Politeness Strategies in Imagined Conversation ...

506708

research-article2013

JLS33110.1177/0261927X13506708Journal of Language and Social PsychologyPitts et al.

Article

Politeness Strategies in Imagined Conversation Openers About Eldercare

Journal of Language and Social Psychology 2014, Vol 33(1) 29–48 © 2013 SAGE Publications DOI: 10.1177/0261927X13506708 jls.sagepub.com

Margaret J. Pitts1, Craig Fowler2, Carla L. Fisher3, and Stephanie A. Smith1

Abstract In the United States, many adult children and their aging parents reach the point when it is necessary to address future care needs of the parent. Given that the prevailing culture values independence over interdependence, discussing future care needs can be face threatening. Therefore, an examination of how adult children approach such conversations and manage face needs is an important first step toward understanding what makes these conversations effective and supportive. We use politeness theory to illuminate ways in which adult children incorporate facework in imagined messages (“openers”) to initiate a conversation with their aging parent about eldercare. Openers were thematically coded for politeness strategies and messages. Imagined openers featured complex “strings” of positive and negative politeness strategies. Implications are addressed. Keywords aging, decision making, eldercare, facework, family, health, intergenerational communication, parent–child communication, politeness theory

Although aging is universal, the experiences and expectations of aging are culture bound, as is communication about it. Cultural values deeply influence communication processes and expectations between generations (see, e.g., Giles et al., 2003; Giles, 1The

University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA University, Auckland, New Zealand 3George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA 2Massey

Corresponding Author: Margaret J. Pitts, Department of Communication, University of Arizona, 1103 E. University Boulevard, P.O. Box 210025, Tucson, AZ 85721-0025, USA. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from jls.sagepub.com by guest on December 21, 2015

30

Journal of Language and Social Psychology 33(1)

Hajek, Stoitsova, & Choi, 2010; Giles, Khajavy, & Choi, 2012; Giles, Makoni, & Dailey; 2005). For instance, the United States, similar to many Western cultures, tends to place a high value on youth over age, independence over interdependence, and direct over indirect styles of communication (Gudykunst et al., 1996; Hall, 1976; Hofstede, 2001; Pecchioni, Ota, & Sparks, 2004), all of which influence how (and whether) individuals experience, plan for, think, and talk about aging and later life. One concern for aging adults in the West is how to maintain independence and autonomy in later life when health care needs might necessitate increased dependence on family members or social structures (Bell & Menec, 2013). Thus, in the cultural context of the United States, concerns regarding autonomy and independence are often at the forefront of aging and intergenerational communication and can make conversations about eldercare between adult children and their aging parents extremely challenging (Hummert & Morgan, 2001; Morgan & Hummert, 2000). Despite the AARP’s (2012) directive that aging parents “should be at the center of all discussions and actions surrounding their care,” family discussions about eldercare are quite rare (Bromley & Blieszner, 1997; Fowler & Fisher, 2009; Pecchioni, 2001). Moreover, although such conversations seem to be well-received when they occur (Carpenter & Mulligan, 2009), little is known about how they happen or what differentiates effective from ineffective discussions. We believe that politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987) provides a useful framework for understanding conversations of this kind, in which interlocutors enter territory where identity, or “face,” is at stake (Holtgraves, 2005; Locher, 2008). Of particular importance in the U.S. context, politeness theory provides a framework for investigating ways in which communicators linguistically manage face needs for connection and autonomy. Furthermore, by applying politeness theory, we may be able to develop a relatively accessible vocabulary and repertoire of techniques for broaching conversations about eldercare with which adult children can be equipped. This would meet a significant need, as Blieszner and Mancini (1987) found that even families who were aware of the necessity to discuss future care needs often felt unsure as to how they could do so, and Fowler and Afifi (2011) learned that for adult children, believing that they possessed the communicative skills to discuss eldercare with parents was a key predictor of whether they actually engaged in such conversations. This investigation represents the starting point for a larger body of work designed to test the effectiveness of conversation-opener strategies about eldercare (see Fowler, Fisher, & Pitts, in press). As such, it reports on the descriptive data collected from a snowball sample of adult children who were asked to create a conversation “opener” that would “get the ball rolling” for a discussion with their aging parents about future care needs.

Later Life Care Conversations Starting later life care discussions with parents can be difficult for adult children as they might feel unsure as to how to approach the topic (Carpenter & Mulligan, 2009) or manage implications for dependency and role reversal (Baltes, 1996; Cicirelli,


31

Pitts et al.

2000). Parents might also be reluctant to engage in eldercare conversations because they want to maintain independence and autonomy (Bell & Menec, 2013; Morgan & Hummert, 2000) and wish to avoid burdening their children (Carpenter & Mulligan, 2009; Pinquart, & Sorensen, 2002). Despite the fact that adult children and parents identify several reasons for avoiding discussions of future care needs, organizations such as the AARP urge families to discuss what their interwoven futures may hold. Although some families may find phases of life involving parental care to be rewarding, others find this time to be fraught with difficulties and uncertainty that may be all the more challenging in the absence of discussion about future care needs. For instance, older parents may struggle to adapt to the loss of autonomy and find that receiving care from children is humbling, intrusive, or humiliating (Heinemann, 2009). Moreover, adult children caregivers may experience marital stress (Archbold, 1983; Hoyert & Seltzer, 1992), declines in mental health (Pinquart & Sorensen, 2002), or financial strain (Wakabayashi & Donato, 2005). Although it would be stretching the case to suggest that simply talking about future care arrangements and needs will render parental dependency unproblematic, Delehanty and Ginzler (2008) and Loverde (2000) argue strongly that such conversations may ease some of the challenges of caregiving. Unfortunately, because many people do not know how to initiate these conversations or fear their outcomes, they avoid them (Blieszner & Mancini, 1987), rely on their implicit knowledge of each other in making decisions rather than engage in dialogue (see Pecchioni, 2001), or wait until there is a health crisis to make later life decisions (Wright et al., 2008). Yet when conversations of this kind do occur, participants often report positive outcomes, such as satisfaction with the discussion and decision making (Carpenter & Mulligan, 2009) as well as a sense of relief and security, and reduced anxiety and conflict when the time comes to implement plans (Pratt, Schmall, & Wright, 1987). Previous research suggests that for adult children, an important antecedent to discussing future care needs with parents is the perception that they have the communicative ability to do so (Fowler & Afifi, 2011). Because they may doubt their ability to initiate eldercare discussions while respecting parents’ face or identity needs (e.g., their need to be treated respectfully as competent beings and to have their freedom preserved), grounding our study in politeness theory may yield insight into how children can most successfully initiate such conversations, thereby enhancing the feeling of communication efficacy. We believe that it is vitally important that adult children attend to parental identity concerns in their initial attempt to initiate discussion of eldercare, as failing to do so may not only lead to the collapse of the current discussion but make it more difficult to reapproach the subject in the future.

