Interplay The Process of Interpersonal Communication Fifth Canadian Edition [5 ed.] 9780199033478, 9780199038701, 9780199033522

Citation preview

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries. Published in Canada by Oxford University Press 8 Sampson Mews, Suite 204, Don Mills, Ontario M3C 0H5 Canada www.oupcanada.com Copyright © Oxford University Press Canada 2020 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First Edition published in 2006 Second Edition published in 2009 Third Edition published in 2012 Fourth Edition published in 2016 Original edition published by Oxford University Press, Inc., 198 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10016-4314, USA. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Permissions Department at the address above or through the following url: www.oupcanada.com/permission/permission_request.php Every effort has been made to determine and contact copyright holders. In the case of any omissions, the publisher will be pleased to make suitable acknowledgement in future editions. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Title: Interplay : the process of interpersonal communication / Ronald B. Adler, Constance Winder,    Lawrence B. Rosenfeld, Russell F. Proctor II. Names: Adler, Ronald B. (Ronald Brian), 1946- author. | Winder, Constance, 1961- author. |    Rosenfeld, Lawrence B., author. | Proctor, Russell F., II, author. Description: Fifth Canadian edition. | Includes bibliographical references and indexes. Identifiers: Canadiana (print) 20190202378 | Canadiana (ebook) 20190202386 | ISBN 9780199033478    (softcover) | ISBN 9780199038701 (looseleaf) | ISBN 9780199033522 (EPUB) Subjects: LCSH: Interpersonal communication—Textbooks. | LCGFT: Textbooks. Classification: LCC BF637.C45 A35 2020 | DDC 302.2—dc23 Cover image: Ion Barbu/EyeEm/Getty Images Cover design: Farzana Razak Interior design: Farzana Razak Oxford University Press is committed to our environment. Wherever possible, our books are printed on paper which comes from responsible sources. Printed and bound in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 — 23 22 21 20

Brief Contents Publisher’s Preface  xi Preface xviii

PART 1  |  FOUNDATIONS OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION Chapter 1 Interpersonal Process 2 Chapter 2 Communication and the Self 38 Chapter 3 Perceiving Others 78 Chapter 4 Emotions 110

PART 2  |  CREATING AND RESPONDING TO MESSAGES Chapter 5 Listening 142 Chapter 6 Language 174 Chapter 7 Non-verbal Communication 208

PART 3  |  DIMENSIONS OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS Chapter 8 Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships 240 Chapter 9 Communication Climate 274 Chapter 10 Managing Conflict 304

PART 4  |  CONTEXTS OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION Chapter 11 Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners 336 Chapter 12 Work, Group, and Team Communication 364 Glossary 393 References  400 Name index  455 Subject Index  457

Contents Publisher’s Preface  xi Preface xviii

PART 1  |  FOUNDATIONS OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION Chapter 1 Interpersonal Process  2 Why We Communicate  4 Physical Needs  5 Identity Needs  6 Social Needs  6 Practical Needs  7 The Communication Process  8 A Model of Communication  8 Insights from the Transactional Communication Model  8 Communication Principles  10 The Nature of Interpersonal Communication  12 Quantitative and Qualitative Definitions 12 Personal and Impersonal Communication: A Matter of Balance  15 Communication Misconceptions  16 Interpersonal Communication and Technology  17 Characteristics of Computer-Mediated Communication 18 Interpersonal Communication and Cultural Diversity  22 Culture 22 Intercultural Communication  23 Interpersonal and Intercultural Communication 24 Comparison of Canadian and US Culture  26 Attitudes toward Violence  26 Acceptance of Diversity  27

Relative Status of Men and Women  27 Communication Competence  28 Communication Competence Defined and Described 29 Characteristics of Competent Communication 31 Summary  34 Multiple-choice Questions  35 Activities  36 Discussion Questions  37 Journal Ideas  37 Chapter 2 Communication and the Self  38 Communication and the Self-Concept  40 How the Self-Concept Develops  43 Self-Concept Development in Context 45 Characteristics of the Self-Concept  48 The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy and Communication 51 Presenting the Self: Communication as Impression Management  54 Public and Private Selves  54 Characteristics of Impression Management 55 Why Manage Impressions?  58 How Do We Manage Impressions?  58 Identity Management and Honesty  60 Disclosing the Self  61 Self-Disclosure Factors  62 Models of Self-Disclosure  63 Benefits and Risks of Self-Disclosure  65 Alternatives to Self-Disclosure  68 Silence and Secrecy  68 Lying  69 Equivocation  70

Contents

Hinting 71 The Ethics of Evasion  72 Guidelines for Self-Disclosure  72 Is the Other Person Important to You?  72 Is the Risk of Disclosing Reasonable?  73 Is the Self-Disclosure Appropriate?  73 Is the Disclosure Reciprocated?  73 Will the Effect Be Constructive?  74 Summary  74 Multiple-choice Questions  75 Activities  76 Discussion Questions  77 Journal Ideas  77 Chapter 3 Perceiving Others  78 The Perception Process  80 Reality Is Constructed  80 Steps in the Perception Process  80 Influences on Perception  86 Access to Information  86 Physiological Influences  86 Psychological Influences  89 Social Influences  89 Cultural Influences  93 Common Tendencies in Perception  96 We Make Snap Judgments  96 We Cling to First Impressions  97 We Judge Ourselves More Charitably than We Do Others  98 We Are Influenced by Our Expectations 98 We Are Influenced by the Obvious  99 We Assume Others Are Similar to Us  100 Perceiving Others More Accurately  100 Perception Checking  101 Building Empathy  102 Summary  106 Multiple-choice Questions  107 Activities  108 Discussion Questions  109 Journal Ideas  109

Chapter 4 Emotions  110 What Are Emotions?  113 Physiological Changes  113 Cognitive Interpretations  114 Outward Expression  115 Influences on Emotional Expression  116 Personality 116 Culture 116 Gender 120 Social Conventions and Roles  120 Social Media  121 Emotional Contagion  121 Expressing Emotions Effectively  122 Recognize Your Feelings  122 Choose the Best Language  123 Share Multiple Feelings  124 Recognize the Difference between Feeling and Acting  124 Accept Responsibility for Your Feelings 125 Choose the Best Time and Place to Express Your Feelings  125 Managing Emotions  125 Facilitative and Debilitative Emotions 126 Thoughts as a Cause of Feelings  126 Irrational Thinking and Debilitative Emotions 128 Minimizing Debilitative Emotions  132 Maximizing Facilitative Emotions  134 Summary 136 Multiple-choice Questions 137 Activities 138 Discussion Questions 139 Journal Ideas 139

PART 2  |  CREATING AND RESPONDING TO MESSAGES Chapter 5 Listening  142 The Nature of Listening  144 The Importance of Listening  144 Listening Defined  145 Listening Styles  147

vii

viii

Contents

The Challenge of Listening  148 Recognizing Barriers to Listening  148 Avoiding Poor Listening Habits  149 Components of Listening  150 Hearing 150 Attending 151 Understanding 151 Remembering 154 Responding 155 Types of Listening Responses  155 Silent Listening  156 Questioning 157 Paraphrasing 160 Empathizing 163 Supporting 164 Analyzing 165 Evaluating 166 Advising 166 Which Style to Use?  167 Summary  169 Multiple-choice Questions  170 Activities  171 Discussion Questions 172 Journal Ideas  172 Chapter 6 Language  174 The Nature of Language  176 Language Language Language Language

Is Symbolic  176 Is Governed by Rules  176 Is Subjective  178 and Worldview  179

The Influence of Language  180 Naming and Identity  180 Credibility and Status  183 Affiliation 184 Power and Politeness  185 Sexism 187 Sexual Orientation  188 Racism 189 Uses (and Abuses) of Language  190 Precision and Vagueness  190 The Language of Responsibility  195 Culture and Language  198 High- versus Low-context Cultures  198

Verbal Communication Styles  200 Code-Switching 200 Gender and Language  201 Extent of Gender Differences  201 Online Language and Gender  202 Non-Gender Influences on Language Use 203 Summary  204 Multiple-choice Questions  204 Activities  206 Discussion Questions  207 Journal Ideas  207 Chapter 7 Non-verbal Communication  208 Non-verbal Communication Defined  210 Characteristics of Non-verbal Communication 211 Non-verbal Communication Is Always Occurring  211 Non-verbal Communication Is Primarily Relational  212 Non-verbal Communication Is Ambiguous  212 Non-verbal Communication Occurs in Mediated Messages  213 Non-verbal Communication Is Influenced by Culture and Gender  215 Functions of Non-verbal Communication  218 Creating and Maintaining Relationships  218 Regulating Interaction  219 Influencing Others  219 Influencing Ourselves  220 Concealing/Deceiving  221 Types of Non-verbal Communication  222 Body Movement  222 Touch  224 Voice  225 Distance  227 Territoriality  229 Time 230 Physical Attractiveness  231 Clothing  231 Physical Environment  232

Contents

Summary  234 Multiple-choice Questions  235 Activities  236 Discussion Questions  237 Journal Ideas  238

PART 3  |  DIMENSIONS OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS Chapter 8 Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships  240 Why We Form Relationships  242 Appearance 242 Similarity  243 Complementarity  244 Rewards  245 Competence  246 Proximity  247 Disclosure  247 Intimacy and Distance in Relationships  248 Forms of Intimacy  248 Forms of Distance  249 The Influence of Culture and Gender on Intimacy  250 Models of Relational Dynamics  253 Stages of Relational Development  253 Dialectical Tensions in Relationships  259 Characteristics of Relational Development  262 Communicating about Relationships  263 Content and Relational Messages  263 Maintaining and Supporting Relationships 265 Repairing Damaged Relationships  268 Summary  270 Multiple-choice Questions  270 Activities  272 Discussion Questions  272 Journal Ideas  273 Chapter 9 Communication Climate  274 What Is Communication Climate?  276 How Communication Climates Develop  276 Levels of Message Confirmation  277

Causes and Effects of Defensiveness  282 Climate Patterns  283 Creating Supportive Climates  283 Evaluation versus Description  285 Controlling Communication versus Problem Orientation  287 Strategy versus Spontaneity  287 Neutrality versus Empathy  289 Superiority versus Equality  289 Certainty versus Provisionalism  291 Invitational Communication  292 The Language of Choice  293 Responding Non-defensively to Criticism  294 Summary  299 Multiple-choice Questions 300 Activities  301 Discussion Questions  302 Journal Ideas 302 Chapter 10 Managing Conflict  304 What Is Conflict?  306 Expressed Struggle  307 Interdependence  307 Perceived Incompatible Goals  307 Perceived Scarce Resources  307 Inevitability  307 Conflict Styles  308 Avoidance (Lose–Lose)  309 Accommodation (Lose–Win)  310 Competition (Win–Lose)  311 Compromise   312 Collaboration (Win–Win)  313 Which Style to Use?  314 Conflict in Relational Systems  316 Complementary and Symmetrical Conflict 316 Serial Arguments  317 Toxic Conflict: “The Four Horsemen”  318 Conflict Rituals  319 Variables in Conflict Styles  321 Gender  321 Culture  322

ix

x

Contents

Conflict Management in Practice   324 Steps for the Win–Win Approach  325 Summary  330 Multiple-choice Questions  331 Activities  332 Discussion Questions  333 Journal Ideas  334

PART 4  |  CONTEXTS OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION Chapter 11 Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners  336 Communication in Friendships  338 Types of Friendships  338 Friendships, Gender, and Communication  339 Friendship and Social Media  342 Communication in Successful Friendships  342 Communication in the Family  345 Creating the Family through Communication  345 Patterns of Family Communication  347 Families as Communication Systems  348 Effective Communication in Families  350 Communication in Romantic Relationships  355 Characteristics of Romantic Relationships  355 Effective Communication in Romantic Relationships   358 Summary  360 Multiple-choice Questions  361 Activities  362

Discussion Questions  363 Journal Ideas  363 Chapter 12 Work, Group, and Team Communication  364 Communicating in Organizations  366 Formal Communication  366 Informal Communication  367 Relationships in Work Groups and Teams  369 Characteristics of Groups and Teams  369 Personal Skills in Work Groups and Teams 370 Group Cultures  373 Face-to-Face and Mediated Relationships  374 Leadership, Power, and Influence in Working Groups  375 Types of Leadership  376 Types of Power  376 Leadership that Supports Diversity and Inclusion   379 Advancing Your Career  381 Networking  381 Interviewing  382 Summary  388 Multiple-choice Questions  389 Activities  390 Discussion Questions  391 Journal Ideas  392

Glossary 393 References  400 Name index  455 Subject Index  457

Publisher’s Preface The fifth edition of Interplay builds on the successful approach used in the previous Canadian editions that have served instructors and students well. It gives first-time students a useful, compelling, and accurate introduction to the academic study of interpersonal communication. Readers of Interplay come away with a new appreciation of how scholarship about communication in interpersonal relationships can make a difference in their everyday lives. To that end, this fifth edition presents new and expanded coverage of key concepts while retaining the trusted qualities and features of the previous editions.

Key Features • An accessible writing style based on the belief that even complicated ideas can be presented in a straightforward way. • A commitment to showing how scholarship offers insights about the process of interpersonal communication. • Thought-provoking photos and cartoons that thoughtfully and compellingly illustrate the text’s insights.

Increased Coverage of Contemporary Issues Impacting Day-to-Day Life • To help students better understand the issues and contexts they will face in their everyday lives, this edition features expanded content on communication and the self, technology, culture, and work throughout. Some new topics include: 42

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

SELF-ASSESSMENT HOW MUCH COMPASSION DO YOU SHOW YOURSELF? Please read each statement carefully before answering. To the left of each item, indicate how often you behave in the stated manner, using the following scale: Almost Never 1 2 1.

Communication and the Self • Chapter 2 – Self-compassion • Chapter 4 – Change your Self-Talk • Chapter 4 – Combining Daily Mindfulness with Reappraisal

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

3

Almost Always 4 5

When I fail at something important to me, I become consumed by feelings of inadequacy. I try to be understanding and patient towards those aspects of my personality I don’t like. When something painful happens, I try to take a balanced view of the situation. When I’m feeling down, I tend to feel like most other people are probably happier than I am. I try to see my failings as part of the human condition. When I’m going through a very hard time, I give myself the caring and tenderness I need.

When something upsets me, I try to keep my emotions in balance. When I fail at something that’s important to me, I tend to feel alone in my failure. When I’m feeling down I tend to obsess and fixate on everything that’s wrong. 10. When I feel inadequate in some way, I try to remind myself that feelings of inadequacy are shared by most people. 11. I’m disapproving and judgmental about my own flaws and inadequacies. 12. I’m intolerant and impatient towards those aspects of my personality I don’t like. 7.

8. 9.

Lower scores on items 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 12 and higher scores on the remaining items (2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 10) indicate greater self-compassion. SOURCE: Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K.D., and Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construct and factorial validation of a short form of the self-compassion scale. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 18, 250–5.

FOCUS ON RESEARCH SELF-CONTROL, SELF-COMPASSION, SOCIAL TEMPTATIONS, AND PROCRASTINATION Most of us have been distracted or put something off that we know we should be doing—maybe even reading this chapter! Procrastination is the voluntary delay of important, necessary, and intended action despite knowing there will be negative consequences for this delay (Sirois and Pychyl, 2013). Many colleges and universities have student success programs that focus on improving our time management skills, but research suggests a different approach will probably work better. Procrastination researcher Tim Pychyl and his colleagues have identified many of the challenges that make us vulnerable to putting things off and suffering for it (Pychyl and Sirois, 2016; Sirois and Giguire, 2018). They know we delay boring or difficult tasks that have long-term payoffs and are not much fun for more pleasant activities that are immediately rewarding, less because we failed to manage our time effectively than because we didn’t feel like doing the boring

adl33478_ch02_038-077.indd

42

or difficult thing. Socializing with others is something that it is immediately rewarding for most people and is very tempting when we’re working on a difficult, boring, or frustrating task. We want to feel better so we ditch the schoolwork and engage in social activities to improve our negative mood. We “give in to feel good” (Pychyl and Sirois, 2016; Sirois and Giguire, 2018). The irony is we then feel bad about procrastinating! Rather than thinking about procrastination as a time management problem, we’re better off thinking about it as a challenge in regulating our emotions and coping. It’s more correctly conceptualized as a test of our self-control and our self-compassion. So, how do we say “no” to the immediate gratification of socializing either in person or online when those temptations are available 24/7? Research suggests we can learn to tolerate and modify the negative emotions we experience during

01/25/20 02:44 PM

Publisher’s Preface

7 | Non-verbal Communication

• Chapter 4 – Social Media and Emotional Contagion • Chapter 6 – Online Language and Gender • Chapter 7 – Emojis, Mediated Messages, and Nonverbal Communication

could be a compliment or a criticism, and the vague statement, “I’m almost done” could mean you have to wait a few minutes or an hour.) Most non-verbal behaviour has the potential to be even more ambiguous than verbal statements like these. To understand why, consider how you would interpret silence from your companion during an evening together. Think of all the possible meanings of this non-verbal behaviour—affection, anger, preoccupation, boredom, nervousness, thoughtfulness—the possibilities are many. The ambiguity of non-verbal behaviour was illustrated when a supermarket chain tried to emphasize its customer-friendly approach by instructing employees to smile and make eye contact with customers. Some customers mistook the service-with-a-smile approach as sexual come-ons. As this story suggests, non-verbal cues are much more ambiguous than verbal statements when it comes to expressing willingness to become physically involved (La France, 2010). Because non-verbal behaviour is so ambiguous, caution is wise when you’re responding to non-verbal cues. Rather than jumping to conclusions about the meaning of a sigh, smile, slammed door, or yawn, it’s far better to use the kind of perception-checking approach described in Chapter 3. “When you yawned, I got the idea I might be boring you. But maybe you’re just tired. What’s going on?” The ability to consider more than one possible interpretation for non-verbal behaviour illustrates the kind of cognitive complexity that we identified in Chapter 1 as an element of communication competence. Popular advice on the subject notwithstanding, it’s usually not possible to read a person like a book.

Non-verbal Communication Occurs in Mediated Messages

1 | Interpersonal Process

HIGH

Parent and child discuss their changing relationship.

Not all mediated communication is solely verbal. Video calls/chat obviously provide non-verbal information, as do photos on social networking apps and messaging platforms. Even text-based digital communication has non-verbal features. The most obvious way to represent non-verbal expressions in type is with emoji. Emoji, as we

25

Husband and wife from different cultural backgrounds develop mutual understanding.

Over time, able-bodied and disabled fellow employees develop ways to work effectively together.

Traveller unintentionally violates customs of a culture that he or she doesn’t understand.

English-speaking caller requests directory assistance from English-speaking telephone operator.

LOW

adl33478_ch07_208-238.indd

INTERCULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

HIGH

FIGURE 1.2 Possible Interactions among Interpersonal and Intercultural Dimensions of Person-to-Person Communication

far less difficult than that for the international traveller. In between these extremes falls a whole range of encounters in which culture plays varying roles. What is the relationship between intercultural communication and interpersonal relationships? William Gudykunst and Young Kim (2003) summarize an approach that helps answer this question. They suggest that interpersonal and intercultural factors combine to form a two-by-two matrix in which the importance of interpersonal communication forms one dimension and intercultural significance forms the other (see Figure 1.2). This model shows that some interpersonal transactions (for example, a conversation between two siblings who have been raised in the same household) have virtually no intercultural elements. Other encounters (such as a traveller from Senegal trying to get directions from an Iranian-Canadian taxi driver in Vancouver) are almost exclusively intercultural, without the personal dimensions that we discuss throughout this book. Still other exchanges—the most interesting ones for our purposes—contain elements of both intercultural and interpersonal communication. This range of encounters is broad in the global village:

business people from different backgrounds try to wrap up a deal; Canadian-born and immigrant children learn to get along in school; health care educators seek effective ways to serve patients from around the world; neighbours from different racial

TAKE TWO

described in Chapter 4, can help communicate emotion and clarify a meaning that isn’t evident from words alone (Derks et al., 2008; Lo, 2008; Riordan, 2017; Riordan and Kreuz, 2010). For example, see how each graphic below creates a different meaning for the same statement: • You’re driving me crazy • You’re driving me crazy • You’re driving me crazy Yet the meaning of emoji can be ambiguous (Skovholt et al., 2014). A smiley face could have a number of meanings, such as “I’m happy,” “I’m kidding,” or “I’m teasing you.” Other online communication markers are also ambiguous (Vandergriff, 2013). Exclamation marks (sometimes more than one!!!) can be used at the end of sentences

213

01/25/20 02:51 PM

Culture • Chapter 1 – Individuals’ and Collectivists’ Cultural Values • Chapter 2 – Ableism and “Person First” Language • Chapter 6 – Code Switching in Canada

CONCEPTS IN INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION • Culture: the language, values, beliefs, traditions, and customs people share and learn. • In-groups: groups of people with whom we identify. • Out-groups: groups of people whom we view as different. • Co-culture: a subgroup that is part of an encompassing culture. • Intercultural communication: the process by which members of two or more cultures exchange messages in a manner that is influenced by their different cultural perceptions and symbol systems.

11 | Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners

FOCUS ON RESEARCH adl33478_ch01_001-037.indd

25

213

Chris Wildt/Cartoonstock

Technology

INTERPERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE

xii

01/25/20 02:42 PM

Work • Chapter 5 – Multicommunicating at Work • Chapter 11 – Social Media and Relationships with Co-workers • Chapter 12 – Leadership that Supports Diversity and Inclusion

SOCIAL MEDIA AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH CO-WORKERS Search the phrase “social media and co-workers” and you’ll find a host of articles about the pros and cons of friending and following workmates online. This kind of sharing involves both risks and rewards. On the positive side, social media can help create bonds by allowing colleagues to learn about each other’s lives away from the job. It can help colleagues get to know each other on a deeper level, which can positively influence their productivity (Goodman, 2014). Along with these benefits, however, online sharing with co-workers has its risks. Some experts believe the risks are so great that they categorically recommend against friending colleagues (Wu, 2017). Others suggest proceeding with caution (Penning, 2016; Whittenberry, 2016). And while you might think that using filters to manage what content certain audiences (family and friends versus professional colleagues) can see is a cautious strategy, recent research suggests it might not achieve the results you want. Anika Batenburg and Jos Bartels (2017) found that integrating work and personal contacts on social media platforms produced higher levels of likeability among colleagues than a “segmenting” strategy, which involved restricting or filtering professional contacts’ access to personal information. These investigators suggest that because liking is related to self-disclosure, being included in a colleague’s

inner circle of friends might increase the likeability of that individual; similarly, when one is kept out of that circle they might feel rejected and their liking of the co-worker might actually decrease. Additional research has revealed that we are more likely to want to integrate our co-workers into our inner social media circles when we perceive them to be trustworthy and sociable (van Prooijen et al., 2018). As you know, our perceptions of others are not always accurate (see Chapter 3) and filters do not ensure privacy; people who have less restricted access to your posts can always share them with a broader audience. We’ve suggested throughout this book that it’s important to keep your online audience in mind when you’re choosing what to share on social media. Although it may feel private and fleeting, it’s not. Before you hit “post,” imagine how your manager, your most reserved co-worker, and your grandmother or another older relative would react if they saw your post. Self-monitoring is your friend. Although this suggestion seems obvious, everyone is aware of people whose social media posts have cost them their jobs. Critical thinking: What’s your preference in terms of including co-workers in your social media? What are the benefits of your approach? What are the potential costs?

Share Joys and Sorrows

Share Laughs and Memories

When you have bad news, you want to tell friends who will offer you comfort and support (Vallade et al., 2016). When a friend has good news, you want to hear about it and celebrate. When sharing sorrows and joys with friends, it’s often important how quickly and in what order the news is delivered. The closer the friendship, the higher the expectation is that you’ll share such things soon after they happen. If a friend asks, “How come I’m the last to find out about your new job?” you may have committed an expectancy violation.

A hallmark of a healthy relationship is shared laughter (Kurtz and Algoe, 2017). One study found that close friends have a distinctive laugh, and that people across cultures can pinpoint in seconds how intimate friends are by listening to them chortle together (Bryant et al., 2016). Another study found that friends regularly prod and deepen each other’s memory banks—so much so that “sharing a brain” is an accurate description for the bond between very close friends (Iannone et al., 2016). If you get together with long-time pals and laugh as

adl33478_ch11_335-363.indd

343

01/25/20 02:57 PM

343

Publisher’s Preface

Engaging Pedagogy This edition of Interplay builds on the pedagogical approach that has successfully helped students appreciate how scholarship leads to a better understanding of communication in the “real world.” 168

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

TAKE TWO TYPES OF LISTENING RESPONSES • Silent listening: staying attentive and nonverbally responsive, without saying anything. • Questioning: asking the speaker for additional information. • Open questions allow for a variety of extended responses. • Closed questions only allow a limited range of answers. • Sincere questions are aimed at understanding others. • Counterfeit questions are disguised attempts to send a message, not receive one. • Paraphrasing: restating, in your own words, the message you thought the speaker sent. • Empathizing: showing that you identify with a speaker. • Supporting: revealing your solidarity with the speaker’s situation. • Analyzing: offering an interpretation of a speaker’s message. • Evaluating: appraising the speaker’s thoughts or behaviour in some way. • Advising: providing the speaker with your opinion about what she should do.

• “Take Two” boxes recap core concepts and terms to ensure students understand their meaning and draw linkages between them.

These skills comprise what pioneering therapist Carl Rogers (2003) calls active listening (see Weger et al., 2014). Rogers maintains that helpful interpersonal listening begins with reflective, non-directive responses. Once you have gathered the facts and demonstrated your interest and concern, it’s likely that the speaker will be more receptive to (and perhaps even ask for) your analyzing, evaluating, and advising responses (MacGeorge et al., 2017). You can improve the odds of choosing the best style in each situation by considering three factors. 1. Think about the situation, and match your response to the nature of the problem. People sometimes need your advice. In other cases, your encouragement and support will be most helpful, and in still other cases, your analysis or judgment may be truly useful. And, as you have seen, there are times when your questioning and paraphrasing can help others find their own answer. 2. Besides considering the situation, you also should think about the other person when deciding which approach to use. It’s important to be sure that the other person is open to receiving any kind of help. Furthermore, you

BUILDING WORK SKILLS WHICH LISTENING STYLE IS BEST? 2 | Communication and the Self

Explore the various types of listening responses by completing the following steps:

65

1. 2. Known to self

Not known to self

1 OPEN

2 BLIND

3 HIDDEN

4 UNKNOWN

Known to others

Not known to others

FIGURE 2.3 Johari Window Source: From Group process: An introduction to group dynamics. Copyright © 1963, 1970 by Joseph Luft. Used with the permission of Mayfield Publishing Company.

Part 1 represents the information that both you and the other person already have. This part is your open area. Part 2 represents the blind area: information of which you are unaware, but that the other person knows. You learn about information in the blind area primarily through feedback from others. Part 3 of the Johari Window represents your hidden area: information that you know, but are not willing to reveal to others. Items in this hidden area become public primarily through self-disclosure. Part 4 of the Johari Window represents information that is unknown to both you and to others. At first, the unknown area seems impossible to verify. After all, if neither you nor others know what it contains, how can you be sure it exists at all? We can deduce its existence because we are constantly discovering new things about ourselves. For example, it is not unusual to discover that you have an unrecognized talent, strength, or weakness. Items move from the unknown area into the open area when you share your insight, or into the hidden area when you keep it secret. The relative size of each area in our personal Johari Window changes from time to time according to our moods, the subject we’re discussing, and our relationship with the other person. Despite these changes, a single Johari Window could represent most people’s overall style of disclosure.

adl33478_ch02_038-077.indd

65

CHECK IT! 3.

Describe the four quadrants of the Johari Window and the relationship of each to receptivity to feedback.

4. 5.

Join with two partners to form a trio. Designate members as persons A, B, and C. Person A begins by sharing an actual, current work- or school-related problem with B. The problem need not be a major life crisis, but it should be a real one. Person B should respond in whatever way seems most helpful. Person C’s job is to categorize each of B’s responses as either: silent listening, questioning, paraphrasing, empathizing, supporting, analyzing, evaluating, or advising. After a four- to five-minute discussion, C should summarize B’s response styles. Person A then describes which of the styles were most helpful and which were not helpful. Repeat the same process twice, switching roles so that each person has been in all of the positions. Based on your findings, your threesome should draw conclusions about what combination of response styles can be most helpful.

Benefits and Risks of Self-Disclosure By now, it should be clear that neither all-out disclosure nor complete privacy is desirable. On the one hand, self-disclosure is a key factor in relationship development, and relationships suffer when people keep important information from each other (Porter and Chambless, 2014). On the other hand, revealing deeply personal information can threaten the stability, or even the survival, of a relationship. Communication researchers use the term privacy management to describe the choices people make to reveal or conceal information about themselves (Hammonds, 2015; Petronio, 2013). In the following pages, we will outline both the risks and benefits of opening yourself to others.

adl33478_ch05_141-173.indd

168

01/25/20 02:48 PM

• “Check It!” questions give students a great tool for study and review.

Benefits of Self-Disclosure Although the amount of self-disclosure varies from one person and relationship to another, all of us share important information about ourselves at one time or another. There are a variety of reasons we disclose personal information (Duprez et al., 2015). Catharsis Sometimes, you might disclose information in an effort to “get it off your chest.” Catharsis can indeed relieve the burden of pent-up emotions (Pennebaker, 1997), whether face-to-face or online (Vermeulen et al., 2018), but when it is the only goal of disclosure, the results of opening up may not be positive. Later in this chapter, we’ll discuss guidelines for self-disclosure that improve your chance of achieving catharsis in a way that helps, instead of harms, relationships. Self-Clarification It’s often possible to clarify your beliefs, opinions, thoughts, attitudes, and feelings by

01/25/20 02:44 PM

184

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

The remarkable thing was that Fox was a complete fraud! He was a professional actor who had been coached by researchers to deliver a lecture of double-talk—a patchwork of information from a Scientific American article mixed with jokes, non-sequiturs, contradictory statements, and meaningless references to unrelated topics. When wrapped in a linguistic package of high-level, sophisticated professional jargon, and delivered by an engaging, humorous, and well-spoken person, the meaningless gobbledygook was judged favourably. In other words, Fox’s credibility came more from his vocabulary and style of speaking than from the ideas he expressed.

REFLECTION

• “Reflection” sidebars offer first-person accounts of how principles covered in the text apply to real life.

ACCENTS AND SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECIES My mother-in-law came to Canada from Italy with her husband and children about 50 years ago. The family settled in an Italian-Canadian community and she was able to continue to speak Italian in order to manage the household and raise her family. Her husband and kids all learned to speak English but she did not. As the only non-Italianspeaking in-law in this big, warm, tightknit family, this posed some communication challenges. I quickly figured out her receptive English vocabulary was very good and when it was just the two of us, she would speak a bit of English and I would muddle along with my rudimentary Italian and we could understand each other. I noticed she never spoke English in front of her husband and children. I was puzzled. I pushed my husband to tell me why this was and discovered that in her early days in Canada, she tried speaking English and her young and much more fluent children teased her about her pronunciation. She immediately lost confidence and quit trying—believing that she could never be as fluent as her children. I was shocked that good-natured teasing could have such a negative impact on a person’s beliefs about themselves and I resolved to never make fun of people’s accents or pronunciations.

adl33478_ch06_174-207.indd

184

Affiliation Accent and vocabulary are not the only ways in which language reflects the status of relationships. An impressive body of research has shown how language can build and demonstrate solidarity with others. Communicators adapt their speech in a variety of ways to indicate affiliation and accommodation, including through their choice of vocabulary, rate of talking, number and placement of pauses, and level of politeness (Giles, 2016). In one study, the likelihood of mutual romantic interest increased when conversation partners’ use of pronouns, articles, conjunctions, prepositions, and negations matched (Ireland et al., 2011). The same study revealed that when couples use similar language styles while instant messaging, the chances of their relationship continuing increased by almost 50 per cent. Close friends and lovers often develop a set of special terms that serve as a way of signifying their relationship (Dunleavy and Booth-Butterfield, 2009). Using the same vocabulary serves to set these people apart from others. The same process works among members of larger groups, ranging from online communities to street gangs and military units. Convergence is the process of adapting one’s speech style to match that of others with whom the communicator wants to identify (Dragojevic et al., 2016). Language matching creates bonds not only between friends but also between strangers online (Rains, 2016; Riordan et al., 2013). When two or more people feel equally positive about one another, their linguistic convergence will be mutual. But when one communicator wants or needs approval, convergence is more one-sided (Muir et al., 216). We see this process when employees seeking advancement start speaking more like their superiors. One study even showed that adopting the swearing patterns of bosses and co-workers in emails is a sign that an employee is fitting into an organization’s culture (Lublin, 2017). The principle of speech accommodation works in reverse too. Communicators who want to set themselves apart from others adopt the strategy of divergence, that is, speaking in a way that emphasizes their differences (Gasiorek and Vincze, 2016).

01/25/20 02:49 PM

xiii

Publisher’s Preface

6 | Language

Racism

Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

xiv

• “Self-Assessment” quizzes allow readers to analyze their current communication behaviour and its consequences.

234

How often do you hear biases like sexist language, sexually prejudiced language, and racist language in the language of people around you? How often do you use them yourself?

SELF-ASSESSMENT SEXIST LANGUAGE Section I For each of the following statements, rate your agreement or disagreement on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree.” 1. Women who think that being called a chairman is sexist are misinterpreting the word. 2. Worrying about sexist language is a trivial activity. 3. If the original meaning of he was “person,” we should continue to use he to refer to both males and females today. 4. The elimination of sexist language is an important goal. 5. Sexist language is related to the sexist treatment of people in society. 6. When teachers talk about the history of Canada, they should change expressions such as our forefathers to expressions that include women. 7. Teachers who require students to use non-sexist language are unfairly forcing their political views on their students.

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

Section II For each of the following statements, rate your willingness on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 = “very unwilling” and 5 = “very willing.”

BUILDING WORK SKILLS CULTURAL VALUES AT WORK An important beginning strategy to communicate more effectively at work is being aware of your workplace values and behaviour, and how they’re influenced by your culture. Take a moment to assess your workplace or your school environment in terms of some of the types of non-verbal communication discussed in this chapter. Pay particular attention to touch, proxemics and territoriality, time, clothing, and physical environment. Describe your workplace in terms of these elements, and then identify the values communicated. Here are some questions to get your started: • • • • • •

Whereas sexist language usually defines the world as made up of superior men and inferior women, and sexually prejudiced language usually implies that heterosexuality is superior to any other sexual orientation, racist language reflects a worldview that classifies members of one racial group as superior and others as inferior (Asante, 2002). Not all language that might have racist overtones is deliberate. For example, the connotations

adl33478_ch06_174-207.indd

8. When you are referring to a married woman, how willing are you to use the title “Ms Smith” rather than “Mrs Smith”? 9. How willing are you to use the word “server” rather than “waiter” or “waitress”? 10. How willing are you to use the expression “husband and wife” rather than “man and wife”? 11. How willing are you to use the term “flight attendant” instead of “steward” or “stewardess”? Total = ______. Add your responses to the 11 statements, making sure to reverse-score (i.e., 5 = 1, 4 = 2, 3 = 3, 2 = 4, and 1 = 5) statements 1, 2, and 3. Scores can range from 11 to 55, and scores that are 38 or higher reflect a supportive attitude towards non-sexist language; and scores between 28 and 37 reflect a neutral attitude. Scholars note that women are typically less tolerant of sexist language than are men, which may have an impact on these scores (Douglas and Sutton, 2014). SOURCE: This “Self-Assessment” box contains 11 of the 21 items on the Inventory of Attitudes toward Sexist/Nonsexist Language-General, developed by Parks and Robertson (2000).

189

01/25/20 02:49 PM

Who initiates touch? Who touches whom? Who gets the most territory? Who gets the least? Who gets the window? Do some people prefer greater or less social distance? Who? How do you know? How important is punctuality? Can some people keep others waiting with impunity? What do people wear? Are there differences? Is the physical environment clean? Are some places cleaner than others? Is the space well designed for the work to be done? Are some places better than others?

report feeling closer to one another, having better functioning relationships, and having higher levels of commitment (Arriaga et al., 2008). Environmental influences can even shape perceptions and communication in virtual space. For example, people who meet online in a formal virtual setting, such as a library, communicate more formally than those who meet in a casual virtual cafe (Pena and Blackburn, 2013). You might want to keep these concepts in mind when you’re designing or decorating the spaces

in which you live, study, and work. Your physical environment—real or virtual—can affect your interpersonal communication.

CHECK IT! List the 10 types of non-verbal communication and provide an example of each.

• “Building Work Skills” exercises help students apply knowledge they have gained about interpersonal communication to situations they will likely encounter in the workplace.

SUMMARY Non-verbal communication consists of messages expressed by non-linguistic means. It is pervasive; in fact, non-verbal messages are always available as a source of information about others. Often what we do conveys more meaning than what we say, and non-verbal behaviour shapes perception. Most non-verbal behaviour conveys messages about relational attitudes and feelings, in contrast to verbal statements, which are better suited to expressing ideas. Messages that are communicated

non-verbally are usually more ambiguous than verbal communication. Contrary to what some might think, non-verbal cues also play a role in mediated communication. Non-verbal communication is also affected by culture and gender. Non-verbal communication serves many functions. It can help create and maintain relationships. It also serves to regulate interactions, influence others and influence yourself. In addition, non-verbal communication can be used to conceal

284

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

FOCUS ON RESEARCH adl33478_ch07_208-238.indd

234

01/25/20 02:51 PM

• “Focus on Research” profiles highlight scholarship that students will find interesting and useful on topics ranging from digital life and social anxiety to the connection between interpersonal ability and socioeconomic status.

BEING SNUBBED BY A PHONE You and your friends are having a meal and during the conversation one or more members of the group concentrates on their phone for a while rather than contributing to the conversation. Maybe that someone is you? No big deal, right? How about when it’s just two people having a conversation? Does it matter more? Research suggests that spending time on your phone during a social interaction negatively affects both conversational and relational quality and although it’s increasingly common, it contributes negatively to a communication climate by sending a disconfirming non-verbal message to the person who is being temporarily ignored. Studies conducted in a variety of countries, including Canada, have all found that being snubbed by a smartphone (called “phubbing”) has negative effects on people and relationships (Abeele and PostmaNilsenova, 2018; Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas, 2016, 2018; David and Roberts, 2017; Dwyer et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2017). Researchers have found that as phubbing increases in a social interaction people experience greater threats to the fundamental needs (see Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in Chapter 1) and they suggest that phubbing is a form of social exclusion that threatens people’s needs for belonging, self-esteem, and meaningful existence (Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas, 2018). Similarly, research examining the effects of phubbing in romantic relationships has found phubbing to be associated with increases in conflict over phone use, decreases in relational satisfaction, and even increases in the risk of depression (David and Roberts, 2017; Wang et al., 2018). In fact, just gazing at your phone (not even touching it) during a social interaction negatively affects the quality of the interaction. Researchers in the Netherlands compared the effects of gazing at a newspaper versus gazing at a phone during a face-toface conversation and found that phone gazing had a unique ability to devalue the quality of the interaction with the conversational partner (Abeele and PostmaNilsenova, 2018). People judged the phone gazing as significantly more harmful than newspaper gazing. In

adl33478_ch09_274-303.indd

284

addition, these researchers found that phone gazing while listening to a conversational partner disrupted the connection between the two more than phone gazing while speaking to the partner. In a similar Canadian study, Ryan J. Dwyer and his colleagues (2018) had people go out to dinner in a restaurant with family and friends and either have their phone in plain sight on the table during the meal or have it hidden away throughout the entire meal. People were randomly assigned to either condition. These researchers found that people who had their phones in view reported feeling distracted and reported enjoying the time spent with family and friends less than those in the “phone out of sight” group. These investigators suggest that even though our phones can connect us to others all over the world, they might very well disconnect us from those sitting across the table. The findings of these studies reveal that both the person being ignored (the “phubee”) and the person distracted by their phone (the “phubber”) suffer individually when both parties are not fully present during social interactions. Moreover, their relationship suffers too. So what should we do? If you tend to be the phubbee, it’s probably best to exercise patience and compassion. Phubbing is highly correlated with fear of missing out, lack of self-control, and internet addiction (Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas, 2016). The collaborative strategies for conflict resolution described in Chapter 10 might help you work out a solution in relationships that are important to you. Similarly, if you tend to be the phubber, gaining self-awareness about your potentially disrespectful behaviour and using problem-solving strategies with your communication partners might help you balance your need to be included in your social network with your need to be fully present with others and connect with them in meaningful ways. Critical thinking: Do you think there are times when phubbing is more or less damaging to relationships? If so, what factors influence the consequences of phubbing?

01/25/20 02:54 PM

189

Publisher’s Preface

Contemporary Design We have created a design that reflects the vibrancy and excitement of interpersonal communication today without sacrificing content or authoritativeness. 64

198

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

TABLE 6.3 Pronoun Uses and Their Effects My career ambitions

Breadth

Feelings about my physical appearance

Feelings about our relationship

Pronoun

Pros

Cons

Recommendations

“I” Language

Takes responsibility for personal thoughts, feelings, and wants. Less defenceprovoking than “you” language

Can be perceived as egotistical, narcissistic, and self-absorbed

Use descriptive “I” messages in conflicts when the other person does not perceive a problem. Combine “I” with “we” language in conversations.

“We” Language

Signals inclusion, immediacy, cohesiveness, and commitment

Can speak improperly for others

Combine with “I” language, particularly in personal conversations. Use in group settings to enhance a sense of unity. Avoid when expressing personal thoughts, feelings, and wants.

“You” Language

Signals other-orientation, particularly when the topic is positive

Can sound evaluative and judgmental, particularly during confrontations

Use “I” language during confrontations. Use “You” language when praising or including others.

Depth

My opinions about our mutual friends

My relationships with members of the opposite sex

My academic life

My family background and problems

FIGURE 2.2 Sample Model of Social Penetration

beliefs or an analysis of another person), you are giving others valuable information about yourself. The fourth level of self-disclosure—and usually the most revealing one—involves the expression of feelings. At first glance, feelings might appear to be the same as opinions, but there’s a big difference. “I don’t think you’re telling me what’s on your mind” is an opinion. Notice how much more we learn about the speaker by looking at three different feelings that could accompany this statement: “I don’t think you’re telling me what’s on your mind . . . . . . and I’m suspicious.” . . . and I’m angry.” . . . and I’m hurt.”

Awareness of Self-Disclosure: The Johari Window Model Another way to illustrate how self-disclosure operates in communication is a model called the Johari

adl33478_ch02_038-077.indd

Window, developed by Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham (Janas, 2001; Luft, 1969). Imagine a frame that contains everything there is to know about you: your likes and dislikes, your goals, your secrets, your needs—everything. This frame could be divided into information you know about yourself and things you don’t know. It could also be split into things others know about you and things they don’t know. Figure 2.3 illustrates these divisions.

Too much use of any pronoun comes across as inappropriate, so combining pronouns is generally a good idea, and it suggests you’re able to see things from multiple perspectives (Pennebaker, 2011). If your “I” language expresses your position without being overly self-absorbed, your “you” language shows concern for others without judging them, and your “we” language includes others without speaking for them, you’ll probably come as close as possible to the ideal mix of pronouns.

Culture and Language

TAKE TWO • Social penetration model: two ways, measured by breadth and depth, that communication can be more or less disclosing. • Breadth: the range of subjects discussed. • Depth: the personal nature of information (significant and private self-disclosures, clichés, facts, opinions, and feelings).

64

01/25/20 02:44 PM

So far, we’ve described attributes that characterize most languages, with a particular emphasis on English. Although there are some remarkable similarities among the world’s many languages (Lewis et al., 2013), they also differ in important respects that affect communication within and between

CHECK IT! Describe three harmful linguistic habits that contribute to conflict.

adl33478_ch06_174-207.indd

language groups. In this section, we’ll outline some of those factors.

High- versus Low-context Cultures Anthropologist Edward Hall (1959) identified two distinct ways that members of various cultures deliver messages. A low-context culture uses language primarily to express thoughts, feelings, and ideas as directly and logically as possible. To low-context communicators, the meaning of a statement lies in the words spoken. By contrast, a high-context culture relies heavily on subtle, often non-verbal cues to maintain social harmony. High-context communicators pay close attention to non-verbal behaviours, the history of relationships, and social rules that  govern interaction between people. In Table 6.4, we summarize some key differences in how people from low- and high-context cultures communicate. Mainstream culture in Canada, the United States, and northern Europe can be categorized near the low-context end of the scale. In these low-context cultures, communicators generally value straight talk and grow impatient with indirect behaviours such as hinting (Tili and Barker, 2015).

198

01/25/20 02:49 PM

Aids to Student Learning Textbooks today must speak to the needs and interests of today’s students, providing them with an accessible introduction to a body of knowledge. To accomplish this, the book incorporates numerous features to promote and support student learning. • Chapter Openers preview the contents of each chapter with chapter outlines, key terms, and learning outcomes that provide a concise overview of the key concepts.

2

Communication and the Self KEY TERMS

lechatnoir/iStockphoto

benevolent lie breadth cognitive conservatism collectivistic culture depth distorted feedback equivocation face facework impression management individualistic culture Johari Window obsolete information perceived self

presenting self privacy management reference groups reflected appraisal self-compassion self-concept self-control self-disclosure self-esteem self-fulfilling prophecy significant other social comparison social expectations social penetration model

LEARNING OUTCOMES YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:

CHAPTER OUTLINE Communication and the Self-Concept How the Self-Concept Develops Self-Concept Development in Context Characteristics of the Self-Concept The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy and Communication

Presenting the Self: Communication as Impression Management Public and Private Selves Characteristics of Impression Management Why Manage Impressions? How Do We Manage Impressions? Identity Management and Honesty

Disclosing the Self

• •

Models of Self-Disclosure Benefits and Risks of Self-Disclosure

• • • •

Alternatives to Self-Disclosure Silence and Secrecy Lying Equivocation Hinting The Ethics of Evasion

Describe the characteristics and development of the self-concept Explain the influence of language, cultural values, and self-fulfilling prophecies in shaping the self-concept Analyze how the self-concept affects communication with others Describe how people manage impressions in person and online to enhance their presenting image Explain the characteristics of and reasons for self-disclosure Explain the risks of, benefits of, guidelines for, and alternatives to self-disclosure

Guidelines for Self-Disclosure Is the Other Person Important to You? Is the Risk of Disclosing Reasonable? Is the Self-Disclosure Appropriate? Is the Disclosure Reciprocated? Will the Effect Be Constructive?

Self-Disclosure Factors

adl33478_ch02_038-077.indd

38

01/25/20 02:44 PM

adl33478_ch02_038-077.indd

39

01/25/20 02:44 PM

xv

Publisher’s Preface

End-of-Chapter Learning Tools • Chapter Summaries ensure a thorough understanding of key concepts and aid in reviewing for tests and exams. • Multiple-Choice Quizzes provide students with a quick assessment tool to ensure comprehension of material discussed in the chapter. 270

8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

the past—in other words, to remember that you, too, have wronged others and needed their forgiveness (Exline et al., 2008). Given that it’s in our own best interest to be forgiven, we would do well to remember these words from Richard Walters

(1984) who sees forgiveness as a choice requiring courage and continuous acts of will: “When we have been hurt we have two alternatives: be destroyed by resentment, or forgive. Resentment is death; forgiving leads to healing and life” (p. 366).

d. the person with average ability who spilled the coffee Social exchange theory suggests

3.

a. we seek relationships with people who are competent in social exchange. b. we seek relationships with people who can give us rewards greater than the costs we encounter dealing with them. c. we terminate relationships with people when our social exchanges with them are stagnant. d. we terminate relationships with people who are low on the social exchange index.

SUMMARY Explanations for why we form relationships with some people and not with others include appearance (physical attractiveness), similarity, complementarity, rewards, competence, proximity, and disclosure. Intimacy and distance are important parts of our relationships with others and there are several ways to establish both. Culture and gender influence intimacy in relationships by informing the social rules that govern intimate communication. Also, each culture defines the extent to which any relationship should be formal and distant or close and intimate. Some theorists argue that interpersonal relationships may go through as many as 10 stages of growth and deterioration. They suggest that communication may reflect more than one stage at a given time, although one stage will be dominant. Another way to analyze the dynamics of interpersonal communication is in terms of dialectical tensions, that is, mutually opposing, incompatible desires that are part of our relationships and that

can never be completely resolved. These tensions include integration–separation, stability–change, and expression–privacy. Both views characterize relationships as constantly changing, so that communication is more of a process than a static thing. Relational messages are sometimes expressed overtly by verbal metacommunication; however, they are more frequently conveyed non-verbally. Interpersonal relationships require maintenance to stay healthy. Relational maintenance requires partners to use positive and open communication that includes assurances and demonstrates commitment to the relationship. It also entails sharing tasks, investing in each other’s social networks and offering social support through the exchange of emotional, informational and instrumental resources. Some relationships become damaged over time and others are hurt through relational transgressions. Apologies and forgiveness are particularly important strategies for repairing damaged relationships.

MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS 1.

a. We are attracted to people who are similar to us and dislike those who are different. b. We are attracted to people who are different than ourselves rather than people who are similar. c. We are attracted to people who are similar to ourselves and we are also attracted to those whose different characteristics complement our own. d. Neither similarities nor differences affect our motivation to form relationships

adl33478_ch08_239-273.indd

a. b. c. d.

a. b. c. d.

270

a. b. c. d.

In Elliot Aronson and colleagues’ study of how competence and imperfection combine, their subjects found which of the following quiz show contestants most attractive? a. the person with superior ability who did not spill the coffee b. the person with average ability who did not spill the coffee c. the person with superior ability who spilled the coffee

01/25/20 02:52 PM

denial compartmentalizing accepting reframing

The finding that frequent interaction during the day via cellphone can be a source of conflict in relationships is evidence of which of the following dialectical tensions?

because our relationships are influenced most by proximity. 2.

8.

9.

Metacommunication is the term used to describe

Fabiola helps her friend Gabrielle move to a new place when her relationship with Alberto ends. Fabiola is providing Gabrielle with which type of social support? a. b. c. d.

emotional informational instrumental all of the above

10. Which of the following apologies contains the components people look for in an apology, in order of importance? a. Sorry you found that remark insensitive. I will avoid that sort of straight talk with you in the future. b. I acted selfishly and didn’t consider your perspective. I will make things right and I am so sorry for being so thoughtless. c. Oh, l didn’t realize you would be offended. So sorry. d. We obviously had a misunderstanding but I will make things right. Sorry.

integration–separation dialectic stability–change dialectic expression–privacy dialectic dynamic–static dialectic

Grace and Zoe enjoy sharing their beliefs about spirituality, politics, and the meaning

7.

emotional physical intellectual shared activities

a. messages that refer to other messages or communication about communication. b. the aspects of communication that convey how communication partners feel about one another. c. communication that helps maintain and repair relationships. d. communication that conveys emotional support.

handshakes and friendly facial expressions. small talk and searching for common ground. engagement and marriage. avoidance and personal space.

Sal has reinterpreted Akeno’s unwillingness to share some information about parts of his past as an interesting and admirable quality rather than feeling hurt and excluded by his privacy. Which of the following strategies has Sal used to manage this tension in her relationship with Akeno?

5.

6.

Which of the following statements is true regarding why we form relationships?

a. b. c. d.

The hallmark of the “experimenting” stage of relational development is

4.

271

of life with each other. They find these discussions interesting and they feel secure knowing they can safely share their deeply held beliefs with each other. Their relationship involves which type of intimacy?

Answers: 1. c; 2. c; 3. b; 4. b; 5. d; 6. a; 7. c; 8. a; 9. c; 10. b

xvi

adl33478_ch08_239-273.indd

271

01/25/20 02:52 PM

• Student Activities reinforce concepts and ideas through practical, interactive exercises. • Discussion Questions draw out key issues while encouraging readers to form their own conclusions about interpersonal communication • Journal Ideas encourage students to think in depth about concepts and strategies discussed in the chapter and how they relate to their personal goals. 272

8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

ACTIVITIES 1. Critical Thinking Probe Some critics claim that Knapp’s model of relational stages is better at describing romantic relationships than other types. Use a variety of romantic and non-romantic interpersonal relationships from your experience to evaluate the breadth of his model. If the model does not describe the developmental path of all types of interpersonal relationships, can you suggest alternative models? 2. Invitation to Insight How do you manage the dialectical tensions in your important relationships? Is there a pattern to what you and the other person do, or does it depend on the type of relationship you have? Identify at least two dialectical tensions in two different relationships— one relationship, perhaps, with a person with whom you work closely, and the other with a romantic partner. How is each tension managed? Which approach do you and your partner tend to use (denial, disorientation, alternation, segmentation, balance, integration, recalibration, or reaffirmation)? What seem to be the conditions that determine which method you and your partner use? 3. Ethical Challenge Consider the notion that we often face conflicting goals when we communicate in an attempt to meet our own needs and those of others. Use the information found on pages 259–62 to identify a situation in which your personal goals conflict with those of another person. What obligation do you have to communicate in a way that helps the other person

reach their goals? Is it possible to honour this obligation and still try to satisfy your own needs? 4. Skill Builder Describe three unexpressed relational messages in one or more of your interpersonal relationships. a. Explain how you could have used metacommunication to express each one. Consider skills you learned in other chapters, such as perception checking, “I” language, and paraphrasing. b. Discuss the possible benefits and drawbacks of this kind of metacommunication in each of the situations you identified. On the basis of your discussion here, what principles do you believe should guide your decisions about whether and when to focus explicitly on relational issues? 5. Role Play Choose a partner. Pretend you don’t know each other and you want to initiate contact with this person in class. What strategies might you use? (Review the strategies listed on pages 253–5.) Role-play your attempts to initiate contact. Which strategies worked well? Are there any you would not try in this context? Now reverse roles and think of another context or situation in which your partner might want to initiate contact with you (e.g., at work, at a party). Role-play initiating contact in this new situation. Afterward, again analyze the strategies that worked, those that didn’t, and the ones that felt appropriate or inappropriate in this situation, and discuss why.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1.

Why do we form relationships with other people?

2.

Describe the four different types of intimacy presented in this chapter and give an example of each from your own relationships. Do you

adl33478_ch08_239-273.indd

272

think an ideal intimate relationship would include all four? Why or why not? 3.

4.

Describe the dialectical tensions that exist in one of your relationships (e.g., with your parents, a friend, or a romantic partner). How do you manage these tensions in that relationship?

5.

Despite its importance, metacommunication is not a common feature of most relationships. Why do you think this is?

6.

Review the strategies for relationship maintenance and repair described on pages 265–70. Which do you use in your most satisfying

relationships? Which, if any do you use in your least satisfying relationships? Is there a relationship between the number of maintenance strategies you use and your satisfaction with your relationships? Why or why not? 7.

While forgiveness has tremendous benefits it can be challenging. Are some transgressions in relationships easier for you to forgive than others? What factors might contribute to individual differences in people’s ability to forgive?

JOURNAL IDEAS 1.

You can get a sense of how your desires for both intimacy and distance operate by reflecting on a relationship with an important person you see regularly. For this journal exercise you might choose a friend, family member, or romantic partner. For at least a week, chart how your communication with this relational partner reflects your desire for either intimacy or distance. Use a 7-point scale, in which behaviour seeking high intimacy receives a 7 and behaviour designed to avoid physical, intellectual, and/or emotional contact receives a 1. Use ratings from 2 to 6 to represent intermediate stages. Record at least one rating per day, making more detailed entries if your desire for intimacy or distance changes during that period. What tactics did you use to establish or maintain distance? After charting your communication, reflect on what the results tell you about your personal desire for intimacy and distance. Consider the following questions: •

Was there a pattern of alternating phases of intimacy and distance during the time you observed?

•

•

•

•

2.

Was this pattern typical of your communication in this relationship over a longer period of time? Does your communication in other relationships contain a similar mixture of intimacy and distance? Most importantly, are you satisfied with the results you discovered in this exercise? If you are not satisfied, how would you like to change your communication behaviour?

Choose one of the dialectal tensions described in this chapter and describe how it operates in one of your close relationships. Review this journal entry in a couple of weeks and see if the tension has changed. If so, how has it changed? Why do you think it has changed? If no change has occurred, why do you think it has remained so stable? Are there environmental factors that influence how these competing needs affect this relationship? If so, what are they?

Do you think Knapp’s model of the stages of relational development can be adapted to collectivist cultures? Why or why not?

01/25/20 02:52 PM

adl33478_ch08_239-273.indd

273

01/25/20 02:52 PM

273

Publisher’s Preface

Resources for Instructors and Students Interplay is part of a comprehensive package of learning and teaching tools that includes resources for both students and instructors, all available on the book’s Ancillary Resource Centre, at: www.oup.com/he/Adler-Interplay5Ce

For the Instructor • An “Instructor’s Manual” includes lecture suggestions, additional questions for encouraging class discussion, and lists of complementary web and video resources for each chapter. • A “Test Bank” offers a comprehensive set of multiple-choice, true-or-false, short-answer, and essay questions for every chapter. • PowerPoint slides, summarizing key points from each chapter and incorporating figures and tables from the textbook, are available to adopters of the text. • An Image Bank featuring all of the photos, figures, and cartoons used in the text. Instructors should contact their Oxford University Press sales representative for details on these supplements and for login and password information.

For the Student • A “Student Study Guide” offers self-testing study questions, chapter overviews, links to useful resources, and case study exercises with sample scenarios.

xvii

Preface It has been a pleasure and a privilege to research and update this latest Canadian edition of Interplay. Now, perhaps more than at any other time in my life, I believe in the importance of a collective, lifelong commitment to developing and refining our interpersonal communication knowledge and skills. While I have long believed effective interpersonal communication skills are the foundation of meaningful personal relationships, increasingly I see how much they support mutual respect, co-operation, and civility generally. Learning more about interpersonal communication is an investment that benefits us both personally and collectively and I want to thank those of you who read this book for your commitment to this endeavour. I also want to express my gratitude to the many people who contributed to this fifth edition for their involvement. To the reviewers, Michael Lee (University of Winnipeg), Bev Snell (Red River College), and those who wished to remain anonymous, you gave me excellent advice, identified gaps, and helped me better understand how you use this textbook; thank you. To the remarkably talented team at Oxford University Press, Toronto—Phyllis Wilson, Stephen Kotowych, Liz Ferguson, Emily Kring, Katherine Kawalerczak, and Michelle Welsh—your intelligence, creativity, and expertise have made this edition even better than the last. I’m particularly grateful to Amy Hick for her intelligent and careful editing, superb suggestions, and for being such a pleasure to work with. It has been my tremendous good fortune to work with such an outstanding team. I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues who never fail to make my life interesting and fun. In particular, I would like to acknowledge Jonathan Lau for his research support, and Juanita Wattam-­ Simeon for making my working life so enjoyable. Bernice Cipparrone McLeod and Fidelia Torres gave me valuable feedback and Susan Heximer and Jessica Paterson shared e­ xcellent resources that have made this edition more inclusive and up-to-date. I would also like to thank Chris Sinclair for helping me make the many decisions that are part of writing. Finally, to my family, Gerlando, Owen, and Oliver, no matter what kind of day I have you make it a better one, and I feel extraordinarily lucky to know and love you. Connie Winder George Brown College, Toronto

PART ONE

Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

Sam Edwards/iStockphoto

Rawpixel/iStockphoto

1

Interpersonal Process

CHAPTER OUTLINE Why We Communicate Physical Needs Identity Needs Social Needs Practical Needs

The Communication Process A Model of Communication Insights from the Transactional Communication Model Communication Principles

The Nature of Interpersonal Communication Quantitative and Qualitative Definitions Personal and Impersonal Communication: A Matter of Balance Communication Misconceptions

Interpersonal Communication and Technology Characteristics of Computer-Mediated Communication

Interpersonal Communication and Cultural Diversity Culture Intercultural Communication Interpersonal and Intercultural Communication

Comparison of Canadian and US Culture Attitudes toward Violence Acceptance of Diversity Relative Status of Men and Women

Communication Competence Communication Competence Defined and Described Characteristics of Competent Communication

KEY TERMS asynchronous channel co-culture cognitive complexity communication competence computer-mediated communication (CMC) content dimension culture dyad environment ethnocentrism in-groups intercultural communication interpersonal communication media richness

mediated communication multimodality noise (external, physiological, psychological) out-groups permanence prejudice qualitative interpersonal communication quantitative interpersonal communication relational culture relational dimension self-monitoring social media stereotyping synchronous transactional communication

LEARNING OUTCOMES YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO: • • • • • •

•

Identify examples of the physical, identity, social, and practical needs you attempt to satisfy by ­communicating Explain the interpersonal communication process: its transactional nature, governing principles, and characteristics Describe the degrees to which your communication is qualitatively impersonal and interpersonal Explain the advantages and drawbacks of various types of computer-mediated communication compared to face-to-face communication Define culture and co-culture, and explain the concept of degrees of intercultural communication Compare Canadian and American perceptions of violence, diversity, and the relative status of men and women and explain how these differences affect our interpretation of American interpersonal communication research findings Identify principles of communication competence and characteristics of competent communicators

4

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

t­ eamwork/relationship-building skills were ranked first among the abilities employers were looking for in both entry-level and mid-level hires. This same study noted that new graduates were most likely to lack “human skills,” which include interpersonal communication and relationship skills. More than four decades of research have identified the lack of effective communication as central to relational breakups, including divorce (Gottman, 2003). In addition, workplace communication errors contribute to interpersonal conflict, loss of productivity, and unnecessary waste, and in fields such as aviation (Tiewtrakul and Fletcher, 2010) and health care, even loss of life (Carter et al., 2009; Vilensky and MacDonald, 2011). If you pause now and make a mental list of communication problems you’ve encountered, you’ll see that, no matter how successful your relationships are at home, with friends, at school, or at work, there is plenty of room for improvement in your everyday life. The information that follows will help you improve the way you communicate with some of the people who matter most to you.

Why We Communicate Research demonstrating the importance of ­communication has been around longer than you might think. Frederick II, e­ mperor of the Holy Roman E ­ mpire from 1220 to 1250, carried out ­language deprivation experiments. A medi­ eval historian described one of his dramatic, and inhumane, ­ ­ experi-­ ments:

© lechatnoir/iStockphoto

Everyone communicates. Students and professors, parents and children, employers and employees, friends, strangers, and enemies—we all communicate. We have been communicating with others from the moment of our birth and will keep on doing so until we die. Why study an activity you’ve been doing your entire life? You might be surprised just how much there is to learn about one of our most fundamental activities. First, you will discover there is no evidence to support some widely held assumptions about communication. For example, more communication is not always better, communication will not solve all problems and effective communication is not a natural ability. You will also learn about decades of research evidence confirming the necessity of interpersonal communication and meaningful relationships in maintaining our health, well-being, and longevity. In this sense, exploring human communication is rather like studying anatomy or botany—everyday objects and processes take on new meaning. A second, more compelling reason for studying interpersonal communication is that all of us could learn to communicate more effectively. A survey by the Business Council of Canada (2018) revealed that once job candidates had met the threshold for vocationally specific skills, ­ interpersonal/

Interpersonal communication occurs when people treat one another as unique individuals, regardless of the context or the number of people involved. Why should we study something that happens every day?

He bade foster mothers and nurses to suckle the children, to bathe and wash them, but in no way to prattle with them, for he wanted to learn whether they would speak the Hebrew language, which was the oldest, or Greek, or Latin, or Arabic, or perhaps the language of their parents, of whom they had been born. But he laboured in vain because all the children died.

1 | Interpersonal Process

For they could not live without the petting and joyful faces and loving words of their foster mothers. (Ross and McLaughlin, 1949, p. 366)

Contemporary researchers have found less drastic ways to illustrate the importance of communication, but have found similarly disturbing effects of social isolation. During the 1950s as part of an effort to understand “brainwashing,” Donald Hebb, a psychologist at McGill University, conducted a study in which student volunteers were paid to spend days or weeks by themselves deprived of stimulation including meaningful human contact. Most volunteers only lasted a few hours, few lasted more than two days, and none of them lasted a week (Bond, 2014). Participants quickly became anxious, acutely restless, and began to experience hallucinations. Afterwards they suffered from prolonged anxiety, high levels of emotionality, and had difficulty completing cognitive tasks such as arithmetic problems. The study was quickly cut short due to the extreme distress participants experienced. Accounts from prisoners of war held in solitary confinement attest to the risks human beings are willing to take to communicate with others. Prisoners have described the unique torment of prolonged solitary confinement as more unbearable than other tortures and deprivations. They have described tapping on walls to spell out words and risking torture and even death for doing so because the need to communicate is so fundamental to human survival (McCain, 1999). Researchers have identified solitary confinement, unlike other captivity stressors such as physical abuse and deprivation of food, as negatively affecting long-term cellular aging (Stein et al., 2018). Prisoners have reported preferring to be brutally interrogated and physically tortured rather than spend time in solitary confinement (Bachar and Aherenfeld, 2010). Indeed, courts in Ontario and British Columbia have recognized the devastating psychological harm caused by solitary confinement, as has the United Nations (Proctor, 2018). The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules (the Nelson Mandela Rules) define solitary as “the confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact” (United Nations

Office on Drugs and Crime, 2016). The Mandela Rules include indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement in the list of prohibited cruel, inhumane, or degrading punishments or tortures. Meaningful human contact is a necessity of life and many would argue a basic human right. Although it is true that all of us need some solitude, often more than we get in this always-on world, each of us has a point beyond which we do not want to be alone. Beyond this point, solitude changes from a pleasurable to a painful condition. In other words, we all need people. We all need to communicate.

Physical Needs Communication is so important that its presence or absence affects physical health. Studies confirm that people who process a negative experience by talking about it report improved life satisfaction, as well as enhanced mental and physical health, compared to those who only think about it (Lyubomirsky et al., 2006; Sousa, 2002). A study conducted with police officers found that being able to talk easily to colleagues and supervisors about ­work-related trauma was connected to better physical and mental health (Stephens and Long, 2000). Even when we have not experienced anything particularly stressful or traumatic, spending time engaged in conversations with others has benefits. Ten minutes of talking a day, face to face or on the phone, improves memory and improves people’s intellectual functioning (Ybarra et al., 2008). Without regular, meaningful social contact, we suffer. Physicians have identified a higher prevalence of health problems among people who report feeling socially isolated. Loneliness in childhood and adolescence results in poorer sleep, symptoms of depression, and poorer overall health. In older adults, loneliness is associated high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, cognitive decline, dementia, impaired immunity, and earlier mortality (Hawkley and Capitanio, 2015; Luo et al., 2012). Evidence gathered by numerous researchers over many decades shows that satisfying relationships can literally be a matter of life and death (e.g., Cohen et al., 1997; Hall and Havens, 2002; Holt-Lunstad

5

6

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

et al., 2015; Maté, 2003; Robles, 2010: Rosenquist et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2016). For example: • People who lack strong relationships run a greater risk of early death than people who are obese or exposed to air pollution. • Divorced, separated, and widowed people are 5 to 10 times more likely to need p ­ sychiatric hospitalization than their happily married ­counterparts. • People with more supportive social networks are less susceptible to depression and cognitive decline. • Pregnant women under stress and without supportive relationships have three times as many complications as pregnant women who suffer from the same stress, but have strong social support. • Socially connected people’s wounds heal faster. • Socially isolated people are four times as susceptible to the common cold as those who have active social networks. Research like this demonstrates the importance of satisfying personal relationships, and it explains the conclusion of social scientists that communication is essential for health. Not everyone needs the same amount of contact, and the quality of communication is almost certainly as important as the quantity. Nonetheless, the point remains: personal communication is essential for our well-being. As distinguished psychologist John Cacioppo says, “Social connection is to humans what water is to fish: you don’t notice it until it’s missing and then you realize it’s really important” (Bielski, 2018).

Identity Needs Communication does more than enable us to survive. It’s the way—indeed, the major way—we learn who we are (Fogel et al., 2002; Khanna, 2004, 2010). As you’ll read in Chapter 2, our sense of identity comes from the way we interact with other people. Do we think of ourselves as clever or foolish, skilful or inept, attractive or ugly? The answers to these questions don’t come from looking in the mirror. We decide who we are on the basis of how others react to us.

Deprived of communication with others, we would have no sense of identity. This is illustrated by the famous Wild Boy of Aveyron, who spent his early childhood without any apparent human contact. The boy was discovered in January 1800 when he was digging for vegetables in a French village garden. He showed no behaviour one would expect in a social human. He could not speak, but uttered only weird cries. More significant than this absence of social skills was his lack of any identity as a human being. As author Roger Shattuck (1980, p. 37) put it, “The boy had no human sense of being in the world. He had no sense of himself as a person related to other persons.” Only through the influence of a loving “mother” did the boy begin to behave—and, we can imagine, think of himself— as a human. Modern stories support the essential role that communication plays in shaping identity. In 1970, the authorities discovered a 12-year-old girl (whom they called Genie) who had spent virtually all her life in an otherwise empty, darkened bedroom with almost no human contact. The child could not speak and had no sense of herself as a person until she was removed from her family and “nourished” by a team of caregivers (Rymer, 1993). Like Genie and the Wild Boy of Aveyron, each of us enters the world with little or no sense of identity. We gain an idea of who we are from the way others define us. As we explain in Chapter 2, the messages children receive in their early years are the strongest identity shapers, but the influence of others continues throughout our lives.

Social Needs Some social scientists have argued that besides helping define who we are, communication is the principal way relationships are created (Duck and Pittman, 1994; Hubbard, 2001). For example, Julie Yingling (1994) asserts that children “talk friendships into existence.” Canadian teenagers value friendships the most, ahead of a comfortable life, recognition, and excitement (Bibby, 2001), and they spend a great deal of time developing and maintaining these relationships through communication. As we discuss in Chapter 8,

1 | Interpersonal Process

sometimes we deal with social needs directly by discussing our r­ elationships with others. But more often, communication satisfies a variety of social needs without our ever addressing them overtly. Communication helps us to help and be helped by others, to feel included and worthwhile, to have fun and relax with others, and to exert influence and control in social situations (Rubin et al., 1988). Because relationships with others are so vital, some theorists have gone so far as to argue that c­ ommunication is the primary goal of human existence. Anthropologist Walter Goldschmidt (1990) calls the drive for meeting social needs “the human career.” Positive social interaction and ­support appear to be the strongest determinants of quality of life (Leung and Lee, 2005). Beyond our immediate circle of contacts, we can satisfy social needs by communicating with a larger community. Yet there appears to be an increasing trend in North American society for people to live more socially isolated lives than their parents and grandparents did (Putnam, 2000). Since the 1950s, we eat together less often, belong to fewer social clubs, and enjoy fewer visits from friends (Putnam, 2000). Large-scale social ­changes such as industrialization, capitalism, and the proliferation of cheap and efficient transportation have changed the communities in which we live. Many of us live farther away from our families, friends, and places of work than our ancestors did. In addition, advances in technology have allowed us to do our banking, shop for groceries, visit the library, and be entertained and go to school and work without leaving our homes. While there are numerous advantages to being able to connect to the world remotely, there is increasing evidence that active, meaningful face-to-face involvement with other people is essential to our happiness, resilience, well-being, and longevity (Burke at al., 2010; Sagioglou and Greitemeyer, 2014; Pinker, 2015; Turkle, 2011, 2015).

Practical Needs We shouldn’t overlook the everyday, important functions of communication. It is the tool that lets us tell the hairstylist to take just a little off the sides,

direct the doctor to where it hurts, and inform the plumber that the broken pipe needs attention now! Beyond these obvious needs, a wealth of research demonstrates that communication is an essential part of effectiveness in a variety of daily situations. Canadian employers have identified interpersonal communication skills as essential in helping graduating university and college students gain employment and advance in their careers (Business Council of Canada, 2018; Employment and Social Development Canada, 2014; Munroe and Watt, 2014).). The ability to communicate effectively, establish and maintain relationships, and work effectively in teams distinguishes successful job candidates and employees from their less successful peers. More importantly, workplace errors by professionals ranging from pilots to surgeons more frequently involve failures in communication than technical errors alone (Wilson, Whyte, Gangadharan, and Kent, 2017). Communication is just as important outside of work. Decades of research findings suggest that married couples who communicate effectively are more likely to enjoy greater marital satisfaction than couples who lack effective communication skills (Kirchler, 1988; Litzinger and Gordon, 2005; Rehman and Holtzworth-Munroe, 2007; Ridley et al., 2001). Same-sex couples’ satisfaction with their long-term relationships (both studies mentioned were done in the US before same-sex marriage was legalized there) is also strongly influenced by their communication and problem-solving skills (Peplau and Fingerhut, 2007; Quam et al., 2010). On the scholastic front, college and university students are more likely to successfully complete their programs when they are engaged in both academic and social activities, such as interacting regularly with faculty and peers and engaging in campus activities (Demetriou and Schmitz-Sciborski, 2011; Tinto, 1993). Students who are able to cultivate and maintain strong, supportive relationships are also more likely to be successful in their academic pursuits (Bíró., Veres-Balajti, and Kósa, 2016; DaSilva, Zakzanis, Henderson and Ravindran, 2017). Psychologist Abraham Maslow (1968) suggests, in a theory called Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, that human needs fall into five categories, each

7

8

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

of which must be satisfied before we concern ourselves with the next one. As you read on, think about the ways in which communication is often necessary to satisfy each need. The most basic needs are physical: sufficient air, water, food, and rest, and the ability to reproduce as a species. The second category of Maslow’s needs involves safety: protection from threats to our well-being. Beyond physical and safety concerns are the social needs we have already mentioned. After those necessities are met, Maslow suggests that each of us has the need for self-esteem: the desire to believe that we are worthwhile, valuable people. The final category of needs involves self-actualization: the desire to develop our potential to the maximum, to become the best people we can be.

CHECK IT! Why do we communicate? Describe the four types of needs communication helps us to meet.

The Communication Process So far, we have talked about communication as if its meaning were perfectly clear. In fact, scholars have debated the definition of communication for years with no simple conclusions (Littlejohn and Foss, 2008). One thing is clear: human communication is a complex process with many components. In this section, we’ll discuss some features and principles of communication.

A Model of Communication As the old saying goes, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” That’s what scientists had in mind when they began creating models of the communication process in the 1950s. The early models were simplistic, linear, and u ­ nidirectional—illustrating something the sender of a message did to a passive receiver. Subsequent models were more interactional, with senders and receivers taking turns, but still characterized communication as

s­ equential. However, as you know, many of today’s ­exchanges involve communication partners sending and receiving messages simultaneously. Over time, communication models have become increasingly sophisticated in an attempt to represent all the factors that affect human interaction. No model can completely represent the process of communication, any more than a map can capture everything about the neighbourhood where you live. Still, the model in Figure 1.1 provides a starting point for explaining the insights and principles discussed below.

Insights from the Transactional Communication Model Figure 1.1 illustrates a number of important characteristics of communication. As you read on, note how the following insights help explain the richness of this process.

Sending and Receiving Are Usually ­Simultaneous In the following scenarios, ask yourself who is sending a message and who is receiving one. • A teacher is explaining a difficult concept to a student after class. • A parent is lecturing a teenager about the family’s curfew rules. • A salesperson is giving a customer information about a product. The natural impulse is to identify the teacher, parent, and salesperson as senders, while the student, teenager, and customer are receivers. Now imagine a confused look on the student’s face; the teenager interrupting defensively; the customer blankly staring into the distance. It’s easy to see that these verbal and non-verbal responses are messages being “sent,” even while the other person is talking. Because it’s often impossible to distinguish sending from receiving, our communication model replaces these roles with a more accurate word: communicator. This term reflects the fact people can simultaneously be senders and receivers who exchange multiple messages.

1 | Interpersonal Process

Noise

Noise

Noise

Communicator sends, receives , assigns meaning

Communicator sends, receives, assigns meaning Channel(s)

Noise

Channel(s)

Noise

A’s Environment

Noise

B’s Environment

FIGURE 1.1  Communication Model

Meanings Exist in and among People Messages, whether they are verbal or non-verbal, don’t have meanings in themselves; rather, meanings reside in the people who express and interpret them. Imagine that a friend says “I’m sorry” after showing up two hours late for a pre-arranged meeting. There are several possible “meanings” that this expression might have: a genuine apology, an insincere attempt to defuse your anger, or even a sarcastic jibe. It’s easy to imagine that your friend might mean one thing and you might have a different interpretation of it. The possibility of multiple interpretations means that it’s often necessary to negotiate a shared meaning in order for satisfying communication to occur.

Environments Affect Communication Problems often arise because communicators occupy different environments (sometimes called contexts)—that is, fields of experience that help them make sense of other people’s behaviour. In communication terminology, environment refers not only to a physical location, but also to the personal experiences and cultural backgrounds that the participants bring to a conversation. Environments aren’t always obvious. For example, playing a co-operative versus a competitive game creates

different communication environments, as do the values, beliefs, and cultural backgrounds and personal histories of the players. Notice how the model in Figure 1.1 shows that the environments of A and B overlap. This intersecting area represents the background that the communicators have in common. If this overlap didn’t exist, communication would be difficult, if not impossible. Whereas similar environments facilitate satisfying communication, different backgrounds can make effective communication more challenging. Consider just some of the factors that might contribute to different environments and to difficulties: • A might belong to one cultural group and B to another. • A might be rich and B poor. • A might be rushed and B have nowhere to go. • A might have lived a long, eventful life, and B might be young and inexperienced. • A might be passionately concerned with the subject and B indifferent to it.

Noise Affects Communication Another factor that makes communication difficult is what scientists call noise—anything that

9

10

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

interferes with the transmission and reception of a message. Three types of noise can disrupt communication. External noise includes those factors outside the receiver that make it difficult to hear or listen, as well as many other kinds of distractions. For instance, someone sitting next to you and speaking loudly on their phone, or a siren going by may prevent you from hearing a speaker’s remarks. Physiological noise involves biological factors in the receiver that interfere with accurate reception, such as hearing loss, illness, and so on. Psychological noise refers to cognitive factors that make communication less effective. For instance, a person being spoken down to or disrespected may become so irritated that they have trouble listening objectively to the rest of a speaker’s message.

Channels Make a Difference Communication scholars use the term channel to describe the medium through which messages are exchanged (Ledbetter, 2014). Along with faceto-face interaction, we can exchange messages using mediated communication. Mediated channels include the telephone, text messaging, email, and social media platforms. The communication channel being used can affect the way a receiver responds to a message (O’Sullivan, 2000). For example, ending a relationship by sending your ex-lover a text message makes a different statement than delivering the bad news in person, and receiving criticism on social media is a very different experience compared to receiving the same information in an email sent only to you. Most people intuitively recognize that the selection of the channel depends on the kind of message they are sending and the relationships between sender and receiver. Generally, we build trust through face-to-face interactions (Brooks et al., 2017) and people prefer to share highly emotional messages (e.g., romantic break-up, resigning from a job) in face-to-face encounters or telephone conversations but, as we’ll discuss a bit later in this chapter, all channels have their advantages and disadvantages for both the sender and the receiver.

Communication Principles In addition to the insights offered by the communication model, there are other principles that guide our understanding of communication.

Communication Is Transactional As we saw in the model of communication introduced earlier in this chapter, communication is transactional communication—that is, a dynamic process created by the participants through their interaction with one another. Perhaps the most important consequence of the transactional nature of communication is the degree of mutual influence that occurs when we interact. To put it simply, communication isn’t something we do to others; rather, it’s an activity we do with them. In this sense, communication is rather like dancing— at least, the kind of dancing we do with partners. Like dancing, communication depends on the involvement of a partner. A great dancer who doesn’t consider and adapt to the skill level of his or her partner can make both of them look bad. In communication and dancing, even two talented partners don’t guarantee success. When two skilled dancers perform without coordinating their movements, the results feel bad to the dancers and look foolish to an audience. Finally, relational communication—like ­dancing—is a unique creation that arises out of the way in which the partners interact. The way you dance probably varies from one partner to another because of the co-operative, transactional nature of dancing. Likewise, the way you communicate almost certainly varies with different partners. As we’ll examine later in this chapter, the ability to adapt increases your competence as a communicator. Psychologist Kenneth Gergen (1991) captures the transactional nature of communication well when he points out how our success depends on interaction with others: “One cannot be ‘attractive’ without others who are attracted, a ‘leader’ without others willing to follow, or a ‘loving person’ without others to affirm with appreciation” (p. 158). The transactional nature of relationships requires that we communicate with other people, not to them.

1 | Interpersonal Process

REFLECTION CHOOSING THE CHANNEL I’m an average person in just about every way, except that I have a speech impediment. I have good days and bad days with my speech. On the bad days, I get the idea that strangers think I’m slow and incompetent, even though people who know me don’t think I’m either. Texting and email have become a very satisfying way for me to communicate, especially with people I don’t know very well. With text messages and email, people can form opinions about me without thinking just about how I sound. I’ve found that my impediment isn’t a problem once people know me, but at first, I think it is a real barrier; text and email remove that barrier completely.

CHECK IT! When developing a model for interpersonal communication, what insights regarding the nature of interpersonal communication must we consider, and why?

Communication Can Be Intentional or Unintentional Some communication is clearly deliberate: you probably plan your words carefully before asking your manager for a raise or offering constructive criticism. Some scholars (e.g., Motley, 1990) argue that only intentional messages like these qualify as communication. However, others (e.g., Baxter and Montgomery, 1996; Buck and VanLear, 2002) suggest that even unintentional behaviour is communicative. Suppose, for instance, that a friend overhears you muttering complaints to yourself. Even though you didn’t intend her to hear your remarks, they certainly did carry a message. In addition to these slips of the tongue, we unintentionally send many non-verbal messages. You may not be aware of your sour expression, impatient

shifting, or sigh of boredom, but others notice them nonetheless. Even the seeming absence of a behaviour has communicative value. Recall the times when you sent an email or left a voicemail message and received no reply. You probably assigned some meaning to the lack of a reply. Was the other person angry? Indifferent? Too busy to reply? Whether or not your hunch was correct, the point remains that all behaviour has communicative value. “Nothing” never happens. In this book, we will look at the communicative value of both intentional and unintentional behaviour. We take the position that whatever you do—whether you speak or remain silent, confront or avoid a person, show emotion or keep a poker face—you provide information to others about your thoughts and feelings. In this sense, we’re like transmitters that can’t be shut off.

Communication Has a Content and a ­Relational Dimension Virtually all messages have a content dimension which involves the information being explicitly discussed (e.g., “Please pass the salt,” “Not now, I’m tired,” “You forgot to buy milk”) and a relational dimension (Watzlawick et al., 1967), which expresses how you feel about the other person (e.g., whether you like or dislike him or her, feel in control or subordinate, feel comfortable or anxious, and so on). For instance, consider how many different relational messages you could communicate by simply saying “thanks a lot” in different ways. Sometimes, the content of a message is all that matters. For example, you may not care how the person behind the counter feels about you, as long as you get your order. In a qualitative sense, however, the relational dimension of a message is often more important than the content under discussion. This explains why disputes over apparently trivial subjects become so important. In such cases, we’re not really arguing over whose turn it is to do the dishes or whether we should go out or stay in. Instead, we’re disputing the nature of the relationship. Who is in control? How important are we to each other? In Chapter 8, we’ll explore several key relational issues in detail.

11

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

TAKE TWO DIMENSIONS OF EVERY MESSAGE • Content: refers to the information explicitly being discussed. • Relational: refers to how the communicators feel about each other.

Communication Is Irreversible We sometimes wish that we could back up in time, erasing words or acts and replacing them with better alternatives. Unfortunately, such reversal is impossible. Sometimes, further explanation can clear up the confusion or an apology can mollify another person’s hurt feelings, but other times, no amount of explanation can erase the impression you have created. It is no more possible to “unreceive” a message than to “unsqueeze” a tube of toothpaste. Words said and deeds done are irretrievable. Nowhere is this more evident than with social media. Once you have sent or posted that comment or those pictures they can live on forever, well beyond your control.

Communication Is Unrepeatable Because communication is an ongoing process, an event cannot be repeated. The friendly smile that worked so well when you met a stranger last week may not succeed with the person you encounter tomorrow. Even with the same person, it’s impossible to recreate an event. Why? Because both you and the other person have changed. You have both lived longer. The behaviour isn’t original. Your feelings about each other may have changed. You need not constantly invent new ways to act around familiar people, but you should realize that the “same” words and behaviour are different each time they are spoken or performed. Chapter 8 takes a closer look at communication as a dynamic and continuous process in the context of our relationships.

JackF/iStockphoto

12

Consider a time when you wished to take back something you communicated to another person. How did it affect your relationships—both with that person and with others in your life?

CHECK IT! What are the five principles that guide our understanding of interpersonal communication? ­ Describe them and explain their significance.

The Nature of Interpersonal Communication Now that you have a better understanding of communication principles, it’s time to look at what makes some types of communication uniquely interpersonal.

Quantitative and Qualitative Definitions Interpersonal communication has been defined in two ways (Redmond, 1995). Most definitions describe a quantitative interpersonal communication as any interaction between two people. Social scientists call two people who are interacting a dyad, and they often use the adjective dyadic to describe this type of communication. So, in a quantitative sense, the terms dyadic communication and interpersonal

1 | Interpersonal Process

Tom Toro The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank.

communication can be used interchangeably. If we use a quantitative definition, a sales clerk helping a customer or a police officer ticketing a speeding driver would be examples of interpersonal acts, whereas a teacher leading a class or an actor performing before an audience would not. Dyadic communication is different from the kind of interaction that occurs in larger groups (Wilmot, 1995). In a group, participants can form coalitions to get support for their positions. In a dyad, though, the partners must work matters out with each other. This difference explains why, if a task calls for competition, children prefer to play in three- or four-person groups, and if it calls for co-operation, they prefer to be in dyads (Benenson et al., 2000). Despite the unique qualities of dyads, you might object to the quantitative definition of interpersonal communication. For example, consider a routine transaction between a sales clerk and customer, or the rushed exchange when you ask a stranger on the street for directions. Communication of this sort hardly seems the same as when you talk to a friend about a personal problem or share with family members your experiences of a year in school. The impersonal nature of some two-person exchanges—the kind when you think, “I might as well have been talking to a machine”—has led some scholars (e.g., Miller and Steinberg, 1975; Stewart and Logan, 1998) to argue that quality, not quantity, is what distinguishes interpersonal communication. Qualitative interpersonal communication occurs when people treat one another as unique individuals, regardless of the context in which the interaction occurs or the number of people involved. When quality of interaction is the criterion, the opposite of interpersonal communication is impersonal interaction, not group, public, or mass communication.

13

Several features distinguish qualitatively interpersonal communication from less personal exchanges. The first is uniqueness. Whereas impersonal exchanges are governed by the kind of social rules we learn from parents, teachers, and etiquette guides, the way we communicate in a truly p ­ ersonal ­relationship is unlike our behaviour with ­anyone else. In one relationship, you might exchange good-­ natured insults, while in another, you are careful never to offend your compatriot. ­Communication scholar Julia Wood (2009) coined the term relational ­culture, in which people in close relationships create their own unique ways of i­ nteracting. A second characteristic of qualitatively interpersonal communication is irreplaceability. Because interpersonal relationships are unique, they cannot be replaced. This explains why we usually feel so sad when a close friendship or love affair cools down. We know that no matter how many other relationships we have in our lives, none of them will ever be quite like the one that just ended. Interdependence is a third characteristic of qualitatively interpersonal relationships. Here, the fate of the partners is connected. You

14

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

might be able to brush off the anger, affection, excitement, or depression of someone you’re not involved with interpersonally, but in an ­i nterpersonal relationship, the other’s life affects you. Sometimes, interdependence is a pleasure, and at other times, it’s a burden. In either case, interdependence is a fact of life in qualitatively interpersonal relationships. A fourth measure of interpersonal communication is disclosure of personal information. In impersonal relationships, we don’t reveal much about ourselves, but in many interpersonal ones, communicators feel more comfortable sharing their thoughts and feelings. This does not mean

REFLECTION IRREPLACEABLE LOSS My dad died when I was 29 years old. Ever since I was a child, I had always thought I would never reach 30. Fortunately, I did and have made it well past, but something changed forever when I was 29. I lost a relationship that could never be replaced. After my dad died, I felt suddenly “grown up” or as if I didn’t have a “safety net” any more. Nothing had really changed in my life to account for this feeling of being on my own except the absence of my dad and our unique ways of interacting. No one else called me by the nickname he did. It was gone. Our ways of talking, our jokes, our shared memories seemed to be evaporating. I couldn’t hold on to them all by myself. I remembered sitting beside my dad at his mom’s funeral. I was 10 years old. I felt sad, but a bit relieved that she had died because she had been sick with Alzheimer’s disease for some time. It was the first funeral I had been to, and I was nervous, so I watched my dad carefully to see what to do. At one point in the service, he turned to me and with a wink said, “Well, I’m an orphan now.” (His father had deserted the family when he was a child.) I burst out laughing. Thinking back now, I wonder if there was a little tinge of truth in his joke. I wonder if he felt the same way I did when he died—all grown up and alone without that relationship to catch him if he fell.

that all interpersonal relationships are warm and caring, or that all self-disclosure is positive. It’s possible to reveal negative, personal information: “I’m really mad at you . . .” In impersonal communication, we seek payoffs that have little to do with the people involved. You listen to professors in class or talk to potential buyers of your used car in order to reach goals that have little to do with developing personal relationships. By contrast, you spend time in qualitatively interpersonal relationships with friends, lovers, and others because of the fifth characteristic of such communication, intrinsic rewards. It often doesn’t matter what you talk about, as developing the relationship is what’s important. As discussed in this book, interpersonal communication is interaction characterized by the qualities of uniqueness, irreplaceability, interdependence, disclosure, and intrinsic rewards. As such, it forms only a small fraction of our interaction. Most of our communication is relatively impersonal. We chat pleasantly with cashiers or fellow passengers on the bus, discuss the weather or current events with most classmates and neighbours, and deal with co-workers and teachers in a polite way; but considering the number of people with whom we communicate, interpersonal relationships are by far the minority.

TAKE TWO DEFINING INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION: QUANTITY VERSUS QUALITY • Quantitative interpersonal communication: definitions focus on the ­ ­ number of people involved. • Qualitative interpersonal communication: ­definitions focus on the nature of the interaction between the people involved in terms of its uniqueness, irreplaceability, amount of disclosure, and intrinsic rewards, as well as the interdependence of the people involved.

1 | Interpersonal Process

The rarity of qualitatively interpersonal communication is not necessarily a bad thing. Most of us do not have the time or energy to create personal relationships with everyone we encounter. In fact, the scarcity of interpersonal communication contributes to its value. Like precious and oneof-a-kind works of art, qualitatively interpersonal relationships are special because they are rare.

Personal and Impersonal Communication: A Matter of Balance Now that the differences between qualitatively interpersonal and impersonal communication are clear, we need to ask some important questions. Is personal communication better than the impersonal variety? Is more personal communication the goal? Most relationships are neither personal nor impersonal. Rather, they fall somewhere between these two extremes. Consider your own communication and you will find that there is often a personal element in even the most impersonal situations. You might appreciate the unique sense of humour of a supermarket cashier or spend a few moments sharing private thoughts with the person cutting your hair. And even the most tyrannical, demanding, by-the-book manager might show an occasional flash of humanity. Just as there’s a personal element in many impersonal settings, there is also an impersonal side to our relationships with the people we care about most. There are occasions when we don’t want to be personal: when we’re distracted, tired, busy, or just not interested. In fact, interpersonal communication is somewhat like rich food—it’s fine in moderation, but too much can make you uncomfortable. The blend of personal and interpersonal communication can shift in various stages of a relationship. The communication between young lovers who talk only about their feelings may change as their relationship develops. Several years later, their communication has become more routine and ritualized, the percentage of time they spend on personal, relational issues drops, and the conversation about less intimate topics increases. In Chapter 8, we discuss how c­ ommunication c­ hanges as relationships pass through various stages; and in

Chapter 2, we describe various t­ heories of self-disclosure. As you read this i­nformation, you’ll see even more clearly that, while ­interpersonal communication can make life worth living, it isn’t possible or desirable all the time.

SELF-ASSESSMENT HOW INTERPERSONAL ARE YOUR RELATIONSHIPS? Select three important relationships to assess. These might include your relationships with people at work or school, with friends, or with your family. For each relationship, answer the following q ­ uestions: 1. To what extent is the relationship characterized by uniqueness? How much is this relationship one of a kind? Low level of High level of uniqueness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 uniqueness 2. To what extent is the relationship ­irreplaceable? Very easy Very hard to to replace 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 replace 3. To what extent are you and your relationship partner interdependent; that is, to what extent do your actions affect the other? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High Little interdependence interdependence 4. To what extent is communication in the relationship marked by high disclosure of personal information? Little High disclosure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 disclosure 5. To what extent does the relationship create its own intrinsic rewards? Little intrinsic High intrinsic value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 value Referring to your answers, decide how q ­ ualitatively interpersonal (or how impersonal) each relationship is. (If you have more fives, sixes, and sevens in your answers, then your relationship is more interpersonal. If you have more ones, twos, and threes, then the relationship is more impersonal.) How satisfied are you with your findings? What can you do to improve your s ­ atisfaction with these relationships?

15

16

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

Communication Misconceptions Now that we have described what communication is, we need to identify some things that it isn’t. Avoiding these common misconceptions (adapted from McCroskey and Richmond, 1996) can save you a great deal of trouble in your personal life.

Not All Communication Seeks Understanding Most people operate on the implicit, but flawed, assumption that the goal of all communication is to maximize understanding between communicators. While some understanding is necessary for us to coordinate our interaction, there are some types of communication in which understanding as we usually conceive it is not the primary goal. ­Consider, for example, the following situations: • The social rituals we enact every day: “How’s it going?” you ask. “Great,” the other person replies. The primary goal in exchanges like these is mutual acknowledgement: there is obviously no serious attempt to exchange information. • Many attempts to influence others: A quick analysis of most commercials and advertisements shows that they are aimed at persuading viewers to buy products, not helping viewers understand the content of the ad. In the same way, many of our attempts to persuade others to act as we want don’t involve a desire to get the other person to understand what we want—just to comply with our wishes. • Deliberate ambiguity and deception: When you decline an unwanted invitation by saying, “I can’t make it,” you probably want to create the impression that the decision is really beyond your control. (If your goal were to be perfectly clear, you might say, “I don’t want to get together. Truthfully, I’d rather do almost anything than accept your invitation.”) In fact, we often equivocate precisely because we want to hide our true thoughts and feelings (this is explained in detail in Chapter 9).

REFLECTION ONLINE REGRET I’ve been told that real world regret often involves sadness and shame about what we didn’t do (e.g., didn’t visit an ill relative, failed to speak up as a bystander), but that online regret is all about wishing we hadn’t done something. I know that is true in terms of my experiences posting and tagging pictures on social media and I’ve resolved to never post or tag before asking. I’ve legitimately angered friends by posting or tagging pictures of us doing dumb things over the years but my worst offence, and one in which I really didn’t foresee the potential negative consequences, involved posting pictures of my sister’s kids. I really hadn’t thought through the possibility of those cute pics being used for inappropriate or illegal purposes, or even the chances of my nieces and nephews being bullied or harassed because of what I did. And it never crossed my mind that my picture sharing could lead to strangers stealing these pics and posting them as their own (which is known as digital kidnapping). I have learned the hard way that you can’t really take anything back on the internet—in terms of our digital lives communication really is irreversible!

More Communication Is Not Always Better While failure to communicate effectively can certainly cause problems, too much communication can also be a mistake. Sometimes, excessive communication is simply unproductive, as when two people go over the same ground again and again without making progress. There are other times when talking too much actually aggravates a problem. We’ve all had the experience of “talking ourselves into a hole”—making a bad situation worse by pursuing it too far. As McCroskey and Wheeless (1976, p. 5) put it, “More and more negative communication merely leads to more and more negative results.” There are even times when no interaction is the best course. When two people are angry and hurt, they may say things they don’t mean and will later regret. In such cases, it’s

1 | Interpersonal Process

TAKE TWO Not all communication seeks understanding. Some examples include: • everyday social rituals; • persuasion and coercion; and • deliberate ambiguity and deception.

probably best to spend time cooling off, thinking about what to say and how to say it. In Chapter 4, we will help you decide when and how to share feelings.

Communication Will Not Solve All Problems Sometimes, even the best-planned, best-timed communication won’t solve a problem. For example, imagine that you ask an instructor to explain why you received a poor grade on a project you believe deserved top marks. The instructor clearly outlines the reasons why you received the low grade and sticks to that position after listening thoughtfully to your protests. Has communication solved the problem? Hardly. Sometimes, clear communication is even the cause of problems. Suppose, for example, that a friend asks you for an honest opinion of an expensive outfit they just bought. Your clear and sincere answer, “I think it’s a terrible colour on you,” might do more harm than good. Deciding when and how to self-disclose isn’t always easy. See Chapter 2 for suggestions.

Effective Communication Is Not a Natural Ability Most people assume that communication is an aptitude that is developed without the need for training—rather like breathing. Although nearly everyone does manage to function passably without much formal communication training, most people operate at a level of effectiveness far below their potential. In fact, communication skills are similar to athletic ability. Even the least gifted among us can improve with training and practice.

Interpersonal Communication and Technology The relationship between human communication and technology is a very long one. From cave art and hieroglyphics through to the printing press and social networks, humans have engaged in invention to support their desire to communicate. In the interpersonal realm, until a few decades ago, face-to-face communication seemed essential to starting and maintaining most, if not all, personal relationships. Other channels did exist, primarily telephone or postal correspondence, but most interpersonal communication seemed to require physical proximity. Face-to-face communication is still vitally important, but increasingly technology also plays a role in starting and maintaining relationships. Computer-mediated communication (CMC) provides us with other ways to interact both socially and at work. CMC describes any communication that involves two or more electronic devices. Social media is the term that describes all online communication channels that allow community-based input, interaction, content sharing, and collaboration. Mediated communication technologies allow people to communicate with each other privately, in curated social networks, and publicly 24/7. Some critics argue that the almost hypnotic attraction of the internet and social media discourages people from spending time face to face with others. Problematic internet use, which is internet use that interferes with the ability to accomplish daily routines, is associated with social anxiety, loneliness, and depression, but sorting out whether the internet is the cause or symptom of such problems is difficult (Tokunaga, 2014). For some individuals, internet use can and does interfere with the quality of their face-to-face personal relationships. Email, text messages, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and online video games are ways to stay in touch and interact with others, but, as Sherry Turkle (2011, 2015) and Susan Pinker (2014) point out, they are no substitute for real conversation and physical human connection. You can’t give someone a hug, wipe away their tears, or really share all the sensations of a delicious meal without being in their company.

17

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

On the other hand, there is considerable research that suggests that mediated communication can actually enhance interpersonal communication in certain contexts. Social networking creates opportunities for people to connect with friends and relatives anywhere globally, anytime. In addition, it allows people to interact with individuals they may never have otherwise had the opportunity to meet. They can share interests, develop businesses, build and maintain friendships and romantic relationships (Anderson and Rainie, 2018). While there is growing evidence that there is no substitute for faceto-face communication for our long-term health and well-being (Pinker, 2014), mediated communication plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining our interpersonal relationships.

Characteristics of Computer-Mediated Communication Like face-to-face communication, mediated communication contains the same elements described in the communication model introduced earlier in this chapter (communicators, environments, messages, channels, and noise). It also satisfies the same physical, identity, social, and practical needs. Despite these similarities, mediated communication differs from the in-person variety in some important ways. Table 1.1 provides an overview of differences by communication channel. Each channel has its advantages and drawbacks and you can boost your communication effectiveness by choosing the channel that is best, depending on the nature of the message, the recipient, and the situation.

in Chapter 7, face-to-face communication is rich in non-verbal messages. By c­ omparison, most mediated channels are leaner. Text-based messages are inherently leaner than verbal messages delivered on the phone, via video chat/conferencing, or in person. Even with the addition of embedded images and brief videos (e.g., emojis, gifs, memes, etc.), text-based messages lack many of the more nuanced non-verbal cues that help communicators better understand each other’s intentions and emotions, and thus are more easily misunderstood. For some people the absence of non-verbal cues such as voice tone, facial expressions, etc., makes text-based communication more comfortable. For shy individuals in particular, use of text-based channels can actually enhance the quality of their friendships and reduce their anxiety about participating in discussions (Hammick and Lee, 2014). However, pared down, text-based communication creates more opportunities for misunderstanding. Without non-verbal cues, it’s easier to misinterpret messages, particularly those that might be interpreted as conveying humour, irony, or sarcasm. When choosing the best channel to send a message it’s important to consider the advantages and drawbacks of each and keep in mind that we tend to interpret positive text-based messages as more neutral than intended and neutral messages as more negative than intended (Byron, 2008).

Morsa Images/iStockphoto

18

Leanness Social scientists use the term media richness to describe the abundance of non-verbal cues that add clarity to a message (Otondo et al., 2008). Conversely, leanness describes messages that carry less information due to the lack of non-verbal cues. As you’ll read

A lot of people argue that the internet has a negative effect on communication, while others argue that now we can communicate better than we ever have before. What do you think?

1 | Interpersonal Process

TABLE 1.1  Characteristics of Communication Channels Synchronization

Richness/Leanness

Permanence

Face to Face

Synchronous

Rich

Low

Video Chat

Synchronous

Moderately rich

Low

Telephone

Synchronous

Moderately lean

Low

Voicemail

Asynchronous

Moderately lean

Moderate

Text/Instant Messaging

Asynchronous (but potentially quick)

Lean

Moderate

Email

Asynchronous

Lean

High

Social Networking

Typically asynchronous

Lean (but can include photos and videos)

High

Asynchronicity Asynchronous communication occurs when there is a time gap between when the message was sent and when it is received. Email, voicemail, snail mail, text messages, and social networking posts are asynchronous. By contrast, synchronous communication occurs in real time. In-­ person communication, phone calls, and video chat/ conferencing are ex­amples of synchronous communication. Asynchronous messages are different from synchronous messages because you have more time to respond to them as well as the option to not respond at all. But as we discussed earlier this chapter, not responding is still communicating—all behaviour has communicative value. Asynchronous messages give us a chance to think about our responses and they also allow us to share information with people in different time zones in ways that were previously impossible. For example, recent immigrants to Canada are more likely to use the internet (email, text messaging, and Skype) every day to communicate with relatives and friends abroad (Canadian Internet R ­ egistration Authority, 2018; Statistics Canada, 2008). CMC provides not only increased opportunities for communication locally, but also the ability to maintain relationships over long distances.

Permanence A third difference between face-to-face and mediated communication is permanence, or how long the message endures. Unlike our face-to-face

c­ onversations, the messages, photos, and videos we post or send to each other can be saved indefinitely. This can be a tremendous advantage. For example, when your doctor or specialist electronically records your conversation about a health condition you’re able to access it anytime in the future; or when you’ve forgotten where to meet your friend you can look up the address she texted to you earlier. But there are obvious disadvantages too. Regretting information posted on social media is common, more so among young people (under 25 years) (Chou et al., 2019; Xie and Kang, 2015). The most common regrets involve posting about sensitive topics, content with strong sentiment, lies, and personal secrets (Wang et al., 2011), often impulsively. We’ve all heard of social media missteps that have hurt people’s relationships with family, friends, and colleagues or adversely affected their reputations or careers. In more extreme instances, others can intercept information. For instance, a study conducted by Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) found that 89 per cent of the sexually explicit photos and videos of young people they found on public websites were self-­ generated (e.g., selfies, sexting messages sent privately). These images had never been intended for public viewing (IWF, 2015), but were still accessible and distributed by unintended viewers. Even with privacy settings and other safeguards, the reality is we don’t control the information we share online, it can potentially be accessed by anyone, and it can never truly be deleted from the internet. We’ll look at some of these challenges when we discuss

19

20

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

­ ersonal disclosure in Chapter 2, and when we p examine communication climates and conflict in later chapters. In the meantime, however, it’s wise to be cautious and considerate online and remember

that despite feeling private and transitory, the online world is public and potentially permanent. Think twice before communicating something that might haunt you for a lifetime.

FOCUS ON RESEARCH OUR DIGITAL LIVES AND INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION Although this textbook is not specifically focused on the impact of technology on communication we will certainly discuss both the benefits and challenges of digital life on specific elements of interpersonal communication and our relationships with others. Research on the effects of technology and the internet on everything from children’s development to dating to business success has increased exponentially in recent years. In terms of the impact on communication and interpersonal relationships, the findings are mixed in terms of benefits versus detriment. Janna Anderson, director of Elon University’s Imagining the Internet Centre, and Lee Rainie, director of Internet and Technology Research at the Pew Research Centre (2018), canvased technology experts, scholars, and health specialists and asked them to respond to the following: Please share a brief personal anecdote about how digital life has changed your daily life, your family’s life or your friends’ lives in regard to well-being—some brief observation about life for self, family or friends. Tell us how this observation or anecdote captures how hyperconnected life changes people’s well-being compared to the way life was before digital connectivity existed. They received responses from 1,150 people from around the world, the majority of whom (79 per cent) were based in North America. Their respondents included people from a wide cross-section of ­occupations including professors, teachers, research scientists, futurists, consultants, advocates, activists, technology developers, administrators, ­ entrepreneurs, business leaders, authors, editors, journalists, legislators, politicians, and lawyers.

Analysis of the responses revealed that 47 per cent of their respondents predicted people will be more helped than harmed by digital life in the next 10 years, 32 per cent predicted the reverse (more harmed than helped), and the remaining 21 per cent predicted no change in people’s well-being as a result of digital life. These investigators identified a number of themes in the responses related to the ways digital life helps us or harms us, as well as respondents’ ideas about potential remedies to mitigate the harm. Those most relevant to our focus on interpersonal communication include the potential of digital life to increase our ability to meet and maintain our connections with others, thereby increasing our connectedness, self-fulfillment, and contentment. On the negative side, digital life has the potential to increase our stress (overload), possibly erode our face-to-face communication skills, and diminish our trust in others. Included below is a small selection of quotes from some of Anderson and Rainie’s (2018) respondents that help illustrate the positive and negative impacts of digital life on our interpersonal lives. . . . I have met and developed relationships with people outside any sphere of reference I never would have had thanks to my digital life. . . . When forced to only have relationships with people you can meet in person, you tend to live in a more-narrow world, with people more like you. Digital communications broadens your horizons, or it can if you want it to. I often find myself stressed out at the end of the day; as a result I tend to enjoy relaxing and staying in for the night. Without the modern hyperconnected lifestyle this would result

1 | Interpersonal Process

in me reading or doing other solo activities. Through voice-chat applications and online multiplayer gaming, I connect with friends to play video games. While I don’t have the energy to be social in one way, the ease of connecting over the internet enables me to enjoy time with friends and maintain our relationships. My family and I use our smartphones to send photos, video chat and send text messages on a daily basis, allowing us to stay in contact more frequently. . . . On the negative side, I look at headlines way too much as a form of stimulus any time I have a second to spare— even when I’m with my children. I’d say I’m less present, less able to focus on reading long form text, than I was before my smartphone came into my life. My brother spent a period between graduating school and obtaining a job idly watching screens and interacting only via them. He spent all day and into the night constantly immersed in this. The TV was always on in the background while he played intense online video games on his laptop, while also continuously texting or messaging others about the game. Technology became his life. It was difficult to separate him from his virtual world and to interest him in physical human interaction. He became grumpy, began sleeping less and less, and stopped dedicating time to his own physical needs. Although it was a scary time, he was later able to pull himself out of it and eventually reconnect with the real world. While he was lucky to be able to quit, some are not able to do so. I have a young friend who lives in another state in a rural area. Over time, I have realized from their social media posts that he/she is emerging as gender non-conforming. In the past, this is a journey that I would probably not have known about, especially since his/her immediate family is very conservative and have not accepted this facet of the young person’s identity. I am so grateful to have been included in this revelation so I can offer my unconditional love and support. And I am even more grateful that a person who in the past would have felt

isolated, unnatural, and broken now knows that they are in fact part of a global community. He/ she can find and utilize peer support groups as well as myriad medical, psychological and spiritual resources that would not have been available to someone in a small town in the past. I believe this will probably save lives. I definitely hope that it will help increase our ability as a society to accept others who don’t conform to our preconceived notions of what is normal. Anderson and Rainie (2018b) report that even respondents who predicted that human well-being will be harmed also pointed out that digital tools will continue to improve some aspects of our lives and that there is no turning back. In terms of how we mitigate the dangers of our digital lives some respondents identified education as a key mechanism. The primary change needs to come in education. From a very early age, people need to understand how to interact with networked, digital technologies. They need to learn how to use social media, and learn how not to be used by it. They need to understand how to assemble reliable information and how to detect crap. They need to be able to shape the media they are immersed in. They need to be aware of how algorithms and marketing—and the companies, governments, and other organizations that produce them—help to shape the ways in which they see the world. Unfortunately, from preschool to grad school, there isn’t a lot of consensus about how this is to be achieved. We are hopeful that learning more about interpersonal communication will help you to take advantage of the benefits of digital life and support you in mitigating the potential harm to your relationships, health, and over all well-being. Critical thinking: Can you think of a brief personal anecdote about how digital life has affected your daily life, your family’s life, or your friends’ lives with regard to well-being? What are your predictions in terms of digital life being a helpful or harmful ­influence on our interpersonal communication and relationships? Why?

21

22

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

CHECK IT! What is the general consensus regarding the effects of technology on interpersonal ­communication?

Interpersonal Communication and Cultural Diversity Almost a half century ago, communication guru Marshall McLuhan (1964) coined the metaphor of the world as a “global village” where members of all nations are connected by communication technology. Just as with members of a traditional village, McLuhan suggested, the affairs and fates of the occupants of Planet Earth are connected— for better or worse. This analysis has proved to be increasingly true in the years since McLuhan introduced it. The growth in communication technology, including international telephone service, the internet, and global media coverage brings the world into our homes. Although relatively cheap transportation has reduced the barrier of distance, thus making travel easier for more people than ever before, Canadians don’t need to go far to be exposed to the global village. Demographic changes have been transforming Canada into a microcosm of the global village. At the time of the last national census, one-fifth of Canadians identified themselves as immigrants (Statistics Canada, 2018). Canada is increasingly a nation of people with diverse ethnic origins with Canadians reporting over 250 different ethnic origins and ancestries, and four in ten people identified more than one ancestry at the time of the most recent census (Statistics Canada, 2017). The Canadian concept of multiculturalism, where people value, celebrate, and preserve their cultural heritage rather than becoming assimilated into the dominant culture, helps to create this microcosm of global diversity. Over the past 30 years, Canadians have expressed increasingly positive attitudes toward newcomers (Environics Institute, 2018). Economic integration also creates ties that bind nations and people. National economies are increasingly ­connected with and

affected by developments around the world. According to Industry Canada, no other major economy is as trade-oriented as Canada. The country depends on international trade to grow and prosper; because Canada’s economy is very small, domestic-based companies increasingly enter global markets in order to remain viable and competitive (Kingston, 2017). Given all this information, it makes sense to examine how interpersonal communication operates between members of different cultures. Throughout this book, we will see that when people from different backgrounds interact, they face a set of challenges that are often different from when members of the same culture communicate.

Culture Defining culture is not an easy task. For our purposes, Larry Samovar and his colleagues (2012) offer a clear and comprehensive definition of culture as “the language, values, beliefs, traditions, and customs people share and learn.” This definition shows that culture is, to a great extent, a matter of perception and definition. When you identify yourself as a member of a ­culture, you must not only share certain characteristics, but you must also recognize yourself, and others like you, as possessing these features; and see others who don’t possess them as members of different categories. For example, height doesn’t seem like a significant factor in distinguishing “us” from “them,” whereas skin colour is often considered significant—at least in some cases. It’s not hard, though, to imagine some future society where height is the differentiating feature. Social scientists use the term in-groups for groups with which we identify and out-groups for those that we view as different (Tajfel and Turner, 1992). Social scientists use the term co-culture to describe the perception of membership in a subgroup that is part of an encompassing culture. For example, North American culture includes categories based on a number of factors including but not limited to: •  age (e.g., teen, senior citizen) •  ethnicity (e.g., South Asian, Indigenous)

1 | Interpersonal Process

•  sexual orientation (e.g., LGBTQ+, heterosexual) •  geographic region (e.g., Northerner, Quebecker) •  physical disability (e.g., person who uses a wheelchair, person who is blind) •  religion (e.g., Muslim, Catholic) •  profession (e.g., nurse, musician) Members of co-cultures develop distinctive communication patterns and membership in these groups enriches people’s lives and provides meaningful connections. There also can be tensions between membership in co-cultures and the larger culture. Children of recent newcomers to Canada face these tensions as they navigate between the languages, values, beliefs, traditions, and customs of their schools, friends, and homes. Tensions between members of different co-cultural groups can also occur. For instance, a potential barrier to effective interprofessional teamwork in health care stems from differences in values and in the educational training systems of the various health care professionals tasked to work together. The traditional culture of physician training has focused on a task-oriented approach to patient care and an authoritarian decision-making model that can create friction with nurses and social workers whose training focused more on relationships and patient self-determination (Hall, 2005). When we think of culture in this way, it becomes apparent that most of us live our lives as members of many cultural and co-cultural groups. No single label or category can fully explain someone’s identity—they are all woven together. As we’ll see in Chapters 2 and 3, it’s important to understand how this shapes our identities and our perceptions of others, and ultimately how this influences our interpersonal communication.

Intercultural Communication Having defined culture, we can go on to define intercultural communication as the process by which members of two or more cultures exchange messages in a manner that is influenced by their different cultural perceptions and symbol systems, both verbal and non-verbal (Samovar et al., 2012).

Note that intercultural communication (at least as we’ll use the term here) doesn’t always occur when people from different cultures interact. The cultural backgrounds, perceptions, and symbol systems of the participants must have a significant influence on the exchange before we can say that culture has made a difference. Consider a few examples where culture does and doesn’t play a role: • A group of preschool children is playing in a park. These three-year-olds don’t realize that their parents may have come from different countries or even that they don’t all speak the same language. At this point, we couldn’t say that intercultural communication is taking place. Only when different norms become apparent—about diet, sharing, or parental discipline, for example—do the children begin to think of one another as different. • Members of a school basketball team from a variety of cultural backgrounds—some East Asian, some South Asian, some Caribbean, and some European—are intent on winning the league championship. During a game, cultural distinctions aren’t important. There’s plenty of communication, but it is not fundamentally intercultural. Away from their games, the players are friendly when they meet, but they rarely socialize. If they did, they might notice some fundamental differences in the way members of each cultural group communicate. • A husband and wife were raised in homes with different religious traditions. Most of the time their religious heritage makes little difference and the partners view themselves as a unified couple. Every so often, however—perhaps during holidays or when meeting members of each other’s family—the different backgrounds are highlighted. At those times, we can imagine the partners feeling quite different from each other—thinking of themselves as members of separate cultures. These examples show that in order to view ourselves as members of a culture, there has to be some distinction between “us” and “them,” between inand out-group. We may not always be able to say precisely what the differences are. We may have

23

24

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

only a feeling that something is different. There are occasions when cultural influences are powerful, but so subtle that they go unrecognized.

Interpersonal and Intercultural Communication

stock_photo_world/shutterstock

At this point, you may be wondering whether there is any communication that is not intercultural, or at least co-cultural. Indeed, there are many cases when communication isn’t influenced by intercultural considerations. Even in an increasingly diverse world, there are still plenty of relationships in which people share a basically common background. The people who gather to play bocce ball at the local Italian community centre, the Irish marchers in a St Patrick’s Day parade, or the group of people from a small town who knit together on Wednesday evenings are likely to share similar personal histories, norms, customs, and values. Even when people with different cultural backgrounds communicate, those differences may not

be important. David may be a Jewish man whose ancestors came from Eastern Europe, while Lisa is a third-generation Japanese-Canadian woman whose parents are practising Christians, but they have created a life together that transcends their differences, and that enables them to deal comfortably with those differences when they do arise. Rather than classifying some exchanges as intercultural and others as free from cultural influences, we may more accurately talk about degrees of cultural significance (Lustig, Koester, and Halualani, 2018). Encounters can fit along a spectrum of interculturalness. At the most intercultural end are situations where differences between the backgrounds and beliefs of communicators are high. A traveller visiting a new country for the first time with little knowledge of local society would be an obvious example. At the least intercultural end of the spectrum fall exchanges where cultural differences matter little. A student from Montreal who attends a small university in the Maritimes may find life somewhat different, but the adjustment would be

This group could be participating in intercultural communication or in co-cultural communication. Can they ­participate in both?

1 | Interpersonal Process

INTERPERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE

HIGH

LOW

Parent and child discuss their changing relationship.

Husband and wife from different cultural backgrounds develop mutual understanding.

Over time, able-bodied and disabled fellow employees develop ways to work effectively together.

Traveller unintentionally violates customs of a culture that he or she doesn’t understand.

English-speaking caller requests directory assistance from English-speaking telephone operator.

INTERCULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE

HIGH

FIGURE 1.2  Possible Interactions among Interpersonal and Intercultural Dimensions of Person-to-Person ­Communication

far less difficult than that for the international traveller. In between these extremes falls a whole range of encounters in which culture plays varying roles. What is the relationship between intercultural communication and interpersonal relationships? William Gudykunst and Young Kim (2003) summarize an approach that helps answer this question. They suggest that interpersonal and intercultural factors combine to form a two-by-two matrix in which the importance of interpersonal communication forms one dimension and intercultural significance forms the other (see Figure 1.2). This model shows that some interpersonal transactions (for example, a conversation between two siblings who have been raised in the same household) have virtually no intercultural elements. Other encounters (such as a traveller from Senegal trying to get directions from an Iranian-Canadian taxi driver in Vancouver) are almost exclusively intercultural, without the personal dimensions that we discuss throughout this book. Still other exchanges—the most interesting ones for our purposes—contain elements of both intercultural and interpersonal communication. This range of encounters is broad in the global village:

business people from different backgrounds try to wrap up a deal; Canadian-born and immigrant children learn to get along in school; health care educators seek effective ways to serve patients from around the world; neighbours from different racial

TAKE TWO CONCEPTS IN INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION • Culture: the language, values, beliefs, traditions, and customs people share and learn. • In-groups: groups of people with whom we identify. • Out-groups: groups of people whom we view as different. • Co-culture: a subgroup that is part of an encompassing culture. • Intercultural communication: the process by which members of two or more cultures exchange messages in a manner that is influenced by their different cultural perceptions and symbol systems.

25

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

or ethnic backgrounds look for ways to make their streets safer and cleaner; middle-class teachers seek common ground with students from low-­ income neighbourhoods—the list seems almost ­endless. In situations like these, ­communicators are trying to establish some degree of relationship and ­understanding. Donald Reilly/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank.

26

Comparison of Canadian and US Culture Since the population of the United States is roughly ten times that of Canada and five times that of the United Kingdom (Index Mundi, 2017), it follows logically that a very large proportion of the research on interpersonal communication in Western culture has been conducted with US citizens. Canadians have a much smaller database of homegrown studies to inform them about their interpersonal communication practices. So, to what extent can we apply US findings to the Canadian context? In order to answer this question, we need to examine the similarities and differences between the two cultures, particularly in areas that are relevant to interpersonal communication. There are differences between American and Canadian values in a few key areas that influence how individuals from each country might judge the appropriateness and effectiveness of various types of interpersonal communication differently. So, how exactly are Canadian values similar to US values, and how are they different? There has been considerable discussion, debate, and research comparing the values and behaviour of Canadians and Americans (Adams, 2003, 2017; Canadian Race Relations Foundation, 2014). The consensus appears to be that, although the two cultures are very similar when placed in the context of the many cultures in the world (Hofstede, 1980, 2001), there are some differences that are important to many Canadians. For instance, Michael Adams, founder of the nonprofit social research organization Environics Institute, has reported on large social values surveys conducted in Canada and the United States over a 20-year period beginning in 1992, with the most recent survey being administered in both countries

in 2016. He and his Environics colleagues have used those surveys in combination with individual interviews and previously compiled Canadian survey findings (dating back to 1983) to conduct a comparative analysis of Canadian and American culture and to track shifts in social values (Adams, 2003, 2017). Values were defined as “ideas that motivate people to behave the way they do, good, bad or neither” (Adams, 2003, p. 12). Large, diverse, and representative samples of Canadians and Americans were questioned about a wide variety of social values and Canadian survey data is publicly available on the Envrionics Institute’s website. Canadians and Americans described ­different values, attitudes, and beliefs in a variety of areas. Some of the most significant in terms of their impact on interpersonal communication are attitudes toward violence, tolerance of diversity, and the relative status of men and women.

Attitudes toward Violence Michael Adams (2003, 2017) argues that Canadians are markedly differentiated from Americans by their attitudes toward violence. Generally,

1 | Interpersonal Process

fewer Canadians perceive that they are surrounded by violence than do their US counterparts. Canadians are less likely to perceive violence as a normal part of everyday life or as a way of solving problems. When compared with Americans, far fewer Canadians endorsed the view that “violence is a part of everyday life— it’s no big deal.” This was particularly true when comparing the attitudes of young Canadian and American men (ages 15 to 24). Thirty-four per cent of young American men endorsed the view that violence was an acceptable part of everyday life whereas 13 per cent of young Canadian men shared that view (Adams, 2014).

Acceptance of Diversity Canadians consistently express more positive attitudes toward immigration (Adams 2007b, 2010, 2017; Environics Research Institute, 2018; Pew Research Centre, 2003; Soroka and Robertson, 2010) when compared to the United States and many Western countries. Public opinion surveys conducted over the past two decades suggest that the majority of Canadians endorse the idea that immigrants have a good influence on their country. The majority of Americans surveyed did not appear to share that belief (Parker et al., 2018). Americans were also more likely to report that they believe newcomers from other countries threaten traditional American customs and values. Even if respondents in both countries were not being completely truthful in order to appear more socially acceptable, Canadians appear to believe that in Canadian culture, intolerance of immigrants is not socially acceptable. It is important to note that these data have the potential to be misleading, because they might be interpreted to imply that Canadians are neither ethnocentric, nor racist and prejudiced toward immigrants and minorities. There is abundant evidence that Canadians can be ethnocentric, racist, and prejudiced (Canadian Race Relations Foundation, 2017). However, it appears that Canadians are different from Americans to the extent to which we believe these things are not acceptable in Canada. In addition to being open-minded toward cultural diversity, Canadians are more accepting of

diversity in people’s sexuality than Americans. Data from World Values Surveys indicate that Canadians are more open-minded toward LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, two-spirited, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, pansexual, agender, gender queer, bigender, gendervariant, pangender) people than are Americans (Ingelhart, 2014). Canadian attitudes both influence and are influenced by Canadian laws that guarantee equal rights to all people regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation, including the right to be legally married and to be protected against discrimination in employment and housing. LGBTQ+ people do not have these same legal protections in all states in the US. Canada provides a gender neutral option on passports (“x”) and other government issued documents for individuals who do not identify as male (“m”) or female (“f”) (McQuigge, 2017). Again, greater acceptance of sexual diversity and fluidity in gender identity in Canada does not mean that LGBTQ+ people do not experience prejudice and discrimination, but it does appear that Canadians are aware that these negative attitudes and prejudiced behaviours are wrong. The majority of Canadians also want their communities to be fully accessible to people with disabilities and want Canada to be a leader on this front (Angus Reid, 2015). Significantly more Canadians with disabilities are employed compared to Americans with disabilities but Canadians acknowledge that we still have a long way to go on this front (McQuigge, 2017; United States Department of Labor Statistics, 2018). And, unlike the United States, which has a single dedicated federal law protecting the rights of people with disabilities, the rights of Canadians with disabilities are only protected at the federal level under the general umbrella of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Most provinces, other than Ontario, do not have specific legislation focusing solely on protecting the rights of people with disabilities (Malhotra and Rowe, 2014).

Relative Status of Men and Women There is growing recognition in Canada and throughout the world that the binary gender

27

28

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

c­ategorizations of “male” and “female” and the characteristics we have learned to associate with those categories can be unnecessarily restrictive. In Chapter 3 we discuss how generalizations about groups or categories of people negatively affect the accuracy of our perceptions. Despite the limitations and inaccuracies of this way of categorizing human beings, gender is one the most salient characteristics children and adults use to cluster individuals (Ellemers, 2018). A great deal of research has been conducted using this binary classification, on everything from discrimination and equal rights to interpersonal communication and human relationships, and some of that information informs the content of this book. Discrimination against women exists in Canada, but Canadians are less willing than their US counterparts to endorse a view of patriarchal authority (the father must be master in his own home) or a view that men are naturally superior to women. According to the Environics 2016 survey data, 23 per cent of Canadians and 50 per cent of Americans said the father of a household must be the boss (Adams, 2017). Adams (2003, 2005, 2017) argues that Canadians’ more egalitarian views regarding the status of women and their unwillingness to endorse traditional family models of patriarchal authority have contributed to making us take a more inclusive view of what constitutes a family. More Canadians support the view that common-law partners and samesex couples are “proper” families (Adams, 2003, 2017; Mitchell, 2014). At the same time that we see differences, we are also aware that in a global context, the values that are the basis for Canadian society are perceived as more similar to those of US society than to those of many other cultures (Grabb and Curtis, 2010; Ingelhart et al., 2014). When we look at the cultural dimensions such as individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and “power distance” (social hierarchy), Canada and the United States have very similar rankings. Geert Hofstede and his colleagues used extensive statistical data to examine cultural values in 53 different countries around the world (Hofstede, 1984, 2001, 2011; Hofstede et al., 2010). One value dimension they measured indicates

the extent to which people’s personal goals take priority over their allegiance to the group, “that is, individualism as opposed to collectivism.” The United States, Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, and Canada all rank very high in promoting individualism. Similarly, Canada and the United States are similar in regard to the degree to which their respective cultures are tolerant of uncertainty compared to countries such as Portugal, Greece, and Japan, which are classified as uncertainty avoidant. Finally, power distance, which is a concept similar to that of social hierarchy, is also very similar in the United States and Canada, whose cultures are more egalitarian than cultures such as India and Mexico but less egalitarian when compared to Israel, Denmark, and New Zealand. We will discuss these cultural dimensions in more detail in Chapter 2. Given the similarities between the two cultures, at least in a global context, it seems fair to assume US interpersonal communication research findings have at least some applicability to Canadians. At the same time, it’s important to be sensitive to the fact that there are real and significant differences between the two cultures and to keep a critical eye open to the possibility that these cultural differences might influence our interpretations and the applicability of US research findings in a Canadian context.

CHECK IT! What differences have been noted between Canadian and US values, and why do they matter?

Communication Competence “What does it take to communicate better?” is probably the most crucial question to ask as you read this book. Answering it has been one of the leading challenges for communication scholars. While all the answers aren’t in yet, research has discovered a great deal of important and useful information about communication competence.

1 | Interpersonal Process

Communication Competence Defined and Described Most scholars agree that communication competence is the ability to achieve goals in a manner both effective and appropriate (Spitzberg, 2000). To understand these two dimensions, consider how you might handle everyday communication challenges, such as declining an unwanted social invitation or asking a friend to stop an annoying behaviour. In cases like these, effective communication would get the results you want. Appropriate communication would do so in a way that, in most cases, enhances the relationship in which it occurs. You can appreciate the importance of both appropriateness and effectiveness by imagining approaches that would satisfy one of these criteria, but not the other. Effectiveness without appropriateness might satisfy your goals but leave others unhappy. Conversely, appropriateness without effectiveness might leave others content, but you frustrated. With the goal of balancing effectiveness and appropriateness, in the following paragraphs we outline several important characteristics of communication competence.

Motivation and Open-Mindedness Are Key In order to become a more competent communicator, you must have some desire to improve your communication skills with a variety of people. You need to be open to new ways of thinking and behaving. Without an open-minded attitude, a communicator will have trouble interacting competently with people from different backgrounds. To understand open-mindedness, it is helpful to consider three traits that are incompatible with it. Ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s own culture is superior to others. An ethnocentric person thinks—either privately or openly—that anyone who does not belong to his or her in-group is somehow strange, wrong, or even inferior. Ethnocentrism leads to an attitude of p ­ rejudice— an unfairly biased and intolerant a­ ttitude toward others who belong to an out-group. (Note that the root term in prejudice is “pre-judge.”) An important element of prejudice is ­stereotyping—exaggerated

TAKE TWO OBSTACLES TO OPEN-MINDEDNESS • Ethnocentrism: the belief that one’s own culture is superior to others. • Prejudice: an unfairly biased and intolerant attitude toward others who belong to an out-group. • Stereotyping: exaggerated generalizations about a group.

generalizations about a group. Stereotypical prejudices include the obvious exaggerations that all women are emotional, all men are sex-crazed and insensitive goons, all older people are out of touch with the modern world, and all gay men are flamboyant. Stereotyping can even be a risk when it comes to one’s knowledge of the cultural characteristics within one’s own milieu, which we explore in Chapter 2. Despite general similarities within a culture, not every individual group member shares the same values and beliefs. It’s encouraging to know that open-minded communicators can overcome pre-existing stereotypes and learn to appreciate people from different backgrounds as individuals.

There Is No Single Ideal or Effective Way to Communicate Your own experience shows that a variety of communication styles can be effective. Some very successful communicators are serious, while others use humour; some are gregarious, while others are quieter; and some are more straightforward, while others hint diplomatically. Just as there are many kinds of beautiful music or art, there are many kinds of competent communication. Furthermore, a type of communication that is competent in one setting might be a colossal blunder in another. The joking insults you routinely trade with one friend might offend a sensitive family member, and last Saturday night’s romantic approach would probably be out of place at work on Wednesday morning. No list of rules or tips will guarantee your success as a communicator.

29

30

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

Flexibility is especially important when members of different cultures meet. Some communication skills seem to be universal (Ruben, 1989)—for example, every culture has rules that require speakers to behave appropriately. But the definition of what kind of communication is appropriate in a given situation varies considerably from one culture to another (Gudykunst, 2003). On an obvious level, customs like belching after a meal or appearing nude in public, which might be appropriate in some parts of the world, would be considered outrageous in others. But there are more subtle differences in competent communication. For example, qualities like self-disclosure and speaking in a straightforward manner— much valued in North America—are likely to be considered overly aggressive and insensitive in many Asian cultures, where subtlety and indirectness are considered important (Kim et al., 1998; Merkin et al., 2014). Culture has a significant influence on how we experience our personal relationships. Knowledge of people’s cultural backgrounds and coculture memberships is helpful in becoming a more competent communicator. If, for example, you understand that a potential friend’s background is likely to regard displays of respect as especially important, or that maintaining eye contact with a supervisor might be considered disrespectful in some cultures, you can adjust your communication accordingly. Competent communicators are able to adapt their style to suit the individual and cultural preferences of others (Chen, 1997; Friedman et al., 2018).

Competence Is Situational Because competent behaviour varies so much from one situation and person to another, it’s a mistake to think that communication competence is a trait that a person either possesses or lacks (Spitzberg, 1991). It’s more accurate to talk about degrees or areas of competence. You and the people you know are probably quite competent in some areas and less so in others. For example, you might deal quite skilfully with peers, but at the same time feel clumsy interacting with people much older or younger,

wealthier or poorer, or more or less “attractive” than you. In fact, your competence may vary from situation to situation. This means it’s an overgeneralization to say, in a moment of distress, “I’m a terrible communicator!” It’s more accurate to say, “I didn’t handle this situation very well, but I’m better in others.”

Competence Requires Mindfulness Knowledge of how to communicate with people from different backgrounds is often ­ “culturespecific,” to use Samovar and his ­colleagues’ terminology (2012). The rules and customs that work with one group might be quite different from those that succeed with another. The ability to “shift gears” and adapt one’s style to the norms of another culture or co-culture is an essential ingredient of communication competence (Kim et al., 1996). How can a communicator acquire the culture-specific information that leads to competence? One important element is what Stella Ting-Toomey (1999) and others call mindfulness— awareness of one’s own behaviour and that of others. Communicators who lack this quality blunder mindlessly through intercultural encounters, oblivious of how their own behaviour may confuse or offend others, and how behaviour that they consider bizarre may simply be different from their norm. Strategies to help increase your mindfulness might include observing what members of a different culture do and using these insights to communicate in ways that are most effective. In  addition, you can formally study a culture by ­taking courses or informally by travelling, reading, and having contact with people from different cultural groups (Ting-Toomey and Chung, 2012).

Competence Can Be Learned To some degree, biology is destiny when it comes to communication style (Beatty and McCroskey, 1997). Studies of identical and fraternal twins suggest that some traits, including sociability, a short temper, and the ability to relax seem to be partially a function of our genetic makeup. Fortunately, biology isn’t the only factor that shapes how we communicate. Communication competence is, to

1 | Interpersonal Process

a great degree, a set of skills that anyone can learn (Fortney et al., 2001). For instance, problem-based simulations have been shown to reduce communication apprehension in nursing students (Kim et al., 2018). In fact, direct instruction in interpersonal communication skills has demonstrated benefits for individuals working in a variety of professions (Clayton et al., 2012; Jin et al. 217; Seenan et al., 2016). Even without systematic training, it’s possible to develop communication skills through the processes of observation and trial and error. We learn from our own successes and failures, as well as from observing other models—both positive and negative. Of course, it’s our hope that you will become a more competent communicator by reading and applying what you learn from this book too.

Characteristics of Competent Communication Despite the fact that competent communication varies from one situation to another, scholars have identified several common denominators that characterize effective communication in most ­contexts.

A Large Repertoire of Skills As we’ve already seen, good communicators do not use the same approach in every situation. They know that it’s best sometimes to be blunt and, at other times, to be tactful—that there is a time to speak up and a time to be quiet. The chances of behaving competently increase with the number of options you have about how to communicate (Pillet-Shore, 2011). For example, if you want to start a conversation with a stranger, your chances of success increase as you have more options available. All it might take to get the conversational ball rolling is a self-introduction. In other cases, seeking assistance might work well: “I’ve just moved here. What kind of neighbourhood is the east end?” A third strategy is to ask a question about some situational feature: “I’ve never heard this band before. Do you know anything about them?” You could also offer a sincere compliment and follow it up with a question: “Great

shoes! Where did you get them?” Just as a chef has a wide range of herbs and spices to choose from, a competent communicator can draw from a large array of behaviours.

Adaptability Having a large repertoire of possible behaviours is one ingredient of competent communication, but you have to be able to choose the right one for a particular situation (Hendon et al., 2017). Communicators who are able to take another person’s perspective and adapt their communication accordingly experience fewer interpersonal misunderstandings and are able to resolve conflicts effectively (Edwards et al., 2017). Effective communication means choosing the right response for the situation. These choices include the channel you select for a particular message too. Each of us has our preferred modes of communication. Some preferences, such as use of social media, appear to be influenced by age. Canadians aged 18 to 36 are more likely to use Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram compared to adults who are 37 years of age or older (Poushter et al., 2018). Communication scholars suggest the willingness to embrace a variety of communication channels, referred to as multimodality, makes us more effective as communicators (Chan, 2015). As we discussed ­earlier in this chapter, choosing the best channel for your message involves considering both content and relational aspects of the message. As a rule of thumb, more complex and personal messages usually require richer and more synchronous channels, such as face-to-face and phone conversations (Eden and Vesker, 2016). It is wise to consider your recipient’s preferences and the context of the communication. For instance, in most workplaces email, phone, and voicemail are still traditionally preferred whereas texting and use of social media may be considered inappropriate or unprofessional, depending on the nature of the work (DeClerq, 2018; Gale, 2017; Wayne, 2014). Another component of adaptability is being able to accept uncertainty and ambiguity sometimes. Our desire for certainty and clarity in communication with others can make us uncomfortable in

31

32

Kali9/iStockphoto

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

­erson’s point of view (Davis p 1983; Edwards et al., 2017). We’ll discuss empathy and perspective taking in more detail in Chapter 3. For now, it’s important to understand that empathy and perspective taking are essential skills because people may not always clearly express their thoughts and feelings. Using cognitive and emotional processes to discover more about others’ experiences helps us communicate our interest in others, better understand them, and respond appropriately. Empathy has been associated with enhanced personal relationWhich characteristics of competent communication might be most relevant ships and prosocial behaviour and to these communicators? can be increased through training (Teding van Berkhout and unfamiliar situations where we’re unsure about Malouff, 2016). Empathy has also how to communicate. There are times you won’t been identified as possibly the most vital componknow which approach is best, and that’s to be ent of intercultural communication competence expected. Communication scholars suggest that (Arasaratnam and Doerfel, 2005; Ni et al., 2015). the ability to live with that uncertainty is an essential ingredient of intercultural communication Cognitive Complexity competence (Gudykunst, 1993). Cognitive complexity is the ability to construct a variety of different frameworks for viewing Ability to Perform Skilfully an issue. Imagine that a long-time friend never Once you’ve chosen the best way to communicate, responded to the message you sent to her but you you have to do it effectively. In communication, as expected a response. One possible explanation is in other activities, practice is the key to skilful per- that she is offended by something you’ve done. formance. Much of the information in this book Another possibility is that something has hapwill introduce you to new tools for communicat- pened in another part of her life that is upsetting. ing, and the Skill Builder activities at the end of Or perhaps nothing at all is wrong and you’re just each chapter will help you practise them. Patience being overly sensitive. Researchers have found that and perseverance are required to develop your a large number of constructs for interpreting the skills. It’s normal to feel disappointed in yourself behaviour of others leads to greater “conversational for not doing as well as you had hoped with some sensitivity,” thereby increasing the chances of actskills but, as we’ll discuss in Chapter 2, it’s import- ing in ways that will produce satisfying results ant to be patient and kind to yourself in order to (Burleson, 2007; Burleson and Caplan, 1998). preserve and develop your skills.

Empathy and Perspective Taking We are more effective communicators when we try to understand and empathize with the other

Self-Monitoring Psychologists use the term self-monitoring to describe the process of paying close attention to one’s own behaviour and using these observations

1 | Interpersonal Process

to shape the way one behaves. Self-monitors are able to move a part of their consciousness outside of themselves to observe their behaviour from a detached viewpoint. In doing so, they’re able to think such thoughts as these:

CHECK IT! What are the characteristics of a competent ­communicator?

“I’m making a fool of myself.” “I’d better speak up now.” “This approach is working well. I’ll keep it up.”

need to be faithful to one’s true beliefs. Likewise, an excess of empathy and cognitive complexity can It’s no surprise that self-monitoring generally lead you to see all sides of an issue so well that you increases one’s effectiveness as a communicator become incapable of acting. In other words, both a (Day et al., 2002; Tyler 2008). The ability to ask deficiency and an excess can lead to incompetent yourself the question, “How am I doing?” and to communication. change your behaviour if the answer isn’t positive How does your behaviour as an interpersonal is a tremendous asset for communicators. communicator measure up against the standards Although the qualities we’ve discussed so of competence described in this chapter? Like most far do play an important role in communicative people, you’ll probably notice some areas of your competence, they can be ineffective when car- life that are very satisfying and others that you ­ ried to excess (Spitzberg, 1994). For example, too would like to change. As you read on in this book, much ­self-monitoring can make a person so self-­ you’ll find that the information we provide in each con­scious that the concern for appearance (“How chapter offers advice that can help your communido I sound?” “How am I doing?”) overshadows the cation become more productive and rewarding.

BUILDING WORK SKILLS TAKING THE OTHER PERSON’S PERSPECTIVE WHEN SENDING MESSAGES Have you ever received a telephone or email message that left you wondering what the sender wanted you to do or why they wanted you to know what they had to say? A message may have been missing the most important information (e.g., the person’s name or phone number). Or a message may have had so much detailed, irrelevant information that you couldn’t wade through it all. These kinds of messages are particularly frustrating at work. We have probably all received them and sent them. Often, we leave these messages before we have really thought through our requests of others—before we have taken their perspective. For this skill-building exercise, you need a partner from class. First, think about a need to communicate with someone at your workplace or at school, a request to make or information to share. If you can’t think of a real example, you and your partner can use one of the examples below: • A colleague has asked you to switch shifts because she has an appointment. You are willing to do so, but must get the permission of your supervisor. Leave a message for your supervisor. • You have come down with some sort of illness and will have to miss class. You have a test and an assignment due. Leave a message for your teacher. Jot down your message. Now, read your message from the point of view of the person you are leaving it for. Is it complete? Is it well-organized? Will the recipient understand the context? Are there irrelevant details that could be omitted? Have you told him or her what you want or why he or she needs to know? Once you’re satisfied with your message, you can do one of the following: leave it on the voicemail of your partner from class; email it to your partner; or just read it, uninterrupted, to your partner. continued

33

34

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

Ask your partner to imagine he or she is the person you intended to send the message to. Your partner can then give you some feedback about the quality of your message, particularly your ability to take the recipient’s perspective.

SUMMARY Communication is important for a variety of reasons. Besides satisfying practical needs, meaningful communication contributes to physical health, plays a major role in defining our identity, and forms the basis for our social relationships. Communication is a complex process that can be represented in a communication model. The model we present in this chapter depicts how communicators usually send and receive mes­ ­ sages simultaneously. The meaning of these messages resides in the people who exchange them, not in the messages themselves. Environment and noise affect communication, as do the channels we choose for sending our messages. A variety of principles help explain how communication operates. Communication is transactional— that is, it’s a dynamic process that people create through interaction. Messages can be intentional or unintentional, and they almost always have both a content and a relational dimension. Once expressed, messages cannot be withdrawn. Also, communication is unrepeatable. Interpersonal communication can be defined quantitatively (by the number of people involved) or qualitatively (by the nature of interaction between them). In a qualitative sense, interpersonal relationships are unique, irreplaceable, interdependent, intrinsically rewarding, and usually characterized by self-disclosure. Qualitatively interpersonal communication is relatively infrequent, even in many close relationships. While some research suggests that computer-mediated communication (CMC) is more impersonal than face-to-face communication, other research shows that it can enhance interpersonal relationships. Increasing multiculturalism in Canada and closer, globalized economic connections between Canada and other nations compel us to look at

interpersonal communication in the context of cultural diversity. Intercultural communication is the process by which people belonging to two or more cultures share messages in a manner that is influenced by their different cultural perceptions and symbol systems. When we review interpersonal communication research, it is important to keep in mind that the majority of studies have been conducted in the United States and, although Canadians and their US counterparts are very similar in many respects, they do differ in terms of some significant social values. These include attitudes toward violence, ethnic and cultural diversity, and the relative status of men and women. To understand the communication process, it’s important that we recognize and avoid several common misconceptions. Despite the value of ­self-expression, more communication is not always better than less. In fact, there are times when more communication can make problems worse. Even at its best, communication is not a panacea that will solve every problem. Effective communication is not a natural ability. While some people have greater aptitude at communicating, everyone can learn to interact with others more effectively. Communication competence is the ability to be both effective and appropriate—that is, to get desired results from others in a manner that maintains the relationship on terms that are acceptable to everyone. There is no single ideal way to ­communicate. Flexibility and adaptability are characteristics of competent communicators, as is the skillset that includes empathy and perspective taking. Also important to being a competent communicator are the abilities to utilize cognitive-complexity skills and self-monitor. The good news is that communication competence can be learned.

1 | Interpersonal Process

MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS 1.

Prolonged solitary confinement

5.

a. is only a negative experience for some people. b. is considered torture under the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules. c. is preferred to physical torture among most prisoners. d. has few if any long-term effects on humans. 2.

3.

6.

Transactional communication a. is the dynamic process created by communicators interacting with each other. b. suggests that the way you communicate with others varies from person to person. c. suggests that communication depends on the involvement of a partner. d. all of the above.

Virtually all messages have a content component and a relational component. How are they different? a. The content component refers to explicit information in the message and the relational component refers to how you feel about the message itself. b. The content component refers to all aspects of the message and the relational component only refers to how the participants feel about the interaction. c. The relational component refers to how you feel about the other person and the content component refers to the information that is explicitly discussed. d. The content component refers to information that is explicitly discussed and the relational component refers to the ­subtext.

