COMMUNICATION, "ROOT-METAPHOR" ORIENTATION, AND DECISION-MAKING: A LABORATORY STUDY

STEPHEN R AXLEY, Purdue University

Abstract

Philosopher Stephen Pepper (1942) argues that human perspectival differences can be usefully conceptualized in terms of four distinct and global "world hypotheses" or root metaphorical orientations: formism, mechanism, contextualism, and organicism. Previous research (Bethel, 1974; Harris et al., 1977) has suggested that these four orientations may relate differentially to interpersonal perceptions and to communication, although heretofore only perceptual data have been directly examined. The present study represents a descriptive and exploratory extension of earlier research. In the present laboratory study, eighty individuals preferring one of the four orientations participated in decision-making dyads in which the interactants were either metaphorically-homophilous (similar) or heterophilous (different). Three dependent variables were examined: (1) decision-making communication; (2) perceptions of interaction and of one's decision partner; and (3) decision performance. Two metaphorical orientations emerged as most distinct in terms of communication and perceptions: contextualism and organicism. The contextualistic individuals studied here demonstrated communicative and perceptual supportiveness and accommodation which consistently surpassed that of other individuals, and which were operationally congruent with Pepper's definitions of contextualism. The organistic participants demonstrated communication and certain interpersonal evaluations which were generally somewhat less supporting and accommodating than those of individuals preferring other metaphorical orientations. The latter results are interpreted in terms of the conceptual kinship between organistic thinking and dialectical modes of inquiry. In contrast to previous research (Bethel, 1974; Harris et al., 1977), it was not found that metaphorical homophily generally promotes more favorable interpersonal perceptions than does heterophily. In the present study, homophilous contextualistic decision partners reported the most favorable perceptions of interaction and of each other, whereas homophilous formistic interactants reported the least favorable perceptions of interaction and homophilous organistic interactants reported the least favorable perceptions of each other. In terms of decision quality, no significant differences were found between metaphorically-heterophilous and homophilous dyads, although the former took significantly longer to reach decision consensus than did homophilous dyads. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for organizational communication, decision-making, and interpersonal behavior.

Degree

Ph.D.

Subject Area

Communication

COinS