This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]

On: 14 October 2014, At: 08:13

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Monographs
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcmm20

Actor goal achievement and sensitivity

to partner as critical factors in
understanding interpersonal
communication competence and conflict
strategies
Sandra Lakey & Daniel Canary
Published online: 21 Oct 2010.

To cite this article: Sandra Lakey & Daniel Canary (2002) Actor goal achievement and sensitivity to
partner as critical factors in understanding interpersonal communication competence and conflict
strategies, Communication Monographs, 69:3, 217-235, DOI: 10.1080/03637750216542

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03637750216542

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Actor Goal Achievement and Sensitivity to Partner as
Critical Factors in Understanding Interpersonal
Communication Competence and Conflict Strategies

Sandra G. Lakey and Daniel J. Canary

Communication scholars have long argued that achieving one’s personal goals with others constitutes an
important element of interpersonal communication competence. Moreover, sensitivity to the partner’s
goals has been implicated in various lines of research related to competence. Despite the presumed status of
goal achievement and sensitivity to the partner’s goals, models do not develop the relationships between
these constructs and how actors are assessed in terms of competence criteria. This paper attempts to repair
this oversight by advancing and testing hypotheses that connect assessments of competence to actor’s goal
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

achievement and sensitivity to the partner’s goals. Using the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model
(APIM) (Kashy & Kenny, 1999), both actor and partner assessments of the actor’s sensitivity and conflict
strategies were analyzed. Results reveal that sensitivity to the partner’s goals was a strong predictor of
competence assessments and that actor goal achievement was a moderate predictor of competence
assessments. In short, support was found for the explicit inclusion of goal achievement and goal sensitivity
in models of interpersonal communication competence.

I ntroduced in the 1970’s (Rubin, 1990), communication competence remains an

area of interest for scholars in various areas of interpersonal communication.
Spitzberg and Hurt (1987) claim as axiomatic the idea that academic, personal, and
occupational success results from competent communication. Additionally, Spitzberg
(1993) believes that “competence plays a central role in the success and failure of all
significant human relationships” (p. 38). Recent research attests to these claims,
including studies, for example, on conversational memory (Miller & de Winstanley,
2002), conflict management (Canary, Cupach, & Serpe, 2001; Gross & Guerrero,
2000; Olson, 2002), and social support (Anders & Tucker, 2000).
An important feature of communication competence concerns the achievement of
goals. For instance, Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) define relational competence as
“the extent to which objectives functionally related to communication are fulfilled
through cooperative interaction appropriate to the interpersonal context” (p. 100).
According to Parks, “[C]ommunicative competence represents the degree to which
individuals satisfy and perceive that they have satisfied their goals within the limits of
a given social situation without jeopardizing their ability or opportunity to pursue
their other subjectively more important goals” (1994, p. 595).
Although goals appear to be fundamental to understanding interpersonal compe-
tence, few researchers elaborate how goals are theoretically connected to assess-
ments of competence. In their discussion of communicative development, Clark and
Delia (1979) claim that three basic goals (overtly instrumental objectives, interper-

An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the annual conference of the International Communica-
tion Association, Washington, D.C. The authors wish to thank Deborah Kashy, Emily Langan, and Tim Cole
for their assistance with various aspects of the analyses. This paper is based on the first author’s dissertation
which was conducted under the direction of Dan Canary and Dennis Gouran. Correspondence regarding this
manuscript may be sent to Sandi Lakey, Pennsylvania College of Technology, 1 College Ave., Williamsport, PA
17701; slakey@pct.edu.

Communication Monographs, Vol. 69, No. 3, September 2002, pp 217–235

Copyright 2002, National Communication Association
 218 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

sonal objectives, and identity objectives) are present to some degree in every human
interaction. The authors present these goals not as their primary focus, however, but
only as a part of a broader discussion of a constructivist view of the communicative
development of rhetorical competence. Moreover, Wiemann (1977) includes goal
achievement as part of his definition of communication competence, but goals
receive little attention throughout his explanation of his conceptualization. In
Spitzberg and Cupach’s (1984) model of competence, goals, mentioned only in
connection with effectiveness, could easily be overlooked or viewed as peripheral.
Ten years later, Parks (1994) included goal achievement as a more central part of his
definition of communication competence, but his discussion focused on control, not
the connection between goal achievement and communication competence.
Although goal achievement has been discussed directly in relationship to percep-
tions of communication competence, a second idea, sensitivity to a partner’s goals,
has been discussed only indirectly. Yet, assessing other people’s goals is necessary
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

for all social interaction and a source of information to understand interactions

(Pervin, 1989a; Read & Miller, 1989). Although scholars state that sensitivity to the
partner is important to one’s interpersonal competence, they have not considered
this idea as central to perceptions of competence or in terms of the partner’s goals.
Focus has remained on the actor’s goal achievement. For example, Wiemann (1977)
defines competent communicators as those who can achieve their goals while
“maintaining a mutually acceptable definition of the relationship” (p. 198). Bochner
and Kelly (1974) include empathy and collaboration as central to competence. Also,
Littlejohn and Jabusch (1982) include interpersonal sensitivity as an element of
competence.
Although goal achievement has been tested in studies involving effectiveness (e.g.,
Canary & Spitzberg, 1987, Spitzberg & Cupach, 1989), various scholars (e.g., Parks,
1994; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984, 1989) have only implied or assumed the connec-
tion between the actors’ sensitivity to the partners’ goals and perceptions of the
actors’ competence. Theoretical understanding of communication competence,
especially when examining the concept as a judgment formed by an interaction
partner (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984, 1989), would benefit from moving sensitivity
to a partner’s goals from an assumed, secondary status into a more central position.
As Parks (1994) explains, many goals people pursue are inherently social; hence,
actors’ abilities to pursue their own goals are directly related to the interaction
partners’ abilities to pursue their goals. Attending to the goals of both participants
helps people to pursue their goals without the clashing of seemingly incompatible
goals, which is recognized as a fundamental feature of interpersonal conflict
(Peterson, 1989). This sensitivity also helps people to understand, at least to some
extent, why others enact certain behaviors and continue to enact them (Dillard,
1990a).
Connections among an actor’s interpersonal goal achievement, the actor’s sensi-
tivity to a partner’s goals, and the partner’s perceptions of the actor’s competence
may seem obvious to some, but verifying their connections requires careful empiri-
cal examination to determine whether such connections are important. The purpose
of the study reported here was to test the assumed connections. The following
section further develops the idea that sensitivity to a partner’s goals deserves a
primary place in understanding communication competence.
 GOAL ACHIEVEMENT AND SENSITIVITY 219

