- Email: [email protected]
Conflict management metaphors: assessing everyday problem communication
The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 137–142
Conflict management metaphors: assessing everyday problem communication Suzanne McCorkle a,∗ , Barbara Mae Gayle b a
Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID 83725, USA b University of Portland, Portland, OR, USA
Abstract The purpose of this study was to assess the extent that metaphors are utilized to describe interpersonal conflicts reported in written journals and to determine the type and tonal qualities of the metaphors employed to describe interpersonal problems. Results indicate that few metaphors appeared outside the conflict journal condition prompting metaphor use and even when prompted, almost one third of the journal entries contained no metaphor. Results indicated that when metaphors were employed, natural world and physical and mental states type metaphors were most frequently used. The evocative meanings of those metaphors used most frequently involved troubled feelings and powerless feelings. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The theme in the literature that is of particular interest to this study is metaphor as a dynamic in interpersonal conflict. For example, Gayle and Preiss (1998) identified metaphors in interpersonal conflicts in the workplace such as “we don’t always see eye to eye,” “hitting a nail on the head,” and “rallying to the cause.” McCorkle and Mills (1992) studied conflict metaphors in subjects’ recollections of past conflicts and found 12% of respondents did not generate metaphors even when overtly prompted—suggesting a contradiction to theories that all communication is inherently metaphorical. Further, the study found metaphors generated by respondents were uniformly negative and clustered around categories related to animals, natural processes, one-way communication, and confinement (p. 63). Wilmot and Hocker (1998) presented several metaphor categories as tools to diagnose how disputants’ perspectives on ∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-208-426-3776; fax: +1-208-426-4318. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. McCorkle).
0362-3319/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 3 6 2 - 3 3 1 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 6 4 - 1
138
S. McCorkle, B.M. Gayle / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 137–142
conflict are clouded, as well as a technique to generate metaphors that alter the social reality of a conflict. The purpose of this study is to extend upon past interpersonal conflict management metaphor analyses and to delve into some of the anomalies identified in those studies. While past studies have developed a repertoire of categorical names for metaphors of interpersonal conflict, research has done little to move toward a determination of the extent to which disputants in conflict actually utilize elaborated metaphors or to explicate the functional meaning of metaphors in conflict. Pugh, Hicks, Davis, and Venstra (1992) conclude that we must know something about the cognitive structure of a metaphor to understand what is meant and what is communicated. They note that metaphors are grounded in experience, have a structure regarding how the elements in the metaphor are compared, exhibit a relationship within the structure that must resonate intuitively to be effective, and are defined by natural, often physical, experiences. Leeman (1995) argues that metaphors are not only “prisms through which rhetors understand the world, and in turn, seek to shape the understanding of others” (p. 166), but are also ways in which individuals structure their experiences (p. 178). This project extends upon past conflict management research and assesses the following questions: (1) To what extent are metaphors utilized to describe conflicts reported in written journals? (2) Among cases exhibiting metaphors, which metaphors are most frequently used, and (3) What evocative meanings are manifest within the specific conflict metaphor clusters identified?
