861482

research-article20192019
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244019861482SAGE OpenMacIntyre

Original Research

SAGE Open

Anxiety/Uncertainty Management and

July-September 2019: 1­–18
© The Author(s) 2019
DOI: 10.1177/2158244019861482
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019861482

Communication Accommodation in journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

Women’s Brief Dyadic Conversations

With a Stranger: An Idiodynamic
Approach

Peter D. MacIntyre1

Abstract
This study uses a combination of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and communication accommodation theory
perspective to examine differences in the ways women converse with men or with other women. The study uses an
innovative approach, the idiodynamic method, to gather detailed data on a per-second timescale. Participants (n = 24) were
randomly assigned to one of the two types of dyads: female–female or male–female. They then engaged in a videotaped
conversation lasting approximately 2 to 5 min. Immediately afterward, participants watched the video of their conversation
in separate rooms, during which each provided continuous, dynamic ratings of their anxiety level, and that of their partner,
throughout the conversation. Participants were interviewed about the reasons for changes in their ratings of both themselves
and their conversational partner. Following a grounded theory approach to analysis, six themes emerged from the interviews:
awareness of the camera and researchers, comparison of self and partners, self-judgment, worry about other’s judgment,
disinterest, and reaction to miscommunication. The data show that communication accommodation was done differently
in the female-only versus female–male pairs, which might reflect processes involving uncertainty, group identification, and
continuously negotiated meaning. There is value in using methods that investigate communication processes in real time
because doing so allows instances of proposed theoretical differences between genders to emerge in actual conversation
between persons.

Keywords
dyadic conversation, idiodynamic, sex differences, anxiety and uncertainty management theory, communication accommodation
theory

Within dyads, communication behavior can take unexpected
twists and turns as it unfolds in real time. The uncertainty
inherent in dyadic conversation can be influenced in both
obvious and subtle ways by the gender of the conversational
partners (Athenstaedt, Haas, & Schwab, 2004; Carli &
Bukatko, 2000); mixed-gender dyads may show different
communication behavior than same-gender dyads (Hannah
& Murachver, 1999). There is a considerable amount of
research literature on gender differences in communication,
for example, showing that females talk less when paired with
a male than they do when paired with another female (James
& Drakich, 1993) and that mixed-gender dyads act in stereo-
type-confirming ways more often than same-gender dyads
(Athenstaedt et al., 2004). It has been argued that males and
females learn and develop different sociolinguistic subcul-
tures that affect ways of both communicating and interpret-
ing communication (Maltz & Borker, 1982; Mulac, Bradac,
& Gibbons, 2001; Wood, 2002). However, the “different cul-
tures” view has been challenged strongly by authors who
argue that similarities between women and men outweigh
differences (Hyde, 2005; MacGeorge, Graves, Feng,
Gillihan, & Burleson, 2004). To further the discussion of
gender differences and similarities, we suggest that there is a
need to examine the dynamics of real people interacting in
real time. The methods based on summative evaluations and
imagined conversations used in prior research simply do not
capture what is happening in the action and reaction of
conversation.
1
Cape Breton University, Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Peter D. MacIntyre, Department of Psychology, Cape Breton University,
1250 Grand Lake Road, Sydney, Nova Scotia, Canada B1P 6L2.
Email: peter_macintyre@cbu.ca