Literature Related to the Construct of Goal Sensitivity

Interactions are complex because of several properties of goals. First, both
partners pursue multiple goals simultaneously (e.g., instrumental, self-presentation,
and relational) and want to pursue both their primary goals (those that initiate an
action) and their secondary goals (those that constrain the behaviors in which people
engage as they pursue their primary goals) (Dillard, Segrin, & Harden, 1989; Wilson,
1990). Second, the importance of goals is situational (Samp & Solomon, 1999).
People prioritize goals differently; their goals vary in importance both within an
interaction and from interaction to interaction. This importance is often evaluated in
terms of relevance to other interaction objectives (Tracey, 1984). People also attach
different levels of commitment to their goals (Dillard, 1990a). Because of these
complexities and the interdependent nature of the actions required to achieve
interpersonal goals, people are expected to work to develop an awareness of and
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

sensitivity to both their own and their partners’ goals, rather than concentrating only
on their own goals or assuming their partners’ goals are similar to their own.
Recognizing the existence of their partners’ goals helps people establish the rapport
necessary to achieve their interpersonal goals (Berger & Kellerman, 1994).
Sensitivity to conversational partners has been addressed in various areas of
research, such as rhetorical sensitivity and conversational sensitivity. Rhetorically
sensitive people create messages that consider their own position, constraints
presented by the situation, and the rights and humanity of the partner (Hart & Burks,
1972). Conversationally sensitive people receive messages and interpret them
according to what happens during the conversation (Daly, Vangelisti, & Daughton,
1987).
Other lines of research consider sensitivity to the partner as part of communica-
tion competence without mentioning goals directly. For instance, empathy is
identified repeatedly as a feature of interpersonal communication competence
(Wiemann & Backlund, 1980; Wiemann & Kelly, 1981). It involves attempts to
understand the feelings of partners and to enact relevant and appropriate behaviors
(Wiemann & Kelly, 1981). Similarly, Duran (1995) states that people who are viewed
as competent are more sensitive to the behaviors and reactions of others. Four
characteristics of social competence (Duran, 1992)— cognitive complexity, empathy,
role taking, and interaction involvement—involve this sensitivity. Likewise, Cegala’s
(1984) work on interaction involvement relates communication competence to an
actor’s level of “conscious attention on both internal and external matters” (p. 320).
In general, this construct’s three central dimensions, responsiveness, perceptiveness,
and attentiveness, are inextricably linked to an actor’s attention to an interaction
partner. Although they do not directly mention sensitivity to a partner’s goals for the
interaction, these areas of competence research stress the importance of an actor’s
attention to a partner.
The construct of goal sensitivity references the extent to which a person is
cognizant of the partner’s conversational objectives. That is, goal sensitivity concerns
how much one perceives the other as valuing particular objectives during a
conversation. Although competence research might imply that sensitivity should
also reflect accuracy of judgment (e.g., empathic understanding, perceptiveness,
etc.), in our view goal sensitivity does not necessarily entail accuracy. Just as people
vary in their sensitivity to light and to pain, we hold that people differ in their
sensitivity to the kinds of instrumental, identity, and relational goals that might be
 220 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

important to their partners in various contexts. This view of sensitivity is not meant
to reflect a personal disposition, although one might readily think of associated
personality types that would be sensitive to the desires of others (e.g., high self-
monitors, codependents).
Summary. Taken together, these lines of research underscore the importance of
general sensitivity to a partner and, by critical extension, sensitivity to the interaction
partner’s goals. Although not all of these areas directly mention communication
competence or goals, they do claim that enacting the relevant behaviors helps
communicators interact more successfully. Moreover, attention to their partners
helps people increase effectiveness; that is, it helps actors achieve their goals.
Existing research indicates that to be perceived by their interaction partners as
competent communicators, people should be aware of and responsive to their
interaction partners. Precisely such responsiveness can be seen in the context of the
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

partners’ conversational goals.

Sensitivity to a partner’s goals presumably affects impressions of communica-
tion competence when viewed from a dyadic perspective. Wiemann and Bradac
(1989) argue that people in an interaction construct competence by choosing skills
based on their expectations, relationship rules, and their goals. Waldron (1997) adds
that the goals and plans of conversational partners are interdependent. So possessing
knowledge related to a partner’s goals helps an actor to plan behaviors that will
contribute to perceptions of effectiveness and appropriateness and to recognize the
existence of incompatible goals. Additionally, awareness of partners’ actions to
achieve their goals should help actors become more adaptable (Berger, 1997). In
addition, the actor’s assessment of the partner’s goals constitutes an important source
of information for interpreting one’s interactions (Jacobs & Jackson, 1983; Read &
Miller, 1989), so such assessment should be associated positively with partner
perception of the actor’s communication competence. This study pursues these ideas
by considering sensitivity to the partners’ goals as necessary for actors’ goal
achievement and as important to partners’ perceptions of actors’ communication
comptence.
Especially during conflict interactions, goal assessment should be at a premium.
Conflict researchers often identify personal goals as the locus of incompatibility.
That is, during conflict people perceive that their valued goals are somehow
frustrated by their partners (Canary & Spitzberg, 1987; Fukushima & Ohbuchi,
1996). People often interact in mindless ways, but when valued goals are blocked
they become much more conscious of communication strategies they might use to
overcome the current problem (Berger, 1997). When it becomes clear that incompat-
ibility of goals exists, people attempt to discover the causes of the conflict and to
ascertain the goals at stake (both self and other’s) (Canary, in press). Read and Miller
(1989) emphasize that people need information about, and an understanding of,
their partners’ goals and plans in order to recover from interruptions of their own
goals and plans that result when partners’ goals conflict. Moreover, the assessment of
self and partner goals would help people to maximize their appropriateness and
effectiveness, whereas the dismissal of either self or partner goals would lead to
decreases in appropriateness, effectiveness, or both (Spitzberg, Canary, & Cupach,
1994). The following section applies these concepts to offer a definition of compe-
tence and testable hypotheses.
 GOAL ACHIEVEMENT AND SENSITIVITY 221

Definition and Hypotheses

The following definition of interpersonal communication competence relates
perceptions of competence both to goal achievement and sensitivity to the goals of
others: Interpersonal communication competence is an impression formed by an interaction
partner of an actor’s communication behaviors that are performed to achieve his/her goals
while also to respect the partner’s goals. Theory and research suggest that during an
interaction both people attempt to achieve their instrumental, self-presentation, and
relational goals, and both people form judgments of the communication competence
of their partners (e.g., Clark & Delia, 1979; Cody, Canary, & Smith, 1994). The
preceding review underscores a critical theoretical assumption. People are interde-
pendent in their pursuit of their interpersonal goals, and their communication can be
viewed as successful if both parties satisfactorily achieve their goals (Spitzberg &
Cupach, 1989). This idea implies that communicators are expected to be aware of
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

the goals of their partners and consider them as much as possible as they work to
achieve their own goals. As the literature review suggests, when social actors behave
in ways that are sensitive to their partners’ goals, partners will likely respond
positively. Because partners respond positively, they will be more inclined to
evaluate the actors’ behavior as communicatively competent. Additionally, it would
appear that actors’ perceptions are also related to their partners’ evaluation of the
actors’ communication competence.
Including both goal achievement and sensitivity to a partner’s goals as factors that
affect perceptions of communication competence leads to the following hypotheses.1
Hypothesis 1: Actors’ achievement of instrumental, self-presentation, and relational goals predicts
the partners’ assessment of the actors’ interpersonal communication competence.
Hypothesis 2a: Partners’ rating of actors’ sensitivity to the partners’ instrumental, self-
presentation, and relational goals predicts the partners’ rating of the actors’
interpersonal communication competence.
Hypothesis 2b: Actors’ perceptions of their awareness of and sensitivity to their partners’ goals
predicts the partners’ perception of the actors’ communication competence.
Hypothesis 3: High ratings of achievement of instrumental, self-presentation, and relational
goals, and high ratings of sensitivity to partners’ instrumental, self-presentation,
and relational goals produce the highest partner ratings of actors’ interpersonal
communication competence.