Face, Face Threats, and Politeness Embedded (and therefore at risk) in every interaction is a person’s sense of self—or face. “Face” is the term used by Goffman (1967) to describe the public identity or positive social value that a person claims during an interaction. Brown and Levinson (1987) describe face as being imbued with two simultaneous, and sometimes


32


contradictory, wants—to be socially approved of and to remain unimpeded. These are known, respectively, as positive and negative face. Speech acts that risk harming a person’s face are called face-threatening acts (FTAs; Brown & Levinson, 1987). Positive face needs center on the desire to have one’s attributes and accomplishments be well-regarded (Metts, 1997). Two components of positive face described by Lim and Bowers (1991) are fellowship face and competence face. Fellowship face is a person’s desire to be included and viewed as a good companion while competence face is a person’s desire to be respected and appreciated. In the present context, honoring one’s positive face may not involve deeply elaborated compliments, but simple recognition of personal qualities such as stoicism (“I know you never complain about things”), independence (“You’ve never acted like you need other people’s help”), or selflessness (“I’m worried that you might not tell us if you need help because you don’t want to trouble us”). Speech acts that imply the speaker does not care about, or has a negative evaluation of, some aspect of the listener are considered threats to positive face. Brown and Levinson (1987) list several explicit threats to positive face, including criticism, bringing up/delivering bad news, initiating divisive topics, being noncooperative, and status marking. Clearly, as adult children attempt to discuss later life care with parents, they risk conveying the sorts of messages that threaten parents’ positive face. For instance it could be face threatening if the child remarks that the yard does not look as though it has been taken care of, suggests that a parent is no longer capable of living independently, or behaves paternalistically by making decisions on behalf of a parent without permission. Negative face reflects a person’s desire for autonomy, freedom from obstruction, and independence (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Lim & Bowers, 1991). To show regard for a person’s negative face, one would avoid imposition, intrusion, and commanding requests. Negative face is threatened when a speech act obligates listeners to engage in some future act, pressures them to do something, or requires them to accept or reject some future act of the speaker (Brown & Levinson, 1987). In the context of later life care conversations, requesting that a parent engage in a discussion of future care needs, insisting that they do so at a time of the child’s choosing, asking them to promise that they will think about having such a discussion, or even offering advice about the best course(s) of action may all risk threatening a parent’s negative face and restricting that parent’s perception of autonomy. Family discussions about later life care unavoidably involve threats to positive and negative face for both parents and children (Hummert & Morgan, 2001). Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory argues that people manage face threats in interaction via five conversational “strategies.” The first strategy, refraining, may be the most common with respect to eldercare conversations (Blieszner & Mancini, 1987). With this strategy, one can refrain from committing an FTA simply by avoiding the conversation. Refraining often happens when a speaker decides that potential face threats outweigh the need for talk. This strategy is problematic for it precludes productive, positive dialogue about later life health and foregoes an opportunity to convey support and nurturance (Morgan & Hummert, 2000).


33

Pitts et al.

The off-record strategy also does not perform an overt FTA. Rather, it consists of ambiguous statements or questions about a topic. This strategy allows a speaker to uphold the listener’s face by leaving the interpretation of their remarks to the listener. By placing the responsibility for uptake on the listener, an adult child might encourage feelings of autonomy and independence desired by many older adults (Morgan & Hummert, 2000), as this requires a parent to actively choose to pursue a conversation despite only having an ambiguous invitation to do so. Of course, the speaker’s indirectness also affords the recipient the opportunity to decline pursuit of the topic with impunity. The bald-on-record strategy entails performing the FTA without redress and may be the result of a sense of urgency or lack of concern about another’s face. This strategy involves using a direct, unambiguous message (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Although one advantage of this strategy is its explicitness, a corresponding risk in intergenerational communication is that the message’s directness can imply a lack of respect, nurturance, and sensitivity (Morgan & Hummert, 2000). This strategy is the most threatening to the listener’s face needs (Brown & Levinson, 1987), which may be problematic in delicate conversations about caregiving. If adult children try to initiate such conversations without attending to parental face needs, they can appear to be controlling, confrontational, and patronizing (Morgan & Hummert, 2000). Assuming the need for discussion is important enough to warrant the FTA, and that there are not circumstances (e.g., urgency, need for maximum efficiency) that warrant a bald-on-record FTA, a speaker has the option of choosing to do the FTA with redress by using positive and/or negative politeness. Positive politeness seeks to bolster the listener’s positive face by demonstrating affection, affiliation, and/or cooperativeness, for example (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Caplan & Samter, 1999). Negative politeness strategies attempt to honor negative face by de-emphasizing the imposition placed on the listener (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Unlike positive politeness, which can bolster any feature of the listener’s positive face, negative politeness refers specifically to the conversational infringement (e.g., request to talk about difficult topic) and is characterized by apologies, deference, self-effacement, and restraint (Brown & Levinson, 1987). We used politeness theory to examine how messages constructed by adult children to initiate a conversation with their aging parent about future care needs attended to their parent’s face needs. A long line of research by Honeycutt (2003, 2010) suggests that people quite naturally engage in “imagined interactions,” and that imagining conversations with others can help individuals develop goals and devise plans for their attainment (Allen & Honeycutt, 1997). Imagined interactions can serve as a form of rehearsal for future conversations that result in improved capacity for using diverse kinds of messages, greater fluidity of speech, anticipating (and avoiding or rising to) conversational challenges, and reduced nonverbal displays of anxiety (Allen & Honeycutt, 1997). Moreover, people tend to engage in them before having a real conversation and they most often occur with close, intimate others on personally significant topics (Honeycutt, Zagacki, & Edwards, 1990). That individuals spontaneously engage in imagined interactions as a form of planning, and often seem to benefit from doing so, suggests asking adult children to imagine what they would say to parents to


34


broach the topic of caregiving is both a valid and ethical way of enhancing our understanding of family conversations about future care needs. The following research questions guided our study: Research Question 1: How do adult children honor their parent’s positive and negative face needs in imagined conversation openers about later life care? Research Question 2: How do adult children threaten their parent’s positive and negative face needs in imagined conversation openers about eldercare?