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
The focus of the present study is on an innovative meth-
odology that allows us to examine and describe emotional
reactions to communication processes on a per-second basis,
with a particular emphasis on women communicating in
same-gender dyads versus mixed-gender dyads. The method
we use captures a brief conversation (less than 5 min) on
video. Using a structured stimulated recall protocol and spe-
cially designed software, interactants immediately review
the video of their conversation and rate themselves on an
affective state. In the present case, anxiety is rated once per
second, producing a dense set of data reflecting continuous
changes in affective reactions during communication. In the
present study, participants also rate their conversation part-
ner by reviewing the video a second time and rating the anxi-
ety they attribute to their conversation partner. This process
allows researchers to identify convergence and divergence
between interactants. Prior research has not linked the details
of a conversation to ongoing changes in anxiety reactions in
real time. To conceptualize patterns of affective reactions,
two cross-cultural frameworks, anxiety/uncertainty manage-
ment (AUM) theory (Gudykunst, 1998) and communication
accommodation theory (CAT; Gallois & Giles, 2015), are
being used to interpret gender differences.
AUM Theory
AUM theory was developed by Gudykunst (1988, 1993,
1995, 1998) as an extension of Berger and Calabrese’s (1975)
uncertainty reduction theory, to explain both intragroup
(within cultures) and intergroup (across cultures) communi-
cation (Gudykunst & Nishida, 2001; Stephan, Stephan, &
Gudykunst, 1999). Gudykunst (1988, 1995) argued that indi-
viduals typically experience some degree of both anxiety and
uncertainty while interacting with members of another group.
During intergroup interactions, people experience more
uncertainty than would occur when interacting with mem-
bers of their own group (Gudykunst, 1995; Jaasma, 2002)
because cross-cultural encounters tend to lack the predict-
ability of intragroup encounters (Samochowiec & Florack,
2010). On one hand, some people might react negatively to
uncertainty, leading to anxiety and avoidance of interaction
with members of another group (Samochowiec & Florack,
2010). On the other hand, some people find uncertainty to be
exciting and a reason to approach persons from different
groups. Given that both anxiety and uncertainty are probable
in cross-cultural dialogue, effective communication depends
on managing them both simultaneously (Gudykunst &
Nishida, 2001; Samochowiec & Florack, 2010; Stephan
et al., 1999).
Managing anxiety is an especially relevant issue for
dyadic communication because there are only two people
involved. The back-and-forth of dyadic conversation means
that if anxiety arises for one speaker, there are no other
speakers available to take up the reins while one regains her
or his composure or train of thought. Previous research has
found that compared to males, females tend to experience
higher levels of both foreign language anxiety (Dewaele &
MacIntyre, 2014; Mahmood & Iqbal, 2010) and native lan-
guage communication apprehension (Frantz, Marlow, &
Wathen, 2005). If young girls often are encouraged by care-
givers to express emotions (McLean & Anderson, 2009),
perhaps it is not surprising that Aly and Islam (2005) found
that females tend to be self-conscious and show more con-
cern with how they are perceived by other people (Frantz
et al., 2005). The present study will examine in detail female
participants engaging in conversation with a stranger in both
intragroup (with another female) and intergroup (with a
male) dyads.
Theories of intercultural communication, such as AUM
theory, may provide insight into differences in communica-
tion processes between genders that occur in dyadic com-
munication; this is one reason to consider the so-called
different cultures approach. Adaptation of AUM theory to
the study of communication across genders allows us to
retain its core elements. Based on AUM theory, we propose
that women communicating in a dyad with men can experi-
ence more uncertainty and anxiety than women paired with
other women, analogous to the increased levels of uncer-
tainty and anxiety when communicating across cultures.
Effective communication, defined by shared meaning
(Gudykunst & Nishida, 2001; Stephan et al., 1999), would be
less likely when women are talking to men than when talking
to other women, especially if the individuals are strangers.
According to AUM theory (Gudykunst & Nishida, 2001),
there are hypothetical, optimal maximum and minimum lev-
els of both uncertainty and anxiety (neither too high nor too
low) for a communication interaction. While too much
uncertainty can reduce the confidence needed to predict the
attitudes, behaviors, values, and feelings of one’s conversa-
tional partner, having too much certainty can lead to over-
confidence and mistaken assumptions. High levels of anxiety
also can lead to reliance on simplistic information processing
and to potentially stereotyping strangers. Low levels of anxi-
ety can indicate comfort and familiarity, but in other cases
might suggest little interest and motivation to continue the
communication encounter (Gudykunst & Nishida, 2001).
AUM theory proposes that the manageable range of both
uncertainty and anxiety differs from one individual to the
next, varies with experience, and should be considered on an
individual basis.
Unfortunately, much of the past research on the AUM
theory has been done with large groups of participants
through the administration of questionnaires in which
respondents answer questions about a recalled or hypotheti-
cal conversation (Duronto, Nishida, & Nakayama, 2005;
Gudykunst & Nishida, 2001; Jaasma, 2002). A dialectic
approach to uncertainty and anxiety might examine fluctua-
tions in affect not only from one interaction to another but
also as an interaction unfolds (Gudykunst & Nishida, 2001).
Typically, anxiety about communicating with a stranger
MacIntyre 3
might be expected to decrease gradually as time goes by.
However, anxiety levels can increase suddenly at any
moment if a misunderstanding occurs (Stephan et al., 1999)
or if one partner somehow offends, embarrasses, or annoys
the other—what Gudykunst (1995) called a “catastrophe
point” in conversation. Previous AUM research has not
employed methods that allow for a description of changes in
anxiety that can be linked closely to both communication
events and affective reactions as they unfold together in time.
It is especially important to take a moment-by-moment view
of gender differences in communication as they play out in
real action and reaction sequences, as speakers either accom-
modate each other or not. Such a research approach provides
data that connect how people actually act and react verbally
with anxiety reactions and an introspective rationale. In con-
trast, prior studies such as MacGeorge et al. (2004) used
imagined conversations, recalled conversations from the past
month, and multiple-choice responses to pre-determined sce-
narios. In contrast, the present study directly examines the
affective/communication processes in which gender differ-
ences might play out as people both act and react to their
conversation partner.
CAT
CAT, first developed in the 1970s under the banner of Speech
Accommodation Theory (Giles, 1973), provides a robust
account of ways in which communication patterns change
depending on the receiver or addressee (Giles, Coupland, &
Coupland, 1991). CAT holds that accommodation processes
are fundamental to interaction, serving to manage social dis-
tance between participants and coherence in the conversation
(Gallois & Giles, 2015). A recent meta-analysis found consis-
tent moderate-to-strong positive effects for accommodation
efforts on variables such as quality of communication, rela-
tional solidarity, compliance, and trust, along with a wide
range of correlates and contexts in which CAT has been
applied (Soliz & Giles, 2014). In some situations, speakers
will be motivated toward greater accommodation and conver-
gence to the speech characteristics (such as speech rate, pitch,
volume, word choice, syntax, and so on) of their interlocutor
for a number of reasons, including making their message
more comprehensible and/or a desire to affiliate with their
conversation partner. However, there are occasions when the
tendency will be toward non-accommodation, either by main-
taining default ways of speaking or diverging from the other
person to emphasize group-level differences, such as rein-
forcing one’s ethnic identity (Bourhis, 1984; Bourhis & Giles,
1977). Using strategies of convergence, divergence, and
maintenance, speakers modulate social distances and the
comprehensibility of their message. Although some examples
of non-accommodation might be considered as striving
toward a form of mutual complementarity, as when women
raise pitch and men lower pitch to emphasize their respective
gendered identities, more often non-accommodation signals a
desire to emphasize differences or distances between groups
(Dragojevic, Gasiorek, & Giles, 2015). The consequences of
non-accommodation most often are described as negative,
including increased social distance, reduced satisfaction with
the conversation, and negative evaluations of the interlocutor
(Soliz & Giles, 2014).
Within a conversation, accommodation can take many
forms. Symmetrical accommodation occurs when both par-
ties make adjustments toward to the speech patterns of the
other; asymmetrical occurs when one of the parties makes
more of the adjustments (Gallois & Giles, 1998). Some stud-
ies suggest that women are more likely to converge than
men, but generalizations can be difficult to make. For exam-
ple, Mulac, Studley, Wiemann, and Bradac (1987) reported
that females’ gaze patterns tended to converge toward their
male interlocutor’s pattern more than males converged
toward females. Bilous and Krauss (1988) described both
convergence and divergence, as women converged toward
men’s utterance length, interruptions, and pauses, but
diverged on backchannels and laughter. Speakers who wish
to affiliate will tend to converge more than speakers who
wish to emphasize group differences, putting goals related to
individuation versus social identity into conflict (Gallois &
Giles, 2015). Motivated tendencies toward or away from
accommodations may take into account a number of factors,
including the context of the conversation, the history of inter-
group relations, and the idiosyncrasies of the participants and
their specific relationship with each other. Dragojevic et al.
(2015, p. 2-3) summarize the theory as follows:
Essentially, CAT proposes that speakers come to interactions
with an initial orientation, which is informed by past interpersonal
and intergroup experiences, as well as the prevailing
sociohistorical context. In interaction, speakers adjust their
communicative behavior based on evaluations of their fellow
interactants’ communicative characteristics, as well as their own
desire to establish and maintain a positive personal and social
identity. Each speaker evaluates and makes attributions about
the interaction, as well as about the other speaker, on the basis of
their perceptions of that other speaker’s, as well as their own,
communication. These attributions and evaluations then affect
the quality and nature of both the present interaction between
these speakers and speakers’ intent to engage in future interaction
with each other.
Perhaps most relevant to the present study is the notion that
speakers begin interactions with an initial orientation toward
(or away from) accommodating their interlocutor.
Combining AUM with CAT, taken at a dynamic, individ-
ual level of analysis, can address in detail the ways in which
genders enact their differences in communication. Of partic-
