Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1978, Vol. 36, No. 7, 693-703

Verbal Response Modes and Dimensions of Interpersonal Roles:A Method of Discourse Analysis

William B. StilesUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Utterances in dyadic communication can be described as concerning the speaker'sor the other's experience, using the speaker's or the other's frame of reference,and being focused on the speaker or the other (where "focus" means presumingor not presuming knowledge of the other). The intersection of these threedichotomous principles of classification defines eight familiar verbal responsemodes: disclosure, question, edification, acknowledgment, advisement, interpreta-tion, confirmation, and reflection. Each mode has a distinctive grammatical formas well as a distinctive interpersonal intent, so the form and the intent of anutterance can be coded separately. The modes can be used to define three con-ceptually orthogonal dimensions of interpersonal roles, tentatively labeled atten-tiveness, acquiescence, and presumptuousness. The system of verbal responsemodes and role dimensions is similar in purpose to Bales's interaction processanalysis but has certain methodological and conceptual advantages.

A verbal response mode is a category oflanguage behavior that implies a particularinterpersonal intent or microrelationship be-tween communicator and recipient. For ex-ample, a question asks for information oradvice from the recipient; a self-disclosure re-veals feelings, attitudes, or intentions to therecipient; advice suggests that certain thingsbe done by the recipient. A summary »of themodes used during an interpersonal encounterdescribes the relationship that existed duringthe encounter. For example, one dyadic inter-action might consist mostly of self-disclosuresby both members, whereas another might con-sist mostly of questions by one member andadvice by the other. Verbal response modesdescribe and quantify the clear differences be-tween the dyad members' relationships inthese two interactions.

The author acknowledges and appreciates GeraldGoodman's system of listener response modes fromwhich the present taxonomy evolved, Brian E. Premo'snumerous contributions to that evolution, and DavidC. Cansler's and John H. Schopler's comments on draftsof this article.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to WilliamB. Stiles, Department of Psychology, Davie Hall 013-A,University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NorthCarolina 27S14.

Verbal response modes are a distinct subsetof the broad range of categories and systemsthat have been called "content analysis"(Holsti, 1969; Marsden, 1971). Mode cate-gories should be distinguished from contentcategories, which code the semantic meaning ofan utterance, and extralinguistic categories,which code speech features such as pauses,rate, pitch, speech disturbances, and laughter(Russell & Stiles, in press).

Verbal response mode use has been shown toreflect many important aspects of interper-sonal relationships. Mode use varies withthe relative position of dyad members in abusiness hierarchy (Slobin, Miller, & Porter,1968); with seeking or avoiding approval frompeers (Rosenfeld, 1966); with friend versuscounselor role (Whalen & Flowers, 1977); withteacher versus student role (Sinclair & Coult-hard, 1974; Stiles, Waszak, & Barton, inpress); with physician versus patient role(Bain, 1976; Davis, 1968, 1971; Freemon,Negrete, Davis, & Korsch, 1971; Stiles, Put-nam, Wolf, & James, Note 1); with gender ofcommunicator and recipient (De La Cour,1977; Whalen & Flowers, 1977); with the wishof the listener to speak or of the talker for feed-back (Dittman & Llewelyn, 1968; and with thedegree of disclosure by the other dyad member

Copyright 1978 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3S14/78/3607-0693»00.75

693

694 WILLIAM B. STILES

Table 1Taxonomy of Verbal Response Modes

Frame ofSource of experience

Focus reference Speaker Other

Speaker Disclosure QuestionSpeaker (D) (Q)

Other Edification Acknowledgment(E) (K)

Speaker Advisement InterpretationOther (A) (I)

Other Confirmation Reflection(C) (R)

(Kohen, 1975). Verbal response modes havebeen strongly associated with many aspects ofthe process of psychotherapy (see reviews byGoodman & Dooley, 1976; Marsden, 1971;Meltzoff & Kornreich, 1970). Theorists andpractitioners of psychotherapy have describedtherapeutic technique in terms of modes (e.g.,interpretation and reflection), and psycho-therapists of different schools differ radically inthe modes they use (Cartwright, 1966; Strupp,1955, 1957b; Stiles, in press-b).

Comprehensive coding systems have beendeveloped for research on psychotherapy andcounselor and therapist training (Bollard &Auld, 1959; Goodman & Dooley, 1976; Ivey,1971; Snyder, 1945, 1963; Strupp, 1957a; seethe review of such systems by Kiesler, 1973);these tend to emphasize modes used by thera-pists. In personality and social psychology re-search, Bales's (1950, 1970) interaction processanalysis is a comprehensive coding scheme thathas been widely applied (Bales, 1970; Bales &Hare, 1965; Davis, 1971; De La Cour, 1977;Freemon et al., 1971; Strupp, 1955). An im-portant feature of the Bales system is the as-sociation of the coding categories with three"value directions," or dimensions of interper-sonal roles (Bales, 1970).

This article presents a general-purpose tax-onomy of verbal response modes and explainshow three dimensions of interpersonal roles—attentiveness, acquiescence, and presumptu-ousness—can be derived from it. Unlike previ-ous systems, the taxonomy is analytic ratherthan empirical; that is, the modes are dennedby principles of classification rather than byverbal descriptions or standard examples. The

principles of classification are based on a theoryof the verbal communication of experience.

