DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 073 490 CS 500 156

AOThCR Smith, Robert M.TITLE Communication Variables Appropriate Gaming and

Simulation.ROE DATE Dec 72NOTE 15p.; Paper presented at the Annul Meeting of the

Speech Communication Assn. (58th, Chicago, December27-30, 1972)

EERS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC -$3.29DESCRIPTORS Classroom Materials; *Communicatn (Thought

Transfer) ; *Games; *instructicnal Aids;*Instructional Innovation; Interaction ProcessAnalysis; Research Design; *Research Methodology;*Simulation

ASST FACTThis paper discusses potential uses for simulations

and games in communication research and instruction. For researchpurposes, simulations can be used for increasing coherence within andamong theories and for consolidating knowledge. As operational .modelsfor the study of interpersonal communication, simulations enable andfacilitate the study of certain communication variables under dynamicdevelopment. The author cites the variables-- commitment, concession,deterrence, threat, promise, and brinkmanship -which benefit mostfrom investigation under dynamic development. :n the classroom,simulations can be used to clarify cause-effect relationships. Thedirect consequence and almost instantaneous feedback characteristicsof simulation techniques have great potential for demonstratingconcepts which require actual experience. The author cautions againstindiscriminate use of "packaged" games and simulations forinstructional purposes.Many of the available "packages"unfortunately lack any relation to theory and are for all practicalpurposes useless.

U.S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS REEN REPROOUCEO EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON DR ORGANIZATION ORMINATIND IT POINTS OF VIEW OR TWINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

COMMUNICATION VARIAMIIS APFROPRIATE TO

GAMING AND SIMULATION

Robert M. Smithpartment of SpeochTemple University

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122

PERMISSION P IRI EiRII;i4IED MA TERIAL HAS II

ITPCSNIZ \.IIErVI Ol SPAT IN [LINDER AGREEMENTS WITH THE IJ DEEMOT rnucAiiTIN tij9n4p, IF r Rorwr Tint,01/15!PE THE ERIC SYSTEM REQUIRES ITER

cHiCO Of THE COISAIRi ri I (SANER

3peech Communication AssociationChicago, Illinoisember 27-30, 1922

COMM :IChTION IABLE-, rOrRIATE TO GAMING AND CIULATIO0

The preessional speech journals have shown marked interest in simu.-

lations and games during the past four yam=s, No less than thirteen

a? -i_clen have appear re

national journals,1

ing all the r 1 jolmnals a Id all 1-1,,

interest indicates an ent-I tic attempt by a

few authors to formulate the role simulations and games might serve in the

study of communication processes and iTura43-,e the use of simulati-

gam-- in the research and teaching of those who specialize in the communi-

cation fields.

The purpo!,e of this paper is to timulate thinking about the use of

simulations and games to resolve research and instructional problems when

dealing w. h the communication process, Due to tain limitations, I shall

dwell more on identlf, ,,, potential areas for use of simulations and ,, arie

by the communication specialist and defer discussion on the philosophic

or theoretical contingencies of using simul-tions and games.2

Sy general definiti a simulation will be considPred an 7-.7;n

lomat dynamic model of a social system. 3From this definition several

imp_ taut characteristics can be delineated, A simulation as a reprosen-

tatorin.l model can only approximate theory in much the same way a model

only approximate theory. A simulation as a dynamic model can be best suited

only for those conditions in which operatioial i rrt r.ract.ivo variables are

allowed to function, r, simulation as a model social system can never

4stand in total isomorphism to the original system Yet- in a more positive

perspective, simulations are an ideal system for studying the kinds of

conditions that are most common to the speech-communication ali.st

Critical to an understanding of the approach to simulations and games

taken in this paper is a fundamental rule of-dealing with simulation

Simulations are, at best, disciplined abstractions or simplifications of

theory, This tie to theory will be stressed throughout the paper.

