Communication-Based Research Related to Threats and Ensuing Behavior

H. Dan O’Hair, Daniel Rex Bernard, and Randy R. Roper

“Those that are the loudest in their threats are the weakest in their actions.”

Charles Caleb Colton (1780–1832)

British clergyman, sportsman, and author

INTRODUCTION

A threatening communication is any message that “implies or explicitly states the potential of harm delivered to targets/victims or agents acting on their behalf” (Smith, 2008b, p. 106). Understandably, risk assessment efforts analyze and evaluate direct threats and the potential for violent behavior they represent. However, research indicates that threat assessment endeavors should not be limited only to communications that contain explicit threats.

Frequently, those who pose legitimate threats do not actually communicate their intentions. According to Fein and Vossekuil (1998), few assassins or attackers send direct threats to their intended targets or to law enforcement, but as many as two-thirds are known to speak or write about their intentions to others. Such violent intentions are disclosed to family, friends, or co-workers or are written about in personal journals. Recent technological trends suggest that such alarming communicative behaviors may also appear online via Internet blogs, message boards, and virtual chat rooms (e.g., Willard, 2007). Therefore, since indirect communications expressing violent intentions often exist, threat assessment efforts should target indirect as well as explicit threatening messages by would-be attackers.

A more inclusive approach would consider multiple communicative activities by the potential perpetrator(s), consistent with previous studies on message strategy analysis. Message-based analyses of the phenomenon, including scaling studies to discern perceived severity and



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 33
Communication-Based Research Related to Threats and Ensuing Behavior H. Dan O’Hair, Daniel Rex Bernard, and Randy R. Roper “Those that are the loudest in their threats are the weakest in their actions.” Charles Caleb Colton (1780–1832) British clergyman, sportsman, and author INTRODuCTION A threatening communication is any message that “implies or explic- itly states the potential of harm delivered to targets/victims or agents acting on their behalf” (Smith, 2008b, p. 106). Understandably, risk assess- ment efforts analyze and evaluate direct threats and the potential for violent behavior they represent. However, research indicates that threat assessment endeavors should not be limited only to communications that contain explicit threats. Frequently, those who pose legitimate threats do not actually com- municate their intentions. According to Fein and Vossekuil (1998), few assassins or attackers send direct threats to their intended targets or to law enforcement, but as many as two-thirds are known to speak or write about their intentions to others. Such violent intentions are disclosed to family, friends, or co-workers or are written about in personal journals. Recent technological trends suggest that such alarming communicative behaviors may also appear online via Internet blogs, message boards, and virtual chat rooms (e.g., Willard, 2007). Therefore, since indirect com- munications expressing violent intentions often exist, threat assessment efforts should target indirect as well as explicit threatening messages by would-be attackers. A more inclusive approach would consider multiple communicative activities by the potential perpetrator(s), consistent with previous stud- ies on message strategy analysis. Message-based analyses of the phe- nomenon, including scaling studies to discern perceived severity and 33

OCR for page 33
34 THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS AND BEHAVIOR descriptive approaches to determine the nature of aggressive and threat- ening messages, have made a major contribution to our understanding of aggressive communications (Kinney, 1994). A message-based approach is also supportive of the emerging trend in risk management that empha- sizes the role of communication. In what is simply referred to as the threat assessment approach, “violence is seen as the product of an interaction among the perpetrator, situation, target, and the setting” (Reddy et al., 2001, p. 167). Analyzing multiple interactions and communicative behav- iors is expected to provide valuable insight and information concerning the potential for violence. A number of propositions will guide our work here. These proposi- tions are rooted in communication theory drawn from a discipline framed by a focus on messages, audience, and credibility.1 They are mentioned here only to frame the analysis and will not be explored in detail. · ommunication behavior is influenced from both cognitive and C affective systems. · ommunication behavior can be viewed along a continuum of C planned to spontaneous. · Communication behavior is contextually driven. · Communication behavior often involves multiple channels. · The expressed intent of message strategies is not always executed. · isk/threat management requires collaborative effort among R stakeholders. · isk/threat management is implicated by resource management R limitations, first amendment rights, and privacy issues. · he risk/threat management system is multidisciplinary, con- T tested, and challenged with different nomenclatures. How individuals process and respond to messages varies accord- ing to personal psychological and social perspectives shaped by culture, history, experiences, and circumstances—in other words, according to their context (Lewenstein and Brossard, 2006). Because of these demands, communicators must acknowledge, tailor, and execute messages with a number of parameters in mind (O’Hair, 2004; Renn, 2009). Similar to classical rhetorical approaches to message development, the contextual model provides guidance for creating messages relevant to individuals 1 No doubt, many scholars lay claim to the concept of communication as a discipline of study. Our background and the corpora of research pursued in this project are framed primarily from journals sponsored by professional associations whose field of study is communication (e.g., National Communication Association, International Communication Association, Broadcast Education Association, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication).

OCR for page 33
35 COMMUNICATION-BASED RESEARCH in specific contexts and groups (Lewenstein, 1992; O’Hair et al., 2010; Wynne, 1995; Ziman, 1992). Against this backdrop, the areas of communication research that appear most relevant to threatening communications and actions are discussed here. Three areas of communication research that have direct implications for assessing threatening communications and behaviors are addressed. The first area concerns the internal processes of conflict and the behavioral reactions to those internal processes. The second area addresses larger domains of examination, including crisis communica- tion, persuasive communication, and deceptive communication. Next, various modalities and channels that can influence communication and resultant behavior are discussed. Last, future directions for threat assess- ment are offered. THE RISE OF CONFLICT Affect, Cognition, and Emotion in Conflict Any investigation of human behavior, particularly one that focuses on intense behavioral action, would be remiss if it did not include a dis- cussion of the affective, cognitive, and emotional components that both inform and shape communication and behavior. Although not all threats will be based on conflict, it is likely that some element of conflict is pres- ent either when a threat is made or when an individual or a group poses a threat. The body of work pertaining to communication and conflict offers a number of perspectives compatible with threatening communi- cations. Conflict can be described as an expressed struggle between two or more interdependent individuals who perceive incompatible goals (Cahn, 1992). Typically, this struggle becomes more pronouced when the individuals perceive resources to be scarce or when goals are difficult to obtain (Hocker and Wilmot, 1998). In addition, when individuals have a vested interest in particular goals or attitude objects they may be more likely to experience emotion; consequently, they may also be more likely to engage in conflict. In short, episodes of conflict are typically loaded with negative affect connected to the interruption of goals as well as in response to another person’s com- municatory reactions. To better understand how conflict plays a role in threatening communications, it is important to discuss the roots of con- flict. In addition, considering that many communicators do not explicitly make threats, investigators may want to examine the manifestation of nonverbal signs of conflict. Daly et al. (1983) categorized emotions based on their affective valence (e.g., pleasant versus unpleasant), level of arousal (e.g., low versus high