2. Methods College students from basic communication courses at a mid-sized Western university were solicited to participate in a project investigating the kinds of conversations or events with other people that happen on a day-to-day basis and cause personal irritations. The study received appropriate human subjects committee approval and oversight. Subjects were given a 3-month calendar with important university dates (registration, drop/add deadlines) and days assigned to write in a journal about their big or small “personal irritation encounters” with others. Students were then given forms for each journal entry to relate: what the problem was about, who the problem was with, how important the problem was on a 1–10-point scale, the outcome of the problem, and how they felt while in the conversation about a problem. Half of the subjects were assigned to a second condition where one additional journal entry section asked: “What was the problem like?” (the metaphor prompt condition). At the end of the 8-week data collection period, a total of 1,035 journal entries were submitted that addressed personal, everyday conflicts. Forty-six percent of the entries rose from the no-metaphor condition and 54% from the metaphor condition. Thirty percent of the participants were male and 62% female, with 8% not responding to that demographic question. Most respondents were 17–21 years of age (52%), lived with a spouse or significant other (36%), had no children (68%), were employed part- (48%) or full-time (24%), and attended college full-time (68%). Data from the entire journal entry were coded by two independent raters (see Table 1) with an overall intercoder reliability of 80% (Scott, 1955). Using Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) constant comparison method, the entire database was coded to distinguish between elaborated and non-elaborated, truncated, or routine metaphors. Because truncated or routine metaphors carry
S. McCorkle, B.M. Gayle / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 137–142
139
Table 1 Coding descriptions Metaphor type Metaphor families Natural world Machine/object War issues Bodily harm Physical/mental states Media orientation Taking charge Religious One-way communication Tone Tonal qualities Feeling positive Feeling powerless Feeling troubled Feeling emotionally distraught Feeling capable of taking charge Strategy Conflict strategies Passive Distributive Integrative
Coding description Compares to processes in nature, plants, food or animals Compares a mechanized object to a person or object Compares to war or military like action Compares to a physical fight causing personal change Compares to illness, physical bodily processes and mental control Compares to interactions with sports, games, circus or media characters Compares to one individual assuming a more powerful position Compares to religious event or allegory Compares to trying to communicate with objects or persons not capable of understanding Coding description Being happy, relieved, unworried, expressing compassion, healing Feeling hopeless, anxious, rejected, out of control, trapped, afraid Feeling frustrated, uncertain, confused, struggling, irritated, annoyed Feeling emotional pain, anger, explosive or devastated Feeling in control, tight, superior Coding description When avoidance or accommodative strategies were used When competitive, coercive or win/loose strategies were used When compromise or collaboration strategies were employed
little power in terms of characterizing the evocative meaning of an interpersonal conflict, they were counted to determine their relative frequency, but removed from this study’s linguistic categories. In an open mode of coding (Strauss, 1987) each elaborated metaphor was categorized in terms of its expressiveness and tone to determine its evocative meaning in the conflict. Then, the categories that emerged were combined by themes to create the categories of feeling positive, troubled, powerless, emotionally distraught, guilty or capable of taking charge. Relationships between elaborated metaphors and their evocative meanings in an interpersonal conflict, the strategies, actions taken, importance ratings and demographic variables were explored using descriptive statistics and Chi-square analysis.
3. Results Most conflicts reported were about relationships (36%) and work (13%). Conflicts were most often with family members (18%) and significant others (17%). The most frequent action taken was talking directly to the person in the conflict (57%) and the most common feeling expressed about the situation was some variation of frustration (56%) or anger (20%). Strategies taken during the conflict were 36% distributive and 36% passive. The mean rating of the importance of the conflict was 5.64 on a 10-point scale.
140
S. McCorkle, B.M. Gayle / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 137–142
Results for research question 1—the extent metaphors were utilized to describe personal irritations—indicate that few metaphors appeared outside the journal condition where metaphors were prompted. Sixty-five percent of journal entries used no metaphor unless prompted (n = 559 journal entries). When prompted for a comparison within the metaphor condition, only 69% of journal entries contained a metaphor (2% utilized two metaphors in their description)—meaning even when prompted for a comparison, 31% of the journals contained no metaphor. Research question 2 asked which metaphors were most frequently used among cases exhibiting metaphors. Results indicated natural world (20%) and physical and mental states (16%) were most frequently used. Although participants in the metaphor prompted condition were all more likely to use natural world metaphors (χ 2 = 30.53, p = .006), participants rating conflict importance low used physical/mental states metaphors (18%), participants rating conflict importance moderately used machine/object metaphors (17%), and participants rating conflict importance high used war-like metaphors (19%). Additionally, unemployed or part-time employed respondents used natural world metaphors and full time employees used more war-like metaphors (χ 2 = 24.09, p = .045). Results for research question 3—focusing on the evocative meanings that occurred in the conflict