ular interest are the ways in which specific speech accom-
modations interact with the emotions and AUM of both
speakers, on the fly, to create the psychological/emotional
context of the communication process. That is, we are
explicitly avoiding a “one-size-fits-all” approach to gender
4 SAGE Open
differences in communication in favor of a highly localized,
context-dependent, and dynamic approach to understanding
the movement toward or away from accommodations as con-
versations unfold. From this perspective, we propose that
speakers may move among strategies reflecting convergence,
divergence, and/or maintenance, in reaction to conversation
events, even within the span of a few moments in time. Such
an approach is novel in the CAT and AUM literatures.
Fluctuating levels of anxiety and uncertainties provide a
meaningful way of tapping into the coordination of ongoing
cognitive, affective, and communication processes. In pur-
suit of this goal, we will employ a relatively new mixed
method that allows for a process-oriented approach to study-
ing communication by tracking moment-by-moment changes
in anxiety during dyadic conversation (generating quantita-
tive data), along with the participants’ rationale for those
changes (generating qualitative data). The method is focused
on individual-level analysis of changes or “idiodynamic.”
Idiodynamic Method
The idiodynamic method was developed as a way to capture
the interacting processes of complex, dynamic systems
(MacIntyre, 2012). Dynamic methods are necessarily differ-
ent from the conventional approach to research reflected in
the studies reviewed above (for an overview of dynamic sys-
tems applied to interpersonal communication, see Fogel,
2006). In complex dynamic systems theory (CDST), the
focus is on variability within stability and describing the pro-
cesses underlying change. Multiple interacting processes
assemble to create emergent states that are meaningful, some
of which may last a long time as in Diamond’s (2007) 10-year
study of changes in female sexuality, and other states coalesce
and then dissipate quickly as in Gregersen, MacIntyre, and
Meza’s (2014) study of anxiety reactions to public speaking
in a second language. In the case of anxiety reactions, physi-
cal, cognitive, emotional, motivational, social, and other pro-
cesses are co-regulated; their joint operation can and do
coalesce (at times) to create anxiety reactions when talking
to a stranger. From a dynamic perspective, we can ask about
the antecedent conditions that contribute to a state such as
anxiety and we can examine where it goes next—does anxi-
ety build upon itself, cascading into a vicious cycle, or does
another process intervene to alter the trajectory of the anxiety
reaction? It is easy to imagine an interlocutor who is per-
ceived as unpleasant or judgemental exacerbating anxiety at
a critical point in conversation, but equally easy to contem-
plate a friendly smile or reassuring words alleviating anxiety
in the moment. Systems continue to interact and converge in
meaningful ways as a conversation proceeds in time as part
of a continuous, ever-changing stream of interpersonal
events. The salient point for the present study is that conven-
tional methods previously used to study AUM and CAT do
not capture the ongoing dynamics of conversation in real
time. The idiodynamic method is designed to do so by
reporting results on an individual level, in large part because
the processes most relevant to anxiety reactions can differ
from one person to the next. Van Dijk, Verspoor, & Lowie
(2011, p. 62) proposed three key criteria for research meth-
ods to address research questions from a dynamic
perspective:
. . . if we really want to know how an individual (or group)
develops over time we need data that is dense (i.e. collected at
many regular measurement points), longitudinal (i.e. collected
over a longer period of time), and individual (i.e. for one person
at a time and not averaged out).
Most studies currently available in the literature reviewed
above do not meet these criteria. Test–retest designs do not
generate the density of data required to focus on the variabil-
ity that defines dynamics; to understand change it seems
fairly sensible to watch it closely as it unfolds instead of infer-
ring processes in-between two measurement times. Research
that assesses change using experimental methods necessarily
averages over multiple persons. The focus of experimental
design typically is on differences in the means of dependent
variables, with variance due to individuals assigned to the
error term in a between-group analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Individual differences (correlational) research also partitions
variance into trend lines and error around those lines, but the
interpretation of the correlation or regression focuses on pat-
terns at the group level. Data that best address the research
questions from a CDST perspective are dense, longitudinal,
and individual and therefore must be presented and inter-
preted in ways that differ from conventional research.
The idiodynamic method (Gregersen et al., 2014;
MacIntyre, 2012; MacIntyre & Legatto, 2011) allows for
multiple streams of data to emerge from a single communi-
cation event. The method is partly inspired by Gordon
Allport’s (1962) famous call for more idiographic research,
including an analysis of whether common patterns and gen-
eralizations apply to individuals. There is now good reason
to believe, as Allport suggested, that nomothetic patterns
rarely apply to individuals (Molenaar, 2004; Molenaar &
Campbell, 2009). Allport’s contemporary Saul Rosenzweig
coined the term “idiodynamic” to reflect a focus on the
unique, individual-oriented, dynamic organization of events
through time. Rosenzweig (1986) used the term idiodynamic
to refer to the consistent patterns of an individual’s personal-
ity, but here it will be used to refer to changes experienced by
a small number of individuals over a short period of time
(minutes).
The method essentially consists of four steps (MacIntyre
& Legatto, 2011):
1. A communication task occurs and is videotaped for
immediate playback.
2. A research assistant uses software written for the study
to replay the video and the participant completes a
MacIntyre 5
second-by-second rating of a given variable (in this
case anxiety). The software produces a graph of these
ratings that is printed immediately after it is completed
by the participant. Ratings are captured at the rate of
one-per-second (for example, a 3-min conversation
produces 180 anxiety ratings for each participant).
3. The participants review the graph with a researcher
and provide their reasoning for changes in ratings,
using both the graph and video as a reference. The
research assistant guides this process by the recom-
mendations for stimulated recall (Gass & Mackey,
2000).
4. The entire session is transcribed.
For the present study, an additional step was implemented.
After reviewing their own graph, each participant watched
the recording of the conversation a second time to produce
an additional set of ratings to capture data on their partner’s
perceived anxiety level during the conversation, repeating
steps 2 and 3 with their partner as the target of the anxiety
ratings. Using this approach, we can gather information
about attributions made about the interlocutor and how the
anxiety of one person might connect to the anxiety that same
person perceives in their interlocutor.
The Present Study
In the present study, the idiodynamic method is used to
describe fluctuations in anxiety. The research assistants con-
ducting the testing are both women, allowing for greater gen-
der consistency across the conversations. The focus in data
analysis is on women engaging in dyadic conversation with
a stranger, either another woman or a man. Each participant
also rates their partner’s anxiety level, allowing for a com-
parison of affective reactions of both conversation partners
over time. Space does not permit a full treatment of both
qualitative and quantitative results. Given that our emphasis
is on the dynamics of communication events in real time, and
ways in which gender seems to affect how the interactions
unfold, we have chosen to focus the presentation of dyad-
level data from excerpts of the conversations, with emphasis
on participants’ explanations for fluctuations in anxiety. The
selection of excerpts will be guided by qualitative analysis of
the conversations; to maintain a focus on individuals we will
not combine data across dyads. The main objectives of this
study can be stated as follows:
•• Describe how females differ in their explanations of
dynamic changes in anxiety between same-gender
and mixed-gender dyads.
•• Interpret the evidence of anxiety and uncertainty in
the rationales provided for the affective reactions.
•• Describe accommodation strategies enacted and how
do they relate to ongoing communication.
Method
Participants
A total of 72 people completed a pre-test questionnaire dur-
ing regularly scheduled university classes. The questionnaire
contained measures of communication traits (noted below)
and asked about favorite topics of conversation, as well as
respondents’ willingness to volunteer to come to the lab for a
videotaped conversation with a stranger. More than half of
the sample (41 of 72) who completed the questionnaire
agreed to be contacted for the lab portion of the study; sched-
uling conflicts and no-shows reduced the final number to 24:
19 females and 5 males. Participants ranged in age from 19
to 32 years, and the average age was 22.5 years. All partici-
pants were Caucasian, native English speakers, and were
raised in North America.
Materials
1. Cameras—Two high-definition webcams were used
to record the participants’ conversations and reasons
for changes in anxiety. The cameras were attached to
personal computers and videos were encoded directly
into a digital file in Microsoft Windows Movie
“.wmv” format. The recordings were displayed using
Microsoft Windows Media Player embedded in spe-
cially written software.
2. Software—Software written for idiodynamic studies
(“The Anion Variable Tester”) both played the
respondents’ video and recorded their ratings.
Participants used a computer mouse to change the
reported anxiety level by left-click (increase) or
right-click (decrease). Ratings ranged from +5 (high
anxiety) to −5 (low anxiety) and appeared on screen.
The program featured an auto-zero function that
returned the rating to zero at the rate of 1 unit per
second. This required participants to constantly mon-
itor the accuracy of anxiety levels showing on the
screen. Once ratings were completed, the program
provided a bitmap graph of the anxiety ratings and a
spreadsheet compatible with Excel of the ratings of
anxiety per second.
Procedure
In a pre-test conducted at the end of a regularly scheduled
lecture period, participants who gave informed consent com-
pleted a questionnaire that included scales measuring trait
communication apprehension (McCroskey, 1982), perceived
competence (McCroskey & McCroskey, 1988), and willing-
ness to communicate (McCroskey & Richmond, 1987). A
description of the lab portion of the study was included at the
end of the questionnaire where participants were invited to
volunteer to have a brief, recorded conversation with a
6 SAGE Open
stranger. Four conversation topics were provided which par-
ticipants rated from 1 (wanted to talk about most) to 4
(wanted to talk about least). Topics included hobbies and
interests, favorite foods, favorite television show or movies,
and favorite music. Consistent with the research ethics proto-
col, participants’ contact information was removed from the
questionnaire after they had been contacted for part 2 of the
study to protect anonymity. Conversations took place within
3 weeks of completing the pre-test questionnaire.
Each participant volunteering for part 2 of the study was
randomly paired with a stranger. It was confirmed at the time