The Taxonomy

The taxonomy rests on three dichotomousprinciples of classification: source of experience,frame of reference, and focus. Each of theprinciples can have the value of "speaker" or"other." The taxonomy identifies eight basicmodes, disclosure (D), question (Q), edification(E), acknowledgment (K), advisement (A),interpretation (I), confirmation (C), and re-flection (R). Although the modes are familiarcategories of utterances, they are defined by theintersection of the three principles (see Table1) and not by examples or by the colloquialmeanings of the names of the modes.

Source of experience refers to the personwhose experience is the topic of the utterance.The experience is the central idea or informa-tion that the utterance concerns.

Frame of reference refers to the person whoseviewpoint is used in the utterance. The frameof reference is the context that gives meaningto the experience and the point of view to betaken in judging the truth or accuracy of theutterance.

Focus refers to whether the speaker implicitlypresumes to understand what the other's ex-perienc*e or frame of reference is or should be.An utterance is focused on the speaker if nosuch presumption is required (i.e., if the mean-ing of the utterance would be the same if thespeaker were in ignorance of the other's exper-ience and frame of reference). An utterance isfocused on the other if its intended meaningrequires such a presumption.

The taxonomic principles derive from a theo-retical conception of dyadic verbal interactionas communication between two centers of ex-perience. "Experience" is anything of which aperson can be aware—facts, feelings, actions,conditions, opinions, fantasies, memories, per-ceptions, intentions, and so forth. Each utter-ance concerns one experience, and while itsspecific content may be anything imaginable,its source must be the speaker or the other.Even when both dyad members are aware ofthe same information, each utterance draws itsmain idea from one center of experience. Forexample, the edification "The novel Valley ofthe Dolls is 348 pages long" conveys information

VERBAL RESPONSE MODES AND ROLE DIMENSIONS 695

held by the speaker, even though the other mayhave counted the pages. The question "Whatis the capital of North Carolina?" concerns theother's knowledge, even though the speakermay know the answer. The confirmation "Thenwe are in complete accord" concerns thespeaker's agreement, even though he or shemust presume knowledge of the other's viewto make the statement.

Theoretically, a single experience is mean-ingless in isolation; its meaning consists ofother experiences that are associated with it.The associated ideas, feelings, and memoriesform its "frame of reference" and give it themeaning it has at a particular time. The wordsused to express an experience are not the ex-perience itself, but they are associated with theexperience. Thus, putting an experience intowords automatically places it in a particularframe of reference. The same experience couldhave a different meaning if it were expressed indifferent words. In a dyad, the frame of refer-ence can be classified as either the speaker's orthe other's; each experience is expressed fromthe speaker's viewpoint or from a viewpointshared with the other. For example, the inter-pretation "You are oversensitive" takes thespeaker's point of view, whereas the reflection"You wish I'd stop criticizing" adopts a pointof view presumed to be shared with the other.To look at it another way, the frame of refer-ence is the context in which the truth, accuracy,or relevance of a statement is intended to bejudged. For example, the truth of the dis-closure "I'm still not satisfied" is to be judgedfrom the speaker's internal frame of reference,whereas the truth of the edification "The wordseveral is misspelled on the first page" is to bejudged from an objective frame of referenceshared with the other.

Finally, an utterance may or may not carrya presumption of knowledge of the other's ex-perience or frame of reference. An utterancethat does carry such a presumption is said to befocused on the other, whereas one that does notis said to be focused on the speaker. The inter-pretation "You've done well" presumes knowl-edge of the other's actions. The question "Howwell did you do?" does not. The reflection "Youfeel disappointed" presumes knowledge of theother's experience, whereas the acknowledg-ment "Mm-hm" does not. The advisement

"Get out of here" presumes knowledge of whatthe other should or will experience, whereas thedisclosure "I'm leaving" does not. In each case,the intended meaning of utterances focused onthe other depends on such a presumption. Thename of this principle, "focus," refers to thetendency for utterances that presume knowl-edge of the other to focus the other's attentionon himself or herself and for utterances that donot presume such knowledge to focus theother's attention on the speaker.

Each of the eight basic modes is associatedwith a particular grammatical form. In deter-mining mode forms, the goal has been toidentify distinct grammatical features thattypically and straightforwardly express theinterpersonal intents defined by the taxonomicprinciples. The form specifications are not di-rectly derived from theory but instead repre-sent the collective judgment of the author, hiscollaborators, and a substantial number ofcoders as to what forms characteristically ex-press the theoretically defined intents. Thefact that a high degree of consensus can bereached in these judgments may reflect someadaptation of syntax to expressing microrela-tionships. Coding form and intent separatelyallows for utterances in which the form of onemode is used to express the intent of another.

Disclosure concerns the speaker's experiencein the speaker's frame of reference, focused onthe speaker. That is, the speaker reveals some-thing about his or her own internal experienceor point of view, without necessarily presumingknowledge of the other. Disclosure form is first-person singular (I) or first-person plural (we),where the other is not a referent (i.e., where"we" refers to the speaker and some thirdparty) or where there is a compound subjectthat includes the speaker but not the other.("I'd really like to talk about my feelingsabout being an experimental subject." "Iknow what I can do, but I'm in no way super-ior.")

Question concerns the other's experience inthe speaker's frame of reference, focused on thespeaker. The speaker attempts, in effect, to filla gap in his or her own frame of reference withinformation supplied by the other. The focus ison the speaker, in that the speaker does notneed to presume knowledge of the other's ex-perience in order to ask a question. Question

696 WILLIAM B. STILES

form is interrogative, with inverted subject-verb order and/or interrogative words such aswho, what, when, where, why, or how. ("Whereis the book?" "Did you remember to bring themustard?")