People’s behavioral decisions that influence perceptions of effectiveness and

appropriateness (two components of communication competence) should be af-
fected by their awareness of the goals of their partners. The proposed relationship
between an actor’s sensitivity to a partner’s goals and ratings of effectiveness and
appropriateness leads to the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 4a: Ratings of effectiveness correlate positively with actors’ perceptions of their
awareness of and sensitivity to their partners’ goals.
Hypothesis 4b: Ratings of appropriateness correlate positively with actors’ perceptions of their
awareness of and sensitivity to their partners’ goals.
Hypothesis 5a: Ratings of effectiveness correlate positively with partners’ ratings of actors’
awareness of and sensitivity to their partners’ goals.
Hypothesis 5b: Ratings of appropriateness correlate positively with partners’ ratings of actors’
awareness of and sensitivity to their partners goals.

The current study focuses on conflict interactions. Knowledge of both one’s own
goals and a partner’s goals allows for behavioral choices that are both effective and
appropriate, which should enable people to manage conflicting goals as produc-
 222 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

tively as possible (Read & Miller, 1989). Conversely, without an understanding of

the goals of their partners, people have limited chances to manage a conflict
successfully; they will not know what work needs to be done.
In their competence based model of conflict Spitzberg et al. (1994) argue that
people assess conflict messages according to effectiveness and appropriateness.
During situations in which conflicting goals become paramount, however, people
may feel forced to choose between effectiveness and appropriateness. Spitzberg
(1993) refers to this choice as the most encompassing basic dialectical tension people
experience in attempting to communicate competently. Accordingly, people may
attempt to achieve their goals with no regard for the other person (sacrificing
appropriateness) or give up their goals so as to be appropriate (sacrificing effective-
ness) (Spitzberg et al., 1994). People can, however, be both effective and appropriate.
When they develop a greater understanding of the interdependence between their
goals and their partners’ goals, they are likely to realize that increasing the effective-
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

ness of their partners’ goal pursuit contributes to their own effectiveness (Parks,
1994). Also, choosing appropriate behaviors increases the respect and collaboration
needed to conduct civilized interaction, and should help people avoid sacrificing their
secondary goals in focused pursuit of their primary goals (Cupach & Canary, 1997).
During conflict, people select strategies that ostensibly maximize their goal
potential. Two fundamental categories of conflict tactics are integrative, those that
work toward the other person and promote relational objectives, and distributive,
those that work against the other person because actors are intent on pursuing their
goals with no consideration for their partners’ goals (Sillars, Coletti, Parry, & Rogers,
1982). Working toward or collaborating with partners requires sensitivity to their
goals (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984). Research has shown that the use of integrative
tactics is generally perceived as more competent than the use of distributive tactics
(e.g., Canary & Spitzberg, 1987). Therefore, people who want to be perceived as inter-
personally communicatively competent should be aware of their partners’ goals and
choose integrative, rather than distributive, tactics to manage the conflict. Accordingly,
Hypothesis 6a: Actors’ perceptions of their awareness of and sensitivity to their partners’ goals
correlates positively with actors’ use of integrative conflict tactics.
Hypothesis 6b: Actors’ perceptions of their awareness of and sensitivity to their partners’ goals
correlates negatively with actors’ use of distributive tactics.

Method
Sample
Participants in this study were drawn from a large Eastern state university, a small
Eastern technical college, and a large Southwestern state university. The study
involved 399 participants, 195 dyads and nine other individual responses. Only the
paired data were used for analyses. One-half of the participants were recruited from
among students enrolled in various communication courses, and they received some
type of extra credit for their participation. Student participants chose partners to
participate with them (these partners included both students and non-students). Of
the 399 participants, 341 (85.5%) were students. Participants had an average age of
24 years, with a minimum of 18 years and a maximum of 59 years (SD ⫽ 7.07 yrs.).
In addition, 216 (54.1%) were female, and 183 (45.9%) were male. Finally, 330 (84%)
were Caucasian; the remainder identified themselves as African-American (16 or
4%), Hispanic/Latino (15 or 3.8%), Asian (19 or 4.8%), or other (13 or 3.4%)
 GOAL ACHIEVEMENT AND SENSITIVITY 223

Because of the study’s dyadic nature, students chose someone with whom they
had a close relationship, and with whom they had experienced a recent conflict.
Accordingly, 11.1% of the students chose a family member as their partner, 34.7%
chose a close friend, 47.1% chose a romantic partner, and 7.1% chose a spouse.
These relationships had a mean length of five years with a minimum of one month, a
maximum of 25 years, and a standard deviation of 6.5 years. After instructions were
read participants completed the measures separately.
Materials
Participants focused on a recent conflict that they had experienced with their
partner. They decided together which incident to use, and each wrote a brief
synopsis of the incident on the survey form to verify that they were referencing the
same incident. Participants based their responses on a specific recalled incident,
rather than on their overall impression of their partners’ interpersonal communica-
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

tion competence and appropriateness and their own effectiveness. A state approach
to measurement of competence in this goals-based perspective is warranted because
people’s goals change from one situation to the next, and their goals can vary in
strength (Dillard, 1990a; Sanders, 1991).
Goal measures. This study used several existing instruments as well as adaptations
of several existing scales.2 Participants used seven-point scales for all instruments,
with 1 indicating “strongly disagree” and 7 indicating “strongly agree.” After
completing several questions regarding the typicality of the conflict (e.g., “This
conflict involved a problem we had discussed before”), participants identified their
goals for the conflict situation (overall M ⫽ 4.20, SD ⫽ .91) and how successful they
were in achieving each goal (overall M ⫽ 4.49, SD ⫽ 1.06) using a list of conflict
goals adapted from Clark and Delia (1979) and Cody et al. (1994). The goals
included in the survey represented the three types of objectives: Instrumental goals
(M ⫽ 3.68, SD ⫽ 1.09) included statements such as, “I wanted my partner to help
me” and “I wanted my partner to tell the truth about something”; self-presentation
goals (M ⫽ 4.65, SD ⫽ .95) included statements related to the person’s image such
as, “I wanted to appear to be fair” and “I wanted my partner to respect me”; and
relational goals (M ⫽ 4.49, SD ⫽ 1.06) were reflected in statements including, “I
wanted to protect our relationship” and “I wanted to increase the seriousness or
intimacy of our relationship.”
Participants provided similar information about their perceptions of their part-
ners’ goals sought (M ⫽ 3.83, SD ⫽ .90) and of how successful their partners were
in achieving their goals (M ⫽ 4.33, SD ⫽ 1.14). These lists included the same goals
as those provided for the actors’ goals sought and goals achieved. Participants
identified their partners’ instrumental goals sought (M ⫽ 3.29, SD ⫽ 1.07),
self-presentation goals sought (M ⫽ 4.66, SD ⫽ .93), and relational goals sought
(M ⫽ 4.06, SD ⫽ 1.30). They also rated their partners’ instrumental goals achieved
(M ⫽ 4.42, SD ⫽ 1.43), self-presentation goals achieved (M ⫽ 4.58, SD ⫽ 1.10),
and relational goals achieved (M ⫽ 4.76, SD ⫽ 1.32).
This information permitted calculation of a score representing actors’ perception
of their awareness of and sensitivity to their partners’ goals by averaging the ratings
actors gave to their partners’ goals sought and goals achieved. The reasoning behind
this decision was that the more persons believed they could identify their partners’
goals sought and goals achieved, the more they were attentive to (or at least
 224 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