of scheduling a lab appointment that they did not know their
interlocutor. Each participant was assigned to one of the two
conditions: female–female (7 pairs) or male–female (5 pairs).
Participants signed a second consent form, filled out a demo-
graphics sheet, and rated how similar to themselves they per-
ceived their partner to be based on a first impression. Pairs
were videotaped using a webcam while having a conversa-
tion. No time limit was imposed in advance, and the conver-
sations were approximately 2 to 5 min in length. The
suggested topic of conversation was given by the research
assistant based on the ratings of willingness to discuss each of
the topics, as noted on the pre-test questionnaire. For exam-
ple, if both rated willingness to talk about “favorite music”
highly (1 or 2), then music was suggested as an initial topic.
Participants were not necessarily constrained to any topic.
Two female research assistants were present during the con-
versations. Immediately after each conversation was finished,
each research assistant took one participant to a separate room
to watch the recording of the conversation. Participants rated
their anxiety level throughout the conversation, as they
watched the video, using the Anion Variable Tester software.
Instructions for using the software asked participants to
rate their anxiety level, with anxiety being defined by feelings
of “nervousness, worry, and/or tension.” These three specific
terms were used to help define anxiety for the participants and
to acknowledge the affective, cognitive, and physical compo-
nents of anxiety (see Spielberger, 1983). Participants then
watched the video a second time; the researcher stopped the
playback when spikes or dips in ratings were visible and
asked participants to explain the reasons for the changes in
ratings. Participants watched the video a third time, rating the
anxiety level of their conversational partner. Finally, the video
was played a fourth time asking participants to explain rea-
sons for changes in ratings of their conversation partner. With
the repeated viewing of the videos, the testing sessions lasted
approximately 1 hr. The full testing session was transcribed
and analyzed to identify themes present in the reasons for
changes in anxiety ratings, which will be the focus of the
description of results in the following.
Approach to Coding the Conversations
No pre-existing coding scheme was used; rather, we adopted
a grounded theory approach to data analysis (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990, 1998). Each dyadic conversation is unique,
with both expected and unexpected factors that may have
influenced the results in one way or another. Given the idio-
syncratic nature of communication, none of these conversa-
tions could ever be replicated, even with the same participants.
Therefore, to help us understand the fluctuations in the rat-
ings, we will focus on a qualitative analysis of the themes
identified by the respondents during the interview portion of
the study.
Immediately after the conversations, speakers were pre-
sented with a graph showing their quantitative idiodynamic
anxiety self-ratings (−5 to +5) as well as her or his own rat-
ings of their partner. The quantitative data were completely
embedded within a qualitative approach (Cresswell & Plano-
Clark, 2011). The combination of ratings and respondents’
explanations are interpreted as reflecting the respondents’
understanding of anxiety, for both self and other, within their
conversations. During analysis, the transcripts, videos, and
graphs were reviewed together to aide in interpretation, pro-
viding more information than is present in either transcripts
or audio recordings alone. Using a constant comparison
approach, open coding identified themes in each individual’s
video. Using an axial coding process, the number of themes
was reduced by grouping them. The process was undertaken
separately for the female-only and male-female dyads.
Finally, comparison of the themes generated by the axial
coding process allowed for the possibility of an overarching
theme reflecting the difference between female-only and
male-female dyads. Member checks (Maxwell, 2005) were
performed with five of the participants to test the interpreta-
tion of the results; all agreed that the major categories fit
their experience.
Results
We have organized the results into six inter-related themes:
awareness of the camera and researchers, comparison of self
and partners, self-judgment, worry about other’s judgment,
disinterest, and reaction to miscommunication.
Awareness of the Camera and Researchers
It is safe to say that the context of the present study reflects a
truly unusual situation in which to meet a stranger. Some
female participants expressed an uncomfortable awareness
of being videotaped in a room that included their conversa-
tion partner and two research assistants. In their interviews
following the conversation, none of the male participants
mentioned either the camera or researchers. However, four
of the females, two in male–female dyad and two in female–
female dyads, suggested that their own anxiety ratings were
affected by the camera and/or researchers in the room. For
some, the camera was an issue “. . . knowing I was on video
camera made me anxious because a couple of times I noticed
I was trying not to laugh because I was on camera . . .”
MacIntyre 7
Figure 1.  Idiodynamic anxiety ratings for Participants 15 and 16 in the first 20 s of their conversation.
(Female, Participant 18: F, P18). Another female participant
(P16) said that both the camera and the researchers being
present during the experiment lead her to experience more
anxiety than she normally would. Figure 1 presents a 20-s
excerpt of the conversation, the corresponding idiodynamic
self-ratings of anxiety, and the rationale provided during the
interview by both the male and female interlocutors.
Although awareness of the camera and researchers
seemed to increase anxiety for some participants, two other
females noted that at some point during the study, the salience
of the camera and the researchers diminished. One female
participant stated,
. . . I feel like we were actually talking and it was like there was
no camera it was like you guys [the female research assistants]
weren’t even there. It’s like we would talk just because we were
getting to know each other and it wasn’t like scrutinized or
anything . . . (F, P3)
From another dyad, a female participant felt,
the conversation was you know we just gelled more kind of
thing we . . . we weren’t really aware of like the camera anymore
and that kind of thing right like the actual physical environment
we were just kind of engaged in a conversation. (F, P8)
These comments suggest that the camera and the researchers
could be anxiety-provoking until a genuine interest in the
conversation developed. In general, the women described an
awareness of their surroundings as a salient part of the con-
versational dynamic in ways that the men did not. The role of
context in shaping affective reactions is highlighted in these
descriptions, but even the highly atypical features of a con-
text (e.g., cameras and researchers) can be ignored when
conversation flows well.
Comparison of Self and Partner
A second theme that was mentioned only by females was a
comparison between self and partner. This theme emerged
within five of the 12 dyads: four female–female and one
8 SAGE Open
Figure 2.  Idiodynamic anxiety ratings for Participant 6 and Participant 6’s ratings of her conversational partner (Participant 5) in the
first 20 s of their conversation.
male–female. Female participants sometimes linked anxiety
ratings to their appearance on camera (physical appearance,
nonverbal communication behaviors, etc.), relative to their
conversational partner. This category of social comparisons
was only mentioned when discussing the ratings of the other
person’s perceived anxiety level but not when discussing
one’s own anxiety ratings. For example, one female partici-
pant rated her conversational partner as calm throughout the
entire session (never on the anxious side of the graph).
However, she did notice changes in her conversational part-
ner who was viewed as “. . . still not really nervous but you
know she’s just starting to talk like she seems like she’s
really tense a little bit and you know like not as bad as me but
. . . (giggles)1” (F, P3). In more extensive example of this
theme, Figure 2 presents a 20-s excerpt of a conversation
between two females; note that the graph shows one partici-
pant’s (P6) ratings of her own anxiety and what she perceived
to be her partner’s anxiety. P6 makes note that her partner
shifted the burden of first self-disclosure to P6, after P6 had
asked the other person to go first. This non-accommodating
conversational maneuver, combined with her interlocutor’s
nonverbal behavior, appears to both heighten anxiety for P6
and reduce the anxiety she perceived in her conversation
partner. In effect, her partner’s verbal and nonverbal behav-
ior put P6 on the spot, creating an imbalance of power and
temporary differences in status that are reflected in P6’s feel-
ings of anxiety and her perception that her interlocutor was
feeling relaxed.
Self-judgment
At several points in the transcripts, female participants made
spontaneous negative comments about themselves.
Judgments of physical appearance “My little gut . . . oh
(laughs) are we recording?” (F, P21), nonverbal communica-
tion behavior “I’m clicking the pen so much . . .” (F, P2), and
their performance within the conversation “I just feel like she
. . . I talked a lot during this video . . . no I just feel like she
was just listening so she didn’t have to worry about what to
say next or something . . .” (F, P17). Figure 3 presents the
MacIntyre 9
Figure 3.  Idiodynamic anxiety ratings for Participant 23 and Participant 23’s ratings of Participant 24 in the first 20 s of their
conversation.
Note. Ratings become identical at around 9 s.
first 20 s of a conversation that did not begin smoothly. Note
that P23 was critical about her appearance without prompt-
ing and offered her comments as an explanation for the rating
of her partner’s anxiety, not in the context of her own anxi-
ety. For comparison, P23’s partner recorded zero ratings both
for herself and for her assessment of P23 throughout this
time period; the anxiety reactions appear to be one-sided.
P23’s comments reflect the evaluation of herself as she con-
templated the opening of the conversation, partially tied to
her partner’s more subdued reaction. However, P23 assumed
that she was making her partner nervous even though it is not
readily apparent from the idiodynamic ratings, transcript, or
video. Perhaps this reflects a tendency present during an
attribution process, wherein the view of self-related affect is
reflected in one’s assessment of others. Ratings of self and
other for P23 showed remarkable convergence but were very
different from her partner’s sets of ratings.
Worry About Others’ Judgment
Not only were some of the female participants making nega-
tive self-judgments, but some commented on how they
believed their conversational partner might be judging their
self-disclosure. Anxiety levels tended to increase for females
when they felt they were disclosing personal information
that could lead them to experience embarrassment, espe-
cially when they were somewhat uncertain about their con-
versational partner’s reaction. Figure 4 presents a 15-s
excerpt between two females that occurred approximately
3½ min into the conversation, when both reported feeling
comfortable. Prior to this, P3 explained that she was a vege-
tarian and P4 had said she enjoyed fried chicken (from KFC
restaurant). P4 was both discussing eating meat and eating
food generally perceived to be unhealthy; she expressed con-
cern that her partner might form a negative impression of her.
10 SAGE Open