Edification concerns the speaker's experiencein the other's frame of reference, focused on thespeaker. The "experience" conveyed is in-formation held by the speaker. The focus is onthe speaker in that no presumption regardingthe other's experience or viewpoint is necessaryfor the utterance to have the meaning it has.The frame of reference is that of a "generalizedother," since no specific knowledge of theother's viewpoint is presumed. In other words,edifications express objective information;their truth or accuracy could be ascertained byanyone in the right place at the right time. Ofcourse, the statement need not be true oraffectively neutral to be an edification. Edifica-tion form is declarative and third person (e.g.,he, she, it, they, or a noun; "The book is on thetable." "She said she loved me.")

Acknowledgment concerns the other's ex-perience in the other's frame of reference, butfocused on the speaker. Acknowledgment is acontentless mode in the sense that the speakerdoes not convey his or her own viewpoint orinformation in the utterance, nor does thespeaker presume knowledge of the other'sframe of reference or experience. In general,acknowledgments convey reception of or re-ceptiveness to communication from the other.Acknowledgment form includes nonlexicalutterances, content-free lexical utterances, andterms of address and salutation. ("Mm-hm.""Yes, sir." "Hello.")

Advisement concerns the speaker's experi-ence in the speaker's frame of reference, focusedon the other. The speaker presumes to expresswhat he or she wants done (experience) givenhis or her view of the situation (frame of refer-ence). Thus, in advisement, the speaker at-tempts to impose his or her experience on theother by guiding the other's behavior. Advice,command, suggestion, instruction, permission,and prohibition are scored as advisement.Advisement form is imperative, with the sub-ject omitted but understood, or second person(you) with a verb of permission, prohibition, orobligation. All focus-on-other mode forms havesubjects that include the other as a referent.

("Tell me more about it." "You should cleanup your room.")

Interpretation concerns the other's experi-ence in the speaker's frame of reference, focusedon the other. The speaker offers an explanationor a particular way for the other to understandhis or her own experience or behavior. Theframe of reference into which the speaker pre-sumes to place the other's experience may bethe speaker's personal opinion or some generalstandard or even a formal theory, such as psy-choanalytic theory. Judgments or evaluationsof the other's experience or behavior are scoredas interpretation; however, judgments aboutother matters (e.g., a work of art, an externalevent, or a third person) are not scored as inter-pretation in this taxonomy, even though suchan utterance might colloquially be termed "hisinterpretation." Interpretation form is secondperson (you) with a verb that describes anattribute, condition, or ability of the other.("You're right." "You're a bit modest in howyou appraise yourself.")

Confirmation concerns the speaker's experi-ence in the other's frame of reference, focusedon the other. The speaker presumes a commonframe of reference in order to compare his orher own experience with that of the other.Expressions of joint thought or action, agree-ment, and similarity of opinion or experienceare scored as confirmation. This mode also in-cludes disagreement and expressions of dissimi-larity (it could be called "confirmation-dis-confirmation"); the speaker must presumeknowledge of the other's experience or frame ofreference in order to make a comparison. Con-firmation form is first-person plural (we) whenboth the speaker and the other are referents orthere is a compound subject that includes bothspeaker and other (e.g., you and I). ("We dis-agree about that." "We were meant for eachother.")

Reflection expresses the other's experience inthe other's frame of reference, focused on theother. The speaker attempts to express theother's experience in a way that is compatiblewith the other's view of it. Obviously, in orderto do this, the speaker must presume knowledgeof the other's experience and frame of refer-ence, so the focus is on the other. An utteranceneed not use the other's words, nor must it beaccurate, to be scored as reflection, so long as

VERBAL RESPONSE MODES AND ROLE DIMENSIONS 697

the implied standard of accuracy is the other'sinternal frame of reference. Reflection form issecond person (you) with a verb that describesan internal experience or an action of the other(i.e., things of which the other is presumed tobe aware. "You don't think this is really anintegral part of the course." "You like yourjob.")

Utterances in which the form and intentcoincide, as in the above examples, are called"pure modes." Utterances in which the formand intent differ are called "mixed modes."For example, the sentence "Would you closethe door?" is a question in form but evidentlyhas the intent of advisement: "Close the door."In a system that did not code form and intentseparately, such an utterance might reasonablybe scored in either category. As a notationalconvention, the symbol representing the intentis enclosed in parentheses, and the relationshipbetween form and intent is expressed "inservice of." Hence, "Would you close thedoor?" is coded Q(A) and read "question inservice of advisement." With eight forms andeight intents, there is a total of 64 possibleclassifications in the taxonomy, 8 pure modesand 56 mixed modes.

Ideally, form judgments are made mechan-ically, based on the grammatical specifications.Unfortunately, natural language is oftenfragmented and ungrammatical, so that utter-ance forms are not clear. Sometimes it is pos-sible to reconstruct fragmentary utterances todetermine form when they are parallel con-structions or answers to questions. Forexample, the question "How old are you?"might be answered "Seven." The obvious re-construction is "I am seven years old," whichisD(E).