S11 lations and cr games cannot productively oi.era #.e indekm,lidea of

th tical frame o ks.5

For research p, 'poses Amulat ons offer unique advantages to tie

elp ±nt of theory. Simulations can be used for increasing coherence,

within and among theories, thereby enabling scholars to assess gaps and

closures in theories. Simulations can be used to consolidate knowledge

either to validate or to unite theories. To achieve these advantagesl,

simulations can be adapted to one of three modes: all computer simulations;.

man-compute=r interaction simulations; and all-h man simulations.

Without question, both defined advantagus of simulations are within

the speech-communication scholar's province for re-search. Some of the

more recent theories of conflict and s 1 movements find themcel

methodological dilemma for which simulation may be an appropriate alternp

Currently, the validity of these theories is based either on anecdotal

evidence or empirical testing u- I er restrictive paradigmatic preeed

4ithout including a procedure for the dynamics of conflict to develop,

there can be little confidence- given explanatory powers of the theories

or the basis they give for prediction. For example, in our field neither

_ F.

Dettinghaus' social action model nor Simons' nc tcrical movements theory 7

land themselves to no 1 validation techniques.

3

Contrary to the dilemma traditional empirical tostinr, provides, simu-

lation serves as an avenue for the testing of social conflict problems and,

in particular, the communication concepts associated with them. -Because

simulations introduce the necded elements of "vested interest" and "inter-

thy are' ideally suited to the study of conflict and communication

wthin the conflict setting, Given those two oloments, +hero are a number

of general conflict theories that need to be studied. For example, lot ".

refer you to Kenneth Loulding,8

4of,ler, Thomag 7,,,holiiut., W511-1010 ., 10 _ _

11 12On.mson, and Ted Robert Gurr,

More specifically, the interaction of elements within the conflict

situation and the influence of communication upon conflict and conflict

resolution is important for validation orlargor theories includinF rtictocal

theories. I mention hero such elements as power,13 authority,14

lolsitima

. 16ton, - and Influence.- I isolatc-"influoucc" 'cocause of tho direct

relationship to communication. Consider the subssubclecnents of influence as

oeually irrportant to tho stuely of conflict and equally demanding of the

provided characteristics of simulations persuasion,- inducement, and

constraint.17 To each of those elements add variables associated with

implicit communication dynamic* such as trust, defection, and commitment.iS

Some experimentation with simulation forms have been used to test

wriables in conflict situations, host of the simulation forms have used

the "all-human" mode though notable largo-scale international conflict

studies have used the all-computer mode.-19

The most common form of analyzing

20conflict is through the use of the Prisoner's Dilemma Game. There

some confusion in comparing results from conflict studios where communication

is a vari-ole in the Prisoner's Dilemma. Most notably, the typical use of

i4,

the Prisoner's Dilemma disallows open and unimpeded communication amour,

participants, thereby imposing an artificial characteristic of conflict

21situations and probably contributing to the mixed results. What is

called for is not necessarily the elimination of "Prisoner's Dilemma"

procedures but, rather, more innovative use of the fo- c by communication

realists

There are limitations to the Prisoner's bilemma 111rd-, othor einmlatlens

can overcome, In particular, other simulations can give a bettor environ-

mantal framework to represent real-life situations; give grnator treodom in

the operational definition of central variaticr conflict such am

and competition; and most importantly, other simulations can give a more

conducive atmosphere for communication analysis. Among the other

simulations have boon such events as the closely related Deutsch-Krauss

Trucking Game' to the lariTo-scale "Robbers Cave Experiment" of Muscafer

Sherif,-3

Other interactions than social conflict theory should also be con-

sidered by the speech-communication researcher, Most recently, the fiold

has shown special attention to the problems associated with the rhetorical

24strategics of campaigns and political elections. To some extent,

simulations have been developed for studying election processes which may

be adaptable to the communication specialist's nceds.25 Others interested

in organizational communication will find a broad host of literature and

imulations available to aid research c'fforts.2'

Because of their-inc.:to features of simulatdons, the most suitable

research should be for the study of interpersonal communication, Where two

elements indiGenous to simulations, "vested interest".aninteraction",

5

were singled out as ideal for aiding conflict studios, those same two are

appropriate for aiding interpersonal communication studios, To the extent

"vested interest" and "interaction" call upon interpersonal variables of

egO involvemone' and trust,28

and to the extent these are difficult varJrftTh-

to validly produce in the laboratory, then the more important the use of

simulations becomes to the study of interpersonal communication.