Method Participants Adult children (mean age = 49 years; range = 20-69 years) with living parents (mean age = 75 years; range = 50-96 years) were recruited from universities in Virginia, Arizona, and California. The study received institutional review board approval at all three sites. Using snowball sampling, we asked students to recruit individuals (e.g., family members, coworkers, etc.) who met the inclusion criterion for the study (i.e., having a living parent aged 50 years or older) to participate. We also invited students who met inclusion criteria to participate. Student respondents and recruiters earned a small amount of course credit for their assistance. Alternative opportunities were offered to students who chose not to participate. A total of 108 respondents participated. Respondents were predominantly female (62%, n = 67) and Caucasian (65%, n = 71). Other groups represented in the sample include Hispanic (10%, n = 11), African American (9%, n = 10), mixed or other ethnicity (5%, n = 6), Asian American (2%, n = 3), and Native American (1%, n = 1).1 Most participants constructed openers imagining they were talking to their mother (83%, n = 90).

Procedures Respondents either completed the questionnaire electronically (via SurveyMonkey, n = 52, or e-mail, n = 3) or as a paper-and-pen questionnaire (n = 53). Participants read a brief description of the study and a statement from AARP (2010a, 2010b) suggesting adult children start eldercare discussions with parents by describing how eldercare makes them feel or remarking on how the parent or parent’s situation had changed recently. Similar to other studies investigating the use of politeness strategies in health contexts (e.g., Holtgraves & McNamara, 2010), respondents were instructed to think about and subsequently write out “EXACTLY what WORDS you would say . . . to raise the topic of care needs with a parent . . . to ‘get the ball rolling’ and start the conversation.” Respondents were then instructed to write their message in the space provided. The average length of messages was 49 words with a maximum of 157 words and a minimum of 10. Handwritten and electronic messages were similar in length and diversity with a slight trend for handwritten messages to be longer (mean length = 57 words vs. 41 words).


35

Pitts et al.

Coding and Data Analysis After independently reviewing the messages several times to gain familiarity with the texts, two researchers collaboratively and simultaneously engaged in line-by-line coding of the messages. Through the negotiated process of collaborative coding, we discussed each unit of analysis and the placement of text into categories and codes until we reached 100% agreement on placement and description of codes. When necessary, we revised the coding scheme to accommodate new data. Once the codes and their definitions were finalized by the first coders, the entire research team reviewed, discussed, and negotiated findings until the team reached agreement on the placement and description of codes and themes. Throughout the process, the unit of measurement was a complete thought expressed in writing by participants. The first level of analysis was to categorize message units as honoring positive face (HPF), honoring negative face (HNF), threatening positive face (TPF), threatening negative face (TNF), or as being bald-on-record or off-record statements. After isolating individual message units, we searched inductively for message themes within each of the above categories. The process of coding involved first assigning an open code to relevant data. Open codes are provisional labels that tag a unit of data as meaningful by using either an in vivo code (using verbatim expressions as codes) or by creating a label that very specifically represented the unit of analysis. Next, we engaged in axial coding whereby we examined each open code in relation to other open codes and (a) searched for recurrent patterns within open codes, (b) categorized open codes thematically, and (c) condensed relevant codes (see Strauss & Corbin, 1998). We attended to both frequency and intensity of message units in determining thematic significance (e.g., the less frequent but powerful use of messages that threaten a parent’s positive face).

Results Eighty percent (n = 86) of the openers included messages coded as honoring or threatening parents' positive and/or negative face while 6% (n = 7) of openers included just a bald-on-record statement, 6% (n = 6) of the openers included only an off-record message, and an additional 6% (n = 7) of the messages were merely descriptive in nature (e.g., describing a family approach to eldercare but not providing a message). Two messages (2%) were incomplete. Thus, 99 of the 108 messages were analyzed for their politeness content. In sum, we identified 203 unique message units that honored parents' negative face (n = 75; 37%), threatened parents' negative face (n = 55; 27%), honored parents' positive face (n = 58; 29%), or threatened parents' positive face (n = 15; 7%). Just over half of the complete messages offered by adult children (n = 57; 58%) included complex strings of politeness strategies (i.e., messages that combine multiple politeness strategies) rather than singular message strategies. Complex strings included up to six linked politeness message units, with most of them falling between two and three links (n = 47; 82%). Among the strings of politeness moves, HPF (n = 23; 40%), then TNF (n = 20; 35%), were the most frequent opening politeness move. That is, 75% of the complex messages included politeness moves that began with HPF or TNF. Politeness strings most frequently ended with HNF (n = 34; 60%).