OCR for page 33
36 THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS AND BEHAVIOR arousal or passive versus active), and level of intensity (e.g., strong ver- sus weak). In addition, each category can vary in intensity. For example, depression can be considered more intense than sadness; rage can be considered more intense than annoyance. Emotional intensity has been positively associated with increases in physiological changes (Guerrero and La Valley, 2006). Interestingly, a cross-cultural study conducted by Scherer and Wallbott (1994) found the physiological profiles of joy, fear, anger, sadness, shame, and guilt to be similar across 37 different countries. For example, sadness was associated with muscle tension and the feeling of a lump in the throat, whereas joy was associated with an accelerated heartbeat and an increase in temperature. Thus, individuals engaged in conflict are likely to experience physiological changes to the extent that they are emotively aroused. In fact, some level of emotional intensity is needed for interpersonal conflicts because emotional intensity is a motiva- tional factor for engaging in conflict in the first place (Jones, 2000). Indeed, the greater the emotional intensity the more likely an individual may be to engage in conflict with a partner. The notion that individuals will experience physiological changes when emotively aroused has driven much of the research related to cred- ibility assessment, deception detection, and the interface of technology to identify and demarcate patterns of human communication. Gottman (1994) found that during conflict high emotional intensity is associated with strong levels of physiological changes, such as increased heart rate and blood pressure. Although some individuals may not overtly express threats, individuals who think they are in conflict with a particular per- son, policy, or agency may show nonverbal signals of conflict-related emo- tions. Assessments of threatening communications might find research in conflict communication helpful in examining the effects of emotional arousal on threatening communications and ensuing behavior. More spe- cifically, studies might ask what resources are available to ascertain an individual’s affective state. Can these tools or techniques be used on large groups or in a very short amount of time? Do current techniques aimed at assessing emotional state take into account the contextual and situational conditions that may increase (or decrease) arousal? Role of Cognition in Emotion Although some emotional reaction to conflict may be visceral and largely uncontrollable, people have a tendency to recognize how and why they feel a particular way. The appraisal theory of emotion (Lazarus, 1991) argues that individuals evaluate their emotions in order to make sense or justify their emotions and/or behaviors. Although Lazarus suggests that all negative emotions are alike insofar as they stem from personal

OCR for page 33
37 COMMUNICATION-BASED RESEARCH goal disruption, and positive emotions stem from goal enhancement or facilitation, appraisals are made at the individual level and are fundamen- tally evaluative and subjective (Jones, 2000). For example, individuals or groups may have their own understanding or values of what constitutes good or bad, right or wrong, fair or unfair (Guerrero and La Valley, 2006). Judgments of fairness are often highly emotion laden (Planalp, 2003), and anger arises when individuals believe they are treated unfairly or badly (Canary et al., 1998). When individuals are angry because of a perceived or real injustice, they often feel warranted to become aggressive, venge- ful, and even violent. In addition, direct expressions of anger have been evaluated favorably if the acts of anger were justifiable (Sereno et al., 1987). For example, families of victims that have been affected by crime often lash out at the accused party formally and informally. This type of behavior would typically not be enacted or accepted without the notion of justifiable anger. Last, attributions about the source of a conflict have been found to affect communication. Specifically, Sillars (1980) suggests that individuals may alter their communication during a conflict based on three attribu- tions: the cause of the conflict, the intentions or personality traits of the other individual involved in the conflict, and the stability of the conflict. These attributions influence communication, behaviors, and strategies used during a conflict. In addition, individuals have a tendency to make more positive attributions about their own behavior than the behavior of others (Heider, 1958; Langdridge and Butt, 2004; Sillars et al., 2000). Future research should ask whether statements of attribution (about feelings) influence particular strategies of threatening communications and resultant behavior. The value-laden secondary attribution associated with fairness may be a particularly rich area of inquiry. If we can better understand the extent to which individuals associate fairness with both personally and mass-communicated events, the better able we may be to predict particular behaviors and threats associated with judgments of (un)fairness. Behavioral Reactions to the Elicitation of Emotion Despite the fact that the link between emotion and behavior has been well studied (cf. Ekman and Davidson, 1994; Lewis and Haviland-Jones, 2000), there remains very little consensus on the exact role emotion plays in specific behaviors. Appraisal theories (Frijda, 1987; Lazarus, 1991) sug- gest that there are particular action tendencies associated with emotions. Action tendencies are biologically driven coping responses to emotion. Thus, appraisal theory accounts for individual variances of emotional response to the same emotion-eliciting event. Lazarus (1991) offers three

OCR for page 33
38 THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS AND BEHAVIOR characteristics that typically underlie emotion: affect (positive or nega- tive valence), level and type of physiological arousal alteration, and core theme of the emotion-eliciting event. Different emotions are associated with different types of appraisals and action tendencies. For example, the action tendency for anger is to attack, whereas the action tendency for fear is to avoid or move away from harm. Although these action tendencies are biologically rooted, to a large degree culture may marshal or attenuate affective responses through display rules. For example, a typical action tendency toward anger may be to lash out; however, display rules govern the socially acceptable or socially desired way to display anger. For example, although an employee may become frustrated and angry at work, it is in the employee’s best interest to avoid emotional outbursts of anger. Ekman (1978) and Ekman and Friesen (1975) have posited five ways in which individuals manage emotional expression: intensify, deintensify, simulate, inhibit, and mask. Intensification of emotions occurs when individuals act as if they feel more emotion than they actually do. Deintensification of emotion occurs when individuals act as if they feel less emotion than they actually do. Simulation of emotion occurs when individuals act as if they feel an emo- tion they do not actually feel. Inhibition of emotion occurs when individu- als act as if they do not feel an emotion they actually feel. Last, masking of emotion occurs when individuals act as if they feel an emotion that is very different from the emotion actually felt. These display rules may be used regularly, even to the extent that they are ingratiated beyond active cognition at times. However, dur- ing conflict, individuals may find it more difficult to regulate their own emotions (Gottman, 1994). Thus, despite the fact that display rules and socially accepted ways of displaying particular emotions often regulate behavior, when individuals are or believe they are in conflict with a person, an organization, a policy, or a law, for example, they may have less control over how they ultimately display their emotions. Although the idea that individuals who become so overwhelmed with an emotion have a tendency to display that emotion may not be novel, there is not necessarily a correlation between displaying an emotion (e.g., anger) and enacting threatening or violent behavior. In fact, it might be argued that displaying the overwhelming emotion may serve a cathartic purpose for a highly emotive person. The goal of this section is to further the argument that individuals under affective and emotional distress are likely to communicate this affective and emotional arousal simply because humans are unable to conceal emotional arousal at a physiological level. Future research should assess the specific types of inappropriate or violent behavior most easily predicted from conflict-driven emotions. Although anger may seem to