Figure 4.  Idiodynamic anxiety ratings for Participant 4 and Participant 3’s ratings of Participant 4 in the time range of 210 to 225 s of
their conversation.

In other conversations, participants reacted to what they
thought might be expressions of increased anxiety resulting
from conversational partner’s self-disclosure. For example,
“when she told me like her favourite singer I don’t know she
seemed like she was afraid I was going to judge her or some-
thing for it, so she looked more nervous, I guess, to me”
(F, P23). Examples in this category show the need to manage
uncertainty; participants did not know for sure how they
were being judged. Not only were female participants wor-
ried about how they were being perceived but they also wor-
ried about appearing to be judging their partner. This suggests
an awareness of how the respondent is being perceived by
others within the female dyads that was not observed in the
mixed-gender dyads. There is a considerable degree of
MacIntyre 11
Figure 5.  Idiodynamic anxiety ratings for Participant 9 and Participant 10 in the time range of 60 to 80 s of their conversation.
uncertainty, complexity, and the potential for rapid arousal of
anxiety in this reflected appraisal process. If the process
becomes consciously perceived, an interlocutor, exemplified
by P23’s account in Figure 4, may decide whether to
acknowledge it and/or react to it or let it slide into the back-
ground. That is, communication accommodations might or
might not be made upon perceiving an interlocutor’s anxiety
about being judged.
Disinterest
In all five of the male–female dyads, the theme of disinter-
est emerged. Participants discussed interests that differed
from their conversation partner in television shows, mov-
ies, music, food, and hobbies. Interestingly, when miscom-
munication occurred, female participants were most often
the ones to probe for further information or try to explain
their interests to the male partner. For example, after her
male partner identified a specific television show that he
watched, the female made an effort to learn more about her
partner’s interests, “Oh, I’ve never even heard of it. Is it
just newer now?” (F, P8). The data set contains occasions
wherein male participants expressed little desire to learn
about their conversational partner’s interests. In Figure 5, a
20-s excerpt from a conversation between a male and
female, at approximately the 1-min mark, the male directly
indicates that he did not know anything about the television
show that his partner was describing. During the rating of
the video, the female participant recognizes that she was
giving out nonverbal signs of anxiety, but claims that she
does not know why she felt that way. The male participant’s
comments indicate that he was not at all interested in con-
tinuing this line of conversation. He reinforced this opinion
in his commentary about the video when he said “. . . and I
was like ‘who the hell is Jason’?,” a thought he did not
vocalize. In this case, the interview reveals in more depth
what was apparent during the conversation—he had no
interest in what she was saying. Not only did this effec-
tively terminate the conversational topic, he showed a
bump in anxiety lasting only 1 s. This was not an emotion-
arousing conversational event, as neither party reacted
strongly.
12 SAGE Open
Figure 6.  Idiodynamic anxiety ratings for Participant 9 and Participant 10 in the time range of 150 to 170 s of their conversation.
Three approaches to disinterest within the conversations
were present in the data: (a) the males simply ignored the
topic offered by the female, (b) males made a negative com-
ment about their partner’s interests, or (c) the male stated he
did not know anything about the topic, signaling a desire to
end that topic of discussion. Male participants were clear
about their disinterest in certain topics:
I don’t really get the whole reality TV, even though it’s not
reality TV, like Survivor and stuff like that where it’s this intense
reality show and all of a sudden cameras go off and I’m pretty
sure they go to like a five star hotel. (M, P15)
Other participants were less forward with their disinterest
mentioning it only to the researcher when explaining their
changes in their anxiety levels
Umm . . . that was mostly ‘cause I think when she talked about
the show that I didn’t know I was like “Oh God what’s this?”
and then it’s like oh this is a bike show and it’s like oh okay I
thought she was going to go into some elaborate thing and I just
be like “Oh my God what are they talking about?” (M, P10)
Participants also picked up on the disinterest of their partners
and believed it lead to changes in anxiety
. . . it seemed like we’re having a conversation and then when I
said I didn’t understand . . . like I didn’t know the show it just . .
. he was just kind of like “OHH . . .” like kind of shocked, like
that right, and just kind of increased . . . like “oh now I have to
explain it,” then once he got comfortable with actually explaining
it, he seemed to reduce the anxiety again “cause he knew what
he was talking about . . .”. (F, P8)
The female speaker in this excerpt seems to be suggesting
that her male conversation partner was somewhat oblivious
to her lack of experience with a particular topic (‘shocked’
that he had to explain it). Her attempts to go with the flow of
conversation and maintain harmony were unsustainable,
and she expressed the need for an explanation. As might be
anticipated, this led to an emotional reaction for both par-
ticipants as the conversation backtracked. Excerpts express-
ing self-expression being favored at the expense of
interpersonal harmony are not present in the female–female
(intragroup) data.
MacIntyre 13
Figure 7.  Idiodynamic anxiety ratings for Participant 19 and Participant 20 in the time range of 45 to 65 s of their conversation.
Reaction to Miscommunication
Miscommunication emerged within both male–female and
female–female dyads, but different dyads seemed to react to
them in different ways. Miscommunication occurred when
one participant spoke about a particular topic and the conver-
sational partner understood something different. This was
given as a reason for increases in anxiety level. For example,
[y]eah because I felt like I was explaining something and he just
didn’t understand what I was saying so I was like Oh God, so I
had to keep rambling cause he was just kind of not as responsive
I guess he was just kind of like . . . so then it made me more
anxious . . . (F, P13)
Figure 6 presents a 20-s excerpt from a male–female conver-
sation. During this conversation, the male participant mixed
up the name of an actor with the name of a character, leading
to confusion for both participants and peaks in their anxiety
ratings.
The theme of miscommunication emerged within four of
the five male–female pairs, but only one of the seven female–
female pairs. Potentially more interesting is the reaction to
miscommunication in the female dyad—harmony was pre-
served because the female participant who was misunder-
stood did not make her partner aware of the misunderstanding,
she attempted to smooth it over within the conversation. In
the post-conversation interview, P19 said, “I was like ‘oh’
cause I was agreeing with her but I wasn’t. I didn’t want to be
mean . . .” Figure 7 presents the 20-s excerpt from this con-
versation along with the idiodynamic anxiety ratings and
explanations for changes in anxiety for both females. P19
suggested it would be “mean” to break into the conversation
and reveal the miscommunication. Generally, when miscom-
munication occurred within a male–female dyad, it led to
breaks in the conversation, awkward silences, and partici-
pants making efforts to explain themselves before the inter-
action again began to flow well. Within the female–female
dyad in which miscommunication was observed, the
14 SAGE Open
conversation never stopped flowing because the misunder-
standing was not revealed to the conversation partner.
General Discussion
This study is unique in using anxiety as a window into gen-
der differences in communication accommodations. By
embedding quantitative ratings within a qualitative approach,
subtle differences in the dynamics of affective reactions and
associated conversational patterns between strangers can be
observed. The methodological approach used to study the
communication activity has not been used previously in this
way, and we argue that it represents an innovation in the
study of dyadic communication.
Together, both the AUM theory and CAT provide a frame-
work for understanding the different approaches that women
and men took to the conversations they had with strangers
and how they understood the dynamics underlying the com-
munication events. Examining the recordings of the conver-
sations led participants to express an interesting set of
rationales for their ratings. Consistent with the terminology
of CAT (Dragojevic et al., 2015), we observed that in this set
of conversations, women more often used an initial orienta-
tion toward convergence, while the men used approaches
reflecting both divergence and maintenance strategies; men
more often stood their ground and waited for their partner to
accommodate. In general, enacting divergent and mainte-
nance strategies has the potential to create uncertainty in
ascribing underlying interpersonal motives for communica-
tion. In the words of P19, drawing attention to communica-
tion problems can be interpreted as being “mean” to one’s
interlocutor.
The female participants in the present study described how
their anxiety level from moment-to-moment was affected by
a number of contextual factors such as being videotaped, the
presence of the female research assistants, and the behavior of
their conversational partner. Individuals described how they
