Search

A study extended and elaborated the coorientation model as a basis for reinterpreting Steven H. Chaffee and Jack M. McLeod's (1970) construct of family communication patterns. Melvin L. Kohn's (1977) theory of the influence of life experiences (e.g., conditions of employment) on parenting values argues that socio-orientation might better be interpreted as a measure of norms promoting conformity, and concept-orientation as a measure of norms promoting independence and intellectual autonomy. Jeanne Meadowcroft's (1986) finding that socio-orientation decreases with the age of the child supports the conformity/autonomy interpretation, and contradicts the traditional harmony/confrontation interpretation of family communication patterns. The conformity/autonomy interpretation also provides a theoretically sound basis for integrating the results of previous family communication patterns research. (Twenty-two references and two appendixes containing Family Communication Pattern items and information flow measures are attached.) (Author/RAE)

Based on S. Chaffee and J. McLeod's coorientation model of communication, this paper addresses the question of individual and cognitive versus social and communicational comparisons in order to further elaborate the theory behind the coorientation model. The paper argues that, in a situation which includes two individuals and a topic, both individuals may have objectives for agreement as well as for accuracy and congruency. Using an abbreviated notation system to illustrate the relationships between person A, person B, and topic T, the paper develops a theoretical model of coorientation that takes into account the objectives of each person as well as the perceptions of an outside observer. A theoretical basis is proposed for predicting some of these objectives for each individual on the basis of their relative power in the situation, combined with their relative authority with regard to the topic. The paper argues that the traditional coorientation variable of accuracy, congruency, and agreement can only be understood in the context of a theory addressing the coorientation objectives of the two persons. The paper contends that a complete description of a coorientation system must address the questions, "whose accuracy,""whose congruency," and "who agrees with whom?" Figures illustrating the model are appended. (SRT)