinear pattern, being highest when the relationship
ended or improved the most. Many of the other emotional
reports, however, showed improvement in valence as the
relational outcome improved.
In sum, Tables 6, 7, and 8 point us to this answer to
our final research question. The CUI topics affected nearly
every self-reported variable we measured, suggesting that
this would be a productive way to begin dividing up the
community CUI research project. Topics dealing with sex,
medical issues, and death generated the greatest uncertainty
in our data sets. Our consequence codes were almost as
important as topic in distinguishing the various feelings
and impressions that respondents communicated to us. Here,
the relationship issues were associated with the least
certainty about how to proceed. We also noticed that
cooperative patterns of engagement by respondents seemed to
be the most constructive. Ending the relationship was
sometimes met with certainty, relief, and thankfulness.
Improving the relationship also had some positive emotional
associations.
Discussion
This has been an exploratory investigation of what we
propose as an interesting and potentially productive idea,
the consequential unscripted interaction (CUI). More or
less by definition, these identify opportunities to improve
people’s lives if we can convey useful interactional scripts
or training to them. Although this paper has taken a
theoretical and abstract tone, our real ambition is for
researchers to identify CUIs, perhaps from the descriptions
we have given, and move on to teach people more confident
and useful ways of interacting.
We have listed the topics we found in two different
samples, as well as the consequences that made the
conversations important to our informants. Our
instrumentation might be useful in developing and testing
interventions.
Almost all respondents in both samples (only one
respondent explicitly said he/she had never encountered a
CUI) reported that they had been involved in a CUI. They
seemed to have little trouble reporting an experience in
which they felt they had an important conversation for which
they did not have a script. Thus, it seems that CUIs are
fairly common phenomena in everyday life, and so developing
people’s skills to handle those situations probably will be
very helpful.
In both samples, the CUI experiences tended to be
negative, with topics dealing with death, illness,
relational threats, and so forth. Some people do not have
scripts available for these important but negative topics,
perhaps because people are generally reluctant to discuss
negative information due to the discomfort associated with
it (Conlee & Tesser, 1973), and thus have few experiences,
either direct or virtual. For example, romantic
relationship dissolution were found to be the most mentioned
topic (more than 10% for both samples), followed by romantic
relationship maintenance (also more than 10% for both
samples, mostly about complaints in romantic relationships).
Negative medical-related information and conversation about
death were also mentioned repeatedly in both samples.
Relatedly, data indicated that almost one third of
respondents had negative emotions, with only 2.3% of the
undergraduates and 0.4% of the mTurk respondents reporting
positive emotions. This result may indicate that CUI issues
naturally induce negative emotions or that CUIs are so
difficult to handle that some people cannot do them, thus
making training for CUIs useful.
It is also interesting that CUIs were reported to
happen more often in private settings, such as residences,
about private matters, and to affect interpersonal
relationships. People tend to have more developed schemas
and scripts for familiar topics (Honeycutt & Bryan, 2011;
Schank, 1982), so that the schema-activation process should
start most effortlessly when encountering a situation that
fits previously developed schemas. It can be expected that
people normally have much experience dealing with personal
issues (e.g., regarding mTurk sample’s average age, they
should have at least some experience of romantic
relationship maintenance), which should foster more
developed corresponding schemas and scripts. Interventions
might therefore attempt to scaffold new scripts from
familiar ones.
References
Browning, D. M., Meyer, E. C., Truog, R. D., & Solomon, M.
Z. (2007). Difficult conversations in health care:
Cultivating relational learning to address the hidden
curriculum. Academic Medicine, 82, 905-913.
Cardemil, E. V., & Battle, C. L. (2003). Guess who’s coming
to therapy? Getting comfortable with conversations
about race and ethnicity in psychotherapy. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 278-286.
Conlee, M. C., & Tesser, A. (1973). The effects of
recipient desire to hear on news transmission.
Sociometry, 36, 588-599.
Copenhaver-Johnson, J. (2006). Talking to children about
race: The importance of inviting difficult
conversations. Childhood Education, 83, 12-22. doi:
10.1080/00094056.2006.10522869
Copes, H., Hochstetler, A., & Cherbonneau, M. (2012).
