- Email: [email protected]
EFFECTS OF CONTEXT ON EVERYDAY CONVERSATIONS OF TURKISH UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
Journal of Environmental Psychology (1996) 16, 371–379 1996 Academic Press Limited
0272-4944/96/040371+09$25.00/0
Journalof
ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
EFFECTS OF CONTEXT ON EVERYDAY CONVERSATIONS OF TURKISH UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
NURAN HORTAC¸SU, ATIYE ORAL AND YES¸IM YASAK Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
Abstract This study employed a diary method to investigate everyday conversations. Consistent with a dynamic view of partner context interaction, it was predicted that conversations occurring in different contexts would show variations with respect to topics and conversation partners. Turkish university students recorded durations, topics, and conversation partners of their conversations for seven consecutive days. Contexts, topics, and partners were categorized. Respondents were utilized as units of analyses. Analyses revealed that context of conversations were related to topic and partner categories as well as intimacy ratings of partners and topics. 1996 Academic Press Limited
Effects of Context on Everyday Conversations of Turkish University Students The word ‘context’ has been used as a general term encompassing both physical and psychological aspects of macro, midi and mini environments, to use Endler’s (1986) terminology. The words ‘place’ or ‘setting’, on the other hand, denote enduring but limited physical spaces associated with a set of interrelated physical properties, motives, activities, and evaluations. Thus, places or settings constitute ‘midi’ contexts which are viewed as integral parts of relatively transient situations that include roles and norms as well as activities (Canter, 1986; Endler, 1986). The above conceptualization emphasizes the interdependence between physical, social, and psychological aspects of contexts, a view shared by prominent researchers in the area (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Barker, 1968; Stokols and Shumaker, 1981). Theoretical and empirical attempts at classification of contexts have been made. These attempts have utilized sociophysical concepts such as individual, aggregate, and group-oriented settings, primary, secondary and public territories, domicile vs nondomicile settings as well as psychological dimensions such as personal control, privacy, and situational informality vs situational constraint (Price & Bouffard, 1974; Stokols and Shumaker, 1981; Adamopoulos, 1982; Darley & Gilbert, 1985;
Kendrick et al., 1990; Werner, et al., 1992). All of the above classifications refer to norms, expectations, possible occupants and activities associated with each class of context. Individuals’ awareness of the consequences of different actions in a variety of contexts have been the subject matter of diverse theoretical orientations (Goffman, 1959; Canter, 1986; Pervin, 1986). These researchers have emphasized ‘functional, motivational, and evaluative meanings’ (Stokols and Shumaker, 1981, p. 447) ascribed to contexts by current or possible occupants. According to this approach, places or settings have socially construed meanings which guide possible occupants in their preference of setting for attaining different goals as well as in their choice or modification of behaviour within a given setting. These meanings may include norms and rules as well as expectations related to facilitation of goal achievement. Evidence for the existence of social consensus concerning meanings of situations has been provided by several studies. First, Price and Bouffard (1974) have demonstrated that individuals were aware of the situational appropriateness of different behaviours and that judged appropriateness of different behaviours showed variations depending on the situation. Second, individuals have reported context-related variations in their performance of behaviours indicative of different traits as well as an awareness of the differential
371
372
N. Hortac¸ su
visibility of various traits in different contexts (Kendrick et al., 1990). A dynamic view of interaction between partners and contexts argues that people are active agents who place themselves in certain situations depending on their personality dispositions and/or specific goals, with the knowledge that situational restraints, norms, and rules are influential on their behaviour (Endler, 1986). Consistent with the above view, a questionnaire study, in which British students’ situational choices for fulfilling a variety of social goals were elicited, demonstrated the existence of considerable consensus among respondents for nominations of specific situations for specific purposes (Gorta, 1985). In addition, Pervin (1986), has shown considerable degrees of agreement and accuracy in predictions of probable consequences and values of certain behaviours for a person in a number of different settings. Snyder and Gangestad (1982) have also revealed that people high on self monitoring chose different situations for romantic or nonromantic goals. The present study attempts to investigate contextual variations in everyday conversations of Turkish university students, using a modified diary method. Existing research on everyday conversations indicates that conclusions derived from laboratory work are not verified by reports of everyday conversations (Duck et al., 1991). The modified diary method, which requires individuals to make daily records of durations, topics and conversation partners of all conversations, has the advantage of minimizing effects of memory and demands for cognitive operations and is convenient for investigation of naturally occurring events (Harvey et al., 1988). Price and Bouffard (1974) have shown that ‘talking’ was a behaviour receiving highest average appropriateness ratings when judged over a variety of settings. However, relationships between settings and content of conversations have not been investigated. A goal-directed view of human action would predict context-related variations in content of everyday conversations as well as in conversation partners, not to mention relationships between conversation partners and conversation topics. An important dimension of conversations is level of intimacy of topic as well as of conversation partners. Altman and Taylor (1973) have argued and shown that both intimate and nonintimate topics are discussed with intimate partners whereas relatively superficial topics are discussed with casual acquaintances. A similar relationship between contexts and conversation topics may be expected in
that primary territories such as residences may be settings for conversations of varying degrees of intimacy whereas secondary and public territories may be appropriate settings for relatively less intimate conversations. In addition, primary territories are often contexts over which individuals are able to exercise relatively high levels of personal control. Settings which may be classified as secondary or public territories and settings populated by groups or aggregates may place higher restraints on both choice of conversation partners and topics of conversations. Another variable which may influence students’ preferences for various settings for different conversations may be their residence with or away from family. This variable may be associated with degree of social monitoring on students’ utilization of time and space such as curfews and/or visitation rights of certain conversation partners, such as opposite-sex friends, within certain locations. Living with or away from parents may also be associated with differential degrees of control over-regulation of privacy within different settings. Thus, residence with or without parents may be construed as a ‘macro’ context that modifies the meanings associated with more specific settings resulting in differential utilization of similar settings by individuals who are different with respect to residence, an expectation consistent with systems theory approach to investigation of interpersonal relationships (Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 1987). To summarize, this study attempts to demonstrate that contexts are related to different aspects of conversations in everyday life. In this study, ‘context’ is used as a relatively general term akin to Endler’s macroenvironment, encompassing a number of specific settings or places. The three contexts of interest in this study that might have different meanings for students were homes, campus, and downtown. Specifically, it is expected that contexts (generalized over topics and partners) will be related to aspects of conversations such as topic and partner intimacy. Minimum and maximum levels of topic and partner intimacy for conversations in different contexts as well as differences in ranges of topic and partner intimacy with respect to different contexts will be investigated. Second, it is predicted that contexts will vary with respect to: (1) the frequency of conversations with different partners; and (2) the frequency with which different topics are discussed in them. Lastly, it is also expected that residence with or away from family may be a variable that moderates differential utilization of contexts.
