Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Editors’ Preface
- Organization of This Handbook
- How to Work with This Handbook
- Part I Background and Theory
- Part II Application Areas of Interaction Analysis
- Part III Methodology and Procedures of Interaction Analysis
- Part IV Data Analysis and Data Presentation
- Part V Coding Schemes for Interaction Research
- General Group Process Systems
- Argument, Conflict, and Negotiations
- Coordination and Coherence
- Cognition and Metacognition
- Personality and Team Behavior
- Roles and Relationships
- 42 BRRICS
- 43 (Family) Relational Communication Control Coding System
- 44 Verbal Response Modes Taxonomy
- Appendix
- Index
- References
43 - (Family) Relational Communication Control Coding System
from Roles and Relationships
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 July 2018
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Editors’ Preface
- Organization of This Handbook
- How to Work with This Handbook
- Part I Background and Theory
- Part II Application Areas of Interaction Analysis
- Part III Methodology and Procedures of Interaction Analysis
- Part IV Data Analysis and Data Presentation
- Part V Coding Schemes for Interaction Research
- General Group Process Systems
- Argument, Conflict, and Negotiations
- Coordination and Coherence
- Cognition and Metacognition
- Personality and Team Behavior
- Roles and Relationships
- 42 BRRICS
- 43 (Family) Relational Communication Control Coding System
- 44 Verbal Response Modes Taxonomy
- Appendix
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis , pp. 622 - 629Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Primary Sources
Ericson, P. M., & Rogers, L. E. (1973). New procedures for analyzing relational communication. Family Process, 12, 245–267. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1973.00245.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escudero, V., & Rogers, L. E. (2004). Analyzing relational communication. In Rogers, L. E. & Escudero, V. (Eds.), Relational communication: An interactional perspective to the study of process and form. (pp. 3–21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Friedlander, M. L., & Heatherington, L. (1989). Analyzing relational control in family therapy interviews. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 139–148. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.36.2.139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, L. E., & Farace, R. V. (1975). Relational communication analysis: New measurement procedures. Human Communication Research, 1, 222–239. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00270.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Secondary Sources
Ayers, J., & Miura, S. Y. (1981). Construct and predictive validity of instruments for coding relational control. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecil, D. W., & von Friederichs-Fitzwater, M. (2004). Relational control in physician-patient interaction. In Rogers, L. E. & Escudero, V. (Eds.), Relational communication: An interactional perspective to the study of process and form (pp. 179–195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Erchul, W. P. (1978). A relational communication analysis of control in school consultation. Professional School Psychology, 2, 113–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairhurst, G. T. (2004). Organizational relational control research: Problems and possibilities. In Rogers, L. E. & Escudero, V. (Eds.), Relational communication: An interactional perspective to the study of process and form (pp. 197–215). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Friedlander, M. L. (1993). Does complementarity promote or hinder client change in brief therapy? A review of the evidence from two theoretical perspectives. The Counseling Psychologist, 21, 457–486. doi:10.1177/0011000093213010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedlander, M. L., Siegel, S. M., & Brenock, K. (1989). Parallel processes in counseling and supervision: A case study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 149–157. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.36.2.149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedlander, M. L., Wildman, J., & Heatherington, L. (1991). Interpersonal control in structural and Milan systemic family therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 395–408. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1991.tb00909.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaul, R., Simon, L., Friedlander, M. L., Heatherington, L., & Cutler, C. (1991). Correspondence of family therapists’ perceptions with FRCCCS coding rules for triadic interactions. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 17, 379–393. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.1991.tb00908.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heatherington, L. (1988). Coding relational control in counseling: Criterion validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1987). Family Relational Communication Control Coding System. Unpublished manuscript. Williams College, Williamstown, MA.Google Scholar
Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (1990). Complementarity and symmetry in family therapy communication. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 261–268. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.37.3.261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heatherington, L., & Friedlander, M. L. (2004). From dyads to triads, and beyond: Relational control in individual and family therapy. In Rogers, L. E. & Escudero, V. (Eds.), Relational communication: An interactional perspective to the study of process and form (pp. 103–129). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Muñiz de la Peña, C., Friedlander, M. L., Escudero, V., & Heatherington, L. (2012). How do therapists ally with adolescents in family therapy? An examination of relational control communication in early sessions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 339–351. doi:10.1037/a0028063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, L. E. (1979). Relational communication control coding manual. (Available from L. E. Rogers, Department of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112).Google Scholar
Rogers, L. E., & Escudero, V. (Eds.) (2004a). Relational communication: An interactional perspective to the study of process and form. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rogers, L. E., & Escudero, V. (2004b). Relational communication patterns in marital interaction. In Rogers, L. E. & Escudero, V. (Eds.), Relational communication: An interactional perspective to the study of process and form (pp. 83–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Rogers, L. E., & Millar, F. (1979). Domineeringness and dominance: A transactional view. Human Communication Research, 5, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S. M., Friedlander, M. L., & Heatherington, L. (1992). Nonverbal relational control in family communication. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16, 117–139. doi:10.1007/BF00990326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, S. R., Hills, H. I., Kilmartin, C. T., DeVries, H., Lanier, K., Nelson, B. N., … Meyer, C. W. III, (1988). The dynamic relations among interpersonal behaviors: A test of complementarity and anticomplementarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 789–810. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.798CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tracey, T. J., Heck, E. J., & Lichtenberg, J. W. (1981). Role expectations and symmetrical/complementary therapeutic relationships. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 18, 338–344. doi:10.1037/h0088384CrossRefGoogle Scholar