Getting the upper hand: Scripts for managing victim
resistance in carjackings. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 49, 249-268. doi: 10.1177/0022427810397949
Hample, D. (in press; 2015). A theory of interpersonal
goals and situations. Communication Research. doi:
10.1177/0093650214565899.
Honeycutt, J. M., & Bryan, S. P. (2011). Scripts and
communication for relationships. New York: Peter Lang.
Honeycutt, J. M., Cantrill, J. G., & Greene, R. W. (1989).
Memory Structures for Relational Escalation A Cognitive
Test of the Sequencing of Relational Actions and
Stages. Human Communication Research, 16, 62-90.
Keating, D. M., Russell, J. C., Cornacchione, J., & Smith,
S. (2013). Family communication patterns and difficult
family conversations. Journal of Applied Communication
Research, 41, 160-180. doi: 10.1080/00909882.2013.781659
Kellermann, K., Broetzmann, S., Lim, T. S., & Kitao, K.
(1989). The conversation MOP: Scenes in the stream of
discourse. Discourse Processes, 12, 27-61.
Knobloch, L. K., & Theiss, J. A. (2012). Experiences of US
military couples during the post-deployment transition
Applying the relational turbulence model. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 29, 423-450.
Lamiani, G., Meyer, E. C., Browning, D. M., Brodsky, D., &
Todres, I. D. (2009). Analysis of enacted difficult
conversations in neonatal intensive care. Journal of
Perinatology, 29, 310-316.
Lamiani, G., Meyer, E. C., Leone, D., Vegni, E., Browning,
D. M., Rider, E. A., Truog, R. D., & Moja, E. A.
(2011). Cross-cultural adaptation of an innovative
approach to learning about difficult conversations in
healthcare. Medical Teacher, 33, e57-e64.
Makoul, G., Zick, A. B., Aakhus, M., Neely, K. J., & Roemer,
P. E. (2010). Using an online forum to encourage
reflection about difficult conversations in medicine.
Patient Education and Counseling, 79, 83-86.
Manning, J. (in press). Coming out conversations and
gay/bisexual men’s sexual health: A constitutive model
study. In V. L. Harvey, & T. H. Housel (Eds.), Health
care disparities and the LGBT population. Lanham, MD: Peter
Lang.
Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynamic memory. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Smith, S. W., Cornacchione, J., Keating, D. M., & Russell,
J. (2014, May). The impact of multiple goals and discrete
emotions on attitudes toward, and engagement in, difficult family
conversations. Paper presented to the annual meeting of
the International Communication Association, Seattle,
WA.
Stone, D., Patton, B., & Heen, S. (1999). Difficult conversations:
How to discuss what matters most. New York: Penguin.
Villagran, M., Goldsmith, J., Wittenberg-Lyles, E., &
Baldwin, P. (2010). Creating COMFORT: A communication-
based model for breaking bad news. Communication
Education, 59, 220-234. doi: 10.1080/03634521003624031
Wayne, T. (Sept. 1, 2013). Explaining twerking to your
parents. New York Times, p. SR2.
Wilson, S. R., Wilkum, K., Chernichky, S. M., MacDermid
Wadswroth, S. M., & Broniarczyk, K. M. (2011).