Your friend said they were sorry after they spilled coffee on your new top. You think they’re insincere, but another friend thinks the apology is genuine. This difference of opinion best illustrates which insight from the communication model presented in this chapter? a. Sending and receiving are usually simultaneous. b. Different channels have different disadvantages. c. Meanings exist in and among people. d. Psychological noise affects communi­ cation.

4.

a. You can communicate many different relational messages simply by saying, “Thanks a lot.” b. All behaviour has some communicative value. c. Some scholars argue that only intentional messages qualify as a communication. d. An ignored email is an example of non-communication.

An example of physical noise is a. worrying about an upcoming test. b. daydreaming about a great party you attended. c. hearing loss. d. feeling irritated by the person beside you talking on their phone.

Which statement is false?

7.

Which statement is false? a. An apology or explanation can be helpful, but it can never erase the impression you created. b. Clear explanations can clear up a miscommunication to the point that it is the same as if it had never occurred. c. Every act of communication is unique. d. The irreversibility of communication is very evident in social media.

35

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

8.

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) can enhance interpersonal communication in certain contexts. However, it a. can also interfere with the ability to accomplish daily routines. b. can create more opportunities for misunderstanding. c. is associated with anxiety, loneliness, and depression. d. all of the above.

9.

Which of the following statements regarding culture and interpersonal communication is false? a. When people from different backgrounds interact, they face a unique set of ­challenges. b. Members of co-cultures develop distinctive communication patterns.

c. Sometimes, culture does not play a role in communication. d. It is more accurate to classify ­exchanges as intercultural or free from cultural ­influences rather than viewing ­exchanges as containing degrees of cultural ­significance. 10. Which of the following are characteristics of competent communication? a. Having a large repertoire of skills and adaptability. b. The ability to perform skilfully and with empathy. c. The ability to communicate with cognitive complexity and self-monitoring. d. All of the above.

Answers: 1. b; 2. c; 3. c; 4. d; 5. c; 6. c; 7. b; 8. d; 9. d; 10. d

36

ACTIVITIES 1. Invitation to Insight How much time do you spend communicating? Conduct an informal study to answer this question by keeping a two-day log of your activities. Using your findings, answer the following questions: a. What percentage of your waking time is spent speaking with and listening to others? b. Using the explanation on pages 12–15 of this chapter, describe what percentage of your entire communication is qualitatively interpersonal. c. How satisfied are you with your findings? How would you like to change your everyday ­communication? 2. Critical Thinking Probe As we discussed in this chapter, communication is transactional—it is something we do with others and not to them. How does face-to-face communication differ from mediated communication, such as social media? Are they equally transactional? Are they equally interpersonal?

3. Invitation to Insight How competent are you as a communicator? You can begin to answer this question by interviewing different people who you trust and who will provide you with some honest feedback (e.g., family members, friends, or co-workers). Conduct interviews with a variety of people to determine if you are more competent in some relationships than in others. a. Describe the characteristics of competent communicators outlined on pages 31–3 of this chapter. Be sure your interviewee understands each of them. b. Ask your interviewee to rate you on each of the observable qualities. (It won’t be possible for others to evaluate internal characteristics, such as cognitive complexity and s ­elf-monitoring.) Be sure this evaluation considers your communication in a variety of situations, because it’s likely you aren’t uniformly competent—or incompetent—in all of them.

1 | Interpersonal Process

c. If your rating is not high in one or more areas, discuss with your partner how you could raise it. d. Consider whether another person might rate you differently. Why might this happen? 4. Skill Builder Knowing how you want to communicate isn’t the same as being able to do it competently. The technique of behaviour rehearsal provides a way to improve a particular communication skill before you use it in real life. Behaviour rehearsal consists of four steps: a. Define your goal. Begin by deciding how you want to behave. b. Break the goal into the kinds of behaviour it involves. Most goals are made up of several verbal and non-verbal parts. You may be able

to define these parts by thinking about them yourself, by observing others, by reading about them, or by asking others for advice. c. Practise each behaviour before using it in real life. You can practise a new behaviour by rehearsing it alone and then with others before you put it into action. Another approach is to picture yourself behaving in new ways. This mental image can increase your effectiveness. d. Try out the behaviour in real life. You can improve your chances of success in two ways. First, work on only one subskill at a time, and start with easy situations. Don’t expect yourself suddenly to behave flawlessly in the most challenging situations. Second, begin by practising your new skills in situations where you have a chance of success.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1.

Why do humans communicate? Which reasons are most relevant to you?

2.

Why study interpersonal communication? How might you benefit?

3.

Think of someone who you believe is an effective interpersonal communicator. Give examples of the characteristics of competent communication that this person demonstrates.

4.

Give an example of each of the four communication misconceptions described in this chapter. How have these misconceptions affected you?

5.

Is it important to consider interpersonal communication in the context of cultural diversity? Why or why not?

JOURNAL IDEAS At the end of each chapter you will find a couple of ideas to help you keep a reflective journal. There is considerable evidence (Armarego, 2007; Bolton, 2005; Brown, 2009; Sinclair and Woodward, 1997) that journal writing helps students integrate theory into practice. In order to become better at performing particular skills (communication skills, perhaps) people need to reflect on, analyze, and critically evaluate their current practice. We hope these

­ uestions stimulate the beginnings of such selfq reflection. 1.

Review the misconceptions people have about communication and describe an example of each that you have experienced or directly observed.

2.

How does technology affect your interpersonal communication in positive and negative ways?

37

Communication and the Self

lechatnoir/iStockphoto

2

CHAPTER OUTLINE Communication and the Self-Concept How the Self-Concept Develops Self-Concept Development in Context Characteristics of the Self-Concept The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy and Communication

Presenting the Self: Communication as Impression Management Public and Private Selves Characteristics of Impression Management Why Manage Impressions? How Do We Manage Impressions? Identity Management and Honesty

Disclosing the Self Self-Disclosure Factors

Models of Self-Disclosure Benefits and Risks of Self-Disclosure

Alternatives to Self-Disclosure Silence and Secrecy Lying Equivocation Hinting The Ethics of Evasion

Guidelines for Self-Disclosure Is the Other Person Important to You? Is the Risk of Disclosing Reasonable? Is the Self-Disclosure Appropriate? Is the Disclosure Reciprocated? Will the Effect Be Constructive?

KEY TERMS benevolent lie breadth cognitive conservatism collectivistic culture depth distorted feedback equivocation face facework impression management individualistic culture Johari Window obsolete information perceived self

presenting self privacy management reference groups reflected appraisal self-compassion self-concept self-control self-disclosure self-esteem self-fulfilling prophecy significant other social comparison social expectations social penetration model

LEARNING OUTCOMES YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO: • • • • • •

Describe the characteristics and development of the self-concept Explain the influence of language, cultural values, and self-fulfilling prophecies in shaping the self-concept Analyze how the self-concept affects communication with others Describe how people manage impressions in person and online to enhance their presenting image Explain the characteristics of and reasons for self-disclosure Explain the risks of, benefits of, guidelines for, and alternatives to self-disclosure

40

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

Who are you? Before reading on, take a few minutes to try a simple experiment. First, make a list of the 10 words or phrases that describe the most important features of who you are. Some of the items on your list may involve social roles (student, sibling, parent). Some may be physical characteristics (physically fit, tall, dark haired), others might refer to abilities or dispositions (musical, inquisitive, creative). Or perhaps you can best define yourself in terms of moods, feelings, or attitudes (optimistic, critical, or energetic). You might consider your social characteristics (outgoing, shy, or argumentative), or highlight belief systems (environmentalist, Buddhist, vegetarian, conservative). You could include references to your work (blogger, barista, student advisor). Finally, you could focus on particular skills (swimmer, carpenter, cook). In any case, choose 10 words or phrases that best describe you, and write them down. Next, re-order your list from most fundamental to least fundamental to your identity. How do you feel after trying this exercise? Most people find the experience a powerful one. They say that it clarifies how each of the items selected is fundamental to their identity and they gain a clear picture of the parts of themselves they value and the parts they’re unhappy with.

the most significant part of one person’s self-­ concept might consist of social roles, whereas for another it might be physical appearance, health, friendships, accomplishments, or skills. Self-esteem is the part of the self-concept that involves evaluations of self-worth. A communicator’s self-concept might include being quiet, argumentative, or serious. Their self-esteem would be determined by how they felt about these qualities. Our competence in doing things we value, such as maintaining satisfying relationships, influences how good we feel about ourselves, and, in turn, our feelings of self-esteem influence how we approach the things we do. As Figure 2.1 shows, people who feel good about themselves have positive expectations about how they will communicate (Baldwin and Keelan, 1999). Self-esteem depends on our assessment of how well we do things that matter to us. As we’ll discuss in the next few pages, other people have a great deal of influence over the things we value and our assessment of our worth. It’s important to note that although high self-­esteem has benefits it does not ensure interpersonal success. We have all encountered individuals with what appears to be an inflated sense of self- worth, who come across as conceited, condescending, and generally irritating. The good news is that our appraisals of ourselves, whether overly harsh or much too generous, can be changed and a positive Communication yet realistic self-evaluation is a good starting point for positive communication with others. and the Self-Concept The ability to be kind to yourself rather than The list you just created offers clues about your overly critical has been identified as an importself-concept, that is, the relatively stable set of ant component of our self-concept (Neff, 2003). perceptions you hold of yourself. One way to Self-compassion “involves being touched by ­ understand the self-concept is to imagine a special one’s own suffering, generating the desire to mirror that not only reflects physical features, but alleviate one’s suffering and treat oneself with also allows you to view other aspects of yourself—­ understanding and concern” (Neff, 2013, p. 28). emotional states, talents, likes, dislikes, values, Self-­compassion is a tendency to be caring and roles, and so on. The reflection in that mirror understanding rather than harshly critical of would be your self-concept. oneself. It requires acceptance that imperfection Any description of your self-concept that you is part of our shared experience of being human. constructed in this exercise is only a partial one. To It’s important to note that self-compassion is very make it complete, you would have to keep adding different from self-pity because self-compassion items until your list ran into hundreds of words. involves the acknowledgement that others have Of course, not every dimension of self-concept that similar problems whereas self-pity exaggerates you could list is equally important. For example, personal suffering. When a person engages in

2 | Communication and the Self

POSITIVE CYCLE

NEGATIVE CYCLE

High self-esteem

Low self-esteem

Positive thoughts “I did well.”

Positive thoughts “I can do it.”

Desirable behaviour

Negative thoughts “I failed again.”

Negative thoughts “I can’t do it.”

Undesirable behaviour (e.g., gives up easily, won’t try)

FIGURE 2.1  The Relationship between Self-Esteem and Communication Behaviour Source: Adapted from Johnson, H.M. (1998). How do I love me? 3rd edn (pp. 3, 5). Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing Co.

self-pity, they become so wrapped up in their own problems they ignore their inter-connectedness with other people and are unable to step back from their situation to get a more objective perspective (Neff, 2003). People who have self-compassion have been found to be enjoy greater happiness, cope with failure more constructively, be more resourceful, be less susceptible to social anxiety and negative body image problems, and enjoy better health and improved relationships (Blackie and Kocovski, 2018; Kelly and Stevenson, 2016; Martin and Kennett, 2018; Neff and Beretvas, 2012; Yarnell and Neff, 2013; Wasyikiw, 2012). You can learn to be less self-critical and more selfcompassionate (Neff and Germer, 2013; Smeets et al., 2014). The questions in the self-compassion assessment on page 42 can be used to help you better understand this concept and the extent to which you are compassionate with yourself. Self-control is sometimes called self-regulation, and it involves your ability to change your thoughts, emotions, moods, impulses, or performance of some task in order to achieve a personal goal or meet a social or cultural expectation (Baumeister and Alquist, 2009). Self-control has been associated with many positive outcomes, including secure and satisfying relationships. The most impressive evidence regarding the value of self-control comes to us from a study done by Yuichi Shoda, Walter Mischel, and Philip Peake

(1990), often referred to as the “marshmallow experiment.” Four-year-old children were asked to choose between getting one marshmallow im­ mediately or getting three marshmallows if they were able to wait (delayed gratification), while in the presence of that first marshmallow (temptation). The children who displayed more self-control, being able to wait for the larger reward, were, as a group, more successful both socially and academically as adults than the children who were unable to delay gratification. Additional studies have demonstrated that higher levels of self-control are associated with a variety of positive outcomes including greater academic and occupational success, more positive and satisfying interpersonal relationships, and greater happiness and life satisfaction (Baumeister and Tierney, 2011; de Ridder et al., 2012; Hoffman et al., 2014; Moffitt et al., 2011; Tangney et al., 2004). Now you may think, “Well, I would have eaten that marshmallow. I  couldn’t wait.” Fortunately, self-control can be developed—you can build self-control, strength, and stamina. Practising self-control in one area (e.g., engaging in an academic study program) can help you develop self-control in other areas (e.g., exercising more or drinking less), but it is important to have a concrete, step-by-step plan that is manageable and creates better habits (Oaten and Cheng, 2006; Itzchakov et al., 2018; Uziel and Baumeister, 2017).

41

42

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

SELF-ASSESSMENT HOW MUCH COMPASSION DO YOU SHOW YOURSELF? Please read each statement carefully before answering. To the left of each item, indicate how often you behave in the stated manner, using the following scale: Almost Never Almost Always 1     2      3      4      5 1. When I fail at something important to me, I become consumed by feelings of inadequacy. 2. I try to be understanding and patient towards those aspects of my personality I don’t like. 3. When something painful happens, I try to take a balanced view of the situation. 4. When I’m feeling down, I tend to feel like most other people are probably happier than I am. 5. I try to see my failings as part of the human condition. 6. When I’m going through a very hard time, I give myself the caring and tenderness I need.

7. When something upsets me, I try to keep my emotions in balance. 8. When I fail at something that’s important to me, I tend to feel alone in my failure. 9. When I’m feeling down I tend to obsess and fixate on everything that’s wrong. 10. When I feel inadequate in some way, I try to remind myself that feelings of inadequacy are shared by most people. 11. I’m disapproving and judgmental about my own flaws and inadequacies. 12. I’m intolerant and impatient towards those aspects of my personality I don’t like. Lower scores on items 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 12 and higher scores on the remaining items (2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 10) indicate greater self-compassion. SOURCE: Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K.D., and Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construct and factorial validation of a short form of the self-compassion scale. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 18, 250–5.

FOCUS ON RESEARCH SELF-CONTROL, SELF-COMPASSION, SOCIAL TEMPTATIONS, AND PROCRASTINATION Most of us have been distracted or put something off that we know we should be doing—maybe even reading this chapter! Procrastination is the voluntary delay of important, necessary, and intended action despite knowing there will be negative consequences for this delay (Sirois and Pychyl, 2013). Many colleges and universities have student success programs that focus on improving our time management skills, but research suggests a different approach will probably work better. Procrastination researcher Tim Pychyl and his colleagues have identified many of the challenges that make us vulnerable to putting things off and suffering for it (Pychyl and Sirois, 2016; Sirois and Giguire, 2018). They know we delay boring or difficult tasks that have long-term payoffs and are not much fun for more pleasant activities that are immediately rewarding, less because we failed to manage our time effectively than because we didn’t feel like doing the boring

or difficult thing. Socializing with others is something that it is immediately rewarding for most people and is very tempting when we’re working on a difficult, boring, or frustrating task. We want to feel better so we ditch the schoolwork and engage in social activities to improve our negative mood. We “give in to feel good” (Pychyl and Sirois, 2016; Sirois and Giguire, 2018). The irony is we then feel bad about procrastinating! Rather than thinking about procrastination as a time management problem, we’re better off thinking about it as a challenge in regulating our emotions and coping. It’s more correctly conceptualized as a test of our self-control and our self-compassion. So, how do we say “no” to the immediate gratification of socializing either in person or online when those temptations are available 24/7? Research suggests we can learn to tolerate and modify the negative emotions we experience during

2 | Communication and the Self

tasks we would rather avoid and reduce our procrastination tendencies (Eckert et al., 2016). According to Pychyl, who writes a very helpful procrastination blog called “Don’t Delay” for Psychology Today, step one involves becoming aware of the feelings of not wanting to do something, but not “becoming” those feelings—be non-judgmentally aware of them. For instance, perhaps you don’t feel like reading the rest of this chapter because you find it boring compared to messaging and chatting with your friends. Period. No judgment. Step two involves figuring out the next action—I have to put my phone down (maybe where I can’t hear it and/or turn off alerts), open the book, and find the place I left off reading. I can do that, I can open the book and find that spot. Pychyl suggests you’ll again have to acknowledge your whole body screaming that

TAKE TWO • Self-concept: the relatively stable set of perceptions you hold of yourself. • Self-esteem: the part of the self-concept that involves evaluations of self-worth. • Self-compassion: treating one’s self with kindness and concern when facing inadequacy or suffering • Self-control: the ability to change (one’s thoughts, behaviours, emotions, etc.) in order to conform to an expectation. • Procrastination: the voluntary delay of important, necessary, and intended action despite knowing there will be negative consequences for this delay.

you don’t want to do that right now and the feeling can be overwhelming but you just chip away. Stepby-step, acknowledge the emotions that are working against you and continue to make tiny choices that will propel you through the task at hand—one page or section at a time for this chapter! Regulating those negative emotions means acknowledging they exist and then muscling through them in small manageable steps to accomplish the task you would rather not do, but ultimately need to get done Finally, when you experience setbacks it’s important to see them as a normal part of being human. Practise self-compassion (but not self-pity) to lower your stress rather than being overly self-critical (Sirois, 2014). For more procrastination research and tips check out Psychology Today’s “Don’t Delay” blog, https://www .psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/dont-delay

bodies that float into view, almost as if they were strange objects belonging to someone else. Then the connection is made, almost as if the child were realizing, “The hand is me,” “The foot is me.” These first revelations form the child’s earliest concept of self. As the child develops, this rudimentary sense of identity expands into a much more complete and sophisticated picture that resembles the self-­ concept of adults. This evolution is almost totally a product of social interaction (Goodvin et al., 2008; Schmidt, 2006). Two complementary theories describe how interaction shapes the way individuals view themselves: reflected appraisal and social comparison (Harter, 2012; Sedikides and Skowronski, 1995). Both of these processes happen in face-to-face and online interactions with others.

Reflected Appraisal

How the Self-Concept Develops Researchers generally agree that the self-concept does not exist at birth (Kail and Barnfield, 2014). At about six or seven months, children begin to recognize “self” as distinct from surroundings. If you have ever watched children at this age, you’ve probably marvelled at how they can stare with great fascination at a foot, a hand, and other parts of their

Before reading on, try the following exercise. Either by yourself or aloud with a partner, think of someone you know or once knew who helped enhance your self-concept by acting in a way that made you feel accepted, worthwhile, important, appreciated, or loved. For instance, you might remember a teacher who took time to encourage you, or a grandparent who never criticized or questioned your youthful foolishness.

43

44

© Zoe Waelchli

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

healthy self-concepts (Brown et al., 2009). Along with family, the messages from many other significant others shape our self-concept. A teacher from long ago, a special friend or relative, or even a barely known acquaintance who “likes” something you’ve posted on social media can all leave an imprint on how you view yourself (Li et al., 2018). Carol Dweck (2006, 2010) advises that when an adult says things to children such as, “I think you worked hard to solve the problem,” Self-concept starts developing when we’re only a few months old, but con- children understand that their tinues into adulthood, largely due to social interaction. What interactions abilities to work hard and persist produce good results. As a have you had in the past year that changed the way you saw yourself? result, they are more likely to show tenacity and perseverance After thinking about this supportive person, when faced with the next challenge, and with this think of someone who acted in either a big or small “growth” mindset they understand that they can way to diminish your self-esteem. For instance, develop their abilities. On the other hand, if adults you may have had a coach who criticized you in say, “You’re smart” when children solve probfront of the team, or one member of a group of lems, children are more likely to develop a “fixed” friends who excludes you from group messages mindset. They may come to believe that people are and makes excuses when you see pictures posted born with their abilities (e.g., intelligence) and no online of social activities you were excluded from. amount of practice, perseverance, or effort is going After thinking about these two types of people, to change the outcome. People with fixed mindyou should begin to see that everyone’s self-­ sets are more likely to quit after they’ve failed and concept is shaped by reflected appraisal—that much less likely to take chances and tackle diffiis, perceptions of the judgments of those around cult projects because they believe that they do not them. To the extent that you have received sup- possess the ability to be successful—they live up to portive messages, you’ve learned to appreciate their fixed expectations and limit their opportunand value yourself. To the extent that you perceive ities for learning and growth. critical signals, you’re likely to feel less valuable, You might argue that not every part of your lovable, capable, and secure (Lemay and Dudley, self-concept is shaped by others, that there are cer2009). Your self-concept can be seen, at least in tain objective facts recognizable by self-observation part, as a product of the messages you’ve received alone. After all, nobody needs to tell you whether throughout your life. you’re taller than others, speak with an accent, Social scientists use the term significant have curly hair, and so on. These facts are obvious. other to describe a person whose evaluations are Indeed, some features of the self are immediately especially influential. Messages from parents, of apparent. But the significance we attach to them— course, are an early and important influence on the that is, the rank we assign them in the hierarchy self-concept. Supportive parents are more likely of our list and the interpretation we give them— than unsupportive ones to raise children with depends greatly on the opinions of others.

2 | Communication and the Self

Social Comparison So far, we’ve looked at the way messages from other people shape the self-concept. In addition to using these messages, each of us forms our self-image by the process of social comparison, by evaluating ourselves in terms of how we compare with others (Festinger, 1954; Wolf et al., 2018). We decide whether we’re superior or inferior and similar or different by comparing ourselves to what social scientists call reference groups—others against whom we evaluate our own characteristics. You might feel ordinary or inferior in talent, friendships, or attractiveness if you compare yourself with an unsuitable reference group. People differ in their tendencies to compare themselves to others and those with greater sensitivity to and awareness of others experience more uncertainty and instability regarding their self-concepts (Buunk and Gibbons, 2006; Vogel et al., 2015), particularly when comparing their abilities (Yang et al., 2018). Comparing yourself with inappropriate reference groups, such as professional athletes, Mensa geniuses, or billionaires, will likely make you feel very ordinary or inferior in terms of your athleticism, intelligence, and personal wealth. Even comparing yourself to a more suitable reference group, such as the social networking profiles of your friends and acquaintances, can create unrealistic expectations and unhappiness (Appel et al., 2016; Chae, 2018; Chou and Edge, 2012; Qiu et al., 2012). Social networking allows people to portray their most idealized self-views—focusing on the positive aspects of their lives, and leaving out all the imperfections that are inevitably part of being alive. People who are more prone to social comparison tend to spend more time passively browsing other people’s profiles and are more susceptible to negative self-perceptions and greater unhappiness (Lee 2014; Verduyn et al., 2015; Vogel et al., 2015). For example, a steady diet of browsing other peoples’ vacation photos, pics of joyous family celebrations, and happy couples displaying their amazing accomplishments and flawless lives can convince you your life and your achievements pale in comparison. How often do we see pictures of others cleaning their toilets, arguing with each other, ­feeling bored,

or completing tedious tasks? Not that we want to necessarily see these things, but routine, possibly mundane and downright unpleasant activities are part of all our lives. Without complete, accurate information about other people, it is easy to compare yourself to them negatively and feel like you’re missing out (Morry et al., 2018). In addition, when we’re not feeling good about ourselves we’re more vulnerable to unfavourable social comparisons on social media. Once you place yourself alongside a truly representative and realistic sample, you have a better chance of developing a more accurate understanding of yourself.

CHECK IT! Describe the processes of reflected appraisal and social comparison in the development of self-­ concept.

Self-Concept Development in Context Whose opinions about us matter the most? Which reference groups are available to us for comparison? When we think about how the self-concept develops, we need to consider forces that are larger than our family, friends, and immediate community members. Our identities are shaped by our age and place in history, our gender identity, our ­sexual orientation, our physical ability or disability, ­cultural background, and the co-cultural groups we belong to. These elements create the larger social context in which our self-concepts develop.

Language and Identity Some aspects of culture, such as language, have obvious implications for shaping the way we think and feel about ourselves. If you live in a culture where everyone speaks the same language, then language will have little noticeable impact on how you view yourself and others. But what happens when some members of a society speak the

45

46

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

dominant language and others speak a minority language or dialect? Speakers of a non-dominant language can feel pressured to assimilate or they can decide not to speak the majority language. In either case, the impact of language on the self-­ concept is powerful. Comfort and confidence in speaking a language increases the extent to which people identify themselves with the language group (Freynet and Clement, 2015), and speakers of the dominant language have power and privilege that minority language speakers often do not have (Rivest et al., 2017). The issue of language and identity is evident in Canada’s diverse multicultural society. It’s strongly felt by two groups in particular: Indigenous peoples and francophone Canadians. The residential school system, which was developed in the late nineteenth century and existed until the 1990s, is responsible for the loss of Indigenous languages and cultures. These schools separated Indigenous children from their families and communities, prevented parents from contacting their children, forced Indigenous children to learn and use English or French, and forbade them from using their ancestral languages. This was done to break their connections to their culture and identity (The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). In addition to enduring the abuse of being forcibly separated from their families, Indigenous children lost their languages and their traditions. Many Indigenous leaders assert that the loss of Indigenous languages has caused Indigenous peoples to lose their spirit as well. The loss of hundreds of languages that have already passed into history is an intellectual catastrophe in every way comparable in magnitude to the ecological catastrophe we face today as the earth’s tropical forests are swept by fire. Each language still spoken is fundamental to the personal, social, and—a key term in the discourse of indigenous peoples—spiritual identity of its speakers. They know that without these languages they would be less than they are, and they are engaged in the most urgent struggles to protect their linguistic heritage. (Prodanovic, 2013; Zepeda and Hill, 1991)

Although the federal government has apologized for the atrocities committed by the residential school system, the pain and loss of relationships, culture, and identity remain a notorious legacy. Knowing one’s language is a crucial component of identity and at the time of the most recent census only 15.6 per cent of Canada’s North American First Nations, Métis, or Inuit peoples knew an Indigenous language well enough to carry on a conversation (Statistics Canada, 2016). Indigenous communities are working to revitalize their languages, but the passing of Elders who have specialized grammatical and cultural knowledge seriously jeopardizes this work. In addition, limited language resources and the social and emotional barriers created by colonization have created additional challenges (Rosborough, 2017). The preservation of the French language in Canada, particularly in Quebec, has created considerable controversy over the years. Perhaps the most hotly debated measure was Bill 101. Under this legislation, which was passed in 1977 by the Quebec National Assembly, the only language permitted on commercial signs was French, and the right to attend an English-language elementary school was severely restricted. Many Quebeckers believed that, in order for francophone culture to survive, the French language needed to be protected in an increasingly English-speaking world. Since 1977, several amendments to the legislation have helped to ease some of the tensions between French and English-speaking Quebeckers. Pro-French laws have succeeded in preserving the language in Quebec. Almost all Quebeckers (95 per cent) maintain a knowledge of French and four-fifths of the population speak French at home (Bourhis and Sioufi, 2017). As well, national polls have shown increased support for bilingual policies (Jebwab, 2011). However, Francophones remain a linguistic minority in North America and preserving a unique cultural identity can be challenging in a world where English is increasingly the language of business and commerce and the third most widely spoken language in the world, after Mandarin and Spanish (McCarthy, 2018). Even within a language system, the labels that members of a co-culture use to define themselves

2 | Communication and the Self

can both reflect and help define their sense of identity. For instance, personal pronouns like he/ him and she/her immediately summon meanings we ascribe to female and male social categories in our culture (Wood and Eagly, 2015). Although people use the terms sex and gender interchangeably there is an important difference (Katz-Wise and Hyde, 2014). Sex refers to biological characteristics, whereas gender refers to the social, behavioural, and psychological dimensions cultures define as masculine and feminine. Rather than a binary, two-category system (male or female), researchers have identified gender as being more fluid, multidimensional, and something embedded in an individual’s experience (Rogers and Ahmed, 2017; Tobin et al., 2010). Identities such as gender

fluid or non-­binary aim to capture possibilities other than male or female (Becker et al., 2017). Our gender identities are our own internal sense of being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere along the gender spectrum. In English, pronouns are gendered and the traditional gender pronouns she/her, he/him do not fit everyone’s gender identity. When requested, using non-binary pronouns like they/them communicates respect for another person’s identity. As researcher and scholar Lee Airton (2018) points out, using they as a singular pronoun can be difficult and stressful at first and will probably take practice, but when you try to get it right, and respect someone’s choice of pronoun, you can have a profound effect on the well-being of that individual. When we discuss confirming messages in Chapter 9, it will become increasingly clear how fundamental this type of acknowledgement is in creating a supportive tone in your relationships.

XiXinXing/iStockphoto

Cultural Values and Norms

How is a child practising her letters learning not only how to write words, but learning a culture and identity as well?

In addition to language, there are several cultural values that shape our identities and our perceptions of others. Sometimes, they influence our thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of ourselves and others in ways we may not even be aware of. We’ll examine several of these cultural differences in Chapter 3, when we look at how culture shapes our views of other people. In addition, we’ll look at cultural differences in the use of language, silence, and context in Chapter 6. While all these cultural values influence our perceptions of ourselves and others, the most powerful dimension of culture on our identities is the emphasis different cultures place on the importance of the individual versus the importance of the group. Members of an individualistic culture view their primary responsibility as helping themselves, whereas communicators in a collectivistic ­culture feel loyalties and obligations to in-groups: extended family, the community, or even the organization (Hofstede, 2011). Individualistic cultures are also characterized by self-reliance and competition, whereas members of a collectivistic culture are more attentive to and concerned with the opinions of others. The individualism–collectivism

47

48

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

dimension has been relied on most heavily to examine and explain differences in communication patterns across cultures (Merkin, Taras, and Steel, 2014). Among the world’s most individualistic countries are the United States, Canada, Australia, and the UK. Latin American (e.g., Colombia and Costa Rica), Asian (e.g., South Korea and China), South Asian (e.g., Pakistan and Indonesia), and Caribbean (e.g., Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago) cultures are generally more collectivistic (Hofstede, 1980, 2001, 2011). Table 2.1 summarizes some differences between individualistic and collectivistic cultures. The differences between individualistic and collectivistic cultures show up in communication patterns. For instance, people from more individualistic cultures tend to be more expressive, straightforward, and direct in their communication; while people from more collectivist cultures are likely to be more indirect and restrained in their communication and use persuasion, silence, ambiguity, and third-party communication in order to preserve relationship harmony (Merkin et al., 2014). It must be noted that while cultural values of individualism and collectivism describe general

cultural differences between nations they are not necessarily accurate when describing the values or communication styles of specific individuals within a culture or a nation. Sometimes there are greater differences within cultures than between them (Taras et al., 2016). There are many other factors that influence individuals’ values and their communication styles, such as their personality, age, education level, occupational status, political beliefs, and so forth. This conceptualization of cultures differing, in terms of the value placed on the individual versus the group, helps us to understand how groups of people from different cultural backgrounds might differ in terms of their conceptualizations of themselves and their preferred communication styles. However, it doesn’t help us know how to communicate effectively with an individual—for that we need to keep an open mind and remember and apply the characteristics of competent communication, as described in Chapter 1.

Characteristics of the Self-Concept Now that you have a better idea of how your self-concept has developed, we can take a closer look at some of its characteristics.

TABLE 2.1  The Self in Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures Aspect of Culture

Individualistic

Collectivistic

View of self in relation to group

Separate, unique individual; should be independent, self-sufficient

Part of extended families or in-groups; “we” or group orientation

Care philosophy

Care for self and immediate family before others

Care for extended family before self

Group membership

Many flexible group memberships; friends based on shared interests and activities

Emphasis on belonging to a very few permanent in-groups, which have a strong influence over the person

What is rewarded

Individual achievement, initiative, and decision making

Contribution to group goals and well-being; co-operation with in-group members; group decision making

Credit and blame assignment

Individually assigned

Shared by the group

What is valued and admired

Autonomy, change, youth, individual security, and equality

Duty, order, tradition, age, group security, status, and hierarchy

2 | Communication and the Self

The Self-Concept Is Subjective The way we view ourselves may be at odds with other people’s perceptions—and often with the observable facts (Simine and Carlson, 2010). For instance, people are notoriously bad judges of their own communication skills. A random sample of men was asked to rank themselves on their ability to get along with others. Defying mathematical laws, every subject put himself in the top half of the population. Sixty per cent rated themselves in the top 10 per cent of the population, and an amazing 25 per cent believed they were in the top 1 per cent. In the same study, 70 per cent of the men ranked the quality of their leadership in the top quarter of the population, whereas only 2 per cent thought they were below average. Sixty per cent said they were in the top quarter in athletic ability, whereas only 6 per cent viewed themselves as below average (Myers, 1980). These results are consistent with people’s bias to overestimate their abilities and rate themselves more favourably than others in a wide variety of areas (Fay et al., 2012; Vazire and ­Carlson, 2010). There are also times when we view ourselves more harshly than the facts warrant. We have all experienced a temporary case of the “uglies,” convinced we look much worse than others say we do. Research confirms what common sense ­suggests— people are more critical of themselves when they are experiencing a negative mood than when they’re feeling more positive (Brown and Mankowski, 1993; Cantazaro and Wei, 2010). Although everyone suffers occasional bouts of self-doubt that affect communication, some people suffer from long-term states of excessive self-doubt and criticism, reliably remembering when things went wrong, and consistently forgetting when they went well (Hardy et al., 2015; Howe and Dweck, 2016; Ng and Abbott, 2016). This chronic self-doubt can of course influence communication with others. Self-evaluations can be distorted for several reasons, including: • Obsolete information Effects of past failures in school or social relationships can linger long after they have occurred even though they don’t

REFLECTION INDIVIDUALS’ AND COLLECTIVISTS’ CULTURAL VALUES Growing up in Canada, having immigrated from China when I was six years old, I learned that many of my family’s customs and traditions were different from those of my friends at school. As a child who loved playing sports, I quickly realized that my friends who did not have Chinese heritage identified as individuals in ways I did not. Sure, everyone on our soccer, volleyball, and baseball teams wanted to win, but many of my teammates wanted to achieve their personal best for themselves as much or more than for the team. Growing up I had been explicitly taught that the team was more important than any individual player. In Chinese we have a different name for the private or individual self (Xiao Wo, or “little me” or self) and the self that belongs to the group or team (Da Wo, or “big me” or the collective). In English and French there is no real equivalent for the idea of a collective self (Da Wo) and it took me a long time to figure out how to navigate sports and have attention paid to me as an individual player. Seriously, it took a while before I learned not to feel deeply embarrassed if I won individual praise or an award. I think my friends thought I was being “fake modest” but it actually felt really awful to stand out like that!

predict failure in the future. Likewise your past successes don’t guarantee future success. • Distorted feedback Overly critical remarks from parents, classmates, teachers, employers, or even rude strangers can have a lasting effect. Other distorted messages may be overly positive. For instance, an administrator may claim to be an excellent manager because her assistants pour on false praise in order to keep their jobs. • Perfectionism From the time most of us learn to understand language, we are exposed to models who appear to be perfect. The implicit message is, “A well-adjusted, successful person has no faults.” This naive belief in perfection

49

50

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

can distort our perceptions of ourselves and others. • Social expectations Curiously, we belong to a society that rewards those people who downplay the strengths that we demand they possess. We deem these people “modest” and find their behaviour agreeable. We usually consider those who show off their strengths as braggarts or egoists, confusing them with people who boast about accomplishments that they do not possess (Miller et al., 1992). This convention leads most of us to talk freely about our shortcomings while downplaying our accomplishments.

CHECK IT!

Thinkstock/Laikwunfai

Briefly describe how individualism and collectivism influence the development of the self-concept and interpersonal communication.

You might be a relaxed conversationalist with people you know, but at a loss for words with strangers. You might be patient when explaining things on the job, but have no tolerance for such explanations at home. The self-concepts of most communicators react to these changes (“I’m patient at work, but I’m not patient at home”), and these changes affect self-esteem (“I’m not as good a person at home as I am in public”). We also change over the course of our lives. Think back to the list of words and phrases you chose to describe yourself at the beginning of this chapter. How many were true 10 years ago and how many do you think will be true 10 years from now? It’s important to acknowledge changes in our self-concepts even though it’s not always easy, as we’ll see.

The Self-Concept Resists Change

A realistic self-concept should recognize the way we’ve changed over time, but the tendency to resist revision of our self-perception is strong. A Healthy Self-Concept Is Flexible Once we fasten onto a self-concept, the tendency People change. From moment to moment, we is to seek out people who confirm it. Numerous aren’t the same. We wake up in the morning in a studies (e.g., North and Swann, 2009; Stets and jovial mood and become irritated by lunchtime. Cast, 2007) show that both university/college students and married couples with high self-esteem seek out partners who view them favourably, whereas those with low self-esteem are more inclined to seek out people who view them unfavourably. This tendency to look for information that conforms to an existing self-concept has been labelled cognitive conservatism and appears to hold true for people in a variety of cultures (Church et al., 2012). Understandably, we’re reluctant to revise a favourable self-concept. If you were a thoughtful, romantic partner early in a relationship, it would be hard to admit that How do perfectionism and social expectations relate to low self-esteem?

2 | Communication and the Self

TAKE TWO Cognitive conservatism: the tendency to look for information that conforms to an existing self-­ concept.

you might have become less considerate and attentive lately. Likewise, if you used to be a serious student, it isn’t easy to admit that you’ve slacked off recently. Curiously, the tendency to cling to an outmoded self-perception holds even when the new image would be more favourable. For example, some of our former students still view themselves as underachievers despite being successful on several measures. Some people have difficulty believing compliments about the person they’ve become (Kille et al., 2017). This sort of cognitive conservatism fosters unnecessary doubt and negative self-perceptions. These students can become their own worst enemies, denying themselves the validation they deserve, and need, to enjoy satisfying relationships. Once the self-concept is firmly rooted, it becomes more difficult to change. Research suggests that mindfulness, being non-judgmentally aware of your immediate experiences, allows us to have more flexibility in our self-concepts and remain open to incorporating accurate messages about who we are and how we’ve changed (Hanley and Garland, 2017; Hanley et al., 2015).

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy and Communication The self-concept is such a powerful influence on the personality that it not only determines how you see yourself in the present, but also can actually affect your future behaviour and that of others. Such occurrences come about through a phenomenon called the self-fulfilling prophecy. A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a person’s expectations of an event and their subsequent behaviour based on those expectations make the anticipated outcome more likely to occur

(­Watzlawick, 2005). As you saw in the discussion surrounding Figure 2.1 this circular process involves four stages: 1. Holding an expectation (for yourself or for others) 2. Behaving in accordance with that expectation 3. The expectation coming to pass 4. Reinforcing the original expectation Self-fulfilling prophecies occur all the time, although you may never have given them that label. For example, think of some experiences you may have had: • You expected to become nervous and botch a presentation, and later did so. • You’re nervous about seeing a person you’re romantically attracted to at a party. You expect they won’t notice or talk to you. You make very little eye contact with anyone at the party and end up feeling bad and leaving early. In each of these cases, there’s a good chance that the event took place as it did because you predicted that it would. You needn’t have botched the presentation, and you might have had a better time at the party if you hadn’t gone to it with such pessimism. In other words, what helped make each event happen the way it did was your expectation of things going a certain way.

Types of Self-Fulfilling Prophecies There are two types of self-fulfilling prophecies. Self-imposed prophecies are ones that influence your behaviour. You’ve probably had the experience of waking up in a cross mood and saying to yourself, “This will be a bad day.” Once you come to such a conclusion, you’ll likely act in ways that make it come true. If you avoid the company of others because you expect they have nothing to offer, your suspicions will have been confirmed—nothing exciting or new is likely to happen. On the other hand, if you approach the

51

52

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

same day with the idea that it could be a good one, this expectation may well be met. Smile at people, and they’re more likely to smile back. Enter a class determined to learn something, and you probably will. In these cases and other similar ones, your attitude has a great deal to do with how you see yourself and how others see you. For example, Jenna Clark and Melanie Green (2018) discovered that people who expect online communication to contribute to the growth of their interpersonal relationships (Stage 1: holding an expectation) were more willing to engage in relationship-building social processes such as sharing information about themselves and offering social support within their online communications (Stage 2: behaving in accordance with that expectation). This in turn creates more positive expectations for the interaction’s success (Stage  3: expectation coming to pass), which in turn reinforces their original expectation (Stage 4). These investigators suggest that our expectations about social media and interpersonal relationships influence the outcomes of our online interactions. A second category of self-fulfilling prophecy is one that governs someone else’s actions. The classic example was demonstrated by Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson in a study they describe in their book Pygmalion in the Classroom (1968). The experimenters told teachers that 20 per cent of the children in a certain elementary school showed unusual potential for intellectual growth. The names of the 20 p ­ er cent were drawn by means of a table of random numbers—much as if they were drawn out of a hat. Eight months later, these unusual or “magical” children showed significantly greater gains in IQ than the remaining children, who had not been singled out for the teachers’ attention. The change in the teachers’ behaviour toward these allegedly “special” children led  to changes in the intellectual performance of the randomly selected children. Among other things, the teachers gave the “smart” students extra time to answer questions and provided more feedback to them. These children did ­better, not because

they were any more intelligent than their classmates, but because their teachers (significant others) communicated the expectation that they could. In other words, it wasn’t just what the teachers believed that made a difference, it was how these beliefs were conveyed by the teachers’ behaviour. Notice that it isn’t just the observer’s belief that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy for the person who is the target of the expectations. The observer must communicate that belief verbally or non-verbally for the prediction to have any effect.

CHECK IT! The self-concept is subjective. Describe four reasons it can be distorted.

Influence of Self-Fulfilling Prophecies The influence of self-fulfilling prophecies on communication can be strong, acting either to improve or to harm relationships. If you assume that another person is unlikeable, you will probably act in ways that communicate your feelings. In such a case, the other person’s behaviour will probably match your expectations, since we usually do not go out of our way to be nice to

TAKE TWO Self-fulfilling prophecy: occurs when a person’s expectations of an event and her or his subsequent behaviour based on those expectations make the outcome more likely than it would otherwise be. Such prophecies can be self-imposed (influenced by your own behaviour) or governed by the behaviour of others.

2 | Communication and the Self

© Zachary Kanin The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank

people who aren’t nice to us. If, on the other hand, you treat the other person as likeable, the results will probably be more positive. The self-fulfilling prophecy is an important force in interpersonal communication, but we don’t want to suggest that it explains all behaviour. There are certainly times when the expectation of an event will not bring it about. Your hope of drawing an ace in a card game will not in any way affect the chance of that card turning up in an already shuffled deck. Nor will your belief that good weather is coming stop the rain from falling. In the same way, believing you’ll do well in a job interview when you’re clearly not qualified for the position is unrealistic. To connect the

53

self-fulfilling prophecy with the “power of positive thinking” is an oversimplification.

BUILDING WORK SKILLS THE SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY Imagine yourself at work or school. Pretend you have to interact with someone (a customer, colleague, client, supervisor, etc.) who has a reputation for being difficult. If you can’t imagine a situation, try one of the scenarios described below. You are the assistant coach of a soccer team of eight-year-old girls and boys. The mother of a child on your team has left you a voicemail to call her back. The last time you saw her, she accused your colleague, the head coach, of playing other children more frequently and not giving her child enough shifts. She claimed the head coach didn’t know how to put together a winning team. In her message, she didn’t say what she wanted to talk to you about. You work at the returns counter of a major department store. There is a man in line whom you saw a colleague assist last week. At that time, he attempted to return a pair of pants that he had bought a month earlier and had worn and washed. He said he didn’t like the style and it didn’t suit him, and he wanted a full refund. He yelled at your colleague and accused him of being incompetent when he explained that the store’s policy did not allow such returns. You have to serve this man next. List the ways in which your prior knowledge of this person might negatively affect your perception of her or his communication. How might your expectations influence your communication? What could you do to reduce the effects of the self-fulfilling prophecy in this situation?

54

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

silverkblack/iStockPhoto

Public and Private Selves

Do you think it’s dishonest for people to have public selves and private selves?

Presenting the Self: ­Communication as Impression Management So far, we’ve described how communication shapes the way communicators view themselves. Now we turn the tables and focus on the topic of impression management—the communication strategies that people use to influence how others view them. In the following pages, you will see that many of our messages are aimed at creating desired impressions.

To understand why impression management exists, we have to discuss the notion of self in more detail. So far, we’ve referred to the self as if each of us had only one identity. In truth, however, each of  us possesses several selves, some private and others public. These selves are often quite different. The perceived self is the person you believe you are in moments of honest self-examination. The perceived self may not be accurate in every respect. For example, you may think you’re much more (or less) empathetic than an objective test would suggest. Accurate or not, the perceived self is powerful because we believe it reflects who we are. The perceived self is called “private” because you’re unlikely to reveal all of it to another person. You can verify the private nature of the perceived self by thinking of elements of your self-perception that you would not disclose. For example, you might be reluctant to share some feelings about your appearance (“I think I’m rather unattractive”), your goals (“The most important thing to me is becoming rich”), or your motives (“I care more about myself than about others”). In contrast to the perceived self, the presenting self is a public image—the way we want to appear to others. In most cases, the presenting self we seek to create is a socially approved image: diligent student, loving partner, conscientious worker, loyal friend, and so on. Sociologist Erving Goffman (1959, 1983) uses the word face to describe this socially approved identity, and he coined the term facework to describe the verbal and non-­ verbal ways in which we act to maintain our own presenting image and the images of others. (See Chapter 9 for more on presenting self and face.) He argues that each of us can be viewed both as a kind of playwright who creates roles that we want others to believe and as the performer who acts out those roles. Goffman (1983) suggests that each of us maintains face by putting on a front when we are around others we want to impress. In contrast, behaviour in the back region—when we’re alone— may be quite different. You can recognize the difference between public and backstage behaviour by remembering a time when you observed a driver,

2 | Communication and the Self

TAKE TWO • Perceived self: the person you believe yourself to be in moments of honest self-examination; physical traits, personality characteristics, attitudes, aptitudes, and all other parts of the image you want to present to the world • Presenting self: a public image, the way you want to appear to others. • Face: your socially approved identity; different selves we present to different people. • Facework: the verbal and non-verbal ways in which you act to maintain your own presenting image and the images of others.

alone in their car, behaving in ways that would never be acceptable in public. All of us engage in backstage ways of acting that we would never exhibit in front of others. Just think about how you behave in front of the bathroom mirror when the door is locked, and you’ll appreciate the difference between public and private behaviour. If you knew someone was watching, would you behave ­differently?

Characteristics of Impression Management Now that you have a sense of what impression management is, we can look at some characteristics of this process.

We Strive to Construct Multiple Identities It’s an oversimplification to suggest we use impression-management strategies to create just one identity. In the course of even a single day, most people play a variety of roles: “respectful student,” “joking friend,” “friendly neighbour,” and “helpful co-worker,” to suggest just a few. We even play a variety of roles around the same person. As you grew up, you almost certainly changed characters as you interacted with your parents. In one situation, you acted as the responsible adult (“You can trust me to look after our place while you’re away”)

and at another time you were the helpless child (“I can’t find my socks!”). At certain times—perhaps on birthdays or holidays—you were a dedicated family member, and at other times you may have played the role of rebel. Similarly, research suggests people utilize different aspects of traditional femininity and masculinity as parts of their identities, highlighting or minimizing different traits in different situations (van Breen et al., 2017). The ability to construct multiple identities is one element of communication competence and well-being. Each of us constructs multiple identities, many of which may be independent and even conflicting, in order to feel good about ourselves and to maintain a sense of belonging (Vignoles et  al., 2006). Multiple identities are integral to existing and communicating in society, but they’re not without some challenges—particularly if one of those identities feels imposed on you. The challenges of a more fluid identity are apparent for many Indigenous Canadians who frequently negotiate between the “traditional” and “non-traditional” elements of their unique heritage and contemporary culture (Friederers, 2006). Newcomers to Canada face unique multiple identity challenges too. For example, how do you retain your cultural heritage and also identify with mainstream Canadian society? Research suggests newcomers who are able to balance their multiple identities achieve greater levels of well-being than either those who abandon their cultural heritage or those who fail to embrace Canadian culture, or those who feel they don’t belong or identify with either culture (Berry and Hou, 2016; Jedwab, 2013, 2016). A positive sense of self that incorporates all the multifaceted components of our identities (e.g., our various cultures, co-cultures and ethnicities, race, gender identity, sexuality, disabilities, and body image, etc.) enhances self-confidence and self-esteem, which are protective factors when facing discrimination (Ai et al., 2014; Forber-Pratt and Zape, 2017; Kelly et al., 2004; Schafer and Ferraro, 2011; Sellers et al., 2003). It might be tempting to regard some of your identities as more “real” than others, but it’s more accurate to recognize that all of them are you in various roles. Communication

55

56

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

researchers argue that differentiating between “fake” and “real” selves is counterproductive (Tracy and Trethewey, 2005). Instead, it’s healthier

to recognize that competent communicators are multifaceted people with a variety of roles and identities—all of which are you.

FOCUS ON RESEARCH HOW LIVING ABROAD CAN INCREASE SELF-CONCEPT CLARITY It is a truism that the world is increasingly interconnected. Colleges and universities are actively recruiting more international students and companies frequently locate their offices throughout the world. As a result, more and more individuals have experienced living abroad. This prompted Hajo Adams and his colleagues (2018) to wonder how living in a foreign country for a significant amount of time (not just visiting) affects the development of the self-concept. Specifically, Adams and his colleagues (2018) were interested in learning more about how experi­ ences living abroad affected the structure, rather than the content, of people’s self-concept. The structural component they examined was self-concept clarity, which refers to the ways in which people’s knowledge about themselves is organized. Individuals high in self-concept clarity have a clear sense of who they are. They’re confident about their identities—their skills, beliefs, and the nature of their personalities. They know who they are, remain consistent over time, and do not have beliefs that conflict with each other. People with high levels of self-concept clarity are less susceptible to depression, anxiety, and stress; are more likely to use effective coping strategies when dealing with life’s challenges; and enjoy better relationship quality when compared to those with less self-concept clarity (Bigler et al., 2001; Campbell et al., 2003; Lewandowski et al., 2010). Previous research found that transitional experiences such as a change in job or romantic partner tend to decrease self-concept clarity (Light and Visser, 2013; Slotter et al., 2010). In contrast, Adams and his colleagues (2018) discovered that living abroad is a rare kind of transitional experience that increases self-concept clarity. They conducted a series of six studies involving 1,874 participants all of which provided evidence that individuals who had lived abroad reported higher self-concept clarity than

those who had not or those who had signed up to live abroad but who had not yet done so. After controlling for personality factors and possible self-reporting biases, they concluded that living abroad increased self-concept through self-discerning reflections. So, what is self-discerning reflection? When living in a foreign culture people have a unique opportunity to examine parts of their identities and determine the extent to which these are reflections of their cultural upbringing or truly things that define them. Living in a different culture provides a contrast, which helps make your own cultural values and beliefs more visible. When you’re immersed in the norms and values of your own culture they’re often invisible, but when you’re surrounded by different norms and values there are opportunities for self-examination and self-questioning. Adams and his colleagues (2018) give the example of a German person who is punctual, something valued in German culture. When living in a culture that does not value punctuality this person is forced to reflect on their beliefs about punctuality—is it an important part of their identity or is it a remnant of their upbringing that can easily be discarded? Living abroad provides a multitude of opportunities for this type of self-­ examination and as a result, individuals’ self-concepts come into sharper focus. Adams and his colleagues (2018) conclude their research paper by quoting ­German philosopher Hermann von Keyserling who, in 1919, observed that, “The shortest path to oneself leads around the world.” Critical thinking: Can you think of a time when some aspect of your cultural upbringing came into sharper focus because you were exposed to a different culture? Do you think there are ways, other than living abroad, to gain perspective on the structure of your self-concept? What might they be and how might they work in developing self-concept clarity?

2 | Communication and the Self

As we perform our multiple identities, our audience is made up of other actors who are trying to create their own characters. Identity-related communication is a kind of process theatre in which we improvise scenes where our character reacts with others. For example, perhaps you try to present yourself as easygoing and funny by joking about something that has gone wrong, but your partner does not see the humour or the appropriateness of a relaxed approach. Your partner’s response may well elicit another version of yourself. Virtually all conversations provide an arena in which communicators construct their identities in response to the behaviour of others. As we saw in Chapter 1, communication is not made up of discrete events that can be separated from one another. Instead, what happens at one moment is influenced by what each communicator brings to the interaction and by what had happened in their relationship up to that point.

Identity Management Can Be Deliberate or Unconscious

s­ ympathetic in response to another’s message) only in face-to-face settings, when their expressions can be seen by the other person. When they’re speaking over the phone and their reactions cannot be seen, they don’t make the same expressions (Chovil, 1991). Studies like these suggest that much of our behaviour is aimed at sending messages to others— in other words, is identity management. You can see by now that much identity management is unconscious. The experimental subjects described by Brightman and colleagues didn’t consciously think, “Somebody is watching me eat this salty sandwich so I’ll make a face” or “Since I’m in a face-to-face conversation, I’ll show I’m sympathetic by mimicking the facial expressions of my conversational partner.” Decisions like these are often made instantaneously and outside of our conscious awareness. It seems an exaggeration to suggest that all behaviour is aimed at making impressions. Young children are certainly not strategic communicators. Babies spontaneously laugh when they’re pleased and cry when they’re sad or uncomfortable, without any notion of creating an impression on others. Likewise, there are almost certainly times when we as adults act spontaneously. On the whole, however, impression management strategies influence our communication.

There’s no doubt that sometimes we’re highly aware of managing the impressions we create. Most job interviews and first dates are clear examples of deliberate identity management. But in other cases, we unconsciously act in ways that are performances for others. For example, in a classic experiment, participants expressed facial disgust in reaction to eating sandwiches laced with a supersaturated solution of salt water only when there was another person present; when they were alone, they made no faces upon eating the same snack (Brightman et al., 1975). Another study showed that communicators engage in facial mimicry What are some advantages and disadvantages of managing your identity? (such as smiling or looking

bogdankosanovic/iStockphoto

Identity Management Is Collaborative

57

58

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

People Differ in Their Degree of Identity Management Some people are much more aware of their ­identity-management behaviour than others (Kopp, 1988; Snyder, 1979). There are advantages to being able to effectively self-monitor and adjust our communication. People who pay attention to themselves are generally able to handle social situations smoothly, often putting others at ease. They are also good “people readers” who can adjust their behaviour in response to others (Flynn et al., 2006). Along with these advantages, there can be drawbacks to being an extremely high self-monitor (Leone and Hall, 2003; Leone and Hawkins, 2006; Oyamot et al., 2010). Such people’s analytical nature may prevent them from experiencing events completely, since part of their attention will always be taken up with viewing the situation from a detached position. High self-monitors’ ability to act makes it difficult to tell how they’re really feeling. For example, high self-monitors have been observed to manipulate their Facebook profiles in order to appear more extroverted, happy, and popular when compared to lower self-monitors (Hall and Pennington, 2013). In fact, because high self-monitors change roles often, they may have a hard time themselves knowing how they really feel. By contrast, low self-monitors express what they’re thinking and feeling without paying much attention to the impression they create. While they may be more in touch with their feelings, their reactions may not help them to achieve their desired outcomes in some interpersonal situations. By now, it should be clear that neither extremely high nor low self-monitoring is the ideal. There are some situations when paying attention to yourself and adapting your behaviour can be useful, and other times when reacting without considering the effect on others is a better approach. This need for a range of behaviour demonstrates once again the notion of communicative competence, as outlined in Chapter 1—flexibility is the key to successful relationships.

Why Manage Impressions? Why bother trying to shape the opinions of others? Sometimes, we create and maintain a front to follow social rules.

Social rules govern our behaviour in a variety of settings. For example, ridiculing or humiliating a friend or family member in public is a violation of fundamental social rules regarding saving others’ face. Expressing your boredom when a close friend is describing their extreme distress about a recent experience violates our understanding of friendship. More superficially, chewing with your mouth open, clearing your throat, or belching loudly without saying “excuse me,” picking your nose, and spitting in public are all social rule violations in mainstream Canadian society and violating these rules may not be in your best interest. Other times, being completely open about our identities may create risks we will discuss a bit later in this chapter.

CHECK IT! Describe four characteristics of impression management.

Even when social roles do not dictate the proper way to behave, we often manage the impression we create for personal reasons or to achieve relational goals. You might, for example, dress up for a visit to traffic court in the hope that your front (responsible citizen) will persuade the judge to treat you sympathetically. You might act in a more friendly and lively way than you feel when you meet someone new so that you’ll appear likeable. In situations like these, you aren’t being deceptive as much as “putting your best foot forward.” All these examples show that it is difficult— perhaps even impossible—not to create impressions. After all, you’re always sending some sort of message.

How Do We Manage Impressions? How do we create a public face? In our technological age, which provides many options for communicating, the answer depends in part on the communication channel chosen.

2 | Communication and the Self

In face-to-face interaction, communicators can manage their front in three ways: with their manner, their appearance, and the setting. Manner consists of a communicator’s words and non-verbal actions. Your manner plays a major role in shaping how others view you. In Chapters 6 and 7, we describe in detail how words and non-verbal behaviour create impressions. Since you have to speak and act, the question is not whether or not your manner sends a message, but rather whether or not these messages will be intentional. Along with manner, a second dimension of identity management is appearance—the personal items people use to shape an image. Sometimes, appearance is part of creating a professional image. A physician’s white lab coat and a police officer’s uniform set the wearer apart as someone special. A tailored suit and a rumpled outfit create very different impressions in the business world. Off the job, clothing is just as important. We choose clothing that sends a message about ourselves: “I’m stylish,” “I’m sexy,” “I’m athletic,” and a host of other possible messages. A final way to manage impressions is through the choice of setting—physical items we use to influence how others view us. In the car culture of modern Western society, the automobile is a large part of identity management. This explains why many people lust after cars and trucks that are far more expensive and powerful than they really need. A sporty convertible or a powerful pickup truck doesn’t just get a driver from one place to another; it also makes a statement about the kind of person they are. The physical setting we choose and the way we arrange it is another important way to manage impressions. What colours do you choose for the place you live? What artwork is on your walls? What music do you play? If possible, we choose a setting that we enjoy, but in many cases, we create an environment that will present the desired front to others. If you doubt this fact, just remember the last time you straightened up your place before guests arrived.

Impression Management in Mediated ­Communication Impression management is just as pervasive and important in mediated communication. At first glance, the technology of mediated communication seems to limit the potential for identity management. Texting and email, for example, appear to lack the richness of other channels. They don’t convey the tone of your voice or your posture, gestures, or facial expression. What is missing in mediated communication can actually be an advantage for communicators who want to manage the impressions they make (Pelled et al., 2017). When sending electronic messages, people can choose their level of clarity or ambiguity, seriousness or humour, logic or emotion. The asynchronicity of electronic correspondence allows a sender to say difficult things without forcing the receiver to respond immediately, and it permits the receiver to ignore a message rather than give an unpleasant response. Options like these show that mediated communication can serve as a tool for identity management at least as well as the face-to-face variety (Tong and Walther, 2011; Lane, 2018). Part of Snapchat’s appeal is that it involves less impression management because photos and videos vanish in a few seconds, unlike other social media platforms

Liza Donnelly The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank

Face-to-Face Impression Management

59

60

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

where pictures and videos can be repeatedly scrutinized and shared with an unintended audience. Social networking platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram allow users to manage their impressions (Levordashka and Utz, 2017). Consider how featuring or withholding the following kinds of information affects how people might regard your online profile: age, photo, educational or career accomplishments, sexual orientation, job title, interests, personal philosophy and religious beliefs, and organization affiliations. You can easily think of a host of other kinds of material that could be included or excluded, and the effect that  each would have on how others regard you. Content you choose to share on social media may be influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by the extent to which you are managing impressions. For instance, one study found that when individuals wanted to fit in with group tastes they shared less unique music and movies but when they were trying to present their best possible selves, they tended to share more prestigious music and films (Johnson and Ranzini, 2018). When undergraduate Facebook users were asked how they think they come across in their profiles most acknowledged that their presentations were highly positive, but not too positive (Toma and Carlson, 2015). Overly positive self-authored content about one’s self (bragging) is perceived negatively in mediated communication (Scott and Ravenscroft, 2017), as it is in face-to-face interactions. Viewing your online presence from another perspective can be a valuable impression management exercise. Depending on what you discover when you enter your name in a search engine; you may decide to engage in some “reputation management” (Osborn et al., 2016). You may want to change your privacy settings, customize who can see certain updates, and delete unwanted information.

Identity Management and Honesty At first, identity management might sound like an academic label for manipulation or phoniness. And there certainly are situations where impression management is dishonest. A manipulative date who pretends to be affectionate or thoughtful

in order to gain sexual favours is clearly unethical and deceitful. So are job applicants who lie about their academic records to get hired or salespeople who pretend to be dedicated to customer service when their real goal is to make a quick buck. Online deception is common—indeed most people believe other people lie, at least sometimes, online (Hancock and Woodworth, 2013; Toma et al., 2016). Lies about appearance tend to be most expected, but people also expect others to lie about their age, interests, and activities. On sites with greater anonymity (e.g., anonymous chatrooms and hook-up apps), people suspect others will lie about their gender. People admit they’re not always honest online in order to protect their privacy or appear more attractive. A common justification for lying in mediated communication is “everyone lies online” (Drouin et al., 2016). In more extreme cases people have been lured into a relationship (catfished) by someone who has created a completely fictional persona online. But not all cases of identity management are so clearly wrong. In a job interview, is it legitimate to appear more confident and reasonable than you really feel? Likewise, in a boring conversation are you justified in being more attentive than you feel like being, out of courtesy to the other person? And are there times you would be foolish to provide complete and truthful information online? Managing your online identity helps to protect your privacy and security. Situations like these suggest that managing impressions doesn’t necessarily make you a liar. In fact, it is almost impossible to imagine how we could communicate effectively without making decisions about which front to present in one situation or another. Each of us has a repertoire of faces—a cast of c­haracters—and part of being a competent communicator is to choose the best role for a situation. It’s an oversimplification to say that there is only one honest way to behave in each circumstance and that every other response would be insincere and dishonest. Instead, identity management involves deciding which face—which part of yourself—to reveal. Which face to show to others is an important decision, but, in any case, you are sharing a real part of yourself.

2 | Communication and the Self

CHECK IT! What are the advantages and disadvantages of mediated communication for identity management?

Disclosing the Self What we share about ourselves and what we keep hidden is part of impression management. So what constitutes self-disclosure? You might argue that aside from secrets, it’s impossible not to make

FOCUS ON RESEARCH RECOGNIZE THE PERSON FIRST According to the Rick Hansen Foundation (2018), one in seven Canadians has a disability and that number will rise to one in five in 2036. Yet disability is something many of us do not think about too much. By now, it’s probably apparent that our identities are social constructions. How and what we choose to include in our identities depends a great deal on the social concepts and perspectives available to us. For people with disabilities, who face barriers to participation in daily activities, the impact of societal perspective on how identity is constructed is often obvious. For decades, North American society understood the concept of disability from an exclusively medical perspective—disabilities have been characterized as illnesses and dysfunctions residing within individuals. This perspective has perpetuated an “ableist” worldview that most of us are so immersed in we don’t even see. From the ableist perspective, certain abilities are essential to function in the world and if somehow you don’t have those abilities then you are disabled. From this perspective, the person with the disability should strive toward the able-bodied norm (Pena et al., 2016). More informed thinking flips this social construction around. People’s impairments only create disabilities in situations where attitudes and the environment are not supportive. Impairment is only a disability when there are disabling environmental factors (e.g., lack of ramps and elevators, documents not accessible to a screen reader, no hearing aids, wheelchairs or prostheses, etc.) (Pena et al., 2016). Changes to the physical environment, innovations in assistive technologies, inclusive policies, and initiatives to make the world more accessible have gone a long way to remove barriers in the physical environment. Still, changing people’s mindsets and attitudes has proven challenging.

Changing attitudes is no easy task but changing our language is one way to start. Using “person first” language when referring to a person who has a disability recognizes the person first and the disability second. For example, referring to someone as a “person who uses a wheelchair” puts the person first and describes the type of disability they have, whereas “wheelchair-bound person” uses a person’s disability as a means to describe their identity. Because people with disabilities comprise such a large and diverse group, this approach is not everyone’s preference. Some people identify strongly and proudly with their disability and the community of activism that gives them strength (Pulrang, 2017). They prefer to reclaim the term “disabled” to describe themselves and to build a common culture and empower themselves. There is evidence that for people with certain disabilities (e.g., multiple sclerosis) embracing their disability as part of who they are predicts better overall well-being (Bogart, 2015). It’s important to note that they refer to themselves as disabled but that doesn’t necessarily mean they want others to do the same. Using “person first” language is a more respectful approach, unless you’re directed otherwise. Disability is the one identity category we will all embody if we live long enough (Dolmage, 2014). It’s in all our best interests to both conceptualize and create a world that is inclusive and accessible for all. Critical thinking: Do you think the ways we describe and refer to each other in casual conversation have an effect on our self-concepts? Why or why not? How are language, culture, and the physical environments we live in similar or different in helping us define ourselves?

61

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

yourself known to others. After all, every time you open your mouth to speak, you’re revealing your tastes, interests, desires, opinions, beliefs, or some other bit of information about yourself. Even when the subject is not a personal one, your choice of what to talk about tells the listener something about who you are. In Chapter 7, we’ll discuss the fact that each of us communicates non-verbally. If every verbal and non-verbal behaviour in which you engage is self-revealing, how can self-disclosure be distinguished from any other act of communication? Psychologist Paul Cozby (1973) suggests that for communication to be considered self-disclosing, it must contain personal information about the sender and be purposefully communicated verbally to another person.

Depth A self-disclosing statement is generally regarded as being personal—containing relatively “deep” rather than “surface” information. Of course, what is personal and intimate for one person may not be for another. You may feel comfortable admitting your spotty academic record, short temper, or fear of spiders to anyone who asks, whereas others would be embarrassed to do so. Even basic demographic information, such as age, can be extremely personal for some people.

Availability of Information

Although this definition is a start, it ignores the fact that some messages intentionally directed toward others are not especially revealing. For example, telling an acquaintance, “I don’t like clams” is quite different from announcing, “I don’t like you.” Let’s take a look at several factors that further distinguish self-disclosure from other types of communication.

Self-disclosing messages must contain information that the other person is not likely to know at the time or to be able to obtain from another source without a great deal of effort. For example, describing your recent relationship break-up might feel like an act of serious disclosure because the information concerns you, is offered intentionally, is honest and accurate, and is considered personal. However, if the other person could obtain that information elsewhere without much trouble—from social media or mutual friends, for example—your communication might not be as revealing as you think.

Honesty

Context of Sharing

Self-Disclosure Factors

It almost goes without saying that true self-­ Sometimes, the self-disclosing nature of a statement disclosure has to be honest. It’s not revealing to say, comes from the setting in which it is uttered. For “I’ve never felt this way about anyone before” to every Saturday night date, or to preface every lie with the statement “Let me be honest . . .” As long as you are honest and accurate to the best of your knowledge, communication can qualify as an act of self-disclosure. On the other hand, painting an incomplete picture of yourself (telling only part of what is true) is not genuine disclosure. We’ll talk more about the relationship between honesty and discloIf as little as 2 per cent of our communication qualifies as self-disclosure, how sure later in this chapter. do we get to know one another?

Motortion/iStockphoto

62

2 | Communication and the Self

instance, relatively innocuous information about family life seems more personal when a student shares it with the class (Frisby and Sidelinger, 2013), or when an athlete tells it to her coach (Officer and Rosenfeld, 1985), or when it’s shared online (Jiang et al., 2013; Kaishan et al., 2017; Ruppel et al., 2017). In these situations the person disclosing the information has less control over who has access to the information, how others might interpret what they have revealed, and what others might do with the information. Information that might not qualify as self-disclosure in one-on-one interactions with peers or at a gathering of friends and relatives is often perceived as personally revealing in these more public or power-imbalanced contexts. We can summarize our definitional tour by saying that self-disclosure (1) has the self as subject, (2) is intentional, (3) is directed at another person, (4) is honest, (5) is revealing, (6) contains information generally unavailable from other sources, and (7) gains much of its intimate nature from the context and culture in which it is expressed. Although many acts of communication may be self-revealing, this definition makes it clear that few of our statements may be classified as self-­ disclosure. Most conversations—even among friends and romantic partners—focus on everyday mundane topics and disclose little or no personal information (Alberts et al., 2005; Dindia et al., 1997).

CHECK IT! Describe all the qualities of self-disclosure.

Models of Self-Disclosure Now that you have an understanding of what self-disclosure is, let’s take a look at two models that help us better understand how it operates in ­relationships.

Degrees of Self-Disclosure: The Social Penetration Model Social psychologists Dalmas Taylor and Irwin Altman (1987) created the social penetration model,

which describes relationships in terms of breadth and depth of disclosure. Figure 2.2 depicts a student’s self-disclosure in one relationship as an example. The first dimension of self-disclosure in this model involves the breadth of information volunteered—the range of subjects being discussed. For example, the breadth of disclosure in your relationship with a fellow worker will expand as you begin revealing information about your life away from the job, as well as on-the-job details. The second dimension of disclosure is the depth of the information being volunteered—the shift from relatively unrevealing messages to more ­personal ones. Depending on the breadth and depth of information shared, a relationship can be defined as casual or intimate. In a casual relationship, the breadth may be great, but not the depth. A more intimate relationship is likely to have much depth in at least one area. The most intimate relationships are those in which disclosure is great in both breadth and depth. Altman and Taylor (1973) see the development of a relationship as a progression from the periphery of their model to its centre, a process that usually takes place gradually. Each of your personal relationships probably has a different combination of breadth of subjects and depth of revelation. One way to classify the depth of disclosure is to look at the types of information that can be revealed. Clichés are ritualized, stock responses to social situations—virtually the opposite of self-­ disclosure: “How are you doing?” “Fine.” Although hardly revealing, clichés can serve as a valuable kind of shorthand that makes it easy to keep the social wheels greased. Another kind of message involves communicating facts. Not all factual statements qualify as self-disclosure. To qualify, they must fit the criteria of being intentional, significant, and not otherwise known: “This isn’t my first try at college. I dropped out a year ago with terrible grades.” Disclosing personal facts like these suggests a level of trust and commitment that signals a desire to move the relationship to a new level of intimacy. Opinions can be a revealing kind of self-­ disclosure since they often reveal more about a person than facts alone do. Every time you offer a personal opinion (such as your political or religious

63

64

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

My career ambitions

Feelings about my physical appearance

Breadth

Feelings about our relationship

Depth

My opinions about our mutual friends

My relationships with members of the opposite sex

My academic life

My family background and problems

FIGURE 2.2  Sample Model of Social Penetration

beliefs or an analysis of another person), you are giving others valuable information about yourself. The fourth level of self-disclosure—and usually the most revealing one—involves the expression of feelings. At first glance, feelings might appear to be the same as opinions, but there’s a big difference. “I don’t think you’re telling me what’s on your mind” is an opinion. Notice how much more we learn about the speaker by looking at three different feelings that could accompany this statement: “I don’t think you’re telling me what’s on your mind . . . . . . and I’m suspicious.” . . . and I’m angry.” . . . and I’m hurt.”

Awareness of Self-Disclosure: The Johari Window Model Another way to illustrate how self-disclosure operates in communication is a model called the Johari

Window, developed by Joseph Luft and Harry ­Ingham (Janas, 2001; Luft, 1969). Imagine a frame that contains everything there is to know about you: your likes and dislikes, your goals, your secrets, your needs—everything. This frame could be divided into information you know about yourself and things you don’t know. It could also be split into things others know about you and things they don’t know. Figure 2.3 illustrates these divisions.

TAKE TWO • Social penetration model: two ways, measured by breadth and depth, that communication can be more or less disclosing. • Breadth: the range of subjects discussed. • Depth: the personal nature of information (significant and private self-disclosures, clichés, facts, opinions, and feelings).

2 | Communication and the Self

Known to self

Known to others

Not known to others

Not known to self

1 OPEN

2 BLIND

3 HIDDEN

4 UNKNOWN

FIGURE 2.3  Johari Window Source: From Group process: An introduction to group dynamics. Copyright © 1963, 1970 by Joseph Luft. Used with the permission of Mayfield Publishing Company.

Part 1 represents the information that both you and the other person already have. This part is your open area. Part 2 represents the blind area: information of which you are unaware, but that the other person knows. You learn about information in the blind area primarily through feedback from others. Part 3 of the Johari Window represents your hidden area: information that you know, but are not willing to reveal to others. Items in this hidden area become public primarily through self-disclosure. Part 4 of the Johari Window represents information that is unknown to both you and to others. At first, the unknown area seems impossible to verify. After all, if neither you nor others know what it contains, how can you be sure it exists at all? We can deduce its existence because we are constantly discovering new things about ourselves. For example, it is not unusual to discover that you have an unrecognized talent, strength, or weakness. Items move from the unknown area into the open area when you share your insight, or into the hidden area when you keep it secret. The relative size of each area in our personal Johari Window changes from time to time according to our moods, the subject we’re discussing, and our relationship with the other person. Despite these changes, a single Johari Window could represent most people’s overall style of disclosure.

CHECK IT! Describe the four quadrants of the Johari Window and the relationship of each to receptivity to feedback.

Benefits and Risks of Self-Disclosure By now, it should be clear that neither all-out disclosure nor complete privacy is desirable. On the one hand, self-disclosure is a key factor in relationship development, and relationships suffer when people keep important information from each other (Porter and Chambless, 2014). On the other hand, revealing deeply personal information can threaten the stability, or even the survival, of a relationship. Communication researchers use the term privacy management to describe the choices people make to reveal or conceal information about themselves (Hammonds, 2015; Petronio, 2013). In the following pages, we will outline both the risks and benefits of opening yourself to others.

Benefits of Self-Disclosure Although the amount of self-disclosure varies from one person and relationship to another, all of us share important information about ourselves at one time or another. There are a variety of reasons we disclose personal information (Duprez et al., 2015). Catharsis  Sometimes, you might disclose information in an effort to “get it off your chest.” Catharsis can indeed relieve the burden of pent-up emotions (Pennebaker, 1997), whether face-to-face or online (Vermeulen et al., 2018), but when it is the only goal of disclosure, the results of opening up may not be positive. Later in this chapter, we’ll discuss guidelines for self-disclosure that improve your chance of achieving catharsis in a way that helps, instead of harms, relationships. Self-Clarification  It’s often possible to clarify your beliefs, opinions, thoughts, attitudes, and feelings by

65

Willing to disclose

Willing to disclose Open to feedback I

Willing to disclose

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

Willing to disclose

66

Open to feedback III

Open to feedback II

Open to feedback IV

FIGURE 2.4  How Limited Disclosure Blocks Communication Source: From Group process: An introduction to group dynamics. Copyright © 1963, 1970 by Joseph Luft. Used with the permission of Mayfield Publishing Company.

talking about them with another person. This gaining of insight by “talking the problem out” is central to most psychotherapy, but it also goes on in other relationships, ranging all the way from close friendships to conversations with bartenders or hairdressers. Self-Validation  If you disclose information with the hope of seeking the listener’s agreement (“I think you did the right thing”), you are seeking validation of your behaviour—confirmation of a belief you hold about yourself. On a deeper level, this sort of self-validating disclosure seeks confirmation of important parts of your self-concept. Validation from others is a significant motivator for public social media posts (Bazarova and Choi, 2014). Self-validation through self-disclosure is an important part of the “coming out” process through which LGBTQ+ people share their sexual orientation and choose to integrate this knowledge into their personal, familial, and social lives (Manning, 2015). Reciprocity A well-documented conclusion from research is that one person’s act of self-disclosure makes it more likely that the other person will reveal personal information (Sprecher et al., 2015). There is no guarantee that revealing personal information about yourself will trigger self-disclosures by others, but your own honesty can create a climate that makes the other person feel safer, and perhaps even obligated to match your level of candour. Sometimes, revealing personal information will cause the other person to do so within the same conversation. It’s easy to imagine how telling a partner how you

feel about the relationship (“I’ve been feeling bored lately”) would generate the same degree of candour (“You know, I’ve felt the same way!”). This kind of give and take occurs online as well (Dai et al., 2016). It’s important to keep in mind that reciprocity does not always occur at the same time. Telling a friend today about your job-related problems might help her feel comfortable telling you about her family history later, when the time is right for this sort of disclosure. Impression Management Sometimes, we reveal personal information to make ourselves more attractive, and research shows that this strategy seems to work. One study revealed that both men’s and women’s attractiveness was associated with the amount of self-disclosure in conversations (Stiles et al., 1996). Consider a couple on their first date. It’s not hard to imagine how one or both partners might share personal information to appear more sincere, interesting, sensitive, or curious about the other person. The same principle applies in other situations. A salesperson might say, “I’ll be honest with you . . .” primarily to show that they’re on your side. Maintenance and Enhancement of Relationships  Research demonstrates that we like people who disclose personal information to us. In fact, the relationship between self-disclosure and liking works in several directions. In face-to-face and online interactions we like people who disclose personal information to us (Dindia, 2002; Kashian et al., 2017; Lin and Utz, 2017). In face-toface interactions, we reveal more about ourselves

2 | Communication and the Self

to people we like, and we tend to like others more after we have disclosed to them (Dindia, 2002). Beyond fostering liking, disclosure (if it’s appropriate, of course) is related to relationship maintenance too. For instance, appropriate self-disclosure is associated with greater martial satisfaction across numerous cultures (Cordova, Gee, and Warren, 2005; Kito, 2005; Quek and Fitzpatrick 2013). Not surprisingly, partners who reveal personal information to each other often avoid the sorts of misunderstandings that lead to unhappiness and build greater trust and intimacy. In contrast, the tendency to hide personal information from others has been identified as a predictor of interpersonal conflict and less relationship satisfaction (Uysal et al., 2012). Moral Obligation  Sometimes, we disclose personal information out of a sense of moral obligation. People who are HIV positive, for example, are often faced with the choice of whether or not they should tell their partners. Hirsch Allen and his ­colleagues in British Columbia (2014) found that 73 per cent of HIV-positive men and women in their study disclosed their HIV-positive status to their sexual partners. This rate of disclosure is slightly higher than studies done in countries where there is less criminalization of non-disclosure. However, ­additional research has revealed that it is people’s belief that they have a moral duty to tell their partners that consistently predicts disclosure rates among people who are HIV positive. Laws criminalizing non-disclosure in a particular jurisdiction have been much less influential (O’Byrne, 2012).

The Risks of Self-Disclosure While the benefits of  disclosing are certainly important, opening up can also involve risks that make the decision to disclose a difficult and sometimes painful one (Afifi and Coughlin, 2007; Christofides et al., 2012). The risks (and fears) of self-disclosure fall into six common categories (Greene et al., 2006; Rosenfeld, 2000), including rejection, causing a negative impression, deceased relational satisfaction, loss of influence, loss of control, and hurting the other person. We’ll take a closer look at these in the following pages.

TAKE TWO BENEFITS OF SELF-DISCLOSURE • Catharsis: revealing thoughts, feelings, and emotions to release emotional burden. • Self-clarification: talking about beliefs, thoughts, opinions, and attitudes to gain insight. • Reciprocity: disclosing information to increase the likelihood that the other person will do the same. • Impression management: revealing personal information in order to make ourselves more attractive. • Maintenance and enhancement of relationships: foster liking and maintain healthy relationships through disclosure. • Moral obligation: disclosing information because of a sense of duty.

Rejection John Powell (1969) sums up the risks of disclosing in answering the question that forms the title of his book Why Am I Afraid to Tell You Who I Am? “I am afraid to tell you who I am, because, if I tell you who I am, you may not like who I am, and that’s all I have.” The fear of disapproval is powerful. Sometimes, it’s exaggerated and il­logical, but there are real dangers in revealing ­personal information: A: I’m starting to think of you as more than a friend. To tell the truth, I think I love you. B: I think we should stop seeing one another. Negative Impression  Even if disclosure does not lead to total rejection, it can create a negative impression. A: You know, I’ve never had a relationship that lasted more than a month. B: Really? I wonder what that says about you. Decrease in Relational Satisfaction Besides affecting other people’s opinions of you, disclosure can lead to a decrease in the satisfaction that comes from a relationship. Consider a scenario like this, where the incompatible wants and needs of both people become clear through disclosure:

67

68

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

A: Let’s get together with Youssef and Sahar on Saturday night. B: To tell you the truth, I’m tired of seeing Youssef and Sahar. I don’t have much fun with them, and I think Youssef is kind of a jerk. A: But they’re my best friends! Loss of Influence  Another risk of disclosure is a possible loss of influence in the relationship. Once you confess a secret weakness, your control over how the other person views you can be diminished. A: I’m sorry I was so sarcastic. Sometimes, I build myself up by putting you down. B: Is that it? I’ll never let you get away with that again! Loss of Control Revealing something personal about yourself means losing control of the information. What might happen if the person tells someone else what you disclosed—people you prefer didn’t know, or whom you would like to tell yourself? A: I never really liked Nor. I agreed to go out because it meant a good meal in a nice restaurant. B: Really? Nor would certainly like to know that! Hurting the Other Person  Even if revealing hidden information leaves you feeling better, it might hurt others—cause them to be upset, for example. It’s probably easy to imagine yourself in a situation like this: A: Well, since you asked, I have felt less attracted to you lately. B: I know! I don’t see how you can stand me at all!

Alternatives to Self-Disclosure Though self-disclosure plays an important role in interpersonal relationships, it’s not the only type of communication available. To understand why complete honesty is not always easy or ideal, consider some familiar situations:

You’ve grown increasingly annoyed by some habits of the person you live with. You fear that bringing up this topic could lead to an unpleasant conversation and maybe damage the relationship. Your friend, who is headed out the door for an important job interview, says, “I know I’ll never get this job! I’m really not qualified, and besides, I look terrible.” You agree with your friend’s assessment. You’ve just been given a large, extremely ugly lamp as a gift by a relative who visits your home often. How would you answer the question, “Where will you put it?”

Although honesty is desirable in principle, it often has risky, potentially unpleasant consequences. It is tempting to sidestep situations where self-disclosure would be difficult, but examples like the ones you just read show that avoidance is not always possible. Research and personal experience show that communicators—even those with the best intentions—are not always completely honest when they find themselves in situations when honesty would be uncomfortable (Ennis et al., 2008; Scott, 2010). Four common alternatives to self-­ disclosure are remaining silent or being secretive, lying, equivocating, and hinting. We will take a closer look at each one.

Silence and Secrecy One alternative to self-disclosure is to keep your thoughts and feelings to yourself. Keeping silent is one way to avoid disclosing information you would rather keep private, particularly in situations when you are not asked directly about it. In their exploration of the dark and light sides of avoidance and secrets, Tamara Afifi, John Caughlin, and Waid Afifi (2007) discuss what characterizes secrecy. They suggest that secrets involve intentionally concealing private information that the individual considers too risky to reveal. Not all silence is secretive; however, when you choose silence over disclosure you have made a choice to conceal information, at least in that particular situation. As we’ve discussed throughout this text, talk–silence patterns vary by culture, and many

2 | Communication and the Self

TAKE TWO RISKS OF SELF-DISCLOSURE • Rejection: disclosure may cause disapproval. • Negative impression: even if disclosure doesn’t cause outright rejection, it can make you look bad. • Decrease in relational satisfaction: relationships can suffer from disclosure. • Loss of influence: disclosure may reveal your weakness, and you may have less influence over others. • Loss of control: people can tell others what you have disclosed and thus control information that you want to manage. • Hurting the other person: disclosure might cause the other person to be upset.

Canadians find prolonged silences uncomfortable, but this is not the case in many Asian and Canadian Indigenous cultures. Within any culture, some people are more inclined to keep their emotions and thoughts to themselves (Vrij et al., 2003). Determining whether or not information is private (others have no claim to it) or whether it is a secret (we are keeping it from people who have a right to know) involves considering the ethics of evasion, which we will discuss a little later in this chapter.

Lying A lie is a deliberate attempt to hide or misrepresent the truth. Lying to gain unfair advantage over an unknowing victim seems clearly wrong. Lies can provoke negative emotions in the recipient, damage their trust of the liar, and can motivate revenge and further dishonesty. Lies are damaging to relationships (Lupoli et al., 2018; Tyler et al., 2006). However, not all lies are created equally. A benevolent lie is defined (at least by the person who tells it) as one that is not malicious—and perhaps is even helpful to the person it’s told to. The most obvious reason for benevolent lying is to protect the other person’s feelings. You can almost certainly recall times when you have been less than truthful in order to

avoid hurting someone you care for. Benevolent lies are common even in our closest relationships (DePaulo et al., 2009). Our perceptions of the liar’s motivation appear to determine the extent to which we judge lies as undermining our trust of others (Cantarero et al., 2018). When people lie for self-serving reasons (e.g., to make themselves look better or gain an advantage) we judge them as untrustworthy, but when people tell lies with the intention of benefiting others we tend to trust them more (Levine and Schweiter, 2015). Cross-cultural research suggests our understanding of what constitutes a lie is influenced by socio-cultural conventions, at least to some extent. In a series of studies done over the past two decades researchers in Canada and China have found that Chinese children are significantly more likely than Canadian children to judge lying to hide one’s good deeds as positive and telling the truth about one’s good deeds as undesirable (Lee et al., 1997). In these investigations, Chinese adults, unlike Canadian adults and both Chinese and Canadian children, considered untruthful statements made to conceal a person’s own good deeds not to be lies at all (Fu et al., 2001; Xu et al., 2009). Similarly, Chinese children aged 9 to 17 years judged lies told to benefit a group they belonged to (e.g., their class, school, country) less negatively as they got older (Fu et al., 2016). These investigators suggest that that the emphasis Chinese culture places on modesty and its importance for maintaining group cohesiveness and harmony influences Chinese people’s conceptualizations of lies and their moral judgments. According to research conducted at Cornell University’s Social Media Lab, the most frequent type of lies we tell each other via mediated communication is “butler lies.” Butler lies are small lies that help us manage our availability, in much the same way as a butler might manage the access to an employer (Hancock et al., 2009; Reynolds et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2014). Examples of butler lies are things like “I’m on my way” (when you haven’t left), or “Can’t meet later. Busy” (when you’re not busy) or “Sorry, just got your message” (when you got it a while ago). They make use of ambiguities that arise from the fact that both communicators are not in the same place. People report using butler lies to avoid hurting other people’s feelings or to save face

69

70

Andjic/Dreamstime.com

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

that are not literally false but cleverly avoid an ­unpleasant  truth (Bello, 2005). The value of equivocation becomes clear when you consider the alternatives. Consider the dilemma of what to say when you’ve been given an unwanted present—an ugly painting, for example—and the giver asks what you think of it. How can you respond? On the one hand, you need to choose between telling the truth and lying. At the same time, you have a choice of whether to make your response clear or vague. Figure 2.5 disWhen do you think benevolent lying is the right thing to do? When is it harmful? plays these choices. After considering the alternaand to help manage the pressure of being expected tives, we clearly see that the first to always be available. option—an equivocal, true response—is far preferTable 2.2 presents some common reasons given able to the other choices in several respects—mainly, for lying. because it spares the receiver embarrassment. Rather than flatly saying no to an unappealing invitation, it may be kinder to say, “I have other plans”—even if those plans are to stay home and watch television. The underlying content of equivocal messages (e.g., unwillingness to accept the invitation) is often What reasons do people give for lying and what are the effects of lies? understood by their recipients but these ambiguous messages are taken as more polite than the truth might be (Bello and Edwards, 2005). However, when Clearly, lies can elicit different responses and the risks of a negative interpretation of an equivocal are not equal in terms of the damage they do to message are high, for example, in response to your relationships. An occasional benevolent lie in co-worker bringing up a recent job interview you an otherwise honest relationship does not pose had with another company in front of your supermuch threat. Major deception though—especially visor, most people prefer not to equivocate (Bello when it’s part of a pattern of deceit—is a different et al., 2016). In high-risk situations people are more matter. Lying about major parts of your relation- likely to tell the truth or lie. Some forms of equivocation rely on telling parship can lead to the end of that relationship. So, if tial truths (Rogers et al., 2017). Imagine you had preserving a relationship is important to you, then ­honesty—at least about important matters—really promised to be home right after class but instead went out for drinks with classmates. Upon arriving does appear to be the best policy. home late you might justify being late by saying, “One of my friends from class needed to talk about Equivocation a personal problem.” Even if your time at the pub Lying isn’t the only alternative to self-disclosure. included this conversation this technically honest When faced with difficult choices, communicators statement is clearly an act of deception. Communican—and often do—use equivocation: statements cators who hedge the truth view this strategy as

CHECK IT!

2 | Communication and the Self

TABLE 2.2  Some Reasons for Lying Reason

Example

Save face for self

“Oh, I never got that invitation!”

Save face for others

“Don’t worry about forgetting my get-together. It really was no big deal.”

Acquire resources

“Oh, please let me add this class. If I don’t get in, I’ll never graduate on time!”

Protect resources

“I’d like to lend you the money, but I’m short myself.”

Initiate interaction

“Excuse me, I’m lost. Do you live around here?”

Be socially gracious

“No, I’m not bored—tell me more about your vacation.”

Avoid conflict

“It’s not a big deal. We can do it your way. Really.”

Avoid interaction

“That sounds like fun, but I’m busy Saturday night.”

Be able to leave

“Oh, look what time it is! I’ve got to run!”

Present a competent image

“Sure I understand. No problem.”

Increase social desirability

“Yes, I’ve done a fair amount of skiing.”

SOURCE: Adapted from Dunbar, N.E., Gangi, K., Coveleski, S., Adams, A., Bernhold, Q., and Giles, H. (2016). When is it acceptable to lie? Interpersonal and intergroup perspectives on deception. Communication Studies, 67(2), 129–46.

less ethically dubious than more blatant forms of deception. Technically speaking, they reason, they did not tell a lie. Nevertheless, when those on the receiving end discover the full story, they’re likely to be just as offended as if the person had told them an outright lie (McGregor, 2017).

Hinting Hints are more direct than equivocal statements. Whereas an equivocal message is not necessarily

aimed at changing another’s behaviour, a hint seeks to get the desired response from the other person. As Michael Motley (1992) suggests, some hints are designed to save the receiver from embarrassment. For example: Direct Statement

Face-Saving Hint

I liked your old hairstyle better than the new one.

This is a new look for you. You have such great hair! You can wear any style.

I’m too busy to I know you’re busy; I’d continue with this better let you go. conversation. I wish you would let me go.

Equivocal OPTION I: (Equivocal, True Message)

OPTION II: (Equivocal, False Message)

“What an unusual painting! I’ve never seen anything like it!”

“Thanks for the painting. I’ll hang it as soon as I can find just the right place.”

OPTION III: (Clear, True Message)

OPTION IV: (Clear, False Message)

Direct Statement

Face-Saving Hint

“It’s just not my kind of painting. I don’t like the colours, the style, or the subject.”

“What a beautiful painting! I love it.”

Please don’t smoke here; it bothers me.

I’m pretty sure that smoking isn’t permitted here.

I’d like to invite you out for lunch, but I don’t want to risk a “no” answer to my invitation.

Gee, it’s almost lunch time. Have you ever eaten at that new Italian restaurant around the corner?

True

False

Clear

FIGURE 2.5  Dimensions of Truthfulness and Equivocation

Other hints are less concerned with protecting the receiver than with saving the sender from embarrassment, such as:

71

72

William Haefeli/Cartoonstock

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

TAKE TWO ALTERNATIVES TO SELF-DISCLOSURE • Silence or secrecy: saying nothing. • Lying: deliberately attempting to hide or misrepresent the truth. • Equivocation: giving a response that has two or more equally plausible meanings. • Hinting: making a face-saving remark designed to get a desired response.

The success of a hint depends on the other person’s ability to pick up the unexpressed message. Your subtle remarks may go right over the head of an insensitive receiver or one who chooses not to respond to them. If this happens, you still have the choice to be more direct. If the costs of a straightforward message seem too high, you can withdraw without risk.

The Ethics of Evasion We can clearly see why people often choose hints, equivocations, and/or benevolent lies instead of complete self-disclosure. These strategies are easier ways to manage difficult situations than the alternatives

for both the speaker and the receiver of the message. In this sense, successful liars, equivocators, and hinters can be said to possess a certain kind of communicative competence. On the other hand, there are times when honesty is the right approach, even if it’s painful. At times like these, evaders could be viewed as lacking either the competence or the integrity to handle a situation effectively. Are hints, benevolent lies, and equivocations ethical alternatives to self-disclosure? Some of the examples in these pages suggest the answer is a qualified yes. Many social scientists and philosophers agree. For example, researchers David Buller and Judee Burgoon (1994) argue that the morality of a speaker’s motives for lying, not the deceptive act itself, ought to be judged. Another approach is to consider whether the effects of a lie will be worth the deception. Ethicist Sissela Bok (1978) says deception may be justified if it does good things, prevents harm, and/or protects a larger truth. Perhaps the right questions to ask, then, are whether an indirect message is truly in the interests of the receiver, and whether this sort of evasion is the only effective way to behave. Bok suggests another way to check the justifiability of a lie: imagine how others would respond if they knew what you were really thinking or feeling. Would they accept your reasons for not telling the truth?

Guidelines for Self-Disclosure Self-disclosure is a special kind of sharing that is not desirable in every situation. Let’s look at some guidelines that can help you recognize how to express yourself in a way that’s rewarding for you and for the others involved.

Is the Other Person Important to You? There are several ways in which someone might be important. Perhaps you have an ongoing relationship deep enough that sharing significant parts of yourself justifies keeping your present level of togetherness intact. Or perhaps the other person is someone you know, but not intimately. Now you see a chance to grow closer, and disclosure may be the path toward developing that personal relationship.

2 | Communication and the Self

BUILDING WORK SKILLS DISCLOSURE AT WORK Imagine a situation at work where you’ve made a mistake. Imagine that part of the reason for your error is related to something personal (for example, a conflict in a relationship, a disability you have, or a bias you have). In order for the problem to be corrected, you need to tell either your co-worker, or your supervisor. Whom would you tell? What would you say? How much information would you reveal? Describe the risks and benefits of the choices you made. Share your approach and list of the risks and benefits with a classmate. Do they agree with your analysis? Why or why not?

Is the Risk of Disclosing Reasonable? Most people intuitively calculate the potential benefits of disclosing against the risks of doing so (Afifi and Steuber, 2009). Even if the probable benefits are great, opening yourself up to almost certain rejection may be asking for trouble. For instance, it might be foolhardy to share your important feelings with someone who is likely to betray your confidences or ridicule them. On the other hand, knowing that your partner will respect the information makes the prospect of speaking out more reasonable. Revealing personal thoughts and feelings can be especially risky on the job (Connell, 2012). The politics of the workplace sometimes require communicators to keep their feelings to themselves in order to accomplish both personal and organizational goals. You may find the opinions of a manager or customer personally offensive, but decide to bite your tongue rather than risk your job or lose goodwill for the company.

Is the Self-Disclosure Appropriate? It is important, and quite interesting, to recognize that revealing your emotions and thoughts to others activates the same reward centres in the brain that are activated by food and sex (Tamir and Mitchell, 2012). However, while self-disclosure is intrinsically rewarding, it’s not always the best course of action. Generally, it’s not wise to reveal highly personal secrets in public forums such as in classrooms or on social media sites (Frisby and

Sidelinger, 2013). One of the problems with online communication is that the experience of being online (as the user perceives it, often in private or at home) is not the same reality as is found on the internet, where privacy settings can and are breached, and monitoring by companies and third parties is routine. It’s been said, “If you’re not paying for something, then you’re not the customer; you’re the product being sold.” On the other hand, sharing personal information in private settings is part of relationship development and can promote trust and intimacy (Greene et al., 2006). But even during a phase of high disclosure, sharing everything about yourself isn’t necessarily ­constructive. Self-disclosure is not an all-or-­nothing proposition. It’s possible to reveal information in some situations and keep it to yourself in others. In any case, disclosure should be relevant and appropriate to the situation at hand.

Is the Disclosure Reciprocated? There is nothing quite as disconcerting as talking your heart out to someone, only to discover that the other person has yet to say anything to you that is even half as revealing. You think to yourself, “What am I doing?” Unequal self-disclosure creates an unbalanced relationship, one with potential problems. The reciprocal nature of effective disclosure doesn’t mean that you are obliged to match every one of another person’s revelations. In order to maintain mutual investment in a relationship, disclosure needs to be balanced over time.

73

74

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

kali9/iStockphoto

another person, and usually at a great cost to the relationship. It’s important to consider the effects of your candour before opening up to others. Comments such as “I’ve always thought you were pretty unintelligent,” or “Last year, I made love to your best friend,” may sometimes resolve old business and thus be constructive, but they can also be devastating—to the listener, to the relationship, and to your self-esteem.

Self-disclosure has its risks and rewards. When has disclosing something about yourself helped a relationship you’ve had? When has it hurt a relationship?

Will the Effect Be C ­ onstructive? Self-disclosure can be a vicious tool if it’s not used carefully. Every person has a psychological boundary to subjects that are extremely sensitive to them. Intruding in that area is a sure way to disable

CHECK IT! Describe the five factors you need to consider before disclosing information about yourself to others.

SUMMARY The self-concept is a relatively stable set of views that people hold about themselves. It begins to develop soon after birth, and is shaped by the appraisals of significant others and by social comparisons with reference groups. The self-concept develops in the context of the larger socio–cultural environment. Language affects the development of our self-concept, as do a number of cultural values. The most fundamental of these values is a culture’s individualistic–collectivistic orientation. The self-concept is subjective and can be substantially different from the way a person is perceived by others. Although the self may evolve, the self-­ concept resists change. A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a person’s expectations of an event influence the outcome. A prophecy can consist of predictions (positive or negative) by others, or it may be self-imposed.

It’s possible to change one’s self-concept in ways that lead to more effective communication. Identity management consists of an individual’s strategic communication designed to influence other people’s perceptions. Identity management aims at presenting one or more faces to others, which may be different from the spontaneous behaviour that takes place in private. Some communicators are high self-monitors who are very conscious of their own behaviour, while others are less aware of how their words and actions affect others. Communicating through mediated channels can enhance a person’s ability to manage impressions. Since each person has a variety of faces that they can reveal, choosing which one to present is a central concern of competent communicators. Self-disclosure consists of honest, revealing messages about the self that are intentionally

2 | Communication and the Self

directed toward others. Disclosed communication contains information that is generally unavailable from other sources. The percentage of messages that are truly self-disclosing is relatively low. Two models for examining self-disclosure in relationships are the social penetration model and the Johari Window. The social penetration model describes two dimensions of self-disclosure: breadth and depth. The Johari Window uses four window panes to illustrate how much information

a person reveals to others, hides, is blind to, and is unaware of. Communicators choose to disclose or not to disclose personal information for a variety of reasons. Four alternatives to revealing self-disclosures are silence, lies, equivocations, and hints. When deciding whether or not to disclose, communicators should consider a variety of factors, such as the importance of the other person to them, the risk involved, and the appropriateness, relevance, and constructiveness of the disclosure.

MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS 1.

A relatively stable set of perceptions you hold about yourself and the ability to treat yourself with concern are a. b. c. d.

2.

self-concept and self-disclosure. self-esteem and self-compassion. self-concept and self-compassion. self-esteem and self-concept.

reflected appraisal and social comparison reflected appraisal and self-control reference groups and significant others power distance and uncertainty avoidance

6.

People from which type of culture are more likely to be restrained and use persuasion, silence, and ambiguity in their communication?

Which of the following is true about the self-concept? a. The self-concept changes easily and is subjective. b. The self-concept is subjective and distorted feedback can have a lasting effect. c. The self-concept changes easily and is unaffected by social expectations. d. The self-concept is distorted by obsolete information, but not by social expectations.

Which of the following statements is false? a. Facework describes the verbal and non-verbal ways in which we act to maintain our own presenting image. b. The person you believe yourself to be at moments of private self-examination is called the perceived self. c. Identity management includes the communication strategies that people use to influence how others view them. d. The presenting self is a private image— the way we want to appear to ourselves.

a. collectivistic b. resistant c. avoidant d. individualistic 4.

Ying is nervous about her job interview and has convinced herself that she will not do well. Her nervousness causes her to be tongue-tied during the interview and she does not impress the employer. Ying’s expectations and subsequent behaviour demonstrate the power of a. self-devaluation. b. equivocation. c. distorted feedback. d. self-fulfilling prophecies.

What are the two theories that explain how social interaction shapes the self-concept? a. b. c. d.

3.

5.

7.

Which of the following statements about identity management is true? a. We strive to construct a single, coherent identity. b. Identity management is done privately. c. People differ in the degree of identity management. d. Identity management is always conscious.

75

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

8.

Which of the following statements is false? a. Mediated communication can serve as a tool for identity management at least as well as the face-to-face variety. b. Part of the appeal of Snapchat is that it requires less impression management. c. Overly positive self-authored content about one’s self is usually perceived positively in mediated communication. d. Identity management is sometimes dishonest

9.

The social penetration model includes a. the reciprocity and depth of information volunteered.

b. catharsis and self-validation of information volunteered. c. the breadth and depth of information volunteered. d. the breadth and social influence of information volunteered. 10. Silence, lies, equivocations, and hints are a. alternatives to revealing self-disclosures. b. “butler” methods that maintain our identity management. c. ways of making use of ambiguities due to the asynchronous nature of the communication. d. benevolent distortions of the truth.

Answers: 1. c; 2. a; 3. a; 4. b; 5. d; 6. d; 7. c; 8. c; 9. c; 10. a

76

ACTIVITIES 1. Invitation to Insight What reference groups do you use to define your self-concept? You can recognize your social comparison groups by answering the following questions: a. Select one area in which you compare yourself to others. In what area is the comparison made? (For example, is the comparison based on wealth, intelligence, social skill?) b. In the selected area, ask yourself, “Which people am I better or worse than?” c. In the selected area, ask yourself, “Which people am I the same as or different from?” What is the effect of using these groups as a basis for judging yourself? How might you view yourself differently if you used other reference groups as a basis for comparison? 2. Invitation to Insight Describe two incidents in which self-fulfilling prophecies you imposed on yourself affected your communication. Explain how each of these predictions shaped your behaviour, and describe how you might have behaved differently if you had made a different prediction. 3. Critical Thinking Probe What social forces affect the development of self-concept in childhood and beyond? To what

degree do these forces contribute to healthy or unhealthy self-concepts? Use three specific messages to illustrate your answers. Then, discuss how individuals can reduce the effect of unhealthy forces in their everyday lives. 4. Skill Builder a. Make a list of some personal information you have not shared with a family member. Then, make a second list of information you haven’t disclosed to a friend. b. For each item on your lists, consider the worst consequences if you were to reveal this information and the best possible consequences from disclosing this information. c. Evaluate the most likely outcome if you were to disclose, and then conduct a risk–benefit analysis to decide whether or not to keep the information private or share it. 5. Ethical Challenge You can gain a clearer sense of the ethical implications of impression management by following these directions: a. Make a list of the different presenting selves you try to communicate at school or work, to family members, to friends, and to various types of strangers—in either face-to-face

2 | Communication and the Self

c­ ommunication or by computer-mediated communication. b. Which of these selves are honest, and which are deceptive? c. Are any deceptive impressions you try to create justified? What would be the consequences of being completely candid in the situations you have described? Referring to your answers to these questions, develop a set of guidelines to distinguish ethical and unethical impression management. 6. Role Play With a partner, imagine yourselves in each of the following situations. Choose your respective parts in each scenario, and then choose the most effective way you could act. Role-play your choices.

a. You offer to teach a friend a new skill, such as playing the guitar, using a computer program, or sharpening up a tennis backhand. Your friend is making slow progress, and you find yourself growing impatient. b. At a party, you meet someone you find very attractive, and you’re pretty sure the feeling is mutual. You feel an obligation to spend most of your time with the person you came with, but the opportunity here is very appealing. c. At work, you face a belligerent customer. You don’t believe that anyone has the right to treat you this way. d. A friend or family member makes a joke about your appearance that hurts your feelings. You aren’t sure whether or not to make an issue of the remark or to pretend that it doesn’t bother you.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1.

What is the difference between self-concept and self-esteem? How does each affect interpersonal communication?

2.

Are language and culture important in the development of one’s self-concept? Why or why not?

3.

Given the characteristics of self-concept, how amenable is it to change? Support your position by referring both to the characteristics of

the self-concept and research regarding influences on its development. 4.

Where do you draw the line between identity management as competent communication and dishonest manipulation? Support your position by referring to arguments presented in this chapter.

5.

How are lying, silence, hinting, and equivocation different? Are they morally different?

JOURNAL IDEAS 1.

Create a list of words or a collage of pictures (or a bit of both) that represents aspects of your self-concept that you present to others (presenting self). Create a second word list or collage that represents your private self. How did you learn about these aspects of yourself? Consider the processes of reflected appraisal and social comparison in your analysis—who are your significant others and reference groups? How accurate

is this representation? What are possible reasons for an inaccurate assessment? What would you like to change? 2.

Recall a couple of times when you disclosed personal information with very different outcomes (one positive situation and one negative situation). Review the guidelines for self-disclosure (found on page 72) to analyze each situation and the different outcomes.

77

ferrantraite/iStockphoto

3

Perceiving Others

CHAPTER OUTLINE The Perception Process Reality is Constructed Steps in the Perception Process

Influences on Perception Access to Information Physiological Influences Psychological Influences Social Influences Cultural Influences

Common Tendencies in Perception We Make Snap Judgments We Cling to First Impressions We Judge Ourselves More Charitably than We Do Others We Are Influenced by Our Expectations We Are Influenced by the Obvious We Assume Others Are Similar to Us

Perceiving Others More Accurately Perception Checking Building Empathy

KEY TERMS achievement culture androgyny attribution confirmation bias empathy fundamental attribution error gender halo effect horns effect interpretation narratives negotiation

nurturing culture organization perception perception checking power distance primacy effect punctuation selection self-serving bias sensation standpoint theory uncertainty avoidance

LEARNING OUTCOMES YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO: • • • • •

Describe the subjective nature of perceiving interpersonal messages and relationships Explain how access to information, physiological, psychological, social, and cultural factors influence interpersonal perception Summarize common tendencies in perception that can sometimes lead to misperceptions Use perception checking to clarify your understanding of another person’s point of view Describe the value of empathy in interpersonal communication and relationships

80

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

“Some people see the glass half full. Others see it half empty. I see a glass that’s twice as big as it needs to be.”

so different to each of us. After examining the perceptual factors that make understanding so difficult, we’ll look at tools for bridging the perceptual gap.

– George Carlin

It all depends on how you look at it! Doughnut, hole, or misshapen beignet? Sincere, phony, or trying too hard? Attractive or not your type? As we discussed in Chapter 2, each of us has our unique point of view. Who you are and how you were raised are unique to you, which means that no one perceives the world exactly the way you do. This essential principle significantly affects interpersonal relations, as communicators attempt to share meaning from perspectives that are often quite different. The brilliance of many observational comedians is their ability to describe something, often very commonplace, that we pay little attention to, from an unexpected, unique, and humorous angle. Just like the boxes in Figure 3.1, every interpersonal situation can be seen from multiple points of view. Take a minute to study that figure. How many ways can you discover to view this image? If you see only one or two, keep looking. (You can see at least four ways of viewing the image by looking at Figure 3.2.) If it’s hard to make quick and accurate sense of simple drawings, imagine the challenge involved in trying to understand the perspectives of other human beings, who are far more complex and multi-dimensional. In this chapter, we provide tools for communicating in the face of perceptual differences. We’ll begin by explaining that we construct reality by assigning meaning to our sensations. Then we’ll introduce some of the many reasons why the world appears

The Perception Process How do our perceptions affect our communication with others? Recall from the communication model presented in Chapter 1, meanings exist in and among people. Each of us actively constructs our own reality. So, how do we do this?

Reality Is Constructed Most social scientists agree that the world we know isn’t “out there.” Rather we create our reality by interpreting and assigning meaning to the information we gather through our senses. Sensation describes how our sense organs (e.g., eyes, ears, nose, mouth, skin) pick up information from the environment (e.g., light waves, sound waves, chemicals, pressure, and temperature) and translate them into messages our brains can process. The process of assigning meaning to the information we receive from our senses is perception. Our ears sense sounds in hertz and decibels but our brains perceive a friend’s laughter and a favourite song. Our eyes sense light waves of varying intensities but our brains perceive a colleague looking puzzled. Sensations are the raw materials of our experiences in the world and perceptions are the meanings we assign to them. The process of making meaning of our interactions with others involves four steps, which we’ll discuss next.

Steps in the Perception Process Selection Since we’re exposed to more sensory input than we can possibly manage, the first step in perception is the selection of which data we will attend to. There are several factors that cause us to notice some messages and ignore others (Wood et al., 2016). FIGURE 3.1  Two Cubes Touching

• Intensity. Something that is louder, larger, or brighter stands out. Someone who laughs or

3 | Perceiving Others

FIGURE 3.2  Four Ways of Viewing Two Cubes Touching

talks loudly at a party attracts more attention (although not always favourable) than quieter guests do. • Repetition. Repetitious stimuli can also attract our attention. Just as a quiet, but steadily dripping tap can come to dominate our awareness, people to whom we’re often exposed will become noticeable. • Contrast or change. Unchanging people or things are less noticeable. For example, we may appreciate our significant others more when they leave. • Motives. Our intentions in a situation also determine what we pay attention to. For example, someone on the lookout for a romantic adventure will be especially aware of attractive potential partners, whereas the same person in an emergency might be oblivious to anyone except the police or medical personnel. • Emotional state. Our moods shape what we select. People in a sad mood notice less of what’s going on around them than those in happier moods (Kaspar et al., 2013; Zimasa et al., 2017).

Organization After selecting information from the environment, the next stage is organization, or arranging it in some meaningful way (out of many possibilities) to

help make sense of the world. The raw sense data we perceive can be organized in more than one way. (See Figure 3.2 for a visual example of this principle.) We organize using perceptual schema, which are cognitive frameworks (Macrae and Bodenhausen, 2001). We use various types of schema to classify other people, including the following (Freeman and Ambady, 2011): • Physical (e.g., thin or heavy, accent or no accent, old or young) • Role-based (e.g., student, electrician, spouse) • Interaction-based (e.g., friendly, helpful, aloof, sarcastic) • Psychological (e.g., generous, anxious, moody, shy) Once we’ve chosen an organizing schema to classify people, we use that schema to make generalizations about members of the groups who fit our categories. For example, if you’re especially aware of a person’s attractiveness, you might be alert to the differences in the way beautiful and plain people are treated (more on this in Chapter 7). If religion plays an important part in your life, you might think of members of your faith differently than you do of others. We then organize our observations into generalizations. (“Teachers usually. . . .,” “Shy people often . . .,” “Men tend to . . . .”). There’s

81

82

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

FOCUS ON RESEARCH THE MYTH OF MULTI-TASKING AND SOCIAL MEDIA Given that our attention is limited and we select what to pay attention to in any given moment, is it really possible to multi-task? Well, maybe if the tasks are several things required to prepare a meal (e.g., sautéing onions while you’re chopping other vegetables and waiting for a pot of water to boil) or one of the tasks is very familiar and routine, like having a shower and running through your to-do list for the day in your head. But most of us have scorched a few onions when the recipe is too complicated and forgotten if we’ve already shampooed our hair when we have too much on our minds. So, what about checking Facebook during class or returning texts while studying? Is it possible to do both effectively? Unfortunately, the answer is no, Even if the class is slow and boring and even if you can check the slides online and review the textbook later. There is conclusive evidence that students who media multi-task in class recall less material in both the short term and the long term—even when they have a chance to read the textbook and return to the teacher’s slides ahead of the test (Glass and Kang, 2019). In addition, when one student is using social media in class, it negatively affects the performance of students sitting nearby, who are distracted without even knowing it (Sana and Weston, 2013)! There is evidence that we don’t even enjoy or remember television shows as much when we’re multi-tasking (e.g., watching a show and checking Facebook) (Oveido et al., 2015). Both research and experience tell us that our brains can only select and process so much information at one time. Mobile devices provide a distraction that impairs our cognitive focus (Carrier et al., 2015), our learning (Kuznekoff et al., 2015; Mendoza et al., 2018), studying (David et al., 2015), remembering

­othing wrong with making generalizations— n in fact, it would be impossible to get through life without them—but they need to be made accurately. And, overgeneralizations (typically involving descriptors such as “always” and “never”) can lead to problems of stereotyping, which you’ll read about in a few pages.

(Uncapher et al., 2016), our exam and test scores (Glass and Kang, 2019), our productivity (Duke et al., 2018), and even our enjoyment of other media (Oveido et al., 2015) and our time face to face with friends and family (Dwyer et al., 2018). Far more seriously, media multi-tasking increases our chances of accidental death or injury (e.g., texting and driving and distracted pedestrians—for information on persuading friends to stop texting and driving see Wang, 2016). The problem is when we attempt to divide our attention we inevitably miss things and it takes time to get back into the task we left, even if we left only briefly. So, we actually waste time and do both tasks more poorly and more slowly than if we had focused on them one at a time. Worse still, as the complexity of the tasks increases so do the drops in our accuracy and speed. In addition, when we orient our attention away from our immediate social environment we tend to enjoy what we’re doing less (Killingsworth and Gilbert, 2010). Do you remember the “marshmallow experiment” we referred to in the self-control section of Chapter 1? Our phones are the ultimate marshmallows and as temping and irresistible as they are, if not used judiciously our attempts at media multi-tasking can cost us much more than some burned food or extra clean hair. When you’re travelling, or in class, or studying, or socializing face to face, or watching your favourite show—give it your full and undivided attention. Critical thinking: Given that the self-concept is subjective (Chapter 2) and people frequently defy basic rules of probability when calculating their abilities, how would you convince people that they might not actually be able to media multi-task as well as they think they can?

We can also organize specific communication transactions in different ways, and these differing organizational schemes can have a powerful effect on our relationships. Communication theorists have used the term punctuation to describe the determination of causes and effects in a series of interactions (Watzlawick et al., 1967). You can

3 | Perceiving Others

Interpretation Once we’ve selected and organized our perceptions, we interpret them in a way that makes some sort of sense. Interpretation—attaching meaning to sense data—plays a role in almost every interpersonal act. Is the person who smiles at you across a crowded room interested in romance or simply being polite? Is a friend’s kidding a sign of affection or irritation? Should you take an invitation to “drop by any time” literally or not? The way a communication sequence is punctuated affects its perceived meaning. Which comes first, the demanding or the withdrawing?

Withdrawing

Withdrawing

Demanding

Demanding

Withdrawing

FIGURE 3.3  Communication Sequence

fizkes/iStockphoto

begin to understand how punctuation operates by visualizing a running quarrel between spouses. Notice that the order in which each partner punctuates this cycle affects how the dispute looks. One partner begins by blaming the other: “I withdraw because you’re so demanding.” The other partner organizes the situation differently: “I’m demanding because you withdraw.” These kinds of demand–withdraw arguments are common in intimate relationships across cultures (Christensen et al., 2006; EldHow can we work to “de-categorize” our views of others? ridge, 2017; Holley et al., 2018). Once the cycle gets rolling, it’s There are several factors that cause us to interimpossible to say which accusation is accurate, as Figure 3.3 indicates. The answer depends on how pret a person’s behaviour in one way or another: Relational satisfaction. A behaviour that seems the sequence is punctuated. Anyone who has seen two children argue about positive when you’re happy with a partner might “who started it” can understand that squabbling seem completely different when the relationship over causes and effects is not likely to solve a con- isn’t satisfying. For example, couples in unsatisflict. In fact, the kind of finger-pointing that goes fying relationships are more likely than satisfied along with assigning blame will probably make partners to blame one another when things go matters worse (Huynh et al., 2016). Rather than wrong (Diamond and Hicks, 2012). The opposite arguing about whose punctuation of an event is is true too. Partners in satisfying relationships are correct, it’s far more productive to recognize that a dispute can look different to each party and then Demanding move on to the more important question: “What can we do to make things better?”

83

84

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

likely to view each other more benevolently than accurately (Segrin et al., 2009). Expectations. If you expect people to treat you badly you will be more likely to interpret their behaviour negatively. For example, insecure people with low self-esteem, who expect their friends to view them as vulnerable and insecure, perceive their friends’ honest and genuine behaviour as less authentic (perpetuating their insecurities) than do confident people without such expectations (Lemay and Dudley, 2009). Personal experience. What meanings have similar events held? If, for instance, you’ve been taken advantage of by landlords in the past, you might be skeptical about reclaiming your cleaning deposit. Assumptions about human behaviour. Do you assume people are lazy, dislike work, avoid responsibility, and must be coerced into doing things, or do you believe people generally exercise self-direction and self-control? Imagine the differences between a manager who assumes workers fit the first description and one who assumes they fit the second. Knowledge of others also affects the way we interpret their actions. For instance, if you know a friend has just been jilted by a lover or fired from a job, you’ll interpret their aloofness differently than if you were unaware of what happened. If you know an instructor is rude to all students, you’ll be less likely to take their remarks personally. Although we have talked about selection, organization, and interpretation separately, the three phases of perception can occur in different sequences. For example, a parent’s or babysitter’s past interpretations (such as “Sebastian is a troublemaker”) can influence future selections (his behaviour becomes especially noticeable) and the organization of events (when there’s a fight, the

TAKE TWO • Punctuation: the determination of causes and effects in a series of interactions.

REFLECTION PROBLEMATIC PUNCTUATION When I was living with my parents, my father was always asking where I was going or where I had been. I interpreted his questions as being too nosy, and I usually responded with hostility or silence. This made him even more concerned about what I was doing. Now, I recognize that each of us was punctuating this situation differently. He saw me as being the problem: “I ask you what you’re doing because you never tell me.” I saw him as the cause of the problem: “I never tell you what I’m doing because you’re always pestering me.” Who started the cycle? Either way, we both lost. I have come to realize how hanging onto our different ways of punctuating the situation kept us from understanding one another.

assumption is that Sebastian started it). Like all communication, perception is an ongoing process in which it’s hard to pin down the beginnings and endings.

Negotiation In Chapter 1 you read that meaning is created both in and among people. So far, our discussion has focused on the inner components of perception— selection, organization, and interpretation—that take place in each individual’s mind. Now, we need to examine the part of our sense-making that occurs among people. Negotiation is the process by which communicators influence one another’s perceptions. Negotiation can operate in subtle ways. For example, it’s rare to draw a conclusion about something or someone without comparing notes with others. Imagine you think a person you met is attractive and you mention this to friends. If they disagree with you (“I don’t find that person attractive”), you might shift your initial perception—not radically but a bit. In one study that examined this process, college students rated the attractiveness of

3 | Perceiving Others

models in a series of photos (Yang and Lee, 2014). Those who were able to see others’ evaluations of the same photos slowly shifted their ratings to match the consensus, while those who were unable to see other people’s ratings did not. Our interpretations are not only influenced by our own individual experiences but also by the interpretations of others. Another way to explain negotiation is to view interpersonal communication as the exchange of stories. Scholars call the stories we use to describe our personal worlds narratives (Bromberg, 2012). Just as the cubes in Figure 3.1 (on page 80) can be viewed in several ways, almost every interpersonal situation can be described by more than one narrative. These narratives often differ. People who value cleanliness and order may label their housemates as dirty and sloppy, while those housemates would likely describe a concern for tidiness as obsessive. An employee who is punctual but refuses to stay late might see themselves as having clear work/ life balance boundaries whereas their supervisor might interpret that same behaviour as demonstrating a lack of commitment to the job. When our narratives clash with those of others, we can either hang onto our own point of view, and refuse to consider anyone else’s (usually not productive), or try to negotiate a narrative that creates at least some common ground.

CHECK IT! Describe the factors that influence the way we interpret human behaviour.

The best chance for smooth communication is to have shared narratives. For example, romantic partners who celebrate their successful struggles against relational obstacles are happier than those who do not have this shared appreciation (Flora and Segrin, 2000). Likewise, couples who agree about the important turning points in their relationships are more satisfied than those who have different views of what incidents were most important (Baxter and Pittman, 2001).

Shared narratives do not have to be accurate to be powerful (Martz et al., 1998; Murray et al., 1996). Couples who report being happily married after 50 or more years seem to collude in a relational narrative that does not always jibe with the facts (Miller, 2006). They agree that they rarely have conflicts, although objective analysis reveals that they have had their share of disagreements. Without overtly agreeing to do so, they choose to blame outside forces or unusual circumstances for their problems, instead of blaming each other. They offer the most charitable interpretations of each other’s behaviour, believing that their spouse acts with good intentions even when things don’t go well. They seem willing to forgive, or even forget transgressions. Examining this research, Judy Pearson (2000) asks: Should we conclude that happy couples have a poor grip on reality? Perhaps they do, but is the reality of one’s marriage better known by outside onlookers than by the players themselves? The conclusion is evident. One key to a long happy marriage is to tell yourself and others that you have one and then to behave as though you do! (p. 186)

TAKE TWO THE FOUR STEPS IN PERCEPTION • Selection: the process of determining which information we will pay attention to; influenced by stimuli intensity, repetition, contrast, or change as well as our motives and emotional state. • Organization: the process by which we arrange information in a meaningful way using perceptual schema (physical, role, interaction, and psychological constructs). • Interpretation: the process of making sense of perceptions within our own minds; influenced by relational satisfaction, expectations, personal experience, assumptions, and knowledge of others. • Negotiation: the process by which communicators influence one another’s perceptions.

85

86

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

Influences on Perception A variety of factors influence how we select, organize, interpret, and negotiate information about others. The information we have available to us affects our perceptual judgments, as do physiological, cultural, social, and psychological factors.

Access to Information We can only make sense of what we know, and none of us knows everything about even the closest people in our lives. When new information becomes available, perceptions change. If you see your doctor only at their office your conclusions about them will be based on their behaviours in those roles. If you see them commuting to work, at the grocery store, or at a concert your perceptions of them might change. We often gain access to new information about others when their roles overlap. A work party is a good example of a place where you might see people that you had only ever seen in “work” mode behaving quite differently in “party” mode. Similarly, the first time a close friend or romantic partner takes you to one of their family gatherings you might see your friend or partner playing the role of “spoiled child,” or “dutiful grandchild.” If you’ve ever said, “I saw a whole new side of you tonight,” chances are it’s because you gained access to information you didn’t have before. Social media can provide new information that affects perceptions. That’s why job hunters are encouraged to clean up their online profiles and be careful to manage the impressions they make (Walton et al., 2015). It’s also why children and parents may not want to be part of each other’s social media networks (Child and Westermann, 2013; Erickson et al., 2016), which we discuss further in Chapter  11. As we discussed in Chapter 2, the information we glean about others on social media is incomplete because we only have access to what others choose to share. While meta-­ a nalysis of peoples’ online “digital footprints” can predict some components (e.g., agreeableness, e­xtroversion, etc.) of their p ­ ersonalities (Azucar et al., 2018), these

predictions are predictive for groups rather than individuals. The accuracy of our perceptions of individuals is substantially ­better when we have opportunities to interact face to face—even when those interactions are brief (Amady et al., 2000: Okdie et al., 2011).

Physiological Influences Sometimes, our different perspectives come from our physical environment and the ways that our bodies differ from others.

The Senses The differences in how each of us sees, hears, tastes, touches, and smells stimuli can affect interpersonal relationships (Croy et al., 2013). Consider the following examples arising from physiological differences: “Turn down the TV! It’s giving me a headache.” “It’s not too loud. If I turn it down, it’ll be impossible to hear it.” “It’s freezing in here.” “Are you kidding? We’ll suffocate if you turn up the heat!” “Why don’t you pass that truck? The highway’s clear for half a mile.” “I can’t see that far, and I’m not going to get us killed.”

These disputes aren’t just over matters of opinion. Our reception of sensory data is different. Differences in vision and hearing are the easiest to recognize, but other gaps also exist. There is evidence that identical foods taste different to different people (Puputti et al., 2018). Similarly, people differ significantly in their preferences for different odours (Ferdenzi et al., 2017). Likewise, temperature variations that are uncomfortable to some of us are inconsequential to others. Remembering these differences won’t eliminate them, but it will remind us that other people’s preferences aren’t wrong or crazy, just different.

3 | Perceiving Others

87

Age We experience the world differently throughout our lifetimes. Age alters not just our bodies but also our perspectives. Consider how you have viewed your parents over the years. When you were a child, you probably thought their knowledge and abilities were almost unlimited—they knew and could do so many things! As a teen, you may have seen them as over-controlling and out of date. In adulthood, many people regard their parents as knowledgeable and wise and recognize that parents are vulnerable to the same stresses and challenges everyone faces. Although your parents have changed over time it’s likely that your perceptions of them have changed far more than they have.

Think of the last time you came down with a cold, flu, or some other ailment. Do you remember how different you felt? You probably had much less energy than usual. It’s likely that you felt less sociable and that your thinking was to make sound judgments (Almodes et al., 2016; slower than usual. Such changes have a strong Killgore, 2010; Peretti et al., 2018). This helps to impact on how you relate to others. It’s good to explain why the world looks much better and realize that someone else may be behaving dif- problems often seem less insurmountable after a ferently because of illness. In the same way, it’s good sleep. important to let others know when you feel ill so they can give you the understanding you need. Just as illness can affect your relationships, so can excessive fatigue. When you’ve been working long hours or studying late for an exam, the world can seem quite different than when you’re well rested. Lack of sleep negatively affects our moods and our ability to concentrate, and increases our anxiety. It compromises our interpersonal functioning and job performance during the day (Beatie et al., 2015). People who are sleep deprived have a reduced frustration tolerance, less empathy, increased negative mood, and greater difficulty Our biological states can strongly affect how we perceive the world. Can processing emotions and using them you think of a time when your perception was affected by pain or fatigue?

fizkes/Shutterstocko

Health and Fatigue

88

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

Hunger Our digestive system plays a significant role in our interpersonal behaviour. Hungry people often feel grumpy and people who have overeaten are more likely to feel tired. Being hungry seems to affect our capacity for decision making as well. Researchers in Israel found that judges’ decision making appeared to be influenced by the length of time since they had last eaten (Danzinger et al., 2013). Hunger also appears to be related to a propensity for increased anger and aggression (hence the addition of hangry to our vocabularies). Hunger affects our perceptions, negatively affects our emotions, and appears to reduce our feelings of connectedness to others (Li and Zhang, 2014).

Biological Cycles Are you a “morning person” or a “night person”? Each of us has a daily cycle in which all sorts of changes constantly occur, including variations in body temperature, sexual drive, alertness, tolerance to stress, and pain (Jankowski, 2013; Tsaousis, 2010). We often aren’t conscious of these changes, but they can affect the way we relate toward each other. For instance, analysis of online gaming and social media activities suggests people’s propensity to socialize (e.g., make friend requests) is also influenced by their biological rhythms (Zhang et al., 2015).

Neurological Differences Some differences in perception are rooted in neurology. These include challenges such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder, as well as mental health challenges (e.g., bipolar disorder, s­ chizophrenia) and degenerative conditions (e.g., dementia, ­Alzheimer’s disease). A common element among these challenges is that they appear to involve differences in brain and nervous system functioning. For example, many people with autism spectrum disorder experience difficulty understanding the actions of others and they may struggle with social relationships. Brain imaging research

suggests that these d ­ ifficulties may be related to neurological differences that make understanding other people’s intentions and emotions more difficult (Greimel et al., 2010; Iacoboni and Dapretto, 2006; Khalil et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2013; Saito et al., 2018). People with bipolar disorder experience significant mood swings in which their perceptions of social interactions, friends, family members, and even attempts at social support shift dramatically (Doherty and MacGeorge, 2013; de Brito Ferreira Fernandes et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2016). Finally, studies have shown that people with ADHD often struggle with aspects of language perception (e.g., recognizing others’ vocal cues indicating anger) and empathy (Kis et al., 2017). Some neurological differences are the result of alcohol and drug consumption. Certain prescription drugs may be prescribed specifically to do just that. For instance, some anti-anxiety medications can increase people’s perceptions of others as more agreeable and less threatening (Rappaport et al., 2018). Non-prescription substances, such as caffeine and alcohol, can affect our perceptions too. One study found that consumption of a moderate amount of caffeinated coffee prior to participating in a group activity not only increased participants’ task relevant participation but also increased their positive evaluations and satisfaction with themselves and other group members of the group (Unnava et al., 2018). Alcohol also changes our perceptions of others and ourselves. There is evidence that alcohol changes our brain chemistry by increasing the release of endorphins and the “feel good” neurotransmitter dopamine, which may contribute to changes in our perceptions. One example of this is the “beer goggles” phenomenon. This is the idea that people tend to rate others, particularly those they might find sexually attractive when sober, as even more attractive when they’ve consumed an alcoholic drink or two. Evidence for this is mixed, however. Several studies conducted in laboratories have provided evidence to support the idea (Jones et al., 2003; Lyvers et al., 2011), but at least one study (Maynard et al., 2016) conducted in the field (i.e., in actual pubs) found no evidence for an increase in perceptions of attractiveness as a result of alcohol

3 | Perceiving Others

consumption. A study conducted in France found that people who consumed alcohol rated themselves as more attractive (Bègue et  al., 2013)! In this study both people who had consumed alcohol (experimental group) and those who believed they had consumed alcohol but had not (placebo group) rated themselves more highly (e.g., as more attractive, bright, original, and funny) in relation to a speech they had given, than did those who did not drink (control group). This suggests that the influence of alcohol on perception is quite possibly both physiological and psychological. We’ll examine some of the psychological influences on our perceptions in the next section.

Psychological Influences Along with physiology, our psychological state also influences the way we perceive others.

Mood Our emotional state strongly influences how we view people and events, and, therefore, how we  communicate (Lount, 2010). An early experiment using hypnotism dramatically demonstrated how our varying moods influence our perceptions of events (Lebula and Lucas, 1945). Each subject was shown the same series of six pictures, each time having been put in a different mood. The descriptions of the pictures differed radically depending on the emotional state of the subject. The following examples are from one subject in various emotional states while describing a picture of children digging in a swampy area: Happy mood: “It looks like fun, reminds me of summer. That’s what life is for, working out in the open, really living—digging in the dirt, planting, watching things grow.” Anxious mood: “They’re going to get hurt or cut. There should be someone older there who knows what to do in case of an accident. I wonder how deep the water is.” Critical mood: “Pretty horrible land. There ought to be something more useful for kids of that age

to do instead of digging in that stuff. It’s filthy and dirty and good for nothing.”

Although there’s a strong relationship between mood and happiness, it’s not clear which comes first—the perceptual outlook or the amount of relational satisfaction. There is some evidence that perception leads to satisfaction (Fletcher et al., 1987), and some that suggests satisfaction drives positive perceptions (Luo et al., 2010). In other words, the attitude or expectation we bring to a situation shapes our level of happiness or unhappiness. Once started, this process can create a spiral. If you’re happy about your relationship, you’ll be more likely to interpret your partner’s behaviour in a charitable way. This, in turn, can lead to greater happiness. Of course, the same process can work in the opposite direction. One remedy for serious distortions—and unnecessary conflicts—is to monitor your own moods. If you’re aware of being especially critical or sensitive, you can avoid overreacting to others and you can warn others—“This isn’t a good time for me to discuss this with you— I’m feeling irritated at the moment.”

Self-Concept A second factor that influences perception is the self-concept (Hinde et al., 2001). For example, the recipient’s self-concept has proved to be the greatest factor in determining whether people who are being teased interpret the teaser’s motives as being friendly or hostile, and whether they respond comfortably or defensively (Alberts et al., 1996). As we discussed in Chapter 2, there is considerable evidence that the way we think and feel about ourselves ­influences our perceptions of others. For instance, there is evidence that perceiving oneself as funny is related to perceiving others as funny (Bosacki, 2013). There is also neurological evidence that parts of your self-concept you may be blind to (e.g., implicit introversion/extroversion) influence your perceptions of other people’s emotions (Suslow et al., 2017).

Social Influences Within any society, one’s personal point of view plays a strong role in shaping perceptions.

89

90

Uplight pictures/Shutterstock

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

given society identifies as masculine and feminine behaviour. People can be more or less masculine or more or less feminine, or have both masculine and feminine characteristics in equal proportion. Androgyny is the combination of both masculine and feminine characteristics, or the quality of being neither feminine nor masculine. As we discussed in Chapter 1, the binary nature of the male/ female dichotomy in gender roles is restrictive and limiting for many people. Increasingly, Canadian society is embracing One remedy for serious distortions—and unnecessary conflicts—is to mongender diverse and non-binary itor your own moods. What are some things you can do to change your mood gender categories (Grant, 2018). in the moment? That said, a great deal of Social scientists have developed standpoint research to date has examined communication in theory to describe how a person’s position in terms of the male/female dichotomy and found the world shapes their view of society in general that men and women perceive the social world difand of specific individuals (Wood, 2008). Stand- ferently. Trying to tease apart the extent to which point theory is most often applied to the differ- biology and socialization account for these difference between the perspectives of privileged social ences is often very difficult, but it’s important to groups and of people who have less power (Stevens understand that—whether learned or hard wired— et al., 2017), as well as to the different perspectives these perceptual and communication differences of women and men (Dougherty, 2001). Unless exist. For instance, neurological evidence suggests one has been disadvantaged, it can be difficult to women are more responsive to human faces than imagine how different the world might look to men (Proverbio, 2017) and observational data sugsomeone who has been treated badly because of gest they’re better at reading emotions and genrace, ethnicity, gender, biological sex, sexual orien- erally more perceptive about interpreting others’ tation, or socio-economic class. After some reflec- non-verbal cues (Hall and Andrzejewski, 2017; tion, though, it’s easy to understand how being Thompson and Voyer, 2014). marginalized can make the world seem like a very Sex-role stereotypes can influence perception. different place. In one study, debate judges rated hypothetical We look now at how some specific types of female debaters as significantly more aggressive societal roles affect an individual’s perception. than their male counterparts despite the fact that both male and female debaters used similar language (Mathews, 2016). Another study found that Sex and Gender Roles participants judged ambiguous text messages as Although people often use the terms sex and gender more negative when the sender was identified as as if they’re identical, they are not (Katz-Wise and female—particularly when the recipient was male Hyde, 2014). Sex refers to biological characteris- (Kingsbury and Coplan, 2016). Studies conducted tics of a male or female, whereas gender refers to in the workplace have found that sex-role stereothe social and psychological dimensions of what a types influence people’s perceptions of leadership

3 | Perceiving Others

FOCUS ON RESEARCH DO YOU SEE WHAT I SEE? Chris Davis, 28 years old, was apprehended last night on charges of domestic abuse. Two police officers arrived at the location of the dispute at 7:05 p.m. At that time they found Robin Brown, 28 years old, Chris’s partner, on the living-room couch bleeding with a black eye. Robin reported that Chris had become angry about a telephone call and had begun shouting obscenities and then grabbed, punched, and kicked Robin to the floor before leaving the house. After reading this report, ask yourself: • If you had witnessed this interaction between Chris and Robin would you report it to the police? • Do you think Chris should be convicted of assault? • As crimes go, how violent was the incident? • Should Robin leave Chris for good? • Do you think Chris has acted this way in the past? Did you assume that Chris was a man and Robin a woman? If you didn’t, would your answers be different? What if you found out that Chris and Robin were both men or both women, or if you knew that Robin was a man and Chris was a woman? Studies suggest the influence of gender on perceptions of crimes such as intimate partner violence (IPV) and stalking are pervasive (Allen and Bradley, 2018; Cass and Mallicoat, 2015; Cormier and Woodworth, 2008; Crittenden et al., 2017; Dunlap et al., 2012; Finnegan et al., 2018). For example, Canadian and American university students perceived incidents of IPV and stalking differently when the experimenters varied the genders of the perpetrator and victim (Allen and Bradley, 2018; Cormier and Woodworth, 2008). Investigators have found that students perceived same-sex scenarios of IPV (perpetrator and victim—both male or both female) and the less

and innovation. Women who display the characteristics typically associated with leadership (e.g., assertive, decisive) and innovation (e.g., risk taking, initiative, championing change) are not recognized

c­ ommon opposite-sex scenario (i.e., female perpetrator and male victim) to be less abusive than the more common opposite-sex scenario (i.e., female victim and male perpetrator). Students were more likely to report the male perpetrator and female victim scenario of IPV to the police and were more likely to believe that the heterosexual male perpetrator should be convicted of assault compared to the other three perpetrators. The students in this study were also more adamant that the heterosexual female victim should leave the relationship compared to the homosexual victims and the heterosexual male victim (Cormier and Woodworth, 2008). Similarly, students were more likely to perceive stalking cases in which a man was criminally harassing a woman as worthy of reporting and prosecution, and they perceived the male perpetrator more negatively and the female victim more positively than in scenarios where the roles were reversed (Cass and Mallicoat, 2015; Dunlap et al., 2012) Canadian police officers, on the other hand, appear to be less influenced by gender in their perceptions of IPV and stalking. They were more inclined to take all forms of abuse and stalking more seriously than the students and deem them criminal and worthy of reporting (Cormier and Woodworth, 2008; Finnegan et al., 2018). In stalking cases, however, they were more likely to rate the anticipated harm to female victims of male perpetrated stalking as greater than when perpetrators were female and victims were male (Finnegan et al., 2018). These studies demonstrate the powerful influences of gender stereotypes, previous experience, and occupational roles on our perceptions. Critical thinking: Can you think of other instances where gender and occupational roles might influence people’s perceptions differently?

or rewarded, in terms of their work performance, to the same extent as men who display these characteristics (Ely et al., 2011; Heilman, 2012; Johnson et al., 2008; Luksyte et al., 2016).

91

92

Liza Donnelly/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

Occupational Roles The kind of work we do also governs our view of the world. Imagine five people taking a walk through a park. One, a botanist, is fascinated by the variety of trees and plants. Another, a zoologist, is on the lookout for interesting animals. The third, a meteorologist, keeps an eye on the sky, noticing changes in the weather. The fourth, a psychologist, is totally unaware of nature, concentrating instead on the interactions among the people in the park. The fifth, a pickpocket, quickly takes advantage of the others’ absorption to collect their wallets. There are two lessons in this little story. The first, of course, is to watch your wallet carefully. The second is that our occupational roles often govern our perceptions. Perhaps the most dramatic illustration of how occupational roles shape perception occurred in the early 1970s. Stanford University psychologist Philip Zimbardo (1971; Haney and Zimbardo, 2009) recruited a group of well-educated, middle-class young men. He randomly chose 11 to serve as “guards” in a mock prison set up in the basement of Stanford’s psychology building. He issued uniforms, handcuffs, whistles, and billy clubs to the

guards. The remaining 10 subjects became “prisoners” and were put in rooms with metal bars, bucket toilets, and cots. Zimbardo let the guards establish their own rules for the experiment. The rules were tough: no talking during meals, rest periods, or after lights out. They took head counts at 2:30 a.m. Troublemakers received short rations. Faced with these conditions, the prisoners began to resist. Some barricaded their doors with beds. Others went on hunger strikes. Several ripped off their identifying number tags. The guards reacted to the rebellion by clamping down hard on protesters. Some became sadistic, physically and verbally abusing the prisoners. The experiment was scheduled to go on for two weeks, but after six days Zimbardo realized that what had started as a simulation had become too real, and stopped it. The roles they had taken on led the guards and prisoners to perceive, and then treat, each other very differently. You can probably think of ways in which the jobs you’ve held have affected how you view others. If you have worked in customer service, you’re probably more patient and understanding with those in similar positions (although you could also be a bit more critical).

Relational Roles Think back to the “Who am I?” list you made in Chapter 2. It’s likely your list includes roles you play in relation to others: you may be a sibling, roommate, spouse, friend, and so on. Roles like these don’t just define who you are—they affect your perception. Take, for example, the role of parent. As most new parents will attest, having a child alters the ways they see the world. They might perceive their crying infant as a helpless soul in need of

3 | Perceiving Others

c­omfort whereas nearby strangers might have a less compassionate appraisal. There is considerable neurological evidence that pregnancy and being involved in caring for one’s young child changes people’s brains, which in turn affects their perceptions and caregiving behaviours (Abraham et al., 2014; Hoekzema et al., 2017). The roles involved in romantic relationships can also dramatically affect perception. These roles have many labels: partner, spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, and so on. There are times when your affinity biases your perception. You may see your partner as more attractive than other people do and as more attractive than previous partners, regardless of whether that’s objectively accurate (Swami and Allum, 2012). As a result, you may overlook some faults that others notice (Segrin et  al., 2009). Your romantic role can also change the way you view others. Researchers have found that when people are in love, they pay less attention to other potential romantic candidates and judge them as less attractive than they otherwise would (Cole et al., 2016; McNulty et al., 2018). Perhaps the most telltale sign of “love goggles” is when they come off. Many people have experienced breaking up with a romantic partner and wondering later, “What did I ever see in that person?” The answer, at least in part, is that you saw what your relational role led you to see.

Cultural Influences Culture exerts a powerful influence on the way we view other people’s communication. In this section we’ll explore cultural differences regarding the value of talk and silence, approaches to logic and thinking, views of social obligations, distribution of power, and the extent to which people avoid uncertainty and value achievement and nurturance. These are just some of the ways in which cultures differ, and these differences influence our perceptions of ourselves and other people.

Talk and Silence As we discussed in Chapter 2, many Western cultures tend to view talk as desirable and use it for

social purposes as well as to perform tasks. Silence has a negative value in these cultures. It’s likely to be interpreted as lack of interest, unwillingness to communicate, hostility, anxiety, shyness, or a sign of interpersonal incompatibility. Westerners are uncomfortable with silence, which they find embarrassing and awkward. On the other hand, Asian cultures tend to perceive talk quite differently (Kimm, 2002). Silence is valued, as Taoist sayings indicate: “In much talk there is great weariness” or “One who speaks does not know; one who knows does not speak.” Unlike Westerners, Japanese and Chinese communicators believe that remaining quiet is the proper state when there is nothing to be said. To Asians, a talkative person is often considered a show-off or a fake. These different perceptions of speech and silence can lead to communication problems when people from different cultures meet. Communicators may view each other with disapproval and mistrust. Only when they recognize the different standards of behaviour can they adapt to one another, or at least understand and respect their differences.

Social Obligations People from collectivistic and individualistic cultures perceive interpersonal behaviour and obligations differently. For example, Au et al. (2001) gave hospitality-school students in China and Canada a description of how a service provider handled a complaint from a customer whose coat was stained with tea. Results showed that the students from China (collectivists whose primary responsibility is to help the group) were more likely than the students from Canada (individualists whose primary responsibility is to take care of oneself) to see the service provider as the person at fault. In addition, Janoff-Bulman and Leggatt (2002), looking at motivational differences in the perception of social obligations by Latino American (collectivistic) undergraduates and Anglo American (individualistic) undergraduates, found that although individuals from both cultures reported a strong sense of obligation toward close friends and family members, Latino Americans felt a stronger

93

94

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

REFLECTION CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN HUMOUR I was born and raised in Russia. One thing I find very different here [Canada] is the way people use humour. When I first arrived in this country, I noticed that my host family joked and teased me a lot. I was often offended and hurt. The problem was that neither my host family nor I understood the differences in meaning people attach to the same way of behaving. In Russia, people do not tease to express affection. In Canada, though, joking is often a way to show friendship. Once I realized this cultural difference, I became better at socializing.

­ otivation than Anglo Americans to help more m distant family and friends.