metaphor clusters—revealed 37% troubled feelings and 36% powerless feelings (see Table 2). The metaphor’s evocative meaning was related to the importance rating (χ 2 = 28.78, p < .01). Participants rating the conflict importance as low or moderate selected metaphors whose tone reflected troubled feelings (low = 45%, moderate = 38%), whereas participants rating the conflict importance moderate or high exhibited metaphor tones reflecting powerless feelings (moderate = 34%, high = 43%). Strategy choice was related to the evocative meaning of the metaphoric descriptions (χ 2 = 44.17, p < .01). Participants using passive strategies employed metaphors evoking powerless feelings (40%), troubled feelings (33%), and emotionally distraught feelings (23%); individuals using more distributive strategies employed metaphors evoking more troubled feelings (42%) and powerless feelings (33%) and participants using integrative strategies employed metaphors evoking troubled feelings (39%), powerless feelings (30%) and positive feelings (14%). The tonal quality evoked was also related to how individuals felt about the conflict (χ 2 = 69.18, p < .01) and the biological sex of the participant (χ 2 = 15.27, p = .004). Individuals who felt good reported metaphors evoking positive feelings (45%), whereas individuals who Table 2 Metaphors and their evocative meanings frequency Metaphors families
Positive feelings
Troubled feelings
Powerless feelings
Emotionally distraught
Taking charge
Natural world Machine/object War issues Bodily harm One-way communication Physical/mental Taking charge Media event
8 4
37 24 21 6 46 44 16 20
39 25 39 14 5 22 10 16
17 20 13 15 5 10 4 7
4
1 4 1 5
1 1 2 1 2
S. McCorkle, B.M. Gayle / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 137–142
141
felt bad or sad reported metaphors evoking both powerless (39%) and troubled feelings (27%). Males used more positive feeling (59%) metaphors than females and females used more emotionally distraught (76%), troubled feelings (67%) and powerless feelings (68%) metaphors than males. Additionally, the tone evoked when employing metaphors was also related to the age of the participant (χ 2 = 27.28, p = .007) and the living situation (χ 2 = 31.90, p = .01). It appears that most age groups and individuals living in a variety of situations employ troubled and powerless feelings metaphors. However, 17–21-year-olds and those individuals living off campus with friends use more emotionally distraught metaphors.
4. Discussion The results of this study do not support the assumption that all individuals utilize metaphors routinely—if one is referring to elaborated metaphors rather than the “truncated” metaphors that are liberally sprinkled into everyday speech and writing. While it is possible that the study’s focus on longitudinal written material may affect the respondents, the percentages of individuals who never utilized an elaborated metaphor unless prompted calls into question the assumption that people think and talk metaphorically. More research using different methodologies is needed to confirm the findings of this study. The lack of general metaphor usage, however, in no way diminishes the potential importance of metaphors in conceptualizing conflicts among those who do generate metaphors. In this study, metaphor type was related to the conflict’s importance rating. Whether a conflict was rated high, medium, or low in importance, respondents exhibited natural world family metaphors. These findings duplicate the earlier work of McCorkle and Mills (1992), who claimed these types of metaphors emphasize the duality of conflict and nature—some aspects of both are controllable but most are not. The war-like metaphor that was the second type used for those rating the conflict highly important, the machine/object family metaphors that was the second most frequently used metaphor for those rating the importance moderately, and the physical/mental family of metaphors that rated second in usage for those rating the importance of the conflict as low, are all essentially negative. The overwhelming negative tone of metaphors (91%) both substantiates past findings and is not surprising. Research indicates that individuals involved in conflicts tend to blame their partners (Canary & Spitzberg, 1990; Sillars, 1982). In this study, the use of integrative strategies and feeling good about the conflict are the only instances when metaphors evoked positive feelings. Additionally, the type of metaphor created was related to the employment status of the respondent. As findings from Burrell, Buzzanell, and McMillan (1992) suggest, full-time workers were more likely to describe their conflicts using war-laden metaphors. The difference between the natural world family metaphors utilized by those working part-time or unemployed and the war metaphors engaged in by full-time workers suggest that workplace dynamics and language influence metaphor choices and may impact how conflicts are perceived. Results also indicate as the conflict increased in importance, the respondents’ tonal quality moved from troubled feelings (a mild negative tone) to powerless feelings (a moderately nega-
142
S. McCorkle, B.M. Gayle / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 137–142
tive tone). Another pattern emerged when the evoked meaning of the prompted metaphor related to conflict strategy. Those respondents reporting passive strategy used metaphors that evoked powerless feelings (a moderately negative tone) and those respondents employing distributive and integrative strategies evoked troubled feelings (a mild negative tone). The metaphoric tone also appears to be related to age, sex, and living status. Younger respondents, female respondents, and those living off campus with friends or parents used metaphors evoking troubled feelings. These findings suggest that most individuals find conflicts frustrating, irritating and anxiety-promoting. More importantly, these findings suggest that elaborated metaphors contextualize our understanding of how metaphors assist individuals to work through the feelings conflicts evoke. The meaning evoked in using a metaphor may be as important to understanding how metaphors are constructed or function in any given situation as the metaphor categories themselves.
