examine how college students’ intrapersonal communication experiences (i.e., imagined interactions) with disliked instructors contribute to their proclivity to communicate instructional dissent (i.e., expressive, rhe- torical, vengeful)

 

Students’ Imagined Interactions as Intrapersonal Explanations for Instructional Dissent Alan K. Goodboy, San Bolkan, & Zachary W. Goldman

The purpose of this study was to examine how college students’ intrapersonal

communication experiences (i.e., imagined interactions) with disliked instructors

contribute to their proclivity to communicate instructional dissent (i.e., expressive, rhe-

torical, vengeful). Student participants (N¼ 181) completed a self-report questionnaire

measuring their use of imagined interactions with their worst instructor in the past

academic year, along with reports of their course-related dissent. Results of a canonical

correlation revealed that the frequency, valence, and rehearsal of students’ imagined

interactions with a low affect instructor are related to forms of instructional dissent.

Keywords: Affective Learning; Imagined Interactions; Instructional Dissent; Student

Dissent

When college students are displeased with their classroom experiences, they

frequently engage in instructional dissent (Goodboy, 2011a) which emerges ‘‘when

students express their disagreements or complaints about class-related issues’’

(Goodboy, 2011b, p. 423). Research suggests that a variety of instructor messages

and behaviors are likely to trigger instructional dissent from students including stu-

dent favoritism, grading mistakes, unfair testing, unrealistic classroom policies, and

student bullying, to name a few (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2013; Goodboy, 2011a,

2011b; Horan, Chory, & Goodboy, 2010; Martin, Goodboy, & Johnson, 2013).

Alan K. Goodboy (PhD, West Virginia University, 2007) is an Associate Professor in the Department of

Communication Studies at West Virginia University. San Bolkan (PhD, University of Texas-Austin, 2007) is

an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at CSU-Long Beach. Zachary W. Goldman

(MA, West Virginia University, 2012) is a PhD student in the Department of Communication Studies at West

Virginia University. Correspondence to: Alan K. Goodboy, 108 Armstrong Hall, P.O. Box 6293, Morgantown,

WV 26506-6293, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Communication Reports

Vol. 28, No. 2, July–December 2015, pp. 115–127

ISSN 0893-4215 (print)/ISSN 1745-1043 (online) # 2015 Western States Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/08934215.2014.936563

 

 

Goodboy (2011a) found that these triggering agents encourage students to dissent in

three distinct ways: expressive dissent, rhetorical dissent, and vengeful dissent. First,

expressive dissent occurs when students vent their frustrations about class to others

to gain sympathy or empathy. Next, rhetorical dissent occurs when students voice

their concerns directly to the instructor in hopes of rectifying a perceived problem.

Finally, vengeful dissent occurs when students spread negative messages about an

instructor to seek revenge and damage the instructor’s reputation or career.

Research has clearly established that much of instructional dissent is the result of

what ineffective instructors do (or fail to do) in class (Goodboy, 2011a, 2011b;

Holmgren & Bolkan, 2014; Horan et al., 2010; LaBelle, Martin, & Weber, 2013;

Martin et al., 2013; Vallade, Vela, & Martin, 2013) and that students attribute blame

to their instructors as the cause for their dissent responses (Goodboy, 2011a; LaBelle

& Martin, 2014). However, instructional dissent is influenced by a variety of student

characteristics and predispositions as well (Goodboy, 2012). For example, students’

personality traits (Buckner & Finn, 2013; Goodboy & Martin, 2013; Goodboy &

Myers, 2012), conflict styles (Goodboy & Bolkan, 2013), academic beliefs (Bolkan

& Goodboy, 2013; Goodboy & Frisby, 2014; LaBelle et al., 2013), and learning experi-

ences (Goodboy, 2011b) all play an important role in how students dissent.

Although some students confront their instructors with their class-related

problems (Horan et al., 2010), recent research suggests that most students decide

to withhold rhetorical dissent and keep their complaints to themselves (Bolkan &

Goodboy, 2013). One of the reasons students choose not to dissent to their instruc-

tors is because they fear retaliation or repercussions from the instructor (Bolkan &

Goodboy, 2013) which may reflect a student’s desire to avoid potential conflict.