perceived themselves to be attentive to) their partner and what that person was
attempting to accomplish during the conflict. In other words, higher scores should
reflect sensitivity to the partner’s goals regardless of whether that score reflects
accurately what the partner sought and achieved. A score was calculated for each
person in the dyad by using the average score for the identification of the partner’s
goals sought (M ⫽ 3.83, SD ⫽ .90) and the average score for the identification of
the partner’s goals achieved (M ⫽ 4.33, SD ⫽ 1.14).
Although the reliability results for the four goal measures were not identical, all
had initial coefficients equal to or greater than .80. After deleting six items which had
low item-total correlations, the reliability coefficients for the final scales were: actors’
goals sought ⫽ .80, actors’ goals achieved ⫽ .86, partners’ goals sought ⫽ .80,
partners’ goals achieved ⫽ .86.
Conflict strategies. Participants also identified the types of conflict strategies they
used. Measures of integrative and distributive conflict tactics were adapted from a
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

study by Canary, Cunningham, and Cody (1988). The integrative conflict tactics
included in the list had a reliability coefficient of .86, and the distributive tactics
included had a reliability coefficient of .84. Integrative tactics were assessed with
statements such as, “I sought a mutually beneficial solution” and “I showed concern
about his/her feelings and thoughts” (M ⫽ 4.83, SD ⫽ 1.21). Distributive tactics
were reflected in statements that included, “I tried to intimidate him/her,” “I used
threats,” and “I showed that I lost my temper” (M ⫽ 3.17, SD ⫽ 1.57).
Effectiveness and appropriateness. Using the Conversational Appropriateness
and Effectiveness scales (Canary & Spitzberg, 1987; Spitzberg & Canary, 1985)
participants rated their own effectiveness (M ⫽ 4.59, SD ⫽ .86) and their part-
ners’ appropriateness (M ⫽ 4.32, SD ⫽ 1.20). The effectiveness scale mea-
sures overall goal achievement, whereas the appropriateness scale measures both
specific appropriateness (specific aspects or remarks of the interaction) and general
appropriateness (more general suitability of behaviors). The effectiveness measure had a
coefficient alpha of .90, and the appropriateness scale had a coefficient alpha of .94.
Communication competence. Participants also rated their partners’ interpersonal
communication competence using the Rating of Alter Competence (RAC) scale
(M ⫽ 4.69, SD ⫽ 1.10), an event-focused assessment tool. The reliability coefficient
was .94 for RAC (see also Spitzberg, 1988).
Sensitivity to the partner’s goals. Three additional statements were placed at the end
of the appropriateness scale to measure directly the partner’s perceptions of the
actor’s sensitivity (M ⫽ 4.24, SD ⫽ 1.55). Because the appropriateness scale has
participants rate their partner, participants were already focused on the actions of the
partner. Because they are not part of the original scale, these three statements were
considered separately from the appropriateness scale during data analysis. The three
items are “S/he appeared to be sensitive to what I wanted to accomplish,” “S/he
appeared to acknowledge my needs,” and “S/he appeared aware of what I wanted to
accomplish.” These items had a coefficient alpha of .86.
Analytical Strategy
The data for this study were analyzed using the Actor-Partner Interdependence
Model (APIM) (Kashy & Kenny, 1999). This model controls for artificial increases in
Type I and Type II error in accounting for non-independence of dyadic data. The
 GOAL ACHIEVEMENT AND SENSITIVITY 225

TABLE 1
WITHIN DYAD CORRELATIONS

Variable/Subgroups within Variable r

Actor’s Goals Sought .15*
Relational Goals Sought .19**
Instrumental Goals Sought .10
Self-Presentation Goals Sought .32***
Partner’s Goals Sought .23**
Relational Goals Sought .24**
Instrumental Goals Sought .13
Self-Presentation Goals Sought .19**
Actor’s Goals Achieved .24**
Relational Goals Achieved .35***
Instrumental Goals Achieved .11
Self-Presentation Goals Achieved .20**
Partner’s Goals Achieved .10
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

Relational Goals Achieved .29***

Instrumental Goals Achieved ⫺.07
Self-Presentation Goals Achieved .36***
Actor’s Sensitivity to Partner’s Goals .35***
Effectiveness .19**
Appropriateness .45***
Communication Competence .52**
Integrative Conflict Tactic Use .36***
Distributive Conflict Tactic Use .36***
Note. Correlations were calculated using mean scores on each variable for each dyad member. *p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍
.01, ***p ⬍ .001.

within dyad correlations for the relevant variables (see Table 1) indicated that most
of the variables were correlated significantly, calling for interdependence analyses.
Even variables that are not correlated significantly can be suspect, according to
Kashy and Kenny (1999). Because of this concern, all variables were treated in the
data analysis as interdependent data. Recent uses of the APIM have been reported in
Kenny (1996), Vittengl and Holt, (2000), and Cole (2001). More precisely, APIM
analysis considers both interaction parties by using pooled regression analysis to
produce two scores. First, it produces a score that represents the actor effect, or the
extent to which a person’s score on an independent variable influences that person’s
own score on a dependent variable. Second, it produces a score that represents the
partner effect, the amount that an actor’s score on the independent variable influences
a partner’s score on the same outcome variable. (These effects are reported as
b-coefficients.) These two scores present an understanding of outcomes that reflects
the reality of the interdependence of the behaviors of people engaged in an
interaction (Kashy & Kenny, 1999).

Results
Three sets of hypotheses were presented. The first set examines the role of goal
achievement and goal sensitivity in predicting partners’ ratings of actors’ communi-
cation competence. The second set explores how goal achievement and goal
sensitivity predict effectiveness and appropriateness perceptions. The final set
examines how goal sensitivity relates to the use of conflict strategies.
 226 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

Hypotheses 1–3: Competence as a Function of Goals

Hypothesis 1 predicted a positive relationship between actors’ achievement of

their interaction goals (instrumental, self-presentation, and relational) and partners’
ratings of actors’ communication competence. This hypothesis received support
(Table 2 reports the APIM results for Hs 1–3).
The first pooled regression analysis used the actors’ score for each type of goal
achieved as the predictor variables and perceptions of communication competence
as the dependent variable. All three types of actors’ goals achieved predicted the
evaluation of the actors’ competence by the partner (partner bs ⫽ .12, .10, .21). All
three also predicted the evaluation people made of their partners’ communication
competence (actor bs ⫽ .19, .15, .29).
Given that effectiveness measures goal achievement, an additional pooled regres-
sion analysis was conducted using this measure of goal achievement as the predictor
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

variable and perceptions of communication competence as the dependent variable.

Once again, two statistically significant effects emerged (see Table 2). Actors’
evaluation of their own effectiveness predicted the positive evaluation of actors’
communication competence by the partner (partner b ⫽ .27). Likewise, but not
expected, actors’ evaluation of their own effectiveness predicted actors’ evaluation of
the partners’ communication competence (actor b ⫽ .57). In short, both a general
measure of goal achievement (effectiveness) and a narrower measure (evaluation of
the achievement of more specified goals) support the predicted relationship between
perceptions of interpersonal communication competence and actors’ goal achievement.
Hypothesis 2a predicted a positive relationship between partners’ perceptions of
actors’ sensitivity to those partners’ goals and partners’ rating of actors’ communica-
tion competence. H2a was supported. A pooled regression analysis using the
perception of sensitivity as the predictor variable and ratings of communication
competence as the dependent variable revealed statistically significant actor and
partner effects. (see Table 2).
As anticipated, the more actors perceived partners as sensitive to their goals, the
greater actors’ evaluation of partners’ communication competence (actor b ⫽ .50).
An unanticipated partner effect also occurred, indicating that the more the actor
perceived the partner as sensitive, the more favorable the partner’s evaluation of the
actor’s communication competence (partner b ⫽ .11).
Hypothesis 2b predicted a positive relationship between actors’ perceptions of
their own sensitivity to their partners’ goals and partners’ evaluation of the actors’
communication competence. H2b was supported. The pooled regression analysis
used to test this hypothesis revealed statistically significant effects for both actor and
partner (see Table 2). Actors’ perception of their own sensitivity affected both actors’
perception of partner competence (actor b ⫽ .50) and partners’ perception of actors’
competence (partner b ⫽ .14).
Hypothesis 3 predicted that people who receive the highest ratings of competence
from their partners also receive the highest ratings for sensitivity to the partners’
goals, and rate themselves high in goals achieved. As shown in Table 2 the results of
a multiple pooled regression analysis supported this prediction.
Competence scores were entered as the dependent variable; for the independent
variables sensitivity was entered first and actors’ goals achieved second. As it did for
Hypothesis 2a the sensitivity score produced both actor and partner effects; that is,
the actors’ perception of the partners’ sensitivity affected both the actors’ rating of
 GOAL ACHIEVEMENT AND SENSITIVITY 227