OCR for page 33
39 COMMUNICATION-BASED RESEARCH be a natural target of investigations into behavioral outbursts, research into mixed-emotion states may produce a better understanding of the (ir)rational emotion associated with inappropriate behavior. For exam- ple, jealousy is a combination of anger and sadness. Individuals who are jealous of nonexistent relationships may lash out at the target of that unrequited relationship or may turn to depressed and self-injurious behaviors. Another example of a mixed emotion is frustration; individuals who are frustrated are likely to produce nonverbal and verbal displays of their emotional arousal. Understanding how stimulus is processed during highly affective states is essential for extrapolating the connec- tion between stimulus, cognitive and emotional appraisals, and future behavior. Conflict-Related Emotions Considering the role conflict plays in the elicitation of emotion and the role emotion may play in threatening and violent behavior, we now turn to emotions often associated with conflict. There are several differ- ent emotions associated with conflict as well as different activation levels, intensities, and affective valence. The most common emotions relevant to conflict are anger, jealousy, and hurt. Although there are other emotions associated with conflict (e.g., contempt, disgust), this discussion is limited to the most common responses. Anger Anger is the first emotion recognized as being associated with con- flict. Rage, irritation, exasperation, disgust, and contempt are specific types of emotions associated with anger (Shaver et al., 1987). Angry indi- viduals typically experience accelerated heart rate, tense or tightening muscles, rapid breathing patterns, and a flushed feeling (Scherer and Wallbott, 1994). The greater the intensity of anger the more likely the individual is to become emotionally flooded and have difficultly staying calm and rational (Gottman, 1994). As discussed earlier, one of the major causes of anger can stem from the interruption of one’s goals or sense of self-identity. Canary and colleagues (1998) identified seven possible causes of anger: identity management, aggression, frustration, fairness, incom- petence, relationship threat, and predispositions. Anger is a common response when individuals feel as if their identity, public image, or face is being threatened. Anger is also a common response to aggression, or when an individ- ual is threatened or is actually physically harmed. Frustrating situations

OCR for page 33
40 THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS AND BEHAVIOR include having one’s plans interrupted, having an expectation violated negatively, feeling powerless, or experiencing perceptions of injustice. In fact, feelings of unfairness or inequity can cause extreme anger and lead to emotional flooding (Gottman, 1994). In addition, some individuals have a predisposition toward anger, caused by a personality trait, substance abuse, or chemical imbalance. Anger is typically communicated through the action tendency of attack (Lazarus, 1991). These behaviors may include verbal attacks (dis- cussed later), physical attacks, and nonverbal disapproval (Shaver et al., 1987). However, not all instances of anger result in aggression (Canary et al., 1998). Future research could assess several aspects of anger: How might secondary appraisal processing and the development of coping strategies be implemented to “at-risk” individuals? Could preventative or responsive persuasive messages aimed at disseminating and/or teaching coping strategies be developed? Jealousy Jealousy can provide an impetus for threatening behavior. Jealousy can be defined as emotion based on the perceived threat of a relation- ship by a third party (White and Mullen, 1989). Jealousy can begin as an increase in arousal (Pines and Aronson, 1983) that is typically accompa- nied by increased heart rate and a feeling of being flushed. Anger and fear are usually central to the emotion of jealousy as well as sadness, guilt, sexual arousal, envy, and love (Guerrero et al., 2005). Jealousy can be communicated in several ways. Guerrero and Andersen (1998) identify several communicative responses to jealousy, including distributive com- munication (i.e., aggressive and direct forms of communication), active distancing (i.e., aggressive and indirect forms of communication), coun- terjealousy inductions (i.e., attempts to make another person jealous on purpose), violence toward a partner (e.g., hitting, pushing, grabbing), and violence toward objects (e.g., punching a wall, breaking a vase, tearing a photograph). In addition, jealousy has been associated with conflict styles, such as aggression and completion (Buunk, 1991), and it has been positivity correlated to aggression and violence (Simonelli and Ingram, 1998). Although aggression and violence may be responses to jealousy, nonviolent aggression is also a response to jealous emotions. Often the conflict style and the approach that an individual takes when (not) com- municating are as varied as the intensity of the emotion itself.

OCR for page 33
41 COMMUNICATION-BASED RESEARCH Hurt Emotional hurt can best be described as feeling psychologically injured by another person (Vangelisti and Sprague, 1998). Other entities may be able to elicit emotional hurt, too. If the emotion of hurt is triggered by another person’s actions, then hurt is fundamentally an interpersonal emotion. However, individuals can experience hurt even if they only perceive to have a relationship with another individual. For example, individuals who obsess, stalk, or only perceive themselves as having a relationship with a particular individual are perfectly capable of feel- ing emotional hurt. Other emotions that accompany hurt include agony, anger, sadness, and suffering. Although there is no definitive research that has isolated the physiological changes that are brought on by hurt, it is likely that hurt individuals experience anger and sadness. Physi- ological changes associated with sadness include muscle tension, crying, quietness, and a lump in the throat (Scherer and Wallbott, 1994). Hurt- ful messages that attack one’s personal or relational identity are typical causes of emotional hurt (Vangelisti, 1994). Relational identity can best be described as the values, beliefs, rules, and processes involved in rela- tional maintenance (Wood, 2000). For example, calling someone an idiot is clearly attacking their personal identity; whereas calling someone a hor- rible mother attacks the personal identity as well as the relational identity because there is a relational expectation for what merits a good mother. Another example would be if an individual found out that a close friend had stolen his or her property; because the theft would violate a relational rule about what it means to be close friends, the individual that had their property stolen would likely experience emotional hurt. Investigations aimed at understanding threatening and violent com- munications may want to focus on the emotional hurt an individual is experiencing as well as the emotional hurt that person is trying to inflict by way of threatening messages and communications with potential tar- gets. Vangelisti has identified nine types of hurtful messages: accusations (e.g., statements about one’s faults), evaluations (e.g., statements about one’s value or worth, often in a negative way), advice (e.g., suggesting a course of action that threatens one’s sense of self), expressed desires (e.g., statements about plans that may not include another individual), infor- mative statements (e.g., statements that disclose unflattering facts about another), threats (e.g., to demonstrate an intent to cause harm or injury to another), lies (e.g., statements that obfuscate the truth and may jeopar- dize a sense of trust), and jokes (e.g., making fun of or teasing someone). Hurtful messages could be caused by or be a consequence of conflict. For example, Infante (1987) suggests that argumentativeness or verbal aggres- siveness may be the result of an inability by one party to articulate their point of view or to successfully argue and defend their position.

OCR for page 33
42 THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS AND BEHAVIOR There are typically three types (Vangelisti and Crumley, 1998) of responses to hurtful messages: active verbal responses (e.g., verbally attacking another person, using sarcasm, asking for an explanation), acqui- escence (e.g., crying, conceding, apologizing), and invulnerable responses (e.g., ignoring the hurtful message, laughing at the message, becoming quiet). Thus, when an agency or organization reaches out to a particular individual, it may inadvertently generate a hurtful message. Organiza- tions charged with the task of examining threatening communications may want to also focus on the types of messages they compose, with an emphasis on avoiding hurtful ones. Future research should examine which behaviors are most consistent with threatening communications when motivated by jealousy and hurt feelings. Research that examines the information individuals perceive to be communicated from the target of their fixation would be helpful in determining emotional attachments related to jealousy and hurt feelings. Additional Areas for Future Research Much of the research presented in this section approaches emotions and conflict from a rational and linear perspective. Although these find- ings have been supported, the research conducted thus far may not be particularly illuminating when dealing with irrational and emotionally unstable individuals. For example, although the concepts of emotions and conflict have been discussed in an interpersonal context, it is pos- sible that strangers may experience similar or the same types of emotions associated with a relationship. In fact, stalkers and obsessed individuals may believe they have an interpersonal relationship with someone who is actually a stranger. Although many of the examples may not fit a stalking or an obsessed relationship, these individuals are likely to experience the same physiological changes and display many of the same communica- tion patterns. More cross-cultural studies need to be conducted in order to make better predictions about how individuals from different cultures deal with emotions and conflict. Ostensibly, culture plays a role in the expres- sion of emotions; however, the extent to which culture alters the process of coping with emotions remains unclear. Scholars have long recognized the importance of investigating the human face. In particular, scholars in nonverbal communication have looked to the face to identify emotional displays in various contexts. Many verbal and nonverbal behaviors are considered to be connected to some degree to affective or emotional responses. For example, there are universal facial expressions that connect closely to different emotions, including fear, anger, sadness, and happi-

