Identity implications theory (IIT) is applied to analyze how young adults manage identity concerns associated with the goals of initiating, intensifying, and disengaging from romantic relationships. Participants wrote their responses to one of six hypothetical romantic (re)definition scenarios, indicated whether they actually would pursue the relational goal if their scenario were real, and rated degree of threat to both parties' face. Responses were coded for positive and negative politeness strategies. Participants in different relational goal conditions perceived different face threats, varied in their likelihood of pursuing the relational goal, and employed different politeness strategies. Relationship (re)definition goal also moderated associations between perceived face threats and goal pursuit as well as politeness strategies. The findings show how multiple goal theories such as IIT can be applied to situations where relational goals are primary as well as how, to varying degrees, identity concerns shape and constrain how young adults pursue relational (re)definition goals.
Applegate, J.L. (1980). Person- and position-centered communication in the day-care center. In N. K. Denzin (Ed.), Studies in symbolic interaction (Vol. 3, pp. 59-65). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
2.
Applegate, J.L. (1982). The impact of construct system development on communication and impression formation in persuasive contexts. Communication Monographs, 49, 277-289.
3.
Baxter, L.A. (1982). Strategies for ending relationships: Two studies . Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 233-242.
4.
Baxter, L.A., & Bullis, C. (1986). Turning points in developing romantic relationships . Human Communication Research, 12, 469-493.
5.
Bell, R.A., & Daly, J.A. (1984). The affinity-seeking function of communication . Communication Monographs, 51, 91-115.
6.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Cai, D.A., & Wilson, S.R. (2000). Identity implications of influence goals: A cross-cultural comparison of interaction goals and facework. Communication Studies, 51, 307-328.
8.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Cody, M. (1982). A typology of disengagement strategies and an examination of the role intimacy, reactions to inequity and relational problems play in strategy selection. Communication Monographs, 49, 148-170.
10.
Cody, M.J., Canary, D.J., & Smith, S.W. (1994). Compliance-gaining goals: An inductive analysis of actors' goal types, strategies, and successes. In J. A. Daly & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 33-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Cupach, W.R., & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
12.
Dillard, J.P. (1990). A goal-driven model of interpersonal influence . In J. P. Dillard (Ed.), Seeking compliance: The production of interpersonal influence messages (pp. 41-56). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
13.
Dillard, J.P. (2004). The goals-plans-action model of interpersonal influence. In J. S. Seiter & R. H. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp 185-206). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
14.
Dillard, J.P., Segrin, C., & Harden, J.M. (1989). Primary and secondary goals in the production of interpersonal influence messages. Communication Monographs , 56, 19-38.
15.
Dillard, J.P., Wilson, S.R., Tusing, K.J., & Kinney, T.A. (1997). Politeness judgments in personal relationships . Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 297-325.
16.
Duck, S., Rutt, D.J., Hurst, M.H., & Strejc, H. (1991). Some evident truths about conversations in everyday relationships: All communications are not created equal. Human Communication Research, 18, 228-267.
17.
Fleiss, J.L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions . New York: John Wiley.
18.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior . Chicago: Aldine.
19.
Honeycutt, J.M., Cantrill, J.G., & Allen, T. (1992). Memory structures for relational decay: A cognitive test of sequencing of de-escalating actions and stages. Human Communication Research, 18, 528-562.
20.
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.
21.
Honeycutt, J.M., Cantrill, J.G., Kelly, P., & Lambkin, D. (1998). How do I love thee? Let me consider my options: Cognition, verbal strategies, and the escalation of intimacy. Human Communication Research, 25, 39-63.
22.
Ifert, D.E. (2000). Resistance to interpersonal requests: A summary and critique of recent research. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook 23 (pp. 125-161). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1983). Strategy and structure in conversational influence attempts. Communication Monographs, 50, 285-304.
24.
Jones, S., & Wirtz, J.G. (2006). How does the comforting process work? An empirical test of an appraisal-based model of comforting. Human Communication Research, 32, 217-243.
25.
Kellermann, K., & Cole, T. (1994). Classifying compliance-gaining messages: Taxonomic disorder and strategic confusion. Communication Theory, 4, 3-60.
26.
Keppel, G., & Wickens, T.D. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
27.
Knobloch, L.E., & Carpenter-Theune, K.E. (2004). Topic avoidance in developing romantic relationships: Associations with intimacy and relational uncertainty. Communication Research, 31, 173-205.
28.
Kunkel, A.D., Wilson, S.R., Olufowote, J., & Robson, S. (2003). Identity implications of influence goals: Initiating, intensifying, and ending romantic relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 67, 382-412.
29.
Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation . New York: Academic Press.
30.
Laplante, D., & Ambady, N. (2003). On how things are said: Voice tone, voice intensity, verbal content, and perceptions of politeness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 434-441.
31.
Mills, S. (2003). Gender and politeness. Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Mongeau, P.A., Jacobsen, J., & Donerstein, C. (2007). Defining dates and first date goals: Generalizing from undergraduates to single adults. Communication Research, 34, 526-547.
33.
Mongeau, P.A., Serewicz, M.C.M., & Therrien, L.F. (2004). Goals for cross-sex first dates: Identification, measurement, and influence of contextual factors. Communication Monographs, 71, 121-147.
34.
O'Keefe, B.J. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication. Communication Monographs , 55, 80-104.
35.
Rule, B.G., Bisanz, G.L., & Kohn, M. (1985). Anatomy of a persuasion schema: Targets, goals, and strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 48, 1127-1140.
36.
Samp, J.A., & Solomon, D.H. (1998). Communicative responses to problematic events in close relationships I: The variety and characteristics of goals. Communication Research, 25, 66-95.
37.
Schrader, D.C., & Dillard, J.P. (1998). Goals structure and interpersonal influence. Communication Studies, 49, 276-293.
38.
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Sillars, A., Roberts, L.J., Leonard, K.E., & Dun, T. (2000). Cognition during marital conflict: The relationship of thought and talk. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 17, 479-502.
40.
Wilson, S.R., Aleman, C.G., & Leatham, G.B. (1998). Identity implications of influence goals: A revised analysis of face-threatening acts and application to seeking compliance with same-sex friends. Human Communication Research, 25, 64-96.
41.
Wilson, S.R., & Feng, H. (2007). Interaction goals and message production: Conceptual and methodological developments. In D. Roskos-Ewoldsen & J. Monahan (Eds.), Communication and social cognition (pp. 71-95). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
Wilson, S.R., & Kunkel, A.W. (2000). Identity implications of influence goals: Similarities in perceived face threats and facework across sex and close relationships . Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 195-221.