36


Honoring Parents’ Face Needs Message units that honored parents’ negative or positive face comprised 66% of the data. This indicates the emphasis adult children placed on managing parental face needs in conversation openers. We sought to answer how this was done by identifying themes within these categories. Honors Negative Face. Message units honoring parents’ negative face appeared most frequently in the data (n = 75) and were the most frequent closing politeness move in complex messages (60% of the time). Five distinct themes centered on the child’s desire to give the parent as much independence and conversational control as possible, while also acknowledging topic sensitivity. Child solicits parent’s concerns regarding eldercare. The first HNF message theme captured children’s efforts to gather parents’ accounts/perceptions of their well-being rather than rely on the child’s observations or assumptions. One way children did this was by asking the parent “how [do] you feel about these things and what concerns [do you] have?” Rather than presuming that the children already understood their parent’s situation or needs, which would impede on the parent’s right to free choice, such messages offer parents the opportunity to describe their situation/concerns from their own perspective. This strategy helps preserve parental autonomy while generating multiple options. Messages within this theme also included strategic efforts by children to discover parental preferences for later life care. For example, one child offered, “let’s discuss the things that are most important to you and talk about situations you’d want to avoid,” which clearly ceded control to the parent and protected their agency. Child seeks permission to talk about later life care. Another way children honored negative face was by avoiding coercion through seeking permission to talk. This theme included messages wherein children left it up to the parent to decide whether to pursue the discussion, postpone it, or avoid it entirely. One son asked, “Is this something that we can set up a time to sit down and talk about?” Messages within this theme included phrases like “should we talk about it?,” “can we talk?,” “I was wondering if you would like to talk about . . .,” or “wondering if we could talk about . . .” Child gives parent responsibility to indicate their care needs and desires. Adult children also honored negative face by avoiding coercion and maximizing parental control. Messages within this theme put the parent in charge of telling the child when or how to do something (e.g., “when [would] you like for us to put your wishes into effect?” “how would you like me to handle that?” or “what [would you] like me to do for you?”). Children also asked their parents to tell them “how we can help take better care of you.” Finally, phrases like “should we come up with options?” honor the parent’s freedom of choice concerning eldercare. Child acknowledges the sensitivity of the topic. Another way adult children honored negative face was through messages that demonstrated children’s desire not to impinge on their parent by bringing up the topic of eldercare. This was done, for example, by showing reluctance to initiate the conversation and addressing sensitivity of the topic. Expressing reluctance is one means by which speakers honor negative face (Brown &


37

Pitts et al.

Levinson, 1987), especially in light of the need to make a request or initiate a taboo topic. Messages coded within this theme included phrases, such as “I know this is a very sensitive issue, but . . .” and “this may not be something you want to hear, but . . .” and followed with a statement about the importance or necessity of the topic. Acknowledging the sensitive nature of the topic attends to parents’ negative face needs by providing an easy justification for their decision not to engage in this conversation. Child demonstrates awareness of the importance of parental independence. This final theme for honoring negative face also reflected children’s desire to avoid imposition by highlighting and recognizing the parent’s need for autonomy. Statements like, “I know how much you value your independence” were often followed by children’s concerns about the aging parent. Such statements tacitly conveyed a respect for parental self-determination that implies the child will not seek to seize control and will strive to avoid limiting parental autonomy. Honors Positive Face. HPF messages made up 29% of the total message units and were most frequently used as the opening politeness strategy in complex strings (40% of the time). The six themes that encompass this message strategy largely centered on supporting parents’ fellowship and competence face (Lim & Bowers, 1991) by noticing and attending to the parent’s interests, wants, and needs; demonstrating cooperation; and/or establishing same wants (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Child emphasizes love and caring for parent when addressing future care needs. This use of positive politeness involved children stressing their admiration and love for parents, thereby attending to parents’ fellowship face needs (Lim & Bowers, 1991). Expressions ranged from implicit messages of caring, “you guys have been on my mind a lot lately,” to more explicit messages, “I care about you both so very much.” In many cases, expressions of caring led to a request for a future care needs discussion or an expression of concern (e.g., “Dad, you know that I love you, and I am concerned about your health”). In other words, expressions of love and caring often “opened” the opener. The following message, written by a son, nods to fellowship face and demonstrates an intimate message of love: Dad, I want you to know how much I love you and that I respect no other person on this Earth more than you. Much of who I am as a man, father and husband comes from the modeling of your life that I have watched and observed in my lifetime. Because of this love and respect that I have for you, I want to make sure that your bases are covered in regards to any needs that may come up at any time in your lifetime. Is this something that we can set up a time to sit down and talk about?

Child demonstrates concern for parent’s comfort, safety, and well-being. Messages within this theme demonstrated the child’s efforts to notice and attend to the parent’s individual wants, needs, or interests. This was accomplished by showing interest in the parent’s well-being through questions such as, “how are you feeling lately,” or “how’s it for you on a daily basis?” It also included more explicit messages such as, “I care about you and your welfare,” “We care about you and your well-being and we wanted


38


to talk about how we can help take better care of you,” and “more than anything I want you to be safe and taken care of.” Note that many of these messages begin with an allusion to fellowship face (as above) and follow with the child’s desire to ensure that the parent is attended to and that her/his wants are satisfied. Child assures parent they are in a partnership with regard to future care planning. Here, adult children’s messages demonstrate cooperativeness and establish that the child wished to be “on the same page” as the parent. Often, this was expressed by the use of “we” or “us” as a collaborative effort to plan and discuss the future, as in “it will help us both work toward exploring ways you can live your life on the terms you dictate.” This theme also included assurances that the child “will be there for you no matter what you decide,” and that the parent “can ask for help from me no matter what.” Child seeks advice/assistance from parent in their own future care planning. This theme also reflected a desire to honor positive face through cooperation by placing the parent in the role of advisor. Such messages honor parents' competence face by demonstrating respect for the parent and valuing the parent’s knowledge. Messages here indicated coaction wherein the child and parent were “cooperatively involved in the relevant activity” (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 125) of later life planning. For example, one respondent wrote, “It might help me work on my plan if we work on your plan.” Child expresses desire to spend time with parent as part of future care plans. Children also honored parents' positive face by demonstrating affiliation and positive regard for their parent through messages that emphasized the desire to spend time with the parent. Messages within this theme included not only general statements about wanting to spend more time with the parent (“Dad, we want to share more time with you”) but also invitations for the parent to live with the child. For example, children indicated they would “be happy to have [mother] live with us” and they “look forward to that time [when the parent lives with the child.]” Demonstrating awareness of the delicate balance of face needs, one child wrote, “Please think about it—I really want you to— but only if you want to.” Child emphasizes parent deserves good care in the future. This theme honored parents’ positive face by demonstrating that the child wants good things for the parent in the future. It included expressions about the child’s desire to “give back to the parent” and “take care of you while I can, like you took care of me when I was young.” These messages recognized a mutual desire for family members to care for one another and stressed that the parent has “always supported us and helped us making our way through life.” Children believed it was now their turn to “pay back” the parents. Other messages within this theme emphasized parents should receive the care and support they “deserve” in order to make their “life easier.” These messages honor parents’ positive face by attempting to establish that the child shares the same “wants” as the parent about the parent’s future.

