Coordinated Management of Meaning

The Structure of Communication Rules and the Form of Conversation:
An Experimental Simulation
by Julia Kindl

bar

W. Barnett Pearce and Vernon Cronen, the authors of the Coordinated Management of Meaning theory (CMM), developed a conversation simulation to illustrate some of the main tenets of their theory. This article explains in depth both the theory and the results of the simulation to provide a broader background to CMM as a whole.

The article begins by establishing that in communication, according to CMM, two people who are interacting socially construct the meaning for their conversation. Each of the individuals is also comprised of an intrapersonal system which helps explain their actions and reactions. There are two forces that help define the rules by which a person acts - logical force and practical force.

Logical force is the range of possible interpretations of the other person's message, as well as the range of responses. (Small range of possibilities equals strong logical force.)

Practical force explains the constraints individuals place on the many possible logical choices by considering the consequences of each choice.

Both forces have variable strengths in different conversations. The degree of determinism (how strongly the rules affect the communication) is calculated by analyzing the varying degree of both logical and practical forces. Pearce and Cronen's study determined this and then used the simulation to calculate the degree of determinism empirically (thus applying a scientific principle to a theory that we have critiqued as humanistic.)

In order to further analyze communication we must examine the two types of rules which are determined by the forces in conversation. They are constitutive and regulative rules.

Constitutive rules govern the meaning assigned to a speech act, given a specific situation.

Regulative rules concern the way individuals organize the meaning of speech acts in a sequence.

Once we have established the forces behind the rules and the two types of rules, we must look at the structure of the rules themselves. Pearce and Cronen borrowed two terms from systems theory to explain these structures, equifinality and multifinality. Equifinality means "many causes of the same effect," either many messages with the same meaning (constitutive rules), or many possibilities which may follow a given speech act in an exchange (regulative rules.) Multifinality is the opposite, meaning "many effects of the same cause." This can be the number of meanings that can be applied to one message (constitutive) or the number of subsequent acts which can follow any given message (regulative.)

The conversation simulation designed by Pearce and Cronen used a set of index cards with colored shapes on them to simulate an artificial language. Each of the two participants was provided with a set of cards and the rules for play. These rules were both constitutive (a circle means "A") and regulative (if the other person plays a circle, you must play a square.) The object of the exercise was to construct a specific four-letter sequence in 12 tries. (Both color and shape were altered.) By changing the rule structures and varying the degree to which the rules of the two people were similar the logical force involved could be theoretically changed. For example, constitutive equifinality could be changed by assigning a single letters to multiple symbols. Constitutive multifinality could be manipulated by assigning more than one letter to a symbol. Regulative rules were altered in the same manner.

This conversation simulation measured the amount of logical force in an exchange. (The study also discussed perceptions of self and other among other issues but the primary focus for this paper is the logical force.) Pearce and Cronen assert that, "High logical force is generated when actors have low equifinality and multifinality, and/or when the specific combination of two persons' rules restrict the range of legitimate meanings and actions." This restriction allows the participants to coordinate their actions and complete the game more easily.

The results of the conversation simulation resulted in the following general conclusions by Pearce and Cronen:

1) Changing the rule structure affected the particpants ability to coordinate their behavior and produce the desired sequence. The highest degree of coordination occured when the logical force was the greatest and the rules were symmetrical. The lowest degree of coordination occured when the complexity and the content were both asymmetrical.

2) When logical and practical forces conflicted the participants experiences feelings of loss of control over the game and their coordination with their partner.

The simulation results are understandable - they prove what should seem fairly obvious in the first place. When two people have a definitive motive driving their conversation and agree (unconsciously, perhaps) on how they are going to conduct their discussion, it would make sense that they were able to coordinate with each other. Nevertheless, a scientific study such as this definitely helps support Pearce and Cronen's theory of the Coordinated Management of Meaning.

SOURCE

Pearce, W. Barnett, et al. "The Structure of Communication Rules and the Form of Conversation: An Experimental Simulation." Western Journal of Speech Communication 44 (1980): 20-34.

Coordinating meaning, and thus, actions with others is one of the main goals of coordinated management of meaning theory. This research page from symbolic interactionism explains another way in which individuals coordinate their actions. Blumer's "root images" of society are another foundation for understanding meaning and coordinating action. By interpreting the actions of another (the basis for symbolic interactionism), we are further able to coordinate (a goal of CMM!)

Return to the Title Page

Last modified: 3/15/00