Contexts and Conversations
Method Participants Forty-four male and 43 female psychology students at Middle East Technical University participated in the study. All students were single. Thirty-eight lived with parents, 34 lived in the university dormitory, and 13 shared flats with friends. Mean age of participants was 22·41 years (S.D.=8·21, range= 18–27). Data collection Students were provided with record sheets and were asked to record times for beginning, end, place, people involved, and topic(s) for each conversation they had for seven consecutive days. Students were also asked to rate each topic of conversation and each conversation partner on two 5point scales [1=intimate/personal (meaning private, related to individual’s personal life and feelings), 5= general, for topic of conversation, and 1=close, 5= distant for conversation partner(s)]. Thus, record sheets included columns for time, place, people involved, topic, partner intimacy and topic intimacy of each conversation. Students reported all the information related to each conversation before going on to the next conversation. A conversation was defined as any verbal exchange of any duration. Thus, exchanges of few sentences as well as lengthy conversations were included in the definition. However, in spite of the very inclusive definition, some students may have selectively omitted verbal exchanges consisting of only a few sentences. Record sheets were filled every night before going to bed and the time for completion of sheets were recorded in order to make sure that sheets were filled daily. Participants were not asked to take notes during the day. Participants were verbally instructed at the time of distribution of the record sheets and the principal investigator was available for any questions. A total of 2847 conversations were reported. Mean duration per conversation was 49·04 minutes (S.D.=46·52, range=1–480 minutes). The large range indicates that short exchanges as well as long talks were reported by participants, an indication that participants generally complied with the definition of ‘conversation’ provided by the researchers. Respondents reported an average of 34·56 conversations (S.D.=14·32, range=11–97) with 15·05 people (S.D.=7·48, range=4–46) lasting, on the average, 52·18 minutes (S.D.=25·23, range 11·98–165·00 minutes). (The difference between
373
mean duration of conversation when conversation was used as unit of analysis and mean duration of conversation when person was used as unit of analysis may be an indication of longer conversations reported by the majority of participants.) Thus, there was considerable individual variation with respect to average duration of conversations reported and with respect to number of conversation partners. When a conversation included more than one topic, most respondents (71) reported duration of each topic separately. Sixteen respondents did not provide specific durations for separate topics covered within longer conversations, either because they could not remember the exact durations or because the conversation moved back and forth between topics. When duration of different topics was unspecified, the total time was divided by the number of topics discussed during that conversation.
Results Content analysis of records Reports of places, partners and topics of conversations were coded into several specific a priori categories. Few participants utilized all the a priory categories. Therefore, the numerous specific categories were combined in order to obtain more inclusive categories for which most participants had some entries. Categories for contexts were: (1) Homes [participants’ own or others’ “homes” (home or dormitory), and telephone because all calls were made either from homes or to homes or both]; (2) campus, academic campus (classroom, faculty member’s office, nonacademic indoor campus (cafeteria, gym), nonacademic outdoor campus; (3) downtown (indoors such as cinemas, cafes, exhibition centers, excluding residences and outdoors, walking around, picnic area); (4) other or unidentified (including work places because only three students were working). Categorization of settings in this research was somewhat similar to Stokols and Shumaker’s (1981) classification although ‘campus’ may be conceived of as being populated by both groups and aggregates and ‘homes’ as populated by both individuals and groups. Content categories for partners were: (1) family and relatives (mother, father, mother and father together, brother, sister, family group, male relatives, female relatives, family group and relatives; (2) same sex friend(s); (3) different sex friends and groups of mixed sex or sex unidentified friends, (4) other or unidentified (teachers,
374
N. Hortac¸ su
neighbours and role contacts). Very few of the respondents seemed to have identifiable dating partners, therefore heterosexual partner category was not utilized. Content categories for topics were: (1) interpersonal relationship issues (personal and friendship matters, family matters, personal problems, topics related to heterosexual relationships, love, sex); (2) academic topics (courses, faculty); (3) current events (news, national and international politics), interests (hobbies, films, music, sports, etc.) and ideas (ethics and philosophy); (4) ‘talk’ (idle conversation); and (5) other and unspecified topics. Record sheets belonging to 10 male and 10 female participants selected at random were coded independently by two coders. Cohen’s Kappas between the two coders for this subsample for the three sets of specific categories were 0·87, 0·83, and 0·76 for detailed settings, people and topics, respectively. The ‘other’ categories were not utilized in further analyses. Context effects on properties of conversations Partners rather than conversations were used as the unit of analysis, because the number of conversations reported by different respondents varied. Thus, mean, minimum, maximum and range of values were calculated for each participant for ratings of topic and partner intimacy for conversations occurring on campus, at homes, and downtown. Z values were obtained for duration of conversations by dividing the duration of conversations by participants’ duration S.D. because of large variability of intersubject conversation duration. A Sex (male/ female)×Type of Residence (with/without parents)× Context (campus/downtown/home) MANOVA was conducted in order to investigate context effects. The first two variables were between-subjects variables whereas context was a within-subjects variable. The above listed measures of conversations served as dependent measures in this MANOVA. Only the multivariate effect of Context was significant, F(18,262)=7·19, p<0·01. All of the univariate F values were also significant (Table 1). Table 1 reveals that conversations occurring in participants’ homes were higher in mean and maximum topic and partner intimacy than conversations occurring on campus. Mean partner and topic intimacy were high and ranges for partner and topic intimacy were low for conversations occurring downtown. One explanation for this finding may be that time spent downtown is probably recreational time mostly spent with relatively close friends. Thus, the analyses of various aspects of conversations in different
contexts revealed that campus was a setting for relatively superficial conversations with partner varying in intimacy whereas homes and downtown were settings for conversations which are relatively high in mean partner and topic intimacy and low in ranges of topic and partner intimacy. Context and conversation partners Context×Partner cross-tabulations were performed for each participant. These cross-tabulations provided the proportion of conversations conducted in each context/partner combination by each participant. For example, a participant may have conducted 0·1 of all conversations with friends at home, 0·07 of all conversations with friends on campus and 0·00 of all conversations with family on campus, and so forth. Arcsin transformations of the proportions of entries in each cell of the cross-tabulations for each participant were utilized as dependent measure in Sex (male/female)×Residence (with/without family)×Context (campus/downtown/ home)×Partner (family/same sex friend/different sex friend or group of friends); ANOVA for testing
TABLE 1 Means and standart deviations involved in effects of contexts on different aspects of conversations Dependent Measure Mean duration (z score) Topic Intimacy Mean Minimum Maximum Range Person Intimacy Mean Minimum Maximum Range
Contexts Campus Downtown
Home
F(2,142)
0·43 (5·03)
0·41 (1·41)
0·25 (1·66)
6·85**
3·40a (0·75) 4·44a (0·74) 2·03a (1·07) 2·41b (1·32)
3·08b (0·99) 3·92b (1·14) 2·01a (1·17) 1·91a (1·57)
3·00b (0·80) 4·43a (0·77) 1·66b (0·95) 2·78bc (1·27)
6·94**
2·71b (0·75) 4·16b (1·01) 1·65a (0·86) 2·51a (1·38)
2·27a (0·86) 3·19a (1·32) 1·53ab (0·81) 1·65b (1·53)
1·95a (0·68) 3·37a (1·46) 1·35b (0·58) 2·02ab (1·58)
32·67**
8·65** 4·67* 9·30**
14·34** 7·47** 8·80**
*p<0·05, **p<0·01. Means on the same line not sharing a letter superscript are significantly different from each other at p<0·05 by Scheffe. Lower numbers represent greater intimacy.