Threatening Parents' Face Needs Message units that threatened parents’ negative or positive face comprised 34% of the data with threats to negative face (27%) far outpacing threats to positive face (7%).


39

Pitts et al.

Research Question 2 sought to identify message themes that threatened parents’ positive and negative face. Threatens Negative Face. Across the data, TNFs occurred almost as frequently as HPFs and were only slightly less likely than HPF to open a complex string (35% of the time). Notably, TNFs were almost always followed by an honoring face move. Despite their presence across the data, just two core themes emerged. TNF messages tended to place the parent in a submissive role by directing or commanding them or by presuming the parent’s need for care. Child commands/directs parent to consider or act on future care needs. Message units within this theme included small phrases, such as “you should,” “we must,” “it is time to,” and “we need to talk,” indicating an immediate need to discuss future care needs. Other messages within this theme included explicit statements about what the parent should do (e.g., “It’s time you come and live with me”). TNF messages eliminated the parent from the discussion by taking away their participation in the process (e.g., “I’m going to call and set up a doctor’s appointment for you”) and not allowing them to make decisions (e.g., “the girls and I will have to make a decision about your long term care”). Child emphasizes/presumes parent’s waning independence in messages. Messages within this theme demonstrated adult children’s presumption that the parent will need assistance. This threat to negative face resides in the presumptiveness of the child’s message rather than loss of autonomy in the future (Brown & Levinson, 1987). This was exemplified by messages such as, “when the time comes that you can no longer take care of yourselves,” “when it gets too hard to keep up with things around here,” and “someday you won’t be able to live alone.” Threatens Positive Face. Despite appearing less frequently in the data, three themes represent threats to positive face. Threats to positive face largely presented negative views about aging and negative attitudes toward caring for an aging parent. Child highlights old age. Some children threatened positive face by making age salient and using it as the impetus for the child to take control or initiate a discussion. For example, “as you are aging, we all need to figure out how you would like to be cared [for].” Here, the child commits a positive face threat followed by a negative face threat. In another example, the child wrote “I don’t think you’re old, I am not implying you are old, but . . .” and by doing so, the child (perhaps inadvertently) made the parent’s age salient while at the same time suggesting that “being old” is undesirable. Child criticizes parent’s future care plans or health behaviors. This theme included messages where the child implied that the parent’s future plans were inadequate (e.g., “I am concerned about your plans”). Or, as in the excerpt below, the child directly criticized the parent’s past behavior or statements. You are so negative about “I am NOT going to a nursing home!” And you are adamant that you “will NEVER live with any of my children” because of your past experiences— but what happens when everyone, but you, notices you need help? You are forgetting things and not eating well and are pretty much all alone here.


40


Child indicates caring for aging parent is a burden. One final threat to positive face included message units that indicated the child either would not or could not take care of the parent. Some messages included less harmful phrases like “we are worried about being able to take care of you properly.” But, other messages more directly indicated caring for the parent in old age would be a burden, “I’m concerned that if I continue living my life the way I hope to, you guys won’t get the proper care you need.” In another example, one son wrote, I think it’s best for you in a retirement home so that someone else can take care of you especially when your other sons or I cannot take care of you. We are too busy in our lives now, especially with the kids going to college, so the option of having someone else take care of you in a different home is the best.

Discussion and Interpretation Starting a conversation about later life care presents a challenge because of inherent potential to threaten parents’ positive and negative face. In many Western cultures, aging is seen as socially undesirable and is assumed to be accompanied by a loss of independence (Baltes, 1996; Nelson, 2005) and, therefore, a threat to one’s positive face needs of fellowship and competence (Lim & Bowers, 1991). Care must be taken to ensure that positive face needs are attended to in the interaction. At the same time, initiating a conversation about later life care may burden aging parents by pressuring them to talk about a difficult topic, thereby threatening parents’ negative face. In light of the complexity of imagined messages adult children constructed, and the presence of face-honoring messages, adult children appear cognizant of the potential for face threats involved in discussions of later life care. Indeed, our results demonstrate that adult children recognize inherent threats to positive and negative face in initiating this type of conversation and that they naturally construct messages that attempt to manage face threats without being primed to do so. Positive politeness most frequently served as the opening politeness move in messages allowing adult children to first establish love and solidarity with parents before making the request. HPF messages overwhelmingly tended to parental fellowship face (Lim & Bowers, 1991) by emphasizing love, caring, and concern for the parent; the desire to spend more time with the parent; and that the child and parent are equal partners. Positive politeness tags were encoded as in-group identity markers (e.g., “we”) and endearing address forms (e.g., “Daddy”) to convey solidarity (Brown & Levinson, 1987). It should be noted, however, that the use of some address terms (e.g., the use of “Mother dear” by one adult child) can be a form of patronizing and controlling speech experienced by older adults in health care contexts (see Brown & Draper, 2003). Advice seeking was another positive politeness move in which adult children bolstered the parent’s competence face by asking for and valuing their opinion. This strategy may be particularly effective because previous research has demonstrated that older parents might find enjoyment from, or feel flattered by, their adult children asking them for advice (Blieszner & Mancini, 1987). On the other hand, adult children


41

Pitts et al.