Other research supports this conclusion as students with an avoiding conflict style

communicate less rhetorical dissent (Goodboy & Bolkan, 2013). Because many stu-

dents decide whether to dissent to instructors (or not) after thinking and carefully

weighing the consequences of their actions (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2013), it is likely that

some use intrapersonal forms of communication to manage their negative affect

toward the instructor and class (Goodboy, 2011b) when processing dissent triggering

episodes. Specifically, Stacks and Andersen (1989) noted that cognition and affect

‘‘often function conjointly’’ (p. 278) in the intrapersonal communication process,

and imagined interactions may represent a type of intrapersonal coping response stu-

dents use when they feel the need to dissent (Berkos, Allen, Kearney, & Plax, 2001;

Honeycutt, 2010).

Imagined Interactions

Imagined interactions (IIs) refer to a type of daydreaming (Honeycutt, 2003) in

which ‘‘individuals imagine themselves in anticipated or recalled interaction with

others’’ (Honeycutt & Ford, 2001, p. 316). Imagined interactions reflect a process

of social cognition in the form of intrapersonal communication (Honeycutt, 2010)

in which individuals conjure verbal or visual imagery in mentally rehearsed hypo-

thetical conversations (Zagacki, Edwards, & Honeycutt, 1992). As Rosenblatt and

116 A. K. Goodboy et al.

 

 

Meyer (1986) explained, ‘‘These interactions may be fragmentary or extended, may

ramble, stay on track, or recurrently go over the same matter’’ (p. 319). Imagined

interactions tend to involve more self-talk versus other-talk, occur more frequently

before actual interactions than after conversations, tend to be about more personal

than impersonal topics (Honeycutt, Zagacki, & Edwards, 1990), and are equally

pleasant and unpleasant (Edwards, Honeycutt, & Zagacki, 1988).

Imagined interactions have a variety of characteristics and serve numerous

functions (Bodie, Honeycutt, & Vickery, 2013). The characteristics of IIs include fre-

quency (i.e., how often they occur), proactivity (i.e., the extent to which they occur

before anticipated encounters), retroactivity (i.e., the extent to which they occur after

an encounter), variety (i.e., how they occur across a variety of topics and people),

discrepancy (i.e., IIs that play out differently than actual conversations), self-

dominance (i.e., the extent to which they involve self-talk), valence (i.e., the degree

of pleasantness), and specificity (i.e., the details of the imagery during IIs; Honeycutt

& Ford, 2001). Moreover, the functions of IIs are self-understanding (i.e., to better

understand oneself), rehearsal (i.e., to mentally plan out what to say), catharsis

(i.e., to relieve tension or uncertainty), compensation (i.e., to serve in place of a real

conversation), relational maintenance (i.e., to keep a relationship alive), and conflict

management (i.e., to address conflict). The functions and uses of IIs are predicted by

individual differences such as the five factor model of personality (Honeycutt, Pence,

& Gearhart, 2012–2013), covert narcissism (Honeycutt, Pence, & Gearhart, 2013),

attachment (Honeycutt, 1998–1999), argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness

(Bolkan & Goodboy, 2011), Machiavellianism (Allen, 1990), locus of control

(Honeycutt, Edwards, & Zagacki, 1989–1990), communication apprehension (Bolkan

& Goodboy, 2011; Honeycutt, Choi, & DeBerry, 2009), taking conflict personally

(Wallenfelsz & Hample, 2010), and Myers-Briggs personality preferences (Honeycutt

& Keaton, 2012–2013). In addition, the use of IIs are associated with relational

features such as uncertainty (Van Kelegom & Wright, 2013), anxiety (Allen &

Honeycutt, 1997), emotional responses (Honeycutt et al., 1989–1990; Honeycutt,

Nasser, Banner, Mapp, & DuPont, 2008), loneliness (Honeycutt et al., 1990), marital

ideology (Honeycutt, 1998–1999), relational quality (Honeycutt, 2008–2009), talk in

marriage (Honeycutt & Wiemann, 1999), and intrapersonal communication satisfac-

tion (Honeycutt & McCann, 2008).