OCR for page 33
43 COMMUNICATION-BASED RESEARCH ness (Darwin, 1872/1998; Ekman, 1972; Ekman and Friesen, 1971; Ekman et al., 1987). Prior sections focused on the internal processes of affect, cognition, and emotion related to conflict and discussed physiological changes associated with those processes. Although conflict and related internal processes can produce particular physiological changes, the next section focuses only on the deliberate expression of conflict. Specifically, the sec- tion explores verbal aggressiveness and threat assessment. Giving Voice to Conflict: Verbal Aggressiveness and Threat Assessment Verbal aggressiveness is an individual’s inclination to attack the self- concepts of other people in an effort to cause psychological pain (Infante and Wigley, 1986). This type of aggression, in which a person initiates personal attacks against a select target or victim, is manifested through communication. Not surprisingly, verbal aggressiveness is considered a destructive form of communication (Infante et al., 1992) and an expression of hostility (Martin and Anderson, 1996). The literature suggests a number of verbally aggressive messages— character attacks, competence attacks, background attacks, physical appearance attacks, cursing, teasing, ridiculing, threats, nonverbal actions, withdrawal, physical acts, rejection, negative affect, and unfair compari- sons (Infante et al., 1990; Myers and Bryant, 2008). Kinney (1994) presents a broader typology of verbal aggressiveness, specifically within the con- text of interpersonal interaction: attacks against group membership, per- sonal failings, and relationship-related failings. Kinnney also suggests a dimensional structure of verbally aggressive messages composed of the (1) target, (2) form of weapon, and (3) force of weapon. To gain insight into the potential origins of verbal aggressiveness, researchers have studied the phenomenon from various angles, includ- ing a trait perspective. Personality traits and natural inclinations to com- municate in a particular manner across situations are often referred to as communication predispositions (Rancer and Nicotera, 2007). Acknowl- edging one’s predisposition for aggressive communicatory behavior, Beatty and McCroskey (1997) asserted that “verbal aggressiveness rep- resents expressions of inborn, biological functioning, which is anteced- ent to social experience” (p. 446). Early on, verbal aggressiveness was associated with hostility (Infante and Wigley, 1986) and argumentative skill deficiency (Infante, 1987). More recently, lack of responsiveness has emerged as a character trait associated with verbal aggressiveness (Martin and Anderson, 1996) and psychoticism (Heisel et al., 2003). Considering these and potentially other character traits that appear

OCR for page 33
64 THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS AND BEHAVIOR units but as sources for potential collaboration. One relevant collaboration process is boundary spanning, which allows members to interact with outside stakeholders and enables them to effectively deal with ambigui- ties of external threats (Golden and Veiga, 2005). Boundary spanning is viewed as the coordination of experiences, val- ues, context information, expert insight, and the actions of two or more independent organizations. Through boundary spanning, meaningful knowledge is constructed within interorganizational groups, and knowl- edge is shared freely through collaborative processes such as conversation and joint work (Brown and Duguid, 1991; O’Hair et al., 2010; Orr, 1990; Wenger, 1998). The fields of information science and management stud- ies offer a plentiful stream of studies related to boundary spanning, with many having a focus on knowledge management (Kogut and Zander, 1992; Larsson et al., 1998; Rosenkopf and Nerkar, 2001). Boundary spanning includes working together with organizations, coordinating activities, and mobilizing resources in the community. Knowledge networks often have the responsibility to formally or infor- mally establish and maintain communication patterns across organiza- tions (Alexander, 1995). At this level, boundary-spanning information sys- tems integrate information flow and coordinate work across “islands” of knowledge (Lamb and Davidson, 2000; Markus et al., 2002). The creation of shared knowledge is feasible when organizations share and improvise local practices through membership in the same work group (Gasson, 2005). By belonging to a community of organizations, mutual engagement in joint enterprise utilizes a shared repertoire of resources (Wenger, 1998). Not only do individual participants belong to multiple communities of practice, “their multiple memberships provide a mediating mechanism that permits the spanning of boundaries between these communities” (Wenger, 1998, p. 123). Future studies should investigate how dimensions of interorganizational collaboration can positively affect data exchange and threat management among organizations in the intelligence and law enforcement communities. Although this paper provides several areas of inquiry, several other factors have not been fully developed. The very nature of communica- tion actions, the medium through which they are transmitted, and the ultimate intentions form a unique intersection for each individual. At first glance, this might seem like a daunting and overwhelming task. However, communication and behavior are inextricably linked, and the better this connection can be understood, the more likely it is that future predic- tions about behavior can be made. Moreover, current communication- based theory and methods should be used to both assess the relationship between communication and threatening behavior and develop commu- nication strategies aimed at shifting values, attitudes, beliefs, and behav-

OCR for page 33
65 COMMUNICATION-BASED RESEARCH iors. Thus, communication research could be used to develop messages aimed at reducing threatening communications and behaviors. It is hoped that, by identifying these areas of communication research, focused inquiry can be generated. More questions were generated than answered in this literature review, and many thorny issues are unlikely to be resolved without a substantial expenditure of resources. The goal of shedding light on the relationship between communication and actual behavior will mostly be accomplished through a triangulation of observa- tional, actuarial, experimental, and case study research. The propositions offered at the outset of this paper suggest that communication theory and practice are intrinsic to the study of threatening behaviors and that find- ing strategies for managing violent behavior against others will be served by addressing even the most demanding research conundrums. REFERENCES Abramson, J.S., and B.B. Rosenthal. 1995. Interdisciplinary and interorganizational col- laboration. In R.L. Edwards, ed., The Encyclopedia of Social Work, 19th ed., vol. 2 (pp. 1479-1489). Washington, DC: NASW Press. Alexander, E.R. 1995. How Organizations Act Together: Interorganizational Coordination in The- ory and Practice. Milwaukee, WI: Gordon and Breach Publishers. Allen, M., A. Angie, J. Davis, S. Connelly, M. Mumford, and H.D. O’Hair. 2009. Virtual risk: The role of new media in violent and nonviolent ideological groups. In R. Heath and H.D. O’Hair, eds., Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp. 446-470). New York: Routledge. Avtgis, T.A., and A.S. Rancer. 2008. The relationship between trait verbal aggressiveness and teacher burnout syndrome in K–12 teachers. Communication Research Reports, 25:86-89. Beatty, M.J., and J.C. McCroskey. 1997. It’s in our nature: Verbal aggressiveness as tempera- mental expression. Communication Quarterly, 45:446-460. Biesterfeld, J., and J.R. Meloy. 2008. The public figure assassin as terrorist. In J.R. Meloy, L. Sheridan, and J. Hoffman, eds., Stalking, Threatening, and Attacking Public Figures (pp. 143-162). New York: Oxford University Press. Blazak, R. 2001. White boys to terrorist men: Target recruitment of Nazi skinheads. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(6):982-1000. Bond, C.F., Jr., and B.M. DePaulo. 2006. Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3):214-234. Boster, F.J., T.A. Levine, and D. Kazoleas. 1993. The impact of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness on strategic diversity and persistence in compliance-gaining behavior. Communication Quarterly, 41:405-414. Brown, J.S., and P. Duguid. 1991. Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: To- ward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2:40-57. Burgoon, J.K., and T. Qin. 2006. The dynamic nature of deceptive verbal communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(1):76-96. Burgoon, J.K., and V.V. Varadan. 2006. Workshop on Report on Detecting and Countering IEDs and Related Threats. Reston, VA: National Science Foundation. Burgoon, J.K., M. Adkins, J. Kruse, M.L. Jensen, T.O. Meservy, D.P. Twitchell, A. Deokar, J.F. Nunamaker Jr., S. Lu, G. Tsechpenakis, D. Metaxas, and R.E. Younger. 2005. An approach for intent identification by building on deception detection. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Big Island, HI.

