Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information Leadership, Fifth Edition

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Communication Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by KELLERMANN, K.
Right arrow Articles by PARK, H. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Situational Urgency and Conversational Retreat

When Politeness and Efficiency Matter

KATHY KELLERMANN

HEE SUN PARK

Conversational Constraint Theory posits that preferred levels of efficiency and social appropriateness for particular conversational encounters fluctuate in response to situational, relational, and personal factors, and these fluctuations alter and determine which behaviors are acceptable tactics for achieving goals in these encounters. This research examines the situational factor of urgency, its influence on minimally preferred levels of efficiency and social appropriateness, and its influence on the acceptability of tactics for unilaterally withdrawing from conversations. A three phase research process finds that (a) efficiency and appropriateness assessments of conversational retreat tactics are goal dependent and within-goal variant, stable over time and across subpopulations; (b) situational urgency increases the preferred level for efficiency only; and (c) situational urgency alters tactical acceptability such that appropriate though less efficient tactics acceptable in nonurgent situations are unacceptable in urgent situations.

Communication Research, Vol. 28, No. 1, 3-47 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/009365001028001001
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Communication ResearchHome page
N. A. Palomares
Did You See It Coming?: Effects of the Specificity and Efficiency of Goal Pursuit on the Accuracy and Onset of Goal Detection in Social Interaction
Communication Research, August 1, 2009; 36(4): 475 - 509.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Management Communication QuarterlyHome page
M. E. Gordon and L. P. Stewart
Conversing About Performance: Discursive Resources for the Appraisal Interview
Management Communication Quarterly, February 1, 2009; 22(3): 473 - 501.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Communication ResearchHome page
Hee Sun Park
The Effects of Shared Cognition on Group Satisfaction and Performance: Politeness and Efficiency in Group Interaction
Communication Research, February 1, 2008; 35(1): 88 - 108.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Communication ResearchHome page
K. Kellermann
A Goal-Directed Approach to Gaining Compliance: Relating Differences Among Goals to Differences in Behaviors
Communication Research, August 1, 2004; 31(4): 397 - 445.
[Abstract] [PDF]