Passport toward success: Description and evaluation of
a program designed to help children and families
reconnect after a military deployment. Journal of Applied
Table 1: Coding of Open-Ended CUI Topic Descriptions
Krippendorf’s Undergrads mTurkalpha f % f %
Topic .73Sex (16) (6.4) (15) (6.6) Sexual orientation 3 1.2 10
4.3 Sex education 8 3.1 4 1.7 Sex talk 2 0.8 0 - Sex other 3 1.2 1 0.4Illegal Activity (9) (3.6) (8)
(3.5) Of respondent 3 1.2 3 1.3 Of other 0 - 1 0.4 Of third party 2 0.8 2
0.9Religion 4 1.6 2 0.9Medical (22) (8.8) (36)
(15.9) Addiction 2 0.8 8 3.5 Mental illness 10 3.9 5 2.2 Physical illness/injury 10 3.9 12
5.2 Old age 0 - 4 1.7 Other 0 - 7 3.0Finances (22) (8.8) (30)
(13.2) Employment 0 - 5 2.2 Debt 3 1.2 9 3.9 College 15 5.8 4 1.7 Purchase or bargaining 0 - 1 0.4 Other 4 1.6 11 4.8Romantic Relationship (63) (25.1) (54)
(23.8) Initiation 4 1.6 2 0.9 Escalation 1 0.4 0 - Dissolution 31 12.1 26 11.3
Negotiate or maintain 27 10.5 26 11.3Work/Job (25) (10.0) (25)
(11.0) Salary 0 - 3 1.3 Resign 1 0.4 5 2.2 Complaint 2 0.8 4 1.7 Transfer/change job 2 0.8 3
1.3 Other 20 7.8 10 4.3Academic (34) (13.5) (12) (5.3) College choice 13 5.1 2 0.9 Grades 3 1.2 0 - Failing school 1 0.4 1 0.4 Complaint 1 0.4 0 - Other 16 6.2 9 3.9Death (18) (7.2) (9)
(4.0) Own reaction 13 5.1 2 0.9 Another’s reaction 1 0.4 3
1.3 Explain to another 4 1.6 4
1.7Other 42 16.3 33 14.3
Table 2: Coding of Open-Ended CUI Descriptions Except for Topic
Krippendorf’s Undergrads mTurkalpha f % f %
Did Conversation Happen? .78 Yes 248 96.5 213 92.6 No 6 2.3 16 7.0Public Private Setting .79 Public 19 7.4 9 3.9 Private 51 19.8 34 14.8 Unclear 181 70.4 183 79.6Respondent’s Setting .94 Academic 15 5.8 2 0.9 Residence 35 13.6 15 6.5 Commercial 5 1.9 3 1.3 Own workplace 11 4.3 22 9.6 Mobile (e.g., car) 3 1.2 3
1.3 Healthcare facility 3 1.2 8
3.5 Other/unclear 179 69.6 174
75.7Channel .91 Face to face 119 46.3 77 33.5 Telephone 12 4.7 11 4.8 Text message 1 0.4 1 0.4 Social network private msg 2 0.8 0
- Other 117 45.5 138 60.0Personal/institutional ID .88 Both personal identity 207 80.5 185 80.4 R institutional, O personal 4 1.6 1
0.4 R personal, O institutional 23 8.9 13
5.7 Both institutional identity 17 6.6 26
11.3
Relevant to a Decision? .71 Yes 81 31.5 60 26.1 No 168 65.4 167 72.6Respondent Reaction .70 Cooperative 68 26.5 48 20.9 Uncoop, cut off conversation 1 0.4 0
- Uncoop, avoided conversation 2 0.8 3
1.3 Uncoop, made no response 7 2.7 6
2.6 Uncoop, other 49 19.1 53 23.0 Unclear 124 48.2 117 50.9Respondent Emotion .72 Positive 6 2.3 1 0.4 Negative 71 27.6 85 37.0 Neutral or unclear 174 67.7 141
61.3Key Consequentiality .71 Own self image 10 3.9 7 3.0 Other’s self image 1 0.4 1
0.4 Relationship betw the two 94 36.6 89
38.7 Relationship w 3d party 13 5.1 10
4.3 Own resources 9 3.5 8 3.5 Other’s resources 2 0.8 2 0.9 Joint resources 3 1.2 3 1.3 Third party resources 1 0.4 2 0.9 Own health 17 6.6 6 2.6 Other’s health 4 1.6 14 6.1 Third party’s health 3 1.2 5
