Interpersonal adaptation theory

Interpersonal adaptation theory (IAT) is sort of a theory of theories. Multiple theories attempt to describe certain interactions and parts of an interaction in great detail, while IAT, encompassing all of those other theories, makes predictions throughout the entire course of the interaction. For this reason, this theory is often referred to as the interaction adaptation theory. It states that people begin an interaction with a combination of expectations, requirements, and desires.

Background

In 1995, Judee K. Burgoon, Lesa Stern, and Leesa Dillman published a book called Interpersonal Adaptation: Dyadic Interaction Patterns in which they described their findings on a "new" theory which drew from the results of previous theories. These theories include but are not limited to:

• Affiliative Conflict Theory (ACT) – Argyle & Dean (1965) – states that individuals have needs for both affiliation and autonomy
• Expectancy Violations Theory (EVT) – Burgoon (1978) – an interaction can be described positively or negatively based on an individuals expectations and the actual behavior of the other person
• Norm of Reciprocity – out of social obligation, an individual will respond in the same manner as another
• Discrepancy Arousal Theory (DAT) – Cappella & Green (1982) – predicts that discrepancies from expected behavior patterns produce arousal change
• Cognitive Valence Theory (CVT) – Anderson (1985) – describes and explains the process of intimacy exchange within a dyad relationship
• Sequential Functional Model – explains the stability of interaction and how each interactant accommodates the other
• Motor Mimicry – describes an interaction and how an interactant will mimic another, usually out of empathy, or perceived empathy
• Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) – Gallois et al. (1991) and Giles (1973) – studies the way an individual interacts with another based on the situation the interaction takes place in
• Arousal-Labeling Model – Patterson (1976) – external factors influence how an individual will react in any given interaction

These previous theories combined with empirical evidence that resulted from their own studies, birthed the interpersonal adaptation theory.

Definitions

• Convergence – the act of becoming more alike as a relationship progresses
• Divergence – the opposite of convergence; becoming more dissimilar
• Mirroring – a person behavior becomes identical to the other's
• Compensation – a person will react dissimilar to anothers response
• Reciprocity – a person will react in a similar way to another person's reaction

Basics

As stated earlier, people enter into interactions with others with a combination of expectations, requirements, and desires. A person's expectations refer to how they assume another will respond in a given situation. A person's requirements are how they need the other person to respond; and a person's desires are how they want the other person to respond. For example, when a wife of an airman comes to her husband when he has hurt her emotionally, because he has not been spending enough time with her before he is about to deploy, she may expect him to get defensive, need him to not get mad thus spending even less time with her, and want him to understand her pain. Now these factors are based upon a mixture of biological, (most likely unconsciously presumed or performed), and socially learned behaviors. For example, expectations will normally be based upon prior social interactions or even social norms, where possibly a need for safety maybe more prominently based on a biological need for survival (Burgoon et al., 1995).

Another example of a biological need for survival could be the use of behavior matching or mirroring. These items become convergence over time, as two interactants engage in interactions multiple times. In our above example, according to IAT, if he responds in the manner that she needs and wants or even better, she will reciprocate his attitude and posture to mirror his. The theory states that the reason for that this reciprocity occurs, is because of humans need for survival, and how keeping and maintaining those relationships are very important to that survival. However, if the airman reacts how his wife expects, responding opposite to her wants and needs, she will try to counteract that, to deescalate the situation. The use of compensation is the most effective for survival in this situation. When situations occur like this often, divergence begins to occur, where the wife may assume a role of "fire extinguisher" as she may have to continually put out fires in the relationship. Once again, all of this occurs in accordance with her need to survive (Guerrero & Floyd, 2006).

Theory

First, there are nine principles which guide IAT stated by Burgoon et al. in their book, which are as follows:

1. There is an unconscious, inborn need to adapt interaction styles
2. Biologically, it is advantageous for survival to converge and synchronize, except in situations where divergence is essential to deescalate a situation
3. Avoidance and approach drives are not constant but are rather cyclical
4. For social survival, the goal is reciprocity
5. Communicationally, a mixture of reciprocity and compensation may occur
6. Conscious, or as Burgoon et al. puts it, strategic adjustments will be limited to a number of factors:
   1. a. Individual consistency in behavior style
   2. b. Internal causes of adjustments
   3. c. Poor self monitoring or monitoring of partner
   4. d. Inability to adjust performance
   5. e. Cultural differences in communication practices
7. When biological, psychological, and social elements combine, limits are set, which create patterns that largely result in synchronization
8. Certain variable obviously influence interaction adaptation
9. Predictions for the general population are more beneficial than predictions based on isolated circumstances

Now, based on those principles, Burgoon and her colleagues break interactions into a sort of mathematical model.

Requirements ($R$)

Expectations ($E$)

Desires ($D$)

Interaction Position (${\displaystyle IP}$)

Actual Behavior ($A$)

${\displaystyle R+E+D=IP}$

A person enters an interaction with an IP, which consists of either the behavior of the person or a prediction of the partner's behavior, but the partner's actual behavior may be different than the prediction. Thus, Interpersonal Adaptation Model makes two predictions. If the actual behavior of an interactant is more positive than a person's prediction (much like a positive violation in EVT) of the interactant's IP, then the person will converge their behavior to the interactant's. However, if the person's actual behavior is more negative, than the person will diverge with the interactant's behavior in the hopes that they may reciprocate that behavior back. The goal in the whole process is to minimize the gap between the A and IP.

To sum it up in another way: a stable interaction is described as one that IP and A equal. IAT predicts that if at any point, either interactant wants it to continue to be stable, IP does not equal A then, one of the interactants changes their IP. This change is both to minimize the gap between IP and A, and by changing their IP, they hope that their partner will notice the difference between IP and A, thus changing A. Burgoon et al., describes this as a "Follow the Leader" entrainment principle. This is a strategic adaptation which was introduced by Ickes et al., in 1982.

References

1. Andersen, P. A. (1985). Nonverbal immediacy in interpersonal communication. In A. W. Siegman & S. Feldstein (Eds.), Multichannel integrations of nonverbal behavior (pp. 1-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Argyle, M., & Dean, J. (1965). Eye Contact, distance, and affiliation. Sociometry.
3. Burgoon, J. K. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations: Explication and an initial test. Communication Research, 4, 129-142.
4. Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors Communication Monographs, 55, 58-79.
5. Burgoon, J. K., Dillman, L., & Stern, L. A. (1993). Adaptation in dyadic interaction: Defining and operationalizing patterns of reciprocity and compensation. Communication Theory, 3, 196-215.
6. Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. (1995). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interaction patterns. New york: Cambridge University Press.
7. Burgoon, J. K. (1997). It takes two to tango: Interpersonal adaptation and implications for relational communication. In J. S. Trent (Ed.), Communication: Views from the Helm for the Twenty-First Century (pp. 53-59). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
8. Giles, H., Taylor, D. M., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1973). Towards a theory of interpersonal accommodation through language: Some Canadian data. Language in Society, 2, 177-192.
9. Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2006). Nonverbal communication in close relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
10. Heath, R., and Bryant, J. (1992). Human communication theory and research: Concepts, contexts, and challenges. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Ickes, W. (1982). A basic paradigm for the study of personality, roles, and social behavior. In W. Ickes & E. S. Knowles (Eds.), Personality, roles, and social behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.
12. Patterson, M. L. (1976). An arousal model of interpersonal intimacy. Psychological Review, 83, 235-245.