Thinking and Logic The way members of a culture are taught to think and reason shapes the way they interpret other people’s messages (Gudykunst and Kim, 2003). One important force that affects thinking is a culture’s system of logic. Members of individualistic cultures, such as Canadians and Americans, prize rationality and linear, logical thinking. They value the ability to be impartial—to analyze a situation from a detached perspective. They rely on facts, figures, and experts to make decisions. Members of individualistic societies tend to see the world in terms of dichotomies, such as good– bad, right–wrong, happy–sad, and so on. In contrast, members of collectivistic cultures are more likely to be intuitive. They prefer to get a feel for the big picture and are less impressed by precision, classification, or detachment. Collectivistic cultures are also less prone to see the world in either–or terms. They accept the fact that people, things, or ideas can be both right and wrong, good and bad at the same time. Such categorizing doesn’t mean that members of individualistic cultures are never intuitive or that collectivistic ones are never rational. The differences in ways

of t­hinking are a matter of degree. Nonetheless, it’s easy to imagine how an individualist raised in mainstream Canadian culture and someone from an extremely collectivistic Asian or Indigenous culture could find their interactions perplexing. For instance, consider what might happen when a conflict arises between two romantic partners, friends, or co-workers. “Why don’t we look at this rationally,” the individualist might say. “Let’s figure out exactly what happened. Once we decide whose fault the problem is, we can fix it.” By contrast, the partner with a more collectivistic way of thinking might say, “Let’s not get caught up in a lot of details or an argument about who is right or wrong. If we can get a feel for the problem, we can make things more harmonious.” Although both partners might be speaking the same language, their modes of thinking about their relationship would be dramatically different.

Distribution of Power The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “every individual is equal before the law and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.” For members of democratic societies, this principle of equality is so fundamental that we accept it without question. However, not all cultures share this belief. Some operate on the assumption that certain groups of people (an aristocracy or an economic class, for example) and some institutions (such as a church or the government) have the right to control the lives of individuals. Geert Hofstede (1980, 2011) coined the term power distance to describe the degree to which members of a society accept an unequal distribution of power. Cultures with low power distance believe in minimizing the difference between various social classes. Rich and poor, educated and uneducated groups may still exist, but there is a pervasive belief that one person is as valuable as another. Low power-distance cultures also support the notion that challenging authority is acceptable— even desirable. Citizens are not necessarily punished for raising questions about the status quo.

3 | Perceiving Others

According to Hofstede’s research, Canadian and US societies have relatively low power distance, though not the lowest in the world. Austria, ­Denmark, Israel, and New Zealand proved to be the most egalitarian countries. At the other end of the spectrum are countries with a high degree of power distance: Philippines, Mexico, Venezuela, India, and Singapore. The degree of power distance in a culture is reflected in key relationships (Santilli and Miller, 2011). Children who are raised in cultures with high power distance are expected to obey their parents and other authority figures to a degree that would astonish most children raised in Canada or the United States. Power automatically comes with age in many countries. For example, the Korean language has separate terms for older brother, oldest brother, younger sister, youngest sister, and so on. Parents in cultures with low power distance do not expect the same unquestioning obedience and are not surprised when children ask why when requested or told to do something. On-the-job communication is different in low and high-power distance societies (Zerfass et  al., 2016). In countries with high power distance employees have much less input into the way they do their work. In fact, workers from these cultures are likely to feel uncomfortable when given the freedom to make their own decisions (Madlock, 2012) or when a more egalitarian supervisor asks for their opinion. The reverse is true when management from a more egalitarian tradition does business in a country where workers are used to high power distance. Managers may be surprised to find employees do not expect much say in decisions and do not feel unappreciated when not consulted. They may regard the dutiful and respectful employees as lacking initiative and creativity. Given these differences, it’s easy to understand why multinational companies need to consider cultural differences in values and related perceptions when they set up shop in a new country.

Uncertainty Avoidance The desire to resolve uncertainty seems to be a trait shared by people around the world (Berger, 1988).

While uncertainty may be universal, cultures have different ways of coping with an unpredictable future. Hofstede (2011) uses the term uncertainty avoidance to describe the degree to which members of a culture feel threatened by or uncomfortable in ambiguous situations and how much they try to avoid them. A culture’s degree of uncertainty avoidance is reflected in the way its members communicate. In countries where people avoid uncertainty, such as Portugal, Belgium, Greece, and Japan, deviant people and ideas are considered dangerous, and intolerance and ethnocentrism are high (Cargile and Bolkan, 2013). People in these cultures are especially concerned with security, so they have a strong need for clearly defined rules and regulations. By contrast, people in a culture that is less threatened by the new and unexpected are more likely to tolerate—or even welcome—people who don’t fit the norm. Residents of countries such as Singapore, the UK, Denmark, Sweden, the United States, and Canada are less threatened by change. Following established rules and patterns isn’t necessarily expected, and different behaviour may even be welcomed.

Achievement and Nurturing The term achievement culture describes societies that place a high value on material success and a focus on the task at hand, while nurturing culture is a descriptive term for societies that regard the support of relationships as an especially important goal. People from achievement versus nurturing cultures voice their opinions in significantly different ways (Hofstede, 2016; van den Bos et al., 2010). In achievement cultures (e.g., the US), which emphasize out-performing others, those who see themselves as highly capable feel more empowered to voice their opinions and are satisfied when they can do so. In contrast, in nurturing cultures (e.g., the Netherlands), which emphasize helping, those who see themselves as less capable feel valued as important group members and feel more satisfied when they have the opportunity to voice their opinions. People in nurturing cultures are more

95

96

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

inclined to behave in ways that promote harmony and use a more sensitive and indirect communication style when compared to the more assertive and direct style of those in achievement cultures (Merkin et al., 2014). Canada is considered a moderately achievement-oriented culture. Clearly, what constitutes an effective communicator is perceived differently in cultures that vary on this dimension. As you think about the cultural values described here, realize that cultural misunderstandings do not occur just between people from different countries. In Canada’s increasingly multicultural society, people from different cultural backgrounds are likely to encounter one another “at home,” in the communities they share. As we discussed in Chapter 2, most Canadians belong to co-cultural groups and must navigate the varying values and norms that shape perception when they communicate with others. In some instances, there is considerable harmony in the values and norms that exist in their co-­ cultures; for others, there is considerable discord. What we all share is the fact that our cultural values shape our perceptions.

CHECK IT! Describe the four general areas of influence on our perceptions and provide examples within each area.

Common Tendencies in Perception It is obvious that many factors distort the way we interpret the world. Social scientists use the term attribution to describe the process of attaching meaning to behaviour (Turri, 2017). We attribute meaning both to our own actions and to the actions of others, but we often use different yardsticks. Research has uncovered several perceptual tendencies that may lead to inaccurate attributions.

We Make Snap Judgments Our ancestors had to make quick judgments about whether strangers were likely to be dangerous, and while there are still times when this ability can be a survival skill, in many cases judging others without enough knowledge or information can get us into trouble. Most of us have felt badly misjudged by others who made unfavourable snap judgments. Despite the risks of rash decision making, in some circumstances people can make surprisingly accurate judgments in the blink of an eye (Gladwell, 2004). The best snap judgments come from people whose decisions are based on experience and expertise. However, even non-experts can be good at making split-second decisions. For instance, research has demonstrated that people can accurately judge a stranger’s level of self-­esteem based on a brief observation of the target introducing themselves in a public situation (Hirschmuller et al., 2017). Similar findings have been reported for people’s judgments of the suitability of speed dating candidates as potential romantic partners and inferences about politicians based on snap judgments (Kurzban and Weeden, 2005; Wanke et al., 2013). However, it’s important to keep in mind that the physical attractiveness of the person being judged can and often does cloud the accuracy of our snap judgments. Snap judgments become particularly problematic when they are based on stereotyping—­ exaggerated beliefs associated with a categorizing system. Stereotypes that people automatically make on “primitive categories” such as race, sex, and age (Devos, 2014) may be founded on a kernel of truth but they go beyond the facts at hand and make claims that usually have no valid basis. Three characteristics distinguish stereotypes from reasonable generalizations. • The first involves categorizing others on the basis of easily recognized, but not necessarily important characteristics. For example, perhaps the first thing you notice about a person is the colour of their skin—but that may not be nearly as significant as the person’s intelligence or achievements.

3 | Perceiving Others

• The second feature that characterizes stereotypes is ascribing a set of characteristics to most or all members of a group. For example, you might unfairly assume that all older people are doddering or that all men are insensitive to women’s concerns. • Finally, stereotyping involves applying these generalizations to a particular individual. Once you believe all old people are demented or all men are jerks, it’s a short step to considering a particular senior as senile or a particular man as a sexist pig. Stereotypes exist in all cultures around the world (Cuddy et al., 2009) and can plague intercultural communication (Allen, 1995; Buttny, 1997; Kashima et al., 2013). By adulthood, we tend to engage in stereotyping frequently, effortlessly, and often unconsciously, using what researchers call implicit bias to make our judgments (Morin, 2015). Once we create and hold stereotypes, we seek out isolated behaviours that support our inaccurate beliefs in an attempt to be cognitively consistent (Kashima et al., 2013). Interpersonal communication has been found to play a role in stereotype maintenance. For example, researchers have found that when people are relaying stories to each other (e.g., gossip, things in the news, recounting their own experiences, even children’s stories) they tend to communicate information that is consistent with our stereotypes and leave out information that is inconsistent with our stereotypes (Lyons and Kashima, 2003, 2006). One way to avoid the kinds of communication problems that come from excessive stereotyping is to “de-categorize” others, giving yourself a chance to treat people as individuals. Changing labels can aid the process of de-categorizing. Instead of talking about Asian co-workers, gay friends, or foreign students, dropping the descriptors “Asian,” “gay,” and “foreign” might help you perceive others more neutrally.

CHECK IT! What are stereotypes and how are they different from other generalizations we make about people?

We Cling to First Impressions Snap judgments are significant because our initial impressions of others often carry more weight than the ones that follow. This is due, in part, to what scientists call the primacy effect—our tendency to pay attention to and remember things that happened first in a sequence (Miller et al., 2004). You can probably recall some of the first impressions you held of people who are now your close friends. You probably immediately liked some of your friends but others “grew on you”— your initial appraisal of them was not as positive. Either way, your first impressions played a significant role in the interactions that followed. Social scientists have found that first impressions are often based on physical appearance and tend to be inaccurate (Olivola and Todorov, 2010). The term halo effect describes the tendency to form an overall positive impression of a person based on a single positive characteristic. Positive first impressions are often based on physical attractiveness, which can lead people to attribute all sorts of other virtues to a good-looking person (Dion et al., 1972; Langlois et al., 2000; Lemay et al., 2010). For example, employment interviewers rate mediocre but attractive job applicants higher than less attractive candidates (Watkins and Johnston, 2000). Unfortunately, the opposite also holds true. The horns effect (also called the “devil” or “pitchfork” effect) occurs when a negative appraisal adversely influences perceptions that follow (Koenig and Jaswal, 2011). Once we form a first impression—whether it’s positive or negative—we are susceptible to confirmation bias: the tendency to seek out, remember, and organize our impressions to support that opinion. For example, once a potential employer forms a positive impression in a job interview, they tend to ask questions that confirm their image of the applicant (Powell et al., 2012). This might include asking leading questions aimed at supporting positive views (“What valuable lesson did you learn from that setback?”), interpret applicant answers in a positive light (“Ah, taking time away from school to work was a good idea!”), encourage the applicant (head nodding,

97

98

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

smiling, “Good point!”), and sell the company’s virtues (“I think you would like working here”). Likewise, applicants who create a negative first impression are operating under a cloud that may be impossible to dispel. We all have a tendency to confirm what we already believe to be true. Given the almost unavoidable tendency to form first impressions, the best approach is to keep an open mind, look for information that might challenge your initial beliefs, and be willing to change your opinion if events prove you mistaken.

We Judge Ourselves More Charitably than We Do Others While we evaluate others critically, we tend to judge ourselves more generously (McClure et al., 2011), and social scientists use two theories to explain this phenomenon. The first is called the fundamental attribution error: the tendency to give more weight to personal qualities (dispositional) than to the situation when making attributions (Ross, 1977, 2001). For instance, recipients of a work-related email containing spelling and grammatical errors are more likely to assume the sender is unintelligent (personal quality) than to assume that English is not the sender’s first language (contextual factor) (Vignovic et al., 2010). On the other hand, when we experience failure, like making spelling mistakes of our own in an email message, we quickly find explanations outside ourselves, such as being in a hurry. When we’ve done something well, however, we’re quick to take personal credit rather than attribute the success to the situation. This self-serving bias means when we perform poorly, we usually blame external forces (situational) and when we perform well we credit ourselves rather than the situation (Sheppard et al., 2008). Consider a couple of examples: • When they make an error, we think they weren’t listening well or trying hard enough; when we make the mistake, the problem was unclear directions. • When he makes an overly critical comment it’s because he is insensitive; when we do it, it’s because the situation called for it.

Research has found that people working in virtual teams, as opposed to in-person teams, are quicker to blame partners when mistakes occur (Walther and Barazova, 2007). These researchers suggest that “unseen, unknown, and remote” teammates make easy scapegoats when something goes wrong. When working on virtual teams we often lack the contextual information about our colleagues (e.g., current workload, last minute demands, previous work performance, etc.) but when teammates have greater awareness of their colleagues’ activities they are more likely to make more accurate attributions (Trainer and Redmiles, 2018). Research also shows that when people are aware of both the positive and negative characteristics of another person, they tend to be more influenced by the undesirable traits (Baumeister et al., 2001; Kellermann, 1989; Sparks and Baumeister, 2008). This attitude sometimes makes sense. If the negative quality clearly outweighs any positive ones, you would be foolish to ignore it. For example, a surgeon with shaky hands and a teacher who hates children would be unsuitable for their jobs, regardless of their other virtues. But much of the time, it’s a bad idea to pay excessive attention to negative qualities and overlook good ones. People who make more complex attributions about other people’s behaviour (that is, those who take into account many different causes for behaviour) are more accurate in their social judgments and less prejudiced and punitive in their conclusions about other people (Tam et al., 2008). In addition, people who take into account many different reasons for other people’s behaviour are viewed by their peers as thoughtful, empathic, socially skilled, and wise (Fast et al., 2008).

We Are Influenced by Our Expectations Suppose you took a class and were told in advance by several friends that the instructor is terrific. Would this affect the way you perceive the teacher? Research shows that it almost certainly would. Studies of students’ exposure to teacher

3 | Perceiving Others

Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

ratings have found that students who read posi- We Are Influenced by the Obvious tive comments about their instructors on a website viewed those teachers as more credible, Being influenced by what is most obvious is undercompetent, attractive, and favourable than did standable. As you read earlier, we select stimuli students who were not exposed to the same posi- from our environment that are noticeable—that tive comments (Edwards et al., 2007; Reber et al., is, intense, repetitious, unusual, or otherwise attention-grabbing. The problem is that the most 2017) However, expectations do not always lead obvious factor is not necessarily the only cause—or to more positive appraisals. There are times the most significant one—of an event. For example: when we raise our expectations so high that • When two children (or adults, for that matter) we’re disappointed with the events that occur. If fight, it may be a mistake to blame the one who you’re told that someone you are about to meet lashes out the loudest. Perhaps the other one is extremely attractive, you may be disappointed was at least equally responsible, by teasing or when the person doesn’t live up to your unrealisrefusing to co-operate. tic expectations. Our expectations influence the • You might complain about an acquaintance way we see others, both positively and negatively, whose malicious gossiping or arguing has and may lead to self-fulfilling prophecies (DiPaola become a bother, forgetting that by putting up et al., 2010). For instance, couples with histories with that kind of behaviour you’ve been at least of high conflict tend to expect their partners to partially responsible. be less responsive to their needs and experience • You might blame an unhappy work situation more negative conflict outcomes than couples who on your manager, overlooking other factors expect their partners to be responsive and to value beyond their control, such as a change in the them. When couples change their expectations of economy, the policy of higher management, or each other, they behave differently during the condemands of customers or other workers. flict and feel more positive afterwards (Marigold and Anderson, 2016). It’s important to be aware of the influence of our expectations when we are making decisions about others. Many professions require that proposals be evaluated through “blind review”— that is, the person submitting the proposal is not allowed to offer identifying information that might influence the evaluator’s appraisal. For example, orchestras often use “blind auditions” where musicians perform behind a screen (Rice, 2013). In the same way, you can probably think of times when it would be wise to avoid advance information about another per- We all form first impressions when meeting new people. How can we avoid letson so that you will perceive the ting those first impressions inform all of our understanding and interactions with others? person as neutrally as possible.

99

100

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

These examples show that it’s important to take time to gather all the facts before arriving at a conclusion.

We Assume Others Are Similar to Us We commonly imagine that others have the same attitudes and motives that we do (Human and Biesanz, 2011). The frequently mistaken assumption that other people’s views are similar to our own applies in a wide range of situations. For example: • You like to keep your cellphone on the table during meals and assume this preference is shared when you visit some of your more distant relatives for dinner. Your relatives are offended when you interrupt the dinner conversation to answer a text. • You’ve been bothered by a fellow students’ tendency to get off the subject during group project meetings. You would want to know if you were creating problems for your group, so you decide that these group members will probably be grateful for some constructive criticism. Unfortunately, you’re wrong. • You lost your temper with a friend a week ago and said some things you regret. In fact, if

TAKE TWO • Halo effect: the tendency to form an overall positive impression of a person based on a single positive characteristic. • Fundamental attribution error: the tendency to give more weight to personal qualities (dispositional) than to the situation when making attributions. • Self-serving bias: the tendency to blame the situation for our failures and take personal credit for our successes. • Confirmation bias: the tendency to seek out, remember, and organize information to support our opinions.

someone said those things to you, you would consider the relationship finished. Imagining that your friend feels the same way, you avoid making contact. In fact, your friend feels partly responsible and has avoided you because they think you’re the one who wants to end things. These examples show that others don’t always think or feel the way we do and that assuming similarities can lead to problems. Sometimes, you can find out the other person’s real position by asking directly, other times, by checking with someone else or by making an educated guess after you’ve thought the matter through. All these alternatives are better than simply assuming that everyone would react the way you do. We don’t always fall into the kind of perceptual tendencies described in this section. Sometimes, for instance, people are responsible for their misfortunes, or our problems are not our fault. Likewise, the most obvious interpretation of a situation may be the correct one. Nonetheless, a large amount of research has shown again and again that our perceptions of others are often distorted in the ways we’ve discussed. The moral, then, is clear: do not assume that your negative appraisal of a person is accurate or unbiased.

CHECK IT! Summarize the five common tendencies in our perceptions of other people.

Perceiving Others More ­Accurately After reading this far, you can appreciate how flawed our perceptions of one another can be. It’s easy to understand how these distorted perceptions can interfere with our communication. What we need, then, are tools to improve the accuracy of our attributions. In the following section, we’ll introduce two such tools.

3 | Perceiving Others

Perception Checking With the likelihood for perceptual errors being so great, it’s easy to see how a communicator can leap to the wrong conclusion and make false assumptions. Consider the defence-arousing potential of incorrect accusations like these: “Why are you mad at me?” (Who said I was?) “What’s the matter with you?” (Who said anything was the matter?) “Come on now. Tell the truth.” (Who said I was lying?)

Even if your interpretations are correct, these kinds of mind-reading statements are likely to generate defensiveness. The skill of perception checking is a better way to share your interpretations (Hansen et al., 2002). A complete perception check has three parts: 1. a description of the behaviour you noticed; 2. two or more possible interpretations of the behaviour; and 3. a request for clarification about how to interpret the behaviour. Perception checks for the preceding three ­examples would look like this: “When you left quickly and slammed the door [behaviour], I wasn’t sure whether you were mad at me [first interpretation] or just in a hurry [second interpretation]. How did you feel? [request for clarification]” “You haven’t laughed much in the last couple of days [behaviour]. It makes me wonder whether something’s bothering you [first interpretation] or whether you’re just being quiet [second interpretation]. What’s up? [request for clarification]” “You said you really liked the job I did [behaviour], but there was something about your voice that made me think you may not like it [first interpretation]. Maybe it’s just my imagination, though [second interpretation]. How do you really feel? [request for clarification]”

Perception checking is a tool to help us understand others instead of assuming that our first interpretation is correct. Because its goal is mutual understanding, perception checking is a co-­operative approach to communication. Besides leading to more accurate perceptions, it signals an attitude of respect and concern for the other person, saying, in effect, “I know I’m not qualified to judge you without some help.” Sometimes an effective perception check won’t need all of the parts listed in the preceding examples to be effective: “You haven’t dropped by lately. Is anything the matter?” [single interpretation] “I can’t tell whether you’re kidding me about being cheap or if you’re serious [behaviour combined with interpretations]. Are you mad at me? [request for interpretation] “Are you sure you don’t mind driving? I would appreciate a ride if it’s no trouble, but I don’t want to take you out of your way [request for clarification comes first; no need to describe behaviour].

The straightforward approach of perception checking has the best chance of working in what we identify in Chapter 6 as low-context cultures— ones in which members use language as clearly and logically as possible. Canadian, American, Australian, and German dominant cultures, for example, fit into this category. Members of these groups are most likely to appreciate the kind of straightforward approach that perception checking embodies. On the other hand, members of high-context cultures (more common in Indigenous Canadian communities, Latin America, and Asia) value social harmony over clarity. High-context communicators are more likely to regard candid approaches like perception checking as potentially embarrassing, preferring instead less direct ways of understanding one another. Along with clarifying meaning, perception checking can sometimes be a face-saving way to raise an issue without directly threatening or attacking the other person. Consider these examples:

101

102

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

“Were you going to drop off the rent cheque tomorrow?” “Am I boring you, or do you have something else on your mind?”

hotblack/iStockphoto

In the first case you might have been quite sure your roommate had forgotten to deliver the rent cheque, in the second that the other person was bored. Even so, a perception check is a less threatening way of pointing out behaviour than direct confrontation. Keep in mind that one element of competent communication is the ability to choose the best option from a large repertoire, and perception checking can be a useful strategy at times.

parents whose perception checks reveal that their teenager’s outlandish behaviour grows from a desire to be accepted would likely find that insight very useful. But to truly understand this behaviour the parents would need to consider (or perhaps recall) what it feels like to crave that acceptance.

Empathy Defined

What we need, then, to understand others more completely is empathy—the ability to recreate another person’s perspective and to experience the world from her point of view (Geist, 2013). It’s impossible to achieve total empathy, but with enough effort and skill, we can come closer to this goal (Buckman et al., 2011; Long et al., 1999). Building Empathy Empathy has three dimensions. On one level Perception checking can help us decode ­messages empathy involves perspective taking—the ability more accurately, but it doesn’t give us enough to take on the viewpoint of another person. This information that we can claim to fully understand understanding requires a suspension of judgment, another person. For example, a professor who uses so that for a moment you set aside your own opinperception checking might learn that a student’s ions and consciously take on those of the other reluctance to ask questions is due to confusion person. In order to be accurate, we must use our and not lack of interest. This information would be thinking skills, not our intuition (Ma-Kellams helpful, but imagine how much more effective the and Lerner, 2016). The idea that there are diverse professor would be if they could get a sense of the ways of seeing the world and that embracing them confusion from the student’s perspective. ­Likewise, equally can help to deepen our understanding has been referred to as “twoeyed seeing” (Martin, 2012). Two-eyed seeing is believed to have originated from the Mi’kmaq word Etuaptmumk and describes the need to take both Indigenous and Western worldviews into consideration without perpetuating the dominance of one over the other and to acknowledge our interdependence with each other (Bartlett et al., 2012; Whiting et al., 2018). Two-eyed seeing reminds us, quite literally, that we need to use all our ­resources in our work to perceive each Perception checking is a tool to help us understand others instead of assum- other accurately and that ing that our first interpretation is correct. Have you done any perception understanding is the first comchecking recently? ponent of empathy.

3 | Perceiving Others

BUILDING WORK SKILLS PERCEPTION CHECKING Improve your perception-checking ability by developing complete perception-checking statements for the following situations. Be sure your statements include a description of the behaviour, two equally plausible interpretations, and a request for verification. You made what you thought was an excellent suggestion to your supervisor, who responded, “I’ll get back to you about that right away.” It’s been three weeks, and you haven’t received a response yet. You disagreed with a co-worker’s suggestions during a meeting. When the meeting was over, you asked if anyone wanted to go for lunch and everyone agreed, with the exception of that same co-worker. The next day when you pass in the hall, that persons nods, but doesn’t say hello or smile as usual.

In addition to cognitive understanding, empathy also has an affective dimension—what social scientists term emotional contagion. In everyday language, emotional contagion means that we experience the same feelings that others have. We know their fear, joy, sadness, and so on (Cuff et al., 2016). A third aspect of empathy is a genuine concern for the welfare of the other person. Not only do we think and feel as others do, but we have a sincere interest in their well-being. Full empathy requires both intellectual understanding of the other person’s position and an affective understanding of their feelings (Kerem et al., 2001; Meneses and Larkin, 2017). It’s easy to confuse empathy with sympathy, but the concepts are different. With sympathy you view the others person’s situation from your own point of view. With empathy, you view it from the other person’s perspective. Consider the difference between sympathizing and empathizing with a single parent or homeless person. When you sympathize, you focus on the other person’s confusion, joy, or pain. When you empathize, the experience becomes your own, at least for a moment. It’s one thing to feel bad (or good) for someone; it’s more profound to feel bad (or good) with someone.

Developing Empathy There is considerable evidence that empathy, like any other skill, can be learned (Buckman et al., 2011; Luberto et al., 2018). Human beings appear to

TAKE TWO • Empathy: recreating another person’s perspective and experiencing the world from his point of view (“feeling inside”). • Sympathy: feeling compassion for someone, but not experiencing that person’s point of view or emotions (“feeling with”).

have an innate capacity for empathy and the extent to which it is developed varies from person to person. The development of empathy in childhood and adolescence is supported by parenting p ­ ractices that include modelling empathy, encouraging appropriate emotional expressiveness, explaining the effects of one’s actions on others, and consistent discipline (Chaparro and Grusec, 2016; Strayer and Roberts, 2004). A longitudinal investigation conducted over a 23-year period found that adolescents with high empathy continued to be high in empathy as adults and were more likely to use constructive communication skills during conflict situations in their marriages or common-law relationships as adults (Allemand et al., 2015). Continuing to develop empathy as an adult requires open-mindedness, curiosity, imagination, and commitment. It’s hardest to empathize with people who are radically different from us in categories such as age, sex, and socio-economic

103

104

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

William Steig/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank

status (Goleman, 2013; Samovar et al., 2012). One of the best ways to gain empathy for people whose view differs from yours is by interacting with them (Zhang, 2016). We can also empathize by attempting to experience the world from another person’s perspective. Researchers have found that simulations can help you experience another person’s reality. For instance, spending time in a virtual body of a different race from yours or having an elderly avatar, even for just a short period of time, can help you understand how the world looks and feels to other people (Hogenboom, 2013; Yee and Bailenson, 2006). Even playing prosocial video games and reading fictional stories have been associated with greater abilities to take another person’s perspective and to be empathetic (Gentile et al., 2009; Mar et al., 2009). Reading fiction and participating in simulations and co-operative video games are experiences that have the potential to take us to new places where we can experience the social worlds of others. We can practise using the same thinking skills and empathic abilities that we would use in our own real-life social situations to increase the accuracy of our understating of others. As we saw in Chapter 1, the ability to empathize is so important that it’s an essential ingredient of communicative competence. Empathy can have benefits for both the person who is doing the empathizing and the person who is being u ­ nderstood. The importance of empathy is emphasized in

schooling and ongoing professional development in a variety of fields including health care, education, corrections, and business. We’ll return to an examination of the benefits of empathy in our discussion of listening in Chapter 5.

Empathy and Ethics The golden rule of treating others as we want to be treated points to the clear relationship between the ability to empathize and the ethical principles that enable society to function (Howe, 2013). Bystanders who feel empathy for victims are more likely to intervene and offer help than those who are indifferent. On a larger scale, studies in Canada, the United States, and Germany have revealed a relationship between feelings of empathy and the willingness of people to follow the moral principle that r­ esources should be allocated according to people’s needs. Empathetic people have “an interest in understanding life rather than taking sides” (Adams, 2003).

Requirements for Empathy Empathy may be valuable, but it’s not always easy to achieve. In order to make such perceptual leaps, you need to develop several skills and attitudes. Open-Mindedness Perhaps the most important characteristic of an empathic person is the ability and disposition to be open-minded—to set aside for the moment your own beliefs, attitudes, and values and to consider those of the other person. Open-mindedness is especially difficult when the other person’s position is radically different from your own. The temptation is to think (and sometimes say), “That’s crazy!” “How can you believe that?” or “I’d do it this way . . .” Being open-minded is often difficult because people confuse understanding another’s position with accepting it. These

3 | Perceiving Others

BUILDING WORK SKILLS BEGINNING TO BUILD EMPATHY Canadian business leader Jean Claude Monty, the highly successful past chair, CEO, and president of BCE Inc., described empathy as one of the most important attributes of an effective leader. “Empathy allows you to look at every situation through the customer’s, employee’s, shareholder’s, and competitor’s eyes, to gain a far deeper understanding of how they’re all interconnected and what your next step should be” (Monty, 1998). Often, the hardest time to empathize with someone is when we’re involved in an argument or conflict with that person. Think about a disagreement you had recently with someone at work or school. Take a moment to jot down your perspective on the issue. Now, try honestly and accurately to imagine the other person’s thoughts and feelings about the same issue. Describe the two sides of the argument to a friend or classmate. Does your friend or classmate think you have genuinely tried to perceive the issue from the other person’s point of view? Has your position on the issue changed at all? Why or why not?

SELF-ASSESSMENT YOUR EMPATHY QUOTIENT Respond to each of the following statements using a scale ranging from 0 to 4, where 0 = “never” and 4 = “always.” Also have someone who knows you well fill out the questionnaire and compare notes afterward.



 1. When someone else is feeling excited, I tend to get excited too.  2. Other people’s misfortunes do not disturb me a great deal.  3. It upsets me to see someone being treated disrespectfully.  4. I remain unaffected when someone close to me is happy.  5. I enjoy making people feel better.  6. I have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than I am.  7. When a friend starts to talk about their problems, I try to steer the conversation towards something else.  8. I can tell when others are sad even when they do not say anything.  9. I find I am in tune with other people’s moods.  10. I do not feel sympathy for people who cause their own serious illnesses.  11. I become irritated when someone cries.

 12. I am not really interested in how other people feel.  13. I get a strong urge to help when I see someone who is upset.  14. When I see someone being treated unfairly, I do not feel very much pity for them.  15. I find it silly for people to cry out of happiness.  16. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel a bit protective toward them. Scoring: Before summing your scores for the 16 items reverse the scores for the negatively worded items: 2, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15. That is, for these items: 0 = 4; 1 = 3; 2 =2, 3 = 1 and 4 = 0. After reversing the scores for the noted items, sum all your responses to determine your total empathy score. In several studies female participants scored slightly higher than male ones. For women, the average score was 47 and for men, the average score was 44. SOURCE: Adapted from Spreng, R., McKinnon, M.C., Mar, R.A., and Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 62–71.

105

106

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

are quite different matters. To understand why a friend disagrees with you, for example, does not mean you have to give up your position and accept theirs. Imagination Being open-minded is often not enough to make you empathetic. You also need enough imagination to be able to picture another person’s background and thoughts. A happily married or single person needs imagination to empathize with the problems of a friend considering divorce. A young person needs it to empathize with a parent facing retirement. A teacher needs it to understand the problems of students, just as students can’t be empathic without trying to imagine how their instructor feels. Commitment Because empathizing is often difficult, a third necessary quality is a sincere desire to understand another person. Listening to unfamiliar, often confusing information takes time and is not always pleasant. If you aim to be empathic, be willing to accept the challenge. Empathy requires considerable energy and effort and you need to make sure that your own needs for comfort and compassion are met in order to be prepared for the challenge.

CHECK IT! What are the three requirements for empathy, and why do people often have difficulty with the first requirement?

By now, you can see the tremendous difficulties we encounter when we want to understand one another. Physiological distortion, psychological interference, and social and cultural conditioning all insulate us from our fellow human beings. But the news is not all bad, for with a combination of determination and skill, we can do a better job of spanning the gap that separates us and, as a result, enjoy more satisfying interpersonal relationships.

CHECK IT! Name and describe two tools that can improve the accuracy of our attributions.

SUMMARY Many communication challenges arise because of differing perceptions. The process of interpersonal perception is a complex one, and a variety of factors influence each person’s view of reality. Interpersonal perception involves four phases: selection, organization, interpretation, and negotiation. A number of influences can affect how we perceive others’ behaviour. Physiological factors include our senses, age, health, fatigue, hunger, and biological cycles. Psychological factors such as mood and self-concept also have a strong influence on how we regard others. In addition, social influences, such as sex and gender and occupational roles, play an important part in the way we view those with whom we interact. Finally, cultural influences shape how we recognize and make sense of others’ words and

actions. Our cultural values influence our perceptions of talk and silence, thinking and logic, social obligations, distribution of power, avoidance of uncertainty, and the value of achievement and nurturance. Our perceptions are often affected by common perceptual tendencies. We are more likely to blame others than ourselves for misfortunes, and we are more influenced by negative information than positive information. We’re influenced by our expectations, and we’re also influenced by obvious stimuli, even if they are not the most important factors. We make snap judgments and cling to first impressions, even if they’re mistaken, and we assume others are similar to us. One way to verify the accuracy of our interpretations is through perception checking. Instead of

3 | Perceiving Others

jumping to conclusions, communicators who check their perceptions describe the behaviour they noticed, offer two or more equally plausible interpretations, and ask for clarification from their partner. Empathy is the ability to experience the world from another person’s perspective. There are three

dimensions to empathy: perspective taking, emotional involvement, and concern for the other person. Empathy has benefits for both the empathizer and the recipient. The requirements for developing greater empathy include open-mindedness, imagination, and commitment.

MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS 1.

2.

Which of the following statements about the perception process is false?

a ­supposedly better cellphone plan. Fariba’s mood is an example of

a. Your emotional state has little effect on which stimuli you will attend to. b. The raw sense data that we perceive can be organized in more than one way. c. Expectations affect our interpretation of others. d. Narratives can be used to create common ground.

a. b. c. d. 6.

Within the perception process, relational satisfaction has the greatest influence on

Culture influences people’s perceptions of a. equality. b. logic. c. power. d. all of the above.

4.

5.

7.

Fariba is in a bad mood and is very skeptical about the salesperson’s explanation of

Blaming the failure of others on their personal characteristics and blaming the situation for our own failure are known as

Common tendencies in perception (such as clinging to first impressions) are most likely to lead to a. b. c. d.

Snap judgments a. are always inaccurate. b. are effortless. c. are most accurate when they are based on stereotypes. d. help to de-categorize people.

physiological influence on perception. social influence on perception. psychological influence on perception. narrative influence on perception.

a. the self-serving bias and uncertainty avoidance. b. uncertainty avoidance and standpoint theory. c. standpoint theory and the fundamental attribution error. d. the fundamental attribution error and self-serving bias.

a. punctuation. b. selection. c. organization. d. interpretation. 3.

a a a a

8.

judging others more charitably. inaccurate attributions. accurate attributions. building empathy.

Our tendency to seek out, remember, and organize information that supports our impressions and beliefs is known as a. b. c. d.

confirmation bias. the halo effect. the empathy effect. the first impressions effect.

107

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

9.

Which of the following is NOT a component of empathy? a. perspective taking b. emotional contagion c. genuine concern d. sympathy

10. Which of the following statements is false?

b. Perception checking is a tool that helps us understand others. c. To be effective all perception checking statements must include a description of behaviour, two interpretations, and a request for clarification. d. Perception checking has the best chance of working in low-context cultures.

a. Perception checking can decrease the likelihood of making perceptual errors. Answers: 1. a; 2. d; 3. d; 4. b; 5. c; 6. d; 7. b; 8. a; 9. d; 10. c

108

ACTIVITIES 1. Critical Thinking Probe Complete the following sentences: a. Women _____________________________. b. Men ________________________________. c. Francophones ________________________. d. Anglophones _________________________. e. Accountants _________________________. f. Older people _________________________. Now, ask yourself the degree to which each of your responses was a stereotype and/or a generalization. How might aspects of your own identity (e.g., gender identity, religion, culture, language, etc.) affect your responses? Is it possible to make generalizations about the groups listed above? How could your answers to these questions change the way you perceive and respond to people in these groups? Share your list with a classmate and discuss the degree to which your responses were stereotypes and the ways in which your communication is affected by stereotyping. 2. Invitation to Insight You can get a better appreciation of the importance of punctuation by using the format pictured in Figure 3.3 (on page 83) to diagram the following situations: a. A father and daughter are growing more and more distant. The daughter withdraws because she interprets her father’s coolness as r­ ejection.

The father views his daughter’s aloofness as a rebuff and withdraws further. b. The relationship between two friends is becoming strained. One makes jokes to lighten up the tension, and the other becomes more tense. c. A couple is on the verge of breaking up. One partner frequently asks the other to show more affection; the other withdraws physical contact. Explain how each of these situations could be punctuated differently by the two participants. Next, use the same procedure to explain how an event from your experience could be punctuated in at least two different ways. Describe the consequences of failing to recognize the plausibility of each of these punctuation schemes. 3. Invitation to Insight On pages 96–100 of this chapter, we outlined several common perceptual tendencies. Describe instances in which you committed each of them, and explain the consequences of each one. Which of these perceptual tendencies are you most prone to make, and what may be the results of making it? How can you avoid these tendencies in the future? 4. Skill Builder You can develop your empathy skills by putting yourself in the shoes of someone with whom you have

3 | Perceiving Others

an interpersonal relationship. With that person’s help, describe in the first person how the other person views an issue that is important to them. In other words, try as much as possible to become that person and see things from their perspective. Your partner will be the best judge of your ability to make this perceptual jump, so use their comments to modify your account. After doing the exercise, describe how your attempt changed the way you might relate to the other person. 5. Role Play With a partner, choose one of the situations described below or recall a situation in which someone displayed ambiguous non-verbal behaviour, and construct a perception-checking statement. Be sure to include a description of the behaviour, two plausible, but different interpretations of the behaviour, and a request for clarification. Now,

have your partner act out the ambiguous behaviour and role-play your perception-checking statement with your partner. Reverse roles. Situation One Your sister arrives home from school, loudly drops her books, and walks by you without a greeting. You hear her bedroom door slam shut. Situation Two You call a close friend to talk about your exciting plans for the weekend and they’re quiet, answering your questions, but not elaborating on the plans, asking questions, or offering an opinion. Your friend’s mood seems very subdued and a bit distant. Situation Three You arrive at work and your supervisor gives you a list of things to be done. She is not as talkative as usual and quickly walks away after giving you instructions.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1.

2.

Imagine yourself at a family meal or celebration. How might the participants’ perceptions of this event differ? Consider all the influ­ ences on perception described in this chapter to gain insight into the ways in which various family members might perceive the situation differently. Consider the cultural influences on perception described in this chapter. How might the common perceptual tendency to assume that

others are like us create problems in Canada’s multicultural society? 3.

In what types of situations can our common tendencies in perception work to our advantage, and where would these same tendencies work to our disadvantage?

4.

Some communication researchers argue that empathy is perhaps the most important element of communication competence. Would you agree or disagree? Why?

2.

Think of someone you strongly disagree with about a particular issue. Try to describe how they think and feel about the issue as accurately as possible. Remember, understanding their position does not mean that you accept or agree with it.

JOURNAL IDEAS 1.

Consider the influences on perception discussed in this chapter and describe examples of how they have influenced your perceptions and have possibly influenced other people’s perceptions of you.

109

Emotions

urbazon/iStockphoto

4

CHAPTER OUTLINE What Are Emotions? Physiological Changes Cognitive Interpretations Outward Expression

Influences on Emotional Expression Personality Culture Gender Social Conventions and Roles Social Media Emotional Contagion

Expressing Emotions Effectively Recognize Your Feelings Choose the Best Language Share Multiple Feelings Recognize the Difference between Feeling and Acting Accept Responsibility for Your Feelings Choose the Best Time and Place to Express Your Feelings

Managing Emotions Facilitative and Debilitative Emotions Thoughts as a Cause of Feelings Irrational Thinking and Debilitative Emotions Minimizing Debilitative Emotions Maximizing Facilitative Emotions

KEY TERMS communication apprehension debilitative emotions emotions emotional contagion emotional intelligence emotional labour emotionally counterfeit facilitative emotions fallacy of approval fallacy of catastrophic expectations

fallacy of causation fallacy of helplessness fallacy of overgeneralization fallacy of perfection fallacy of should intrapersonally rational–emotive approach reappraisal rumination self-talk

LEARNING OUTCOMES YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO: • • • •

Identify and explain the physiological, cognitive, and outward expressions of your own and others’ ­emotions Describe the various personal and social influences on emotional expression Demonstrate how to express your emotions appropriately and effectively Distinguish between facilitative and debilitative emotions, and explain how that appraisal may be used to manage emotions affectively

112

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

Imagine how different life would be if you lost your ability to experience emotions. An emotionless world would be free of boredom, frustration, fear, and loneliness. But the cost of such a painfree existence would be the loss of emotions like joy, pride, and love. Few of us would be willing to make that sort of trade-off. Being aware of and experiencing emotions is fundamental to the quality of our lives. People who have suffered damage to the areas of the brain that allow them to process emotional information have serious difficulty making decisions in daily life, despite the fact that their cognitive abilities are still functioning normally (Hiser and Koenigs, 2018). Making decisions and navigating our lives require the combination of cognitive processes and emotional responses. Emotions help humans

solve the basic problems of social living (Ferrer and Mendes, 2018; Lerner et al., 2015). The role of emotions in human affairs is apparent to social scientists and lay people alike. Daniel Goleman (1995) coined the term emotional intelligence to describe the ability to understand and manage our own emotions and be sensitive to others’ feelings. Studies have shown that emotional intelligence is positively linked with self-esteem and life satisfaction (Carmeli et al., 2009), healthy conflict communication (Smith et al., 2008), empathic listening abilities (Pence and Vickery, 2012), and effective workplace interactions (Coetzer, 2015; Miao et al., 2017). Some employers even use emotional intelligence measures as part of their personnel selection process (Iliescu et al., 2012).

SELF-ASSESSMENT YOUR EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE To what extent is each of the following true for you? Rate each item below on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 = “very seldom true of me” and 5 = “very often true of me.”  1. It’s hard for me to understand my feelings.  2. I have trouble understanding how others feel.  3. I don’t fantasize or daydream.  4. I find it hard to contain my impulses.  5. I have difficulty expressing my feelings.  6. I’m good at understanding how others feel.  7. When I am in a difficult situation, I collect information.  8. I tend to be impatient.  9. It’s hard for me to describe my feelings.  10. I’m sensitive to others’ feelings.  11. I stop and think before solving problems.  12. I find it hard to control my anxiety. Scoring: Reverse-score items 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 12 (i.e., 5 = 1, 4 = 2, 3 = 3, 2 = 4, 1 = 5). Add items 1, 5, and 9. This is your score on the intrapersonal dimension of Emotional Intelligence: ____. The average score for young adult men on this dimension is about 10, with most scores between 8

and 12; for young adult women, the average is about 11, with most scores between 9 and 13. Add items 2, 6, and 10. This is your score on the interpersonal dimension of Emotional Intelligence: ____. The average score for young adult men on this dimension is about 12, with most scores between 10 and 14; for young adult women, the average is about 13, with most scores between 11 and 15. Add items 3, 7, and 11. This is your score on the adaptability dimension of Emotional Intelligence: ____. The average score for young adult women and men on this dimension is about 12, with most scores between 10 and 14. Add items 4, 8, and 12. This is your score on the stress management dimension of Emotional Intelligence: ____. The average score for young adult women and men on this dimension is about 9, with most scores between 7 and 11. SOURCE: This assessment, based on adaptations of 12 of the 35 items of the original measure, is from Parker, J.A., Keefer, K.V., and Wood, L.M. (2011). Toward a brief multidimensional assessment of emotional intelligence: Psychometric properties of the Emotional Quotient Inventory – Short Form. Psychological Assessment, 23, 762–77.

4 | Emotions

Because emotions are such an important part of human communication, we will take a close look at them in the following pages. We’ll explore what feelings are, discuss the ways they’re handled in contemporary society, and see how recognizing and expressing them can improve relationships. We’ll also look at some guidelines that should give you a clearer idea of when and how to express your emotions constructively. In the final section, we’ll explore a method for coping with troublesome, debilitating feelings that inhibit rather than help your communication.

What Are Emotions?

Emily Flake, The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank

Suppose an extraterrestrial visitor asked you to explain emotions. How would you answer? You might start by saying that emotions are things that we feel. But this doesn’t say much, for, in turn, you would probably describe feelings as synonymous with emotions. There isn’t consistent agreement among researchers on exactly what an emotion is (Izard, 2010, 2011). Psychologist Caroll Izard distinguishes between first-order emotions, which are simpler and operate in infancy and early childhood, and emotion schemas. Emotion schemas are what we typically experience as adults. They require more sophisticated

cognitive skills (i.e., beyond interpreting a sensation of pain or pleasure) and involve an interaction between feeling and thinking. Much of the debate regarding what emotions are seems to revolve around the role of cognition in emotions. For our purposes (understanding the role of emotions in interpersonal communication) we will define emotions as feeling states that include physiological changes, cognitive interpretations, and outward expression. While finding an agreed upon definition of emotion is chal­lenging, there is considerable consensus that emotions play an important role in motivating and focusing human behaviour and in social interactions. In the context of interpersonal communication it’s useful to examine three components of our definition in order to better understand the role of emotion in our social interactions (Scherer, 2000).

Physiological Changes When a person has strong emotions, many bodily changes take place. For example, the physical components of fear include an increased heartbeat, a rise in blood pressure, an increase in adrenalin secretions, a high blood sugar level, a slowing of digestion, and a dilation of the pupils (Madan et al., 2017; Schauer and Elbert, 2010). Marriage researcher John Gottman notes that symptoms such as these occur when couples engage in intense conflicts (Gottman and Silver, 1999). He calls the condition “flooding” and has found it impedes effective problem solving. Research supports the notion that we experience emotions not just in the mind but throughout the whole body (Nummenmaa et al., 2014). Research conducted at the University of Toronto found that undergraduate students who had been rejected in an online game were more likely to estimate the temperature of the room they were in as colder than participants who had not been socially ostracized (Zhong and Leonardelli, 2008).

113

114

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

Anger

Fear

Disgust

Happiness

Sadness

Surprise

FIGURE 4.1  Body Temperatures Associated with Various Emotions Source: Nummenma et al. (2014)

In a second experiment by these same investigators, rejected participants were significantly more likely than their non-rejected peers to want a warm drink (e.g., coffee or soup) than a cold drink (e.g., icy cola). As Figure 4.1 shows, disgust may turn our stomachs, fear can tighten our chest, happiness can make us feel warm all over and sadness cold. Noticing physiological sensations such as these can offer a significant clue to your emotions.

Cognitive Interpretations Although there may be cases in which there is a direct connection between physical behaviour and emotional states, in most situations the mind plays an important role in determining how we feel (Critchley and Garfinkel, 2018). As we noted, some physiological components of fear are a racing heart, perspiration, tense muscles, and raised blood pressure. Interestingly enough, these symptoms are similar to the physical changes that accompany excitement, joy, and other emotions. In other words, if we were to measure the physical condition of someone having a strong emotion, we would have a hard time knowing whether that person was trembling with fear or with excitement. Sometimes it’s a matter of interpretation and labelling. The recognition that the bodily components of most emotions are similar led some psychologists to conclude that the experience of fright, joy, or anger comes primarily from the labels—and the accompanying cognitive interpretations—we give

to our physical symptoms (Imbir, 2016). Psychologist Philip Zimbardo (1977) offers a good example of this principle: I notice I’m perspiring while lecturing. From that I infer I am nervous. If it occurs often, I might even label myself a “nervous person.” Once I have the label, the next question I must answer is, “Why am I nervous?” Then I start to search for an appropriate explanation. I might notice some students leaving the room, or being inattentive. I am nervous because I’m not giving a good lecture. That makes me nervous. How do I know it’s not good? Because I’m boring my audience. I am nervous because I am a boring lecturer and I want to be a good lecturer. I feel inadequate. Maybe I should open a delicatessen instead. Just then a student says, “It’s hot in here, I’m perspiring and it makes it tough to concentrate on your lecture.” Instantly, I’m no longer “nervous” or “boring.” (p. 53)

Social scientists refer to this process as reappraisal: rethinking the meaning of emotionally charged events in ways that alter their emotional impact (Troy et al., 2013). Research shows that reappraisal is related to positive psychological health outcomes (Brockman et al., 2017; Butler et  al., 2003; Gross 2015; Troy et al., 2018). Reappraisal also has relational benefits both among family and friends and at work (Jones et al., 2017; Troth et al., 2018). People who are able to step back from their conflicts and reappraise them from a neutral perspective reduce the emotional impact of their disputes and are better able to maintain positive interpersonal relationships.

4 | Emotions

Outward Expression Feelings are often apparent by observable changes. Some of these changes involve a person’s appearance: blushing, sweating, and so on. Other changes involve behaviour: a distinctive facial expression, a particular posture, certain gestures, different vocal tone and rate, and so on. Although it’s reasonably easy to tell when someone is feeling a strong emotion, it’s more difficult to be certain exactly what that emotion might be. A slumped posture and a sigh may be a sign of sadness or fatigue. Likewise, trembling hands may indicate excitement or fear. As we shall see in Chapter 7, non-verbal communication involves expressing messages via non-linguistic means such as facial expressions, gestures, posture, voice tone, etc., and is usually ambiguous and can easily be misread. Although we usually think of non-verbal behaviour as the reaction to an emotional state, there may be times when the reverse is true—when non-verbal behaviour actually causes emotions. For instance, clenching your fists can help you feel stronger (Schubert and Koole, 2009) and walking with an upbeat strut can stave off feelings of depression (Michalak et al., 2015). We’ll discuss the relationship between non-verbal behaviours and emotions more in Chapter 7. As behavioural scientists like to say, it can be easier to act yourself into new ways of feeling than to feel yourself into new ways of acting. Non-verbal behaviour is a powerful way of communicating emotion. In fact, non-verbal actions are better at conveying attitudes than they are at expressing ideas. But sometimes, words are necessary to express feelings. Saying “I am angry” is clearer and more helpful than stomping out of the room, and “I’m feeling nervous” might help explain a pained expression on your face. There are times when you cannot rely on perceptiveness to make sure a message is communicated and understood accurately. Putting emotions into words can help you manage them more effectively, whereas leaving them unspoken can be personally and interpersonally harmful (Chervonsky and Hunt, 2017). The ability to communicate clearly about feelings has been characterized as part of emotional intelligence, which we discussed earlier in the chapter. We

experience most emotions with different degrees of intensity and we use specific emotion words to represent these differences. Awareness of the intensity of emotions and the vocabulary to describe them accurately is important. Reluctance or an inability to express emotions is associated with greater social difficulties and unhappiness (Chervonsky and Hunt, 2017). Although we understand many words that describe emotions in varying intensity, we tend to rely on a few basic emotional labels (happy, sad, mad, etc.), and increase or decrease their intensity with words like “really,” “kind of,” and so on. Rather than using these modifiers—“I was really, really happy” and “I was kind of angry”—to increase or decrease the intensity of our descriptions, we can enhance others’ understanding of our experi­ences by choosing more accurate descriptors such as ecstatic or annoyed. Figure 4.2 illustrates this point. To say you’re “annoyed” when a friend breaks an important promise is probably an understatement. In other cases, people chronically overstate the strength of their feelings, saying everything is either “fantastic” or “terrible.” The problem with this sort of exaggeration is that when a truly intense emotion comes along, there are no words left to describe it adequately. If you “adore” chocolate chip cookies

Annoyed

Angry

Furious

Pensive

Sad

Grieving

Content

Happy

Ecstatic

Anxious

Afraid

Terrified

Linking

Loving

Adoring

FIGURE 4.2  Intensity of Emotions

115

116

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

from the local bakery, how do you describe your feelings about your romantic partner?

CHECK IT! Describe the three components of emotions and provide examples of each.

Influences on Emotional Expression Each of us is born with the disposition to reveal our emotions, at least non-verbally. Babies all over the world smile, frown, giggle, and cry whenever the mood strikes them. But over time, a wide range of differences develops in emotional expression. In the next few pages, we’ll look at some influences that shape how people communicate their feelings.

Personality Science has established an increasingly clear relationship between personality and the way people experience and communicate emotions (Wilson et al., 2015). For example, extroverted people—those with a tendency to be cheerful and optimistic and to enjoy social contact—report more positive emotions in everyday life than more introverted individuals (Lucas et al., 2008; McCrae and Costa, 2008). Conversely, people with neurotic personalities— those with a tendency to worry, be anxious, and feel apprehensive—report more negative emotions than less neurotic individuals. In addition, individuals with neurotic tendencies are less accurate when identifying negative emotions in others (Edgar et al., 2012; Matsumoto et al., 2000). Although personality can be a strong force, it does not have to govern your emotions or communication satisfaction. Think of shyness, which can be considered the opposite of extroversion. Introverted people can devise comfortable and effective strategies for reaching out. For example, the absence of auditory and visual cues in textbased communication has been found to help shy people feel less apprehension about communicating with new people (Hammick and Lee, 2014). Social

media can provide a way for shy people to initiate communication and gain confidence. Research evidence suggests that mediated communication provides opportunities for socially anxious people to connect with others who share the same interests and provides opportunities to rehearse behaviour and communication skills that may help them in face-to-face social interactions (Ledbetter et al., 2011). However, there is also evidence that the cognitive biases socially anxious people are more susceptible to in face-to-face interactions are also present in at least some forms of mediated communication (Kingsbury and Coplan, 2016). See the Focus on Research box, R U Mad @ Me, for details.

Culture Although people around the world experience the same emotions, the same events can generate quite different feelings in different cultures. The notion of eating cod tongues might bring a smile of delight to some residents of Newfoundland, though it would cause many other Canadians to grimace in ­disgust. Culture also has an effect on how emotions are ­valued. Sometimes it’s hard to imagine emotions being valued in ways that are different from our own. An eye-opening example of what it’s like to experience emotions being valued differently comes from the late anthropologist Jean Briggs at Memorial University (2000). As a PhD student, in the 1960s, Jean lived for 18 months with an Inuit family (as a daughter) in a tiny Utkuhiksalik community in Chantrey Inlet, northwest of Hudson’s Bay. The Utkuhiksalik value social harmony. They need to work together to survive in such a harsh climate. During her stay Jean learned to speak Utkuhikalingmiut (she documented the language later) and she learned about a culture that did not express anger or blame towards others. Jean was not aware of this cultural value when she arrived. When a group of American fishermen, who had flown in, asked to borrow the only remaining canoe after having damaged the first one they borrowed Jean was incensed. The community needed the canoe to get their autumn and winter supplies before the ice set in, and they had no materials or access to materials to repair the first canoe these men had broken! The canoe was essential for the ­survival

4 | Emotions

FOCUS ON RESEARCH R U MAD @ME? In face-to-face situations people who are socially anxious are more likely to interpret ambiguous social situations negatively when compared to their less anxious peers (Chen et al., 2018). Although the use of emoticons and emoji can help reduce ambiguity in mediated communication (Kaye et al., 2016, 2017; Rodrigues et al., 2018), there is some evidence that they’re not used as frequently in private messaging between friends as they are in more public messaging (e.g., status updates) (Oleszkiewicz et al., 2017). In addition, they don’t help reduce message ambiguity in some situations (see examples below for mes­ sages in which an emoji or emoticon might not clarify the senders’ messages). So, Carleton University researchers Mila Kingsbury and Robert Coplan (2016) wondered if social anxiety might also negatively bias interpretations of ambiguous text messages. Kingsbury and Coplan (2016) developed and validated a measure of interpretation bias in computermediated contexts, specifically text messages. Their measure includes 24 vignettes for which the respondent imagines receiving an ambiguous text from a friend. The respondent is presented with one negative and one benign interpretation and asked to rate the likelihood of each interpretation occurring to them. They rate the likelihood of each interpretation using a five-point scale with one meaning the interpretation “does not come to mind” and five meaning the interpretation “definitely comes to mind.” Below are a few examples of the vignettes and the two interpretations (one negative, one benign) for each. Vignette Example 1:

A few minutes before class, you message a friend and ask him/her to save you a seat. S/he responds “I’m sitting with Alex.” Response choices:

a. S/he is telling me where s/he is sitting so I can find him/her b. S/he doesn’t want to sit with me Vignette Example 2:

A friend of yours is hosting a party. You send him/her a message asking if it’s alright to bring someone with you to the party. S/he replies: “Oh okay” Response choices: a. It’s fine if I bring someone b. S/he doesn’t want me to bring someone Vignette Example 3:

The day after attending a party, you get this message from a friend: “I heard about last night” Response choices: a. S/he heard about something interesting that happened at the party b. S/he heard about something embarrassing I did or said Kingsbury and Coplan (2016) varied the order of the benign and negative interpretations and the gender of the senders in the process of validating their measure. They found that individuals with higher social anxiety had a greater tendency to endorse the negative interpretations of ambiguous text messages. They point out that in face-to-face situations the presence of ambiguous non-verbal social cues (e.g., a yawn that could mean tiredness or boredom, or laughter that continued

117

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

could signal amusement or disdain) provide a source of social ambiguity that socially anxious individuals are more likely to interpret negatively. In text mes­sages, the absence of any additional social cues creates the ambiguity. Socially anxious people appear more inclined to not only misinterpret social cues (e.g., faceto-face interaction) but also interpret verbal messages more negatively in the absence of social cues (e.g., text messages). The investigators argue that these negative appraisals may serve to maintain social anxiety by increasing the likelihood that people will avoid social situations, and thereby decrease the amount of posi-

of the community. Jean was angry and told the men her Inuit father did not want to lend them his canoe. She violated the Utkuhiksalik rules of courteous, obliging behaviour and created fear of reprisals from the fishermen (even though in the end they got the canoe). As a result of this discourteous display of anger, Jean was subtly ostracized by the Inuit community. At first she didn’t realize or understand what was happening but as she learned more about her host community she found out that the meanings they assigned to various emotions were very different from the ones she had learned growing up. “For them, a happy person was a good person, a safe person; anger was mindless, childish; also dangerous: an angry person might kill. For Inuit, social order did not derive merely from following rules of expression, it depended on feeling the culturally appropriate emotions. As they saw it, emotions motivated behaviour. I think they were right.” (p. 159)

More recent studies have confirmed that different cultures both experience and value emotions differently. For example, members of collectivist cultures are more likely to value “low arousal positive affect” such as being calm, relaxed, and p ­ eaceful.

tive feedback they receive from social situations. The good news is that negative interpretation bias can be reduced (Liu et al., 2017). The first step in that process is being aware of the possibility that our interpretations might be biased. The next step involves reappraising the situation, which we discuss later in this chapter. Critical thinking: Can you think of factors other than social anxiety or shyness that might contribute to interpreting ambiguous social situations more negatively? More positively? What is the role of emoticons and emoji in your mediated communication?

In contrast, members of more individualistic cultures tend to value “high arousal positive affect” such as excitement, enthusiasm, and elation (Kuppens et al., 2016; Lim 2016; Tsai et al., 2006). There is also evidence that people experience emotions that “fit” their culture’s values. For instance, in individualistic cultures that value autonomy and independence people are more likely to experience emotions related to selfworth and autonomy, such as pride and anger. In contrast, in collectivist cultures, where interdependence and connectedness are highly valued, people tend to experience more feelings of closeness to others rather than pride in situations where things go well, and

© iStockPhoto/Bartosz Hadyniak

118

There are a lot of influences that shape how we communicate our feelings. How do you see the influences discussed in this chapter shaping the way you communicate?

4 | Emotions

Pressmaster/Shutterstock

more embarrassment, rather than anger, when things emotional expression among collectivistic and indidon’t go well (Boiger et al., 2013; De Leersnyder et al., vidualistic cultures (Matsumoto et al., 2008). Clearly, 2014). In addition, when people’s experiences of emo- expressing strong negative emotions such as anger tion “fit” with their cultural values, particularly in and disgust could easily threaten interpersonal harthe context of their interpersonal relationships, they mony. It’s easy to see how differences in display rules experience greater relational well-being (De Leer- can lead to communication problems. For example, snyder et al., 2014, 2015). These researchers confirm individualistic North Americans might view collecwhat Jean Briggs observed more than 50 years ago: tivistic Asians as less than candid, whereas a person we learn which emotions are valued in our cultures raised in Asia could easily regard North Americans through our interactions with others and this social- as being overly demonstrative. ization shapes our emotional experiences (Mesquita Cultural background influences the way we interet al., 2017). pret others’ emotions as well as the way we express The position of a culture on the individualism– our own. Recognition of emotion is generally more collectivism spectrum is one of the most influential accurate when the person expressing the emotion factors in emotional expression (Halberstadt and and the person judging the emotional display belong Lozada, 2011). Members of collectivistic cultures to the same cultural group (Dailey et al., 2010; Elf(such as Japan and India) prize harmony among enbein and Ambady, 2002a). It makes sense that it members of their in-group and discourage the would be easier to judge another person’s emotional expression of any negative emotions that might upset expressions accurately if you were familiar with relationships among people who belong to it. By the subtle differences in expressive style that are contrast, members of highly individualistic cultures part of their culture. In a comparison of university like Canada and the United States feel comfortable students from Africa (Gabon) and North Amerrevealing their feelings to people they are close to. ica (Quebec), Hillary Elfenbein and her colleagues Individualists and collectivists also handle emotional (2007) found that members of these two groups of expression with members of out-groups differently. students had their own culturally unique differences Whereas collectivists are quite frank about express- in facial expressions of some emotions. Knowledge ing negative emotions toward outsiders, individual- of these unique variations in emotional expression ists are more likely to hide emotions such as dislike gave members of the same culture a distinct advan(Ting-Toomey, 2017). For instance, in a cross-cultural tage for accurately reading emotions within their investigation of display rules for seven basic emotions (happiness, sadness, anger, fear, disgust, contempt, and surprise) researchers found that Canadian university students believed showing positive emotions (e.g., happiness, surprise) and powerfully negative emotions (e.g., anger, disgust) was appropriate more often than Japanese students. Japanese students had more varied rules for displaying emotions, depending on who they were interacting with, compared to Canadian students (Safdar et al., 2009). These differences in ideas about appropriate displays of emotion are Women appear to be better at detecting and interpreting emotional expresconsistent with general norms for sions. Do you think this is an advantage or disadvantage for women?

119

120

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

cultural group. The investigators compared these uniquely distinct variations in emotional expression to ­dialects—variations in a standard language. In addition to knowledge of unique variations in facial expressions, members of different cultures pay closer attention to different facial cues when interpreting emotional expressions. People in individualistic cultures pay closer attention to a person’s mouth. Conversely, people in collectivist cultures are more likely to look carefully at a person’s eyes. Cultures even differ in their use of emoticons, with people from individualistic cultures usually using symbols that direct attention to the mouth [ :  ) or :–( ] while people from collectivist cultures are more likely to vary the direction of the eyes [ ^_^ or ; _ ; ] (Park, Barash et al., 2013; Yuki et al., 2007).

Gender Even within our culture, gender roles often shape the ways in which people experience and express their emotions (Lee et al., 2013; Wester et al., 2002; Wingenbach et al., 2018). For instance, research suggests women are faster than men at recognizing emotions from facial cues (Hampson et al., 2006). They are better at identifying multiple emotions (Hall and Matsumoto, 2004) and better at judging emotions from eye behaviour alone (Kirland et al., 2013). They’re also more stimulated by emotional data and remember them better than men do (Spalek et al., 2015). Research on emotional expression also suggests that there is some truth in the stereotype of the inexpressive male and the more demonstrative female. Overall, women seem more likely than men to express a wide range of feelings (Palomares, 2008). In many cultures, men are socialized not to express emotions such as sadness, but their expression of anger is deemed acceptable. In contrast, women’s expressions of sadness fit with the female stereotype for emotional expression, but their expressions of anger do not. Megan McCarty and her colleagues (2014) found that when men and women experience counter stereotypic emotions in public places (e.g., men feeling sad and women feeling angry) it interfered with performance on a cognitive task. This was true even if they did not express their emotions publically. These researchers suggest that experiencing emotions that we have

been socialized not to express is taxing. S­ imilarly, when women buck social conventions and express emotions that counter stereotypes, such as contempt, they report feeling more unhappy than men do (Crowley and Knowles, 2014). Men, on the other hand, are more likely to be reluctant to talk about their feelings, which can lead to relational chal­ lenges (Hesse et al., 2012, 2015). Although men and women generally experience the same emotions, there are some significant differences in the ways they read and express them (Brody and Hall, 2010). These differences are due in large measure to social conventions, which we’ll discuss next.

Social Conventions and Roles Canadians have a reputation for being “nice”—polite, deferential, and law-abiding people (Adams, 2003; McIntyre, 2017). Mainstream North American culture generally discourages the direct expression of most emotions. Count the number of genuine emotional expressions you hear over a two- or three-day period (“I’m angry”; “I feel embarrassed”) and you’ll discover that such expressions are rare. People are generally comfortable making statements of fact and often delight in expressing their opinions, but they rarely disclose how they feel. They tend to act out rather than talk about their emotions. Not surprisingly, the emotions that people do share directly, face to face or online, are usually positive (“I’m happy to say . . .”; “I really enjoyed . . .”). Communicators are reluctant to send messages that embarrass or threaten the face of others (Shimanoff, 1988). For instance, contemporary societies discourage expressions of anger. When compared to past centuries, many societies today strive to suppress this “unpleasant” emotion and its expression in almost every situation, including child-rearing, the workplace, and personal relationships (Pinker, 2011; Stearns and Stearns, 1986). One study of married couples (Shimanoff, 1985) revealed that the partners shared complimentary feelings (“I love you”) or face-saving ones (“I’m sorry I yelled at you”). They also willingly disclosed both positive and negative feelings about absent third parties (“I like Amir,” “I’m uncomfortable around Gloria”). On the other hand, they rarely verbalized face-threatening feelings (“I’m disappointed in you”) or hostility (“I’m  mad

4 | Emotions

at you”). This isn’t to suggest that restricting emotion expression is always a bad idea. Researchers use the term emotional labour to describe situations in which managing or even supressing emotions are both appropriate and necessary (Butler and Modaff, 2012). Studies show emotional labour is an important part of many if not most occupations. Studies of first responders, correctional officers, financial planners, people working as customer service representatives, teachers and health care providers have all found that it can be taxing to manage the expression of their emotions (Grandey et al., 2013).

Social Media Communicators usually express more emotion via mediated communication than they do in person (Derks et al., 2008; Reid and Reid, 2010). In some cases, that is good news. Those who have trouble sharing feelings face to face may find freedom to do so via mediated communication. Consider how it might be easier to say the words “I’m embarrassed” or “I love you.” However, norms of social media emotion sharing, like face-to-face sharing, are biased toward the positive and when negative emotions are shared on social media users are less likely to offer public social support (Ziegele and Reinecke, 2017). In addition, as discussed in Chapter 1, online disinhibition can also encourage emotional outbursts and tirades. This kind of venting can be hazardous to interpersonal relations, and it probably won’t make you feel any better. Social media can also feed emotional responses. For instance, regularly checking a romantic partner’s Facebook may spur feelings of jealousy, resulting in relational dissatisfaction (Dainton and Stokes, 2015). Jealousy resulting from social media posts is especially strong when the viewer is already suspicious, and more so for women than men (Muise et al., 2014). Snapchat can elicit even more jealousy than Facebook because it’s often used for flirting and finding new love interests (Utz et al., 2015). The bottom line is that both senders and receivers experience emotions more intensely online. It’s wise to keep this in mind before hitting send on emotionally charged messages and before jumping to conclusions about ambiguous mediated messages.

Emotional Contagion Emotions can spread from one person to another through a process known as emotional contagion (Dasborough et al., 2009). As Daniel Goleman (1995, p. 115) observes, “We catch feelings from one another as though they were some kind of social virus.” There is evidence this contagion happens between students and teachers (Baker, 2005), customers and employees (Jiangang et al., 2011), co-workers (Robbins and Juge, 2010), and husbands and wives (Randall et al., 2013). Although people differ in the extent to which they are susceptible to emotional contagion (Ilies et al., 2007; Papousek et al., 2008), you can probably recall instances in which being around a calm person left you feeling more at peace or when your previously good mood was spoiled by contact with a grouch. That’s the power of emotional contagion. This process can take place online as well as in person. In an analysis of millions of status updates on Facebook, researchers found that posts about rain—which typically correlate with negative moods—can have a ripple effect on readers (Coviello et al., 2014). Those exposed to their friends’ rainy day messages began posting more negative updates even if it wasn’t raining in their area. The good news is that positive posts are contagious too—at even greater rates. The researchers found that every positive status update led to 1.75 new posts by followers. Twitter updates can have similar effects (Ferrara and Yang, 2015). It’s important to recognize that communicating your emotional state—even online—with people who may not know you well, can have an impact on the feelings and moods of others. And, if checking others’ posts leaves you feeling anxious and depressed (Lin et al., 2016), it might be a good time to take a break from social media.

CHECK IT! Describe seven influences on emotional expression that shape how people communicate their feelings.

121

122

Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

are healthier than those who don’t. Inexpressive people, those who avoid their feelings and impulses and deny distress, are more likely to suffer from a host of medical ailments (Quartana and Burns, 2010). However, overly expressive people also suffer physiologically. When people lash out angrily, their blood pressure jumps an average of 20 points and in some people by as many as 100 points (Siegman and Snow, 1997). Learning how to express emotions constructively is central to good health. The following suggestions Emotions can be contagious, so it’s important that we express them well. Can can help you decide when and you think of a time you “caught” an emotion from someone else? how to express your emotions. Combined with the guidelines for self-disclosure in Chapter 2, Expressing Emotions they can improve the effectiveness of your emoEffectively tional expression. A wide range of research supports the value of expressing emotions appropriately. Starting at a young age the way parents talk to their children Recognize Your Feelings about emotion has a powerful effect on develop- Answering the question, “How do you feel?” is ment. John Gottman and his associates (1997) not as easy for some people as others (Peper, identify two distinct parenting styles: “emotion 2000). Communication researchers Melanie coaching” and “emotion dismissing.” Research Booth-Butterfield and Steven Booth-Butterfield has  found that parents who accurately and (1998; also see Samter and Burleson, 2005) found non-judgmentally describe children’s emotions that some people (whom they term “affectively (e.g., “It looks like you’re very angry”) were more oriented”) are much more aware of their own likely to have children who could accurately rec- emotional states and use information about those ognize and describe their emotional states. In con- feelings when they make important decisions. By trast, children of parents who denied or invalidated contrast, people with a low affective orientation their children’s emotions (e.g., “Don’t be angry!”) are usually unaware of their emotions and tend were less able to accurately identify their feelings to consider feelings to be useless, unimportant (Lambie and Linberg, 2016). Validating and label- information. The researchers summarize studies ling children’s emotions teaches them life skills for showing a relationship between awareness of feelcommunicating about feelings, leading to much ings and a wide range of valuable traits, includmore satisfying relationships. Children who grow ing having positive relationships between parents up in families where parents dismiss emotions are and children, being able to comfort others, being at higher risk for behaviour problems than those sensitive to non-verbal cues, and even being able to skilfully use humour to communicate. In other who practise emotion coaching (Young, 2009). At the most basic physiological level, people words, being aware of your feelings is an importwho know how to share their feelings appropriately ant ingredient in effective communication.

4 | Emotions

Beyond being aware of one’s feelings, research shows that it’s valuable to specifically identify one’s emotions. Teaching children to recognize and accurately identify their emotions is foundational to building their emotional intelligence (David, 2016). College students who could pinpoint the negative emotions they experienced (such as “nervous,” “angry,” “sad,” “ashamed,” and “guilty”) also had the best strategies for managing those emotions (Barrett et al., 2001). As we saw earlier in this chapter, there are a number of ways in which feelings become recognizable. Physiological changes can be a clear sign of your emotional state. Monitoring your non-­ verbal behaviour is another excellent way to keep in touch with your feelings. You can also recognize your emotions by observing your thoughts, as well as the verbal messages you send to others. It’s not far from the verbal statement, “I hate this!” to the realization that you’re angry (or bored, nervous, or embarrassed).

Choose the Best Language

Teechai/Shutterstock

Most people suffer from impoverished emotional vocabularies. Ask them how they’re feeling, and the response will almost always include the same

terms: good or bad, terrible or great, and so on. Take a moment now and see how many feelings you can write down. Many communicators think they’re expressing feelings when, in fact, their statements are emotionally counterfeit. For example, it sounds emotionally revealing to say, “I feel like going to a show” or “I feel we’ve been seeing too much of each other.” But, in fact, neither of these statements has any emotional content. In the first sentence, the word feel really stands in for an intention: “I want to go to a show.” In the second sentence, the “feeling” is really a thought: “I think we’ve been seeing too much of each other.” You can recognize the absence of emotion in each case by adding a genuine word of feeling to it—for instance, “I’m bored and I want to go to a show” or “I think we’ve been seeing too much of each other and I feel confined.” Relying on a small vocabulary of feelings is as limiting as using only a few terms to describe colours. To say that the ocean in all its moods, the sky as it varies from day to day, and the colour of your true love’s eyes are all “blue” tells only a fraction of the story. Likewise, it’s overly broad to use a term like good or great to describe how you feel in situations as different as earning a high grade, finishing a marathon, and hearing the words “I love you” from a special person. Bradberry (2015) found that one sign of emotional intelligence is having a “robust emotional vocabulary”:

Sometimes recognizing your emotions can be difficult. Journaling can help, as can talking to someone close to you. What are some other ways you come to recognize your emotions?

While many people might describe themselves as simply feeling “bad,” emotionally intelligent people can pinpoint whether they feel “irritable,” “frustrated,” “downtrodden,” or “anxious.” The more specific your word choice, the better insight you have into exactly how you are feeling, what caused it, and what you should do about it.

123

124

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

There are several ways to express a feeling verbally: • Through single words: “I’m angry” (or “excited,” “depressed,” “curious,” and so on). • By describing what’s happening to you metaphorically: “My stomach is tied in knots,” “I’m on top of the world.” • By describing what you’d like to do: “I want to run away,” “I’d like to give you a hug.” Finally, you can improve emotional expression by making it clear that your feeling is centred on a specific set of circumstances, rather than the whole relationship. Instead of saying, “I resent you,” say, “I get resentful when you do not keep your promises.” Rather than, “I’m bored with you,” say, “I get bored when you talk about money.”

Share Multiple Feelings Many times, the feeling you express is not the only one you’re experiencing. For example, you might often express your anger, but overlook the confusion, disappointment, frustration, sadness, or embarrassment that preceded it. To understand the importance of expressing multiple emotions, consider the following examples. For each one, ask yourself two questions: How would I feel? What feelings might I express? • An out-of-town friend has promised to arrive at your house at six o’clock. When your guest hasn’t arrived by nine, and hasn’t responded to your texts you’re convinced there’s been a terrible accident. Just as you pick up the phone to call the police and local hospitals, your friend strolls in with an offhand remark about getting a late start. • A friend has posted a photo of you online, along with a positive message. On one hand, you feel flattered by the display of affection. On the other hand, you would rather keep the picture private. You wish your friend had asked first. In situations like these, you would probably feel several emotions. Consider the case of the late friend. Your first reaction to their arrival would probably be relief: “Thank goodness they’re safe!”

TAKE TWO • Emotionally counterfeit: statements that appear to describe feelings, but lack emotional content.

But you would also probably feel anger: “Why didn’t they text or call to tell me they’d be late?” The second example would probably leave you feeling pleased, embarrassed and angry—all at the same time. Despite the commonness of experiencing several emotions at the same time (Carofiglio et al., 2008), we often communicate only one feeling— usually, the most negative one. In both of the preceding examples, you might show only your anger, leaving the other person with little idea of the full range of your feelings. Consider the different reaction you would get by describing all your emotions in such situations.

Recognize the Difference between Feeling and Acting Just because you feel a certain way does not mean you must always act on it. In fact, there’s compelling evidence that people who act out angry feelings— even by hitting a punching bag—actually feel worse than those who experience anger without lashing out (Bushman et al., 1999; Parlamis et al., 2010). Posting your frustration on online “rant sites” doesn’t help either (Martin et al., 2013). Venting anger has many negative personal and interpersonal outcomes (Gibson and Callister, 2010; Parlamis, 2012). Recognizing the difference between feeling and acting can liberate you from the fear that getting in touch with certain emotions will commit you to some disastrous course of action. If, for instance, you think, “I’m so nervous about the interview that I want to cancel it and pretend I’m sick,” it becomes possible to explore why you feel so anxious and then work to remedy the problem. Pretending that nothing is the matter, on the other hand, will do nothing to diminish your anxiety, which can then block your chances for success.

4 | Emotions

Accept Responsibility for Your Feelings People do not make us like or dislike them, and believing that they do denies accepting accountability and the responsibility each of us has for our own emotions. It’s important to make sure that your emotional expressions do not blame others for the way you feel (Bippus and Young, 2005; Oatley, 2010). The “I” language described in Chapter 6 makes it clear that you own your feelings. For example, instead of saying, “You’re making me angry,” it’s more accurate to say, “I’m feeling angry.” Instead of uttering, “You hurt my feelings,” a more responsible statement is, “I feel hurt when you do that.”

Choose the Best Time and Place to Express Your Feelings Often, the first flush of a strong feeling is not the best time to speak out. If you’re awakened by the racket caused by a noisy neighbour and you storm over to complain, you may say things you’ll regret. In situations like this, it’s probably wiser to wait until you’ve thought out carefully how you can express your feelings in a way that is most likely to be heard. Even after you’ve waited for your initial emotion to subside, it’s still important to choose the time that is best suited to the message. If you’re rushed or tired or disturbed by some other matter, that’s probably a good reason for postponing the expression of your feeling. In the same manner, you ought to be confident that the recipient of your message is ready to hear you out before you begin. Sometimes that means checking the other person’s mood before you start sharing emotions. In other cases, it’s about calculating whether that person is ready to hear sentiments such as “I love you.” But don’t put off expressing emotions too long. It turns out that the old adage “Never go to bed angry,” has scientific validity (Hicks and Diamond, 2011). Interpersonal conflict between couples that’s left unresolved overnight leads to poor sleep patterns, which can cause a variety of health problems.

CHECK IT! What are the six guidelines to keep in mind when expressing emotions?

There are also cases where you may choose to never express your feelings. Even if you’re dying to tell an instructor that her lectures leave you bored to a stupor, you might decide it’s best to answer her question “How’s class going?” with an innocuous “Okay.” And even though you may be irritated by the arrogance of a police officer who stops you for speeding, the smartest approach might be to keep your feelings to yourself. When you experience strong emotions but don’t want to share them verbally (for whatever reason) writing out your feelings and thoughts has been shown to have mental, physical, and emotional benefits (Crowley, 2014; Pennebaker and Chung, 2007). Putting your feelings into words—even if no one reads them—has therapeutic value (Wilson, 2011). This demonstrates once again the link between emotions and communication. The cognitive process of turning feelings into language helps manage the emotions.

Managing Emotions The preceding section described how to express your emotions constructively. But there will be times when you decide it’s best to keep your feelings to yourself. For example, imagine that during class your professor makes an offhand comment that makes you feel embarrassed. You might not feel comfortable saying “That hurt my feelings.” Likewise, in a job interview, you probably wouldn’t do yourself any favours by confessing your nervousness. The following sections describe how to manage your emotions intrapersonally—that is through your own thought processes. The starting point is learning to differentiate beneficial emotions from the less helpful kind.

125

126

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

Facilitative and Debilitative Emotions Not all emotions are beneficial. For instance, depression, terror, and irrational guilt do little to help you live well or improve your relationships. It’s important to distinguish between facilitative emotions, which contribute to effective functioning, and debilitative emotions, which hinder or prevent effective performance. An example of a debilitative emotion is communication apprehension—­feelings of anxiety that plague some people at the prospect of communicating in an unfamiliar or difficult situation such as giving a speech, meeting strangers, or being interviewed for a job. Not surprisingly, debilitative emotions like communication apprehension can lead to a variety of problems in personal, business, educational, and even medical situations (Blume et al., 2013; Emory et al., 2018; McCroskey, 2009). The difference between facilitative and debilitative emotions is often not one of quality as much as degree. For instance, a certain amount of anger or irritation can be constructive, if it stimulates a person to improve the unsatisfying conditions. Rage, on the other hand, usually makes matters worse. The same is true of fear. A little bit of nervousness before a job interview may inspire you just enough to improve your performance (athletes or actors who are too relaxed usually do not do well), but a job candidate who is inordinately anxious is not likely to impress potential employers (Ayres and Crosby,

REFLECTION FEELING MIXED EMOTIONS Recently I had the experience of feeling mixed emotions when my romantic partner of three years ended our relationship. We dated throughout high school and first year university, but the relationship had become strained and we had less and less in common. I was seriously thinking about ending the relationship but my partner beat me to it, leaving me feeling relieved, hurt, and sad all at the same time.

1995). One big difference, then, between facilitative and debilitative emotions is their intensity. A second characteristic of debilitative feelings is their extended duration. Feeling sad for a while after the breakup of a relationship or the loss of a job is natural. Spending the rest of one’s life grieving over the loss accomplishes nothing. In the same way, staying angry at someone for a wrong inflicted long ago can be just as punishing to the grudge holder as to the wrongdoer (Bushman et al., 2005). Rumination involves recurrent thoughts not demanded by the immediate environment (Sullivan et al., 2005). A substantial body of research confirms that rehashing negative events over and over in your head increases feelings of sadness, anxiety, and depression, and makes them last longer (Verduyn and Lavrijsen, 2015). Jealousy and rumination are a particularly bad mix (Elphinston et al., 2013), often leading to unhealthy relational behaviours such as surveillance and stalking. While it is sometimes hard to stop ruminating, as we will soon see, it is possible.

Thoughts as a Cause of Feelings How can you minimize debilitative feelings? One way is known as the rational–emotive approach (Ellis and Ellis, 2014). This method is based on the idea that the key to changing feelings is to change unproductive cognitive interpretations. Emotions may seem to have a life of their own. People wish they could feel calm when approaching strangers, yet their voices quiver. They try to appear confident when asking for a raise, but their eyes twitch nervously. Many people would say that the strangers or their supervisor makes them feel nervous, just as they would say that a bee sting causes them to feel pain: Activating Event

Consequence

bee sting

physical pain

meeting strangers

nervous feelings

When looking at emotions in this way, people may believe they have little control over how they feel. However, the causal relationship between activating events and emotional discomfort (or pleasure) is not as great as it seems. Cognitive

4 | Emotions

Activating Event

Thought or Belief

Consequences

Being called “I don’t deserve names to be treated like this.”

hurt, anger

Being called “My friend must names be sick.”

sadness, compassion

The same principle applies in more common situations. For example, the words “I love you” can be interpreted in a variety of ways. They could be taken at face value as a genuine expression of deep affection. They might also be interpreted in a variety of other ways: for example, as an attempt at manipulation; a sincere, but mistaken declaration uttered in a moment of passion; or an attempt to make the recipient feel better. It’s easy to imagine how different interpretations of a statement like “I love you” can lead to different emotional reactions: Event

Thought

Feeling

Hearing “I love you”

“This is a genuine statement.”

delight (perhaps)

Hearing “I love you”

“They are just saying this to manipulate me.”

anger

tuaindeed/Shutterstock

psychologists and therapists argue that it is not events, such as meeting strangers or being jilted by a lover, that cause people to feel bad, but rather the beliefs they hold about these events. Consider this example to understand how thoughts cause feelings. Imagine you start receiving a string of angry, insulting messages from a friend. Under the circumstances, it’s likely that you would feel hurt and angry. Now, imagine that after receiving the offensive messages, you learn that your friend had been hospitalized for mental illness. In this case, your reaction would probably be quite different—most likely, you’d feel sorrow, compassion and possibly embarrassment for ever imagining your good friend would turn against you so quickly for no apparent reason. In this story, the activating event—being called names—was the same in both cases, and yet the emotional consequences were very different. The reason for different feelings has to do with the pattern of thinking in each case. In the first instance, you would most likely think that your friend was angry with you and that you must have done something terrible to deserve such a response. In the second case, you would probably assume that your friend had experienced some psychological difficulty, so you would probably feel sympathetic. This example illustrates that people’s interpretations of events determine their feelings:

Think about the last time you were upset. What role did your beliefs about the event play in your emotional response?

The key, then, to understanding and changing feelings lies in reappraising the event. This takes place through a form of intrapersonal communication professionals have labelled self-talk (Fernyhough, 2016; Geurts, 2018)—the non-vocal, internal monologue that is our process of thinking. To understand how self-talk works, pay attention to the part of you that, like a little voice, whispers in your ear. Take a moment now and listen to what the voice is saying. Did you hear the voice? It was quite possibly saying, “What

127

128

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

little voice? I don’t hear any voices!” This little voice talks to you almost constantly: “I wonder when they’ll finally decide about that.” “I’d better get moving or I’m going to be late.” “How rude to cut in line!”

At work or at play, scrolling through our phone or brushing our teeth, we’re almost always thinking. This thinking voice rarely stops. It may fall silent for a while when we’re meditating or concentrating on a task, but most of the time, it rattles on. Let’s look at how that voice sometimes processes thoughts in ways that need reappraising.

Irrational Thinking and Debilitative Emotions This process of self-talk is essential to understanding the debilitative feelings that interfere with effective communication (Ellis, 2017). Many debilitative feelings come from accepting a number of irrational thoughts—we’ll call them fallacies here—that lead to illogical conclusions and, in turn, to debilitating feelings. We are not usually aware of these thoughts, and that makes them especially powerful.

The Fallacy of Perfection People who accept the fallacy of perfection believe that a worthwhile communicator should be able to handle any situation with complete confidence and skill. Although such a standard of perfection can serve as a goal and a source of inspiration (rather like making a hole-in-one for a golfer), it’s unrealistic to expect that you can reach or maintain this level of behaviour. The truth is, people simply are not perfect, despite what we see online and in media (Dougherty and Krawczyk, 2018). People who believe that it’s desirable and possible to be a perfect communicator come to think that they will not be appreciated if they’re imperfect. Admitting mistakes, saying “I don’t know,” or sharing feelings of uncertainty or discomfort thus seem to be social defects. But we know that’s not accurate, because most of us don’t like being around know-it-alls who never acknowledge they’re fallible.

TAKE TWO • Facilitative emotions: contribute to effective functioning. • Debilitative emotions: hinder and prevent effective performance; they are usually more intense and longer lasting than facilitative emotions and are frequently based on irrational thinking. • Rational–emotive approach: a cognitively-based therapeutic approach that involves getting rid of debilitative emotions by changing one’s thinking.

You become more liberated each time you comfortably accept the idea that you are not perfect. Saying to yourself “I made a mistake—I’m a failure” will likely lead to debilitative emotions. Replacing that with “I made a mistake—I guess I’m human, and I learned something from it” is far more facilitating.

The Fallacy of Approval Another mistaken belief is based on the idea that it is vital—not just desirable—to obtain everyone’s approval. Communicators who subscribe to the fallacy of approval go to extreme lengths to seek acceptance from others, even to the extent of sacrificing their own principles and happiness. Adherence to this irrational myth can lead to some ludicrous situations, such as feeling nervous because people you really do not like seem to disapprove of you, or feeling apologetic when you’re not at fault. Consider how some self-talk is rooted in the fallacy of approval, and how realistic alternatives can lead to more facilitative emotions: Fallacious approval seeking: “If I speak up about those racist jokes, the others will probably think I’m hung up on political correctness.” Rational: “I hope they won’t think I am overly PC but I’d rather speak up than compromise my beliefs.”

4 | Emotions

Fallacious approval seeking: “If I confront my classmate about not doing their share of the project they will probably get defensive.” Rational: “There’s a chance my classmate will get ­defensive—but I would rather deal with it than keep quiet and feel resentful.”

Don’t misunderstand: abandoning the fallacy of approval does not mean living a life of selfishness. It’s still important to consider the needs of others. It’s also pleasant—perhaps even necessary—to strive for the respect of certain people. The point is that the price is too high if you must abandon your own needs and principles in order to gain this acceptance.

The Fallacy of Should One source of unhappiness is the inability to distinguish between what is and what should be, or the fallacy of should. For instance, imagine a person who is full of complaints about the world: “There should be no rain on weekends.” “Money should grow on trees.” “We should all be able to fly.”

Beliefs such as these are obviously foolish. But we hold those kinds of expectations for others all the time: “They shouldn’t be so inconsiderate.” “People should stand up for themselves.” “They should work harder.”

We also hold these expectations for ourselves. Read these out loud and consider how you feel about them (your tone of voice will give you a clue): “I should be more outgoing.” “I should be nicer to my family.” “I should be a better team player.”

Even when they’re true, “should” statements carry a lot of emotional baggage. Rather than

expecting others to behave the way you think they should and feeling disappointed when they don’t meet that standard, it’s more realistic to think, “I wish they would behave the way I want—but maybe I’m being unrealistic to expect better behaviour.” The same principle applies to self-imposed resolutions—they can be unrealistic and create ­ more problems than they solve. It can be more productive to set goals rather than dwell on self-criticism. Consider these alternatives to the previous list: “I wish I were more extroverted but I’m not. I’ll do the best I can without being phony.” “I’m going to start being nicer to my family.” “I’ll resist being selfish and work on being a better team player.”

The Fallacy of Overgeneralization The fallacy of overgeneralization occurs when a person bases a belief on a limited amount of evidence. Consider the following statements: “I’m so stupid! I can’t understand how to do my income tax.” “Some friend I am! I forgot my best friend’s birthday.”

These examples focus on a single shortcoming as if it represents everything. It’s more rational and less punishing to avoid overgeneralizing. Finding one task challenging doesn’t mean you’re unintelligent, and forgetting one event doesn’t make you a bad friend. A second, related category of overgeneralization occurs when we exaggerate shortcomings: “They never listen to me.” “They’re always late.” “I can’t think of anything.”

Upon closer examination, such absolute statements are almost always false and they usually lead to discouragement or anger. It’s better to replace overgeneralizations with more accurate messages: “They often don’t listen to me.” “They’ve been late three times this week.” “I haven’t had any ideas I like today.”

129

130

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

FOCUS ON RESEARCH THE REMINDERS OF OUR FRIENDS CAN HELP TAKE AWAY THE STING OF BEING EXCLUDED Why do we seek approval from others and why does it hurt so much when they reject us? Researchers have found that some of the same pain-related brain mechanisms that are activated when we hurt ourselves physically (e.g., stub your toe) are also activated by social pain, such as social exclusion or ostracism (Sturgeon and Zautra, 2016). In fact, taking a pain reliever such as acetaminophen dulls the social pain of rejection and exclusion just as it does physical pain (DeWall et al., 2011). The need to belong to a group is central to our survival as a species, as we discussed in Chapter 1 (see Maslow’s hierarchy of needs). Over a decade of research examining people’s responses to social exclusion in an online cyberball game paradigm has confirmed that adults find it painful when other adults choose not to include them in the game; it’s also painful just to watch others be rejected from the online game (Hartgerink et al., 2016; Wesselmann et al., 2009; Williams and Jarvis, 2006). Incredibly, it’s even painful when people are rejected by groups of people they despise (Gonsalkorale and Williams, 2007). A recent investigation using the cyberball paradigm examined the extent to which subtly reminding people of their larger social network after they experienced

The Fallacy of Causation People who live their lives in accordance with the fallacy of causation believe they should do nothing that can hurt or in any way inconvenience others because it will cause undesirable feelings. For example, you might not tell your family members that they have interrupted you several times because you don’t want to make them angry. Similarly, it might be tempting to avoid bringing up issues with co-workers because you don’t want to cause a negative reaction. A reluctance to speak out in such situations often results from assuming that one person can cause another’s emotions—that others,

rejection in the cyberball game affected their ability to recover from the social exclusion experience (Knausenberger and Echterhoff, 2018). This study found that German university students with a more collectivist orientation (more interdependent) recovered faster (regained their feelings of social connection) than their peers with a more individualist orientation, when they saw a subtle reminder of their social network (e.g., Facebook logo in the corner of their computer screen) during a series of tasks they completed after experiencing ostracism in the cyberball game. Participants who were not reminded of their friends saw a Word logo on their computer screen. Participants who had a more individualistic orientation (more independent) were not affected by either logo. These investigators wondered if the ubiquitous presence of logos in our lives might sometimes help remind us of our enduring connections to others and bolster our sense of belonging in the face of social exclusion. Critical Thinking: What helps you recover from rejection or social exclusion? Do you think that the cultural dimension of individualism versus collectivism helps explain your recovery supports? Are there other aspects of culture that might be more relevant?

for example, are responsible for your feeling disappointed, confused, or irritated, or that you are responsible for others feeling hurt, angry, or upset. Actually, this assumption is sometimes incorrect. We may act in provocative ways, for which we are responsible, but each person is also responsible for the way they react. It’s not accurate to say that people make you angry, upset, or even happy. Behaviour that upsets or pleases one person might not bring any reaction from another. If you doubt this fact, think about people you know who respond differently to a behaviour that you find bothersome. (You may scream “Idiot!” when driving and someone switches lanes in front of you without signalling, while the person

4 | Emotions

REFLECTION THINKING ABOUT AN ANNOYING FRIEND My friend Ada talks about her personal life at length, but when I talk about myself for more than a couple of minutes, she has few comments and quickly turns the conversation back to her favourite topic, herself. Until lately, Ada’s egocentric focus was beginning to hurt my feelings. When Ada talks about herself, I think that what I have to say isn’t interesting or that she doesn’t care about me as a friend. I feel neglected, as if our relationship is one-sided. Lately, I’ve started to think about other reasons Ada talks so much. For example, she’s told me that I’m a great listener and that I help her by lending an ear. Also, I’ve realized that Ada seldom gets to talk about herself (she spends all day talking to customers on the phone and is engaged to a very talkative guy). So now I’ve started to take Ada’s self-centred approach less personally. I still wish she would listen to me more, but I don’t think that her egocentrism is making me resentful. It’s my choice whether to accept her as she is, speak up about what I want, or see less of her.

driving the car behind you may not even notice, or may notice, but not care.) The contrast between their reactions and yours shows that responses are determined more by our own temperament and thinking than by the actions of others. One way to avoid debilitative feelings that often accompany the fallacy of causation is to use responsible language, as we’ll discuss in Chapter  6. Instead of saying “They make me so angry,” reframe it to centre on your reaction to the other person’s behaviour: “I don’t like it when they talk about me behind my back.” Instead of saying, “I had to visit my grandparents this weekend; they gave me no option,” take responsibility for your choices: “I decided to visit my grandparents this weekend, but I might choose differently next time.” Taking ownership for your actions and reactions can often lead to a sense of empowerment.

The Fallacy of Helplessness The fallacy of helplessness suggests that forces beyond our control determine our satisfaction in life. People with this outlook continually see themselves as victims: “There’s no way a woman can get ahead in this society. The best thing I can do is to accept it.” “I was born with a shy personality. I’d like to be more outgoing, but there’s nothing I can do about that.” “I can’t tell my manager that she’s putting too many demands on me. If I did, I might lose my job.”

The error in such statements becomes apparent once a person realizes that few paths are completely closed. Many difficulties a person claims can’t be solved do have solutions; the task is to discover the solutions and to work diligently at applying them. Changing your self-talk can help you see some of those choices and feel more positive about pursuing them: “It’s an uphill battle in this society but I will do my best to bring about change.” “I tend to be shy around strangers, but I’m going to introduce myself to someone I don’t know at the party tonight.” “It won’t be pleasant to confront my manager, but I can do it.”

Even if you simply change “I can’t tell my manager” to “I won’t tell my manager” you’ll at least be aware of the choice you’re making and feel less helpless.

The Fallacy of Catastrophic Expectations Some fearful people operate on the assumption that if something bad can happen, it probably will. This is the fallacy of catastrophic expectations—a position similar to Murphy’s Law. These statements are typical of such an attitude: “If I invite them to the party, they probably won’t want to come.” “If I speak up in order to try to resolve a conflict, things will probably get worse.”

131

132

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

and the kind of reappraisal we’ll discuss next. Communicators who manage their emotions are able to express them in productive ways with their partners, and this helps maintain relationships. With that in mind, we look at how to reduce debilitative emotions that are generally counterproductive to personal and interpersonal health.

spfoto/iStockphoto

Minimizing Debilitative Emotions

Which of these fallacies do you struggle with the most? What are some things you can do to overcome irrational thoughts?

“If I apply for the job I want, I probably won’t be hired.” “If I tell them how I really feel, they’ll probably just laugh at me.”

Once you start imagining terrible consequences, a self-fulfilling prophecy can begin to build. One study revealed that people who believed that their romantic partners would not change for the better were likely to behave in ways that contributed to the breakup of the relationship (Metts and Cupach, 1990). And, people who have a “pessimism bias” often perceive threats in their relationships that are not apparent to outsiders, leading to relationship dissatisfaction (Knobloch et al., 2007). If this fallacy plagues you, it’s best to shift your internal language from “I fear the worst” to “I’ll hope for the best.” Although it’s easy to understand the personal benefits of reducing debilitating emotions, it’s important to remember the interpersonal reasons for doing so. Simply put, relationships function better when the people involved manage their e­ motions (English et al., 2013; Knobloch and Metts, 2013). This obviously doesn’t mean stifling feelings—quite the contrary. Emotion management involves self-awareness, emotional intelligence,

Now you’re ready to put into practice the rational–emotive process and self-talk. When practised conscientiously, it can help you cut down on the self-defeating thinking that leads to many debilitative emotions.

CHECK IT! List the seven fallacies or irrational types of thinking that can create debilitative emotions. Provide an example of each fallacy.

Monitor Your Emotional Reactions The first step is to recognize when you’re having debilitative emotions. As we suggested earlier, one way to notice feelings is through physical stimuli: butterflies in the stomach, racing heart, blushing, and so on. Although such reactions might be symptoms of food poisoning, more often they reflect a strong emotion. You can also recognize certain ways of behaving that suggest your ­feelings—stamping instead of walking normally, being unusually quiet, and speaking in a sarcastic tone of voice are some examples. It may seem strange to suggest that it’s necessary to look for emotions—they ought to be immediately apparent. However, the fact is that we often suffer from debilitative feelings for some

4 | Emotions

time without noticing them. For example, at the end of a trying day you’ve probably caught yourself frowning and realized that you’ve been wearing that expression for some time without knowing it. Remember the two key characteristics of debilitating emotions, intensity (they are too intense) and duration (they last too long), and use them to guide your assessment.

Note the Activating Event Once you realize how you’re feeling, the next step is to figure out what activating event triggered your response. Sometimes, it’s obvious. If your romantic partner keeps calling you by the name of a former lover, you’re likely to become upset. Research shows that dating couples can develop “social allergies” to each other, becoming hypersensitive about their partner’s annoying behaviours (Cunningham et al., 2005). In other cases, however, the activating event is not so apparent. Sometimes, there is no single activating event, but instead a series of small incidents that finally trigger a debilitative feeling. This sort of thing happens when someone teases you over and over about the same thing, or when you suffer a series of small disappointments. The best way to begin tracking activating events is to notice the circumstances in which you have debilitative feelings. Perhaps they happen when you are around specific people. For example, you may feel tense or angry every time you encounter a person you have struggled with in the past. Until those issues are dealt with, feelings about past events can trigger debilitative emotions, even in apparently innocuous situations. In other cases, you might discover that being around certain types of individuals triggers debilitative emotions. For instance, you might become nervous around people who seem more intelligent or self-confident than you are. In other cases, certain settings can stimulate unpleasant emotions: parties, work, or school. Sometimes, the topic of conversation is what sets you off, whether it’s politics, religion, sex, or some other sensitive subject. There is evidence to suggest that the channel or information source can play a role too. There are considerable variations in people’s perceptions of appropriate

cellphone etiquette and civility. Social media, with its exclusive and nonexclusive message features, friending and defriending, can also contribute to feelings of jealousy, envy, sadness, and social isolation (Rozgonjuk et al., 2018; Utz et al., 2015). Recognizing your activating events is an important step in minimizing debilitative emotions.

Record Your Self-Talk This is the point at which you analyze the thoughts that are the link between the activating event and your feelings. If you’re serious about getting rid of debilitative emotions, it’s important to actually write down your self-talk when you’re learning to use this method. Putting your thoughts on paper will help you see whether or not they make any sense. Monitoring your self-talk might be difficult at first. This is a new skill, and any new activity seems awkward. If you persevere, however, you’ll be able to identify the thoughts that lead to your debilitative feelings. Once you get into the habit of recognizing this internal monologue, you will be able to identify your thoughts quickly and easily.

Dispute Your Irrational Beliefs Now is the time to engage in the reappraisal process mentioned earlier in this chapter. Use the discussion of irrational fallacies on pages 128 to 132 to find out which parts of your self-talk are based on mistaken thinking, and then use those skills to actively dispute your irrational beliefs. You can do this most effectively by following three steps. First, decide whether each belief you have recorded is rational or irrational. Next, explain why the belief does or does not make sense. Finally, if the belief is irrational, write down an alternative way of thinking that is more sensible and that can leave you feeling better when you are faced with the same activating event in the future.

Change Your Self-Talk Once you have disputed your irrational beliefs, it’s time to change your intrapersonal language accordingly. Replace words in your self-talk such

133

134

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

as “can’t,” “have to,” and “should” with words like “will,” “want to,” and “choose to.” For example: Instead of saying “I can’t make small talk with strangers,” say, “I will ask more questions with strangers.” Instead of saying, “I have to be polite to rude customers,” say, “I choose to be polite because it’s better than the other options.” Instead of “I should be less defensive,” say, “I want to be less defensive, so I’m going to work on it.”

After reading about this method for dealing with unpleasant emotions, some readers may have objections such as: “This rational–emotive approach sounds like nothing more than trying to talk yourself out of feeling bad.” This accusation is totally correct. After all, since we talk ourselves into feeling bad, what’s wrong with talking ourselves out of bad feelings, especially when they’re based on irrational thoughts? “The kind of disputing we just read sounds phony and unnatural. I don’t talk to myself in sentences and paragraphs.” There’s no need to dispute your irrational beliefs in any special literary style. You can be as colloquial as you want. The important thing is to clearly understand what thoughts led you into your debilitative feeling so you can clearly reappraise them. When the technique is new to you, it’s a good idea to write or talk out your thoughts in order to make them clear. After you’ve had some practice, you’ll be able to do these steps in a quicker, less formal way. “This approach is too cold and impersonal. It seems to aim to turn people into cold-blooded, calculating, emotionless machines.” This is simply

not true. A rational thinker can still dream, hope, and love. There’s nothing necessarily irrational about feelings like those. “This technique promises too much. There’s no chance I could rid myself of all unpleasant feelings, however nice that might be.” We can answer this by assuring you that rational–emotive thinking probably won’t make all your debilitative feelings go away. What it can do is reduce their number, intensity, and duration.

Maximizing Facilitative Emotions Reducing debilitative emotions is only part of the emotional health equation. Contemporary scholars maintain that fostering positive emotions is just as important as minimizing negative ones. Whether it’s called “learned optimism” (Seligman, 2006) or “positivity” (Fredrickson, 2009), the approach is similar to what’s outlined in this chapter. If thoughts cause feelings, then positive thoughts can cause positive feelings. Ruminating on the good rather than the bad in life can enhance one’s emotional, relational, and even physical health (Rius-Ottenheim et al., 2013; Wrosch et al., 2017). It’s unrealistic to think that you’ll have a positive emotional response to every event. The key, according to Harvard professor Susan David (2016), is to cultivate “emotional agility.” Emotional agility is a skill set that builds on our ability to face our emotions, label them, understand them, and then choose to move forward deliberately. It is the ability to recognize when you’re feeling stressed, be able to step outside your stress, and then decide how to act in a way that is congruent with your personal values and aligned with your goals. (Semnani, 2016)

BUILDING WORK SKILLS CHALLENGING IRRATIONAL BELIEFS Debilitative emotions at work or school can prevent you from making decisions and solving problems. Choose an important situation you faced at work or school in which you experienced debilitative emotions that interfered with your ability to communicate effectively. Use the five steps on pages 132–4 to challenge the rationality of your beliefs. How has the rational–emotive approach affected your communication in this situation?

4 | Emotions

FOCUS ON RESEARCH COMBINING DAILY MINDFULNESS WITH REAPPRAISAL Ekaterina Pogrebtsova and her colleagues (2018) at the University of Guelph, Simon Fraser University, and Kemmy Business School in Ireland developed and piloted a brief (five day) daily practice of mindfulness and positive appraisal to help university students manage their stress, decrease their negative emotions, and promote their overall well-being. Positive reappraisal involves changing your self-talk, as we’ve just discussed. Mindfulness is another well-­ established emotional regulation technique that involves focusing awareness on thoughts and feelings in the present moment without judging them. Mindfulness involves acceptance of and curiosity about one’s emotions and thoughts. It helps people broaden their attention, sometimes called “decentring attention,” which can facilitate a positive reappraisal of a seemingly negative situation (Azam et al., 2016; Garlan et al., 2015). When you establish some distance from your thoughts and feelings it’s easier to think about them differently. In addition, mindfulness helps us focus on the meaning of our experiences in terms of our personal growth and development. Often, negative incidents can frequently be reframed or reappraised as inherently meaningful events that help us learn, grow, and develop as human beings. These investigators randomly assigned 106 Canadian university students to one of three conditions: reappraisal-only intervention, mindful-reappraisal intervention, and a control condition. All participants attended a one-hour “Looking on the Bright Side of Life” general training session. Afterwards, for five consecutive days (Monday to Friday), participants assigned to the reappraisal-only condition completed a daily positive reappraisal exercise, an online survey, and a second online daily positive and negative affect scale. Participants in the mindful-reappraisal condition completed the same surveys over the same fiveday period but their exercise included mindfulness instructions (an example of these is below) in addition to positive reappraisal instructions. The control group completed all the same measures but did not receive exercise instructions. Finally, in order to control for people’s naturally occurring levels of ­mindfulness all three groups completed the Toronto Mind­ fulness Scale each day (Davis et al., 2009).

Participants in this study described a variety of predominantly low-severity stressors that included academic issues (most frequent), followed by interpersonal conflict, miscellaneous daily hassles, and general negative mood. Lower frequency issues involved lateness, forgetfulness, physical pain or sickness, and lack of sleep. The investigators found that the students in both intervention groups (but not the control group) reported a pronounced decrease in negative emotions over the five-day intervention. Participants assigned to the mindful-reappraisal group experienced higher average levels of daily positive emotion and lower levels of daily negative emotions compared to participants assigned to the reappraisal-only and control groups. In addition, participants in the mindful-reappraisal intervention reported higher average levels of mindfulness compared to the reappraisal-only and control groups. The investigators concluded that incorporating mindfulness instructions into classic positive reappraisal exercises helped to promote student well-being in a short (five-day) intervention. Below are the instructions the investigators provided to students in the mindfulness-reappraisal group. Please lean back and relax for a moment. If you want to, you can close your eyes. Allow yourself to explore your thoughts and keep an open mind while you engage in this activity. First please complete the breathing technique: Keep count of the number of seconds it takes you to inhale, and then to exhale, for three full breaths. Now relax and take some time to recall a negative event that happened to you within the last 24 hrs. As you recall the negative situation, please try to do so objectively without evaluating the situation or making judgments about what happened. Pretend as if you are an outsider viewing the situation with no background knowledge. What happened exactly? Where did it happen? What did you see, hear, or even smell? What did you do or say? Were you alone or were other people involved? If another person was (or several people were) involved, what exactly did they do or say? Think of the b ­ enefits continued

135

136

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

you may have gained from your experience such as self-understanding, insight, or improvement in a relationship and your thoughts and feelings associated with those benefits such as empowerment and relief. Focus on what you have learned from this experience and how it will help you in your future experiences. Please finish the exercise by completing the breathing technique again. Keep count of the number of seconds it takes you to inhale, and then to exhale, for 3 full breaths to allow yourself to focus on the present moment. More than half the participants in this study reported feeling better (improved mood) after completing the exercises. Other benefits included reduced frustration, improved clarity, feeling better

Even though you can’t dictate all the events in your life, you have the power to reappraise them. Clichés such as “look on the bright side” and “have an attitude of gratitude” may not be comforting when delivered by others, but they can serve as helpful reminders. You can regard challenging situations as growth opportunities. You can focus on what you gained rather than what you lost. You can choose compassion over contempt. The difference between “you really hurt me” and “I found out how strong and capable I really am” is often a matter of mindset and positive emotions followed by positive reappraisals.

prepared to face future stressors, and learning to avoid similar situations in the future. Finally, 89 per cent of the participants said the exercises were useful and 79 per cent believed they would continue to use the exercises regularly in the future. Pogrebtsova and her colleagues caution that there may be cultural differences that affect the effectiveness of mindful-­ reappraisal as a coping strategy and that mindfulness and positive reappraisal are just two of many effective strategies students can use to promote their well-being. Critical Thinking: How important is emotional regulation to your overall well-being? What strategies do you employ to manage negative emotions and sustain positive emotions? What role could/does mindfulness play in your well-being?

Many people find it easier to focus on their negative emotional experiences. It often takes mindful effort to pay attention and express pleasurable feelings in close relationships. Here are 10 emotions that research (Fredrickson, 2009) identifies as basic to positivity: joy, gratitude, serenity, interest, hope, pride, amusement, inspiration, awe, and love. How many of those have you experienced recently? How often do you express these emotions to people who matter? Is it possible that you felt these emotions but can’t recall them? Identifying and then talking or writing about your positive emotional experiences can lead to greater personal and interpersonal satisfaction.

SUMMARY Emotions have several dimensions. They are signalled by internal physiological changes, are highly influenced by cognitive interpretations, and are manifested in verbal and non-verbal outward expression. Personality, culture, gender, social conventions and roles, social media, and emotional contagion all influence how people experience and express their emotions.

Expressing emotions effectively involves accurately recognizing our feelings, having a robust vocabulary in order to accurately describe our emotions, and having the ability to express multiple feelings. We must also recognize the difference between feeling and acting. Appropriate emotional expression requires willingness to accept responsibility for one’s feelings instead of blaming them on

4 | Emotions

others. If we determine it’s appropriate to share our emotions with others we need to choose the proper time and place. Managing our emotions requires us to distinguish between facilitative and debilitative emotions. Many debilitative emotions are caused by various types of irrational thinking. Minimizing

debilitative emotions involves a process of reappraisal. The steps involved include paying attention to our emotional reactions, noting the activating event, recording our self-talk, disputing our irrational beliefs, and changing our selftalk. Maximizing facilitative emotions requires emotional agility and mindful effort.

MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS 1.

Min-Seo keeps thinking about how embarrassed she was when the teacher called her name and she wasn’t paying attention in class. She keeps replaying the scene over and over in her head and wishing she had been listening and feeling like a failure. MinSeo is

c. rumination. d. the rational–emotive approach. 4.

a. Venting negative emotions on social media is generally constructive. b. Both senders and receivers of mediated messages experience emotions more intensely than in face-to-face interactions. c. Communicators generally express more emotion online than they do in person. d. Snapchat tends to illicit more jealousy than Facebook.

a. reappraising the event. b. ruminating. c. displaying emotional intelligence. d. experiencing a facilitative emotion. 2.

Darya notices that when she’s waiting for her friends to arrive at the café she feels light and carefree. She’s tapping her foot to the music playing and she catches herself smiling. She interprets these signals as evidence that she is happy. This is an example of the a. verbal expression component of emotion. b. non-verbal expression component of emotion. c. rumination component of emotion. d. cognitive interpretation component of emotion.

3.

Kofi is an emergency room nurse who must stay positive, and suppress anxiety and fear during stressful situations when patients are feeling acute pain and in distress. This requires a. emotional labour. b. counterfeit emotions.

Which of the following statements is false?

5.

When considering sharing your emotions with others it is important to a. do it immediately. b. be as spontaneous as possible. c. realize that experiencing an emotion does not commit you to a course of action. d. all of the above are true about sharing emotions.

6.

Isaad says that because he’s shy he can’t speak during the presentation and so will just have to accept a mark of zero on that part of the assignment. Isaad’s thinking is an example of the fallacy of a. perfection. b. approval. c. should. d. helplessness.

137

PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication

7.

The belief that if something bad can happen it probably will is the fallacy of a. causation. b. should. c. catastrophic expectations. d. perfection.

8.

Samina notices that whenever she spends time with her partner’s friends from the art college she feels anxious and doubts her own intelligence. Her analysis of the situation is a. noting the activating event for debilitating emotions. b. discovering that certain types of people trigger these emotions. c. one step in the rational–emotive process. d. all of the above are true about her analysis.

9.

The rational–emotive approach to dealing with debilitating emotions a. is really just trying to talk yourself out of feeling bad. b. can help cut down on self-defeating thinking. c. is not realistic for people who have strong emotional temperaments. d. all of the above are true about the rational–emotive approach.

10. A skillset that builds on our ability to face our emotions, label them, understand them, and choose to move forward deliberately is called a. b. c. d.

the fallacy of perfection. facilitative emotions. emotional agility. emotional labour.

Answers: 1. b; 2. b; 3. a; 4. a; 5. c; 6. d; 7. c; 8. d; 9. b; 10. c

138

ACTIVITIES 1. Invitation to Insight The Self-Assessment exercise on page 112 gives you a general sense of your emotional intelligence. Ask two or three people who are close to you to offer their appraisal using the assessment. Do their evaluations match yours? If not, what do you think explains the difference? What are some of the ways you might improve your emotional intelligence?

3. Ethical Challenge According to the rational–emotive approach, we cause our own feelings by interpreting an event in one way or another. If this is true, it is a fallacy to claim we “make” others feel happy or sad. Do you accept this position? To what degree are you responsible for communicating in ways that “cause” others to feel happy or sad? Use a specific incident from your life to illustrate your answer.

2. Skill Builder Choose an important emotion you experience in one of your relationships. This relationship needn’t be highly personal. You might, for example, focus on an employer, an instructor, or a neighbour. Use the guidelines on pages 122–5 to determine whether, and how, you might express this emotion.

4. Role Play Choose a partner. Together, develop a specific scenario in which you have sent an email that your partner has interpreted much more negatively than you intended. Discuss your options to clarify this situation and then role-play your solution to the problem. Now, switch roles.

4 | Emotions

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1.

What are emotions? What do they contribute to the human experience of life?

2.

Six influences on emotional expression are described in this chapter. Explain how each has influenced your ability and motivation to communicate your feelings.

4.

Several common, but flawed beliefs, or fallacies, are described in this chapter. Which ones are you most susceptible to? Why do you think that is?

5.

Discuss the value of self-talk in managing difficult emotions. How is the emergence of “life coaches” related to this concept?



On the basis of your experience, decide whether you subscribe to the fallacy of helplessness and what you could do to eliminate this sort of debilitative thinking from your life.

2.

The Focus on Research box, on page 135, included a description of mindful-­ reappraisal instructions to help decrease the duration of negative emotions. For one week keep track of times when you experience negative emotions and follow the instructions for mindful-reappraisal. Pay attention to your mood—do your emotions change after you step back and reappraise the situation more positively with an open and non-judgmental attitude? If yes, how so? If not, why not?

Six guidelines for expressing emotions are described in this chapter. Do you think these guidelines are complete? Are there any guidelines you would add? Remove? Why?

3.

JOURNAL IDEAS 1.

Explore the fallacy of helplessness by describing two important difficulties you have in communicating with (a) family members, (b) people at school or at work, (c) strangers, and (d) friends. Use the following format for each difficulty:



I can’t __________________________,



because _________________________.



Now, read the list, but with a slight difference. For each can’t, substitute the word won’t. Note which ones are actually “won’t” statements. Read the list again, but this time substitute “I do not know how to” for your original can’t. Rewrite any sentences that are truly “do not know how” statements, then decide what you could do to learn the skill that you currently lack.

139

PART TWO

Creating and Responding to Messages

ferrantraite/iStockphoto

pixelheadphoto digitalskillet/Shutterstock

5

Listening

CHAPTER OUTLINE The Nature of Listening The Importance of Listening Listening Defined Listening Styles

The Challenge of Listening Recognizing Barriers to Listening Avoiding Poor Listening Habits

Components of Listening Hearing Attending Understanding

Remembering Responding

Types of Listening Responses Silent Listening Questioning Paraphrasing Empathizing Supporting Analyzing Evaluating Advising Which Style to Use?

KEY TERMS advising analytical listening ambushing analyzing attending closed questions counterfeit questions critical listening empathizing evaluating hearing listening listening fidelity

mindful listening mindless listening open questions paraphrasing questioning relational listening remembering responding silent listening sincere questions supporting task-oriented listening understanding

LEARNING OUTCOMES YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO: • • • •

Describe the importance and nature of listening, and the listening styles that interpersonal communicators use Explain the challenges that can impede effective listening and identify your own ineffective listening Identify the five components of the interpersonal listening process Effectively use a variety of reflective and directive listening responses

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

Take a moment to think of the worst listener you know. Maybe it’s someone who interrupts or whose attention seems to wander as you talk. Perhaps this person forgets important things you have said, steers the conversation back to topics that only they’re interested in, or gives responses that reflect a lack of understanding. Recall how you feel when you’re conversing with this poor listener. Perhaps you feel irritated, frustrated, discouraged, or all three? Now think about how others view you as a listener. Which of these behaviours that you find so annoying in your conversational partners, do you engage in yourself? Attentive listening is fundamental to effective interpersonal communication and is perhaps the most difficult skill to develop. In this chapter, you’ll learn about the many factors that make good listening difficult, and you’ll also find reasons for tackling those challenges. You’ll see what really happens when listening takes place. Finally, you’ll read about a variety of listening responses that you can use to increase your own understanding, improve your relationships, and help others.

The Nature of Listening

all the ­challenges ­inherent in attentive and effective listening. Listening effectively requires a number of skills, not the least of which is really paying attention in the midst of our constantly connected, digitally distracting world. We begin our exploration of this subject by describing the importance of listening in interpersonal communication.

The Importance of Listening How important is listening? If we use frequency as a measure, it ranks at the top of the list (Janusik and Wolvin, 2009). Among college students, listening makes up over 50 per cent of their communication activities (Emanuel et al., 2008), as Figure 5.1 illustrates. In the workplace, listening is a frequent activity. When working adults were asked to name the most common communication behaviour they observed in their place of business, “listening” was named most frequently (Keyton et al., 2013) Numerous studies (summarized in Flynn et al., 2008) find listening to be the most important communication skill for entry-level workers, subordinates, supervisors, and managers on several fronts: job and career success, ­productivity,

When people think about improving their communication skills, they usually think of developing their ability to send messages. While sending messages is important, and we spend a considerable number of pages in this book discussing effective language and non-­ verbal communication, many scholars suggest that if you were to choose only one communication skill to improve, your best choice would be to improve your listening skills. We have all heard simplistic prescriptions for better listening (e.g., “close your mouth Unfortunately, there is no connection between how well most communicators and open your ears”), but this think they listen and how competent they really are in their ability to underadvice doesn’t begin to capture stand others. Are there times when you’re a better listener than others?

fizkes/Shutterstock

144

5 | Listening

28% Media listening

16% Reading

17% Speaking

28% Interpersonal listening

FIGURE 5.1  Types of Communication Activities Source: Emanuel, R. et al. (2008). How college students spend their time communicating. International Journal of Listening, 22, 13–28.

upward mobility, communication training, and organizational effectiveness. When several hundred human-resource executives were asked to identify skills of the ideal manager, the ability to listen effectively ranked at the top of the list (Winsor et al., 1997). In fact, research suggests leaders who build a culture of listening have better performing organizations (Kirtley Johnson and Reed, 2017; Daimler, 2016). The world of work is not the only place where listening is vital. When a group of adults was asked to rank various communication skills according to their importance, listening topped their family and social lists, alongside their career lists (Brownell and Wolvin, 2010). In committed relationships, listening to personal information in everyday conversations is considered an important ingredient of satisfaction (Kuhn et al., 2018; Prager and Buhrmester, 1998). With this in mind, we turn our attention to defining this important skill.

Listening Defined So, what exactly is listening? Listening, at least the interpersonal type, is the process of r­eceiving,

Hearing Versus Listening Listening and hearing are not identical. Hearing is the process by which sound waves strike the eardrum and cause vibrations that are transmitted to the brain. Listening takes place when the brain reconstructs these electrochemical impulses into a representation of the original sound and then gives them meaning (Robinshaw, 2007). Barring illness, injury, or earplugs, you cannot stop

William Haefeli/Cartoonstock

11% Writing

i­nterpreting, and responding to spoken and ­nonverbal messages. Traditional approaches to listening focus on reception of spoken messages. However, we have broadened the definition to include messages of all sorts because much of contemporary listening takes place through mediated channels, some of which involve written ­messages. Consider times you’ve said “I was talking to a friend and she said  .  .  .,” when the conversation you are recounting actually took place via text message. You’ll read in Chapter 8 how social support can be offered in face-to-face communication but also through text messages, posts, tweets, and other social media mechanisms. We continue to focus on spoken messages in this chapter but recognize that “listening” in our contemporary society involves more than meets the ear.

145

146

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

SELF-ASSESSMENT YOUR LISTENING STYLE Record your first impressions of each of the following statements by indicating the degree to which you agree or disagree. Use a scale ranging from 1 to 7, where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree.” Relational Listening  1. When listening to others, it is important to understand the feelings of the speaker.  2. I listen to understand the emotions and moods of the speaker.  3. I listen primarily to build and maintain relationships with others.  4. I enjoy listening to others because it allows me to connect with them. Analytical Listening  1. I tend to withhold judgment about another’s ideas until I’ve heard everything they have to say.  2. When listening to others, I consider the issue before responding.  3. I fully listen to what a person has to say before forming any opinions.  4. To be fair to others, I fully listen to what they have to say before making judgments. Task Listening  1. I get frustrated when people get off topic during a conversation.  2. I prefer speakers who quickly get to the point.  3. I find it difficult to listen to people who take too long to get their ideas across.  4. When listening to others, I appreciate speakers who give brief, to the point presentations.

hearing. Your ears will pick up sound waves and transmit them to your brain whether you want them to or not. Listening, however, is not so automatic. Many times, we hear, but do not listen. Sometimes, we deliberately do not listen. Sometime we automatically and unconsciously block out irritating sounds, such as a neighbour’s lawn mower or the roar of nearby traffic. We also stop listening when

Critical Listening  1. I often catch errors in other speaker’s logic.  2. I tend to naturally notice errors in what other speakers say.  3. I have a talent for catching inconsistencies in what a speaker says.  4. When listening to others, I notice contradictions in what they say. SOURCE: This measure presents 16 of the 24 items of the original instrument developed by Graham Bodie and his colleagues: Bodie, G.D., Worthington, D.L., and Gearhart, C.C. (2013). The Listening Styles Profile – Revised (LSP_R): A scale revision and evidence of validity. Communication Quarterly, 61, 72–90. Scoring: Add your responses to items 1 to 4. This is your Relational Listening Score. American undergraduate students had an average score of 22, with most scoring between 21 and 24. Add your responses to items 5 to 8. This is your Analytical Listening Score. American undergraduate students had an average score of 19, with most scoring between 17 and 21. Add your responses to items 9 to 12. This is your Task Listening Score. American undergraduate students had an average score of 20, with most scoring between 18 and 22. Add your responses to items 13 to 16. This is your Critical Listening Score. American undergraduate students had an average score of 18, with most scoring between 16 and 20.

we find a subject unimportant or uninteresting. Boring stories, commercials, and nagging complaints are common examples of messages we may tune out. Other times, we think we’re listening, but in fact, we’re simply receiving sounds and our minds are elsewhere. Listening requires not just hearing, but the effort of paying attention, understanding, remembering, and responding, as we’ll discuss later in this chapter.

5 | Listening

Mindless Listening When we move beyond hearing and start to listen, researchers note that we process information in two very different ways (Burleson, 2011; Todorov et al., 2002). Ellen Langer (1990) uses the terms mindless and mindful to describe these two different ways of listening. Mindless listening occurs when we react to others’ messages automatically and routinely, without much mental investment. Words such as superficial and cursory describe mindless listening. Although the term mindless listening may sound negative, this sort of low-level information processing is potentially a valuable type of communication. It frees us to focus our minds on messages that require our careful attention (Burgoon et al., 2000). Given the number of messages we’re exposed to, it’s impractical to listen carefully and thoughtfully all of the time. It’s unrealistic to devote your full attention to long winded stories, idle chatter, or remarks you have heard many times before. The only realistic way to manage the onslaught of messages is to be “lazy” toward many of them (Griffin, 2006). In situations like these, we forgo careful analysis and fall back on the schemas—and sometimes the stereotypes— described in Chapter 3 to make sense of a m ­ essage. If you stop right now and recall the messages you have heard today, it’s likely that you processed most of them mindlessly.

Mindful Listening By contrast, mindful listening involves giving careful and thoughtful attention and responses to the messages we receive. You tend to listen mindfully when a message is important to you or someone you care about. Think of how you would tune in carefully if a close friend told you about the loss of a loved one. In situations like this, you want to give the message-sender your complete and undivided attention. Sometimes we respond mindlessly to information that deserves—and even demands—our mindful attention. Ellen Langer’s (1990) determination to study mindfulness began when her grandmother complained about headaches coming from

a “snake crawling around” beneath her skull. Doctors quickly diagnosed the problem as senility, interpreting the snake description as nonsense. In fact, Langer’s grandmother had a brain tumour that eventually killed her. The event made a deep impression on Langer: For years afterward, I kept thinking about the doctors’ reactions to my grandmother’s complaints, and about our reactions to the doctors. They went through the motions of diagnosis, but were not open to what they were hearing. Mindsets about senility interfered. We did not question the doctors; mindsets about experts interfered. (p. 3)

Most of our daily decisions about whether to listen mindfully or not do not have life-or-death consequences, of course. Yet we often need to listen consciously and carefully to what others are telling us. That kind of mindful listening is the focus of this chapter.

Listening Styles Not everyone listens the same way or with the same goals all the time. Communication researchers have identified four broad listening styles—task-oriented, relational, analytical, and critical—each of which has both strengths and weaknesses (Bodie et al., 2013). Many people use more than one listening style and the style may vary depending on the situation at hand (Gearhart et al., 2014).

Task-Oriented Listening Task-oriented listening is most concerned with efficiency and accomplishing the job at hand. When deadlines and other pressures demand immediate action, task orientation can be beneficial. It’s most appropriate when the focus is taking care of business; such listeners encourage others to be organized and concise. Despite its advantages, a task orientation may alienate others when it seems to ignore their feelings. People with a different temperament, or those who are from cultures where it’s impolite to be direct, may not appreciate a strictly ­task-­oriented approach.

147

148

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

In addition, a focus on getting things done quickly may come at the expense of thoughtful deliberation and consideration. Finally, t­ask-oriented listeners may minimize the emotional issues and concerns that are important to many business and personal transactions.

Relational Listening Relational listening is most concerned with building emotional closeness with others. People who primarily use this style are typically extroverted, attentive, and friendly (Villaume and Bodie, 2007). Relational listeners aim to understand how others feel; they are thus aware of and are highly responsive to others’ emotions. They strive to be nonjudgmental and are more interested in understanding and supporting people than evaluating or controlling them. Not surprisingly, relational listeners are more likely than those with other styles to draw out responses from the message sender (Keaton et al., 2015). A relational style can have drawbacks, however. In an effort to be congenial and supportive, relational listeners may lose their detachment and ability to objectively assess information (Gearhart and Bodie, 2011).

Analytical Listening Analytical listening emphasizes attending to the full message before coming to judgment. People who default to this style want to hear details and analyze an issue from a variety of perspectives. Analytical listeners can be a big help when the goal is to investigate difficult questions, taking into account a wide range of perspectives. They are especially valuable in thinking systematically about complex issues. This thorough approach can be time consuming and impractical at times, however, such as when a deadline is fast approaching.

Critical Listening People who default to critical listening have a strong desire to evaluate messages. They are concerned not with just understanding

­ essages but assessing their quality, focusing m on accuracy and consistency. This style is especially helpful when the goal is to investigate a problem. However, critical listeners can also frustrate others by appearing to find fault in even minor details. Whichever styles you use, it’s important to recognize that you can control the way you listen. When your relationship with the speaker needs attention, opt for a relational approach. If investigation is called for, put on your analytical persona. And when there is a need for evaluation, become a critical listener. You can be more effective by assessing and adapting to the listening preferences and styles of your conversational partners.

The Challenge of Listening Even with the best intentions, listening carefully is a challenge. When two or more people are listening to a speaker, we tend to assume that they’re each hearing and understanding the same message. However, recall our discussion of perception in Chapter 3, where we pointed out the many factors that cause each of us to perceive an event differently. Physiological factors, social roles, cultural background, and personal interests and needs all shape and distort the raw data we hear into very different messages. It’s no wonder that dyads ­typically achieve only 25 to 50 per cent accuracy in interpreting or representing each other’s behaviour (Spitzberg, 1994). Our listening is always coloured and limited by our unique view of the world. Although we all listen differently, we can try to avoid some common pitfalls. Here we’ll look at some of the obstacles and bad habits we must overcome to listen carefully.

Recognizing Barriers to Listening Listening is more difficult than many realize. Common barriers to listening include information overload, personal concerns, rapid thought, and noise. Being aware of these potential barriers can help you create environments that are more conducive to listening.

5 | Listening

CHECK IT! Define the term listening. Describe four reasons for listening and provide an example of each.

Information Overload The sheer amount of speech most of us encounter every day makes it impossible to listen carefully to everything we hear. We are bombarded with messages not only in face-to-face interaction, but also from the internet, media, cellphones, and various other sources (Arsenault, 2007). Given this barrage of information, it’s challenging to keep our attention totally focused for long periods. As a result, we often choose—understandably and sometimes wisely—to listen mindlessly rather than mindfully.

Noise Finally, our physical and mental worlds often present distractions that make it hard for us to pay attention to others. The sounds of other conversations, traffic, and music, as well as the kinds of psychological noise that we discussed in Chapter 1, all interfere with our ability to listen well. In addition, fatigue or other forms of discomfort can also distract us. For instance, consider how the efficiency of your listening decreases when you’re seated in a crowded, hot, stuffy room full of moving people and other noises. In such circumstances, even the best intentions aren’t enough to ensure cogent understanding.

CHECK IT! Describe four barriers to listening.

Personal Concerns A second reason we don’t always listen carefully is that we’re often wrapped up in personal concerns that we perceive as being more immediately important to us than the messages others are sending (Nichols, 2009). It’s hard to pay attention to someone else when we’re anticipating an upcoming test or thinking about the wonderful time we had last night with our friends. When we feel required to give attention to others but our focus is elsewhere, listening becomes mindless at best and often a polite charade.

Rapid Thought Listening carefully is also difficult because our minds are so active. Although we’re capable of understanding speech at rates of up to 600 words a minute (Versfeld and Dreschler, 2002), the average person speaks much more slowly—between 100 and 140 words a minute. Therefore, we have a lot of “spare time” to spend with our minds while someone is talking. The temptation is to use this time in ways that are not related to the speaker’s ideas, such as thinking about personal interests, daydreaming, planning a rebuttal, and so on. The trick is to use this spare time to understand the speaker’s ideas better, rather than to let your attention wander.

Avoiding Poor Listening Habits Most of us have one or more bad habits that keep us from understanding others’ messages. As you read about the following list of such habits, see which ones describe you. Avoiding these poor ­listening behaviours begins with awareness of when you engage in them. • Pseudo-listening is pretending to pay attention. Pseudo-listeners give the appearance of being attentive: they look you in the eye, nod, and smile at the right times, and even answer you occasionally, but their minds are elsewhere. • Stage hogging is expressing your own ideas without inviting others to share theirs. Stage hogs monopolize the conversation and only allow others to speak from time to time so they can catch their breath. They do not seem to care what others may contribute to the conversation. • Selective listening is responding only to the parts of a speaker’s remarks that interest the listener and rejecting everything else. • Filling in the gaps is manufacturing information that was not part of an original story or message. People presume to have heard things the speaker has not communicated, as though they have the ability to

149

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

REFLECTION FAKE LISTENING I went parachuting for the first time last month. Before our first jump, we spent four hours in “ground school.” I listened very carefully, especially during the part where they told us what to do if our chute didn’t open after jumping from the plane. This was life-and-death material, and I didn’t want to miss anything. That’s not the way I listen at school most of the time. I sit through most classroom lectures and it all seems like gibberish to me. I act as if I’m listening— nod at what I hope are the right times, smile when people laugh, and even scratch my head as if I’m thinking—so the teacher will assume I am listening. But I don’t remember a thing afterward. I used to think it was all the teacher’s fault, but I guess part of it has to do with whether or not I bother to turn up my “listening volume.”

Hearing As we’ve already discussed, hearing is the physiological aspect of listening. It’s obviously vital to listening because it’s the starting point in the process. It can be diminished by physiological disorders, background noise, and auditory fatigue, a temporary loss of hearing caused by continuous exposure to the same tone or loudness. People who attend loud concerts or fireworks may experience auditory fatigue and, if they’re exposed often enough, permanent hearing loss. Hearing loss is one of the most prevalent chronic conditions facing Canadians (The Hearing Foundation of Canada, 2018). What used to be perceived as a problem just for the elderly is now a serious concern for adolescents, due in large part to use of earphones for portable devices (Jiang et al., 2016). It’s wise to protect your hearing—for your own sake as well as for the sake of your relationship partners.

read minds. When people who fill in the gaps retell what they listened to, they present a distorted (not merely incomplete) version of the original. • Insulated listening is almost the opposite of selective listening. Instead of only focusing on topics of interest, these listeners tune out any topics they would rather not deal with. • Defensive listening is taking innocent comments as personal attacks. Defensive listeners project their own insecurities onto others. • Ambushing is listening carefully only to collect information for use in attacking the speaker. This kind of strategy often creates defensiveness from the other person and ruins a supportive communication climate. It escalates conflict, as we’ll discuss further in Chapters 9 and 10.

Components of Listening By now, you can begin to see that there is more to listening than sitting quietly while another ­person speaks. In truth, listening—especially mindful ­listening—consists of five separate elements: hearing, attending, understanding, remembering, and responding.

Polifoto/iStockphoto

150

We miss out on things when we don’t listen. Do you think it’s possible to be a good listener all of the time?

5 | Listening

Attending While hearing is a physiological process, attending is a psychological one and is part of the process of selection that we described in Chapter 3. As we discussed earlier in this chapter and in ­Chapter 3, we’re inundated with messages, often all at the same time. This deluge of communication has made attending tougher than at any time in human history (Hansen, 2007; Ralph et al., 2013). We would go crazy if we attended to every sound we hear, so we filter out some messages and focus on others. Not surprisingly, research shows that we attend most carefully to messages when there is a benefit in doing so (Burleson, 2007). If you’re planning to see a movie, you’ll listen to a friend’s description of it more carefully than you otherwise would. And when you want to get better acquainted with someone, you’ll pay careful attention to almost anything they say, in hopes of improving the relationship. In addition to paying attention to verbal communication, listening involves attending to the non-verbal messages people send us as well. Notice that the Chinese characters that make up the verb meaning “to listen” in Figure 5.2 include not just ears, but eyes, too. Some people fail to

EAR EYES

UNDIVIDED ATTENTION

TAKE TWO • Pseudo-listening: an imitation of real listening. • Stage hogging: the practice of only expressing one’s own ideas during conversation. • Selective listening: the act of listening only to the parts of a speaker’s remarks that interest you. • Filling in the gaps: the practice of making up information to give the impression that one was listening and can recall the whole story. • Insulated listening: the tendency to avoid or fail to hear or acknowledge certain topics. • Defensive listening: the habit of interpreting innocent comments as personal attacks. • Ambushing: the tendency to listen carefully, but only to gather information that can be used to attack the speaker.

notice non-verbal signals, but for others, attending to non-verbal communication poses unique ­challenges. People with a physiological syndrome called non-verbal learning disorder often miss or misinterpret non-verbal cues like facial expressions, gestures, and tones of voice (Casey, 2012). Whether due to insensitivity or physiology, failing to attend to non-verbal cues is a listening deficit. Attending doesn’t just help the listener; it also benefits the message sender. People remember more details of conversations in which they perceived their conversational partner as attentive (Pasupathi and Hoyt, 2010). People also are able to express their opinions with greater comfort during conversations with an attentive versus an inattentive listener (Itzchakov et al., 2018).

Understanding HEART

FIGURE 5.2  The Chinese characters that make up the verb meaning “to listen” tell us something significant about this skill. Calligraphy by Angie Au

Paying attention—even close attention—to a message does not guarantee that you’ll understand what’s being said. Understanding is attaching meaning to a message. This stage of listening is composed of several elements. First, of course, you must be aware of the syntactic and grammatical rules of the language. You must also be familiar

151

152

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

FOCUS ON RESEARCH HEARING LOSS Hearing loss is increasingly common in Canada (The Hearing Foundation of Canada, 2018), particularly as the population ages, and it creates a host of interpersonal challenges for those with this sensory loss, as well as for their friends, family, and colleagues. Helen Keller (1933), who was both blind and deaf for most of her life, said: The problems of deafness are deeper and more complex, if not more important, than those of blindness. Deafness is a much worse misfortune. For it means the loss of the most vital stimulus—the sound of the voice that brings language, sets thoughts astir and keeps us in the intellectual company of man. (p. 68) Hearing loss can create psychosocial difficulties such as social isolation and increased dependency, and it increases the likelihood of interpersonal challenges, particularly in close relationships (Lehane et  al., 2017; Manchaiah et al., 2013). People who suffer hearing loss often find noisy social situations ­challenging and overwhelming. It’s difficult to for them to pick out distinct voices and participate in conversations and this can lead to avoidance of social situations such as parties, work meetings, and social situations in general. Even in quieter, private situations, people with impaired hearing often cannot hear soft voices, which negatively affects their ability to carry on an intimate conversation without risk of embarrassment (Lucas et al., 2018). These difficulties are associated with depression and reduced social activity among people with hearing loss (Andrade et al., 2017). Hearing aids can help to alleviate many of the social challenges associated with hearing loss, but they’re not widely adopted. Only about 20 to 33 per cent of individuals who could potentially benefit from hearing aids actually report using them (Abrams and Kihm, 2015; Bainbridge and Ramachandran, 2014; Singh and Lauer, 2016). For most people, hearing loss comes on gradually and is often difficult to perceive at first. People with mild hearing loss may not be aware of it, may choose to ignore it or may blame their communication difficulties on others—“You’re

mumbling, speak up!” may be a common refrain (Desjardins and Doherty, 2017). Some factors that have been associated with hearing aid uptake include: • • • • •

degree of hearing impairment; awareness of communication difficulties; expectations and attitudes about hearing; finger dexterity and visual acuity; willingness to use information communication technologies; • dispositions and personality traits such as higher openness to new experiences; • positive expectations and attitudes of family, significant others (SO), and health care professionals toward hearing aid cost and ownership; and • not feeling stigmatized by hearing impairment (see Singh and Launer, 2016, 2018 for reviews). Unfortunately, the stigma associated with hearing loss constitutes one of the biggest barriers to hearing aid use (Barker et al., 2017; Fraser, Kenyon, Lagacé, Wittich, and Southall, 2016). Older people with hearing impairments are often perceived as less capable, cognitively diminished, or poor communicators, and these beliefs may in turn cause them to view themselves as old, weak, and less capable, leading them to reject rehabilitation services, such as hearing aids (David et al., 2018; Gagné, Southall, and Jennings, 2009). It’s not difficult to see ageist stereotypes and self-fulfilling prophecies contributing to this problem. Several studies have found that even after brief periods of hearing aid use individuals with hearing loss report increased hearing ability and communication with others (Kelly-Campbell and Plexico, 2012) but studies have also reported feelings of disappointment in the efficacy of hearing aids for both the user and their communication partners (Barker et al., 2017; Desjardins and Doherty, 2017). Overall, communication partners report more benefits of hearing aid use and note that individuals with hearing loss are more easily integrated into social events when they agree to wear hearing aids.

5 | Listening

The processes of adapting to hearing loss and using a hearing aid requires adjustments for both people with sensory impairments and their communication partners (Barker et al., 2017; Hofsoe et al., 2018) and strong interpersonal skills and supportive relationships are excellent resources to assist in this adjustment process.

with the speaker’s vocabulary and jargon (you can probably remember times you felt lost in the lingo and acronyms at a new job). Another important factor is what you know about the message’s source. That will help you decide, for example, whether a friend’s insulting remark is a joke or a serious attack. The context of a message also helps you understand what is being said. A yawning response to your comments would probably have a different meaning at midnight than at noon. The ideal in interpersonal listening is both to understand and to be understood. Listening fidelity is the degree of congruence between what a

Critical thinking: In your experience, are people less patient and accommodating when communicating with people who have acquired hearing loss compared to other communication related impairments (e.g., low vision, speech impediments)? Why or why not? Do you think there is greater stigma associated with acquired hearing loss? Why or why not?

listener understands and what the message sender was trying to communicate (Powers and Witt, 2008). Fidelity doesn’t mean agreement. You might listen carefully to a point your friend is making, understand her position quite clearly, and still disagree completely. But the act of listening carefully and understanding sends a positive relational message, even if the communicators don’t see eye-toeye on the content. We’ll discuss the importance of establishing a positive communication climate in greater detail in Chapter 9 and examine the effects of establishing a positive climate when effectively managing conflict in Chapter 10.

FOCUS ON RESEARCH MUTLI-COMMUNICATING AT WORK There is considerable quantitative and qualitative evidence that we switch tasks at work frequently. In the information technology (IT) field computer programmmmers, analysts, and managers spend an average of nine minutes working on a task before they switch or engage in overlapping tasks and in other fields the length of time on task is as low as an average of three minutes (Cameron et al., 2018; Cameron et al., 2016; Dieker, 2016; Gonzalez and Mark, 2004). As we discussed in Chapter 3, multitasking is really just task switching due to the limited ability of our brains to process complex information. Multi-communicating (MC) is a term used to describe engaging in multiple overlapping conversations at the same time (Reinsch, Turner, and Tinsley, 2008). Like multitasking, we cannot actually read texts, answer emails, and talk on the phone all at the same time—

we have to switch our attention between each of these tasks. Ann-Francis Cameron and her colleagues (2016, 2018) have identified four commonly held myths about MC at work. The first is that it makes employees more accessible. While it is true that people at work check their email on average every 12 minutes (Marulanda-Carter and Jackson, 2012) and they perceive themselves as more accessible, they are actually less accessible to the people they’re meeting with face-to-face—because they’re not attending and therefore are not listening to those they’re meeting with (Cameron and Webster, 2013; Cameron et al., 2018). The second misconception is that MC makes us more productive. Research examining our ability to juggle two conversations at the same time suggests continued

153

154

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

we make more errors, contribute less to both conversations, and increase confusion and the need for repetition when engaged in multiple conversations simultaneously (Cameron and Webster, 2013; ­Cameron et al., 2018). The third erroneous belief about MC is that we must engage in it to do our jobs. Because of this belief, many of us have developed the habit of constantly checking and immediately responding to communications rather than at times that are best for us. Most of us do not need to be constantly available to do our jobs effectively and these MC habits contribute to our being less effective in our jobs, as a result of the inattention and mindless listening MC produces. This is particularly true for those of us who try to engage in MC during face-to-face meetings (Cameron et al., 2016, 2018). In addition, this habit of constantly checking our phones may well have contributed to a new phobia, nomaphobia, which is the fear of being without our devices (Yildirim, and Correia, 2015; for more information on nomaphobia and tips for managing it in workplaces see Tam et al., 2018). The final myth identified by Cameron and her colleagues (2016) is that MC at work is not perceived as rude. People argue that everyone does it and nobody really minds. However, Cameron and her colleagues (2013) have found that people perceive others engaging in MC as more rude and incompetent. This is particularly true of managers who engage in MC in the presence of their employees and this perception of rudeness is not just a perception shared by the older generation. In Cameron’s research, younger employees’ perceptions of their multi-communicating co-workers were just as negative (Cameron and Webster, 2011). The only situation in which MC at work was perceived as acceptable was when the purpose of the second conversation was to provide information needed in the first discussion (e.g., texting a co-worker who

Remembering Remembering is the ability to recall information once we’ve understood it and it depends on several factors. These include the number of times the information is heard or repeated, the amount of information received at once, and whether the information can be rehearsed (Ranpura, 2013).

is not present to get an update on a project being discussed in the meeting) (Cameron et al., 2018; Cameron and Webster, 2013). So, what should we do about our inaccurate beliefs about our mindless listening habits at work? Cameron and her colleagues provide a series of research-based suggestions that include the following: • •

• •

•

•

Do not confuse the frequency with which you engage in MC with your ability to do it effectively. When you need to focus your attention and engage in mindful listening, disable prompts (e.g., figure out the times you are most tempted to engage in MC and put your communication devices on silent mode) that perpetuate the “cue-routine-reward” loop associated with mediated communication. Identify channels and procedures for truly urgent communications in the workplace. When giving feedback and direction to employees and subordinates, focus on one conversation at a time. Do not assume that peoples’ attitudes towards MC are consistently positive or based on age or generation. When MC is required explain why and apologize for doing so to reduce perceptions of incivility.

