Communication Patterns in Interdependent Relationships

ION LEVEL OF MESSAGE Abstraction level was analyzed as a function of task interdependence and valence of target’s behavior. Both were between-participants variables. The predicted two-way interaction was significant, F(1, 43) = 9.58, p < .005 (see Table 1). As expected, negative target behaviors were described more abstractly in the competition condition (M = 2.40) than the cooperation condition (M = 1.92), F(1, 43) = 8.89, p < .005. The difference for positive behaviors showed a weak trend in the Gil de Montes et al. / LANGUAGE, COMMUNICATION, INTERDEPENDENCE 267ion level was analyzed as a function of task interdependence and valence of target’s behavior. Both were between-participants variables. The predicted two-way interaction was significant, F(1, 43) = 9.58, p < .005 (see Table 1). As expected, negative target behaviors were described more abstractly in the competition condition (M = 2.40) than the cooperation condition (M = 1.92), F(1, 43) = 8.89, p < .005. The difference for positive behaviors showed a weak trend in the Gil de Montes et al. / LANGUAGE, COMMUNICATION, INTERDEPENDENCE 267 at Vrije Universiteit 34820 on November 30, 2010 jls.sagepub.com Downloaded from expected direction, F(1, 43) = 1.73. Moreover, in the competition condition,positive behaviors were described more concretely (M = 2.02) than negative behaviors (M = 2.40), F(1, 43) = 6.01, p < .02. Finally, the same comparison within the cooperation condition showed a trend in the expected direction, F(1, 43) = 3.68, p < .07. Positive target behaviors were more abstract (M = 2.21) than negative ones (M = 1.92). This overall pattern lends support to the hypothesis that the abstraction level of a message varied systematically as a function of the valence of the target’s behavior and task interdependence. MEAN PROPORTION OF NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE TERMS An ANOVA with the proportion of positive and negative terms as a within-participants variable and task interdependence (cooperation vs. competition) and valence of target’s behavior (positive vs. negative) as between-participants variables yielded an interaction between task interdependence and use of positive versus negative terms, F(1, 43) = 7.43, p < .01, and another interaction between behavior valence and the use of positive and negative terms, F(1, 43) = 23.25, p < .001. Participants in the cooperation condition used more positive terms (M = .39) than negative terms (M = .17), F(1, 23) = 9.009, p < .01. In contrast, participants in the competition condition used more negative terms (M = .31) than those in the cooperation condition (M = .17), F(1, 45) = 5.389, p < .05.The second interaction between behavior valence and the use of positive and negative terms suggested that participants used more positive terms to describe the positive behaviors (M = .44) than negative behaviors (M = .22), F(2, 42) = 5.809, p < .001. They also used more negative terms to describe the negative behaviors (M = .37) than positive behaviors (M = .13), F(2, 42) = 3.135, p < .06. 268 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY / September 2003