Article published in:
Interpersonal Argumentation
Edited by Harry Weger, Jr
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 4:1] 2015
► pp. 42–62

A test of dyadic power theory

Control attempts recalled from interpersonal interactions with romantic partners, family members, and friends

| Department of Communication
| University of Oklahoma
Dyadic power theory (DPT; Dunbar 2004) predicts that equal and unequal-power dyads will seek to persuade one another differently because they use different control attempts. This paper seeks to expand the theory’s definition of control attempts beyond dominance by examining convergence behavior, topic avoidance, aggression, deception, and affection or support. Participants answered a survey about the way they interact with an interpersonal partner who is lower in power, equal in power, or higher in power than themselves. Results reveal that, consistent with DPT, equal power partners were more likely than high or low power partners to use a control attempt that emphasized equilibrium, and were more likely to use verbal affection and social support. However, equal power partners were also more likely to use deception and they reported their partner was least likely to be deceptive compared to the other power groups. Low power partners were more likely, compared to equal or high power, to be motivated to submit to their partner, to use topic avoidance, and to experience psychological aggression from their partner. The type of relationship moderated several of these effects.
Keywords: interpersonal argument, conflict, dyadic power theory, equilibrium, dominance.
Published online: 08 June 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.4.1.03dun
References

References

Afifi, Tamara D., and Loreen Olson
2005 “The Chilling Effect in Families and the Pressure to Conceal Secrets.” Communication Monographs 72 (2): 192–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Afifi, Walid A., and Laura K. Guerrero
1998 “Some Things Are Better Left Unsaid Ii: Topic Avoidance in Friendships.” Communication Quarterly 46 (3): 231–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barrick, Murray R., and Michael K. Mount
1996 “Effects of Impression Management and Self-Deception on the Predictive Validity of Personality Constructs.” Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (3): 261–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bevan, Jennifer L.
2010 “Serial Argument Goals and Conflict Strategies: A Comparison between Romantic Partners and Family Members.” Communication Reports 23: 52–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Canary, Daniel J., Jeanette E. Brossmann, Brent G. Brossmann, and Harry Weger
1995 “Toward a Theory of Minimally Rational Argument: Analyses of Episode-Specific Effects of Argument Structures.” Communications Monographs 62 (3): 183–212. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Canary, Daniel J., William R. Cupach, and Susan Messman
1995 Relationship Conflict: Conflict in Parent-Child, Friendship, and Romantic Relationships. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Canary, Daniel J., Harry Weger, and Laura Stafford
1991 “Couples’ Argument Sequences and Their Associations with Relational Characteristics.” Western Journal of Speech Communication 55 (2): 159–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caughlin, John P., and Tamara D. Afifi
2004 “When Is Topic Avoidance Unsatisfying? Examining Moderators of the Association between Avoidance and Dissatisfaction.” Human Communication Research 30 (4): 479–513.Google Scholar
Cloven, Denise H., and Michael E. Roloff
1993 “The Chilling Effect of Aggressive Potential on the Expression of Complaints in Intimate Relationships.” Communication Monographs 60: 199–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dailey, René M., and Nicholas A. Palomares
2004 “Strategic Topic Avoidance: An Investigation of Topic Avoidance Frequency, Strategies Used, and Relational Correlates.” Communication Monographs 71 (4): 471–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Goede, Irene H.A., Susan J.T. Branje, and Wim H.J. Meeus
2009 “Developmental Changes and Gender Differences in Adolescents’ Perceptions of Friendships.” Journal of Adolescence 32 (5): 1105–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, Norah E.
2004 “Dyadic Power Theory: Constructing a Communication-Based Theory of Relational Power.” Journal of Family Communication 4 (3 and 4): 235–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, Norah E., and Gordon Abra
2012 “A Dyadic Power Theory Explanation of the Demand-Withdraw Interaction Pattern.” National Communication Association .
2010 “Observations of Dyadic Power in Interpersonal Interaction.” Communication Monographs 77 (4): 657–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, Norah E., John A. Banas, Dariela Rodriguez, Shr-Jie Liu, and Gordon Abra
2012 “Humor Use in Power-Differentiated Interactions.” Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 24 (4): 469–89.Google Scholar
Dunbar, Norah E., Amy M. Bippus, A. Allums, and Shawn King
2012 “The Dark Side of Humor: The Use of Aggressive Humor in Conflicts in Close Relationships.” International Communication Association Annual Meeting . Phoenix, AZ.
Dunbar, Norah E., Amy M. Bippus, and Stacy L. Young
2008 “Interpersonal Dominance in Relational Conflict: A View from Dyadic Power Theory.” Interpersona 2 (1): 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, Norah E., and Judee K. Burgoon