Any variable of intorpersonal communication Hi;vt rognires dynamic

development within the event in order for that variable to 17) validly he!-0.'1

in an appropriate variablo to study through simulation. Among the inter-

personal variables requiring dynamic development are cooperation and

competition, empathy, defensiveness, interpersonal intimacy, self-concept,

and role-plying. Among the communication variables most interestingly

studied under dynamic Ocvelepment are: commitment, concession, deterrence,

throat (cost), promise (reward) and brinkmanship, This, of course, leads

back to broader studies of bargaining, negotiation, and coalition theories

and, in many ways, to models based on transactional analysis. 29

A reasonable number of studies have been conducted to study some- of

30those variables- and related studies have produced measuring, instruments for

the study of many of the variables listed horc,31

Isolate for your attention those studies centering on commuuicatLen

and perception of the communication situation32. Three known studies in bhc

speech field have boon or are being conducted using simulation or game

Methodology, Thomas Boisecker studied vorbal communication in mixed-

motive interaction:32 and Stewart Tubbs studied the relationship between

3trusting behavior and conformity-inducing messages.3 My personal research

is centerir on the relationship between means ofinfluonceused,

authorities, and trust of authorities, There is certainly room for

other research of in -)rpersonal behavior from a communication framm,;0-

Because this paper identifies only a few arcas for study, it not

fair to cc conclude simulation or game methodology is so limited. Rese -oh

in air:

34

publih address has been done by simulating through a computer

an entire audience for the study of adapting messages to apathetic and, m

audiences, 35 iios,oarch in ip dynamics has been done by simn1 [I ii t; rill_ -1

computer a (Troup cotnmuni c ation network for groups r=,nging in to

twenty-seven for the study of networ=k channels, 36 Research in group inter-

aotion, by Fred Jandt, is ooing conducted using all-human simulation for the

study of conflict and common ication.37

The use of simulation for research purposes in communication is un-

limited but constrained, currently, by two factors. First simulation methods

must be refined and .sue' refl t comes only through use. Second, use

simulations depends on imagination and creativity which comes from the

challenge and rouw.

cation process,

value of simulations fr7 the tudy of the co imuni

second, and equally important, functional use of simulation is NS an

aid to instruction. The advantages cf using simulations in the classroom

nave been _fe-criced olsewhorc.38 Most notably: (1) simulations help

clarify cause-effect relationships since actions within the simulation have

direct consequences with almost instantaneous feedbaok; (2) by having

instantaneous feedback, simulations provide reinforcement of appropriate and

inappropriate actions; simulations give greater satisfaction to "knowim"

by aro ti' g; high le vol motivation and involvement with the model; (4)

simulations give oppurtunity for sontrollf4t practiee aTA implomoutation of

abstract principles; and (5) simulations force participant behavior to

explicit.

Those advantages may load to the conclusion that simulations urLxvo

are a "bettor" instructional toci. Such a conclusion has net ounclusiNuly

boon established. However, simulation is a different :7oul with specific

advantages that could be considorod "bettor" suited for the instructor of

communication. These advantages are such inherent charteristie

interaction effect; the intrinsically attractive nature of the comvanicatiou

environmont over the typical olas5roum communication pattern; and inter-

personal involvement.

As should ho obvious from the discussion of research possibilities for

interpersonal eommunication , there is great possibility for demonstrating and

experiencing concepts of interpersonal communication in the classroom, In

most cases, th c. same operational models for research are adaptable for claF7-

room use. 39For general cases, the use of simulation may be the best alt-r..

native for the -interpersonal communication classroom.