TABLE 2
RESULTS REGARDING COMPETENCE

Hypothesis 1: Actor and Partner Effects

Actor Effect Partner Effect
Dependent Independent
Variable Variable b t-value b t-value SE df R2
Competence Actor’s Relational .189 4.48*** .12 2.86** .042 338 .075
Goals Achieved
Instrumental .149 4.63*** .104 3.25** .032 367 .008
Goals Achieved
Self-Presentation .291 7.38*** .21 5.34*** .039 385 .049
Goals Achieved

Actor Effect Partner Effect

Dependent Independent
Variable Variable b t-value ␩ 2
b t-value SE df ␩2
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

Competence Effectiveness .567 12.60*** .288 .273 6.07*** .27 392 .086

Hypothesis 2a: Actor and Partner Effects

Actor Effect Partner Effect
Dependent Independent
Variable Variable b t-value ␩ 2
b t-value SE df ␩2

Competence Perception .498 24.13*** .608 .109 5.26*** .069 375 .021
of Partner’s
Sensitivity

Hypothesis 2b: Actor and Partner Effects

Actor Effect Partner Effect

Dependent Independent
Variable Variable b t-value ␩2 b t-value SE df ␩2
Competence Perception .504 11.011*** .239 .144 3.146** .046 386 .025
of Own
Sensitivity

Hypothesis 3: Actor and Partner Effects

Actor Effect Partner Effect

Dependent Independent
Variable Variable b t-value b t-value SE df R2

Competence Perception .486 21.13*** .09 3.91** .023 339 .531

of Partner’s
Sensitivity
Actor’s Relational .042 1.36 ⫺.0001 ⫺.009 .031 320 .107
Goals Achieved
Instrumental .009 .293 ⫺.023 ⫺.84 .027 343 .003
Goals Achieved
Self-Presentation .017 .474 .044 1.257 .035 350 ⫺.001
Goals Achieved
Note. ␩2 reflects effect size for relevant univariate tests; R 2s are reported for multivariate tests; *p ⬍ .05, **p ⬍
.01, ***p ⬍ .001.

the partners’ communication competence (actor b ⫽ .49) and the partners’ rating of
the actors’ competence (partner b ⫽ .10). On the other hand, the actors’ goals
achieved showed no statistically significant actor or partner effects.
 228 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

TABLE 3
RESULTS REGARDING EFFECTIVENESS AND APPROPRIATENESS

Hypotheses 4a and 4b: Actor and Partner Effects

Actor Effect Partner Effect
Dependent Independent
Variable Variable b t-value ␩ 2
b t-value SE df ␩2
Hypothesis 4a: Actor’s .233 4.959*** .062 .193 4.118*** .047 374 .043
Effectiveness Perception
Own
Sensitivity
Hypothesis 4b: Actor’s .379 6.328*** .093 .118 1.964* .06 393 .010
Appropriateness Perception
Own
Sensitivity
Hypotheses 5a and 5b: Actor and Partner Effects
Actor Effect Partner Effect
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

Dependent Independent
Variable Variable b t-value ␩2
b t-value SE df ␩2

Hypothesis 5a: Perception of .322 12.367*** .317 .064 2.435* .026 329 .018
Effectiveness Partner’s
Sensitivity
Hypothesis 5b: Perception of .457 15.501*** .391 .131 4.431*** .029 375 .50
Appropriateness Partner’s
Sensitivity
Note. ␩2 reflects effect size for relevant univariate tests; R 2s are reported for multivariate tests; *p ⬍ .05, ***p ⬍
.001.

Hypotheses 4 –5: Effectiveness and Appropriateness as Outcomes of Goals

Hypothesis 4a predicted a positive relationship between effectiveness and actors’
perception of their own sensitivity to their partners’ goals, and Hypothesis 4b
predicted a positive relationship between appropriateness and actors’ perception of
their sensitivity to their partners’ goals. As Table 3 shows, separate pooled regression
analyses provided support for both hypotheses.
First, effectiveness was used as the dependent variable with the actors’ perception
of sensitivity entered as the independent variable. Statistically significant actor and
partner effects emerged from this analysis. As might be expected, actors’ perception
of their own sensitivity affected their rating of their own effectiveness (actor b ⫽
.23). Moreover, the actors’ perception also affected partners’ ratings of their own
effectiveness (partner b ⫽ .19). In the second pooled regression analysis, appropri-
ateness served as the dependent variable and actors’ perception of their own
sensitivity to the partners’ goals served as the independent variable. Those data
revealed that actors’ perception of their own sensitivity affected their evaluation of
the partners’ appropriateness (actor b ⫽ .38). The actors’ perception also had a
lesser and just significant effect on the partner’s evaluation of the actors’ appropriate-
ness (partner b ⫽ .12).
Hypothesis 5, which was supported, predicted positive relationships (a) between a
person’s perception of a partner’s sensitivity and perceptions of effectiveness and (b)
between a person’s perception of a partner’s sensitivity and perceptions of appropri-
ateness. Table 3 reports the results for these tests.
For Hypothesis 5a, a pooled regression analysis, with effectiveness ratings as the
dependent variable and the actors’ perception of the partners’ sensitivity as the
 GOAL ACHIEVEMENT AND SENSITIVITY 229

TABLE 4
CONFLICT TACTICS AS A FUNCTION of GOAL SENSITIVITY

Hypotheses 6a and 6b: Actor and Partner Effects

Actor Effect Partner Effect
Dependent Independent
Variable Variable b t-value ␩ 2
b t-value SE df ␩2
Hypothesis 6a: Actor’s .461 7.80*** .134 .179 3.11** .058 393 .024
Integrative Perception
Conflict Own
Tactics Sensitivity
Hypothesis 6b: Actor’s ⫺.314 ⫺4.55*** .050 ⫺.159 ⫺2.305* .069 394 .013
Distributive Perception
Conflict Own
Tactics Sensitivity
Note. ␩2 reflects effect size for relevant univariate tests; R 2s are reported for multivariate tests; *p ⬍ .05, **p ⬍
.01, ***p ⬍ .001.
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

