This research explores the relationship between imagined interaction dimensions [1], conversational sensitivity dimensions [2], and communication competence [3]. Results of a study reveal features of imagined interaction predicting both conversational sensitivity and self-reported communication competence. Mental experiences of communication (i.e., imagined interaction) are thought to activate sensitivity to conversations and to provide knowledge structures for competent interaction. A path analysis revealed the mediating role of overall conversational sensitivity leading to communication competence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HoneycuttJ. M.ZagackiK. S.EdwardsR., Intrapersonal Communication and Imagined Interactions, in Intrapersonal Communication Processes: Original Essays, RobertsC.WatsonK. (eds.), Gorsuch Scarisbrick, Scottsdale, Arizona, pp. 167–184, 1989.
2.
DalyJ. A.VangelistiA. L.DaughtonS. M., The Nature and Correlates of Conversational Sensitivity, Human Communication Research, 14, pp. 167–202, 1987.
3.
RubinR., The Validity of the Communication Competency Assessment Instrument, Communication Monographs, 52, pp. 173–185, 1985.
4.
NortonR., Communicator Style: Theory, Applications, and Measures, Sage, Newbury Park, California, 1983.
5.
SpitzbergB. H., Communication Competence as Knowledge, Skill, and Impression, Communication Education, 32, pp. 323–329, 1983.
6.
WiemannJ. M., Explication and Test of a Model of Communication Competence, Human Communication Research, 3, pp. 195–213, 1977.
7.
DouglasW., Scripts and Self-Monitoring: When Does Being a High Self-Monitor Really Make a Difference?, Human Communication Research, 10, pp. 81–96, 1983.
8.
BergerC. R., A Plan-Based Approach to Strategic Communication, in Cognitive Bases of Interpersonal Communication, HewesD. E. (ed.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, in press.
9.
BergerC. R.KarolS. H.JordanJ. M., When a Lot of Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing: The Debilitating Effects of Plan Complexity on Verbal Fluency, Human Communication Research, 16, pp. 91–119, 1989.
10.
EdwardsR.HoneycuttJ. M.ZagackiK. S., Imagined Interaction as an Element of Social Cognition, Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52, pp. 23–45, 1988.
11.
HoneycuttJ. M.EdwardsR.ZagackiK. S., Using Imagined Interaction Features to Predict Measures of Self-Awareness: Loneliness, Locus of Control, Self-Dominance, and Emotional Intensity, Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, pp. 17–31, 1989–90.
12.
HoneycuttJ. M.ZagackiK. S.EdwardsR., Imagined Interaction and Interpersonal Communication, Communication Reports, 3, pp. 1–8, 1990.
13.
HoneycuttJ. M., A Functional Analysis of Imagined Interaction Activity in Everyday Life, in Imagery: Current Perspectives, ShorrJ. E.RobinP.ConnellaJ. A.WolpinM. (eds.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 13–25, 1989.
14.
HoneycuttJ. M., Imagined Interactions, Imagery, and Mindfulness/Mindlessness, in Mental Imagery, KunzendorfR. (ed.), Plenum Press, New York, pp. 121–128, 1991.
15.
AllenT., The Effects of Imagined Interaction and Planning Speech Fluency and Message Strategy Selection, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1990.
16.
EdwardsR.HoneycuttJ. M.ZagackiK. S., Sex Differences in Imagined Interactions, Sex Roles, 21, pp. 259–268, 1989.
17.
HoneycuttJ. M., Transference in Everyday Life: Imagined Interactions, Message Planning, and Emotional Affect, seminar paper presented at the 75th Annual Speech Communication Association Conference, San Francisco, California, November 1989.
18.
CaugheyJ. L., Imaginary Social Worlds, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1984, in press.
19.
SingerJ. L., The Conscious and Unconscious Stream of Thought, in Emerging Syntheses in Science, PinesD. (ed.), Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1985.
20.
HoneycuttJ. M., A Pilot Analysis of Imagined Interaction Accounts in the Elderly, in Louisiana: Health and the Elderly, MarksR.PadgettJ. (eds.), Pan American, New Orleans, Louisiana, pp. 183–189, 1989.
21.
TverskyA.KahnemanD., Causal Schemata in Judgments Under Uncertainty, in Progress in Social Psychology, Vol. 1, FishbeinM. (ed.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp. 49–72, 1980.
22.
WigleyC. J.IIIPohlG. H.WattM. G. S., Conversational Sensitivity as a Correlate of Trait Verbal Aggressiveness and the Predisposition to Verbally Praise Others, Communication Reports, 2, pp. 92–95, 1989.
23.
ParksM. R., Interpersonal Communication and the Quest for Personal Competence, in Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, KnappM. L.MillerG. R. (eds.), Sage, Beverly Hills, California, pp. 171–201, 1985.
24.
RubinR. B.GrahamE. E., Communication Correlates of College Success: An Exploratory Investigation, Communication Education, 37, pp. 14–27, 1988.
25.
RubinR. B.GrahamE. E.MignereyJ. T., A Longitudinal Study of College Students' Communication Competence, Communication Education, 39, pp. 1–14, 1990.
26.
KlingerE., The Central Place of Imagery in Human Functioning, in Imagery: Concepts, Results, and Application, Vol. 2, KlingerE. (ed.), Plenum, New York, pp. 3–16, 1981.
27.
GreeneJ. O., A Cognitive Approach to Human Communication: An Action-Assembly Theory, Communication Monographs, 51, pp. 289–306, 1984.
28.
AbelsonR., Script Processing in Attitude Formation and Decision-Making, in Cognition and Social Behavior, CarrollJ. S.PayneJ. W. (eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1976.
29.
NormanD. A., Copycat Science or Does the Mind Really Work by Table Look-Up?, in Perception and Production of Fluent Speech, ColeR. A. (ed.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1980.
30.
TesserA.LeoneC., Cognitive Schemas and Thought as Determinants of Attitude Change, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, pp. 340–356, 1977.
31.
DalyJ. A.BellR.GlennP.LawrenceS., Conceptualizing Conversational Complexity, Human Communication Research, 12, pp. 30–53, 1985.
32.
HamiltonM. A.HunterJ. E., PACKET 1.0, A Multiple-Groups Confirmatory Factor Analysis Routine for Microcomputers, Released through Department of Communication Studies, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, 1988.
33.
KellermannK., The Negativity Effect in Interaction: It's All in Your Point of View, Human Communication Research, 16, pp. 147–183, 1989.
34.
ShermanS. J.CortyE., Cognitive Heuristics, in Handbook of Social Cognition, Vol. 1, WyerR. S.Jr.SrullT. K. (eds.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1984.