OCR for page 33
66 THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS AND BEHAVIOR Burgoon, J.K., H.D. O’Hair, M. Jensen, and C.H. Miller. 2008. Information Verification and AAS). Technical Report and Proposal to the Defense Uni- Assurance Analysis System (IV versity Research Instrumentation Program. Norman: University of Oklahoma. Buunk, B.P. 1991. Jealousy in close relationships: An exchange-theoretical perspective. In P. Salovey, ed., The Psychology of Jealousy and Envy (pp. 148-177). New York: Guilford. Cahn, D.D. 1992. Conflict in Intimate Relationships. New York: Guilford. Canary, D.J., B.H. Spitzberg, and B.A. Semic. 1998. The experience and expression of anger in interpersonal settings. In P.A. Anderson and L.K. Guerrero, eds., Handbook of Com- munication and Emotion: Research, Theory, Applications, and Contexts (pp. 189-213). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Caprara, G.V., and C. Pastorelli. 1989. Toward a reorientation of research on aggression. European Journal of Personality, 3:121-138. Carlson, P.J., and G.B. Davis. 1998. An investigation of media selection among directors and managers: From “self” to “other” orientation. MIS Quarterly, September:335-358. Corman, S.R., and J.S. Schiefelbein. 2006. Communication and Media Strategy in the Jihadi War of Ideas. Arizona State University, Consortium for Strategic Communication Report No. 0601. Available: http://www.asu.edu/clas/communication /about/csc/ [accessed April 2007]. Daft, R.L., and R. Lengel. 1984. Information richness: A new approach to managerial be- havior and organization design. In B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings, eds., Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 6 (pp. 193-233). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Daft, R.L., J. Sormunen, and D. Parks. 1988. Chief executive scanning, environmental charac- teristics, and company performance: An empirical study. Strategic Management Journal, 9:123-139. Daly, E.M., W.J. Lancee, and J. Polivy. 1983. A conical model for the taxonomy of emotional experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45:443-457. Damphousse, K.R., and B.L. Smith. 2002. The Internet: A terrorist medium for the 21st cen- tury. In H.W. Kushner, ed., Essential Readings on Political Terrorism: Analyses of Problems and Prospects for the 21st Century. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Darwin, C. 1872/1998. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, 3rd ed. London, UK: Harper Collins. DePaulo, B.M., J.J. Lindsay, B.E. Malone, L. Muhlenbruck, K. Charlton, and H. Cooper. 2003. Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1):74-118. Deturck, M.A. 1987. When communication fails: Physical aggression as a compliance-gaining strategy. Communication Monographs, 54:106-112. Dholakia, R.R., M. Zhao, N. Dholakia, and D.R. Fortin. 2000. Interactivity and Revisits to Websites: A Theoretical Framework. Available: http://ritim.cba.uri.edu/wp/ [accessed September 2008]. Donohue, W.A., and A.J. Roberto. 1993. Relational development in hostage negotiation. Hu- man Communication Research, 20:175-198. Donohue, W.A., C. Ramesh, and C. Borchgrevink. 1991a. Crisis bargaining: Tracking re- lational paradox in hostage negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2:257-274. Donohue, W.A., C. Ramesh, G. Kaufmann, and R. Smith. 1991b. Crisis bargaining in hostage negotiations. International Journal of Group Tensions, 21:133-154. Easterling, D.V., and H. Leventhal. 1989. Contribution of concrete cognition to emotion: Neutral symptoms as elicitors of worry about cancer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74:787-796. Ekman, P. 1972. Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotions. In J. Cole, ed., Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1971, vol. 19 (pp. 207-282). Lincoln: Uni- versity of Nebraska Press.

OCR for page 33
67 COMMUNICATION-BASED RESEARCH Ekman, P. 1978. Facial expression. In A.W. Siegman and S. Feldstein, eds., Nonverbal Behavior and Communication (pp. 99-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ekman, P. 2001. Telling Lies. New York: Norton. Ekman, P., and R.J. Davidson, eds. 1994. The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions. Series in Affective Science. New York: Oxford University Press. Ekman, P., and W.V. Friesen. 1971. Constants across cultures in the face and emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17:124-129. Ekman, P., and W.V. Friesen. 1975. Unmasking the Face. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ekman, P., W.V. Friesen, M. O’Sullivan, A. Chan, I. Diacoyanno-Tarlatzis, K. Heider, R. Krause, W.A. LeCompte, T. Pitcairn, P.E. Ricci-Bitti, K. Scherer, M. Tomita, and A. Tzavaras. 1987. Universals and cultural differences in the judgments of facial expres- sions of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4):712-717. Fein, R.A., and B. Vossekuil. 1998. Preventing attacks on public officials and public figures: A secret service perspective. In J.R. Meloy, ed., The Psychology of Stalking: Clinical and Forensic Perspectives (pp. 175-191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Fein, R.A., B. Vossekuil, and G.A. Holden. 1995. Threat Assessment: An Approach to Prevent Targeted Violence. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Frijda, N.H. 1986. The Emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Frijda, N.H. 1987. Emotion, cognitive structure, and action tendency. Cognition and Emotion, 1:115-143. Fulk, J., and L. Collins-Jarvis. 2001. Wired meetings: Technological mediation of organiza- tional gatherings. In F.M. Jablin and L.L. Putnam, eds., The New Handbook of Organiza- tional Communication: Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods (pp. 624-663). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gasson, S. 2005. The dynamics of sense making, knowledge, and expertise in collaborative, boundary-spanning design. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(4):1-26. Golden, T.D., and J.F. Veiga. 2005. Spanning boundaries and borders: Toward understand- ing the cultural dimensions of team boundary spanning. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17:178-197. Goldstein, D., and A. Rosenbaum. 1985. An evaluation of the self-esteem of maritally violent men. Family Relations, 34:425-428. Gottman, J.M. 1994. What Predicts Divorce? The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Greenberg, B.S. 1976. The effects of language intensity modification on perceived verbal aggressiveness. Communication Monographs, 43:130-139. Guerrero, L.K., and P.A. Andersen. 1998. The dark side of jealousy and envy: Desire, delu- sion, desperation, and destructive communication. In B.H. Spitzberg and W.R. Cupach, eds., The Dark Side of Close Relationships (pp. 33-70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Guerrero, L.K., and A.G. La Valley. 2006. Conflict, emotion, and communication. In J.G. Oetzel and S. Ting-Toomey, eds., The Sage Handbook of Conflict Communication: Integrat- ing Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 69-96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Guerrero, L.K., M.L. Trost, and S.M. Yoshimura. 2005. Sexual and emotional jealousy. In J. Harvey, A. Wenzel, and S. Sprecher, eds., The Handbook of Sexuality in Close Relationships (pp. 311-345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hadden, S.G. 1989. The future of expert systems in government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 8:203-208. Hale, J.L., and J.P. Dillard. 1995. Fear appeals in health promotion campaigns: Too much, too little, or just right? In E. Maibach and R.L. Parrott, eds., Designing Health Messages: Approaches from Communication Theory and Public Health Practice (pp. 65-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