were affected by the other person and shaped by the situation
(Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Moscovitch, Hofmann, & Litz,
2005; Singelis & Brown, 1995). Results from the present
study are consistent with Frantz et al. (2005) who found that
females, compared to males, appear to have a greater concern
for how other people perceive them and are more likely to
make comparisons within their gender. Compared to males,
the female participants described their communicative actions
and affective reactions as being more strongly shaped by the
actions and perceived reactions of their conversational part-
ner; women showed stronger tendencies toward convergence.
The female participants demonstrated a willingness to adjust
their behavior to accommodate the other person in ways that
men in this study did not (Gallois & Giles, 2015; Markus &
Kitayama, 1991; Singelis, 1994; Singelis & Brown, 1995).
Social comparison is necessary to be able to adjust one’s own
behavior to be better able to relate to the person with whom
one interacts. But there may be a price to pay for this
accommodative approach. Increased concern about being
judged by others was associated with anxiety reactions, some-
thing that is reinforced by popular media especially among
women (Frantz et al., 2005).
Within the present study, we found little indication from
the male participants that contextual factors were influenc-
ing their anxiety ratings, as was the case with their female
counterparts. While males did not describe much social
comparison or worry about how they would be perceived by
their female conversation partners in this situation, women
did describe being influenced by those two factors.
Individuals who are not influenced by contextual factors
seem to focus on their own abilities and attributes rather
than situational factors (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Singelis,
1994; Singelis & Brown, 1995), and they can be more direct
in their communication (Baumeister, 1998; Singelis &
Brown, 1995).
Perhaps the clearest examples of gender differences in
approaches to communication in the present study can be
found in Figures 5 through 7. On one hand, Figures 5 and 6
show a brief rise in anxiety for the male participant only at
the moment he explicitly dismisses his partner’s choice of
topic or realizes he has made a mistake. On the other hand,
when the female partners in Figure 7 choose to “go with the
flow” of conversation, both uncertainty and anxiety rise for
several seconds, even as interpersonal harmony is main-
tained. In these cases, miscommunication in a male–female
dyad led to awkwardness and breaks within the interaction.
However, miscommunication within a female–female dyad
was smoothed over until a more accurate understanding was
reached. The male participants generally seemed less willing
to adapt to their partners, instead preferring relatively auton-
omous, direct self-expression consistent with maintaining
social distance from their female interlocutor. This approach
has the dual effect of reducing uncertainty and managing
anxiety, albeit at the expense of interpersonal harmony. The
effects on anxiety are consistent with AUM theory
(Gudykunst & Nishida, 2001; Samochowiec & Florack,
2010; Stephan et al., 1999).
Cross and Madson (1997) suggest that females tend to
form smaller, closer personal relationships; women think in
terms of dyads (Foels & Tomcho, 2009). Males, however,
form relationships that focus more on group membership and
categories with a larger number of people, drawing identity
from groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). To the extent that this
pattern generally reflects participants’ approach to the spe-
cific conversational situation used in the present study, espe-
cially for the initial orientation, different types of
communication accommodations might be expected. CAT
predicts that, over time, relationships can become more indi-
viduated, and shared idiosyncratic history helps shape con-
versations between friends and acquaintances. However,
strangers lack the personal history shared by friends and may
be managing the salience of group membership (e.g., female
vs. male) as they enact their identity.
MacIntyre 15
There is some risk in research emphasizing gender differ-
ences in communication behavior (Hyde, 2005; MacGeorge
et al., 2004). The groups are in constant contact and they
have extensive, intimate knowledge of each other. However,
CAT theory suggests that interlocutors might choose to
emphasize differences as an optional conversational strategy
that can be enacted moment-to-moment. People are able to
choose to accommodate each other or not—a point of empha-
sis for CAT but not reflected in the gender-as-culture litera-
ture so far. In CAT, cultures interact, adapt, and regulate
relationships, acting in ways to emphasize similarities or
choosing to act in ways that emphasize group-level differ-
ences (Gallois & Giles, 2015). One of the reasons this pro-
cess matters is that there is uncertainty and anxiety about
communication motives and appraisals that other people are
making, both across groups and within them.
Uncertainty and anxiety are negotiated continuously dur-
ing interpersonal communication, and the ongoing processes
of managing one’s self-construal and self-presentation play a
role in the ongoing communication process. Conversational
twists and turns may be partly the result of choosing to
emphasize interpersonal versus intergroup similarities or dif-
ferences in reaction to previous events as communication
unfolds. Such a process might not be reflected in broad indi-
ces of communication ability, but in specific actions, reac-
tions, and the rationales underlying them.
In considering the broader pattern of results and how the
categories might fit together as a whole, there is more than a
passing consistency between results from the present study
and Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) notion of interdependent
versus independent self-construal. An interdependent self-
construal emphasizes that the self is connected to others and
has an obligation to fit in with one’s surroundings, a sense
that “we are in this together.” An independent self-construal
emphasizes that each person is a separate and unique indi-
vidual, a person who “will do my own thing.” Although
Markus and Kitayama’s theory did not guide the choice of
themes, in the end five of the six categories reported above in
which female participants feature prominently provided
examples of contextual factors, such as the researchers and
video camera, influencing anxiety ratings. Furthermore,
females showed more awareness and concern for how they
were being perceived by others, and they more often com-
pared themselves with others and worried about the judg-
ments of others. In the present sample, only males showed
disinterest, arguably expressing independence from his con-
versation partner. Examples of miscommunication were
more evident in the mixed-gender dyads, but that miscom-
munication was handled in different ways; the female–
female pair worked to preserve harmony between persons
but in mixed-gender dyads reported here, males more often
wanted to explain themselves.
By restricting our sample to dyads including females, we
are able to see how individuals can approach conversations
in different ways. AUM and CAT theory help to provide a
deeper understanding of what is happening moment-to-
moment as each interlocutor manages anxiety and uncer-
tainty by making specific conversational choices to
accommodate their partner versus expressing independence.
In the present dataset, women’s conversation appears to be
influenced at least in part by broad expectancies in the form
of interdependent self-construals, consistent with the “differ-
ent cultures” view where women appear more collectivist
and men more individualistic (Hofstede, 1980; Triandis,
1995). But there also is an element of choice involved as a
specific conversation unfolds and many other factors come
into play, such as the decision to accommodate one’s conver-
sation partner. Presumably, all participants had access to the
same “conversational toolbox” of accommodation strategies,
so the potential willingness to use those tools differently with
strangers may reflect only the opening conversational
gambit(s) used by each gender. Perhaps this helps to account
for the relatively small gender differences previously
reported in the literature using other methods (Hyde, 2005;
MacGeorge et al., 2004).
Although the concept of interdependent–independent
self-construals has been highly influential in conceptualizing
culture and communication, the evidence in support of the
theory is mixed. In critiquing research into interdependent–
independent self-construals, Matsumoto (1999) suggested
that “(i)f future research is to keep up with, and push, our
thinking in a progressive manner, we need to complement
our traditional methods of research with new, and old, meth-
ods” (p. 306). The idiodynamic method used here is novel in
that it can show the convergences that occur in real time
among the informational elements of conversation, the rela-
tionship between dyadic partners, communication accommo-
dations that are made or not made, and AUM processes. The
per-second ratings made by the participants provide a novel
dimension to the research that previously has not been
reported. The many layers of meanings within conversations
interact in a continuous stream that cannot be reduced to
group-level tendencies, as much of the prior research has
done, without losing a substantial amount of information.
Limitations and Future Research
There are limitations with the method and with current study
to be considered in the interpretation of the results. First, the