References Burrell, N. A., Buzzanell, P. M., & McMillan, J. J. (1992). Feminine tensions in conflict situations as revealed by metaphoric analyses. Management Communication Quarterly, 6(2), 115–149. Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1990). Attribution biases and associations between conflict strategies. Communication Monographs, 57, 139–151. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyer. Gayle, B. M., & Preiss, R. W. (1998). Assessing emotionality in organizational conflicts. Management Communication Quarterly, 12(2), 280–302. Leeman, R. W. (1995). Spatial metaphors in African American discourse. The Southern Communication Journal, 60(2), 165–180. McCorkle, S., & Mills, J. L. (1992). Rowboat in a hurricane: Metaphors of interpersonal conflict management. Communication Reports, 5, 57–66. Pugh, S. L., Hicks, J. W., Davis, M., & Venstra, T. (1992). Bridging: A teacher’s guide to metaphorical thinking. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case for nominal coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321–325. Sillars, A. L. (1982). Attributions and communication: Are people “na¨ıve scientists” or just na¨ıve? In M. E. Roloff & C. R. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 73–106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (1998). Interpersonal conflict (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Conflict management metaphors: assessing everyday problem communication Suzanne McCorkle a,∗ , Barbara Mae Gayle b a
Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID 83725, USA b University of Portland, Portland, OR, USA
Abstract The purpose of this study was to assess the extent that metaphors are utilized to describe interpersonal conflicts reported in written journals and to determine the type and tonal qualities of the metaphors employed to describe interpersonal problems. Results indicate that few metaphors appeared outside the conflict journal condition prompting metaphor use and even when prompted, almost one third of the journal entries contained no metaphor. Results indicated that when metaphors were employed, natural world and physical and mental states type metaphors were most frequently used. The evocative meanings of those metaphors used most frequently involved troubled feelings and powerless feelings. © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The theme in the literature that is of particular interest to this study is metaphor as a dynamic in interpersonal conflict. For example, Gayle and Preiss (1998) identified metaphors in interpersonal conflicts in the workplace such as “we don’t always see eye to eye,” “hitting a nail on the head,” and “rallying to the cause.” McCorkle and Mills (1992) studied conflict metaphors in subjects’ recollections of past conflicts and found 12% of respondents did not generate metaphors even when overtly prompted—suggesting a contradiction to theories that all communication is inherently metaphorical. Further, the study found metaphors generated by respondents were uniformly negative and clustered around categories related to animals, natural processes, one-way communication, and confinement (p. 63). Wilmot and Hocker (1998) presented several metaphor categories as tools to diagnose how disputants’ perspectives on ∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-208-426-3776; fax: +1-208-426-4318. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. McCorkle).
