Affiliative conflict theory
In any relationship, people will negotiate and try to rationalize why they are acting the way they are in order (approach and avoidance) to maintain a comfortable level of intimacy.
His article "Eye Contact, Distance and Affiliation", co-authored with Janet Dean was published in Sociometry in 1965, and has been used greatly as the base line for ACT.
His work on nonverbal communication greatly developed this theory and his book The Psychology of Interpersonal Behavior became an international bestseller in 1967.
The nonverbal includes distance, gaze, touch, body orientation, body lean, (how much someone leans in when a conversation is going on showing how much interest they have in the person they are talking to), facial expressiveness, talking duration, interruptions, postural openness, relational gestures, head nods, and paralinguistic cues such as rate and tone, which are at least as important as the words spoken in communicating to others.
[4] There are also beliefs that some nonverbal involvement cues have been found to increase personal performance on tasks such as test, verbal encoding, and relationship building.
In 1976, Argyle and Cook modified and extended their original theory after concluding only partial support for compensation.
The first scholar, Joseph Cappella, did thirty-six studies in his review that concluded that "increased proximity leads to compensatory responses on distancing, gaze, posture, body orientation, bodily activity, verbal output, etc."
He also stated that "comfort-oriented models do not predict observable compensation as long as variations immediacy behaviors fall with in optimal distance range" (Burgoon, p. 33).
The different conclusions between these three scholars can only give a partial and inconsistent support of ACT, with proximity being the most consistent elicitor of compensation.
Further research has added the concepts of cognition and expectations however its "reliance on the basic assumptions and elements of Act affirms its influential impact and some of the "truths" it has uncovered" (Burgoon, pg.
In 1989, Knowles "reconceptualization of ACT is that people feel discomfort when their internal approach and avoidance gradients are not equal" (Burgoon, pg.
Equilibrium is reached when individuals or dyads can maintain sufficient distance and immediacy, such that they are close enough to meet affiliative needs, while allowing each other privacy and autonomy.
)[2] Affiliative Conflict Theory thus proposes that there are two separate, but related; propositions that involve maintaining the balance of the intimacy equilibrium point.
The first is the "establishment of an equilibrium or balance of approach and avoidance forces reflected in the intensity of immediacy behaviors emitted by the interactants" (Coutts, pg.
[3] CA constitutes a mediating variable and is characterized as apprehension of an internal feeling of considerable discomfort which leads to communication avoidance.
Examples of a typical unbalance in response to the close approach of another is to compensate with gaze aversion, indirect body orientation, backing away from a touch, and increased distance.
A person can use avoidance behavior that expresses a desire to resist what is considered an inappropriate increase in the level of intimacy for that particular interaction.
Men are also seen to have less social interactions in comparison to their female counterparts, but when they did, they felt like they left a good representation of themselves to the person they were talking too.
[10] Interpersonal distance was examined after a study about eye contact and mean length of mutual glance by Argyle and Ingham (1972) showed conflicting and reversal effects between males and females.
In this study, 24 males and 24 females were drawn in same-sex pairs from kindergarten, third, and sixth grades and asked to "try out some distances and tell (the researcher) how they like them" (p. 499).
Russo found that the percentage of time engaged in contact (a) increased with distance, (b) was higher for females than males; and (c) did not significantly differ with friendship.
[10] In a research article done by the University of Hartford on "The Effects of Gender-Role Expectations Upon Perceptions of Communicative Competence", they found that during a conversation, that men and women would evaluate how the other person is feeling and "responding" to what is being said.
They found that men determined that perception in a conversation "appears to be related to empathy and private self-consciousness.