2.2 Future: career 20 7.8 22 9.6 Future: academic 37 14.4 13 5.7 Future: family status 3 1.2 11
4.8 Future: finances 3 1.2 17 7.4
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Closed-Ended Measures
No. Undergrads mTurkItems alpha Mean SD alpha
Mean SD tSelf Certain Before 3 .83 5.62 2.65 .79 5.97 2.62
1.47Other Certain Before 3 .83 5.66 2.67 .86 4.96
2.77 2.86**Self Certain During 3 .83 4.35 2.39 .82 4.70 2.50
1.57Other Certain During 3 .90 5.51 2.53 .93 5.03
2.76 1.99*Reflected After 7 .78 6.41 1.86 .74 6.12 1.86
1.68Politeness 1 - 7.09 3.00 - 6.77 3.18
1.14Rudeness 1 - 3.48 3.07 - 3.73 3.40 0.86Argumentative 1 - 7.91 2.26 - 7.85 2.51
0.29Conflictive 1 - 4.71 3.21 - 5.59 3.47
2.88**During CUI Angry 1 - 4.57 3.39 - 4.63 3.56 0.21 Uncertain 1 - 6.91 2.78 - 7.04 2.92
0.50 Disappointed in Self 1 - 4.44 3.18 - 4.77
3.40 1.13 Happy w Conversation 1 - 4.14 2.91 - 3.66 2.93
1.83 Sad b/c Conversation 1 - 6.69 3.21 - 7.12 3.08
1.50 Guilty 1 - 4.80 3.33 - 5.34 3.31 1.80 Surprised 1 - 6.21 2.85 - 5.75 3.11
1.67 Worried 1 - 7.30 2.47 - 7.60 2.47 1.34 Thankful 1 - 6.33 3.11 - 6.11 3.32
0.76
Bored 1 - 2.13 1.74 - 2.15 2.060.14
Concerned for Self Image 1 - 5.11 3.29 - 4.433.26 2.26*
Carefully Edited Messages 1 - 5.86 3.06 - 5.803.12 0.21
After CUI Angry 1 - 4.31 3.41 - 4.62 3.60 0.96 Uncertain 1 - 6.02 3.24 - 6.19 3.26
0.56 Disappointed in Self 1 - 4.19 3.20 - 4.53
3.43 1.13 Happy w Conversation 1 - 4.72 3.10 - 4.06 3.18
2.32* Sad b/c Conversation 1 - 6.16 3.36 - 6.78 3.25
2.06* Guilty 1 - 4.56 3.28 - 4.96 3.44 1.30 Surprised 1 - 6.05 2.91 - 5.79 3.16
0.94 Worried 1 - 5.86 3.24 - 6.27 3.27 1.39 Thankful 1 - 6.28 3.12 - 5.96 3.43
1.09 Bored 1 - 1.95 1.49 - 1.91 1.89
0.21 Concerned for Self Image 1 - 3.89 3.07 - 3.96
3.17 0.23Note. N for the undergraduate sample was 257, and for the mTurk sample was 230. t tests are between the two samples, and df = 485, except when correction for unequal variances had to be made.
* p < .05 ** p < .01*** p < .001
Table 4: Correlations Among Closed-Ended Self-Report Measures, Except Emotions
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Undergraduates1 Self Certain Before2 Other Certain Before .153 Self Certain During .63 .104 Other Certain During .14 .71 .185 Reflective After .05 .08 -.03 .176 Politeness .12 .28 .08 .11 -.137 Rudeness -.01 -.17 -.03 -.06 .15 -.808 Argumentative .21 .16 .14 .16 .18 .09 .049 Conflictive .06 -.12 -.01 -.05 .25 -.63 .64
.21
mTurk Workers1 Self Certain Before2 Other Certain Before .013 Self Certain During .71 .134 Other Certain During .07 .78 .265 Reflective After -.04 -.02 -.15 .036 Politeness .18 .33 .11 .26 .037 Rudeness -.02 -.24 .06 -.11 .08 -.798 Argumentative .24 .07 .12 .07 .24 .17 .019 Conflictive .10 -.14 .09 -.06 .20 -.42 .57
.25Note. For the undergraduate sample, correlations of |.13| or higher are significant at p < .05, two-tailed. For the mTurk sample, the parallel figure is |.14|.