These investigators acknowledge that MC is part of work environments and there may be times when it can be planned for and effective, but that mindless MC decreases our productivity and can damage people’s perceptions of us and our work relationships. Critical Thinking: Do you feel pressure to be constantly connected and responsive? Do you think some of the inaccurate beliefs about multi-communicating at work have parallels in our social lives? If so, how so? If not, why not?

Early research on listening revealed that people remember only about half of what they hear immediately after hearing it, even when they listen mindfully (Barker, 1971). Within two months, half of the originally remembered portion is forgotten, bringing what we remember down to about 25 per cent of the original message. In fact, people start forgetting immediately (within eight hours,

tommaso79/Shutterstock

5 | Listening

contact, nodding, smiling, gesturing, leaning forward—their patients responded with clearer descriptions of symptoms, leading to more accurate diagnosis (Ruben and Hall, 2016). There is evidence to suggest we express our opinions and recount events more clearly when speaking to attentive, responsive listeners (Bodie et al., 2015; Itzchakov et al., 2017). In other words, attentive and responsive listening helps both senders and receivers communicate more effectively. As discussed in Chapter 1, adding responsiveness to our Listening is not a passive activity—at the same time we receive messages, we also send them. What messages do you think these people are sending listening model demonstrates the fact that communication is one another? transactional. Listening is not the 50  per cent remembered drops to roughly just a passive activity. As listeners, we’re active par35 per cent). Of course, these amounts vary from ticipants in a communication transaction, sending person to person and depend on the importance and receiving messages simultaneously. of the information being recalled (Cowan and AuBuchon, 2008). Brain injuries and diseases that affect our memories increase even further the Types of Listening Responses challenges of mindful listening and remembering Of the five components of listening described above, (Barwood and Murdoch, 2013; Bender et al., 2014). responding is the one that lets us know if others are Forgetting messages can cause relational prob- truly tuned in to what we’re saying (Maisel et al., lems. People often feel slighted when others—­ 2008). Think for a moment of someone you conespecially loved ones—don’t remember things sider a good listener. Why did you choose that perthey’ve heard. “I told you this repeatedly and you son? It’s probably because of the way they behave still forgot?” is a familiar refrain in many interper- while you’re speaking. sonal conflicts. Across a variety of situations (e.g., with friends, romantic partners, workplace colleagues) people expect competent listeners to be attentive, underResponding standing, alert, friendly, responsive, empathic, All the steps we’ve discussed so far—hearing, open-minded, perceptive, reflective, supportive, attending, understanding, and remembering— and able to maintain conversational flow (Bodie are internal activities. A final part of the listening et al., 2012; Bodie et al., 2015; Lipetz et al., 2018). process involves responding to a message—­giving What behaviours mark those characteristics? observable feedback to the speaker (Reis and Clark, Good listeners: 2013). In initial interactions, people generally appreciate listeners who respond by asking ques•  ask and answer questions; tions and paraphrasing (Huang et al., 2017; Weger • provide reflective and relevant feedback; et al., 2014). Non-­verbal ­responsiveness is import• give the speaker time and space to express ant too. One study found that when physicians themselves; offered plenty of s­ upportive non-­verbal cues—eye • offer their own perspective; and

155

156

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

• respond non-verbally by making eye contact, nodding their heads, and leaning forward. In other words, although listening begins as an internal mental process, others will determine whether and how you’re listening by monitoring your responses. As Figure 5.3 illustrates, listening responses like these range from reflective feedback that invites the speaker to talk without fear of being judged, to more directive responses that evaluate the speaker’s messages. The primary goals of reflective feedback are to understand, confirm, and mirror what the speaker said. By contrast, the primary goals of directive feedback are to judge the speaker’s message and provide guidance. We’ll spend the remainder of this chapter looking at when and how to use each response style along the spectrum. Each one is an important component of your listening toolkit.

Silent Listening There are times when the best response is to say nothing, such as when you don’t want to encourage the speaker to keep on talking. If a supervisor or instructor is droning on when you need to leave for an appointment or when a friend retells the story of a love affair gone bad you might not want to keep the conversation going. In situations like these, a verbal response would only encourage the speaker to ­continue—precisely the opposite of the reaction you would be seeking. The best response in these cases may be silent listening—staying attentive and non-verbally responsive without saying anything. Silent listening is not just an avoidance strategy. It also can be the right approach when you’re open to the other person’s ideas, but your interjections

Silent Listening

Questioning

Paraphrasing

MORE REFLECTIVE LESS DIRECTIVE

FIGURE 5.3  Types of Listening Responses

Empathizing

wouldn’t be appropriate. For instance, rather than interrupting a friend’s joke to ask for clarification, it might be more considerate to wait for the punchline. Staying silent can be difficult in some situations, particularly when we’re working on projects and tasks with others. Implementing “listening circles” can help to improve interpersonal communication in the workplace. Listening circles are an adaptation of Indigenous practices of “council” and involve people sitting in a circle and only one person speaking at a time (Hyde, 1993). The person who is speaking holds a “talking stick” or “speaker’s staff” to signal that it’s their turn to speak. The other group members listen silently. Research suggests that when employees have been effectively trained and supported to employ listening circles at work they experience less social anxiety, increased self-awareness, and greater open-­mindedness in relation to work-related matters (Itzchakov and Kluger, 2017). There are even times when silent listening can help others solve their problems. Sonia Johnson (1987; see also Smith, 2010) describes a powerful activity she calls “hearing into being.” The process is simple. In brainstorming sessions, each participant has half an hour of uninterrupted floor time. “When we are free to talk without threat of interruption, evaluation, and the pressure of time,” notes Johnson, “we move quickly past known territory out into the frontiers of our thought” (p. 132). Johnson, who uses the technique in feminist seminars, reports that some women burst into tears when they first experience “hearing into being” because they are not used to being listened to so seriously and completely. When was the last time you talked, uninterrupted, to an attentive partner for more than a few minutes? How would you like the chance to develop your ideas without

Supporting

Analyzing

Evaluating

Advising

LESS REFLECTIVE MORE DIRECTIVE

5 | Listening

­ ausing for another’s comments? Silent listening is p a response style that many of us could profit from using—and receiving—more often.

CHECK IT! Describe the five components of listening.

Questioning Regarded as “the most popular piece of language” (Goodman and Esterly, 1990), questioning is asking for additional information. There are several reasons to ask sincere, non-directive questions: • To clarify meanings. Good listeners don’t assume they know what their partners mean; they ask for clarification with questions such as: “What did you mean when you said he had been

FOCUS ON RESEARCH LISTENING IN MEDICINE The medical interview has long been a fundamental part of health care. It allows the health care provider to establish rapport with the patient, communicate concern and compassion, and it facilitates reciprocal communication (Scholl et al., 2014), which improves health outcomes (Street Jr., 2013). Open ended questions such as “What brings you here today?” or “How are you?” help prompt patients to provide detailed information about their health concerns. This information is essential for establishing the “agenda” or the patient’s reasons for the medical appointment. Studies conducted in Europe and the US have found that physicians frequently fail to ask these questions. (Rey-Bellet et al., 2017; Singh Ospina et  al., 2018). For example, a US study, which analyzed a random sample of 112 clinical encounters, found only about 36 per cent of physicians posed questions to elicit the patients’ concerns and reasons for their visit to the doctor. An examination of 68 patient follow-up visits to a German university-based out-patient clinic found higher rates of doctor’s soliciting the patient’s agenda for the visit, but still 32 per cent of these physicians failed to ask their patients these types of questions during their appointments (Rey-Bellet et al., 2017). Even when physicians do ask patients for information about their health and the reasons for their medical visits, they appear to be very quick to interrupt. In that same US study, patients had an average of only 11 seconds to describe their health concerns before their doctors interrupted them.

This failure to demonstrate mindful listening is not new. A landmark study conducted in the 1980s found 69 per cent of physicians interrupted their patients and the average time the patients spoke before interruption was 18 seconds (Beckman and Frankel, 1984). Subsequent studies have all found that physicians frequently fail to ask questions in order to understand the main reasons for the consultation and when they do inquire, they are often quick to interrupt their patients (Dyche and Swiderski, 2005; Marvel et al., 1999). There are probably multiple reasons for this lack of mindful listening and they include doctors feeling constrained for time, not having enough communication training, feeling burned out, and concentrating on completing electronic records instead of interacting with their patients (Sing Ospina et al., 2018). Research suggests that when left uninterrupted patients complete their descriptions of their medical complaints in under two minutes (Langewitz et al., 2002) and mindful listening to the patients’ descriptions actually saves physicians time and increases the likelihood of a more accurate diagnosis (Ruben and Hall, 2016). Canadian-trained physicians receive considerable communication instruction early in their medical schooling but it often drops off when they get into their clinical practice environments (Noakes, 2018), and if it’s not valued and modelled in those clinical environments, it’s much less likely to be practised when physicians have graduated—perpetuating the status quo.

157

158

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

Sometimes it takes a startling event to remind us that our knowledge is limited and we need to stop and listen mindfully. One such example comes from a physician working in a Canadian Indigenous community. The sense of humility that comes with understanding your limitations, I could illustrate with a quick story: I saw a very elderly Native lady; her daughters brought her in, she was sort of a matriarch and they called me that night and asked would I come to the house and see her and I did. Normal pulse, normal blood pressure, chest clear, everything seemed fine and I had no idea why they called me out at night, but I was pretty annoyed that they had done that . . . when one of the daughters said to me, “Would you like a cup of tea?” and I said, “Sure, that would be great,” and that sort of diffused my little reprimand. I went to the kitchen and sat down to have my cup of tea and while I was having the tea, the daughters went back into the bedroom, and then one of them walked out and said, “Well, she’s gone very peacefully now,” and I said, “What?” and ran into the bedroom. She was lying there as dead as a doornail and they said, “Thank you very much for coming when mother died. You know we knew she was going to go and we really appreciate just you having been here.”

I thought to myself, “Well, first of all am I ever glad that I didn’t say what I had intended to say about the unnecessary visit and secondly, how the hell did they know she was dying? I honestly did not have a clue. That injected in me a great sense of humility, like whoa, they know a lot that I don’t know, about their mother, but also just about death and dying—and anyway, I’ve held onto that sense of humility and that’s pretty much where I remain.” (Kelly and Brown, 2002) Culturally sensitive health care practitioners who employ mindful listening skills are better able to establish trusting and therapeutic relationships with their patients. This results in a constructive alliance that leads to focused, efficient, and patient-centred care (Gobat et al., 2015; Mauksch et al., 2008). Critical thinking: How would asking open-ended questions and listening carefully to this family’s responses have helped guide this physician’s behaviour? Can you think of a time when you did not have an opportunity to provide a helping professional (e.g., first responder, health care provider, teacher, social service provider) with information they needed in order to help you? What factors contributed to that problem? Can you recall times when you didn’t listen mindfully to a helping professional? What were the barriers that affected your listening?

CALVIN AND HOBBES © Watterson. Dist. By UNIVERSAL UCLICK. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

5 | Listening

‘unfair’ to you?” “You said she’s ‘religious’—how do you define that term?” “You said you were going ‘fast’—just how fast were you going?” Of course, be sure to use an appropriate tone of voice when asking such questions, or else they might sound like an inquisition. • To learn about other people’s thoughts, feelings, and wants. A sincere, sensitive, and caring question can draw out opinions, emotions, needs, and hopes. “What do you think about the new plan?” and “How did you feel when you heard the news?” are examples of such probes. When inquiring about personal information, it’s usually best to ask open questions that allow a variety of extended responses rather than closed questions that allow only a limited range of answers. For instance, “How did you feel?” is an open question that allows a variety of responses, while “Did you feel angry?” is a closed question that requires only a yes or no answer (and may direct respondents toward feelings they weren’t experiencing). • To encourage elaboration. People are sometimes hesitant to talk about themselves, or perhaps they aren’t sure if others are interested. Remarks such as, “Tell me more about that,” “I’m not sure I understand,” and “I’m following you” convey concern and involvement. Notice that none of these examples ends with a question mark. We can encourage elaboration simply by acknowledging that we’re listening. • To encourage discovery. Asking questions can sometimes encourage others to explore their thoughts and feelings. “So, what do you see as your options?” may prompt an employee to come up with creative problem-solving alternatives. “What would be your ideal solution?” might help a friend get in touch with various wants and needs. Most importantly, encouraging discovery rather than dispensing advice indicates you have faith in others’ ability to think for themselves. This may be the most important message that you can communicate as an effective listener. • To gather more facts and details. People often appreciate listeners who want to learn more, as

long as the questions aren’t intrusive. Questions such as, “What did you do then?” and “What did she say after that?” can help a listener understand the big picture. One study found that teachers who ask questions in ­ parent-teacher conversations before launching into problem solving are perceived as more effective communicators (Castro et al., 2013). Research also indicates that people who ask more genuine questions, particularly follow-up questions, are better liked by their conversation partners and are judged to be more responsive (Huang et al., 2017). Not all questions are genuine requests for information. Whereas sincere questions are aimed at understanding others, counterfeit questions are really disguised attempts to send a message, not receive one. As such, they really fit better at the “more directive” end of the listening response continuum shown in Figure 5.3 on page 156. It’s also likely that they’ll lead to a defensive communication climate, as we’ll discuss in Chapter 9, and escalate conflict, which we examine in Chapter 10. Counterfeit questions come in several varieties: • Questions that trap the speaker. Asking, “You didn’t like that movie, did you?” backs the respondent into a corner. By contrast, “What did you think of the movie?” is a sincere question that’s easier to answer. Adding a tag question such as “didn’t you?” or “isn’t that right?” to the end of a question can indicate that the asker is looking for agreement, not information. Although some listeners use these tag endings to confirm and facilitate understanding (Coates, 1986), others use tags to coerce agreement or to accuse—for example, “You said you’d call at five o’clock, but you forgot, didn’t you?” Similarly, questions that begin with “Don’t you” (such as, “Don’t you think she would make a good manager?”) direct others toward a desired response. As a simple solution, changing “Don’t you?” to “Do you?” makes the question less leading. • Questions that make statements. “Are you finally ready?” is more a statement than a question—a

159

160

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

fact unlikely to be lost on the targeted person. Emphasizing certain words can also turn a question into a statement: “You lent money to Tony?” We also use questions to offer advice. The person who asks, “Are you going to stand up to him and give him what he deserves?” has clearly stated an opinion about what should be done. • Questions that carry hidden agendas. “Are you busy Friday night?” is a dangerous question to answer. If you say “no,” thinking the person has something pleasant in mind, you won’t like hearing, “Good, because I need some help moving my piano.” Obviously, such questions are not designed to enhance understanding; they’re setups for the proposal that follows. Other examples include, “Will you do me a favour?” and “If I tell you what happened, will you promise not to get mad?” Because they’re strategic rather than spontaneous, these questions are likely to provoke defensiveness (see Chapter 9). Wise communicators answer questions that mask hidden agendas cautiously with responses such as “It depends” or “Let me hear what you have in mind before I answer.” • Questions that seek a positive judgment. “How do I look?” is often a request for a particular response, (“You look great”) The listener must carefully consider the context before responding. • Questions based on unchecked assumptions. “Why aren’t you listening to me?” assumes the other person is not paying attention. “What’s the matter?” assumes that something is wrong. As we explained in Chapter 3, perception checking is a much better way of confirming one’s assumptions. You’ll recall that a perception check offers a description and interpretations, followed by a sincere request for clarification: “When you keep looking at your phone, I think you aren’t listening to me, but maybe I’m wrong. Are you paying attention?” No question is inherently sincere or counterfeit. As we’ll discuss further in Chapter 6, the meaning and intent of any statement is shaped by its context. Moreover, a slight change in tone of voice or facial expression can turn a sincere question into a

counterfeit one, and vice versa. Consider how the questions “What are you doing?’ or “When will you be finished?” could be asked in different ways, eliciting different responses. Research about coming out conversations (Manning, 2015) illustrates the delicate balance of using questions as an active listener. In one study, gay, lesbian, and bisexual participants said they wanted to hear certain kinds of questions from those who listened to their coming out disclosures. Participants viewed sincere questions as indicators of open communication and a desire to understand. They didn’t appreciate questions that seemed leading (“Are you sure this isn’t a phase?”), defensive (“Is this because I wasn’t around much?), or inappropriate (asking for graphic sexual details). When a topic is sensitive and emotionally charged, it’s best to keep your questions as open and neutral as possible. “Tell me more—I’m listening” is usually a good option, if it’s sincere.

Paraphrasing Paraphrasing is providing feedback that restates, in your own words, the message you thought the speaker sent. You may wonder, “Why would I want to restate what has already been said?” Consider this simple exchange: “Let’s make plans to get together next weekend.” “So you want to chat next week to make plans for Saturday?” “No, what I meant is that we should check our calendars now to see if we’re free to go to the game on Sunday.”

By paraphrasing, the listener learned that the speaker wanted to make plans now, not later—and that “weekend” meant Sunday, not Saturday. Note that the listener rephrased rather than repeated the message. In effective paraphrasing you restate what you think the speaker has said in your own words as a way of checking the meaning you’ve assigned to the message. It’s important that you paraphrase, not “parrot-phrase.” If you simply repeat the speaker’s comments verbatim, you’ll sound foolish—and, just as important, you still might misunderstand what’s been said.

5 | Listening

Types of Paraphrasing Statements Restating another person’s message in a way that sounds natural can sometimes be a difficult skill to master. Here are three approaches to get you started: 1. Change the speaker’s wording. Speaker: “Bilingual education is just another failed idea of francophones.” Paraphrase: “Let me see if I’ve got this right. You’re mad because you think bilingual education sounds good, but it doesn’t work?”

2. Offer an example of what you think the speaker is talking about. When the speaker makes an abstract statement, you may suggest a specific example, or two, to see if your understanding is accurate. Speaker: “Lee is such a jerk. I can’t believe the way he acted last night.” Paraphrase: “You think those jokes were pretty offensive, huh?”

3. Describe the underlying theme of the speaker’s remarks. When you want to summarize the theme that seems to have run through another person’s conversation, a complete or partial perception check is useful: Speaker: “Be safe tonight.” Paraphrase: “Sounds like you’re worried that something might happen to me. Am I right?”

There are several reasons why paraphrasing aids in listening. First, as the preceding examples illustrate, paraphrasing allows you to find out if the m ­ essage received is the message the sender intended. Second, paraphrasing often draws out further information from the speaker, much like questioning (in fact, a good paraphrase often ends with a question such as “Is that what you meant?”). Third, paraphrasing is an ideal way to take the heat out of intense discussions. When conversations become heated, it’s often because the people involved believe they aren’t being heard. ­Paraphrasing has been shown to increase the speaker’s positive emotions toward the listener.

Rather than escalate the conflict, try paraphrasing what the other person says: “Okay, let me be sure I understand you. It sounds as if you’re concerned about . . . ” Paraphrasing usually stops a defensive spiral because it assures the other person of your involvement and concern. For these and other reasons, we usually feel a sense of affinity for those who make the effort to paraphrase our messages (Weger et al., 2010). There are two levels at which you can paraphrase messages: the first involves feedback of factual information; the second involves describing what you believe the underlying message to be.

Paraphrasing Factual Information Summarizing facts, data, and details is important during personal or professional conversations. “We’ve agreed that we’ll take another few days to think about our choices and make a decision on Tuesday—right?” might be an effective way to conclude a business lunch. A questioning tone should be used; a listener wants to be sure that meaning has been shared. Even personal topics are sometimes best handled on a factual level: “So, your main problem is that our friends take up all the parking spaces in front of your place. Is that it?” While this “neutral” response may be difficult when you feel under attack, it helps to clarify facts before you offer your reaction. It’s also a good idea to paraphrase instructions, directions, and decisions before acting on what you think has been said.

Paraphrasing Personal Information While restating factual information is relatively easy, it takes a sensitive ear to listen for the other person’s thoughts, feelings, and wants. The ­underlying message is often the more important one, and effective listeners try to reflect what they hear at this level (Bodie et al., 2016). An attentive conversationalist listens for thoughts, feelings, and wants, and is thus able to address the cognitive (rational), affective (emotional), and behavioural (desired action) domains of the human experience.

161

162

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

BUILDING WORK SKILLS PARAPHRASING Practise your ability to paraphrase in order to understand others by following these steps: 1. Choose a partner, and designate one of you as person A and the other as person B. Find a subject on which you and your partner seem to disagree—a personal dispute, a philosophical or moral issue, or perhaps a matter of personal taste. 2. Person A begins by making a statement on the subject. Person B’s job is to paraphrase the idea. In this step, B should feedback only what they heard A say, without adding any judgment or interpretation. B’s job here is simply to understand A—not to agree or disagree with A. 3. Person A responds by telling B whether or not the response was accurate and by making any necessary additions or corrections to clarify the message. 4. Person B then paraphrases the revised statement. This process should continue until A is sure that B understands them. 5. Now, B and A reverse roles and repeat the procedure in the first four steps. Continue the conversation until both partners are satisfied that they have explained themselves fully and have been understood by the other person. After the discussion has ended, consider how this process differed from typical conversations on controversial topics. Was there greater understanding here? Do the partners feel better about one another? Finally, ask yourself how your life might change if you used more paraphrasing in everyday conversations.

Read the following statement as if a friend is talking to you, and listen for all three components in the message: Jean-Pierre has hardly been home all week—he’s been so busy with work. He rushes in just long enough to eat dinner, then he buries himself at his desk until bedtime. Then he tells me today that he’s going fishing Saturday with his buddies. I guess men are just like that—job first, play second, family third.

What is the speaker thinking, feeling, and wanting? Paraphrasing can help you find out: “Sounds as if you’re unhappy (feeling) because you think Jean-Pierre’s ignoring you (thought) and you want him to spend more time at home (want).” Recognize that your paraphrase may not be accurate; the speaker might reply, “No, I really don’t want him to spend more time at home—I just want him to pay attention to me when he’s here.” Recognize also that you could identify an entirely different think–feel–want set: “So, you’re frustrated (feeling) because you’d like Jean-Pierre to change (want), but you think it’s hopeless because men have different priorities (thought).” The fact that these examples

offer such different interpretations of the same message demonstrates the value of paraphrasing. Your paraphrases don’t have to be as long as the examples in the preceding paragraph. It’s often a good idea to mix paraphrasing with other listening responses. In many cases, you’ll want to reflect only one or two of the think–feel–want components. The key is to give feedback that is appropriate for the situation and to offer it in a way that helps the listening process. Because paraphrasing may be an unfamiliar way of responding, it could feel awkward at first. Research suggests that rehearsing paraphrasing in imagined interactions can help you respond more effectively in actual conversations (Vickery et al., 2015). If you start by paraphrasing occasionally and then gradually do it more often, you’ll begin to see the benefits of this method.

CHECK IT! Describe the three approaches to paraphrasing another person’s message and explain how paraphrasing aids listening.

5 | Listening

Empathizing Empathizing is a response style listeners use when they want to show they identify with a speaker. As we discussed in Chapter 3, empathy involves perspective taking, emotional contagion, and genuine concern. When listeners put the attitude of empathy into verbal and non-verbal responses, they engage in empathizing. Sometimes, these responses can be quite brief: “Uh-huh,” “I see,” “Wow!” “Ouch!’ “Whew!” and “My goodness!” In other cases, empathizing is expressed in statements like these: “I can see that really hurts.” “I know how important that was to you.” “It’s no fun to feel unappreciated.” “I can tell you’re really excited about that.” “Wow, that must be rough.” “I think I’ve felt that way, too.” “Looks like that really made your day.” “This means a lot to you, doesn’t it?”

sturti/iStockphoto

Empathizing falls near the middle of the listening response continuum shown in Figure 5.3 on page 156. It’s different from the more reflective responses at the left end of the spectrum, which attempt to

How often do you empathize with the people you interact with?

gather information neutrally. It’s also different from the more evaluative styles at the right end of the spectrum, which offer more direction than reflection. To understand how empathizing compares to other types of responses, consider these examples: “So, your supervisor isn’t happy with your performance and you’re thinking about finding a new job.” [paraphrasing] “Ouch—I’ll bet it hurt when your supervisor said you weren’t doing a good job.” [empathizing] “Hey, you’ll land on your feet—your supervisor doesn’t appreciate what a great asset you are.” [supporting]

Notice that empathizing identifies with the speaker’s emotions and perceptions more than paraphrasing does, yet offers less evaluation and agreement than supporting responses. In fact, it’s possible to empathize with others while disagreeing with them (Gordon and Chen, 2016). For instance, the response “I can tell that this issue is important to you” legitimizes a speaker’s feelings without assenting to that person’s point of view (note that it could be said to either a friend or a foe at a business meeting). Empathizing is therefore an important skill whether you agree or disagree with the speaker. Perhaps a better way to explain empathizing is to describe what it does not sound like. Many listeners believe they’re empathizing when, in fact, they’re offering responses that are evaluative and directive. Listeners are probably not empathizing when they do the following: • Deny others the right to their feelings. Consider this common response to another p ­ erson’s ­problem: “Don’t worry about it.” While the remark may be intended as a reassuring comment, the underlying message is that the speaker wants the person to feel differently. It’s unlikely that people can or will stop worrying just because you tell them to. Research shows that empathizing is more effective than denying the feelings and perspectives of others (Burleson and Samter, 1985, 1994). • Minimizing the significance of the situation. Think about the times someone said to you,

163

164

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

“Hey, it’s only  .” You can probably fill in the blank a variety of ways: “a game,” “words,” “a test,” “a party.” How did you react? You probably thought the person who said it just didn’t understand. To someone who has been the victim of verbal abuse, the hurtful message wasn’t “just words”; to a child who didn’t get an invitation, it wasn’t “just a party” (see Burleson, 1984); to a student who has failed an important exam, it wasn’t “just a test” (see Burleson and Samter, 1985). When you minimize the importance of someone else’s experience, you are not empathizing. Instead, you’re interpreting the event from your perspective and then passing judgment—rarely a helpful response. • Focus on yourself. It can be tempting to talk at length about a similar experience you’ve encountered (e.g., “I know exactly how you feel, the same thing happened to me—let me tell you about it . . .”). Although your intent might be to show empathy, research shows that such messages aren’t perceived as helpful because they draw attention away from the distressed person (Burleson, 2008). • Raining on the speaker’s parade. Most of the preceding examples deal with difficult situations or messages about pain. However, empathizing involves identifying with the joys of others as well as their sorrows. Many of us can remember coming home with exciting news, only to be told, “A five per cent raise? That isn’t so great.” “An A minus? Why didn’t you get an A?” “Big deal—I got one of those years ago.” Taking the wind out of someone’s sails is the opposite of empathizing. Research shows that we don’t get the full enjoyment out of good news until we share it with someone who responds empathically (Lambert at al., 2013; Reis et al., 2010).

and adults can learn how to offer such responses ­(Dexter, 2013). The Activities section at the end of this chapter can offer you valuable practice in developing your skills as an empathic communicator.

Supporting So far, we’ve looked at listening responses that put a premium on being reflective and non-evaluative. However, there are times when other people want to hear more than a reflection of how they feel— when they would like to know how you feel about them. Supporting responses reveal the listener’s solidarity with the speaker’s situation. There are several types of supportive responses: Agreement: “You’re right—the landlord is being unfair.” “Yes, that class was tough for me, too.” Offers to help: “I’m here if you need me.” “Let me try to explain it to him.” Praise: “I don’t care what the manager said. I think you did a great job!” “You’re a terrific person! If she doesn’t recognize it, that’s her problem.” Reassurance: “The worst part seems to be over. It will probably get easier from here.” “I know you’ll do a great job.” Diversion: “Let’s catch a movie and get your mind off this.” “That reminds me of the time we . . .”

There is some evidence that men and women may differ in the way they act when supporting Empathic listening is essentially an expression others. Women are more likely than men to give of affection, as it communicates validation and a supportive responses when presented with another sense of worth to the message sender (Floyd, 2014). person’s problem (Burleson et al., 2005; Hale et al., Research suggests that emotional intelligence 1997), and appear to be more skilful at composis needed to offer these non-judgmental, other-­ ing and processing such messages (Burleson et al., oriented responses (Pence and Vickery, 2012). 2009, 2011). These skills have been traditionally ­Fortunately, research also shows that both children associated with what is stereotypically feminine

5 | Listening

(High and Solomon, 2016). In fact, women who violate the feminine stereotype and aren’t skilled at offering emotional support to their female friends run the risk of being shunned by their same sex peers (Holmstrom et al., 2005). Regardless of gender, most people respond well to the same types of comforting messages. People report feeling supported by highly personal messages that are delivered with non-verbal immediacy such as maintaining eye contact and appropriate touching (Jones and Burleson, 2003). Moreover, people also appreciate the kind of social support we describe in Chapter 8. However, even the most sincere supportive efforts do not always help. Mourners who had recently suffered the death of a loved one often report that a majority of the comments made to them were unhelpful (Davidowitz and Myrick, 1984; Glanz, 2007). Most of the unhelpful statements are advice: “You’ve got to get out more.” “Don’t question God’s will.” Another frequent response is reassurance, such as, “She’s out of her

REFLECTION COMFORTING A CRYING CHILD: “IT’S OKAY” IS NOT OKAY I have always enjoyed working with young children. Sharing their joy and excitement is such a pleasure and exploring the world with them inspires my curiosity. Another important part of my job as a caring adult in children’s lives is providing comfort and support when they are upset. My first reaction when children are hurt and crying has always been to try to reassure them. When I’m hugging them I find myself saying, “It’s okay. It’s all right.” And things like that. I realize now that, rather than being reassuring, my words could be seen as actually denying the child’s true feelings. Obviously, if you are crying and someone or something has hurt you, it really isn’t okay at all in that moment! It hurts. Now, I try to say things like, “I’m here. I’ll try to help you feel better” when I’m giving my hugs. I try to acknowledge their feelings and offer to comfort and care for them.

pain now” and “Time heals all wounds.” A study of bereaved parents found these kinds of clichés actually do more harm than good (Toller, 2011). People who are grieving don’t appreciate being told how to feel or what they should do. Instead, bereaved parents said they would feel more supported by the silent listening approach described a bit earlier in this chapter. One mother who lost a child offered this recommendation for people who want to help a grieving friend: Go and be with them. You don’t say anything, just say, “I don’t know how you feel but I’m here.” Go sit down and just be with that person. (Toller, 2011, p. 26)

Like the other kinds of helping styles, supporting can be beneficial, but only under certain conditions (Goldsmith and Fitch, 1997; Halone and Pecchioni, 2001), such as: • Make sure your expression of support is sincere. Phony agreement or encouragement is probably worse than no support at all, since it adds the insult of your dishonesty to whatever pain the other person is already feeling. • Be sure the other person can accept your support. Sometimes, people are so upset that they aren’t ready or able to hear anything positive. When you know a friend is going through a difficult time, it’s important not to be overly intrusive before that person is ready to talk and receive your support (Clark and Delia, 1997). • Focus on “here and now” rather than “then and there.” While it’s sometimes true that “you’ll feel better tomorrow,” it sometimes isn’t. More importantly, focusing on the future avoids supporting in the present. Even if the prediction that “10 years from now, you won’t even remember their name” proves correct, it gives little comfort to someone experiencing heartbreak today.

Analyzing In an analyzing response, the listener offers an interpretation of a speaker’s message (“I think what’s really bothering you is . . . ,” “They’re doing

165

166

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

it because . . . ,” or “Maybe the problem started when they . . .”). Communicators who respond this way often use the analytical style described earlier in this chapter. This style can be effective in helping people who have problems consider alternative meanings of a situation. Sometimes, an analysis helps clarify a confusing problem and provide an objective understanding of the situation. Research suggests that analytic listeners are able to listen to people who are emotionally upset without experiencing similar emotions, and this can be an advantage in solving problems (Weaver and Kirtley, 1995). In other cases, an analysis can create more problems than it solves. There are two possible reasons: First, your interpretation may not be correct, in which case the person with the problem may become even more confused by accepting it. Second, even if your analysis is accurate, sharing it with the other person may not be useful. There is a chance that it will arouse defensiveness (analysis implies being superior and in a position to evaluate). Besides, the person with the problem may not be able to understand your view of the problem without working it out personally. How can you know when it’s helpful to offer an analysis? There are some guidelines to follow: • Offer your interpretation in a tentative way rather than as absolute fact. There’s a big difference between saying, “Maybe the reason is . . .” and insisting, “This is the truth.” • Your analysis ought to have a reasonable chance of being correct. An inaccurate interpretation— especially one that sounds plausible—can leave a person more confused than before. • Make sure that the other person will be receptive to your analysis. Even if you’re completely accurate, your thoughts will not help if the other person is not ready to consider them. Pay attention to the other person’s verbal and non-verbal cues to see how your analysis is being received. • Be sure that your motive for offering an analysis is truly to help the other person. It can be tempting to offer an analysis to show how brilliant you are or even to make the other person feel

bad for not having thought of the right answer in the first place. Needless to say, an analysis offered under such conditions is not helpful.

Evaluating An evaluating response appraises the sender’s thoughts or behaviour in some way. The evaluation may be favourable (“That’s a good idea” or “You’re on the right track now”) or unfavourable (“An attitude like that won’t get you anywhere”). In either case, it implies that the person evaluating is in some way qualified to pass judgment on the speaker’s thoughts or actions. Communicators who respond this way often approach situations with the critical listening style described earlier in this chapter. Sometimes, negative evaluations are purely critical. How many times have you heard responses such as, “Well, you asked for it!” or “I told you so!” or “You’re just feeling sorry for yourself?” Such comments usually make matters worse by arousing defensiveness. Other times, negative evaluations are less critical. These involve what we usually call constructive criticism, which is intended to help the problem haver improve in the future. Friends give this sort of response about the choice of everything from clothing to jobs to friends. A common setting for constructive criticism is school, where instructors evaluate students’ work in order to help them master concepts and skills. Still, even constructive criticism can arouse defensiveness, because it may threaten the self-concept of the person to whom it’s directed. Chapter 9 provides guidelines for creating supportive communication climates.

Advising When we’re approached with someone’s problem, the most common reaction is to advise (Feng and Magen, 2016). An advising response involves providing the speaker with your opinion about what they should do. We are all familiar with advising responses: “If you’re so unhappy, you should just

5 | Listening

• Is the advice needed? If the person has already made a decision or taken a course of action, giving advice after the fact (“I can’t believe you’re getting back together with him”) is rarely appreciated. • Is the advice wanted? People generally don’t value unsolicited advice. It’s usually best if the speaker is interested in hearing your counsel. Remember that sometimes people just want a listening ear, not solutions to their problems. • Is the advice given in the right sequence? Advice is more likely to be received after the listener offers empathizing, paraphrasing, and questioning responses to understand the speaker and the situation better. • Is the advice coming from an expert? If you want to offer advice about anything from car purchasing to relationship managing, it’s important to have experience and success in those matters. If you don’t have expertise, it’s a good idea to offer the speaker supportive responses, and encourage the person to seek out expert counsel.

• Is the advisor a close and trusted person? Although sometimes we seek out advice from people we don’t know well (perhaps because they have expertise), in most cases we value advice given within the context of a close and ongoing interpersonal relationship. • Is the advice offered in a sensitive, face saving manner? No one likes to feel bossed or belittled, even if the advice is good (Miczo and Burgoon, 2008). Remember that messages have both content and relational dimensions. Sometimes the unstated relational message when giving advice (“I’m smarter than you”; “You’re not bright enough to figure this out yourself”) will keep people from hearing counsel.

Which Style to Use? You can see that each style has advantages and disadvantages. Which style is best? There is no simple answer to this question. All response types and styles have the potential to help others accept their situation, feel better, and have a sense of control over their problems (Imhof, 2003; Werger et al., 2014). As a general rule, it’s probably wise to begin with responses from the left and middle of the listening response continuum: silent listening, questioning, paraphrasing, and empathizing.

bowdenimages/iStockphoto

quit your job”; “Just tell him what you think”; “You should take some time off.” Even when advice might be just what a person needs, there are several reasons why it often is not helpful. First, it may not offer the best suggestion about how to act. There is often a temptation to tell others how you would behave in their place, but it’s important to realize that what’s right for one person may not be right for another. Second, people may not welcome advice because they perceive it as implying they are inferior to the advice giver who has a ready solution (Shaw and Hepburn, 2013). Third, a related consequence of advising is that it often allows others to avoid responsibility for their decisions. A partner who follows a suggestion of yours that does not work out can always pin the blame on you. Finally, people often do not want advice. They may not be ready to accept it and instead may simply need to talk out their thoughts and feelings. Studies on advice giving (summarized in MacGeorge et al., 2008) offer the following important considerations when trying to help others:

167

When we’re approached with someone’s problem, the most common reaction is to advise. What conditions should exist before you offer someone advice?

168

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

TAKE TWO TYPES OF LISTENING RESPONSES • Silent listening: staying attentive and non-­ verbally responsive, without saying anything. • Questioning: asking the speaker for additional information. • Open questions allow for a variety of extended responses. • Closed questions only allow a limited range of answers. • Sincere questions are aimed at understanding others. • Counterfeit questions are disguised attempts to send a message, not receive one. • Paraphrasing: restating, in your own words, the message you thought the speaker sent. • Empathizing: showing that you identify with a speaker. • Supporting: revealing your solidarity with the speaker’s situation. • Analyzing: offering an interpretation of a speaker’s message. • Evaluating: appraising the speaker’s thoughts or behaviour in some way. • Advising: providing the speaker with your opinion about what she should do.

These skills comprise what pioneering therapist Carl Rogers (2003) calls active listening (see Weger et al., 2014). Rogers maintains that helpful interpersonal listening begins with reflective, non-directive responses. Once you have gathered the facts and demonstrated your interest and concern, it’s likely that the speaker will be more receptive to (and perhaps even ask for) your analyzing, evaluating, and advising responses (MacGeorge et al., 2017). You can improve the odds of choosing the best style in each situation by considering three factors. 1. Think about the situation, and match your response to the nature of the problem. People sometimes need your advice. In other cases, your encouragement and ­support will be most helpful, and in still other cases, your analysis or judgment may be truly useful. And, as you have seen, there are times when your questioning and paraphrasing can help others find their own answer. 2. Besides considering the situation, you also should think about the other person when deciding which approach to use. It’s important to be sure that the other person is open to receiving any kind of help. Furthermore, you

BUILDING WORK SKILLS WHICH LISTENING STYLE IS BEST? Explore the various types of listening responses by completing the following steps: 1. Join with two partners to form a trio. Designate members as persons A, B, and C. 2. Person A begins by sharing an actual, current work- or school-related problem with B. The problem need not be a major life crisis, but it should be a real one. Person B should respond in whatever way seems most helpful. Person C’s job is to categorize each of B’s responses as either: silent listening, questioning, paraphrasing, empathizing, supporting, analyzing, evaluating, or advising. 3. After a four- to five-minute discussion, C should summarize B’s response styles. Person A then describes which of the styles were most helpful and which were not helpful. 4. Repeat the same process twice, switching roles so that each person has been in all of the positions. 5. Based on your findings, your threesome should draw conclusions about what combination of response styles can be most helpful.

5 | Listening

need to be confident that you’ll be regarded as someone whose support is valuable. The same listening response can be regarded as helpful or not depending on who is delivering it (Rossetto, 2015). Consider how an “insider” to your job, social circle, or family can offer encouragement or advice (“Hang in there! It’ll get better”) that might ring hollow if it came from an outsider. It’s also important to match the type of response you offer with the style of the person to whom it’s directed (Bippus, 2001). One study found that highly rational people tend to respond more positively to advice than do more emotional people (Feng and Lee, 2010). Many communicators are extremely defensive and are not capable of receiving analysis or judgments without lashing out. Still others are not equipped to think through problems clearly enough to profit from questioning and paraphrasing. Sophisticated listeners choose a style that fits the person.

3. Finally, think about yourself when deciding how to respond. Most of us reflexively use one or two styles (did you notice this when you completed the “Self-Assessment” on page 146). You may be best at listening quietly, posing a question, or paraphrasing from time to time. Or perhaps you’re especially insightful and can offer a truly useful analysis of the problem. Of course, it’s also possible to rely on a response style that is unhelpful. You may be overly judgmental or too eager to advise, even when your suggestions are not invited or productive. As you think about how to respond to another’s problems, consider your weaknesses as well as your strengths.

CHECK IT! What factors should you consider before you choose how to respond as a listener?

SUMMARY Listening is both more frequent and less emphasized than speaking. Despite its relative invisibility, listening is at least as important as speaking. Research shows that good listening is vital to both personal and professional success. Listening is the process of making sense of other’s spoken messages. We listen to many messages mindlessly, but it’s important to listen ­mindfully in a variety of situations. We also listen to others based on our personal styles and ­listening goals. Sometimes our listening is task-oriented; other times it’s more relational, analytical, or critical. Effective listeners match their styles with the needs of the situations. Most people’s understanding of listening suffers from several misconceptions, which communicators need to correct. Mindful listening isn’t easy;

rather, it’s a challenge that requires much effort and talent. Several barriers can hamper effective listening: information overload, personal concerns, rapid thought, and both internal and external noise. Even careful listening does not mean that all listeners will receive the same message. A wide variety of factors discussed in this chapter can result in hugely varying interpretations of even simple ­statements. Listening consists of several components: hearing, attending to a message, understanding the statement, remembering the message after the passage of time, and responding to the speaker. Listening responses are important, because they let us know if others are truly tuned in to what we’re saying. Listening responses can be placed on a continuum. More reflective and less ­directive

169

170

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

responses include silent listening, questioning, paraphrasing, and empathizing. These put a premium on gathering information and showing interest and concern. Less reflective and more directive responses include supporting, analyzing, evaluating, and advising. These put a premium on offering input and direction. It’s possible to use

the “more reflective” listening responses to help people arrive at their own decisions without offering advice or evaluation. The most effective listeners use ­several styles, depending on the situation, the other person, and their own personal skills and motivation.

MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS 1.

Which of the following statements is true? a. While speaking takes up more of our time, listening skills are important for both our personal relationships and career success. b. Listening and hearing are interchangeable concepts. c. Analytical listening is most concerned with efficiency and accomplishing the job at hand. d. The only way to manage the onslaught of messages is to be “lazy” towards some of them.

2.

a. b. c. d. 4.

While his manager describes a project he would like him to work on, Miguel is thinking about asking a colleague he likes to go out for coffee. He is nodding and smiling at his manager and maintaining eye contact but he isn’t listening. Miguel thoughts are

information overload and selective listening. rapid thought and stage hogging. pseudo-listening and noise. information overload and insulated listening.

Which of the following statements is false? a. Listening fidelity is the degree of congruence between what a listener understands and what the sender of the message was attempting to communicate. b. Listening fidelity implies agreement between listener and message sender. c. Listening mindfully in order to truly understand another person sends a positive relational message. d. High levels of listening fidelity are the ideal in interpersonal listening.

According to research presented in this book, listening is difficult because we’re capable of understanding speech rates a. that are much slower than the rate at which most people speak. b. that are more than four times as fast as the rate at which most people speak. c. that are almost twice as fast as the rate at which most people speak. d. faster in the evenings and slower in the mornings due to our circadian rhythms.

3.

interfering with his ability to listen. This is an example of

5.

Silent listening a. can help others solve their own problems. b. is fundamental to an activity called “hearing into being.” c. is something most of us could profit from using and receiving from others. d. all of the above are true about silent listening.

6.

“You didn’t like that restaurant, did you?” is an example of a. a question that seeks a positive judgment. b. a sincere question.

5 | Listening

c. a question that traps the speaker. d. all of the above. 7.

When Seema’s mother brings up the topic of school, homework, and grades, Seema totally ignores her mother. Seema’s non-listening would be best described as a. pseudo-listening. b. stage hogging. c. insulated listening. d. selective listening.

8.

Which of the following is an example of an empathic listening response? a. “I can tell you’re really excited about that!” b. “Oh, forget about it.” c. “I know exactly how you feel. That happened to me. Let me tell you about it.” d. “It’s nothing. Don’t worry about it.”

9.

Which three listening responses would be described as more reflective and less directive? a. paraphrasing, silent listening, and questioning b. questioning, analyzing, and evaluating c. advising, supporting, and empathizing d. paraphrasing, empathizing, and supporting

10. Identify which type of listening response the following statement best represents: “I think she did that because she’s jealous of all the attention you got at the party.” a. advising b. evaluating c. analyzing d. supporting

Answers: 1  . d; 2. b; 3. c; 4. b; 5. d; 6. c; 7. c; 8. a; 9. a; 10. c

ACTIVITIES 1. Invitation to Insight Keep a three-day journal of your listening behaviour, noting the time you spend listening in various situations. In addition, analyze your reasons for listening. Which goal(s) were you trying to achieve? a. to accomplish a task or job b. to build and maintain relationships c. to look at an issue from a variety of perspectives d. to evaluate the message(s) you were receiving To what extent did your listening style help you to achieve your listening goal(s)? What worked? How might you change your approach in the future? 2. Critical Thinking Probe Mindless listening can arise from factors that are not easily observed. Based on your experience,

decide which of the following steps in the listening process cause the greatest difficulties: a. hearing b. attending c. understanding d. remembering e. responding Discuss your findings with your friends, and develop a list of strategies that can help minimize listening problems in the areas you identified and listen more mindfully. 3. Skill Builder Explore the benefits of silent listening by using a “talking stick” in a listening circle. Richard Hyde (1993) developed this exercise from the Indigenous tradition of “council” and Guy Itzchakov and Avraham N. Kluger (2018) have used it to improve (private and public sector) employees’ listening

171

172

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

behaviour, reduce their social anxiety, and develop more complex and less extreme attitudes. Gather a group of people in a circle, and designate a particular item as the talking stick. Participants will then pass the stick around the circle. Participants may speak

Are there ever cases where certain types of non-­ listening (e.g., pseudo-listening, stage hogging, and defensive listening—see page 149) are justified? How would you feel if you knew that others were not listening to you?

a. only when holding the stick; b. for as long as they hold the stick; and c. without interruption from anyone else in the circle.

5. Role Play Choose a partner.

When a member is finished speaking, the stick passes to the left and the speaker surrendering the stick must wait until it has made its way around the circle and back before speaking again. After each member of the group has had the chance to speak (not all group members are required to speak if they choose not to), discuss how this experience differs from more common approaches to listening. Decide how the desirable parts of this method could be introduced in everyday conversations. 4. Ethical Challenge What responsibility do communicators have to listen as mindfully as possible to other speakers?

a. One person will provide a factual description of something they know how to do and the other person doesn’t (e.g., cook a particular dish, fix something, etc.). The other person will listen and use paraphrasing to clarify and ensure they understand. Now, reverse roles. b. Next, one person will describe a personal situation (ensure participants are comfortable disclosing the information) that involves thoughts and emotions. The other person will listen and paraphrase to ensure they understand. Now, reverse roles. c. Discuss the strengths and challenges of paraphrasing in both situations from the perspective of the listener and the speaker.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1.

Discuss the benefits of mindful listening skills.

4.

Give an example from your own experience of each of the seven poor listening habits.

2.

Describe instances in your own life when you’ve used the four broad listening styles.

5.

Explain how things can go wrong in each of the five elements of listening.

3.

Why is mindful listening not an easy communication task? Describe the four barriers to listening.

6.

Describe paraphrasing and its benefits.

7.

When is advising an appropriate listening response?

JOURNAL IDEAS 1.

Keep track of the time you engage in any of the seven types of non-listening (e.g., pseudo-listening, stage hogging, selective listening, filling in the gaps, insulated listening,

defensive listening, and ambushing). Note the day, time of day, topic of conversation, location, and people involved. After collecting examples over the course of a week, look at

5 | Listening

your examples and identify any patterns. Are there people, times of day, topics, or locations that recur in your entries? Analyze your entries and describe what obstacles to listening you encounter regularly and what you can do to listen more effectively. Develop at least one personal goal to improve your listening based on your analysis. 2.

Often people don’t want to paraphrase or empathize with people with whom they’re arguing, because they mistake

­nderstanding another person’s point of u view for agreeing with it. Think about a recent time when you disagreed with someone and try to paraphrase the content of their message as well as the personal elements. Can you understand their point of view even when not agreeing with it? Can you imagine the emotions they might have experienced while talking to you? Would actually using this paraphrasing strategy during a disagreement with that person be helpful? Why or why not?

173

laughingmango/iStockphoto

6

Language

CHAPTER OUTLINE The Nature of Language Language Language Language Language

Is Symbolic Is Governed by Rules Is Subjective and Worldview

The Influence of Language Naming and Identity Credibility and Status Affiliation Power and Politeness Sexism Sexual Orientation Racism

Uses (and Abuses) of Language Precision and Vagueness The Language of Responsibility

Culture and Language High- versus Low-Context Cultures Verbal Communication Styles Code-Switching

Gender and Language Extent of Gender Differences Online Language and Gender Non-Gender Influences on Language Use

KEY TERMS abstraction ladder ambiguous language assertiveness “but” statement code switching convergence divergence euphemism evaluative language high-context culture “I” language “it” statement linguistic relativity

low-context culture phonological rules politeness powerful language powerless language pragmatic rules racist language relative language semantic rules sexist language syntactic rules “we” language “you” language

LEARNING OUTCOMES YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO: • • • • • • • •

Explain the symbolic, rule-based, subjective, culture-bound nature of language Describe the influence of language on identity, affiliation, power, politeness, and attitudes about ­sexism, gender identity, and racism Analyze the impact of precise, vague, and responsible language use in interpersonal relationships Construct statements that acknowledge your responsibility for the content of messages Rephrase disruptive statements in less inflammatory terms Describe the relationship between culture and verbal styles, and the influence of language on ­perceptions Compare and critique evidence regarding the impact of gender on language use in interpersonal ­relationships Identify ways in which online language usage is different from the in-person variety

176

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

Cognitive scientist Lera Boroditsky (2009) often begins her undergraduate lectures by asking students which cognitive faculty they would least want to lose. Most choose vision and a few pick hearing. Almost no one mentions language. Boroditsky suggests that this an oversight. After all, she reasons, people who lack the ability to see and hear can still have rich and satisfying lives. “But what would life be like if you had never learned a language?” she wonders. “Could you still have friends, get an education, hold a job, start a family? Language is so fundamental to our experience, so deeply part of being human, that it is hard to imagine life without it” (p. 116). A simple exercise illustrates how language is basic to our view of the world. Take a look at Figure 6.1 and quickly say aloud the printed colours of the words shown. The correct response is “orange, blue, yellow,” but chances are you’ll have difficulty getting it right without pausing or stumbling. Our brains tend to automatically fill in the meaning of a word (when we see the word purple printed in the colour orange it’s hard not to say purple, but if we see the word cat printed in the colour orange it’s easier to keep the word meaning and print colour separate and we can complete the task faster). This phenomenon, known as the Stroop effect, points to how language influences perception. We see the world through the filter of our words. Language is arguably the most essential component of human communication. In this chapter, we’ll examine the relationship between words and ideas. We describe some important characteris­ tics of language and show how these characteristics

affect our day-to-day communication. We’ll outline several types of troublesome language and show how to replace them with more effective kinds of speech. Finally, we’ll look at the influence of culture and gender on the way we use language.

The Nature of Language We begin our survey by looking at some features that characterize all languages. These fea­t ures explain both why language is such a useful tool and why it can be so troublesome.

Language Is Symbolic Words are arbitrary symbols that have no meaning in themselves. For example, the word five is a kind of code that represents the number of fingers on your hand only because we agree that it does (see Figure 6.2). As Bateson and Jackson (1964, p. 271) point out, “There is nothing particularly five-like in the number ‘five.’” To a speaker of French, the symbol cinq conveys the same meaning; to a computer, the same value is expressed by the electronically coded symbol 00110101. Even sign language, as “spoken” by most deaf people, is symbolic in nature (Sandler, 2013). Because this form of communication is symbolic and not literal, there are hundreds of different sign languages used around the world; they have evolved independently whenever significant numbers of deaf people have come together (Meir et al., 2010). These distinct languages include ­American Sign Language, Mexican Sign Language, British Sign Language, French Sign Language, Danish Sign Language, Chinese Sign Language, and Australian Aboriginal and Mayan Sign Languages—and communicating across different sign languages can be as difficult as it is across different spoken languages (Quinto-Pozos, 2008).

Language Is Governed by Rules FIGURE 6.1  The Stroop Effect. Naming the font colour of a printed word is more difficult if the word meaning and the font colour do not match.

The only reason symbol-laden languages work at all is that people agree on how to use them. The linguistic agreements that make communication possible can be codified in rules. Languages c­ ontain several

6 | Language

FIGURE 6.2  The word “five” in different writing systems.

types of rules that continuously evolve ­(Garner, 2014). Phonological rules govern how sounds are combined to form words. For instance, the words champagne, double, and occasion have  the same meanings in French and English, but are pronounced differently because the languages have different phonological rules. Syntactic rules govern the way symbols can be arranged. Notice that the following statements contain the same words, but the shift in syntax creates quite different meanings: “Whisky makes you sick when you’re well.” “Whisky, when you’re sick, makes you well.”

Wiley Miller/Cartoonstock

Although most of us are not able to describe the syntactic rules that govern our language, it’s easy to recognize their existence by noticing how odd a

statement that violates them appears. Sometimes, however, apparently ungrammatical speech is simply following a different set of syntactic rules. For example, English spoken in Newfoundland and Labrador has many non-standard features in its grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary. If you apply the rules of Standard English syntax to the statement, “Throw Mum down the stairs her keys,” you’d be confused about who or what is going down the stairs. But in parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, this construction clearly means it’s Mum’s keys, not Mum, that are being thrown down the stairs. There are many regional or co-cultural English dialects with their own syntactic rules. Linguists believe it’s crucial to view dialects as different rather than deficient forms of English (Wolfram and Schilling-Estes, 2005). Semantic rules govern the meaning of language as opposed to the structure. Semantic rules are what make it possible for us to agree that bikes are for riding and books are for reading. Without semantic rules, communication would be impossible, because each of us would use symbols in unique ways, unintelligible to others. Although semantic rules help us understand the meaning of individual words, they often do not explain how language operates in everyday life. Consider the statement, “Let’s get together tomorrow.” The semantic meaning of the words in this sentence is clear enough, and yet the statement could be interpreted in several ways. It could be a request (“I hope we can get together”), a polite command (“I want to see you”), or an empty cliché (“I don’t really mean it”). We learn to distinguish the accurate meanings of such speech through pragmatic rules that tell us what uses and interpretations of a message are reasonable in a given situation (Dougherty et al., 2009). When these rules are understood by all players in the language game, smooth communication is possible. For example, one rule specifies that the relationship between communicators plays a large role in determining the meaning of a statement. Our example, “I want to see you,” is likely to mean one thing when uttered by your supervisor and another thing entirely when it comes from your romantic partner. Likewise, the setting in which

177

178

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

the statement is made plays a role. Saying “I want to see you” will probably have a different meaning at the office than at a party. Of course, the ­non-verbal behaviour that accompanies a statement also helps us interpret its meaning. People in individual relationships create their own sets of pragmatic rules. Consider the use of humour: the teasing and jokes you exchange with gusto with one friend might be considered tasteless and offensive in another relationship. For instance, imagine an email or text typed in capital letters and filled with curse words, insults, and exclamation marks. How would you interpret such a message? An outside observer might find it offensive and insulting, when in fact the

­ essage might be fun-loving verbal jousting m between friends (O’Sullivan and Flanagin, 2003; Maiz-Arevalo, 2015). If you have a good friend you call by a less-than-­tasteful nickname as a term of endearment, then you understand the concept. Keep in mind, however, that those who aren’t privy to your relationship’s pragmatic rules are likely to misunderstand you, so you’ll want to be wise about when and where to use these personal codes.

Language Is Subjective If the rules of language were more precise and if everyone followed them, we would suffer from

FOCUS ON TECHNOLOGY ARE MEDIATED COMMUNICATION CHANNELS ERODING CONVENTIONAL GRAMMAR? Since the 1960s, with the increased access to film and television, there has been considerable speculation about the influence of media on language. This interest has only increased in recent years with the exponential changes in media in our lives (Tagliamonte, 2014, 2016). One specific concern is that texting, Twitter, instant messaging, and other social media negatively influence people’s ability to use conventional grammar. The assumption is that the use of abbreviations (e.g., tmw for “tomorrow,” u for “you”); initializations or acronyms (e.g., lol for “laugh out loud”; ttyl for “talk to you later”); intensifiers (e.g., really, so); misspellings (e.g., gonna for “going to”); as well as other creative adaptations of conventional language, will erode young people’s ability to use normative (conventional or standard) grammar when it’s required (e.g., in essays, reports, presentations, work-related emails, formal letters, etc.). Intrigued by this phenomenon, University of Toronto linguistics researcher Sali Tagliamonte (2016) amalgamated 13 weeks’ worth of her students’ unmonitored email, instant messaging, and text messages, totaling 179,241 words. Her students also consented to allow her to analyze their final term papers. Taglimonte found that her students navigated the various communication channels with fluidity and

ease. They adapted their spelling, grammar, use of acronyms, short forms, intensifiers, and future temporal references to match the conventions of the type of message (email, text message, instant message, or term paper) they were writing. She points out that acronyms, short forms, and non-standard spellings are not new. Many of them predated the recent surge in their use in mediated communication. For instance, the first known use of the acronym lol is said to have occurred in a letter written by Admiral John Fisher to Winston Churchill in 1917 and the variants of laughter such as haha and hehe have been part of written language since as early as 1000 CE (see Tagliamonte, 2016). Tagliamonte concludes that, across all of the analyses she conducted, young people navigated the different message channels and their corresponding spelling, grammar, and language with ease and aplomb. Critical Thinking: What is your experience navigating the grammar and language choices unique to different communication channels? Have you ever made an error or received a message that you thought was inappropriately informal or formal in terms of language, abbreviations, and grammatical structure? What factors might contribute to such missteps?

6 | Language

TAKE TWO • Phonological rules: govern how sounds are combined to form words. • Syntactic rules: govern the way symbols can be arranged. • Semantic rules: govern the meaning of statements. • Pragmatic rules: tell us what interpretations of a message are reasonable in a given situation.

fewer misunderstandings. You have an hour-long argument about feminism with a friend, only to discover that you were using the term in different ways and that you really were in basic agreement. You tease a friend in what you mean to be a playful manner, but they take you seriously and are offended. These problems occur because people attach different meanings to the same message. Ogden and Richards (1923) illustrated this point graphically in their well-known triangle of meaning (see Figure 6.3). This model shows that there is only an indirect relationship—indicated by a broken line— between a word and the thing or idea it represents.

Thought or Reference

Symbol

Referent

FIGURE 6.3  Ogden and Richards’ Triangle of Meaning Source: Adapted from Ogden, Charles K. and Richards, I.A. (1946), The Meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism, 8th edn. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, p. 11.

The Ogden and Richards model is oversimplified in that not all words refer to physical “things” or referents. For instance, some referents are abstract ideas (such as love), while others (like angry or exciting) are not even nouns. Despite these shortcomings, the triangle of meaning is useful since it clearly demonstrates an important principle: meanings are in people, not words. Hence, an important task facing communicators is to establish a common understanding of the words they use to exchange messages. In this sense, communication—at least the effective kind—requires us to negotiate the meaning of our language (Leung and Lewkowicz, 2013). This brings us back to a familiar theme: meaning is both in and among people. Language is a function of individuals who give each word unique meaning as well as cultures that create and share meaning collectively.

Language and Worldview For more than 150 years, theorists have put forth the notion of linguistic relativity—that a language both reflects and shapes the worldview of those who use it (Deutscher, 2010; Everett, 2013). For instance, bilingual speakers seem to think differently when they change languages (Cook and Bassetti, 2011). The idea that people who speak different languages organize and view their worlds differently has been supported by a variety of studies. For instance, Lera Boroditsky (2009; Boroditsky and Gaby, 2010), the cognitive psychologist whose observations about language opened this chapter, describes the Pormpuraawans, an Australian Aboriginal community, who don’t have spatial terms like right, left, back, and forward in their language. Instead they use compass directions to communicate about location (east, west, north, and south). So if you asked a Pormpuraawan where she put the keys she wouldn’t say, “On the top left shelf of the bookcase” as we might. Instead she would say, “On the northeast shelf of the bookcase.” The Pormpuraawans have developed an unbelievably good sense of direction and spatial knowledge. They always need to know where they are (in terms of compass directions) in order to communicate not only their own location,

179

180

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

but the location of anything or anyone in their world—they have no language to allow them to think about space differently. These differences in spatial terms and spatial thinking provide support for the idea that language exerts a strong influence on perceptions (Allen, 2010). Additional evidence comes from observations of bilingual speakers who seem to think differently when they change languages (Cook and Bassetti, 2011). In one study, French-Americans were asked to interpret a series of pictures. When they spoke in French, their descriptions were far more romantic and emotional than when they used English to describe the same kinds of images. Likewise, when students in Hong Kong were asked to complete a values test, they expressed more traditional Chinese values when they answered in Cantonese than when they spoke in English. In Israel, both Muslim and Jewish students saw bigger distinctions between their group and “outsiders” when using their native language than when they spoke in English, a neutral language in this context. Ex­amples like these show the power of language to shape cultural identity—sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. Some languages contain terms that have no English equivalents (Wire, 2010). For example, consider a few words in other languages that have no simple translation in English: • unga (Inuktut): dependent love, especially the

love of a baby for its mother; wanting to be taken care of; it may also refer to the feeling of spouses or friends when they are apart and miss each other. • nemawashi (Japanese): the process of informally feeling out all the people involved with an issue before making a decision. • lagniappe (French/creole): an extra gift given in a transaction that wasn’t expected by the terms of a contract. • lao (Mandarin): respectful term used for older people, showing their importance in the family and in society. • dharma (Sanskrit): each person’s unique, ideal path in life, and the knowledge of how to find it.

It’s possible to imagine concepts like these without having specific words to describe them, but linguistic relatively suggests that the terms do shape the thinking and actions of people who use them. Thus, speakers of a language that includes the notion of lao would probably treat its older members respectfully, and those who are familiar with lagniappe might be more generous. The potential impact of linguistic relativity on interpersonal communication is significant. Consider the difference between the phrases “You make me angry” and “I get angry when you . . .” The first phrase says to the other person—and to ­yourself— that your anger is the other person’s fault. The second phrase is an “I” message that takes responsibility for your emotions (a concept described later in this chapter and previously in Chapter 4). Changing your language can not only help reduce defensiveness in the other person, but can also reframe how you see the situation. The same could happen for people who begin calling female adults “women” instead of “girls” (Florio, 2016), or if they refer to college undergrads as “students” rather than “kids” (Valles, 2014). You might view people differently based on the labels you use to describe them. Your words affect how you see the world.

CHECK IT! Describe four features of language and how each contributes to both the usefulness of language and the potential for misunderstandings.

The Influence of Language As linguistic relativity suggests, language can have a strong effect on our perceptions and how we regard one another. In this section, we’ll examine some of the many ways language can affect our lives.

Naming and Identity “What’s in a name?” Juliet asked rhetorically. If Romeo had been a social scientist, he would have

6 | Language

FOCUS ON RESEARCH NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF FAT TALK The language we use influences our perceptions of the world around us, including ourselves. University of Ottawa researcher Camille Guertin and her colleagues (2017, 2018) have examined the relationship between women’s body image, intrinsic health goals, selfcompassion, and their propensity to engage in “fat talk.” Fat talk is everyday conversations in which people insult themselves about their food consumption (“I ate way too much”), weight (“She’s so thin”), or body appearance (“I hate my thighs”). Both women and men engage in fat talk, but women, across all ages and all body types, do it more. While talking about weight and health concerns with others might provide some cathartic relief and might elicit support from others, it has been associated with numerous maladaptive consequences (Corning and Bucchianeri, 2016). These include elevated body concern issues, which are in turn associated with increased body dissatisfaction and eating disorders. Fat talk is significantly associated with mental health issues such as depression, low self-esteem, distorted body image, and dysfunctional eating (Arroyo and Harwood, 2012; Arroyo, Segrin, and Harwood, 2014; Rudiger and Winstead, 2013; Shannon and Mills, 2015). Worse still, Guertin and her colleagues (2017) point out—it’s contagious! One woman’s fat talk causes conversational partners and even women who overhear the conversation to engage in more fat talk themselves and feel greater

answered, “A great deal.” Research has demonstrated that names are more than just a simple means of identification, that, in fact, they shape the way others think of us, the way we view ourselves, and the way we act (Lieberson, 2000). For more than a century, researchers have studied the impact of rare and unusual names on people who bear them (Christenfeld and Larsen, 2008). Early studies claimed that people with non-­normative names suffered everything from psychological and emotional disturbance to failure in college. Later studies show that people often have negative appraisals from not only unusual

­ issatisfaction about their bodies (Corning et al., 2014; d Engeln-Maddox and Salk, 2014; Gapinski et al., 2003; Jones et al., 2014; Salk and Engeln-Maddox, 2011). You can probably think of a multitude of ways media and the unbelievably profitable beauty/grooming/ weight loss industries (sometimes referred to as the “wellness economy”) perpetuate our dissatisfaction with our appearances. You might argue that fat talk is merely a “symptom” of a much larger problem. And you would be correct, but keep in mind, linguistic relativity proposes that language not only reflects the world we live in but also creates it. The research findings of Guertin and her colleagues (2018) indicate that when women are more self-compassionate (see Chapter 2) and pursue intrinsic, self-determined health related goals (e.g., “to be physically healthy”) rather than externally determined appearance goals (e.g., “to be beautiful”) they engage in less fat talk. While these results are correlational, they do suggest that developing our capacity for self-compassion and strengthening our capacity to determine our own ideas about what is attractive and desirable certainly can’t hurt. Critical Thinking: Given that fat talk is not helpful but is frequently engaged in in order to elicit support and reassurance, which of the listening response(s) described in Chapter 5 would you suggest is most appropriate to use when a friend engages in fat talk? Why?

names, but also unusual spellings (e.g., Mehrabian, 2001). Studies in Canada and the US have found discriminatory hiring practices associated with unusual names (Cotton et al., 2008; Eid, 2012; Oreoploulos and Dechief, 2011). Some people regard unique names as distinctive. You can probably think of four or five unique names—of celebrities, professional athletes, or even friends—that make the person easily recognizable and memorable. In one study, a poem signed with an unusual name was assessed as more creative than when signed by a more common name (Lebuda and Karwowski, 2013).

181

182

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

TAKE TWO Linguistic relativism: the idea that language exerts a strong influence on perceptions and thought.

Names are one way parents can steep their child in a family’s cultural heritage. In Canada, as in many countries around the world, cultural heritage is increasingly complex. Canadian census data (Statistics Canada, 2017) indicate that the number of individuals who identify as having multiple ethnicities continues to increase. Over the years, popular baby names in Canada (e.g., Ava and Liam in 2018) have also been popular south of the border. However, we have always had names that have been more popular in Canada than in the US. These “distinctly Canadian” baby name choices have typically reflected famous Canadians (e.g., Lorne, referring to Lorne Green, a popular actor in the 1960s) as well as patterns of Canadian immigration. For instance, during the 1950s and 1960s Italian names such as Paolo, Franco, Giovanna, and Antonietta were distinctly common in Canada. Currently there is greater diversity in baby names in general but South Asian names such as Zahra and Armaan and Middle Eastern names like Syed and Zainab are considered “distinctly Canadian” in terms of their prevalence in Canada compared to the US (Motskin et al., 2017). Karen Pennesi, (2016, 2017) a professor at Western University, studies the role language plays in the construction of our individual and group identities. Her work has explored the diversity of names in Canada and she argues that accommodating more diversity in naming in Canada would help to create a more welcoming society and a greater sense of belonging among immigrants and minorities. Increasingly newcomers to Canada choose to keep their given names rather than adopt a more traditional “Canadianized” Anglo or French name. This is important for a variety of reasons not the least of which is the centrality of our given names to our identities. As one of the participants in Pennesi’s (2016) research said:

The name is not just name. It’s your—the first thing you hear when you’re a baby. It’s part of you. To change it is not easy. It doesn’t feel right. It doesn’t seem right. You don’t hear it right. It hurts. (p. 58)

Pennesi (2016, 2017) argues that by keeping their given names, and having Canadians learn to pronounce them, immigrants share the responsibility of their integration with the host society. Participants in her study were generally not offended when people mispronounced their names. The important thing was people tried to learn the correct pronunciation rather than “rename” them or suggest a “nickname.” Again, a participant in Pennesi’s study, named Mahilla, who immigrated to Canada as an adult provides an example of this discourteous and disrespectful practice. Well that doesn’t bother me [if people mispronounce my name]. What bothers me is when people [say], ‘‘Oh, I can’t pronounce your name so I’m gonna call you Molly or Margaret.’’ When I was teaching as a term position at a Canadian university the department head decided, oh my name was too difficult to remember. It is three, um three, ah syllables. So, he was going to give me the nickname Molly and I said, ‘‘You can name me whatever you want but [that] doesn’t require me to answer.’’

Some newcomers to Canada do decide to adopt a traditional Anglo or French name (of their own choosing) for a variety of reasons. For instance, TaeYoung Kim (2007) interviewed Korean immigrants to Toronto and found that those who adopted a Canadian name often did so to loosen their ties to the Korean community in Toronto and establish a new peer network. These people chose not to provide their original Korean names even when they were socializing with fellow Korean immigrants. They explained they wanted their new Canadian identities to feature more prominently. As we discussed in Chapter 2, identity development and maintenance is a complex process, deeply rooted in interpersonal communication, and the names people use to identify themselves are integral to that process. Skilled communicators respect people’s choices.

6 | Language

Fedorovekb/Shutterstock

Credibility and Status

sensitive to any confusion their accents might create (Au et al., 2017; Derwing, 2003). In one study, The words we use and the way we pronounce them when a native speaker asked for clarification or rephave a strong influence on whether others accept etition of something they had said, accented speakor reject our ideas. Although, strictly speaking, ers were more likely to feel embarrassed, annoyed, accents are considered non-verbal communica- more socially anxious, and less confident compared tion (see Chapter 7 for definition), we discuss them to accented speakers who had been similarly interhere because they can also be related to language rupted but asked questions that had nothing to do comprehension. A significant amount of research with the clarity of their speech (Au et al., 2017). shows that speaking with a strong foreign accent Finally, there is evidence that bilingualism is assois associated with a variety of negative stereotypes ciated with greater cognitive flexibility, which, as (Derwing and Munro, 2009b), even when speak- we’ll discuss in Chapter 10, is related to effective ers communicate their main ideas successfully conflict resolution skills (Bialystok, 2009). This sug(Gluszek and Dovidio, 2010). People can speak with gests that those speaking with an accent may frea heavy accent and be completely intelligible and quently have better interpersonal communication easy to understand (Munro and Derwing, 2015). skills than many of the unilingual native speakHowever, accented speakers are often judged as ers judging them negatively! Of course, bilingual being less competent, less intelligent, less loyal and people are just as susceptible to accent-based biases trustworthy, and less attractive than native English in their perceptions as unilingual individuals are speakers (Fuertes et al., 2012; Gluszek and Dovidio, but by becoming aware of our perceptual biases, 2010; Hanzlikova and Skarnitzl, 2017; Timming, we’re better equipped to overcome them. 2017). Like many of our perceptual preferences and Vocabulary is also important in shaping percepprejudices (see Chapter 3), our biases against speak- tions. Scholarly speaking is a good example of this ers with a strong foreign accent are often uncon- phenomenon. One illustration comes from a now scious (Pantos and Perkins, 2013). This can make classic study referred to as the “Dr Fox” research these biases difficult to overcome. Research also (Naftulin et al., 1973; Peer and Babad, 2014; Ware and suggests that non-native English speakers are quite Williams, 1980). This research involved Dr Myron L. Fox, who delivered a talk followed by a half-hour discussion on “mathematical game theory as applied to physical education.” The original audience included psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and educators (Naftulin et al., 1973); and a more recent audience (who saw a film of the original Dr Fox lecture) included both undergraduate and graduate students (Peer and Babad, 2014). Questionnaires, collected after the sessions back in the 1970s and after the more recent sessions, revealed that these educated listeners found the lecture thought provoking. Their perceptions of How do accent and vocabulary influence your perception and understanding Dr Fox were very positive. of the characters?

183

184

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

The remarkable thing was that Fox was a complete fraud! He was a professional actor who had been coached by researchers to deliver a lecture of double-talk—a patchwork of information from a Scientific American article mixed with jokes, non-sequiturs, contradictory statements, and meaningless references to unrelated topics. When wrapped in a linguistic package of high-level, sophisticated professional jargon, and delivered by an engaging, humorous, and well-spoken person, the meaningless gobbledygook was judged favourably. In other words, Fox’s credibility came more from his vocabulary and style of speaking than from the ideas he expressed.

REFLECTION ACCENTS AND SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECIES My mother-in-law came to Canada from Italy with her husband and children about 50 years ago. The family settled in an Italian-Canadian community and she was able to continue to speak Italian in order to manage the household and raise her family. Her husband and kids all learned to speak English but she did not. As the only non-Italianspeaking in-law in this big, warm, tightknit family, this posed some communication challenges. I quickly figured out her receptive English vocabulary was very good and when it was just the two of us, she would speak a bit of English and I would muddle along with my rudimentary Italian and we could understand each other. I noticed she never spoke English in front of her husband and children. I was puzzled. I pushed my husband to tell me why this was and discovered that in her early days in Canada, she tried speaking English and her young and much more fluent children teased her about her pronunciation. She immediately lost confidence and quit trying—believing that she could never be as fluent as her children. I was shocked that good-natured teasing could have such a negative impact on a person’s beliefs about themselves and I resolved to never make fun of people’s accents or pronunciations.

Affiliation Accent and vocabulary are not the only ways in which language reflects the status of relationships. An impressive body of research has shown how language can build and demonstrate solidarity with others. Communicators adapt their speech in a variety of ways to indicate affiliation and accommodation, including through their choice of vocabulary, rate of talking, number and placement of pauses, and level of politeness (Giles, 2016). In one study, the likelihood of mutual romantic interest increased when conversation partners’ use of pronouns, articles, conjunctions, prepositions, and negations matched (Ireland et al., 2011). The same study revealed that when couples use similar language styles while instant messaging, the ­chances of their relationship continuing increased by almost 50 per cent. Close friends and lovers often develop a set of special terms that serve as a way of signifying their relationship (Dunleavy and Booth-Butterfield, 2009). Using the same vocabulary serves to set these people apart from others. The same process works among members of larger groups, ranging from online communities to street gangs and military units. Convergence is the process of adapting one’s speech style to match that of others with whom the communicator wants to identify (Dragojevic et al., 2016). Language matching creates bonds not only between friends but also between strangers online (Rains, 2016; Riordan et al., 2013). When two or more people feel equally positive about one another, their linguistic convergence will be mutual. But when one communicator wants or needs approval, convergence is more one-sided (Muir et al., 216). We see this process when employees seeking advancement start speaking more like their superiors. One study even showed that adopting the swearing patterns of bosses and co-workers in emails is a sign that an employee is fitting into an organization’s culture (Lublin, 2017). The principle of speech accommodation works in reverse too. Communicators who want to set themselves apart from others adopt the strategy of divergence, that is, speaking in a way that emphasizes their differences (Gasiorek and Vincze, 2016).

6 | Language

TAKE TWO • Convergence: the process of adapting one’s speech style to that of others with whom the communicator wants to identify. • Divergence: the process of adapting one’s speech in ways that emphasize differences between the speaker and others from whom the speaker wants to distance him or herself.

For example, members of an ethnic group, even though fluent in the dominant language, might use their own dialect as a way of showing solidarity with one another. Divergence also occurs in other settings. For example, a physician or lawyer might speak formally and use professional jargon to create a sense of distance from their clients. The same can occur across age lines, such as teens who adopt slang of subcultures other than their own to show divergence from adults (Reyes, 2005). Of course, communicators need to be careful about when not to converge their language. For example, using ethnic or racial epithets when you are not a member of that in-group may be inappropriate and even offensive (O’Dea et al., 2015).

Power and Politeness Communication researchers have identified a number of language patterns that communicate more or less power (Dillard, 2014; Hosman and Siltanen, 2006). Notice the difference between these two statements from an employee to a manager: “Excuse me, sir. I hate to say this, but I . . . uh . . . I guess I won’t be able to finish the project on time. I had a personal emergency and . . . well . . . it was just impossible to finish it by today. I’ll have it to you first thing on Monday, okay?” “I won’t be able to turn in the project on time. I had a personal emergency and it was impossible to finish it by today. I’ll have it to you first thing on Monday.”

The first statement is an example of what has been called powerless language: tentative and indirect word choices, with hedges and hesitations (“Excuse me; sir”; I guess”; “okay?”). The second is labelled powerful language: direct and forceful word choices, with declarations and assertions (“I won’t”; “I will”). Table 6.1 lists several powerless speech mannerisms illustrated in the first statement you just read. It should be noted that the last example in Table 6.1, disclaimers, which are attempts to distance a speaker from unwelcome remarks (e.g., “I don’t mean to sound judgmental but, . . . .”) can actually increase negative judgments (El-Alayli et al., 2008). Disclaimers involving arrogance, laziness, or selfishness (e.g., “I don’t mean to sound arrogant . . .”) also backfire because they sensitize listeners to look for—and find—precisely the qualities the speaker is trying to disavow. A number of studies have shown that speakers who use powerful language are rated as more competent, dynamic, and attractive than speakers who sound powerless (Ng and Bradac, 1993; Reid and Ng, 1999). In addition, when it comes to employment interview outcomes, a powerful speech style results in more positive attributions of competence and employability than a powerless one (Parton et al., 2002). Some communication scholars argue that what we have labelled “powerless” language is actually the speech less powerful people use to get their ideas across (Orbe and Bruess, 2005). When there is inequity in power, it’s not necessarily powerless language that puts one communicator at a disadvantage but rather the power imbalance itself. Women frequently report experiencing power imbalances in male dominated workplace meetings. They describe being interrupted more frequently and having their ideas regularly ignored. While using more assertive and powerful language can help reduce these kinds of power imbalances some researchers suggest that reducing inequity is a team effort. Joanne Lipman (2018) suggests having colleagues who interrupt the “interrupters” and who repeat or amplify the ideas less powerful people present in order to ensure they’re considered can help level the playing field and ensure everyone is heard.

185

186

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

Additionally, some experts question the label “powerless” because tentative and indirect speech styles can sometimes achieve goals better than more assertive approaches (Lee and Pinker, 2010). For example, less forceful approaches can be attempts at politeness: communicating in ways that save face for both senders and receivers. Politeness is valued in some cultures more than others (Dunn, 2013). In Japan, saving face for others is an important goal, so communicators there tend to speak in ambiguous terms and use hedge words and qualifiers. In most Japanese sentences, the verb comes at the end of the sentence, so the action part of the statement can be postponed. Traditional Mexican culture, with its strong emphasis on co-operation, also uses hedging to smooth over interpersonal relationships. By not taking a firm stand with their speech mannerisms, Mexicans believe they will not make others feel ill at ease. Some Canadian Indigenous groups and Koreans are two other cultural groups that prefer “indirect” (e.g., using perhaps or could be) over “direct” speech. Even in North American culture, simply counting the number of powerful or powerless statements will not always reveal who has the most control

in a relationship. Social rules often mask the real distribution of power. A manager who wants to be pleasant might say to an assistant, “Would you mind getting this file?” In truth, both manager and assistant know this is an order and not a request, but the questioning form makes the medicine less bitter. Sociolinguist Deborah Tannen (1994, p. 101) describes how politeness can be a face-saving way of delivering an order: I hear myself giving instructions to my assistants without actually issuing orders: “Maybe it would be a good idea to . . .” “It would be great if you could . . .” all the while knowing that I expect them to do what I’ve asked right away. . . . This rarely creates problems, though, because the people who work for me know that there is only one reason I mention tasks—because I want them done. I like giving instructions in this way; it appeals to my sense of what it means to be a good person . . . taking others’ feelings into account.

As this quotation suggests, high-status speakers—especially higher-status women, according to Tannen—often realize that politeness is an effective way to get their needs met while protecting the

TABLE 6.1  Examples of Less Powerful Language Type of Language

Example

More Empowering Alternative

Hedges and limiting qualifiers

“I’m kinda disappointed . . .” “I think, maybe we should . . .” “I guess I’d like to . . .”

“I’m disappointed.” “We should . . .” “I would like to . . .”

Hesitations

“Uh, may I have a minute of your time?” “Well, we could try this idea . . .” “I wish you would . . . er . . . try to be on time.”

“May I have a minute of your time?” “We could try this idea.” “I wish you would try to be on time.”

Intensifiers

“So that’s how I feel.” “I’m not very hungry.”

“That’s how I feel.” “I’m not hungry.”

Overly polite forms

“Excuse me, sir, may I bother you for a second and ask you a question . . .”

“Excuse me, I have a question.”

Tag questions

“It’s about time we got started, isn’t it?” “Don’t you think we should give it another try?”

“It’s about time we got started.” “We should give it another try.”

Disclaimers

“I probably shouldn’t say this, but I think you’re overreacting.”

“I think you’re overreacting.”

SOURCE: Adapted from Adler, R.B. and Elmhorst, J. (2010). Communicating at work: Principles and practices for business and the professions, 10th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 29.

6 | Language

dignity of the less powerful person. The importance of achieving both content and relational goals helps explain why a mixture of powerful and polite speech is usually most effective (Geddes, 1992). The  key is to be able to adapt your style to your conversational partner (Loyd et al., 2010). If the other person misinterprets politeness for weakness, it may be necessary to shift to a more powerful speaking style. Conversely, in some situations powerful speech can be perceived as insensitive and overbearing and a less powerful approach is what is needed (Fandrich and Beck, 2012). We’ll discuss power and control issues further in our examination of communication climates in Chapter 9. As always, competent communication requires flexibility and adaptability.

CHECK IT! Describe six less powerful speech mannerisms and provide an example of each.

Sexism Sexist language “includes words, phrases, and expressions that unnecessarily differentiate between females and males or exclude, trivialize, or diminish” either sex (Parks and Robertson, 2000, p. 415). This type of speech can affect the ­self-concepts of women and men, often in subtle ways. Suzanne Romaine (1999) offers several ex­amples of how linguistic terms can stereotype men and women. To say that a woman mothered her children focuses on her nurturing behaviour, but to say that a man fathered a child talks only about his biological role. We are familiar with terms like working mother, but there is no term working father because we assume (perhaps inaccurately) that men are the breadwinners in families. Beyond just stereotyping women, sexist language can stigmatize women. For example, the term unmarried mother is common, but we do not talk about unmarried fathers because for many people, there is no stigma attached to this status for men. And whereas there are over 200 English

words for promiscuous women, there are only 20 for men (Piercy, 2000). In addition to people’s attitudes towards women, education and perspective taking predict their attitudes regarding non-sexist language (Parks and Roberton, 2008). More years of formal education, in academic settings or in specialized settings such as learning to be a plumber or an electrician, is predictive of positive attitudes toward the use of non-sexist language. Similarly, people who are better able to see things from the perspective of others have been found to have a more receptive attitude towards using inclusive language (Parks and Roberton, 2008). One way to eliminate sexist language is by eliminating sex-specific terms or substituting neutral terms (Lei, 2006; Rakow, 1992). For example, using plural pronouns (e.g., they, theirs, them) in sentence constructions eliminates the necessity for gender specific pronouns (e.g., he and she, his and hers, him and her, etc.). You may have noticed that, in this book, we often use a singular they pronoun in place of the standard he or she in an effort to choose language that is as inclusive as possible and facilitate the most effective communication with readers. In fact, as discussed in Chapter 2, they has become the pronoun of choice for many individuals ­(Airton, 2018; Hess, 2016). When words are unnecessarily gender specific, you can substitute neutral terms. For example: mankind may be replaced with humankind, humanity, human beings, human race, and people; man-made may be replaced with artificial, manufactured, and synthetic; manpower may be replaced with labour, workers, and workforce; and manhood may be replaced with adulthood. In the same way, mailmen are letter carriers and postal workers; firemen and firewomen are firefighters; chairmen and chairwomen are presiding officers, leaders, and chairs; foremen and forewomen are supervisors; policemen and policewomen are police officers; and stewardesses and stewards are flight attendants. Of course, some terms refer to things that could not possibly have a sex; so, for example, a manhole cover should be called a sewer lid. Research suggests that while gender-neutral language helps to reduce our stereotypical perceptions of previously male dominated occupations (e.g., entrepreneur instead of businessman, news anchor instead of anchorman) it doesn’t ­completely

187

188

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

eliminate the male bias we have (Lassonde and O’Brien, 2013; Sczesny et al., 2016). Author Joanne Lipman (2018) argues that being male is the norm and being female is the outlier. She points out that in European and Asian languages the default form of any word is male. In creating an alternate form to make a female equivalent we add “esse” or “ette” (e.g., steward and stewardess or star and starlet). Lipman argues the male version is taken more seriously and to make her point she jokes that few of us would want to be operated on by a “surgeonette.” Obviously, increased exposure to women in stereotypically male occupations (as well as men in stereotypical female occupations) helps and so does changing the ways we speak. Another more controversial approach to eliminating sexism is clearly marking sex—to heighten awareness of whether the reference is to a female or a male especially in traditionally male or fe­male dominated professions. For example, orthopaedic surgery is a male dominated medical speciality so rather than use the neutral surgeon substitute female surgeon. Nursing is traditionally a female dominated profession so rather than using, the neutral nurse substitute male nurse. Although this approach has been shown to increase non sex-stereotyped imagery (Gustafsson et al., 2015), it also has been criticized for reinforcing gender binaries (as discussed in Chapter 2).

Sexual Orientation Eliminating language that discriminates against LGBTQ+ people is an equally important and challenging task (Stonefish and Lafreniere, 2015). In their study of men’s use of anti-gay insults at the University of Calgary, Tyler Brown and Kevin Alderson (2010) found that men used an abundance of homosexual insults to joke with and pressure their peers, and that only about one-quarter of the men surveyed said they would never use the term fag or faggot to insult another person. The men surveyed also revealed that they rarely if ever believed that the person they were insulting was in fact gay. Brown and Alderson speculate that using what they refer to as homosexual insults may help to create a feeling of inclusion among men and

may serve as an indicator of greater masculinity to heterosexual women. Similarly, in their analysis of the use of the hashtag #nohomo on Twitter, Pascoe and Diefendorf (2019) found it was rarely used in a negative emotional context. Most frequently, #nohomo was used by men when expressing positive emotions and opinions about a wide variety of topics (e.g., movies, music, appearance of other men, celebrities, athletes, friendships, etc.). They argue that the use of #nohomo serves to delineate boundaries between stereotypically masculine and non-masculine behaviour, and their usage reveals the homophobic stereotypes and anxieties that serve as organizing principles of contemporary masculinity. Regardless of why people use these insults, they are offensive and contribute to the stigma and stress LGBTQ+ people experience (Burn et al., 2005; Ecker et al., 2015; Stonefish and Lafrenier, 2015). When confronted with discriminatory language, people often don’t feel they know what to do or say. In a study of recently graduated teachers who were faced with anti-LGBTQ+ language in the classroom, researchers found that by their responses, teachers could be categorized into four main groups: avoiders, hesitators, confronters, and interrogators (Zack et al., 2010). The majority of teachers interviewed were hesitators, but a few confident interrogators used the situation to ask questions and explore students’ understanding of the words they chose and the larger consequences of their choices. Lisa van Leent (2016) found Australian teachers’ responses to diverse sexualities in school fell into similar categories. Canadian scholar Catherine Taylor (2016) and her colleagues suggest Canadian teachers need more support to ensure our schools are LGBTQ+-inclusive. Brian Payne (2010), a high school art teacher, found that students often misused the terms gay and retarded when discussing art, and he made a point of addressing the hurtful nature of these terms and how using these words to describe things they found gauche, awkward, or uncomfortable made them seem unintelligent. He found that by talking openly about students’ choice of words, he not only helped to raise their consciousness, but also improved their vocabularies.

6 | Language

Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

Racism

How often do you hear biases like sexist language, sexually prejudiced language, and racist language in the language of people around you? How often do you use them yourself?

Whereas sexist language usually defines the world as made up of superior men and inferior women, and sexually prejudiced language usually implies that heterosexuality is superior to any other sexual orientation, racist language reflects a worldview that classifies members of one racial group as superior and others as inferior (Asante, 2002). Not all language that might have racist overtones is deliberate. For example, the connotations

SELF-ASSESSMENT SEXIST LANGUAGE Section I For each of the following statements, rate your agreement or disagreement on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree.”  1. W  omen who think that being called a chairman is sexist are misinterpreting the word.  2. Worrying about sexist language is a trivial activity.  3. If the original meaning of he was “person,” we should continue to use he to refer to both males and females today.  4. The elimination of sexist language is an important goal.  5. Sexist language is related to the sexist treatment of people in society.  6. When teachers talk about the history of Canada, they should change expressions such as our forefathers to expressions that include women.  7. Teachers who require students to use non-sexist language are unfairly forcing their political views on their students. Section II For each of the following statements, rate your willingness on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 = “very unwilling” and 5 = “very willing.”

 8. W  hen you are referring to a married woman, how willing are you to use the title “Ms Smith” rather than “Mrs Smith”?  9. How willing are you to use the word “server” rather than “waiter” or “waitress”?  10. How willing are you to use the expression “husband and wife” rather than “man and wife”?  11. How willing are you to use the term “flight attendant” instead of “steward” or “stewardess”? Total = ______. Add your responses to the 11 statements, making sure to reverse-score (i.e., 5 = 1, 4 = 2, 3 = 3, 2 = 4, and 1 = 5) statements 1, 2, and 3. Scores can range from 11 to 55, and scores that are 38 or higher reflect a supportive attitude towards non-­sexist language; and scores between 28 and 37 reflect a neutral attitude. Scholars note that women are typically less tolerant of sexist language than are men, which may have an impact on these scores (Douglas and Sutton, 2014). SOURCE: This “Self-Assessment” box contains 11 of the 21 items on the Inventory of Attitudes toward Sexist/Nonsexist Language-General, developed by Parks and Robertson (2000).

189

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

of many words favour white people over people of colour (Smith-McLallen et al., 2006; Pfeifer, 2009). Words and images associated with white are usually positive, whether it’s the cowboy hero in white clothing or connotations of white as “pure,” “clean,” “honourable,” “innocent,” “bright,” and “shiny.” The words and images associated with black are often negative, a concept that reaches from the black hat of the villain cowboy and the black cat that causes bad luck to words and phrases like black market, blackball, and blacklist. An obvious step toward eliminating racist language is to make sure your communication is free of offensive labels and slurs (Guerin, 2003). Some troublesome language will be easy to identify, while other problematic speech will be more subtle. For instance, you may use racial, ethnic, or sexuality-related modifiers unconsciously when describing others, think of specifying black professor or Pakistani merchant or lesbian poet. Modifiers like these usually are not necessary, and they can be subtle indicators of prejudiced language. If you wouldn’t use the phrases white professor, European merchant, or heterosexual poet, then modifiers that identify race, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation may be indicators of attitudes and language that need to be changed.

Uses (and Abuses) of Language

need language skills to make our ideas understandable to others. Sometimes, however, we want to be less than perfectly clear. In the following pages, we’ll point out some cases where vagueness serves useful purposes as well as cases where complete understanding is the goal.

Ambiguous Language Ambiguous language consists of words and phrases that have more than one commonly accepted definition. Some ambiguous language is amusing, as the following newspaper headlines illustrate: Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers Teacher Strikes Idle Kids 20-Year Friendship Ends at the Altar

Many misunderstandings that arise from ambiguity are trivial. Other misunderstandings involving ambiguous messages can be more serious. A nurse gave one of his patients a scare when he told her that she “would not be needing” her robe, books, and toiletries any more. The patient became quiet and moody. When the nurse inquired about the odd behaviour, he discovered that the poor woman had interpreted his statement to mean she was going to die soon. In fact, the nurse meant she would be going home shortly.

By now, it’s apparent that language can shape the way we perceive and understand the world. Next, we’ll look at some specific types of usage and examine both their value and the problems they can cause.

Precision and Vagueness Most people assume that the goal of language is to make our ideas clear to one another. When clarity is the goal, we

Sask Pork

190

6 | Language

REFLECTION CALLING OUT HOMOPHOBIA—WE’RE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM I have three siblings, all of whom are really into sports, especially hockey and lacrosse. Going to their games and hanging out with them has exposed me to lots of swearing and unsavoury language and none of it really bothers me except using gay or fag as an insult. My brothers have said it’s just a word and it comes out before they think about it as part of “jock” culture. But I think it’s so unbelievably hurtful in so many ways, not the least of which is because chances are somebody playing on their team is gay or bisexual or trans or two-spirted! These guys are a tight knit crew and I really don’t think they want to be that unbelievably insensitive and mean to a teammate, so I call them on it. Language matters. It’s wrong.

and embarrassment by being deliberately unclear (Eisenberg and Witten, 1987). If a friend apologizes for arriving late for a date, you can choose to brush off the incident instead of making it an issue by saying, “Don’t worry. It wasn’t the end of the world”—a true statement, but less specific than saying, “To tell you the truth, I was mad at the time, but I’ve cooled off now.” If your manager asks your opinion of a new idea that you think is weaker than your own approach, but you don’t want to disagree, you could respond with a higher-level abstraction by saying, “I never thought of it that way.” Although vagueness does have its uses, highly abstract language can cause several types of problems. At the most basic level, the vagueness of some abstract language makes it hard to understand the meaning of a message. Telling the hairstylist “shorter” or “more casual” might produce the look you want, or it might lead to an unpleasant surprise.

Abstrac

t

It’s difficult to catch and clarify every instance of ambiguous language. For this reason, the responsibility for interpreting statements accurately rests in large part with the receiver. Feedback of one sort or another—for example, paraphrasing and questioning—can help clear up misunderstandings: “You say you love me, but you want to see other people. In my book, ‘love’ is exclusive. What about you?”

You need to be more positive.

You need to complain less.

Abstraction

c

You need to complain less about working too hard.

Specifi

Abstractions are convenient ways of generalizing about similarities between several objects, people, ideas, or events. Figure 6.4 shows an abstraction ladder that illustrates how to describe the same phenomenon at various levels of abstraction. We use higher-level abstractions all the time. For instance, rather than saying, “Thanks for washing the dishes,” “Thanks for vacuuming the rug,” and “Thanks for making the bed,” it’s easier to say, “Thanks for cleaning up.” In such everyday situations, abstractions are a useful kind of verbal shorthand. High-level abstractions also can help communicators find face-saving ways to avoid confrontations

You need to have a better attitude.

You need to quit complaining every time we have to work late or come in on weekends.

FIGURE 6.4  Abstraction Ladder In this example, a supervisor gives feedback to an employee about career advancement at various levels of specificity.

191

192

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

BUILDING WORK SKILLS REDUCING ABSTRACT LANGUAGE A significant amount of work-related communication consists of stating goals, making requests of others, talking about work-related problems, and complaining! No matter what type of career you have in mind, this will probably be true. Think about using language at work in one of the following ways. Perhaps you need to make a request of a colleague or someone who reports to you, or you need to give them some negative feedback (criticism) about their work. Write down what you might say and then take a look at the examples in Table 6.2, Reducing Abstraction in Your Descriptions, which show how to examine language for abstraction and how to correct for it. The same techniques can help you decide whether you’ve found the right balance between behavioural description and abstract description. How did you do? Could you improve your request or your criticism? How?

You might assume abstract statements will soften the blow of critical messages, but research suggests that isn’t always the case. People who use vague language to describe others’ negative actions are rated as less likeable than those who use concrete language (Douglas and Sutton, 2010). By describing another person’s behaviour in abstract terms you may appear to have a hidden agenda. The effect was not found, however, when describing the positive behaviours of others. Overly abstract language can also lead to stereotyping, as with someone who has had one bad experience and, as a result, blames an entire group: “Marriage counsellors are worthless,” “Torontonians are all rude,” or “Men are no good.” Overly abstract expressions like these can cause people to think in generalities, ignoring uniqueness. Besides narrowing your own options, excessively abstract language can also confuse others. Overly abstract language can lead to more serious problems. For instance, accusations of sexual assault can arise because one person claims not to have consented when the other person insists they did. In response to this sort of disagreement, specific rules of sexual conduct have become more common in workplaces and educational institutions. For instance, Bill 132, the Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (2016), requires all post-secondary institutions in Ontario to have published sexual violence policy and protocols, and trained employees able to respond to and address incidents and complaints of sexual violence. These policies and protocols use

low-level abstractions to minimize the chances of anyone claiming confusion about a partner’s willingness or consent. An example of how consent is defined is provided below: Consent: The voluntary agreement to engage in the sexual activity in question. It is the act of willingly agreeing to engage in specific sexual behaviour, and requires that a person is able to freely choose between two options: yes and no. This means that there must be an understandable exchange of affirmative words which indicates a willingness to participate in mutually agreed upon sexual activity. It is also imperative that everyone understands the following: • Silence or non-communication must never be interpreted as consent and a person in a state of diminished judgment cannot consent. • A person is incapable of giving consent if she/ he is asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unable to communicate. • A person who has been threatened or coerced (i.e., is not agreeing voluntarily) into engaging in the sexual activity is not consenting to it. • A person who is drugged is unable to consent. • A person is usually unable to give consent when she/he is under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. • A person may be unable to give consent if she/ he has a mental disability.

6 | Language

• The fact that consent was given in the past to a sexual or dating relationship does not mean that consent is deemed to exist for all future sexual activity. • A person can withdraw consent at any time during the course of a sexual encounter. A person may be incapable of giving consent to a person in a position of trust, power or authority. Any sexual relationship between an employee and a student, where the employee teaches or has professional contact with the student as part of their employment responsibilities, is prohibited. Any sexual relationship between an employee with supervising responsibilities and an emp­loyee who reports to them, directly or indirectly, must be reported to their manager and Human Re­sources who will work with the parties to address any potential conflict of interest. • Consent cannot be given on behalf of another person. • It is the responsibility of the initiator of sexual activity to obtain clear and affirmative responses at all stages of sexual engagement.

Low-level abstractions can reduce the chances of a serious misunderstanding. Specific language may not be desirable or necessary in many situations, but in this context it’s useful to ensure a shared understanding of exactly what constitutes voluntary participation and what is an abuse of power. You can make your language—and your ­thinking—less abstract and more clear by learning to make behavioural descriptions of your problems, goals, appreciations, complaints, and requests. We use the word behavioural because such descriptions move down the abstraction ladder to describe the specific, observable objects and actions we’re ­thinking about. Table 6.2 shows how behavioural descriptions are much more clear and effective than vague, abstract statements.

Euphemism A euphemism (from a Greek word meaning “to use words of good omen”) is an innocuous term

substituted for a blunt one. A euphemism avoids a direct, literal reference to an event (such as “She died”), substituting terms describing its consequences (“She’s no longer with us”); related events (“She took her last breath”); metaphors (“She jumped the last hurdle”); or other, more abstract associations (McGlone et al., 2006). Euphemisms typically soften the impact of information that might be unpleasant, both for oneself and for the other person (McCallum and McGlone, 2011). It’s easy to imagine how a relational breakup might be easier to handle with the explanation, “I’m not ready for commitment” than with “I want to date other people.” We tend to use euphemisms more when talking to people of higher status, probably as a way to avoid offending them (Makin, 2004). When choosing how to broach difficult subjects, the challenge is to be as kind as possible without sacrificing either your integrity or the clarity of your message.

Relative Language Relative language gains meaning by comparison. For example, do you attend a large or a small school? This depends on what you compare it to. Compared to the University of Toronto, with over 90,000 students, your university or college may look small, but when compared with a smaller institution, it may seem quite large. Relative words such as fast and slow, smart and stupid, short and long are clearly defined only through comparison. Using relative terms without explaining them can lead to communication problems. Have you ever answered someone’s question about the weather by saying it was warm, only to find out the person thought it was cold? Have you followed a friend’s advice and gone to a “cheap” restaurant, only to find that it was twice as expensive as you expected? Did classes you heard were “easy” turn out to be hard? The problem in each case resulted from failing to link the relative word to a more measurable term. One way to make words more measurable is to turn them into numbers. Health care practitioners have found that by having patients rate their pain on a 10-point scale (with 1 representing

193

194

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

TABLE 6.2  Reducing Abstraction in Your Descriptions Behavioural Description Abstract Description

Who Is Involved

In What Circumstances

Specific Behaviour

Behavioural Description

Problem

I’m no good at meeting strangers.

People I’d like to date

At parties and in school

I think, “They’d never want to date me.” Also, I don’t initiate conversations.

Behavioural description more clearly identifies thoughts and behaviour to change.

Goal

I’d like to be more assertive.

Phone and door-to-door solicitors

When I don’t want the product or can’t afford it

Instead of apologizing, I want to keep saying, “I’m not interested” until they go away.

Behavioural description clearly outlines how to act; abstract description does not.

Appreciation

“You’ve been a great supervisor.”

(No clarification When I’ve necessary) needed to change my schedule because of school exams or assignments

“You’ve been so willing to rearrange my work schedule.”

Give both abstract and behavioural descriptions for best results.

Complaint

“I don’t like some of the instructors around here.”

Professors A and B

In class, when students ask questions, the professors think they are stupid

They either answer in a sarcastic voice (you might demonstrate) or accuse us of not studying hard enough.

If talking to A or B, use only behavioural description. With others, use both abstract and behavioural descriptions.

Request

“Quit bothering me!”

You and your friends X and Y

When I’m studying for exams

“Instead of asking me again and again to party with you, I wish you’d accept that I need to study tonight.”

Behavioural description will reduce defensiveness and make it clear that you don’t always want to be left alone.

no pain and 10 representing the worst possible pain) they can more accurately gage others’ pain (Chuang et al., 2014). Numerical ratings are used to make words more measurable in everything from restaurant and movie reviews to student satisfaction.

Evaluative Language Evaluative language (sometimes called ­ emotive language) seems to describe something, but really announces the speaker’s attitude toward it (Macagno and Walton, 2010; Richards, 1948). If you approve of

6 | Language

a friend’s roundabout approach to a difficult subject, you might call her “tactful”; if you don’t like it, you might accuse her of “beating around the bush.” You can appreciate that evaluative words are really editorial statements when you consider these examples: If You Approve, Say

If You Disapprove, Say

cautious

cowardly

eccentric

crazy

extrovert

loudmouth

information

propaganda

progressive

radical

thrifty

cheap

traditional

old-fashioned

The Language of Responsibility Besides providing a way to make the content of a message clear or obscure, language reflects the speaker’s willingness to take responsibility for their beliefs, feelings, and actions. This acceptance or rejection of responsibility says a great deal about

the speaker, and it can shape the tone of a relationship. To see how, read on.

“It” Statements Notice the difference between the sentences of each set: “It bothers me when you’re late.” “I’m worried when you’re late.” “It’s a problem.” “I see it as a problem.” “It’s a boring class.” “I’m bored in the class.”

As the name implies, an “it” statement replaces the personal pronoun I with the less immediate construction it. By contrast, “I” language clearly identifies the speaker as the source of a message. Communicators who use “it” statements avoid responsibility for ownership of a message. This habit is not just imprecise; more importantly, it’s an unconscious way to avoid taking a position.

“But” Statements

TAKE TWO • Ambiguous language: words and phrases that have more than one commonly accepted definition • Abstractions: convenient ways of generalizing similarities between several objects, people, ideas, or events. • Advantages: provide an easy shorthand; help avoid confrontations and embarrassment. • Disadvantages: can lead to stereotyping; can confuse others. • Euphemisms: innocuous terms substituted for blunt ones (e.g., between jobs instead of unemployed). • Relative language: words that gain meaning by comparison (e.g., fast, short). • Evaluative language: (also called emotive language) appears to describe something but actually announces speakers’ attitude towards it

Statements that take the form “X-but-Y” can be quite confusing. A closer look at the “but” statement explains why. But has the effect of cancelling the thought that precedes it: “You’re really a great person, but I think we ought to stop seeing each other.” “You’ve done good work for us, but we’re going to have to let you go.” “This paper has some good ideas, but I’m giving it a ‘D’ because it’s late.”

“Buts” can, however, be a face-saving strategy worth using at times. When the goal is to be absolutely clear, however, the most responsible approach will deliver the central idea without the distractions that can come with “but” statements. Break statements such as the preceding ones into two sentences, and then explain each one as necessary. Doing so allows you to acknowledge both parts of the statement without contradicting yourself.

195

196

ozgurdonmaz/iStockphoto

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

“You” language is likely to arouse defensiveness. It implies that the speaker is qualified to judge the target—not an idea that most listeners are willing to accept, even when the evaluation is correct. “I” language offers a more accurate and less provocative way to express a complaint (Simmons et al., 2005). By using “I” language, you can describe your reaction to someone’s behaviour, taking responsibility for your statement without expressing judgment. Communicators who use these kinds of “I” mes­ sages engage in assertiveness— clearly expressing thoughts, feelings, and wants (Alberti and Emmons, 2008). Assertive messages are composed of three different types of “I” statements. One describes Though we might describe people as being nervous or attention-seeking just the other person’s behaviour, like we describe the colour of their eyes, people are rarely that unchanging. one describes your feelings, and one describes the consequences How would your friends describe you? Are you like that all of the time? the other’s behaviour has for you. Here are some examples of complete assertive “I,” “You,” and “We” Language messages: We’ve already seen that “I” language is a way of “I get embarrassed [your feeling] when I hear you accepting responsibility for a message. “You” lantalk about my bad grades in front of our friends guage, by contrast, expresses a judgment of the other [the behaviour you observed]. I’m afraid they’ll person. Positive judgments (“You did a great job!”) think I’m stupid [the possible consequence].” rarely cause problems, but notice how each of the “Because I was waiting for you to pick me up following critical “you” statements implies that the this morning [behaviour], I was late for class subject of the complaint is doing something wrong: “You left this place a mess!” “You didn’t keep your promise!” “You’re really crude sometimes!”

Despite its name, “you” language does not have to contain the pronoun you, which is often implied rather than stated outright: “That was a stupid joke!” (“Your jokes are stupid!”) “Don’t be so critical!” (“You’re too negative!”) “Mind your own business!” (“You’re too nosy!”)

and wound up getting chewed out by the professor [consequence]. That’s why I got so angry [­feeling].”

“I haven’t been very affectionate [consequence] because I’ve noticed that you’ve hardly spent any time with me in the past few weeks [behaviour]. I’m confused [feeling] about how you feel about me.”

When the chances of being misunderstood or getting a defensive reaction are high, it’s a good

6 | Language

idea to include all three elements in your assertive message. In some cases, however, only one or two of them will get the job done: “I’m feeling annoyed because I went to a lot of trouble making this dinner, and now it’s cold.” (The behaviour is obvious.) “I’m worried because I haven’t heard from you.” (“Worried” is both a feeling and a consequence in this statement.)

Despite its obvious advantages, even the best-constructed and masterfully delivered “I” ­ message will not always receive a non-defensive response (Bippus and Young, 2005). As Thomas Gordon (1970, p. 145) points out, “nobody welcomes hearing that his behaviour is causing someone a problem, no matter how the message is phrased.” Furthermore, “I” language in large doses can start to sound egotistical (Proctor, 1989). Research shows that self-absorbed people, also known as “conversational narcissists,” can be identified by their constant use of first-person-singular pronouns (Vangelisti et al., 1990; Zimmermann et al., 2013). For this reason, “I” language works best in moderation. One way to avoid overuse of “I” language is to consider the pronoun we. “We” language implies that the issue is the concern and responsibility of both the speaker and receiver of a message. Consider a few examples: “We have a problem. We can’t seem to talk about money without fighting.” “We’re not doing a very good job of keeping track of all the deliverables on this project, are we?” “We need to talk to your parents about whether we’ll visit them for the holidays.”

It’s easy to see how “we” language can help build a constructive climate. It suggests a kind of “we’re in this together” orientation, a component of what is known as verbal immediacy (Turnman, 2008). Couples who use “we” language are more satisfied than those who rely more heavily on “I” and “you” pronouns (Seider et al., 2009). “We talk” is also helpful for couples when one partner is dealing with a health issue (Rohrbaugh et al.,

2012). Using plural pronouns suggests the medical problem is “ours” rather than “mine” or “yours.” On the other hand, using the pronoun we can be presumptuous and even demanding because you’re speaking for the other person as well as for yourself (Rentscher et al., 2013). It’s easy to imagine someone replying to the statement, “We have a problem . . .” by saying, “Maybe you have a problem, but don’t tell me I have one!” Look again at the “we” language examples offered above and imagine that you don’t agree with the speakers’ conclusions. In that case, you would probably feel defensive rather than included. Table 6.3 summarizes how all three p ­ ronouns— I, you, and we—have their advantages and drawbacks. Given this fact, what advice can we give about the most effective pronouns to use in interpersonal communication? A study by Russell Proctor and James Wilcox (1993) offers an answer. The researchers found that I–we combinations (for example, “I think that we . . .” or “I would like to see us . . . ”) were strongly endorsed by college students, particularly for confrontational conversations in romantic relationships. Richard Slatcher and his associates (2008) came to a similar conclusion: There is value in both “I” and “we” messages in relational communication, as these pronouns demonstrate both autonomy and connection (see Chapter 8 for a description of these relational dialectics).

TAKE TWO • “It” statement: replaces the pronoun I with it and allows a speaker to avoid taking responsibility for ownership of a message. • “But” statement: when but is used in a statement, it has the effect of cancelling out the thought that proceeds it. • “You” language: expresses judgment of the other person. • “I” language: clearly identifies the speaker as the source of the message. • “We language: implies concern and responsibility for the issue is shared between the speaker and receiver of message.

197

198

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

TABLE 6.3  Pronoun Uses and Their Effects Pronoun

Pros

Cons

Recommendations

“I” Language

Takes responsibility for personal thoughts, feelings, and wants. Less defenceprovoking than “you” language

Can be perceived as egotistical, narcissistic, and self-absorbed

Use descriptive “I” messages in conflicts when the other person does not perceive a problem. Combine “I” with “we” language in conversations.

“We” Language

Signals inclusion, immediacy, cohesiveness, and commitment

Can speak improperly for others

Combine with “I” language, particularly in personal conversations. Use in group settings to enhance a sense of unity. Avoid when expressing personal thoughts, feelings, and wants.

“You” Language

Signals other-orientation, particularly when the topic is positive

Can sound evaluative and judgmental, particularly during confrontations

Use “I” language during confrontations. Use “You” language when praising or including others.

Too much use of any pronoun comes across as inappropriate, so combining pronouns is generally a good idea, and it suggests you’re able to see things from multiple perspectives (Pennebaker, 2011). If your “I” language expresses your position without being overly self-absorbed, your “you” language shows concern for others without judging them, and your “we” language includes others without speaking for them, you’ll probably come as close as possible to the ideal mix of pronouns.

Culture and Language So far, we’ve described attributes that characterize most languages, with a particular emphasis on English. Although there are some remarkable similarities among the world’s many languages (Lewis et al., 2013), they also differ in important respects that affect communication within and between

CHECK IT! Describe three harmful linguistic habits that ­contribute to conflict.

language groups. In this section, we’ll outline some of those factors.

High- versus Low-context Cultures Anthropologist Edward Hall (1959) identified two distinct ways that members of various cultures deliver messages. A low-context culture uses language primarily to express thoughts, feelings, and ideas as directly and logically as possible. To low-context communicators, the meaning of a statement lies in the words spoken. By contrast, a high-context culture relies heavily on subtle, often non-verbal cues to maintain social harmony. High-context communicators pay close attention to non-verbal behaviours, the history of relationships, and social rules that  govern interaction between people. In Table 6.4, we summarize some key differences in how people from low- and high-context cultures c­ ommunicate. Mainstream culture in Canada, the United States, and northern Europe can be categorized near the low-context end of the scale. In these low-context cultures, communicators generally value straight talk and grow impatient with indirect behaviours such as hinting (Tili and Barker, 2015).

Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

6 | Language

Korea) were less likely than those from a low-context culture (e.g., the US) to judge a superior who failed to deliver on a promise negatively. While all participants in this study lost some trust for people who failed to keep their promises, the impact of the broken promise was less potent on members of high-­ context cultures (Friedman et al., 2018). Even websites designed for global audiences reflect differences attributable to whether a country’s communication style is high- or low-context (Usnier and Roulin, 2010). For example, those designed for low-context Do you ever witness clashes between low- and high-context communicators countries invite more contact in your interactions with your family or friends? How do you negotiate these and contain more relationship-­ differences? related content than websites from high-­context countries. By contrast, most Asian and Middle Eastern mainTo members of high-context cultures, communistream cultures fit the high-context pattern and can be offended by the bluntness of low-context cators with a low-context style can appear overly talkative, lacking in subtlety, and redundant. On the communication styles (Yum, 2012). There are many other examples of communica- other hand, to people from low-context backgrounds, tion differences between high- and low-context cul- high-context communicators often seem inexprestures. One study of online discussions found that sive or even suspicious. It’s easy to see how misunderin India (a high-context culture), people used more standings about directness and indirectness can emoticons and disclosed less private information create communication problems. For example, direct, that in Germany (a low-context culture; Pflug, 2011). low-context Israelis might perceive their Arab neighIn a study of verbal promises made in the workplace bours, whose high-context culture stresses smooth (e.g., “I will get you those results by Friday”), people interaction, as evasive, while their Arab counterparts from high-context cultures (e.g., India, Taiwan, and might perceive the Israelis as insensitive and blunt. TABLE 6.4  High- and Low-context Communication Cultures Low Context

High Context

Representative national cultures

Canada, the United States, and most northern European countries

Most Asian, Middle Eastern, Latin American, and southern European countries

How most important ­information is carried

Explicit verbal messages, with less focus on the situational context

Contextual cues such as time, place, relationship, and situation

What communicators value

Self-expression, striving to persuade others to accept one’s viewpoint

Relational harmony, maintained by indirect expression of options

What communicators admire

Clear, direct speech

Ambiguity and the use of silence

199

200

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

Verbal Communication Styles Using language is more than just a matter of choosing a particular group of words to convey an idea. Each language has its own unique character that distinguishes it from others. Matters like the amount of formality or informality, precision or vagueness, and brevity or detail are major ingredients in speaking competently. When a communicator tries to use the verbal style from one culture or co-culture in a different one, problems are likely to arise. Gudykunst (2005) describes three important types of cultural differences in verbal style: 1. Direct or indirect. We’ve already discussed how low-context cultures use language primarily to express thoughts, feelings, and ideas as clearly, directly, and logically as possible, whereas high-context cultures may speak less directly, using language to maintain social harmony. 2. Elaborate or succinct. Speakers of Arabic commonly use language that is much more rich and expressive than that normally found in English. Strong assertions and exaggerations that would sound odd in English are a common feature of Arabic. This contrast in linguistic style can lead to misunderstandings between people from different backgrounds. Succinctness is most extreme in cultures where silence is valued. In many North American Indigenous cultures, for example, the favoured way to handle ambiguous social situations is to remain quiet (Ferraro and Andreatta, 2012). When you contrast this silent style to the talkativeness that is common when people first meet in mainstream Canadian culture, it’s easy to imagine how the first encounter between a Cree or Mi’kmaq person and an Anglo-Canadian person might be uncomfortable for both. 3. Formal or informal. The pronouns used in a language may encode politeness and formality. For example, most European languages except English have different pronouns for informal use among friends (e.g., tu in French and Italian) and more formal pronouns for addressing superiors and

people one does not know well (e.g., vous in French, lei in Italian). In Japanese, there are even more choices depending on the rank, job, sex, and age of the person being spoken to. The informal approach that is characteristic of North Americans is quite different from the great concern for propriety in many parts of Asia and Africa. Formality is not so much a matter of using correct grammar as of defining social relationships. For example, there are different degrees of formality for speaking to old friends, ­non-acquaintances whose background one knows, and complete strangers.

Code-Switching Linguists define the term code-switching as alternating between two or more languages or varieties of a language depending on the conversational context. The term is used more generally to refer to how communicators often adapt both their language and their manner of speaking when they change contexts (Bullock and Toribio, 2012). People can use code-switching either to minimize social differences (convergence) between themselves and other people involved in the conversation or to emphasize them (divergence). Using code-switching to alter how you present yourself to others is another example of communication competence that increases your chances of achieving your goals. A common type of code-switching is to use a word or phrase from a different language or dialect in a sentence. Canada is a multilingual country with two official languages and immigrants from all over the world, so it’s not uncommon to hear people adapt their manner of speaking in different contexts and substitute words from one language into another. For example, a Montrealer speaking English with friends might use the word dep for depanneur, the French word for convenience store. A Canadian whose first language is Spanish might tack on, “you know?” at the end of a sentence spoken in Spanish. Canadians with Caribbean roots might combine patois or creole with standard English with their friends and family but speak only standard English when talking to teachers or employers.

6 | Language

S­ hifting between codes doesn’t require rejecting your heritage. Think of it as a type of bilingual ability. As we discussed in Chapter 2, the ability to construct multiple identities is one element of communication competence.

Tannen (1990, 1994, 2001). She suggests that women and men grow up learning different rules about how to speak and act. In support of this two-culture hypothesis, communication researcher Anthony Mulac (2006; also see Mulac et al., 2013) has found that men are more likely than women to speak in sentence Gender and Language fragments (“Nice photo”). Men more typically talk So far, we’ve discussed language usage as if it were about themselves with “I” references (“I have a lot identical for women and men. Are there differences of meetings”) and use more judgmental language. between male and female language use? If so, how They’re also more likely to make directive stateimportant are they? ments. In contrast, female speech tends to be more tentative, elaborate, and emotional. For instance, women’s sentences are typically longer than men’s Extent of Gender Differences and they make more references to feelings and make use of more intensive adverbs (“He’s really Approach 1: Significance Differences interested”) that paint a more complete verbal picIn 1992, John Gray argued that men and women ture. In addition, Mulac has found that women’s are so fundamentally different they might as speech is often less assertive. It contains more statewell have come from separate planets. His best-­ ments of uncertainty (“It seems to be . . .”), hedges selling book Men are from Mars and Women are (“We’re kind of set in our ways”), and tag questions from Venus was based largely on anecdotes and (“Do you think so?”). Some theorists have argued conjecture and has been criticized for its lack of that such differences cause women’s speech to be scholarship (Dindia, 2006; Wood, 2002). How- less powerful, but more inclusive than men’s. ever, social scientists have identified some sigCommunication scholar Julia Wood (Wood nificant differences in the ways men and women and Fixmer-Oraiz, 2017) has devoted much of her behave socially (Palomares, 2008; Wood and career to analyzing the impact of sex and gender Fixmer-Oraiz, 2017). These findings have led on communication. While she maintains that ­ some scholars to describe men and women as Gray’s “Mars and Venus” approach is an overmembers of distinct cultures, with their differ- statement that can do more harm than good, she ences arising primarily from socialization rather acknowledges there are differences in what she than biology. The best-known advocate of this terms “feminine and masculine” communication “two culture” theory is sociolinguist Deborah practices.” These are summarized in Table 6.5. TABLE 6.5  Differences Associated with Feminine and Masculine Communication Feminine

Masculine

Converse to maintain relationships

Converse to establish control

Create climate of equality

Create a sense of power and status

Offer emotional support

Solve problems and complete tasks

Ask questions

Make statements

Offer concrete personal disclosures

Make abstract generalizations

Speak tentatively (often to be polite)

Speak assertively (often to be in charge)

SOURCE: Adapted from Wood, J.T. and Fixmer-Oraiz, N. (2017). Gendered lives: Communication, gender and culture. 12 th edn. Boston, MA: Cambridge.

201

202

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

Approach 2: Minor Differences Despite the differences in the way men and women speak, the link between gender and language use isn’t as clear cut as it might seem (Timmerman, 2002). One meta-analysis involving more than 3,000 participants found women were only slightly more likely than men to use tentative speech (Leaper and Robnett, 2011). Three other analyses (Leaper and Ayres, 2007) looked for gender differences in adults’ talkativeness, affiliative speech, and assertive speech—and found negligible differences for all three language constructs. In essence, these studies showed men’s and women’s speech are far more similar then different. A recent study offers further support for the “minor differences” approach (Hancock et al., 2015). Researchers asked men and women to describe a health-related episode in their lives. Analysis of the transcripts revealed women used slightly more intense adverbs and personal pronouns than men did. However, participants who read the transcripts were largely unable to identify the speakers’ gender. These same researchers then asked men, women, and transgender women to describe a painting. Studied closely, the trans women’s word choices were slightly more similar to the men’s than the women’s—but again most people could not distinguish between them on the basis of word choice. In light of the considerable similarities in language used by both and men and women, communication researcher Kathryn Dindia (2006) suggests that men and women are not from different planets or different cultures and do, in fact, speak the same language, though somewhat differently at times. Online communication appears to be a context in which men and women use language somewhat differently.

Online Language and Gender Research shows that women and men have different written language styles (Pennebaker, 2011), which shows up in online communication (Hoseinei and Tammimy, 2016). For instance, men tend to use more large words, nouns, and swear words than women do. By contrast, women use more

personal pronouns, verbs, and hedges. Of course, word count does not tell the whole story. For instance, whereas women and men use the word we about equally, they do so in different ways. Closer scrutiny suggests women are more likely to use the “warm we” (e.g., “We have so much fun together”), while men are more inclined toward the “distant we” (e.g., “We need to do something about this”). Similarly, research analyzing the online language of 15,000 Facebook users found substantial differences between men and women’s use of affiliative (warmth) language. Self-identified women’s Facebook updates were more likely to use language that was warmer, more compassionate, and polite, whereas self-identified men tended to use language that was colder, more hostile, and impersonal. Substantial differences between women and men’s use of assertive language were not found. In another study, researchers analyzed Facebook status updates provided by 75,000 users and found women tended to use more emotion words (excited) and first person singular pronouns, and made more references to people in their lives (Schwartz et al., 2013). Men made more object references (Xbox) and swore more often—a finding that seems to hold true across most studies exploring gender differences in word use. It appears people are intuitively aware of gender differences in online language. For instance, one study found that online communicators adopt different writing styles depending on their online gender identities (Palomares and Lee, 2010). Participants were given randomly selected gendered avatars—some matching their biological sex and some not. Communicators who were assigned feminine avatars expressed more emotions, made more apologies, used more tentative language than did those with masculine avatars. In other words, participants adapted their language to match linguistic gender stereotypes. Online language differences between genders are more pronounced among adolescents. A study looked at the word choices of teenage boys and girls in chat rooms (Kapidzic and Herring, 2011). The boys were more active and assertive, initiating interaction and making proposals, whereas girls were more reactive (“wow,” “omg,” “lmao”). The boys were also more flirtatious and sexual (“any

PeopleImages/iStockphoto

6 | Language

threats) when they have the same amount of bargaining strength in a negotiation (Scudder and Andrews, 1995), and they are equally likely to change  the topic of conversation when they have equal power or status in a ­ task-oriented discussion (Okamoto and Smith-Lovin, 2001). Findings like this suggest that characteristically feminine speech is less a function of gender or sex than women’s historically ­less-powerful positions. In fact, differences in social status often show up more clearly in language than gender differences do What reasons are there for miscommunication with members of the opposite (Pennebaker, 2011). sex? Have you come across any of these in your own life? By now, it should be clear that there are differences between hotties wanna chat?”). The researchers noted that the ways men and women speak, but that these these accentuated differences were probably due to the age of the participants and would likely recede in adulthood.

REFLECTION

Non-Gender Influences on Language Use Factors other than gender can outweigh or mitigate the influences of gender when it comes to language use. Occupation is one such factor. Male and female athletes communicate in similar ways (Sullivan, 2004) and female farm operators, working in a male dominated occupation, speak more similarly to male farm operators (Pilgeram, 2007). Similarly, male early childhood educators’ speech to their students resembles the language of female teachers more closely than it resembles the language of fathers at home (Gleason and Greif, 1983). Another factor that trumps gender differences in language use is power. For instance, in LGBTQ+ relationships, the conversational styles of partners reflect power differences in the relationship (e.g., who is earning more money) more than the biological sex of the communicators (Steen and Schwartz, 1995). There are also few differences between the way men and women use powerful speech (specifically,

DIFFERENT ROLES, DIFFERENT ­L ANGUAGE As the first woman in a formerly all-male architectural firm, I feel like something of a guinea pig. Most of the partners and associates have made me feel welcome, but a small group treats me with what seems like a condescending attitude. The structural, mechanical, and electrical engineers we use as consultants are even worse. I don’t think they’ve ever worked with a woman who wasn’t a secretary. I’ve found that with these guys, I’ve changed the way I speak. I try to use more powerful language with fewer hesitations and hedges. I make more statements and ask fewer questions. In other words, I sound more like a stereotypical man. I don’t know yet whether this approach will make any difference. The point is, I sound like a different person when I’m at work more than in any other setting. It’s not really an act: it’s more an effort to sound professional. I guess if someone dresses differently when they go to work, there’s nothing wrong with sounding different too.

203

204

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

­ ifferences are determined by a wide variety of facd tors that may have little or nothing to do with biological sex. As men and women grow to have equal opportunities and more similar social experiences, we can expect that there will be fewer differences in the ways they speak and write.

CHECK IT! Describe the evidence regarding the influences of gender, occupation, and power on language.

SUMMARY Language is both a marvellous communication tool and the source of many interpersonal problems. Every language is a collection of symbols governed by a variety of rules. Because of its symbolic nature, language is not a precise vehicle: meanings rest in people, not in words themselves. The languages we speak shape our worldview. Besides conveying meanings about the content of a specific message, language both expresses and shapes the perceptions of its users. For example, names that people are given influence their identity and the way they’re viewed by others. Language influences our perceptions of creditability and status, and reveals the level of affiliation communicators have with each other. In addition, language patterns reflect and shape a speaker’s perceived power. Finally, language reflects and influences racist, sexist, and prejudiced attitudes. When used carelessly, language can lead to a variety of interpersonal problems. The level of precision or vagueness of messages can affect a receiver’s understanding of them. Both precise messages and vague, evasive messages have their uses in interpersonal relationships, and a competent communicator has the ability to choose

the best level of precision for the situation at hand. Competent communicators know how to use “I,” “you,” and “we” statements to accept the optimal level of responsibility and relational harmony. Some language habits, such as using evaluative or emotive terms, can lead to unnecessary disharmony in interpersonal relationships. Low-context cultures (e.g., North American) rely primarily on language to express thoughts and feelings, while high-context cultures (e.g., Asian) rely heavily on subtle cues to maintain social harmony. The relationship between the gender of the communicator and language is a complex one. Although some writers in the popular press have argued that men and women are radically different and thus speak different languages, this position isn’t supported by scholarship. A growing body of research suggests that differences are relatively minor. Language use in social media has some distinct features and gender differences appear more pronounced (or easier to measure) when written via social media. Many of the language differences that first appeared to be sex-related may actually be due to other factors such as occupation and interpersonal power.

MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS 1.

Syntactic rules govern a. how symbols can be arranged. b. how sounds can be combined to form words. c. how words should be interpreted given the situation. d. the meanings of words.

2.

Ogden and Richards’ triangle of meaning suggests a. meanings are in and among people. b. there is an indirect relationship between a word and the thing or idea it represents.

6 | Language

c. problems occur because people attach different meanings to the same message. d. all of the above. 3.

The Pormpuraaw people of Australia don’t have words for right, left, back, and front in their language; instead they use compass directions, and as a consequence they think differently about space than people who speak other languages. This is an example of a. b. c. d.

4.

Alternating between two or more languages or varieties of a language in a single conversation is called

Convergence involves a. adapting one’s speech style to distinguish oneself from others. b. adapting one’s speech style to ensure credibility and status. c. adapting one’s speech style to better match the style of others. d. adapting one’s speech style to be more powerful. Hedges, hesitations, intensifiers, polite forms, tag questions, and disclaimers are all examples of

One friend tells you that a course you’re considering enrolling in is very difficult. Another friend says it’s easy. You’re not sure which assessment is accurate. The problem is,

9.

Research on gender differences and language a. has determined that differences in communication are a result of biological sex. b. has determined that in written communication gender is more measurable and noticeable. c. has established that for the most part men and women speak so differently they can accurately be described as speaking different languages. d. all of the above statements regarding gender differences and language are true.

10. People from high-context cultures, such as many Canadian Indigenous, Asian, and Middle Eastern cultures, a. rely on subtle non-verbal cues, the history of relationships, and general social rules that govern interaction. b. rely on language to express thoughts, feelings, and ideas directly. c. often appear talkative and lacking in subtlety. d. tend to be direct and succinct.

Answers: 1. a; 2. d; 3. d; 4. a; 5. d; 6. c; 7. c; 8. d; 9. b; 10. a

7.

convergent speech. divergent speech. less powerful speech. sexist speech.

a. your friends are using euphemisms to describe the course. b. your friends are using ambiguous language to describe the course. c. your friends are using powerless speech to describe the course. d. your friends are using relative language to describe the course.

Linguistic relativity

a. divergence. b. abstraction. c. relative language. d. code-switching. 6.

8.

credibility and status. pragmatic rules. coordinated management of meaning. linguistic relativism.

a. is the idea that language both shapes our perceptions and reflects them. b. describes a type of powerless speech. c. describes ways both senders and receivers of messages can save face. d. relies heavily on euphemisms. 5.

a. b. c. d.

205

206

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

ACTIVITIES 1. Invitation to Insight Recall an incident in which you were misunderstood. Explain how this event illustrates the principle that “meanings are in people, not words.” 2. Ethical Challenge The information about the influence of language, on pages 180–9, shows how the words a communicator chooses can shape the perceptions of others. Create two scenarios for each type of linguistic influence listed below. The first should describe how the type of influence could be used constructively, and the second should describe an unethical application of this knowledge. a. naming and identity b. affiliation c. credibility and status d. power and politeness e. sexism f. sexual prejudice g. racism 3. Skill Builder Translate the following into behavioural language and share with your classmates to get their feedback: • an abstract goal for improving your interpersonal communication (e.g., “Be more assertive” or “Stop being so sarcastic”) • a complaint you have about another person (e.g., they are “selfish” or “insensitive”) In both cases, describe the person or people involved, the circumstances in which the communication will take place, and the precise behaviour involved. What difference will using behavioural descriptions likely make in your relationships? 4. Invitation to Insight Are there ever situations in your life when it’s desirable to be less clear and more vague? Use the information on pages 190–5 to answer this question and to decide whether vagueness is the most competent approach to the situation.

5. Skill Builder Practise rephrasing each of the following “you” statements in “I” or “we” language: • “You’re not telling me the truth!” • “You only think of yourself!” • “Don’t be so touchy!” • “You don’t understand a word I’m saying!” Now think of three “you” statements you could make to people in your life. Transform each of these statements into “I” and “we” language, and rehearse them with a classmate. 6. Invitation to Insight Do you communicate differently online or by text than in person? Does your social media language differ depending on the medium you use? Monitor your communication over three days and see if you “talk” differently in text messages, social networking posts, tweets, blog entries, and emails compared to face-to-face communication. Are there some words you use more in one context versus another? Do you notice differences in your use of more powerful and less powerful language? Does your level of politeness change? How about use of “you,” “I,” and “we” language? Do your social media messages reflect the identity you wish to project? 7. Invitation to Insight Some authors believe that differences between male and female communication are quite significant. Other researchers believe the differences are not nearly so dramatic. Which approach seems more accurate to you? Offer evidence provided in this chapter along with experiences from your life to support your point of view. 8. Role Play Choose a partner. Think of a real criticism (of someone else) and compose a highly abstract message to convey your complaint (e.g., “You’re so rude”). Briefly describe the situation to your partner (who the other person is and the general situation—avoid providing specific details about

6 | Language

the complaint) and have your partner pretend to be the person you’re criticizing. Deliver your abstract criticism and have your partner respond. Now, compose a more specific behavioural description of the same complaint and deliver this criticism to

your partner and have them respond. Discuss the differences between the two messages. What are the advantages of stating your complaints in more specific terms? Now, reverse roles and repeat the exercise.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1.

2.

3.

Does naming something make it more or less real? More or less frightening? Can you think of examples where naming something in your life made it easier or more difficult to cope with? How does language affect our p ­ erceptions? We’ve argued in this chapter that eliminating gender references (“letter carrier” rather than “mailman”) is preferable to highlighting gender in professional references (female letter carrier). Do you agree or disagree? Why? Given the subjective nature of perception, is “we” language ever acceptable? Why or why not?

4.

5.

6.

What is your experience communicating with people whose tendencies are toward loweror higher-context communication than your own? Have these differences caused communication difficulties? If so, how so? If not, why not? Do you believe that the language a person speaks affects that person’s worldview? Why or why not? Given the diversity of verbal styles in different cultures, is it possible not to offend someone when you’re communicating cross-culturally? Why or why not?

JOURNAL IDEAS 1.

Over the next few days keep track of generalizations (high level abstractions) you make when speaking to others when offering thanks and criticism. Try to rewrite these comments using more precise language. What might be the benefits and drawbacks of using less abstract language when communicating with others?

2.

Think of a couple of times you recently used “you” or “it” language during an argument or conflict. Rewrite your criticisms using “I” language. How might using “I” language change the interaction during a conflict?

207

Non-verbal Communication

fizkes/Shutterstock

7

CHAPTER OUTLINE Non-verbal Communication Defined Characteristics of Non-verbal Communication Non-verbal Communication Is Always Occurring Non-verbal Communication Is Primarily Relational Non-verbal Communication Is Ambiguous Non-verbal Communication Occurs in Mediated ­Messages Non-verbal Communication Is Influenced by Culture and Gender

Functions of Non-verbal Communication Creating and Maintaining Relationships Regulating Interaction

Influencing Others Influencing Ourselves Concealing/Deceiving

Types of Non-verbal Communication Body Movement Touch Voice Distance Territoriality Time Physical Attractiveness Clothing Physical Environment

KEY TERMS barrier behaviours chronemics disfluencies emblems haptics intimate distance kinesics monochronic non-verbal communication oculesics

paralanguage personal distance personal space polychronic proxemics public distance regulators social distance territory

LEARNING OUTCOMES YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO: • • • •

Define non-verbal communication and describe its distinguishing characteristics Categorize the various functions that non-verbal communication can serve and provide examples of each Analyze a variety of types of non-verbal communication and describe how they communicate meaning Critically examine the role of culture and gender in influencing non-verbal communication and its ­influence on our perceptions

210

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

depending on the way they’re spoken. Furthermore, some non-spoken forms of communication, including sign languages used in the deaf community, are linguistic and not really non-verbal in the sense most social scientists use the term. A better definition of non-verbal communication is messages expressed by non-linguistic means. These non-linguistic messages are important because what we do often conveys more meaning than what we say. One early study (Mehrabian,1972) Read Body Language to reveal the secrets . . . claimed that 93 per cent of the emotional impact Do his eyes say he’s interested? of a message comes from a non-verbal source, Does her facial expressions say she’s a manipuwhereas only 7 per cent is verbal. Another (Birdlator? whistell, 1970) described a 65–35 percentage split Does the way he’s standing say he’s a player? between actions and words respectively. Although Almost every pharmacy, supermarket, and airport social scientists have disputed these figures and book rack has its share of “body language” paper- the relative importance of verbal versus non-­verbal backs and magazine articles with claims such as cues (e.g., Lapakko, 1997; Nagel et al., 2012), the these. They promise you can learn secrets that will point remains: non-verbal communication conchange you from a fumbling social failure into a tributes a great deal to shaping perceptions. You might ask how non-verbal communicaself-assured mind reader. Claims like these are almost always exaggerations tion can be so powerful. At first glance, it seems or fabrications. There is, of course, a scientific body as if meanings come from words. To answer of knowledge about non-verbal communication, this question, think of a time when you watched and it has provided many fascinating and valuable people speaking a language you didn’t understand. clues to human behaviour. That’s what this chapter is Although you didn’t understand the words being about. It’s unlikely the following pages will turn you spoken, there were plenty of clues that gave you instantly into a rich, sexy, charming communication an idea of what was going on in the exchange. By superstar, but don’t go away. Even without glamor- watching the speakers’ facial expressions, postures, ous promises, a quick look at some facts about non-­ gestures, vocal tones, and other behaviour you verbal communication shows that it’s an important probably gained a sense of the way the communiand valuable field to study, and that non-verbal com- cators felt about one another and got some ideas munication skills are worth acquiring (Riggio, 2006). about the nature of their relationship. Researchers (summarized in Knapp and Hall, 2013) have found that subjects who hear content-free speech—­ Non-verbal Communication ordinary speech that has been electronically manipulated so that the words are unintelligible— People don’t always say what they mean . . . but their body gestures and movements tell the truth! Will he ask you out? Is she encouraging you? Know what’s really happening by understanding the secret language of body signals. You can improve your . . . sex life . . . social life . . . business life . . .

Defined

Since non means “not” and verbal means “with words,” then it seems logical that non-verbal communication would involve “communication without words.” This definition is an oversimplification, however, because it fails to distinguish between vocal communication (by mouth) and verbal communication (with words). Some non-verbal ­messages have a vocal element. For example, the words “I love you” have different meanings

TAKE TWO • Non-verbal communication: messages expressed by non-linguistic means; they can include vocal communication (e.g., voice tone), but not language (e.g., sign language).

7 | Non-verbal Communication

211

can consistently recognize the emotion being expressed as well as identify its strength.

Characteristics of Non-verbal Communication

Non-verbal Communication Is Always Occurring

huePhotography/iStockPhoto

As Table 7.1 shows, verbal and non-verbal communication differ in a number of ways. We’ll now take a look at some of the fundamental characteristics of non-verbal communication. What is the difference between sign language and non-verbal ­communication?

behaviour can convey a message. You may not intend to show that you’re embarrassed, but your Some theorists have suggested that all non-­ blushing can still give you away. Of course, not all behaviour (intentional or not) verbal b ­ehaviour conveys information. They argue that it is impossible not to communi- will be interpreted correctly. Your trembling hands cate. You can understand the impossibility of might be taken as a sign of nervousness when you’re non-communication by considering what you really just shivering from the cold. But whether would do if someone told you not to communi- or not your behaviour is intentional, and whether or cate any messages at all. Even if you closed your not it’s interpreted accurately, all non-verbal behaveyes or left the room, you would communicate iour has the potential to create messages. messages that mean you’re avoiding contact. One study (DePaulo, 1992) took just this approach. TABLE 7.1  Some Differences between Verbal and When communicators were told not to express Non-verbal Communication non-verbal clues, others viewed them as dull, Non-verbal withdrawn, uneasy, aloof, and deceptive. Verbal Communication Communication The impossibility of not communicating is sigmostly voluntary and often unconscious nificant because it means that each of us is a kind conscious of transmitter that cannot be shut off. No matter usually content-oriented usually relational what we do, we send out messages that say somecan be clear or vague inherently ambiguous thing about ourselves and our relationships with others. If, for instance, someone were observing primarily shaped by rooted in biology culture you now, what non-verbal clues would they get about how you’re feeling? Are you sitting forward discontinuous or continuous or reclining? Is your posture tense or relaxed? intermittent What does your facial expression communicate single channel (words multi-channeled now? Can you make your face expressionless? only) Don’t people with expressionless faces still com- SOURCE: Adapted from Andersen, P. (1999). Nonverbal communication: forms and municate something to you? Even uncontrollable functions. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, p. 16.

212

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

Thurtell/iStockphoto

1.  “I’m tired.” 2. “I’m in favour of universal health care.” 3. “I’m attracted to another person in the group.” 4. “I think freedom of speech should be protected.” 5. “I’m angry at someone in this room.” This exercise shows that ideas (such as statements 2 and 4) do not lend themselves to non-verbal expressions nearly as well as attitudes and feelings (statements 1, 3, and 5). This explains why it’s possible How can we become more conscious of both the non-verbal messages we’re to understand the attitudes or sending and the non-verbal messages of others? feelings of others by reading non-verbal cues, even if you don’t understand the subject of their communication. Non-verbal Communication Is Text messages and email offer fewer non-verbal ­Primarily Relational cues about the speaker’s feelings than do face-toSome non-verbal messages serve practical func- face encounters or even telephone conversations. tions, such as a police officer directing the flow of Most of us have had the experience of finding out traffic. But non-verbal communication also serves that our email or text message has been misundera far more common (and more interesting) series stood. The use of emoticons and emoji and statements about emotion can be used to try to capture of social functions. Non-verbal communication allows us to define non-verbal expressions in text-based messages and the kind of relationships we have—or want to reduce the chances for misunderstandings. Research have—with others (Burgoon and Le Poire, 1999; suggests that the use of emoticons to capture emoMyers et al., 2011). You can appreciate this fact by tional expressiveness increases the involvement and thinking about the wide range of ways you could interaction between the people sharing an email ­ alther behave when greeting another person. You could or text message (Fabri and Moore, 2005; W wave, shake hands, nod, smile, clap the other per- and D’Addario, 2001). Clearly, the rich mixture of son on the back, give them a hug, kiss them on non-verbal and verbal messages that flow in faceboth cheeks, or avoid all contact. Each one of these to-face exchanges, or even in phone conversations, actions sends a message about the nature of your cannot be easily replicated in writing, but it’s posrelationship with the other person. Non-verbal sible to share emotions and compensate for the lack messages perform another valuable social func- of non-verbal cues in CMC (Walther et al., 2010). tion: they convey emotions that we may be unwilling or unable to express or that we may not even Non-verbal Communication Is be aware of. In fact, non-verbal communication is much better suited to expressing attitudes and Ambiguous feelings than ideas. You can demonstrate this by In Chapter 6, we pointed out how some language imagining how you could non-verbally express can be ambiguous. (For example, the statement “Your nose piercing really makes you stand out” each of these comments:

7 | Non-verbal Communication

Non-verbal Communication Occurs in Mediated Messages Not all mediated communication is solely verbal. Video calls/chat obviously provide non-verbal information, as do photos on social networking apps and messaging platforms. Even text-based digital communication has non-verbal features. The most obvious way to represent non-verbal expressions in type is with emoji. Emoji, as we

Chris Wildt/Cartoonstock

could be a compliment or a criticism, and the vague statement, “I’m almost done” could mean you have to wait a few minutes or an hour.) Most non-verbal behaviour has the potential to be even more ambiguous than verbal statements like these. To understand why, consider how you would interpret silence from your companion during an evening together. Think of all the possible meanings of this non-verbal behaviour—affection, anger, preoccupation, boredom, nervousness, thoughtfulness—the possibilities are many. The ambiguity of non-verbal behaviour was illustrated when a supermarket chain tried to emphasize its customer-friendly approach by instructing employees to smile and make eye contact with customers. Some customers mistook the service-with-a-smile approach as sexual come-ons. As this story suggests, non-verbal cues are much more ambiguous than verbal statements when it comes to expressing willingness to become physically involved (La France, 2010). Because non-verbal behaviour is so ambiguous, caution is wise when you’re responding to non-­ verbal cues. Rather than jumping to conclusions about the meaning of a sigh, smile, slammed door, or yawn, it’s far better to use the kind of p ­ erception-checking approach described in ­Chapter 3. “When you yawned, I got the idea I might be boring you. But maybe you’re just tired. What’s going on?” The ability to consider more than one possible interpretation for non-verbal behaviour illustrates the kind of cognitive complexity that we identified in Chapter 1 as an element of communication competence. Popular advice on the subject notwithstanding, it’s usually not possible to read a person like a book.