Imagined interactions have been studied across a variety of relationships including

college roommates (Honeycutt & Patterson, 1997), parent=child relationships (Allen,

Edwards, Hayhoe, & Leach, 2007), married couples (Honeycutt & Keaton, 2012–

2013; Honeycutt & Wiemann, 1999), small groups (Turner, Crisp, & Lambert,

2007) and consumer=business relationships (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2011). However,

important to our purposes is the fact that IIs play an important role in the college

classroom as well. In particular, research suggests that college students use IIs to cope

with and process unwanted interactions with their instructors. For example, Berkos,

Allen, Kearney, and Plax (2001) revealed that college students use IIs to process

instructor misbehaviors, and that they use IIs as a substitute for confronting misbe-

having instructors. Moreover, Berkos (2012–2013) discovered that students who use

Communication Reports 117

 

 

IIs before e-mailing an instructor are more likely to use prosocial compliance-gaining

strategies and less likely to make verbal demands in an e-mail. Because instructional

dissent is considered a response to potential instructor–student conflict (Goodboy &

Bolkan, 2013), and because IIs are most commonly used to process and rehearse per-

ceived conflict (Allen & Berkos, 2005–2006; Honeycutt, 2003–2004; Zagacki et al.,

1992), it is our contention that IIs are used by students who have a desire to

communicate instructional dissent.

Crucially, the characteristics of IIs are important to consider in dissent expression.

For instance, as it pertains to frequency and pleasantness, researchers have found that

these characteristics of IIs are related to positive relational outcomes (Honeycutt &

Wiemann, 1999). Specifically, the authors found that individuals who have positive

and frequent imagined interactions are more likely to enjoy serious discussions

and are likely to believe that their relationships are more egalitarian than individuals

who do not. Moreover, Honeycutt and Wiemann (1999) found that the sharing of

interpersonal influence was associated with relational satisfaction and positively

valenced IIs as well. Considering that two types of dissent (i.e., expressive and venge-

ful dissent) communicate little desire to engage in relational maintenance (Bodie

et al., 2013), and given that students with unsatisfactory relationships with their

instructors tend not to dissent in constructive ways (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2013), we

expected that the frequency and negative valence of IIs will predict these two dissent

types. Particularly, we expected that students would engage in more antisocial (i.e.,

vengeful) and selfish (i.e., expressive) forms of dissent when they have frequent= negative valenced IIs about their instructor. Therefore, the first hypothesis is offered:

H1: II characteristics (i.e., frequency and negative valence) will predict students’ expressive and vengeful dissent responses with low affect instructors.

However, given the relationship between frequent and positive IIs and both percep-

tions of relational power and relational satisfaction, we believed that if students have

frequent=positive valenced IIs about their instructors, they should be more likely to

approach these individuals with class-related concerns (Honeycutt & Wiemann,

1999). Therefore, the second hypothesis is offered:

H2: II characteristics (i.e., frequency and positive valence) will predict students’ rhetorical dissent responses with low affect instructors.

Likewise, since instructor misbehaviors are a leading cause of student dissent

(Goodboy, 2011a, 2011b; Vallade et al., 2013), and because many students use IIs

as a substitute for direct communication when misbehaviors are present (Berkos

et al., 2001), it is likely that students who have a desire to dissent use IIs as an coping

mechanism to accompany actual dissent. To examine this idea, the following research

question is offered:

RQ: To what extent do the functions of IIs (i.e., rehearsal, self-awareness, catharsis) predict students’ instructional dissent responses (i.e., expressive, rhetorical, vengeful) with low affect instructors?