independent variable, supported the hypothesis. Both actor and partner effects were
found, with the actor effect being greater than the partner effect. Actors’ perception
of partners’ sensitivity predicted the actors’ rating of their own effectiveness (actor
b ⫽ .32), but also influenced partners’ evaluation of their own effectiveness
(partner b ⫽ .06). Similarly, a pooled regression analysis to test Hypothesis 5b,
using appropriateness ratings as the dependent variable and the actors’ perception of
the partners’ sensitivity as the independent variable, showed significant actor and
partner effects. Again, the actor effect was larger. The actors’ perception of the
partners’ sensitivity influenced the actors’ evaluation of the partners’ appropriate-
ness (actor b ⫽ .457), and it also affected the partners’ evaluation of the actors’
appropriateness (partner b ⫽ .13).
Hypothesis 6: Conflict Tactics as a Function of Goal Sensitivity
Hypothesis 6a predicted a positive relationship between actors’ perception of their
awareness of and sensitivity to partners’ goals and the use of integrative conflict
tactics. A negative relationship between actors’ perception of their sensitivity to their
partners’ goals and the use of distributive tactics was predicted in Hypothesis 6b. As
Table 4 shows both parts of Hypothesis 6 were supported.
As explained in the Method section a score to represent actors’ awareness of and
sensitivity to partners’ goals was created by averaging the ratings people gave to the
partners’ goals sought and goals achieved. This score was then used in a pooled
regression analysis as the predictor variable. The integrative conflict tactics score
served as the dependent variable. Although only an actor effect was predicted in the
hypothesis, the results of the analysis revealed both statistically significant actor and
partner effects for the choice of integrative conflict tactics. Actors’ scores for their
perception of their sensitivity positively predicted both actors’ increased use of
integrative tactics (actor b ⫽ .46) and partners’ increased use of integrative tactics
(partner b ⫽ .18).
Similar to the technique used for Hypothesis 6a, the test of Hypothesis 6b used the
score created for actors’ perceptions of their own sensitivity as the independent
variable and their rating of their use of distributive conflict tactics as the dependent
variable. The pooled regression analysis procedure revealed the expected statisti-
cally significant negative relationship (actor b ⫽ ⫺ .31) between actors’ perceptions
 230 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

of their sensitivity and their use of distributive tactics. Unexpectedly, the regression
analysis also showed a significant negative partner effect (partner b ⫽ ⫺ .16)
between actors’ perceptions of their own sensitivity and partners’ use of distributive
tactics. The actor effect indicates that the greater actors’ perception of their sensitiv-
ity to the goals of the partner, the less likely they were to choose distributive conflict
tactics. In addition, the greater actors’ perception of their sensitivity to partners’
goals, the less likely partners were to use distributive tactics.

Discussion
Sensitivity to a partner’s goals is proposed as an important factor in how people
form judgments of others’ communication competence. The findings provide clear
support for this idea. Sensitivity to the partner represents many areas of communica-
tion competence research. Previous discussions of communication competence (e.g.,
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

Bochner & Kelly, 1974; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984; Wiemann, 1977) have implied
the value of being aware of the partner; however, the present paper moves that
consideration beyond implication into a clearly stated role in people’s evaluations of
the actor’s communication competence. Centering this concern in discussions of
communication competence represents a logical and important extension of other
research areas, especially when communication competence is viewed from a
dyadic perspective and in terms of the perception of the partner.
Both the actor’s and the partner’s assessments of the actor’s sensitivity had a
variety of actor and partner effects on competence evaluations. Actors’ perception of
their own sensitivity relates to their choice of conflict tactics, and it also relates less
obviously to the partners’ choice of tactics. The more sensitive people perceive
themselves, the more likely they are to use integrative tactics and the less likely they
are to use distributive tactics. The same relationship occurs for the partner, although
less strongly. The use of integrative tactics, previously shown to be perceived as
more competent than the use of distributive tactics, allows the person to work with
the partner and to behave in ways that seem to support the partner. The partner
reciprocates with integrative tactics, so both people feel that the conflict has been
productive and that they have been supported by their partner.
The relationships for an actor’s and a partner’s perceptions of the actor’s sensitiv-
ity reach beyond the choice of conflict tactics and affect broader judgments. In the
current study the actor’s and the partner’s perceptions had both actor and partner
effects for evaluations of competence, effectiveness, and appropriateness. More
specifically, actors’ perceptions of their own sensitivity were related to their judg-
ments of their own effectiveness. In addition, these perceptions were related to
actors’ evaluations of their partners’ appropriateness and competence. Likewise,
actors’ perceptions were related to partners’ evaluations of their own effectiveness, as
well as their evaluation of actors’ appropriateness and competence.
Similar influences appeared for an actors’ perception of a partner’s sensitivity to
the actor’s goals. Logically, the actors’ perception has significant relationships to the
evaluation of partners’ appropriateness and competence, after all, actors make these
judgments about partners. But this perception also is related to actors’ evaluations of
their own effectiveness. In addition, actors’ perceptions are related to partners’
evaluations of actors’ appropriateness and competence, as well as partners’ evalua-
tions of their effectiveness.
The recurring presence of sensitivity in the results of the present study may be
 GOAL ACHIEVEMENT AND SENSITIVITY 231

explained partially by the importance people place on behavior that supports their
interpersonal needs (Parks, 1994). People’s interpersonal needs influence how they
react to others’ behaviors, especially with respect to their needs for affection and
inclusion (Schutz, 1966) and their need to have their identity or self-presentation
goals supported (Honeycutt et al., 1998; Wilson & Putnam, 1990). When people
display behaviors that convey sensitivity to partners’ needs, the partners generally
regard this behavior as positive and rewarding, and they tend to view actors
positively (Altman & Taylor, 1979) (i.e., as more competent and appropriate). When
partners validate each other’s needs, they are, in essence, helping their partners’
achieve their instrumental, self-presentation, and relational goals. Recognizing their
partners’ goals provides people with information they then may use to choose
behaviors that will support their partners’ efforts to achieve their goals (Read &
Miller, 1989). If people are insensitive to their partners’ goals, however, they will be
unable to provide the desired attention and validation.
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

In addition, satisfaction with the interaction may also help explain the relation-
ships of an actor’s and a partner’s perceptions of sensitivity to judgments of
effectiveness, appropriateness, and competence. People want to engage in communi-
cation interaction that results in positive and satisfying feelings. They seek exchanges
with others who make them feel included, loved, rewarded, and satisfied. Spitzberg
and Hecht (1984) report other orientation (attention to the partner) to be the best
predictor of people’s satisfaction. Therefore, if people believe their communication
partners are paying attention to them and their goals, they will feel more satisfied
with the interaction. The more satisfied people feel as the result of an interaction, the
more positively they tend to rate their own behaviors and the behaviors of their
partners. More precisely, they rate themselves as more effective and their partners as
more appropriate and competent. It seems clear then that displaying sensitivity to
the goals of the partner during an interaction meets, or at least helps to meet, these
needs, and affects the manner in which people evaluate their partners’ appropriate-
ness and competence and their own effectiveness.
The dyadic nature of both the study and the analysis technique provided
information that revealed the effects of the variables, not just on the actor, but also on
the partner. In a number of instances the effects on the actors’ judgements were
expected, but the effects on the partners’ judgments were not. Analyzing just
individual responses would not have allowed this unexpected information to emerge.
Only the effects on one member of the dyad, the person completing the question-
naire, would have been evident. The dyadic approach also provided a better
understanding of how the goals and behaviors of one person affect the conflict and
the perceptions of competence, sensitivity, effectiveness, and appropriateness formed
by both people. Interaction is interdependent. As Parks (1994) and Berger (1997)
stress people cannot achieve interpersonal goals alone, and clearly, the behaviors of
both people influence their outcomes.
Moreover, both people pursue instrumental, self-presentation, and relational
goals. The simultaneous presence of the three types of goals for both people
complicates every interaction. Yet, as the results of this study and of earlier work
(e.g., Dillard, 1990a; Dillard et al., 1989) make clear, the three types of goals exist to
varying degrees in interactions; therefore, people must avoid the temptation to
oversimplify any interaction by defining it in terms of only one goal type. Addition-
ally, understanding both people’s goals should, ideally, help people recognize their
 232 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