Intent judgments are often more difficultthan form judgments, since the same wordscan convey different intents. In any discoursecoding scheme, including this one, it is helpfulto consider context, tone of voice, and non-verbal cues in deciding a speaker's intent.Even with these cues available, participantsin conversations occasionally mistake eachother's intent. The present taxonomy greatlyrestricts this unspecified interpretive work bycoders by confining intent judgments to threeforced choices: "Whose experience is thetopic?" "Whose frame of reference is used?"

and "On whom is the utterance focused?" (i.e.,does the speaker presume knowledge of theother?). Coders are encouraged to use all avail-able information in answering these questions.Coders report that the intent of a majority ofutterances can be coded out of context, but asubstantial minority require reference to theimmediate context (at least the precedingspeech by the other) to identify the source ofexperience, frame of reference, and focus.Paralinguistic cues, such as tone of voice, addrelatively little to what can be learned fromcontext, with the important exception of therising inflection that is usually indicated by aquestion mark in transcripts of dialogue. Moresubtle paralinguistic and nonverbal cues maybe redundant with verbal and contextual cuesor may communicate information irrelevantto mode judgments. However, further researchis required to obtain quantitative estimates ofthe contribution of contextual, paralinguistic,and nonverbal cues to judging intent.

Some examples of mixed modes are the fol-lowing :

1. "It really bothers me." E(D)The speaker reveals his or her own experiencefrom his or her own viewpoint, presumingnothing of the other, but using a third-personform.

2. (Q: "Does it bother you?") "Yeah."K(D)Here the speaker uses an acknowledgment formto convey the same information. That is, inform, the speaker acknowledges the informa-tional content of the question, while in intenthis or her own internal experience is revealed.

3. "I'm a sophomore." D(E)4. "I wish you'd be quiet." D(A)5. "Isee."D(K)6. "Right." (No judgment intended.) I(K)7. (Q: "Are you a sophomore?") "No."

K(E)8. "Hmm?"K(Q)9. "You didn't want to come today?" R(Q)10. "You know I love ice cream." R(D)

The only residual category in the taxonomy(unscorable) consists of uncommunicative, in-complete, and incomprehensible utterances andresponses that are unscorable because of faultyrecording or transcription.

Unitizing. The scoring unit in the taxon-

698 WILLIAM B. STILES

omy is the utterance. Ideally, this unit shouldbe denned grammatically so that each utter-ance corresponds to one psychological unit ofexperience. In this taxonomy, each independentclause, each nonrestrictive dependent clause,each term of address or acknowledgment, andeach element of a compound predicate isscored as a separate utterance. For example,the sentence "You like this painting and I donot, so I doubt we will like each other" isscored as three utterances, R(R), D(D), andD (C). Restrictive dependent clauses may affectintent judgments but they are not scored asseparate units. These grammatical rules havebeen developed by trial and error with the goalsthat (a) coders can apply them consistently totranscriptions made by people without specialtraining and (b) cases do not arise in which thesense .of an utterance demands two modes,since that could imply that two units of experi-ence are conveyed. See Auld and White (1956)and Dittman and Llewellyn (1967) for dis-cussions of the problems of identifying speechunits. Coding and unitizing procedures aredealt with in more detail in a coding manual(Stiles, in press-a).

The following decimal system of numberingutterances facilitates keypunching and com-puterized comparisons among coders. Speechnumbers are written on the transcript. Sen-tences within speeches are numbered in thefirst decimal place, beginning with zero. Utter-ances within sentences—independent clauses,for example—are numbered in the second deci-mal place, beginning with zero. For instance,

X3: I'm sorry. I thought Dr. Smith was in his office, buthe has already left for lunch. Why don't you try to callback at 1:30?

This speech, the third by Person X, would benumbered 3.00 D(D); 3.10 D(D); 3.11 E(E);3.20 Q(A).

Reliability. Experience with the system sofar indicates that average pairwise agreementbetween independent coders is about 85% forform and 75% for intent for volunteer coders,working from transcripts alone, who haveaccess to a coding manual and who have com-pleted and received feedback on two or threepractice transcripts (Stiles, in press-b; Stileset al., in press; Stiles et al., Note 1). Continu-ing refinements in the unitizing system, clari-fications in the descriptions of the categories

and the taxonomic principles, and the use ofmore experienced coders show promise of im-proving these figures.

Overall percentage of agreement is anobvious index of reliability, but it can be mis-leading when base rates of individual categoriesare very different. While no index of reliabilityfor nominal classification systems is completelysatisfactory, Cohen's (1960) K appears to bethe most defensible, both as a chance-correctedmeasure and as an intraclass correlation coeffi-cient (Fleiss, 1975). Cohen's K ranges from+ 1.0 to —1.0 and measures interjudge agree-ment on the presence or absence of single traits.By this measure, reliability of verbal responsemodes varies with the frequency of use; modesthat are rare in a particular type of transcriptobtain lower reliabilities. This seems to reflectlevels of coder vigilance more than the categorydefinitions; for example, reliability for edifica-tion was relatively high (.7 to .8) in codingstudent-professor interactions, where edifica-tion was common (Stiles et al., in press), butlow (.3 to .4) in coding psychotherapist inter-ventions, where edification was rare (Stiles,in press-b). Reliability for reflection was high(.7 to .8) in coding psychotherapist interven-tions, where reflection was common, and low(.4 to .6) in coding student-professor inter-actions, where it was rare.

The pairwise agreement among coders is ade-quate, but not as good as might be hoped. Inorder to improve precision, the codes of threeindependent coders can be combined into acomposite set on a two-out-of-three basis; ut-terances on which all three disagree are as-signed to a "disagreement" category. Agree-ment rates of 95% or better for form and forintent have been obtained consistently usingthis procedure (i.e., less than 5% of the forms orintents of utterances are assigned to the dis-agreement category). The substantial im-provement over the pairwise rates reflectscoders choosing between two probable modesrather than among all eight; the third coderbreaks the tie.