118 A. K. Goodboy et al.

 

 

Method

Participants

Participants were 181 undergraduate students (107 men, 70 women, 4 participants

did not report their sex) whose ages ranged from 18 to 35 years (M¼ 21.24,

SD¼ 2.13). Participants were recruited from a large Northeastern university. One

hundred four students reported on a class with a male instructor and 77 students

reported on a class with a female instructor. Approximately 48% (N¼ 87) of the sam-

ple reported on a college course required for their major. Class sizes varied with 67

students (37.0%) reporting on a class consisting of 30 students or less, 38 students

(21.0%) reporting on a class with 31 to 100 students, 48 students (26.5%) reporting

on a class with 101 to 200 students, and 28 students (15.5%) reporting on a large

lecture class with over 200 students enrolled.

Procedures and Instrumentation

After obtaining IRB approval, participants completed a questionnaire using methods

proposed by Richmond, McCroskey, Kearney, and Plax (1987) that asks students to

report on their ‘‘worst’’ instructor in the past academic year. This method was used

to ensure that students reported on a low affect instructor in order to maximize

potential instructional dissent episodes resulting from student dissatisfaction. The

questionnaire included measures of students’ imagined interactions, instructional

dissent, affective learning toward the instructor, and demographic items.

Instructional dissent was operationalized using the Instructional Dissent Scale (IDS;

Goodboy, 2011b), which is 22 items and asks students to report on how often they

express their disagreements or complaints about class-related issues by using express-

ive dissent (10 items), rhetorical dissent (6 items), and vengeful dissent (6 items).

Responses were solicited using a 5-point Likert-type response format ranging from

(0) never to (4) very often. In this study, obtained Cronbach alphas were .91 for

expressive dissent (M¼ 2.63, SD¼ .89), .92 for rhetorical dissent (M¼ 1.47, SD¼ 1.11), and .90 for vengeful dissent (M¼ .91, SD¼ 1.05).

Imagined interactions were operationalized by using items from the Survey of

Imagined Interactions (SII; Honeycutt, 2010) and Students’ Imagined Interactions with

Teachers Scale (Berkos et al., 2001). All II responses were solicited on a 7-point Likert

response format ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. The SII was

adapted slightly to reflect IIs about a specific instructor instead of a global assessment

of IIs. Two subscales were used to measure the frequency (4 items) in which students

used IIs, and the valence (4 items) of IIs with a target instructor (higher scores indi-

cate a positive valence). In this study, obtained Cronbach alphas were .86 (M¼ 3.62,

SD¼ 1.51) and .74 (M¼ 2.90, SD¼ 1.15) respectively. The Berkos et al. (2001) scale

was used to measure three functions of students’ IIs with an instructor including

rehearsal (9 items), self-awareness (9 items), and catharsis (9 items). In this study,

obtained Cronbach alphas were .91 (M¼ 4.33, SD¼ 1.40), .87 (M¼ 4.04, SD¼ 1.17),

and .85 (M¼ 4.24, SD¼ 1.16) respectively.

Communication Reports 119

 

 

Affective learning was operationalized by using the Construct 7: Attitude Toward

Instructor subscale from Mottet and Richmond’s (1998) Revised Affective Learning

Measure. This measure was used to ensure that students were reporting on low affect

instructors who were likely to provoke dissent. This subscale is 4 items and asks stu-

dents to report on how favorable they view a target instructor. Responses were soli-

cited using a 7-point semantic differential response format using the following

anchors: good=bad, worthless=valuable, fair=unfair, and positive=negative. The

obtained Cronbach alpha for this subscale was .72 (M¼ 3.26, SD¼ 1.18). Individual

item means ranged from 2.84 (SD¼ 1.56) to 3.65 (SD¼ 1.54) on a 7-point scale. The

composite item mean of 3.26 was significantly lower (t (178)¼�8.35, p< .001; mean

difference¼�.74) than a theoretical mean of 4.0. These results indicate that students

did, in fact, report on low affect instructors.