OCR for page 33
68 THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS AND BEHAVIOR Hammer, M.R. 2001. Conflict negotiation under crisis conditions. In W.F. Eadie and P.E. Nelson, eds., The Language of Conflict Resolution (pp. 57-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hammer, M.R., and R.G. Rogan. 1997. Negotation models in crisis situations: The value of a communication-based approach. In R.G. Rogan, M.R. Hammer, and C.R. Van Zandt, eds., Dynamic Processes of Crisis Negotiations: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 9-23). Westport, CT: Praeger. Hartwig, M., P.A. Granhag, L.A. Strömwall, and A. Vrij. 2005. Detecting deception via stra- tegic disclosure of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 29(4):469-484. Hartwig, M., P.A. Granhag, L.A. Strömwall, and O. Kronkvist. 2006. Strategic use of evidence during police interviews: When training to detect deception works. Law and Human Behavior, 30(5):603-619. Havill, A. 2001. The Spy Who Stayed Out in the Cold: The Secret Life of FBI Double Agent Robert Hanssen. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Heath, R.L., and H.D. O’Hair. 2009. The significance of risk and crisis communication. In R.L. Heath and H.D. O’Hair, eds., Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp. 5-30). New York: Routledge. Heath, R.L., M. Palenchar, and H.D. O’Hair. 2009. Community building through risk com- munication infrastructures. In R.L. Heath and H.D. O’Hair, eds., Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp. 471-487). New York: Routledge. Heider, F. 1958. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley. Heisel, A.D., B.H. La France, and M.J. Beatty. 2003. Self-reported extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism as predictors of peer-related verbal aggressiveness and affinity- seeking competence. Communication Monographs, 70:1-15. Hocker, J.L., and W.W. Wilmot. 1998. Interpersonal Conflict, 5th ed. Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark. Infante, D.A. 1985. Inducing women to be more argumentative: Source credibility effects. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 13:33-44. Infante, D.A. 1987. Aggressiveness. In J.C. McCroskey and J.A. Daly, eds., Personality and Interpersonal Communication (pp. 157-192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Infante, D.A., and A.S. Rancer. 1982. A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46:72-80. Infante, D.A., and A.S. Rancer. 1996. Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of recent theory and research. Communication Yearbook, 19:319-351. Infante, D.A., and C.J. Wigley III. 1986. Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs, 53:61-69. Infante, D.A., T.A. Chandler, and J.E. Rudd. 1989. Test of an argumentative skill deficiency model of interspousal violence. Communication Monographs, 56:163-177. Infante, D.A., T.C. Sabourin, J.E. Rudd, and E.A. Shannon. 1990. Verbal aggression in violent and nonviolent marital disputes. Communication Quarterly, 38:361-371. Infante, D.A., B.L. Riddle, C.L. Horvath, and S.A. Tumlin. 1992. Verbal aggressiveness: Mes- sages and reasons. Communication Quarterly, 40:116-126. Izard, C.E. 1990. Facial expressions and the regulation of emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58:87-98. Jensen, J.F. 1998. Interactivity: Tracking a new concept in media and communication stud- ies. Nordicom Review, 19:185-204. Available: http://www.nordicom.gu.se/common/ publ_pdf/38_jensen.pdf [accessed September 2010]. Jones, T.S. 2000. Emotional communication in conflict: Essence and impact. In W. Eadie and P. Nelson, eds., The Language of Conflict and Resolution (pp. 81-104). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Karayanni, D.A., and G.A. Baltas. 2003. Web site characteristics and business performance: Some evidence from international and business-to-business organizations. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 21:105-114.

OCR for page 33
69 COMMUNICATION-BASED RESEARCH Katz, J.E., and R.E. Rice. 2002. The telephone as a medium of faith, hope, terror, and redemp- tion: America, September 11. Prometheus, 20(3):247-253. Kearney, P., T.G. Plax, E.R. Hays, and M.J. Ivey. 1991. College teacher misbehaviors: What stu- dents don’t like about what teachers say and do. Communication Quarterly, 39:309-324. Kinney, T.A. 1994. An inductively derived typology of verbal aggression and its association to distress. Human Communication Research, 21:183-222. Kogut, B., and U. Zander. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 9:285-305. Kotowski, M.R., T.R. Levine, C.R. Baker, and J.M. Bolt. 2009. A multitrait multimethod valid- ity assessment of the verbal aggressiveness and argumentativeness scales. Communica- tion Monographs, 76(4):443-462. Kraut, R., J. Galegher, R. Fish, and B. Chalfonte. 1992. Task requirements and media choice in collaborative writing. Human-Computer Interaction, 74:375-407. Lamb, R., and E. Davidson. 2000. The new computing archipelago: Intranet islands of prac- tice. International Federation of Information Processing 8.2 Conference Proceedings , June. Langdridge, D., and T. Butt. 2004. The fundamental attribution error: A phenomenological critique. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(3):357-369. Larsson, R., L. Bengtsson, K. Henriksson, and J. Sparks. 1998. The interorganizational learn- ing dilemma: Collective knowledge development in strategic alliances. Organizational Science, 9:285-305. Lazarus, R.S. 1991. Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Lengel, R.H., and R.L. Daft. 1988. The selection of communication media as an executive skill. The Academy of Management Executive, 2(3):225-232. Levine, T.R., M.J. Beatty, S. Limon, M.A. Hamilton, R. Buck, and R.M. Chory-Assad. 2004. The dimensionality of the verbal aggressiveness scale. Communication Monographs, 71:245-268. Lewenstein, B.V. 1992. The meaning of “public understanding of science” in the United States after World War II. Public Understanding of Science, 1:45-68. Lewenstein, B.V., and D. Brosard. 2006. Assessing Models of Public Understanding in ELSI Outreach Materials. U.S. Department of Energy Grant DE-FG02-01ER63173. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Lewis, M., and J.M. Havliand-Jones, eds. 2000. Handbook of Emotions, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press. Maclaran, P., and M. Catterall. 2002. Researching the social web: Marketing information from virtual communities. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 20(6):319-326. Markus, M.L., A. Majchrzak, and L. Gasser. 2002. A design theory for systems that sup- port emergent knowledge processes. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 26(3):179-212. Martin, M.M., and C.M. Anderson. 1996. Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11:547-554. Matusitz, J., and H.D. O’Hair. 2008. The Internet and terrorist networks. In H.D. O’Hair, R.L. Heath, K. Ayotte, and J. Ledlow, eds., Terrorism: Communication and Rhetorical Perspective (pp. 383-407). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. McPherson, M.B., P. Kearney, and T.G. Plax. 2003. The dark side of instruction: Teacher anger as classroom norm violations. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31:76-90. Meloy, J.R., L. Sheridan, and J. Hoffman. 2008. Public figure stalking, threats, and attacks: The state of the science. In J.R. Meloy, L. Sheridan, and J. Hoffman, eds., Stalking, Threatening, and Attacking Public Figures (pp. 3-34). New York: Oxford University Press. Meservy, T.O., M.L. Jensen, J. Kruse, J.K. Burgoon, and J.F. Nunamaker. 2005. Automatic extraction of deceptive behavioral cues from video. Intelligence and Security Informat- ics: Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Intelligence and Security Informatics ISI 2005. Atlanta, GA: Springer-Verlag.