Strengths and limitations. The taxonomicprinciples provide a systematic, theoreticalbasis for making scoring decisions. A coder canidentify the source of experience, the frame ofreference, and the focus of an utterance ratherthan having to depend on judged similarity to

VERBAL RESPONSE MODES AND ROLE DIMENSIONS 699

definitions or standard examples. This proced-ure guarantees a mutually exclusive and ex-haustive classification. The modes are mutuallyexclusive because each has a unique combina-tion of "speaker" and "other" values. They areexhaustive because the two values exhaust themembership of the dyad; no new modes can bediscovered because all combinations of valueshave been accounted for.

The principles articulate the similarities anddifferences of the modes. For example, edifica-tion and disclosure are similar in that bothconcern the speaker's experience and are fo-cused on the speaker. They are different in thatedification uses the (generalized) other's frameof reference, whereas disclosure uses the speak-er's frame of reference. The principles also makeclear why verbal response modes describe in-terpersonal microrelationships. The valuesmight be labeled "I" and "thou" as well as"speaker" and "other." From this more per-sonal perspective, the mode of each of my ut-terances implies whether I am interested inyour experience or my own, whether I takeyour viewpoint or use my own, and whether Ipresume to know something of you. In thissense, the taxonomy describes a contribution oflanguage to the relatedness of two human cen-ters of experience.

Of course, no human relationship is entirelyverbal. The taxonomy cannot capture non-verbally expressed features of a relationship un-less a redundant message is conveyed in verbalchannels. The taxonomy does not code whatparticular experience or frame of reference isused in an utterance; it only codes whose isused. Neither does the taxonomy code thetruth, psychological depth, or eloquence of anutterance. Obviously, the mode of a verbalresponse is only one of many characteristicsthat contribute to its interpersonal impact.

Dimensions of Interpersonal Roles

The taxonomic principles can be logicallyextended from classifying utterances to char-acterizing interactions. The principles providea theoretical basis for grouping utterances thatis more general and abstract than the modecategories themselves. A person's role in aninteraction can be described by the proportionof his or her utterances having the value of"speaker" or "other" on each of the three

principles. The proportions appear -to measurefamiliar dimensions of interpersonal role be-havior.

In discussing the meanings of these dimen-sions, I have arbitrarily chosen to use the pro-portion of utterances having the value of"other" on each principle rather than the pro-portion having the value of "speaker." If un-scorable utterances are disregarded, the twoproportions give the same information; thesum of the two proportions must be one, sinceevery utterance is classified "speaker" or"other." Either proportion summarizes theuse of four of the modes, whereas one minusthat proportion summarizes the use of theother four. The names I have chosen for therole dimensions are tentative labels for pre-cisely defined proportions. The names areapproximations to the psychological signifi-cance of the proportions from the perspectiveof an external observer. The proportion ofscored utterances concerning the other's ex-perience (Q, K, I, R) is called "attentiveness."The proportion of scored utterances in theother's frame of reference (E, K, C, R) is called"acquiescence." The proportion of scored ut-terances focused on the other (A, I, C, R) iscalled "presumptuousness."

Values on the three dimensions can be com-puted separately for form and for intent. Areasonable speculation is that the form valuesreflect a more superficial, explicit, or overt levelof the interpersonal relationship, whereas theintent values represent a relatively deeper,implicit, or covert level. For example, the state-ment "I'd like a glass of water," which isD(A), has the same presumptuous intent as"Give me a glass of water," which is scoredA (A), but it is made overtly less presumptuousby the disclosure form.

Theoretical and intuitive considerations aswell as a few empirical studies help to fill in themeanings of the three role dimensions.

Attentiveness refers to the degree to which aperson's utterances concern the other's experi-ence. Intuitively, a person using mostly ques-tions, acknowledgments, interpretations, andreflections might be called attentive, whereasa person using mostly disclosures, edifications,advisements, and confirmations might be calledinformative or self-centered in the sense ofbeing concerned with his or her own knowledge

700 WILLIAM B. STILES

and opinions rather than with the other person.Client-centered and psychoanalytic psycho-therapists and physicians collecting medicalhistories have very high attentiveness values(averages above .8), whereas psychotherapyclients and patients giving medical historieshave very low attentiveness values (averagesbelow .2; Stiles, in press-b; Stiles et al., Note 1).These extreme values probably reflect thespecial case of interviews conducted for thespecific purpose of discussing one person's ex-perience. It is of theoretical interest that pa-tients in medical interviews consistently showhigher attentiveness at the level of form thanat the level of intent (.28 vs. .04 in the medicalhistory segment). The major contributors tothe discrepancy are the modes K(E) and K(D),which are usually affirmative or negativeanswers to closed questions. In using thesemodes, the patient attends explicitly to thephysician's wording of the questions but im-plicitly to his or her own experience to find theanswer.