Other courses can utilize simulations offectively. Experience with

simulations or games for instructional purposes has been noted for a wide

variety of speech courses.40

Two periodicals provide additional sources of

simulations and games in each issue that are' often convertable to spocch

41 4cla essroom use SiMUlationS and Gams and Si-nlatio qa, 'News. 2

Unfortunately, the use. of "packaged" games or intriguingly described

simulations is a poor way of btiliing the method within the classroom.

tendency of the published literature has boon to recommend simulations or

games without consideration of the all-important relation of the simulation

or game to, some theory. The rationale of the literature has been-to recomond

a packaged simulationlon the basis of contingencies of play and clarity of

rules. However, without a union with theory, any simulation is, for all

practical purposes, useless.

For example, consider the heavily recommendor i:cane of Risk. The play

of the game involves imaginary countries competing by war in an attempt

to eliminate everyone, else from the board. The "winnor" is the country

remaining after everyone else has been eliminated. The game is reunureuhly

surE:gested for use in group discussion classes; however, the game itsulf has

nothing to do with either intergroup or intragroup discussion. To the

extent Risk relato to theory, the relation ie provided outside, artifically,

to the game dynamics. As commonly used, Risk is a hollow game providing only

the environment for the simulation'tmt guiding none of the discussion bnavior

within the environment, ,t11 the behavior, in terms of discussion or group

theory, is outside of the characteristics of the game.

Ohat probably leads communication instructors to this inappropriate

use of simulations and games is that all games appear usable because all grlos

utilize communication in some form or another. Yet, communication takos

place within a context and eauti_n must be exercised in choosing a game to

be sure that the context does not dominate, and distract from the theory being

imparted. To date, published articles in the speech literature have been

inadequate to aid the instructor dotermine-the communication variables

appropriately drawn out by the simulation. Much of the dissatisfaction and

failure from instructional use of simulations can be traced to the random

rather than systematic selection of the most purposeful simulation for an

intended objective.

The purpose of this paper h bon to stimulFbto thirkin alut tho

potantial of simulation methods for roearoh and InrAructioul,l purlAses.

Simulations arc a method uniquely conducivo to the needs of tho communi7

mtlon spelalist interested in stu.rlyin nrecQes 111-1 'Intcal.0. Tho

missing intinni--. ha r1n:F.r hritp! lo.,L linp7i11711-1(q, .110 IvFjliwii-,ino.

I

FOOTNOTES

Thomam Beinecker, "Game Theory in Communication Research A Reactionand Reorientation," Journal of Communication, 20 (1970), 107-120; ThumBeisecko,

"Verbal Persuasive Strategies in Mixed-Motive inturiJlons,"raperterly JouTmalefSpeech, 56 (4ril, 1970), 149-1(i0; William BennolA,"Confliet Rhetoric and GamoThoory: An Extrapolation a i o, ii (nSpeech Communication Journal, 37 (1971), 34-46; Robert ro:Um, ."qflwTheory in Cemmunication Resarch," Journal of Communication, 18 (L)6S

0

1C9-388; William Brooks, "Innevui-Ave instructional Strategic' for SpeechCommunication," Tojay's Speech, 20 (Fall, 1972), 39-47; Willlam Gordon,

jr Games in the Speech Curriculum," Ccntral StatesSpeech Journal,20 (Winter, 1969), 269-279; WiTliam Cordon, "Rhetoric-Communication ConeeptmIllustrated by Several Academic Gamest Netaphor and Mystique at Play,"Todav's Snsent, 19 (Summer, 1971), 37-33 Cal Hylton and William Lashbrook,"Apathetic and Neutral Audiences: A Computer Simulation and Validation,"Speech MoramEhs, 39 (June, 1972), 105-113; Fred Jandt, "Sources forCcirputer Utilization in Interpersonal Communication Instruction and Research,'Today_tspeoch, 20 (Spring, 19'J), 2-11; John Kline, "Communicatinn CamesA Pica for Isomorphism with Theory," Western Speech, 36 (Summer, 1972),181-186; Dale Leathers, "The Process Effects of Trust-Destroying Behavior inthe Small Croup," Sbeeoh Monographs, 37 (1970), 180-187; Stewart Tubbs,"Two-Person Gams, Dchavior, Conformity-Indueing liessages and InterpersonalTrust," Journal o Communication, 21 (December, 1971), 326-341; and Raymond.Tucker, "Computer Simulations and Simulation Games: Their Place in tho SpeechCurriculum," Sneech Teacher, 17 March, 1968), 128-1330

9

'Due to time limitation given to the Presentation of this paper, somedetail and. further references will be given in footnotes.