Contexts and Conversations
as was predictions concerning relationships between context and partners as well as effects of participant residence on context utilization. (The use of arcsin transformation is recommended by Kenny (1987) for measures such as proportions that have both lower and upper bounds. Kenny argues that numbers near zero and one have to be stretched because a small change is more difficult when the number is close to zero or one (Kenny, 1987, p. 82)). The first two variables were betweensubjects variables and the last two were within-subject variables. A significant Context×Partner interaction emerged as predicted, F(4,308)=16·70, p<0·001. Conversations with groups of friends were most frequent on campus, whereas conversations with same sex friends were most frequent within homes, indicating that campus settings are often populated by ‘groups’ (Table 2). Another explanation for this finding may be sought in parental and dormitory rules which place restrictions on opposite sex visitation in young people’s homes in Turkish society. Main effects for partners and contexts were also significant, Fs(2,154)=33·71, and 7·88, ps<0·001 for contexts and partners, respectively. Higher proportions of conversations occurred within residences than downtown or campus, and lower proportions of conversations occurred with family members than with same sex or groups of friends (Table 2). Residence×Context interaction was also significant, F(2,154)=13·38, p<0·001. Thus interaction TABLE 2 Means and standart deviations involved in arcsin transformations of proportion of conversations reported in different contexts with different partners (Context×Partner Interaction) Contexts
Partners Family
Same sex friends
Group of friends
Context mean
Campus
0·02*a (0·12)
0·10b (0·12)
0·19c (0·18)
0·311 (0·26)
Downtown
0·03a (0·08)
0·09b (0·12)
0·08b (0·13)
0·212 (0·18)
Home
0·15a (0·19)
0·25b (0·24)
0·10a (0·16)
0·503 (0·27)
Persons mean
0·20a (0·31)
0·44b (0·31)
0·37b (0·31)
Means on the same line not sharing a letter superscript and means on the same column not sharing a letter superscript are significantly different from each other at p<0·05 by Scheffe.
375
revealed that participants living away from parents conducted greater proportions of their conversations within homes than those living with parents, F(simple) (1,81)=5·91, p<0·02, (with parents M= 0·41, S.D.=0·16, without parents M=0·56, S.D.=0·31). This finding may be explained by needs for privacy and escape from parental supervision of those respondents who live with parents. It is also consistent with Brown’s (1992) report that the difference between desired and achieved intimacy was greater for home than for campus residence. Residence×Partner interaction was also significant, F(2,154)=10·93, p<0·01. Simple effect tests comparing students living with parents and students living in dormitories with respect to proportions of conversations with different partners were conducted in order to analyse this significant interaction. The results of these simple effect tests revealed that students living with parents conversed more with parents than students living away from parents, F(1,81)=8·24, p<0·01, and that students living way from their families conversed more with same sex friends than those living with parents, F(1,81)=23·80, p<0·01 (with family: family M=0·42, S.D.=0·16; same sex friends M=0·27, S.D.= 0·21; without family: family M=0·12, S.D.=0·36; same sex friends M=0·57, S.D.=0·31). The difference between the two groups of participants was not significant for proportions of conversations with groups of friends. A significant Residence×Context×Partner interaction also emerged, F(4,308)=14·11, p<0·001. Simple effect tests comparing students living with parents and students living in dormitories with respect to proportions of conversations in different contexts with different partners were conducted for each partner/context combination in order to analyse this triple interaction. Significant effects of participants’ residence emerged for three partner/ context combinations, Fs(1,81)=5·13, 18·36, and 31·76, ps<0·01 for campus/same sex, home/family and home/same sex combinations, respectively. Participants living with parents talked less with same sex friends on campus than those living away from parents, participants living with parents also talked more with family and less with same sex friends at home than did participants living away from parents (Figure 1). The last two interactions suggest that conversations with same sex friends and family may serve similar functions for respondents in that absence of family seems to increase proportions of conversations with friends within homes, the primary domain of family members. No significant effects related to sex emerged from this analysis.
376
N. Hortac¸ su 0.45 Proportion of conversation
0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0
FIGURE 1.
Campus
Downtown
Home
Arcsin transformations of proportion of conversations reported in different contexts with different partners by students who live with or without families (Residence×Context×Partner Interaction). (h), without family; (j), with family.
Contexts and conversation topics Context×Topic cross-tabulations were performed for each participant. These cross-tabulations provided the proportion of conversations conducted in each context/topic combination for each participant. Arcsin transformations of the proportions of entries in each cell of the cross-tabulations for each participant were utilized as dependent measure in a Sex (male/female)×Residence (with parents/without parents)×Context (campus/downtown/home)×Topics (personal/academic/current/talk) ANOVA in order to test the prediction of a relationship between context and conversation partners. The first two variables were between subjects variables and the last two were within subject variables. A significant Context×Topic interaction emerged as predicted, F(6,468)=12·87, p<0·01. Current events and ‘talk’ constituted greater proportions of conversations at home than in other contexts (Table 3). These two topics of conversation were lower in average topic intimacy over all respondents and constituted 52% of all reported conversations (current: M=3·56, S.D.=0·80; general M=3·21, S.D.= 0·88). These data are consistent with Western reports of large proportions of nonintimate conversations in everyday conversations (Duck et al., 1991). A significant main effect of context revealed that fewer conversations occurred downtown than either on campus or within homes, F(2,156)=18·39, p<0·01 (Table 3). The Topic main effect was also significant, F(3,254)=6·19, p<0·01. The proportion of conversations on general topics were significantly
greater than proportions of conversations in all other three topics (Table 3). A significant Sex×Context interaction also emerged. This interaction revealed that females reported more conversations within homes than in other settings, whereas proportions of conversations occurring within homes and on campus were about equal for males, F(2,156)=3·11, p<0·05 (Figure 2). A Sex×Residence×Context×Topic interaction also emerged but was uninterpretable F(6,468)=2·26, p< 0·05. TABLE 3 Means and standart deviations involved in arcsin transformations of proportion of different topics of conversations reported in different contexts (Context× Topic Interaction) Contexts
Topics Personal Academic Current General Context mean
Campus
0·07 (0·10)
0·12 (0·13)
0·07 (0·11)
0·08 (0·12)
0·331 (0·40)
Downtown
0·07 (0·15)
0·02 (0·04)
0·07 (0·13)
0·07 (0·14)
0·242 (0·34)
Home
0·07a (0·15)
0·08a (0·07)
0·14b (0·13)
0·16b (0·16)
0·361 (0·39)
Topic mean
0·21a (0·37)
0·22a (0·16)
0·22a (0·23)
0·31b (0·37)
Means on the same line not sharing a letter superscript and means on the same column not sharing a letter subscript are significantly different from each other at p<0·05 by Scheffe.
Contexts and Conversations
377
0.4
Proportion of conversation
0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0
Family
Same sex Group of friends friends
Family
Campus
Same sex Group of friends friends
Downtown
Family
Same sex Group of friends friends
Home
FIGURE 2. Arcsin transformations of proportion of conversations reported in different contexts by males and females (Sex×Context Interaction). (h), male; (j), female.
