Communication Schemata Within the Family

Analyses from a random sample of 169 families established a dear relationship between schemata for marital and parent-child communication. Hypotheses were derived by theoretically relating the Relational Dimensions Inventory and the Revised Family Communication Patterns instrument. In families headed by Traditional, Separate, and Separate/Traditional couples, all three family members saw the family interaction as high on conformity orientation. In families headed by Independent and Traditional couples, all three family members saw the family interaction as high on conversational orientation. In general, couple types dovetail with the various family types. For example, Traditional couples have Consensual family interaction patterns in that they value conformity and conversation. Families who share the same family communication schemata appear to agree on a number of other dimensions of family life. A new scale, Family Communication Environment, which may be used to tap into family communication schemata, is presented.     

WHY DO ASSESSMENT CENTERS WORK? THE PUZZLE OF ASSESSMENT CENTER VALIDITY

The finding that assessment centers are successful in making valid predictions of managerial success is well established in the literature. Unfortunately, it is not clearly understood why assessment centers work. For example, construct validity of assessment center dimensions is rarely obtained. In this paper we affirm the evidence for predictive validity of assessment centers and conclude that assessment centers can work for a variety of purposes and in numerous contexts. But we also assert that we do not know why they work. The bulk of the paper goes on to raise possible explanations for the predictive validity observed in assessment centers and raises implications for practice and guidance of future research.     

RELATIONAL DISTANCE IN MANAGING CONFLICT

This study assessed the extent to which providing a problem-solving structure to conflicting dyads might impact members' use of language to mark their relational distance. It was hypothesized that conflicting subjects instructed to use a set of decision rules to resolve the conflict would use less immediate and more formal relational code choices than conflicting subjects free to resolve the conflict in any manner they chose. This hypothesis was confirmed for the immediacy, but not the formality variable. The discussion section suggested that because decision rules may encourage conflicting dyads to use less “liking” language to resolve their dispute, such rules may serve to discourage participants from creating more integrative solutions to conflicts.