0362-3319/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 3 6 2 - 3 3 1 9 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 6 4 - 1
138
S. McCorkle, B.M. Gayle / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 137–142
conflict are clouded, as well as a technique to generate metaphors that alter the social reality of a conflict. The purpose of this study is to extend upon past interpersonal conflict management metaphor analyses and to delve into some of the anomalies identified in those studies. While past studies have developed a repertoire of categorical names for metaphors of interpersonal conflict, research has done little to move toward a determination of the extent to which disputants in conflict actually utilize elaborated metaphors or to explicate the functional meaning of metaphors in conflict. Pugh, Hicks, Davis, and Venstra (1992) conclude that we must know something about the cognitive structure of a metaphor to understand what is meant and what is communicated. They note that metaphors are grounded in experience, have a structure regarding how the elements in the metaphor are compared, exhibit a relationship within the structure that must resonate intuitively to be effective, and are defined by natural, often physical, experiences. Leeman (1995) argues that metaphors are not only “prisms through which rhetors understand the world, and in turn, seek to shape the understanding of others” (p. 166), but are also ways in which individuals structure their experiences (p. 178). This project extends upon past conflict management research and assesses the following questions: (1) To what extent are metaphors utilized to describe conflicts reported in written journals? (2) Among cases exhibiting metaphors, which metaphors are most frequently used, and (3) What evocative meanings are manifest within the specific conflict metaphor clusters identified?
2. Methods College students from basic communication courses at a mid-sized Western university were solicited to participate in a project investigating the kinds of conversations or events with other people that happen on a day-to-day basis and cause personal irritations. The study received appropriate human subjects committee approval and oversight. Subjects were given a 3-month calendar with important university dates (registration, drop/add deadlines) and days assigned to write in a journal about their big or small “personal irritation encounters” with others. Students were then given forms for each journal entry to relate: what the problem was about, who the problem was with, how important the problem was on a 1–10-point scale, the outcome of the problem, and how they felt while in the conversation about a problem. Half of the subjects were assigned to a second condition where one additional journal entry section asked: “What was the problem like?” (the metaphor prompt condition). At the end of the 8-week data collection period, a total of 1,035 journal entries were submitted that addressed personal, everyday conflicts. Forty-six percent of the entries rose from the no-metaphor condition and 54% from the metaphor condition. Thirty percent of the participants were male and 62% female, with 8% not responding to that demographic question. Most respondents were 17–21 years of age (52%), lived with a spouse or significant other (36%), had no children (68%), were employed part- (48%) or full-time (24%), and attended college full-time (68%). Data from the entire journal entry were coded by two independent raters (see Table 1) with an overall intercoder reliability of 80% (Scott, 1955). Using Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) constant comparison method, the entire database was coded to distinguish between elaborated and non-elaborated, truncated, or routine metaphors. Because truncated or routine metaphors carry
S. McCorkle, B.M. Gayle / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 137–142
139
Table 1 Coding descriptions Metaphor type Metaphor families Natural world Machine/object War issues Bodily harm Physical/mental states Media orientation Taking charge Religious One-way communication Tone Tonal qualities Feeling positive Feeling powerless Feeling troubled Feeling emotionally distraught Feeling capable of taking charge Strategy Conflict strategies Passive Distributive Integrative
Coding description Compares to processes in nature, plants, food or animals Compares a mechanized object to a person or object Compares to war or military like action Compares to a physical fight causing personal change Compares to illness, physical bodily processes and mental control Compares to interactions with sports, games, circus or media characters Compares to one individual assuming a more powerful position Compares to religious event or allegory Compares to trying to communicate with objects or persons not capable of understanding Coding description Being happy, relieved, unworried, expressing compassion, healing Feeling hopeless, anxious, rejected, out of control, trapped, afraid Feeling frustrated, uncertain, confused, struggling, irritated, annoyed Feeling emotional pain, anger, explosive or devastated Feeling in control, tight, superior Coding description When avoidance or accommodative strategies were used When competitive, coercive or win/loose strategies were used When compromise or collaboration strategies were employed
little power in terms of characterizing the evocative meaning of an interpersonal conflict, they were counted to determine their relative frequency, but removed from this study’s linguistic categories. In an open mode of coding (Strauss, 1987) each elaborated metaphor was categorized in terms of its expressiveness and tone to determine its evocative meaning in the conflict. Then, the categories that emerged were combined by themes to create the categories of feeling positive, troubled, powerless, emotionally distraught, guilty or capable of taking charge. Relationships between elaborated metaphors and their evocative meanings in an interpersonal conflict, the strategies, actions taken, importance ratings and demographic variables were explored using descriptive statistics and Chi-square analysis.