2005 “Perceptions of Power and Interactional Dominance in Interpersonal Relationships.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 22: 207–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, Norah E., Matthew L. Jensen, Elena Bessarabova, Judee K. Burgoon, Daniel Rex Bernard, Kylie J. Harrison, Katherine M. Kelley, Bradley J. Adame, and Jacqueline M. Eckstein
2014 “Empowered by Persuasive Deception: The Effects of Power and Deception on Interactional Dominance, Credibility, and Decision-Making.” Communication Research 41(6): 869–893. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fainzang, Sylvie
2002 “Lying, Secrecy and Power within the Doctor-Patient Relationship.” Anthropology and Medicine 9 (2): 117–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, Kory, and Jonathan M. Bowman
2006 “Closeness and Affection in Father-Son Relationships.” In Men in Relationships: A New Look from a Life Course Perspective, ed. by Victoria Hilkevitch Bedford and Barbara Formaniak Turner, 147–63. New York, NY US: Springer Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Floyd, Kory, and Mark T. Morman
1998 “The Measurement of Affectionate Communication.” Communication Quarterly 46 (2): 144–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Floyd, Kory, Jack E. Sargent, and Mark Di Corcia
2004 “Human Affection Exchange: Vi. Further Tests of Reproductive Probability as a Predictor of Men’s Affection with Their Adult Sons.” The Journal of Social Psychology 144 (2): 191–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, Laura K., and Walid A. Afifi
1995 “Some Things Are Better Left Unsaid: Topic Avoidance in Family Relationships.” Communication Quarterly 43 (3): 276–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaye, Michael
1991 “Deception in Communication between Adult Learners and Teachers: Implications for Research and Practice.” Australian Journal of Communication 18: 115–31.Google Scholar
Knobloch, Leanne K., and Katy E. Carpenter-Theune
2004 “Topic Avoidance in Developing Romantic Relationships: Associations with Intimacy and Relational Uncertainty.” Communication Research 31 (2): 173–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knox, David, Marty E. Zusman, Kristen McGinty, and Jennifer Gescheidler
2001 “Deception of Parents During Adolescence.” Adolescence 36 (143): 611–14.Google Scholar
Lindsey, Lisa L.M., Norah E. Dunbar, and Jessica Russell
2011 “Risky Business or Managed Event? Perceptions of Power and Deception in the Workplace.” Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict 15 (1): 55–79.Google Scholar
Miller-Day, Michelle A.
2004 Communication among Grandmothers, Mothers, and Adult Daughters: A Qualitative Study of Maternal Relationships. Routledge.Google Scholar
Rawlins, W.K.
1992 Friendship Matters: Communication, Dialectics, and the Life Course. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rollins, Boyd C., and Stephen J. Bahr
1976 “A Theory of Power Relationships in Marriage.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 38 (4): 619–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roloff, Michael E., and Denise H. Cloven
1990 “The Chilling Effect in Interpersonal Relationships: The Reluctance to Speak One’s Mind.” In Intimates in Conflict: A Communication Perspective, ed. by Dudley D. Cahn, 49–76. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Solomon, Denise H., and Jennifer A. Samp
1998 “Power and Problem Appraisal: Perceptual Foundations of the Chilling Effect in Dating Relationships.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 15: 191–209. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser
1999 “Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse.” Discourse Studies 1 (4): 479–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Amber M.
2008 “Convergence Communication Scale: Instrument Development and Theory Testing.” Dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University.
Walster, Elaine, and G. William Walster
1975 “Equity and Social Justice.” Journal of Social Issues 31 (3): 21–43.Google Scholar
Wang, Qi, Edward L. Fink, and Deborah A. Cai
2012 “The Effect of Conflict Goals on Avoidance Strategies: What does Not Communicating Communicate? Human Communication Research 38(2): 222–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weger, Harry, and Daniel J. Canary
2010 “Conversational Argument in Close Relationships: A Case for Studying Argument Sequences.” Communication Methods and Measures 4 (1-2): 65–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Carpenter, Christopher J.
2017. A Relative Commitment Approach to Understanding Power in Romantic Relationships. Communication Studies 68:1 ► pp. 115 ff. Crossref logo
Dunbar, Norah E. & Gordon Abra
2021.  A dyadic power theory explanation of the demand‐withdraw interaction pattern . Personal Relationships Crossref logo
Dunbar, Norah E., Bradley Dorn, Mohemmad Hansia, Becky Ford, Matt Giles, Miriam Metzger, Judee K. Burgoon, Jay F. Nunamaker & V. S. Subrahmanian
2021.  In Detecting Trust and Deception in Group Interaction [Terrorism, Security, and Computation, ], ► pp. 75 ff. Crossref logo
Dunbar, Norah E., Katlyn Gangi, Samantha Coveleski, Aubrie Adams, Quinten Bernhold & Howard Giles
2016. When Is It Acceptable to Lie? Interpersonal and Intergroup Perspectives on Deception. Communication Studies 67:2 ► pp. 129 ff. Crossref logo
Worley, Timothy R. & Jennifer Samp
2016. Complaint Avoidance and Complaint-Related Appraisals in Close Relationships. Communication Research 43:3 ► pp. 391 ff. Crossref logo
Worley, Timothy R. & Jennifer A. Samp
2019. Dyadic power, marital status, face concerns, and politeness in the context of relational complaining. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36:4 ► pp. 1367 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 september 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.