method requires dense, longitudinal, and individual-level
data (van Dijk et al., 2011). This presents a limitation that led
to a qualitative/interpretative approach in the present study,
one that is focussed on the detailed meaning of the conversa-
tion to the participants rather than statistical analysis leading
to generalizations about conversations. Prior research has
used methods that better allow for generalization, and the
present research is complementary to the existing literature. A
second limitation is the specificity of the experimental situa-
tion, which was limited to female participants and research
assistants, varying only the gender of the interlocutor. Given
16 SAGE Open
the amount of data produced, the per-second specificity of the
conversation ratings reported above, and the detailed descrip-
tions that are available with the idiodynamic method, it was
necessary to limit the study to allow for meaningful compari-
sons across conversations. The idiodynamic method lends
itself to small-n studies that address the nuances in the dynam-
ics of communication as they occur in real time. Small-n
allows for a specific focus and presentation of individual-
level results, but also imposes limitations on the breadth of
the study, and the generalizability of the results cannot be
assumed.
In addition, given the novelty of the idiodynamic method,
it is unknown at this time whether idiodynamic ratings better
reflect introspection (a self-report of their affective state dur-
ing the conversation) and/or a self-perception process (a
report of their affective state based on observable cues in the
video); there is no way to tease apart these possibilities
within the present study. Future research might manipulate
the audio/video combinations to separate introspection from
self-perception processes or use eye-tracking methods to bet-
ter understand the focus of participants’ attention when
watching themselves on video.
Within the idiodynamic method, specific elements of the
procedure also impose limitations. The focus on popular cul-
ture topics (movies, TV, food, etc.) clearly affected the direc-
tion of conversations and the affective reactions that went
with them. Different topics, such as controversies in politics
or religion, might reveal different ways of making communi-
cation accommodations, creating and managing anxiety and
uncertainty, and enacting self-construals. A second limitation
of the procedure employed here is the artificiality of the set-
ting. Although the present study allowed for experimental
control, the approach sacrificed some features of natural
communication. Participants described experimental arti-
facts, such as the video camera or the researchers being pres-
ent in the room, as influencing the way they communicated
some of the time. A third limitation is the random assignment
of conversation partners which might have produced conver-
sational trajectories that differ from those that might arise if
partners were self-selected or the persons already were
friends or acquaintances. Knowing one’s conversation part-
ner would likely affect initial uncertainty and anxiety condi-
tions, along with accommodation processes.
In future studies, it would be interesting to include male-
only dyads and/or small groups (3-5 persons) to examine
AUM in a more complex conversation and assess other
potential differences in communication accommodations. It
is possible that male-only dyads might experience some-
what different processes than were the focus in the current
study. It also is important to consider the roles played by the
research assistants who are in the room with the conversa-
tion participants. The present results show that participants
notice the presence of the research assistants—they are not
simply part of the furniture. Our approach was to employ
two female research assistants because the focus was on
how women react differently when conversing with another
woman versus a man. If this study were to be expanded with
other possible combinations of male–female partners and
research assistants (e.g., female versus male researchers
interviewing male participants), carefully accounting for the
role of the research assistants in the idiodynamic method is
necessary.
Future studies might also include individual difference
variables such as personality factors (for example: extraver-
sion, neuroticism, emotional intelligence) to examine how
traits interact with the moment-to-moment perception and
interpersonal negotiation of anxiety. It might be interesting
also for researchers to combine a physiological measure,
such as heart rate, event-related potentials, or other physio-
logical indicators with the idiodynamic ratings to examine
the relationship between physiology and self-reported affect
as it changes in real time. Further studies might focus specifi-
cally on real-time processes occurring for individuals with
diagnosed conditions, such as anxiety disorder, or ways in
which specific social or psychological contexts integrate
with the dynamics of conversation trajectories. Research
using the idiodynamic method is in its infancy, and numer-
ous adaptations and modifications to this method are
possible.
Conclusion
The results of the present study show specific ways in which
anxiety and uncertainty are managed and integrated with
self-construals, from one moment to the next, within a con-
versation. The rationales underlying female participant’s
changes in anxiety are consistent with a desire to maintain
harmonious interactions, and communication accommoda-
tions tended toward convergence with their conversation
partner. The ways in which male participants approached
talking to a female interlocutor seem to reflect more strongly
a desire to maintain their individuality and reinforce their
group membership through maintenance or divergent com-
munication accommodations. Using an innovative method
to combine quantitative anxiety ratings of the self and other,
along with participants’ rationale for changes in affect,
assessed in real time, reveal both broad and subtle processes
that underlie communication processes as they are enacted.
Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank the participants who engaged in the
research and the student researchers who contributed in many ways
to the study and to preparing the manuscript, especially Jillian
Burns who led data coding and created the figures, as well as Gillian
Potter, Esther Abel, Jessica Ross, and Samantha Ayers-Glassey.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
MacIntyre 17
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This
research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada (No. 435-2013-1944).
ORCID iD
Peter D. MacIntyre https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1085-6692
Note
1. We will use the term giggle to refer to nervous laughter and
laugh to refer to laughter resulting from humor.
References
Allport, G. W. (1962). The general and unique in psychological sci-
ence. Journal of Personality, 30, 405-422.
Aly, I., & Islam, M. (2005). Factors affecting oral communication
apprehension among business students: An empirical study.
The Journal of American Academy of Business, 2, 98-103.
Athenstaedt, U., Haas, E., & Schwab, S. (2004). Gender role
self-concept and gender-typed communication behaviour in
mixed-sex and same-sex dyads. Sex Roles, 50(1/2), 37-52.
doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000011071.68830.48
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. Gilbert & S. Fiske (Eds.),
Handbook of social psychology (pp. 680-740). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in
initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental the-
ory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication
Research, 1, 99-112. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x
Bilous, F. R., & Krauss, R. M. (1988). Dominance and accommo-
dation in the conversational behaviors of same- and mixed-
gender dyads. Language and Communication, 8, 183-194.
doi:10.1016/0271-5309(88)90016-X
Bourhis, R. Y. (1984). Cross-cultural communication in Montreal:
Two field studies since bill 101. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language, 46, 33-47. doi:10.1515/ijsl.1984.46.33
Bourhis, R. Y., & Giles, H. (1977). The language of intergroup distinc-
tiveness. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity and intergroup
relations (pp. 119-135). London, England: Academic Press.
Carli, L. L., & Bukatko, D. (2000). Gender, communication, and
social influence: A developmental perspective. In T. Eckes &
H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of
gender (pp. 295-332). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cresswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conduct-
ing mixed methods research (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-
construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5-37.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.5
Dewaele, J. M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2014). The two faces of Janus?
Anxiety and enjoyment in the foreign language classroom.
Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 4, 237-
274. doi:10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.2.5
Diamond, L. (2007). A dynamical systems approach to the develop-
ment and expression of female same-sex sexuality. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 2, 142-161.
Dragojevic, M., Gasiorek, J., & Giles, H. (2015). Communication
accommodation theory. In C. Berger & M. Roloff (Eds.),
International encyclopedia of interpersonal communication
(Vol. 1, pp. 176-196). doi:10.1002/9781118540190.
Duronto, P. M., Nishida, T., & Nakayama, S. (2005). Uncertainty,