offering advice to their parents might be interpreted as face threatening and patronizing (Hummert & Mazloff, 2001). Although adult children often opened with positive politeness, negative politeness strategies were more frequently used overall, and also often served as the capstone of a message. This signifies awareness on the part of the adult child that negative face is highly relevant and also vulnerable in these discussions. This might also indicate that adult children perceive negative face needs as more important to the discussion than honoring positive face needs. Indeed, Brown and Levinson (1987) noted, “unless you are certain of the contrary,” it is perhaps “safer to assume that [the listener] prefers his peace and self-determination than that he prefers your expressions of regard [sic]” (p. 74). Adult children’s messages honored their parent’s negative face by offering opportunities for the parent to influence the timing and outcome of the discussion, recognizing their need for independence, acknowledging the sensitivity of the topic, and allowing freedom to take charge of their future care. Although adult children embedded positive and negative politeness in their openers, threats to negative face also occurred frequently. Two overarching themes emerged as threats to negative face: Child commands/directs parent to consider or act on future care needs, and child emphasizes/presumes parent’s waning independence in messages. The prevalence of messages that threatened parents’ negative face are perhaps evidence of the face-threatening nature of initiating such a conversation—the conversation is a burden, but it must be done. Indeed, requests are face-threatening acts as they require the recipient to respond. But, it does raise the question as to why adult children make such frequent use of threats to negative face in topic initiation. Are children unaware of their language use and the presumptiveness of their talk? If so, this points to a clear need for communication effectiveness training wherein adult children can not only be encouraged to continue developing face-honoring messages but also be taught to avoid or mitigate messages that threaten negative face. We note, as well, that threats to negative face are not equally threatening. Messages that involve coercion and pressure to act immediately are likely to be perceived as more face threatening than presumption of the need for future care. More optimistically, threats to positive face were relatively rare. This is not altogether surprising as one would assume that messages constructed for parents among adult children who volunteered to take part in a study on conversations between parents and adult children about later life would demonstrate affiliation, caring, and positive attitudes about parents. Indeed, threats to positive face within a familial relationship are likely to be more egregious than are threats to negative face or threats to positive face in other social contexts (Metts, 1997). What was surprising, however, was that among the threats to positive face, one that emerged in the data was the child indicating that taking care of the parent would be a burden. Unfortunately, this reinforces Pinquart and Sorensen’s (2002) finding that one worry older adults have about holding later life conversations with their adult children is that they will become a burden to their offspring. Messages also threatened positive face by focusing on the negative aspects of aging and being critical of parents or their plans.


42


More than half of the messages contained strings of positive and negative politeness moves. Politeness strings likely reflect adult children’s desire to manage multiple goals in discourse surrounding eldercare (see Holtgraves & McNamara, 2010; Spiers, 1998). In this case, although the overt, instrumental goal was to create an opening message to encourage aging parents to talk about later life care, adult children’s messages simultaneously managed relational goals by incorporating complex face management maneuvers. Moreover, the placement of a politeness move within the larger message affects the overall tenor of the message (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Adult children often opened their conversation with positive politeness, whereas negative politeness often served as the final punctuation of politeness. Positive politeness moves may serve to bring parents into the conversation by establishing shared wants and interdependence, while concluding with a negative politeness move honors parents’ independence—that which is most at stake in the conversation. Indeed, the sheer presence of negative politeness (33% of message units) is a good indication that adult children perceived the discussion as risky. This is because, per Brown and Levinson (1987), as the estimated risk of face loss increases, people will select a higher ordered (more polite) strategy to minimize the threat (i.e., negative politeness over positive politeness). Thus, placing higher-ordered politeness moves toward the end of the message might serve to increase its poignancy. Also, in most cases, face-threatening messages were followed by an honoring face move. Thus, respondents appeared to have woven together stings of politeness messages that mitigated threats to positive and negative face while introducing a sensitive topic.

Conclusion One limitation of this study was that participants were asked to generate an isolated turn of talk that would “get the ball rolling.” Moreover, these data reflect responses to a hypothetical situation. Clearly, real conversations between adult children and their aging parents are likely ongoing events and may also involve multiple interactants and multiple attempts. Also, we have no real way of knowing how closely these responses reflect what adult children would actually say or how their parents might respond. Indeed, from this first study, we cannot know the extent to which adult children consider their parent’s potential responses in developing their opener; nor do we know how much previous experience respondents had with initiating such discussions. As such, the messages generated here reflect best (and, in some cases, worst) laid plans in a relatively simplified context. In addition, we recognize that some respondents might have used the opportunity to confidentially express private thoughts, concerns, and fears they had about caring for their aging parent that they would not have shared with their parent. Some respondents’ openness about burdensome elements of future care might be an artifact of the method of data collection wherein respondents felt “safe” expressing some of the more negative aspects of future care. Data were further limited by the lack of diversity in the sample and overrepresentation of “mothers” as imagined recipients.


43

Pitts et al.

Despite these limitations, and with respect to the complexity of conversation openers offered by adult children, we argue that many of the messages show respondents’ awareness that managing politeness in an interaction requires a delicate balance. In face-to-face conversations, interactants “are constantly assessing” the face management balance and “may make minute adjustments at any point in order to reestablish a satisfactory balance or to move the interaction in the desired direction” (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 231). The multilayered messages offered by adult children in this initial study might reflect their desire to “cover their bases” in a one-shot message. Messages generated from this study were used to create scripts for the next phase of the larger investigation in which we sought to test whether complex messages (involving the manipulation of positive and negative face-threatening and facesupporting messages) affected older adults’ willingness to engage in discussions about future care needs (Fowler et al., in press). Ultimately, recognizing that low levels of communication efficacy are a profound impediment to adult children engaging their parents in a discussion of future care needs (Fowler & Afifi, 2011), we hope that by assessing how parents react to certain kinds of politeness messages, we may be in a position to help adult children construct their own messages, and that by being able to provide a detailed account of the sorts of remarks that comprise effective openers, we may be able to enhance feelings of communication efficacy. Consequently, the next step is to design and implement an evaluative intervention study in which adult children use strategies identified here and in Fowler et al. (in press) to open conversations with aging parents and to assess the effectiveness and outcomes of those intergenerational discussions. Our efforts to explore messages intended to open discussion of future care needs (and subsequently test the effectiveness of these messages) reflect two dominant considerations. First, we sought a parsimonious way of describing the messages that adult children developed to broach such conversations and being able to code these messages within the framework of positive and negative face met this criterion. Second, reviews of the family communication literature conclude that family interaction involves a delicate balance of expressing both nurturance and control (Le Poire, 2006; Segrin & Flora, 2005), which suggests that attention to positive and negative face needs are likely to be key elements of successfully raising the topic of future care needs with parents. As a future direction, looking more closely at how these conversations are managed within a dyad or family system throughout the course of a conversation would illuminate the ways in which face needs of all interactants are negotiated and managed. Examining conversation openers from the framework of communication accommodation theory (CAT; see Giles, Mulac, Bradac, & Johnson, 1987), for instance, might reveal ways in which adult children and their parents move toward and away from each other (converge and diverge) throughout a conversation via politeness and other linguistic and paralinguistic strategies. For example, accommodating or nonaccommodating speech likely influence how perceptions of power, social distance, and imposition shift over the course of an encounter, which may result in changing perceptions of weight of threat and the spontaneous and strategic modification of politeness


