Family and Workplace Conflict Examining Metaphorical Conflict Schemas and Expressions Across Context and Sex

This investigation examined 620 metaphorical conflict expressions generated by 169 participants who either were employed full‐time or had previous work experience. First‐order metaphorical (schema) analyses indicated that participants predominately used “conflict is impotence” schemas. No sex differ...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inHuman communication research Vol. 24; no. 1; pp. 109 - 146
Main Authors BUZZANELL, PATRICE M., BURRELL, NANCY A.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.09.1997
blackwell
Oxford University Press for the International Communication Association
Oxford University Press
Subjects
Child Custody
Cognitive Structures
Communication
Communication Research
Conflict
Crime
Employed Women
Employment
Families
Families & family life
Family (Sociological Unit)
Family Communication
Family Conflict
Females
Figurative Language
Interpersonal Communication
Interpersonal Conflict
Language Usage
Linguistics
Metaphors
Occupations
Organizational Communication
Prior Learning
Psycholinguistics
Schemata (Cognition)
Semantics
Sex Differences
Social Desirability
Social psychology of language
Superior Subordinate Relationship
Supervisors
War
Work Experience
Workplaces
Context
Experimental study
Social Psychology
Metaphor
Conflict communication
Sex
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0360-3989
1468-2958
DOI10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00589.x

Cover

More Information
Summary:This investigation examined 620 metaphorical conflict expressions generated by 169 participants who either were employed full‐time or had previous work experience. First‐order metaphorical (schema) analyses indicated that participants predominately used “conflict is impotence” schemas. No sex differences emerged in either schemas or in second‐order (linguistic) analyses of metaphorical expressions. However, participants reported different schemas, depending on the conflict context, but particularly for the supervisor and departmental member contexts. The supervisor context also exhibited a pattern of linguistic choices, suggesting that male and female respondents objectified their supervisors. Finally, respondents reported greater frequency and intensity of conflicts in family contexts than in any of the work contexts.
Bibliography:istex:AB246EA74F7BF672051A698EF51F239D0FF59504
ArticleID:HCRE109
ark:/67375/WNG-8TM20G29-C
The authors thank Steve Wilson, Robert McPhee, and Mike Allen for assistance on this project and appreciate the suggestions of the anonymous reviewers who challenged the authors to distinguish among cognitive conflict constructs and to extend implications of this research. The authors also acknowledge the collaborative effort in the conduct and reporting of this study.
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
ISSN:0360-3989
1468-2958
DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00589.x