Discussion The results of the present investigation revealed contextual variations with respect to different measures of everyday conversations. Residences, which may be construed as primary territories, emerged as contexts for about half of all conversations. These conversations indicated a large range in rated intimacy and involved relatively intimate conversation partners. These findings were consistent with reports of low constraint, high ‘home-like’ness, high informality and high average appropriateness over various behaviors for these settings (Price & Bouffard, 1974; Adamopoulos, 1982; Brown, 1992). The finding that private residences were favourite settings for intimate as well as relatively superficial conversations supports the view that these superficial conversations may have ‘symbolic’ functions in maintenance and development of personal relationships (Duck et al., 1991). The finding is also consistent with Simmel’s (in Wolff, 1950) assertions concerning the coexistence of triviality and intimacy within relationships. Emergence of homes as favourite settings for these conversations implies that relaxed, nondirective settings are chosen for these types of conversations possibly because of scarcity of external constraints. Settings within campus such as classrooms and department canteens, which may be construed as secondary territories, were scenes for relatively less intimate conversations with relatively more intimate conversation partners. Downtown settings such as cinemas, streets, and cafes, which may be
conceptualized as public territories, served as scenes for conversations encompassing topics within a narrow range of medium average topic intimacy. These conversations involved conversation partners within a narrow range of relatively high perceived intimacy. Thus, students seemed to go downtown with relatively close friends and talked about fairly intimate matters while they were downtown. The relatively intimate nature of conversations within public territories may seem surprising. However, the data are easily explained when differential likelihood of social intrusions on conversations in different contexts are considered. Public territories are populated by ‘aggregates’ or strangers. Anonymity enjoyed in these settings may have decreased the probability of intrusions and may have provided the opportunity for intimate conversations. Presence of membership groups or acquaintances on campus, on the other hand, may have increased the possible negative consequences of overheard intimate conversations. Another explanation of rather intimate nature of conversations downtown may be the tendency of people to prefer ‘no-man’s land’ while discussing intimate matters. The observed relationships between contexts and conversational topics and conversation partners support the assumption concerning dynamic interaction between partners and contexts (Endler, 1986). These relationships may also reflect situational probabilities and associations. Thus, individuals may talk about academic matters on campus because campus may be a setting where such topics are more salient and/or campus is setting
378
N. Hortac¸ su
where academic issues and problems need attending. The study also provided evidence supporting the contention that individuals’ position within the ‘macro’ social context may influence the manner in which they monitor their everyday interactions (Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 1987). Students living with or away from parents utilized similar contexts somewhat differently, implying that students’ needs for conversational partners and/or meanings ascribed to residences varied as a function of availability of different types of network members and/or possibility of supervision by family members. One point to note in relation to effects involving residence is the possibility of personality differences between students who live with or away from parents. However, any effects due to personality variables would also be consistent with the view of dynamic interaction between partners and context and with Hinde and Stevenson-Hinde’s (1987) recommendation stated above. The present study differed from previous investigations of settings by focusing on variations on one type of behaviour and by including the interactional partner of the behaviour within its scope. Previous studies investigated appropriateness of different behaviours or frequency of behaviours indicating different traits in different contexts without reference to interactional partners (Price & Bouffard, 1974; Kendrick et al., 1990). Thus, their approach was individualistic rather than interpersonal. Previous studies seemed to view meanings of contexts for individuals in the abstract, without reference to the status of current occupants vis-a`-vis the perceiver. Finally, some discussion of the utilization of the diary method to investigation of settings is in order. As mentioned in the introduction, the method is convenient for investigation of everyday occurrences and provides rather detailed information. However, similar to other self report measures, the diary method may also suffer from social desirability biases, selective recall and selective reporting. However, selective reporting is also a problem with the more controlled experience sampling method, where the response rate ranges around 70% (Brown, 1992). In the present study, an attempt at minimizing social desirability bias was made by asking informants to record the general rather than specific topic of conversations. Thus, it was hoped that students could use neutral labels such as ‘relationship matters’ rather than more self revealing information. Another possible problem with the method is the impossibility of determining
the source of individual variations in number of conversations and number of topics. These variations may have been due to individual variations in sociability and wealth of interests or they may have been due to individual differences in conscientiousness with respect to diary keeping. The method also does not enable the researcher to determine the reason why fewer conversations are reported in some settings, i.e. the respondent may have spent less time in a particular setting or (s)he may have talked less in that setting. In conclusion, the present study utilized a nonconventional method and a relational approach to investigation of contextual effects on one type of behaviour, namely everyday conversations. The study provided evidence for the dynamic view of partner–context interaction as well as for the contention that interactions should be investigated with respect to locus of individuals within the larger social context.
Notes Reprint requests and correspondence to Nuran Hortac¸su, Psikologi Bolumu, Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi, 06531 Ankara, Turkey.
References Adamopoulos, J. (1982). The perception of interpersonal behavior: Dimensionality and importance of the social environment. Environment and Behavior, 14, 29–44. Altman, I. & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Holt. Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environment of Human Behavior. Stanford, Calif.: California University Press. Brown, B. B. (1992). The ecology of primacy and mood in a shared living group. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 5–20. Canter, D. (1986). Putting situations in their place. In A. Furnham, Ed., Social Behavior in Context, pp. 208–239. Newton, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Darley, J. M. & Gilbert, D. T. (1985). Social psychological aspects of environmental psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson, Eds, Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, Third Edn., pp. 949–991. New York: Random House. Duck, S., Rutt, D. J., Hurst, M. H. & Strejc, H. (1991). Some evident truths about conversations in everyday relationships. All communications are not created equal. Human Communication Research, 18, 228–267. Endler, N. (1986). Origins of interactional psychology. In A. Furnham, Ed., Social Behavior in Context, pp. 11–48. Newton, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Contexts and Conversations Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday. Gorta, A. (1985). Choosing situations for a purpose. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 17–35. Harvey, J. H., Hendrich, S. S. and Tucker, K. (1988). Selfreport methods in studying personal relationships. In S. W. Duch, Ed. Handbook of Personal Relationships, pp. 99–113. New York: Willey. Hinde, R. A. and Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1987). Interpersonal relationships and child development. Developmental Review, 1, 1–21. Kendrick, D. T., McCreath, H. E., Govern, J., King, R. and Bordin, J. (1990). Person-environment intersections: everyday settings and common traits dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 685–698. Kenny, D. A. (1987). Statistics for the social and behavioral sciences. Boston: Little Brown & Co. Pervin, L. A. (1986). Personal and social determinants of behavior in situations. In A. Furnham, Ed., Social Behavior in Context, pp. 81–102. Newton, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
379
Price, R. H. & Bouffard, D. L. (1974). Behavioral appropriateness and situational constraint as dimensions of social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 579–586. Snyder, M. & Gangestad, S. (1982). Choosing social situations: Two investigations of self monitoring processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 123–135. Stokols, D. & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings. In J. H. Harvey, Ed., Cognition, Social Behavior, and the Environment. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Earlbaum. Werner, C. M., Altman, I. & Brown, B. B. (1992). A transactional approach to interpersonal relations: Physical environment, social context and temporal qualities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 297–323. Wolff, K. H. (1950). (Trans & Ed.) The Sociology of George Simmel. New York: Free Press.