Results

Prior to exploring the hypothesis and research question, a first order correlation

matrix was computed for the variables. Because affective learning is related inversely

to student reports of dissent (Goodboy, 2011b), partial correlations were calculated

for the variables of interest by controlling for student affect for the instructor. This

was done to control for any confounding effects stemming from students’ varying

reports in negative affect intensity because students’ feelings about an instructor

are a cause of dissent to begin with (Bolkan & Goodboy, 2013; Goodboy, 2011a,

2011b). In this study, student affect for the instructor was correlated significantly

with the frequency (r¼�.22, p< .01) and valence (r¼ .44, p< .001) functions of

IIs, the rehearsal characteristic of IIs (r¼�.18, p< .05), along with expressive

(r¼�.31, p< .001) and vengeful dissent types (r¼�.27, p< .001). Therefore, affect

toward the instructor served as an appropriate covariate. Results of partial

correlations are available in Table 1.

Table 1 Partial Correlations Controlling for Affective Learning

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Imagined Interactions

1. Frequency of IIs —

2. Valence of IIs .02 (.09) —

3. Rehearsal .61 (.68)^ .04 (.10) —

4. Self-Awareness .53 (.61)^ .15 (.24) �

.72 (.81)^ —

5. Catharsis .42 (.49)^ .01 (.06) .55 (.63)^ .63 (.73)^ —

Instructional Dissent

6. Expressive .29 (.31)^ �.19 (�.18) ��

.23 (.24) ��

.13 (.13) .10 (.09) —

7. Rhetorical .30 (.36)^ .09 (.10) .18 (.21) ��

.12 (.14) .04 (.06) .34 (.39)^ —

8. Vengeful .21 (.22)�� .08 (.18) .02 (.00) .00 (�.01) .02 (.00) .26 (.26)^ .53 (.61)^

Note. Partial correlations control for affective learning toward instructor and are flagged with �p< .05, ��p< .01,

^p< .001. Disattenuated partial correlations are in parentheses.

120 A. K. Goodboy et al.

 

 

Hypotheses 1 and 2 predicted that II characteristics (i.e., frequency and valence)

would predict students’ instructional dissent responses (i.e., expressive, rhetorical,

vengeful) with low affect instructors, and the research question inquired about the

role of II functions (i.e., rehearsal, self-awareness, catharsis) in this process. To

examine these relationships, a canonical correlation was computed with the five IIs

variables serving as predictors of the three dissent types. Only structure coefficients

above .45 were interpreted (Sherry & Henson, 2005). Collectively, the full model

across all functions was statistically significant, Wilks’s k¼ .69; F(15, 475.22)¼ 4.54, p< .001. With 1 – k yielding the full model effect size, the full model explained

31% of the variance shared between the variable sets. Dimension reduction analysis

showed that the full model (functions 1 to 3) was significant (see above), and func-

tions 2 to 3 were also statistically significant (F(8, 346)¼ 3.12, p¼ .002). Function 3,

which was the only function tested in isolation, did not explain a statistically signifi-

cant amount of shared variance in the variable sets, (F(3, 174)¼ 1.87, p¼ .14).

Results of the first two functions, including structure coefficients, squared structure

coefficients, communality coefficients, and redundancy coefficients, are available in

Table 2.

The first function (Rc¼ .453, R2 c ¼ .206) revealed that when students had frequent,

negatively valenced, and rehearsed IIs about their low affect instructor, they commu-

nicated more expressive dissent, and to a lesser extent, vengeful dissent. The second

function (Rc¼ .320, R2 c ¼ .102), which accounts for variance remaining after the first

function has been extracted (Thompson, 1984), revealed that when students had

Table 2 Canonical Solution for Characteristics and Functions of IIs Predicting

Instructional Dissent for Functions 1 and 2

Function 1 Function 2

Variables rs r2 s (%) rs r2

s (%) h2

Set 1: Imagined Interactions

Frequency .793 62.88 .542 29.38 92.26

Valence �.646 41.73 .725 52.56 94.29

Rehearsal .567 32.15 .214 4.58 36.73

Self-Awareness .317 10.04 .176 3.10 13.14

Catharsis .314 9.85 �.068 .46 10.31

Redundancy Coefficient (.313) (.180)

Set 2: Instructional Dissent

Expressive .985 97.02 �.046 .21 97.23

Rhetorical .311 9.67 .943 88.92 98.59

Vengeful .473 22.37 .453 20.52 42.89

Redundancy Coefficient (.089) (.037)

Note. Wilks’s k¼ .69; F(15, 475.22)¼ 4.54, p< .001. rs¼ structure coefficient; r2 s ¼ squared structure coefficient;

h2¼ communality coefficient. Structure coefficients (rs) greater than .45 are in bold. Communality coefficients

(h2) greater than 45% are in bold.