44


behavior. Furthermore, CAT might be practically applied to help design educational materials for adult children and aging parents to think about the ways in which topic initiation (e.g., opening with a positive politeness move and closing with a negative politeness move) might elicit certain kinds of responses (e.g., willingness to engage a discussion). Finally, although we may be able to speak in generalities regarding the likely benefit of encoding “openers” using a variety of politeness strategies, CAT’s emphasis on the tailoring of messages to meet the specific needs of individuals suggests that future studies could shed light on what sorts of structural, communicative, and psychological characteristics may predispose individuals to find certain kinds of politeness messages accommodative or overaccommodative (see, Thakerar, Giles, & Cheshire, 1982). The needs of later life care are not one size fits all; neither should be the conversations surrounding them (Wright et al., 2008). Brown and Levinson (1987) wrote, “there is a basic assumption in talk that there is underlying method in the madness” that messages are not simply “mumbo jumbo,” but might otherwise be strategic, if subconscious (p. 95). Thus, despite the varied contexts, relationships, urgencies, and so forth that provide the background for adult children in this study, there is a “method to the madness” reflected in their use of politeness strategies. We note, too, that part of this “method” is embedded in Western cultural values that largely favor independence over dependence. The majority of adult children created messages that simultaneously attended to positive and negative face needs. However, many of the messages were composed of complex strings of messages that also threatened positive and negative face. Thus, while adult children’s messages were sensitive to some parental face needs (e.g., honoring positive face by emphasizing love and concern for the parent), they showed insensitivity toward other face needs (e.g., threatening negative face by pushing parents to engage in conversation or threatening positive face by inadvertently communicating ageism). A final review of these findings leads us to suggest some guiding principles for adult children to consider when opening the topic of future care needs with their aging parent(s). These pointers are not only aimed at enhancing adult children’s communication competence in facilitating these important conversations but also may prove to be useful for intervention making and later evaluation. In particular, we found that openers were characterized by adult children’s attempts to manage the difficult balance between demonstrating connection and love while also respecting independence all within the context of initiating an eldercare discussion. With this in mind, we begin by advising that politeness strings that honor a parent’s independence and social image should be interwoven throughout the conversation. We also offer the following guidance: •• Consider beginning with positive politeness, meaning an expression of love and care for your parent. •• Maintain respect for your parent’s right for control—control over the conversation and their future care needs. This can be done by first soliciting permission to talk about eldercare, asking questions about their related concerns, and conveying respect for their independence.


45

Pitts et al.

•• Emphasize your love, respect, and care for your parent and that they deserve quality of life, including in the future. •• Reiterate that you are in this together—a unified partnership. Authors’ Note A version of this article was presented at the 13th International Conference on Language and Social Psychology held during June 20-23, 2012 in Leeuwarden, Fryslân, The Netherlands.

Acknowledgments Special thanks are due to Howie Giles and the reviewers for their detailed and encouraging feedback on an earlier version of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Note 1. Percentages do not equal 100% because some respondents failed to complete all demographic measures.

References AARP. (2010a). 8 rules for new caregivers. Retrieved from http://www.aarp.org/relationships/ caregiving-resource-center/info-08-2010/gs_new_caregivers_rules.html AARP. (2010b). Prepare to care: A planning guide for families. Retrieved from http://www .aarp.org/relationships/caregiving/info-04-2010/prepare-to-care.html AARP. (2012). Caregiving support: Involving family members, community services can help lighten the load on caregivers. Retrieved from http://www.aarp.org/relationships/caregiving -resource-center/info-10-2010/pc_involving_others_ginzler_video.html Allen, T. E., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1997). Planning, imagined interaction, and the nonverbal display of anxiety. Communication Research, 24, 64-82. Archbold, P. G. (1983). Impact of parent-caring on women. Family Relations, 32, 39-45. Baltes, M. (1996). The many faces of dependency in old age. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Bell, S., & Menec, V. (2013). You don’t want to ask for the help. The imperative of independence: Is it related to social exclusion. Journal of Applied Gerontology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0733464812469292 Blieszner, R., & Mancini, J. (1987). Enduring ties: Older adults’ parental role and responsibilities. Family Relations, 36, 176-180. Bromley, M. C., & Blieszner, R. (1997). Planning for long term care: Filial behavior and relationship quality of adult children with independent parents. Family Relations, 46, 155-162.