213

described in Chapter 4, can help communicate emotion and clarify a meaning that isn’t evident from words alone (Derks et al., 2008; Lo, 2008; Riordan, 2017; Riordan and Kreuz, 2010). For example, see how each graphic below creates a different meaning for the same statement: •  You’re driving me crazy •  You’re driving me crazy •  You’re driving me crazy Yet the meaning of emoji can be ambiguous (Skovholt et al., 2014). A smiley face could have a number of meanings, such as “I’m happy,” “I’m kidding,” or “I’m teasing you.” Other online communication markers are also ambiguous (Vandergriff, 2013). Exclamation marks (sometimes more than one!!!) can be used at the end of sentences

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

FOCUS ON RESEARCH DOES YOUR SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS INFLUENCE YOUR INTERPERSONAL ACCURACY? The ability to interpret other people’s often-ambiguous non-verbal cues with greater accuracy contributes to our competence as communicators. Research suggests that factors such as intelligence, empathy, and openness to experience are positively correlated with greater interpersonal accuracy and traits such as depression and neuroticism are associated with lower accuracy (Hall et al., 2009, 2011). Social psychology researcher R. Thora Bjornsdottir and her colleagues (2017) at the University of Toronto wondered if people’s subjective perception of their socio-economic status (SES) or social class might also be associated with their ability to accurately judge the non-verbal behaviour of others. Bjornsdottir and her colleagues measured subjective SES by asking study participants to complete the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (Adler and Stewart, 2007), which asks questions about education, income, living arrangements, and perception of status relative to comparison groups such as your community and country. In addition, they explicitly rated their subjective SES ranging from 1 (lower income) to 5 (upper income). In a series of three studies, these investigators examined the relationship between participants’ reports of subjective SES and their ability to

PeopleImages/iStockphoto

214

make accurate judgments about other people using non-verbal cues. One of the measures they used to assess participants’ interpersonal accuracy was the Reading the Mind In the Eyes Test (RMET) (Baron-­ Cohen et al., 2001). This standardized test involves describing what people are thinking or feeling based on a photograph of only their eyes. The participant is presented with a series of 25 photographs of different actor’s eyes (both male and female) expressing a variety of emotions/mental states. Participants are asked to choose the word (from a list provided) that best describes what the person in the photo is thinking or feeling (e.g., serious, ashamed, alarmed, bewildered). The test has proven to be an accurate measure of mild deficits in social understanding in adults (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001). Among Bjornsdottir and her colleagues’ (2017) found that subjective SES significantly predicted participants’ performance on the RMET. Individuals who perceived themselves as lower in SES showed greater sensitivity to the non-verbal displays of others. These investigators note that this finding is congruent with findings that individuals with lower subjective SES focus more on social context (Kraus et al., 2009) and show greater sensitivity to threats and hostile emotions (Kraus et al., 2011) and display greater empathic responses (Varnum et al., 2015) and greater empathic accuracy when reading others’ thoughts, feelings, and emotions (Kraus et al., 2010). Bjornsdottir and her colleagues suggest one possible explanation for these findings is that people who perceive themselves as having lower SES than those around them may experience reduced personal control over many areas The Reading the Mind In the Eyes Test (RMET) presents a series of photos of their lives and as a result similar to the one above and provides a series of choices to describe what the need to be more attentive to person depicted is thinking or feeling such as: serious, ashamed, alarmed, their social environments that bewildered. In this case “alarmed” is the best choice.

7 | Non-verbal Communication

people with higher SES who have greater amounts of personal control. These investigators conclude that these differences in interpersonal sensitivity have the potential to create misunderstandings in interactions between individuals of varying SES and highlight the importance of this type of research in furthering our understanding of interpersonal communication.

and even by themselves to denote a variety of emotional states. Ellipses (. . .) at the end of a phrase can signal displeasure, thoughtfulness, or confusion. They can also be turn-taking signals similar to what you might convey facially or with pauses during in-person conversations. The same is true of lexical surrogates such as “hmmm” or “ooooh,” with meanings ranging from delight to disapproval. Even clicking “Like” or “+1” has a variety of content and relational meanings (Hayes et al., 2016). Punctuation too can make a difference in how you perceive a message. For instance one study found that the use of periods in texts (e.g., “Sure.” ) in one word texts were viewed as less sincere than those written without punctuation (“Sure”) (Gunraj et al., 2016). A study of workplace emails (Skovholt et al., 2014) found that use of emoticons serves three purposes. They can act as hedges (softening or making requests more polite—see Chapter 6), indicate the positive attitude of the sender, and act as markers of irony and jokes. While not everyone agrees about the professionalism of using emoji in work-related emails, it’s important to understand that workplace emails can have an unintended emotional impact. The two most common misinterpretations of emotions in workplace email (that do not include emoji, emoticons, or indications of emotion) are (1) receivers are likely to perceive emails intended to convey positive emotions as more neutral, and (2) receivers are likely to perceive emails as more intensely negative than was intended by the sender (Byron, 2008). There are a number of factors that influence the likelihood of miscommunication, including the length of the

Critical thinking: Can you think of ways people who perceive themselves as having lower SES might have developed superior accuracy in their non-verbal emotion recognition skills, which might be less available or relevant to people who perceive their SES as higher?

relationship between the sender and the receiver, the gender and relative status of the sender (e.g., colleague or manager), the age and mood (positive or negative) of the receiver, and the established guidelines for the expression of emotion in that workplace. Senders can increase the accuracy of receivers’ interpretations by actually verbalizing the emotion (“I am so happy you will be able to come to the meeting”), and receivers can ask questions and state their interpretations of messages and invite the sender to respond. These strategies for perception checking (see Chapter 3) are as useful for mediated communication as they are for the face-to-face variety. Not only does the content of a non-verbal message matter, but when it’s sent matters as well (Ledbetter, 2008; Walther, 2009). If you have ever been upset by a friend who hasn’t responded punctually to one of your texts, then you know the role that timeliness plays in mediated interpersonal communication. We examine the management of time later in this chapter, but here we’ll note that it’s a vital feature of mediated interaction (Kalman et al., 2013). It’s also a good example of the principle that you cannot not communicate. Communicators have expectations about when others should respond to their posts, emails, and messages, and they may perceive delays negatively.

Non-verbal Communication Is Influenced by Culture and Gender It has long been established that certain expressions have the same meanings around the world (Ekman and Friesen, 1971). Smiles and laughter are a u ­ niversal signal of positive emotions, for

215

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

example, while the same sour expressions convey displeasure in every culture. Charles Darwin believed that expressions like these are the result of evolution, functioning as survival mechanisms that allowed early humans to convey emotional states before the development of language. The innateness of some facial expressions becomes even clearer when we examine the behaviour of children born deaf and blind (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1972). Despite a lack of social learning, these children display a broad range of expression. They smile, laugh, and cry in ways virtually identical to seeing and hearing infants. While non-­ verbal expressions like these may be universal in infants, the cultural rules for appropriate emotional expression and interpretation vary widely around the world. So much so that cultures can be described as having different non-verbal languages just as they have verbal ones (Hasler et al., 2017). Fiorello LaGuardia, mayor of New York from 1933 to 1945, was fluent in English, Italian, and Yiddish. Researchers who watched films of his campaign speeches with the sound turned off found that they could tell which language he was speaking by the changes in his non-verbal behaviour (Birdwhistell, 1970). Some kinds of non-verbal behaviour—called emblems—are culturally understood substitutes for verbal expressions. Nodding the head up and down is an accepted way of saying “yes” in many, but not all cultures. Likewise, a side-to-side head shake is a non-verbal way of saying “no,” and a shrug of the shoulders is commonly understood as meaning “I do not know” or “I’m not sure.” Remember, however, that some emblems—such as the thumbs-up gesture—vary from one culture to another (it means “good job!” in Canada, the number “1” in Germany, and the number “5” in Japan). Most North Americans would say the hand gesture depicted in the photo on this page means “Okay.” But to a Buddhist it signifies acceptance of the world as it is, and in Greece and Turkey its meaning is vulgar. A variety of cultural norms also guide non-­ verbal expressiveness (Matsumoto, 2006). In some cultures, overt demonstration of feelings, such as happiness or anger, are discouraged. In other cultures, the same expressions are perfectly appropriate. Thus, a Korean person might appear

much more non-verbally controlled than an Italian person might, when in fact their feelings might be identical. It’s important to note that the culture in which people live is far more influential than their nationality or ethnicity. For example, the facial expressions of Japanese nationals and Japanese Americans differ in ways that reflect their cultural backgrounds (Marsh et  al., 2003). Findings of a large-scale investigation into the propensity of people from individualistic and collectivist cultures to express positive emotion (smiling) and negative emotion (eyebrow furrowing) in response to television ads suggest members of individualistic cultures express negative emotions more freely when compared to individuals from collectivist cultures (McDuff et al., 2017). These investigators argue that this finding is consistent with the idea (Markus and Kitayama, 1991) that collectivist cultures base self-esteem on the ability to show self-restraint and maintain social harmony whereas in individualist cultures self-esteem is based on self-expression and the ability to differentiate oneself from others. ­Similarly, cultures differ in the appropriateness of

RapidEye/iStockphoto

216

In North America this hand gesture means “okay” but in other places in the world it has a very different meaning.

7 | Non-verbal Communication

© CBC Archives

non-verbal expressions of pain. For instance, in Mi’kmaq culture stoicism is valued and children learn early not to grimace or cry when they’re in pain or even to express pain verbally (Latimer et al., 2014). In fact, there is no word for “pain” in the Mi’kmaq language, only an equivalent for the word “hurt.” Culture also affects how non-verbal cues are monitored. In Japan, for instance people tend to look to the eyes for emotional cues, whereas many Europeans and North Americans focus more on the mouth (Yuki et al., 2007). These differences can be seen in text-based emoticons used in these cultures, as we discussed in Chapter 4. Recall, people from individualistic cultures usually use symbols that direct attention to the mouth [ : ) or :–( ] while people from collectivist cultures are more likely to vary the appearance of the eyes [ ^_^ or ; _ ; ] (Park et al., 2014; Yuki et al., 2007). In her review of the treatment of Indigenous girls taken from their families and forcibly placed in Ontario Training Schools (also known as Residential Schools), Joan Sangster (2002) describes the devastating effects of misinterpreting non-verbal behaviour because of cultural differences. Sangster gives heartbreaking accounts of young Indigenous girls whose culturally appropriate emotional restraint, silent listening, and lack of eye contact were misinterpreted as passivity, secretiveness, and deceitfulness by the reform school staff, who were English-speaking Canadians of European descent. These young girls showed their respect for and deference to authority figures by not looking them in the eye, listening silently, and by keeping their feelings to themselves. The staff interpreted the girls’ non-verbal behaviour as hostility and sneakiness. One school worker wrote, “She is quiet, deep, and cunning. She goes along with training . . . but it is not penetrating.She has no conscience and is not ­progressing. . . . She appears co-operative, but is deceitful” (Sangster, 2002, p. 38). There is no question that the residential school staff’s ethnocentrism and their racist attitudes toward Indigenous Canadians contributed to the staff’s negative interpretations of the girls’ behaviour, and it is also easy to see how a lack of awareness

217

Have you ever misunderstood someone’s nonverbal cues due to differences in culture? Been misunderstood yourself?

of cultural differences in non-verbal expression can lead to tragic misunderstandings, particularly when one is dealing with children. Gender also affects non-verbal communication and, with rare exceptions, these differences hold true across cultures (Hall, 2006; Knapp and Hall, 2010, 2013). Generally, women are more non-verbally expressive than men and they’re more accurate in interpreting non-verbal behaviour (Hall and Andrzejewski, 2017). More specifically, research summarized by Judith Hall (Hal1, 2006b) shows that, compared to men, women typically • smile more; • use more facial expression; • use more (but less expansive) head, hand, and arm gestures; • touch others more; • stand closer to others; • are more vocally expressive; and • make more eye contact. Despite these differences, men’s and women’s non-verbal communication patterns have a good deal in common (Dindia, 2006; Hall, 2006a). Moreover, gender differences are less pronounced in conversations between LGBTQ+ participants (Knofler and Imhof, 2007). Gender and culture certainly have an influence on non-verbal style, but the differences are a matter of degree rather than kind.

218

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

REFLECTION NOT SHOWING UP SENDS A MESSAGE As a social convenor at my school, I thought it would be great to have lunchtime yoga sessions to reduce our stress! Many of my classmates seemed keen so I organized the sessions, got the word out via social media, and was then shocked when only two people showed up. I had no idea that many of my classmates had cultural and religious beliefs that prohibited certain mixed gender activities and that in order to participate they needed the yoga classes to be gender specific. That was easy enough to organize—I just wish I had been more aware of the cultural norms and expectations of my peers in the first place. Nevertheless, they certainly sent me a message by not showing up!

CHECK IT! Describe the five characteristics of non-verbal communication.

Functions of Non-verbal ­Communication Now that we have established what non-verbal communication is, we need to explore the functions it serves in relationships. As you’ll read, non-verbal communication plays several roles in the way we relate to others (Ting-Toomey, 2017).

Creating and Maintaining Relationships As we’ll discuss further in Chapter 9, communication is our primary means for beginning, maintaining, and ending relationships. Non-verbal behaviour plays an important role during every relational stage. Consider the importance of non-verbal communication at the beginning of a relationship. When

we first meet another person, our initial goal is to reduce uncertainty about them (Berger, 1987, 2011). We ask ourselves questions such as, “Would I like to know this person better?” and “Is this person interested in me?” One of the first ways we answer these questions is by observing non-verbal cues, including facial expression, eye contact, posture, gesture, and tone of voice (Berger and Kellermann, 1994). This process occurs quite rapidly—often in a matter of seconds (Zebrowitz and Montepare, 2008). At the same time we’re sizing up others, we are providing non-verbal cues about our own attitude toward them. We rarely share these thoughts and feelings overtly. Imagine how odd it would be to say or hear words such as “I’m feeling friendly and relaxed” or “You look pretty interesting, but I won’t pursue this unless you give me a sign you’re interested too.” Messages like these are much more safely expressed through non-verbal channels. Of course, it’s important to remember that non-verbal channels are ambiguous and that you may be misinterpreting them (Mehrabian, 2008). You might want to get an outside evaluation to check your perceptions (“Is it just my imagination, or is she checking me out?”). Non-verbal cues are also important in established ongoing relationships: they both help create and signal emotional climate. For example, non-­­ verbal displays of affection—such as sitting close, holding hands, and gazing at one another—are strongly connected to satisfaction and commitment in romantic relationships (Horan and Booth-Butterfield, 2010). In families, non-verbal cues offer a clear sign of relational satisfaction (Rogers, 2001), and managing their meaning is vital to s­ uccessful parent–child interaction (Grebelsky-Lichtman, ­ 2014, 2015). On the job, supervisors who offer non-verbal cues of liking can increase subordinates’ job motivation, job satisfaction, and affinity for their supervisor (Teven, 2010). You can test the power of non-verbal behaviour in your relationships for yourself. First, observe the interaction of people in relationships without paying attention to their words. Watch couples or families in restaurants or other public places. Focus on non-verbal behaviour of fellow employees or professors and students. You’re likely to see a multitude of cues that suggest the quality of

7 | Non-verbal Communication

each relationship. Chances are good that you could make an educated guess about whether the people you’re watching are satisfied with each other—and whether their relationship is beginning, being maintained, or ending.

S­ometimes deliberately and sometimes without thought, we use non-verbal behaviours in ways that get others to satisfy our wants and needs. To appreciate how we manage impressions and influence others via non-verbal means, consider what happens when you meet strangers you would like to know better. Instead of projecting your image ­verbally Regulating Interaction (“Hi! I’m attractive, friendly, and ­easygoing”), you Non-verbal regulators are cues that help control behave in ways that will present this identity. For verbal interaction. The best example of such regu- example, you might dress in ­something you know lation is the wide array of turn-taking signals in looks good on you, smile more, and perhaps strike a everyday conversation (Wiemann and Knapp, more relaxed and casual pose. 2008). Research has shown there are three non-­ In many individualistic cultures, such as mainverbal signals that indicate a speaker has finished stream Canadian and American cultures, people are talking and is ready to yield to a listener: more compliant and co-operative when we make direct eye contact (Kaisler and Leder, 2016), wear high 1. a change in vocal intonation—a rising or status clothing (Maner, DeWall, and Gailliot, 2008), falling in pitch at the end of a clause; use open body postures (Burgoon et al., 1990), touch 2. a drawl on the last syllable or the stressed others appropriately (Gueguen et al., 2010; Kraus, syllable in a clause; and Huang, and Keltner, 2010), and behave in a friendly, 3. a drop in vocal pitch or loudness when positive way (Kleman, 2008). That’s why job seekers speaking a common expression such as are coached to offer firm handshakes, particularly “you know.” men (Katsumi et al., 2017; Stewart et al., 2008), and Eye contact is another way of regulating verbal smile often and genuinely (Krumhuber et al., 209) to communication (Bavelas et al., 2002). In conver- help influence employers to hire them. sations, the person listening typically looks more In a series of experiments, French psychologist at the speaker than the reverse. The speaker sig- Nicolas Guéguen and his colleagues (2013) invesnals that they’re seeking a response by looking at tigated the extent to which small differences in the listener, creating a brief period of mutual gaze setting could influence attraction. A male research called a “gaze window.” At this point, the listener confederate approached women at a shopping is likely to respond with a nod, “uh-huh,” or other centre and asked for their phone numbers. When reaction, after which the speaker looks away and he made the request holding a guitar case he was continues speaking. more successful (31 per cent gave him their number) than when carrying nothing (14 per cent gave him their number). When carrying a sports bag Influencing Others the proportion of women who agreed dropped to In Chapter 2, we explained that one major goal of nine per cent. In another study, Guéguen (2013) communicating is impression management: getting had female research confederates lie face down on others to view us the way we want to be seen. In many the beach, reading a book. Some had a temporary cases, non-verbal cues can be more important than tattoo of a butterfly on their lower back and some verbal messages in creating impressions (Weisbuch did not. Those with the tattoo were approached by et al., 2010). How we look, act, and sound can be men for conversation more often and more quickly more important in meeting our goals than the words than those without tattoos. These investigators we speak. The influence of non-verbal behaviour suggest that in both studies, seemingly minor comes in many forms. It can capture attention, show changes played major roles in non-verbal impresor increase liking, generate power, or boost cred- sion management. Findings such as these illustrate ibility (Cesario and Higgins, 2008; G ­ ifford, 2011). the influence of stereotypes on our perceptions of

219

220

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

SELF-ASSESSMENT NON-VERBAL IMMEDIACY BEHAVIOURS Most communication researchers agree that nonverbal immediacy—the display of involvement signaled by physical closeness, eye contact, smiling, movement, and touch—is an important ingredient of communication competence. You can measure your immediacy be completing this self-­ assessment. Indicate the degree to which you believe each statement applies to you on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = “never” and 5 = “very often.” Then ask someone you know well to complete the assessment about you, requesting they be as honest as possible. When you’re finished, compare notes on your assessments, discuss influences on your behaviour and identify any non-verbal immediacy behaviours you would like to change. Like all skills, increasing or decreasing these non-verbal behaviours requires practice. You may want to practise alone in front of a mirror before trying to make changes in social interactions with others. Often just increasing your awareness of these behaviours and understanding their importance in communicating attention, interest, and warmth is enough to help you make minor adjustments.

 6. I have a bland facial expression when I talk to people.  7. I’m stiff when I talk to people.  8. I have a lot of vocal variety when I talk to people.  9. I lean toward people when I talk to them.  10. I maintain eye contact with people when I talk to them.  11. I smile when I talk to people.  12. I avoid touching people when I talk to them. These 12 items are from a 26-item measure developed by Virginia Richmond and her colleagues.

 1. I use my hands and arms to gesture when talking to people.  2. I use a monotone or dull voice while talking to people.  3. I avoid eye contact while talking to people.  4. I have a tense body position when talking to people.  5. I’m animated when I talk to people.

Scores can range from 12 to 60. Men and women differ in their self-evaluations using this measure, with women perceiving themselves as engaging in more non-verbal immediacy behaviours than men. College-age women had an average score of 47, with most scores between 42 and 52. College-age men had an average score of 43, with most scores between 38 and 49.

others (as we discussed in Chapter 3), as well as the significance of non-verbal communication’s role in influencing others.

Influencing Ourselves Scholars have long known that non-verbal behaviour reflects how a person feels. If you’re happy, you smile; if you’re depressed, you slump, but research also shows the opposite can occur too. That is, if

SOURCE: Richmond, V.P., McCroskey, J.C., and Johnson, A.D. (2003). Development of the Non-verbal Immediacy Scale (NIS): Measure of self-and other-perceived non-verbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51, 504–17. Scoring: Step 1. Reverse-score items 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 12 (i.e., 5 = 1, 4 = 2, 3 = 3, 2 = 4, and 1 = 5). Step 2. After reverse scoring the six items in step 1, sum the scores for all 12 items. This is your Non-verbal Immediacy Score.

you change your non-verbal behaviour, it can affect the way you feel. In essence, your body language influences your emotions. Examples of some of these research findings are as follows: • Adopting expansive poses such as hands on hips or spreading out your arms can increase your sense of power (Carney et al., 2010; Cuddy et al., 2018) and tolerance for pain (Bohns and Wiltermuth, 2012).

7 | Non-verbal Communication

• “Jumping for joy” is more than just an emotional reaction. The act of jumping up and down actually triggers happiness (Shafir et al., 2013). • Sitting up straight can improve your mood, self-esteem, and even your memory (Michalak et al., 2014; Nair et al., 2015). • Smiling makes you feel happier (Chang et al., 2013) and smiling for a selfie once a day can improve your mood over time (Chen et al., 2016). This information has practical applications. Amy Cuddy and her colleagues (2015) suggest that prior to a job interview you can boost your confidence and create a more confident presence by discretely holding a power pose for a minute or two. In fact, anytime you’re feeling nervous or low, performing the non-verbal cues of how you want to feel can help you “fake it” until you “make it.” Keep in mind, however, that displaying obviously “fake” emotions (when facial expressions and internal feelings do not match) can lead to negative evaluations by others (Hideg and Kleef, 2017).

Concealing/Deceiving We may honour the truth, but many messages we exchange are not completely truthful. Sometimes we keep silent, sometimes we hedge, and sometimes we downright lie. As we discussed in detail in Chapter 2, not all deception is self-­serving or malicious: much of it is aimed at saving the face of the communicators involved. For example, you might pretend to have a good time at a family celebration or work-related event, even though you were feeling bored and preoccupied. In other cases you might lie to save your own face and avoid embarrassment (“I didn’t get that text”—when you did). In situations like these and many others, it’s easy to see how non-verbal factors can make the face-saving deception either succeed or fail. When verbal and non-verbal messages conflict, we tend to believe the non-verbal. That’s why most people monitor (and self-monitor) non-verbal cues such as facial expressions, patterns of eye contact, posture, vocal pitch, and rate when trying to detect or conceal deception.

Communication researchers Judee Burgoon and Tim Levine (2010) reviewed the evidence on deception detection and came up with three findings that have been supported by research over several decades. First, we’re accurate in detecting deception only slightly more than half of the time—which is only slightly better than chance. Second, we overestimate our abilities to detect others’ lies. We’re not as good at catching deception as we think. Finally, we have a strong tendency to judge others’ messages as truthful. In other words, we want to believe that people wouldn’t lie to us, which biases our ability to detect deceit. This evidence serves as a reminder that it’s not easy to determine whether or not someone is lying and singular non-verbal cues (e.g., lack of eye contact) are not dead giveaways (Burgoon et al., 2015). As one researcher put it, “There is no unique telltale sign for a fib. Pinocchio’s nose just doesn’t exist, and that makes liars difficult to spot” (Lock, 2004, p. 72). Moreover, many popular prescriptions about liars’ non-verbal behaviours simply are not accurate (Guerrero and Floyd, 2006). For instance, conventional wisdom suggests that liars avert their gaze and fidget more than nonliars. Research, however, shows just the opposite: liars often sustain more eye contact and fidget less, in part, because they believe that to do otherwise might appear deceitful (Mann et al., 2013). They also make more eye contact to help them determine whether the other person believes the tales they’re telling (Jundi et al., 2013). Despite the challenges of detecting deception, there are some non-verbal clues that may reveal it (Ekman, 2009). For example, deceivers typically make more speech errors (e.g., false starts, hesitations, stutters, stammers, etc.) than truth tellers. Vocal pitch often rises when people tell lies and liars pause longer before offering answers than do truth-tellers (Sporer and Schwandt, 2007; Vrij et al., 2000). Perhaps most significantly, because it’s a physiological reaction and thus harder to control, liars’ pupils tend to dilate because of the arousal associated with telling lies (Vrij, 2006). That’s why many professional poker players wear sunglasses to hide what their eyes might reveal.

221

222

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

Similar to pupil dilation, the face sometimes reveals a liar’s true feelings in brief unconscious displays called micro-expressions (Yan et al., 2013). Without being aware, liars may leak how they genuinely feel though fleeting furrows of the brow, pursing of the lips, or crinkling around the eyes (Porter et al., 2012). Micro-expressions are more common in what’s called “high stakes” lying, such as when there are severe punishments for being caught (Ekman, 2009). Keep in mind that slow-motion recordings and trained professionals are often required to pick up these micro-expressions. The bottom line is that non-verbal cues can offer information for detecting deception but most lies aren’t detected through snap judgments of a facial expression or shift in posture. Jumping to conclusions based on limited information is unwise and it may lead to communication and relational difficulties.

TAKE TWO The following are five functions of non-verbal communication: 1.  Creating and maintaining relationships 2.  Regulating interaction 3.  Influencing others 4.  Influencing ourselves 5.  Concealing or deceiving

Types of Non-verbal ­Communication So far, we have talked about the role non-verbal communication plays in our interpersonal relationships. Now, it’s time to look at the many types of non-verbal communication.

Body Movement A primary way we communicate non-verbally is through the movement of our bodies: our posture, gestures, eye contact, facial expressions, and so on. Social scientists use the term kinesics to describe the study of how people communicate through bodily movements (Afifi, 2017). We break them down by category here, although these various features usually work in combination with each other.

shirhan/iStockphoto

Face and Eyes

Not everyone’s nose grows when they’re being deceitful. What are some ways we can detect deceit?

The face and eyes are probably the most noticeable parts of the body, but the non-verbal messages they send are not always the easiest to read. The face is a tremendously complicated channel of expression to interpret, for several reasons. First, it’s hard to describe the number and kind of expressions commonly produced by the face and eyes. For example, researchers have found that there are at least eight distinguishable positions of the eyebrows and forehead, eight more of the eyes and lids, and ten for the lower face (Ekman, 2003). When you multiply this complexity by the n ­ umber

7 | Non-verbal Communication

thefinalmiracle/iStockphoto

of emotions we experience, you can see why it would be almost impossible to compile a dictionary of facial expressions and their corresponding emotions. The significance of the face in interpersonal communication can be seen in the many phrases that allude to it. We talk about “saving face,” needing some “face time,” maintaining a “poker face,” and “facing our fears.” That’s because, according to Knapp and Hall (2010), the face may well be “the primary source of communicative information next to human speech” (p. 293). A central component of facial expression is eye behaviour. Oculesics is the study of how the eyes can communicate. Gazes and glances are usually signals of the looker’s interest. However, the type of interest can vary. Gazing can be an indicator of liking (Schotter et al., 2010). In other situations, eye contact indicates interest, but not attraction or approval, such as when a teacher glares at a rowdy student or a police officer “keeps an eye on” a suspect. Of course, the meaning of eye contact is influenced by culture. In many Asian, Indigenous Canadian, and Caribbean cultures individuals avert their gaze as a sign of respect. Some cultures perceive prolonged eye contact as unpleasant and even aggressive (Akechi et al., 2013). In mainstream Canadian and US culture, making eye contact is generally regarded favourably (Akechi et al., 2013). Those who look others in the eye are perceived as intelligent (Murphy, 2007), and experts have found a strong correlation between eye contact and interpersonal closeness (Shellenbarger, 2013). Those same experts have expressed concern about how mobile devices interfere with eye contact. Research also suggests that overuse of technology can dull interpersonal perceptiveness. Preteens who took a five-day break from their cellphones dramatically increased their ability to accurately interpret others’ non-verbal cues (Uhls et al., 2014). In Chapters 8 and 10, we’ll have more to say about technology and relationships, communication climate, and conflict. For now it’s worth noting that eye contact distractions can take a toll on interpersonal communication.

223

The face and eyes are probably the most noticeable parts of the body, but the non-verbal messages from the face and eyes are not the easiest to read. What are some of the reasons for this?

Posture and Gestures To appreciate the communicative value of kinesics messages, stop reading for a moment and notice how you’re sitting. What does your position say non-verbally about how you feel? Are there any other people near you now? What messages do you get from their present posture? By paying attention to the posture of those around you, as well as to your own, you’ll find another channel of non-­ verbal communication that reveals how people feel about themselves and others. The English language reveals the deep links between posture and communication. English is full of expressions that tie emotional states with body postures: “I won’t take this lying down!” “Stand on your own two feet.”

224

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

“That’s a weight off my back.” “Don’t be so uptight!”

FangXiaNuo/iStockphoto

Phrases like these show an awareness of posture, even if it is often unconscious. The main reason we miss most posture messages is that they are usually subtle. In daily life, people who feel weighed down by a problem seldom hunch over dramatically. In interpreting posture, then, the key is to look for small changes that might be shadows of the way people feel. Gestures are a fundamental element of communication—so fundamental, in fact, that even people who have been blind from birth use them (Bruce et al., 2007). Gestures are sometimes intentional—for example, a cheery wave or thumbs-up. In other cases, however, they’re unconscious. Occasionally, an unconscious gesture will consist of an unambiguous emblem, such as a shrug that clearly means “I don’t know.” Gestures can produce a wide range of reactions in receivers. In many situations, the right kinds of gestures can increase persuasiveness (Maricchiolo et al., 2009). For instance, increasing hand and arm movements, leaning forward, fidgeting less, and keeping one’s limbs open all make a speaker more effective at influencing others. Even more interesting is the finding that persuasiveness increases when one person mirrors another’s movements (Van Swol, 2003).

This is logical considering that non-verbal mirroring (similar to language convergence discussed in Chapter 6) is a common way to express similarity and affiliation with others (Kouzakova et al., 2010). As with almost any non-verbal behaviour, the context in which gestures occur makes all the difference in the results they produce. Animated movements that are well received in a co-operative social setting may seem like signals of aggression or attempts at domination in a more competitive setting. Fidgeting that might suggest deviousness in a bargaining session could be appropriate when you offer a nervous apology in a personal situation. In any case, trying to manufacture insincere, artificial gestures (or any other non-verbal behaviour) will probably backfire. A more useful goal is to recognize the behaviour you find yourself spontaneously delivering and to consider how it expresses the attitudes you already feel.

Touch

Social scientists use the term haptics to distinguish the study of touching (Afifi, 2017). Interpersonal touch is a powerful way to communicate our feelings and it plays an important role in our emotional well-being (Gallace and Spence, 2010). Contemporary research confirms the value of touch for infants (Feldman et al., 2010; Field, 2007). In particular, studies have shown the value of “kangaroo care” for premature infants (Feldman et al., 2014). This involves mothers holding their underdeveloped infants close to their skin for one hour a day for two weeks. Compared to babies kept exclusively in incubators, these infants had stronger physiological and cognitive development, slept better, and had lower stress levels. Moreover, the touch sessions increased mothers’ bonds with their babies and reduced their anxiety, showing that touch is important for both givers and People who gesture appropriately often create impressions that differ from receivers. The effects on the those of less expressive people. How expressive do you think you are? children in this study were still

7 | Non-verbal Communication

FOCUS ON RESEARCH NON-VERBAL IMITATION: THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY The next time you’re at a social gathering, take a look at the non-verbal behaviours of each group of conversationalists. Are most of them standing the same way? Are their postures similar? What about their facial expressions? It’s likely their non-­verbal displays are similar, and that’s a positive sign, according to researchers Ishabel Vicaria and Leah Dickens (2016). They conducted a meta-analysis of data about interpersonal coordination—the tendency of social partners to imitate each other’s non-verbal mannerisms. They analysed 50 different studies and found some consistent conclusions. Synchronizing non-verbal behaviours creates a social bond. It happens with people we know and love and also between strangers. Coordinating with another’s non-verbal cues reflects and creates a sense of affinity. It also reduces anxiety and enhan-

evident 10 years later. What this suggests is that interpersonal touch meets a primal human need. Some of the most pronounced benefits of touching occur in medicine and the health and helping professions. For example, patients are more likely to take their medications when physicians give a slight touch when prescribing (Guéguen and Vion, 2009). Touch between therapists and clients has the potential to encourage a variety of beneficial ­changes: more self-disclosure, client self-acceptance, and better client–therapist relationships (Driscoll et al., 1998). Patients with dementia who were given hand massages, along with intermittent gentle touches on the arm and shoulder, decreased their anxiety and dysfunctional behaviour (Kim and Bushmann, 1999). In addition to being touched, studies have found that touching soft things (e.g., soft grip pen, teddy bear) can reassure people in times of uncertainty or social exclusion (Tai et al., 2011; Van Horen and Mussweiler, 2014). An additional power of touch is its on-the-job utility. Studies show that in restaurants, a server’s fleeting touch of their hand on the forearm of a

ces one’s mood. The researchers conclude that non-­ verbal coordination is the “social glue” that promotes cohesion and harmonious feelings between people. So watch for it the next time you’re at a family event, out with friends, or at work. If your non-verbal behaviours match what others are doing, it’s no accident. It may reflect how you feel about those people and how they feel about you. Critical thinking: Have you ever suddenly become aware of how your non-verbal cues have morphed to match the person or people you’re interacting with, making you self-conscious? Conversely, have you ever noticed when the non-verbal communication of someone in a group or gathering is not in sync? What factors make it easier or more difficult for people to synchronize their non-verbal communication?

patron can result in larger tips (Guéguen and Jacob, 2005). And a patron whom a server touches on the arm while suggesting an entrée choice is more likely to choose that meal (Guéguen et al., 2007). There is considerable variation around the world in the amount of touch viewed as appropriate. For example, Saudi men often hold hands as a sign of trust. Same-sex handholding is appropriate in Saudi culture but might easily be misinterpreted by North Americans. In contrast, Saudi men and women do not touch each other in public (Feghali, 1997). Canada is regarded as a moderate touch culture. Most Asian cultures are considered non-­ contact cultures, whereas many South and Central American cultures, and southern European cultures, are viewed as contact cultures (Finnegan, 2005; Hall, 1963; McDaniel and Andersen, 1998).

Voice Social scientists use the term paralanguage to describe the way a message is spoken. Vocal rate, pitch, tone, volume, accent, tempo or emphasis, and

225

226

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

meanings come from a single sentence just by shifting the emphasis from one word to another: This is a fantastic communication book. (Not just any book, but this one in particular.) This is a fantastic communication book. (This book is superior, exciting.) This is a fantastic communication book. (The book is good as far as the study of communication goes, but it may not be as great as a work of literature.)

digitalskillet/iStockPhoto

This is a fantastic communication book. (It’s not a play or a movie; it’s a book.)

Touch is a powerful form of communication. Next time you touch or are touched by someone, think about how the touch is part of the communication.

so on can give the same word or phrase many meanings. In essence, paralanguage is not so much about what you say, as how you say it. It adds a considerable amount of information to our utterances, ­helping us to convey our emotions and intentions, and understand those of others. For example, note how many

TAKE TWO • Kinesics: the study of how people communicate through body movements. • Oculesics: the study of how the eyes communicate • Haptics: the study of touching

Along with tone, speed, pitch, and volume, paralanguage includes pauses. Silent or unintentional pauses are those times when people stop to collect their thoughts before deciding how to best continue. It’s no surprise that liars tend to have more of these than truth tellers, as they often make up their stories on the fly (Guerrero and Floyd, 2006). When people pause at length after being asked a delicate question (“Did you like the gift I bought you?”), it might mean they’re buying time to come up with a face-saving—and perhaps less than honest—response. A second type of pause is a vocalized paused. These range from disfluencies such as uh, um, and er to filler words and phrases such as “like,” “okay,” and “ya know.” The effect of paralinguistic cues is strong. Preschool children tend to give more weight to the language or content of messages but as they grow and develop so does their increased reliance on non-verbal information to infer speakers’ emotions, attitudes, and intentions (Gillis and Nilsen, 2017). In fact, by the time children reach the age of 10 years old they rely on the paralinguistic features of a message more than the content to identify speakers’ intent (Friend, 2000), as do adults (Burns and Beier, 1973). Even when vocal factors contradict a verbal message (as when a speaker shouts, “I am not angry!”), adolescent and adult listeners tend to judge the speaker’s intention from the paralanguage, not the words themselves (Mehrabian and Weiner, 1967). Vocal changes that contradict spoken words are not easy to conceal. If the speaker is trying to hide fear or anger, the voice

7 | Non-verbal Communication

will probably sound higher and louder, and the rate of talk may be faster than normal. Sadness produces the opposite vocal pattern: quieter, lower-pitched speech delivered at a slower rate (Ekman, 1985). We tend to have greater affinity for people whose paralanguage is similar to our own. Like the convergence of language patterns we discussed in Chapter 6, people tend to adopt the vocal patterns of their co-cultural peers (Ting-Toomey, 2017). When we judge a speaker’s speech rate as similar to our own we perceive them as more competent and socially attractive than when the rate is different (Feldstein et al., 2001). In addition, people are more likely to comply with requests from speakers whose speech rates are similar to their own (Buller and Aune, 1988, 1992). Similarly, children prefer playmates who have similar speech styles (Kinzler et al., 2009). Sarcasm is one approach in which we use both emphasis and tone of voice to change the meaning of a statement to the opposite of its verbal message (Rockwell, 2007b). Experience this reversal yourself with the following three statements. First say them without additional emphasis, and then say them sarcastically. “You look terrific!” “I really had a wonderful time on my blind date.” “There’s nothing I like better than calves’ brains on toast.”

As with other non-verbal messages, people often ignore or misinterpret the vocal nuances of sarcasm. Members of certain groups—children, people with weak intellectual skills, poor listeners, and people who have communication apprehension and people with certain forms of brain damage—are more likely to misunderstand sarcastic messages than are others (Rockwell, 2007a; Shamay et al., 2002). Research has revealed that children interpret mixed messages in ways very different from adults (Morton and Trehub, 2001). When youngsters aged four to eight were presented with positive statements (such as “Dad gave me a new bike for my birthday”) delivered in a sad tone of voice, they gauged the speaker as happy because they paid attention to the words rather than the vocal cues. When a negative statement was read in an upbeat tone, children interpreted the message as

negative—again, relying more on the content than the paralanguage. There was a direct r­elationship between age and sensitivity to non-verbal cues, with the youngest children relying most heavily on the words spoken. This study helps us appreciate the often taken-for-granted importance of non-verbal cues. It also serves as a reminder that communication with children may require different approaches than those that work with adults. In some cases, you will want to give clues that your words should not be taken literally. One way to do this in written mediated communication is with emoji (Thompson and Filik, 2016), or shorthand such as “jk” or “haha.” In face-to-face conversations, sometimes you need to clarify: “Sorry, I was being sarcastic— maybe I should have just said, I don’t like it when you tease me in front of my friends.” We use vocal cues to express the relational dimension of our messages. For instance, as adults we can lower the pitch of our voices to establish power and authority (Cheng at el., 2016). It is important to pay attention to the paralinguistic messages you’re sending. When first-year medical students watched videos of themselves and rated their doctor–patient communication, some of the primary shortcomings they noticed had to do with their paralanguage— particular tone, rate of speech, volume, and disfluencies (Zick et al., 2007). Disfluencies such as vocalized pauses (including “um,” “er,” “okay,” etc.) reduce a speaker’s perceived credibility (Davis et al., 2006). Pause for a moment and take a self-inventory. What feedback have you received about your paralanguage? Do people ask you to speak up or quiet down? Are you a fast or slow talker? Does your vocal pitch signal confidence? Is you speech filled with “ums” and ‘likes” and “ya knows”? Do loved ones sometimes react to your tone of voice, or critique not what you say but how you say it? Apart from the qualities that result from your particular vocal cords, most features of paralanguage are changeable. With a bit of self-monitoring, you have the ability to shift the way you talk to assist your interpersonal communication.

Distance Proxemics is the study of how communication is affected by the use, organization, and perception of

227

228

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

TAKE TWO • Paralanguage: the way a message is spoken. The speaker’s mode of delivery is governed by vocal rate, pitch, tone, volume, pauses (both silent and verbal), and disfluencies. • Disfluencies: non-linguistic verbalizations such as stammering, use of um, er, uh, etc.

space and distance (Afifi, 2017). Each of us carries around a sort of invisible bubble of personal space wherever we go. We think of the area inside this bubble as our own—almost as much a part of us as our own bodies. Our personal bubbles vary in size according to the culture in which we were raised, the person we’re with, the situation, our age, and our gender (Sorokowska et al., 2017). The varying size of our personal space—the distance we put between ourselves and others—gives a non-verbal clue to our feelings (Horan and Booth-Butterfield, 2013). In a classic study (Crane et al., 1987), researchers tested more than 100 married couples, asking partners to walk toward one another and stop when they reached a “comfortable conversational distance.” Then, they gave each partner a battery of tests to measure their marital intimacy, desire for

change, and potential for divorce. The researchers discovered that there was a strong relationship between distance and marital happiness. The average space between distressed couples was about 25 per cent greater than that between satisfied partners. On average, the happy couples stood 28.5 centimetres apart, while the distance between unhappy spouses averaged 37 centimetres. Preferred spaces are largely a matter of cultural norms (Beaulieu, 2004; Høgh-Olesen, 2008). For example, most North Americans stand closer to each other when talking than do most Asians (Anderson and Wand, 2009). Interestingly, the influence of culture on proxemic behaviour even extends to online communication. In ­avatar ­interactions, Asian dyads maintain larger ­distances than European dyads, consistent with what occurs in face-to-face interactions (Hasler and Friedman, 2012). Looking at the distances that North American communicators use in everyday interaction, pioneering researcher Edward Hall found four special distances, each of which reflects a different way we feel about others at a given time. More recently, a large group of researchers representing 42 countries reaffirmed Hall’s research findings and found considerable variation in people’s preferences across various countries (Sorokowska et al., 2017). By “reading” which distance people select, we can get some insight into their feelings.

TakakoWatanabe/iStockphoto

Intimate Distance

Think about personal space the next time you’re comfortable being close to another person, or uncomfortable being close to another. How far apart are you in those interactions?

The first of Hall’s four zones, intimate distance, begins with skin contact. We usually use this intimate distance with people who are emotionally close to us, and then mostly in private situations—making love, caressing, comforting, protecting. By allowing people to move into our intimate distance, we let them enter our personal space. When we let them in voluntarily, it’s usually a sign of trust: we have willingly

7 | Non-verbal Communication

lowered our defences. On the other hand, when someone invades this most personal area without our consent, we usually feel threatened.

Personal Distance The second spatial zone, personal distance, ranges from 45 centimetres at its closest point to 1.2 metres at its farthest. The closer end of the range is the distance most couples stand from one another in public. If, at a party, a third person were to venture that close, the couple is likely to become alert. This “moving in” is often taken to mean that something more than casual conversation is taking place. The far end of the personal distance range (from roughly 0.75 metres to 1.2 metres) is the area just beyond a person’s reach. As Hall puts it, at this distance, we can keep someone “at arm’s length.” His choice of words suggests the type of communication that goes on at this range: the contacts are still reasonably close, but they’re much less personal than the ones that occur 30 centimetres or so closer.

Social Distance The third zone is social distance. It ranges from 1.2 metres to about 3 metres at the outside. Within this zone, the distance between communicators can have a powerful effect on how we regard and respond to others. For example, students are more satisfied with teachers who reduce (at appropriate levels, of course) the distance between themselves and their classes. They are also more satisfied with the course itself and are more likely to follow the teacher’s instructions (Hackman and Walker, 1990). Likewise, medical patients are more satisfied with doctors who use close physical proximity to convey warmth and concern (Grant et al., 2000). However, people with high social anxiety are likely to keep social distance at the far reaches to reduce their discomfort with strangers (Perry et al., 2013).

Public Distance Public distance is Hall’s term for the farthest zone, extending outward from 3 metres. The

closer range of public distance is the one that most ­teachers use  in the classroom. In the farther reaches of public space—7.5 metres and beyond—two-way communication is almost impossible. Sometimes, speakers must use public distance to reach a large audience, but we can assume that anyone who chooses to use it when more closeness is possible is not interested in a dialogue. When our spatial bubble is invaded, we usually experience stress and respond with barrier behaviours: strategies designed to create a barrier (or fix a broken one) between ourselves and other people (Evans and Wener, 2007). Invade someone’s personal space and notice the reaction. At first, the person is most likely to simply back away, probably without realizing what is happening. Next, your partner might attempt to put an object between you, such as a desk, a chair, or some books clutched to the chest, all in an effort to get some separation. Then, the other person will probably decrease eye contact (the “elevator syndrome,” in which we can crowd in and even touch one another so long as we avoid eye contact). Your reluctant partner might sneeze, cough, scratch, and exhibit various gestures to discourage your anti-social behaviour. The label “anti-social” suggests you should think twice before running experiments like this. The goal here is to describe the lengths people will go to to protect their personal space—and how most of their defense signals are non-verbal.

Territoriality While personal space is the invisible bubble we carry around, territory is a stationary area we claim (Hidalgo and Hernandez, 2001). Robert Sommer (1969) watched students in a college library and found that there is a definite pattern for people who want to study alone. When the library was not crowded, students almost always chose corner seats at one of the empty rectangular tables. After each table was occupied by one reader, new readers would choose a seat on the opposite side and at the far end, thus keeping the maximum distance between themselves and the other readers. One of Sommer’s ­associates

229

230

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

tried breaking these “rules” by sitting next to and across from other female readers even though distant seats were available. She found that the women reacted defensively, signalling their discomfort through shifts in posture, by gesturing, or by moving away. Consider how you would react if someone took “your” seat in one of your classes. Even though the chair isn’t your possession, you probably have some sense of ownership about it (Kaya and Burgess, 2007). How you respond to such a manoeuvre depends on who enters and uses your territory (a friend is less threatening than a stranger); why they enter or use it (for instance, a “mistake” is less important than a “planned attack”); what territory is entered or used (you may care more about a territory over which you have exclusive rights, such as your bedroom, than about a territory in a public area, such as your seat in class). Generally, we grant people with higher status more personal territory and greater privacy. We knock before entering our supervisor’s office, whereas the supervisor can usually walk into our work area without hesitating.

Time Social scientists use the term chronemics to describe the study of how humans use and structure time. The use of time depends greatly on culture. Some cultures tend to be monochronic, emphasizing punctuality, schedules, and completing tasks on time (Flaskerud, 2013). Examples of monochromic cultures would be German, Swiss, and mainstream Canadian and US cultures. In contrast, other cultures are more polychronic, with flexible schedules in which multiple tasks are pursued at the same time. Many Indigenous Canadian cultures take this approach (Stonefish and Kwantes, 2017) as do numerous South American, Mediterranean, Caribbean, and Arab cultures (Arman and Adir, 2012). One psychologist discovered the difference between North and South American attitudes when he was teaching at a university in Brazil (Levine, 1988). He found that some students arrived halfway through a two-hour class and that most of them stayed and kept a­ sking

TAKE TWO • Personal space: the invisible bubble of space we consider as our own; it varies in size according to the person we’re with, the culture in which we were raised, and the situation at hand. • Intimate distance: the first of Hall’s spatial distances, skin contact to about 45 centimetres. • Personal distance: the second of Hall’s spatial distances, 45 centimetres to 1.2 metres. • Social distance: the third of Hall’s spatial ­distances, 1.2 to 3 metres. • Public distance: the fourth of Hall’s spatial distances, 7.5 metres and beyond. • Barrier behaviours: strategies to create or fix a barrier between ourselves and other people (e.g., avoiding eye contact). • Territory: a stationary space claimed by a person or animal.

questions when the class was scheduled to end. Half an hour after the official end of the period, the professor finally closed off discussion, since there was no indication that the students intended to leave. This flexibility of time is quite different from what is common in most North American colleges and universities. Even within a culture, rules of time vary. Consider your own experience. In school, some instructors begin and end class punctually, while others are more casual. With some people, you feel comfortable talking for hours in person or on the phone, while with others, time seems precious and not to be “wasted.” Time can be a marker not only of status and culture but also of relationships. Research shows that the amount of time spent with a relational partner sends important messages about valuing that person (Andersen et al., 2006). In one study analyzing 20 non-verbal behaviours, “spending time together” was the most powerful predictor of both relational satisfaction and perceived interpersonal understanding (Egland et al., 1997). And, as we’ll discuss in Chapter 11, spending time with a partner is one of love’s languages.

7 | Non-verbal Communication

CHECK IT! Chronemics: the study of how people use and structure time. Monochronic: an approach to the management of time that emphasizes punctuality, schedules, and completing one task at a time. Polychronic: an approach to the management of time that emphasizes flexibility of schedules and pursuing multiple tasks at the same time.

Physical Attractiveness The importance of beauty has been emphasized in the arts for centuries. More recently, social scientists have begun to measure the degree to which physical attractiveness affects interaction between people (Lemay et al., 2010; Lorenzo et al., 2010). Findings, summarized by Knapp and Hall (2013), indicate that women who are perceived as attractive have more dates, receive higher grades in college (or university), persuade men with greater ease, and receive lighter court sentences. Both men and women whom others view as attractive are rated as being more sensitive, kind, strong, sociable, and interesting than people who conform less with what is deemed physically attractive (Knapp and Hall, 2010). Recall, from Chapter 3, that our first impressions and the judgments we make about others are heavily influenced by attractiveness stereotypes (the halo effect). Often people unknowingly judge what is beautiful as what is good (Lemay et al., 2010). For instance, more than 200 managers in a Newsweek survey admitted that attractive people get preferential treatment both in hiring decisions and on the job (Bennett, 2010). People rated as better looking get better grades and higher wages (Gordon et al., 2013; Rhode, 2010). Professors perceived as “hot” are judged as having more expertise; students are more motivated to learn from them and give them higher teaching evaluations (Liu et al., 2013). The beauty bias even exerts itself in the legal system and our political judgments and affiliations (Peterson and Palmer, 2017; Rhodes, 2010). The pervasiveness of what some scholars

have dubbed “lookism” is widespread and does us all a disservice as do all prejudices (Gordon, 2013). Occasionally, beauty has negative effects. Interviewers may turn down highly attractive candidates if they are perceived as threats (Agthe et al., 2011). While good looks generally get rewarded, glamorous beauty can be intimidating (Frevet and Walker, 2014). There is evidence that physically attractive people have trouble maintaining their romantic relationships, perhaps because they have high expectations for how they’ll be treated by their partners (Ma-Kellams et al., 2017). On the whole, however, the interpersonal benefits of attractiveness far outweigh the downsides. Fortunately, attractiveness is something we can control without having to call the plastic surgeon. Evidence suggests that as we get to know people and like them, we start to regard them as better looking (Albada et al., 2002). Even brief interactions with others can increase our perceptions of their attractiveness (Hall and Compton, 2017). Moreover, we view others as beautiful or ugly, not just on the basis of the “original equipment” they come with, but also on how they use that equipment. Posture, gestures, facial expressions, and other behaviours can increase the attractiveness of a seemingly unremarkable person. Finally, our style of dress can make a significant difference in the way others perceive us, as we discuss next.

Clothing Besides protecting us from the elements, clothing is a tool of non-verbal communication. Clothing conveys a variety of messages to others (Howlett et al., 2013), including the following:   1. economic level;   2. educational level;  3. trustworthiness;   4. social position;   5. level of sophistication;   6. economic background;   7. social background;   8. educational background;   9. level of success; and 10. moral character.

231

232

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

Dressing more formally—whether in a business suit, lab coat, or uniform—tends to enhance perceptions of credibility and expertise. Canadians prefer their doctors to wear formal attire (defined as blouse, skirt, or pants for women and collared shirt and tie and slacks for men) and a lab coat, rather than scrubs or casual attire, particularly on first encounter (Petrilli et al., 2015). Preferences for physicians’ attire vary around the world and influence patients’ perceptions of knowledge, competence, trustworthiness, professionalism, and approachability. Students regard guest lecturers who dress up for their presentations as more credible (Dunbar and Segrin, 2012). However, formal clothing can also create interpersonal distance. One study (Sebastian and Bristow, 2008) found students attribute more expertise to professors who dress up, but they also rank those professors lower in likeability than casually dressed professors. Judgments based on what a person wears, like other perceptions, need to be made carefully. For example, some people judge the hijab, a head covering or scarf worn by some Muslim women, as a symbol of patriarchal, anti-feminist, male oppression. In contrast, Canadian-Muslim women who wear the hijab have explained that they see it as helping them define their identity and religiosity, demonstrate modesty, and resist sexual objectification (Bhowon, 2016; Litchmore and Safdar,

2016). The choice of whether or not to wear the hijab is influenced by both the internal and external experiences of each woman and is their personal choice. Similarly, investigations into the motivations and responses to Canadian-Muslim women who wear the niqab or burka (complete body, hair, and face covering in which only the eyes are visible) revealed highly personal reasons for this choice including commitment to deeper religious development, helping them express their Muslim identity, and freedom from the pressures of women’s fashion (Clarke, 2013). Perhaps surprisingly to those who judge such coverings as oppressive, very few of the women interviewed in these studies felt pressure by men to wear these garments. In fact, several of the women interviewed who wore the niqab explained that the choice to do so was theirs alone and they faced spousal opposition to their choice (Clarke, 2013). Finally, there is fascinating research regarding the effects of wearing designer knock-off clothing and accessories. Students who believed they were wearing counterfeit sunglasses were more likely to behave unethically than their peers who believed they were wearing authentic designer apparel. Also, those who believed they were ­ wearing designer knock-off goods were more cynical in their perception of others (Gino et al., 2010). Like all our perceptions based on appearances, judgments of others based on their clothing choices need to be made carefully and put into the larger context of what we know about the subjectivity and biases inherent in human ­perception.

© Zoe Waelchli

Physical Environment

Look at what you’re wearing and how you’re sitting right now. What do your clothing and body language communicate about yourself?

We conclude our discussion of non-verbal communication by examining how physical settings, architecture, and interior design affect communication. Physical environments can shape the kinds of interactions that take place in them. For example, a study of 10 neighbourhoods examined the sidewalks, front porches, traffic-calming devices (e.g., speed humps, roundabouts), bars on windows and presence of litter or graffiti. Neighbourliness was significantly higher in places with more positive physical environments. In grittier

7 | Non-verbal Communication

REFLECTION HEAD SCARVES

Carlosphotos/iStockphoto

I consider myself to be an independent, liberated, Western woman with a fundamental belief in my equality with men. Attending university, I met several Muslim women who wore head scarves. I had always seen the head scarf as a sign of the male subjugation of women. I had this stereotype of demure, soft-spoken, obliging women, sort of like the “ideal” 1950s housewife, but from a different culture. As I got to know these Muslim women, my perception (or bias) seemed really wrong! I observed these women to be outspoken, articulate, independent-minded individuals. They spoke up in class, challenged their peers’ ideas (both male and female), and clearly had a strong sense of their worth. They told me that rather than being a symbol of subservience to men, the head scarf served as a guard against the eyes of men and freed them from being “sexual objects.” For me, this was a whole new way of interpreting the meaning of the head scarf.

locales, people were less likely to have positive interactions in their communities (Wilkerson et al., 2012). In less hospitable neighbourhoods, adding green space and just keeping them clean, well lit, and graffiti-free can help to promote less littering, graffiti, and crime and can support more positive interactions. Kuo and Sullivan (2001) found that residents of inner-city public housing who lived in relatively barren buildings reported more mental fatigue, aggression, and violence than their counterparts in buildings with nearby grass and trees. Similarly, researchers (Keizer et al., 2008) have found that in environments that contain graffiti, are strewn with litter, and have an abundance of unreturned shopping carts, people are more likely to similarly violate norms or social rules governing public spaces (e.g., they too litter, vandalize, or fail to return their shopping carts). In contrast, exposure to natural environments has been found to be associated with increased generosity and caring for others (Weinstein et al., 2009) Interior design, lighting, choice of furnishings, and decorations also affect the way people feel and interact. Most of us have spent time in what Knapp and Hall (2013) call “unliving rooms,” where the spotless floors, pristine and uncomfortable furniture, and delicate furnishings and decorations send non-verbal messages telling us not to touch anything, to be very careful, and not to be relaxed and comfortable. Students who were interviewed in a room with dim lighting were more relaxed, had a more favourable impression of the interviewer, and were more self-disclosing than those exposed to bright lighting (Miwa and Hanyu, 2006). Clients who received counselling in a comfortably furnished office with upholstered chairs, curtains, a throw rug, and plants felt more welcome and expected better results than those who were treated in a sparsely furnished office with bright lighting (Nasar and Devlin, 2011). Along with shaping communication, the physical environment can reflect the relationships of the people who create them. Consider the shared space of a couple. Do they display photographs of themselves together? Do souvenirs remind them of special times? Partners who create environments that chronicle and celebrate their relationships

233

234

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

BUILDING WORK SKILLS CULTURAL VALUES AT WORK An important beginning strategy to communicate more effectively at work is being aware of your workplace values and behaviour, and how they’re influenced by your culture. Take a moment to assess your workplace or your school environment in terms of some of the types of non-verbal communication discussed in this chapter. Pay particular attention to touch, proxemics and territoriality, time, clothing, and physical environment. Describe your workplace in terms of these elements, and then identify the values communicated. Here are some questions to get your started: • • • • • •

Who initiates touch? Who touches whom? Who gets the most territory? Who gets the least? Who gets the window? Do some people prefer greater or less social distance? Who? How do you know? How important is punctuality? Can some people keep others waiting with impunity? What do people wear? Are there differences? Is the physical environment clean? Are some places cleaner than others? Is the space well designed for the work to be done? Are some places better than others?

report feeling closer to one another, having better functioning relationships, and having higher levels of commitment (Arriaga et al., 2008). Environmental influences can even shape perceptions and communication in virtual space. For example, people who meet online in a formal virtual setting, such as a library, communicate more formally than those who meet in a casual virtual cafe (Pena and Blackburn, 2013). You might want to keep these concepts in mind when you’re designing or decorating the spaces

in which you live, study, and work. Your physical environment—real or virtual—can affect your interpersonal communication.

CHECK IT! List the 10 types of non-verbal communication and provide an example of each.

SUMMARY Non-verbal communication consists of messages expressed by non-linguistic means. It is pervasive; in fact, non-verbal messages are always available as a source of information about others. Often what we do conveys more meaning than what we say, and non-verbal behaviour shapes perception. Most non-verbal behaviour conveys messages about relational attitudes and feelings, in contrast to verbal statements, which are better suited to expressing ideas. Messages that are c­ommunicated

non-verbally are usually more ambiguous than verbal communication. Contrary to what some might think, non-verbal cues also play a role in mediated communication. Non-verbal communication is also affected by culture and gender. Non-verbal communication serves many functions. It can help create and maintain relationships. It also serves to regulate interactions, influence others and influence yourself. In addition, non-verbal communication can be used to conceal

7 | Non-verbal Communication

or reveal deception. When people are presented with conflicting verbal and non-verbal messages, they’re more likely to rely on the non-verbal ones. Non-verbal messages can be communicated in a variety of ways—through body movement (­ including

the face and eyes, gestures, and posture), touch, voice, distance, territory, time, physical appearance, clothing, and environment. Culture plays a significant role in determining the rules and meanings for each of these factors.

MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS 1.

Which of the following statements is not true about non-verbal communication?

5.

a. It’s best defined as communication without words. b. It’s a message expressed by non-­linguistic means. c. It can be expressed vocally. d. It’s influenced by culture and gender.

a. are non-verbal regulators. b. are used to indicate a speaker is finished talking. c. are used to help control verbal interaction. d. are all of the above. 6.

2.

When comparing verbal and non-verbal communication scholars suggest non-verbal ­communication is a. b. c. d.

3.

rooted in biology. mostly voluntary and conscious. single channel. usually content oriented.

The difficulty we have expressing ideas and opinions, such as “I think there should be free speech restrictions” via non-verbal communication illustrates the idea that a. non-verbal communication is ambiguous. b. non-verbal communication is influenced by culture and gender. c. non-verbal communication is always occurring. d. non-verbal communication is primarily relational.

4.

Emblems a. describe the way a message is spoken. b. are culturally understood substitutes for verbal expressions. c. are cues that control verbal interaction. d. all of the above are true about emblems.

Changes in vocal intonation, a drawl on the last syllable, and a drop in vocal pitch or loudness

Hamid dislikes public speaking. Just before he enters the room to give his presentation he takes a minute and puts his hands on his hips, stands up straight, and takes a deep breath. Hamid’s behaviour is an example of how non-verbal communication a. b. c. d.

7.

helps us create relationships. helps us regulate social interaction. influences our own feelings. helps us conceal our true emotions.

Paralanguage refers to a. the way body movements communicate. b the way our use of space and distance communicate. c. the way a message is spoken. d. the way the eyes communicate.

8.

The influence of physical attractiveness on human perception a. is primarily limited to dating websites. b. has few if any negative effects. c. is a recent phenomenon due to the increased ease and availability of photo manipulation. d. is similar to other types of prejudice such as racism and sexism.

235

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

9.

Hans feels frustrated when his colleagues routinely show up to meetings late and, as a result, meetings start late and go over the allotted time. He perceives his colleagues as unprofessional and disrespectful. Hans’s time orientation is probably a. monochronic. b. chronemic. c. polychronic. d. latinate.

10. Dressing more formally a. tends to enhance perceptions of credibility and expertise. b. tends to increase perceptions of trustworthiness. c. tends to create interpersonal distance. d. tends to do all of the above.

Answers: 1. a; 2. a; 3. d; 4. b; 5. d; 6. c; 7. c; 8. d; 9. a; 10. d

236

ACTIVITIES 1. Invitation to Insight Demonstrate for yourself that it’s impossible to avoid communicating non-verbally by trying not to communicate with a friend or family member. (You be the judge of whether to tell the other person about this experiment beforehand.) See how long it takes for your partner to ask what you are doing and to report what they think you might be thinking and feeling. 2. Critical Thinking Probe Interview someone from a culture different from your own, and learn at least three ways in which non-verbal codes differ from those of the place where you were raised. Together, develop a list of ways you could break unstated, but important, rules about non-verbal behaviour in your partner’s culture in three of the following areas: • eye contact • posture • gesture • facial expression • distance • voice • touch • time • clothing

• physical environment • territory Describe how a failure to recognize different cultural codes could lead to misunderstandings, frustrations, and dissatisfaction. Discuss how an awareness of cultural rules can be developed in an increasingly multicultural world. 3. Skill Builder Sharpen your ability to distinguish between observing and interpreting non-verbal behaviour by following these directions: a. Sit or stand opposite a partner at a comfortable distance. For a one-minute period, report your observations of the other person’s behaviour by repeatedly completing the statement, “Now I see ______ (non-verbal behaviour).” For example, you might report, “Now I see you blinking your eyes. Now I see you looking down at the floor. Now I see you fidgeting with your hands.” Notice that no matter what your partner does, you have an unending number of non-verbal behaviours to observe. b. For a second one-minute period, complete the sentence “Now I see ______ (non-verbal behaviour), and I think ______,” filling in the blank with your interpretation of the other

7 | Non-verbal Communication

­erson’s non-verbal behaviour. For instance, p you might say, “Now I see you look away, and I think you’re nervous about looking me in the eye. Now I see you smiling and I think you’re agreeing with my interpretation.” Notice that by clearly labelling your interpretation, you give the other person a chance to correct any mistaken hunches. c. Repeat the first two steps, changing roles with your partner. 4. Invitation to Insight In a public place, unobtrusively record field notes describing non-verbal messages you observe. For each observation, record at least two assumptions about the significance of the behaviour in question. 5. Invitation to Insight Explore your territoriality by listing the spaces you feel you “own,” such as parts of the place you live in, or a seat in a particular classroom. Describe how you feel when your territory is invaded and identify things you do to “mark” it.

6. Role Play This role play allows you to become more aware of your non-verbal behaviour and then gives you an opportunity to pay attention to all the facets of non-verbal communication by observing and copying someone else. a. Think of an important message you need to deliver to someone significant (e.g., declining an invitation, asking for something the person may be unwilling to give). If you can’t think of anything currently, think of a message you had to deliver in the past. b. Deliver the message to your partner and ask them to copy all your non-verbal actions (except paralanguage) while you’re giving the message  —as though you’re looking into a mirror. When you’re finished, discuss what you and your partner noticed about your non-verbal message. c. Next, reverse roles. Have your partner deliver the message and you copy their behaviour. Be sure to pay attention to as many facets as possible (e.g., face and eyes, posture and body movement, touch, gestures). Again, discuss your observations.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1.

Describe similarities and differences between verbal and non-verbal communication.

2.

Why do you think non-verbal communication has so much influence on human perception? Why do we value it more than verbal communication when we’re evaluating the relational content of messages? What are the limitations of non-verbal communication in this regard?

3.

Describe nine types of non-verbal behaviour and rate the significance of each in your communication with others.

4.

The research evidence regarding the power of physical attractiveness over human perception is disconcerting. What can we do to overcome our biases (both positive and negative) in this area? Do you think it’s fair to characterize our perceptual biases related to physical appearance as a prejudice similar to racism or sexism? Why or why not?

5.

Non-verbal communication is ambiguous and often unconscious. It’s highly influenced by culture. How do you think these characteristics in particular contribute to the development and perpetuation of bias?

237

238

PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages

JOURNAL IDEAS 1.

Pay attention to the types of non-verbal communication that you notice most in others. What kinds of things do you tend to notice? Why do you think that is? Are these observations helpful? Are there other types of non-verbal communication that you overlook? Would it be helpful to pay more attention to these areas? Why or why not?

2.

Keep a one-day log of significant ­non-verbal communication (both face-to-face and mediated) in one of your important ­relationships.

For each entry, note (a) whether the behaviour was deliberate or unintentional; (b) the relational messages that seem to have been exchanged; (c) the degree of ambiguity about the meaning of the behaviour; and (d) gender and cultural factors that may have shaped the non-verbal communication.

PART THREE

Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

Teamjackson/iStockphoto

bbernard/Shutterstock

8

Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

CHAPTER OUTLINE Why We Form Relationships Appearance Similarity Complementarity Rewards Competence Proximity Disclosure

Intimacy and Distance in Relationships Forms of Intimacy

Forms of Distance The Influence of Culture and Gender on Intimacy and Distance

Models of Relational Dynamics Stages of Relational Development Dialectical Tensions in Relationships Characteristics of Relational Development

Communicating about Relationships Content and Relational Messages Maintaining and Supporting Relationships Repairing Damaged Relationships

KEY TERMS avoiding bonding circumscribing comparison level (CL) comparison level of alternatives (CL alt) dialectical tensions differentiating experimenting expression–privacy dialectic initiating integrating

integration–separation dialectic intensifying intimacy metacommunication relational maintenance relational transgressions social exchange theory social support stability–change dialectic stagnating terminating

LEARNING OUTCOMES YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO: • • • •

Describe the various reasons for entering into interpersonal relationships Analyze the stages typically experienced in relationships and identify factors that might affect this sequence Identify the dialectical tensions that influence your communication goals, the strategies you use to manage these tensions, and alternative strategies you might consider using Describe what communicators must consider in order to maintain, and improve their interpersonal relationships

242

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

We are like islands in the sea, separate on the surface but connected in the deep. —William James

There is no question that personal relationships matter. The development and maintenance of stable and satisfying interpersonal relationships is fundamental to human motivation, health, and well-being (Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Campos and Kim, 2016; Yang et al., 2016). Our interconnectedness to others affects our biology, our physical health and survival, and our emotional health and well-being. It’s no surprise that interpersonal relationships are a big part of what make our lives meaningful (Baumeister et al., 2013). Yet, while interpersonal relationships are essential and

contribute to our happiness and the meaningfulness of our lives, they also cause stress (O’Donnell et al., 2014) In this chapter, we introduce some of the dynamics that characterize interpersonal relationships and the communication that occurs within them. After reading the chapter, you’ll see that relationships are neither fixed nor unchanging. Rather, they can, and often do, change over time. In other words, a relationship is more a process than a thing. We look at why we form relationships, the dynamics of those relationships, and how to manage them. In Chapter 11, the companion to this chapter, we’ll extend our discussion by focusing on specific relational contexts: close relationships with friends, family members, and romantic partners.

Why We Form Relationships

Claudiad/iStockphoto

Why do we form interpersonal relationships with some people and not with others? Sometimes, we have no choice. Children can’t choose their parents, and most workers aren’t able to choose their colleagues. However, even in our workplaces and families we tend to seek out some people and actively avoid others. Social scientists have collected an impressive body of research on interpersonal attraction (Eastwick et al., 2013; Finkle and Baumeister, 2010). Interpersonal attraction is involved in all interpersonal relationships, from romantic to professional to familial and friendly. While the term attraction is used most often to describe being drawn to others physically or sexually, research on interpersonal relationships also uses the term to refer to interest in and the appeal of other people more generally, in platonic relationships—we’ll be using the term in both senses in this chapter. The following are some of the factors that have been identified as influences on our choice of relational partners.

Appearance Think about some of your closest relationships. How have they changed over time? Do you have relationships that haven’t changed?

Most people claim that we should judge others on the basis of how they act, not how they look. However, the reality is quite the opposite, at least in terms of first impressions. Appearance is

8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

e­ specially important in the early stages of a relationship (Lemay et al., 2010). For instance, physical appearance seems to be the primary basis for attraction of speed daters (Luo and Zhang, 2009). These first impressions can influence secondary ones. For example, when photos rated as attractive accompany online profiles, raters appraise what’s written in the profile more positively (Brand et al., 2012). Online profile owners are also rated as more attractive when they have pictures of physically attractive friends on their pages (Jaschinski and Kommers, 2012). The opposite is also true: images of people’s faces are rated as less attractive when they appear near those rated as unattractive or average (Rodway et al., 2013). Our perceptions of beauty, however, are influenced by more than just societal standards of attractiveness. After initial impressions have passed, ordinary-looking people with pleasing personalities are likely to be judged as attractive (Berscheid and Walster, 1978; Lewandowski et al., 2007). Our interactions with others change our perceptions of their physical appearance. Factors such as liking, familiarity, and respect also influence our perceptions of attractiveness (Singh et al., 2009). You’ll recall from Chapter 7 that positive communication increases perceptions of physical attractiveness (Albada et al., 2002). In fact, as romantic relationships develop, partners create “positive illusions,” viewing one another as more physically attractive over time (Barelds ­et al., 2011, p. 707).

243

Similarity plays an important role in initial attraction. People are more likely to accept a Facebook friend request from a stranger who is perceived to be similar to them than from one who is perceived as different (Martin et al., 2013). The word “perceived” is important in the preceding sentence. Research shows that speed daters are more attracted to similarities they believe they have than to actual similarities (Tidwell et al., 2013). This finding illustrates that attraction based on similarities is a subjective process. In fact, research suggests that deciding you like someone often leads to perceptions of similarity rather than the other way around (Sprecher, 2014). In addition, attraction and similarity are related to trust (Singh et al., 2015, 2017). Trustworthiness is fundamental to interpersonal attraction (Cotrell et al., 2007) and it may be that people we perceive as more similar to ourselves are also perceived as more trustworthy and more attractive (Singh et al., 2015). For example, in one study, participants were more attracted to discussion partners who changed their attitudes to better align with the participant’s attitude because they viewed these partners as, among other things, more trustworthy (Reid et al., 2018). The similarity thesis has a great deal of support in cultures such as Canada and the United

According to the similarity thesis, perhaps the strongest determinant of relationship formation is similarity to another person (Montoya and Horton, 2013). For example, one study found that similar values about politics and religion are the best predictors of mate choice—significantly more than attraction to personality traits (Alford et al., 2011).

Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

Similarity

In what ways are your friends like you? What are the advantages and disadvantages of having friends who are similar to you?

244

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

Nina Paley/Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike

States; however, among other cultures, the attraction to people similar to oneself may not be quite as strong. Steven Heine and his colleagues (2009) found that in comparison to Canadians, Japanese people were less attracted to those who had similar personalities, attitudes, and backgrounds. These investigators suggest that it may be the degree to which you’re pleased with yourself and the extent to which your culture promotes a positive view of the self that determines how attracted you are to people similar to yourself. This idea makes sense when we consider the reasons why similarity is a strong foundation for interpersonal attraction in many Western cultures. First, the other person serves as an external indication—a social validation—that you are not alone in your thinking, that you’re not too peculiar. Someone else did like the same controversial book you liked; therefore, this other person could offer support for you by reinforcing your own sense of what is right. Second, when someone is similar to you, you can make fairly accurate predictions—such as, for example, whether the person will want to eat at a Thai restaurant or attend a concert you’re very excited about. This ability to make confident predictions reduces uncertainty and anxiety (Montoya and Horton, 2013), which leads to greater emotional and relational stability (Cheng and Gruhn, 2016). Third, it’s possible that when we learn that other people are similar to us, we assume they will probably like us, so we in turn like them, causing the self-fulfilling prophecy to creep into the picture again.

Complementarity The old saying “opposites attract” seems to contradict the principle of similarity we just described. In truth, though, both are valid. Differences strengthen a relationship when they are complementary—when each partner’s characteristics satisfy the other’s needs. Research suggests that attraction to partners who have complementary temperaments might be rooted in biology (Fisher, 2007). Relationships also work well when partners agree that one person will exercise control in certain areas (e.g., “You’ll be in charge of laundry”) and the other will take the lead in different ones (e.g., “I’ll take the lead on grocery shopping and cooking”). Disagreement over control issues, however, can cause strain. One study showed that “spendthrifts and tightwads” are often attracted to each other, but their differences in financial management lead to significant conflict over the course of a relationship (Rick et al., 2011). Studies that have examined successful and unsuccessful couples over a 20-year period show the interaction between similarities and differences (Klohnen and Luo, 2003). When partners are radically different, the dissimilar qualities that at first appear intriguing later become cause for relational breakups (Amodio and Showers, 2005). Partners in successful marriages were similar enough to satisfy each other physically and mentally, but were different enough to meet each other’s needs and keep the relationship interesting. Successful couples find ways to keep a balance

8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

between their similarities and differences while adjusting to the changes that occur over the years (Shiota and Levenson, 2007). Opposites can attract at work, too. There is evidence that teams made up of people with different personality traits, communication styles, cultures, and backgrounds can be more innovative and productive in certain industries and occupations (Gartzia and van Knippenberg, 2016; Joshi and Roh, 2009; Schaffer et al., 2008). Generally, employees are more attracted to their team members when the team is made up of people with differing personality traits, particularly when the team has a balance of people with differing levels of extroversion. People who are extroverted tend to be more sociable, assertive, dominant, and like excitement. A study of teams employed at manufacturing firms, as well as teams of MBA students, found that people got along better and liked their team members more when their own level of extroversion was different from the average level of their team (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). However, when team members differ in their goals and values, productivity and harmony at work is compromised (Kristof-Brown and Stevens, 2001).

Rewards Some interpersonal relationships are based on an economic model called social exchange theory (Hand and Furman, 2009; Thibaut and Kelley, 1959). This model suggests that we often seek out people who can give us rewards that are greater than or equal to the costs we encounter by dealing with the relationship. Social exchange theorists define rewards as any outcomes we desire. They may be tangible (a nice place to live, a high-paying job) or intangible (prestige, emotional support, companionship). Costs are undesirable outcomes, such as unpleasant work, emotional pain, and so on. A simple formula captures the social exchange explanation for why we form and maintain relationships: Rewards − Costs = Outcome

According to social exchange theorists, we use this formula (often unconsciously) to calculate

whether a relationship is a “good deal” or “not worth the effort,” based on whether the outcome is positive or negative (Frisby et al., 2015). At its most blatant level, an exchange approach seems cold and calculating, but it seems quite appropriate in some types of relationships. A healthy business relationship is based on how well the parties help one another, and some friendships are based on an informal kind of barter: “I don’t mind listening to the ups and downs of your love life because you rescue me when my house needs repairs.” Even close relationships have an element of exchange. Friends and lovers often tolerate each other’s quirks because the comfort and enjoyment they experience makes the less-than-pleasant times worth accepting. However, when one partner feels “under-benefited,” it often leads to problems in the relationship (DeMaris, 2007). Costs and rewards do not exist in isolation. We define them by comparing a certain situation with alternatives. For example, consider a hypothetical woman, Maryam, who is struggling to decide whether to remain in a relationship with Ahmed, her long-time romantic partner. Ahmed does love Maryam, but he has a hair-trigger temper and has become occasionally verbally abusive. Also, Maryam knows that Ahmed was unfaithful to her at least once. In deciding whether or not to stay with Ahmed, Maryam will use two standards. The first is her comparison level (CL)—her minimum standard of acceptable behaviour. If Maryam believes that relational partners have an obligation to be faithful and treat one another respectfully at all times, then Ahmed’s behaviour will fall below her comparison level. This will be especially true if Maryam has had positive romantic relationships in the past (Merolla et al., 2004). On the other hand, if Maryam adopts a “nobody’s perfect” standard, she is more likely to view Ahmed’s behaviour as meeting or exceeding her comparison level. Maryam will also rate Ahmed according to her comparison level of alternatives (CLalt). This standard refers to a comparison between the rewards she is receiving in her present situation and those she could expect to receive in others (Overall and Sibley, 2008). If, for example, Maryam doesn’t want to be alone, her CLalt would be lower than her

245

246

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

present s­ ituation; if she is confident that she could find a kinder partner, her CLalt would be higher than her present situation. Research suggests that when a sense of connection is lacking in a romantic relationship, the draw of intimacy from romantic alternatives becomes particularly strong (Spielmann set al., 2012). Social exchange theorists suggest that communicators unconsciously use this calculation to decide whether to form and stay in relationships. At first, this information seems to offer little comfort to communicators who are in unsatisfying relationships, such as those when the partner’s behaviour is below the CL and there are no preferable alternatives (CLalt). But there are alternatives to being stuck in situations where the costs outweigh the rewards. First, you might make sure that you are judging your present relationship against a realistic comparison level. Expecting a situation to be perfect can be a recipe for unhappiness and relational dissatisfaction (Mikkelson et al., 2016). (Recall the discussion of the “fallacy of should” in Chapter 4.) If you decide that your present situation truly falls below your CL , you might look for alternatives you have not considered. Finally, the skills introduced throughout this book may help you negotiate a better relationship with the other person, assuming the relationship isn’t abusive. Our discussion of social exchange theory has focused on typical relationship rewards and costs that people may experience in a variety of relationships. The consequences of the costs related to these issues are not particularly severe or life threatening. However, social exchange theory can also be applied to more serious relationship challenges. Many abusive relationships do not end despite the pain and suffering endured and the high costs involved. Abusive partners often create conditions (e.g., financial or psychological dependency, fear for one’s physical safety or the safety of children) that undermine the calculation process we outlined above, in that the costs of leaving are (or seem to be) greater than those involved in staying in the relationship. Abused partners may also believe a bad relationship is better than no relationship at all (Kreager at al., 2013). Research has shown that people in abusive dating relationships u ­ nderestimate how unhappy they really are and overestimate how unhappy they

would be if the relationship were to end (Arriaga et al., 2013). Professional help is vital for pulling free from an abusive relationship. Experts recommend the following: • Don’t keep abuse a secret. At the very least, tell a trusted friend or family member what’s happening to you and then ask that person to help you get help. • Watch for patterns. Abuse often happens in cycles. If you’re in the upside of a cycle and all is calm, abusive partners are frequently apologetic and insist that the abuse will not happen again. During this phase of the cycle, it can be easy to overlook a previous violation. But if the abuse returns, it probably won’t be the last time. • Resist self-blame. Abused people often believe they’re at fault for what happened to them, but it’s important to remember that no one deserves to be abused. In addition to resources in your community and at your college or university, the Government of Canada has suggestions regarding information and services to help. (https://www.canada.ca/en/ public-health/topics/get-help-if-you-are-beingabused.html)

Competence We like to be around talented people, likely because we hope their skills and abilities will rub off on us. On the other hand, we’re uncomfortable around

TAKE TWO • Social exchange theory: the practice of seeking out people who can give us rewards that are greater than the costs of dealing with them. • Comparison level (CL): a minimum standard of acceptable behaviour. • Comparison level of alternatives (CLalt): a comparison between rewards in the present situation and those one could expect to receive from others.

8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

those who are too competent—probably because we believe we look bad by comparison. And we’re attracted most to competence in others when it’s accompanied by a warm (i.e., high friendliness) rather than a cool (i.e., low friendliness) personality (Fiske et al., 2007). Elliot Aronson and his associates (2008) demonstrated how competence and imperfection combine to affect attraction by having subjects evaluate recordings of candidates for a quiz program. One was a “perfect” candidate who answered almost all the questions correctly and modestly admitted that he was an honours student, athlete, and college yearbook editor. The “average” candidate answered fewer questions correctly, had average grades, was a less successful athlete, and was a low-level member of the yearbook staff. In half the tapes, the candidates committed a blunder near the end, spilling coffee all over themselves. The remaining half of the tapes contained no such blunder. These, then, were the four experimental conditions: (1) a person with superior ability who blundered; (2) a per­ son with superior ability who did not blunder; (3) an average person who blundered; and (4) an average person who did not blunder. The students who rated the attractiveness of these four types of people revealed an interesting and important principle of interpersonal attraction. The most attractive person was the superior candidate who blundered. Aronson’s conclusion was that we tend to like people who are somewhat flawed because they remind us of ourselves.

247

classrooms (Back et al., 2008)—than distant ones. Chances are good that we will choose a mate with whom we often cross paths. Proximity even has a role in social media, where messaging or chatting can create virtual proximity (Baker, 2008). As one researcher notes, when it comes to social networking sites, cultural proximity outweighs geographic proximity (Rohn, 2014). Facts like these are understandable when we consider that proximity allows us to get more information about other people and benefit from a relationship with them. Also, people in close proximity to us may be more similar to us than those who aren’t—for example, if we live in the same neighbourhood, odds are we have the same socio-economic status.

Disclosure In Chapter 2, we described how telling others important information about yourself can help build liking both in person (Dindia, 2002; Sprecher et al., 2013) and through mediated communication (Ledbetter et al., 2011). Sometimes, the basis of this attraction comes from learning about ways we’re similar, either in our experiences (“I broke off an engagement as well”) or in our attitudes (“I feel nervous with strangers, too”). Disclosure also increases

As common sense suggests, we’re likely to develop relationships with people with whom we interact frequently (Segrin & Flora, 2005). In many cases, proximity leads to liking. For instance, we’re more likely to develop friendships with close neighbours—whether near where we live or in adjacent seats in our

shironosov/iStockphoto

Proximity

Who are the five people you come in contact with most in your life? Do you have strong positive or negative feelings about them?

248

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

liking because it’s a sign of esteem. Sharing private information is a form of respect and trust, which we’ve already seen increases attractiveness. Not all disclosure, however, leads to liking. Research shows that the key to satisfying self-­ disclosure is reciprocity—that is, getting back an amount and kind of information equivalent to what you reveal (Dindia, 2000a). A second important aspect of successful self-disclosure is timing. It’s probably unwise, for example, to talk about your sexual insecurities with a new acquaintance or to express your pet peeves to a friend at your birthday party. This is particularly true on social media: disclosures made privately are perceived as more appropriate and intimate than those made publicly. The lack of non-verbal cues and relative anonymity of social media allow people to disclose information that is more personal more easily but revealing those personal details doesn’t always increase likeability or build trust. Disclosures that are made publicly via social media tend to reduce liking for the discloser (Bazarova, 2012). Figuring out what’s appropriate to disclose when, where, and to whom can be difficult, but, for the sake of self-protection, it’s important to reveal personal information only when you’re sure the other person is trustworthy (Shirley et al., 2007).

CHECK IT! Why do we decide to form relationships? Describe the factors that influence our choice of relational partners.

Intimacy and Distance ­ in Relationships What does it mean to be intimate? Does intimacy mean spending time together? Sharing feelings? Having sex? Going through thick and thin? Similarly, how does distance affect relationships? Is a desire to spend time apart indicative of a problem? How and why do we create physical and emotional space between ourselves and others?

Relationship intimacy is often described as a motivation to share one’s private self with another person (Aron et al., 2004). This closeness and commitment can occur in a variety of relationships, including romantic partners, friendships, and relationships with family members and co-workers. As such, intimacy can come in many forms (Lippert and Prager, 2001). However, while intimacy in relationships is important, there are times we want to create some space and distance ourselves from our romantic partners, friends, family, and co-workers. In the next sections of this chapter we’ll examine the many ways we both establish intimacy and create distance, and how culture influences our understanding of both.

Forms of Intimacy As we’ve discussed, intimacy comes in many forms (Lippert and Prager, 2001). One form is emotional intimacy: sharing important information and feelings. Sharing distressing emotions with others can help reduce stress and provide support and comfort (Taylor, 2007). Sharing positive emotions also supports relationship development, because when others respond enthusiastically to our happy news it helps to build trust (Reis et al., 2010). In addition, as we described in Chapter 4, sharing positive emotions helps prolong those good feelings, which makes us happier. Another form of intimacy is physical. Even before birth, developing fetuses experience a kind of physical closeness with their mothers that will never happen again, “floating in a warm fluid, curling inside a total embrace, swaying to the undulations of the moving body and hearing the beat of the pulsing heart” (Morris, 1973, p. 7). As they grow up, fortunate children are continually nourished by physical intimacy when they are rocked, fed, hugged, and held. As we grow older, the opportunities for physical intimacy are less regular but still possible and important. Some physical intimacy is sexual, but physical intimacy can also include affectionate hugs, kisses, and closeness. Even physical struggle can foster intimacy—companions who have endured physical challenges together, for example in sports or during emergencies, can form bonds that last a lifetime.

8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

Brave-carp/iStockphoto

A third form of intimacy is intellectual exchanges—though not every exchange of ideas counts as intimacy, of course. Talking about next week’s midterm with your professor or classmates isn’t likely to forge strong relational bonds. But when you engage another person in an exchange of important ideas, a kind of closeness develops that can be powerful and exciting. Shared activities can provide a fourth form of emotional closeness (Baxter, 1992; Girme et al., 2014). Not all shared activCompanions who have endured physical challenges together form a bond ities lead to intimacy. You might that can last a lifetime. Do you have friends with whom you’ve played sports, work with a colleague for years climbed mountains, or survived other physical adversity together? How has without feeling any sort of emo- that affected your relationship? tional connection. But some shared experiences—struggling together against obstacles or living together you may share all of your thoughts or feelings with as housemates, for example—can create strong a friend, family member, or lover; at other times, bonds. Play is one valuable form of shared activ- you may withdraw. You may freely share your feelity that can increase feelings of trust and intimacy ings about one topic and stay more distant regard(Baxter, 1992). Various forms of play often char- ing another one. The same principle holds for acterize friendships, family, and romantic rela- physical intimacy, which waxes and wanes in most tionships. These types of play include partners relationships. inventing private codes, fooling around by acting like other people, teasing one another, joking, laughing, texting each other, chatting playfully, Forms of Distance and playing games and sports (Baxter, 1992; Hsieh Intimacy in a relationship is important, but so is distance. Sometimes, we create physical and emoand Tseng, 2017; Proyer, 2017). The amount and type of intimacy can vary from tional space between ourselves and others whose one relationship to another. Some intimate rela- behaviour we find bothersome, such as intrusive tionships feature emotional disclosure, physical relatives or annoying co-workers. Other times, intimacy, intellectual exchanges, and shared activ- we feel the need to distance ourselves, at least ities, while others may only feature one or two of temporarily, from people we genuinely care for these forms of intimacy. Of course, some relation- (Hess, 2000). Just as there are a variety of ways to be intimships aren’t close ones in any way. Acquaintances, roommates, and co-workers may never become ate, there are different ways to gain distance in a intimate. In some cases, even family members relationship. The most common strategy for credevelop smooth, but relatively impersonal, rela- ating distance, at least among students, is avoidance (Hess, 2000). We can avoid unwanted contact tionships. Not even the closest relationships always oper- physically or by other means. In the same way as ate at the highest level of intimacy. At some times, you can avoid physically making eye contact with

249

250

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

TAKE TWO FORMS OF DISTANCE • Avoidance: evading contact with others. • Being reserved: holding back expression of thoughts and feelings. • Shortening interactions: not asking questions or providing non-verbal cues to encourage conversation. • Restricting topics: limiting what is discussed. • Restraint: not joking or encouraging contact. • Deception: lying.

someone you wish to distance yourself from, you can screen your incoming messages and selectively ignore or delay responding to unwanted messages. Other common avoidance tactics include: being reserved, i.e., communicating very little with the other person; shortening interaction, perhaps by not asking questions or engaging in non-verbal behaviour that encourages the other person to talk; restricting topics, especially those that might be personal or intimate; and using restraint, for instance, avoiding joking or other attention-getting behaviours that often encourage unwanted contact. Deception is a sixth form of distance. In Chapter 2, we discussed lying as an alternative to self­disclosure, and we’ll have more to say about managing the tension between intimacy (integration)

TAKE TWO FORMS OF INTIMACY • Emotional: the exchange of important information and feelings. • Physical: physical closeness, both sexual and non-sexual. • Intellectual: the exchange of important and profound ideas. • Shared activities: mutual experiences such as struggling together or playing.

and ­distance (separation) when we examine the dialectic tensions inherent in our relationships a little later in this chapter. Most people would not want the obligation to form close, intimate relationships with everyone they meet—from the people who share their morning commute to the friends-of-friends they meet at social engagements—but they wouldn’t want to be entirely without intimate relationships either. The key then is balance. Some people fear intimacy in relationships and this can cause major problems in establishing and maintaining satisfying and meaningful relationships (Montesi et al., 2013). Normally, our desire for intimacy waxes and wanes in our relationships. As we’ll discuss later in this chapter, individuals need both closeness and distance even in their most intimate relationships. Lovers and married couples often go through periods of much sharing, alternating with times of relative withdrawal. Likewise, they experience periods of passion and then times of little physical contact (Ben-Ari, 2012; Van Lear, 1991). Friends, too, have times of high disclosure, when they share almost every feeling and idea, and then disengage for days, months, or even longer. Given the equally important needs for intimacy and distance, the challenge is to communicate in a manner that provides the best possible mix of intimate and non-­ intimate relationships (Petronio, 1991).

The Influence of Culture and Gender on Intimacy What is the ideal amount of intimacy? The answer varies according to who is giving it. You know from personal experience that different people seek different levels of intimacy, but what factors lead to these differences? Two powerful influences are gender and culture. Until recently, many social scientists believed that women were better than men at developing and maintaining intimate relationships. This view grew from the assumption that the disclosure of personal information is the most important ingredient of intimacy. Most research does show that women (taken as a group, of course) are somewhat more willing than men to share their

8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

most personal thoughts and feelings, although the differences aren’t as dramatic as most people believe and appears to be changing (Dindia, 2000b, 2002; Floyd, 2002; Good et.al., 2002). In addition, as we discussed in Chapter 4, there is evidence that men and women also differ in terms of their emotional expression (Palomares, 2008), their ability to quickly and accurately interpret the non-verbal emotional expressions of others (Hampson et al., 2006; Kirkland et al., 2013), and their ability to remember emotional information (Spalek et al., 2015). However, we also know that intimacy comes in several forms. Past research has suggested that while women are more likely to establish intimacy through sharing personal information, men are more likely to find that shared experiences bring them closer to others (Swain, 1989). As with all research that examines gender and communication, it’s important to realize that no generalization applies to every person and that these associations between gender and intimacy don’t imply that one group is better at developing and maintaining intimate relationships than another. Notions of public and private behaviour have changed dramatically over time (Adamopoulos, 1991; Gadlin, 1977). What would be considered intimate behaviour today was quite public at times in the past. For example, in parts of early modern Europe newlyweds were often expected to take part in a bedding ceremony, where family and other witnesses would usher them into their bed to ceremonially validate consummation of the marriage! Conversely, in Europe as well as in colonial North America, the customary level of communication between spouses was once quite formal— not much different from the way acquaintances or neighbours spoke to one another. Today, the notion of intimacy varies from one culture to another and those differences appear related to both differing cultural values (e.g., individualism versus collectivism) and gender role ideology. Studies have found lower levels of intimacy between romantic couples in collectivist cultures such as China than individualistic cultures such as Canada and the US (Goa, 2001; Marshall, 2008; Ting-Toomey, 1991). Some scholars suggest

this is because intimacy needs are often satisfied through interdependent family relationships in collectivist cultures whereas in individualistic cultures, needs for intimacy are satisfied primarily through romantic relationships (Dion and Dion, 1993; Ting-Toomey, 1991). Research has also found that gender role traditionalism is associated with lower rates of self-disclosure and lower levels of intimacy in romantic relationships (Marshall, 2008; Neff and Suizzo, 2006). Canadians often have multiple cultures that influence their behaviour in relationships. Tara Marshall (2010) was interested in how these multiple cultures influenced intimacy and commitment in the romantic relationships of Chinese-Canadians. She found that when ChineseCanadian men identified more with mainstream Canadian culture, they reported greater intimacy in their relationships and so did their romantic partners. When Chinese-Canadian women identified more strongly with their Chinese heritage, they reported greater commitment to their partners. Marshall argues that both culture and gender roles interact to explain these findings. She suggests that the more traditional gender roles that are highly valued in Chinese culture may account for women’s greater commitment to relationships, and the more egalitarian norms for men’s behaviour in mainstream Canadian culture may allow for greater self-disclosure thereby promoting greater intimacy. In addition to differences in notions of intimacy, the amount of intimacy that people desire also varies from one culture to another. In a comparison of members of collectivistic and individualistic cultures (Turkish and mainstream Canadian), researchers from Toronto’s York University studied the participants’ ratings of ideal closeness in a variety of relationships (e.g., with friends, family, and acquaintances) (Uskul et al., 2004). Both the Turkish and the Canadian participants ideally wanted to be closest to their romantic partner; however, the Turkish participants wanted to have greater intimacy than the Canadians in all types of relationships. The Turks also said they feel closer to friends, family, and acquaintances than the Canadians did.

251

252

101dalmations/iStockPhoto

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

Do you think you are easy to meet but difficult to know, or difficult to meet but easy to know? Or some other combination?

When communicating with people from different cultures, it’s important to consider their norms for appropriate intimacy. Be sure not to mistakenly judge them according to your own standards. Likewise, be sensitive about honouring their standards when talking about yourself. In this sense, choosing the proper level of intimacy isn’t too different from choos­ing the appropriate way of dressing or eating when encountering members of a different culture: what seems familiar and correct at home may not be suitable with strangers.

FOCUS ON RESEARCH CULTURE AND RELATIONAL MOBILITY People differ in their beliefs about relationships and what it takes to make them successful. Researchers have identified two factors that influence our ideas about relationships and both of them appear to be influenced by culture. The first factor is the degree to which we feel we have opportunities to select relationship partners based on our personal preferences, which has been labelled relational mobility (Yuki and Schug, 2012; Yuki et al., 2007). Generally, Canadian and US cultures are characterized as having high levels of relational mobility. In these cultures, there is freedom to seek new relationships and terminate existing relationships based on what an individual deems desirable. Individuals choose their friends, romantic partners, and even the extent to which they interact with their families. In contrast, in cultures with lower levels of relational mobility, such as China, there are comparatively few opportunities to meet new partners because relationships tend to be more stable, exclusive, long-lasting, and often determined by

c­ ircumstance (such as birth and geographical location) (Kito et al., 2017). Choices regarding friends, romantic partners, and the extent to which individuals interact with extended families are highly influenced by collective group membership. The second factor that influences our conceptualizations of successful relationships and how to achieve them is the extent to which we believe relationships are “meant to be” (referred to as destiny beliefs) or that they require constant effort (referred to as growth beliefs). In cultures with high levels of relational mobility, people are likelier to have growth beliefs and endorse strategies, such as those described in this chapter, about how to establish, maintain, and repair relationships. In contrast, in cultures with low relational mobility, people are more likely to ascribe to destiny beliefs (relationships are destined to succeed or fail) and are less likely to actively seek out new relationships and invest in relational development strategies, but they are more likely to maintain harmony in their relationships and

8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

avoid violating the often unstated but mutually understood relationship rules (Lou and Li, 2018). It’s important to keep these concepts in mind when reviewing the information presented in this chapter in order to better understand individual differences in people’s beliefs about relationships as well as the extent to which many of the strategies we’ll

Models of Relational Dynamics Even the most stable relationships vary from day to day and over longer periods of time. Communication scholars have tried to describe and explain how communication creates and reflects the changing dynamics of relational interaction. In the following sections, we’ll look at two very different characterizations of relational development and interaction.

Stages of Relational Development

discuss are appropriate and effective across various cultures. Critical Thinking: Do you think age, geographical location, and group membership (in addition to cultural background) might influence relational mobility and density beliefs? Why or why not?

later in this chapter. Figure 8.1 shows how Knapp’s 10 stages fit into this three-part view of relational communication that spans the development and demise of a relationship.

Initiating The goals in the initiating stage are to show that you’re interested in making contact and to demonstrate that you are a person worth talking to (Sprecher et al., 2008). Communication during this stage is usually brief, and it generally follows conventional formulas, such as handshakes, comments about innocuous subjects such as the weather, and friendly expressions. Such behaviour may seem superficial and meaningless, but it’s a

Stage theories describe how communication ­changes over the entire life of a relationship. One of the best-known models of relational stages was developed by Mark Knapp (Knapp et al., 2014; also see Dunleavy and Boothbutterfield, 2009; Mongeau and Henningson, 2008), who broke the waxing and waning of relationships into a threeRelational Maintenance part view of relational communication. Knapp’s model Bonding features 10 stages of relaDifferentiating Integrating tional development. Other Coming Coming Together Circumscribing Apart researchers have suggested Intensifying Stagnating that in addition to explaining Experimenting Avoiding how people come together and come apart, any model Initiating Terminating of relational communication ought to contain a third area, relational maintenance— communication aimed at keeping relationships operating smoothly and satisfactor- FIGURE 8.1  Stages of Relational Development From Knapp, Mark L., Vangelisti, Anita L., and Caughlin, J.P. (2014). Interpersonal communication and human ily. We’ll discuss relational Source: relationships. (7 ed.) Boston: Pearson. Printed and electronically reproduced by permission of Pearson Education, maintenance in more detail Inc., New York, New York. th

253

254

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

DenisProduction.com/Shutterstock

way of signalling that you are interested in building some kind of relationship with the other person. It allows us to indicate, “I’m a friendly person, and I’d like to get to know you.” Beginning a relationship—especially a romantic one—can be particularly difficult for people who are shy. Mediated communication can make it easier for people to strike up a relationship (Baker and Oswald, 2010). Not only is online initiating easier for some, but it can result in successful relationships. In one survey, more than a third of married respondents said their relationship began online (Cacioppo et al., 2013). Among college and university students, relationship development typically begins with communication through social networking sites, and progresses to text messaging and later face-to-face and phone conversations (Yang et. al., 2014). Keep in mind that initiating is the opening stage of all relationships, not just romantic ones. Friendships start here (Johnson et al., 2004) and so do employment relationships. In fact, some have compared job interviews to first dates because they have similar properties (Half, 2016). As you read about the stages that follow, consider how the communication involved could apply to landing a job, connecting with a roommate, or joining an organization—as well as forming a romantic relationship.

Experimenting

After meeting someone new, we generally begin the search for common ground, which is known as the experimenting stage. This search usually begins with the basics: “Where are you from? What program are you in?” From there, we look for other similarities: “You’re a runner, too? How many kilometres do you run a week?” The hallmark of the experimenting stage is small talk. We tolerate the ordeal of small talk because it serves several functions. First, it’s a useful way to find out what interests we share with the other person. It’s also a way to “audition” the other person—to help us decide whether a relationship is worth pursuing. In addition, small talk is a safe way to ease into a relationship. You haven’t risked much as you decide whether to proceed further. Scholars have noted, and your experience probably confirms, the importance of social media during the experimenting stage. By perusing someone’s online profiles you can gather much of the information you might gather on the first couple of dates. You can learn about their hobbies, their favourite music, books, and movies, their political preferences, who they hang out with, and what they like to do in their free time (Shonbeck, 2011). In romantic relationships, it’s at this stage that people often make a social media request or offer an invitation. Once access has been given, communicators can look over each other’s profiles, learning important information about the other person at a glance. Information about activities— often gleaned from photos and mutual friends—are important factors in deciding whether to continue to develop the relationship (Fox et al., 2013). And of course, gathering this information through social media is less face-threatening than in-person experiment­ing,  as it  involves Beginning a relationship requires a fair measure of skill. Think about your cur- no stammering, blushing, or rent or last romantic relationship. How did it begin? Was it difficult to start? awkward pauses. In addition,

8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

experimenting online may benefit people who are committed to religious or social practices that require a more conservative approach to courtship. For instance, in a study of Muslim women residing in the United States, researchers found that online dating platforms allowed women greater access to social networks, more freedom to initiate contact with potential partners, and greater control over the courtship process than they might have in the traditional face-to-face courtship process (Rochadiat et al., 2018). Of course, not all relational experiments are successful. You can probably think of times when you knew within an hour of meeting up with a new potential friend that things were going nowhere. The same can happen when online daters take the plunge and meet in person. The relationship that seemed promising in mediated communication may become less so when interacting face-toface. Communication researchers call this shift in communication channels “modality switching,” and have found it comes with a variety of chal­ lenges (Ramirez et al., 2015). In general, the longer couples hold off meeting in person, the more awkward it will be when they transition to face-to-face communication.

Intensifying When a relationship enters the intensifying stage, communicators increase their amount of contact and the breadth and depth of their disclosures. In friendship, intensifying often includes spending time together, participating in shared activities such as shopping, eating together, hanging out, playing games, studying, watching movies, and sharing their lives with each other (Lee, 2008). In romantic relationships, people use a wide range of strategies to communicate that a relationship is intensifying (Levine et al., 2006). About a quarter of the time, they express their feelings directly to discuss the state of the relationship, such as saying “I love you” (Brantley et al., 2002). More often, they use less-direct methods of communication— spending an increasing amount of time together, asking for support from one another, doing favours for their partner, giving tokens of affection, h ­ inting

and flirting, expressing feelings non-verbally, getting to know their partner’s friends and family, and trying to look more physically attractive. The intensifying stage is usually a time of relational excitement and even euphoria. For friends, it’s a time of increased eagerness, positivity, and patience (Lee, 2008). For romantic partners, it’s often filled with star-struck gazes, goosebumps, and daydreaming. As a result, it’s a stage that is regularly depicted in movies and romance novels— after all, we love to watch lovers in love (Johnson and Holmes, 2009). The problem, of course, is that this stage doesn’t last forever. Sometimes, romantic partners who stop feeling goosebumps begin to question whether they’re still in love, and friends begin to discover one another’s flaws. Although it’s possible the relationship is not as good as it initially seemed during the intensifying stage, it’s equally likely that it has simply moved on to the next of Knapp’s stages—integrating.

Integrating As a relationship strengthens, the individuals enter the integrating stage. They begin to take on an identity as a social unit. Invitations begin to come addressed to a couple, social circles merge, partners share each other’s commitments: “Sure, we’ll spend Thanksgiving with your family.” Common property may begin to be designated—our apartment, our car, our song (Baxter, 1987)—and partners may develop their own personal idioms (Dunleavy and Booth-Butterfield, 2009) and forms of play (Baxter, 1992). As these examples illustrate, the stage of integrating is a time when we give up some characteristics of our former selves and become different people. As integration increases and we become more intimate, uncertainty about our relationship decreases: we become clearer about relationship norms and what behaviours are appropriate and inappropriate. Reducing uncertainty about our partner and the relationship enhances attraction and feelings of closeness (Knobloch and Solomon, 2002). Integrating may include public declarations of a relationship; going “Facebook Official” (FBO), for example, involves the public note that two people are “in a relationship” (Lane et al., 2016). Of course,

255

256

vgajic/iStockphoto

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

As integration increases and we become more intimate, uncertainty about our relationship decreases. We become clearer about relationship norms and what behaviour is appropriate and inappropriate. How is getting to this stage of a relationship difficult?

problems arise when one partner wants to be FBO and the other doesn’t (Papp et al., 2012). Moreover, the meaning of FBO can be different for each partner. One study found that in heterosexual relationships women tend to perceive FBO declarations as involving more intensity and commitment than men do (Fox and Warber, 2013). As a result, such women may connect FBO status with the rights and restrictions normally associated with the next relational development stage, bonding.

Bonding During the bonding stage, the partners make symbolic public gestures to show the world that their

relationship exists and that a commitment has been made (Foster, 2008). These gestures can take the form of a contract between business partners, getting engaged, sharing a residence, a public ceremony, or a written or verbal pledge. The key is that bonding is the culmination of a developed relationship. Bonding usually generates social recognition for the relationship. This may be particularly true for LGBTQ+ people. For instance, in one study, gay and lesbian Canadians who were legally married reported feeling better understood by their friends and family. One participant summarized it nicely: “The language of marriage helped us feel more a part of this world. Everyone knows what it means. It helps others start to realize that a relationship is a relationship and we are dealing with the same issues that everyone else deals with” (MacIntosh, Reissing, and Andruff, 2010, p. 84). In addition to social support, customs and laws impose certain rights and responsibilities on partners who have officially bonded. Bonding usually marks an important turning point in a relationship. Up to now, the relationship may have developed at a steady pace. Experimenting gradually moved into intensifying and then into integrating. Now, however, there is a surge of commitment. The public display and declaration of exclusivity make this a critical period in the relationship.

Differentiating Now that partners have formed this commonality, they need to re-establish individual identities in a stage Knapp calls differentiating. “How are we different?” “How am I unique?” Instead of talking about “our” plans for the weekend, differentiating conversations focus on what “I” want to do. Whereas happy employees might refer to “our company,” the description might change to “this company” when a raise or some other request isn’t forthcoming. Differentiation can also be positive—people need to be individuals as well as part of a relationship. Think, for instance, of young adults who want to forge their own unique lives and identities, even while maintaining relationships with their families

8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

of origin (Skowron et al., 2009). The same can be true for couples with diverse cultural backgrounds who want to stay connected to their individual cultural values as well as to each other (Kim et al., 2012). As Figure 8.1 shows, differentiating is often a part of normal relationship maintenance in which partners manage the inevitable challenges that come their way. The key to successful differentiation is to maintain commitment to a relationship while creating the space for being individuals as well.

Circumscribing In the circumscribing stage, partners reduce the scope of their contact with each other. The word “circumscribe” comes from the Latin meaning “to draw circles around.” In this stage, distinctions that emerged in the differentiating stage become more clearly marked and labelled: “my friends” and “your friends,” “my bank account” and “your bank account,” and “my room” and “your room.” Such distinctions can be markers of a healthy balance between individual and relational identity. The problem, however, is when there are clearly more areas of separation than integration in a relationship, or when the areas of separation seriously limit interaction, such as taking a personal vacation expressly to put space between you and your partner. In this example, circumscribing entails a  shrinking of partners’ shared interests and ­commitments.

257

Avoiding When stagnation becomes too unpleasant, people in a relationship begin to create distance between each other through avoidance. This is the avoiding stage. Sometimes, they do it under the guise of excuses (“I’ve been sick lately and can’t see you”); other times, they’re direct (“Please don’t call me; I don’t want to see you now”). In either case, by this point the writing is on the wall about the future of the relationship. Some relationships stall at this stage. Friends, lovers, or family members simply drift apart and rarely if ever interact again. While sometimes there is a natural parting of the ways, other times they leave important things unsaid. A need for some

If circumscribing continues, the relationship begins to stagnate. Partners behave toward each other in old, familiar ways without much feeling. No growth occurs and relational boredom sets in (Harasymchuk and Fehr, 2013). The stagnating stage sees the relationship become a hollow shell of its former self. We see stagnation in many workers who have lost enthusiasm for their jobs yet continue to go through the motions for years. The same sad event occurs for some couples who unenthusiastically have the same conversations, see the same people, and follow the same routines without any sense of joy or novelty.

© Thinkstock/Pixland

Stagnating

There are a lot of reasons why relationships don’t last and some breakups are more positive than others. What is the “best” breakup you or one of your friends ever had? What was the worst?

258

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

relationship closure (Dailey et al., 2013), however, often leads to the final sage: terminating.

Terminating Partnerships, friendships, and marriages can last for a lifetime once they’re established, but some do end. The terminating stage of a relationship has its own distinguishable pattern (Conlan, 2008). Characteristics of this stage often include summary dialogues of where the relationship has gone and the desire to dissociate. The relationship may end with a cordial dinner, a note left on the kitchen table, a phone call, a text message, a social network post, or a legal document stating the dissolution, or a combination of several methods. In the workplace, it often involves a meeting between an employee and the person they report to. Depending on each person’s feelings, the terminating stage can be quite short and amicable or it may be bitterly drawn out over time. In either case, termination of a relationship doesn’t have to be completely negative. Understanding each other’s investments in the relationship and needs for personal growth may dilute the hard feelings. The strategies partners use to disengage vary in their levels of directness and the amount of caring and concern that is communicated. This in turn affects the interpersonal outcome associated with the end of the relationship. In romantic relationships, taking a direct approach (e.g., talking about the relationship ending openly, face to face) is associated with less negativity and hard feelings compared to taking an indirect approach (e.g., avoidance, withdrawal and using mediated communication) (Collins and Gillath, 2012). In employment relationships too, the way employees communicate with their managers about leaving an employment relationship affects both their interpersonal relationships and future employment possibilities. In one study of 40 employees who had left a variety of employment positions (e.g., professional, clerical, managerial, sales, etc.), researchers found that when employees left for external reasons (e.g., go back to school), they were more likely to use direct communication strategies and their managers were more likely to respond positively (Kulik et al., 2015). Perhaps

not surprisingly, when employees left for internal reasons (e.g., problems within the employment relationship) they were more likely to use indirect communication strategies and their managers’ responses were less positive. Ilana Gershon (2010) interviewed college students about their romantic relationship breakups and found that the “channel” or medium (face to face, phone, text, or social network) by which the breakup information was communicated mattered a great deal. When students described their breakup stories to her, they always included descriptions of how they or their romantic exes chose to communicate during the breakup—although many of the participants were nostalgic for the days when there were far fewer choices about how to communicate the end of a relationship, they found pros and cons for each choice. Once a relationship is over, it may be wise to take a break from social media connections with that person (LeFebvre et al., 2015). Checking up on a former partner or friend may reduce some uncertainty (Tong, 2013), but it’s associated with greater distress over the breakup, more negative feelings, and decreased personal growth (Lukacs and Quan-Hasse, 2015). Additionally, communicating with former partners can have negative consequences on one’s current relationship (Rodriquez et al., 2016). Terminating relationships is, for many people, a learning experience. In one study, college students who had recently had a relationship breakup were asked to describe the positive lessons they had gained that might help them in future relationships (Tashiro and Frazier, 2003). Their responses fell into four categories. First were “person positives,” such as gaining self-confidence and recognizing that it’s alright to cry. Second, they identified “other positives,” such as learning more about what is desired in a partner. Third, “relational positives,” such as how to communicate better and how not to jump into a relationship too quickly were described. Finally, they identified “environment positives,” such as learning to rely more on friends and how to better balance relationships and schoolwork. Scholars note that although gaining closure might be an ideal in relational termination, finding

8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

meaning might be a more attainable and healthy goal (Frost et al., 2016).

TAKE TWO

Dialectical Tensions in ­Relationships

STAGES OF RELATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Stage-related views, like the one described in the preceding pages, characterize communication as differing in important ways at various points in the life of a relationship. According to the stage approach, the kind of communication that happens during initiating, experimenting, or intensifying is different from the kind of communication that occurs during differentiating, circumscribing, or avoiding. However, not all theorists agree that relational stages are the best way to explain relational dynamics. Our own experiences, for example, often tell us that communicators grapple with many of the same challenges and use the same strategies throughout a relationship’s lifespan. Some theorists maintain that it’s possible for a relationship to have attributes of both “coming together” and “coming apart” at the same time. Maintaining relationships, then, is about managing these competing goals. Scholars call these struggles dialectical tensions: conflicts that arise when two opposing or incompatible desires exist simultaneously in a relationship. Communication scholars such as Leslie Baxter (Baxter and Braithwaite, 2006; Baxter and Montgomery, 1996), and William Rawlins (1992) have identified several dialectical forces that make successful communication challenging. They suggest that the struggle to manage these tensions creates the most powerful dynamics in relational communication. In the following pages, we’ll discuss three influential dialectical tensions, which are summarized in Table 8.1. As the table shows, we experience dialectical challenges both internally, vis-à-vis our partners, and externally, as we and our relational partners encounter other people whose desires clash with our own.

Coming Together • Initiating: making contact; demonstrating that you are worth talking to. • Experimenting: searching for common ground; engaging in small talk. • Intensifying: beginning to develop a personal relationship; spending more time together and experiencing excitement.

Integration versus Separation Recognizing that no one is an island, we seek out involvement with others. But, at the same time,

Relational Maintenance • Integrating: taking on an identity as a social unit; shared commitments, property and obligations grow. • Bonding: making a symbolic gesture to announce the relationship publicly (e.g., marriage, business partnership). • Differentiating: re-establishing individual identities; can be stressful, positive, or both. • Circumscribing: decreasing the quantity and quality of communication; avoiding conversations about problems in the relationship. Coming Apart • Stagnating: going through hollow routines; no growth in the relationship; little joy or novelty. • Avoiding: creating distance; expressing detachment, avoiding involvement, showing antagonism, dissociating mentally. • Terminating: ending the relationship; can be negative, positive, or both.

we’re unwilling to sacrifice our entire identities for even the most satisfying relationships. The conflicting desires for connection and independence are embodied in the integration–separation dialectic. We want to be close and connected to others, but we also seek autonomy and independence. This set of apparently contradictory needs creates communication challenges that can show up both within a relationship and between the partners and the rest of the world. Sociolinguist Deborah Tannen (1986, p. 17) captures the insoluble integration–separation

259

260

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

TABLE 8.1  Dialectical Tensions Dialectic of Integration–Separation

Dialectic of Stability–Change

Dialectic of ­ Expression–Privacy

Our seemingly incompatible goals

connection–autonomy

predictability–novelty

openness–closedness

External manifestations

inclusion–seclusion

conventionality– uniqueness

revelation–concealment

SOURCE: Adapted from Baxter, L.A. (1994). A dialogic approach to relationship maintenance. In D.J. Canary and L. Stafford (Eds.). Communication and relational maintenance. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, p. 240.

­ ialectic nicely by evoking the image of two porcud pines trying to get through a cold winter: They huddle together for warmth, but their sharp quills prick each other, so they pull away. But then they get cold. They have to keep adjusting their closeness and distance to keep from freezing and from getting pricked by their fellow p ­ orcupines— the source of both comfort and pain. We need to get close to each other to have a sense of community, to feel we’re not alone in the world. But we need to keep our distance from each other to preserve our independence, so others do not impose on or engulf us. This duality reflects the human condition. We are individual and social creatures. We need other people to survive, but we want to survive as individuals.

The ability to manage conflicting needs for connection and autonomy is basic to relational success (Baxter, 1994; Sahlstein and Dun, 2008). Some of the most common reasons that relationships break up involve the failure of partners to satisfy one another’s needs for connection: “We barely spent any time together”; “My partner wasn’t committed to the relationship”; “We had different needs.” But other complaints involve excessive demands for connection: “I was feeling trapped”; “I needed freedom” (Hui et al., 2013). Mobile devices can create a connection–­ autonomy dilemma (Duran et al., 2011). Frequent interaction during the day via cellphone can be a means for building intimacy in a romantic relationship (Boyle and Sullivan, 2016), for example, but receiving too many calls and texts can feel imposing or even smothering. This is a source of conflict

for many couples and may require some negotiation (Miller-Ott et al., 2012). For instance, partners might agree not to text or call during work hours unless it’s an emergency or they may agree that during certain situations (e.g., concerts, parties, family gatherings) there is no expectation to respond to messages right away. Research suggests that college students often struggle with the conflicting desire to be fully present and attentive in their face-to-face interactions with their romantic partners while still maintaining connection with their social networks (Miller-Ott and Kelly, 2016). These tensions occur in non-romantic relationships too. You can probably think of friends and family members who expect you to always be responsive via cellphone, yet you need some space from them (Eden and Veksler, 2016; Hall and Baym, 2012). Teenagers may perceive parents’ monitoring via cellphones as a violation of their need for independence (Weisskirch, 2009, 2011). Similarly, smart phones have been described as “tethers” that enable employers and employees to be constantly connected, infringing on each other’s autonomy and work–life balance (Sullivan, 2014). These examples serve as a reminder that dialectal tensions exist and persist over the entire life of most close relationships.

Stability versus Change Stability is an important need in relationships, but too much of it can lead to feelings of staleness; conversely, too much change and unpredictability can create stress and uncertainty. The stability– change dialectic captures the tensions between the need for predictability and the need for novelty in our relationships. Although nobody wants a completely unpredictable relational partner (“You are

8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

not the person I married!”), humorist Dave Barry (1990, p. 47) exaggerates only slightly when he talks about the boredom that can come from spouses knowing each other too well: After a decade or so of marriage, you know everything about your spouse, every habit and opinion and twitch and tic and minor skin growth. You could write a seventeen-pound book solely about the way your spouse eats. This kind of intimate knowledge can be very handy in certain ­situations—such as when you are on a TV quiz show where the object is to identify your spouse from the sound of his or her chewing—but it tends to lower the passion level of a relationship.

TAKE TWO • Dialectical tensions: conflicts that arise when two opposing forces exist simultaneously; they exist within personal relationships and also between individuals/couples and the external world. • Integration–separation: conflicting desires for connection and independence within a relationship. • Stability–change: conflicting needs for constancy and variation within a relationship. • Expression–privacy: conflicting needs to share information but also to keep things confidential within a relationship.

Expression versus Privacy As we discussed above and in Chapter 2, disclosure is an important characteristic of building and maintaining intimacy in interpersonal relationships. Yet, along with our drive for intimacy is an equally important need to maintain some space between ourselves and others. These sometimes conflicting drives create the expression–privacy dialectic, which challenges us to balance our need to be open with our need to keep some information to ourselves. The internal struggle between expression and privacy shows up in our need to be open with our relationship partners (and have them be forthcoming with us) and our simultaneous need to be closed—to keep some things to ourselves (and their need to do the same). What do you do in an intimate relationship when a person you care about asks an important question that you don’t want to answer? (e.g., “Do you think I’m attractive?” “Are you having a good time?”) Because of your commitment to the relationship, you may wish to be honest, but your concern for the other person’s feelings and a desire for privacy may lead you to be less than completely honest. Many people claim, “There are no secrets between me and my best friend” or “I tell my partner everything,” but that’s probably an overstatement. Wise communicators make choices about what they will and won’t share with loved ones—sometimes, but not always, for the other person’s sake (Goldsmith and Domann-Scholz, 2013).

Strategies for Managing Dialectical Tensions Managing these dialectical tensions can be challenging (Duran et al., 2011; Prentice and Kramer, 2006), but researchers have identified a number of communication strategies for dealing with them—most of which are unconscious (Baxter and Braithwaite, 2006). As you read on, think about which ones you use and how effective they are. 1. Denial. In the strategy of denial, relational partners pretend to themselves and one another that conflicts don’t exist. For example, a couple caught between the conflicting desires for stability and change might find their struggle for change too difficult to manage. So they choose to follow predictable, if unexciting, patterns of relating to one another. 2. Compromise. Communicators who try to balance dialectical tensions recognize that both forces are legitimate and try to manage them through compromise. As we’ll point out in Chapter 10, compromise is inherently a situation in which everybody loses at least a little of what they want. A couple caught between the conflicting desires for stability and change might seek balance by compromising with a lifestyle that is

261

262

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

­ either as predictable as one wants nor as n surprise-filled as the other seeks, which is not an ideal outcome. Alternation. Communicators who use this strategy choose one end of the dialectical spectrum at some times and the other on different occasions. Friends, for example, might manage the integration–separation dialectic by alternating between times when they spend a large amount of time together and other periods when they live independent lives. Compartmentalization. Partners who use this tactic segment different areas (e.g., topics, activities) of their relationship. For example, a couple might manage the expression–­ privacy dialectic by sharing almost all their feelings about mutual friends with one another, but keeping certain parts of their romantic histories private. Acceptance. With this more rewarding approach, communicators simultaneously embrace opposing forces without trying to diminish them. Barbara Montgomery (1993) describes a couple who accept the need both for stability and for change by devising a “predictably novel” approach. Once a week, they would do something together that they had never done before. Similarly, Dawn Braithwaite and her colleagues (1998) found that step-families often manage the tension between the “old family” and the “new family” by adapting and blending their family rituals. Reframing. Another constructive way to manage opposing desires is by reframing them so that the apparent contradiction disappears. Consider how a couple who felt hurt by each other’s unwillingness to share parts of their past might redefine the secrets as creating an attractive aura of mystery instead of being a problem to be solved. The desire for privacy would still remain, but it would no longer compete with a need for openness about every aspect of the past. Reaffirmation. This approach acknowledges that dialectical tensions will never disappear. Instead of trying to make them go away, reaffirming communicators accept—or

even embrace—the challenges these dialectical tensions present. If we consider the metaphorical view of relational life as a kind of roller coaster, communicators who use reaffirmation view dialectical tensions as an inevitable part of the ride.

Characteristics of Relational Development Whether you analyze a relationship in terms of stages or dialectical dynamics, two characteristics are true of every interpersonal relationship.

Relationships Are Constantly Changing Relationships are rarely stable for long periods of time. In fairy tales, a couple may live happily ever after, but in real life this sort of equilibrium is not exactly common. Consider partners who have been married for some time: although they have formally bonded, their relationship will probably shift forward and backward along the spectrum of stages and different dialectical tensions will become more or less important at different times. This constant change can be captured graphically by characterizing relationship development as a helix, as shown in Figure 8.2. The helix depicts relational cycles in which partners continually move through a series of stages before returning, at a new level, to ones they previously encountered (Conville, 1991; Dance, 1967). According to this model, we move from security (integration in Knapp’s terminology) to disintegration (differentiating) to alienation (circumscribing) to resynthesis (intensifying, integrating), to a new level of security. This cycle repeats itself again and again, reflecting the dialectical tensions identified by Baxter and others.

Movement Is Always to a New Place Even though a relationship may move back to a stage it has experienced before, it will never be the same as before. For example, most healthy longterm relationships will go through several phases of experimenting as the partners try out new ways of behaving with each other. Although each phase has the same general features, the specifics will

8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

FOCUS ON RESEARCH HUMOUR AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS There is a good deal of research that suggests that people value a sense of humour in their friends and romantic partners (Butzer and Kuiper, 2008; Hall, 2017; Kuiper, 2010; Treger et al., 2013). People rate those with a good sense of humour as more attractive than their less funny peers. Playfulness between partners is a vital component of establishing trust and laughing is an important indicator of romantic attraction (Hall, 2015). However, it’s not just being a humorous person or appreciating your partner’s sense of humour that seems to matter the most in terms of increasing attraction and relationship satisfaction. Instead, what’s important is co-creating humour with your partner. This type of relationship-enhancing joking is referred to as relational humour (Hall, 2015). In his meta-analysis of studies published between 1985 and 2016, Jeffery Hall (2017) uncovered and discussed the associations between relational humour and satisfaction at various stages in romantic relationships. He found that this type of shared humour, which includes making private jokes and engaging in humorous banter and playfulness, has a number of benefits. These include bringing about a positive mood, creating a safe space to take risks and be creative (or at least be less bored), and reaf-

feel different each time. Similarly, how partners manage the connection–autonomy dialectic at one time will affect how they experience and manage it at another time with the same or different relational issues. As we discussed in Chapter 1, communication is irreversible. Partners can never simply go back to “the way things were” at a past time. Sometimes, this may lead to regrets, but it can also make relationships exciting, since it lessens the chance for boredom and can lead to novelty and growth.

Communicating about ­Relationships It’s clear that relationships are complex, dynamic, and important—so what do we need to consider in

firming that you and your partner share the same perspective and values (you “get” each other)—all of which contributes to feelings of increased safety and intimacy in the relationship. The results of his meta-analysis suggest that humour that is more relationship-oriented, as opposed to self-oriented, is associated with increased relationship satisfaction. However, aggressive or negative humour, such as making fun of or attacking others, is associated with decreased relationship satisfaction. Finally, Hall’s investigation found a stronger association between humour and relationship satisfaction in young, unmarried samples; he suggests that perhaps this is because the ability to be funny in the early stages of a romantic relationship contributes to attraction and relational humour contributes to bonding. Among individuals in enduring relationships, Hall found that producing and using humour to cope were still predictors of relationship satisfaction but they were not quite as strong as in the early stages of relationship development. Critical thinking: What other reasons might explain why the stage of the relationship affects couples’ uses of humour and its contribution to their satisfaction with the relationship?

order to maintain, improve, and repair them? In this section, we’ll look at ways to think about and analyze our relational communication with the aim of managing the inevitable complexities and changes in ways that are constructive. We start by revisiting an important principle of interpersonal communication discussed in Chapter 1: every message has two dimensions, a content dimension and a relational dimension.

Content and Relational Messages The most obvious component of most mes­sages is their content—the subject being discussed: “It’s your turn to do the dishes” or “I’m busy Saturday night.” In addition, every message—both verbal and non-verbal—has a second, relational

263

264

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

REFLECTION ynthesis R es

ynthesis R es

Alienat ion

Sec

grati Disinte

urity

SENDING THE WRONG RELATIONAL MESSAGE

Alienat ion

on

ynthesis R es

Alienat ion

Sec

on grati Disinte

urity

Security

te Disin

ion grat

FIGURE 8.2  A Helical Model of Relational Cycles

­ imension, which makes statements about how the d communicators feel toward one another (Knobloch and Solomon, 2003; Watzlawick et al., 1967). These relational messages deal with one or more of the social needs: intimacy, affinity, respect, and control. Consider the two examples we just mentioned: • Imagine two ways of saying, “It’s your turn to do the dishes”—one that is demanding and another that is matter-of-fact. Notice how the different non-verbal messages make statements about how the sender views control in this part of the relationship. The demanding tone says, in effect, “I have a right to tell you what to do around the house,” whereas the matter-of-fact one suggests, “I’m just reminding you of something you might have overlooked.” • You can easily imagine two ways to deliver the statement, “I’m busy Saturday night”—one with some affection and the other without. Most of the time, we’re unaware of the relational messages that bombard us every day. Sometimes, these messages don’t capture our awareness because they match our belief about the amount of control,

I work 30 hours a week and have a full course load at school, so I’m very busy. Sometimes, when my little brother wants to hang out and talk, I give him the brush-off. While he’s telling me about his day, I keep typing on the computer or reading a book. After a while, I sigh and start replying automatically, “Yeah, yeah.” Last night, he asked, “Why don’t you like me anymore?” I realized that, in my obsession with staying on top of my work, I’ve been giving him the wrong impression. Next time, I’ll either give him my attention or let him know explicitly that I can’t.

liking, or intimacy that is appropriate in a relationship. For example, you would probably not be offended if your supervisor told you to drop everything and tackle a certain job, because you agree that supervisors have the right to direct employees. However, if your supervisor delivered the order in a condescending, sarcastic, or abusive tone of voice, you would probably be offended. Your complaint wouldn’t be with the order itself, but with the way it was delivered. “I may work for this company,” you might think, “but I’m not a slave or an idiot. I deserve to be treated like a human being.” Exactly how are relational messages communicated? As the supervisor–employee example suggests, they are usually expressed non-verbally. To test this fact for yourself, imagine how you could act while saying, “Can you help me for a minute?” in a way that communicates each of the following messages: • superiority • helplessness • friendliness • aloofness • sexual desire • irritation Although non-verbal behaviour is a good source of relational messages, remember that it’s ambiguous. The sharp tone you take as a personal insult

8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

might be due to fatigue, and the interruption you take as an attempt to ignore your ideas might be a sign of pressure that has nothing to do with you. Before you jump to conclusions about relational clues, it’s a good idea to verify the accuracy of your interpretation with the other person: “When you cut me off, I got the idea you were angry with me. Were you?” Using a perception checking statement (see Chapter 3) such as this can help you to avoid acting on assumptions and increases your chances of achieving a mutual understanding. Not all relational messages are non-verbal, however. Social scientists use the term metacommunication to describe messages that refer to other messages (Ruesch and Bateson, 1951; Weder, 2008). In other words, metacommunication is communication about communication. Whenever we discuss a relationship with others, we are metacommunicating: “I wish we could stop arguing so much,” or “I appreciate how honest you’ve been with me.” Despite its importance, overt metacommunication is not a common feature of most relationships (Fogel and Branco, 1997; Wilmot, 1987). In fact, there seems to be an aversion to it, even among many people in intimate relationships (Bisson and Levine, 2009; Zhang and Stafford, 2008). When 90 people were asked to identify the taboo subjects in their personal relationships, the most frequent topics involved metacommunication (Baxter and Wilmot, 1985). For example, people were reluctant to discuss the state of their current relationships and the norms (“rules”) that governed their lives together. Nevertheless, there are times when it becomes necessary to talk about what’s going on

TAKE TWO • Content dimension: the subject of a message being discussed. • Relational dimension: a statement describing how the speaker feels about the listener (can be non-verbal or verbal). • Metacommunication: messages that refer to other messages.

between you and a person with whom you have an intimate relationship. Research shows that metacommunication can play a vital role in relational maintenance and repair (Becker et al., 2008).

Maintaining and Supporting ­Relationships We have all heard the advice that we must “work” at relationships if we want them to be positive and fulfilling, but rarely do we hear about exactly what that work involves. Just as gardens need tending, cars need tune-ups, and bodies need exercise, relationships need ongoing maintenance to keep them successful and satisfying (Lydon and Quinn, 2013). When life is challenging we count on our interpersonal relationships to offer the support we need (Lakey, 2013), so it’s important to put in time and effort to maintain them.

Relational Maintenance As noted earlier, relational maintenance can be defined as communication that keeps relationships running smoothly and satisfactorily. What kinds of communication help maintain relationships? Researchers have identified a number of communication strategies that are used by friends, relatives, romantic partners, and co-workers to maintain positive relationships (Canary et al., 1993; Ogolsky and Bowers, 2013). The five strategies most commonly used by university students were: • Openness: disclosing information, being empathetic, talking about the relationship, and listening to each other. This includes metacommunication and the kinds of relational work discussed earlier in this chapter. • Assurances: letting each other know (both verbally and non-verbally) that the relationship is important, comforting each other, and being supportive. • Joint activities and tasks: spending time with each other and taking care of life’s chores and obligations. • Positivity: trying to make interactions pleasant and cheerful, showing affection, and avoiding criticism. • Social networks: being invested in each other’s friends and family.

265

266

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

Of the strategies listed above, positivity and assurances are the best predictors of marital satisfaction (Dainton et al., 1994). A study analyzing college students’ emails found that with family and friends the most frequently used strategies were openness (e.g., “Things have been a little crazy for me lately”) and social networks (e.g., “How are you and Sam? Hopefully good”) (Johnson et al., 2008). With romantic partners, however, as previous research found, providing assurances (“This is just a little email to say I love you”) was the most used strategy. Social media can play an important role in maintaining relationships (Ledbetter and Keating, 2015). Sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram give communicators the chance to keep up with each other through status updates (Craig and Wright, 2012; Dainton, 2013). Of course, there’s a risk that constant updates will leave little to talk about in person. Emails can help too, though calling is particularly valuable for more intimate topics (Utz, 2007). Even a streak of daily Snapchat exchanges can help maintain a relationship (Stein, 2017). One study found that women use social media for relational maintenance more often than men do, regardless of the type of relationship (Houser et al., 2012). This finding is consistent with research showing that women expect and receive more maintenance communication with their female friends than men do with their male friends (Hall et al., 2011). Social media can be especially useful for meeting the challenges of long-distance relationships. These relationships are increasingly common, and they can be as stable as, or even more so than, geographically close relationships (Merolla, 2010). This is true not only for romantic and family relationships, but also for friendships (Johnson, Becker et al., 2009). The key to ensuring the longevity of a long-­ distance relationship is a commitment to relational maintenance. In one study, female college students said that openness and mutual problem solving are vital maintenance strategies in long-distance dating relationships (McGuire and Kinnery, 2010). In another study, both men and women reported that openness (self-disclosure) was the most important factor for maintaining their long-distance friendships (Johnson, Haigh et al., 2009). Participants conceded that sharing tasks and practical help may be less viable options in long-distance relationships.

We’ll talk more about specific relational maintenance strategies in families, friendships, and romantic relationships in Chapter 11.

Social Support Whereas relational maintenance is about keeping a relationship thriving and running smoothly, social support is about helping others during challenging times by providing emotional, informational, or instrumental resources (MacGeorge et al., 2011). Social support has been consistently linked to mental and physical health (Lakey, 2013) and can be offered in a variety of ways, including: • Emotional support: Few things are more helpful in times of stress, hurt, or grief than a loved one who listens with empathy and responds in caring ways (Reis and Clark, 2013). Chapter 5 (pages 164–5) describes what supporting does and doesn’t sound like when responding to others’ emotional needs. Remember, it’s important to keep your message person-centred (High and Solomon, 2016)—that is, focused on the emotions of the speaker (“this must be so difficult for you”) rather than minimizing those feelings (“it’s not the end of the world”) or diverting attention away from them (“tomorrow is a new day”). • Informational support: The people in our lives can be helpful information sources. They can give us recommendations for shopping, advice about relationships, or observations about our blind spots. Of course, keep in mind that advice is most likely to be regarded as supportive when it’s wanted and requested by the person in need. • Instrumental support: Sometimes, support is best given by rolling up your sleeves and doing a task or favour to show that you care (Semmer et  al., 2008). This can be as simple as giving someone a ride to the airport or as involved as providing care to someone during a period of illness. We count on our loved ones to offer assistance in times of need, and instrumental support is a primary marker of a meaningful friendship (“A friend in need is a friend indeed”). Sometimes just being available for interaction can provide social support. One study found that

8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

SELF-ASSESSMENT NON-VERBAL IMMEDIACY BEHAVIOURS With a particular relationship partner in mind, read each of the following 14 questions, and consider the extent to which you agree or disagree with each. Use a 7-point scale, with 1 = “completely disagree,” 7 = “completely agree,” and 2 though 6 representing levels of agreement between these endpoints. The relationship partner I’m thinking of  1. acts positively towards me.  2. is understanding.   3. talks about their feelings.  4. discusses the quality of our relationship.  5. talks about our plans for the future.  6. includes our friends in our activities.  7. shares in joint responsibilities that face us.  8. is upbeat when we’re together.  9. is forgiving of me.  10. is open about their feelings.  11. tells me how they feel about the relationship.  12. tells me how much I mean to them.  13. does things with our friends.  14. helps with tasks that need to be done. SOURCE: Adapted from Stafford, L. (2011). Measuring relationship maintenance behaviours: Critique and development of the Revised Relationship Maintenance Behaviour Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 278–303; and Stafford, L. (2016). Marital sanctity, relationship maintenance, and marital quality. Journal of Family Issues, 37, 119–31.

Add your responses to items 2 and 9. This represents your perception of your partner’s use of understanding maintenance behaviours. Add your responses to items 3 and 10. This represents your perception of your partner’s use of self-­ disclosure maintenance behaviours. Add your responses to items 4 and 11. This represents your perception of your partner’s use of relationship talk maintenance behaviours. Add your responses to items 5 and 12. This represents your perception of your partner’s use of assurance maintenance behaviours. Add your responses to items 6 and 13. This represents your perception of your partner’s use of networks maintenance behaviours. Add your responses to items 7 and 14. This represents your perception of your partner’s use of tasks maintenance behaviours. Which relational maintenance behaviours did you perceive your partner as using most, and which least? These seven types of maintenance behaviours are independent; that is, a person can be perceived as enacting none, several, or all. A review of studies using a version of this test (Ogolsky and Bowers, 2013) concluded that women are perceived as using more of the different types of relational maintenance behaviours than men. Which relational maintenance behaviours are most important in your relationship?

Scoring: Add your responses to items 1 and 8. This represents your perception of your partner’s use of positivity maintenance behaviours.

patients who texted with their friends after they got out of surgery required less pain medication than those who didn’t (Guillory et al., 2015). In this case, the benefit wasn’t just a matter of distraction, because playing video games didn’t have the same analgesic effect on the patients. The researchers maintain that interpersonal interaction—even via texting—offers social support and a measure of pain relief. This serves as

a reminder that the simple act of communication with others when they’re hurting is an act of kindness that can help. Providing and receiving social support can strengthen our connections with others and deepen our appreciation of the relationships we have with them. The empathy (see Chapter 3) that social support both requires and inspires goes a long way towards maintaining relationships that are important to us.

267

268

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

Repairing Damaged Relationships Sooner or later, even the most satisfying and stable relationships hit a bumpy patch. Sometimes, problems arise from outside forces such as work, finances, and competing relationships, to name a few. Other times, problems arise from differences and disagreements within a relationship. In Chapter 11, we offer guidelines for dealing with these sorts of challenges. Beyond inside and outside forces, relational transgressions can also pose relational problems. Relational transgressions are when one relationship partner violates the explicit or implicit terms of the relationship, thereby letting the other one down in an important way.

Types of Relational Transgressions What constitutes a relational transgression depends on a number of factors; however, these types of violations can be grouped into different categories (Guerrero and Bachman, 2008). Table 8.2 lists some types of relational transgressions, which we’ll analyze in terms of their significance or seriousness, how common they are, the extent to which they were committed on purpose or by accident, and whether they are isolated events or part of a larger pattern. Analyzing transgressions in this way will help inform our choices regarding relationship repair. Minor versus significant: Some of the items listed in Table 8.2 aren’t inherently transgressions, and in small doses they can actually aid relationships. For instance, a little distance can make the heart grow fonder, a little jealousy can be a sign of affection,

and a little anger can start the process of resolving a gripe. In large and regular doses, however, these acts become serious transgressions that can damage personal relationships. When transgression severity is perceived as high, and the perceiver’s communication competence is low, rumination increases and relational closeness decreases (Robbins and Merrill, 2014). Social versus relational: Some transgressions violate social rules shared by society at large. For example, almost everyone would agree that ridiculing or humiliating a friend or family member in public is a violation of a fundamental social rule regarding saving others’ face. Other rules are relational in nature—unique norms constructed by the people involved. For instance, some families have a rule stating, “If I’m going to be more than a little bit late, I’ll let you know so that you don’t worry.” Once such a rule exists, failure to honour it feels like a violation, even though outsiders might not view it as such. Deliberate versus intentional: Some transgressions are unintentional. You might reveal something about a friend’s past without realizing that this disclosure would be embarrassing. Other violations, though, are intentional. In a fit of anger, you might purposely lash out with a cruel comment, knowing that it will hurt the other person’s feelings. One-time versus incremental: The most obvious transgressions occur in a single episode: an act of betrayal, a verbal assault, or walking out in anger. But more subtle transgressions can occur over time. Consider emotional withdrawal: sometimes people retreat into themselves, and we usually give one another space to do just that. But if the

TABLE 8.2  Some Types of Relational Transgressions Category

Examples

Lack of commitment

Failure to honour important obligations (e.g., financial, emotional, task related); selfserving dishonesty; unfaithfulness

Distance

Physical separation (beyond what is necessary); psychological separation (avoidance; ignoring)

Disrespect

Criticism (especially in front of third parties)

Problematic emotions

Jealousy; unjustified suspicion; rage

Aggression

Verbal hostility; physical violence

8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

withdrawal slowly becomes pervasive, it becomes a violation of the fundamental rule in most relationships that partners should be available to one another.

Strategies for Relational Repair Research confirms the common-sense notion that a frequent first step to repairing a transgression is to talk about the violation (Brandau-Brown and Ragsdale, 2008). Chapter 6 offered tips for sending clear, assertive “I messages” when you believe you’ve been wronged (“I was really embarrassed when you yelled at me in front of everybody last night”), whether describing the outcomes of the transgression or asking for an apology (Peyton and Goei, 2013). In other cases, you might be responsible for the transgression and want to raise it for discussion: “What did I do that you found so hurtful?” “Why was my behaviour a problem for you?” Asking questions such as these—and listening non-­ defensively to the answers—can be an enormous challenge. In Chapter 5 we offered guidelines for listening; in Chapter 9, we’ll provide tips about how to manage criticism. Not surprisingly, some transgressions are harder to repair than others. One study of dating partners found that sexual infidelity and breaking up were the two least forgivable offenses (Bachman and Guerrero, 2006). The seriousness of the transgression and the relative strength of the relationship prior to the offense are the two most significant factors in whether forgiveness will be granted (Guerrero and Bachman, 2010). For the best chance of repairing a seriously damaged relationship, an apology needs to be offered. The Last Lecture author Randy Pausch (2008) notes, “If you have done something wrong in your dealings with another person, it’s as if there’s an infection in your relationship. A good apology is like an antibiotic, a bad apology is like rubbing salt in the wound” (p. 161). Here are the top three things people look for in an apology, in order of importance (Lewicki et al., 2016): 1. Acknowledgement of responsibility: “It was my fault; I acted like a selfish jerk.”

2. Offer of repair: “I’ll fix what I did and make things right.” 3. Expression of regret: “I’m really sorry. I feel awful for letting you down.” Even if you offer an ideal apology, however, it may be unrealistic to expect immediate forgiveness. Sometimes, especially with severe transgressions, expressions of regret and promises of new behaviour will only be accepted conditionally, with a need for them to be demonstrated over time before the aggrieved party regards them as genuine (Merolla, 2008). Given the challenges and possible humiliation involved in apologizing, is it worth the effort? Research suggests yes. Participants in one study consistently reported that they had more remorse over apologies they didn’t offer than about those they did (Exline et al., 2007). If you need to make things right with someone you’ve offended, it’s better to do so now than to later regret that you didn’t.

Forgiving Transgressions You might think that forgiveness is a topic for the theologians and philosophers. However, social scientists have found that forgiving others has both personal and relational benefits (Antonuccio and Jackson, 2009). On a personal level, forgiveness has been shown to reduce emotional distress and aggression (Eaton and Struthers, 2006; Orcutt, 2006) and even improve cardiovascular function (Hannon et al., 2012). Interpersonally, extending forgiveness to lovers, friends, and family can often help restore damaged relationships (Fincham and Beach, 2013). Moreover, most research shows that transgressors who have been forgiven are usually less likely to repeat their offenses than those who have not received forgiveness (Whited et al., 2010). In the workplace, research suggests that leaders who show compassion when employees make mistakes inspire greater loyalty and trust, whereas leaders who react angrily to employee errors increase stress and inhibit employees’ creativity (Seppala, 2015). Even when a sincere apology is offered, forgiving others can be difficult. Research shows that one way to improve your ability to forgive is to recall times when you have mistreated or hurt others in

269

270

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

the past—in other words, to remember that you, too, have wronged others and needed their forgiveness (Exline et al., 2008). Given that it’s in our own best interest to be forgiven, we would do well to remember these words from Richard Walters

(1984) who sees forgiveness as a choice requiring courage and continuous acts of will: “When we have been hurt we have two alternatives: be destroyed by resentment, or forgive. Resentment is death; forgiving leads to healing and life” (p. 366).