Table 5: Correlations Among Closed-Ended Self-Report Measures of Emotions
During the CUI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
UndergraduatesAfter CUI1 Anger .80 .32 .21 -.44 .38 .09 .22 .28 -.44 .01 -.062 Uncert .33 .56 .34 -.50 .47 .18 .32 .42 -.36 -.07 .003 Disapp .20 .35 .76 -.42 .35 .46 .13 .27 -.27 .01 .244 Happy -.38 -.35 -.20 .78 -.50 -.13 -.17 -.27 .63 .02 .085 Sad .37 .41 .27 -.54 .87 .31 .25 .43 -.32 -.09 -.066 Guilty .13 .22 .48 -.38 .42 .77.10 .24 -.18 .08 .247 Surpr .17 .32 .10 -.25 .25 .10.67 .34 -.17 -.09 .098 Worry .37 .44 .41 -.53 .53 .23 .35 .55 -.38 .01 .129 Thank -.35 -.15 -.19 .52 -.20 -.02 -.14 -.12 .85 -.07 -.0210 Bored .07 -.07 .11 -.00 .11 .03 -.20 -.18 -.10 .64 .1511 Self .04 .21 .41 -.21 .16 .34 .10 .15 -.15 .20 .65
mTurk WorkersAfter CUI1 Anger .81 .21 .08 -.31 .39 .14 .34 .12 -.30 .06 -.08
2 Uncert .30 .57 .30 -.37 .37 .26 .26 .37 -.24 -.06 .163 Disapp .18 .34 .77 -.23 .42 .67 .21 .32 -.18 .14 .364 Happy -.28 -.10 -.17 .75 -.41 -.17 -.11 -.09 .58 .17 .085 Sad .26 .24 .27 -.49 .83 .39.21 .44 -.23 -.18 .026 Guilty .11 .26 .58 -.19 .50 .81 .17 .38 -.06 .02 .307 Surpr .23 .34 .16 -.08 .14 .12 .72 .32 -.06 -.07 .028 Worry .26 .41 .28 -.42 .44 .26 .34 .48 -.27 -.12 .089 Thank -.24 -.05 -.09 .55 -.25 -.09 -.09 .01 .83 .01 .0610 Bored .06 -.15 .10 .23 -.11 .03 -.02 -.24 -.07 .86 .1911 Self .00 .19 .42 -.04 .12 .35.16 .21 -.07 .19 .73Note. For the undergraduate sample, correlations of |.13| or higher are significant at p < .05, two-tailed. For the mTurk sample, the parallel figure is |.14|.
Table 6: Mean Differences by Topic
Sex Med- Fin- Rom- Work Aca- Deathical ances antic demic
p <Self Certainty Before CUI 4.7a 5.1a 6.6bc 5.6ab
6.9c 7.0c 4.5a .001Other Certainty Before CUI 4.2a 4.6a 6.3c 4.8a 6.5c 6.0bc
5.0ab .001Self Certainty During CUI 3.4a 4.1abc 5.2c 4.6bc
5.1bc 5.2c 4.0ab .01Other Certainty During CUI 4.6a 4.3a 5.9bc 4.9ab
6.6c 6.1c 4.7a .001Reflected Afterwards 6.1ab 6.3ab 6.0ab
6.6b 6.1ab 6.3ab 5.6a =.11Polite During 6.8ab 7.6bc 7.6bc 6.0a
8.2c 7.5bc 8.5c .001Rude During 3.4bc 2.7ab 3.3bc 4.4c
2.7ab 3.0ab 1.9a .001Argumentative During 7.4b 7.7b 8.3b 8.4b 8.1b 8.0b 6.2a
.001Conflictive During 4.6b 4.2b 4.7b 6.5c 4.0b 5.0b 2.6a
.001During CUIAnger 4.6ab 4.2ab 3.9ab 5.5b
3.7a 3.4a 4.4ab .01Uncertain 6.8ab 7.8b 6.9ab 7.2b 5.8a 6.9ab
6.8ab .05Disappointed 3.6ab 4.6bc 5.6c 5.0bc