1-Harold Guotzkow, "A Use of Simulation in the Study of .ter-Nation

Relations,' Behaviora Science, 4 (1959) l5 4.

4'For a brief discussion of the limitations of models for research UE'79

see: George, handler and'William-Kessen, "The Use of 'Models and An,logies,":Leprinted in S-neech Communication El ha Larry Barker and Robert J...Kiblor (eds) iPingiewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971),52-57, For a discussiol of models as related to simulations, see StanelyWinkler, "Computer Simulation -- Gospel, Guidance, or Garbage," Cybernetics,Simulation, and ConflictHcsolution, D. Knight, H. Curtis, and L. Foga (;c1)low lark 3 Spartan Book, 1971); 171-.10.

oee John Kline, "Communication Gamest A Flea for isomorphism with,

Theory," Western Speech, 36 Summer, 1972), 181-186.

6Erwin Bottinghaus, Persuasive Communication, (Holt, Rinehart, andWinston, New York, 1968), 256-278.

7Her'bert Simons, Roquirefflents, Problems, and Strategies: A Theory ofPersuasion for Social Movements," Quarterly Journal of S-esch, 56(February, 1970 1-11.

8Kenneth Bouldire, Conflict and Defense: A17,eneral Theory York

Harper and Brothers, 1962 . Boulding lists several conflict mot.

9Lewis Coscr, The Functions of Social Conflict ow York: The FreePress, 1956),

10-Thomas Schellinr, The Strategy Uondon: Oxford Univor6ILN-

Pross, 1960).

William Camson Power and Discontent (Homewood, Illinois: The DorseyPress, -1968).

-_12

Tod Robert Cur1970),

y Men Rebel (Princeton: Princeton University Press,

13,oee J W, Thibaut and. H, H. Kelley, The_Soelailflohology of Groups

-(New York; John Wiley and Sons, 1959); and J. C. Hansanyi, "The Measurombnt of Social Power," Behavioral Science, 7 (1962), 67-72; and John H, P.Fronoh, Jr,, "A Formal Theory of Social Power," Psvohological Review, 6(Nay, 1956), 181194..

4See Max Weber, The Theory of ocial and Economic Orranization1

f

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1947); and Charles nosier and SarahKtublor, ConforMitv (Reading, Nassachusotts1 Addison-Wesley Co,, 19KChapter 2.

1 %cc rotor emer0 The aorcd Canucy: Elemontn of a Sociological Thcorof -Religion (Garden City, flow Jrk: Doubleday, 1967) ertram Raven and A,W. Kruglanskl, "Conflict and Power," Th Structure of Conflict, Paul Svintae

-(cd) Now York: itcademic Press, 1970), Chapter

ocet Dorwin Cartwright, "Inflnon..o, Leadership, Control," Handbookof 0)2ranivItIons, & by .-Tamor C. March (Chicago: Rand McNally and Go,-, 1965),

Taloott l'mrtions, "On the Concept- of Influence," Public -21=2DClnartierl- 2? (1963), 37-62; and Gamson,

17;commonly defined constraint is coercion. For an interesting study

of coercion as a form of conflict resolution See: Herbert W. Simons,"Dorsuasion in Social Conflicts: A Critique of Provailing Conceptions anda Framewcrk.for Future Research," SpecchMonogr 39 (Uovember,in press.

18Schelling, 134-150,

19Guetzko , 183-191..