Communication Reports 121

 

 

frequent, but positively valenced IIs about their low affect instructor, they commu-

nicated rhetorical dissent, and to a lesser extent, vengeful dissent.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the role of students’ imagined interactions

in the instructional dissent process. Overall, the results suggest that the frequency and

valence of students’ imagined interactions with their low affect instructors matter the

most, and the rehearsal function plays a less important role. That is, students who

have frequently rehearsed IIs that are negative prefer to engage in expressive dissent,

but in contrast, students who have frequent IIs that are positive prefer to engage in

rhetorical dissent. Regardless of the valence, students reported that with low affect

instructors, they engaged in vengeful dissent to a small degree. These results lend full

support for hypothesis 1 and partial support for hypothesis 2.

The interpretations of these findings have pedagogical value. Although our findings

account for a modest amount of variance, they suggest that when students envision

negatively valenced IIs, they do not approach their instructors with their concerns

and instead communicate their disagreements to outside parties in an attempt to vent

their class-related frustrations. This imagined negativity might stem from students’

lack of confidence that even approaching an instructor with a concern will accomplish

anything. Research on why students withhold rhetorical dissent from their instructors

supports this conclusion. Bolkan and Goodboy (2013) discovered that many students

prefer to avoid dissenting directly to an instructor because they do not think that it is

worth the effort or that complaining would fix their problems. Bolkan and Goodboy

also found that when students withhold rhetorical dissent, they typically prefer to

communicate expressive dissent as an alternative response. Therefore, the extant

research on dissent may explain why students who have negatively valenced IIs end

up not communicating their dissatisfaction in person—they may perceive that an

actual conversation with their instructor will unfold in an unproductive manner.

If this is the case, unlike positively valenced IIs, which may indicate that students

are hopeful regarding their interactions with instructors, students who experience

negative IIs may not dissent rhetorically because they essentially ‘‘think themselves

out of it.’’ And, instead of dissenting in ways that might address their perceived

problem, they may act in ways that address their negative feelings by expressing their

discontent to friends, family members, or classmates to garner empathy or support.

USEFUL NOTES FOR:

examine how college students’ intrapersonal communication experiences (i.e., imagined interactions) with disliked instructors contribute to their proclivity to communicate instructional dissent (i.e., expressive, rhe- torical, vengeful)

Introduction

The experience of interacting with instructors positively or negatively influences the way students communicate dissent.

Introduction

This study investigated the impact of intrapersonal communication experiences (i.e., imagined interactions) with disliked instructors on student’s proclivity to communicate instructional dissent (i.e., expressive, rhe- torical, vengeful).

Theoretical Framework:

This research utilized a grounded theory approach in order to understand how students’ experience communicating their grievances affect their inclination toward expressive dissent and/or retaliatory behavior toward those who disagree with them. Theoretical Framework is provided above as well as within the next section of this paper where it will be discussed more thoroughly.

Method

Participants were asked to imagine a real-life interaction with an instructor that they disliked. They were then asked to write about the imagined interaction, using their own character as the narrator. Participants could also choose not to use their own character but instead write from another perspective (e.g., third person and/or omniscient).

Experiencing the Imagined Interaction

Experiencing the Imagined Interaction

Students use imagined interactions to work through conflicts. For example, if a student has an issue with a professor’s teaching style and they are struggling to figure out how they can improve as a student, they might imagine what it would be like if their professor was more supportive and encouraging. This allows them to gain perspective on how their own behavior might impact the classroom environment and learn from past experiences (e.g., “I know I came off as disrespectful in class today but maybe if I try harder next time he won’t be so critical of my work).