0272-4944/96/040371+09$25.00/0
Journalof
ENVIRONMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY
EFFECTS OF CONTEXT ON EVERYDAY CONVERSATIONS OF TURKISH UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
NURAN HORTAC¸SU, ATIYE ORAL AND YES¸IM YASAK Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey
Abstract This study employed a diary method to investigate everyday conversations. Consistent with a dynamic view of partner context interaction, it was predicted that conversations occurring in different contexts would show variations with respect to topics and conversation partners. Turkish university students recorded durations, topics, and conversation partners of their conversations for seven consecutive days. Contexts, topics, and partners were categorized. Respondents were utilized as units of analyses. Analyses revealed that context of conversations were related to topic and partner categories as well as intimacy ratings of partners and topics. 1996 Academic Press Limited
Effects of Context on Everyday Conversations of Turkish University Students The word ‘context’ has been used as a general term encompassing both physical and psychological aspects of macro, midi and mini environments, to use Endler’s (1986) terminology. The words ‘place’ or ‘setting’, on the other hand, denote enduring but limited physical spaces associated with a set of interrelated physical properties, motives, activities, and evaluations. Thus, places or settings constitute ‘midi’ contexts which are viewed as integral parts of relatively transient situations that include roles and norms as well as activities (Canter, 1986; Endler, 1986). The above conceptualization emphasizes the interdependence between physical, social, and psychological aspects of contexts, a view shared by prominent researchers in the area (Altman & Taylor, 1973; Barker, 1968; Stokols and Shumaker, 1981). Theoretical and empirical attempts at classification of contexts have been made. These attempts have utilized sociophysical concepts such as individual, aggregate, and group-oriented settings, primary, secondary and public territories, domicile vs nondomicile settings as well as psychological dimensions such as personal control, privacy, and situational informality vs situational constraint (Price & Bouffard, 1974; Stokols and Shumaker, 1981; Adamopoulos, 1982; Darley & Gilbert, 1985;
Kendrick et al., 1990; Werner, et al., 1992). All of the above classifications refer to norms, expectations, possible occupants and activities associated with each class of context. Individuals’ awareness of the consequences of different actions in a variety of contexts have been the subject matter of diverse theoretical orientations (Goffman, 1959; Canter, 1986; Pervin, 1986). These researchers have emphasized ‘functional, motivational, and evaluative meanings’ (Stokols and Shumaker, 1981, p. 447) ascribed to contexts by current or possible occupants. According to this approach, places or settings have socially construed meanings which guide possible occupants in their preference of setting for attaining different goals as well as in their choice or modification of behaviour within a given setting. These meanings may include norms and rules as well as expectations related to facilitation of goal achievement. Evidence for the existence of social consensus concerning meanings of situations has been provided by several studies. First, Price and Bouffard (1974) have demonstrated that individuals were aware of the situational appropriateness of different behaviours and that judged appropriateness of different behaviours showed variations depending on the situation. Second, individuals have reported context-related variations in their performance of behaviours indicative of different traits as well as an awareness of the differential
371
372
N. Hortac¸ su
visibility of various traits in different contexts (Kendrick et al., 1990). A dynamic view of interaction between partners and contexts argues that people are active agents who place themselves in certain situations depending on their personality dispositions and/or specific goals, with the knowledge that situational restraints, norms, and rules are influential on their behaviour (Endler, 1986). Consistent with the above view, a questionnaire study, in which British students’ situational choices for fulfilling a variety of social goals were elicited, demonstrated the existence of considerable consensus among respondents for nominations of specific situations for specific purposes (Gorta, 1985). In addition, Pervin (1986), has shown considerable degrees of agreement and accuracy in predictions of probable consequences and values of certain behaviours for a person in a number of different settings. Snyder and Gangestad (1982) have also revealed that people high on self monitoring chose different situations for romantic or nonromantic goals. The present study attempts to investigate contextual variations in everyday conversations of Turkish university students, using a modified diary method. Existing research on everyday conversations indicates that conclusions derived from laboratory work are not verified by reports of everyday conversations (Duck et al., 1991). The modified diary method, which requires individuals to make daily records of durations, topics and conversation partners of all conversations, has the advantage of minimizing effects of memory and demands for cognitive operations and is convenient for investigation of naturally occurring events (Harvey et al., 1988). Price and Bouffard (1974) have shown that ‘talking’ was a behaviour receiving highest average appropriateness ratings when judged over a variety of settings. However, relationships between settings and content of conversations have not been investigated. A goal-directed view of human action would predict context-related variations in content of everyday conversations as well as in conversation partners, not to mention relationships between conversation partners and conversation topics. An important dimension of conversations is level of intimacy of topic as well as of conversation partners. Altman and Taylor (1973) have argued and shown that both intimate and nonintimate topics are discussed with intimate partners whereas relatively superficial topics are discussed with casual acquaintances. A similar relationship between contexts and conversation topics may be expected in
that primary territories such as residences may be settings for conversations of varying degrees of intimacy whereas secondary and public territories may be appropriate settings for relatively less intimate conversations. In addition, primary territories are often contexts over which individuals are able to exercise relatively high levels of personal control. Settings which may be classified as secondary or public territories and settings populated by groups or aggregates may place higher restraints on both choice of conversation partners and topics of conversations. Another variable which may influence students’ preferences for various settings for different conversations may be their residence with or away from family. This variable may be associated with degree of social monitoring on students’ utilization of time and space such as curfews and/or visitation rights of certain conversation partners, such as opposite-sex friends, within certain locations. Living with or away from parents may also be associated with differential degrees of control over-regulation of privacy within different settings. Thus, residence with or without parents may be construed as a ‘macro’ context that modifies the meanings associated with more specific settings resulting in differential utilization of similar settings by individuals who are different with respect to residence, an expectation consistent with systems theory approach to investigation of interpersonal relationships (Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 1987). To summarize, this study attempts to demonstrate that contexts are related to different aspects of conversations in everyday life. In this study, ‘context’ is used as a relatively general term akin to Endler’s macroenvironment, encompassing a number of specific settings or places. The three contexts of interest in this study that might have different meanings for students were homes, campus, and downtown. Specifically, it is expected that contexts (generalized over topics and partners) will be related to aspects of conversations such as topic and partner intimacy. Minimum and maximum levels of topic and partner intimacy for conversations in different contexts as well as differences in ranges of topic and partner intimacy with respect to different contexts will be investigated. Second, it is predicted that contexts will vary with respect to: (1) the frequency of conversations with different partners; and (2) the frequency with which different topics are discussed in them. Lastly, it is also expected that residence with or away from family may be a variable that moderates differential utilization of contexts.