3.8ab 5.3c 2.5a .001Happy 4.5cd 3.2ab 4.5cd 3.5bc
5.1d 5.2d 2.1a .001Sad 5.2a 8.4c 6.6b 80c 4.6a 5.1a 8.5c .001Guilty 4.3ab 5.4b 5.3b 5.5b 4.0ab
4.7ab 3.6a .05Surprised 7.0b 5.7a 6.0ab 6.2ab 5.3a 5.5a
6.5ab =.09Worried 7.7b 8.1b 7.6b 7.6b 7.0ab 6.4a 7.8b
.01
Thankful 6.3ab 6.0ab 6.8b 6.8b 6.1ab6.7b 5.2a =.21
Bored 1.9ab 1.9ab 2.2ab 1.9ab2.7b 2.7b 1.5a .05
Concerned Neg Impression 4.6bc 3.7b 4.8bc 4.9bc6.3d 5.5cd 2.3a .001
Carefully Edited 6.1bc 5.1ab 5.6b 6.1bc7.0c 5.9bc 4.2a .01
After CUIAnger 4.2ab 4.0ab 4.3ab 5.1b
3.4a 3.2a 4.3ab .05Uncertain 4.9a 6.7b 5.8ab 6.3ab 5.1a 5.3ab
6.4ab .05Disappointed 3.0ab 4.3bc 5.1c 4.5c
3.7abc 5.1c 2.6a .01Happy 5.7d 4.0ab 4.8bcd 4.1abc
5.3cd 5.8d 2.8a .001Sad 4.9ab 7.8de 6.1bc 7.3cd
4.3a 4.7a 9.0e .001Guilty 3.5a 5.1bc 5.2c 5.1bc 3.5a
4.3abc 3.7ab .01Surprised 67.9b 5.9ab 5.8ab 6.1ab
5.0a 4.9a 6.6b .05Worried 5.5ab 7.1c 5.5ab 6.3bc 5.2ab
4.8a 6.5bc .01Thankful 6.1a 6.1a 6.6a 6.6a 6.0a 6.8a 5.9a =.70Bored 1.9abc 1.6a 2.0abc 1.7ab
2.4bc 2.6c 1.3a .01Concerned Neg Impression 3.7b 3.2b 3.9b 4.4b 4.5b 4.4b 1.5a
.001Note. For all analyses, df = 6/374. Means with the same letter within a row did not differ significantly according to Duncan post hoc tests at p < .05. The p values refer to the overall test of the one-way ANOVA. Entrees in that column beginning with “=” were not statistically significant.
Table 7: Mean Differences by Non-Topic Codes
Public/Private Channel R’s Identity Reaction ConsequencesPub Priv ftf Nftf Pers Instit Coop NCoopRelatn Health Fut
SCertB 5.7b 4.9a6.7c
OCertB 5.6 4.1 5.2 6.4 4.6a 4.6a 6.4bSCertDOCertD 5.1 6.7 5.7 5.1 4.8a 4.4a 6.4bReflec 7.3 6.3Polite 6.0 8.2 6.8 8.2 8.1 6.6 5.7a 7.7b
8.0bRude 4.5 2.4 2.2 4.0 4.7b 2.7a 2.6aArgtvConfl 5.4 3.9 5.3 4.1 4.0 5.5 6.4b 4.4a
4.4aDuringAngry 5.8 3.9 3.5 5.0 5.5b 4.3a
3.4aUncert 8.3 6.8 7.1 5.7Disapp 5.6 4.0 4.4 5.8 4.7 3.7Happy 4.5 3.7 3.7a 3.5a
4.7bSad 7.1 4.9 7.7b 7.8b 5.4aGuilty 5.1 4.1 5.8b 5.6ab
4.8aSurprWorry 7.6ab
8.3b 7.1aThank 6.9 6.0BoredNeg Impr 4.6 6.1 4.8ab 3.9a
5.3bEdited 5.7 6.7AfterAnger 4.6 3.5 3.2 4.9 5.3b 3.9a
3.4a
Uncert 5.5 6.3Disapp 4.1 5.8Happy 5.3 4.1 4.3a 4.2a
5.3bSad 6.7 4.6 7.1b 7.2b 5.0aGuilty 4.9 3.5SurprWorry 5.3 6.3 6.3ab
7.0b 5.5aThank 6.9 5.9Bored 1.9 2.4 1.6 2.0 1.7a 1.9ab