Students use imagined interactions * To think about counterarguments against disliked instructors’ viewpoints or practices.* To engage in discussion about issues raised by disliked instructors’ viewpoints or practices.* To manage emotions related directly or indirectly with disliked instructors’ viewpoints or practices

Managing Emotions and Evaluations

In an attempt to manage their emotions and evaluations, college students may use intrapersonal communication. For example, a student may talk to himself or herself about how he or she feels about an instructor’s class. This type of self-talk can be helpful in managing the student’s emotions because it helps him/her express his/her feelings without having to directly address the instructor directly.

Cataloging the Imagined Interaction in Memory

The imagined interaction is stored in memory and retrieved at a later time. It is similar to the real interaction, but also different from it. What makes this process so interesting is that we can see how our memories of past relationships help inform our understanding of current ones.

The following are some examples of how past experiences influence future interactions with others:

When you’re having a conversation with your best friend about something that happened earlier today, you may recall other conversations they had when they were young and how they related those experiences back then (e.g., “Remember when we went camping? We went fishing but got caught in the rainstorm?”). This helps you understand what she did during her childhood more clearly because she remembers things like this better than most people do!

Linguistic Disambiguation

Linguistic disambiguation is the process of identifying, separating and distinguishing between different linguistic forms. In other words, it involves separating what can be said from what cannot be said (the literal meaning). Linguistic disambiguation is also known as “distinction” because this process helps us perceive things that are distinct or separate in meaning or function. For example:

The statement “The dog ate my homework” means that a dog ate your homework; but if you say “My mom kicked me out of her house today” then this means two different things! You were kicked out by your mom but you didn’t eat any homework (unless maybe she meant to remind you).

Similarly, when we say “My son got into law school on his first try” then again there are two possible interpretations here: One could mean that he actually got into law school on his first try—which would mean something positive about him; another could mean that he failed at getting into law school only once before and has now successfully repeated the process three times in total due to hard work and perseverance…

Interacting with the Instructor and Acting Out Dissent

The instructor’s classroom presentation may be the first time students see their instructor interact with peers. Students may have difficulty identifying and recognizing this interaction because it occurs in a different setting than when they meet the instructor outside of class. This can make it difficult for students to understand how the instructor feels about them as individuals, which can lead them to ask themselves questions such as: “How do I fit into this class? Am I good enough? Do I belong here?”

Students who feel that they do not fit into their courses or departments often resort to expressing their dissent through expressive forms of communication (e.g., arguing with others) or rhe- torical forms (e.g., writing essays). These two types of expressive behavior are known as acting out dissent because they involve acting differently than normal behavior patterns associated with being liked by others

Discussion and Implications

The findings of this research suggest that college students’ intrapersonal communication experiences with disliked instructors contribute to their proclivity to communicate instructional dissent (expressive, rhetorical, vengeful). This is particularly true for certain types of relationship-focused communication experiences. Students who have more positive interpersonally oriented interactions with disliked instructors are more likely to express instructional dissent than those who had negative interactions.

Additionally, the current study found that while both male and female students tended to report having many negative interpersonal encounters with disliked instructors, women were more likely than men to engage in expressive forms of conflict during these interactions. Future research should explore why this may be so as well as how other factors such as gender role stereotypes might affect how we communicate at school or within our communities outside school settings

The findings suggest that we should consider how people use intrapersonal communication to work through their conflicts, think about counterarguments, and possibly engage in discussion.

The findings suggest that we should consider how people use intrapersonal communication to work through their conflicts, think about counterarguments, and possibly engage in discussion.

It is important to note that the study did not examine the overall impact of instructors’ speech on students’ learning because it was cross-sectional. However, there appears to be an effect of instructor negativity on students’ expressive communication (i.e., they are more likely to communicate their dissent when disliked by an instructor).

Conclusion

We’ve gone over a lot of evidence in this post. The findings are important for us to understand and consider because they suggest that we should consider how people use intrapersonal communication to work through their conflicts, think about counterarguments, and possibly engage in discussion. This can help students make better choices when deciding whether or not they want to dissent from an instructor on the course or its syllabus.