46


Brown, A., & Draper, P. (2003). Accommodative speech and terms of endearment: Elements of a language mode often experienced by older adults. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41, 15-21. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Caplan, S., & Samter, W. (1999). The role of facework in younger and older adults’ evaluation of social support messages. Communication Quarterly, 47, 245-264. Carpenter, B. D., & Mulligan, E. A. (2009). Family, know thyself: A workbook-based intergenerational intervention to improve parent care coordination. Clinical Gerontologist, 32, 147-163. Cicirelli, V. (2000). An examination of the trajectory of the adult child’s caregiving for an elderly parent. Family Relations, 49, 169-175. Delehanty, H., & Ginzler, E. (2008). Caring for your parents: The complete AARP guide. New York, NY: Sterling. Fowler, C., & Afifi, W. A. (2011). Applying the theory of motivated information management to adult children’s discussions of caregiving with aging parents. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 507-535. Fowler, C., & Fisher, C. L. (2009). Attitudes toward decision making and aging, and preparation for future care needs. Health Communication, 24, 619-630. Fowler, C., & Fisher, C. L., & Pitts, M. J. (in press). Older adults’ evaluations of middle-aged children’s attempts to initiate discussion of care needs. Health Communication. Giles, H., Hajek, C., Stoitsova, T., & Choi, C. W. (2010). Intergenerational communication satisfaction and age boundaries in Bulgaria and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 25, 133-147. Giles, H., Khajavy, G. H., & Choi, C. W. (2012). Intergenerational communication satisfaction and age boundaries: Comparative Middle Eastern data. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 27, 357-371. Giles, H., Makoni, S., & Dailey, R. M. (2005). Intergenerational communication beliefs across the lifespan: comparative data from West and South Africa. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 20, 191-211. Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J., & Johnson, P. (1987). Speech accommodation theory: The first decade and beyond. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook, 10 (pp. 1348). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Giles, H., Noels, K. A., Williams, A., Ota, H., Lim, T-S., Ng, S. H., . . . Somera, L. (2003). Intergenerational communication across cultures: Young people’s perceptions of conversations with family elders, non-family elders and same-age peers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 18, 1-32. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Gudykunst, W. B., Matsumoto, Y., Ting-Toomey, S., Nishida, T., Kim, K., & Heyman, S. (1996). The influence of cultural individualism-collectivism, self construals, and individual values on communication styles across cultures. Human Communication Research, 22, 510-543. Hall E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Anchor Books. Heinemann, T. (2009). Managing unavoidable conflicts in caretaking of the elderly: Humor as a mitigating resource. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 200, 103-127. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (2nd. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


47

Pitts et al.

Holtgraves, T. (2005). Social psychology, cognitive psychology, and linguistic politeness. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 73-93. Holtgraves, T., & McNamara, P. (2010). Parkinson’s disease and politeness. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 178-193. Honeycutt, J. M. (2003). Imagined interactions: Daydreaming about communication. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Honeycutt, J. M. (Ed.). (2010). Imagine that: Studies in imagined interactions. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Honeycutt, J. M., Zagacki, K. S., & Edwards, R. (1990). Imagined interaction and interpersonal communication. Communication Reports, 3, 1-8. Hoyert, D. L., & Seltzer, M. M. (1992). Factors related to the well-being and life activities of family caregivers. Family Relations, 41, 74-81. Hummert, M. L., & Mazloff, D. (2001). Older adults’ responses to patronizing advice: Balancing politeness and identity in context. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20, 168196. Hummert, M. L., & Morgan, M. (2001). Negotiating decisions in the aging family. In M. L. Hummert & J. F. Nussbaum (Eds.), Aging, communication, and health: Linking research and practice for successful aging (pp. 177-201). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Le Poire, B. A. (2006). Family communication: Nurturing and control in a changing world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lim, T., & Bowers, J. (1991). Facework solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research, 17, 415-450. Locher, M. (2008). Relational work, politeness, and identity construction. In G. Antos & E. Ventola (Eds.), with T. Weber, Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 510-540). New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. Loverde, J. (2000). The complete eldercare planner: Where to start, which questions to ask, and how to find help (2nd. ed.). New York, NY: Three Rivers. Metts, S. (1997). Face and facework: Implications for the study of personal relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 373-390). New York, NY: Wiley. Morgan, M., & Hummert, M. L. (2000). Perceptions of communicative control strategies in mother-daughter dyads across the life span. Journal of Communication, 50, 48-64. Nelson, T. D. (2005). Ageism: Prejudice against our feared future self. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 207-221. Pecchioni, L. (2001). Implicit decision-making in family caregiving. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 219-237. Pecchioni, L. L., Ota, H., & Sparks, L. (2004). Cultural issues in communication and aging. In J. F. Nussbaum & J. Coupland (Eds.), Handbook of communication and aging research (2nd ed., (pp. 167-207). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pinquart, M., & Sorensen, S. (2002). Psychological outcomes of preparation for future care needs. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 21, 452-470. Pratt, C., Schmall, V., & Wright, S. (1987). Ethical concerns of family caregivers to dementia patients. The Gerontologist, 27, 632-638. Segrin, C., & Flora, J. (2005). Family communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Spiers, J. A. (1998). The use of face work and politeness theory. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 25-47. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


48


Thakerar, J. N., Giles, H., & Cheshire, J. (1982). The psychological and linguistic parameters of speech accommodation theory. In C. Fraser & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Advances in the social psychology of language (pp. 205-255). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Wakabayashi, C., & Donato, K. M. (2005). The consequences of caregiving: Effects on women’s employment and earnings. Population Research and Policy Review, 24, 467-488. Wright, A., Zhang, B., Ray, A., Mack, J., Trice, E., Balboni, T., . . . Prigerson, H. (2008). Associations between end-of-life discussions, patient mental health, medical care near death, and caregiver bereavement adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 300, 1665-1673.

Author Biographies Margaret J. Pitts (PhD, Pennsylvania State University) is assistant professor of communication in the Department of Communication at The University of Arizona. Her research interests center on the intersections between interpersonal and intercultural/intergroup communication, especially within the context of life span transitions. Craig Fowler (PhD, Pennsylvania State University) is a senior lecturer in the School of Communication, Journalism and Marketing at Massey University, New Zealand. His research interests focus on family communication and aging. His recent work has examined family decision making in the context of planning for eldercare needs, and grandparent–grandchild relationships. Carla L. Fisher (PhD, Pennsylvania State University) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at George Mason University and Center for Health & Risk Communication. She investigates the adaptive functioning of family communication to health across the life span, namely focusing on illness transitions. She is especially concerned with mother–daughter communication and breast cancer coping and prevention, and she collaborates with Mayo Clinic and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in this research. Stephanie A. Smith (MSc) is a third-year PhD student at The University of Arizona. She received her Masters of Science in Communication from Northwestern University. Her research interests include interpersonal communication, intergenerational communication, and organizational communication. She enjoys studying how people navigate transitions throughout their life span with regard to their personal relationships.