interdependence. Moreover, it is expected to increase their determination to work

with one another to achieve their various instrumental, self-presentation, and
relational goals, rather than sacrificing some goals to achieve others.
Finally, the strong effects of perceptions of sensitivity to a partner’s goals should
not be interpreted as indicating that this element should replace goal achievement in
explanations of communication competence. Goal achievement has always been
part of conceptualizations of communication competence (Rubin, 1990). Often,
these conceptualizations view competence from the perspective of the actor (e.g.,
Wiemann, 1977). The current study used the perspective of the partner, so it would
be expected that evaluations of competence in the study would be less affected by
the goals the actor achieved than they would be in studies in which actors rate their
own competence. Even so, the goals the actors achieved made a small but significant
contribution to perceptions of competence when considered separate from sensitiv-
ity. Such a long-standing element in conceptualizations of communication compe-
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

tence should not be abandoned. Rather, the effects of actors’ goal achievement
should be examined more closely to determine exactly what role it plays when
sensitivity is included and competence is viewed from a partner’s perspective.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Although the current study produced encouraging results, it was limited. First, the
participants in the study are more reflective of a college population than they might
be of the population as a whole, as 85% of the participants were college students and
76% of the participants were 24 years old or younger. As a result of these
demographic characteristics the findings may not generalize completely to a broader
population. Accordingly, the current study should be replicated with a general
population having a wider distribution of education and age. In addition, this
replication should be based on situations other than conflict to expand the applica-
tion of the ideas. These results, if consistent with the results provided by the
predominantly college-age and college-educated population of the current conflict-
based study, would allow for more confidence in the perspective offered here.
Possibly the most intriguing information resulting from this study involves ques-
tions the findings raise. Because of the dyadic nature of the study and the analysis,
various unanticipated effects were revealed. Why, for example, would actors’
perceptions of their own sensitivity affect partners’ perceptions of their own effective-
ness, or why would partners’ perceptions affect actors’ evaluations of the partners’
appropriateness and competence? Although the results of the study indicated rather
clearly that both an actor’s and a partner’s perceptions of the actor’s sensitivity are
related to evaluations of communication competence, effectiveness, and appropriate-
ness, they do not indicate why such perceptions are so influential. Need fulfillment
and satisfaction with the interaction may explain some of the effects, but others
remain unclear. Future research should attempt to untangle the various relationships
that perceptions of an actor’s sensitivity to a partner’s goals appear to have to so
many aspects of an interaction.
Future research needs to consider the impact of other goals and plan complexity
on a partner’s perceptions of the actor’s communication competence. The current
study was designed as an initial test of a more complex proposed goals-based dyadic
perspective on interpersonal communication competence. That is, other factors that
relate to actors’ goals might help elucidate how goals connect to competence
impressions. For instance, the extent to which various goals are clear and their
 GOAL ACHIEVEMENT AND SENSITIVITY 233

achievement is accompanied by clear indicators of achievement probably affects the

extent to which social actors pursue their goals in the face of partner opposition
(Bandura, 1989). Likewise, the extent to which goals are complex or involve other
secondary goals has been shown to be a critical factor in actors’ communication
plans (e.g., Dillard, 1990a; Dillard et al., 1989). Goal and plan complexity probably
affects the extent to which goals are sought in addition to how sensitive one is to the
partner’s goals.
Research should also be directed toward specifying the behavioral indicators that
people use to perceive their partners as being sensitive to their goals. Although many
skills have been identified as being competent (Spitzberg, 1993), research has not
specifically investigated this type of sensitivity because it has generally been consid-
ered of secondary importance. It may be that the skills related to interaction
involvement, or some other previously studied area of research involving attention
to the partner, may convey sensitivity to the partner’s goals (e.g., Cegala, 1984).
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

Given that different behaviors may create this impression, connections with other
research should not be assumed but explored.
Finally, the role of an actor’s achieved goals in the proposed perspective remains
unclear. Although the goals achieved entered into some statistically significant
findings for judgments of competence, their relationships were overshadowed by the
effects due to an actor’s sensitivity to the partner’s goals. Additional research should
be conducted to clarify the contributions that goal achievement makes to percep-
tions of competence.
The current study presents evidence to support the long-held belief that goal
achievement and sensitivity to the partner’s goals are critical to a thorough under-
standing of interpersonal communication competence. Sensitivity, in particular, had
strong effects on competence variables and conflict strategies, and goal achievement
also predicted outcomes in most cases. The current study not only illustrates the
desirability of including goal achievement and sensitivity to a partner’s goals in
models of competence, it also shows that actors and partners are interdependent in
such assessments. Overall, the present effort provides new justification for continued
theoretical refinement in articulating how goal constructs relate to interpersonal
communication competence.

Footnotes
1
In reporting the hypotheses and results, terms often associated with causality are sometimes used. Given the
cross-sectional nature of the data, however, it should be noted that no causal relations were tested in any
traditional sense. Instead, terms such as predicts and affects are used in the technical sense to refer to the manner
in which the theoretical independent variable associates with the theoretical dependent variable.
2
Unpublished measures may be obtained by contacting either author.

References
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt.
Anders, S. L., & Tucker, J. S. (2000). Adult attachment style, interpersonal communication competence, and
social support. Personal Relationships, 7, 379 –389.
Bandura, A. (1989). Self-regulation of motivation and action through internal standards and goal systems. In
L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 19 – 85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berger, C. R. (1997). Planning strategic interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berger, C. R., & Kellermann, K. (1994). Acquiring social information. In J. A. Daly & J. M. Wiemann (Eds.),
Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 1–27). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bochner, A. P., & Kelly, C. W. (1974). Interpersonal competence: Rationale, philosophy, and implementation
of a conceptual framework. The Speech Teacher, 23, 279 –301.
 234 COMMUNICATION MONOGRAPHS

Canary, D. J. (in press). Managing interpersonal conflict: A model of events related to strategic choices. In J.
Greene & B. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Canary, D. J., & Cupach, W. R. (1988). Relational and episodic characteristics associated with conflict tactics.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 305–325.
Canary, D. J., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1987). Appropriateness and effectiveness perceptions of conflict strategies.
Human Communication Research, 14, 93–118.
Canary, D. J., Cunningham, E. M., & Cody, M. J. (1988). Goal types, gender, and locus of control in managing
interpersonal conflict. Communication Research, 15, 426 – 446.
Canary, D. J., Cupach, W. R., & Serpe, R. T. (2001). A competence-based approach to examining interpersonal
conflict: Test of a longitudinal model. Communication Research, 28, 19 –104.
Cegala, D. J. (1984). Affective and cognitive manifestations of interaction involvement during unstructured and
competitive interactions. Communication Monographs, 51, 320 –338.
Clark, R. A., & Delia, J. G. (1979). Topoi and rhetorical competence. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65,
187–206.
Cody, M. J., Canary, D. J., & Smith, S. W. (1994). Compliance-gaining goals: An inductive analysis of actors’
goal types, strategies, and successes. In J. Daly & J. Wiemann (Eds.), Communicating strategically: Strategies in
interpersonal communication (pp. 33–90). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cole, T. (2001). Lying to the one you love: The use of deception in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

Personal Relationships, 18, 107–130.