Contexts and Conversations
Method Participants Forty-four male and 43 female psychology students at Middle East Technical University participated in the study. All students were single. Thirty-eight lived with parents, 34 lived in the university dormitory, and 13 shared flats with friends. Mean age of participants was 22·41 years (S.D.=8·21, range= 18–27). Data collection Students were provided with record sheets and were asked to record times for beginning, end, place, people involved, and topic(s) for each conversation they had for seven consecutive days. Students were also asked to rate each topic of conversation and each conversation partner on two 5point scales [1=intimate/personal (meaning private, related to individual’s personal life and feelings), 5= general, for topic of conversation, and 1=close, 5= distant for conversation partner(s)]. Thus, record sheets included columns for time, place, people involved, topic, partner intimacy and topic intimacy of each conversation. Students reported all the information related to each conversation before going on to the next conversation. A conversation was defined as any verbal exchange of any duration. Thus, exchanges of few sentences as well as lengthy conversations were included in the definition. However, in spite of the very inclusive definition, some students may have selectively omitted verbal exchanges consisting of only a few sentences. Record sheets were filled every night before going to bed and the time for completion of sheets were recorded in order to make sure that sheets were filled daily. Participants were not asked to take notes during the day. Participants were verbally instructed at the time of distribution of the record sheets and the principal investigator was available for any questions. A total of 2847 conversations were reported. Mean duration per conversation was 49·04 minutes (S.D.=46·52, range=1–480 minutes). The large range indicates that short exchanges as well as long talks were reported by participants, an indication that participants generally complied with the definition of ‘conversation’ provided by the researchers. Respondents reported an average of 34·56 conversations (S.D.=14·32, range=11–97) with 15·05 people (S.D.=7·48, range=4–46) lasting, on the average, 52·18 minutes (S.D.=25·23, range 11·98–165·00 minutes). (The difference between
373
mean duration of conversation when conversation was used as unit of analysis and mean duration of conversation when person was used as unit of analysis may be an indication of longer conversations reported by the majority of participants.) Thus, there was considerable individual variation with respect to average duration of conversations reported and with respect to number of conversation partners. When a conversation included more than one topic, most respondents (71) reported duration of each topic separately. Sixteen respondents did not provide specific durations for separate topics covered within longer conversations, either because they could not remember the exact durations or because the conversation moved back and forth between topics. When duration of different topics was unspecified, the total time was divided by the number of topics discussed during that conversation.
Results Content analysis of records Reports of places, partners and topics of conversations were coded into several specific a priori categories. Few participants utilized all the a priory categories. Therefore, the numerous specific categories were combined in order to obtain more inclusive categories for which most participants had some entries. Categories for contexts were: (1) Homes [participants’ own or others’ “homes” (home or dormitory), and telephone because all calls were made either from homes or to homes or both]; (2) campus, academic campus (classroom, faculty member’s office, nonacademic indoor campus (cafeteria, gym), nonacademic outdoor campus; (3) downtown (indoors such as cinemas, cafes, exhibition centers, excluding residences and outdoors, walking around, picnic area); (4) other or unidentified (including work places because only three students were working). Categorization of settings in this research was somewhat similar to Stokols and Shumaker’s (1981) classification although ‘campus’ may be conceived of as being populated by both groups and aggregates and ‘homes’ as populated by both individuals and groups. Content categories for partners were: (1) family and relatives (mother, father, mother and father together, brother, sister, family group, male relatives, female relatives, family group and relatives; (2) same sex friend(s); (3) different sex friends and groups of mixed sex or sex unidentified friends, (4) other or unidentified (teachers,
374
N. Hortac¸ su
neighbours and role contacts). Very few of the respondents seemed to have identifiable dating partners, therefore heterosexual partner category was not utilized. Content categories for topics were: (1) interpersonal relationship issues (personal and friendship matters, family matters, personal problems, topics related to heterosexual relationships, love, sex); (2) academic topics (courses, faculty); (3) current events (news, national and international politics), interests (hobbies, films, music, sports, etc.) and ideas (ethics and philosophy); (4) ‘talk’ (idle conversation); and (5) other and unspecified topics. Record sheets belonging to 10 male and 10 female participants selected at random were coded independently by two coders. Cohen’s Kappas between the two coders for this subsample for the three sets of specific categories were 0·87, 0·83, and 0·76 for detailed settings, people and topics, respectively. The ‘other’ categories were not utilized in further analyses. Context effects on properties of conversations Partners rather than conversations were used as the unit of analysis, because the number of conversations reported by different respondents varied. Thus, mean, minimum, maximum and range of values were calculated for each participant for ratings of topic and partner intimacy for conversations occurring on campus, at homes, and downtown. Z values were obtained for duration of conversations by dividing the duration of conversations by participants’ duration S.D. because of large variability of intersubject conversation duration. A Sex (male/ female)×Type of Residence (with/without parents)× Context (campus/downtown/home) MANOVA was conducted in order to investigate context effects. The first two variables were between-subjects variables whereas context was a within-subjects variable. The above listed measures of conversations served as dependent measures in this MANOVA. Only the multivariate effect of Context was significant, F(18,262)=7·19, p<0·01. All of the univariate F values were also significant (Table 1). Table 1 reveals that conversations occurring in participants’ homes were higher in mean and maximum topic and partner intimacy than conversations occurring on campus. Mean partner and topic intimacy were high and ranges for partner and topic intimacy were low for conversations occurring downtown. One explanation for this finding may be that time spent downtown is probably recreational time mostly spent with relatively close friends. Thus, the analyses of various aspects of conversations in different
contexts revealed that campus was a setting for relatively superficial conversations with partner varying in intimacy whereas homes and downtown were settings for conversations which are relatively high in mean partner and topic intimacy and low in ranges of topic and partner intimacy. Context and conversation partners Context×Partner cross-tabulations were performed for each participant. These cross-tabulations provided the proportion of conversations conducted in each context/partner combination by each participant. For example, a participant may have conducted 0·1 of all conversations with friends at home, 0·07 of all conversations with friends on campus and 0·00 of all conversations with family on campus, and so forth. Arcsin transformations of the proportions of entries in each cell of the cross-tabulations for each participant were utilized as dependent measure in Sex (male/female)×Residence (with/without family)×Context (campus/downtown/ home)×Partner (family/same sex friend/different sex friend or group of friends); ANOVA for testing
TABLE 1 Means and standart deviations involved in effects of contexts on different aspects of conversations Dependent Measure Mean duration (z score) Topic Intimacy Mean Minimum Maximum Range Person Intimacy Mean Minimum Maximum Range
Contexts Campus Downtown
Home
F(2,142)
0·43 (5·03)
0·41 (1·41)
0·25 (1·66)
6·85**
3·40a (0·75) 4·44a (0·74) 2·03a (1·07) 2·41b (1·32)
3·08b (0·99) 3·92b (1·14) 2·01a (1·17) 1·91a (1·57)
3·00b (0·80) 4·43a (0·77) 1·66b (0·95) 2·78bc (1·27)
6·94**
2·71b (0·75) 4·16b (1·01) 1·65a (0·86) 2·51a (1·38)
2·27a (0·86) 3·19a (1·32) 1·53ab (0·81) 1·65b (1·53)
1·95a (0·68) 3·37a (1·46) 1·35b (0·58) 2·02ab (1·58)
32·67**
8·65** 4·67* 9·30**
14·34** 7·47** 8·80**
*p<0·05, **p<0·01. Means on the same line not sharing a letter superscript are significantly different from each other at p<0·05 by Scheffe. Lower numbers represent greater intimacy.