3. Results Most conflicts reported were about relationships (36%) and work (13%). Conflicts were most often with family members (18%) and significant others (17%). The most frequent action taken was talking directly to the person in the conflict (57%) and the most common feeling expressed about the situation was some variation of frustration (56%) or anger (20%). Strategies taken during the conflict were 36% distributive and 36% passive. The mean rating of the importance of the conflict was 5.64 on a 10-point scale.
140
S. McCorkle, B.M. Gayle / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 137–142
Results for research question 1—the extent metaphors were utilized to describe personal irritations—indicate that few metaphors appeared outside the journal condition where metaphors were prompted. Sixty-five percent of journal entries used no metaphor unless prompted (n = 559 journal entries). When prompted for a comparison within the metaphor condition, only 69% of journal entries contained a metaphor (2% utilized two metaphors in their description)—meaning even when prompted for a comparison, 31% of the journals contained no metaphor. Research question 2 asked which metaphors were most frequently used among cases exhibiting metaphors. Results indicated natural world (20%) and physical and mental states (16%) were most frequently used. Although participants in the metaphor prompted condition were all more likely to use natural world metaphors (χ 2 = 30.53, p = .006), participants rating conflict importance low used physical/mental states metaphors (18%), participants rating conflict importance moderately used machine/object metaphors (17%), and participants rating conflict importance high used war-like metaphors (19%). Additionally, unemployed or part-time employed respondents used natural world metaphors and full time employees used more war-like metaphors (χ 2 = 24.09, p = .045). Results for research question 3—focusing on the evocative meanings that occurred in the conflict metaphor clusters—revealed 37% troubled feelings and 36% powerless feelings (see Table 2). The metaphor’s evocative meaning was related to the importance rating (χ 2 = 28.78, p < .01). Participants rating the conflict importance as low or moderate selected metaphors whose tone reflected troubled feelings (low = 45%, moderate = 38%), whereas participants rating the conflict importance moderate or high exhibited metaphor tones reflecting powerless feelings (moderate = 34%, high = 43%). Strategy choice was related to the evocative meaning of the metaphoric descriptions (χ 2 = 44.17, p < .01). Participants using passive strategies employed metaphors evoking powerless feelings (40%), troubled feelings (33%), and emotionally distraught feelings (23%); individuals using more distributive strategies employed metaphors evoking more troubled feelings (42%) and powerless feelings (33%) and participants using integrative strategies employed metaphors evoking troubled feelings (39%), powerless feelings (30%) and positive feelings (14%). The tonal quality evoked was also related to how individuals felt about the conflict (χ 2 = 69.18, p < .01) and the biological sex of the participant (χ 2 = 15.27, p = .004). Individuals who felt good reported metaphors evoking positive feelings (45%), whereas individuals who Table 2 Metaphors and their evocative meanings frequency Metaphors families
Positive feelings
Troubled feelings
Powerless feelings
Emotionally distraught
Taking charge
Natural world Machine/object War issues Bodily harm One-way communication Physical/mental Taking charge Media event
8 4
37 24 21 6 46 44 16 20
39 25 39 14 5 22 10 16
17 20 13 15 5 10 4 7
4
1 4 1 5
1 1 2 1 2
S. McCorkle, B.M. Gayle / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 137–142
141
felt bad or sad reported metaphors evoking both powerless (39%) and troubled feelings (27%). Males used more positive feeling (59%) metaphors than females and females used more emotionally distraught (76%), troubled feelings (67%) and powerless feelings (68%) metaphors than males. Additionally, the tone evoked when employing metaphors was also related to the age of the participant (χ 2 = 27.28, p = .007) and the living situation (χ 2 = 31.90, p = .01). It appears that most age groups and individuals living in a variety of situations employ troubled and powerless feelings metaphors. However, 17–21-year-olds and those individuals living off campus with friends use more emotionally distraught metaphors.