OCR for page 33
70 THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS AND BEHAVIOR Moghaddam, F.M. 2005. The staircase to terrorism: A psychological exploration. American Psychologist, 60(2):161-169. Morris, M., and C. Ogan. 1996. The Internet as mass medium. Journal of Communication, 46(1):39-51. Moss, G.A., R. Gunn, and K. Kubacki. 2007. Successes and failures of the mirroring prin- ciple: The case of angling and beauty websites. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31:248-257. Mumford, M.D., K.E. Bedell-Avers, S.T. Hunter, J. Espejo, D. Eubanks, and M.S. Connelly. 2008. Violence in ideological and non-ideological groups: A quantitative analysis of qualitative data. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(6):1521-1561. Myers, S.A., and L.E. Bryant. 2008. Emerging adult siblings’ use of verbally aggressive mes- sages as hurtful messages. Communication Quarterly, 56:268-283. O’Hair, H.D. 2004. Measuring risk/crisis communication: Taking strategic assessment and program evaluation to the next level. In Risk and Crisis Communication: Building Trust and Explaining Complexities When Emergencies Arise (pp. 5-10).Washington, DC: Consor- tium of Social Science Associations. O’Hair, H.D., and M. Cody. 1987. Gender and vocal stress differences during truthful and deceptive information sequences. Human Relations, 40:1-14. O’Hair, H.D., and M.J. Cody. 1994. Deception. In W. Cupack and B. Spitzburg, eds., The Dark Side of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 181-214). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. O’Hair, H.D., R.L. Heath, and J. Becker. 2005. Toward a paradigm of managing communica- tion and terrorism. In H.D. O’Hair, R. Heath, and J. Ledlow, eds., Community Prepared- ness, Deterrence, and Response to Terrorism: Communication and Terrorism (pp. 307-327). Westport, CT: Praeger. O’Hair, H.D., N. Ploeger, and S. Moore. 2010. Applied communication theory and research. In J. Chesebro, ed., From 20th Century Beginnings to 21st Century Advances: Developing and Evolving from a Century of Transformation (pp. 89-106). New York: Oxford University Press. O’Hair, H.D., K. Kelley, and K. Williams. 2010. Managing community risks through a community-communication infrastructure approach. In H. Canary and R. McPhee, eds., Communication and Organizational Knowledge: Contemporary Issues for Theory and Practice (pp. 223-243). New York: Routledge. Orr, J. 1990. Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: War stories and community memory in a service culture. In D.S. Middleton and D. Edwards, eds., Collective Remembering: Memory in Society (pp. 140-169). Beverley Hills, CA: Sage. Ortony, A., and T.J. Turner. 1990. What’s basic about basic emotions? Psychology Review, 97:315-331. Papacharissi, Z., and A.M. Rubin. 2000. Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44(2):175-197. Pfau, M., and R. Parrot. 1993. Persuasive Communication Campaigns. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Pigott, T.D., and M.J. Wu. 2008. Methodological issues in meta-analyzing standard devia- tions: Comment on Bond and DePaulo (2008). Psychological Bulletin, 134(4):498-500. Pines, A., and E. Aronson. 1983. Antecedents, correlates, and consequences of sexual jeal- ousy. Journal of Personality, 51:108-136. Planalp, S. 2003. The unacknowledged role of emotion in theories of close relationships: How do theories feel? Communication Theory, 13:78-99. Pollina, D.A., A.B. Dollins, S.M. Senter, T.E. Brown, I. Pavlidis, J.A. Levine, and A. Ryan. 2006. Facial skin surface temperature changes during a “concealed information” test. Annals of Biomedical Engineering, 34(7):1182-1189.

OCR for page 33
71 COMMUNICATION-BASED RESEARCH Porter, C.E. 2004. A typology of virtual communities: A multi-disciplinary foundation for future research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(1). Available: http:// jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue1/porter.html [accessed January 2011]. Posner, P.L. 2002. Intergovernmental Partnership in a National Strategy to Enhance State and Local Preparedness. GAO-02-547T. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office. Prunty, A.M., D.W. Klopf, and S. Ishii. 1990. Argumentativeness: Japanese and American tendencies to approach and avoid conflict. Communication Research Reports, 7:75-79. Rafaeli, S. 1988. Interactivity: From new media to communication. In R.P. Hawkins and J.M. Wiemann, eds., Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass and Interpersonal Processes (pp. 110-134). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rancer, A.S., and A.M. Nicotera. 2007. Aggressive communication. In B.B. Whaley and W. Samter, eds., Explaining Communication: Contemporary Theories and Exemplars (pp. 129- 146). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Reddy, M., R. Borum, J. Berglund, B. Vossekuil, R. Fein, and W. Modzeleski. 2001. Evaluating risk for targeted violence in schools: Comparing risk assessment, threat assessment, and other approaches. Psychology in the Schools, 38:157-171. Renn, O. 2009. Risk communication: Insights and requirements for designing successful communication programs on health and environmental hazards. In R.L. Heath and H.D. O’Hair, eds., Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp. 80-98). New York: Routledge. Rogan, R.C., and B.H. La France. 2003. An examination of the relationship between verbal aggressiveness, conflict management strategies, and conflict interaction goals. Com- munication Quarterly, 51:458-469. Rogan, R.G., and M.R. Hammer. 1994. Crisis negotiations: A preliminary investigation of facework in naturalistic conflict. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22:216-231. Rogan, R.G., and M.R. Hammer. 1995. Assessing message affect in crisis negotiations: An exploratory study. Human Communication Research, 21:553-574. Rogan, R.G., and M.R. Hammer. 2002. Crisis/hostage negotiations: Conceptualizations of a communication-based approach. In H. Giles, ed., Law Enforcement, Communication, and Community (pp. 229-254). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. Rogan, R.G., and M.R. Hammer. 2006. The emerging field of crisis/hostage negotiation: A communication-based perspective. In J.G. Oetzel and S. Ting-Toomey, eds., The Sage Handbook of Conflict Communication: Integrating Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 451- 478). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rogan, R.G., and B.H. La France. 2003. An examination of the relationship between verbal aggressiveness, conflict management strategies, and conflict interaction goals. Com- munication Quarterly, 51:458-469. Rogan, R.G., M.R. Hammer, and C.R. Van Zandt, eds. 1997a. Dynamic Processes of Crisis Negotiations: Theory, Research, and Practice. Westport, CT: Praeger. Rogan, R.G., M.R. Hammer, and C.R. Van Zandt. 1997b. Dynamic processes of crisis negotia- tions: An overview. In R.G. Rogan, M.R. Hammer, and C.R. Van Zandt, eds., Dynamic Processes of Crisis Negotiations: Theory, Research, and Practice (pp. 1-8). Westport, CT: Praeger. Roloff, M.E., and J.M. Jordan. 1992. Achieving negotiation goals: The “fruits and foibles” of planning ahead. In L.L. Putnam and M.E. Roloff, eds., Communication and Negotiation (pp. 21-45). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rosenkopf, L., and A. Nerkar. 2001. Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration and impact in the optical disc industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22:287-306. Rubin, A.M. 1993. Audience activity and media use. Communication Monographs, 60:98-103. Rubin, A.M. 1994. Media uses and effects: A uses-and-gratifications perspective. In J. Bryant and D. Zillmann, eds., Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 417-436). Hill- sdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