Cupach, W. R., & Canary, D. J. (1997). Competence in interpersonal conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Daly, J. A., Vangelisti, A. L., & Daughton, S. M. (1987). The nature and correlates of conversational sensitivity.
Human Communication Research, 14, 167–202.
Dillard, J. P. (1990a). A goal-driven model of interpersonal influence. In J. P. Dillard (Ed.), Seeking compliance:
The production of interpersonal influence messages (pp. 41–56). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch-Scarisbrick.
Dillard, J. P. (1990b). The nature and substance of goals in tactical communication. In M. J. Cody & M. L.
McLaughlin (Eds.), The psychology of tactical communication (pp. 70 – 89). Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters
LTD.
Dillard, J. P., Segrin, C., & Harden, J. M. (1989). Primary and secondary goals in the production of
interpersonal influence messages. Communication Monographs, 56, 19 –37.
Duran, R. L. (1992). Communicative adaptability: A review of conceptualization and measurement. Communi-
cation Quarterly, 40, 253–268.
Duran, R. L. (1995). Toward the development and validation of a measure of cognitive communication
competence. Communication Quarterly, 43, 259 –275.
Duran, R. L., & Zakahi, W. R. (1988). The influence of communicative competence upon roommate
satisfaction. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52, 135–146.
Fukushima, O., & Ohbuchi, K. (1996). Antecedents and effects of multiple goals in conflict resolution.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 7, 191–208.
Gross, M. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (2000). Managing conflict appropriately and effectively: An application of the
competence model to Rahim’s organizational conflict styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11,
200 –226.
Hart, R. P., & Burks, D. M. (1972). Rhetorical sensitivity and social interaction. Speech Monographs, 39, 75–99.
Honeycutt, J. M., Cantrill, J. G., Kelly, P., & Lambkin, D. (1998). How do I love thee? Let me consider my
options: Cognition, verbal strategies, and the escalation of intimacy. Human Communication Research, 25,
39 – 63.
Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1983). Speech act structure in conversation: Rational aspects of pragmatic coherence.
In R. T. Craig & K. Tracy (Eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure, and strategy (pp. 47– 67). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Kashy D. A., & Kenny, D. A. (1999). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd
(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social psychology. (pp. 451– 477). London: Cambridge University Press.
Littlejohn, S. W., & Jabusch, D. M. (1982). Communication competence: Model and application. Journal of
Applied Communication Research, 10, 29 –36.
Miller, J. B., & de Winstanley, P. A. (2002). The role of interpersonal competence in memory for conversation.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 78 – 89.
O’Keefe, B. J. (1988). The logic of message design: Individual differences in reasoning about communication.
Communication Monographs, 55, 80 –103.
O’Keefe, B. J. (1991). Message design logic and the management of multiple goals. In K. Tracy (Ed.),
Understanding face-to-face interaction: Issues linking goals and discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
O’Keefe, B. J., & McCornack, S. A. (1987). Message design logic and message goal structure: Effects on
perceptions of message quality in regulative communication situations. Human Communication Research, 14,
68 –92.
Olson, L. N. (2002). “As ugly and painful as it was, it was effective:” Individuals’ unique assessment of
communication competence during aggressive conflict episodes. Communication Studies, 53, 171–188.
Parks, M. R. (1994). Communicative competence and interpersonal control. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller
(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 589 – 618). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 GOAL ACHIEVEMENT AND SENSITIVITY 235

Pervin, L. A. (1989). Goal concepts in personality and social psychology: A historical introduction. In L. A.
Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 1–13). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Peterson, D. R. (1989). Interpersonal goal conflict. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social
psychology (pp. 327–361). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. (1989) Inter-personalism: Toward a goal-based theory of persons in relationships. In
L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 413– 471). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rubin, R. B. (1990). Communication competence. In G. M. Phillips & J. T. Wood (Eds.). Speech communication:
Essays to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Speech Communication Association (pp. 94 –129). Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois Press.
Samp, J. A., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Communicative responses to problematic events in close relationships
II. Communication Research, 26, 193–239.
Sanders, R. E. (1991). The two-way relationship between talk in social interactions and actors’ goals and plans.
In K. Tracy (Ed.), Understanding face-to-face interaction: Issues linking goals and discourse (pp. 167–188). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Schutz, W. C. (1966). The interpersonal underworld. Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books.
Sedikides, C. (1990). Effects of fortuitously activated constructs versus activated communication goals on
person impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 397– 408.
Sillars, A. L., Coletti, S. F., Parry, D., & Rogers, M. A. (1982). Coding verbal conflicts: Non-verbal and
perceptual correlates of the “avoidance-distributive-integrative” distinction. Human Communication Research,
Downloaded by [University of Connecticut] at 08:13 14 October 2014

9, 83–95.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1988). Communication competence: Measures of perceived effectiveness. In C. H. Tardy
(Ed.), A handbook for the study of human communication: Methods and instruments for observing, measuring, and
assessing communication processes (pp. 67–105). Norwood NJ: Ablex.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1993). The dialectics of (in)competence. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10,
137–158.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Canary, D. J. (1985). Loneliness and relationally competent communication. Journal of Social
and Personal Relationships, 2, 387– 402.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1984). Interpersonal communication competence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1989). Handbook of interpersonal competence research. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Hecht, M. L. (1984). A component model of relational competence. Human Communication
Research, 4, 575–599.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Hurt, H. T. (1987). The measurement of interpersonal skills in instructional contexts.
Communication Education, 36, 28 – 45.
Spitzberg, B. H., Canary, D. J., & Cupach, W. R. (1994). A competence-based approach to the study of
interpersonal conflict. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.), Conflict in personal relationships (pp. 183–202). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Tracey, K. (1984) The effect of multiple goals on conversational relevance and topic shift. Communication
Monographs, 51, 274 –288.
Vittengl, J. R., & Holt, C. S. (2000). Getting acquainted: The relationship of self-disclosure and social attraction
to positive affect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 53– 66.
Waldron, V. R. (1997). Toward a theory of interactive conversational planning. In J. O. Greene (Ed.), Message
production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 195–220). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communicative competence. Human Communication
Research, 3, 195–213.
Wiemann, J. M., & Backlund, P. (1980). Current theory and research in communicative competence. Review of
Educational Research, 50, 185–199.
Wiemann, J. M., & Bradac, J. J. (1989). Metatheoretical issues in the study of communicative competence:
Structural and functional approaches. In M. Dervin & M. J. Voight (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences
(Vol. 9, pp. 261–284). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wiemann, J. M., & Kelly, C. W. (1981). Pragmatics of interpersonal communication. In C. Wilder-Mott & J. H.
Weakland (Eds.), Rigor & imagination: Essays from the legacy of Gregory Bateson (pp. 283–297). New York.
Wilson, S. R. (1990). Development and test of a cognitive rules model of interaction goals. Communication
Monographs. 57, 81–103.
Wilson, S. R., & Putnam, L. L. (1990). Interaction goals in negotiation. Communication Yearbook, 13, 374 – 406.
Wilson, S. R., Aleman, C. G., & Leatham, G. B. (1998). Identity implications of influence goals: A revised
analysis of face-threatening acts and application to seeking compliance with same-sex friends. Human
Communication Research, 25, 64 –96.
Received: 31 August 2001
Revised: 26 July 2002
Accepted: 30 August 2002