4. Discussion The results of this study do not support the assumption that all individuals utilize metaphors routinely—if one is referring to elaborated metaphors rather than the “truncated” metaphors that are liberally sprinkled into everyday speech and writing. While it is possible that the study’s focus on longitudinal written material may affect the respondents, the percentages of individuals who never utilized an elaborated metaphor unless prompted calls into question the assumption that people think and talk metaphorically. More research using different methodologies is needed to confirm the findings of this study. The lack of general metaphor usage, however, in no way diminishes the potential importance of metaphors in conceptualizing conflicts among those who do generate metaphors. In this study, metaphor type was related to the conflict’s importance rating. Whether a conflict was rated high, medium, or low in importance, respondents exhibited natural world family metaphors. These findings duplicate the earlier work of McCorkle and Mills (1992), who claimed these types of metaphors emphasize the duality of conflict and nature—some aspects of both are controllable but most are not. The war-like metaphor that was the second type used for those rating the conflict highly important, the machine/object family metaphors that was the second most frequently used metaphor for those rating the importance moderately, and the physical/mental family of metaphors that rated second in usage for those rating the importance of the conflict as low, are all essentially negative. The overwhelming negative tone of metaphors (91%) both substantiates past findings and is not surprising. Research indicates that individuals involved in conflicts tend to blame their partners (Canary & Spitzberg, 1990; Sillars, 1982). In this study, the use of integrative strategies and feeling good about the conflict are the only instances when metaphors evoked positive feelings. Additionally, the type of metaphor created was related to the employment status of the respondent. As findings from Burrell, Buzzanell, and McMillan (1992) suggest, full-time workers were more likely to describe their conflicts using war-laden metaphors. The difference between the natural world family metaphors utilized by those working part-time or unemployed and the war metaphors engaged in by full-time workers suggest that workplace dynamics and language influence metaphor choices and may impact how conflicts are perceived. Results also indicate as the conflict increased in importance, the respondents’ tonal quality moved from troubled feelings (a mild negative tone) to powerless feelings (a moderately nega-
142
S. McCorkle, B.M. Gayle / The Social Science Journal 40 (2003) 137–142
tive tone). Another pattern emerged when the evoked meaning of the prompted metaphor related to conflict strategy. Those respondents reporting passive strategy used metaphors that evoked powerless feelings (a moderately negative tone) and those respondents employing distributive and integrative strategies evoked troubled feelings (a mild negative tone). The metaphoric tone also appears to be related to age, sex, and living status. Younger respondents, female respondents, and those living off campus with friends or parents used metaphors evoking troubled feelings. These findings suggest that most individuals find conflicts frustrating, irritating and anxiety-promoting. More importantly, these findings suggest that elaborated metaphors contextualize our understanding of how metaphors assist individuals to work through the feelings conflicts evoke. The meaning evoked in using a metaphor may be as important to understanding how metaphors are constructed or function in any given situation as the metaphor categories themselves.
References Burrell, N. A., Buzzanell, P. M., & McMillan, J. J. (1992). Feminine tensions in conflict situations as revealed by metaphoric analyses. Management Communication Quarterly, 6(2), 115–149. Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1990). Attribution biases and associations between conflict strategies. Communication Monographs, 57, 139–151. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyer. Gayle, B. M., & Preiss, R. W. (1998). Assessing emotionality in organizational conflicts. Management Communication Quarterly, 12(2), 280–302. Leeman, R. W. (1995). Spatial metaphors in African American discourse. The Southern Communication Journal, 60(2), 165–180. McCorkle, S., & Mills, J. L. (1992). Rowboat in a hurricane: Metaphors of interpersonal conflict management. Communication Reports, 5, 57–66. Pugh, S. L., Hicks, J. W., Davis, M., & Venstra, T. (1992). Bridging: A teacher’s guide to metaphorical thinking. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case for nominal coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321–325. Sillars, A. L. (1982). Attributions and communication: Are people “na¨ıve scientists” or just na¨ıve? In M. E. Roloff & C. R. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 73–106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (1998). Interpersonal conflict (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.