Acquiescence refers to the extent to which aperson uses the other's frame of reference oraccedes to the other's viewpoint in conversa-tion. Intuitively, edifications, acknowledg-ments, confirmations, and reflections seem toaccede to the other person, whereas disclosures,questions, advisements, and interpretationsseem to impose the speaker's will on the inter-action. As prescribed by their theories of psy-chotherapy, client-centered therapists werefound to be very nondirective (acquiescencegreater than .8), whereas gestalt therapistswere found to be very directive (acquiescenceless than .2). That is, client-centered therapistsstayed in the client's frame of reference; gestalttherapists stayed in the "now" (i.e., thera-pist's frame of reference; Stiles, in press-b).Physicians in medical interviews consistentlyhad lower acquiescence than patients in thoseinterviews, particularly in the physical examin-ation segment (Stiles et al., Note 1). The ac-quiescence discrepancy was considerablygreater at the level of form (.17 vs. .67 in thephysical examination) than at the level of in-tent (.32 vs. .47 in the physical examination),suggesting that although the physician is ex-plicitly in complete command, implicitly he orshe is partly guided by what the patient says.To the extent that physicians are generally

considered to control medical interviews, client-centered therapists are generally seen as non-directive, and gestalt therapists are generallyseen as directive, these findings provide con-struct validity for the acquiescence dimension.

Presumptuous-ness refers to the extent towhich a person presumes knowledge of theother. Such a presumption suggests personalfamiliarity or intimacy with the other, orwider experience, greater learning, better judg-ment, or higher authority than the other. Pre-sumptuousness might also be called "familiar-ity," and the degree to which the speaker'spresumptuousness exceeds the other's might becalled "ascendancy." Intuitively, advisement,interpretation, confirmation, and reflectionseem to suggest either close personal acquaint-ance or higher social rank. For a stranger or alower-ranking person to use them would be in-appropriate familiarity or unwarranted pre-sumptuousness. The higher status members ofdyads have consistently been shown to be morepresumptuous than the lower status members;professors are more presumptuous than stu-dents both in the classroom and in the labora-tory (average, about .16 vs. .05; Stiles et al.,in press); physicians are more presumptuousthan patients in the medical history, the physi-cal examination, and the conclusion segmentsof medical interviews (average, about .30 vs..05; Stiles et al., Note 1); and psychotherapistsare more presumptuous than their clients inclient-centered, gestalt, and psychoanalytictherapy (average, about .55 vs. .10; Stiles,in press-b).

The three role dimensions are conceptuallyindependent because they are defined by ortho-gonal "slices" of the 2 X 2 X 2 taxonomy ofmodes. Unfortunately, the colloquial meaningsof the names of the dimensions may not conveythis independence because the names are im-precise in their connotations. For example, theword "presumptuousness" may seem to implycontrol or the lack of acquiescence. As it is de-fined here, however, no such implication is in-tended. For example, a nonpresumptuous con-trol of an interaction can be exerted byquestions or disclosures, while confirmationsand reflections are acquiescent but presumptu-ous. Similarly, "attentiveness" may carry theimplication of acquiescence, though no suchconnotation is intended here; the modes of

VERBAL RESPONSE MODES AND ROLE DIMENSIONS 701

interpretation and question are both controll-ing and attentive.

The role dimensions are similar to dimensionsthat other investigators have used to describeobservers' perceptions of interpersonal roles(Bales, 1970; Carter, 1954; Foa, 1961; Leary,1957; Schutz, 1958; Wish, Deutsch, & Kaplan,1976). Wish (1976; Wish et al., 1976), for ex-ample, has applied multidimensional scalingtechniques to perceptions of people's own in-terpersonal relationships, typical relationships,and videotaped interactions. The dimensionsthat emerge are at the same level of abstractionas the role dimensions: competitive and hostileversus cooperative and friendly; equal versusunequal; superficial versus intense; socioemo-tional and informal versus task oriented andformal (Wish et al., 1976). Leary's (1957)"circumplex" of interpersonal relations wasbased on two dimensions that also sound simi-lar: love versus hate and dominance versussubmission. Bales (1970) has identified three"value directions" and labeled them "upward"versus "downward" (roughly, dominance vs.submission), "positive" versus "negative"(roughly, friendly vs. unfriendly), and "for-ward" versus "backward" (roughly, task ori-entation vs. socioemotional orientation).Bales's dimensions are based on a factor analy-sis of ratings, self-descriptions, and test scores,as well as coded utterances, of 60 undergradu-ate members of self-analytic training groups.In view of the large ratio of variables to sub-jects, the special population studied, and themodifications made in the factor solution (e.g.,merging two orthogonal factors into one valuedirection), the primary justification for Bales'sdimensions must be regarded as theoreticalrather than empirical. The three role dimen-sions in the present system appear to defineapproximately the same interpersonal "space"defined by these other systems. However, theaxes are rotated with respect to the dimensionsof the other systems, just as the other systems'dimensions are rotated with respect to eachother.

Comparison with Interaction Process Analysis

The taxonomy invites comparison withBales's (1950, 1970), 12-category system of in-teraction process analysis. Both systems pur-port to be exhaustive act-by-act coding schemes

that describe interpersonal relationships inde-pendently of the content of communication.Both offer ways to group the concrete scoringcategories into abstract dimensions of inter-personal roles.

The two systems grew from different researchproblems. Category names like "gives opinion,""asks for suggestion," and "shows tension" re-flect Bales's system's origin in research onproblem solving among groups of students.The present taxonomy grew from research andtraining approaches to psychotherapy (Good-man & Dooley, 1976), and category names like"reflection," "interpretation," and "disclosure"suggest psychotherapeutic techniques. Bales'ssystem has been applied not only to studentgroups (see Bales, 1970, and review by Bales &Hare, 1965) but to psychotherapists' responses(Strupp, 1955), medical interviews (Davis,1968; Freemon et al., 1971), dyads of strangers(De La Cour, 1977), and married couples(Quade, 1955; Strodtbeck, 1950). The presenttaxonomy, though much younger, has been ap-plied to medical interviews (Stiles et al., Note1) and to classroom groups and student-pro-fessor laboratory dyads (Stiles et al., in press),as well as to psychotherapy (Stiles, in press-b).Applications to interactions in college-studentdyads, married couples, and between parentsand children are in progress.