20For an explanation of Prisoner's Dilomma zoo R, Duncan Lilco and,

Howard Raiffa$ Games _and Decisions, ew York: John Wiley and Sons, 39:/),95.

Foror ful.ler discussion of the role of communication in the Priconor'sDilemma see: Anatol Rapoport and C Orwant, "Experimental Games: A Review,"i*havioralScioncel 7 (1962), 1-37; Harvey Wirbmant "Effects of Isolation andCommunication on Cooperation in a Two-Person Game," Journal of Personalityand_Social Psychalegv, 16 (1970 )-114-120.

22llorton Deutsch and R, H. Krauss, "The Effect of Threat Upon inter-

personal Bargaining," Journal of Abnormal and SocialysycholOgY, 61 (1960)181-189; and M, Deutsch and R. Krauss, "tudios of Interpersonal Bargaining,"Journal of Conflict Resolution, 6 (March, 1962), c2-76,

23_-Muzafer Shelf, etal Intergrou Conflict andCooporation; The

Robbers CaveEucriment (Norman: University of ORlahoma, 196].)

oeo: Divid Swanson, "The New_Politi,ls neets the Old Rhetoric; NewDirections in Campaign Communication Research," Quarterly Journal_of rc

(February, 1972), 31-40; Horbort Simons, James Chesebro,-Jac-k Orr, Lun-titled article on tho 1972 Election Campaign for Publication in the April

. issue of QuarterlyLang.J2L§Pqoot, 1973

251. Pool, R. Abelson, and A. PapKIP. andidates, --sue- and StratNies ,

-(Cambridgel NIT Press; 1964 ) ,

D. C. Malcom, "Bibliography on the Use of Simulation in ManagementAnalysis," georationssoarth, 8 leM 169-177,

27Por a brief review of the position of ego involvement to the inter-personal rolntionship as well as a description of general studies of ago-to] vomont see C. David Mortenson, Communication: Thc Study_ofHuicln_

liiteraoticn, New York: McGram-HiliTkTok Co., 1972 1.3-177.

28,veral sources dealing with the dynamics of the variable "trust"

arc listed throughout the paper. The best source for an understanding of"trust" as used for this paper can he found throughout Thomas Scholling,The Stratc y of Conflict. See also, Paul Watslawick, Janet Beavin, and Den

-,,onlIstics of Human Communication (New York; W, W. Norton and CoInc., 1967 223-229.

29Some of the transactional models scorn readily adaptable to simulation.

See, in particular,: Eric Borne, GamesPeoulcPlay, Now York; Grove Prrr,s,Inc., 1964); and Erving Coffman, StrategicInteraction N"sr Yirt_- wi1 aa:,,10Books 1969)

30The following repo_ use dynamic interaction as the methodclocu Lul-

a study of the indicated variablest (promise) Gary Evans, "?Siect of

Unilateral Promise and Value of Rewards Upon Cooperation and Trust,"Jcernal of Abnormal and Social' Psvohnlopy 69 (1964), -;87-t7,90. (cost and_....

,Abnormal-_ -__ -, -,- , , I 1 --- -

coard ) L. P. 1,ankfurt, "The Role of Some Individual and interpersonalFactors on the Acquaintance Proccss,"Diss, Amcriev University 1965;(cooperation and competition) Tubbs; (role- playing) Melvin Guyer and AnatolRapoport, "Information Effects in Two Mixed-Motive Cams," BehavioralScience, 14 (1969), 467-482; '(commitment) Palmas Taylor, I, Altman R.Sorrentino, "Interpersonal Exchange as a Function of Rewards and Costs andSituational Factors: Expectancy Confirmation-Disconfirmation," SocialPsv clogy, 5 (1969), 324-339; (threat) Harold Kelley, "Experimental Studios

ts in Interpersonal Negotiations," Journal of Conflict Rosplution,9 (1 79-105; (brinkmanship) Anatol Rapoport and Albert Chammalc"ThoCaine of Chicken," American Behavioral Cci cntist, 10 (November, 1966), 23-28,

1.