2.2bNeg ImprNote. Only when the ANOVA returned at statistically significant result are the means for a coded variable’s categories reported. Blanks indicate that the test was insignificant. The row variables are in the same order as in Table 6. Public/Private refers to whether the setting was public or private. Channel was recoded into face-to-face or not. Identities were recoded to indicate whether the respondent acted in his/her personal identity or an institutional one. Respondents’ reactions were recoded intocooperative or not. Consequences were recoded into relationship, health, and future issues, and the other categories omitted. Duncan post hoc tests were done for consequences.Table 8: Self-Report Means by Relational Outcomes
End Imp Little No Imp ImpWorse Worse Dif Little Bettr
p <Self Cert Before 5.7abc 4.8a 5.2ab 5.8bc 6.4c
5.9bc =.07Other Cert Before 4.9a 4.9a 5.0ab 6.0b 5.5ab 5.1ab
.05Self Cert During 4.7b 3.8a 3.6a 4.8b 4.9b 4.3ab .05Other Cert During 5.7b 5.7b 4.4a 5.7b 5.1ab 4.9ab
.05Reflected After 6.6a 6.0a 6.5a 6.0a 6.3a 6.3a =.19
Polite During 5.0ab 4.4a 5.6b 7.6c 7.6c 7.9b .001Rude During 5.5c 5.7c 4.3b 2.8a 3.0a 2.9a .001Argument During 8.2a 8.1a 7.3a 7.4a 8.2a 8.0a .05Conflict During 7.3c 7.5c 5.9b 4.3a 4.7a 4.2a .001During CUIAngry 6.6c 6.6c 5.2b 3.8a 4.1ab 3.8a .001Uncertain 7.3a 7.0a 7.6a 7.0a 6.8a 6.8a =.58Disappointed 4.9a 4.5a 5.5a 4.6a 4.7a 4.2a =.42Happy 2.9a 2.1a 2.7a 3.9b 5.0b 4.6b .001Sad 8.2b 8.8b 8.3b 6.0a 6.0a 6.6a .001Guilty 5.3ab 5.5ab 6.1b 4.5a 5.0ab
5.0ab =.19Surprised 6.1a 6.6a 6.3a 5.4a 6.1a 6.2a =.22Worried 7.9bc 7.9bc 8.4c 6.8a 7.1ab
7.6abc .01Thankful 6.0c 3.3a 4.5b 5.4bc 7.3d 7.5d .001Bored 1.9a 2.2ab 1.8a 2.9b 2.2ab 1.8a
.001Concern Neg Image 5.2a 4.7a 4.9a 4.8a 5.0a 4.5a =.69Carefully Edited 6.0a 5.1a 6.4a 5.7a 6.0a 5.8a =.60After CUIAngry 6.7bc 7.3c 6.0b 3.8a 3.9a 3.1a .001Uncertain 7.1b 7.2b 7.7b 5.8a 5.4a 5.6a .001Disappointed 4.9ab 4.9ab 6.0b 4.4a 4.1a 3.6a
.001Happy 3.2b 2.0a 3.5b 4.2b 5.4c 5.4c .001Sad 7.7b 8.8b 7.9b 5.9a 5.4a 6.0a .001Guilty 5.2ab 5.1ab 5.8b 4.4ab 4.3a
4.7ab =.21Surprised 6.4a 6.6a 5.9a 5.5a 6.2a 5.8a =.25Worried 6.9bc 7.7cd 8.1d 5.9ab 5.0a 5.5a
.001Thankful 5.7b 3.6a 4.6ab 5.4b 7.1c 7.3c .001Bored 1.6a 2.1a 1.8a 2.7b 1.9a 1.5a .001Concern Neg Image 4.6b 4.5b 4.7b 4.2ab 3.6ab 3.2a
.01Note. Means with the same letter within a row did not differsignificantly according to Duncan post hoc tests at p < .05.The p values refer to the overall test of the one-way ANOVA.