OCR for page 33
72 THREATENING COMMUNICATIONS AND BEHAVIOR Ruiter, R.A.C., C. Abraham, and G. Kok. 2001. Scary warnings and rational precautions: A review of the psychology of fear appeals. Psychology and Health, 16:613-630. Sabourin, T.C., D.A. Infante, and J.E. Rudd. 1993. Verbal aggression in marriages: A com- parison of violent, distressed but nonviolent, and nondistressed couples. Human Com- munication Research, 20:245-267. Scherer, K.R., and H.G. Wallbott. 1994. Evidence for university and cultural variation of differential emotion response patterning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66:310-328. Sebastian, R.J., R.D. Parke, L. Berkowitz, and S.G. West. 1978. Film violence and verbal ag- gression: A naturalistic study. Journal of Communication 28(3):164-171. Sereno, K.K., M. Welch, and D. Braaten. 1987. Interpersonal conflict: Effects of variations in manner of expressing anger and justification for anger upon perceptions of ap- propriateness, competence, and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 15:128-143. Shaver, P.R., J. Schwartz, D. Kirson, and C. O’Connor. 1987. Emotion knowledge: Fur- ther explorations of a prototype approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52:1061-1086. Sillars, A.L. 1980. Attributions and communication in roommate conflicts. Communication Monographs, 47:180-200. Sillars, A., L.J. Roberts, K.E. Leonard, and T. Dun. 2000. Cognition during marital con- flict: The relationship of thought and talk. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17:479-502. Simonelli, C.J., and K.M. Ingram. 1998. Psychological distress among men experiencing physical and emotional abuse in heterosexual dating relationships. Journal of Interper- sonal Violence, 13:667-681. Smith, S.S. 2008a. From violent words to violent deed: Assessing risk from FBI threatening communication cases. In J.R. Meloy, L. Sheridan, and J. Hoffman, eds., Stalking, Threat- ening, and Attacking Public Figures (pp. 435-455). New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, S.S. 2008b. From violent words to violent deeds? Assessing risk from threatening communications. Doctoral dissertation abstract. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 15:105-107. Snyder, G.H., and P. Diesing. 1977. Conflict Among Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni- versity Press. Sohn, D., and B. Lee. 2005. Dimensions of interactivity: Differential effects of social and psy- chological factors. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3). Available: http:// jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/sohn.html [accessed September 2010]. Song, J.H., and G.M. Zinkhan. 2008. Determinants of perceived web site interactivity. Journal of Marketing, 72:99-113. Stanton, J.J. 2002. Terrorism in cyberspace: Terrorists will exploit and widen the gap between governing structures and the public. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(6):1017-1032. Stephenson, M.T., and K. Witte. 2001. Creating fear in a risky world: Generating effective health risk messages. In R.E. Rice and C.K. Atkins, eds., Public Communication Cam- paigns, 3rd ed. (pp. 88-102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Steuer, J. 1992. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. Journal of Communication, 42:73-93. Suzuki, S., and A.S. Rancer. 1994. Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: Testing for conceptual and measurement equivalence across cultures. Communication Monographs, 61:256-278. Trevino, L.K., J. Webster, and E.W. Stein. 2000. Making connections: Complementary in- fluences on communication media choices, attitudes, and use. Organization Science, 11(2):163-182.

OCR for page 33
73 COMMUNICATION-BASED RESEARCH Ting-Toomey, S., and A. Kurogi. 1998. Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An up- dated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22:187-225. Vangelisti, A.L. 1994. Messages that hurt. In W.R. Cupach and B.H. Spitzberg, eds., The Dark Side of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 53-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vangelisti, A.L., and L.P. Crumley. 1998. Reactions to messages that hurt: The influence of relational contexts. Communication Monographs, 65:173-196. Vangelisti, A.L., and R.J. Sprague. 1998. Guilt and hurt: Similarities, distinctions, and conver- sational strategies. In P.A. Andersen and L.L. Guerrero, eds., Handbook of Communication and Emotion: Research, Theory, Applications, and Contexts (pp. 123-154). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Vrij, A. 2000. Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and Implications for Professional Practice. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons. Weick, K.E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. New York: Cam- bridge University Press. White, G.L., and P.E. Mullen. 1989. Jealousy: Theory, Research, and Clinical Strategies. New York: Guilford. Willard, N.E. 2007. Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Aggression, Threats, and Distress. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Witte, K. 1992a. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59:329-349. Witte, K. 1992b. The role of threat and efficacy in AIDS prevention. International Quarterly of Communication Health Education, 12:225-249. Witte, K. 1998. Fear as motivator, fear as inhibitor: Using EPPM to explain fear appeal suc- cesses and failures. In P.A. Anderson and L.K. Guerrero, eds., The Handbook of Commu- nication and Emotion (pp. 423-450). New York, NY: Academic Press. Witte, K., and M. Allen. 2000. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education and Behavior, 27(5):591-615. Wood, J.T. 2000. Relational communication: Continuity and Change in Personal Relationships 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Wood, D.J., and B. Gray. 1991. Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27:139-167. Wynne, B. 1995. Public understanding of science. In S. Jasanoff, G.E. Markle, J.C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, eds., Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (pp. 361-388). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ziman, J. 1992. Not knowing, needing to know, and wanting to know. In B.V. Lewenstein, ed., When Science Meets the Public (pp. 13-20). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Zmud, R., M. Lind, and F. Young. 1990. An attribute space for organizational communication channels. Information Systems Research, 1(4):440-457. Zuckerman, M., and R.E. Driver. 1985. Telling lies: Verbal and nonverbal correlates of de- ception. In A.W. Siegman and S. Feldstein, eds., Multichannel Integrations of Nonverbal Behavior (pp. 129-147). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

OCR for page 33