SUMMARY Explanations for why we form relationships with some people and not with others include appearance (physical attractiveness), similarity, complementarity, rewards, competence, proximity, and disclosure. Intimacy and distance are important parts of our relationships with others and there are several ways to establish both. Culture and gender influence intimacy in relationships by informing the social rules that govern intimate communication. Also, each culture defines the extent to which any relationship should be formal and distant or close and intimate. Some theorists argue that interpersonal relationships may go through as many as 10 stages of growth and deterioration. They suggest that communication may reflect more than one stage at a given time, although one stage will be dominant. Another way to analyze the dynamics of interpersonal communication is in terms of dialectical tensions, that is, mutually opposing, incompatible desires that are part of our relationships and that

can never be completely resolved. These tensions include integration–separation, stability–change, and expression–privacy. Both views characterize relationships as constantly changing, so that communication is more of a process than a static thing. Relational messages are sometimes expressed overtly by verbal metacommunication; however, they are more frequently conveyed non-verbally. Interpersonal relationships require maintenance to stay healthy. Relational maintenance requires partners to use positive and open communication that includes assurances and demonstrates commitment to the relationship. It also entails sharing tasks, investing in each other’s social networks and offering social support through the exchange of emotional, informational and instrumental resources. Some relationships become damaged over time and others are hurt through relational transgressions. Apologies and forgiveness are particularly important strategies for repairing damaged relationships.

MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS 1.

Which of the following statements is true regarding why we form relationships? a. We are attracted to people who are similar to us and dislike those who are different. b. We are attracted to people who are different than ourselves rather than people who are similar. c. We are attracted to people who are similar to ourselves and we are also attracted to those whose different characteristics complement our own. d. Neither similarities nor differences affect our motivation to form relationships

because our relationships are influenced most by proximity. 2.

In Elliot Aronson and colleagues’ study of how competence and imperfection combine, their subjects found which of the following quiz show contestants most attractive? a. the person with superior ability who did not spill the coffee b. the person with average ability who did not spill the coffee c. the person with superior ability who spilled the coffee

8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

d. the person with average ability who spilled the coffee 3.

Social exchange theory suggests a. we seek relationships with people who are competent in social exchange. b. we seek relationships with people who can give us rewards greater than the costs we encounter dealing with them. c. we terminate relationships with people when our social exchanges with them are stagnant. d. we terminate relationships with people who are low on the social exchange index.

4.

Sal has reinterpreted Akeno’s unwillingness to share some information about parts of his past as an interesting and admirable quality rather than feeling hurt and excluded by his privacy. Which of the following strategies has Sal used to manage this tension in her relationship with Akeno?

The finding that frequent interaction during the day via cellphone can be a source of conflict in relationships is evidence of which of the following dialectical tensions? a. b. c. d.

integration–separation dialectic stability–change dialectic expression–privacy dialectic dynamic–static dialectic

Grace and Zoe enjoy sharing their beliefs about spirituality, politics, and the meaning

Metacommunication is the term used to describe a. messages that refer to other messages or communication about communication. b. the aspects of communication that convey how communication partners feel about one another. c. communication that helps maintain and repair relationships. d. communication that conveys emotional support.

9.

Fabiola helps her friend Gabrielle move to a new place when her relationship with Alberto ends. Fabiola is providing Gabrielle with which type of social support? a. emotional b. informational c. instrumental d. all of the above

10. Which of the following apologies contains the components people look for in an apology, in order of importance? a. Sorry you found that remark insensitive. I will avoid that sort of straight talk with you in the future. b. I acted selfishly and didn’t consider your perspective. I will make things right and I am so sorry for being so thoughtless. c. Oh, l didn’t realize you would be offended. So sorry. d. We obviously had a misunderstanding but I will make things right. Sorry.

Answers: 1  . c; 2. c; 3. b; 4. b; 5. d; 6. a; 7. c; 8. a; 9. c; 10. b

7.

8.

handshakes and friendly facial expressions. small talk and searching for common ground. engagement and marriage. avoidance and personal space.

a. denial b. compartmentalizing c. accepting d. reframing 6.

a. emotional b. physical c. intellectual d. shared activities

The hallmark of the “experimenting” stage of relational development is a. b. c. d.

5.

of life with each other. They find these discussions interesting and they feel secure knowing they can safely share their deeply held beliefs with each other. Their relationship involves which type of intimacy?

271

272

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

ACTIVITIES 1. Critical Thinking Probe Some critics claim that Knapp’s model of relational stages is better at describing romantic relationships than other types. Use a variety of romantic and non-romantic interpersonal relationships from your experience to evaluate the breadth of his model. If the model does not describe the developmental path of all types of interpersonal relationships, can you suggest alternative models? 2. Invitation to Insight How do you manage the dialectical tensions in your important relationships? Is there a pattern to what you and the other person do, or does it depend on the type of relationship you have? Identify at least two dialectical tensions in two different relationships— one relationship, perhaps, with a person with whom you work closely, and the other with a romantic partner. How is each tension managed? Which approach do you and your partner tend to use (denial, disorientation, alternation, segmentation, balance, integration, recalibration, or reaffirmation)? What seem to be the conditions that determine which method you and your partner use? 3. Ethical Challenge Consider the notion that we often face conflicting goals when we communicate in an attempt to meet our own needs and those of others. Use the information found on pages 259–62 to identify a situation in which your personal goals conflict with those of another person. What obligation do you have to communicate in a way that helps the other person

reach their goals? Is it possible to honour this obligation and still try to satisfy your own needs? 4. Skill Builder Describe three unexpressed relational messages in one or more of your interpersonal relationships. a. Explain how you could have used metacommunication to express each one. Consider skills you learned in other chapters, such as perception checking, “I” language, and paraphrasing. b. Discuss the possible benefits and drawbacks of this kind of metacommunication in each of the situations you identified. On the basis of your discussion here, what principles do you believe should guide your decisions about whether and when to focus explicitly on relational issues? 5. Role Play Choose a partner. Pretend you don’t know each other and you want to initiate contact with this person in class. What strategies might you use? (Review the strategies listed on pages 253–5.) Role-play your attempts to initiate contact. Which strategies worked well? Are there any you would not try in this context? Now reverse roles and think of another context or situation in which your partner might want to initiate contact with you (e.g., at work, at a party). Role-play initiating contact in this new situation. Afterward, again analyze the strategies that worked, those that didn’t, and the ones that felt appropriate or inappropriate in this situation, and discuss why.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1.

Why do we form relationships with other people?

2.

Describe the four different types of intimacy presented in this chapter and give an example of each from your own relationships. Do you

think an ideal intimate relationship would include all four? Why or why not? 3.

Do you think Knapp’s model of the stages of relational development can be adapted to collectivist cultures? Why or why not?

8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships

4.

Describe the dialectical tensions that exist in one of your relationships (e.g., with your parents, a friend, or a romantic partner). How do you manage these tensions in that relationship?

5.

Despite its importance, metacommunication is not a common feature of most relationships. Why do you think this is?

6.

Review the strategies for relationship maintenance and repair described on pages 265–70. Which do you use in your most satisfying

r­elationships? Which, if any do you use in your least satisfying relationships? Is there a relationship between the number of maintenance strategies you use and your satisfaction with your relationships? Why or why not? 7.

While forgiveness has tremendous benefits it can be challenging. Are some transgressions in relationships easier for you to forgive than others? What factors might contribute to individual differences in people’s ability to forgive?

JOURNAL IDEAS 1.

You can get a sense of how your desires for both intimacy and distance operate by reflecting on a relationship with an important person you see regularly. For this journal exercise you might choose a friend, family member, or romantic partner. For at least a week, chart how your communication with this relational partner reflects your desire for either intimacy or distance. Use a 7-point scale, in which behaviour seeking high intimacy receives a 7 and behaviour designed to avoid physical, intellectual, and/or emotional contact receives a 1. Use ratings from 2 to 6 to represent intermediate stages. Record at least one rating per day, making more detailed entries if your desire for intimacy or distance changes during that period. What tactics did you use to establish or maintain distance? After charting your communication, reflect on what the results tell you about your personal desire for intimacy and distance. Consider the following questions: • Was there a pattern of alternating phases of intimacy and distance during the time you observed?

• Was this pattern typical of your communication in this relationship over a longer period of time? • Does your communication in other relationships contain a similar mixture of intimacy and distance? • Most importantly, are you satisfied with the results you discovered in this exercise? • If you are not satisfied, how would you like to change your communication behaviour? 2.

Choose one of the dialectal tensions described in this chapter and describe how it operates in one of your close relationships. Review this journal entry in a couple of weeks and see if the tension has changed. If so, how has it changed? Why do you think it has changed? If no change has occurred, why do you think it has remained so stable? Are there environmental factors that influence how these competing needs affect this relationship? If so, what are they?

273

DanielBendjy/iStockphoto

9

Communication Climate

CHAPTER OUTLINE What Is Communication Climate? How Communication Climates Develop Levels of Message Confirmation Causes and Effects of Defensiveness Climate Patterns

Creating Supportive Climates Evaluation versus Description

Controlling Communication versus Problem Orientation Strategy versus Spontaneity Neutrality versus Empathy Superiority versus Equality Certainty versus Provisionalism

Invitational Communication The Language of Choice Responding Non-defensively to Criticism

KEY TERMS acknowledgement aggressiveness argumentativeness certainty communication climate complaining confirming communication controlling communication defensiveness description disagreeing message disconfirming communication endorsement

equality evaluation face-threatening acts invitational communication neutrality ostracism problem orientation provisionalism recognition spontaneity strategy superiority

LEARNING OUTCOMES YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO: • • • •

Explain the nature of communication climates Analyze the development of communication climates Distinguish the factors that create defensive communication climates versus supportive communication climates Identify the communication skills that create invitational climates

276

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

How would you describe your most important relationships? Fair or stormy? Hot or cold? Just as physical locations have characteristic weather patterns, interpersonal relationships have unique climates, too. You can’t measure the interpersonal climate by looking at a thermometer or glancing at the sky, but it’s there nonetheless. Every relationship has a feeling, a pervasive mood that colours the actions of the participants.

What Is Communication ­Climate? The term communication climate refers to the social tone of a relationship. A climate doesn’t involve specific activities so much as the way people feel about each other as they carry out those activities. Consider two interpersonal communication classes. Both meet for the same length of time and follow the same syllabus. It’s easy to imagine how one of these classes might be a friendly, comfortable place to learn, whereas the other could be cold and tense—even hostile. It’s not the course content that differs; rather, it’s the way the people in the classroom feel about and treat each other (Johnson and LaBelle, 2016)—even if the learning takes place online (Zhang et al., 2012). Just as every classroom has a unique climate, so too does every relationship. Romances, friendships, and families—just like neighbourhoods, cities, and countries—can be defined by their social tone. Another obvious place for observing the effect of a climate impact is the workplace, which may explain why the topic is so widely studied (Sopow, 2008; Yurtsever and de Rivera, 2010). Have you ever held a job where backbiting, criticism, and suspicion were the norm? Or have you been lucky enough to work where the atmosphere was positive, encouraging, and supportive? If you have experienced both, you know what a difference climate makes. Studies demonstrate that employees have higher levels of commitment to jobs where they experience a positive communication climate (Bakar et al., 2010; Bartels et al., 2008) and are more creative and willing to solve problems when they feel supported at work (Kholer et al., 2010; Seppala, 2015).

Like their meteorological counterparts, communication climates are shared by everyone within them. It’s rare to find one person describing a relationship as open and positive while another characterizes it as cold and hostile. And, just like the weather, communication climates can change over time. A relationship can be overcast at one time and sunny at another. Carrying the analogy to its conclusion, we should say that communication climate forecasting is not a perfect science. Unlike the weather, however, people can change their communication climates—and that’s why it’s important to understand them. This chapter explores several climate issues: how communication climates develop, how and why we respond defensively in certain climates, and what can be done to create positive climates and transform negative ones.

How Communication Climates Develop Why does some communication create a positive climate while other communication has the opposite effect? A short but accurate answer is that communication climates are determined by the degree to which people see themselves as valued. Communicators who perceive others as liking, appreciating, and respecting them react positively, while those who feel unimportant or abused react negatively. Social scientists use the term confirming communication to describe direct and/or indirect messages that convey valuing (Dailey, 2010). In one form or another, confirming messages say, “you exist,” “you matter,” “you’re important.” By contrast, disconfirming communication signals a lack of regard. In one form or another, disconfirming messages say, “you’re not important,” “you don’t matter,” or “you don’t exist.” As we have stressed throughout this book, every message has a relational dimension along with its content. This means that we send and receive confirming and disconfirming messages virtually whenever we communicate. Serious conversations about our relationships may not be common, but we convey our attitudes about one another even

9 | Communication Climate

when we talk about everyday matters. In other words, it isn’t what we communicate about that shapes a relational climate so much as how we speak and act toward one another. It’s hard to overstate the importance of confirming messages and the impact of disconfirming ones. Victims of hateful speech can experience the same long-term consequences that follow other traumas: feeling dazed, shocked, ill, and angry (Leets, 2002). Children who lack confirmation suffer a broad range of emotional and behavioural problems (Osterman, 2001), whereas those who feel confirmed have more open communication with their parents, higher self-esteem, and lower levels of stress (Dailey, 2009, 2010). In school, a sense of belonging is associated with both a positive attitude toward school, class work, and teachers as well as greater participation, school engagement, and achievement. Both teachers’ and parents’ supportive interactions help to moderate the daily challenges and frustrations children face at school and help them to be more successful (Strom and Boster, 2007). Even in post-secondary settings, when instructors behave in ways that are confirming to students (e.g., by responding to student questions, employing an interactive teaching style, and demonstrating interest in students’ learning), their students experience an abundance of emotional benefits (Goldman and Goodboy, 2014; Titsworth et al., 2013). A confirming climate is also important in marriages, where it’s the best predictor of marital satisfaction. Marriage researcher John Gottman (2003) suggests couples who have five times as many positive interactions (e.g., smiling, laughing, paying compliments, and touching) as negative ones are likely to have happy and successful relationships. Furthermore, if children Confirming

see their parents regularly engage in confirming communication with each other, they are likely to replicate those patterns in their own romantic relationships (Young and Schrodt, 2016). The interpretation of a message as confirming or disconfirming is subjective. Consider, for example, times when you took a comment that might have sounded unsupportive to an outsider (“You’re such a nerd!”) as a sign of affection within the context of your personal relationship. Likewise, a comment that the sender might have meant to be helpful (“I’m telling you this for your own good . . . ”) could easily be regarded as a disconfirming attack.

Levels of Message Confirmation Figure 9.1 shows that the range of confirming and disconfirming communication includes several categories of messages, which we’ll examine in the following pages.

Confirming Messages There is no guarantee that others will regard even your best attempts at confirming messages the way you intend them, but research shows that there are three increasingly-positive types of messages that are most likely to be perceived as confirming: recognition, acknowledgement, and endorsement (Cissna and Sieberg, 2006). Recognition The most fundamental act of confirmation is recognition, or indicating your awareness of the other person. This can be done non-verbally, for example, by making eye contact or offering a smile. It can also be done verbally, with phrases such as “Glad to see you” or “I’ll be

Disagreeing

Endorsement Acknowledgement Recognition Argumentativeness Complaning

Disconfirming

Aggressiveness Ostracism

Valuing

FIGURE 9.1  Message Types Along the Confirmation–Disconfirmation Spectrum

Non-Valuing

277

278

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

right with you” or by sending a quick text or email reply that both acknowledges you have received the person’s message and indicates when you can provide a more fulsome response. In the same way, avoiding eye contact can send a negative message. Consider what it feels like when a store clerk fails to non-verbally signal that you’re waiting for service. One national retailer strives to greet customers within “10 feet and 10 seconds” of them entering the store, believing those moments to be vital in creating customer loyalty (Gallo, 2012). Acknowledgement  Paying attention to the ideas and feelings of others constitutes acknowledgement, which is a stronger form of confirmation than simple recognition (Weger et al., 2014). ­Phrases such as “I see your point” or “I understand how you feel that way” communicate acknowledgement regardless of whether you agree with what’s being said. As French philosopher Simone Weil puts it, “Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity” (Saltz, 2012).

Disagreeing Messages Between confirming and disconfirming communication lies a type of message that isn’t always easy to categorize: a disagreeing message. A ­disagreeing message essentially says, “You’re wrong.” In its most constructive form, disagreement includes two confirming components: recognition and acknowledgement. At its worst, a disagreeing message can devastate another person such that the benefits of recognition and acknowledgement are lost. Because there are better and worse ways to disagree with others, disagreeing messages need to be put on a ­positive-to-negative scale. In this section, we’ll discuss three types of disagreement—­ argumentativeness, complaining, and aggressiveness—to show how disagreeing messages can fall on a positive-to-negative scale.

suriya_silsaksom/iStockphoto

Endorsement Whereas acknowledgement shows you’re interested in another person, endorsement means that you agree with or support them. Endorsement is the strongest type of confirming

­ essage because it communicates the highest m form of valuing. You can verbally endorse others by agreeing with them (“You’re right about that”), offering compliments (“Nice job handling that situation”), or giving praise (“That’s the best presentation I’ve seen this year”). Getting recognition like this on the job helps workers “feel personally significant, needed, unique, and particularly successful” (­ Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2011, p. 12). Non-verbal endorsement also can enhance the quality of a relational climate (Dailey, 2008). For example, simple acts like maintaining eye contact and nodding while someone speaks can confirm the value of a speaker’s idea.

When have you used confirming communication with someone and found that they felt valued? Have you ever used confirming communication with someone only to find that they did not feel valued?

Argumentativeness Normally, when we call a person argumentative, we’re making an unfavourable judgment because they argue too much. However, the ability to create and de­liver a sound argument is something we admire in lawyers, talk-show participants, writers, and debaters. Taking a positive

9 | Communication Climate

approach to the term, communication researchers define argumentativeness as presenting and defending positions on issues while opposing positions taken by others (Johnson et al., 2014). The key to maintaining a positive climate while arguing a point is the way you present your ideas. It’s crucial to attack issues, not people. In addition, a sound argument is received better when it’s delivered in a supportive, affirming manner. There is a world of difference between “That’s a stupid idea” and “I disagree—let me explain why.” The supportive kinds of messages outlined in the ­previous

section of this chapter show how it’s possible to argue in a respectful, constructive way. It’s important to keep in mind that not all cultures value a clear and assertively-made argument. Cultures that value collectivism, high power distance, and high-context communication patterns, such as China and Malaysia, may be less appreciative of this kind of assertive communication than people in more individualistic, low power distance, and low-context communication cultures, such as Canada and the United States (e.g., Koc, 2010; Ma and Jaeger, 2010).

SELF-ASSESSMENT CONFIRMING AND DISCONFIRMING COMMUNICATION With a particular friendship in mind, respond to each of the statements below using a scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree.” Part 1  1. M  y friend pays attention to me when I’m talking.  2. My friend usually listens carefully to what I say.  3. When we talk, my friend does their part to keep the conversation going.  4. I feel as though I’m usually able to say everything I want to say without being judged.  5. My friend makes eye contact while we talk.  6. My friend usually accepts my point of view as accurate.  7. My friend often acts interested in what I have to say. Part 2  1. M  y friend teases me in a way that hurts my feelings.  2. When I bring up something that upsets me, my friend tells me I shouldn’t complain about it.  3. My friend often tells me that my feelings or thoughts are wrong.  4. My friend ignores me when I try to talk to them about something important.

 5. M  y friend often changes the subject to something they want to discuss.  6. My friend often seems uninvolved in our conversations.  7. My friend often takes over the conversation and does not allow me to do much of the talking.  8. My friend often interrupts me.  9. My friend blames me when we have a disagreement about something.  10. My friend often makes jokes at my expense. SOURCE: Adapted from Bloch, A.S. and Wenger, H.W. Jr. (2012 May). Associations among friendship satisfaction, self-verification, self-enhancement, and friends’ communication skill. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Phoenix, AZ. Scoring: Add your responses to the seven items in Part 1. This is your conformation score: _______. The average score for college students was 29, with possible range from 7 to 35. Higher scores represent greater confirmation. Add your responses to the 10 items in Part 2. This is your disconfirmation score: _______. The average score for college students was 20 (the original instrument has 17 items for this part), with possible range from 10 to 50. Higher scores represent greater disconfirmation.

279

280

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

Complaining When communicators aren’t prepared to argue (which requires interaction), but still want to register their dissatisfaction, they can engage in complaining. As for all disagreeing messages, some ways of complaining are more constructive than others. Satisfied couples tend to offer behavioural complaints (“You always throw your socks on the floor”), while dissatisfied couples make more complaints aimed at personal characteristics (“You’re a slob”) (Alberts, 1988, 1990). Personal complaints are more likely to result in an escalated conflict episode (Alberts and Driscoll, 1992). The reason should be obvious—complaints about personal characteristics attack a more fundamental part of someone’s presenting self. Talking about socks deals with a habit that can be changed; calling someone a slob is a character assault that is unlikely to be forgotten when the conflict is over. Marriage researcher John Gottman (2000) has found that complaining is not a sign of a troubled relationship—in fact, it’s usually healthy for spouses to get their concerns out in the open. Other researchers agree that complaining can be “a relationship constructing tool [that] encourages bonding and increased intimacy within romantic relationships” (Hall et al., 2013, p. 59). However, when a couple’s complaining turns to criticism and contempt, it’s often a symptom of relational trouble (see the “Four Horsemen” in Chapter 10).

Disconfirming Messages Disconfirming messages can be subtler than disagreeing ones but potentially more damaging. Disconfirming communication implicitly says, “you are not valued” or “you don’t exist.” Disconfirmation can be communicated in small ways (Cissna and Sieburg, 2006). When you make an important point during a conversation and a friend interrupts, you probably feel devalued. The same may be true if the friend goes off on an irrelevant tangent, gives an impersonal response (“It’s no big deal, these things happen”), or ignores your message altogether. Sometimes we inadvertently send disconfirming messages because we’re distracted. For instance, how do you feel when you’re talking to someone and they check their phone

mid-conversation? Research suggests that most of us have had this disconfirming experience and it can cause conflict in our relationships (Roberts and David, 2016). In fact, the mere presence of a cellphone (even if it’s never touched) on the table in a restaurant during a meal with family and friends undermines the enjoyment of the people sharing the meal (Dwyer et al., 2018). You can assess the level of confirmation and disconfirmation in one of your friendships by completing the Self-­ Assessment on page 279. But some disconfirming communication is more intentional, and usually more injurious. Two message types that fall into this category are aggressiveness and ostracism. Aggressiveness Verbal aggressiveness refers to the tendency to attack another person’s character, background, or identity (Xie et al., 2015). Unlike argumentativeness, aggressiveness demeans the worth of others and is corrosive to relationships (Roper et al., 2017). Name calling, put-downs, sarcasm, taunting, yelling, badgering, and even some types of humour are all methods of using aggressiveness to “win” disagreements at someone else’s expense. Communication research has linked aggressiveness to a host of negative outcomes, such as lowered self-esteem, occupational burnout, juvenile delinquency, depression, violence, and even mortality (Rancer and Avtgis, 2014). One form of aggressiveness—bullying—has received a good deal of attention from both the media and researchers (Danielson and Emmers-Sommer, 2016; Goodboy et al., 2016). The word bully often conjures up the images of a tough kid on the school playground, but bullying occurs in a variety of contexts. For instance, it can take place within families (Berry and Adams, 2016), and sibling bullying can have long lasting negative effects (Bowes et al., 2014). Bullying can occur between managers and employees (Moss, 2016), doctors and nurses (Robbins, 2015), and professors and students (Martin et al., 2015). The internet gives bullies more channels for engaging in verbal aggressiveness. Cyberbullying has some unique characteristics that increase its negative consequences. First, the anonymity of cyberbullying allows bullies to remove themselves

9 | Communication Climate

from the consequences of their actions. They are less aware of the repercussions of their actions and have less fear of punishment than they would in face-to-face interactions. In addition, cyberbullying can occur at any time and, given the pervasiveness of our social media use and mediated communication, victims cannot easily remove themselves from the bullying situation in order to increase their feelings of safety. Finally, cyberbullies have a larger audience than people who are verbally aggressive in face-to-face-interactions (Camacho et al., 2018). It’s not surprising that cyberbullying has been linked to a variety of negative consequences, including lower satisfaction with social media, poor academic performance, depression, withdrawal, drug and alcohol abuse, and even suicide (Baier et al., 2018; Camacho et al., 2018; Giumetti and Kowalski, 2016; Muhonen et al., 2017; Pingault and Schoeler, 2017). A key to stopping cyberbullying is blowing the whistle on perpetrators, but young people experiencing or witnessing cyberbullying are often reluctant to do so for a variety of reasons (Brody and Vangekisti, 2016; Cassidy et al., 2013). However, speaking up and supporting victims of this aggressive, disconfirming communication is necessary if we want to solve this problem. There are laws to protect Canadians from harassment, and most schools and workplaces have policies and resources that can help provide some protection against bullying behaviours. These may assist both victims and bystanders in finding appropriate and constructive ways to respond. Responding to cyberbullying and the in-person variety may require some different strategies. For instance, in the case of cyberbullying it’s important to document (print hard copies) the harassing messages and contact an appropriate teacher, administrator, or supervisor. In any type of bullying situation it’s important to try to remove yourself from the situation to the extent that’s possible and always send clear, firm messages that are assertive (standing up for yourself and others) rather than aggressive (putting others down). For tools for creating assertive “I” statements, refer to Chapter 6 (page 196) and for details on win–win versus win–lose problem solving, see Chapter 10. Later in this chapter, The Language of Choice

section describes ways to clearly articulate your thoughts, feelings, and wants to others—even if it means saying, “I will not tolerate this treatment.” Open communication is vital to bringing bullying out of the shadows and stopping it. Ostracism  It’s bad enough to be treated poorly, but it can be even worse to be ignored altogether. Ostracism involves excluding others from interaction and has been called “the social death penalty” (Parramore, 2014). Most people can recall a hurtful childhood experience of being ostracized by a group (Wolfer and Scheithauer, 2014), but this kind of disconfirmation can also happen in adulthood. Workplace studies show that employees would ­rather receive negative attention from managers and co-workers than no attention at all. Many people report that ostracism is even more painful and damaging than harassment (O’Reilly et al., 2015). Ostracism usually involves exclusion from a group, but it can also take place in one-to-one interaction. In Chapter 10, we describe several variations on ostracism and exclusion: the silent treatment (p. 307), and stonewalling (p. 319). In this chapter we describe ghosting (p. 292). The power of ostracism illustrates a principle introduced in Chapter 1: you cannot not communicate. Withholding interaction from others sends a message. In some cases, it can send the most disconfirming message of all: you do not exist.

TAKE TWO • Communication climate: the social tone of a relationship. • Confirming communication: messages that convey valuing (levels include recognition, acknowledgement, and endorsement). • Disagreeing messages: messages that say, “You’re wrong,” but that can include confirming components (types include argumentativeness and complaining). • Disconfirming communication: messages that signal a lack of regard (types include aggressiveness and ostracism).

281

282

RgStudio/iStockphoto

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

acts—messages that seem to challenge the image we want to project—we’re likely to resist what they say. Defensiveness, then, is the process of protecting our presenting self, our face. Although responding defensively to a face-­threatening attack may seem logical, over time defensiveness erodes relationship stability (Lannin et al., 2013). To understand how defensiveness operates, imagine what might happen if an important part of your presenting self were attacked. Suppose an instructor criticized you in Think back to the last time you felt defensive or threatened: What were you front of the class for making a guarding against and how did you deal with the situation? mistake, or a friend called you self-centred, or your supervisor labelled you as Causes and Effects lazy. You would probably feel threatened if these of ­Defensiveness attacks were untrue. But your own experience It’s no surprise that disconfirming and disagreeing will probably show that you sometimes respond messages can pollute a communication climate. defensively even when you know that the critiPerhaps the most predictable reaction to a disagree- cism is justified. For instance, you have probably ing or disconfirming message is defensiveness. responded defensively at times when you did The word defensiveness suggests protecting make a mistake, act selfishly, or cut corners in yourself from attack, but what kind of attack? your work (Zhang and Stafford, 2008). In fact, we When you become defensive, it’s seldom due to a often feel most defensive when criticism is right physical threat. If you’re not threatened by bodily on target (Becker et al., 2008). Later in this chapinjury, what are you guarding against? To answer ter, we’ll discuss how to respond non-defensively this question, we need to return to the notions of in such situations. presenting self and face, both of which were introSome people are more prone to defensiveness duced in Chapter 2. Recall that the presenting self than others. Generally, individualistic people are consists of the physical traits, personality char- more likely to interpret other people’s messages as acteristics, attitudes, aptitudes, and all the other neutral or critical and thus more inclined to deflect parts of the image you want to present to the world, criticism, whereas people with a communal orienand the term face describes this socially approved tation are more likely to both interpret ambiguous identity (Goffman 1959, 1971). Indeed, it’s a mis- messages as supportive and be more accepting of take to talk about a single face, as we try to pro- criticism (Suzuki et al., 2008). Who offers the potject different selves to different people. You might entially defence-arousing remark or criticism also try to impress a potential employer with your ser- matters. Research suggests that in-group criti­ iousness, while wanting to show your friends that cisms are tolerated better than out-group criti­cisms you’re a joker. When others are willing to accept (Hornsey et al., 2002). Similarly, being ignored by and acknowledge important parts of our presenting someone we know well is more hurtful than being self, there’s no need to defend it. On the other hand, ignored by people we know less well (Snapp and when others confront us with face-threatening Leary, 2001).

9 | Communication Climate

So far, we’ve talked about defensiveness as if it is only the responsibility of the person who feels threatened. If this were the case, dealing with defensiveness would be as simple as growing a thicker skin, admitting your flaws, and not trying to manage impressions. This approach isn’t just unrealistic; it also ignores the role played by those who send face-threatening messages. In fact, competent communicators protect the face needs of others as well as their own. Skilled instructors carefully protect their students’ presenting faces, especially when they are offering constructive criticism (Trees et al., 2009). This face-work leads to less defensive responses from their students. Similarly, wise students craft their emails politely when making requests of their teachers, showing them appropriate respect (Bolkan and Holmgren, 2012). Findings like these make it clear that defensiveness is interactive: all communicators contribute to the communication climate of a relationship. As a practical example, communication researcher Sarah Tracy (2002) analyzed emergency call-centre interactions to investigate the role of defensiveness in communication climates. Tracy concluded that callers become defensive when they perceive the call takers’ questions to be face threatening. She offered suggestions for call takers to make the climate more supportive. For instance, she suggested changing “Tell me if . . . ” to “Can you tell me if . . . ” The change only adds two words, but those words soften the inquiry and make it more of a request than a demand. Changes like this take very little extra time, and they have the potential to keep the climate supportive rather than defensive—in 911 calls, that small investment could save a life.

Climate Patterns Once a communication climate is formed, it can take on a life of its own. The pattern can be either positive or negative. As we have discussed previously in this textbook, we tend to match the communication style of our partners during social interactions (Park and Antonioni, 2007). This tendency towards reciprocity works with both confirming and disconfirming communication. For

instance, in conflict situations, hostility tends to provoke more hostility (“tit for tat,” or equivalent retaliation), whereas consolatory communication is more likely to be followed by conciliatory responses (one person apologizes and so does the other). These same patterns tend to hold for other kinds of messages. Avoidance leads to avoidance, analysis evokes analysis, and so on. This reciprocal pattern can be represented as a spiral (Wilmot, 1987). Fortunately, spirals can also work in a positive direction. One confirming behaviour leads to a similar response from the other person, which in turn leads to further confirmation by the first person (Le Poire and Yoshimura, 1999; Wiebe and Zhang, 2017). Spirals—whether positive or negative—rarely go on indefinitely. When a negative spiral gets out of hand, the partners may agree to back off from their disconfirming behaviour. “Hold on,” one may say, “this is getting us nowhere.” At this point, there may be a cooling-off period, or the partners may work together more constructively to solve their problem (Becker et al., 2008). This ability to end and recover from negative communication spirals is characteristic of successful relationships (Gottman and Levenson, 1999). Even the best relationships go through rocky periods in which the communication climate suffers. However, the accumulated goodwill and communication ability of the partners can make these times less frequent and intense. The remainder of this chapter focuses on communication strategies that will help you create more supportive communication climates when you give or receive potentially face-­ threatening messages. We also describe a philosophical approach to communication that invites the exchange of ideas and is inclusive, respectful, and civil.

Creating Supportive Climates Even the “best” message is not guaranteed to create a positive climate. Praise can be interpreted as sarcasm; an innocent smile can be perceived as a sneer; an offer to help can be seen as condescension. Because human communication is so complex, there are no foolproof words, phrases, or formulas

283

284

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

FOCUS ON RESEARCH BEING SNUBBED BY A PHONE You and your friends are having a meal and during the conversation one or more members of the group concentrates on their phone for a while rather than contributing to the conversation. Maybe that someone is you? No big deal, right? How about when it’s just two people having a conversation? Does it matter more? Research suggests that spending time on your phone during a social interaction negatively affects both conversational and relational quality and although it’s increasingly common, it contributes negatively to a communication climate by sending a disconfirming non-verbal message to the person who is being temporarily ignored. Studies conducted in a variety of countries, including Canada, have all found that being snubbed by a smartphone (called “phubbing”) has negative effects on people and relationships (Abeele and PostmaNilsenova, 2018; Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas, 2016, 2018; David and Roberts, 2017; Dwyer et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2017). Researchers have found that as phubbing increases in a social interaction people experience greater threats to the fundamental needs (see Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in Chapter 1) and they suggest that phubbing is a form of social exclusion that threatens people’s needs for belonging, self-esteem, and meaningful existence (Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas, 2018). Similarly, research examining the effects of phubbing in romantic relationships has found phubbing to be associated with increases in conflict over phone use, decreases in relational satisfaction, and even increases in the risk of depression (David and Roberts, 2017; Wang et al., 2018). In fact, just gazing at your phone (not even touching it) during a social interaction negatively affects the quality of the interaction. Researchers in the Netherlands compared the effects of gazing at a newspaper versus gazing at a phone during a face-toface conversation and found that phone gazing had a unique ability to devalue the quality of the interaction with the conversational partner (Abeele and Postma-­ Nilsenova, 2018). People judged the phone gazing as significantly more harmful than newspaper gazing. In

addition, these researchers found that phone gazing while listening to a conversational partner disrupted the connection between the two more than phone gazing while speaking to the partner. In a similar Canadian study, Ryan J. Dwyer and his colleagues (2018) had people go out to dinner in a restaurant with family and friends and either have their phone in plain sight on the table during the meal or have it hidden away throughout the entire meal. People were randomly assigned to either condition. These researchers found that people who had their phones in view reported feeling distracted and reported enjoying the time spent with family and friends less than those in the “phone out of sight” group. These investigators suggest that even though our phones can connect us to others all over the world, they might very well disconnect us from those sitting across the table. The findings of these studies reveal that both the person being ignored (the “phubee”) and the person distracted by their phone (the “phubber”) suffer individually when both parties are not fully present during social interactions. Moreover, their relationship suffers too. So what should we do? If you tend to be the phubbee, it’s probably best to exercise patience and compassion. Phubbing is highly correlated with fear of missing out, lack of self-control, and internet addiction (Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas, 2016). The collaborative strategies for conflict resolution described in Chapter 10 might help you work out a solution in relationships that are important to you. Similarly, if you tend to be the phubber, gaining self-awareness about your potentially disrespectful behaviour and using problem-solving strategies with your communication partners might help you balance your need to be included in your social network with your need to be fully present with others and connect with them in meaningful ways. Critical thinking: Do you think there are times when phubbing is more or less damaging to relationships? If so, what factors influence the consequences of phubbing?

9 | Communication Climate

TAKE TWO • Presenting self: the person you believe yourself to be in moments of honest self-examination; the physical traits, personality characteristics, attitudes, aptitudes, and all other parts of the image you want to present to the world. • Faces: different selves we present to different people; your socially approved identities. • Face-threatening acts: messages that seem to challenge the image we want to project. • Defensiveness: the process of protecting our presenting self (face).

Matthew Diffee, The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank

for creating positive climates. N ­ onetheless, research has suggested strategies that can increase the odds of creating and maintaining positive relational climates, even when the message you’re delivering is a tough one. Jack Gibb’s (1961) categorization of supportive and defensive behaviour, for example, has stood the test of time. After observing groups for sev-

TABLE 9.1  The Gibb Categories of DefensiveProvoking versus Supportive Behaviours Defensive Behaviour

Supportive Behaviour

1. Evaluation

1. Description

2. Control

2. Problem orientation

3. Strategy

3. Spontaneity

4. Neutrality

4. Empathy

5. Superiority

5. Equality

6. Certainty

6. Provisionalism

eral years, Gibb was able to isolate six types of defence-arousing communication and six contrasting kinds of behaviour that seem to reduce the level of threat and resulting defensiveness (Gibb, 1961, 2008). These “Gibb Categories” are listed in Table 9.1. His findings have both common-sense appeal and multiple applications. As a result, they’ve played an important part in communication textbooks, training seminars, journals, and research studies (Becker et al., 2008; Stewart, 2012). Understanding them helps explain how you can create positive climates by sending supportive rather than defence-­provoking messages.

Evaluation versus Description The first type of defence-­ arousing message Gibb identified is evaluation, which judges the other person, usually in a negative way. Consider this message: “You don’t care about me!” Evaluative messages like this have several characteristics that make them face-threatening. First, they judge what the other person is feeling rather than describing the speaker’s own thoughts, feelings, and wants. Second,

285

286

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

they don’t explain how the speaker arrived at his or her conclusion, and they lack specific examples. Furthermore, they’re often phrased in the kind of defence-arousing “you” language that we described in Chapter 5. From this, it’s easy to understand why evaluative statements often trigger defensive spirals.

CHECK IT! Describe the characteristics of communication spirals.

Do the climate-threatening properties of evaluative messages mean that it’s impossible to register a legitimate complaint? No. They simply mean that you must be alert to more constructive ways to do so. Description, for example, offers a way to share your thoughts, feelings, and wants without judging the listener. Descriptive messages make documented observations that are specific and concrete. As we mentioned earlier when discussing complaining, description focuses on behaviour that can be changed rather than on personal characteristics that cannot be changed. In addition, descriptive messages often use “I” language, which tends to provoke less defensiveness than “you” language (Proctor and Wilcox, 1993; Rogers et al., 2018). Contrast the evaluative “You don’t care about me”

with this descriptive message: “I’m sorry that we don’t spend as much time together as we did during the summer. When we don’t talk during the week, I sometimes feel unimportant. Maybe we could set up a phone call time on Wednesdays—that would mean a lot to me.” Let’s look at more examples of the differences between evaluative and descriptive messages Evaluation

Description

You’re not making any sense.

I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make.

You’re inconsiderate.

I would appreciate it if you’d let me know when you’re running late—I was worried.

That’s an ugly tablecloth.

I’m not crazy about big blue stripes; I’d like something subtler.

Note several things about these descriptive messages. First, their focus is on the speaker’s honest thoughts, feelings, and wants, which are expressed with little or no judgment. Second, the messages address specific behaviours rather than making sweeping character generalizations. The messages also provide information about how the speaker arrived at their conclusions. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, notice that each of the descriptive statements is just as honest as its evaluative counterpart. Once you have learned to speak descriptively, you can be straightforward while avoiding personal attacks than can poison a climate.

FOCUS ON RESEARCH SOCIAL SUPPORT: TALK OR TEXT? As we discussed in Chapter 1, considerable research confirms that supportive social relationships are good for both our mental and physical health. However, the majority of that research has focused on the support we receive through face-to-face interactions with others. The digital revolution has changed the ways we connect with our family and friends as well as social services. In light of this, Susan Holtzman

and her colleagues at the University of British Columbia (2017) wondered whether digital forms of social support provide the same benefits as those gained through in-person interactions. These researchers were specifically interested in social support offered via text messaging. In two labbased experiments, young adults completed a stressful task and were randomly assigned to one of three

9 | Communication Climate

groups. The first group was provided with emotional support in-person, the second group was provided with emotional support via text, and the third group received no emotional support. In the first experiment, the emotional support offered in-person or via text was from a close friend. In the second experiment, an associate of the experimenters who was a similar age to the participants offered it. In both studies, participants who received in-person support reported they felt happier (more positive affect) compared to those who received text messaging support or no support at all. In addition, participants indicated they were more satisfied with the support from the confederate (in experiment two) when it was offered inperson, rather than via text. These researchers suggest that although social support offered via text was

Controlling Communication versus Problem Orientation A second type of defence-provoking message involves some attempt to control another person. Controlling communication occurs when a sender seems to be imposing a solution on the receiver with little regard for the receiver’s needs or interests. The object of control can involve almost anything: where to eat dinner, how to spend a large sum of money, or whether to remain in a relationship, to name a few. The channel can range from words, to gestures, to tone of voice, and the control can be accomplished through status, insistence on obscure or irrelevant rules, or physical power. Whatever the object, channel, or form of control, people who act in controlling ways generate hostility. The unspoken message underlying their communication is “I know what’s best for you and, if you do as I say, we will get along.” In problem orientation, by contrast, communicators focus on finding a solution that satisfies both their own needs and those of the other person or people involved, rather than imposing their solution. The goal here is not to “win” at the expense of your partner, but to work out some arrangement in which everybody feels like a winner. (See Chapter 10 for a thorough discussion on “win–win” problem solving as a way to find problem-oriented solutions.) Problem orientation is often typified by

­ arginally better than no support at all, the in-person m variety may be most effective because our biological communication mechanisms (e.g., our brains, sensory systems, and motor organs) are better suited to face-to-face communication. Processing text takes more effort and as a result might be perceived as less pleasant. In any case, this study provides additional evidence that there is no replacement for the benefits of in-person human interaction, particularly when we are stressed or in need of some support. Critical thinking: What is your experience with giving and receiving emotional support via text versus in person? Is it easier to give social support in person or via text? What factors, in addition to the channel, play a role in the effectiveness of social support?

“we” language (see Chapter 6), which suggests the speaker is making decisions with rather than for other people (Seider et al., 2009). Here are some examples of how some controlling and problem-orientation messages might sound: Controlling

Problem Orientation

You didn’t book this room in advance and I have a client waiting! Please get out.

It appears there’s been a misunderstanding with this room booking. I have a client I need to meet with privately for about 10 minutes. There are a couple of shared workspaces free now and you can have this room back as soon as I’m done.

There’s only one way to handle this problem . . .

Looks like we have a problem. Let’s work out a solution that we can both live with.

Either you start working harder or you’re fired!

The production in your department hasn’t been as high as I’d hoped. Any ideas on what we could do?

Strategy versus Spontaneity Gibb uses the term strategy to refer to defence-arousing messages in which speakers hide their ulterior motives. The words dishonesty and manipulation reflect the nature of strategy. Even if the intentions that motivate strategic

287

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

communication are honourable, the victim of Strategy Spontaneity deception who discovers the attempt to deceive What are you doing I have a piano I need to is likely to feel offended at having been tricked Friday after work? move Friday after work. (Tsang, 2006). Can you give me a hand? As we discussed in Chapter 5, counterfeit quesHave you ever I’m concerned about your tions are a form of strategic communication, for considered another line job performance over the example, because they try to trap others into givof work? last year; let’s set up a time ing desired responses. Many sales techniques are to talk about it. strategic; they may give customers limited inforTrevor and Alicia go out I’d like to go out for mation and then make it difficult for them to say to dinner every week. dinner more often. no. This is not to say that all sales techniques are wrong or unethical, but most strategic ones are not well-suited to positive communication climates— This is a good place to pause and talk about let alone interpersonal relationships. If you have context and some critical responses regarding the ever become defensive when you thought a friend Gibb model. First, Gibb’s work can be seen as not was doing a “sales job” on you, you understand the particularly culturally inclusive as his emphasis concept. on being direct is better suited to low-context culIn contrast, spontaneity involves being honest tures, like Canada, the United States, and northwith others rather than manipulating them. What ern Europe, which rely primarily on language to it doesn’t mean is blurting out what you’re thinking express ideas as directly and logically as possible, as soon as an idea comes to you. As we discussed in than to high-context cultures, like many Asian Chapter 2, there are appropriate (and inappropri- and Middle Eastern cultures, which rely heavily on ate) times for self-disclosure. You would undoubt- subtle, often non-verbal cues to convey messages. edly threaten other people’s presenting selves if Second, his approaches are useful guidelines, but you were “spontaneous” about every opinion that they aren’t definitive and there are ways in which crossed your mind. That’s not what Gibb intended in using the term spontaneity; rather, his understanding of spontaneity involves setting aside any hidden agendas that others will sense and resist. You can probably remember times when someone asked you a question and you answered suspiciously with “Hmmm . . . why do you want to know?” Your defensive antennae were likely up because you detected an underlying strategy. If the person had told you honestly why he or she was asking the question, then your defences probably would have been lowered. Here are some Can you think of a situation in which communication that sounds “spontanexamples that illustrate the dif- eous” at first should actually be classified as “strategy”? Or, can you think of ference between strategy and messages that blur the lines between evaluation and description and control and problem solving? How might you address these issues? spontaneity:

davidf/iStockPhoto

288

9 | Communication Climate

each of the communication approaches Gibb labels as “supportive” can be used to exploit others and, therefore, violate the spirit of building a positive communication climate. For instance, consider spontaneity. Although it sounds paradoxical at first, spontaneity can be a strategy, too. Sometimes, you’ll see people using honesty in a calculating way, being just frank enough to win someone’s trust or sympathy for the purpose of manipulation. This calculated frankness is probably the most defence-arousing strategy of all because once you’re on to the manipulation, there is almost no chance you’ll ever trust that person again.

Neutrality versus Empathy Gibb uses the term neutrality to describe a fourth behaviour that provokes defensiveness, but a better word would probably be indifference. For example, 911 emergency telephone dispatchers are taught to be neutral in order to calm down callers, but they should not communicate either indifference or lack of caring (Shuler and Sypher, 2000). Using Gibb’s terminology, a neutral attitude is disconfirming because it communicates a lack of concern for the welfare of another person and implies that they are not very important to you. The poor effects of neutrality become apparent when you consider the hostility that most people have for the large, impersonal organizations they have to interact with: “They think of me as a number instead of a person,” “I felt as if I were being handled by computers and not human beings.” These common statements reflect people’s reactions to being handled in an indifferent, neutral way. The behaviour that contrasts with neutrality is empathy, which is the ability to consider another person’s point of view and attempt to experience their thoughts and feelings. Gibb found that empathy helps rid communication of the quality of indifference. Research has shown that empathy minimizes threats to self-concept (Bradley and Campbell, 2016). It’s important to note that accepting another’s feelings and putting yourself in another’s place is separate from agreeing with them. By simply letting someone know you care and have respect for them, you’re acting in a supportive way.

Gibb noted the importance of non-verbal messages in communicating empathy. He found that facial and bodily expressions of concern are often more important to the recipient than the words used. We addressed the concept of empathy in Chapter 3 and the skill of empathizing in Chapter 6; now, let’s see what empathic messages look like when they’re contrasted with neutral ones: Neutrality

Empathy

This is what happens when you don’t plan properly.

Ouch—looks like this didn’t turn out the way you expected.

Sometimes, things just don’t work out. That’s the way it goes.

I know you put a lot of time and effort into this project.

Don’t get too excited — I’ll bet you’re pretty everybody gets promoted excited about the sooner or later. promotion.

Superiority versus Equality A fifth behaviour that can create a defensive communication climate involves superiority, which involves sending patronizing messages either explicitly or implicitly. There is considerable research that suggests patronizing messages irritate recipients ranging from young students to senior citizens (Draper, 2005; Harwood et al., 1997). Any message that suggests “I’m better than you” is likely to arouse feelings of defensiveness in the recipient. Research supports what most of us know from experience: we dislike people who communicate superiority, especially when it involves explicit comparison with others (Hoorens et al., 2012). Many times in our lives, we communicate with people who possess less talent or knowledge than we do, but it’s not necessary to convey an attitude of superiority in these situations. Instead, we can communicate with equality, which involves conveying our respect for the inherent worth of others. Gibb found ample evidence that many who have superior skills and talents are capable of projecting feelings of equality rather than superiority. Such people communicate that although they may have greater talent in certain areas, they see other

289

290

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

human beings as having just as much worth as themselves. Equality is put to the test when a person does not have superior skills yet is in a position of authority (Beck and Beck, 1996). Supervisors sometimes have less expertise in certain areas than their subordinates but believe it would be beneath them to admit it. You have probably been in situations where you knew more about the subject than the person in charge—be it a supervisor, a teacher, a parent, or a salesperson—yet the person acted as if

they knew more. Did you feel defensive? No doubt. Did that person feel defensive? Probably. Both of you were challenging each other’s presenting self, so the climate likely became hostile. A truly secure person can treat others with equality even when there are obvious differences between their knowledge, talent, and status and that of those around them. Doing so creates a positive communication climate in which ideas are evaluated not on the basis of who contributed them, but rather on the merit of the ideas themselves.

FOCUS ON RESEARCH HOW TIME CONTRIBUTES TO COMMUNICATION CLIMATE Studies of Indigenous people’s interactions with mainstream health care in Canada have documented a reoccurring theme of misunderstanding between patients and health care providers (Brown, 2007; Browne et al., 2016; Neufeld, 2014). A wide variety of factors contribute to these communication problems, including, but not limited to, cultural differences in communication styles, beliefs, and values as well as systemic racism and negative stereotypes of Indigenous people (Allan and Smylie, 2015; Vang et al., 2018). These studies have also documented factors that have created experiences that are more positive. Two of these factors are health care providers who show compassion and non-discriminatory attitudes, and establishing long-standing, positive, trusting relationships with their First Nations patients (Browne and Fiske, 2001). When health care providers are compassionate and respectful and build positive, trusting relationships they reduce the potential for misunderstanding and create positive communication climates, which are central to establishing cultural safety. The goal of cultural safety is to foster a climate that respects the unique history of Indigenous peoples in order that they receive safe and equitable care and services, without discrimination (San’yas Indigenous Cultural Safety Training, 2019). Zoua Vang and her colleagues (2018) were interested in identifying the institutional factors that can help support better experiences among Indigenous people in health care settings. Specifically, these

investigators were interested in how hospital bureaucracy affects interactions between health providers and Indigenous patients. They conducted interviews with 25 Inuit and First Nations women who were transferred from northern Quebec to a city hospital in southern Quebec to receive maternity care due to medically high-risk pregnancies. They found hospital policies and procedures contributed to the creation of a dehumanizing communication climate in the health care facility. For instance, hospitals often impose regulations governing the length of health care providers’ visits with patients in order to maximize efficiency. Shorter visits are correlated with poorer health care outcomes (Roter and Hall, 2006). Vang and her colleagues (2018) found the shorter visits also negatively affected communication between the health care providers and the Indigenous maternity care patients because the lack of time created yet another barrier (in addition to culture, and pre-existing stereotypes) to establishing caring, trusting relationships. She and her colleagues argue that because of time constraints, health care providers’ focus is on the content components of their messages to patients (e.g., asking questions, giving information and direction about treatments and test results, etc.) rather than on the relational component (e.g., communicating affiliation, showing concern, providing support). Research suggests time is essential to the delivery of culturally safe medical care (Neufeld, 2014; Oster et al., 2016). As we ­discussed

9 | Communication Climate

in Chapter 7, our use of time communicates information about status. These investigators argue that lengthening medical visit times has the potential to transform the communication climate in a health care setting from one that privileges the traditional, Western, hierarchical patient–provider relationship to one that is more respectful, collaborative, and better aligned with the principles of cultural safety. This observation aligns with the strategies Annette Browne and her colleagues (2016) researched and described for enhancing equity in Canadian health services. These strategies include re-visioning the use of time to enable the flexibility that is needed to establish trusting relationships with Indigenous people who have often been dismissed or mistreated by the health care system.

What does equality sound like? Here are some examples: Superiority

Equality

When you get to be in my position someday, then you’ll understand.

I’d like to hear how the issue looks to you. Then I can tell you how it looks to me.

You really believe that?

Here’s another way to think about it. . . .

No, that’s not the right way! What if you tried it Let me show you how to do it. this way?

Certainty versus Provisionalism Have you ever run into people who are absolutely positive that they’re right? Who know that theirs is the only, or proper, way of doing something? Who insist that they have all the facts and need no additional information? If you have, you’ve met individuals who project the defence-arousing behaviour that Gibb calls certainty. Communicators who dogmatically regard their own opinions with certainty while disregarding the ideas of others, demonstrate a lack of respect for others. It’s likely the recipient will take the certainty as a personal affront and react defensively. In contrast to dogmatic certainty is provisionalism, in which people express openness to others’ ideas and opinions. You may have strong opinions, but in this supportive style of communication, you

Vang and her colleagues (2018) conclude that the possibility of a medical encounter leading to a relationship-building opportunity or a perpetuation of misunderstanding rests on not only the communication styles and interpersonal skills of those involved, but also the extent to which the institutions involved make an effort to equalize patient–provider power dynamics and create a more positive and responsive communication climate. Critical thinking: What institutional factors, in addition to time, undermine the establishment of collaborative, supportive relationships between health care professionals and members of Indigenous and minority cultures in Canada? What is the non-verbal message these factors communicate and/or how do they undermine a positive communication climate?

acknowledge that you don’t have a monopoly on the truth. Provisionalism often surfaces in a person’s choice of words. While people acting with certainty regularly use the terms can’t, never, always, must, and have to, those acting with provisionalism use perhaps, maybe, possibly, might, and could. It’s not that provisional people are spineless—they simply recognize that discussion is aided by openminded messages. Researchers found that when teachers use provisional language, it helps motivate students (Katt and Collins, 2013). For instance, students responded more favourably to the critique “Your introduction could have been developed more thoroughly” than “The introduction was not well developed.” Let’s look at some examples: Certainty

Provisionalism

That will never work!

My guess is that you’ll run into problems with that approach.

You’ll hate that class! Stay away from it!

I didn’t like that class very much; I’m not sure you would, either.

You won’t get anywhere without a university education. Mark my words.

I think it’s important to get that degree. I found it was hard to land an interview until I had one.

You’ve probably noticed a great deal of overlap among the various Gibb categories. For instance,

291

292

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

BUILDING WORK SKILLS CRITICISM THAT AROUSES LESS DEFENSIVENESS Using the Gibb categories of defensive and supportive behaviour, analyze the following message: This project coordinator job seems to be too challenging for you! You’re constantly wasting my time. You need to take minutes of the team meetings and send them to me if I’m not able to attend. You’re the coordinator, after all. These things happen when you don’t plan properly. When you’ve been here as long as I have, you’ll know better. What defensive-arousing elements does this message include? Rewrite the criticism using more supportive statements.

look at the final example under provisionalism. The statement is likely to create a positive climate not only because it’s provisional rather than certain, but also because it’s descriptive rather than evaluative, problem-oriented rather than controlling, and equal rather than superior. You may also have noticed a tone of respect underlying all of the supportive examples. By valuing and confirming others—even if you disagree with them—you create a respectful, positive communication climate both now and in future interactions.

Invitational Communication It might be tempting to view the suggestions in this chapter as fail-proof: just adopt certain phrases and methods, and your interpersonal problems will be solved. But of course, we all know it doesn’t work that way. Becoming a truly competent communicator requires developing an interpersonal philosophy that undergirds what you say and do. Communication scholars Sonja Foss and Cindy Griffin (1995; see also Modesti, 2012) have identified such an approach. Their study began in the field of rhetoric, which is traditionally associated with persuasion. Foss and Griffin offer a way to approach the challenge of creating supportive communication climates, a view they call invitational rhetoric: Invitational rhetoric can be viewed as a communication exchange in which participants create an environment where growth and change can occur but where changing others is neither

the ultimate goal nor the criterion for success in the interaction. (Bone et al., 2008, p. 436)

Invitational communication is an approach that welcomes others to see your point of view and to freely share their own. In an invitational climate, communicators offer ideas without coercion; they listen to ideas with an open mind; they exchange ideas without pressure. Yet it doesn’t mean they don’t critically appraise the messages they hear. They also don’t waffle about things they believe in. What it means is they endeavour to create a supportive climate based on value, safety, and freedom, thereby leading to greater civility in their communication (Bone et al., 2008). Earlier in this chapter, we discussed valuing as the key component of confirming communication. In order to describe how safety and freedom tie into invitational communication and civility, it’s helpful to describe what incivility looks like. Here are some examples that illustrate uncivil, noninvitational communication: • harmful labels and slurs that denigrate others’ value and worth; using words in ways that demean and belittle; • the gaslight effect, which involves imposing one person’s perception on another’s in an attempt to manipulate and control them; • ghosting, which involves not responding to texts, emails, and calls and blocking others on social media, thereby disconfirming them and treating them as if they don’t exist; and

9 | Communication Climate

• cyberbullying, discussed earlier in this chapter, which communicates to its victims “you have no value” and “you’re not safe.” In contrast to these uncivil approaches, many of the skills we’ve discussed in previous ­chapters—perception checking, responsible language, responsive listening—are rooted in an invitational approach to interpersonal communication, because they support the mutual exchange of ideas and help to build more positive communication climates. Building on their foundation, let’s look briefly at two more ways to put this invitational philosophy into action: using the language of choice and responding non-defensively to ­criticism.

The Language of Choice Chapter 6 explained the relationship between pronouns such as I, we, and you and the language of responsibility. The words that follow these pronouns are also important components of responsible communication (Zeman, 2010). Read the following statements and consider how you feel about them (assuming they involve activities you’d rather not do): “I have to talk to my neighbour about the barking dog.” “I should be nicer to my roommate.” “I ought to be more assertive.” “I can’t take this anymore.” “I had no choice—I had to tell her.”

It’s likely that you read those lines in a somber tone of voice and that you were left with a sense of heaviness and pressure. Consider how those same phrases might conjure a different feeling if worded this way (with possible reasons in parentheses): “I’m going to talk to my neighbour about the barking dog” (I want to settle this problem). “I will start being nicer to my roommate” (I want a more pleasant relationship).

“I’m determined to be more assertive” (I want to be a more effective communicator). “I’m not going to take this anymore” (I want change). “I decided to tell her” (I wanted her to know).

Notice how the second list describes choices instead of obligations and the wording focuses on decisions made (e.g., will, going to), not grudging acquiescence (e.g., should, have to). You probably found the second list more motivating than the first; research supports this finding, too. When participants in one study said “I don’t eat unhealthy snacks” (suggesting personal choice), instead of “I can’t eat unhealthy snacks” (suggesting external constraint), they demonstrated greater willpower and changes in their eating habits (Patrick and Hagtvedt, 2012). The researchers call this phenomenon “empowered refusal,” maintaining that word choice plays a significant role in the process in maintaining motivation. In the language of invitational communication, empowering words identify your freedom to make choices. In essence, when you use the language of invitational communication, you invite yourself to take charge of your ­decisions. Similarly, psychologist Susan David (2016) maintains that labelling a goal as a “have to” priority (as in, “I have to finish this paper”) increases your emotional stress and decreases your likelihood of achieving that goal. However, turning that “have to” into a “want to” facilitates goal achievement, as in: “I want to finish this paper because I want to do well in this course, and I also want to enjoy the rest of the weekend.” David notes that rewording goals is often an important component of perceiving them differently: We all fall into these subtle traps of language and thinking: “I have to be on dad duty today,” or “I have to attend another boring meeting.” When we do this, we forget that our current circumstances are often the result of earlier choices we made in service of our values: “I want to be a father,” or “I love the work that I do and want to excel at my job.” (p. 152)

293

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

Once you’ve adopted the language of choice for yourself, consider what it’s like to offer that same choice and freedom to others with whom you communicate: “You should” becomes “I’m going to” (and you can join me if you want) “You have to” becomes “ You’re welcome to” “We can’t”

becomes “I don’t want to” (do you?)

One study found that when a request is followed by the phrase “but you are free to say no,” respondents are actually more likely to comply with the request (Carpenter, 2013). The concept is simple: people don’t like feeling pressured or having their options limited or prescribed. When you extend the right of refusal, others are more open to respond favourably. Of course, it’s best when the phrase “but you are free to . . .” isn’t just a technique to get others to say yes. The goal of invitational communication is to genuinely offer freedom of choice, which people value and appreciate. As mentioned earlier, there’s nothing magical about these words and phrases—they simply reflect an invitational attitude. Generally, they say, “Here is what’s going on inside me; tell me what’s going on inside you.” As such, they are best understood as part of an exchange. Consider how phrases such as these demonstrate value, safety, and freedom for both parties in a dialogue:

Invitational communicators not only extend freedom to others, but they exercise it themselves. It’s fine to let people know what you think and feel, and want, and to have values, beliefs, and convictions that guide your choices. The key is communicating those ideas responsibly rather than aggressively. By offering your perspective in a way that invites rather than imposes on others and recognizes they may not share your views you help to create a more positive, respectful and supportive communication climate.

Responding Non-defensively to Criticism The world would be a happier place if everyone communicated invitationally, but sometimes when we invite others to offer their point of view, they criticize and/or attack us. In those situations, it can be chal­ lenging to remain civil and respond non-­defensively—even if we’re committed to using the language of choice and projecting an invitational attitude. How can you respond non-defensively when faced with criticism? The following pages introduce two such methods: seeking more information and

“I hold a different opinion, but I understand why that’s important to you.” “I have some thoughts on the matter—would you like to hear them?” “I welcome your input” (I may or may not use it, but I value what you have to say). “Here is something I feel strongly about” (it’s okay if you don’t).

The final statement above illustrates an important point.

Yuri Gurevich/Shutterstock.

294

How can you respond non-defensively when others use the defensiveness-­ provoking behaviours Gibb identified? Can you think of situations in which you’ve sought more information or agreed with the critic? Did that change the climate of the communication?

9 | Communication Climate

a­ greeing with the critic. Despite their apparent simplicity, these methods have proven to be among the most valuable skills communicators can learn.

Seek More Information It’s unwise to respond to a critical attack until you truly understand what the other person has said (Gold and Castillo, 2010). Even comments that at first appear to be totally unjustified or foolish may contain at least a grain of truth and, sometimes, much more. Many people object to the idea of asking for details when they’re criticized. Their resistance grows from confusing the act of listening open-mindedly to a speaker’s comments with accepting them. Once you realize that you can listen to, understand, and even acknowledge the most hostile comments without necessarily accepting them, it becomes much easier to hear another person out. If you disagree with a speaker’s criticisms, you will be in a much better position to explain yourself once you understand their objections. On the other hand, after carefully listening to the other person’s remarks, you may just see that they are valid, in which case you’ve learned some valuable information about yourself. In either case, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose by paying attention to the critic.

CHECK IT! Describe the Gibb categories of defensive and supportive behaviours and how they can contribute to creating a more defence-arousing or a less defence-arousing response.

One way to seek more information is to ask for specifics. Often, the vague attack of a critic is virtually useless even if you sincerely want to change. Abstract accusations such as “You’re being unfair” or “You never help out” can be difficult to understand. In such cases, it’s a good idea to request

more specific information from the sender, inviting them to explain their position more clearly. Before agreeing with or disputing an accusation, you might ask, “What do I do that’s unfair?” or “When haven’t I helped out?” Remember that it’s important to ask these kinds of questions in a tone of voice that suggests you genuinely want to learn more about the other person’s perception. Sometimes, even your sincere and well-phrased requests for specific details won’t meet with success, and your critics won’t be able to define precisely the behaviour they find offensive—or they may be reluctant to tell you. In instances like these, you can often learn more clearly what is bothering your critic by guessing at the specifics of a complaint. Like the technique of asking for specifics, guessing must be done with goodwill if it is to produce satisfying results. You need to convey to the critic that, for both of your sakes, you are truly interested in finding out what is the matter. Here are some typical questions you might hear from someone guessing about the details of another person’s criticism: “So, you object to the language I used in writing the paper. Was my language too informal?” “Okay, I understand that you think the outfit looks funny. What is it that’s so bad? Is it the colour? Does it have something to do with the fit? The fabric?” “When you say that I’m not doing my share around the house, do you mean that I haven’t been helping enough with the cleaning?”

Another strategy is to draw out confused or reluctant speakers by paraphrasing their thoughts and feelings; you can do this using the reflective listening skills that we described in Chapter 5. By clarifying or amplifying what you understand critics are saying, you’ll likely learn more about their objections (Homburg and Furst, 2007). A brief dialogue between a disgruntled customer and a store manager who is an invitational listener might sound like this: Customer (C): The way you people run this store is disgusting! I just want to tell you that I’ll never shop here again.

295

296

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

Manager (M) [reflecting the customer’s feeling]: It seems that you’re quite upset. Can you tell me the problem? C: Your salespeople never help a customer find anything around here. M: So, you didn’t get enough help finding the items you were looking for, is that it? C: I spent 20 minutes looking around in here before I even talked to a member of your staff. M: So, what you’re saying is that the salespeople seemed to be ignoring the customers? C: No. They were all busy with other people. It just seems to me that you ought to have enough help around to handle the crowds that come in at this hour. M: I understand now. You were most frustrated because we didn’t have enough staff to serve you promptly. C: That’s right. I have no complaint with the service I get once I’m waited on, and I’ve always thought you had a good selection here. It’s just that I’m too busy to wait so long for help. M: Well, I’m glad you brought this to my attention. We certainly don’t want loyal customers going away angry. I’ll try to see that it doesn’t happen again.

Agree with the Critic

Cantú and Castellanos/Cartoonstock

Another method for responding invitationally to criticism is to agree with the critic. But how can you honestly agree with comments that you don’t believe are true? We’ll answer this question by showing how you can acknowledge and accept

another person’s point of view while maintaining your position. One way to agree with the critic is to agree with the truth. For instance, you agree with the truth when another person’s criticism is factually correct: “You’re right; I am angry.” “I suppose I was just being defensive.” “Now that you mention it, I did get pretty sarcastic.”

Agreeing with the facts seems quite sensible when you realize that certain matters are indisputable. If you agree to be somewhere at 4:00 and don’t show up until 5:00, you are late—no matter how good your explanation is. If you have broken something you borrowed, run out of gas, or failed to finish a job you started, there’s no point in denying it. In the same way, if you’re honest you’ll have to agree with many interpretations of your behaviour, even when they’re not flattering. You do get angry, act foolishly, fail to listen, and behave inconsiderately—everyone does. Once you acknowledge this, your communication can become more invitational—as the teacher-­student dialogue one the following page demonstrates.

CHECK IT! Describe the ways you can seek more information from your critic and how these strategies can contribute to a more positive communication climate.

Steve Debenport/iStockphoto

9 | Communication Climate

T: I don’t know what’s happening in the lower grades. They just don’t seem to be turning out people who can write a simple, declarative sentence. S: You’re not the first person I’ve heard say that. T: I should think you’d be upset by the fact that after so much time in English composition classes, you haven’t mastered the basics of spelling. S: You’re right. It does bother me.

Notice that in agreeing with the teacher’s comments, the student did not in any way demean herself. Even though there may have been extenuating circumstances to account for her lack of skill, the student didn’t find it necessary to justify her errors—because she wasn’t saddled with the burden of pretending to be perfect. By simply agreeing with the facts, she was able to maintain her dignity, avoid an unproductive argument and establish a climate of civility and respect, the hallmarks of an invitational approach. Another way to agree with the critic is to agree in principle. Criticism often comes in the form of abstract ideals against which you’re unfavourably compared:

Think about a situation in which you agreed with the critic. How did it change your perspective?

Teacher (T): Look at this paper! It’s only two pages long and it contains 12 misspelled words. I’m afraid you have a real problem with your writing. Student (S): You’re right. I know I don’t spell well at all.

REFLECTION AGREEING WITH A CRITIC CAN BE LIBERATING I’ve always been a very thrifty person. Sometimes, I wish I were more of a free-and-easy spender, but I’m just not. When my housemates and I shop for food, I’m always looking for bargains. Just after we covered the part of our textbook that talked about agreeing with a critic, we were in the market and I was doing my usual “we can’t afford that” routine. One of my housemates said, “You’re really a tightwad!” Instead of arguing, I agreed with the truth of his accusation and said, “You’re right, I am!” This surprised us both, and we both started to laugh. It felt great to acknowledge the reality of his claim without getting defensive.

“I wish you wouldn’t spend so much time on your work. Relaxation is important, too, you know.” “You shouldn’t expect so much from your kids. Nobody’s perfect.” “What do you mean you’re not voting? The government is going to get better only when people like you take more of an interest in it.” “You mean you’re still upset by that remark? You ought to learn how to take a joke better.”

In cases like these, you can accept the principle that the criticism is based on and still behave as before.

297

298

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

After all, some rules do allow occasional exceptions, and people are often inconsistent. Consider how you might sincerely agree with the criticisms above without necessarily changing your behaviour: “You’re right. I am working hard right now. It probably is unhealthy, but finishing the job is worth the extra strain to me.” “I guess my expectations for the kids are awfully high, and I don’t want to drive them crazy. I hope I’m not making a mistake.” “You’re right: if everybody stopped voting, the system would fall apart.” “Maybe I would be happier if I could take a joke in stride. I’m not ready to do that, though, at least not for jokes like that one.”

What about times when there seems to be no basis whatsoever for agreeing with your critics? You’ve listened carefully and asked questions to make sure you understand the objections, but the more you listen, the more positive you are that they are totally out of line. In these cases, you can at least agree with the critic’s perception. Such a response tells critics that you’ve acknowledged the existence of their perceptions even though you don’t agree or wish to change your behaviour. This lets you avoid debates over who is right and who is wrong, which can turn an exchange of ideas into an argument. Notice the difference between the following two scenes, for example: Disputing the perception defensively: A: I don’t see how you can stand to be around Josh. The guy is so crude—he gives me the creeps. B: What do you mean, crude? He’s a really nice guy. I think you’re just touchy. A: Touchy! If it’s touchy to be offended by disgusting behaviour, then I’m guilty. B: You’re not guilty about anything. It’s just that you’re too sensitive when people kid around.

A: Too sensitive, huh? I don’t know what’s happened to you. You used to have such good judgment about people. . . . Agreeing with the perception: A: I don’t see how you can stand to be around Josh. The guy is so crude—he gives me the creeps. B: Well, I enjoy being around him, but I guess I can see how his jokes would be offensive to some people. A: You’re darned right. I don’t see how you can put up with him. B: Yeah. I guess if you didn’t appreciate his humour, you wouldn’t want to have much to do with him.

Agreeing with the critic’s perception communicates your understanding that they are entitled to their own point of view, although different from your own, and helps to maintain an invitational communication climate in which communicators feel free to continue to exchange their ideas.

CHECK IT! Explain the ways you can agree with your critic and how this approach contributes to a more positive communication climate.

All these responses to criticism may appear to buy peace at the cost of denying your feelings. However, as you can see by now, counterattacking usually makes matters worse. The invitational responses you’ve just learned will not solve problems or settle disputes by themselves. They will, however, make a constructive dialogue possible, thereby setting the stage for a productive solution. How to achieve productive solutions is the topic of Chapter 10.

9 | Communication Climate

BUILDING WORK SKILLS RESPONDING NON-DEFENSIVELY TO CRITICISM As a student (in a co-op work placement, field practicum, or work-placement setting) or as a new employee, you often get a lot of evaluative feedback or “constructive criticism.” Think of a time when your job-related skills were criticized and you reacted defensively. If you’re having trouble getting started, imagine yourself receiving one of the following comments: “You’re not taking enough initiative.” “You’re not very receptive to feedback.” “You’re not acting like a team player.” Now, use the strategies described in the Responding Non-defensively to Criticism section (page 294) to seek more information from your critic and/or agree with that person. What might you say? Role-play your response with a classmate. Make sure your non-verbal communication agrees with your sincere intent to gather more information. Does your partner think you’re genuine?

SUMMARY Communication climate refers to the social tone of a relationship. The most influential factor in shaping a communication climate is the degree to which the people involved see themselves as valued. Messages have differing levels of confirmation, which we can categorize as confirming, disagreeing, or disconfirming. Confirming messages, which communicate “you exist and are valued” to others, may involve endorsement or acknowledgement; at a minimum, they involve recognition. Disagreeing messages, which communicate “you’re wrong,” use argumentativeness and complaining. Disconfirming messages, which communicate “you do not exist and are not valued,” include aggressiveness and ostracism. Over time, these messages form climate patterns that often take the shape of positive or negative spirals. Defensiveness, which is most often prompted by face-threatening acts, is at the core of most negative spirals. Jack Gibb suggests a variety of ways to create a positive and non-defensive communication climate.

These include being descriptive rather than evaluative, problem-oriented rather than controlling, spontaneous rather than strategic, empathetic rather than neutral, equal rather than superior, and provisional rather than certain. Invitational communication is an approach that welcomes the civil exchange of ideas. Communicators can help create an invitational climate by using the language of choice. This involves shifting your language to focus on decisions and options (“I am going to”; “Do you want to?”) rather than obligations and impositions (“I have to”; “You should”). When faced with criticism, there are two alternatives to responding defensively: (1) seeking additional information from the critic and (2) agreeing with some aspect of the criticism. When performed sincerely, these approaches can transform an actual or potentially negative communication climate into a more positive one.

299

300

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS 1.

Messages that convey valuing are

6.

a. rare. b. confirming. c. indirect. d. all of the above. 2.

Anand tells his friend Kiki that she’s right and did a great job convincing their boss to change the project implementation plan. Anand’s communication to Kiki could be classified as

a. problem-oriented communication. b. provisionalism. c. face-threatening communication. d. all of the above. 7.

a. acknowledgement. b. endorsement. c. recognition. d. listening. 3.

4.

5.

8.

Interruptions, irrelevant tangents, impersonal responses, and being ignored are all ex­amples of which type of communication? a. b. c. d.

a. I have to invite them to join us. b. I decided to tell them I don’t want to go so they could make alternate arrangements. c. I was forced to tell them about it. d. I should talk to Manny about borrowing things and never returning them.

using using using using

neutrality and strategy. certainty and superiority. superiority and neutrality. strategy and evaluation.

Lea’s supervisor has said she needs to have a better attitude. Lea responds by saying, “When that customer complained I felt very irritated, but I should have controlled my temper better and been more polite. Is that the kind of thing you mean?” Lea’s response is an example of a. asking the critic for specifics. b. agreeing with the critic in principle. c. guessing about the specifics of the critic’s complaint. d. disputing the critic’s perception.

complaining communication disconfirming communication neutral communication invitational communication

Which of the following is the best example of the language of choice?

Rather than listening to Matek’s ideas about how to solve a problem at work, his supervisor says “That will never work! When you get to be in my position someday, then you’ll understand.” This supervisor’s approach could best be described as a. b. c. d.

Which of the following has been described as the “social death penalty”? a. aggressiveness b. complaining c. argumentativeness d. ostracism

Defensive responses are designed to protect your presenting self from

9.

Invitational communication a. is a philosophical approach to guide behaviour. b. is an approach to rhetoric that encourages the exchange of ideas. c. helps to create supportive communication climates. d. is all of the above.

9 | Communication Climate

10. Cyberbullying is an example of

c. verbal aggressiveness. d. all of the above.

a. verbal argumentativeness. b. verbal endorsement.

Answers: 1. b; 2. b; 3. d; 4. b; 5. b; 6. c; 7. b; 8. c; 9. d; 10. c

ACTIVITIES 1. Critical Thinking Probe Mental health experts generally believe it’s better to have others disagree with you than ignore you. Express your opinion on this matter, using specific examples from personal experiences to support your position. Next, discuss whether (and how) it’s possible to disagree without being disconfirming. 2. Skill Builder Develop your ability to communicate supportively instead of triggering defensive reactions in others. Restate each of the following “you” statements as an “I” message. Use details from your own personal relationships to create messages that are specific and personally relevant. a. “You’re thinking only of yourself.” b. “Don’t be so touchy.” c. “Quit fooling around!” d. “Stop beating around the bush and tell me the truth.” e. “You’re a slob!” 3. Ethical Challenge Gibb argues that spontaneous rather than strategic communication reduces defensiveness. However, in some situations a strategic approach may result in a better communication climate than that created by a completely honest message. Consider situations such as these: a. You intend to quit your job because you dislike your manager, but you don’t want to offend them. How do you explain the reasons for your departure?

b. You’re tutoring a high school student in reading or math. The student is sincere and a hard worker, but cannot seem to grasp and apply concepts and skills and is not progressing. What do you say when they ask, “How am I doing?” Describe at least one situation from your experience where complete honesty increased another person’s defensiveness. Discuss whether candour, or another strategy, might have been the best approach in this situation. How can you reconcile your approach with Gibb’s arguments in favour of spontaneity? 4. Invitation to Insight Review the Gibb behaviours discussed on pages 285–92, and then answer the following questions: a. Which defence-provoking behaviour do you find most annoying? b. Who in your life uses that behaviour most often? c. What part of your presenting self is threatened by that behaviour? d. How do you normally respond to that behaviour? e. What behaviour do you wish that person would do instead? 5. Skill Builder With a partner or in a small group, construct sets of contrasting statements—one using the language of obligation and the other restating the issue

301

302

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

using the language of choice (see pages 293–4). Describe the difference each type of statement makes, both in terms of adjusting your attitude as a speaker and the receiver’s likely reaction. 6. Role Play Practise responding non-defensively to critical attacks by following these steps: a. Describe five criticisms you’re likely to encounter from others in your day-to-day communication. If you have trouble thinking of criticisms,

invite people who know you well to supply some real, sincere grievances. b. For each criticism, write one or more non-­ defensive responses using the categories on pages 295–8. Be sure your responses are sincere and that you offer them without counterattacking your critic. c. Practise your responses, either by inviting a friend or classmate to play the role of your critics or by approaching your critics directly and inviting them to share their complaints with you.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1.

Describe the three levels of confirming messages and give examples of each. Can you endorse another person without recognizing and acknowledging them? Why or why not?

2.

The authors argue that argumentativeness is a more positive approach to disagreeing than complaining. Do you agree? Why or why not?

3.

What elements do all types of disconfirming messages have in common? Explain.

4.

Explain how defensiveness is the process of protecting your presenting self. Give an example to illustrate.

5.

How can Jack Gibb’s categories of supportive behaviour help you to reduce defensiveness in others?

6.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of seeking more information when you are criticized?

JOURNAL IDEAS 1.

Think of a criticism or complaint you have about someone important to you. Write down your complaint, review the Gibb categories, and rewrite your complaint using: a. a description (rather than an evaluation);

b. a problem orientation (rather than a control orientation); c. spontaneity (rather than strategy); d. empathy (rather than neutrality); e. equality (rather than superiority); and f. provisionalism (rather than certainty).

9 | Communication Climate



Have you lost any of your meaning and intention? If so, what did you lose and how can it be incorporated? Look at your two complaints and pretend someone was making them about you. Which would you rather hear and why?

2.

Describe a time recently when you responded defensively to a comment or

criticism made by someone important to you. Review the strategies for seeking more information and agreeing with the critic described in this chapter. How could you have used these strategies in the situation you just described, and what might the challenges and benefits be?

303

GaudiLab/Shutterstock

10

Managing Conflict

CHAPTER OUTLINE What Is Conflict? Expressed Struggle Interdependence Perceived Incompatible Goals Perceived Scarce Resources Inevitability

Conflict Styles Avoidance (Lose–Lose) Accommodation (Lose–Win) Competition (Win–Lose) Compromise

Collaboration (Win–Win) Which Style to Use?

Conflict in Relational Systems Complementary and Symmetrical Conflict Serial Arguments Toxic Conflict: The “Four Horsemen” Conflict Rituals

Variables in Conflict Styles Gender Culture

Conflict Management in Practice Steps for the Win–Win Approach

KEY TERMS accommodation avoidance collaboration competition complementary conflict compromise conflict conflict rituals

de-escalatory spiral direct aggression escalatory spiral passive aggression serial argument stonewalling symmetrical conflict win–win problem solving

LEARNING OUTCOMES YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO: • • • • • •

Describe the nature of conflict, its elements and its attributes Recognize and accept the inevitability of conflict in your life Identify the behaviours that characterize different conflict styles Analyze various communication patterns in relational conflicts Describe how gender and culture affect communication during conflict Explain how the conflict management process can ideally resolve interpersonal conflicts

306

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

Once upon a time, there was a world without conflict. The leaders of each nation recognized the need for co-operation and met regularly to solve any potential problems before they could grow. They never disagreed on matters needing attention or on ways to handle these matters, and so there were never any international tensions, and of course there was no war. Within each nation, things ran just as smoothly. The citizens always agreed on who their leaders should be, so elections were always unanimous. There was no social friction among various groups. Age, race, and educational differences did exist, but each group respected the others, and all got along harmoniously.

LPETTET/iStockPhoto

Human relationships were always perfect. Strangers were always kind and friendly to each other. Neighbours were considerate of each other’s needs. Friendships were always mutual, and no disagreements ever spoiled people’s enjoyment of one other. Once people fell in love—and everyone did—they stayed happy. Partners liked everything about each other and were able to fully satisfy each other’s needs. Children and parents agreed on every aspect of family life and were never critical or hostile toward each other. Each day was better than the one before.

Of course, everybody lived happily ever after.

This story is obviously a fairy tale. ­ Regardless of what we may wish for or dream about, a ­conflict-free world just doesn’t exist. Even the best communicators and the luckiest people are bound to encounter situations in which their needs don’t match the needs of others. Money, time, power, sex, humour, aesthetic taste, and a thousand other issues arise and keep us from living in a state of perpetual agreement. For many people, the inevitability of conflict is a depressing fact. They think that the existence of ongoing conflict means that there is little chance of forming happy relationships with others. Effective communicators know differently, however. They realize that although it’s impossible to eliminate conflict, there are ways to manage it effectively. The skilful management of conflict can open the door both to healthier, stronger, and more satisfying relationships as well as increased mental and  physical health (Canary, 2003; Laursen and Pursell, 2009).

What Is Conflict?

Stop reading for a moment and make a list of as many different conflicts as you can think of. Include conflicts you’ve experienced personally and those that only involved other people. The list will probably show you that conflict takes many forms. Sometimes, conflict features angry shouting, as when parents yell at their children or vice versa. In other cases, conflicts involve restrained discussion, as in labour–management negotiations or court trials. Sometimes, conflicts are expressed through hostile silence, as in unspoken feuds between angry couples. Finally, conflicts may involve physical fighting between friends, enemies, or even total strangers. Whatever forms they may Think about the most recent conflict you’ve experienced—with a co-worker, friend, parent, or partner. How did the conflict change your relationship? take, all interpersonal conflicts

10 | Managing Conflict

share certain similarities. William Wilmot and Joyce Hocker (2014) define conflict as an expressed struggle that inevitably occurs between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from the other party in achieving their goals. The various parts of this definition can help you gain a better understanding of how conflict operates in everyday life.

Expressed Struggle In order for conflict to exist, all the people involved must know that there is some disagreement. You may be upset for months because a neighbour’s loud music keeps you awake at night, but no conflict actually exists until the neighbour learns about your problem. An expressed struggle does not have to be verbal. You can show your displeasure with someone without saying a word. A dirty look, the silent treatment, and avoiding the other person are all ways of expressing yourself. One way or another, all of the people involved must know that a problem exists before it fits our definition of conflict.

Interdependence However antagonistic they may feel, the people in a conflict are dependent upon each other. The welfare and satisfaction of one depends on the actions of another (Johnson and Cionea, 2017). Many conflicts remain unresolved because the people fail to understand, accept, and acknowledge their interdependence. You might find a roommate, neighbour, or co-worker annoying. But unless you can sever your ties to them, you need to work out a way to coexist. One of the first steps toward resolving a conflict is to take the attitude that “we’re all in this together.”

Perceived Incompatible Goals All conflicts look as if one person’s gain would be another’s loss. For instance, consider the neighbour whose music keeps you awake at night. It appears that someone has to lose: either your neighbour loses the enjoyment of hearing their music at full volume or you lose sleep and are still awake and unhappy.

The goals in this situation really aren’t completely incompatible—solutions do exist that allow both people to get what they want. For instance, you could achieve peace and quiet by closing your windows or getting the neighbour to close hers. You might use earplugs, or perhaps the neighbour could get a set of earphones. If any of these solutions prove workable, the conflict disappears. Unfortunately, people often fail to see mutually satisfying answers to their problems. As long as they perceive their goals to be mutually exclusive, the conflict is real, albeit unnecessary.

Perceived Scarce Resources Conflicts also exist when people believe there is not enough of something to go around: affection, money, space, and so on. Time is often a scarce commodity. Many people struggle to meet the competing demands of school, work, family and friends. You’ve probably heard the common refrain, “If only there were more hours in a day.” Competing demands on your time force you to make difficult choices (e.g., attend that family event or get your report finished?) and your choices may end up disappointing or frustrating others, creating interpersonal conflicts. Making time for the people in your life—and for yourself—is a constant source of conflict.

Inevitability Conflicts are bound to happen, even in the best relationships. Common sources of conflict among college roommates include access to each other’s personal items and food, how clean/messy rooms are, who can use what furniture, and how involved they should be in each other’s personal lives (Ocana and Hindman, 2004). Young adults in the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States report that conflicts with friends are typical, averaging one or two disagreements a day (Burk et al., 2009). Among families, conflict can be even more frequent, whether the topic is money, being on time, who does what chores, how to handle relatives, or how to balance work and family obligations (Huffman et al., 2013). Most people report having

307

308

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

to a harmonious relationship and also helps solve the problem at hand. With this in mind, in this chapter we’ll take a closer look at what makes some conflicts more constructive than others.

FatCamera/iStockphoto

Conflict Styles

What style do you typically use to deal with conflict?

repeated arguments about the same issues in their relationships (Malis and Roloff, 2006; Radanielina-Hita, 2010). Since it’s impossible to avoid conflicts, the challenge is to handle them effectively when they do arise. Decades of research show that people in both happy and unhappy relationships have conflicts, but that they perceive and manage them in very different ways (Bertoni and Bodenmann, 2010; Wilmot and Hocker, 2014). Unhappy couples, for example, argue in ways categorized in this book as destructive. In these arguments, partners are more concerned with defending themselves than solving problems; they fail to listen carefully to each another, have little or no empathy for their partners, use evaluative “you” language, and ignore each other’s relational ­messages. These destructive conflict patterns can result in poor mental and physical health for the people involved (Segrin and Flora, 2017). In contrast, many satisfied couples handle their conflicts more effectively. They recognize that disagreements are healthy and know that conflicts need to be faced (Burleson and Denton, 2014; Ridley et al., 2001). While they may argue vigorously, they use skills such as perception checking to find out what the other person is thinking, and they let the other person know that they understand one another’s side of the dispute. These people are willing to admit their mistakes, a habit that contributes

Most people have habitual styles of handling conflict—characteristic approaches they take when their needs appear incompatible with what others want. Although our habitual styles work in some situations, they may not work at all in others. What style do you typically use to deal with conflict? Find out by considering this hypothetical situation. Olivier and Manuel have been roommates for several years. Olivier is a soccer fan and loves watching games with his friends at every opportunity. Their apartment has a big screen TV (owned by Olivier) in the living room, and it has become a regular gathering spot for viewing. Manuel doesn’t mind watching the occasional game, but he’s annoyed by what seems like endless TV (and endless houseguests). Olivier thinks he ought to be able to watch his TV whenever he wants, with whomever he wants. There are five ways, each representing a different style of conflict, that they could handle their conflict: • Avoidance. Olivier and Manuel don’t discuss the issue again—the prospect of fighting is too unpleasant. Olivier has tried to cut back on watching games with his friends but feels cheated. Manuel keeps quiet, but when game time rolls around, his feelings of displeasure are obvious. • Accommodation. Manuel gives in, saying, “Go ahead and watch all the soccer you want. After all, it’s your TV. I’ll just go in the bedroom and listen to music.” Alternatively, Olivier could accommodate by agreeing not to watch soccer at home. • Competition. Olivier tries to persuade Manuel that watching more soccer will lead to a better

10 | Managing Conflict

TAKE TWO • Conflict: an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce rewards, and interference from the other party in achieving goals; conflict is inevitable.

understanding of the game, and that Manuel will want to watch more as a result. Man­uel tries to convince Olivier that watching so much TV isn’t healthy. Both try to get the other person to give up and give in. • Compromise. The roommates agree to split the difference. Olivier gets to watch any and every game at home as long as his friends don’t come over. Olivier gets soccer; Manuel gets relative peace and quiet. Of course, Olivier misses his friends, and Manuel must still endure hours of Olivier’s TV viewing. • Collaboration. Olivier and Manuel brainstorm and discover alternative solutions together. For example, they decide that the fans could watch some games together at a sports bar. They also realize that each of Olivier’s friends could pitch

REFLECTION DANGERS OF MINDREADING EXPECTATIONS My partner used to expect that I would be able to read his mind when he was upset! He would storm around and sulk but not tell me what was bugging him. The more I asked what was wrong, the more I got the “silent treatment.” I finally discovered that he believed that people who love each other know each other’s thoughts and feelings without a word being said and so if I didn’t know what was bugging him he certainly wasn’t going to tell me. We used some of the strategies in Chapter 4 (Minimizing Debilitative Emotions) to dispute the irrationality of this belief and he now realizes that although I do love him I don’t have psychic powers and a bit of explanation is required if we want to solve our problems constructively.

in a modest sum and one of the friends could buy a second big screen TV for their place, where they could watch some games and avoid the sports bar costs. Manuel also suggests he and Olivier could watch some non-sports TV together. These approaches represent the five styles depicted in Figure 10.1, each of which is described in the following paragraphs.

PhotoEuphoria/iStockPhoto

Avoidance (Lose–Lose)

Conflict with a person with whom you are close or see frequently can be difficult to deal with. What is your style of conflict management? Do you have different styles for different people? What style seems to dominate?

Avoidance occurs when people choose not to confront an issue directly. Avoidance can be physical (steering clear of a friend after having an argument) or conversational (changing the topic, joking, or denying that a problem exists). Avoidance generally reflects a pessimistic attitude about conflict. People who avoid conflicts usually believe it’s easier to put up with the status quo than

309

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

to face their problems head-on and try to solve them. In the case of Olivier and Manuel, avoidance means that rather than having another fight, both of them will choose to suffer in silence. Their case illustrates how avoidance will often produce a situation in which nobody gets what they want. Although avoiding important issues can keep the peace temporarily, it typically leads to unsatisfying relationships (Afifi et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2012). Partners of “self silencers” report more frustration and discomfort when dealing with the avoiding partner than with those who face conflict more constructively (Harper and Welsh, 2007). And when avoiders don’t voice their complaints, their partners’ irritating behaviours may increase, which in turn increases their emotional distress (Liu and Roloff, 2016). Chronic misunderstandings, resentments, and disappointments pile up and contaminate the communication climate. For this reason, it’s fair to say that avoiders have low concern for both their own needs and for the interests of the other person, who is likely to suffer from unaddressed issues (see Figure 10.1). Yet despite its obvious shortcomings, avoidance isn’t always a bad idea (Caughlin and Arr, 2004; Oduro-Frimpong, 2007). You might choose to avoid certain topics or situations if the risk of speaking up is too great, such as getting fired from a job you can’t afford to lose, being humiliated in High

Competition (Win-Lose) “My Way”

Concern for self

310

Compromise “Half Way”

Avoidance (Lose-Lose) “No Way”

Low

Collaboration (Win-Win) “Our Way”

Accommodation (Lose-Win) “Your Way”

Concern for others

FIGURE 10.1  Conflict Styles

High

public, or even suffering physical harm. You may also avoid a conflict if the relationship it involves isn’t worth the effort. Even in close relationships, though, non-assertion has its logic. If the issue is temporary or minor, you may let it pass. These reasons help explain why the communication of many happily married couples is characterized by “selectively ignoring” the other person’s minor flaws (Segrin et al., 2009). This doesn’t mean that the key to successful relationships is to avoid all conflict. Instead, it suggests that it’s smart to save your energy for the truly important ones.

Accommodation (Lose–Win) Accommodation occurs when we entirely give in to others rather than asserting our own point of view. Figure 10.1 depicts accommodators as having low concern for themselves and high concern for others, resulting in lose–win, “we’ll do it your way”–style outcomes. The motivation of the accommodator plays a significant role in this style’s effectiveness. If accommodation is a genuine act of kindness, generosity, or love, then chances are good that it will enhance the relationship. Most people appreciate those who “take one for the team,” “treat others as they want to be treated,” or “lose the battle to win the war,” so to speak. However, people are far less appreciative of those who habitually use this style to play the role of “martyr, bitter complainer, whiner, or saboteur” (Wilmot and Hocker, 2014). We should pause here to mention the important role that culture plays in perceptions of conflict styles. People from high-context, collectivist backgrounds (such as many Asian cultures and different Indigenous cultures in Canada, for example) are likely to regard avoidance and accommodation as face-saving, noble ways to handle conflict (Ohbuchi and Atsumi, 2010). However, in low-context, individualistic cultures (such as Canada, the UK, and the US), avoidance and accommodation are often viewed less positively. For instance, think of the many unflattering terms in English for people who give up or give in during conflicts: pushover, weakling, spineless,

10 | Managing Conflict

Competition (Win–Lose) The other side of accommodation is competition, a win–lose approach to conflict that involves high concern for the self and a low concern for others. As Figure 10.1 shows, people who use competition seek to resolve conflicts “my way.” Power is the distinguishing characteristic in win–lose problem solving and some would argue that this approach is deeply ingrained in our culture (Tracy, 1991). From sports, to business, to the principles of democracy in which the majority rules, we’re all familiar with the win–lose approach. However “fair” it may seem, ultimately it involves one person or group getting what they want and another being unsatisfied. There are times a competitive approach can develop a relationship. One study found that some people in dating relationships used competition to enrich their interaction (Messman and Mikesell, 2000). For example, some found satisfaction by competing in play (“Who’s better at racquetball or Scrabble?”), in achievement (“Who gets the better job offer or the higher grade?”), and in altruism (“Who’s more romantic or does the most charity work?”). These couples developed a shared narrative (see Chapter 3) that defined competition as a measured regard, which is quite different from conflict that signals a lack of appreciation or respect. Of course, these arrangements could

backfire if one partner became a gloating winner or a sore loser. In addition, feeling like you’ve been defeated can leave you wanting to get even, creating a negative communication climate that can end up damaging the relationship (Olson and Braithwaite, 2004). If you feel like your way is the best one, you may feel justified in trying to control the situation, but it’s likely that the other person won’t view your bid for control so charitably (Gross et al., 2004). The dark side of competition is that it often breeds aggression (Warren et al., 2005). Sometimes aggression is obvious, but other times it can be subtle.

Passive Aggression Passive aggression occurs when a communicator expresses their dissatisfaction in a disguised manner (Brandt, 2013). In our hypothetical conflict between Olivier and Manuel, for example, perhaps Manuel runs the vacuum cleaner loudly during soccer games, or Olivier makes sarcastic comments about Manuel not liking sports. Passive aggression can take the form of “crazy making” (Bach and Wyden, 1983), which refers to tactics designed to punish another person without direct confrontation. Crazy making takes its name from the effect such behaviour usually has on its target. There are a number of crazy-making ways to deal with conflict. One is guilt: “Never mind. I’ll do all the work myself [sigh]. Go ahead and have a good time. Don’t worry about me [sigh].” Another crazy-maker involves someone agreeing with you face-to-face but then showing a different agenda

Nina Paley/Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike

and doormat, for example. The point here is that all conflict styles have merit in certain situations, and culture plays a significant role in determining how each style is valued.

311

312

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

behind your back—such as the teenager who says he’ll clean his room, then doesn’t do so as a means of getting back at the parent who grounded him. Some passive aggression is non-verbal: a roll of the eyes, a pained expression, or a disdainful laugh can get a message across. If the target of these messages asks about them, the passive aggressor can always deny the conflict exists. Even humour—especially sarcasm (“Gee, I can’t wait to spend the weekend with your family”)—can be used as passive aggression (Bowes and Katz, 2011). And sometimes saying nothing is a crazy-making weapon. No one likes getting the silent treatment and it usually damages interpersonal relationships (Wright and Roloff, 2009).

Direct Aggression Communicators who engage in direct aggression attack the position and dignity of the receiver. Communication scholars have described a variety of behaviours that typify direct aggression: attacks on competence or character, swearing, teasing, ridicule, and non-verbal emblems (e.g., giving the finger) and threats (Rancer and Avtgis, 2014.). In the case of Olivier and Manuel, the conflict might turn into an ugly shouting match with denigrating comments about how only an idiot would or wouldn’t like sports, watching TV, or having friends over. Like all types of relational communication, direct aggression has both verbal and non-verbal dimensions. The results of direct aggression communication were described in Chapter 9, showing that a win– lose conflict style can have a high relational cost— especially when the loser is a close friend or loved one. Your victory may be a hollow one if the other party is glum, hurt, or angry about the conflict’s outcome.

Compromise A compromise gives all people at least some of what they want, although it involves everyone sacrificing part of their goals. People usually settle for a compromise when it seems that partial satisfaction is the best they can hope for.

Although a compromise may be better than losing everything, this approach may not deserve the positive image it often has. In his valuable book on conflict resolution, Albert Filley (1975, p. 23) makes an interesting observation about our attitudes toward this method. Why is it, he asks, that if someone says, “I will compromise my values,” we view the action unfavourably, yet we talk admiringly about people in a conflict who compromise to reach a solution? Although compromises may be the best result obtainable in some conflicts, it’s important to realize that both people in a dispute can often work together to find much better solutions (Jandt, 2017). Most of us are surrounded by the results of bad compromises. Consider a common example: the conflict between one person’s desire to smoke and another’s need for clean air. The win–lose outcomes on this issue are obvious—either the smoker abstains or the non-smoker gets polluted lungs— neither option is very satisfying. But a compromise in which the smoker gets to enjoy only a rare cigarette or must retreat outdoors, and in which the non-smoker must still inhale some fumes or feel like an ogre for protesting, is hardly better. Both sides have lost a considerable amount of both comfort and goodwill towards each other. Of course, the costs of compromise in other scenarios can be much greater. For example, if a divorced couple’s custody battle leaves them bitter and emotionally scars their children, it’s hard to say that anybody has won no matter the outcome. Some compromises do satisfy everyone. You and a seller might settle on a price for a used car that is between what the seller was asking and what you wanted to pay. While neither of you got everything you wanted, the outcome would still leave both of you satisfied. Likewise, you and your companion might agree to see a film that is the second choice for both of you in order to spend an evening together. As long as everyone is at least somewhat satisfied with an outcome, compromise can be an effective way to resolve conflicts. However, when compromises are satisfying and successful, it might be more accurate to categorize them as the final conflict style we will discuss: collaboration.

10 | Managing Conflict

Collaboration (Win–Win) Collaboration seeks win–win solutions to conflict. It involves a high degree of concern for both oneself and others, with the goal of solving problems not “my way” or “your way” but “our way.” In the best case, collaborating can lead to a win–win outcome, where each person gets what they want (Bannik, 2010). In win–win problem solving, the goal is to find a solution that satisfies the needs of everyone involved. Not only do the partners avoid trying to win at each other’s expense, but they also demonstrate a belief that working together can provide a solution through which they can all reach their goals without needing to compromise. Collaborating has benefits beyond the problem at hand. When people want to achieve a win–win resolution to an argument, they’re more likely to actively listen to their partners. That approach leads to less aggressive communication and ultimately less stress for everyone (Liu and Roloff, 2015). Here are a couple of examples: • A conflict about testing arises in a college class. Because of sickness and for other reasons, a certain number of students need to take makeup exams. The instructor doesn’t want to give these students any advantage over their peers or create a new exam. After working on the problem together, the instructor and students arrive at a win–win solution: the instructor will hand out a list of 20 possible exam questions in advance of the test day. At examination time, five of these questions are randomly drawn for the class to answer. Students who take makeup exams will draw from the same pool of questions at the time of their test. • A newly-married couple find themselves arguing frequently over their budget. One partner enjoys buying impractical and enjoyable items while the other fears that such purchases will ruin their carefully constructed budget. Their solution is to set aside a small amount of money each month for “fun” purchases. The amount is small enough to be affordable while still allowing for occasional splurges. The more-financially conservative spouse is

satisfied with the arrangement because the fun money is now a clear and accounted for budget category. Although the above solutions might seem obvious when you read them here, a moment’s reflection will show you that such co-operative problem solving is all too rare. People faced with these types of conflicts often resort to avoiding, accommodating, or competing, causing them to handle the issues in a manner that results in either a win–lose or lose–lose outcome. As we pointed out earlier, it’s a shame to see one or both partners in a conflict come away unsatisfied when they could both get what they’re seeking by collaborating. Later in this chapter, we’ll describe a specific process for arriving at collaborative solutions. Of course, a win–win approach is not always possible or even always appropriate. Collaborative problem solving can be quite time consuming, and some conflict decisions need to be made quickly. Moreover, many conflicts are about relatively minor issues that don’t call for a great deal of creativity or brainstorming. As you’ll see in the following section, there are certainly times when compromising is the most sensible approach. You’ll even encounter i­nstances when pushing your own solution is  ­ reasonable.

TAKE TWO CONFLICT STYLES • Avoidance (Lose–Lose): choosing not to confront the issue directly. • Accommodation (Lose–Win): giving into others rather than asserting your own point of view. • Competition (Win–Lose): seeking to resolve the conflict your way using either passive aggression or direct aggression. • Compromise: seeking to give both people some of what they want but requiring both sacrifice part of their goals. • Collaboration (Win–Win): seeking a solution that satisfies the needs of everyone involved without compromise.

313

314

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

TABLE 10.1  When to Use Each Conflict Style Avoidance (Lose–Lose)

Accommodation (Lose–Win)

Competition (Win–Lose)

The issue’s importance

When the issue is of little importance

When the issue is of more importance to the other person than you

When the issue is not important enough to negotiate at length

When the When the issue is issue is too important for a moderately compromise important but not enough for a stalemate

Point of view

To cool down and gain perspective

When you discover you’re wrong

When you’re convinced that your position is right and necessary

When both sides are strongly committed to mutually exclusive goals

When you can merge insights with someone who has a different perspective on the problem

Time

When the issue isn’t worth a lot of time and effort

When the longterm cost of winning might not be worth the short-term gain

When there is not enough time to seek a win–win outcome

To achieve quick, temporary solutions to complex problems

When you are willing to invest the necessary time and energy

Relational considerations

When the costs of confrontation outweigh the benefits

To build up credit for later conflicts

When the other person is not willing to seek a win–win outcome

When you jeopardize nothing important on either side

When the longterm relationship is important

Rationale

To stay away from either unnecessary risk or unnecessary involvement

When the issue isn’t important or the costs of challenging the other party are too high

To protect yourself against an unacceptable threat

As a backup mode when collaboration doesn’t work

To come up with creative solutions

Factor

Compromise

Collaboration (Win–Win)

SOURCE: Adapted from Wilmot, W.W. and Hocker, J.L. (2014). Interpersonal conflict. (9 th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Even more surprisingly, you’ll probably discover there are times when it makes sense to willingly accept the loser role. Much of the time, however, good intentions and creative thinking can lead to outcomes that satisfy everyone’s needs.

Which Style to Use? Although collaborative problem solving might seem like the most attractive style, it’s an oversimplification to imagine that there is a single best way to respond to conflicts (Gross and Guerrero, 2000).

Generally speaking, win–win solutions are preferable to win–lose and lose–lose solutions, but we’ve already seen that there are times when avoidance, accommodation, competition, and compromise are appropriate. Table 10.1 suggests situations in which it may be best to use a particular style. It’s worth noting that a conflict style is not necessarily a personality “trait” that carries across all situations. Wilmot and Hocker (2014) suggest that roughly 50 per cent of the population change their style from one situation to another. As we discussed in Chapter 1, this sort of behavioural flexibility is

10 | Managing Conflict

FOCUS ON RESEARCH YOU’RE FORGIVEN, BUT DON’T DO IT AGAIN Forgiveness has numerous benefits for both individuals and relationships. As we discussed in ­Chapter 8, forgiveness is associated with increased ­well-being both personally and for relationships. It reduces negative emotions and increases relationship satisfaction and benevolence. Forgiveness communicates to a transgressor that the relationship is still valued and can be repaired and those who have been forgiven are more likely to reciprocate with a greater propensity to forgive. But does forgiveness help reduce the reoccurrence of the behaviour that caused the hurtfulness in the first place? Michelle Russell and her colleagues (2018) examined the interactive implications of forgiveness in romantic relationships. What they found in their studies of young adult and newlywed couples was that forgiveness that was accompanied with a demand that the partner change their behaviour was associated with

a characteristic of competent communicators. Several factors govern which style to use, including the situation, the other person, and your goals.

The Situation When someone clearly has more power than you, non-assertion may be the best approach. If the supervisor tells you to fill that order now, you probably ought to do it without comment. A more assertive response (“When you use that tone of voice, I feel defensive”) might be clearer, but it could also cost you your job. Beyond power, other situational factors can shape your communication in conflict. For example, you would probably try to set aside personal disagreements with siblings or parents when it’s necessary to support one another during a family crisis.

The Other Person Although win–win is a fine ideal, sometimes other people aren’t interested in (or good at) collaborating.

the partner transgressing less and c­ ompromising more as well as greater satisfaction with the partner’s considerateness. When partners were forgiven but there was less demand that they change their behaviour, they were more likely to continue to engage in hurtful behaviour, compromise less, and leave their partners less satisfied with their considerateness. These investigators suggest supplementing forgiveness with direct requests that transgressors change their behaviour in order to increase relationship satisfaction. Critical thinking: Do you think you need to be forgiven AND told not to do something again in order to avoid continuing to engage in hurtful behaviour with a particular individual? Would this be true sometimes and not other times? What factors do you think play a role in the need for both forgiveness and a demand for behaviour change in order to reduce transgressions?

You probably know some communicators who are so competitive that even for minor issues they put winning ahead of the well-being of their relationships. In such cases, your efforts to collaborate may have a low chance of success.

Your Goals When you want to solve a problem, it’s generally good to be assertive (see Chapter 6 for information on creating assertive “I” messages); however, there are other reasons for communicating in a conflict. Sometimes, your overriding goal might be to calm down an enraged or upset person. For example, company policy or self-preservation might similarly lead you to keep quiet in the face of a customer’s rant or a manager’s unfair criticism. Likewise, you might choose to sit quietly through the harangue of a family member rather than ruin a celebratory family dinner. In other cases, your moral principles might demand an aggressive statement even though it might not get you what you

315

316

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

­ riginally sought: “I’ve had enough of your racist o jokes. I’ve tried to explain why they’re so offensive, but I don’t think you’ve listened. I’m leaving!”

A complementary “fight-or-flight” or “demand– withdraw” pattern is common in many unhappy marriages. In this pattern, one partner addresses the conflict directly while the other withdraws (Burleson and Denton, 2014). As we discussed in Conflict in Relational Systems Chapter 3, it’s easy to see how this pattern can lead Even though the style you choose in a conflict is to a cycle of increasing hostility and isolation, since important, your approach is not the only factor each partner punctuates the conflict differently that will determine how the situation unfolds. and blames the other for making matters worse. In reality, conflict happens within relational “I withdraw because you’re so critical,” one partsystems; its character is usually determined by ner might say. However, the other partner likely the way the people involved interact (Williams-­ wouldn’t organize the conflict sequence in the Baucom et al., 2010). For example, you might same way. “I criticize because you withdraw,” they be determined to handle a conflict with your might say. Couples who use demand–­withdraw neighbours collaboratively, only to be driven to patterns report being less satisfied with their concompetition by their unco-operative nature or flict discussions and their negotiations rarely proto avoidance by their physical threats. Likewise, duce change (McGinn et al., 2009). you might plan to avoid talking to a professor The same fight-or-flight pattern shows up in about your discomfort with the class format, conflicts between parents and teenagers, most but wind up collaboratively discussing the mat- commonly when they clash over issues like chores, ter in response to their constructive suggestion. cleanliness, and curfews. Families who fall into ­E xamples like these indicate that conflict is not a demand–withdraw pattern are likely to feel just a matter of individual choice. Rather, it stressed and unhappy about their relationships depends on relational interactions. and that stress can contribute to a greater propensity for illness, when compared to families who handle disagreements more constructively (Reznik et al., 2015). Complementary approaches are not the only ones that can lead to problems. Some distressed What factors should be considered before decidrelationships suffer from destructively symmeting which individual conflict style to use? rical communication (Weingart et al., 2015). If both partners treat one another with matching hostility, one threat or insult leads to another in Complementary and Symmetrical an escalatory spiral. If the partners both withdraw Conflict from one another instead of facing their problems, The conflict approaches of partners in inter- a problematic de-escalatory spiral results: the hospersonal relationships—and impersonal ones, tility decreases, but the satisfaction and vitality ebb too—can be complementary or symmetrical. In from the relationship. complementary conflict, the partners use differAs Table 10.2 shows, both complementary and ent but mutually reinforcing behaviours. As Table symmetrical behaviour can produce good results 10.2 illustrates, some complementary conflicts are as well as bad ones. If the complementary behavdestructive, whereas others are constructive. In iours are positive, then a positive spiral results and symmetrical conflict, both people use the same the conflict stands a good chance of being resolved. tactics. Table 10.2 illustrates how the same conflict This is the case in the second example in Table can unfold in very different ways, depending on 10.2, in which the manager is open to hearing the whether the partners’ communication is symmet- employee’s concerns. Here, a complementary talk– rical or complementary. listen pattern works well.

CHECK IT!

10 | Managing Conflict

TABLE 10.2  Complementary and Symmetrical Conflict Outcomes Situation

Complementary Conflict

Symmetrical Conflict

One partner is upset because the other is spending little time at home.

Destructive One partner complains; the other withdraws, spending even less time at home.

Constructive One partner raises concern clearly and assertively, without aggression. The other responds by explaining concerns in the same manner.

Manager makes fun of employee in front of other workers.

Constructive Employee seeks out manager for private conversation, explaining why joking was embarrassing. Manager listens willingly.

Destructive Employee maliciously jokes about manager at company party. Manager continues to make fun of employee.

Parents are uncomfortable about teenager’s new friends.

Destructive Parents express concerns. Teenager dismisses them, saying, “There’s nothing to worry about”.

Constructive Teen expresses concern that parents are being too protective. Parents and teenager negotiate a mutually agreeable solution.

Constructive symmetry occurs when both people communicate assertively, listening to one another’s concerns and working together to resolve them. Couples who take this approach appraise their marriages more positively than any other type of couple (Hanzal and Segrin, 2009; Ridley et al., 2001). The parent–teenager conflict in Table 10.2, for example, has the potential to be resolved through this sort of solution. With enough mutual respect and careful listening, both the parents and their teenager can understand one another’s concerns and possibly find a way to give all three people what they want.

TAKE TWO • Complementary conflict: partners use different but mutually reinforcing behaviour; can lead to cycle of increasing hostility and isolation; can lead to positive outcomes as well. • Symmetrical conflict: partners use the same behaviours; can lead to escalatory and ­de-escalatory conflict spirals; can lead to positive outcomes, too.

Serial Arguments In a perfect world, we could work through each relational conflict and move on, satisfied that the matter was resolved. But in real life, some issues keep recurring. Like weeds in a garden, they become perennial problems that require constant attention. These kinds of recurring issues are called serial arguments. Serial arguments are repetitive conflicts about the same issue (Morrison and Schrodt, 2017). They can focus on topics ranging from the seemingly mundane (e.g., managing household chores) to the extremely serious (e.g., substance abuse, infidelity). One study looked at causes of serial arguments in romantic relationships (Bevan et al., 2014) and found that one of the most common serial arguments involves problematic behaviours, specifically habits such as chronic overspending (or tight budgeting) and sloppiness (or hyper-neatness). Another source of ongoing friction is personality characteristics, such as introversion and extroversion. If you’re an extrovert who craves social interaction, for example, and your partner is an introvert who cherishes solitude (or vice versa), you’ll likely encounter some challenges. Similarly, a perpetual pessimist may frequently clash with a constant optimist. Of course, there may be times

317

318

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

when personality differences like these help to reduce conflict (e.g., the optimist helps the pessimist see the bright side and the pessimist protects the optimist from danger or disappointment) but actually changing deeply ingrained ways of thinking and acting is difficult. Another common issue in serial arguments involves communication styles and practices, or the typical ways in which partners communicate. For example, if you typically avoid confrontation while your partner is routinely assertive, that will likely cause continual friction. Likewise, chronic disputes will probably occur if you prefer candor while your partner is more diplomatic. Regardless of the topic, unresolved serial arguments can be emotionally loaded. Frustration with recurring problems can lead to the kinds of rumination described in Chapter 8, adding fuel to the emotional fire and making future arguments more intense (Bevan et al., 2017). It’s not surprising then that serial arguments are more likely than non-recurring ones to use hostile communication. Angry exclamations such as “We’ve been over this a million times!” or “I can’t believe we’re fighting about this again!” are typical of serial arguing and express a sense of despair. Despite this discouraging picture, the results can be positive when both partners are equally involved and willing to talk about their chronic issues (Johnson and Cionea, 2017). Positive expectations can also help: people who seek a win–win outcome are more likely to listen to each other and less likely to be hostile, ultimately leading to less stress and anger (Liu and Roloff, 2015). The problem-solving method described at the end of this chapter might not make serial arguments go away, but it can offer steps in the right direction. Similarly, using the strategies described in Chapter 9, such as taking an invitational approach, composing messages in ways that arouse less defensiveness in others, using the language of choice, and responding non-defensively to criticism, will all contribute to decreasing the number and intensity of serial arguments. In workplaces, a third-party intervention may help those involved see the recurring problem in a new and helpful light. These interventions can range from informal to legalistic. On the simple

end of the spectrum, you and a colleague might ask a trusted co-worker to help you resolve a disagreement. In other cases, a trained mediator or facilitator can help sort out issues and help those involved gain a fresh perspective. It’s clear that managing conflict effectively requires the consideration of multiple variables and it can be a very complex task, especially when you’re in the thick of it. Getting help from a neutral and unbiased third party can help to ensure a fair and effective outcome and bring closure to a dispute that might otherwise recur and escalate (Gent and Shannon, 2011).

Toxic Conflict: “The Four Horsemen” Some conflict approaches are so destructive that they’re almost guaranteed to wreak havoc on relationships. These toxic forms of communication include what John Gottman calls the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” (Gottman, 1994; see also Fowler and Dillow, 2011; Horan et al., 2015). Gottman has gathered decades of data about newlywed couples and their communication patterns. By observing their interactions, he has been able to predict with high accuracy whether the newlyweds will end up divorcing. Here are the four destructive signs he looks for: 1. Criticism: These are attacks on a person’s character. As you read in Chapter 5, there’s a significant difference between legitimate complaints phrased in descriptive “I” language (“I wish you had been on time—we’re going to be late to the movie”) and critical character assaults stated as evaluative “you” messages (“You’re so thoughtless—you never think of anyone but yourself”). 2. Defensiveness: As you’ll read in Chapter 12, defensiveness is a reaction that aims to protect one’s presenting self by denying responsibility (“You’re crazy—I never do that”) and counterattacking (“You’re worse about that than I am”). Although some self-protection is understandable, problems arise when a person refuses to listen to or even acknowledge another’s concerns.

10 | Managing Conflict

3. Contempt: A contemptuous comment belittles and demeans. It can take the form of name-calling putdowns (“You’re a real jerk”) or sarcastic barbs (“Oh, that was brilliant”). Contempt can also be communicated non-verbally through dramatic eye rolls or disgusted sighs. (Try doing both of these at the same time and imagine how dismissing they can be.) 4. Stonewalling: Stonewalling occurs when one person in a relationship withdraws from the interaction, shutting down dialogue and any chance of resolving the problem in a mutually satisfactory way. It sends a disconfirming “you don’t matter” message to the other person. Here’s a brief exchange illustrating how the four horsemen can lead to a destructive spiral of aggression: “You overdrew our account again—can’t you do anything right?” (criticism) “Hey, don’t blame me—you’re the one who spends most of the money.” (defensiveness) “At least I have better math skills than a firstgrader. Way to go, Einstein.” (contempt)

319

Toxic conflict can be destructive in any personal relationship. Criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and stonewalling feed off one another and can develop into destructive, repeating patterns.

Conflict Rituals When people have been in a relationship for some time, their communication often develops into conflict rituals: unacknowledged, but very real, repeating patterns of interlocking behaviour (Wilmot and Hocker, 2014). Consider a couple of common conflict rituals: A couple fights. One partner leaves. The other accepts blame for the problem and begs forgiveness. The first partner returns, and a happy reunion takes place. Soon, they fight again, and the pattern repeats. One friend is unhappy with the other. The unhappy person withdraws until the other asks what’s wrong. “Nothing,” the first replies. The questioning persists until the problem is finally out in the open. The friends then solve the issue and continue happily until the next problem arises, when the pattern repeats itself.

Engaging in this kind of communication not only jeopardizes relationships but also takes a physical toll (Hasse et al., 2016). Critical, contemptuous communicators have an increased risk of cardiovascular problems such as high blood pressure and chest pain. Stonewallers tend to experience backaches and stiff muscles. In other words, it’s not healthy to either “blow up” or “bottle up.” Instead, communicators in conflict need to express their emotions in healthy, productive ways, as outlined in both this chapter and the next one.

Vera Agency/iStockphoto

“Whatever.” (said while walking out of the room) (stonewalling)

What relationships in your life have conflict rituals? Are these rituals problematic?

320

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

FOCUS ON RESEARCH WORKPLACE INCIVILITY AND DISTRESS One of your co-workers jokingly insults the display you created; a couple of customers complained rudely to you about the level of service they received; your supervisor has repeatedly ignored your email request for a shift change for the coming weekend. These are examples of workplace incivility: behaviours that are rude, discourteous, impolite, or violate workplace norms but are also ambiguous in their intent to harm (Andersson and Pearson, 1999; Cortina et al., 2001). Workplace incivility occurs both online and in faceto-face interactions and is a prevalent job stressor (Porath and Pearson, 2013). Disrespectful or inconsiderate behaviours and comments made by others at work (e.g., co-workers, supervisors, customers/ clients) take a toll on people’s physical and psychological well-being and have been linked to depression, burnout, and job dissatisfaction (Schilpzand, De Pater, and Erez, 2016). As employees, we may try to laugh off our colleagues insulting remarks, maintain our composure and professionalism with rude customers and clients, and understand that our weekend plans may not be our supervisor’s priority. But these comments and behaviours are irritating and sometimes cause us to doubt ourselves and wonder if we’ve done something to deserve them, which contributes to lingering feelings of frustration, anger, and even guilt (Kabat-Farr et al., 2018). Researchers have found that workers who are higher in commitment to their place of employment actually suffer a greater negative emotional impact from workplace incivility when compared to their less committed colleagues (Kabat-Farr et al., 2018). Young Ah Park and her colleagues (2018) were interested in determining what resources help individuals cope more effectively with workplace incivility. She and her colleagues focused on cyber incivility (specifically email communication) and found that it was pervasive across their respondents who worked at various levels (e.g., managerial, front line, senior executive, etc.) and in a wide variety of professions and industries (e.g., health care, education, manufacturing, information technology, financial services).

Cyber incivility created distress in these respondents not only on the day it was experienced but on the following day as well. However, job control and work/life separation were found to affect immediate stress and spillover. Employees who had more job control experienced less distress on the day they experienced the incivility. Employees who had more detachment from work, after leaving at the end of the day, had less spillover of negative emotions from one workday to the next. These investigators suggest that although cyber incivility may be dismissed in many organizations, because it’s ambiguous in terms of intention to harm, its effects are persistent and strong and that it is imperative to design interventions to reduce it. In terms of cyber incivility, making employees aware of possible misperceptions and biases in email communication is one step in that direction. It’s important to understand that we’re more likely to perceive positive emails as more neutral than intended and neutral emails as more negative than intended. In addition, the absence of non-verbal cues that help us decipher the relational tone of a message, combined with the lack of inhibition we might feel because the receiver is not physically present, can contribute to a situation in which we’re more likely to quickly fire off a curt or less-than-polite email response in the heat of the moment. Communication scholars suggest waiting and regulating emotions before responding to emails or texts or possibly talking to the person on the phone or face-to-face instead. In any case, thinking before hitting send is essential—we can’t take our words back. Email and text messages provide exact and lasting transcripts. If we take a collaborative approach to problem solving when such misunderstandings occur, we can contribute to a more positive workplace climate and reduce the negative effects of these perceived slights on our colleagues and ourselves. Critical Thinking: How do you avoid being unintentionally rude in emails and text messages? How do you cope with cyber incivility?

10 | Managing Conflict

There’s nothing inherently wrong with the interaction in many conflict rituals (Olson, 2002). Consider the preceding examples. In the first, both partners might use the fighting as a way to blow off steam, and both might find that the joy of a reunion is worth the grief of separation. The second ritual might work well when one friend is more assertive than the other. Rituals can cause problems, though, when they become the only way relational partners handle their conflicts. As we discussed in Chapter 1, competent communicators have a large repertoire of behaviours, and they’re able to choose the most effective response for a given situation. Relying on one pattern to handle all conflicts is no more effective than using a screwdriver to handle every home repair, or putting the same seasoning in every dish you cook. What works in one situation is unlikely to succeed in others. Conflict rituals may be familiar and comfortable, but they aren’t the best way to solve the variety of conflicts that are part of any relationship.

Variables in Conflict Styles By now, you can see that every relational system is unique. The communication patterns in one family, business, or classroom are likely to be very different from those in another. But along with the differences that arise in individual relationships, there are other variables that affect the way people manage conflict. Two of these variables are gender and culture.

Gender Some research suggests that men and women often approach conflict differently (Ansara and Hinden, 2010; Archer, 2002). Across a variety of cultures, boys have been observed to engage in more direct, overt, physical aggression than girls (Lansford et al., 2012). There is mixed evidence regarding gender differences in the propensity to engage in relational aggression—aggression that targets relationships, social status, and acceptance (Bass et al., 2018). However, across several cultures, girls have been observed to engage in more relational ­aggression;

things such as gossiping and excluding others, as opposed to shouting, name calling, and physically fighting (Bass et al., 2018; Ostrov and Crick, 2007; Velasquez et al., 2010). These differences in preference for physical versus relational aggression appear to persist into adolescence and adulthood and occur online as well as in person (Miller and Kelly, 2013). Gender also appears to influence our perceptions of aggression. Male recipients of verbally aggressive messages evaluate these ­messages as more appropriate and less threatening than female recipients do (Aloia and Solomon, 2017). There is considerable evidence to suggest we socialize men to behave more aggressively than women by rewarding or ignoring boys’ aggressive behaviours and reprimanding or punishing girls for the same types of aggressive behaviour (Zahn-Waxler and Polanichka, 2004). As adults, men in same-sex interactions are more aggressive than in mixed-sex interactions or women in both same-sex and mixed-sex interactions (Fabes et al., 2003). However, as we discussed in Chapter 6, gender differences in communication may be perceived as greater than they actually are (Samter and Cupach, 1998; Woodin, 2011). People may think there are greater differences in the ways men and women handle conflicts because they notice behaviour that fits gender stereotypes (e.g., “men don’t worry about feelings,” “men are more direct,” “women gossip,” and “women are more collaborative”). This can prompt people to seek to confirm their understandings of gendered stereotypes, making them more likely to disregard behaviour that doesn’t fit their preconceived ideas (e.g., men who gossip or who are collaborative and women who are direct and unapologetic). Research suggests that gender differences in handling conflict are rather small, and not at all representative of the stereotypical picture of aggressive men and passive women (Afifi et al., 2012; Gayle et al., 1998). Gender differences in communication during conflict appear to be less important and less predictive of relationship satisfaction than factors such as the value individuals place on supportive communication (Burleson and Denton, 2014) or their standards for openness in relationships (Afifi et al., 2012).

321

322

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

TAKE TWO • Conflict rituals: unacknowledged but real, repeating patterns of interlocking behaviour; these become problematic when they reduce flexibility and limit the repertoire of behaviour choices.

The research described so far focuses on how gender affects the way individuals deal with conflict. Given the transactional nature of communication, it’s important to explore how gender affects behaviour when people in close relationships disagree. After studying heterosexual marriages for years, John Gottman (of Four Horsemen fame) wanted to know if LGBTQ+ couples have the same conflict patterns as heterosexual partners. An extensive study (Gottman et al., 2003) revealed that same-sex couples approach conflicts far less negatively than male–female couples do. This lack of hostility creates positive communication spirals, in which same-sex partners are able to listen to each other’s complaints less defensively. Why do same-sex couples manage their conflicts more constructively? There are likely several factors involved, but Gottman speculates that one reason is that same-sex relationships don’t have the power struggles that come from stereotypical gender roles. When it comes to conflict management, he believes that “heterosexual relationships may have a great deal to learn from homosexual relationships” (p. 87). Managing household labour illustrates one way same-sex partners may handle conflicts better than heterosexual partners. Handling chores is no small matter; communication researchers have found that arguments about daily tasks are among the most frequent and destructive sources of relational conflict (Alberts et al., 2011). Housekeeping arguments can be especially strong in heterosexual relationships, where gender norms about domestic responsibilities come into play. Research suggests that same-sex parents divvy up childcare responsibilities more evenly and ­participate more

equally than heterosexual parents in family interactions (Farr and Patterson, 2013).

Culture People from most cultures prefer mutually beneficial resolutions to disagreements whenever possible (Cai and Fink, 2002). Nonetheless, the ways in which people communicate during conflicts do vary from one culture to another (Croucher et al., 2012). Cultures differ in their orientation toward disagreement (is it to be avoided or is it acceptable?), rapport management (how important is it to ensure relationship maintenance?), and the preserving of face (is it vital to preserve dignity for the self and others?). Ways of managing conflict that are unremarkable in one culture may look odd to outsiders. As we discussed in Chapter 6, the direct communication style that characterizes many low-context North Americana and western European cultures is not the norm in other parts of the world. Assertiveness that might seem perfectly appropriate to a native of Canada or the United States would be rude and insensitive in many high-­ context Asian countries (Ma and Jaeger, 2010). Members of individualistic cultures often prefer competing as a conflict style, whereas members of collectivist cultures prefer styles of compromising and problem solving (Lim, 2009). East Asian cultures tend to avoid confrontation, placing a premium on preserving and honouring the “face” of the other person. For example, the Japanese notion of self-restraint is reflected in the important concept of wa, or harmony. Interpersonal harmony in Japanese culture includes a tendency for individuals to be self-critical rather than to find fault in others. A cross-cultural study compared Canadian and Japanese university students’ willingness to accept information that they were better at completing a task than other students at their university and their reluctance to accept information that they had performed worse than their peers (Heine et al., 2000). The results of their investigation supported the idea that Canadians, on

10 | Managing Conflict

liannelin/iStockPhoto

average, find it difficult to believe that they were outperformed by an average classmate, but easily accept that their own performance was superior. Japanese students, in contrast, were reluctant to believe that they had outperformed an average student from their university. While North Americans, on average, are motivated to find out what is good about themselves and reluctant to find fault with themselves, Japanese people tend to search for their weaknesses in order to correct them. The Japanese tendency to avoid the kind of self-enhancement that is typical of more individualistic cultures in favour of engaging in self-criticism serves to enhance the collectivistic value of interpersonal harmony (wa) with others. There are at least two motives in collectivistic cultures related to harmony. The first is to enhance harmony and actively promote group cohesiveness; in these instances, taking a more assertive problem-solving approach to interpersonal conflict is preferred. The second motive is to avoid the disintegration of group harmony, thus making avoidance or non-assertion the preferred approaches to conflict resolution (Lim, 2009).

Similar attitudes toward conflict prevail in China, where one proverb states, “The first person to raise his voice loses the argument.” Among Chinese college students (in both the People’s Republic and in Taiwan), the three most common methods of persuasion used are hinting, setting an example by one’s own actions, and strategically agreeing to whatever pleases others (Ma and Chuang, 2001)— even if the consequences are negative (Zhang et al., 2011). However, these approaches appear to be changing. Young adults in China favour collaborative problem solving more than their elders (Zhang et al., 2005), and they acknowledge that conflicts can have value for achieving one’s goals and improving relationships (Xie et al., 2015). It isn’t necessary to look at Asia to encounter cultural differences in conflict, however. Many Indigenous people in North America approach conflict very differently than individualistic Westerners. When disciplining their children, Indigenous people often avoid direct criticism or reprimands. Instead, storytelling is often the primary means of teaching children proper behaviour (Keeshig-Tobias, 1990; Lindstrom et al., 2016; Simpson, 2011). In addition to storytelling, parents model the behaviours expected of their children. The importance of developing and maintaining good relationships is a fundamental value of many Indigenous cultures, and there is a belief that personal criticism is damaging and should be avoided (LaLonde, 1992; Lindstrom et al., 2016). Despite these differences, it’s important to realize that culture is not the only factor that influences the way people think about conflict or how they act when they disagree. Some research suggests that our approach to conflict is influenced by our biology—our temperament and our Do you often have to navigate cultural differences when dealing with conflicts responses to stress (Laurent and Powers, 2007; Zobel et al., 2007). in your life? How do you manage?

323

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

­dditionally, research suggests a person’s selfA concept is more powerful than culture in determining their conflict style (Oetzel et al., 2001; Ting-Toomey et al., 2001). For example, people who view themselves as mostly independent of others are likely to use a direct, solution-oriented conflict style, regardless of their cultural heritage. Those who see themselves as mostly interdependent are likely to use a style that avoids direct confrontation. And those who see themselves as both independent and interdependent are likely to have the widest variety of conflict behaviours on which to draw. Beyond individual temperament and selfconcept, the environment in which we’re raised can shape the way we approach conflict. Parental conflict style plays a role. Parents who use spanking and other forms of corporal punishment with their children are more likely to have children who approve of using aggressive approaches to conflict—such as hitting—with their siblings and peers (Simons and Wurtele, 2010). Parental modelling and parents’ responsiveness to their children also influence their adolescent children’s style of conflict resolution (Martin et al., 1997; Missotten et al., 2016). Finally, the status of the people involved in a dispute has a powerful effect on conflict styles, at least in individualistic cultures (Kim et al., 2007). When given two conflict scenarios, one involving a c­ lassmate and the other involving a professor, students with a more individualistic orientation indicated that they would use a more argumentative approach with their classmate and feel more apprehension about the conflict with the professor. In contrast, students with a more collectivistic orientation were not more likely to be more argumentative with a peer and more avoidant with a professor, but, like their more individualistic peers, they too reported feeling more apprehension about having a conflict with a professor (Kim et al., 2007).

CHECK IT! What is the evidence regarding gender- and ­culture-based differences in conflict style? What conclusions can be reached?

Conflict Management in Practice The collaborative, win–win conflict management style described earlier in this chapter is a skill to be learned, and it can pay off. An 11-year study following 100 couples who had conflict skills training found that the style works for couples who are willing to focus on improving their relationships (Hahlweg and Richter, 2010). The steps to the win–win problem solving approach (adapted from Weider-Hatfield, 1981 and Raider et al., 2006) are outlined in the next section. Notice how many of the skills that have been discussed throughout this book are incorporated into this process.

© The New Yorker Collection 1997 Leo Callum from cartoonbank.com. All rights rserved

324

10 | Managing Conflict

SELF-ASSESSMENT YOUR METHOD OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION Think of a close relationship with someone you see regularly (e.g., a parent, sibling, roommate, close friend, spouse, or partner). How do you usually respond to conflict with this person? Indicate the degree to which you believe each of the following statements applies to you during these conflicts, using a scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 = “never” and 5 = “very often.”

 17. I tell the other person my ideas and ask for theirs.  18. I propose a middle ground.  19. I try to do what is necessary to avoid ­tensions.  20. I don’t worry about my concerns if s ­ atisfying them means damaging the r­elationship.

 1. I’m usually firm in pursuing my goals.  2. I attempt to deal with all of the other person’s and my own concerns.  3. I try to find a compromise solution.  4. I try to avoid creating unpleasantness for myself.  5. It’s important to me that others are happy, even if it comes at my expense.  6. I try to win my position.  7. I consistently seek the other’s help in working out a solution.  8. I give up some points in exchange for others.  9. I try to postpone dealing with the issue.  10. I might try to soothe the other’s feelings and preserve our relationship.  11. I persistently try to get my points made.  12. I try to integrate my concerns with the other person’s.  13. I will let the other person have some of what they want if they let me have some of what I want.  14. I sometimes avoid taking positions that would create controversy.  15. I sometimes sacrifice my own wishes for those of the other person.  16. I try to show the other person the logic and benefits of my position.

SOURCE: Adapted from the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument: Thomas, K.W. and Kilmann, R.H. (2007). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Mountain View, CA: Xicom, a subsidiary of CPP, Inc. (original work published in 1974). Also see Thomas, K.W. and Kilmann, R. (1978). Comparison of four instruments measuring conflict behaviour. Psychological Report,42, 1139–45.

Steps for the Win–Win Approach Win–win problem solving works best when it follows the seven steps described here.

1. Define Your Needs Begin by deciding what you want or need. Sometimes, the answer is obvious, as in our earlier

Scoring: Add your responses to items: 1, 6, 11, and 16. This is your competition score. Add your responses to items: 2, 7, 12, and 17. This is your collaboration score. Add your responses to items: 3, 8, 13, and 18. This is your compromise score. Add your responses to items: 4, 9, 14, and 19. This is your avoidance score. Add your responses to items: 5, 10, 15, and 20. This is your accommodation score. Scores for each style of conflict can range from 4 to 20, with higher scores indicating more of a preference for that particular conflict style. You may wish to complete the assessment several times, with different people or conflicts in mind, to get a better sense of your preferred conflict styles.

example of dealing with a neighbour whose loud music keeps you awake. There are times, however, when the apparent problem masks a more fundamental one. Because your needs will not always be clear, it’s often necessary to think about a problem alone, before approaching the other person involved. Talking to a third person can sometimes help you sort out your thoughts. In either case, you should

325

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

explore both the apparent content of your dissatisfaction and the relational issues that may lurk behind it.

2. Share Your Needs with the Other Person Once you have defined your needs, it’s time to share them with the other person. While multiple factors influence how we manage conflict, there are two guidelines to keep in mind that will help you manage many of them more effectively. First, be sure to choose a time and How have you pursued win–win solutions? What were the outcomes? place that is suitable. Unloading Recognize that this stage might take some time. on a tired or busy partner lowers the odds that your concerns will be well received. Before moving to generating solutions, both people Likewise, be sure you’re at your best; don’t bring need to believe they have been heard and that all an issue up when your anger may cause you to say the content and relational issues of their conflict are things that you’ll later regret, when your discouragement blows the problem out of proportion, or when you’re distracted by other business. Making a date to discuss the problem—after dinner, over a cup of coffee, or even a day in advance—can often WIN–WIN SOLUTION REDUCES boost the odds of a successful outcome. ­FRICTION The second guideline for sharing a problem is After four months of living together, my two neat to use the descriptive “I” language that we outlined roommates were fed up with cleaning up after me in Chapter 5. In a tense situation, however, it may and the other messy member of our little housenot be easy to start sharing your needs. In order to hold, and the two of us were tired of hearing the develop mutual trust it may be best to begin with neat freaks complain about our habits. a preliminary, casual conversation (Raider et al., Last week, we had a meeting (again) about the 2006). The goal here is to build rapport, establish dishes and glasses. But this time, we didn’t argue about who was right or wrong. Instead, we looked common ground, and perhaps pick up information.

REFLECTION

3. Listen to the Other Person’s Needs Once your own wants and needs are clear, it’s time to find out what the other person wants and needs. This step requires the active listening skills described in Chapter 5 and the supportive behaviour described in Chapter 9. Now is a good time to engage in paraphrasing, both to make sure the other person has been heard and to draw out additional information.

for a win–win solution. And once we started looking, we found it. Each of us gets our own dishes, glasses, and silverware—two of each item per person. We’re responsible for cleaning only our own things. Now, if you look in our kitchen cabinets, you find only eight glasses, eight plates, and so on. There isn’t enough stuff to make a mess, and each of us has to wash our own things if we want to eat. Everybody’s happy. Some people might think our solution is silly, but it has certainly worked well for us—and that’s all that matters.

skynesher/iStockphotov

326

10 | Managing Conflict

327

on the table. This might include exploring how previous issues (or even previous relationships) are affecting how you’re communicating with each other about this particular conflict.

In the next step, you and your partner try to think of as many ways to satisfy both your needs as possible. You can do so by brainstorming—inventing as many potential solutions as you can. The key to success in brainOften, good intentions and creative thinking can lead to outcomes that satisfy storming is to seek quantity everyone. In what way can a third party help with the conflict resolution process? without worrying about quality. The rule is to prohibit criticism 5. Evaluate the Possible Solutions of all ideas, no matter how outlandish they may sound. An idea that seems far-fetched can some- and Choose the Best One times lead to a more workable one. Another rule The time to evaluate the solutions is after they of brainstorming is that ideas are not personal all have been generated, after you and your partproperty. If one person makes a suggestion, the ner feel you’ve exhausted all the possibilities. In other should feel free to suggest another solution this step, the possible solutions generated during that builds upon or modifies the original one. The the previous step are evaluated for their ability original suggestion and its offshoots are all poten- to satisfy everyone’s important goals. How does tial solutions that will be considered later. Once each solution stand up against the individual and you and your partner get over any possessiveness mutual needs that were brainstormed? Which about ideas, levels of defensiveness drop and you solution satisfies the most goals? Partners need to can work together to find the best solution without work co-operatively when examining each soluworrying about whose idea it was. tion and selecting either the best one or perhaps All of the supportive and confirming behaviours the best combination of ideas. that we discussed in Chapter 9 are important during It’s important during this step to react sponthis step. However, two of them stand out as crucial: taneously rather than strategically. Choosing a the ability to communicate provisionalism rather particular solution because the other person finds than certainty, and the ability to refrain from pre- it satisfactory (an accommodation strategy), while mature evaluations of any solution. The aim of this seemingly a “nice” thing to do, is as manipulative step is to generate all the possible ­solutions—whether as getting the other person to accept a solution they’re immediately reasonable or not. If you both that is satisfactory only to you (a win–lose stratbehave provisionally and avoid any evaluation until egy). Respond honestly as solutions are evaluated, all the solutions are generated, creative and spontan- and encourage your partner to do the same. Any eous behaviour is encouraged. The result is a long solution that is agreed upon as the “best” one has list of solutions that most likely contains the best little chance of satisfying both partners’ needs if it ­solution—one that might not have been expressed if was strategically manipulated to get to the top of the communication climate were defensive. the list.

fizkes/Shutterstock

4. Generate Possible ­Solutions

328

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

6. Implement the Solution After you’ve chosen the best solution, the time comes to try it out to see if it does indeed satisfy everyone’s needs. Sometimes solutions that seem good in theory don’t work well in practice. That’s why it’s important to engage in the final step of the conflict management process: the follow-up.

7. Follow Up on the Solution To stop the problem-solving process after selecting and implementing a particular solution assumes any solution is forever. Of course, that isn’t the case. Time can change things, people do not remain constant, and events alter circumstances. As time passes and people and circumstances change, a particular solution may lose its effectiveness or even become more effective. This is why follow-up evaluations need to take place. After you’ve tested your solution for a short time, it’s a good idea to plan a meeting to talk about how things are going. You may find that you need to make some changes or even rethink the whole problem. In addition, people can walk away from conflict sessions believing they agree on

a ­resolution when in fact they don’t (Roloff et al., 2015). Following up can ensure that those involved have a shared understanding about what’s expected of them and what others’ needs are. Reviewing the effects of your solution doesn’t mean that something is wrong and must be corrected. Indeed, everything may point to the conclusion that the solution is still working to satisfy your needs and the mutually shared goal, and that this goal is still important to both of you. It’s important at this stage in the p ­ roblem-solving process to be honest with yourself as well as with the other person. It may be difficult for you to say, “We need to talk about this again,” yet it could be essential if the problem is to remain resolved. Planning a follow-up talk when the solution is first implemented is important.

CHECK IT! Explain the seven steps involved in win–win problem solving and the times when it’s the desired approach.

BUILDING WORK SKILLS COLLABORATIVE MESSAGES With the help of a classmate, construct a message that you could deliver to someone in your work or school life (supervisor, co-worker, or professor) that defines your needs in relation to a conflict you have experienced with them. Once you’ve rehearsed the message, discuss the risks and benefits of delivering it. Decide whether the collaborative approach is justified in this case.

TABLE 10.3  Applied Example of the Conflict Management Process Scenario: Brooke and Anant have been seeing each other for several months and are now in an exclusive relationship. Brooke calls or texts Anant frequently when they’re apart. Anant rarely initiates contact with Brooke and usually doesn’t respond to messages. Both are annoyed with the other’s behaviour. Step

Example

Define your needs

At first, Anant thinks the annoyance is only due to being interrupted while trying to focus on school and work. More self-examination shows that the irritation centres on the relational message Brooke’s calls seem to imply. Anant views the constant contact as a form of being monitored and perhaps as a sign that Brooke doesn’t trust what Anant is doing when they aren’t together.

10 | Managing Conflict

Step

Example Brooke views her texts and calls as expressions of caring and affection for Anant and interprets his lack of initiative in this regard as a possible indication that he is less committed to the relationship.

Share your needs with the other person

After some preliminary, casual conversation, Anant could offer this observation: “Brooke, our relationship is very important to me, and I’m glad you want to keep in touch. I’m a bit concerned, however, about how often you call or text me. When I’m at school or work, or if I’m hanging out with my friends, I want to be able to focus on those activities. At times like that, your messages can seem like a distraction rather than a sign of affection. And I’ll admit that I wonder why you’re calling so often. Is there some sort of trust issue we need to discuss?” If Brooke were the first to broach the subject she could offer this observation: “Texting and calling you is my way of expressing my affection and when you don’t reciprocate I wonder if you’re less committed to this relationship than I am.”

Listen to the other person’s needs

It’s possible that Brooke will have a defensive reaction to Anant’s observation (“I can’t believe you see my calls and texts as a distraction!”), and likewise, Anant may feel defensive (“I can’t believe that you think I’m less committed to this relationship just because I don’t call and text you all the time!”) but ideally the needs and concerns that drive the conversation will become clear. Brooke: “When I call and text you, it’s my way of communicating that I’m thinking about you. When you don’t respond, it hurts. I take it as a sign that you don’t care about me as much as I care about you.” Anant: “So you’re saying that texts and calls are just a sign of care and concern, and they’re not an attempt to monitor me?” This might allow Brooke to explore the motives for messaging Anant. Brooke might paraphrase Anant this way: “It sounds like you don’t want to have contact with me when we’re away from each other, and that you view my messages as an intrusion into your personal space.” Anant can then clarify which parts of that interpretation are or are not accurate. Similarly, Anant can paraphrase what Brooke has said and explore his reasons for not communicating as frequently with Brooke and she can clarify the accuracy of his interpretations.

Generate possible solutions

Anant and Brooke use brainstorming to generate solutions for their problem. The list includes eliminating, limiting, continuing, or increasing the number of calls Brooke makes to Anant. Likewise, Anant could reduce or increase responses to Brooke and initiate more communication with Brooke. The couple could decide that the text messages are preferable to voice messages, or that one type of contact (call or text) needs to be answered and the other doesn’t. Day calls might be okay but not evening calls, or vice versa. Perhaps Anant could initiate calls; maybe Brooke could contact other friends instead when wanting to chat.

Continued

329

330

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

TABLE 10.3  Continued Step

Example They might also discuss larger issues about how much time they spend together in person or with their friends. It could even be an opportunity to discuss the ways they express affection in the relationship and how they want to deal with the inevitable dialectical tensions in their relationship (see Chapter 8). Although some of these solutions are clearly unacceptable to both partners, they list all the ideas they can think of, preparing themselves for the next step in win– win problem solving.