--The following research reports define instruments for measuring theindicated variables; (empa(°hy) Robert Carkhuff, Holpingand_Human RelaCVol. I- (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 19j9} [the OverallFacilitative Funcrdoning Scale]; (interpersonal intimacy) D. A, Taylor andI, Altman, "Intimacy-Scaled Stimuli for Use in Studies of InterpersonalRelations," 157yclgieal_Reports, 19 (1)66), 729-730; (self-actualization)William Martin,. "Sell=` Perception Inventory: A Now Test of Personality,"Psychological Reports, 23 (1968 1-962; (solf-ooncopt) Rae Carlson andpassim Levy, "Brief MthodFor ;471e5sin,, So:lial-Personal Orientation,"psyclux,J,71,Al :1, , - 23 (1968), 5HA,-90h ':'Lrust Kim Giffin, AnExperimontaEvaluaton of the Truqt_iffercntial, gescarch Monograph P/19 (Lawronce,Kansas: TheCommunicou Roscarch Center, The University of Kansas, 1968)

.

Joe; .ireldKe,., %nd Anthony :ItahelF:ki, "S J11 Interaction Basisof Cooperators' and Cem,,titer' Doll--- About Othe.ps," Journalof Personalityanljocial Psychology, 2/, (1970), 66-9L: Vollo Sermatl "Is Caine BehaviorRotated to Behavior in Otl,er. interpetal Situations?" Journal ofPursonality.-1-Social Ps:TcholoY9 16 -(1970) 92-105% 'l o v, fi, Stiner, "Interpersonal Behaior

n7. Inflnenned by Accuracy. of Social Porc,:pUon," Psychological Review,I ,-

268-2741 Harvey Wichman, "Effects of Isolation and Communicatloperation in a, Two- Person Came," Journal of Tersona,lityandSoelal

P vphOlcm-,.16'.(197.0 ) , 114.-120,-

eiseckor, "VQrba1 PeTSUaSVO Strategies in Mixed-MtiveInter-actions,"

34-

Hylton and Lachbrook, o p. .Cit.; William Lashbrook and Joan Sullivan."Arattic and Neutral Audiences: More on Simulation and Validation,"(unpublished manuscript, Normal, Illinois: Illinois State University, 1972and William Lashbrook, "Program RISTOME: A Corputoried Technique for theSimulation and Analysis of Audiences," (San Jose, LIQVCChlioUF, )r

Sneoch-Commuuication, San Jose State College, March 1, 1970).

McMhinnoy, "Simulating the Communication NetwpikBehavioral_Seionce, 9 1964 80-84.

:37Pred E. Jandt, "Interactive Synecology; A Simulation for the Studyo Conflict and Communication," Conflict 0colution Through. Cemmynicatiom.(New York: Harper and Row, 1973).

°Sce Clark at, SQ.riOUS Games, (Now York: Viking Press, 1970)!Darenc roocock and E. 0. 'child (cdc) Simulation Games 11-1 Learninr., (Beverly

California: Sage Publication, Inc ., 1'-)68); Ronald Klietsch,

Learning Games and instructional Simulations, (Newport, Minnesota:int:notioul Simulations arid Co., 1969 . and Brooks, p 40.

ln-'See Herbert W. Simons, :3, N, Smith, and P. E, Harris, "Persuasion in

Sooial Ccofict," (short course Jntorial presented at OpeoehCommunicationAssociation (omiention, Chicago, Illinois, December 27, 1972)! and Than isE. Warrisa.!Yi. Robert M. Smith, ",ithods for introducing Analysis of ConflictTheor:t," (unpuDIIV.,,7d paTer, =r)rtment of Speech, Temple University, Philr-delphia, Pcnmsylvhnial Dccemb 1972).

40-Sec:. Gordcn. "j;eadrsr Games in the Speoch Curriculum; Jandt, "Sources

for Computer lailltion in 1:ite,uperrIona1 Communication Instruction andNeseatchl'= 140(cr,

42tnforrl Univ t:'

Wifornia.