Contexts and Conversations
as was predictions concerning relationships between context and partners as well as effects of participant residence on context utilization. (The use of arcsin transformation is recommended by Kenny (1987) for measures such as proportions that have both lower and upper bounds. Kenny argues that numbers near zero and one have to be stretched because a small change is more difficult when the number is close to zero or one (Kenny, 1987, p. 82)). The first two variables were betweensubjects variables and the last two were within-subject variables. A significant Context×Partner interaction emerged as predicted, F(4,308)=16·70, p<0·001. Conversations with groups of friends were most frequent on campus, whereas conversations with same sex friends were most frequent within homes, indicating that campus settings are often populated by ‘groups’ (Table 2). Another explanation for this finding may be sought in parental and dormitory rules which place restrictions on opposite sex visitation in young people’s homes in Turkish society. Main effects for partners and contexts were also significant, Fs(2,154)=33·71, and 7·88, ps<0·001 for contexts and partners, respectively. Higher proportions of conversations occurred within residences than downtown or campus, and lower proportions of conversations occurred with family members than with same sex or groups of friends (Table 2). Residence×Context interaction was also significant, F(2,154)=13·38, p<0·001. Thus interaction TABLE 2 Means and standart deviations involved in arcsin transformations of proportion of conversations reported in different contexts with different partners (Context×Partner Interaction) Contexts
Partners Family
Same sex friends
Group of friends
Context mean
Campus
0·02*a (0·12)
0·10b (0·12)
0·19c (0·18)
0·311 (0·26)
Downtown
0·03a (0·08)
0·09b (0·12)
0·08b (0·13)
0·212 (0·18)
Home
0·15a (0·19)
0·25b (0·24)
0·10a (0·16)
0·503 (0·27)
Persons mean
0·20a (0·31)
0·44b (0·31)
0·37b (0·31)
Means on the same line not sharing a letter superscript and means on the same column not sharing a letter superscript are significantly different from each other at p<0·05 by Scheffe.
375
revealed that participants living away from parents conducted greater proportions of their conversations within homes than those living with parents, F(simple) (1,81)=5·91, p<0·02, (with parents M= 0·41, S.D.=0·16, without parents M=0·56, S.D.=0·31). This finding may be explained by needs for privacy and escape from parental supervision of those respondents who live with parents. It is also consistent with Brown’s (1992) report that the difference between desired and achieved intimacy was greater for home than for campus residence. Residence×Partner interaction was also significant, F(2,154)=10·93, p<0·01. Simple effect tests comparing students living with parents and students living in dormitories with respect to proportions of conversations with different partners were conducted in order to analyse this significant interaction. The results of these simple effect tests revealed that students living with parents conversed more with parents than students living away from parents, F(1,81)=8·24, p<0·01, and that students living way from their families conversed more with same sex friends than those living with parents, F(1,81)=23·80, p<0·01 (with family: family M=0·42, S.D.=0·16; same sex friends M=0·27, S.D.= 0·21; without family: family M=0·12, S.D.=0·36; same sex friends M=0·57, S.D.=0·31). The difference between the two groups of participants was not significant for proportions of conversations with groups of friends. A significant Residence×Context×Partner interaction also emerged, F(4,308)=14·11, p<0·001. Simple effect tests comparing students living with parents and students living in dormitories with respect to proportions of conversations in different contexts with different partners were conducted for each partner/context combination in order to analyse this triple interaction. Significant effects of participants’ residence emerged for three partner/ context combinations, Fs(1,81)=5·13, 18·36, and 31·76, ps<0·01 for campus/same sex, home/family and home/same sex combinations, respectively. Participants living with parents talked less with same sex friends on campus than those living away from parents, participants living with parents also talked more with family and less with same sex friends at home than did participants living away from parents (Figure 1). The last two interactions suggest that conversations with same sex friends and family may serve similar functions for respondents in that absence of family seems to increase proportions of conversations with friends within homes, the primary domain of family members. No significant effects related to sex emerged from this analysis.
376
N. Hortac¸ su 0.45 Proportion of conversation
0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0
FIGURE 1.
Campus
Downtown
Home
Arcsin transformations of proportion of conversations reported in different contexts with different partners by students who live with or without families (Residence×Context×Partner Interaction). (h), without family; (j), with family.
Contexts and conversation topics Context×Topic cross-tabulations were performed for each participant. These cross-tabulations provided the proportion of conversations conducted in each context/topic combination for each participant. Arcsin transformations of the proportions of entries in each cell of the cross-tabulations for each participant were utilized as dependent measure in a Sex (male/female)×Residence (with parents/without parents)×Context (campus/downtown/home)×Topics (personal/academic/current/talk) ANOVA in order to test the prediction of a relationship between context and conversation partners. The first two variables were between subjects variables and the last two were within subject variables. A significant Context×Topic interaction emerged as predicted, F(6,468)=12·87, p<0·01. Current events and ‘talk’ constituted greater proportions of conversations at home than in other contexts (Table 3). These two topics of conversation were lower in average topic intimacy over all respondents and constituted 52% of all reported conversations (current: M=3·56, S.D.=0·80; general M=3·21, S.D.= 0·88). These data are consistent with Western reports of large proportions of nonintimate conversations in everyday conversations (Duck et al., 1991). A significant main effect of context revealed that fewer conversations occurred downtown than either on campus or within homes, F(2,156)=18·39, p<0·01 (Table 3). The Topic main effect was also significant, F(3,254)=6·19, p<0·01. The proportion of conversations on general topics were significantly
greater than proportions of conversations in all other three topics (Table 3). A significant Sex×Context interaction also emerged. This interaction revealed that females reported more conversations within homes than in other settings, whereas proportions of conversations occurring within homes and on campus were about equal for males, F(2,156)=3·11, p<0·05 (Figure 2). A Sex×Residence×Context×Topic interaction also emerged but was uninterpretable F(6,468)=2·26, p< 0·05. TABLE 3 Means and standart deviations involved in arcsin transformations of proportion of different topics of conversations reported in different contexts (Context× Topic Interaction) Contexts
Topics Personal Academic Current General Context mean
Campus
0·07 (0·10)
0·12 (0·13)
0·07 (0·11)
0·08 (0·12)
0·331 (0·40)
Downtown
0·07 (0·15)
0·02 (0·04)
0·07 (0·13)
0·07 (0·14)
0·242 (0·34)
Home
0·07a (0·15)
0·08a (0·07)
0·14b (0·13)
0·16b (0·16)
0·361 (0·39)
Topic mean
0·21a (0·37)
0·22a (0·16)
0·22a (0·23)
0·31b (0·37)
Means on the same line not sharing a letter superscript and means on the same column not sharing a letter subscript are significantly different from each other at p<0·05 by Scheffe.
Contexts and Conversations
377
0.4
Proportion of conversation
0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0
Family
Same sex Group of friends friends
Family
Campus
Same sex Group of friends friends
Downtown
Family
Same sex Group of friends friends
Home
FIGURE 2. Arcsin transformations of proportion of conversations reported in different contexts by males and females (Sex×Context Interaction). (h), male; (j), female.