Bales's categories may adequately classifyall or most utterances in student groups, buthis exhaustiveness is empirical rather thanguaranteed by analytic principles. Bales's sys-tem has no separate categories for interpreta-tion, reflection, and acknowledgment; they arecoded with "gives opinion," "gives informa-tion," and "agrees," respectively (Bales, 1950,1970; Strupp, 1955). These modes are promin-ent in the speech of physicians and psycho-therapists (Stiles, in press-b; Stiles et al., Note1), and investigators applying Bales's systemto medical and psychotherapeutic interactionshave had to modify the categories to accom-modate them (Freemon et al., 1971; Strupp,1955).

Unlike the present taxonomy, Bales's sys-tem uses nonverbal features to define somecategories. "Shows tension" is defined exclu-sively by paralinguistic cues, including laugh-ter, hesitation, speechlessness, flushing, stam-mering, and blocking up. "Seems friendly" and

702 WILLIAM B. STILES

"seems unfriendly" are differentiated fromother categories on the basis of such cues asposture, tone of voice, and facial expression.Partly because some are defined by nonverbalfeatures, Bales's categories are not mutuallyexclusive in an analytic sense. Mutual exclu-sivity is achieved by fiat—by establishingpriorities as to which category shall be scoredwhen two or more are appropriate. In the pres-ent taxonomy, mutual exclusivity is analytic; acoder is presented with three forced choicesthat uniquely define one verbal response mode.

Bales's categories are intent categories, andscoring instructions explicitly permit alterna-tive forms in some cases. Coding form as well asintent in the present taxonomy frequently clari-fies both, and it permits analysis of interactionat shallower and deeper levels.

In order to compare the role dimensions ofthe present system with Bales's value direc-tions, imagine a "role space" defined by threeorthogonal axes—attentiveness, acquiescence,and presumptuousness. Questions, for instance,fall in the high-attentiveness, low-acquiescence,low-presumptuousness region of the space;people who ask many questions should seemattentive, controlling, and nonpresumptuous.

Bales's value directions can be located in thisrole space. For example, Bales's upward direc-tion—dominance—may be thought of as pre-sumptuousness rotated substantially awayfrom acquiescence (i.e., toward control) andslightly toward attentiveness; "dominance"seems to suggest presumptuousness, control,and some interest in the other. Bales's down-ward direction—submissiveness—is defined bythe opposite (low presumptuousness, high ac-quiescence, low attentiveness). Thus, interpre-tation is the most dominant mode, whereasedification is the most submissive; the proposedrotation is consistent with Bales's scoring"gives information" as downward. Similarly,Bales's positive direction may be thought of ashigh attentiveness, high acquiescence, and lowpresumptuousness, so that the "friendliest"verbal response mode is acknowledgment. InBales's system, acknowledgments are scored inCategory 3, "agrees," which counts as positive-forward. Bales's forward—task—direction maybe thought of as low acquiescence, low presump-tuousness, and low attentiveness. A task orien-tation consists of directiveness without ascend-ancy or personal interest in the other. The

verbal response mode characterized by thiscombination is disclosure, so it is consistentthat Bales scores his disclosure category, "givesopinion," as forward.

Particular interpersonal roles (as manifestedin verbal behavior) occupy locations in thisrole space that can be described by coordinateson either set of reference axes. That is, a role canbe described in terms of attentiveness, acqui-escence, and presumptuousness or in terms ofdominance, friendliness, and task or social ori-entation. The dimensions in each set are ortho-gonal with respect to each other, but correlatedand hence redundant with the dimensions of theother set. The advantage of the taxonomic roledimensions is thus not their descriptive ade-quacy but their derivation from analytic prin-ciples, which gives them a greater precisionand additional theoretical importance.

The method of discourse analysis presentedin this article offers a hierarchy of concepts thatties together subjective and objective aspectsof interpersonal relationships and molecularand molar views of verbal interaction. Thetaxonomy provides a precise operationalizationof the variables in the system, and since eachlevel in the hierarchy of constructs is defined interms of other levels, the precision of measure-ment extends to all levels. For example, thedegree to which a person is attentive (role di-mension) is defined by his or her concern withthe other's experience (taxonomic principle)and measured by his or her use of question,acknowledgment, interpretation, and reflection(modes). The taxonomy and its attendanttheoretical constructs may thus be useful toolsin the study of verbal interaction and inter-personal relationships.

Reference Note

1. Stiles, W. B., Putnam, S. M., Wolf, M. H., & James,S. A. Patient-pliysician communication and patientsatisfaction with medical interviews. (Working paper,Health Services Research Center). Unpublishedmanuscript, University of North Carolina at ChapelHill, 1978.

References

Auld, F., Jr., & White, A. M. Rules for dividing inter-views into sentences. Journal of Psychology, 1956, 42,273-281.

Bain, D. J. G. Doctor-patient communication in generalpractice consultations. Medical Education, 1976, 10,125-131.