anxiety, and avoidance in communication with strangers.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 549-560.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.08.003
Foels, R., & Tomcho, T. J. (2009). Gender differences in interde-
pendent self-construals: It’s not the type of group, it’s the way
you see it. Self Identity, 8, 396-417.
Fogel, A. (2006). Dynamic systems research on inter-individual
communication: The transformation of meaning-making.
Journal of Developmental Processes, 1, 7-30.
Frantz, J., Marlow, A., & Wathen, J. (2005). Communication appre-
hension and its relationship to gender and college year. Journal
of Undergraduate Research, 5, Article 7.
Gallois, C., & Giles, H. (1998). Accommodating mutual influence.
In M. Palmer & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Mutual influence in inter-
personal communication: Theory and research in cognition,
affect, and behavior (pp. 135-162). New York, NY: Ablex.
Gallois, C., & Giles, H. (2015). Communication accommodation the-
ory. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The international
encyclopedia of language and social interaction (pp. 1-18). NJ:
John Wiley Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi066
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology
in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data.
Anthropological Linguistics, 15, 87-105.
Giles, H., Coupland, J., & Coupland, N. (1991). Contexts of
accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Gregersen, T., MacIntyre, P. D., & Meza, M. D. (2014). The motion
of emotion: Idiodynamic case studies of learners’ foreign lan-
guage anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 574-588.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2014.12084.x
Gudykunst, W. B. (1988). Uncertainty and anxiety. In Y. Y. Kim &
W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communica-
tion (pp. 123-156). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1993). Toward a theory of interpersonal and
intergroup communication: An anxiety/uncertainty man-
agement (AUM) perspective. In R. Wiseman & J. Koester
(Eds.), Intercultural communication competence (pp. 33-71).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1995). Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM)
theory: Current status. In R. L. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural
communication theory (pp. 8-58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1998). Applying anxiety/uncertainty man-
agement (AUM) theory to intercultural adaptation training.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 227-250.
Gudykunst, W. B., & Nishida, T. (2001). Anxiety, uncertainty, and
perceived effectiveness of communication across relationships
and cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
25, 55-71. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(00)00042-0
Hannah, A., & Murachver, T. (1999). Gender and conversational
style as predictors of conversational behaviour. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 18, 153-174. doi:10.1177/0
261927X99018002002
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differ-
ences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American
Psychologist, 60, 581-592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581
18 SAGE Open
Jaasma, M. A. (2002). Friendship: The core value for sixth graders
engaged in interethnic encounters. Communication Education,
51, 152-167. doi:10.1080/03634520216508
James, D., & Drakich, J. (1993). Understanding gender differences
in amount of talk: A critical review of research. In D. Tannen
(Ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 281-312).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
MacGeorge, E. R., Graves, A. R., Feng, B., Gillihan, S. J.,
& Burleson, B. R. (2004). The myth of gender cultures:
Similarities outweigh differences in men`s and women`s pro-
vision of and responses to supportive communication. Sex
Roles, 50(3/4), 143-175. doi:10.1023/B:SERS.0000015549
.88984.8d
MacIntyre, P. D. (2012). The idiodynamic method: A closer look at
the dynamics of communication traits. Communication Research
Reports, 29, 361-367. doi:10.1080/08824096.2012.723274
MacIntyre, P. D., & Legatto, J. J. (2011). A dynamic system
approach to willingness to communicate: Developing an idio-
dynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied
Linguistics, 32, 149-171. doi:10.1093/applin/amq03
Mahmood, A., & Iqbal, S. (2010). Difference of student anxiety
level towards English as a foreign language subject and their
academic achievement. International Journal of Academic
Research, 2, 199-203.
Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-
female miscommunication. In L. F. Monaghan, L. Monaghan,
& J. E. Goodman (Eds.), A cultural approach to interpersonal
communication: Essential readings (pp. 161-178). Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Impli-
cations for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological
Review, 98, 224-253. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Matsumoto, D. (1999). Culture and self: An empirical assessment
of Markus and Kitayama’s theory of independent and interde-
pendent self-construals. Asian Journal of Social Psychology,
2, 289-310.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive
approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McCroskey, J. C. (1982). An introduction to rhetorical communica-
tion (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (1988). Self-report as an
approach to measuring communication competence. Commu-
nication Research Reports, 5, 108-113. doi:10.1080/08824098
809359810
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to com-
municate. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality
and interpersonal communication (pp. 119-131). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
McLean, C. P., & Anderson, E. R. (2009). Brave men and timid
women? A review of the gender differences in fear and anxi-
ety. Clinical Psychology Review, 29, 496-505. doi:10.1016/j.
cpr.2009.05.003
Molenaar, P. C. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic
science: Bringing the person back into scientific psychology,
this time forever. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and
Perspectives, 2, 201-218. doi:10.1207/s15366359mea0204_1
Molenaar, P. C., & Campbell, C. G. (2009). The new person-specific
paradigm in psychology. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 18, 112-117. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01619.x
Moscovitch, D. A., Hofmann, S. G., & Litz, B. T. (2005). The
impact of self-construals on social anxiety: A gender-specific
interaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 659-
672. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.05.021
Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Gibbons, P. (2001). Empirical support
for the gender-as-culture hypothesis: An intercultural analysis
of male/female language differences. Human Communication
Research, 27, 121-152. doi:10.1093/hcr/27.1.121
Mulac, A., Studley, L. B., Wiemann, J., & Bradac, J. J. (1987). Male/
female gaze in same-sex and mixed-sex dyads: Gender linked
differences and mutual influence. Human Communication
Research, 13, 323-343. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1987.tb00108.x
Rosenzweig, S. (1986). Idiodynamics vis-à-vis psychology.
American Psychologist, 41, 241-245.
Samochowiec, J., & Florack, A. (2010). Intercultural contact under
uncertainty: The impact of predictability and anxiety on the
willingness to interact with a member from an unknown cul-
tural group. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
34, 507-515. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.05.003
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and inter-
dependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 20, 580-591. doi:10.1177/0146167294205014
Singelis, T. M., & Brown, W. J. (1995). Culture, self, and collectiv-
ist communication. Human Communication Research, 21, 354-
389. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1995.tb00351.x
Soliz, J., & Giles, H. (2014). Relational and identity processes in com-
munication: A contextual and meta-analytical review of communi-
cation accommodation theory. In E. Cohen (Ed.), Communication
yearbook 38 (pp. 106-143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory (STAI). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Stephan, W. G., Stephan, C. W., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1999).
Anxiety in intergroup relations: A comparison of anxiety/
uncertainty management theory and integrated threat theory.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 613-628.
doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(99)00012-7
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative
research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative
research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of
intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.),
Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL:
Nelson-Hall.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Van Dijk, M., Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2011). Variability
and DST. In M. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A
dynamic approach to second language development: Methods
and techniques (pp. 55-84). Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
John Benjamins.
Wood, J. T. (2002). Interpersonal communication: Everyday
encounters. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Author Biography
Peter D. MacIntyre is a professor of psychology at Cape Breton
University. His research focusses on the psychology of language
and communication processes in native and additional languages.
He has published on language anxiety, willingness to communicate,
motivation and other topics.