Discussion The results of the present investigation revealed contextual variations with respect to different measures of everyday conversations. Residences, which may be construed as primary territories, emerged as contexts for about half of all conversations. These conversations indicated a large range in rated intimacy and involved relatively intimate conversation partners. These findings were consistent with reports of low constraint, high ‘home-like’ness, high informality and high average appropriateness over various behaviors for these settings (Price & Bouffard, 1974; Adamopoulos, 1982; Brown, 1992). The finding that private residences were favourite settings for intimate as well as relatively superficial conversations supports the view that these superficial conversations may have ‘symbolic’ functions in maintenance and development of personal relationships (Duck et al., 1991). The finding is also consistent with Simmel’s (in Wolff, 1950) assertions concerning the coexistence of triviality and intimacy within relationships. Emergence of homes as favourite settings for these conversations implies that relaxed, nondirective settings are chosen for these types of conversations possibly because of scarcity of external constraints. Settings within campus such as classrooms and department canteens, which may be construed as secondary territories, were scenes for relatively less intimate conversations with relatively more intimate conversation partners. Downtown settings such as cinemas, streets, and cafes, which may be
conceptualized as public territories, served as scenes for conversations encompassing topics within a narrow range of medium average topic intimacy. These conversations involved conversation partners within a narrow range of relatively high perceived intimacy. Thus, students seemed to go downtown with relatively close friends and talked about fairly intimate matters while they were downtown. The relatively intimate nature of conversations within public territories may seem surprising. However, the data are easily explained when differential likelihood of social intrusions on conversations in different contexts are considered. Public territories are populated by ‘aggregates’ or strangers. Anonymity enjoyed in these settings may have decreased the probability of intrusions and may have provided the opportunity for intimate conversations. Presence of membership groups or acquaintances on campus, on the other hand, may have increased the possible negative consequences of overheard intimate conversations. Another explanation of rather intimate nature of conversations downtown may be the tendency of people to prefer ‘no-man’s land’ while discussing intimate matters. The observed relationships between contexts and conversational topics and conversation partners support the assumption concerning dynamic interaction between partners and contexts (Endler, 1986). These relationships may also reflect situational probabilities and associations. Thus, individuals may talk about academic matters on campus because campus may be a setting where such topics are more salient and/or campus is setting
378
N. Hortac¸ su
where academic issues and problems need attending. The study also provided evidence supporting the contention that individuals’ position within the ‘macro’ social context may influence the manner in which they monitor their everyday interactions (Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 1987). Students living with or away from parents utilized similar contexts somewhat differently, implying that students’ needs for conversational partners and/or meanings ascribed to residences varied as a function of availability of different types of network members and/or possibility of supervision by family members. One point to note in relation to effects involving residence is the possibility of personality differences between students who live with or away from parents. However, any effects due to personality variables would also be consistent with the view of dynamic interaction between partners and context and with Hinde and Stevenson-Hinde’s (1987) recommendation stated above. The present study differed from previous investigations of settings by focusing on variations on one type of behaviour and by including the interactional partner of the behaviour within its scope. Previous studies investigated appropriateness of different behaviours or frequency of behaviours indicating different traits in different contexts without reference to interactional partners (Price & Bouffard, 1974; Kendrick et al., 1990). Thus, their approach was individualistic rather than interpersonal. Previous studies seemed to view meanings of contexts for individuals in the abstract, without reference to the status of current occupants vis-a`-vis the perceiver. Finally, some discussion of the utilization of the diary method to investigation of settings is in order. As mentioned in the introduction, the method is convenient for investigation of everyday occurrences and provides rather detailed information. However, similar to other self report measures, the diary method may also suffer from social desirability biases, selective recall and selective reporting. However, selective reporting is also a problem with the more controlled experience sampling method, where the response rate ranges around 70% (Brown, 1992). In the present study, an attempt at minimizing social desirability bias was made by asking informants to record the general rather than specific topic of conversations. Thus, it was hoped that students could use neutral labels such as ‘relationship matters’ rather than more self revealing information. Another possible problem with the method is the impossibility of determining
the source of individual variations in number of conversations and number of topics. These variations may have been due to individual variations in sociability and wealth of interests or they may have been due to individual differences in conscientiousness with respect to diary keeping. The method also does not enable the researcher to determine the reason why fewer conversations are reported in some settings, i.e. the respondent may have spent less time in a particular setting or (s)he may have talked less in that setting. In conclusion, the present study utilized a nonconventional method and a relational approach to investigation of contextual effects on one type of behaviour, namely everyday conversations. The study provided evidence for the dynamic view of partner–context interaction as well as for the contention that interactions should be investigated with respect to locus of individuals within the larger social context.
Notes Reprint requests and correspondence to Nuran Hortac¸su, Psikologi Bolumu, Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi, 06531 Ankara, Turkey.
References Adamopoulos, J. (1982). The perception of interpersonal behavior: Dimensionality and importance of the social environment. Environment and Behavior, 14, 29–44. Altman, I. & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Holt. Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environment of Human Behavior. Stanford, Calif.: California University Press. Brown, B. B. (1992). The ecology of primacy and mood in a shared living group. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 5–20. Canter, D. (1986). Putting situations in their place. In A. Furnham, Ed., Social Behavior in Context, pp. 208–239. Newton, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Darley, J. M. & Gilbert, D. T. (1985). Social psychological aspects of environmental psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson, Eds, Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2, Third Edn., pp. 949–991. New York: Random House. Duck, S., Rutt, D. J., Hurst, M. H. & Strejc, H. (1991). Some evident truths about conversations in everyday relationships. All communications are not created equal. Human Communication Research, 18, 228–267. Endler, N. (1986). Origins of interactional psychology. In A. Furnham, Ed., Social Behavior in Context, pp. 11–48. Newton, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Contexts and Conversations Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday. Gorta, A. (1985). Choosing situations for a purpose. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 17–35. Harvey, J. H., Hendrich, S. S. and Tucker, K. (1988). Selfreport methods in studying personal relationships. In S. W. Duch, Ed. Handbook of Personal Relationships, pp. 99–113. New York: Willey. Hinde, R. A. and Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1987). Interpersonal relationships and child development. Developmental Review, 1, 1–21. Kendrick, D. T., McCreath, H. E., Govern, J., King, R. and Bordin, J. (1990). Person-environment intersections: everyday settings and common traits dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 685–698. Kenny, D. A. (1987). Statistics for the social and behavioral sciences. Boston: Little Brown & Co. Pervin, L. A. (1986). Personal and social determinants of behavior in situations. In A. Furnham, Ed., Social Behavior in Context, pp. 81–102. Newton, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
379
Price, R. H. & Bouffard, D. L. (1974). Behavioral appropriateness and situational constraint as dimensions of social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 579–586. Snyder, M. & Gangestad, S. (1982). Choosing social situations: Two investigations of self monitoring processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 123–135. Stokols, D. & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings. In J. H. Harvey, Ed., Cognition, Social Behavior, and the Environment. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Earlbaum. Werner, C. M., Altman, I. & Brown, B. B. (1992). A transactional approach to interpersonal relations: Physical environment, social context and temporal qualities. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 9, 297–323. Wolff, K. H. (1950). (Trans & Ed.) The Sociology of George Simmel. New York: Free Press.