Bales, R. F. Interaction process analysis: A method for

VERBAL RESPONSE MODES AND ROLE DIMENSIONS 703

(he study of small groups. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1950.

Bales, R. F. Personality and interpersonal behavior. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.

Bales, R. F., & Hare, A. P. Diagnostic use of the inter-action profile. Journal of Social Psychology, 1965, 67,239-258.

Carter, L. F. Evaluating the performance of individualsas members of small groups. Personnel Psychology,1954, 7, 477-484.

Cartwright, R. D. A comparison of the response to psy-choanalytic and client-centered psychotherapy. InL. A. Gottschalk & A. H. Auerbach (Eds.), Methodsof research in psychotherapy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.

Cohen, J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.Educational and. Psychological Measurement, 1960, 20,37-46.

Davis, M. Variations in patients' compliance withdoctors' advice: An empirical analysis of patterns ofcommunication. American Journal of Public Health,1968, 58, 274-286.

Davis, M. S. Variations in patients' compliance withdoctors' orders: Medical practice and doctor-patientinteraction. Psychiatry in Medicine, 1971, 2, 31-54.

De La Cour, E. P. Sex differences in dyadic interaction.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1977.

Dittman, A. T., & Llewellyn, L. G. The phonemic clauseas a unit of speech decoding. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 1967, 6, 341-349.

Dittman, A. T., & Llewellyn, L. G. Relationship be-tween vocalizations and head nods as listener re-sponses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1968, 9, 79-84.

Dollard, J., & Auld, F., Jr. Scoring human motives: Amanual. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press,1959.

Fleiss, J. L. Measuring agreement between two judgeson the presence or absence of a trait. Biometrics, 1975,31, 651-659.

Foa, V. G. Convergences in the analysis of interpersonalbehavior. Psychological Review, 1961, 68, 341-353.

Freemon, B., Negrete, V. F., Davis, M., & Korsch,B. M. Gaps in doctor-patient communication: Doc-tor-patient interaction analysis. Pediatric Research,1971, 5, 298-311.

Goodman, G., & Dooley, D. A framework for help-intended interpersonal communication. Psychother-apy-.Theory, Research, and Practice, 1976,13,106-117.

Holsti, O. R. Content analysis for the social sciences andhumanities. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969.

Ivey, A. E. Microcounseling: Innovations in interviewingtraining. Springfield, 111.: Charles C Thomas, 1971.

Kiesler, D. J. The process of psychotherapy: Empiricalfoundations and systems of analysis. Chicago: Aldine,1973.

Kohen, J. A. S. The development of reciprocal self-disclosure in opposite-sex interaction. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 1975, 22, 404-410.

Leary, T. Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. NewYork: Ronald Press, 1957.

Marsden, G. Content-analysis studies of psychotherapy:1954 through 1968. In A. E. Bergin & S. L. Garfield

(Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behaviorchange. New York: Wiley, 1971.

Meltzoff, J., & Kornreich, M. Research in psychotherapy,New York: Atherton Press, 1970.

Quade, A. E. The relationship between marital adjustmentand certain interactional patterns in problem-solvingsituations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, OhioState University, 1955.

Rosenfeld, H. M. Approval-seeking and approval-induc-ing functions of verbal and noverbal responses in thedyad. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1966, 4, 597-605.

Russell, R. L., & Stiles, W. B. Categories for classifyinglanguage in psychotherapy. Psychological Bulletin,in press.

Schutz, W. C. Firo-B: A three-dimensional theory ofinterpersonal behavior. New York: Holt Rinehart &Winston, 1958.

Sinclair, J. McH., & Coulthard, R. M. Beginning theanalysis of discourse: The language used by teachers andpupils. London: Oxford University Press, 1974.

Slobin, D. L, Miller, S. H., & Porter, L. W. Forms ofaddress and social relations in a business organization.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968,8, 289-293.

Snyder, W. U. An investigation of the nature of non-directive psychotherapy. Journal of General Psy-chology, 1945, 33, 193-223.

Snyder, W. U. Dependency in psychotherapy: A case-book. New York: Macmillan, 1963.

Stiles, W. B. Manual for a taxonomy of verbal responsemodes. (Technical Paper No. 5). Chapel Hill, N.C.:Institute for Research in Social Science, Universityof North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in press, (a)

Stiles, W. B. Verbal response modes and psychothera-peutic technique. Psychiatry in press, (b)

Stiles, W. B., Waszak, C. S., & Barton, L. R. Pro-fessorial presumptuousness in verbal interactionswith university students. Journal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, in press.

Strodtbeck, F. L. A study of husband-wife interaction inthree cultures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Harvard University, 1950.

Strupp, H. H. An objective comparison of Rogerianand psychoanalytic techniques. Journal of ConsultingPsychology, 1955, 19, 1-7.

Strupp, H. H. A multidimensional system for analyzingpsychotherapeutic techniques. Psychiatry, 1957, 20,293-306. (a)

Strupp, H. H. A multidimensional analysis of therapistactivity in analytic and client-centered therapy.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21, 301-308.(b)

Whalen, C. K., & Flowers, J. V. Effects of role andgender mix on verbal communication modes. Journalof Consulting Psychology, 1977, 24, 281-287.

Wish, M. Comparisons among multidimensionalstructures of interpersonal relations. MultivariateBehavioral Research, 1976, ;/, 297-324.

Wish, M., Deutsch, M., & Kaplan, S. J. Perceived di-mensions of interpersonal relations. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 1976, 33, 409-420.

Received October 11,1977 •