Evaluate the possible solutions and choose the best one

Brooke and Anant decide to limit texts and calls to two or three per day, and that Anant will initiate at least one of them. They also agree to briefly respond to the other’s text messages when they’re at social events, but not during school or work hours. Anant believes that fewer calls will communicate that Brooke values autonomy and trusts their relationship. Brooke thinks that messages Anant initiates or responds to will indicate that both are equally invested in the relationship. By engaging in this process, Brooke and Anant have arrived at a win–win outcome: they’ve established guidelines around texting that make them both happy, which works for Anant, and they’ve also discussed communication in their relationship, which gives Brooke the closeness and relational contact she was seeking.

Implement the solution

Anant and Brooke follow their new guidelines and, for the most part, are satisfied—but there are still some issues. If Brooke calls Anant simply to say, “I’ll be home in 30 minutes,” does that count? Likewise, if Anant initiates a message, but it’s just about making or confirming arrangements, does that satisfy Brooke?

Follow up on the solution

Brooke and Anant schedule a date to talk about their solution two weeks later. Over dinner, they both report feeling good about the new arrangements and realize that trust was indeed an issue for Brooke. They agree to differentiate between personal calls (which they will limit) and necessary calls to make arrangements as needed (which will have no constraints). Anant admits that initiating calls is challenging and decides to turn off the phone during school and work hours. Brooke asks Anant to send a quick text when there’s open time for contact. Anant sees that as a good way to remember to send a check-in message each day.

SUMMARY Despite wishes to the contrary, conflict is a natural and unavoidable part of any relationship. Since conflict cannot be escaped, the challenge is how to deal with it so that it strengthens a relationship rather than weakens it. All conflicts have the same characteristics: expressed struggle, perceived incompatible

goals, perceived scarce resources, interdependence, and inevitability. Individuals can respond to conflicts in a variety of ways: avoidance, accommodation, competition, compromise, or collaboration. Each of these approaches can be justified in certain ­circumstances. The way

10 | Managing Conflict

a conflict is handled is not always the choice of a single person, because the people involved influence one another. In some relationships, partners engage in complementary conflict, whereas in others, the approach is more symmetrical. Repetitive conflicts about the same issue are known as serial arguments. Some forms of communication during conflict are inherently toxic, like the “Four Horsemen” of criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and stonewalling. In ongoing relationships, partners often develop conflict rituals, which are repeated patterns of interlocking behaviours.

Research shows there are differences in the ways individuals typically approach conflict. A number of factors, including gender and culture, influence these differences. Gender stereotypes influence the ways we perceive approaches to conflict in others and in ourselves, while cultural values and norms also exert an influence on individual conflict styles. In most circumstances, a collaborative, win–win outcome is the ideal solution to conflict; this outcome can be achieved by following the guidelines outlined in the last section of this chapter.

MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS 1.

Memet is irritated that his new supervisor has initiated a new and much less collaborative way of scheduling everyone’s shifts. The previous supervisor solicited everyone’s preferences and did her best to make schedules that worked for everyone, but with the new schedules the employees are often left scrambling to cover for people who can’t make their scheduled shifts, leaving the business short staffed. He hasn’t approached the new supervisor yet to discuss the issue because he fears the supervisor will see him as meddling and overstepping his place. Memet is experiencing a. an expressed struggle with his supervisor. b. a perception that he and his supervisor have incompatible goals. c. an interpersonal conflict with his supervisor. d. all of the above.

2.

Although Emily mother has clearly stated that she would prefer that her daughter stay home for the weekend, Emily has decided she is going to the lake with her girlfriends for the weekend. Emily mom stops arguing, shrugs, sighs heavily and says, “Well then, go ahead and have a good time. Don’t worry about me, why would you?” Which style of conflict resolution best describes Emily mother’s approach? a. avoidance b. competition–passive-aggression

c. competition–direct-aggression d. compromise 3.

Josh likes a good argument. His style involves playing devil’s advocate and asserting his point of view vigorously. His conflict style would be best described as a. avoidant. b. accommodating. c. passive aggressive. d. competitive.

4.

Pietro and Quinn disagree about the best way to approach a joint project they’re working on. When working together in the past, Quinn has stormed off when Pietro has made suggestions about changing even minor details of Quinn’s approach and it has taken some time to restore their relationship. They’re under severe time constraints to finish this project, so Pietro decides to give in to Quinn rather than assert his point of view. In making his decision, Pietro decides to a. use accommodation after considering the other person. b. use avoidance after considering the ­situation. c. use compromise after considering his goals. d. use compromise after considering his goals.

331

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

5.

Both Tommy and Daisy get very angry during their conflicts, use aggressive tactics, and then frequently storm off and give each other the silent treatment (not talking to each other for several days). The pattern is always the same. Their relational conflict style would be best described as a. complementary. b. symmetrical. c. escalating spiral. d. direct aggression.

6.

Conflict rituals become a problem when they’re the only way relational partners ­handle their conflicts. a. true b. false

7.

Repetitive arguments about the same issue are a. more likely to involve hostile communication than non-recurring ones. b. most often about mundane issues. c. called toxic conflicts. d. all of the above.

8.

Compromise a. is what people involved in a conflict should aim for in their conflict resolution.

b. gives both people involved what they want. c. is the same as win–win problem solving. d. often doesn’t deserve the positive image it has. 9.

Research on newlywed couples and their communication patterns revealed four destructive types of communication that predict divorce. They are a. criticism, defensiveness, serial arguments, and complementary conflict styles. b. criticism, contempt, contrariness, and caustic comments. c. criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and stonewalling. d. criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and serial arguments.

10. Win–win problem solving a. is always the most desirable method of conflict resolution. b. is generally not as desirable as ­compromise. c. can be enacted using a seven-step process. d. all of the above.

Answers: 1. b; 2. b; 3. d; 4. a; 5. b; 6. a; 7. a; 8. d; 9. c; 10. c

332

ACTIVITIES 1. Invitation to Insight Even the best relationships have conflicts. Think about five recent conflicts you’ve had in one of your relationships and answer the following ­questions: a. Which conflicts involved primarily content issues? Which involved primarily relational issues? b. Which conflicts were one-time affairs and which recurred? c. Which individual and relational styles of conflict management were involved?

2. Invitation to Insight With a group of classmates, interview several people to answer the following questions about a particular relationship: a. Is your relational style of handling conflict generally complementary or symmetrical? What are the consequences of this approach? b. Would any of your conflicts be considered serial arguments? How do you handle these ongoing conflicts? How could you do so more ­constructively?

10 | Managing Conflict

c. Have you experienced any of Gottman’s “Four Horsemen” during conflict in this relationship? If so, which ones? What was the result? d. What conflict rituals do you follow in this relationship? Are they varied and effective? Do they create any problems? What might be better alternatives? Do gender and cultural background shape how you and your relational partners deal with conflict? If so, how? 3. Invitation to Insight Interview someone who knows you well. Ask your interviewee which personal-conflict styles (avoidance, accommodation, etc.) you use most often and what effect each of these styles has on your relationship with this person. Using your findings, discuss whether different behaviour might produce more productive results. 4. Skill Builder To explore how the win–win approach might work in your life, try one of the following alternatives:

a. Use the steps on pages 325–8 to describe how you could manage a conflict by following the win–win problem solving approach. How could you try this approach in your personal life? What difference might such an approach make? b. Try the win–win approach with a relational partner. What parts prove most helpful? Which are most difficult? How can you improve your relationship by using some or all of the win–win approach in future conflicts? 5. Role Play Think of an interpersonal conflict you recently engaged in that you believe was not resolved well. Review the individual approaches to conflict described on pages 309–14 and decide on the approach you would take if you had the opportunity to do it over. To a partner, briefly describe the conflict and the person you had it with, and roleplay your new approach to the conflict. Discuss the strengths and challenges of the approach you chose. Now, reverse roles.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1.

Wilmot and Hocker (2014) provide a definition of conflict that includes five parts. Must all five elements be present in order for conflict to exist? Why or why not?

2.

Why do you think criticism, defensiveness, contempt, and stonewalling (the “Four Horsemen”) are so destructive to relationships? Integrate your understanding of the self, relational messages, and communication climates into your explanation.

3.

Explain why collaboration is often more effective than the other four conflict styles described in this chapter.

4.

We’ve suggested that the supposed differences in how men and women handle conflict

may have more to do with people’s preconceived notions (stereotypes) about how men and women handle conflict. What do you think? Why? 5.

Recent research suggests a person’s ­self-concept is more powerful than their culture in determining conflict style. Given the role of culture in the development of ­self-concept (see Chapter 2), how could this be true?

6.

Contrast collaborative, win–win problem solving with compromise. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach? Why is compromise celebrated in our culture and win–win problem solving often ignored?

333

334

PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships

JOURNAL IDEAS 1.

Describe at least two relatively recent conflicts that you had with two different ­ people and how you resolved them. Compare the  two. Things to compare might include the emotions you experienced throughout and afterward, the methods you employed, the content of the disagreements, the length of the disputes, the outcomes, and anything else you believe is significant. Look for both similarities and differences. What factors account for the similarities and differences? If you had these situations to do over, what might you change? Focus on your own behaviour and approach rather than the other person’s. Do you have any insight into your conflict style tendencies?

2.

For some people, reviewing conflict situations can cause them to ruminate on negative events and create debilitating emotions that do not contribute to immediate conflict resolution or more satisfying conflict resolution in the future. There is a Swedish proverb that states “Worry gives a small thing a big shadow.” If you find yourself worrying or having debilitating emotions frequently when you reflect on conflict situations, go back to Chapter 4 and review the information regarding self-talk and the information regarding irrational thoughts. Use your journal to dispute those thoughts and record what is good about you and your life (savour your happiness).

PART FOUR

Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

theverest/iStockphoto

Jacob Lund/Shutterstock

11

Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners

CHAPTER OUTLINE Communication in Friendships Types of Friendships Friendships, Gender, and Communication Friendship and Social Media Communication in Successful Friendships

Communication in the Family Creating the Family through Communication

Patterns of Family Communication Families as Communication S ­ ystems Effective Communication in Families

Communication in Romantic Relationships Characteristics of Romantic Relationships Effective Communication in Romantic Relationships

KEY TERMS boundaries conformity orientation conversation orientation expectancy violations family

friendship love language relational commitment systems triangular theory of love

LEARNING OUTCOMES YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO: • • •

Identify the different types of friendship and explain the role communication plays in maintaining them Describe how communication creates and sustains relationships within families Analyze the ways love is expressed in romantic relationships

338

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

What relationships are most important to you? When researchers posed this question to several hundred college students, the answers were varied (Berscheid et al., 1989). Roughly half (47 per cent) of the respondents identified a romantic relationship and about a third (36 per cent) chose a friendship. Most of the rest (14 per cent) cited a family relationship. These meaningful relationships aren’t just nice to have—they’re vital. Research shows that close relationships “may be the single most important source of life satisfaction and emotional well-being, across different ages and cultures” (Peterson, 2006, p. 261). Building on the relational principles discussed in Chapter 8, this chapter examines three types of close relationships: with friends, family members, and romantic partners. These categories aren’t always mutually exclusive. For example, you may have a friend who is like family to you (Tannen, 2016). Or maybe your sibling is one of your closest confidants. Your significant other could fit into all three categories: your lover, friend, and a co-­parent of your family. Anthropologist Robin Dunbar (2014) suggests that humans have the capacity to be intimately connected with only about five people at a time. It’s likely those five people come from some combination of the three categories described in this chapter. Take a moment to identify the closest relationships in your life right now and see if that’s the case. Although there can be overlap between these types of relationships, this chapter will treat them as distinct and will analyze the unique characteristics for each—beginning with ­friendship.

Communication in ­Friendships Type the word friendship into a web browser along with one of these phrases: “in songs,” “in movies,” or “in TV shows.” You’ll see that popular culture is filled with references to friends and friendships. In fact, you can probably think of several artistic tributes to friendship on your own without searching online. We depict and celebrate

these special relationships because they are central to what it means to be human. But what exactly is a friend? Scholars have offered many definitions of friendships (e.g., Bukowski et al., 2009; Fehr, 2000). Most of them include the notions that a friendship is a voluntary relationship that provides social support. Most important for our purposes, friendships are created, managed, and maintained through communication (Johnson, Becker et al., 2009; McEwan and Guerrero, 2010). Different types of friendships involve different levels of communication.

Types of Friendships Before reading further, identify three friends from distinct parts of your life—perhaps an old neighbourhood pal, someone from work, and your BFF (“best friend forever”). Keep these three friends in mind as you read each of the following sets of dimensions. These categories will help you see that all friendships are not the same, and that communication patterns vary depending on the type of friendship.

Short- versus Long-Term Friends come in and out of our lives for a variety of reasons. Some friendships last for years or even a lifetime, while others fade or end because of life changes (such as finishing high school, moving to a new location, or switching jobs). Although modern technologies have decreased the likelihood that a friendship will end because of a long-distance move (Utz, 2007), some relationships falter or fail without regular face-to-face contact. Another reason some friendships may be short-term is due to a change in values (Solomon and Knafo, 2007). Perhaps you once had a group of friends with whom you enjoyed parties and nightlife, but as you grew out of this phase of your life, the mutual attraction between you and those friends waned. Take a moment to consider the three friends you identified earlier and where they fall on a short-term versus long-term continuum; for each of the following categories we address, you can do the same comparison.

11 | Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners

Task- versus Maintenance-Oriented Sometimes we choose friends because of shared activities, such as being teammates on a softball team, co-workers, or fellow movie-buffs. These types of friendships are considered task-oriented if they primarily revolve around certain activities. By contrast, maintenance-oriented friendships are grounded in mutual liking and social support that is independent of shared activities. These categories can overlap, of course; some friendships are based in both joint activities and social support.

Low- versus High-Disclosure How much do you tell your friends about yourself? Your level of disclosure no doubt differs from friend to friend. Some know only general information about you, whereas others are privy to your most personal secrets. The social penetration model described in Chapter 2 can help you explore the breadth and depth of your disclosure in your various friendships.

Low- versus High-Obligation There are some friends for whom we would do just about anything—no request is too big. Toward those friends, we feel a high sense of obligation. We feel a lower sense of obligation to other friends, both in terms of what we would do for them and how quickly we would do it. Our closest friends usually get fast responses when they ask for a favour, send a text, or need late-night help (see the Focus on Research on page 343).

Infrequent versus Frequent Contact You probably keep in close touch with some friends. Perhaps you work out, travel, or socialize together, or you communicate with them daily. Other friendships have less frequent contact—maybe an occasional call, text, or email. Of course, infrequent contact doesn’t always correlate with levels of disclosure or obligation. Many close friends may see each other only once a year, but they pick right

back up in terms of the breadth and depth of the information and connection they share. After reading this far, you can begin to see how the nature of communication can vary from one friendship to another. Furthermore, communication within a friendship can also change over time. Impersonal friendships can have sudden bursts of disclosure. The amount of communication can swing from more to less frequent. Low-­obligation friendships can evolve to encompass stronger commitments and vice versa. Later in this chapter, we’ll describe types of communication that are common in virtually all good friendships. For now, however, it’s important to recognize that variety is a good thing.

CHECK IT! List the dimensions in which friendships vary and explain how each affects communication.

Friendships, Gender, and ­Communication Not all friendships are created equal. Along with the differences described in the preceding pages, gender plays a role in how we communicate with friends.

Same-Sex Friendships Recall the first friend you ever had. If you’re like most people, that person was probably the same sex as you. Many of the first close relationships people form outside their families are with same-sex friends (Bukowski et al., 1996), and many adults maintain intimate same-sex friendships throughout their lives. In fact, it’s likely that the majority of people you call friends (of any sort) are of the same sex (exceptions to this norm are discussed later in this section). In popular vernacular, women often identify a female BFF (Demir et al., 2013). Close but non-sexual friendships between men are

339

340

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

sometimes called “bromances” (Alberti, 2013) or “bromosexual” friendships when they involve both gay and straight friends (Farber, 2016). Early studies on same-sex friendships (summarized in Fehr, 1996) suggested that women bond primarily through mutual self-disclosure, while men tend to create intimacy through shared activities. Social scientist Geoffrey Greif (2009) described male friendships this way: “Guys get together and have shoulder-to-shoulder relationships—we do things together, as compared with women, who are more apt to have face-to-face relationships” (p. 6). A more recent study supports the notion that female friendships often develop through one-to-one interaction, while men tend to bond in groups (David-Barrett et al., 2015). Overall, however, contemporary research on same-sex friendships suggests that gender differences may have been overstated in earlier studies— or perhaps norms have changed in the time since those studies were published (Garfield, 2015). A large-scale survey found almost no differences in either the number of close friends reported by men and women or in how friendship is communicated for them (Gillespie et al., 2015). Both men and women reported having a least one close friend, both groups identified the same number of friends (about four or five) they could talk to about sex, and both groups reported having five to six friends they could count on to celebrate their birthdays or provide late-night help. Participants in this study reported having more same-sex than cross-sex friendships and the investigators noted surprisingly few differences in terms of how men and women carry out their friendships. Some research suggests that women expect more disclosure and emotional support from their female friends than men do from their male friends (Hall, 2011). Nevertheless, these studies confirm that both men and women value same-sex friendships for both emotional support and shared activities and that, overall, friendship quality trumps quantity.

Cross-Sex Friendships Cross-sex friendships offer a wealth of benefits (Proscal, 2015). They can provide a different

­ erspective and a contrast to the kinds of interaction p that sometimes characterize communication between same-sex friendships (Holmstrom, 2009). For men, this often means a greater chance to share their emotions and focus on relationships. For women, it can offer a chance to lighten up and enjoy banter without emotional baggage (Sapadin, 1988). These kinds of friendships also give heterosexual singles seeking romantic partners access to a broader network from which to meet someone (Hand and Furman, 2009). One type of close, typically cross-sex friendship has gained its own label: the work spouse (Miller, 2016). Because it’s gotten attention in the popular press, communication researchers set out to study the phenomenon (McBride and Bergen, 2015). After surveying hundreds of people in work spouse relationships, the scholars created this definition from the participants’ descriptions: “a special, platonic friendship with a work colleague characterized by a close emotional bond, high levels of disclosure and support, and mutual trust, honesty, loyalty and respect” (p. 502). Because these friendships blur personal/professional borders, communication is important for creating and sustaining these relationships. For instance, the participants repeatedly mentioned the word platonic to communicate to themselves and to others the nature (and restrictions) of their friendship. Cross-sex friendships—at least for heterosexual people—present some challenges that don’t necessarily exist with all-male or all-female companionship. The most obvious is the potential for sexual attraction (Halatsis and Christakis, 2009). One study (Bleske-Rechek et al., 2012) found that romantic attraction between such friends is both common and problematic. Most participants who reported attraction to a cross-sex friend acknowledged that it had negatively affected their current romantic relationships. Although it’s possible to have romance-free, cross-sex friendships, defining that sort of relationship can take effort (Malachowski and Dillow, 2011). Some evidence suggests that cross-sex friends communicate more online in order to keep their relationships platonic (Ledbetter et al., 2011). In contrast, some cross-sex friends don’t keep things strictly platonic, as we’ll discuss in the following Friends with Benefits section.

11 | Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners

When it comes to the potential for romance, heterosexual cross-sex friendships fit into one of four categories (Guerrero and Chavez, 2005): • Mutual romance: both partners want the friendship to turn romantic. • Strictly platonic: neither partner wants the friendship to turn romantic. • Desires romance: one partner wants romance, but fears the friend does not. • Rejects romance: one partner does not want romance, but thinks the friend does. Not surprisingly, the last two types of relationships are the most complicated. Guerrero and Chavez (2005) found that the less interested partner in these situations used strategies to communicate “no go” messages: less routine contact and activity, less flirtation, and more talk about outside romance (see also Weger and Emmett, 2009).

Friends with Benefits Somewhere between friendship and romance is a friends with benefits (FWB) relationship—a popular term for friendships that include sexual activity. These relationships have become increasingly common and come in many varieties (Mongeau et al., 2013). Most participants claim these relationships offer an opportunity for sex with “no strings attached,” although there are usually more “strings” than participants may want to acknowledge. Some FWB relationships transition into romances (Owen and Fincham, 2012), others are transitioning out of romances, and still others serve as “placeholders” until better romantic options come along (Jonason, 2013). Some survey research suggests that both women and men appreciate the chance to meet their physical needs without the challenges of emotional commitment (Green and Morman, 2011). Despite this similarity, however, there are gender differences in the way FWB relationships turn out. Study participants have commented that women are typically more interested in the “friends” part of the relationship, whereas men are more likely to be interested in the “benefits” component (Lehmiller et al., 2011). As a result, women

may find FWB arrangements less satisfying that men do, both relationally and communicatively (Fahs and Munger, 2015). As you may expect, research shows that FWB partners routinely avoid explicit communication about the status of their relationships (Bisson and Levine, 2009). Compared to traditional romantic couples, FWB partners also communicate less about sex and thus are less sexually satisfied (Lehmiller et al., 2014). They do, however, practise safe sex more often and are more willing to talk about the sexual experiences they’ve had outside of their relationship. The communicative complexities of these relationships have led researchers to note a paradox: “FWB relationships are often problematic for the same reason they are attractive” (Bisson and Levine, 2009, p. 66).

Gender Considerations Biological sex isn’t the only factor to consider when we examine different sorts of friendships. Gender presentation and gender identification may contribute different properties to a friendship, depending, for example, to what extent participants embrace traditional or stereotypical gender roles (Holmstrom, 2009). Sexual orientation is another factor that can shape friendships. Most obviously, for those who identify as LGBTQ+ the potential for sexual attraction may shift from cross- to same-sex friendships, or the possibility may be there regardless of the sex of the participants. But physical attraction aside, sexual orientation may still play a significant role in friendships (Galupo and Gonzalez, 2013). One category of close friendship that has received a good deal of attention is between gay men and straight women. Research suggests that straight women develop friendships with gay men more quickly and easily than with straight men and this may be because women don’t worry about the sexual intentions of their gay friends (Hopcke and Rafaty, 2001; Russell et al., 2018). Gay men and straight women also trust romantic advice from each other more than from other sources (Russell et al., 2018, 2013). Comparing these insights, it appears that sexual attraction—or lack thereof—is

341

342

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

an ­important consideration in successful friendships (Gillespie, Frederick et al., 2015).

Friendship and Social Media IRL (“in real life”), it’s not hard to tell who counts as a friend. The internet, however, has made friendship more complicated (Amichai-Hamburger et al., 2013). Consider Facebook: on this platform, a “friend” could be someone you met once at a party or on vacation, a former classmate or neighbour whom you haven’t seen in years, someone you met online but have never known in person, or even a person who accepted your friend request simply to boost the size of their friends list. Bearing this out, college students who were shown photos of their Facebook friends could accurately identify only 72 per cent of those friends’ names (Croom et al., 2016). Despite all the possibilities they boast, research shows that social networking sites are used primarily to maintain current friendships or to revive old ones, rather than to build new relationships (Anderson et al., 2012). Contrary to some reports, teens typically use social networking sites to connect with known others, not strangers (Reich et al., 2012). In terms of safety, that’s a wise boundary to keep (Miller and Mundey, 2015). The vast majority of North American teens and millennials use social media (e.g., sites and apps like Instagram, Snapchat, WhatsApp, Facebook) to maintain their friendships (Kemp, 2016). One analyst (Choi, 2016) interviewed a sampling of teens across the US and learned their unwritten rules for communicating via social media. Here are a few of the guidelines they identified:

• When a friend posts a selfie on Instagram, there’s a social obligation to like it—and if you’re close friends, you might need to comment on it. You don’t need to comment anything deep, just leave something that’s enough to show your interest. • It’s possible to show too much interest, and that’s a violation of the unwritten rule. One example of showing too much interest is the “deep like.” This involves going back in someone’s Instagram archives and liking an old post.

It suggests you’re secretly watching them (lurking), and that “lacks chill.” • Snapchat photos are often sent in streaks. A friend should respond in kind to what you sent and keep the streak between you going. The content isn’t important; rather, the important thing is the relational message, which says “I’m keeping up with you.” • Privacy is a big deal. Facebook is far more public than other social media platforms, and that’s why teens don’t use it as often for personal communication. Setting an Instagram account to private and then letting a friend in is a statement of trust. Likewise, screen-grabbing Snapchat messages is not good form, as they’re meant to disappear after being shared with trusted recipients. Social networking sites aren’t the only media for communicating with friends. Calling, texting, instant messaging, and even online gaming are all means of keeping up with friendships (Liu and Yang, 2016). As we noted in Chapter 8, these different kinds of media can help friends maintain their relationship and provide a measure of social support to each other. But the closest of friends realize that no matter how much they stay in touch with each other electronically, there’s no substitute for a night on the town together, a stimulating in-­person conversation, or a good hug.

Communication in Successful Friendships As you’ve read, friendships come with a set of expectations about how to communicate. We rarely discuss these assumptions, and we often become aware of them only when they aren’t met. Communication scholars have found that expectancy violations—instances when others don’t behave as we assume they should—are the source of many relational problems (Cohen, 2010; Hall et al., 2011). The following guidelines, culled from several studies (Argyle and Henderson, 1984; Hall, 2012; LaBelle and Myers, 2016), offer prescriptions on what most people expect from their friends. You can judge the success of your friendships, at least in part, by seeing how closely you follow these prescriptions.

11 | Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners

FOCUS ON RESEARCH SOCIAL MEDIA AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH CO-WORKERS Search the phrase “social media and co-workers” and you’ll find a host of articles about the pros and cons of friending and following workmates online. This kind of sharing involves both risks and rewards. On the positive side, social media can help create bonds by allowing colleagues to learn about each other’s lives away from the job. It can help colleagues get to know each other on a deeper level, which can positively influence their productivity (Goodman, 2014). Along with these benefits, however, online sharing with co-workers has its risks. Some experts believe the risks are so great that they categorically recommend against friending colleagues (Wu, 2017). Others suggest proceeding with caution (Penning, 2016; Whittenberry, 2016). And while you might think that using filters to manage what content certain audiences (family and friends versus professional colleagues) can see is a cautious strategy, recent research suggests it might not achieve the results you want. Anika Batenburg and Jos Bartels (2017) found that integrating work and personal contacts on social media platforms produced higher levels of likeability among colleagues than a “segmenting” strategy, which involved restricting or filtering professional contacts’ access to personal information. These investigators suggest that because liking is related to self-disclosure, being included in a colleague’s

inner circle of friends might increase the likeability of that individual; similarly, when one is kept out of that circle they might feel rejected and their liking of the co-worker might actually decrease. Additional research has revealed that we are more likely to want to integrate our co-workers into our inner social media circles when we perceive them to be trustworthy and sociable (van Prooijen et al., 2018). As you know, our perceptions of others are not always accurate (see Chapter 3) and filters do not ensure privacy; people who have less restricted access to your posts can always share them with a broader audience. We’ve suggested throughout this book that it’s important to keep your online audience in mind when you’re choosing what to share on social media. Although it may feel private and fleeting, it’s not. Before you hit “post,” imagine how your manager, your most reserved co-worker, and your grandmother or another older relative would react if they saw your post. Self-monitoring is your friend. Although this suggestion seems obvious, everyone is aware of people whose social media posts have cost them their jobs. Critical thinking: What’s your preference in terms of including co-workers in your social media? What are the benefits of your approach? What are the potential costs?

Share Joys and Sorrows

Share Laughs and Memories

When you have bad news, you want to tell friends who will offer you comfort and support (Vallade et al., 2016). When a friend has good news, you want to hear about it and celebrate. When sharing sorrows and joys with friends, it’s often important how quickly and in what order the news is delivered. The closer the friendship, the higher the expectation is that you’ll share such things soon after they happen. If a friend asks, “How come I’m the last to find out about your new job?” you may have committed an expectancy violation.

A hallmark of a healthy relationship is shared laughter (Kurtz and Algoe, 2017). One study found that close friends have a distinctive laugh, and that people across cultures can pinpoint in seconds how intimate friends are by listening to them chortle together (Bryant et al., 2016). Another study found that friends regularly prod and deepen each other’s memory banks—so much so that “sharing a brain” is an accurate description for the bond between very close friends (Iannone et al., 2016). If you get together with long-time pals and laugh as

343

344

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

friendship (MacGeorge et al., 2004; Semmer et al., 2008). Need a ride to the airport, some help on moving day, or a quick loan until payday? These are the kinds of small assistances we expect from our friends. FlamingoImages/iStockphoto

Stand Up for Each Other

How can sharing laughs and memories improve c­ ommunication in friendships?

you recount things you’ve done together (“Remember the time when we . . .”), then you can probably call your friendship a success.

Provide a Listening Ear As we described in Chapter 9, listening is an important type of confirming message. Giving a friend your undivided attention and the opportunity to vent is one way to show that you care about them (Kellas et al., 2015). In Chapter 5, we outlined a variety of responses you can offer to a friend to demonstrate that you’re listening to them and understanding what they’re saying.

Maintain Confidences Betraying a confidence can injure or even end a friendship (Bello et al., 2014). When you share personal information with a friend, you expect that person to be discreet about what you’ve told them—especially when the information could damage your reputation or other relationships.

Lend a Helping Hand The old saying “A friend in need is a friend indeed” is supported by studies showing that providing assistance is one of the most tangible markers of a

A loyal friend “has your back” both when you’re present and when you’re not. Few things are more endearing than a friend who defends your rights, honour, and reputation. Friends will also celebrate your achievements to others so you don’t have to toot your own horn. (Social media can be a good outlet for this.)

Honour Pledges and Commitments “You can count on me” and “I’ll be there for you” are common friendship sentiments (Galupo and Gonzalez, 2013). These pledges, however, need to be backed up with actions. Whether it’s showing up on time, attending a scheduled event, or fulfilling an agreement about a shared task, it’s vital for friends to live up to their promises and obligations in order to keep their relationships strong.

Treat Each Other with Respect Sometimes we say the most hurtful things to people we care about the most (Zhang and Stafford, 2009), and it can be easy for banter in a friendship to slip into teasing that hurts and comments that sting (Jin, 2013). This is why good friends monitor their words and actions, making sure to communicate in ways that affirm the other person’s dignity.

Have a Balanced Exchange Social exchange theory (described in Chapter 8) tells us that the rewards of a relationship need to outweigh the costs. This is as true in friendships as it is in other close relationships (Haselton and Galperin, 2013). For example, college students in

11 | Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners

one study identified “Don’t take more than you give” as an important rule of friendship (Baxter et al., 2001).

Value Both Connection and Autonomy In Chapter 8, we discussed how all interpersonal relationships struggle with competing needs for closeness and independence. In essence, we have a need to spend time with our friends and a need to spend time away from them. It’s important to allow your friends both the space to develop their own identities and nurture their other relationships and also the freedom to make choices that might not match your own.

Apologize and Forgive Sooner or later, friends are bound to make the kinds of “relational transgressions” described in ­Chapter  8. As we explained there, offering an apology for such transgressions is helpful. A good apology has several components, including sincerely expressing remorse, admitting wrongdoing, promising to behave better, and requesting forgiveness. When you’re the one who has been wronged by a friend, granting forgiveness can help repair the friendship and leave you

TAKE TWO People generally expect the following from their friends: • Timely sharing of joys, sorrows, laughter, and memories • Attentive listening and the ability to maintain confidences • Provision of tangible support and honouring commitments to each other (e.g., showing up) • Loyalty and willingness to stand up for each other and celebrate achievements • Mutual respect and balanced “give and take” • Valuing both closeness and each person’s need for autonomy • Willingness to provide a genuine apology and to grant forgiveness when relational transgressions inevitably occur

f­ eeling b ­ etter than you would if you were holding a grudge (Merolla, 2008).

Communication in the Family A few generations ago, “what is a family?” was an easy question for most people to answer. Common notions of a family in the Western world stressed shared residence, reproduction or adoption of children by different-sexed adults, and a “socially approved sexual relationship” (Murdock, 1965, p. 1). In recent years, however, social scientists, lawyers, judges, and theologians have grappled with much broader definitions as they have considered matters that have complicated what constitutes a family, such as deciding who can marry, who the parents are when babies are conceived from egg and/or sperm donors, determining the rights of adoptive parents and adopted children, and negotiating grandparents’ access to their grandchildren. Each of us understands what “family” means in our own personal way, but understanding what it means to be a family in Canada requires us to take a much broader perspective. After reviewing various definitions over the last century, Kathleen Galvin and her colleagues (2008) define family broadly enough to include many types of relationships; for Galvin et al., a family is a system with two or more interdependent people who have a common history, a present reality, and expect to influence each other in the future. With this broader definition in mind, communication scholars contend that families are defined primarily through their interaction rather than through biological relationships or kinship systems. Within families, each type of communication between different family members has its own characteristics.

Creating the Family through ­Communication Families are based on, formed, and maintained through communication (Galvin, 2015). It’s through communication that family members

345

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

c­ reate mental models of family life, and it’s through communication that those models endure over time and across generations (Vangelisti, 2004). The following sections describe several ways that communication shapes and constitutes the family.

Family Narratives In Chapter 3, we described how shared narratives provide storylines that keep relationships operating harmoniously. Narratives are especially important in families, where they serve a variety of functions that include reinforcing shared goals, teaching moral values, and stressing family concerns (Galvin et al., 2007). Family stories often have meaning that goes beyond the incident being recounted (Kellas and Hortsman, 2015). Some might reflect beliefs about work (“In my day I walked to school uphill, both ways, barefoot in the snow”), family identity (“We’ve been leaders in this community for years”), and warnings (“you don’t want to end up like so-and-so, do you?). Some narratives may reflect a family’s view of how members relate to one another: “We help each other a lot” or “We’re proud of our heritage,” for example. Others reflect values about how to operate in the world: “It’s impossible to be successful without a good education” or “It’s our responsibility to help others less fortunate than ourselves.” Even dysfunctional families can be united by a shared narrative: “We can never get along.” One study showed that families who regularly engage in positive storytelling (focusing  on

a­chievements and using “we” language) have high levels of family functioning and satisfaction (­Kellas, 2005). These narratives are often remembered and relived. Newlyweds report that the sayings or advice of their parents (e.g., “Love doesn’t just happen—it requires work”) ring in their ears and offer them guidance (Jackl, 2016). More particularly, daughters remember stories their mothers told them about love, and they use that information to shape their own romantic relationships (Kellas, 2010). In other words, families narrate their best and worst life experiences and pass them down from generation to generation (Kiser et al., 2010). Stop for a moment and think of a story you’ve heard—maybe several times—at your family gatherings. What does that story say about how your family operates? What is the underlying moral of the story? How has it influenced the way you see the world and communicate with others? It’s quite likely you’ve been shaped by family stories more than you realize.

Communication Rituals and Rules Rituals are another way family is created through communication (Baxter and Braithwaite, 2006a). Some rituals centre on celebrations: special family meals, certain types of gifts, games, and so on. Other rituals are part of everyday life: good-­ natured teasing about family members’ quirks, for example, or saying “I love you” at the end of every phone conversation. Rituals are not the only way that families create their own communication systems. As unique

FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE © 1982 Lynn Johnston Productions. Dist. by Andrews McMeet Syndication. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved

346

11 | Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners

CHECK IT!

Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

cultures, families also have their own rules about a variety of communication practices. Some communication rules are explicit: “If you’re going to be more than a half an hour late, phone home.” Other rules aren’t discussed, but they are just as important: “If mom slams the door after coming home from work, wait until she has had some time to relax before speaking to her.” Some rules govern communication within the family (Caughlin and Petronio, 2004): How far is it okay to challenge parental decisions? What How have the stories you’ve heard about your family from a young age influkinds of language is allowed enced how you communicate with others? What do they suggest about how and forbidden? How much kid- your family operates? ding and teasing are acceptable? Are there any forbidden topics? avoid broaching more topics with step-parents One study (Baxter and Akkoor, 2011) showed who are highly authoritarian (i.e., demanding that some topics of conversation are allowed and and rigid). Interestingly, however, step-children encouraged in most families, whereas others are also say they are dissatisfied with highly permisdiscouraged, if not off limits. For example, both sive step-parents. parents and children agreed that conversations See if you can identify the rituals and rules in about friendships and everyday matters were your family. How are they communicated? How fine. On the other hand, topics related to sex, are they enforced, and what happens if they’re viodrinking, money, and how teens were doing aca- lated? How have they affected the way you comdemically fell into the second group. municate with those outside your family, such as Step-families have their own unique rules. roommates? Tamara Afifi (née Golish) interviewed adolescents and young adults in divorced (step-­families) and non-divorced families to learn about topics they tended to avoid with their parents and step-parents (Golish, 2000; Afifi and Afifi, 2009). Define what a family is and describe how comNot surprisingly, sex was the most frequently munication (narratives, rituals, and rules) creates families. avoided topic across all relationship types. However, step-children say they avoid more topics with their step-parents than they do with their parents. In particular, step-children often avoid “deep conversations” or talking about money Patterns of Family and family issues with their step-parents. One factor affecting the comfort level in step-family ­Communication communication is the type of parenting style Whatever form families take, the communication used by the step-parents. Step-children generally that occurs within them shares some important feel more dissatisfied with communication and characteristics, which we’ll take a look at now.

347

348

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

Families as Communication ­Systems Every family has its own unique ways of communicating. Yet despite these differences, all families are systems: groups whose members interact with one another to form a whole. Families, like all systems, have a number of characteristics that shape the way members communicate (Galvin et al., 2007; Lerner et al., 2002).

Family Members Are Interdependent If you touch one piece of a hanging mobile or wind chime, all of the other parts will move in response. In the same way, one family member’s feelings and behaviour affect all the other members. If, for example, a family member leaves home to marry, a parent loses a job, or feuding siblings stop talking to each other, the system is no longer the same. Each event is a reaction to the family’s history, and each event shapes future interaction and communication.

A Family Is More than the Sum of Its Parts Even if you knew each member of a family separately, you still wouldn’t understand their family’s system until you saw the members interact. When those members are together, new ways of communicating emerge. For instance, you may have known friends who turned into very different people when they became a couple. Maybe they became more confident, cleverer, and happier. Alternatively, perhaps they became more aggressive and defensive. Likewise, the nature of the couples’ relationship is likely to change if a child arrives, and their family interaction will change again with the arrival of any subsequent children.

REFLECTION WHEN A MARRIAGE CATCHES COLD, EVERYBODY SNEEZES When I was about eight years old, my parents went through a crisis that almost led to the breakup of their marriage. My siblings and I weren’t aware of the details, but the strain changed everything. My older brother, who was a star student, started getting Cs and Ds instead of As and Bs. I used to pretend to be sick so my mom and dad would co-operate to take care of me. And my five-year-old brother started having temper tantrums and wetting his bed. I learned several years later that our family business had almost gone bankrupt. After learning about family communication, I understand how problems in one part of a system affect every other part.

father, mother–son, mother–daughter, father–son, father–daughter, and daughter–son. If you add three-person subsystems to these six (e.g., mother– father–daughter), the number of combinations is even greater. The nuclear family itself is a subsystem of larger supra-systems that include aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, in-laws, and so on. A study that investigated the systemic nature of family interaction (Galovan et al., 2013) found that spouses reported higher marital quality when they were equally responsible for family tasks. Equitable sharing of the responsibility for child rearing was the best predictor of marital satisfaction. In other words, if parents want to improve their relationship with each other, one way to do so is to be more jointly invested in the care of their children. In this way, a change in one part of the family system (parent–child interaction) affects another part of the system (spouse–spouse interaction).

Families Have Systems within the Larger System

Conversation and Conformity in the Family

Like boxes within boxes, families have subsystems (systems within the larger family system). For example, a traditional family of four can have six two-person communication subsystems: m ­ other–

Ascan Koerner and Mary Ann Fitzpatrick (2006; see also Koerner and Schrodt, 2014) have identified two categories of rules about communication in the family: conversation and conformity.

11 | Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners

TAKE TWO FAMILIES AS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS • Interdependent: one family member’s feelings and behaviours affect all the other members. • More than the sum of its parts: new ways of interacting emerge when family members are together. • Systems within systems: families have smaller subsystems within them and are part of larger supra-systems.

Conversation orientation involves the degree to which families favour an open climate of discussion on a wide array of topics. Families with a high conversation orientation interact freely, frequently, and spontaneously, without many limitations on either the topics or the time they spend interacting. Conversation-oriented families enjoy telling family narratives and strengthen their bonds by doing so (Thompson and Schrodt, 2015). On the other hand, members of families with a low conversation orientation interact less and do not often exchange thoughts and feelings. It’s no surprise that families with a strong conversation orientation regard communication as rewarding, pleasurable, and relaxing (Avtgis, 1999; Barbato et al., 2003). Children who grow up in such families typically have a greater range of interpersonal skills in their later relationships (Koesten, 2004). Conformity orientation refers to the degree to which family communication stresses the importance of uniform attitudes, values, and beliefs. High-conformity families seek harmony, conflict avoidance, interdependence, and obedience. They are often hierarchical, with a clear sense that some members have more authority than others. By contrast, communication in families with a low conformity orientation is characterized by individuality, independence, and equality. Conversation and conformity orientations can combine in four ways, as shown in Figure 11.1. Each of these modes reflects a different family

communication pattern whereby typical interaction processes are described as consensual, pluralistic, protective, and laissez-faire. To understand these combinations, imagine four different families. In each, a 15-year-old daughter wants to get a very visible and irreverent tattoo, much to the concern of her parents. Now imagine how communication surrounding this issue would differ depending on the various combinations of conversation and conformity orientations: • Consensual families are high in both conversation orientation and conformity orientation. Communication in these families reflects the tension between the pressure to agree and preserve the hierarchy and an interest in open communication and exploration. In a consensual family, the daughter would feel comfortable making her case for the tattoo, and the parents would be willing to hear the daughter out. Ultimately, the decision would rest with the parents. • Pluralistic families are high in conversation orientation and low in conformity orientation. Communication in these families is open and unrestrained, with all family members’ contributions evaluated on their own merits. It’s easy to visualize an ongoing family discussion about whether the tattoo is a good idea. Older and younger siblings, and maybe even other relatives, would weigh in with their perspectives. In the best-case scenario, a decision would emerge from these discussions. • Protective families are low in conversation orientation and high in conformity orientation. Communication in these families emphasizes obedience to authority and a reluctance to share thoughts and feelings. In a protective family, there would be little if any discussion about the tattoo. The parents would decide and their decision would be final. • Laissez-faire families are low in both conversation orientation and conformity orientation. Communication in these families reflects the members’ lack of involvement with each other, emotional distance, and individual decision making. In this type of family, the parents

349

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

CONVERSATION ORIENTATION

CONFORMITY ORIENTATION

350

High

Low

High

Consensual families

Protective families

Low

Pluralistic families

Laissez-faire families

FIGURE 11.1  Family Communication Patterns

would have little to say about the daughter’s desire to get a tattoo. With this issue, and with most others, their response would be “Whatever” (even if the daughter brought it up for discussion). Which of these modes best represents your family? Which would you like to be true of your  family? You can use the Self-Assessment in this chapter to help you determine your family’s communication pattern. As you complete the assessment, keep in mind that family members may disagree on how their family is classified (Baxter and Pederson, 2013), so it may be interesting to have each member of your family complete it. For the record, more families identify as consensual or pluralistic than as protective or laissez-faire ­(Keating, 2016). A growing body of research suggests that some communication patterns are more productive and satisfying than others (Schrodt and Shimkowski, 2017). For example, young adults from consensual and pluralistic families are more confident listeners and more intellectually flexible than those from protective and laissez-faire backgrounds (­ Ledbetter and Schrodt, 2008). Children from pluralistic families are less verbally aggressive than those from any other type (Schrodt and Carr, 2012). By contrast, a protective parental approach leads both to more emotional suppression in children (­Shimkowski, 2016) and lower satisfaction for

all members of a family (Ledbetter and Vik, 2012). Fathers tend to be confrontational and pressuring during conflicts in high-conformity families, but they are peacemaking and analytic in pluralistic ones (Sillars et al., 2014). In other words, open communication and shared decision-making produce better results than power plays and refusals to have an open dialogue.

Effective Communication in ­Families It’s impossible to cover every aspect of effective family communication in just a few pages. Still, the following points can offer guidelines to make family interactions more satisfying and rewarding.

Manage the Connection–Autonomy Dialectic As you read in Chapter 8, dialectical tensions arise in relationships when two opposing or incompatible forces exist simultaneously. The connection– autonomy dialectic is particularly challenging for families. As children grow into adolescents, they become more independent, spending more time with friends and frequently resisting family-based activities. In their search for independence and greater self-awareness, they may challenge family rules and beliefs, and establish strong non-family relationships. Once they’ve worked through these identity issues they’re able to re-establish their relationships with family members. Families who are most successful at negotiating this potentially difficult period tend to be those

TAKE TWO Conversation and conformity in the family: combinations of conversation orientation (high or low) and conformity orientation (high or low)—create four family types: consensual, pluralistic, protective, and laissez-faire).

11 | Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners

SELF-ASSESSMENT YOUR FAMILY’S COMMUNICATION PATTERN Presented here is a list of statements that describe family communication. With your family in mind, rate your agreement with each statement on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree.” Conversation Orientation  1. In our family, we often talk about controversial topics like politics and religion.  2. My parents often ask my opinion when the family is talking about something.  3. I can tell my parents almost anything.  4. In our family, we often talk about feelings and emotions.  5. My parents and I often have long relaxed conversations about nothing in particular.  6. In our family, we often talk about our plans and hopes for the future. Conformity Orientation  7. In our home, my parents usually have the last word.  8. My parents sometimes become irritated with my views if they’re different from theirs.  9. If my parents don’t approve of it, they don’t want to know about it.  10. When I’m at home, I’m expected to obey my parents’ rules.  11. My parents often say things like “You’ll know better when you grow up.”  12. My parents often say things like “You should give in on arguments rather than risk making people mad.” SOURCE: Adapted from Koroshnia, M.M. and Latifian, M.M. (2008). An investigation on validity and reliability of Revised Family Communication Patterns Instrument. Journal of Family Research, 3, 855–75; and Fife, E.M., Leigh Nelson, C.C. and Messersmith, A.S. (2014). The influence of family communication patterns on religious orientation among college students. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 72–84. Scoring: Add your responses to items 1 through 6. This is your perception of your family’s conversation orientation: . The score can range from 6 to 30; using 18 as the midpoint, scores of 18 and above are high, and 17 and below are low. Add your responses to items 7 through 12. This is your perception of your family’s conformity orientation: . The score can range from 6 to 30; using 18 as the midpoint, scores of 18 and above are high, and 17 and below are low. Low conversation orientation + low conformity orientation = family is classified as laissez-faire. Low conversation orientation + high conformity orientation = family is classified as protective. High conversation orientation + low conformity orientation = family is classified as pluralistic. High conversation orientation + high conformity orientation = family is classified as consensual.

with high flexibility—families that, for example, can change how they discipline and how they determine family roles. Helpful practices include discussing rules and roles, minimizing criticism at times of exploration, emphasizing care despite conflict, and encouraging responsibility—all of which

are dependent on the quality of communication between parents and adolescents (Noller, 1995). When young adults move out of the family home, they need to consider how to stay connected. For example, they must decide how often to call home and visit, and they must find ways to ­maintain

351

352

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

opens lines of communication with their parents— perhaps in part through social networking sites (Stephenson-Abetz and Holamn, 2012). Studies of young adults show that their after-moving-out communication patterns with their parents usually reflect their prior patterns. For example, young adults from conversation-oriented families tend to remain open with their parents about everything from credit card use (Thorson and Horstman, 2014) to more intimate matters (Ledbetter and Vik, 2012). In one study, first-year college students reported that communication with their fathers had improved when they moved out (Rossetto et al., 2017). They said their fathers became more expressive and supportive and often less controlling. Moving out has a ripple effect on families. Relationships between siblings, for example, often change at this stage. A study found that siblings may gain a newfound affinity for one another once they’re separated and communication may increase as “absence makes the heart grow fonder” (Halliwell, 2016). Dynamics also change among the family members still at home. For example, the parents and remaining children may need to renegotiate their tasks and roles in the wake of a family member setting out on their own. Finally, communication between older parents and their adult children provides its own set of challenges. In many families, interaction comes full circle, as the children must provide for their parents while simultaneously meeting the obligations of their jobs and their own immediate families (Kees at el., 2007). Daughters who take care of elderly family members report being more satisfied when this relationship allows for autonomy (Semlak and Pearson, 2012). When there’s too much connection, caretakers can lose their sense of freedom and identity.

Strive for Closeness while Respecting Boundaries In Chapter 8, we described the conflicting needs (dialectical tensions) we all have for both integration and separation, and expression and privacy in our relationships. Nowhere are these opposing drives stronger than in our families.

Families cope with these dialectical tensions by creating boundaries, which are limits a family sets on its members’ actions. The most obvious boundaries are physical (e.g., “Do not enter a bedroom without knocking if the door is closed”; “Stay out of the den when Mom is preparing her tax return”). Other boundaries involve conversational topics. In some families, discussing finances is off limits. In others, health issues are kept private (Ebersole and Hernandez, 2016). Sex is one of the most-avoided topics between children and their parents and step-parents (Golish and Caughlin, 2002). Money is also a delicate subject in many families. Adult children who care for their elderly parents report that boundaries about finances often remain “thick,” even when caretakers need access to their parents’ financial accounts (Plander, 2013). In addition to governing what may be talked about, boundaries can also dictate how topics are handled. In some families, it’s fine to persist if the first overture to discussion is rebuffed (“Come on, what’s on your mind?”). In other families, privacy rules discourage this kind of persistence. Sometimes, these boundaries need to be openly negotiated. At other times, they’re established through trial and error. In either case, healthy boundaries allow us to balance our opposing and equally important needs for connection and autonomy and for openness and closedness. When cohesion is moderate, family members are able to thrive independent from each other while still remaining dependent on, loyal to, and connected with the family (Olson, 2000). Communication privacy management theory suggests that effective management of boundaries is an important part of all our interpersonal relationships (Petronio, 2000, 2013).

Use, but Don’t Abuse, Technology and Social Media Changing technologies affect family communication, often in positive ways (Carvalho et al., 2015). For instance, participants in one study (Crosswhite et al., 2014) said that texting has given them an increased sense of connection with family members and has had a positive effect on their familial

11 | Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners

relationships (women expressed this more than men). Participants also said they could express their feelings to family members more honestly via text than they could in person. Email has been found to provide similar connection opportunities (Stern and Messer, 2009), although this channel is more popular with parents than with their children. Many seniors are even using social media so they can stay connected with their grandchildren and extended families (Jung and Sundar, 2016). Social media provides new challenges for family privacy management, however. Decisions to send or accept a family member’s friend request and to unfriend or block family members are essentially decisions that relate to boundary issues. Studies show that adolescents engage in more self-disclosure but use fewer privacy settings than adults do (Christofides et al., 2012), which is why many of them are reluctant to accept their parents’ friend requests. Adolescents who agree to share online networks with their parents report having stronger relational bonds with them (Coyne et al., 2014). As teens transition to adulthood, they become less concerned about maintaining social media privacy with their parents (Child and Wetsermann, 2013). Generally, young adults who become online friends with their parents are more likely to be female and come from families with a high conversation-orientation (Ball et al., 2013). Those from lower conversation-orientation families are more likely to adjust their privacy settings once they add their parents as friends. Regardless of age or orientation, it’s important for family members to communicate their social networking expectations. This communication might include negotiating rules around, for example, posting old photos or sending personal messages through p ­rivate ­messaging.

Encourage Confirming Messages In Chapter 9, we discussed the importance of confirming messages—ones that show in one way or another that we value the other person. Confirming messages from parents help satisfy a great many of their children’s needs, including the need

to be nurtured and feel respected. Kathleen Ellis (2002) looked at the different ways mothers and fathers communicate valuing and support to their children. She found that two highly confirming behaviours parents offer are (1) telling their children that they are unique and valuable as human beings and (2) genuinely listening to their children when they tell them something important. Two highly disconfirming behaviours parents offer are (1) belittling their children and (2) making statements that imply their ideas do not count or matter: “Nobody asked for your opinion” or “What do you know about this anyway?” Confirming messages are as important for adolescents and young adults as they are for young children. For adolescents, confirming messages from parents and siblings are related to higher levels of self-esteem, self-concept strength, and autonomy (Dailey, 2006, 2010). For young adults, confirming communication from mothers is related to increased communication initiation with their mothers and less communication avoidance (Kennedy-Lightsey and Dillow, 2011). Young adults are more likely to reveal their risky behaviour to their family members when they think the response might be confirming (Aldeis and Afifi, 2013). This doesn’t mean that parents must agree with every choice their child makes, but it is important to create a communication climate that allows for open, honest discussions— particularly once the child reaches adulthood (Donovan et al., 2016). Siblings can also be a source of confirming messages. Research shows that sibling relationships can offer vital support throughout people’s lives (Rittenour et al., 2007); as such, it’s important to maintain these relationships through such behaviours as sharing tasks, expressing positivity, and offering assurances (Myers, 2003). Another way older siblings can nurture their relationships is by talking about their family: reminiscing about their childhood, crazy family events, and amusing or strange relatives they share. Sharing these stories not only holds the siblings together, but also helps them clarify family events and validate their feelings and life choices (McGoldrick and Watson, 2016).

353

354

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

Confirming communication is also important for successful marriages, which we’ll examine in more detail later in this chapter. Marital researcher John Gottman (2003) acknowledges that most couples are not confirming in all of their communication—that would be unrealistic. The key, says Gottman, is to have the right ratio of p ­ ositive-to-negative messages. His studies show that satisfied couples consistently have a 5-to-1 ratio of positive-to-negative communication, with positive messages including things such as humour, empathizing, and expressions of affection. It seems reasonable that this ratio would serve as an ideal for all family communication, not just for communication between spouses.

Deal Constructively with Family Conflict In families, as in other relationships, the question is not how to avoid conflict—that’s impossible— but how to resolve conflicts in a way that makes relationships stronger. As we discussed in Chapter 10, many conflicts are repetitive conflicts about the same issue (serial conflicts), and this is as true in families as it is in romantic and workplace relationships. One issue families frequently struggle with is power—that is, how family rules are created and who enforces them. Family conflicts also occur over differences in intimacy needs: the amount of affection members are willing to give and receive, how much time members spend together, and how much praise should be expressed. Finally, families may have conflicts related to interactional difficulties, including how to handle conflicts. Sometimes, families handle their conflicts in destructive ways. For instance, displays of physical and verbal aggression are unsuitable responses to conflict; however, the other extreme—ignoring a conflict—can be just as destructive. Families can improve their communication by recognizing that family conflict should be dealt with. Placing conflict on the back burner, attempting to ignore it, smoothing it over, or denying that it exists creates tensions. The key to resolution lies in how the conflict is dealt with. There are several general principles of conflict management that families can use, including:

• Don’t sweat the small stuff: There will always be differences of opinion and style in families. Many need attention, but others are simply not worth bothering with. (Of course, what is worth bothering about is often a matter of personal opinion.) • Focus on manageable issues: Many big issues can be broken down into smaller, more manageable parts. For example, instead of arguing about a family member’s “controlling personality,” consider addressing specific problems that arise from the issue, such as differing opinions about household neatness, the need to be informed about family plans, interference with your personal decisions, and so on. • Express appreciation as well as complaints: Along with addressing differences, let family members know that you appreciate them. As we saw in Chapter 9, hearing an abundance of confirming messages makes it easier for us to hear negative information without feeling defensive and unappreciated. • Seek win–win solutions: Strong feelings that are not resolved in one conflict will probably resurface later in another. The guidelines for win–win problem solving that we provided in Chapter 10 can work especially well with family conflicts, particularly when family members realize that when one person is unhappy, all members are likely to suffer. On the other hand, when all members contribute to and are satisfied with a solution to a family problem, it builds cohesion, trust, and goodwill.

CHECK IT! Describe five aspects of effective communication in families.

From his own research and a review of the literature on “excellent family communication,” John Caughlin (2003) offers a list of college students’ standards for what constitutes effective family communication. Several of these standards

11 | Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners

­ ighlight the points discussed above and are good h predictors of family satisfaction. Family members who communicate well provide each other with emotional support, express affection verbally and non-verbally, are polite to one another, and base discipline on clear rules.

Communication in Romantic Relationships In Chapter 1, we described numerous studies showing that interpersonal relationships can promote mental, emotional, and physical health. This is particularly true of romantic unions (Loving and Slatcher, 2013). People in loving romantic relationships tend to live longer, happier, healthier lives. Unfortunately, the ending of romantic partnerships—or being in distressed intimate relationships— is linked to increased rates of illness, depression, and even death (Fleming et al., 2010; Leopold, 2018). In one study, more than 2,200 participants who were recruited by couples’ therapists and counselors rated communication the most important competency for ensuring success in romantic relationships—more important than any other factor, including sex and passion (Epstein et al., 2013). Moreover, divorced couples cited “communication problems” as the primary challenge in their defunct marriages (Williamson et al., 2016). This section will focus on communication in romantic relationships, which are broadly defined as longer term, loving connections between partners. These relationships can include partners who are dating, partners who live together, and spouses who have been married for years. The crucial issue for determining whether a relationship is romantic is whether the people involved identify themselves as being romantically connected.

Characteristics of Romantic ­Relationships “Are we ‘just friends’ or are we something more?” It’s not unusual for partners to ask each other questions like this to determine if they’re moving into a romantic relationship. Although the lines of

demarcation around what is and is not a romantic relationship aren’t always clear, in this section we look at three characteristics that typify most romantic relationships: love, commitment, and affection. As you’ll see, these concepts usually overlap (for instance, one of the models in this section shows commitment and affection as components of love). The three characteristics are used here as a way to focus on the research about each of these related topics.

Love More than two millennia ago, Aristotle maintained that love was composed of a single soul inhabiting two bodies. His mentor, Plato, was a bit more cynical, arguing that love was a serious mental disease (Laërtius, 1853). Innumerable philosophers and artists have waxed eloquently about love, drawing mixed conclusions about its joys and sorrows. Social scientists have studied love as well, recognizing that it’s a force that draws most people into romantic relationships. One researcher puts it this way: Love plays a powerful role in people’s lives, determining how satisfied they are in a relationship, how committed they are to it, and, at least in premarital relationships, whether or not the relationship continues. (Fehr, 2013, p. 228)

A helpful model for understanding love is Robert Sternberg’s (2004) triangular theory of love. He maintains that love has three components: • Intimacy: This is the closeness and connectedness one feels in a relationship. Intimacy can be found and expressed in all the relational contexts described in this chapter. Using temperature as an analogy, Sternberg regards intimacy as the “warm” component of love. • Passion: This involves physical attraction and emotional arousal, often including sexuality. This is the “hot” component of love. • Commitment: This is the rational side of love, involving decisions to maintain a relationship over time (more on this later). This is love’s “cool” component.

355

356

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

Figure 11.2 depicts these three components as corners of a triangle and identifies seven possible combinations resulting from their intersection. It’s easy to imagine the communication patterns that accompany each form of love represented in the model. For instance, couples experiencing romantic love might exchange highly emotional messages (e.g., “I adore you” in a clutched embrace) with many displays of affection. Companionate love would be more verbally and non-verbally subdued, with phrases such as “I enjoy your company” more typical. And empty love would be a shell of a relationship, void of most if not all affectionate messages; this kind of love is described later in this section. It’s healthy for loving partners to have both companionate and romantic affection for each other (VanderDrift et al., 2013). Sternberg acknowledges that consummate love—the combination of intimacy, passion, and commitment—is an ideal that’s rare to achieve and challenging to maintain. Typically, love’s different components wax and wane over the course of a relationship. Sometimes, love comes with rushes of passion while, at other times, love is more a cool decision than a warm feeling. Maturity is also a factor in how people experience love. For instance, adolescents don’t identify with the triangle components as well as adults do, possibly due to having less experience in romantic relationships (Sumter et al., 2013). As partners age, they tend to value commitment more than the other components, although long-term partners experience more passion and intimacy than some commonly-held stereotypes suggest (Acevedo and Aron, 2009). INTIMACY Liking (intimacy alone)

Romantic Love (intimacy + passion)

Infatuation (passion alone)

PASSION

Consummate Love (intimacy + passion + commitment)

Companionate Love (intimacy + commitment)

Empty Love Fatuous Love (passion + commitment) (commitment alone)

COMMITMENT

FIGURE 11.2  Components of Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love

TAKE TWO STERNBERG’S TRIANGULAR THEORY OF LOVE Liking: intimacy alone Companionate Love: intimacy + commitment Empty Love: commitment alone Fatuous Love: passion + commitment Infatuation: passion alone Romantic Love: passion + intimacy Consummate Love: intimacy + passion + commitment

If you consider romantic partnerships you’ve been in or observed, you can probably think of examples of all the types of love depicted in the triangular model. You can also likely see how the different components ebb and flow over time. Similar to the models of relational stages and dialects described in Chapter 8, it’s healthy to regard love as a dynamic and changing process rather than a static property.

Commitment How important is the role of commitment in romantic relationships? Sentiments such as the following suggest an answer: “I’m looking for a committed relationship.” “I’m just not ready for commitment.” “I’m committed to making this relationship work.” Relational commitment involves a promise— sometimes implied and sometimes explicit—to remain in a relationship and work to make it successful. Commitment is both formed and reinforced through communication. Table 11.1 describes commitment indicators in romantic relationships. Research shows that couples who regularly communicate their commitment have more positive feelings about their relationship and experience less relational uncertainty (­ Weigel et al., 2011) than those who do not. Some of that communication is private; some is public. For instance, for some people, posting on a partner’s

11 | Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners

TABLE 11.1  Major Indicators of Commitment in a Romantic Relationship

•  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  •  • 

Providing affection Providing support Maintaining integrity Sharing companionship Making an effort to communicate regularly Showing respect Creating relational future Creating positive relational atmosphere Working on relationship problems together Reassuring one’s commitment

SOURCE: Weigel, D.J. (2008). Mutuality and communication commitment in romantic relationships. Southern Communication Journal, 73, 24–41.

Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

social networking site can be both a commitment marker and a sign that the relationship has staying power (Toma and Choi, 2015). As Table 11.1 indicates, words alone are not always an indicator of true commitment. Deeds are also important. Simply saying, “You can count on me” doesn’t guarantee loyalty. But without language, commitment may not be clear. For this reason, ceremonies formalizing relationships are an important way to recognize and cement commitment (see Chapter 8’s discussion of bonding).

A cultural note about commitment: it’s a decidedly Western approach to view commitment as a culmination of romantic love (as the familiar chant goes, “First comes love, then comes marriage”). Many of the world’s marriages are arranged and their axiom is “first comes marriage, then comes love.” In a study of satisfied couples in arranged marriages, “commitment” was identified as the most important factor that helped their love flourish over time (Epstein, Pandit et al., 2013). The second most important factor was “communication,” with a strong emphasis on self-disclosure as a means to learn to love one’s mate. Regardless of the order, there is a strong relationship between commitment and communication in successful romantic relationships.

Affection

Expressions of affection—both verbal and non-verbal—are typical in romantic relationships. These can range from holding hands, to saying “I love you,” to sexual activity. Romantic affection is often communicated privately, but sometimes it’s expressed publicly. In fact, the phrase “public displays of affection” has its own acronym (PDA) and social rules (Watson, 2016). Communicating affection is beneficial for romantic partners in a variety of ways (Hesse and Mikkelson, 2017). In one study (Floyd et al., 2009), married and cohabiting couples were asked to increase their amount of romantic kissing over a six-week period. In comparison with a control group, the frequent kissers experienced improvements not only in their stress levels and relational satisfaction, but also in their cholesterol counts. Other research shows similar physiological benefits of expressing affection verbally, both in person and in writing (Floyd and Riforgiate, 2008). In terms of relational benefits, received affection works like a What are some small, everyday things that you believe make a happy marriage? bank account—when a loved

357

358

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

one has made plenty of deposits, the partner is more willing to overlook a transgression than when the affection account is depleted (Horan, 2012). There can be discrepancies between feelings and expressions of affection. Perhaps you can recall times when you texted “Love u” despite not feeling very charitable toward your partner. Maybe you gave your partner a hug or a kiss in the midst of a disagreement, even though it didn’t match your emotional state. Communication researchers call these acts of “deceptive affection” and note they’re common in romantic relationships (Horan and Booth-Butterfield, 2013). Rather than being negative, deceptions of this sort can be a normal part of relational maintenance and support. Research shows that they may also be more powerful than you realize: engaging in romantic actions, such as gazing into a lover’s eyes, sitting at intimate ­distances, or sharing personal secrets, can often lead to romantic feelings (Epstein, 2010). Sexual activity is an important means of expressing and receiving affection in most romantic relationships. The strongest and most reliable predictor of sexual satisfaction is relational satisfaction (Diamond, 2013). In other words, sex is best enjoyed as part of a healthy romantic relationship. Communication also plays an important role: there is a strong correlation between a couple’s communication skills and their sexual satisfaction (Byers, 2011). And contrary to some media depictions of passionate sex occurring in wordless vacuums, sexual activity is more satisfying when accompanied by direct verbal communication (“Here’s how I feel”; “This is what I want”), both before and during the encounter (Theiss and Solomon, 2007). Similarly, positive disclosures after sex, often referred to as “pillow talk,” help build trust, satisfaction, and closeness between romantic partners (Denes, 2012). When those conversations are uncomfortable, satisfied lovers often use face-saving communication and even humour to express themselves (Miller-Ott and Linder, 2013). It may come as a surprise that not all people in romantic relationships desire sexual activity. There are those whose orientation is “romantic asexual,” and coming out for these individuals can be challenging (Robbins et al., 2016). Experts suggest that it’s helpful for asexual people to find like-minded

others to help them navigate how to talk about their orientation and needs.

Effective Communication in Romantic Relationships The preceding section identified some ways to improve communication in romantic relationships, such as conversing about commitment and displaying affection. Two other ways to enhance romantic interaction include learning your own and your partner’s love language and managing digital communication.

Learning Love Languages “If you love me, please listen.” “If you love me, say so.” “If you love me, show me.”

The underlying message in statements such as these is, “Here is what love means to me.” Author Gary Chapman (2010) contends that each person has a love language: a particular notion of what counts as love. He suggests that we get into trouble when we fail to recognize that our way of understanding and expressing love may not match our partner’s. Chapman identifies five love languages in romantic relationships and research supports their connection to effective relational maintenance (Egbert and Polk, 2006). Although they’re not technically “languages,” the term is used to suggest that these five categories are means of communication. The five love languages are: • Words of affirmation: These include compliments, words of praise, verbal support, written notes or letters, or other ways of saying that a person is valued and appreciated. People who use this love language are easily hurt by insults or ridicule, or when their efforts aren’t verbally acknowledged by their partners. • Quality time: This is about being present and available for your partner and giving them your complete, undivided attention for a significant period. Being inattentive or distracted takes the “quality” out of time spent together.

11 | Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners

• Gifts: People who measure love in terms of gifts believe “it’s the thought that counts.” A gift needn’t be expensive to be meaningful; the best ones show that you know the recipient well. To gift-oriented partners, neglecting to honour an important event is a transgression. • Acts of service: Taking out the trash, filling the car with gas, doing laundry—the list of chores that can be acts of service is endless. Similar to gifts, the key to acts of service is to know which acts would be most appreciated by your partner (Hint: it’s probably the chore that your partner hates the most.) • Physical touch: although this might include sexual activity, meaningful touch can also include other expressions of affection, like an arm around the shoulder, a held hand, a brush of the cheek, or a neck rub. People often, understandably but mistakenly, assume that the love language they prefer is also one their partner will appreciate. For example, if your primary love language is “gifts,” then you probably expect presents from loved ones on special occasions—and perhaps even on ordinary ones. You’re also likely to give gifts regularly and assume that they’ll be received appreciatively. As you can imagine, the assumption that your partner speaks the same love language as you can be a set-up for disappointment. Chapman (2010) says this is often the case in marriages: We tend to speak our primary love language, and we become confused when our spouse does not understand what we are communicating. We are expressing our love, but the message does not come through because we are speaking what, to them, is a foreign language. (p. 15)

Most people learn love languages in their families of origin. To a degree, then, we’re imprinted with ways to give and receive affection from an early age (Davis and Haynes, 2012). The good news is that we can learn to communicate love in different ways, especially with help from our romantic partners. Take a look at the types of love languages in the preceding list and see if you can identify your primary style. Then, ask your partner to do the same and compare notes.

CHECK IT! Describe the five “love languages” proposed by Gary Chapman and provide an example of each.

Managing Digital Communication As you read in Chapter 8, it’s no longer unusual for romantic relationships to begin online. But even couples who initiate their romance in person need to manage their use of digital communication. One study found that 27 per cent of online adults in romantic partnerships say that online communication has had an impact on their relationships (Lenhart and Duggan, 2014)—not all of which is positive. About a quarter of cellphone owners in the study said phones distract their romantic partners when they’re alone together (the percentage was even higher for young adults ages 18 to 29). In light of this, it’s wise for couples to negotiate rules about using (or not using) mobile devices when they’re together (Miller-Ott and Kelly, 2015). Digital communication can be more than a mere distraction to a romantic relationship. In a broad overview of US demographic data, researchers found a correlation between social network use, marital dissatisfaction, and divorce (Valenzuela et al., 2014). Social networking habits in particular emerged as a “significant predictor of divorce rate and spousal troubles.” The authors make clear, however, that social media may not be a cause as much as a symptom of relational problems insofar as men and women troubled by their marriage may turn to social media for emotional support. That support, in some instances, can involve flirting or engaging in romantic relationships online. Online infidelity can pose serious problems—it’s often perceived as betrayal and as serious as in-person cheating (Whitty, 2005). In some instances, both men and women reported finding online infidelity more distressing than cheating sexually (Henline et al., 2007). Flirting with someone online, even if there is no physical involvement, can jeopardize committed face-to-face relationships. A helpful rule of thumb is to regularly include your romantic partner in your social media postings, sending a message to both

359

360

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

your loved one and those who are following you that you are together and satisfied (Saslow et al., 2013). There’s plenty of good news, however, about romantic communication and technology. As Chapter 8 explained, communicating via texting, instant messaging, and social media can be an important ingredient of relational maintenance (Tong and Walther, 2011b). One reason text-based digital channels are so effective is that lovers can craft their messages to convey just the right expression of affection and immediacy (Wells and Dennis, 2016). In addition, edited messages allow communicators to perceive and present idealized versions of themselves that are free of poor manners, stumbling speech, and other bad communication habits (Jiang and Hancock, 2013). Although handwritten love letters may be a thing of the past, typed words of affection still make an impact—and most digital messages can be stored and reread. If there’s a special text you’ve saved, an email you’ve archived, or a social media post you revisit, then you understand the power of written words to maintain a romantic relationship. Mobile devices also make it easier than ever to stay in touch with loved ones, but they can also be intrusive. There’s a point at which constant calls and texts can feel like an invasion of privacy (Ngcongo, 2016) and sweetness can feel like surveillance (McEwan and Horn, 2016). This returns us to a familiar maxim in this book: all things in moderation. When overused or abused, social media can negatively impact a romantic relationship. When

employed with care and awareness, these tools can help maintain and strengthen loving partnerships. A final thought about romantic relationships: they’re a means for intimacy needs, but not the only means. It’s quite possible to have close, affectionate relationships without having a romantic partner. Although North American society affords many social and economic benefits to couples, the number of people identifying as single has more than doubled in recent decades. In Canada, one-person households are now more common than couples, couples with children, or any other household type (Statistics Canada, 2017). Social scientist Bella DePaulo (2006), an outspoken advocate of singleness, observes that people choose to be single because it allows them to live an authentic, fulfilling, and meaningful life. One study suggests that single people lead richer relational lives. In an analysis of national survey data, single people were more likely than married people to stay in touch with, provide help to, and receive help from parents, siblings, neighbours, and friends (DePaulo, 2018; Sarkisian and Gerstel, 2016). In sum, “being single increases the social connections of both women and men” (Sarkisian and Gerstel, 2016, p. 361). To return to a theme from this chapter’s introduction, it’s vital to have close relationships—perhaps as many as five in your innermost circle. But if one of those five isn’t a romantic partner, that’s not necessarily a problem. In fact, it might free you up to communicate more with your closest friends and family.

SUMMARY When it comes to close relationships, friendships, family relationships, and romantic relationships are shaped by numerous factors. In the case of friendships, the length of the relationship, task/maintenance orientation, and degree of disclosure, obligation, and contact all influence the types of friendships we have. Sex and gender also affect the way people make and maintain friendships and communicate with each other. Successful friendships follow a number of guidelines that help people avoid expectancy violations.

Contemporary families have a variety of traditional and non-traditional arrangements. These arrangements are formed through the communication of narratives, rituals, and rules. Over time, families develop into systems, as members interact with one another to form a whole. Effective communication in families requires that the members establish and maintain a moderate level of cohesion, and they do this by establishing appropriate boundaries. In addition, functional families are adaptable and manage change without too much rigidity or acquiescence. Members of healthy families

11 | Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners

encourage one another with confirming messages and strive to find win–win solutions to their conflicts. Most romantic relationships are typified by three components: love, commitment, and affection. Partners who want to improve their communication can learn each others’ love languages and use social media in ways that enhance their relationship. While romantic relationships are a means for

meeting intimacy needs, however, they’re not the only means. Increasing numbers of people choose to be single and some research suggests they may lead richer relational lives than their married and cohabitating peers. It’s vital to have close relationships for our good health and well-being, but it’s not necessary that one of those relationships is with a romantic partner.

MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS 1.

Kristy has two co-workers she considers friends. She enjoys sharing shifts with both of them; however, she often sees one of them socially outside of work events because they have so much in common. She has less in common with the other co-worker friend and they tend to socialize mostly at work and work-related functions. Kristy’s two co-worker friendships can best be differentiated on which of the following dimensions? a. b. c. d.

short- versus long-term task- versus maintenance-oriented low- versus high-disclosure low- versus high-obligation

2. Palo has received a promotion at work but doesn’t share this news with his best friend for over a week. Palo’s friend feels hurt by Palo’s lack of disclosure because he believes that friends share their joys and sorrows. Palo’s failure to disclose his promotion to his friend best represents which of the following? a. b. c. d. 3.

open orientation. conversation orientation. conformity orientation. laissez-faire orientation.

The Patel family members are all aware of their relatives’ immigration to Canada, the business they established in their local community, and the successes of second and third generation family members in university. This information constitutes a a. b. c. d.

5.

shared narrative. shared communication ritual. shared communication rules. all of the above.

Spouses report higher marital quality when they’re equally responsible for family tasks. Which of the following shared task best predicts marital satisfaction? a. doing laundry b. cooking c. house work such as cleaning and putting things away d. child rearing

6.

a high level of obligation a failure to maintain confidence an expectancy violation all of the above

The degree to which families have an open climate of discussing a wide array of topics is referred to as a. b. c. d.

4.

Adults from which types of families tend to be more confident listeners and more intellectually flexible? a. b. c. d.

7.

protective and laissez-faire consensual and pluralistic consensual and laisse-faire protective and pluralistic

Which of the following statements is accurate according to Sternberg’s triangular theory of love? a. Commitment alone is called companionate love. b. Passion combined with intimacy is called infatuation.

361

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

c. Passion combined with commitment is called romantic love. d. Intimacy combined with passion and commitment is called consummate love. 8.

Akari loves to buy little presents and make cards for her romantic partner. She does this once or twice a week. Her romantic partner does not reciprocate and occasionally finds the frequent gifts unnecessary and impractical. Akari feels increasingly unappreciated by her romantic partner. According to Gary Chapman’s theory regarding communication in romantic relationships a. Akari’s partner may not recognize this love language. b. Akari’s romantic partner needs to text her more often to communicate love. c. Akari is communicating fatuous love but her partner is expressing empty love. d. According to Chapman’s theory, all of the above statements are true regarding Akari’s situation.

9.

According to John Gottman, satisfied couples have a ratio of positive-to-negative communication of approximately a. 1:1. b. 1:5. c. 5:4. d. 5:1.

10. Research suggests people need close relationships for life satisfaction and emotional well-being. What is the approximate capacity humans have for intimate connections with other people? a. b. c. d.

approximately approximately approximately approximately ships

5 intimate relationships 10 intimate relationships 25 intimate relationships 40 to 50 intimate relation-

Answers: 1  . b; 2. c; 3. b; 4. a; 5. d; 6. b; 7. d; 8. a; 9. d; 10. a

362

ACTIVITIES 1. Invitation to Insight With a group of classmates, analyze how gender affects communication in same-sex and crosssex friendships. If possible, each group member should give examples of communication in two friendships: one same-sex and one cross-sex. For each relationship, record both the subject of the interaction (e.g., school, finances) and the nature of the interaction (e.g., emotional expression, personal information, shared activities). Compare your findings and identify the patterns that emerge. 2. Invitation to Insight Understand your family system better by giving ­examples of each of the following characteristics in your own family (see descriptions on pages 348–50). a. interdependence of members b. how the family is more than the sum of its parts c. family subsystems and supra-systems

3. Invitation to Insight In your romantic relationships, which of the components of love—intimacy, passion, or commitment— is most important to you and why? Which is least important? Discuss your rankings with a group of classmates and note any patterns that emerge. 4. Role Play In a group of no more than four people, pretend to have a family discussion about any mildly controversial topic. Each member of the group will act out a different family member role. Have the discussion first as members of a family with a protective orientation (low conversation and high conformity orientations). Next, discuss the same topic as members of a family with a consensual orientation (high conversation and low conformity orientation). Afterward, explain how the communication pattern (consensual versus protective) affected the role

11 | Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners

each person played and discuss the effects of the family communication pattern on each person’s

perception of the discussion and their contributions to it.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1.

2.

Describe the similarities and differences be-­ 3. tween same-sex friendships, cross-sex friendships, and friends with benefits. Are they more 4. similar than they are different? Why or why not? This chapter includes 11 guidelines regarding what people expect from their friends. Do you think that list misses any important elements? Is there a prescription among the 11 that you don’t expect from your friends? Provide reasons why you think the list of 11 prescriptions for communication in friendships is incomplete, includes something unnecessary, or includes everything you tend to expect from a close friend.

5.

What are the family narratives of your family? What values do they communicate? Have you observed a mismatch between two people in terms of the ways they communicated their love for each other (e.g., Chapman’s five love languages)? Do you think it’s possible to change the ways people express love to better suit their romantic partners? Why or why not? Overall, do you think the length of the romantic relationship itself or the personalities of the two people involved most influence the balance of intimacy, passion, and commitment in a romantic relationship? Why do you think so?

JOURNAL IDEAS 1.

Families, like individuals, are unique; different topics covered in this chapter are more and less salient for different individuals. Review the chapter and pick a couple of topics that you can easily apply to your family. For instance: maybe you can easily think of an example of how your family members are interdependent and part of a larger family system; alternatively, perhaps your family narratives or communication rules came to mind when you read those sections. Once you have chosen a topic or two, describe how each topic applies to your family and evaluate its ­contribution— positive, negative, or both—to your family’s communication patterns and relationships. Are there things you would like to ensure you keep? Change? What are they, and why do you feel that way?

2.

Review the expectations people have for their friends and romantic partners and the

general etiquette regarding social media for those relationships described in this chapter. Choose a couple of your close relationships and keep track of how well you meet these etiquette expectations over the course of a week. Also note when these individuals meet or violate your expectations. After the week has passed, analyze and identify patterns in terms of which elements of friendship you provide the most/ least, which you receive the most/least, and instances in which either your friendship expectations were violated or you violated one of your friend’s expectations. How did social media influence your communication in these friendships? Were there opportunities to employ some of the skills for creating supportive climates (Chapter 9) or collaborative (win–win) conflict resolution? What do you want to continue to do or do more to strengthen your friendships? What would you like to do less?

363

monkeybusinessimages/iStockphoto

12

Work, Group, and Team Communication

CHAPTER OUTLINE Communicating in Organizations Formal Communication Informal Communication

Relationships in Work Groups and Teams Characteristics of Groups and Teams Personal Skills in Work Groups and Teams Group Cultures Face-to-Face and Mediated Relationships

Leadership, Power, and Influence in Working Groups Types of Leadership Types of Power Leadership that Supports Diversity and Inclusion

Advancing Your Career Networking Interviewing

KEY TERMS coercive power designated leader distributed leadership downward communication emergent leader expert power formal communication groupthink horizontal communication informal communication legitimate power

networking power referent power reward power social loafing synergy teams upward communication virtual teams work groups

LEARNING OUTCOMES YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO: • • • • • • •

Identify your formal and informal relationships at work and suggest how you can expand the number of relationships you have so you can operate most effectively in your career Describe situations in which groups and teams are most effective and appropriate Analyze the relational roles you need to fulfill to help a working group operate effectively Diagnose the culture of an organization and determine how well it fits with your personal ­communication style Choose the type of interaction (face-to-face or mediated) that can maximize your on-the-job ­effectiveness Classify the types of power you possess in a given group and describe how you can use them to help the group operate effectively Apply the guidelines to plan, participate in, and follow up on an employment interview in a way that creates a positive relationship with a potential employer

366

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

Interpersonal effectiveness is essential on the job. The most sought after attribute employers indicate they are looking for in both entry-level and mid-level hires is strong interpersonal communication skills (Business Council of Canada, 2018; Canadian Council of Chief Executives, 2014). Collaboration, teamwork, interpersonal, and relationship-building skills differentiate the top candidates seeking employment in Canada. Interpersonal communication skills are increasingly important in workplaces where computers and artificial intelligence (AI) are performing the parts of the job that don’t require the complexities of human interaction—leaving the building of and maintenance of relations with customers, clients, patients, and other professionals to people. In the following pages, we’ll look at some of the most common and important dimensions of interpersonal communication on the job. This information is no substitute for a full course in organizational or business and professional communication, but it will give you an appreciation of how the knowledge and skills described in this textbook can lead to greater effectiveness and satisfaction at work.

Communicating in ­Organizations Within the workplace, relationships differ in a number of ways. Each of these relationships brings its own set of communication characteristics and challenges. In this section, we’ll take a look at both the officially established channels of communication that exist in organizations, as well as the ways that information is shared through unofficial personal relationships and associations that are inevitable in workplaces. Both formal and informal relationships influence the flow of information in organizations and the organizational climate, and affect job performance and satisfaction (Bourdrias et al., 2010; Lopez and Kidwell et al., 2018; Mills, 2010).

Formal Communication In most work settings, people are identified by titles and roles such as operations manager, intern, customer service representative, and so on. These roles combine to create formal communication,

which is a kind of interaction that follows officially established channels (e.g., supervisor meets with employee to review performance; salesperson submits electronic monthly report to district sales manager). Organizational charts provide a snapshot of formal communication networks. They indicate who is responsible for which tasks and who reports to whom. There are three types of formal communication within all but the very smallest organizations (Adler and Elmhorst, 2019).

Upward Communication In upward communication, subordinates communicate with their supervisors. While most organizations claim to want to hear from employees, many are not as open to receiving these messages as they may claim to be. However, in organizations where upward communication is truly valued and encouraged, employees report feeling both greater job satisfaction and engagement with their jobs (Ruck et al., 2017). In addition, many successful organizations credit their success to listening to employee feedback (Morrison, 2011; Tsai et al., 2009). Upward communication can cover a variety of topics: • What subordinates are doing: “We’ll certainly have that job finished by closing time today.”

• Unsolved work problems: “We’re still having trouble with our suppliers.”

• Suggestions for improvement: “I think we’ve figured out a way to accommodate everyone’s vacation requests.”

• How subordinates are feeling: “I’ve been promised a promotion for six months, but it still hasn’t happened.”

Downward Communication In downward communication, managers address messages to subordinates. Downward messages often include: • Job instructions: “Here’s the way to do it . . .”

12 | Work, Group, and Team Communication

• Job rationale: “We back up the files every night in case the server crashes.”

• Feedback: “Great job! Just one suggestion . . .”

Both managers and employees rely on this type of  communication to accomplish tasks and meet organizational objectives. Downward communication also contributes to employee satisfaction and engagement (Chan and Lai, 2017; Goris, 2007).

Horizontal Communication Horizontal communication occurs between people who do not have direct supervisor–subordinate relationships. These types of messages may include: • Task coordination: “If you can get me the report by tomorrow, I’ll have it finished by Thursday.”

• Sharing information: Sales rep to engineer: “The customers are asking for longer battery life. Is that possible?”

• Conflict resolution: “I was really unhappy when you criticized me in front of our manager. Can we talk about that?”

These examples suggest the importance of keeping formal communication channels open and operating; imagine the likely consequences if any one of these messages weren’t delivered. Communication with peers is the most common type of communication on the job and contributes significantly to whether people enjoy their work or feel stressed out and miserable. In addition to providing task-related and emotional support, solving problems, and getting the job done, the quality of co-worker relationships is also linked to satisfaction with and commitment to the job (Bryant and Sias, 2011; Sias, 2009; Valaei and Rezaei, 2016). Ask anyone who has had a job they really disliked, and they will probably tell you the problems involved the people they worked with and not really the job requirements themselves. Both formal and informal communication with peers contributes to

job satisfaction; in the next section, we will take a look at informal communication.

Informal Communication Formal relationships are important, but they’re not the only kinds that operate at work. People develop their own personal networks of relationships within the workplace. Communication in these networks is informal. Informal communication doesn’t follow officially sanctioned routes (e.g., the administrator informs the frontline staff, who then let clients know); instead, it’s based on friendships, shared personal or career interests, and proximity. Co-workers may have children in the same school, support the same sports team, belong to the same place of worship, or have mutual friends. They may carpool to share commuting expenses or work out together during lunch hour. They may develop a close friendship through self-disclosure and more frequent interaction both on and away from the job (Mao and Hsieh, 2012; Morrison and Wright, 2009; Sias and Cahill, 1998).

Functions of Informal Communication Informal messages can supplement more formal ones in a variety of ways. Sometimes, they function to confirm formal messages: “This time, they’re really serious about us not using email to send personal messages.” At other times, they can contradict formal ones: “They say the deadline is Friday, but first thing Monday morning is okay.” Some informal messages can expand on official information: “Khakis are fine. When they say ‘no casual attire,’ they mean no jeans or T-shirts.” Informal communication can also help you circumvent formal channels: “If you call Sharon in accounting, she can get you reimbursed quickly without all that paperwork.” Informal relationships are often more efficient and accurate than formal networks. An enduring observation from the Harvard Business Review captured the relationship between formal and informal networks: “If the formal organization is the skeleton of a company, the informal is the central nervous system” (Krackhardt and Hanson, 1993, p. 104). The information exchanged in informal relationships

367

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

often helps people to make sense of more formal types of workplace communication (Mills, 2010). Informal communication networks and friendships within workplaces can have a positive impact on organizations. They have been found to increase employee motivation and participation and they can contribute to more supportive and innovative climates and increased productivity (Berman et al., 2002; Fortado, 2011; Morrison 2004). However, while communication in the workplace has become increasingly Every workplace has titles and roles and various forms of communication. informal over the past several In what ways do you take part in formal and informal communication in your decades, there is still an import- workplace? ant role for formal communication (e.g., protocol-guided communication) particularly in organizations that ­orientation have a positive and open communineed precise communication in order to do their cation climate and discuss a wide array of topics. This allows family business employees to betwork effectively (Tenhiälä and Salvador, 2018). It’s important to note that communication in ter understand each other’s point of view and the workplace doesn’t always fall into neat and increases the likelihood that they’ll be able to simple categories (Mills, 2010; Tenhiälä and Sal- come to mutually satisfying resolutions to both vador, 2018). Often, we must move between formal and informal communication within a particular relationship. For instance, your manager might drop by your cubicle to share some office gossip with you and then, a few minutes later, discuss an assignment you struggled to complete on time. The movement between formal and informal • Formal communication: interaction that follows officially established channels. communication is part of why many employees • Upward communication: subordinates’ communifeel awkward when a co-worker is promoted to a cation with their managers. supervisory role: it changes the rules governing • Downward communication: managers’ communitheir communication. These challenges are very cation with subordinates. apparent for people involved in family businesses. • Horizontal communication: communication Family business employees are constantly negotibetween people who do not have supervisor– ating their family roles, business roles, and assosubordinate relationships. ciated types of communication. It’s interesting • Informal communication: communication in the to note that family business employees whose workplace based on friendships, shared perfamilies are high in conversation orientation (see sonal or career interests, and proximity; it can ­Chapter  11) report higher levels of both family confirm, contradict, expand, or circumvent forand business satisfaction (Carmon and Pearson, mal messages. 2013). Recall that families high in c­onversation

TAKE TWO

sturti/iStockPhoto

368

12 | Work, Group, and Team Communication

family and ­ business issues. As these examples suggest, the characteristics of competent communication that we discussed in Chapter 1—such as adaptability, self-monitoring, and cultivating a large repertoire of skills—are as important in the workplace as they are in families, friendships, and romantic relationships.

a marker of effective teams (Lacerenza et al., 2018). In the following pages, we’ll discuss some communication skills (in addition to those described in Chapter 9) that can help build this sort of collaborative, confirming climate.

Relationships in Work Groups and Teams

Groups and teams have a number of advantages in the workplace. However, it’s important to consider the nature of the work before deciding whether a group is better suited to doing it than an individual. Generally, relatively simple tasks that require limited knowledge are better suited to an individual. This is particularly true if the time available for the job is limited. When time is available for deliberation, and a number of individuals have a stake in the outcome, a group approach might be best. This is often the case when a complicated task requires a broad range of knowledge and skills. Groups can often produce results that are greater than the strengths of the individuals involved. Groups and teams can create a special kind of energy that expands the contributions of the individual members through their interactions with each other. The energy that is created through these positive exchanges is sometimes referred to as synergy (Elliott-Dawe, 2018). Synergy allows groups to produce more creative results that integrate several individuals’ thoughts and ideas rather than just one person’s. Groups also have the potential to be more accurate in their work if individual members act as checks and balances for each other. Finally, they produce greater commitment to the outcomes of a task or project because they consider multiple points of view and encourage greater participation in decision making. It’s easier for people to support efforts they helped create. Despite the advantages groups afford, they also have some drawbacks. First, groups require time to discuss and develop ideas. All members of a group need to have an opportunity to contribute their ideas, and as a result working in groups takes longer than working alone. Second, individual members may feel pressure for acceptance

In recent years, the increasing complexity of work environments has amplified the need for people to be able to work effectively in groups and teams (Ritter et al., 2018). With increasing automation of work and more integration of AI into a wide variety of jobs, it may be more important than ever for humans to have highly developed interpersonal skills such as empathy, teamwork, and collaboration (PwC, 2018). Organizations use groups because they offer a number of advantages over people working independently. Work groups can be defined as three or more people who have ongoing interactions with each other and who depend upon and support each other in order to accomplish a goal. Teams are specialized types of work groups. Teams often have members with distinct and complementary skills and resources. These individuals work together to accomplish a very specific task and usually have a strong sense of collective identity. Anyone with group experience knows that good personal relationships are essential to a well-functioning team. More than three decades ago, communication researchers Carl Larson and Frank LaFasto (1989) conducted an ambitious research project that identified some fundamental components of effective teams. They studied over 75 top-notch work teams from a diverse range of settings that included two championship football teams, the scientists who developed the IBM personal computer, a Mount Everest expedition team, and a team of heart surgeons. Among the qualities that distinguished winning teams was a collaborative climate in which the members trusted and supported one another. Today, this quality remains

Characteristics of Groups and Teams

369

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

in the group, making them less likely to express disagreement. When people feel pressure to conform, they’re more likely to go along with the thinking of the majority or the more powerful group members’ decisions rather than speaking up. This phenomenon, whereby people’s desire for harmony and conformity overrides good decision making, is called groupthink (Janis, 1983). A number of factors increase the chance of group members suspending their critical thinking in order to achieve agreement. Groups are most vulnerable when they’re very cohesive, isolated, and under a lot of pressure Working in groups is an essential part of almost every job. What are some to reach an agreement. In these advantages and disadvantages of working in groups in your field? situations, group members fail to really consider the alternatives to and the risks involved in their choices. Finally, as Personal Skills in Work most students know too well, groups can include people who fail to do their fair share of the work. Groups and Teams The tendency of people to work less hard in a There are many different types of teams in workgroup is called social ­loafing. Social loafing is places and they can be categorized in a variety of more prevalent among those who are not com- ways—by their functions (e.g., production, advismitted to the goal of the group, who believe their ory), members’ positions in the organization (e.g., individual performance is not being monitored, senior management, front-line workers), or the and who believe the task itself does not warrant length of the work involved (e.g., short-term proa group effort and would be better and more effi- jects, standing committees). What all effective ciently completed by one person (Karau and Wil- teams share is the need for both the task-related skills to tackle a given job and the relational skills liams, 1993, 2001). Perhaps unsurprisingly, it’s important that to work collaboratively. In terms of effective colparticipants communicate with each other effect- laboration, there are relational behaviours that ively in order for groups to produce the benefits of team members need to demonstrate at one time or combined expertise, increased creativity, accur- another in every group’s life. These include acy, and commitment while avoiding the pitfalls • encouraging participation; of conformity, poor decision making, and unfair • harmonizing; distribution of work. The insights and skills you’ve • relieving tension; read about in the preceding chapters all contrib• evaluating the group’s emotional climate; ute to effective communication in groups and • giving praise; and teams. In the next section, we’ll describe some • listening thoughtfully to the concerns of others. skills that relate directly to working in groups If a group is not operating efficiently, one place and provide an orientation to typical patterns of to look for remedies is to the communication group dynamics.

Yuri_Arcurs/iStockphoto

370

12 | Work, Group, and Team Communication

Reinforcem ent

Reinforce men t

on

nce rge e em

Decision emer genc e

Confl ict

ct nfli Co

Co

Orienta tion

ict nfl

Decision e mer gen ce

Orientation

R

Orien tatio n

ion tat n e i Or

orcemen Reinf t

ation ent Ori

Con flict

mergence ne o i is ec

involve hostility, but even civil and reasoned differences can require you to use the listening skills that we described in Chapter 5, the climate-­building approaches we discussed in Chapter 9, and the conflict-management guidelines we covered in ­ Chapter 10. Once a group has worked through the conflict stage, it usually enters an emergence stage, where members accept—sometimes enthusiastically and sometimes reluctantly—the team’s ­decision. The members recognize that this is a time to seek harmony. A fourth stage in group decision making is reinforcement. This is when the members not only accept the decision, but also endorse it. This process repeats itself in a cyclical fashion— and different stages are likely to overlap somewhat— as a group faces each new challenge. Just like dyadic relationships, groups have their ups and downs. Knowing that each step—especially conflict—is a natural part of working together can be reassuring.

ent em orc nf ei

D

c­ limate among members and ask yourself if any of these relational functions needs filling. Don’t get the idea that an effective group will be free of conflicts. Even the best team will experience struggles on the path to consensus. In fact, most groups go through a predictable series of stages as they work together (Betts and Healy, 2015; Brilhart et al., 2001). There are many theories and models of group development and each is informed by the field of study in which it emerged (e.g., psychology, anthropology, political science, or communication studies). Figure 12.1 illustrates one of these models: Fisher’s conceptualization of the pattern of group development. In this conceptualization, politeness and harmony are the norm during the orientation stage when a team first tackles a job. But, as time goes on and differences emerge, the group enters a period of conflict. Disagreement does not ­necessarily

De cis i

Series of decisions Group infancy

Group adolescence

Group maturity

FIGURE 12.1  Cyclical Stages in an Ongoing Group Source: From Brilhart, J.K., Galanes, G.J., and Adams, K. (2001). Effective group discussion. (10th edn), p. 289. New York: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. Reproduced with permission of the McGraw-Hill Companies.

371

372

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

FOCUS ON RESEARCH MULTI-COMMUNICATING IN MEETINGS Meetings are common in many workplaces. In fact, some estimates suggest that senior managers spend as much as 23 hours a week in meetings. This wasn’t always the case, however. In the 1960s, senior managers spent less than 10 hours a week in meetings (Perlow et al., 2017). Although meetings are essential for supporting the exchange of information, the discussion of ideas, decision-making, and collaboration, they can keep people from doing their work—particularly complex tasks that require long stretches of uninterrupted time. If you have 23 hours of meetings a week it’s unlikely that you have much “white space” in your calendar that you can use to catch up on independent work. Frequent, unproductive meetings waste time, are expensive, and are correlated with job dissatisfaction (Perlow et al., 2017; Rogelberg et al., 2010). Increases in both the number and the length of meetings, as well as greater access to remote meeting platforms and tele- and video-conferencing, have given rise to an increase in “multi-communicating.” Multi-communicating refers to a person engaging in multiple, overlapping, synchronous conversions (Reinsch et al., 2008). People multi-communicate in meetings for a variety of reasons, and their secondary conversations may be related or unrelated to the issues at hand in the meeting itself. For example, people attending meetings might text friends and relatives regarding personal issues, catch up on email correspondence, or message colleagues for information relevant to the meeting itself—all during the meeting. Ann-Frances Cameron and her colleagues (2018) at HEC Montréal and the University of Deusto in Spain were interested in how three contextual factors and their interactions influenced multi-communication in meetings. First, they were interested in the location of the people engaged in secondary conversations with meeting attendees (i.e., whether they were attending the same meeting or not). Second, they documented the medium of the meeting itself (i.e., whether it was face-to-face or technology mediated); finally, they assessed the topic relatedness of the secondary conversations (i.e., whether questions or comments about something were related or unrelated to the meeting).

To do this, they developed a survey that included questions related to the three contextual factors (location, medium of meeting, topic relatedness of secondary conversation) and questions that assessed process “losses,” such as losing one’s train of thought, feeling confused, asking for clarification, being slow to respond, etc. These process losses were assessed in relation to both the meeting and the secondary conversations. They also asked questions regarding the meetings’ sizes (i.e., the number of people attending), the complexity of the meeting, and the effectiveness of the meeting. Finally, they assessed the stress individual meeting attendees experienced during the meeting related to their multi-communicating. They analyzed information from 451 survey respondents who worked in a wide variety of full time, white-collar North ­American jobs and had attended an average of four to five ­meetings in the previous week, in a variety of mediums (i.e., face to face, audioconferencing, etc.). Half the survey respondents were women, and almost all respondents had at least five years of work experience. The researchers found that in face-to-face meetings, people who engaged in secondary conversations with people who were not attending the meeting experienced lower process losses and less stress than people who engaged in secondary conversations with people attending the meeting. However, these effects did not apply to technology-mediated (nonface-to-face) meetings. When the topic of secondary conversation was related to the content of the meeting, respondents rated the meeting as more effective regardless if the secondary conversation was with someone attending or external to the meeting. This suggests that multi-communicating when attending meetings remotely may be aided by virtual meeting platforms that allow users to privately message other meeting attendees. The investigators also speculate that the higher process losses experienced by people messaging other meeting participants in faceto-face meetings may be influenced by the content of those secondary conversations. It’s possible that some of  the private secondary conversations were

12 | Work, Group, and Team Communication

­egative—like complaining about the meeting or n other meeting attendees—which could contribute to stress and process losses. The investigators used Goffman’s (1959, 1971) theory about the ways in which we manage our socially approved identities, or “face” (see Chapter 2), to inform the design of their study and their interpretation of some of their findings. They suggest that face-toface meetings add an additional layer of complexity to multi-communicating because people have to navigate rich communicative clues to maintain their face (i.e., their socially approved identity) in the physical presence of their colleagues. In contrast, these demands are considerably lighter when people attend a meeting remotely. Cameron and her colleagues (2018) suggest employees should be careful when using ­communication

Group Cultures We usually think about cultures as being rooted in nationality, ethnicity, age, and geographic region, but working groups—entire organizations and smaller groups within them—have their own cultures, too (Ashkanasy et al., 2000; Deal and Kennedy, 1983; Rollinson, 2008). You can prove this for yourself by thinking about different classes you’ve attended as a student. For example, even though the basic process of learning is the same from one discipline and school to another, you likely recognize that each class had its own culture—its own relational climate. Similarly, the cultures of workplaces and working groups involve many dimensions of communication, such as sociability (is it friendly or aloof?), distribution of power (is it controlled by authority figures or shared among members?), tolerance of new ideas (are they welcome or resisted?), ways of managing conflict (are they direct or indirect?), and emotional support (is it scarce or plentiful?). A significant challenge facing newcomers to Canada is adapting to the socio-cultural practices, norms, and expectations of Canadian workplaces (Lai et al., 2017). The etiquette and unwritten rules of Canadian workplaces can be hard to grasp when coming from a culture that has higher power distance (see Chapter 3) or relies more on ­high-context

technology during meetings, particularly when conversing with others in the same face-to-face meeting. In addition, they point out that while process losses and stress associated with ­multi-communication were less prevalent in non-face-to-face meetings, there were no observed benefits of multi-communicating in terms of meeting effectiveness. Critical thinking: What types of relational messages does multi-communicating in meetings send to others present in the meeting? In addition or in contrast to Goffman’s theory, what reasons can explain why multi-communicating in meetings does not appear to add to perceptions of meeting effectiveness and can, instead, increase stress and process losses, particularly in face-to-face meetings?

ways of communicating (see Chapter 6). Along with specific information about etiquette around sending messages, making distinctions between professional and private life, and understanding the importance of working on a team, newcomers to Canada have identified one large cultural value they needed to adapt to in Canadian workplaces: respect for diversity. The importance of understanding professional values linked to respect for cultural differences was the key to helping them both establish appropriate relationships with co-workers, managers, and clients and successfully integrate into Canadian workplaces (Lai et al., 2017). Newcomers also identified the importance of orientations and mentors to help them overcome workplace culture differences, which many of them said were the biggest barriers to their success in Canada (Lai et al., 2017). It’s not like there is a rulebook or manual that includes these often “invisible until violated” expectations. Perhaps the most important insight about cultures in working groups is that they can make the difference between satisfaction and misery on the job (Lai et al., 2017; Mohr et al., 2012; Valaei and Rezaei, 2016). If you’re lucky enough to belong to a group that has a healthy culture—for example, one that is friendly, has shared power, welcomes new ideas, manages conflict directly, and provides

373

374

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

e­motional support—then working on even the toughest jobs can be rewarding. On the other hand, if you’re stuck in a group with an unsatisfying culture, great pay and plush working conditions may not prevent you from feeling miserable. You may not be able to exert much influence on the culture of a large organization, whether it’s a university you’re attending or a corporation you work for. What you can do, though, is think about the culture of the organization before you decide to join it. Once you’re on the job, you can help shape the culture of smaller groups to which you belong. The way you and your fellow workers treat one another, as well as your attitudes toward work, can make a tremendous difference in the quality of the many hours you spend on the job.

Face-to-Face and Mediated ­Relationships As in personal settings, people in working relationships can communicate either face-to-face or through a variety of electronic media. Increasingly, co-workers and team members are not in the same location (co-located), so they must share information by phone, email, text messaging, video and teleconferencing, online discussion, information sharing forums, social media sites, and instant messaging. This has led to the development of different kinds of teams in the workplace. Virtual teams use mediated communication to connect, which is true of most teams, even when they work together in the same place. However, when members of your team work in different provinces, countries, time zones, or even different buildings in the same city or town, many of the face-to-face communication strategies we rely on to build team cohesion and share information in timely ways are not available. We can’t just stop by our co-workers’ desks, or pop over to ask our supervisor a quick question. We don’t eat lunch or have coffee regularly with virtual team members and we don’t bump into them in the hall and exchange information about the weekend, upcoming plans, etc. While these face-to-face conversations do not always involve discussions of our actual work, they contribute to establishing relationships with our team members and go a long way towards building

trust and team cohesion. It’s not surprising, then, that one of the most significant challenges for virtual teams is establishing trust (Breuer et al., 2016). The lack of rich social communication cues in mediated communication channels creates more ambiguity and can compromise people’s understanding of work-related information. In addition, the lack of synchronicity on virtual teams has the potential to perpetuate misunderstandings and escalate conflicts. It’s much more challenging to ask a “quick” question in order to gain clarity. Finally, as we just noted, people have far fewer opportunities for non–work related social interaction when they’re working on virtual teams. All these things can make it harder to establish trust among virtual team members, but research suggests that trust is a vital component of collaboration on virtual teams (Alsharo et al., 2017; Bruer et al., 2016). People trust co-workers who are benevolent, competent, and demonstrate integrity (Clark et al., 2010). In order to facilitate trust among team members, research suggests that team member roles need to be clearly understood, documented (e.g., on dashboards, in agendas, in meeting minutes, etc.) and coordinated. In addition, there needs to be frequent exchanges of information between leaders and team members so that everyone is up-to-date and able to do their part. Finally, creating a culture of helping each other is an essential ingredient for successful virtual teams. L ­ eaders who are open, approachable, and generous can set the tone for a positive communication climate among team members (see Chapter 9 for specific communication climate strategies). The success of virtual teams, much like the face-to-face variety, depends on relationship building and coordination of work—both of which require effective interpersonal skills (Alsharo et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2008). Communications scholars Sharon Hill and Kathryn Bartol (2018) identify five behaviours that distinguish high performing virtual teams: • They match the technology to the task: the more complex the task, the more they employ technology that is as close as possible to in-person communication. • They make intentions clear: they’re careful to establish the right tone; they err on the side of

12 | Work, Group, and Team Communication

elevating the positive emotion (by describing emotions and/or using emojis) and go out of their way to emphasize important information, clearly identify whether responses are required, and send multiple emails to separate their multiple requests. • They stay in sync: they avoid lengthy silences, proactively share information about their local situations (e.g., emergencies, other priorities), acknowledge receipt of messages (even when they can’t respond to the content immediately), and check in with teammates to ensure they understand their behaviours and intentions, always giving them the benefit of the doubt. • They are responsive and supportive: they communicate their trustworthiness by how they work with others on a task; they do this by responding promptly and completely to requests, providing substantive feedback, proactively suggesting solutions to problems, and always maintaining a supportive tone in their communications. • They are open and inclusive: they actively solicit and are open to all team members’ viewpoints and involve and integrate the whole team in important communications and decisions. Hill and Bartol (2018) caution that members of virtual teams should not assume all team members are aware of the pitfalls of virtual communication. To this end, they suggest drawing up a charter or set of ground rules at the outset of a project or task to ensure that everyone is on the same page. These guidelines might include things such as ways to highlight important action items in emails (e.g., highlight or underline), the amount of time in which members are expected to respond to requests, and the types of communication that should be shared with everyone. They also warn that these things do not just occur spontaneously. They require effective leadership, which we’ll discuss in the next section of this chapter.

CHECK IT! Describe the five characteristics that distinguish high performing virtual teams.

Leadership, Power, and ­Influence in Working Groups In order for groups, teams, and organizations to be effective, they require leadership. Leadership involves motivating and influencing people to accomplish a goal or objective. Leaders can be appointed or can emerge from a group. Throughout most of history, leaders were considered people who were born with a set of traits that made them different from followers and contributed to their effectiveness as leaders. Our current thinking holds that, while research has identified factors that are related to people’s ability to persuade and influence others, none of these factors appear to be entirely innate and all can be learned. They include empathy, confidence, humour, and several factors that are context dependent (Dutton, 2010). Characteristics such as dominance and assertiveness, which have been associated with male gender stereotypes, have also traditionally been associated with leadership to a greater degree than more communal characteristics such as warmth and nurturance, which are often associated with female gender stereotypes. As gender-roles have changed over the past several decades, so too have the number of women in leadership positions. However, a gap still remains (Badura et al., 2018). In addition, concern has been expressed about the prevalence of people with what appear to be psychopathic personality characteristics in corporate leadership positions. Traits such as boldness (interpersonal dominance), disinhibition (impulsivity), and meanness (lack of empathy) are popularly and clinically associated with psychopathy (Patrick et al., 2009). Karen Landay and her colleagues (2018) conducted a meta-analysis of articles, book chapters, conference papers, and symposia to test the associations between psychopathic tendencies and leadership emergence and effectiveness. They found that while men with psychopathic tendencies are somewhat more likely to emerge as leaders, women with similar tendencies are not. In addition, they found that men with psychopathic personality traits were somewhat less effective leaders. They suggest that while women appear to be penalized for displaying these characteristics in the workplace, at least in

375

376

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

terms of ­securing ­promotions, men are rewarded for them. It’s important to consider, as these investigators wisely point out, that the lack of agreement on the precise definition and measurement of psychopathology among the studies they analyzed, along with differences in cultural values and gender equality around the world, complicate our understanding of this issue. These investigators point out that the characteristics of those among the follower groups also influence the degree to which those groups notice, and the ways in which they react to, the negative or destructive aspects of their leader’s behaviour. These findings highlight the transactional nature of communication—the model we have built upon throughout every chapter of this book and a model that prompts us to seek a more nuanced view of these dark personality traits and their role in the workplace.

whether leadership comes from an appointed individual or several emergent leaders, its effectiveness depends on the ways in which leaders use their power to influence and motivate others and achieve goals and objectives in their unique workplaces.

Types of Leadership

Legitimate Power

When most people think about influence in groups, they focus on the designated leader—the person (or people) with an official title that indicates authority, such as manager, chairperson, and so on. There is no doubt that designated leaders play an important role in making things happen but you don’t have to be a designated leader to influence the effectiveness of a group. An emergent leader is chosen by a group either formally or informally. For instance, a sports team may elect a captain, or a group of unhappy employees may agree that one member of the group would be best suited to approach the supervisor to talk about their concerns. There can be a single leader in a group or leadership can be distributed among several group members. Distributed leadership relies on the collective efforts of several people to influence others and achieve goals rather than on the influence of a single person. In many workplaces, such as schools and universities, a model of distributed leadership (e.g., committees, boards, etc.) is effective in achieving educational objectives and outcomes (Spillane, 2005). In addition, shared leadership has been associated with increased innovation in teams working on both product development and training (Hoch, 2013) and overall team effectiveness and goal achievement (Wang et al., 2014). Regardless of

Legitimate power derives from the belief that a person in a particular position (e.g., a manager, supervisor, or public relations advisor) has the right to tell others what to do. For instance, employees comply with their supervisor’s requests (e.g., “Please have that report completed in time for ­Friday’s meeting”) because they understand that the supervisor’s position in the organization gives them the authority to make such demands. Raven and French (1958) found that when employees believed that the person in authority had a right to occupy that position, they were much more likely to comply with that person’s demands. For instance, in their study, elected supervisors had more legitimate power, acceptance, and influence than appointed supervisors. ­Similarly, when employees perceive their supervisor as well qualified for their job, they’re more likely to consider them to have legitimate authority and be influenced by it (Yoon and Thye, 2011).

Types of Power Every member of a working team has at least one resource of interpersonal power that can affect what happens in a group (Andrews and Baird, 2005; French and Raven, 1968). In this context, power is the potential to influence an individual or group. Some of the most widely cited research on interpersonal or social power was done by John French and Bertram Raven (1959, 1968). They identified five bases of social power: legitimate, expert, reward, coercive, and referent power.

CHECK IT! Describe and distinguish between the three types of leadership described here.

12 | Work, Group, and Team Communication

Marty Bucella/Cartoonstock

Legitimate power and authority are conceived differently in different cultures. Recall the concept of power distance from Chapter 3. In cultures with high power distance, employees are more likely to feel comfortable with inequalities in power and to accept power based on one’s position within an organization (Hofstede, 1980, 2001). In contrast, in cultures that expect more equitable distribution of power (i.e., low power distance), employees place a higher value on personal choice and prefer less hierarchical organizational structures (Lee and Antonakis, 2014). In low power distance cultures, such as Canada, employees are more likely to expect authority figures to earn the respect and endorsement of their employees.

Expert Power Expert power comes from a group’s belief that an individual has a high level of knowledge about something or a highly specialized skill that qualifies them for a role. The designated leaders are often not the best or only experts; individual members often have a special kind of knowledge or talent, such as the ability to use a type of software or experience with a topic at hand. Wise leaders recognize the expert power of individual group members while also sharing their own expertise with their group.

Reward Power Reward power, as its name implies, rests on the ability to give incentives and compensation. Rewards obviously include the designated leaders’ hiring, paying, and promoting of employees, but they can also include less tangible benefits, such as opportunities for creative and intellectual stimulation and a positive interpersonal climate in the workplace. For instance, providing people with opportunities to pursue the work they’re most interested in creates a workplace culture that is inherently rewarding. Roger Martin (2014), former dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, for example, chose to allow his faculty to teach to their research passions. He figured that by doing so, he wouldn’t have to

377

choose between investing in faculty who were good at research or those who were good at teaching. Instead, he rewarded professors who were good at teaching in their own research areas. He eliminated courses that didn’t correspond to any professor’s area of research expertise and thus helped to create a business school that is highly regarded for both its research and teaching. Designated leaders are not the only ones who can influence others through the use of rewards. Group members can bestow their own rewards. Helping one another is a kind of reward that can help the group complete the job at hand. It also builds goodwill that serves both the giver and the team well.

Coercive Power Along with rewarding one another, group members can use coercive power to get what they want by using unpleasant consequences, or the threat of them, to punish one another. You do not have to be a designated leader to punish. Complaining, withholding help, and blocking progress are examples of ways team members can punish one another and their manager(s). Coercive power typically leads to short-term compliance, but is generally ineffective over the long term. It reduces

378

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

BUILDING WORK SKILLS TAKING THE HIGH ROAD Sarcasm. Condescension. Hostility. Ostracism. The communication climate at some jobs isn’t just chilly, it’s downright cold. There is some evidence that workplace incivility has increased over the last two decades ­(Schilpzand et al., 2016). But how do workplaces become so toxic? Research suggests it starts with “­low-intensity negative behaviours” such as rudeness and impoliteness (Foulk et al., 2016, p. 61). Once incivility gets a toehold in the workplace it can spread quickly—just like the emotional contagion described in Chapter 4. Responding angrily to discourteous behaviour, even when justified, tends to just escalate the conflict, as described in Chapter 10. Yet remaining gracious under fire, a better and more positive approach, is easier said than done. Some psychologists suggest that incivility wears down beleaguered employees, reducing their ability to take the high road. One strategy for keeping cool and taking the high road in the face of rudeness is to have a plan for dealing with negative behaviours. Think of a situation in which you were treated rudely at school or work. Using the strategies for responding non-defensively to criticism we discussed in Chapter 9 (e.g., asking sincere questions, agreeing with the critic), consider what you might say in order to de-escalate the conflict between yourself and your supervisor, teacher, colleague, or classmate, to potentially weaken their coercive power.

employees’ satisfaction with their jobs, erodes their commitment, diminishes their creativity and productivity (­Kiazad et al., 2010; Tepper, 2007), and increases their antagonism (Hofman et  al., 2017). In contrast to reward power, which can create a workplace climate that is stimulating and engaging, coercive power creates a climate of fear, insecurity, and b ­ itterness.

Referent Power The clearest type of interpersonal influence is ­referent power—the influence that comes from group members liking and respecting one another. Members with good interpersonal skills and integrity are likely to have high referent power, which enables them to shape the way a group operates. People with referent power lead by example and have gained the trust of the group members. Referent power is the area in which the greatest difference between designated leaders and influential group members can exist. An unpopular manager might have to use the rewards and punishments that come with their job title to gain members’ compliance. But a popular manager or group member with no formal title can persuade others to co-operate because of the influence that comes

with the high regard of other members (Leroy et al., 2012; Simons, 2008). It appears that referent power is particularly dependent on employees’ perceptions of the trustworthiness of an individual. Katie Dunleavy

TAKE TWO TYPES OF POWER • Legitimate power: lies in the perception that people who have rightfully achieved positions of power have a right to tell others what to do. • Expert power: is based on an individual having specialized knowledge or skills and, as a result, has authority within a group. • Reward power: is based on  the provision of incentives and benefits in order to influence group members. • Coercive power: is based on the use of force, threats, and punishments to influence group members. • Referent power: is the ability to influence others based on a person’s strong interpersonal relationships with others that include being respected, admired, and seen as trustworthy.

12 | Work, Group, and Team Communication

and her colleagues (2010) presented employees with a scenario in which an employee observes a co-worker putting office supplies in his car and claiming he will replace the supplies after payday. The manager later questions the pilfering employee about disappearing supplies, and the worker who observed the theft responds in one of three ways. He shares his observation of the employee putting supplies in his car (truthful response), agrees that things are missing, but doesn’t share his observation (withholding response), or claims he hasn’t noticed anything missing at all (distorted response). They found that employees reading the scenario perceived the individual who distorted the information as having significantly less credibility and referent power than the individuals who either told the truth or said nothing. The foundation of referent power, at least in Western cultures, appears to be strong interpersonal skills and trustworthiness. In addition, Western culture places a high value on co-workers, particularly managers, being true to their words. Ray Friedman and his colleagues (2018) investigated the differences between American, Indian, Korean, and Taiwanese employees’ perceptions of managers and subordinates who broke promises (integrity breaches). They presented a variety of scenarios in which individuals failed to deliver on a promise (e.g., an employee agrees in a meeting to deliver a data report but fails to do so) and found that word–deed consistency mattered more to the Western (American) employees than to those living in Eastern countries (India, Korea, and Taiwan). When they varied the hierarchal position of the individual who committed the integrity breach (e.g., a manager versus a subordinate), they found that Westerners responded to the integrity breaches by both subordinates and managers in the same way: it lowered their estimation and trust of that person. Easterners, on the other hand, were more likely to lower their estimations of subordinates who failed to deliver on a promise more significantly than managers who did the same. The investigators concluded that although word–deed consistency (as a measure of integrity) mattered across all cultures involved in their research, the hierarchal level of the person committing the breach mattered more in Eastern cultures; they speculate that this may be influenced

by cultural differences in power distance (see Chapter 3). They suggest we need to be aware of differences in perception of acceptable leadership behaviour across various cultures in order to understand how people develop trust in their managers and colleagues in an increasingly globalized world of work.

Leadership that Supports Diversity and Inclusion Whether you’re a designated leader, an emergent leader, or share leadership within a group, valuing and respecting diversity are central to both your success as a leader and the financial health of your organization (Hunt et al., 2015). The best leaders value and respect the diversity of their colleagues and ensure that everyone can maintain their individuality and uniqueness while at the same time being part of a whole. We all have the potential to be leaders in this regard. Creating supportive, inclusive environments is a complex process worthy of much more analysis and discussion than we’ve been able to include in this book. However, we’ll extend the discussion a bit further here by examining the foundations of an inclusive workplace. Bernardo Ferdman and his colleagues (Ferdman, 2016, 2104; Ferdman et al., 2009; Hirshberg and Ferdman, 2011) have documented six key components of the concept and process of inclusion. They describe inclusion as the extent to which people across multiple dimensions of identity (e.g., age, gender, ability, race, cultural background, sexual orientation, etc.) feel safe, appreciated, valued, and able to be their authentic selves at work.

Feeling Safe Effective leaders create communication climates in which everyone feels confident that they can share their opinions and ideas without fear of negative repercussions. People need to feel psychologically and physically safe at work. Inclusion requires making it possible for people to be comfortable, at ease, and feel safe being exactly who they are (Ferdman, 2016). Leaders can foster inclusion by holding themselves and others accountable for creating an inclusive culture.

379

380

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

Being Involved and Engaged in the W ­ orkgroup Active engagement and the participation of all group members is fundamental to inclusion. One way leaders do this is by sharing information freely and inviting everyone to be part of discussion so that everyone understands what’s going on. Another way is recognizing individuals’ strengths and, where possible, aligning their work with the things they do best so as to support their engagement and satisfaction.

Feeling Respected and Valued As we discussed in Chapter 3, recognition and empathy are at the heart of treating others with respect and appreciating them. Empathic responses do not judge; instead, they seek to understand another person’s experience. Empathic responses help people feel valued and better understood, and there is often comfort in that. Leaders who respect and value others work to make them feel that they are intrinsic to the group, that they matter, and that they belong. These kinds of leaders foster transparent decision-making and link inclusion to the values and mission of their organizations.

Feeling Influential We all have ideas and opinions about our work, and even though everyone’s point of view cannot always be acted on, our colleagues’ ideas can certainly be listened to and acknowledged. In Chapter  5, we described constructive listening responses. Leaders who employ a variety of these reflective listening strategies are more likely to create effective partnerships with their colleagues and encourage the exchange of ideas (Lloyd et al., 2017). Having your ideas listened to and acknowledged, and being included in important organizational discussions and decisions, provides opportunities to have an impact and feel included.

Feeling Free to be Authentic and Whole As we discussed in Chapter 2, our identities are works in progress, and so managing them and the

impressions we want to make is a complex process. At work and in school we decide how much of ourselves we feel comfortable sharing. There is always a tension between wanting to “be yourself” and wanting to manage other people’s perceptions of you. Leaders can create environments in which it’s easier for people to be as honest and as transparent about themselves as they choose. They can do this by modelling bringing one’s whole self to work and encouraging others to do the same.

Recognizing, Attending to, and Honouring Diversity Inclusive leaders are fair minded and able to embrace differences, even when those differences produce conflict. They understand and engage with resistance and work through conflicts in ways that are mutually beneficial to the people involved. They pay attention to the ways in which people differ and honour each person’s individuality. As we pointed out, we all have opportunities to embrace diversity and create more inclusive work environments. Many of the interpersonal skills we’ve presented in this book will help you create

REFLECTION LEADER OF THE BAND I’ve been a songwriter and a member of a band for quite some time. Recently, I realized that my leadership style in the band has not been very inclusive. I’ve always had a pretty clear idea of how I want the songs I write to sound, but I can’t achieve that sound without the help of my bandmates who have musical talents I definitely lack. I realize now that rather than trying to dictate what I think should happen musically, I would be better off creating an environment in which everyone felt safe to contribute their ideas. I suspect we would probably end up with a more interesting sound and, if not, we can always try it the way I originally had in mind. I think my lack of confidence contributed to being closed-minded. Why have a group if you don’t respect and engage everyone’s talents?

12 | Work, Group, and Team Communication

Advancing Your Career

DGLimages/Shutterstock

and maintain positive communication climates, engage and connect with others, listen to others deeply, keep an open mind, and be willing to learn from others—particularly when their perspectives are different from your own. By now, you can see that establishing good relationships at work requires some special skills. We’ll now look at another set of special skills that will help you land a job and advance your career.

381

The majority of job seekers find employment through personal contacts and the majority of employers find good employees the same way. Does the field you’re interested in have professional associations? Have you gone to any meetings?

The first steps in establishing a successful career require you to identify the types of work you find enjoyable and rewarding and obtain the required credentials. Next, you need to gain access to the organizations and people who can help you get a job. The process of seeking employment requires considerable self-regulation and persistence because looking for a job is largely a complex, unstructured, and often ambiguous task in itself (Hatala and Yamkovenko, 2016). It requires setting goals, dealing with fluctuations in the availability of jobs, coping with setbacks and disappointment, embracing a learning-oriented approach, and employing a wide variety of job-seeking strategies. The interpersonal communication skills you’ve been reading about in the previous chapters can help you with many of these job-seeking requirements.

Networking For our purposes, networking refers to the process of deliberately meeting people and maintaining contacts to get career information, advice, and leads. Most people are aware of the concept of social networking through networking sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook. In addition, there are also generic and career-focused professional

networking sites whose primary purposes are to facilitate connections and collaborations in the world of work. But people have been engaged in networking long before the internet. The old saying, “It’s not what you know, it’s who you know” is a testament to both the power and endurance of social networking. The majority of job seekers find employment through personal contacts and the majority of employers find employees the same way (Baker, 2000; Bolles, 2008; Yakubovich, 2005). The advantage of networking now is that socialand career-oriented networking platforms can help job seekers gain access to a much wider variety of people who might be able to help advance their careers compared to in the past. These “weak ties” (acquaintances, former colleagues, teachers, and friends of friends) can both help employment seekers obtain more job leads and may also provide feedback to help them figure out the knowledge and skills necessary to obtain positions in a variety of sectors (Buettner, 2017; Wanberg et al., 2000).

Identifying and Cultivating Your Networks We’re all members of informal social networks that include our friends, family, and neighbours.

382

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

We interact with some of our contacts mostly faceto-face, some primarily via mediated channels, and still others both in person and online. Our close personal contacts can help us gain access to potential employment and volunteer experiences, but sometimes our more distant contacts—old school friends, teachers, former colleagues, professionals whose services we’ve used, relatives, and acquaintances of family and friends—can provide even better connections. It’s important to look for every opportunity to connect with people who can help you advance in your career. At the same time, it’s also important to be sensitive to other peoples’ needs and boundaries and to treat your contacts with respect and gratitude. Finally, it’s important to reciprocate. Use your personal networks to help others who are either seeking employment or looking for an employee.

Keeping Your Online Profile Professional Like it or not, employers type job candidates’ names into search engines and see what they can find. It’s important to monitor your online profile and work to ensure that it works to your advantage rather than against you. The areas that are most likely to cause concern among potential employers include drinking and drug use, inappropriate photos, badmouthing previous employers or fellow employees, poor communication skills, discriminatory remarks, unprofessional screen names, criminal activity, and lying about credentials (Career Builder, 2014). In contrast, the following areas can improve your chances of getting a position: having a complete and ­professionallyfocused profile that demonstrates good communication skills and creativity and includes information about awards, good references, your email address, and a ­professional-looking head shot. It’s important to keep in mind that the content you post on social media sites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, etc.) has the potential to be “out there” permanently, even if you think it’s only temporary. As we’ve mentioned throughout this book, privacy settings have limitations and the best way to manage your professional p ­ rofile  online is to treat the internet as a public place.

Persisting through Setbacks Cultivating your social networks and updating and refining your professional profile and resumé will go a long way towards helping you identify potential jobs, but another very important part of the job search process is coping effectively when you aren’t contacted for an interview and dealing with the feelings of rejection that accompany not being offered a job. As much as not being selected feels like rejection, it also provides you with an opportunity to learn and improve your chances next time. In Chapter 2, we discussed how reflected appraisal and social comparison help us understand who we are and that when we’re rewarded for our hard work and tenacity we’re more likely to develop what Carol Dweck (2006, 2010) calls a “growth mindset.” Individuals with a growth mindset see themselves as capable of learning and developing and are more likely to persist in the face of failure because they believe that success is based on knowledge and skills that can be acquired. Failures are interpreted as opportunities to obtain feedback and improve. In contrast, those with a fixed mindset are more likely to compare their performance to others and conclude that other people have innate knowledge and abilities that they cannot attain. People with this mindset are more likely to give up searching for a job when they’re rejected. The idea that powers beyond their control determine their candidacy, rather than their own effort in developing knowledge, skills, and networks, leads to feelings of helplessness. As we discussed in Chapter 4, the fallacy of helplessness can be a powerful deterrent to making necessary changes, but the self-talk strategies also described in Chapter 4 can help to dispute such irrational beliefs. When it comes to looking for employment, persistence is essential. According to Workopolis (2016), only 2 per cent of applicants even get an interview! Planning for rejection and taking a goal orientation to learning and developing your skills and building your resilience is essential.

Interviewing While employment interviews are a type of conversation, they’re unlike the kinds of social exchanges

12 | Work, Group, and Team Communication

we have in other situations. This is because employment interviews have qualities that distinguish them from other types of conversations (Stewart and Cash, 2011). The first such quality is purpose. Most everyday conversations have no serious preconceived purpose. Two people chat between floors in an elevator; friends swap jokes at a party; a supervisor and employees take a break around the coffee machine. An employment interview, on the other hand, always has goals involving both the interviewer and the prospective employee. A second characteristic that distinguishes interviews is structure. In a typical conversation, neither person knows or cares when the exchange will end or exactly what topics will be covered. By contrast, any good interview has a distinct opening, body, and conclusion. A third feature of interviews is

control. Whereas conversations do not require any guidance from one of the parties, an interviewer’s job is to keep the exchange moving toward the pre-set purpose. Finally, interviews usually have a unique balance of participation. Though most conversations involve roughly the same amount of speaking by each person, in an interview, the person being interviewed should do about 70 per cent of the talking.

CHECK IT! When people work in groups, what communication skills contribute to building a collaborative, confirming communication climate?

FOCUS ON RESEARCH OVERCOMING APPREHENSION ABOUT PROFESSIONAL SOCIAL NETWORKING Social networking is not only important for obtaining employment but is also a major component of ongoing professional development and success. Social networks provide opportunities to develop professional skills, access career-related information and re­ sources, and discover more professional opportunities. In addition, as an individual’s social connections grow and diversify, the benefits strengthen (Utz and Breuer, 2016). Despite these benefits, many students feel intimated and ill equipped to develop their professional- and career-related networks. Researcher Abram Anders (2018) designed a program to support undergraduate business students gain the confidence and skills they needed to build their professional social networks prior to graduation. He designed a networked learning intervention that was part of an undergraduate business communication course. The primary objective of the networked learning intervention was to have students develop a personal learning network that included an integrated personal brand across traditional and social media— an e-portfolio that included learning artifacts, polished communication work, and a social graph of

networking profiles, contacts, and resources. Students were required to engage with networked information communication technologies more similar to those used in industry rather than traditional learning management system (LMS) platforms used in educational settings. The intervention highlighted learning visibility, social interaction, and peer-based learning communities and was designed to help students overcome their communication apprehension as it related to professional networking. They shared knowledge and received both social support and credible feedback. The learning experiences were sequenced with increasingly challenging structured social networking assignments and students had opportunities to give and receive feedback, learn vicariously from each other, and experience real world mastery, as they were required to communicate with professionals beyond their classmates. Anders’s evaluation of the learning intervention revealed increases in students’ confidence regarding both their social networking abilities (self-efficacy) and their intentions to use social networking in the future. Specifically, the greatest gains in self-efficacy continued

383

384

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

were for preparing a resumé and cover letter for a job, requesting a networking meeting or informational interview meeting with a professional contact, and asking a current contact to introduce them to someone in their professional network by email, phone, or through a networking platform such as LinkedIn. One student explained: I was surprised we actually had to go out and meet people for our job interview, which I’ll be the first person to admit I was not on board with at first . . . but then I thought this is actually really helpful I can go talk to someone who’s done exactly what I want to do and it turned out to be a great experience for me. (Anders, 2018, p. 23) Students also reported that the sequenced networked learning experiences in the course increased their self-confidence and made the learning more relevant, authentic, and enduring. The following examples of student comments illustrate these ideas: I mean, yeah, you’re not just one person going out and doing stuff. You’re one person who is helping another person who then uses what you learned or they learned from you to help somebody else. So, it’s just constantly a

To make an interview successful, both the interviewer and interviewee have responsibilities before, during, and after they meet. As an interviewee, you can make the experience pay off by following the guidelines that we present in the rest of this chapter.

Before the Interview A good interview begins before the people sit down to talk. You can make your interviews more successful through careful planning and following these steps (Government of Canada, 2018). 1. Clarify the interviewer’s goals  Imagine you’re preparing for an employment interview. You know that the company is looking for the best applicant, but just what qualities are they seeking? Are education and training most important? Experience? Initiative? Knowing these criteria in advance will

growing thing and I feel like that’s extremely important. And, on day one, I would have never thought that that’s what would have happened. (Anders, 2018, p. 23) I think . . . the steps we took up leading to that how to properly write an email, how to write a thank you letter, you know, how to reach out to your contacts, I think that was really good so you’re just not going into the whole situation you know completely blindfolded and having no idea where to start. (Anders, 2018, p. 24) Anders’s students commented that the course gave them skills to apply to their lives, both in terms of their professional development upon graduation but also in terms of how to approach helping others. He concluded that the old adage “It’s not what you know, but who you know” could be updated to: “It’s not just who you know, it’s what they can help you learn . . . and, what you can help them learn, too” (Anders, 2018, p. 26). Critical thinking: Do you think the skills required to engage in professional social networking are different than those employed in social networking generally? Why or why not?

improve your chances of doing well in the interview. Examine the job description provided in the job advertisement carefully and use any relevant contacts in your social network to find out more about what skills, abilities, and past experiences might be most relevant. Besides arriving with a basic understanding of what skills and abilities they’re looking for, you can impress the interviewer, and serve yourself well, by doing advance research on the organization. What products or services does it provide? What is its position in the marketplace and the community? What challenges and trends does the organization face? What makes this organization unique among its competitors? If you show your awareness of this information, you will distinguish yourself as a serious and well-prepared candidate. 2. Be prepared to make a good first impression First impressions can make or break an interview. Usually, the first impression you make will be based

12 | Work, Group, and Team Communication

Dean Drobot/Shutterstock

on your cover letter, resumé, and online profile, During the Interview which is why it’s important for them to be wellconstructed and error-free. There are many books Once you are in the interview itself, there are and online resources that offer tips on develop- several important points to keep in mind. These ing these important documents. In addition, your guidelines both show your competence and help punctuality (or lack thereof) will make a statement you build a good relationship with the interabout how you manage your time. Plan to arrive viewer. 10 to 15 minutes early in order to leave room for any unexpected delays. If you’re unsure of the com- 1. Get off to a good start  The usual format pany’s location, make a test run ahead of time. for an opening begins with some sort of greetA good interviewee does not go to an interview ing, which includes any introductions that are ­empty-handed. You’ll want to take materials with necessary. A period of informal conversation you that will help the employer learn more about often follows, in which the interviewer and appliwhy you’re ready, willing, and able to do the job. For cant talk about subjects of mutual interest not instance, take extra copies of your resumé, because necessarily related to the interview topic. This more than one person may interview you that day. period gives both people a chance to get settled Go prepared to take notes; you’ll need something to and acquainted before getting down to business. write on and a pen or pencil. If it’s relevant, take cop- The idea is to establish some common ground ies of your past work, such as reports you’ve helped between interviewer and applicant. One way to prepare, performance reviews by former employ- do so is to look around the interviewer’s office ers, drawings or designs you’ve created at work or for information about that person’s interests and in school, letters of recommendation, and so on. hobbies. A prominent plaque, a sports pennant, a Besides demonstrating your qualifications, items like wall photo, or a piece of art can all be topics for these show that you know how to sell yourself. Take conversation. along the names, addresses, and phone numbers of any references you haven’t listed on your resumé. 2. Give clear, detailed answers  Put yourself Finally, research shows that many interviewers in the interviewer’s shoes and be as specific and form their opinions about candidates based on helpful as you hope others would be for you. the non-verbal cues that candidates display during the interaction (De Groot and Gooty, 2009). Physical attractiveness is a major influence on how applicants are rated, so it makes sense to do everything possible to look your best (Shannon and Stark, 2003). The proper style of clothing can vary from one type of job or organization to another. When in doubt, it’s best to dress formally and conservatively. It’s unlikely that an employer will think less of you for being overdressed, but looking too ­casual can be taken as a sign that you don’t take the job or the inter- Job interviews can be difficult. Think back to your last job interview. What did you do well for the interview? What could you do better next time? view seriously.

385

386

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

A good answer provides a general theme and then offers specifics. For example, suppose a potential employer asks, “What did you learn in your interpersonal communication course that will help you in this job?” You could follow this theme-specific format with an answer like, “I learned how to build and maintain positive relationships, and that can help me with people in the company and with customers. For example, we learned how to listen well, negotiate win–win solutions, raise difficult issues skilfully, and handle criticism without getting defensive.” Be prepared to elaborate on your answers, because a good interviewer will probably ask a follow-up question such as, “Give me an example of a time when you’ve used those skills.” It’s a good idea to come to an interview with several brief stories, illustrations, and examples that provide evidence of your abilities and skills. 3. Keep your answers focused  It can be easy to ramble on in an interview, either out of enthusiasm, a desire to show off your knowledge, or nervousness; but in most cases, long answers are not a good idea. The interviewer probably has lots of ground to cover, and long-winded answers will not help this task. As a general rule, your answers should not run much over a minute or two without inviting the interviewer either to follow up or to move on to the next question. Of course, you’ll want to give clear, detailed answers with examples, as described above. Keep in mind, though, that an interview is a conversation—and as is true of any conversation, a dialogue in which people take turns is better than a long monologue. 4. Follow the interviewer’s lead  Let the interviewer set the emotional tone of the session. If they’re informal, you can loosen up a bit; but if the approach is formal and dignified, you should act the same way. Since a great deal depends on the personal interaction between the interviewer and the candidate, you should try to match the interviewer’s style without becoming insincere. If the tone of an interview does not fit well with you, this may be a signal that you will not feel comfortable with the organization. It may be wise to see whether the interviewer’s approach represents the whole company, either by asking for a tour

REFLECTION SELF-CRITICISM AND SELF-PRAISE Perhaps the thing I’ve found most difficult as a student from Japan studying in Canada is the performance evaluations that have been part of my work placements. These evaluations involve a self-assessment of strengths and areas for improvement. Then, together with my supervisor, we develop goals for my professional development. I enjoy discovering areas for improvement and developing goals for myself, but when it comes to describing my strengths I feel very uncomfortable. My supervisors have been sympathetic, and I believe they know how much I want to improve my skills, but they always say I’m too hard on myself. In my culture, to say I’m good at something or to describe myself as superior in some area of the job would be considered rude and boastful. I find it hard to even think in such terms. I don’t find it distressing to be self-critical, but as hard as I try, I can’t bring myself to “sing my own praises.” I realize “selling yourself” is a skill you need in the North American job market, but I’m appreciative of my colleagues’ patience because I feel I’m a slow learner in this regard.

or by speaking to other employees on your own. This desire to learn about the company shows that you’re a thinking person who takes the job seriously, so your curiosity is not likely to offend the interviewer. 5. Arrive prepared to answer the interviewer’s questions  Whatever specific questions you might be asked, keep in mind that the employer is always asking, “How can you help us?” If you remember this, you can respond in ways that show how you can meet the employer’s needs. If you have spent time learning about your potential employer, you will be in a good position to talk about that company’s needs and how you can satisfy them. Knowing that you can indeed help the company should raise your self-confidence and lead you to feel more comfortable when facing a potential employer. Table 12.1 provides suggestions for answering common questions employers ask.

12 | Work, Group, and Team Communication

TABLE 12.1  Common Employment Interview Questions 1. Tell me something about yourself. This broad opening question gives you a chance to describe what qualities you possess that can help the employer. Remember that your response should be job-related—this is not the time to talk about where you grew up or your hobbies. 2. Why are you interested in this position? This question gives you an opportunity to show you’ve done your research. It’s really another way of asking, “How can you help us?” It gives you another chance to show how your skills and interests fit with the company’s goals. 3. What accomplishments have given you the most satisfaction? The accomplishments you choose need not be directly related to former employment; however, they should demonstrate qualities that would help you be successful in the job for which you’re interviewing. Your accomplishments might demonstrate creativity, perseverance in the face of obstacles, problem solving, self-control, or dependability. 4. What university subjects did you like best and least? Whatever your answer, show how your preferences about your courses are related to the job you are applying for. When necessary, show how apparently unrelated subjects do illustrate your readiness for a job. For example, you might say, “I really enjoyed cultural anthropology courses because they showed me the importance of understanding different cultures. I think those courses would help me a lot in relating to our overseas customers and suppliers.” 5. Where do you see yourself in five years? This familiar question is really asking, “How ambitious are you?” “How compatible are your plans with this company’s goals?” “How realistic are you?” If you’ve studied the industry and the company, your answer will show an understanding of the workplace realities and a sense of personal planning that should impress an employer. 6. What major problems have you faced, and how have you dealt with them? The specific problem isn’t as important as the way you responded to it. What (admirable) qualities did you demonstrate as you grappled with the problem you’ve chosen to describe? Perseverance? Calmness? Creativity? You may even choose to describe a problem you didn’t handle well, and show what you learned from it that can help you in the future. 7. What are your greatest strengths? The “strength” question offers another chance to sell yourself. Emphasize qualities that apply to employment. “I’m a pretty good athlete” isn’t a persuasive answer unless you can show how your skill is job-related. For instance, you might talk about being a team player, your competitive drive, or your ability to work hard and not quit in the face of adversity. 8. What are your greatest weaknesses? Whatever answer you give to the “weakness” question, try to show how your awareness of your flaws makes you a desirable person to hire. There are four ways to respond to this question. • You can discuss a weakness that can also be viewed as a strength: “When I’m involved in a big project I tend to work too hard, and I can wear myself out.” • You can discuss a weakness that is not related to the job at hand, but then end your answer with a strength that is related to the job. For a job in sales: “I’m not very interested in accounting. I’d much rather work with people selling a product I believe in.” • You can discuss a weakness the interviewer already knows about from your resumé, application, or the interview. “I don’t have a lot of experience in multimedia design at this early stage of my career. But my experience in other kinds of computer programming and my internship in graphic arts have convinced me that I can learn quickly.” • You can discuss a weakness you have been working to remedy. “I know being bilingual is important for this job. That’s why I’ve enrolled in a French course.” SOURCES: Adapted from Adler, R.B. and Rodman, G. (2008). Understanding human communication. (10th edn.). New York: Oxford University Press, pp. A16–A19; and Locker, K.O. (2000). Business and administrative communication. (5th edn.). Homewood, IL: Irwin, pp. 574–5.

6. Arrive prepared to ask the interviewer questions  Near the end of an interview, it’s typical for an interviewer to ask the applicant, “Do you have any questions?” An ineffective response would be

“No, I can’t think of any,” because it suggests a lack of initiative and inquisitiveness. Instead, go prepared with a list of questions about the company and the position you’re applying for. Don’t forget

387

388

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

that you are trying to determine if this job is a good match for you, so you’re interviewing the company as much as they’re interviewing you. Good questions will allow you to demonstrate that you have done your homework on the organization. It’s wise to save questions about salary and benefits for the later stages of the negotiation process. In the initial interview, your goal is to show the organization what you can offer them. Good questions will allow you to demonstrate the homework you’ve done on the organization. For example, you could say, “I saw on your website that the company is developing new training programs. How might these programs help me in my position?” As we noted, avoid questions about salary or benefits, at least in an initial interview. Such questions focus on what the company will do for you, whereas your goal is to show what you can do for the company.

After the Interview Follow up your meeting with a note of thanks via email to the interviewer. Express your appreciation for the chance to get acquainted with the company,

and let the interviewer know that the session left you excited about the chance of becoming associated with it. It’s also a good idea to mention specific information you learned about the company during the interview: “I enjoyed hearing about the new software program your company is using to facilitate performance reviews.” Whenever possible, show how the things you learned make you a good match for the job: “My familiarity with a variety of computer programs should help me learn your new system quickly, and my training in communication will assist me in conducting performance reviews.” Finally, your note can confirm the next steps in the interviewing process: “You explained that I should be hearing from the company within the next week. I’ll be looking forward to speaking with you.”

CHECK IT! Describe what an interviewee can do (before, during, and after) a job interview in order to make the interview successful.

SUMMARY Strong interpersonal skills are essential for effectiveness in the workplace, so much so that they are some of the most sought-after skills employers indicate they’re looking for in both entry level and mid-level hires. Relationships in the workplace include both formal and informal networks, and involve upward, downward, and horizontal communication. On-the-job communication often takes place in work groups and in teams, which are work groups with some unique characteristics. Groups and teams offer some advantages in the workplace, but also have some drawbacks. In addition, work groups go through predictable stages, create their own cultures, and provide opportunities for leadership, power, and influence. I­ncreasingly,

people work in virtual teams or with at least some group members who are not co-located. This situation has the potential to create communication challenges, but researchers have identified specific strategies to meet those challenges and enhance both virtual team communication and effectiveness. Leaders can be designated or emerge from a group of co-workers. In addition, leadership can also be centralized or distributed throughout a work group. Leaders influence group members through their use of different kinds of power. French and Raven (1968) note the five types of social power as legitimate, expert, reward, coercive, and referent. Effective leaders value diversity and create

12 | Work, Group, and Team Communication

inclusive work environments in which individuals feel safe, respected, engaged, and able to influence their work. Inclusive workplaces allow people across multiple dimensions of identity to be their authentic selves at work; we all have a role to play in ensuring inclusivity. Well-developed and flexible interpersonal communication skills are essential to promoting inclusion, being an effective leader, and being a valuable group member. Strong interpersonal skills also go a long way toward helping you advance your career. Networking with both strong and weak ties can help you get leads on employment opportunities. ­ Potential employers don’t just review the information you provide. They often search your online profile, so it’s important to keep it professional. Finally, developing a growth mindset helps you to further develop

and refine your skills, learn from your experiences, and persist in the face of rejection during your job search. Employment interviews have a number of qualities that distinguish them from other types of conversations. Most significantly, they’re purpose driven. Before an employment interview, an applicant should clarify the interviewer’s goals and come prepared. During an interview, it’s important to make a good first impression and opening and to give answers that are clear, detailed, and focused. A good interviewee will follow the interviewer’s lead, be prepared to answer questions that the interviewer is likely to ask, and ask questions about the company and the position. When the interview is over, the applicant should send a thank-you note and confirm the next steps in the interview process.

MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS 1.

The president of an organization sends an email to all employees advising them that the organization is in the process of developing a new strategic direction and they’re all invited to contribute their ideas by way of a survey and or discussion group. The email itself is an example of which of the following? a. b. c. d.

2.

a. b. c. d. 3.

informal, downward communication formal, downward communication informal, horizontal communication formal, upward communication

The transit authority has issued an official statement warning employees not to use their cellphones when they’re working. The statement says employees may use their phones on their breaks. Sam, an employee of the transit authority, told his co-workers that he heard that the company has recently fired two employees for using their phones during their breaks. Sam’s communication with his co-workers serves which function?

Sadaf, an experienced accountant, has just been assigned to a newly formed project management team in her company. She is delighted with how mature and experienced the team members are and how well the team has been getting along during their first couple of meetings as they orient themselves to the scope and details of the project. Which of the following best describes the stage of this group? a. b. c. d.

4.

confirms the formal message contradicts the formal message expands the formal message circumvents the formal message

group infancy, orientation stage group maturity, decision emergence stage group maturity, orientation stage group infancy, decision emergence stage

Kevin, Pat, and Noreen worked as a team to prepare meals for a large children’s summer camp. They had a hard time keeping up as the camp’s

389

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

enrolment increased so a fourth cook was added to their team. Kevin and Noreen noticed that once they had the extra help Pat’s productivity really decreased, so much so that they still struggled to get meals prepared in time, even with the extra help. Pat’s change in productivity could be described as which of the following?

8.

a. women with psychopathic personality characteristics are slightly more likely to emerge as leaders. b. people with psychopathic personality characteristics are slightly more effective ­leaders. c. men with psychopathic personality characteristics are slightly more likely to emerge as leaders. d. all of the above.

a. social harmonizing b. groupthink c. social loafing d. group synergy 5.

The culture of work groups can involve which of the following dimensions? a. sociability b. distribution of power c. tolerance of new ideas d. all of the above

6.

Amal is well liked and respected by her colleagues. They consult her informally quite regularly and value her advice. She has a great deal of influence, which would be described as a. b. c. d.

7.

Research on the relationship between psychopathy and leadership indicates that

9.

Ricardo is very aloof with the group he manages, and he often hints that if people complain about the schedule or working conditions, he’ll have to increase the number of evening shifts and get rid of the breakroom. These strategies best reflect Ricardo’s use of a. b. c. d.

referent power. reward power. expert power. coercive power.

10. Job interviews are unlike other conversations in that

reward power. coercive power. referent power. super power.

Salome has been appointed to lead the occupational health and safety committee in her workplace. Her leadership would best be described as a. emergent. b. coercive. c. designated. d. distributed.

a. a typical conversation has a structure whereas an interview does not. b. an interviewer’s job is to keep the exchange moving towards a pre-set purpose, whereas in other conversations one person does not exert such control. c. in an interview, both people engage in about the same amount of speaking whereas in other conversations one person might dominate. d. all of the above.

Answers: 1. b; 2. b; 3. a; 4. c; 5. d; 6. c; 7. c; 8. c; 9. d; 10. b

390

ACTIVITIES 1. Invitation to Insight Think about group projects you’ve done throughout your school or work career. Choose a successful project and describe the factors that made the

group work effectively. Now, contrast that group experience with one that was less satisfying. What are the differences between the two experiences? Use the characteristics of work groups and

12 | Work, Group, and Team Communication

teams, the personal skills in groups and teams, and the  information about group cultures as the basis for your comparisons. 2. Invitation to Insight Analyze the types of power used by various members of your class. Which types of power have you observed? What types of power does your professor use? What kinds of power do you have in your class? Who has the most influence? Why do you think so? 3. Skill Builder Imagine you were selected to lead a student initiative at your college or university. At your first team meeting, what might you say to ensure members of your team felt psychologically safe? How would you structure the decision-making processes to ensure that everyone could participate? How might you encourage individuals who are most different from the group to feel like insiders while still feeling unique? Draw on communication strategies described in previous chapters when forming your approach. 4. Skill Builder Think of a group project you participated in at school or work. It could have been done completely face-to-face or completely virtually or a combination of both. Analyze your experience in terms of the

c­ haracteristics of effective virtual teams described in this chapter. How well did group members do the tasks described by Sharon Hill and Kathryn Bartol (2018) (listed on page 374–5) that distinguish high-performing virtual teams? In the future, what strategies might you employ to ensure the group or team worked more effectively and efficiently? 5. Ethical Challenge Imagine yourself interviewing for a job you really want. Consider how you’ll represent yourself in a way that maximizes your chances of receiving an offer of employment. To what degree is the narrative that you would create in presenting yourself accurate and to what degree is it less than totally honest? Could you justify the approach you would take as ethical? 6. Role Play Describe to a partner a job that you would like to apply for. Have your partner take the role of the interviewer and take the role of the interviewee for yourself. Use Table 12.1, Common Employment Interview Questions, to help guide the mock interview. Role-play the job interview and ask your partner to give you feedback. Refer to the During the Interview section on pages 385–8 of this chapter for criteria to evaluate your communication during the interview. Now, reverse roles.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1.

What functions can informal communication serve in a workplace? Are they important? Why or why not?

2.

Describe some of the communication skills that can help to build a positive communication climate in a working group. How much influence can one group member have? Why do you think so?

3.

Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of working on virtual teams. What steps can be taken to mitigate some of the drawbacks of relying so heavily on computer-mediated communication to get work done?

4.

Are there situations where the use of coercive power is appropriate? When, why, or why not?

5.

In your experience, what kinds of skills and personal qualities do people who have ­referent power possess? Do you think these skills and qualities can be developed? Why or why not?

6.

The research regarding the weak but positive correlation between psychopathic personality characteristics and emergent male leadership creates numerous questions about what else we need to know about the complex relationships between gender, culture, group dynamics, and leadership in the workplace. What additional research would you like to see conducted in this area and why?

391

392

PART FOUR: Contexts of Interpersonal Communication

JOURNAL IDEAS 1.

Think about a group or team you were involved in, the roles you took on, and the types of power you had. Were you satisfied with your contributions? What might you do differently if you were involved in a similar situation in the future?

2.

Think about teachers or supervisors you have enjoyed working with. What types of power did they use? What did the class or group members contribute to the experience? Why do you think you liked learning with or working for these people?

3.

In order to examine your personal experiences of inclusion, reflect on a group situation in which you felt included and one in which you did not. Review each of Ferdman’s six components of inclusion and use them as a starting point to compare and

contrast your two experiences. Do they distinguish your inclusion experience from the one in which you felt less included? Are there other missing elements that contribute to your experiences of inclusion? 4.

Review your social network and categorize your connections in terms of the strength of the ties (e.g., very strong—­communicate daily—to very weak—have never communicated personally). Analyze your profile in terms of the diversity of connections to potential employment, remembering that weak ties can sometimes help you with job leads and close ties can help in terms of providing references, feedback on employment applications, etc. How satisfied are you with your network for employment purposes? How might you strengthen it?

Glossary abstraction ladder  A range of more-to-less abstract terms de-

scribing an event or object. accommodation  An approach to conflict that involves en­ ‑tirely giving in to others rather than asserting your own points of view. achievement culture  Term used to describe a culture that places a high value on the achievement of material success and a focus on the task at hand. acknowledgement  A kind of confirming communication that involves paying attention to and verbally recognizing the ideas and feelings of others. advising  A listening response in which the receiver offers suggestions about how the speaker should deal with a problem. aggressiveness  A verbal attack that demeans another person’s self-concept and inflicts psychological pain. ambiguous language  Language that consists of words and phrases that have more than one commonly accepted definition. analytical listening  Attending to the full message before coming to judgment. analyzing  A listening response in which the listener offers an interpretation of a speaker’s message. androgynous  Possessing both masculine and feminine traits, or the quality of being neither feminine nor masculine. argumentativeness  Presenting and defending positions on issues while attacking positions taken by others. assertiveness  Clearly expressing thoughts, feelings, and wants. asynchronous  A time gap between when the message was sent and when it is received. attending  A phase of the listening process in which the communicator focuses on a message, excluding other messages. attribution  The process of attaching meaning to another person’s behaviour. avoidance  An approach to conflict in which people choose not to confront an issue directly; avoidance can be physical or conversational. avoiding  A relational stage immediately before terminating, in which the partners minimize contact with one another. barrier behaviours  Strategies, primarily non-verbal, designed to create physical space between ourselves and other people. benevolent lie  A lie that is not considered malicious by the person who tells it. bonding  A stage of relational development in which the partners make symbolic public gestures to show that their relationship exists.

boundaries  Limits that a family sets on its members’ actions,

such as what topics are permissible to discuss, how to discuss certain topics, or whom family members may interact with outside the family. breadth  In the social penetration model, it is the first dimension of self-disclosure; it comprises the range of subjects being discussed. “but” statement  A statement in which the second half cancels the meaning of the first, for example, “I’d like to help you, but I have to go or I’ll miss my bus.” certainty  Absolute belief that one’s position is correct and the ideas of others are not worth considering. Likely to arouse defensiveness, according to Gibb. channel  The medium through which a message passes from sender to receiver. chronemics  The study of how people use and structure time. circumscribing  A relational stage in which partners begin to reduce the scope of their contact and commitment to one another. closed questions  Questions that limit the range of possible responses, such as questions that seek a yes or no answer. co-culture  A group within an encompassing culture with a perceived identity. code switching  Alternating between two or more languages or varieties of a language in a single conversation. coercive power  Influence achieved by using unpleasant consequences or threats to punish others. cognitive complexity  The ability to construct a variety of frameworks for viewing an issue. cognitive conservatism  The tendency to seek out information that conforms to an existing self-concept and to ignore information that contradicts it. collaboration  An approach to resolving conflict that requires participants to show concern for both themselves and others. collectivistic culture  A culture whose members feel loyalties and obligations to an in-group, such as one’s extended family, community, or even the organization one works for. communication apprehension  Feelings of anxiety that plague some people at the prospect of communicating in an unfamiliar or difficult situation. communication climate  The emotional tone of a relationship between two or more individuals. communication competence  The ability to achieve one’s goals in a manner that is personally acceptable and, ideally, acceptable to others.

394

Glossary

comparison level (CL)  The minimum standard of what behav-

iour is acceptable from a relationship partner. comparison level of alternatives (CLalt)  A comparison between the rewards one is receiving in a present situation and those one could expect to receive in others. competition  An approach to conflict that involves seeking a favourable solution only for yourself. complaining  A disagreeing message that directly or indirectly communicates dissatisfaction with another person. complementary conflict style  The use by partners in a conflict of different, but mutually reinforcing behaviour. compromise  An approach to conflict resolution in which both people attain at least part of what they want through self-sacrifice. computer-mediated communication (CMC)  Communication that occurs through computerized channels (e.g., email, instant messaging, computer conferencing). confirmation bias  A tendency to seek out, remember, and organize information that supports our impressions and ­beliefs. confirming communication  A message that expresses caring or respect for another person. conflict  An expressed struggle between at least two interdependent people who perceive incompatible goals, scarce rewards, and interference from the other person in achieving their goals. conflict rituals  Repeating patterns of interlocking conflict behaviour. conformity orientation  The degree to which family communication stresses uniformity of attitudes, values, and beliefs. content dimension  A message that communicates information about the subject being discussed. See also relational dimension. controlling communication  According to Gibb, messages that attempt to impose some sort of outcome on another person, resulting in a defensive response. convergence  The process of adapting one’s speech style to match that of others with whom one wants to identify. See also divergence. conversation orientation  The degree to which families favour an open climate of discussion of a wide array of topics. counterfeit questions  Questions that are disguised attempts to send a message rather than elicit information. critical listening  A listening style that involves evaluating the accuracy and consistency of a message’s content. culture  According to Samovar and Porter, “the language, values, beliefs, traditions, and customs people share and learn.” debilitative emotions  Emotions that prevent a person from functioning effectively. de-escalatory spiral  A reciprocal communication pattern in which one person’s non-threatening behaviour leads to reduced hostility by the other, with the level of hostility steadily decreasing. See also escalatory spiral. depth  In the social penetration model, it is the second dimension of self-disclosure; here, the people interacting shift from relatively unrevealing messages to more personal ones.

description  Messages that describe a speaker’s position with-

out evaluating others.

designated leader  The person (or people) with official titles

that indicate authority, for example, “manager.”

dialectical tensions  Relational tensions that arise when two

opposing or incompatible forces exist simultaneously.

differentiating  A relational stage in which the partners re-­

establish their individual identities after having bonded together. direct aggression  An expression of the sender’s thoughts and/ or feelings that attacks the position and dignity of the receiver. disagreeing message  A message that essentially says to another person, “You are wrong”; includes argumentativeness, complaining, and aggressiveness. disconfirming communication  A message that expresses a lack of caring or respect for another person. disfluencies  Non-linguistic verbalizations, for example, um, er, ah. distorted feedback  Information that can skew a person’s self-concept; such feedback might be excessively favourable because of others’ less-than-honest behaviour (e.g., a boss may claim to be an excellent manager because her assistants pour on false praise in order to keep their jobs). distributed leadership  Several people working collectively to influence others and achieve goals rather than relying on one person. divergence  A way of speaking that emphasizes difference from others. See also convergence. downward communication  Communication from managers to subordinates. dyad  Two communicators who interact with each other. emblems  Culturally understood substitutes (non-verbal behaviour) for verbal expressions. emergent leader  Leader chosen by the group either formally or informally. emotions  Feeling states that include physiological changes, cognitive interpretations, and an outward expression. emotional contagion  The process by which emotions are transferred from one person to another. emotional intelligence  The ability to recognize emotions in ourselves and others, to manage our emotions, and to use emotions to enhance our self-motivation, our empathy, and our relationships with others. emotional labour  When managing or even suppressing emotions are both appropriate and necessary. emotionally counterfeit  Communications where the sender thinks they are expressing a feeling when, in fact, their statement is devoid of emotional content. empathizing  A listening response that conveys identification with a speaker’s perceptions and emotions. empathy  The ability to project oneself into another person’s point of view in an attempt to experience their thoughts and feelings. endorsement  The strongest type of confirming message; shows agreement and valuing.

Glossary

environment  Both the physical setting in which communi-

cation occurs and the personal perspectives of the people involved. equality  A type of supportive communication described by Gibb, which suggests that the sender regards the receiver with respect. equivocation  Statements that are not literally false but cleverly avoid an unpleasant truth. escalatory spiral  A reciprocal communication pattern in which one person’s attack leads to a counterattack by the other, with the level of hostility steadily increasing. See also de-escalatory spiral. ethnocentrism  An attitude that one’s own culture is superior to those of others. euphemism  A pleasant term substituted for a blunt one in order to soften the impact of unpleasant information. evaluating response  A listening response that appraises a sender’s thoughts or behaviour and implies that the person evaluating is qualified to pass judgment on the other. evaluation  A message in which a sender judges a receiver in some way, usually resulting in a defensive response. evaluative language (emotive language)  Seems to describe something, but really announces the speaker’s attitude toward it. expectancy violations  Instances when others don’t behave as we assume they should. experimenting  An early stage in relational development, consisting of a search for common ground. If the experimentation is successful, the relationship progresses to i­ ntensifying. If not, it may go no further. expert power  Influence that arises from the group’s belief that an individual has a high level of knowledge or specialized skill. expression–privacy dialectic  The tension between the desire to share information, and the need keep things confidential within a relationship. face  The image an individual wants to project to the world. See also presenting self. face-threatening acts  Behaviour by another that is perceived as attacking an individual’s presenting image or face. facework  Actions people take to preserve their own and others’ presenting images. facilitative emotions  Emotions that contribute to effective functioning. fallacy of approval  The irrational belief that it is vital to win the approval of virtually every person with whom a communicator interacts. fallacy of catastrophic expectations  The irrational belief that the worst possible outcome will probably occur. fallacy of causation  The irrational belief that emotions are caused by others and not by the person who has them. fallacy of helplessness  The irrational belief that satisfaction in life is determined by forces beyond one’s control. fallacy of overgeneralization  Irrational beliefs in which conclusions (usually negative) are based on limited evidence, or communicators exaggerate their shortcomings.

fallacy of perfection  The irrational belief that a worthwhile

communicator should be able to handle every situation with complete confidence and skill. fallacy of should  The irrational belief that people should behave in the most desirable way. family  A system with two or more interdependent people who have a common past history and a present reality, and who expect to influence each other in the future. formal communication  An interaction that follows officially established channels. friendship  A voluntary relationship that provides social ­support. fundamental attribution error  A mistaken human tendency that has two main parts: on the one hand, when others suffer, we often blame the problem on their personal qualities and we underestimate the impact of the situation; on the other hand, when we experience failure, we find explanations outside ourselves, but we are quick to take credit when we succeed. gender  Psychological sex type. groupthink  The phenomenon of group members suspending their critical thinking in order to achieve agreement. halo effect  The power of a first impression to influence subsequent perceptions. haptics  Communication involving touch. hearing  The first stage in the listening process, in which sound waves are received by a communicator. high-context culture  A culture that relies heavily on verbal and non-verbal cues to maintain social harmony. horizontal communication  Communication between people who do not have direct supervisor–subordinate relationships. horns effect  The tendency to form an overall negative impression of a person on the basis of one negative characteristic. See also halo effect. “I” language  A statement that describes the speaker’s reaction to another person’s behaviour without making judgments about its worth. See also “we” language and “you” language. impression management The communication strategies people use to influence how others view them. individualistic culture  A culture in which people view their primary responsibility as being to themselves. informal communication  Communication based on friendships, shared personal or career interests, and proximity. in-groups  Groups with which an individual identifies her- or himself. initiating  The first stage in relational development, in which those who are interacting express interest in one another; making contact; demonstrating that you are worth ­t alking to. integrating  A relational stage in which those who are interacting begin to take on a single identity; taking on an identity as a social unit; routines, rituals, and obligations grow. integration–separation dialectic  The tension between the d ­ esire for connection with others and the desire for ­independence.

395

396

Glossary

intensifying  A relational stage following experimenting, in

which those who are interacting move toward integration by increasing their amount of contact, as well as the breadth and depth of their self-disclosure. intercultural communication  Communication that occurs when members of two or more cultures or other groups exchange messages in a manner that is influenced by their different cultural perceptions and symbol systems. interpersonal communication  In contrast to impersonal communication, the interpersonal variety is distinguished by the qualities of uniqueness, interdependence, self-­disclosure, and intrinsic rewards. interpretation  The process of attaching meaning to sense data. interrupting response  A disconfirming response in which one communicator interrupts another. intimacy  A state achieved by intellectual, emotional, and/or physical closeness, as well as shared activities. intimate distance  One of Hall’s four distance zones, ranging from skin contact to 45 centimetres away. intrapersonally  Through your own thought processes. invitational communication  An approach to communication that welcomes others to see your point of view and to freely share their own. “it” statement  A statement in which it replaces the ­personal pronoun I, making the statement less direct and more ­evasive. Johari Window  A model that describes the relationship between self-disclosure and self-awareness. kinesics  The study of body movements. legitimate power  Influence that arises when the group believes that the person in charge is qualified to have authority. linguistic relativity  The notion that a language both reflects and shapes the worldview of those who use it. listening  The process of hearing, attending, understanding, remembering, and responding to messages. listening fidelity  The degree of congruence between what a listener understands and what the message sender was trying to communicate. lose–lose problem solving  An approach to conflict resolution in which neither party achieves its goals. love language  A particular notion of what counts as love as well as how to understand and express love. low-context culture  A culture that uses language primarily to express thoughts, feelings, and ideas as clearly and logically as possible. media richness  A concept used to describe the amount and type of information that can be conveyed through a communication channel. mediated communication  Sending messages via techno­ logical channels such as phones, email, and the internet. metacommunication  Messages (usually relational) that refer to other messages: communication about communication. mindful listening  Giving careful and thoughtful attention and responses to the messages we receive. mindless listening  When reacting to others’ messages automatically and routinely, without much mental investment.

monochronic  An approach to the management of time that

emphasizes punctuality, schedules, and completing one task at a time. multimodality  Willingness to embrace a variety of communication channels. narratives  The stories we use to describe our personal worlds. negotiation  A process in which two or more people discuss specific proposals in order to find a mutually acceptable agreement. networking  The process of deliberately meeting people and maintaining contacts to get career information, advice, and leads. neutrality  A defence-arousing behaviour described by Gibb in which a sender expresses indifference toward a receiver. noise  External, physiological, and psychological distractions that interfere with the accurate transmission and reception of a message. non-verbal communication  Messages expressed by other than linguistic means. nurturing culture  A culture that regards the support of relationships as an especially important goal. obsolete information  Information that can skew a person’s self-concept; such information is usually outdated and unhelpful to the person in question (e.g., perhaps your jokes used to be well-received, or your grades were high, or your work was superior, but now the facts have changed). oculesics  The study of how the eyes can communicate. open questions  Questions that allow for a variety of extended responses. organization  The stage in the perception process that involves arranging data in a meaningful way. ostracism  Disconfirming behaviour that involves purposefully excluding others from interaction; called “the social death penalty.” out-groups  Groups that an individual sees as different from him-or herself. paralanguage  Non-linguistic means of vocal expression (e.g., rate, pitch, and tone). paraphrasing  Restating a speaker’s thoughts and feelings in the listener’s own words. passive aggression  An indirect expression of aggression delivered in a way that allows the sender to maintain a facade of kindness. perceived self  The person we believe ourselves to be in moments of candour. It may be identical with or different from the presenting and desired selves. perception  The process of assigning meaning to the information we receive from our senses. perception checking  A three-part method for verifying the accuracy of interpretations, including a description of the sense data, two possible interpretations, and a request for confirmation of the interpretations. permanence  How long a message endures. personal distance  One of Hall’s four distance zones, ranging from 45 centimetres to 1.2 metres away. personal space  The distance we put between ourselves and others.

Glossary

phonological rules  Rules governing the way in which sounds

are pronounced in a language. politeness  Communicating in ways that save face for both senders and readers. polychronic  An approach to the management of time that emphasizes flexibility of schedules and pursuing multiple tasks at the same time. power  A source of influence, such as expert power. power distance  The degree to which members of a society accept the unequal distribution of power among members. powerful language  Direct and forceful word choices, with declarations and assertions (“I won’t”; “I will”). powerless language  Tentative and indirect word choices, with hedges and hesitations (i.e. “Excuse me, sir”; “I guess”; “okay?”). pragmatic rules  Rules that govern the interpretation of language in terms of its social context. See also semantic rules and syntactic rules. prejudice  An unfairly biased and intolerant attitude toward members of an out-group. presenting self  The image a person presents to others. It may be identical with or different from the perceived and desired selves. See also face. primacy effect  The tendency to pay attention to and remember things that happened first in a sequence. privacy management  The choice people make to reveal or conceal information about themselves. problem orientation  A supportive style of communication described by Gibb in which the communicators focus on working together to solve their problems instead of trying to impose their own solutions on one another. provisionalism  A supportive style of communication described by Gibb in which a sender expresses open-­ mindedness to the ideas and opinions of others. proxemics  The study of how people and animals use space. public distance  One of Hall’s four distance zones, extending outward from 3 metres away. punctuation  The process of determining the causal order of events. qualitative interpersonal communication  Interpersonal communication that occurs when people treat one another as unique individuals, regardless of the context in which the interaction occurs or the number of people involved. quantitative interpersonal communication  Any interaction or communication between, or among, a small number of people, usually two. questioning  A listening response in which the receiver seeks additional information from the sender. racist language  Reflects a worldview that classifies members of one racial group as superior and others as inferior. rational–emotive approach  A method for getting rid of debilitative feelings while remaining sensitive to the more facilitative emotions; the method is based on the idea that the key to changing feelings is to change unproductive thinking. reappraisal  Rethinking the meaning of emotionally charged events in ways that alter their emotional impact.

recognition  An act of confirmation that indicates your aware-

ness of another person.

reference groups  Groups against which we compare ourselves,

which thereby influence our self-concept and self-esteem.

referent power  Influence that comes from group members’

liking and respect for one another.

reflected appraisal  The theory that a person’s self-concept

matches the way the person believes others regard him or her. regulators  Non-verbal behaviours that control verbal interaction. The best example of such regulation is the wide array of turn-taking signals that people utilize in everyday conversation. relational commitment  A promise, implied or explicit, to remain in a relationship and work to make that relationship successful. relational conflict style  A pattern of managing disagreements that repeats itself over time. relational culture  The unique ways of interacting that tightly connected participants—such as close friends, siblings, and romantic partners—create in their relationships. relational listening  Concerned with building emotional closeness with others. relational dimension  Messages that expresses the social relationship between two or more individuals. See also content dimension. relational maintenance  Communication aimed at keeping relationships operating smoothly and satisfactorily (e.g., behaving in a positive way, being open, and assuring your partner that you’re committed to the relationship). relational transgression  A violation by one partner of the explicit or implicit terms of a relationship that lets the other partner down in an important way. relative language  Words that gain their meaning by comparison. remembering  A phase of the listening process in which a message is recalled. responding  A phase of the listening process in which feedback occurs, offering evidence that the message has been received. reward power  Influence achieved by giving incentives and compensation. rumination  Recurrent negative thoughts not demanded by the immediate environment. Sometimes called brooding. selection  A phase of the perception process in which a communicator attends to a stimulus from the environment. Also, a way communicators manage dialectical tensions by responding to one end of the dialectical spectrum and ignoring the other. self-compassion  Affected by one’s own suffering, leading to the desire to alleviate one’s suffering and treat oneself with understanding and concern. self-concept  The relatively stable set of perceptions we each hold of ourselves. See also self-esteem. self-control  The ability to change (one’s thoughts, behaviours, emotions, etc.) in order to conform to an expectation.

397

398

Glossary

self-disclosure  The process of deliberately revealing informa-

tion about oneself that is important and that would not normally be known by others. self-esteem  The part of the self-concept that involves evaluations of self-worth. See also self-concept. self-fulfilling prophecy  A person’s expectations of an event and his or her subsequent behaviour based on those expectations that make the outcome more likely to occur than would otherwise have been true. self-monitoring  The process of observing one’s behaviour and using these observations to shape the way one behaves. self-serving bias  The tendency to judge oneself in the most generous terms possible, while being more critical of others. self-talk  The non-vocal, internal monologue that is our process of thinking. semantic rules  Rules that govern the meaning of language, as opposed to its structure. See also pragmatic rule and syntactic rules. sensation  Describes how our sense organs pick up information from the environment and translate that input into messages our brains can process. serial argument  A repetitive conflict about the same issue. sexist language  Words, phrases, or expressions that differentiate between females and males unnecessarily, or that ­exclude, trivialize, or diminish either sex. significant other  A person whose opinion is important enough to affect one’s self-concept strongly. silent listening  Staying attentive and non-verbally responsive without offering verbal feedback. sincere questions  Genuine attempts to elicit information from others. social comparison  An evaluation of oneself by way of comparison to others. social distance  One of Hall’s distance zones, ranging from 1.2 to 3 metres away. social exchange theory  The supposition that we use an economic model on which to base some of our relationships. This approach suggests that we often seek out people who can give us rewards that are greater than or equal to the costs we encounter in dealing with them. social expectations  A societal convention that leads most of us to talk freely about our shortcomings while downplaying our accomplishments. For example, it’s okay to proclaim that you are miserable if you have failed to do well on a project, but it’s boastful to express your pride at a job well done. It’s fine to remark that you feel unattractive, but it’s egocentric to say that you think you look good. social loafing  The tendency for people to work less hard in a group. social media All communication channels that allow ­community-based input, interaction, content sharing, and collaboration. social penetration model  A model that describes relationships in terms of their breadth and depth. social support  Helping others during challenging times by providing emotional, informational, or instrumental resources.

spontaneity  A supportive communication behaviour de-

scribed by Gibb in which the sender expresses a message without any attempt to manipulate the receiver. stability–change dialectic  The tension between the desire to keep a relationship predictable and stable, and the desire for novelty and change. stagnating  Term used to describe a relational stage characterized by declining enthusiasm and standardized forms of behaviour. standpoint theory  A body of scholarship that explores how one’s position in a society shapes one’s view of society in general, and of specific individuals. stereotyping  Exaggerated beliefs associated with a categorizing system. stonewalling  When one person in a relationship withdraws from the interaction, shutting down dialogue and any chance of resolving the problem in a mutually satisfactory way. strategy  A defence-arousing style of communication described by Gibb in which a sender tries to manipulate or deceive a receiver. superiority  A defence-arousing style of communication described by Gibb in which the sender states or implies that the receiver is not worthy of respect. supporting  A listening response in which the receiver reveals her or his solidarity with the speaker’s situation. symmetrical conflict style  The use of the same tactics by both partners in a conflict. synchronous  Refers to communication that occurs in real time so that messages are sent and received simultaneously. synergy  The creativity that results from the integration of several individuals’ thinking. syntactic rules  Rules that govern the ways symbols can be arranged, as opposed to the meanings of those symbols. See also semantic rules and pragmatic rules. system  A group, such as a family, whose members interact with one another to form a whole. task-oriented listening  Concerned with efficiency and accomplishing the job at hand. teams  Specialized types of work groups often comprising members with distinct and complementary skills and resources. terminating  The conclusion of a relationship, characterized by the acknowledgement of one or both partners that the relationship is over. territory  A stationary area claimed by a person or animal. transactional communication  A dynamic process created by the participants through their interaction with one another. triangular theory of love  A theory that suggests love has three components: intimacy, passion, and commitment. uncertainty avoidance  The extent to which a culture’s members feel threatened by ambiguous situations and try to avoid them. understanding  A stage in the listening process in which the receiver attaches meaning to a message. upward communication  Communication from subordinates to their superiors.

Glossary

virtual teams  Teams whose membership transcends the

boundaries of location and time. “we” language  The use of first-person-plural pronouns to include others, either appropriately or inappropriately. Language that implies the issue being discussed is the concern and responsibility of both the speaker and receiver of a message. See also “I” language and “you” language. win–lose problem solving  An approach to conflict resolution in which one person reaches her or his goal at the expense of the other.

win–win problem solving  An approach to conf lict reso-

lution in which people work together to satisfy all their goals. work groups  Three or more people who have ongoing interactions with each other and depend on each other to accomplish a goal. “you” language  A statement that expresses or implies a judgment of the other person. See also evaluation, “I” language, and “we” language.

399

References Chapter 1: Interpersonal Process Adams, M. (2003). Fire and ice: The United States, Canada and the myth of converging values. Toronto: Penguin. Adams, M. (2017). Could it happen here? Canada in the age of Trump and ­Brexit. Toronto: Simon & Schuster. Adams, M. (2014). Fire and ice revisited: American and Canadian social values in the age of Obama and Harper. Presentation at Woodrow Wilson Centre, Washington, March 14. Anderson, J. & Rainie, L. (2018). Stories from experts about the impact of digital life. Pew Research Centre, July 3, Retrieved from: http://www. pewinternet.org/2018/07/03/storiesfrom-experts-about-theimpact-of-digital-life/ Anderson, J. & Rainie, L. (2018b). The future of well-being in a tech-saturated world. Pew Research Centre, Internet & technology, April 17. Retrieved from: http://www.pewinternet .org/2018/04/17/the-future-of-wellbeing-in-a-tech-saturated-world/ Angus Reid (2015). Disability and accessibility: Canadians see significant room for improvement in communities where they live. Angus Reid Institute. Retrieved from: http://angusreid.org/ rhf-accessibility/ Arasaratnam, L.A. & Doerfel, M.L. (2005). Intercultural communication competence: Identifying key components from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(2), 137–163. Armarego, J. (2007). “Learning from reflection: Practitioners as adult learners,” Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Software Engineering, Education and Training, 3–5 July 2007, 55–63. www2.computer.org/portal/ web/csdl/doi/10.1109/CSEET.2007.33 Bachar, I., & Aherenfeld, U. (2010). Prisoner by command! The story of Uri Aherenfeld Yom Kippur prisoner in Egypt. Tel Aviv, IL: Ma’ariv Books.

Baxter, L.A., and Montgomery, B.M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford Press. Beatty, M.J.,and McCroskey, J.C. (1997). It’s in our nature: Verbal aggressiveness as temperamental expression. Communication Quarterly, 45, 446–460. Benenson, J.F., Gordon, A.J., and Roy, R. (2000). Children’s evaluative appraisals of competition in tetrads versus dyads. Small Group Research, 31, 635–652. Bibby, R.W. (2001). Canada’s teens: Today, yesterday and tomorrow. Toronto: Stoddart. Bielski, Z. (2018). Good relationships have direct health benefits: Study. The Globe & Mail, May 2. Retrieved from: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/ life/health-and-fitness/good-relationships-have-direct-health-benefitsstudy/article1387912/ Bíró, É., Veres-Balajti, I., & Kósa, K. (2016). Social support contributes to resilience among physiotherapy students: A cross sectional survey and focus group study. Physiotherapy, 102(2), 189–195. Bodie, G. D., & Jones, S. M. (2012). The nature of supportive listening II: The role of verbal person centeredness and nonverbal immediacy. Western Journal of Communication, 76, 250–269. Bolton, G. (2005). Reflective practice: Writing and professional development, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bond, M. (2014). How extreme isolation warps the mind. British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC . Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.com/future/ story/20140514-how-extremeisolation-warps-minds Brooks, C., Ballinger,C, Nutbeam, D., & Adams J. (2017). The importance of building trust and tailoring interactions when meeting older adults’ health literacy needs. Disability Rehabilitation, 39(23), 2428–2435. Brown, J.E. (2009). Reflective practice: A tool for measuring the development of

g­ eneric skills in the training of professional musicians. International Journal of Music Education, 27(4), 372–382. Buck, R., and Van Lear, C.A. (2002). Verbal and nonverbal communication: Distinguishing symbolic, spontaneous and pseudo-spontaneous nonverbal behavior. Journal of Communication, 52, 522–541. Burke, M., Marlow, C., and Leto, T. (2010). Social network activity and social well-being. Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1909–1912. Burleson, B. R. (2007). Constructivism: A general theory of communication skill. In B. B. Whaley & W. Samter (Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 105–128). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Burleson, B. R., & Caplan, S. E. (1998). Cognitive complexity. In J. C. McCroskey, J. A. Daly, M. M. Martin, & M. J. Beatty (Eds.), Communication and personality: Trait perspectives (pp. 230–286). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Business Council of Canada (2018). Navigating change: 2018 Business Council Skills Survey. Byron, K. (2008). Carrying too heavy a load? The communication and miscommunication of emotion by email. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 309–327. Canadian Internet Registration Authority (2018). UQAM study reveals the central role that the internet plays in the integration of immigrants in Canada. Retrieved from: https://cira .ca/press-releases/uqam-studyreveals-central-role-internet-playsintegration-immigrants-canada Canadian Race Relations Foundation (2014). Report on Canadian Values. Canadian Race Relations Foundation (2017). Capturing the pulse of the nation 2017. Preliminary Report. Retrieved from: https://www.crrf-fcrr.ca/ en/programs-3/capturing-the-pulseof-the-nation-2/item/26864capturing-pulse-2017

References

Carter, A., Davis, K.A., Evans, L.V., and Cone, D.C. (2009). Information loss in handover of trauma patients. Prehospital Emergency Care, 13, 280–285. Chan, M. (2015). Multimodal connectedness and quality of life: Examining the influences of technological adoption and interpersonal communication on well being across the lifespan. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 20, 3–18. Chen, L. (1997). Verbal adaptive strategies in US American dyadic interactions with US American or East-Asian ­partners. Communication Monographs, 64, 302–323. Cho, S., Crenshaw, K.W. & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38 (4), 785–810. Chou, H.L., Liu, Y.L. & Chou, C. (2019). Privacy behavior profiles of underage Facebook users. Computers & Education, 128, 473–485. Clayton, J.M., Adler, J.L., O’Callaghan, A., Martin, P., Hynson, J., Butow, P.N. Laidsaar-Powell, R.C., Arnold, R.M., Tulsky, J.A. & Back, A.L. (2012). Intensive communication skills teaching for specialist training in palliative medicine: Development and evaluation of an experiential workshop. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 15(5), 585–591. Cohen, S., Doyle, W.J., Skoner, D.P., Rabin, B.S., & Gwaltney, J.M. (1997). Social ties and susceptibility to the common cold. Journal of American Medical Association, 277(24), 1940–1944. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126. DaSilva, T. L., Zakzanis, K., Henderson, J., & Ravindran, A.V. (2017). Predictors of post-secondary academic outcomes among local-born, immigrant, and international students in Canada: A retrospective analysis. Canadian Journal of Education, 40(4): 543–575. Day, D. V., Schleicher, D.J., Unckless, A.L. & Hiller, N.J. (2002). Self-monitoring personality at work: A meta-analytic investigation of construct validity. Journal of applied Psychology, 97, 390–401. DeClerq, K. (2018). 4 tips for texting in the workplace. Women’s Post, Business Section, January 23. Retrieved from

https://www.womenspost.ca/4-tipstexting-workplace/ Demetriou, C. & Schmitz-Sciborski, A. (2011). Integration, motivation, strengths and optimism: Retention theories past, present and future. In R. Hayes (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th National Symposium on Student Retention, 2011, Charleston. (pp. 300–312). Norman, OK: The University of Oklahoma. Dzenowagis, A. (2009). Who am I? Analyze and understand your own culture first. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2009—EMEA, Amsterdam, North Holland, The Netherlands. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. Duck, S., and Pittman, G. (1994). Social and personal relationships. In M.L. Knapp and G.R. Miller (eds), Handbook of interpersonal communication, 2nd edn. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dunleavy, K.N and Booth-Butterfield, M. (2009). Idiomatic communication in stages of coming together and falling apart. Communication Quarterly, 57(4), 416–432. Eden, J. & Veksler, A.E. (2016). Relational maintenance in the digital age: Implicit rules and multiple modalities. Communication Quarterly, 64, 119–144. Edwards, R., Bybee, B.T., Frost, J.K., Harvey, A.J., & Navarro, M. (2017). That’s not what i meant: How misunderstanding is related to channel and perspective-taking. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(2), 188–210. Ellemers, N. (2018). Gender stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 275–298. Employment and Social Development Canada (2014). Reader’s guide to essential skill profiles. www.esdc .gc.ca/eng/jobs/les/profiles/readersguide.shtml Environics Institute for Survey Research (2018). Canadian public opinion about immigration and minority groups. Focus Canada, Winter. Ferraro, F. R. (2018). Does age impact text-message dependence? The Journal of General Psychology, 145(2), 199–207. Fogel, A., de Koeyer, I., Bellagamba, F., and Bell, H. (2002). The dialogical self in the first two years of life: Embarking on a journey of discovery. Theory and Psychology, 12, 191–205.

Fortney, S.D., Johnson, D.I., and Long, K.M. (2001). The impact of compulsive communicators on the selfperceived competence of classroom peers: An investigation and test of instructional strategies. Communication Education, 50, 357–373. Friedman, R., Hong, Y., Simons, T., Chi, S., Oh, S. & Lachowicz, M. (2018). The impact of culture on reactions to promise breaches: Differences between east and west in behavioral integrity perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 43(2), 273–315. Gale, S. F. (2017). OMG ur hired! Could texting make your recruiting process more user-friendly? Workforce, Sept.Oct., p. 10. Retrieved from: http://link .galegroup.com/apps/doc/ A506828071/AONE?u=utoronto_ main&sid=AONE&xid=02ba7683 Gergen, K.J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books. Gottman, J. (2003). Why marriages fail. In K. M. Galvin & P. J. Cooper (Eds.), Making connections: Readings in relational communication (pp. 258–266). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Grabb, E., and Curtis, J. (2010). Regions apart: The four societies of Canada and the United Sates. Toronto: Oxford University Press. Gudykunst, W. B. (2003) Cross-cultural and intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gudykunst, W. B, and Kim, Y.Y. (2003). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New York: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. Hall, M., and Havens, B. (2002). Social isolation and loneliness. NCA Writings in Gerontology on Mental Health and Aging, Spring/Summer. Hall, P. (2005). Interprofessional teamwork: Professional cultures as barriers. Journal of Interpersonal Care, 1, 188–196. Hammick, J.K., and Lee, M.J. (2014). Do shy people feel less communication apprehension online? The effects of virtual reality on the relationship between personality characteristics and communication outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 302–310. Harmony. (2002). Predictors of postsecondary academic outcomes among local-born, immigrant, and international students in Canada: A retrospective analysis. Canadian Journal of Education, 40(4), 543–575.

401

402

References

Hawkley, L.C., Capitanio, J.P. (2015). Perceived isolation, evolutionary fitness and health outcomes: A lifespan approach. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London, Biological, 370(1669), 2–12. Hendon, M., Powell, L., & Wimmer, H. (2017). Emotional intelligence and communication levels in information technology professionals. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 165–171. Hofstede, G. (1980, 2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behavior, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). Hofstede, G. (2016). Masculinity at the national cultural level. In Y. J. Wong & S.R. Wester (Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 173–186). Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations. Software of the mind. Third Edition. New York: McGraw Hill. Holt-Lunstad, J.,Smith, T.B., Baker, M., Harris, T, & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(2), 227–237. Hubbard, A.S.E. (2001). Conflict between relationally uncertain romantic partners: The influence of relational r­ esponsiveness and empathy. Communication Monographs, 68(4), 400–414. Index Mundi (2017) Country comparison population. Retrieved from: https:// www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx Inglehart, R., C. Haerpfer, A. Moreno, C. Welzel, K. Kizilova, J. Diez-Medrano, M. Lagos, P. Norris, E. Ponarin & B. Puranen et al. (eds.). 2014. World Values Survey: Round Six—Country-Pooled Datafile Version: http:// www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSDocumentationWV6.jsp. Madrid: JD Systems Institute Internet Watch Foundation (2015). Annual Report 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.iwf.org.uk/sites/default/ files/inline-files/IWF%202015%20Annual%20Report%20Final%20for%20 web_1.pdf

Jin, H.K., Choi, J.H., Kang, J.E. & Rhie, S.J. (2017). The effect of communication skills training on patient pharmacist communication in pharmacy education: A meta-analysis. Advances in Health Science Education, 9, 1–20. Kim, M.S., Hunter, J.E., Miyahara, A., Horvath, A.M., Bresnahan, M., and Yoon, H. (1996). “Individual vs. culture-level dimensions of individualism and collectivism: Effects on preferred conversational styles. Communication Monographs, 63, 28–49. Kim, M.S., Shin, H.C., and Cai, D. (1998). Cultural influences on the preferred forms of requesting and re-­requesting. Communication Monographs, 65, 47–66. Kim, Y.H., Hwang, K.H. & Cho, O.H. (2018). Simulation education with problem-based learning: Effect on nursing students’ communication apprehension. Social Behavior and Personality, 46(1), 151–160. Khanna, N. (2004). The role of reflected appraisals in racial identity: The case of multiracial Asians. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(2), 115–131. Khanna, N. (2010). If you are half black, you’re just black: Reflected appraisals and the persistence of the one-drop rule. Sociological Quarterly, 51(1), 96–121. Kingston, B. (2017). Canada’s free trade agreements and why they are ­important. Economic Development Canada, retrieved from: https://edc .trade/trade-agreement-­ opportunities-for-canadiancompanies/#sub-three Kirchler, E. (1988). Marital happiness and interaction in everyday surroundings: A time-sample diary approach for couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 375–382. Ledbetter, A. M. (2014). The past and future of technology in interpersonal communication theory and research. Communication Studies, 65, 456–459. Leung, L., and Lee, P.S.N. (2005). Multiple determinants of life quality: The roles of internet activities, use of new media, social support and leisure activities. Telematics and Informatics, 22(3), 161–180. Littlejohn, S.W., and Foss, K.A. (2008). Theories of human communication, 9th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Litzinger, S., and Gordon, K.C. (2005). Exploring relationships among

c­ ommunication, sexual satisfaction and marital satisfaction. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 31(5), 409–424. Lockwood, J. (2017). An analysis of web-chat in an outsourced customer service account in the Philippines. English for Specific Purposes, 47, 26–39. Luo, Y., Hawkley, L.C., Waite, L.J., & Cacioppo, J.T. (2012). Loneliness, health and mortality in old age: A national longitudinal study.  Social Science & Medicine, 74(6), 907–14.  Lustig, M., Koester, J., & Halualani, R. (2018). Intercultural competence. Eight Edition. New York: Pearson. Luyten, P. (2017). Personality, psychopathology, and health through the lens of interpersonal relatedness and self-­ definition. Journal of the A ­ merican Psychoanalytic Association, 65(3), 473–489. Lyubomirsky, S., Sousa, L., and Dickerhoof, R. (2006). The costs and benefits of writing, talking and thinking about life’s triumphs and defeats. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 692–708. Malhotra, R. & Rowe, M. (2014). Exploring Disability Identity and Disability Rights through Narratives. London: Routledge. Mankekar, P., & Gupta, A. (2014). Intimate encounters: Affective labor in call centers. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, MS. ­Online: https://www.academia .edu/8136952 Mankekar, P., & Gupta, A. (2016). Intimate encounters: Affective labor in call centers. Positions, 24(1), 17–43. Maslow, A.H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Maté, G. (2003). When the body says no: Understanding the stress–disease connection. Toronto: Alfred A. Knopf. McCain, J. (1999). Faith of my fathers. New York, NY: Random House. McCroskey, J.C., and Richmond, V.P. (1996). Fundamentals of human communication: An interpersonal perspective. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. McCroskey, J.C., and Wheeless, L. (1976). Introduction to human communication. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

References

McQuigge, M. (2017). Ottawa sends important message with gender-neutral passports: Activists. The Globe & Mail, August 25. McQuigge, M. (2017). Only half of disabled Canadians are employed, poll finds. The Globe & Mail, April 10. Merkin, R., Taras, V., and Steel, P. (2014). State of the art themes in cross-cultural communication research: A systematic and meta analytic review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 1–23. Miller, G.F., and Steinberg, M. (1975). Between people: A new analysis of interpersonal communication. Chicago: SRA . Minkov, M. (2013). Cross-cultural analysis: The science and art of comparing the world’s modern societies and their cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mirchandani, K. (2012). Phone clones: Authenticity work in the transnational service economy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Mitchell, P.J. (2014). The world family map. Canadian families in the global context. eReview. Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, 14(9). www .imfcanada.org/issues/canadian-­ families-global-context Motley, M.T. (1990). On whether one can(not) communicate: An examination via traditional communication postulates. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 54, 1–20. Munroe, D., and Watt, D. (2014). Skills for business innovation success: It’s people who innovate. Conference Board of Canada. www .conferenceboard.ca/e-library /abstract.aspx?did=6069 Ni, L., Wang, Q., & De la Flor, M. (2015). Intercultural communication competence and preferred public relations practices. Journal of Communication Management, 19(2), 167–183. Otondo, R. F., Van Scotter, J. R., Allen, D. G., & Palvia, P. (2008). The complexity of richness: Media, message, and communication outcomes. Information & Management, 45, 21–30. O’Sullivan, P.B. (2000). What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Impression management functions of communication channels in relationships. Human Communication Research, 26, 403–431. Parker, K. Menasce Horowitz, J. Brown, A., Fry, R., Cohn, D & Igielnik, R. (2018). What unites and divides urban,

suburban and rural communities. Pew Research Centre, May 22. Retrieved from: http://www.pewsocialtrends .org/2018/05/22/what-unites-anddivides-urban-suburban-and-ruralcommunities/ Peplau, L.A., and Fingerhut, A.W. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 405–424. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2003). Global attitudes project. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Pillet-Shore, D. (2011). Doing introductions: The work involved in meeting someone new. Communication Monographs, 78, 73–95. Pinker, S. (2015). The village effect: How face-to-face contact can make us happier and healthier. New York, NY: Spiegel & Grau. Poushter, J., Bishop, C. & Chwe, H. (2018). Social media use continues to rise in developing countries but plateaus across developed ones digital divides remain, both within and across countries. Pew Research Centre. http://assets.­p ewresearch. org/wp-content/uploads/ sites/2/2018/06/15135408/Pew-Research-Center_Global-Tech-SocialMedia-Use_2018.06.19.pdf Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Touchstone. Quam, J.K., Whitford, G.S., Dziengel, L.E., and Knochel, K.A. (2010). Exploring the nature of same-sex relationships. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 53, 702–722. Redmond, M.V. (1995). Interpersonal communication: Definitions and conceptual approaches, in M.V. Redmond (ed.), Interpersonal communication: Readings in theory and research, 4–27. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Rehman, U.S., and Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2007). A cross-cultural examination of the relation of marital communication behavior to marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 759–763. Ridley, C.A., Wilhelm, M.S., and Surra, C.A. (2001). Married couples’ conflict responses and marital quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 517–534. Robles,T.F. (2010).  Stress, social support, and delayed skin barrier recovery. Psychosomatic Medicine,69(8),807–815. Rodó-de-Zárate, M., & Baylina, M. (2018). Intersectionality in feminist

geographies. Gender, Place & Culture, 25(4), 547–553. Rosenquist, J.N, Fowler, J.H., Christakis, N.A. (2011). Social network determinants of depression. Molecular Psychiatry, 16(3), 273–281. Ross, J.B., and McLaughlin, M.M. (eds). (1949). A portable medieval reader. New York: Viking. Ruben, B.D. (1989). The study of cross-cultural competence: Traditions and contemporary issues. International Journal of Intercultural Relationships, 13, 229–240. Rubin, R.B., Perse, E.M., and Barbato, C.A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research, 14, 602–628. Rymer, R. (1993). Genie: An abused child’s flight from silence. New York: HarperCollins. Sabourin, T.C., and Stamp, G.H. (1995). Communication and the experience of dialectical tensions in family life: An examination of abusive and nonabusive families. Communication Monographs, 62, 213–242. Sagioglou, C., and Greitemeyer, T. (2014). “Facebook’s emotional consequences: Why Facebook causes a decrease in mood and why people still use it. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 359–363. Samovar, L.A., Porter, R.E., McDaniel, E.R., and Roy, C.S. (2012). Communication between cultures, 7th edn. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage. Seenan, C., Shanmugam, S., & Stewart, J. (2016). Group peer teaching: A strategy for building confidence in communication and teamwork skills in physical therapy students. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 30(3): 40–49. Shattuck, R. (1980). The forbidden experiment: The story of the wild boy of Aveyron. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Sinclair, C., and Woodward, H. (1997). “The impact of reflective journal writing on student teacher professional development. Journal of the International Society for Teacher Education, 1(1), 50–58. Soroka, S., and Roberton, S. (2010). A literature review of public opinion research on Canadian attitudes towards multiculturalism and immigration, 2006–2009. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada Report.

403

404

References

Sousa, L.A. (2002). The medium is the message: The costs and benefits of writing, talking aloud, and thinking about life’s triumphs and defeats. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 3397. Spitzberg, B.H. (1991). An examination of trait measures of interpersonal competence. Communication Reports, 4, 22–29. Spitzberg, B.H. (1994). The dark side of (in)competence, in W.R. Cupach and B.H. Spitzberg (eds), The dark side of interpersonal communication, 25–50. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Spitzberg, B.H. (2000). What is good communication? Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 29, 103–119. Statistics Canada. (2008) Sociodemographic factors influencing the use of the Internet. Connectedness Series, 56F0004M. Statistics Canada. (2018). Canada at a glance 2018. Retrieved from: https:// www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/12– 581-x/2018000/pop-eng.htm Statistics Canada. (2017). Census in brief: Ethnic and cultural origins of Canadians: Portrait of a rich heritage. October 25, Retrieved from: http:// www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98–200x/2016016/98–200-x2016016-eng.cfm Stein, J.Y., Levin, Y., Uzielc, O., Abumock, H. & Solomon, Z. (2018). Traumatic stress and cellular senescence: The role of war-captivity and homecoming stressors in later life telomere length. Journal of Affective Disorders, 238(1), 129–135. Swaab, R. I., Lount, R., & Brett, J. M. (2014). Pre-meeting to promote success: Facilitating intergroup cooperation and trust through the use of meetings prior to negotiations. Manuscript in preparation. Tajfel, H., and Turner, J.C. (1992). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior, in W.B. Gudykunst and Y.Y. Kim (eds), Readings on communicating with strangers. New York: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. Teding van Berkhout, E., & Malouff, J. (2016). The efficacy of empathy training: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 63(1), 32–41.  Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York: Guilford Press. Ting-Toomey, S. & Chung, L.C. (2012). Understanding intercultural communi-

cation. New York: Oxford University Press. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tiewtrakul, T., and Fletcher, S.R. (2010). The challenge of regional accents for aviation English language proficiency standards: A study of difficulties in understanding in air traffic controlpilot communications. Ergonomics, 53(2), 229–239. Tokunaga, R.S. (2014). A unique problem or the manifestation of a preexisting disorder? The mediating role of problematic internet use in the relationships between psychosocial problems and functional impairment. Communication Research, 41(4), 531–560. Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation. The power of talk in a digital age. New York: Penguin. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together, in Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books. Tyler, J.M. (2008). In the eyes of others: Monitoring for relational value cues. Human Communication Research, 34, 521–549 United States Department of Labour Statistics. (2018). Persons with a disability: Labor force characteristics summary. Economic News Release, June 21. Retrieved from: https://www .bls.gov/news.release/disabl.nr0.htm Vilensky, D., and MacDonald, R. Prehospital Emergency Care, 15(1), 2011: 39–43. Wang, Y., Komanduri, S., Leon, P., Norcie, G., Acquisti, A., and Cranor, L. (2011). I regretted the minute I pressed share: A qualitative study of regrets on Facebook, in Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, Pittsburgh, PA, 1–16. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., and Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: W.W. Norton. Wayne, T. (2014). At the tone, leave a what? Millennials shy away from voice mail. The New York Times, June 13. Wilmot, W.W. (1995). Relational communication, 5th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. Wilson, J.L., Whyte, R., Gangadharan, S.P., & Kent, M.S. (2017). Teamwork and communication skills in

cardiothoracic surgery. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery,103(4), 1049–1054. Wood, J.T. (2009). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture, 8th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Xie, Y., Hample, D., & Wang, X. (2015). A cross-cultural analysis of argument predispositions in China: Argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, and personalization of conflict. Argumentation, 29, 265–284. Yang, C., Boen, C., Gerken, K., Li, T.,Schorpp, K., & Mullan Harris, K. (2016). Social relationships and physiological functioning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(3), 578–583. Ybarra, O., Burnstein, E., Winkielman, P., Keller, M. C., Manis, M., Chan, E., & Rodriguez, J. (2008). Mental exercising through simple socializing: Social interaction promotes general cognitive functioning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 248–259. Yingling, J. (1994). Constituting friendship in talk and meta-talk. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 411–426. Zaki, J., & Ochsner, K. N. (2012). The neuroscience of empathy: Progress, pitfalls, and promise. Nature Neuroscience, 15, 675–680.

Chapter 2: Communication and the Self Adams , H., Obodaru, O., Lu, J.G., Maddux, W.W. & Galinsky, A. (2018). The shortest path to oneself leads around the world: Living abroad increases self-concept clarity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 145, 16–29. Afifi, T. D., & Steuber, K. (2009). The Revelation Risk Model (RRM): Factors that predict the revelation of secrets and the strategies used to reveal them. Communication Monographs, 76, 144–176. Afifi, T., Coughlin, J., and Afifi, W. (2007). The dark side (and light side) of avoidance and secrets, in B. Spitzberg and W. Cupach (eds), The dark side of interpersonal communication. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ai, A.L., Aisenberg, E., Weiss, S.I., & Salazar, D. (2014). Racial/ethnic identity and subjective physical and mental health of Latino Americans: An asset within? American Journal of Community Psychology, 53(1–2), 173–184.

References

Airton, L. (2018). Gender your guide: A gender-friendly primer on what to know, what to say, and what to do in the new gender culture. Toronto: Simon and Schuster Canada. Alberts, J.K., Yoshimura, C.G., Rabby, M., and Loschiavo, R. (2005). Mapping the topography of couples’ daily conversation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(3), 299–322. Alhabash, S., & Ma, M. (2017). A tale of four platforms: Motivations and uses of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat among college students? Social Media and Society. Hirsch, Allen, A.J., Forrest, J.I., Kanters, S., O’Brien, K., Salters, K.A., McCandless, L., Montaner, J.S.G. & Hogg, R.S. (2014). Factors associated with disclosure of HIV status among a cohort of individuals on antiretroviral therapy in British Columbia, Canada. AIDS and Behavior, 18(6), 1014-26. Altman, I. & Taylor, D.A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Appel, H., Gerlach, A.L., Crusius, J. (2016). The interplay between Facebook use, social comparison, envy, and depression. Current Opinions in Psychology, 9, 44–49. Aslam, S. (2017). Snapchat by the numbers: Facts, demographics, & fun facts. Retrieved from https:// www.omnicoreagency.com/snapchat-statistics/. Accessed 4 April 2018. Baldwin, M.W., and Keelan, J.P.R. (1999). Interpersonal expectations as a function of self-esteem and sex. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 822–833. Bauer, C., & Schiffinger, M. (2015). Self-disclosure in online interaction: A meta-analysis. 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3621–3630. Baumeister, R. F., & Tierney, J. (2011). Willpower: Rediscovering the greatest human strength. New York: Penguin. Baumeister, R.F., and Alquist, J.L. (2009). Is there a downside to good selfcontrol? Self and Identity, 8, 115–130. Bayer, J. B., Ellison, N. B., Schoenebeck, S. Y., & Falk, E. B. (2016). Sharing the small moments: Ephemeral social interaction on Snapchat. Information, Communication & Society, 19(7), 956–977. Bazarova, N. N., & Choi, Y. H. (2014). Self‐disclosure in social media:

Extending the functional approach to disclosure motivations and characteristics on social network sites. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 635–657. Becker, I., Ravens-Sieberer, U., OttováJordan, V., & Schulte-Markwort, M. (2017). Prevalence of adolescent gender experiences and gender expression in Germany. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(1), 83–90. Bello, R.S., Brandau-Brown, F.E., & Ragsdale, J.D. (2016). Managing boundary turbulence through the use of information manipulation strategies: A report on two studies. Cogent Social Sciences, 2, 1–21. Bello, R. (2005). Situational formality, personality, and avoidance-avoidance conflict as causes of interpersonal equivocation. Southern Communication Journal, 70, 285–300. Bello, R., & Edwards, R. (2005). Interpretations of messages: The influence of various forms of equivocation, face concerns, and sex differences. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 160–181. Berry, J.W. & Hou, F. (2016). Immigrant acculturation and wellbeing in Canada. Canadian Psychology, 57(4), 254–264. Bigler, M., Neimeyer, G., & Brown, E. (2001). The divided self revisited: Effects of self-concept clarity and self-concept differentiation on psychological adjustment. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 20, 396–415. Blackie, R.A. and Kocovski, N.L. (2018). Forgive and let go: Effect of selfcompassion on post-event processing in social anxiety. Mindfulness, 9, 654 -663. Bogart, K. R. (2015). Disability identity predicts lower anxiety and depression in multiple sclerosis. Rehabilitation Psychology, 60, 105–109. Bok, S. (1978). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Pantheon. Bourhis, R. Y., & Sioufi, R. (2017). Assessing forty years of language planning on the vitality of the Francophone and Anglophone communities of Quebec. Multlingua, 36(5), 627–661. Brightman, V., Segal, A., Werther, P., and Steiner, J. (1975). Ethological study of facial expression in response to taste stimuli. Journal of Dental Research, 54, 141. Brown, G.L., Mangelsdorf, S.C., Neff, C., Schoppe-Sullivan, S.J. & Frosch, C.A. (2009). Young children’s self-concepts:

associations with child temperament, mothers’ and fathers’ parenting, and triadic family interaction. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 55( 2), 184–216. Brown, J.D., and Mankowski, T.A. (1993). Self-esteem, mood, and self-­ evaluation: Changes in mood and the way you see you. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 421–430. Buller, D.B., and Burgoon, J.K. (1994). Deception: Strategic and nonstrategic communication, in J.A. Daly and J.M. Wiemann (eds), Strategic interpersonal communication, 191–223. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Buunk, A.P., Gibbons, F.X. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the emergence of a field. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 3–21. Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P. D., Heine, S. J., Katz, I. M., Lavallee, L. F., & Lehmann, D. R. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement, personality correlates and cultural boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 141–156. Campbell, J.D, Assanand, S, DiPaula, A. (2003). The structure of the selfconcept and its relations to psychological adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71, 115–140. Cantarero, K., Van Tilburg, W.A.P., & Szarota, P. (2018). When is a lie acceptable? Work and private life lying acceptance depends on its beneficiary. Personality and Individual Differences, 134, 252–260. Cantazaro, A., and Wei, M. (2010). Adult attachment, dependence, self-criticism and depressive symptoms: A test of a meditational model. Journal of Personality, 78(4), 1135–1162. Chae, J. (2018). Re-examining the relationship between social media and happiness: The effects of various social media platforms on reconceptualised happiness. Telematics and Informatics, 35(6), 1656–1664. Chou, H. G., and Edge, N. (2012). “They are happier and having better lives than I am”: The impact of using Facebook on perceptions of others’ lives. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15(2), 117–121. Chovil, N. (1991). Social determinants of facial displays. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 141–154. Christofides, E., Muise, A., and Desmarais, S. (2012). Risky disclosures on Facebook: The effect of having a

405

406

References

bad experience on online behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 27(6), 714–731. Church, A. T., Alvarez, J. M., Katigbak, M. S., Mastor, K. A., Cabrera, H. F., Tanaka Matsumi, J., et al. (2012). Self-concept consistency and stability in eight cultures. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 556–570. Clark, J. L. & Green, M.C. (2018). Selffulfilling prophecies: Perceived reality of online interaction drives expected outcomes of online communication. Personality and Individual Differences, 133, 73076. Connell, C. (2012). Dangerous disclosures. Sexuality Research & Social Policy: A Journal of the NSRC , 9, 168–177. Cordova, J.V., Gee, C.B., and Warren, L.Z. (2005). Emotional skillfulness in marriage: Intimacy as a mediator of the relationship between emotional skillfulness and marital satisfaction. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 218–235. Cozby, P.C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 73–91. Crowley, J. L. (2017). A framework of relational information control: A review and extension of information control research in interpersonal contexts. Communication Theory, 27(2), 202–222. Dai, Y., Shin, S. Y., Kashian, N., Jang, J.-W., & Walther, J. B. (2016). The influence of responses to self-­d isclosure on liking in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35, 394–411. De Ridder, D. T., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Taking stock of self-control: A meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide range of behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 76–99. DePaulo, B. M., Morris, W. L., & Sternglanz, R. W. (2009). When the truth hurts: Deception in the name of kindness. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Feeling hurt in close relationships (pp. 167–190). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Deutsch, F. (2007). Undoing gender. Gender & Society, 21(1), 106–127. Dindia, K., Fitzpatrick, M.A., & Kenny, D.A. (1997). Self-disclosure in spouse and stranger dyads: A social relations analysis. Human Communication Research, 23, 388–412.

Dindia, K. (2002). Self-disclosure research: Knowledge through meta-analysis, in M. Allen and R.W. Preiss (eds), Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-analysis, 169–185. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dolmage, J. T. (2014). Disability rhetoric. New York: Syracuse University Press. Driedger-Enns, L. (2016). Teacher knowledge at the beginning of a career: intellectual work on the professional knowledge landscape. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 36(1), 203–224. Drouin, M., Miller, D., Wehle, S. M. J., & Hernandez, E. (2016). Why do people lie online? “Because everyone lies on the internet.” Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 134–142. Dummel, S. (2018). Relating mindfulness to attitudinal ambivalence through self-concept clarity. Mindfulness, 1–8. Dunbar, N. E., Gangi, K., Coveleski, S., Adams, A., Bernhold, Q., & Giles, H. (2016). When is it acceptable to lie? Interpersonal and intergroup perspectives on deception. Communication Studies, 67(2), 129–146. Dunning, D. (2005). Self-insight: Roadblocks and detours on the path to knowing thyself. New York: Psychology Press. Duprez, C., Christophe, V., Rimé, B., Congard, A., & Antoine, P. (2015). Motives for the social sharing of an emotional experience. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(6), 757–787. Dweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset. New York: Random House. Dweck, C.S. (2010). Even geniuses work hard. Educational Leadership, 68(1), 16–20. Eckert, M., Ebert, D.D., Lehr, D., Sieland, B., & Berking, M. (2016). Overcome procrastination: Enhancing emotion regulation skills reduce procrastination. Learning and Individual Differences, 52, 10–18. Ennis, E., Vriji, A., and Chance, C. (2008). Individual differences and lying in everyday life. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 105–118. Fay, A.J., Jordan, A.H. & Ehrlinger, J. (2012). How social norms promote misleading social feedback and inaccurate self assessment. Social and

Personality Psychology Compass, 6(2), 206–216. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. Flynn, F.J., Reagans, R.E., and Amanatullah, E.T. (2006). Helping one’s way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1123–1137. Forber-Pratt, A. J., & Zape, M. P. (2017). Disability identity development model: Voices from the ADA-generation. Disability and Health Journal, 10(2), 350–355. Freynet, N. & Clément, R. (2015). Bilingualism in minority settings in Canada: Integration or assimilation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 46, 55–72. Frideres, J. (2008). Aboriginal identity in the Canadian context. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 28(2), 313–342. Frisby, B. N., & Sidelinger, R. J. (2013). Violating student expectations: Student disclosures and student reactions in the college classroom. Communication Studies, 64(3), 241–258. Fu, G., Brunet, Lee, K., Cameron, C.A., and Xu, F. (2001). Chinese and Canadian adults’ categorization and evaluation of lie and truthtelling about prosocial and antisocial behaviors. Journal of Cross-Cultural Research, 32, 740–747. Goffman, E, (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48, 1–17. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Goodvin, S.H., Meyer, S., Thompson, R.A., and Hayes, R. (2008). Self-­ understanding in early childhood: Associations with child attachment security and maternal negative affect. Attachment and Human Development, 10, 433–450. Greene, K., Derlega, V.J., and Mathews, A. (2006). Self-disclosure in personal relationships, in A. Vangelisti and D. Perlman (eds), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (409–428). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hall, J.A., and Pennington, N. (2013). Self-monitoring, honesty and cue use on Facebook: The relationship with user extraversion and conscientiousness. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1556–1564.

References

Hammonds, J. R. (2015). A model of privacy control: Examining the criteria that predict emerging adults’ likelihood to reveal private information to their parents. Western Journal of Communication, 79(5), 591–613. Hancock, J., & Woodworth, M. (2013). An “Eye” for an “I”: The challenges and opportunities for spotting credibility in a digital world. In B. S. Cooper, D. Griesel, & M. Ternes (Eds.), Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment (pp. 325–340). New York, NY: Springer. Hancock, J., Birnholtz, J., Bazarova, N., Guillory, J., Perlin, J., and Amos, B. (2009). Butler lies: Awareness, deception and design. Proc. ACM CHI, 517–526. Hanley, A., & Garland, E. (2017). Clarity of mind: Structural equation modeling of associations between dispositional mindfulness, self-concept clarity and psychological well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 106(1), 334–339. Hanley, A., Garland, E., Canto, A., Warner, A., Hanley, R., Dehili, V., & Proctor, A. (2015). Dispositional mindfulness and bias in self-theories. Mindfulness, 6(2), 202–207. Hardy, T. K., Govorun, O., Schneller, K. A., Fazio, R. H., & Arkin, R. M. (2015). (In)competence is everywhere: Self-doubt and the accessibility of competence. Self and Identity, 14(4), 464–481. Harter, S. (2012). The construction of the self: Developmental and sociocultural foundations. New York: Guilford. Keyserling, H. A. (1919). The travel diary of a philosopher. Translated by J. Holroydreece. (1925) New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company. Hoffman, W., Luhmann, M., Fisher, R., Vohs, K.D. & Baumeister, R. F. (2014). Yes, but are they happy? Effects of trait self-control on affective well-being and life satisfaction. Journal of Personality, 82(4), 265–277. Hofstede, G. (1980, 2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behavior, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). Howe, L. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Changes in self-definition impede recovery

from rejection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(1), 54–71. Itzchakov, G., Uziel, L., & Wood, W. (2018). When attitudes and habits don’t correspond: Self-control depletion increases persuasion but not behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 75, 1–10. Janas, M. (2001). Getting a clear view. Journal of Staff Development, 22(2), 32–34. Jedwab, J. (2016). The fading case against Canadian multiculturalism. Huffpost, June 1. https://www.huffingtonpost .ca/jack-jedwab/canadian-multiculturalism-critics_b_8919774.html Jedwab, J. (2011). Is Canada bilingual? Perceptions and reality about knowledge of the two official languages. In Jack Jedwab & Rodrigue Landry (eds.), Life after forty: Official language policy in Canada, 155–178. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Jedwab, J. (Ed). (2013). The multiculturalism question: Debating identity in 21st-century Canada. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press. Jiang, L., Bazarova, N., & Hancock, J. (2013). From perception to behavior: Disclosure reciprocity and the intensification of intimacy in c­ omputer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 40(1), 125–143. Johnson, B. K., & Ranzini, G. (2018). Click here to look clever: Self-presentation via selective sharing of music and film on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 82, 148–158. Johnson, H.M. (1998). How do I love me? 3rd edn. Salem, WI: Sheffield. Kail, R. & Barnfield, A. (2014). Children and their development. Toronto: Pearson. Kashian, N., Jang, J.W., Shin, S.Y., Dai, Y. & Walther, J.B. (2017). Self-disclosure and liking in computer-mediated communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 275–283. Katz-Wise, S. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2014). Sexuality and gender: The interplay. In D. L. Tolman, L. M. Diamond, J. A. Bauermeister, W. H. George, J. G. Pfaus, & L. Ward (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology: Vol. 1. Person-based approaches (pp. 29–62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kelly, A.C. & Stevenson, E. (2016). A daily diary study of self-compassion, body image, and eating behavior in female college students. Body Image, 17, 152–160.

Kelly, M.P., Millward, L.M. (2004). Identity and illness. In: D. Kelleher & G. Leavey (Eds.) Identity and Health. pp. 1–18. New York, NY: Routledge Kille, D. R., Eibach, R.P., Wood, J.V. & Holmes, J.G. (2017). Who can’t take a compliment? The role of construal level and self-esteem in accepting positive feedback from close others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 40–49. Kito, M. (2005). Self-disclosure in romantic relationships and friendships among American and Japanese college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 127–140. Kopp, J. (1988). Self-monitoring: A literature review of research and practice. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 24(4), 8–20. Lane, B. (2018). Still too much of a good thing? The Replication of Tong, Van Der Heide, Langwell, and Walther (2008). Communication Studies, 69(3), 294–303. Lee, S. Y. (2014). How do people compare themselves with others on social network sites? The case of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 253–260. Lee, K., Cameron, C.A., Xu, F., Fu, G. & Board, J. (1997). Chinese and Canadian children’s evaluations of lying and truth telling. Child Development, 64, 924–934 Lemay, E. P., & Dudley, K. L. (2009). Implications of reflected appraisals of interpersonal insecurity for suspicion and power. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1672–1686. Leone, C., and Hall, I. (2003). Selfmonitoring, marital dissatisfaction, and relationship dissolution: Individual differences in orientations to marriage and divorce. Self and Identity, 2, 189–202. Leone, C., and Hawkins, L.B. (2006). Self-monitoring and close relationships. Journal of Personality, 74, 739–788. Levine, E. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2015). Prosocial lies: When deception breeds trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 88–106. Levordashka, A. & Utz, S. (2017). Spontaneous trait inferences on social media. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(1) 93–101. Lewandowski, G. W., Jr., Nardone, N., & Raines, A. J. (2010). The role of

407

408

References

self-concept clarity in relationship quality. Self and Identity, 9, 416–433. Li, J, Liu, L., Chalmers, E.& Snedeker, J. (2018). What is in a name? The development of cross-cultural differences in referential intuitions. Cognition, 171, 108–111 Light, A. E., & Visser, P. S. (2013). The ins and outs of the self: Contrasting role exits and role entries as predictors of self-concept clarity. Self and Identity, 12, 291–306. Lin, R. & Utz, S. (2017). Self-disclosure on SNS: Do disclosure intimacy and narrativity influence interpersonal closeness and social attraction? Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 426–436 Luft, J. (1969). Of human interaction. Palo Alto, CA: National Press Books. Lupoli, M.J., Levine, E.E. & Greenberg, A.E. Paternalistic lies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 146, 31–50. Malhotra, R., & Rowe, M. (2014). Exploring disability identity and disability rights through narratives. London: Routledge. Manning, J. (2015). Positive and negative communicative behaviors in ­coming-out conversations. Journal of Homosexuality, 62, 67–97. Martin, R. D., & Kennett, D. J. (2018). To be kind or not to be kind: The moderating role of self-compassion in the relationship between general resourcefulness and academic self-regulation. The Journal of social psychology, 158(5), 626–638. McCarthy, N. (2018). The world’s most spoken languages. Statista, February 12 https://www.statista.com/ chart/12868/the-worlds-most-spokenlanguages/ McGregor, J. (2017, January 22). When telling the truth is really dishonest. Los Angeles Times. Merkin, R., Taras, V., and Steel, P. (2014). State of the art themes in cross-­ cultural communication research: A systematic and meta analytic review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 1–23. Miller, L.C., Cooke, L.L., Tsang, J., and Morgan, F. (1992). Should I brag? Nature and impact of positive and boastful disclosures for women and men. Human Communication Research, 18, 364–399. Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., et al. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health,

wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 2693–2698. Morry, M.M., Sucharyna, T.A. & Petty, S.K. (2018). Relationship social comparisons: Your facebook page affects my relationship and personal wellbeing. Computers in Human Behavior, 83, 140–167. Motley, M.T. (1992). Mindfulness in solving communicators’ dilemmas. Communication Monographs, 59, 306–314. Myers, D. (1980). The inflated self. Psychology Today, 14, 16, May. Neff, K. D., & Germer, C. K. (2013). A pilot study and randomized controlled trial of the mindful self-compassion program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(1), 28–44. Neff, K. D. (2003a). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2, 85–101. Neff, K. D. (2003b). Development and validation of a scale to measure self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223–250. Neff, K. D., & Beretvas, S. N. (2012). The role of self-compassion in romantic relationships. Self and Identity. Neff, K. D., & Pommier, E. (2013). The relationship between self-compassion and other-focused concern among college undergraduates, community adults, and practicing meditators. Self and Identity, 12, 160–176. Neff, K. D., & Rude, S. S., & Kirkpatrick, K. (2007). An examination of self-compassion in relation to positive psychological functioning and personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 908– 916. Neff, K. D., Hseih, Y., & Dejitthirat, K. (2005). Self-compassion, achievement goals, and coping with academic failure. Self and Identity, 4, 263–287. Neil, S. P. (2017). More than half of Americans have social media regrets. Huff Post, updated December 6, https:// www.huffingtonpost.com/shane-paulneil/more-than-half-of-america_ b_7872514.html Ng, A., & Abbott, M. (2016). The effect of negative, positive, and neutral selfimagery on symptoms and processes in social anxiety disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 40(4), 479–495. North, R.J., and Swann, W.B., Jr. (2009). Self-verification 360: Illuminating the

light and dark sides. Self and Identity, 8(2), 131–146. O’Byrne (2012). Criminal law and public health practice: Are the Canadian HIV disclosure laws an effective HIV prevention strategy. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 9, 70–79. Oaten, M., and Cheng, K. (2006). Improved self-control: The benefits of a regular program of academic study. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28(1), 1–16. Officer, S.A., and Rosenfeld, L.B. (1985). Self-disclosure to male and female coaches by high school female athletes. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 360–370. Orehek, E., & Human, L. J. (2017). Selfexpression on social media: Do tweets present accurate and positive portraits of impulsivity, self-esteem, and attachment style? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 60–70. Osborn, D. d., Miller, A., McCain, S., & Belle, J. G. (2016). Using social media for personal online reputation management. Career Planning & Adult Development Journal, 32(2), 136–145. Oyamot, C.M., Jr., Fuglestad, P.T., and Snyder, M. (2010). Balance of power and influence in relationships: The role of self-monitoring. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(1), 23–46. Pan, W., Feng, B., & Skye Wingate, V. (2018). What you say is what you get: How self-disclosure in support seeking affects language use in support provision in online support forums. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37(1), 3–27. Pelled, A., Zilberstein, T., Pick, E., Patkin, Y., Tsironlikov, A., & Tal-Or, N. (2017). Which post will impress the most? Impression formation based on visual and textual cues in Facebook profiles. In Proceedings of the 7th 2016 International Conference on Social Media & Society (Article No. 25). New York, NY. Pena, E.V., Stapleton, L.D., & Schaffer, L.M. (2016). Critical perspectives on disability identity. New Directions for Student Services, 154, 85–96. Pennebaker, J.W. (1997). Opening up: The healing power of expressing emotions. New York: Guilford Press. Petronio, S. (2013). Brief status report on communication privacy management theory. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 6–14.

References

Piwek, L., & Joinson, A. (2016). “What do they snapchat about?” Patterns of use in time-limited instant messaging service. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 358–367. Porter, E., & Chambless, D. L. (2014). Shying away from a good thing: Social anxiety in romantic relationships. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70(6), 546–561. Powell, J. (1969). Why am I afraid to tell you who I am? Niles, IL: Argus Communications. Prodanovic, K. (2013). The silent genocide: Aboriginal language loss FAQ. www.terry.ubc.ca/2013/10/16/ the-silent-genocide-aboriginal-language-loss-faq/ Pulrang, P. (2017). My journey with disability language and identity. Rooted in Rights, April 10. https://www .rootedinrights.org/my-journey-withdisability-language-and-identity/ Punyanunt-Carter, N. M., De La Cruz, J. J., & Wrench, J. S. (2017). Investigating the relationships among college students’ satisfaction, addiction, needs, communication apprehension, motives, and uses & gratifications with Snapchat. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 870–875. Qiu, L., Lin, H., Leung, A.K., and Tov, W. (2012). Putting their best foot forward: Emotional disclosure on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 569–572. Quek, K., and Fitzpatrick, J. (2013). Cultural values, self-disclosure, and conflict tactics as predictors of marital satisfaction among Singaporean husbands and wives. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 12 (2), 208–216. Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construct and factorial validation of a short form of the self-compassion scale. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 18, 250–255. Reynolds, L., Smith, M.E., Birnholtz, J., and Hancock, J. (2013). Bulter lies from both sides: Actions and perceptions of unavailability management in texting. Computer-Mediated Communication, February, 23–27. Rick Hansen Foundation. http://www .rickhansen.com/Our-Work Rivest, M.P., Moreau, N. & Negura, L. (2017). From affirmed privilege to experiences of discrimination: Majority Anglophones’ perceptions of

linguistic majority-minority dynamics in Canada. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 49, (1), 67 – 84. Rogers, M. & Ahmed, A. (2017). Interrogating trans and sexual identities through the conceptual lens of translocational positionality. Sociological Research Online, 22(1), 4. Rogers, T., Zeckhauser, R., Gino, F., ­Norton, M. I., Schweitzer, M. E. (2017). Artful paltering: The risks and rewards of using truthful statements to mislead others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 456–473 Rosborough, T., Rorick, C. L. & ­Urbanczyk, S. (2017). Beautiful words: Enriching and indigenizing Kwak’wala revitalization through understandings of linguistic structure. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 73(4), 425–437. Rosenfeld, L.B. (2000). Overview of the ways privacy, secrecy, and disclosure are balanced in today’s society, in S. Petronio (ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures, 3–17. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rosenthal, R., and Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Ruppel, E. K., Gross, C., Stoll, A., Peck, B. S., Allen, M., & Kim, S. (2017). Reflecting on connecting: Meta‐analysis of differences between computer‐ mediated and face‐to‐face self‐ disclosure. Journal of Computer‐­ Mediated Communication, 22(1), 18–34. Schafer, M.H., & Ferraro, K.F. (2011). The stigma of obesity does perceived weight discrimination affect identity and physical health? Social Psychology Quarterly, 74(1), 76–97. Schilt, Kristen; Westbrook, Laurel (August 2009). Doing gender, doing heteronormativity: “Gender normals,” transgender people, and the social maintenance of heterosexuality. ­Gender & Society, 23(4): 440–464.  Schmidt, J.J. (2006). Social and cultural foundations of counseling and human services: Multiple influences on self concept development. Boston: Pearson/ Allyn and Bacon. Scott, G. & Ravenscroft, K. (2017). Bragging on Facebook: The interaction of content source and focus in online impression formation. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(1), 58–63. Scott, G. G. (2010). Playing the lying game: Detecting and dealing with lies

and liars, from occasional fibbers to frequent fabricators. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Sedikides, C., and Skowronski, J.J. (1995). On the sources of self-knowledge: The perceived primacy of self-reflection. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 14, 244–270. Sellers, R.M,, Caldwell, C.H., SchmeelkCone, K.H., & Zimmerman, M.A. (2003). Racial identity, racial discrimination, perceived stress, and psychological distress among African American young adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 302–317. Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., and Peake, P.K. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions. ­Developmental Psychology, 26, 978–986. Simine, V., and Carlson, E.N. (2010). Self-knowledge of personality: Do people know themselves? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(8), 605–620. Sirois, F. & Giguire, B. (2018). Giving in when feeling less good: Procrastination, action control, and social temptations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 404–427. Sirois, F. M., & Pychyl, T. A. (2013). Procrastination and the priority of shortterm mood regulation: Consequences for future self. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 115–127. Pychyl, T. A., & Sirois, F. M. (2016). Procrastination, emotion regulation, and well-being. In F. M. Sirois & T. Pychyl (Eds.), Procrastination, health, and well-being (pp. 163–188). London, UK: Academic Press. Sirois, F. M. (2014c). Procrastination and stress: Exploring the role of self-­ compassion. Self and Identity, 13(2), 128–145. Slotter, E. B., Gardner, W. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2010). Who am I without you? The influence of romantic breakup on the self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 147–160. Smeets, E., Neff, K., Alberts, H., & Peters, M. (2014). Meeting suffering with kindness: Effects of a brief selfcompassion intervention for female college students. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70(9), 794–807. Smith, M. E., Hancock, J. , Reynolds, L., & Birnholtz, J. (2014). Everyday deception or a few prolific liars? The

409

410

References

prevalence of lies in text messaging. Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 220–227. Snyder, M. (1979). Self-monitoring processes, in L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (12), 86–128. New York: Academic Press. Sprecher, S., & Treger, S. (2015). The benefits of turn-taking reciprocal self-­d isclosure in get-acquainted interactions. Personal Relationships, 22, 460–475. Sprecher, S., Treger, S., Wondra, J. D., Hilaire, N., & Wallpe, K. (2013). Taking turns: Reciprocal self-disclosure promotes liking in initial interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 860–866. Statistics Canada (2016). Census in brief: The Aboriginal Languages of First Nations, Metis and Inuit. October 25. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/98–200x/2016022/98–200-x2016022-eng.cfm Stets, J.E., and Cast, A.D. (2007). Re­ sources and identity verification from an identity theory perspective. Sociological Perspectives, 50(4), 517–543. Stiles, W.B., Walz, N.C., Schroeder, M.A.B., Williams, L.L., and Ickes, W. (1996). Attractiveness and disclosure in initial encounters of mixed-sex dyads. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 303–312. Tamir, D.I., and Mitchell, J.P. (2012). Disclosing information about the self is intrinsically rewarding. PNAS , 109(21), 8038–8043. Tangney, J.P., Baumeister, R.F., and Boone, A.L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–324. Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. (2016). Does country equate with culture? Beyond geography in the search for cultural entities. Management International Review, 56(4): 455–472. Taylor, D.A., and Altman, I. (1987). Communication in interpersonal relationships: Social penetration processes, in M.E. Roloff and G.R. Miller (eds), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research, 257–277. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2001). The primacy of the interpersonal self. In C. Sedikides & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational self, collective

self (pp. 71–88). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Tobin, D. D., Menon, M., Menon, M., Spatta, B. C., Hodges, E. E., & Perry, D. G. (2010). The intrapsychics of gender: A model of self-socialization. Psychological Review, 117, 601–622. Toma, C. L., & Carlson, C. L. (2015). How do Facebook users believe they come across in their profiles? A metaperception approach to investigating Facebook self-presentation. Communication Research Reports, 32, 93–101. Toma, C., Jiang, C., & Hancock, J. T. (2016). Lies in the eye of the beholder: Self-other asymmetry in beliefs about deception across interpersonal media. Communication Research. Tong, S. T., & Walther, J. B. (2011). Relational maintenance and CMC . Computer-Mediated Communication in Personal Relationships, 98–118. Tracy, S. J., & Trethewey, A. (2005). Fracturing the real-self-fake-self dichotomy: Moving toward crystallized organizational identities. Communication Theory, 15, 168–195. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada [TRC]. (2015). TRC Findings. Retrieved from http://www.trc .ca/websites/trcinstitution/index .php?p=890 Tyler, J., Feldman, F., & Reichert, A. (2006). The price of deceptive behavior: Disliking and lying to people who lie to us. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 42(1), 69–77. Utz, S., Muscanell, N., & Khalid, C. (2015). Snapchat elicits more jealousy than Facebook: A comparison of Snapchat and Facebook use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 141–146. Uysal, A., Lin, H. L., Knee, C. R., & Bush, A. L. (2012). The association between self-concealment from one’s partner and relationship wellbeing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 39–51. Uziel, L. & Baumeister, R.F. (2017). The self-control irony: Desire for selfcontrol limits exertion of self-control in demanding settings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(5) 693–705. Van Breen, J.A., Spears, R., Kuppens, T. & de Lemus, S. (2017). A multiple identity approach to gender: Identification with women, identification with feminists, and their interaction. Frontiers

in Psychology, 8, file:///C:/Users/4258/ Downloads/fpsyg-08–01019%20(1).pdf Vaterlaus, J. M., Barnett, K., Roche, C., & Young, J. A. (2016). “Snapchat is more personal”: An exploratory study on Snapchat behaviors and young adult interpersonal relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 594–601. Vazire, S., and Carlson, E.N. (2010). Self-knowledge of personality: Do people know themselves? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(8), 605–620. Verduyn, P., Lee, D. S., Park, J., Shablack, H., Orvell, A., Bayer, J., . . . Kross, E. (2015). Passive Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: Experimental and longitudinal evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(2), 480–488. Vermeulen, A., Vandebosch, H., & Heirman, W. (2018). #Smiling, #venting, or both? Adolescents’ social sharing of emotions on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 84, 211–219. Vignoles, V.L., Regalia, C., Manzi, C., Golledge, J., Scabini, E. (2006). Beyond self-esteem: Influence of multiple motives on identity construction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 308–33. Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Okdie, B. M., Eckles, K., & Franz, B. (2015). Who compares and despairs? The effect of social comparison orientation on social media use and its outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 249–256. Vogel, E. A., Rose, J. P., Roberts, L. R., & Eckles, K. (2014). Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3(4), 206–222. Vrij, A., Paterson, B., Nunkoosing, K., Soukara, S., and Oosterwegel, A. (2003). Perceived advantages and disadvantages of secrets disclosure. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 593–602. Walther, J. B. (2011). Theories of computer-mediated communication and interpersonal relations. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 443–479). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wasylkiw, L., MacKinnon, A. L., & MacLellan, A. M. (2012). Exploring the link between self-compassion and body image in university women. Body Image, 9(2), 236–245.

References

Watzlawick, P. (2005). Self-fulfilling prophecies. In J. O’Brien & P. Kollock (Eds.). The production of reality, pp. 382–394. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. (2015). Two traditions of research on gender identity. Sex Roles, 73(11–12), 461–473. Xu, F., Luo, Y.C., Fu, G., and Lee, K. (2009). Children’s and adult’s conceptualization and evaluation of lying and truth-telling. Infant and Child Development, 18(4), 307–322. Yang, C., Holden, S. M., Carter, M. D. K., & Webb, J. J. (2018). Social media social comparison and identity distress at the college transition: A dual-path model. Journal of Adolescence, 69, 92–102. Yarnell, L. M., Neff, K. D. (2013). Self-compassion, interpersonal conf lict resolutions, and well-­ being. Self and Identity, 2(2), 146–159. Zepeda, O., and Hill, J.H. (1991). The ­conditions of Native American languages in the United States, in R.H. Robbins and E.M. Uhlenbeck Robins (eds), Endangered Languages. Oxford, UK: Berg.

Chapter 3: Perceiving Others Abraham, E., Hendler, T., Shapira-Lichter, I., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Zagoory-Sharon, O., & Feldman, R. (2014). Father’s brain is sensitive to childcare experiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(27), 9792–9797. Adams, M. (2003). Fire and ice: The United States, Canada and the myth of converging values. Toronto: ­Penguin. Alberts, J.K., Kellar-Guenther, U., and Corman, S.R. (1996). That’s not funny: Understanding recipients’ responses to teasing. Western Journal of Communication, 60, 337–357. Allemand , M., Steiger, A.E., & Fend, H. A.. (2015). Empathy development in adolescence predicts social competencies in adulthood. Journal of Personality, 83(2), 229–241. Allen, B. (1995). Diversity and organizational communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, 143–155.

Allen, E., & Bradley, M. S. (2018). Perceptions of harm, criminality, and law enforcement response: Comparing violence by men against women and violence by women against men. Victims & Offenders, 13(3), 373–389. Almondes, K., Júnior, F., & Alves, N. (2016). Sleep deprivation and implications for recognition and perception of facial emotions. Sleep and Biological Rhythms, 14(1), 13–22. Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J., & Richeson, J. A. (2000). Toward a histology of social behavior: Judgmental accuracy from thin slices of the behavioral stream. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 201–271). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Au, K., Hui, M.K., and Leung, K. (2001). Who should be responsible? Effects of voice and compensation on responsibility attribution, perceived justice, and post-complaint behaviors across cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 350–364. Azucar, D., Marengo, D., & Settanni, M. (2018). Predicting the big 5 personality traits from digital footprints on social media: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 150–159. Barelds, D. P. H., Dijstra, P., Koudenbrug, N., & Swami, V. (2011). An assessment of positive illusions of the physical attractiveness of romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 706–719. Bartlett, C., Marshall, M., & Marshall, A. (2012). Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together Indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2, 331–340. Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., and Vohs, K.D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370. Baxter, L.A., and Pittman, G. (2001). Communicatively remembering turning points of relational development in heterosexual romantic relationships. Communication Reports, 14, 1–17. Beattie, L., Kyle, S. D., Espie, C. A., & ­Biello, S. M. (2015). Social ­interactions, emotion and sleep: A systematic review and research agenda. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 24, 83–100.

Bègue, L., Bushman, B. J., Zerhouni, O., Subra, B., & Ourabah, M. (2013). ‘Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder’: People who think they are drunk also think they are attractive. British Journal of Psychology, 104, 225–234. Berger, C.R. (1988). Uncertainty and information exchange in developing relationships, in S. Duck and D.F. Hay (eds), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions, 239–255. Chichester, UK, and New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bosacki, S. L. (2013). A longitudinal study of children’s theory of mind, selfconcept, and perceptions of humor in self and other. Social Behavior and Personality, 41, 663–673. Bromberg, J. B. (2012). Uses of conversational narrative: Exchanging personal experience in everyday life. Narrative Inquiry, 22, 165–172 Brown, G. A. (2004). Gender as a factor in the response of the law-enforcement system to violence against partners. Sexuality and Culture, 8(3–4), 3–139. Buckman, R., Tulsky, J.A., and Rodin, G. (2011). Empathic responses in clinical practice: Intuition or tuition? Canadian Medical Association Journal Online, 24 January. www.ecmaj.ca/cgi/ content/citation/cmaj.090113v1 Buttny, R. (1997). Reported speech in talking race on campus. Human Communication Research, 23, 477–506. Carrier, L. M., Rosen, L. D., Cheever, N. A., & Lim, A. F. (2015). Causes, effects, and practicalities of everyday multitasking. Developmental Review, 35, 64–78. Cass, A. I., & Mallicoat, S. L. (2015). College student perceptions of victim action: Will targets of stalking report to police? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 250–269. Castelan-Cargile, A., and Bradac, J.J. (2001). Attitudes towards language: A review of speaker-evaluation research and a general process model, in W.B. Gudykunst (ed.), Communication Yearbook 25, 347–382. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chaparro, M. P. & Grusec, J. E. (2016). Neuroticism moderates the relation between parenting and empathy and between empathy and prosocial behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 62(2), 105–128.

411

412

References

Child, J.T., & Westermann, D.A. (2013). Let’s be Facebook friends: Exploring parental Facebook friend requests from a Communication Privacy Management (CPM) perspective. Journal of Family Communication, 13(1), 46–59. Christensen, A., Eldridge, K., CattaPreta, A. B., Lim, V. R., & Santagata, R. (2006). Cross-cultural consistency of the demand/withdraw interaction pattern in couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1029–1044. Cole, S., Trope, Y., & Balcetis, E. (2016). In the eye of the betrothed: Perceptual downgrading of attractive alternative romantic partners. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 879–892. Cormier, N.S., and Woodworth, M.T. (2008). So you see what I see? The influence of gender stereotypes on student and Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) perceptions of violent same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 17(4), 478–505. Crittenden, C. A., Policastro, C., & Eigenberg, H. M. (2017). Attitudes toward dating violence: How does sexual identity influence perceptions among college students? Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 26(7), 804–824. Croy, I., Bojanowski, V., & Hummel, T. (2013). Men without a sense of smell exhibit a strongly reduced number of sexual relationships, women exhibit reduced partnership security—A reanalysis of previously published data. 292–294. Cuddy, A.J., Fiske, S.T. . . ., and Ziegler, R. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 1–33. Cuff, B. M. P., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. J. (2016). Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion Review, 8, 144–153. Danzinger, S., Levav, J., Avnaim-Presso, L., and Kahneman, D. (2013). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(17), 6889–6892. David, P., Kim, J.H., Brickman, J. & Ran, W. (2015). Mobile phone distraction while studying. New Media and Society, 17(10), 1661–1679. de Brito Ferreira Fernandes, F., Gigante, A. D., Berutti, M., Amaral, J. A., de Almeida, K. M., de Almeida Rocca,

C. C., . . . Nery, F. G. (2016). Facial emotion recognition in euthymic patients with bipolar disorder and their unaffected first-degree relatives. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 68,18–23. Devos, T. (2014). Stereotypes and intergroup attitudes. In F.L. Leong, L. Comas-Diaz, G.C.N. Hall, V.C. McLoyd, & J. Trimble (Eds.), APA handbook of multicultural psychology: Theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 341–360). Washington, DC: ­A merican Psychological Association. Diamond, L. M., & Hicks, A. M. (2012). “It’s the economy, honey!”: Couples’ blame attributions during the 2007–2009 economic crisis. Personal Relationships, 19, 586–600. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290. DiPaola, B. M., Roloff, M. E., & Peters, K. M. (2010). College students’ expectations of conflict intensity: A selffulfilling prophecy. Communication Quarterly, 58, 59–76. Doherty, E. F., & MacGeorge, E. L. (2013). Perceptions of supportive behavior by young adults with bipolar disorder. Qualitative Health Research, 23, 361–374. Dougherty, D.S. (2001). Sexual harassment as [dys]functional process: A feminist standpoint analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 372–402. Dragojevic, M., & Giles, H. (2016). I don’t like you because you’re hard to understand: The role of processing fluency in the language attitudes process. Human Communication Research, 42(3), 396–420. Duke, E. & Montag, C. (2018). Smartphone addiction, daily interruptions and self-reported productivity. Addictive Behaviors Reports, 6, 90–95. Dunlap, E. E., Hodell, E. C., Golding, J. M., & Wasarhaley, N. E. (2012). Mock jurors’ perception of stalking: The impact of gender and expressed fear. Sex Roles, 66, 405–417. Dwyer, R.J., Kushlev, K. & Dunn, E. W. (2018). Smartphone use undermines enjoyment of face-to-face social interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 233–239 Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Qing, Q., & Wahl, S. T. (2007). The influence of computer-mediated word-of-mouth communication on student perceptions of instructors and attitudes

toward learning course content. Communication Education, 56, 255–277. Eldridge, K., Cencirulo, J., & Edwards, E. (2017). Demand-withdraw patterns of communication in couple relationships. In J. Fitzgerald (Ed.), Foundations for couples therapy: Research for the real world (pp. 112–122). New York, NY: Routledge. Ely, R. J., Ibarra, H., & Kolb, D. M. (2011). Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women’s leadership development programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10, 474–493. Erickson, L.B., Wisniewski, P., Xu, H., Carroll, J.M., Rosson, M.B. & Perkins, D.F. (2016). The boundaries between: Parental involvement in a teen’s online world. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(6), 1384–1403 Fast, L.A., Reimer, H.M., and Funder, D.C. (2008). The social behavior and reputation of the attributionally complex. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(1), 208–222. Ferdenzi, C., Joussain, P., Digard, B., Luneau, L., Djordjevic, J., & Bensafi, M. (2017). Individual differences in verbal and non-verbal affective responses to smells: Influence of odor label across cultures. Chemical Senses, 42(1), 37–46. Finnegan, H. A., Timmons Fritz, P. A., & Horrobin, B. (2018). Differential effects of gender on Canadian police officers’ perceptions of stalking. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(4), 468–482. Fletcher, G.J.O., Fincham, F.D., Cramer, L.,and Heron, N. (1987). The role of attributions in the development of dating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 481–489. Flora, J., and Segrin, C. (2000). Relationship development in dating couples: Implications for relational satisfaction and loneliness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 811–825. Freeman, J.B., and Ambady, N. (2011). A dynamic interactive theory of person construal. Psychological Review, 118(2), 247–279. Galinsky, A. D., Rucker, D. D., and Magee, J. C. (2016). Power and perspective-taking: A critical examination.

References

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 91–92. Geist, R. A. (2013). How the em­pathic process heals: A microprocess perspective. International Journal of Psychoanalytic Self Psychology, 8, 265–281. Gentile, B., Grabe, S., Dolan-Pascoe, B., Twenge, J., Wells, B.E., and Maitino, A. (2009). Gender difference in domain specific self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 34–45. Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., Yukawa, S., Ihori, N., Saleem, M., Ming, L. K., . . .  Sakamoto, A. (2009). The effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behaviors: International evidence from correlational, longitudinal, and experimental studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 752–763. George Carlin (epigraph), p. 3 of Chapter 3 Gladwell, M. (2004). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Glass, A. L. & Kang, M. (2019). Dividing attention in the classroom reduces exam performance. Educational Psychology, 39(3), 395–408. Goleman, D. (2013, October 6). Rich people just care less. New York Times, p. SR12. Grant, T. (2018). Statistics Canada begins testing non-binary gender options in surveys. The Globe and Mail, May 14. https://www.theglobeandmail. com/canada/article-statistics-canada-­ begins-testing-non-binary-genderoptions-in-surveys/ Greimel, E., Schulte-Ruther, M., Kircher, T., Kamp-Becker, I., Remschmidt, H., and Konrad, K. (2010). Neural mechanisms of empathy in adolescents with autism spectrum disorder and their fathers. NeuroImage, 49, 1055–1065. Gudykunst, W. B., and Kim, Y.Y. (2003). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New York: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. Hall, J. A., & Andrzejewski, S. A. (2017). Who draws accurate first impressions? Personal correlates of sensitivity to nonverbal cues. In S. M. Yoshimura (Ed.), Nonverbal communication research (pp. 52–68). San Diego, CA: Cognella. Haney, C., and Zimbardo, P. (2009). Persistent dispositionalism in

i­ nteractionist clothing: Fundamental attribution error in explaining prison abuse. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(6), 807–814. Hansen, F. C. B., Resnick, H., & Galea, J. (2002). Better listening: Paraphrasing and perception checking— A study of the effectiveness of a multimedia skills training program. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 20, 317–331. Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, 32, 113–135. Hinde, R.A., Finkenauer, C., and Auhagen, A.E. (2001). Relationships and the self-concept. Personal Relationships, 8, 187–204. Hirschmüller, S. , Schmukle, S. C., Krause, S. , Back, M. D. and Egloff, B. (2018). Accuracy of self‐esteem judgments at zero acquaintance. Journal of Personality, 86(2), 308–319. Hoekzema, E., Barba-Müller E, Pozzobon C, Picado M, Lucco, F., Garcia-Garcia, D., Soliva JC, Tobena A, Desco M, Crone EA, Ballesteros A, Carmona S, Vilarroya, O. (2017). Pregnancy leads to long-lasting changes in human brain structure. Nature Neuroscience, 20(2),287–296. Hofstede, G. (1980, 2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behavior, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). Hofstede, G. (2016). Masculinity at the national cultural level. In Y. J. Wong & S.R. Wester (Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 173–186). Hogenboom, M. (2013, November 27). Can virtual reality be used to tackle racism? BBC News. Holley, S. R., Haase, C. M., Chui, I., & Bloch, L. (2018). Depression, emotion regulation, and the demand/ withdraw pattern during intimate relationship conflict. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(3), 408–430. Howe, D. (2013). Empathy: What it is and why it matters. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Human, L.J., and Biesanz, J.C. (2011). Through the looking glass clearly: Accuracy and

assumed similarity in well-adjusted indivduals’ first impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 349–364. Huynh, A. C., Yang, D. Y., & Grossmann, I. (2016). The value of ­prospective reasoning for close relationships. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(8), 893–902. Iacoboni, M., Dapretto, M., (2006). The mirror neuron system and the consequences of its dysfunction. National Review, Neuroscience. 7, 942–951. Jankowski, K. S. (2013). Morning types are less sensitive to pain than evening types all day long. European Journal of Pain, 17, 1068–1073. Janoff-Bulman, R., and Leggatt, H.K. (2002). Culture and social obligation: When “shoulds” are perceived as “wants.” Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 260–270. Johnson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., Zewdie, S., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The strong, sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 39–60. Jones, B.T., Jones, B.C., Thomas, A.P. & Piper, J. (2003). Alcohol consumption increases attractiveness ratings of opposite-sex faces: A possible third route to risky sex. Addiction, 98(8), 1069–1075. Kashima, Y., Lyons, A., and Clark, A. (2013). The maintenance of cultural stereotypes in the conversational retelling of narratives. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 16, 60–70. Kaspar, K., Hloucal, T.-M., Kriz, J., Canzler, S., Gameiro, R. R., Krapp, V., & König, P. (2013). Emotions’ impact on viewing behavior under natural conditions. PLoS ONE, 8(1), 52737. Katz-Wise, S. L., & Hyde, J. S. (2014). Sexuality and gender: The inter­play. In D. L. Tolman, L. M. Diamond, J. A. Bauermeister, W. H. George, J. G. Pfaus, & L. Ward (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology: Vol. 1. Person-based approaches (pp. 29–62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kellermann, K. (1989). The negativity effect in interaction: It’s all in your point of view. Human Communication Research, 16, 147–183.

413

414

References

Kerem, E., Fishman, N., and Josselson, R. (2001). The experience of empathy in everyday relationships: Cognitive and affective elements. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 709–729. Khalil, R., Tindle, R., Boraud, T., Moustafa, A., and Karim, A. A. (2018). Social decision making in autism: On the impact of mirror neurons, motor control and imitative behaviors. CNS Neuroscience & Therapeutics, 24, 669–676. Killgore, W.D.S. (2010). Effects of sleep deprivation on cognition, in G.A. Kerkhof and H.P.A. Van Dongen (eds). Progress in Brain Research, 185, 105–129. Killingsworth, M. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2010). A wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Science, 330, 932. Kim, S. H., Ryu, V., Ha, R. Y., Lee, S. J., & Cho, H. (2016). Perceptions of social dominance through facial emotion expressions in euthymic patients with bipolar I disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 66,193–200. Kim, H. S. (2002). We talk, therefore we think? A cultural analysis of the effect of talking on thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 828–842. Kingsbury, M., & Coplan, R. J. (2016). RU mad @ me? Social anxiety and interpretation of ambiguous text messages. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 368–379. Kis, B., Guberina, N., Kraemer, M., Niklewski, F., Dziobek, I., Wiltfang, J., & Abdel‐Hamid, M. (2017). Perception of emotional prosody in adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 135(6), 506–514. Koenig, M. A., & Jaswal, V. K. (2011). Characterizing children’s expectations about expertise and incompetence: Halo or pitchfork effects? Child Development, 82, 1634–1647. Kraus, M. W., & Kraus, M. W. (2017). Voice-only communication enhances empathic accuracy. American Psychologist, 72(7), 644–654. Kurzban, R., & Weeden, J. (2005). HurryDate: Mate preferences in action. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 227–244. Kuznekoff, J. H., Munz, S., & Titsworth, S. (2015). Mobile phones in the classroom: Examining the effects of texting, Twitter, and message content

on student learning. Communication Education, 64, 344–365. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 390–423. Lebula, C., and Lucas, C. (1945). The effects of attitudes on descriptions of pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35, 517–524. Lee, T.M.C., Sun, D., Leung, M.K., Chu, L.W., and Keysers, C. (2013). Neural activities during affective processing in people with Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiology of Aging, 34, 706–715. Lemay, E. P., & Dudley, K. L. (2009). Implications of reflected appraisals of interpersonal insecurity for suspicion and power. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1672–1686. Lemay, E.P., Clark, M.S., and Greenberg, A. (2010). What is beautiful is good because what is beautiful is desired: Physical attractiveness stereotyping as projection of interpersonal goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 339–353. Li, X. & Zhang, M. (2014). The effects of heightened physiological needs on perception of psychological connectedness. Journal of Consumer Research,41, 1078–1088. Long, E.C.J., Angera, J.J., Carter, S.J., Nakamoto, M., and Kalso, M. (1999). Understanding the one you love: A longitudinal assessment of an empathy training program for couples in romantic relationships. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 48, 235–242. Lount, R., Jr. (2010). The impact of positive mood on trust in interpersonal and intergroup interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 420–433. Luberto, C. M., Shinday, N., Song, R., Philpotts, L. L., Park, E. R., Fricchione, G. L., & Yeh, G. Y. (2017). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of meditation on empathy, compassion, and prosocial behaviors. Mindfulness, 9, 708–724. Luksyte, A., Unsworth, K. L., & Avery, D. R. (2018). Innovative work behavior and sex‐based stereotypes: Examining sex differences in perceptions and evaluations of innovative work behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(3), 292–305.

Luo, S., Zhang, G., Watson, D., & Snider, A. G. (2010). Using cross-sectional couple data to disentangle the causality between positive partner perceptions and marital satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 665–668. Lyons, A., Kashima, Y., Lyons, A., & Kashima, Y. (2003). How are stereotypes maintained through communication? The influence of stereotype sharedness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 989–1005. Lyons, A. & Kashima, Y. ( 2006). Maintaining stereoytpes in communication: Investigating memory biases and coherence‐seeking in storytelling. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 59– 61. Lyvers, M., Cholakians, E., Puorro, M., & Sundram, S. (2011). Beer goggles: Blood alcohol concentration in relation to attractiveness ratings for unfamiliar opposite sex faces in naturalistic settings. Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 105–112. Macrae, C.N., and Bodenhausen, G.V. (2001). Social cognition: Categorical person perception. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 239–256. Madlock, P. E. (2012). The influence of power distance and communication on Mexican workers. Journal of Business Communication, 49, 169–184. Ma-Kellams, C. & Lerner, J.S. (2016). Trust your gut or think carefully? Examining whether an intuitive, versus a systematic, mode of thought produces greater empathic accuracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,111(55),674–685. Mar, R.A., and Oatley, K., and Peterson, J.B., (2009). Exploring the link between reading fiction and empathy: Ruling out individual differences and examining outcomes. Communications, 34, 407–428. Marigold, D.C. & Anderson, J.E. (2016). Shifting expectations of partners’ responsiveness changes outcomes of conflict discussions. Personal Relationships, 23, 517–535 Martin, D. (2012). Two-eyed seeing: A framework for understanding Indigenous and non-Indigenous ap­proaches to Indigenous health research. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 2, 20–42. Martz, J.M., Verette, J., Arriaga, X.B., Slovik, L.F., Cox, C.L., and Rusbult, C.E. (1998). Positive illusion in close relationships. Personal Relationships, 5, 159–181.

References

Matthews, N. C. (2016). The influence of biological sex on perceived aggressive communication in debaterjudge conflicts in parliamentary debate. Western Journal of Communication, 80, 38–59. Maynard, O. M., Skinner, A. L., Troy, D. M., Attwood, A. S., & Munafò, M. R. (2016). Association of alcohol consumption with perception of attractiveness in a naturalistic environment. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 51(2), 142–147. McClure, J., Meyer, L. H., Garisch, J., Fischer, R., Weir, K. F., & Walkey, F. H. (2011). Students’ attributions for their best and worst marks: Do they relate to achievement? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 71–81. McNulty, J. K., Meltzer, A. L., Makhanova, A., & Maner, J. K. (2018). Attentional and evaluative biases help people maintain relationships by avoiding infidelity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(1), 76–95. Mendoza, J. S., Pody, B. C., Lee, S., Kim, M., & McDonough, I. M. (2018). The effect of cellphones on attention and learning: The influences of time, distraction, and nomophobia. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 52–60. Meneses, R. W., & Larkin, M. (2017). The experience of empathy: Intuitive, sympathetic, and intellectual aspects of social understanding. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 57(1), 3–32. Merkin, R., Taras, V., and Steel, P. (2014). State of the art themes in crosscultural communication research: A systematic and meta analytic review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 1–23. Miller, J. K., Westerman, D. L., & Lloyd, M. E. (2004). Are first impressions lasting impressions? An exploration of the generality of the primacy effect in memory for repetitions. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1305–1315. Miller, P., Niehuis, S., & Huston, T. L. (2006). Positive illusions in marital relationships: A 13-year longitudinal study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1579–1594. Monty, J.C. (1998). Remarks from the 452 Convocation, University of Chicago Record, 33, 12–13. Morin, R. (2015, August 19). Exploring racial bias among biracial and singlerace adults: The IAT. Pew Research Center.

Murray, S.L., Holmes, J.G., and Griffin, D.W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79–98. O’Connor, K. M., & Gladstone, E. (2018). Beauty and social capital: Being attractive shapes social networks. Social Networks, 52, 42–47. Okdie, B. M., Guadagno, R. E., Bernieri, F.J., Geers, A. L., & Mclarney-Vesotski, A. R. (2011). Getting to know you: Face-to-face versus online interactions. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 153–159. Okdie, B. M., Guadagno, R. E., Bernieri, F.J., Geers, A. L., Mclarney-Vesotski, A. R. & Proverbio, A. M. (2017). Sex differences in social cognition: The case of face processing. Journal of Neuroscience Research, 95(1–2), 222–234. Olivola, C.Y., and Todorov, A. (2010). Fooled by first impressions? Reexamining the diagnostic value of appearance-based inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 315–324. Oveido, V.,Tornquist, M., Cameron, T. & Chiappe, D. (2015). Effects of media multi-tasking with Facebook on the enjoyment and encoding of TV episodes. Computers in Human Behavior, 51, 407–417. Pearson, J.C. (2000). Positive distortion: “The most beautiful woman in the world,” in K.M. Galvin and P.J. Cooper (eds), Making connections: Readings in relational communication, 2nd edn, 184–190. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Peretti, S., Tempesta, D., Socci, V., Pino, M.C., Mazza, M., Valenti, M., De Gennaro, L.D., DiDio, C., Marchetti, A. & Ferrara, M. (2018). The role of sleep in aesthetic perception and empathy: A mediation analysis. Journal of Sleep Research, 1–14. Powell, M. B., Hughes-Scholes, C. H., & Sharman, S. J. (2012). Skill in interviewing reduces confirmation bias. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 9, 126–134. Proverbio, A.M. (2017). Sex differences in social cognition: The case of face processing. Journal of Neuroscience Research, 95, 222–234. Puputti, S., Aisalaa, H., Hoppu, U., & Sandella, M. (2018). Multidimensional measurement of individual differences

in taste perception. Food Quality and Preference, 65, 10–17 Rappaport, L. M., Russell, J. J., Hedeker, D., Pinard, G., Bleau, P., & Moskowitz, D. S. (2018). Affect, interpersonal behaviour and interpersonal perception during open-label, uncontrolled paroxetine treatment of people with social anxiety disorder: A pilot study. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 43(6), 407–415. Reber, J.S., Ridge, R.D. & Downs, S.D. (2017). Perceptual and behavioral effects of expectations formed by exposure to positive or negative Ratemyprofessors.com evaluations. Cogent Psychology, 4, 1–16. Rice, C. (2013, October 14). How blind auditions help orchestras to eliminate gender bias. The Guardian. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process, in L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in experimental psychology. (Vol. 10). New York: Academic Press. Ross, L. (2001). Getting down to fundamentals: Lay dispositionism and the attributes of psychologists. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 37–40. Saito, Y., Kubicki, M., Koerte, I. et al. (2018). Impaired white matter connectivity between regions containing mirror neurons, and relationship to negative symptoms and social cognition, in patients with first-episode schizophrenia. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 12(1), 229–237. Samovar, L.A., Porter, R.E., McDaniel, E.R., and Roy, C.S. (2012). Communication between cultures, 7th edn. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage. Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24–31. Santilli, V., & Miller, A. N. (2011). The effects of gender and power distance on nonverbal immediacy in symmetrical and asymmetrical power conditions: A cross-cultural study of classrooms and friendships. Journal of International & Intercultural Communication, 4, 3–22. Segrin, C., Hanzal, A., & Domschke, T. J. (2009). Accuracy and bias in newlywed couples’ perceptions of conflict styles and the association with marital satisfaction. Communication Monographs, 76, 207–233.

415

416

References

Shepperd, J., Malone, W., & Sweeny, K. (2008). Exploring causes of the self-serving bias. Social and ­Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 895–908. Sparks, E.A., and Baumeister, R.F. (2008). If bad is stronger than good, why focus on human strength? in S. Lopez (ed.), Positive psychology: Exploring the best in people. Vol.1: Discovering human strengths, 55–79. Westport, CT: Praeger. Spreng, R., McKinnon, M. C., Mar, R. A., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 62–71. Stevens, R., Gilliard-Matthews, S., Dunaev, J., Woods, M. K., & Brawner, B. M. (2017). The digital hood: Social media use among youth in disadvantaged neighborhoods. New Media & Society, 19(6), 950–967. Strayer, J., and Roberts, W. (2004). Children’s anger: Emotional expressiveness and empathy: Relations with parents’ empathy, emotional expressiveness and parenting practices. Social Development, 13(2), 229–254. Suslow, T., Kugel, H., Lindner, C., Dannlowski, U., & Egloff, B. (2017). Brain response to masked and unmasked facial emotions as a function of implicit and explicit personality self-concept of extraversion. Neuroscience, 340, 464–476. Swami, V., & Allum, L. (2012). Perceptions of the physical attractiveness of the self, current romantic partners, and former partners. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 53, 89–95. Sylaska, K., & Walters, A. (2014). Testing the extent of the gender trap: College students’ perceptions of and reactions to intimate partner violence. Sex Roles, 70(3–4), 134–145. Tam, K.P., Au, A., and Leung, A.K. (2008). Attributionally more complex people show less punitiveness and racism. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1074–1081. Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 15, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. Thompson, A. E., & Voyer, D. (2014). Sex differences in the ability to recognise non-verbal displays of emotion: A ­meta-analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 28(7), 1164–1195.

Trainer, E.H. & Redmiles, D.F. (2018). Bridging the gap between awareness and trust in globally distributed software teams. The Journal of Systems & Software, 144, 328–341 Tsaousis, I. (2010). “Circadian preferences and personality traits: A meta-­a nalysis,” European Journal of Personality, 24, 356–373. Turri, J. (2017). Knowledge attributions and behavioral predictions. Cognitive Science, 41(8), 2253–2261. Uncapher, M., Thieu, M., & Wagner, A. (2016). Media multitasking and memory: Differences in working memory and long-term memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 483–490. Unnava, V., Singh, A. S., & Unnava, H. R. (2018). Coffee with co-workers: Role of caffeine on evaluations of the self and others in group settings. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 32(8), 943–948. van den Bos, K., Brockner, J., Stein, J. H., Steiner, D. D., Van Yperen, N. W., & Dekker, D. M. (2010). The psychology of voice and performance capabilities in masculine and feminine cultures and contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 638–648. Vignovic, J.A., and Thompson, L.F. (2010). Computer-mediated cross-cultural collaboration: Attributing communication errors to the person versus the situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 265–276. Walther, J. B., & Bazarova, N. N. (2007). Misattribution in virtual groups: The effects of member distribution on self-serving bias and partner blame. Human Communication Research, 33, 1–26. Walton, J.M., White, J. & Ross, S. (2015). What’s on YOUR Facebook profile? Evaluation of an educational intervention to promote appropriate use of privacy settings by medical students on social networking sites. Medical Education Online, 20, 1, 28708. Wang, X. (2016). To communicate or not to communicate: Factors predicting passengers’ intentions to ask a driver to stop text messaging while driving. Health Communication, 31, 617–625. Wänke, M., Samochowiec, J., & Landwehr, J. (2013). Facial politics: Political judgment based on looks. In J. P. Forgas, K. Fiedler, & C. Sedikides (Eds.), Social thinking and interpersonal behavior (pp. 143–160). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Wasarhaley, N. E., Lynch, K. R., Golding, J. M., & Renzetti, C. M. (2017). The impact of gender stereotypes on legal perceptions of lesbian intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(5), 635–658. Watkins, L., & Johnston, L. (2000). Screening job applicants: The impact of physical attractiveness and application quality. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 76–84. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., and Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: W.W. Norton. Whiting, C., Cavers, S., Bassendowski, S., & Petrucka, P. (2018). Using two-eyed seeing to explore interagency collaboration. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 50(3), 133–144. Wood, S.E., Wood, E.G., Boyd, D., Wood, E. & Desmarais, S. (2016). The world of psychology, Eighth Canadian edition. Toronto: Pearson. Wood, J.T. (2008). Critical feminist theories. In L.A. Baxter & D.O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 323–334). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yang, H., & Lee, L. (2014). Instantane­ously hotter: The dynamic revision of beauty assessment standards. In J. Cotte & S. Wood (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 42, pp. 744–745). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research. Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. N. (2006, August). Walk a mile in digital shoes: The impact of embodied perspective-taking on the reduction of negative stereotyping in immersive virtual environments. Proceedings of PRESENCE 2006: The 8th Annual International Workshop on Presence. Cleveland, OH. Zerfass, A., Vercic, D., & Wiesenberg, M. (2016). Managing CEO communication and positioning. Journal of Communication Management, 20, 37–55. Zhang, C, Phang CW, Zeng X, Wang X, Xu,Y, Huang Y, et al. (2015). Circadian rhythms in socializing propensity. PLoS ONE 10(9): e0136325. Zhang, Q. (2016). The mitigating effects of intergroup contact on negative stereotypes, perceived threats, and harmful discriminatory behavior toward Asian Americans. Communication Research Reports, 33, 1–8.

References

Zimasa, T., Jamson, S., & Henson, B. (2017). Are happy drivers safer drivers? Evidence from hazard response times and eye tracking data. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 46(Part A), 14–23. Zimbardo, P.G. (1971). The psychological power and pathology of imprisonment. Statement prepared for the US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee No. 3.

Chapter 4: Emotions Adams, M. (2003). Fire and ice: The United States, Canada and the myth of converging values. Toronto: Penguin. Ayres, J., & Crosby, S. (1995). Two studies concerning the predictive validity of the personal report of communication apprehension in employment interviews. Communication Research Reports, 12, 145–151. Azam, M. A., Mongrain, M., Vora, K., Pirbaglou, M., Azargive, S., Changoor, T., & Rotondi, M. (2016). Mindfulness as an alternative for supporting university student mental health: Cognitive‐emotional and depressive self‐criticism measures. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 5(2), 140–163 Barrett, L. F., Gross, J., Christensen, T., & Benvenuto, M. (2001). Knowing what you’re feeling and knowing what to do about it: Mapping the relation between emotion differentiation and emotion regulation. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 713–724. Bippus, A. M., & Young, S. L. (2005). Owning your emotions: Reactions to expressions of self-versus other-­ attributed positive and negative emotions. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 26–45. Blume, B. D., Baldwin, T. T., & Ryan, K. C. (2013). Communication apprehension: A barrier to students’ leadership, adaptability, and multicultural appreciation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(2), 158–172. Boiger, M., De Deyne, S., & Mesquita, B. (2013). Emotions in “the world”: Cultural practices, products, and meanings of anger and shame in two individualist cultures. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–14. Booth-Butterfield, M., & Booth-­ Butterfield, S. (1998). Emotionality and affective orientation, in J.C.

McCroskey, J.A. Daly, M.M. Martin, and M.J. Beatty (eds), Communication and personality: Trait Perspectives, 171–190. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Bradberry, T. (2015, March 24). Are you emotionally intelligent? Here’s how to know for sure. www.inc.com. Briggs, J.L. (2000). Emotions have many faces: Inuit lessons. Anthropologica, 42(2),157–164. Brockman, R., Ciarrochi, J., Parker, P., & Kashdan, T. (2017). Emotion regulation strategies in daily life: Mindfulness, cognitive reappraisal and emotion suppression. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 46(2), 91–113. Brody, L. R., & Hall, J. A. (2010). Gender, emotion, and socialization. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. McCreary (Eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology (pp. 429–454). New York, NY: Springer. Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Stack, A. D. (1999). Catharsis, aggression, and persuasive influence: Selffulfilling or self-defeating prophecies? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 367–376. Bushman, B. J., Bonacci, A. M., Pedersen, W. C., Vasquez, E. A., & Miller, N. (2005). Chewing on it can chew you up: Effects of rumination on triggered displaced aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 969–983. Butler, E.A., Egloff ,B., Wlhelm, F. H., Smith, N. C., Erickson, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2003). The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion, 3, 48–67. Butler, J. A., & Modaff, D. P. (2012). The communicative management of emotional display expectations by inhome daycare providers. Qualitative Communication Research, 1, 461–490. Carmeli, A., Yitzhak-Halevy, M., & Weisberg, J. (2009). The relationship between emotional intelligence and psychological wellbeing. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24, 66–78. Carofiglio, V., de Rosis, F., & Grassano, R. (2008). Dynamic models of multiple emotion activation. In L. Canamero & R. Aylett (Eds.), Animating expressive characters for social interaction (pp. 123–141). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Chen, J., Milne, K., Dayman, J. & Kemps, E. (2018). Interpretation bias and social anxiety: Does interpretation bias mediate the relationship between trait social anxiety and state anxiety

responses? Cognition and Emotion, 5, 1–16. Chervonsky, E., & Hunt, C. (2017). Suppression and expression of emotion in social and interpersonal outcomes: A meta-analysis. Emotion, 17(4), 669–683. Coetzer, G. H., (2015). Emotional versus cognitive intelligence: Which is the better predictor of efficacy for working in teams? Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 16(2), 116–133. Coviello, L., Sohn, Y., Kramer, A. D. I., Marlow, C., Franceschetti, M., Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2014). Detecting emotional contagion in massive social networks. PLOS ONE, 9, e90315. Critchley, H. D., & Garfinkel, S. N. (2018). The influence of physiological signals on cognition. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 19, 13–18. Crowley, J. P. (2014). Expressive writing to cope with hate speech: Assessing psychobiological stress recovery and forgiveness promotion for lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer victims of hate speech. Human Communication Research, 40, 238–261. Crowley, J. P., & Knowles, J. H. (2014). Gender differences in happiness and well-being of individuals who engage in contemptuous communication. Communication Reports, 27,(1), 27–38. Cunningham, M. R., Shamblen, S. R., Barbee, A. P., & Ault, L. K. (2005). Social allergies in romantic relationships: Behavioral repetition, emotional sensitization, and dissatisfaction in dating couples. Personal Relationships, 12, 273–295. Dailey, M. N., Joyce, C., Lyons, M. J., Kamachi, M., Ishi, H., Gyoba, J., & Cottrell, G. W. (2010). Evidence and a computational explanation of cultural differences in facial expression recognition. Emotion, 10(6), 874–893. Dainton, M., & Stokes, A. (2015). College students’ romantic relationships on Facebook: Linking the gratification for maintenance to Facebook maintenance activity and the experience of jealousy. Communication Quarterly, 63, 365–383. Dasborough, M. T., Ashkanasy, N. M., Tee, E. Y. J., & Tse, H. H. M. (2009). What goes around comes around: How meso-level negative emotional contagion can ultimately determine organizational attitudes toward leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 571–585.

417

418

References

David, S. (2016). Emotional agility. New York, NY: Avery. Davis, K. M., Lau, M. A., & Cairns, D. R. (2009). Development and preliminary validation of a trait version of the Toronto mindfulness scale. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 23(3), 185–197. De Leersnyder, J., Mesquita, B., Kim, H., Eom, K., Choi, H., De Leersnyder, J., . . . Choi, H. (2014). Emotional fit with culture: A predictor of individual differences in relational well-being. Emotion, 14(2), 241–245. De Leersnyder,, J., Kim, H., & Mesquita, B. (2015). Feeling right is feeling good: Psychological well-being and emotional fit with culture in autonomy- versus relatedness-promoting situations. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1–12. Derks, D., Bos, A., & Von Grumbkow, J. (2008). Emoticons in computer-mediated communication: Social motives and social context. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11(1), 99–101. DeWall, C. N., Pond, R. S. Jr., & Deckman, T. (2011). Aceta-minophen dulls psychological pain, in G. MacDonald and L. Jensen-Campbell (eds), Social pain: Neuropsychological and health implications of loss and exclusion, 123–140. Washington, DC: APA . Dougherty, E.N., & Krawczyk, R. (2018). Media exposure predicts body satisfaction: The moderating role of appearance comparison. Psychological Studies, 63(1), 61–69. Edgar, C., McRoroe, M., & Sneddon, I. (2012). Emotional intelligence, personality and the decoding of non-verbal expressions of emotion. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 295–300. Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002a). Is there an in-group advantage in emotion recognition? Psychological Bulletin, 128, 243–249. Elfenbein, H. A., Beaupre, M., Levesque, M., & Hess, U. (2007). Toward a dialect theory: Cultural differences in the expression and recognition of posed facial expressions. Emotion, 7(1), 131–146. Ellis, A., & Ellis, D. (2014). Rational emotive behavior therapy. In G. R. VandenBos, E. Meidenbauer, & J. Frank-McNeil (Eds.), Psychotherapy theories and techniques: A reader (pp. 289–298). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ellis, D.J. (2017). Rational emotive behavior therapy and individual psychology. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 73(4), 272–282. Elphinston, R. A., Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., Connor, J. P., & Fitzgerald, J. (2013). Romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction: The costs of rumination. Western Journal of Communication, 77, 293–304 Emory, J., Kippenbrock, T., Lee, P., Miller, M. T., & Reimers, J. (2018). Communication apprehension and willingness to listen in nursing education. Journal of Professional Nursing, 34(4), 284–288. English, T., John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2013). Emotion regulation in close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 500–513). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Fernyhough, C. (2016). The voices within: The history and science of how we talk to ourselves. New York, NY: Basic Books. Ferrara, E., & Yang, Z. (2015). Measuring emotional contagion in social media. PLOS ONE, 10, e0142390. Ferrer, R. A., & Mendes, W. B. (2018). Emotion, health decision making, and health behaviour. Psychology & Health, 33(1), 1–16. Fredrickson, B. L. (2009). Positivity. New York, NY: Three Rivers. Garland, E. L., Farb, N. A., Goldin, P. R., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2015). Mindfulness broadens awareness and builds eudaimonic meaning: A process model of mindful positive emotion regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 26(4), 293–314. Geurts, B. (2018). Making sense of self talk. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 9(2), 271–285. Gibson, D. E., & Callister, R. R. (2010), Anger in organizations: Review and integration. Journal of Management, 36(1), 66–93. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York, NY: Bantam. Gonsalkorale, K., & Williams, K. D. (2007). The KKK won’t let me play: Ostracism even by a despised outgroup hurts. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1176–1186. Gottman, J., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion: How families communicate emotionally. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gottman, J. M., & Silver, N. (1999). The seven principles for making marriages work. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press. Grandey, A., Diefendorff, J. & Rupp, D. E. (2013). Emotional labor in the 21st century diverse perspectives on emotion regulation at work. New York, NY: Routledge. Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26(1), 1–26. Halberstadt, A. G., & Lozada, F. T. (2011). Emotion development in infancy through the lens of culture. Emotion Review, 3, 158–168. Hall, J. A., & Matsumoto, D. (2004). Gender differences in judgments of multiple emotions from facial expressions. Emotion, 4, 201–206. Hammick, J.K.& Lee, M. (2014). Do shy people feel less communication apprehension online? The effects of virtual reality on the relationship between personality characteristics and communication outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 302–310. Hartgerink, C. H., van Beest, I., Wicherts, J. M., & Williams, K. D. (2015). The ordinal effects of ostracism: A ­meta-analysis of 120 Cyberball studies. PloS One, 10(5), e0127002. Hesse, C., Rauscher, E. A., & Wenzel, K. A. (2012). Alexithymia and uncertainty management. Communication Research Reports, 29, 343–352. Hicks, A. M., & Diamond, L. M. (2011). Don’t go to bed angry: Attachment, conflict, and affective and physiological reactivity. Personal Relationships, 18, 266–284 Hiser, J., & Koenigs, M. (2018). The multifaceted role of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex in emotion, decision making, social cognition, and psychopathology. Biological Psychiatry, 83(8), 638–647. Ilies, R., Wagner, D. T., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Explaining affective linkages in teams: Individual differences in susceptibility to contagion and individualism-collectivism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1140–1148. Iliescu D., Ilie A., Ispas D., & Ion A. (2012). Emotional intelligence in personnel selection: Applicant reactions, criterion, and incremental validity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 347–58.

References

Imbir, K. (2016). From heart to mind and back again. A duality of emotion overview on emotion-cognition interactions. New Ideas in Psychology, 43, 39–49. (p. 179) Izard, C. E. (2010). The many meanings/ aspects of emotion: Definitions, functions, activation and regulation. Emotion Review, 2(4), 363–370. Izard, C. E. (2011). Forms and functions of emotions: Matters of emotioncognition interactions. Emotion Review, 3(4), 371–378. Jiangang, D., Xiucheng, F., & Tianjun, F. (2011). Multiple emotional contagions in service encounters. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 449–466. Jones, S. M., Bodie, G. D., & Koerner, A. F. (2017). Connections between family communication patterns, person‐ centered message evaluations, and emotion regulation strategies. Human Communication Research, 43(2), 237–255. Kaye, L. K., Wall, H. J., & Malone, S. A. (2016). Turn that frown upside-down: A contextual account of emoticon usage on different virtual platforms. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 463–467. Kaye, L.K., Malone, S.A. & Wall, H.J. (2017). Emojis: Insights, affordances, and possibilities for psychological science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(2), 66–68 Kingsbury, M., & Coplan, R. J. (2016). RU mad @ me? Social anxiety and interpretation of ambiguous text messages. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 368–379. Kirkland, R. A., Peterson, E., Baker, C. A., Miller, S., & Pulos, S. (2013). Metaanalysis reveals adult female superiority in “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test. North American Journal of Psychology, 15, 121–146. Knausenberger, J. & Echterhoff, G. (2018). Recovering from social exclusion: The interplay of subtle Facebook reminders and collectivistic orientation. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 298–305. (p. 208) Knobloch, L. K., & Metts, S. (2013). Emotion in relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 514–534). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Knobloch, L. K., Miller, L. E., Bond, B. J., & Mannone, S. E. (2007). Relational

uncertainty and message processing in marriage. Communication Monographs, 74, 154–180. Kuppens, P., Tuerlinckx, F., Yik, M., Koval, P., Coosemans, J., Zeng, K.J., Russell, J.A. (2016). The relation between valence and arousal in subjective experience varies with personality and culture. Journal of Personality, 85, 4, 530–542. Lambie, J.A. & Linberg, A. (2016). The role of maternal emotional validation and invalidation on children’s emotional awareness. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 62, (2), 129–157. Ledbetter, A. M., Mazer, J. P., DeGroot, J. M., Meyer, K. R., Mao, Y., & Swafford, B. (2011). Attitudes toward online social connection and self-disclosure as predictors of Facebook communication and relational closeness. Communication Research, 38(1), 27–53. Lee, T. M. C., Sun, D., Leung, M. K., Chu, L. W., & Keysers, C. (2013). Neural activities during affective processing in people with Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiology of Aging, 34, 706–715. Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66(1), 799–823. Lim, N. (2016). Cultural differences in emotion: differences in emotional arousal level between the East and the West. Integrative Medicine Research, 5, 105–109. Lin, L. Y., Sidani, J. E., Shensa, A., Radovic, A., Miller, E., Colditz, J. B., & . . . Primack, B. A. (2016). Association between social media use and depression among U.S. young adults. Depression and Anxiety, 33, 323–331. Liu, H., Li, X., Han, B., & Liu, X. (2017). Effects of cognitive bias modification on social anxiety: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 12(4): e0175107. Lucas, R. E., Le, K., & Dyrenforth, P. S. (2008). Explaining the extraversion/ positive affect relation: Sociability cannot account for extraverts’ greater happiness. Journal of Personality, 76, 385–414. Madan, C. R., Shafer, A. T., Chan, M., and Singhal, A. (2017). Shock and awe: distinct effects of taboo words on lexical decision and free recall. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 793–810. Martin, A., Jacob, C., & Gueguen, N. (2013). Similarity facilitates relationships on social networks: A field

experiment on Facebook. Psychological Reports, 113, 217–220. Matsumoto, D., LeRoux, J., Wilson-Cohn, C., Raroque, J., Kooken, J., Ekman, P., et al. (2000). A new test to measure emotion recognition ability: Matsumoto and Ekman’s Japanese and Caucasian Brief Affect Recognition Test (JACBART). Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 179–209. Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Fontaine, J., Anguas-Wong, A. M., Arriola, M., Ataca, B., et al. (2008). Mapping expressive differences around the world: The relationship between emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 55–74. McCarty, M. K., Kelly, J. R., & Williams, K. D. (2014). The cognitive costs of counter-stereotypic: Gender, emotion and social presence. Journal of Social Psychology, 154, 447–462. McIntyre, C. (2017). Do Canadians deserve their reputation for being nice? Twothirds of Canadians think we’re as nice as the world says. But is the cliché actually true? Maclean’s, June 28. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (2008). Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits, in G. Boyce, G. Methews and D. Saklofske (eds), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, volume 1: Personality theories and models, 273–279. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McCroskey, J. C. (2009). Communication apprehension: What we learned from the last four decades. Human Communication, 12, 157–171. Mesquita, B., Boiger, M., & De Leersnyder, J. (2017). Doing emotions: The role of culture in everyday emotions. European Review of Social Psychology, 28(1), 95–133. Metts, S., & Cupach, W. R. (1990). The influence of relationship beliefs and problem-solving relationships on satisfaction in romantic relationships. Human Communication Research, 17, 170–185. Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2017). Are the emotionally intelligent good citizens or counterproductive? A meta-analysis of emotional intelligence and its relationships with organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 144–156.

419

420

References

Michalak, J., Rohde, K., & Troje, N. F. (2015). How we walk affects what we remember: Gait modifications through biofeedback change negative affective memory bias. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 46, 121–125. Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2014). “Creeping” or just information seeking? Gender differences in partner monitoring in response to jealousy on Facebook. Personal Relationships, 21, 35–50. Nummenmaa, L., Glerean, E., Hari, R., & Hietanen, J. K. (2014). Bodily maps of emotions. PNAS, 111, 646–651. Oatley, K. (2010). Two movements in emotions: Communication and reflection. Emotion Review, 2, 29–35. Oleszkiewicz, A., Karwowski, M., ­Pisanski, K., Sorokowski, P., Sobrado, B., & Sorokowska, A. (2017). Who uses emoticons? Data from 86702 Facebook users. Personality and Individual Differerences, 119, 289–295 Palomares, N. A. (2008). Explaining gender-based language use: Effects of gender identity salience on references to emotion and tentative language in intra- and intergroup contexts. Human Communication Research, 34, 263–286. Papousek, I., Freudenthaler, H. H., & Schulter, G. (2008). The interplay of perceiving and regulating emotions in becoming infected with positive and negative moods. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 463–467. Park, J., Barash, V., Fink, C., & Cha, M. (2013). Emoticon Style: Interpreting differences in emoticons across cultures, Proceedings of the Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. www.academia .edu/3361408/Emoticon_Style_Interpreting_Differences_in_Emoticons_ Across_Cultures Parker, J. A., Keefer, K. V., & Wood, L. M. (2011). Toward a brief multidimensional assessment of emotional intelligence: Psychometric properties of the Emotional Quotient Inventory– Short Form. Psychological Assessment, 23, 762–777. Parlamis, J. D. (2012). Venting as emotion regulation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 23(1), 77–96. Parlamis, J. D., Allred, K. G., & Block, C. (2010), Letting off steam or just

steaming? The influence of venting target and offender status on venting. International Journal of Conflict Management, 21(3), 260–80. Pence, M. E., & Vickery, A. J. (2012). The roles of personality and trait emotional intelligence in the active-empathic listening process: Evidence from correlational and regression analyses. International Journal of Listening, 26, 159–174. Pennebaker, J. W., & Chung, C. K. (2007). Expressive writing, emotional upheavals, and health, in H.S. Friedman and R.C. Silver (eds), Foundations of health psychology, 263–284. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Peper, M. (2000). Awareness of emotions: A neuropsychological perspective, in R.D. Ellis and N. Newton (eds), The caldron of consciousness: Motivation, affect and self-organization—An anthology, 243–269. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature. Why violence has declined. New York, NY: Penguin. Pogrebtsova, E., Craig, J., Chris, A., O’Shea, D., & Gonzalez-Morales, M.G. (2018). Exploring daily affective changes in university students with a mindful positive reappraisal intervention: A daily diary randomized controlled trial. Stress and Health, 34, 46–58. Quartana, P. J., & Burns, J. W. (2010). Emotion suppression affects cardiovascular responses to initial and subsequent laboratory stressors. British Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 511–528. Randall, A. K., Post, J. H., Reed, R. G., & Butler, E. (2013). Cooperating with your romantic partner: Associations with interpersonal emotion coordination. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 1072–1095. Reid, D., & Reid, F. (2010). The expressive and conversational affordances of mobile messaging. Behavior and Information Technology, 29(1), 3–22. Rius-Ottenheim, N., Mast, R., Zitman, F. G., & Giltay, E. J. (2013). The role of dispositional optimism in physical and mental well-being. In A. Efklides & D. Moraitou (Eds.), A positive psychology perspective on quality of life (pp. 149–173). New York, NY: Springer. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. (2010). Essentials of organizational behavior, 14th

edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rodrigues, D., Prada, M., Gaspar, R., Garrido, M. & Lopes, D. (2018). Lisbon Emoji and Emoticon Database (LEED): Norms for emoji and emoticons in seven evaluative dimensions. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 392–405. Rozgonjuk, D., Levine, J.C., Hall, B.J., & Elhai, J.D. (2018). The association between problematic smartphone use, depression and anxiety symptom severity, and objectively measured smartphone use over one week. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 10–17. Safdar, S., Friedlmeier, W., Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Kwantes, C. T., Kakai, H., & Shigemasu, E. (2009). Variations of emotional display rules within and across cultures. A comparison between Canada, USA, and Japan. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41(1), 1–10. Samter, W., & Burleson, B. R. (2005). The role of communication in same-sex friendships: A comparison among African Americans, Asian Americans, and European Americans. Communication Quarterly, 53, 265–283. Schauer, M., and Elbert, T. (2010). Dissociation following traumatic stress: Etiology and treatment. Journal of Psychology, 218(2), 109–127. Scherer, K.R. (2000). Psychological models of emotion, in J.C. Borod (ed.), The neuropsychology of emotion, 137–162. New York: Oxford University Press. Schubert, T. W., & Koole, S. L. (2009). The embodied self: Making a fist enhances men’s power-related self-conceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 828–834. Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Learned optimism. New York, NY: Vintage. Shimanoff, S. B. (1985). Rules governing the verbal expression of emotions between married couples. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 49, 149–165. Shimanoff, S. B. (1988). Degree of emotional expressiveness as a function of face-needs, gender, and interpersonal relationship. Communication Reports, 1, 43–53. Siegman, A. W., & Snow, S. C. (1997). The outward expression of anger, the inward experience of anger and CVR : The role of vocal expression. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 1, 29–45.

References

Smith, L., Heaven, P. C. L., & Ciarrochi, J. (2008). Trait emotional intelligence, conflict communication patterns, and relationship satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1314–1325. Spalek, K., Fastenrath, M., Ackermann, S., Auschra, B., Coynel, D., Frey, J., . . . Milnik, A. (2015). Sex-dependent dissociation between emotional appraisal and memory: A large-scale behavioral and f MRI study. Journal of Neuroscience, 35, 920–935. Stearns, C. A., and Stearns, P. (1986). Anger: The struggle for emotional control in America’s history. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Sturgeon, J.A. and Zautra, A.J. (2016). Social pain and physical pain: Shared paths to resilience. Pain Management, 6(1), 63–74. Sullivan, M .J. L., Lynch, M. E., & Clark, A. J. (2005). Dimenisons of catastrophic thinking associated with pain experience and disability patients with neuropathic pain conditions. Pain, 113(3), 310–315. Ting-Toomey, S. (2017). Mindful intercultural nonverbal communication. In S. M. Yoshimura (Ed.), Nonverbal communication research (pp. 24–48). San Diego, CA: Cognella. Troth, A. C., Lawrence, S. A., Jordan, P. J., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2018). Interpersonal emotion regulation in the workplace: A conceptual and operational review and future research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(2), 523–543. Troy, A. S., Shallcross, A. J., Brunner, A., Friedman, R., & Jones, M. C. (2018). Cognitive reappraisal and acceptance: Effects on emotion, physiology, and perceived cognitive costs. Emotion, 18(1), 58–74. Troy, A. S., Shallcross, A. J., & Mauss, I. B. (2013). A person-by-situation approach to emotion regulation: Cognitive reappraisal can either help or hurt, depending on the context. Psychological Science, 24, 2505–2514. Tsai, J. L., Knutson, B., & Fung, H. H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect valuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 288–307. Utz, S., Muscanell, N., & Khalid, C. (2015). Snapchat elicits more jealousy than Facebook: A comparison of Snapchat and Facebook use. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 141–146.

Verduyn, P., & Lavrijsen, S. (2015). Which emotions last longest and why: The role of event importance and rumination. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 119–127. Wesselmann, E. D., Bagg, D., & Williams, K. D. (2009). ‘I feel your pain’: The effects of observing ostracism on the ostracism detection system. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1308–1311. Wester, S. R., Vogel, D. L., Pressly, P. K., & Heesacker, M. (2002). Sex differences in emotion: A critical review of the literature and implications for counseling psychology. Counseling Psychologist, 30, 630–652. Williams, K. and Jarvis, B. (2006). Cyberball: A program for use in research on interpersonal ostracism and acceptance. Clinical Social Work Journal, 38(1), 174–180. Wilson, T. D. (2011). Redirect: The surprising new science of psychological change. New York, NY: Little, Brown. Wilson, R. E., Harris, K., & Vazire, S. (2015). Personality and friendship satisfaction in daily life: Do everyday social interactions account for individual differences in friendship satisfaction? European Journal of Personality, 29, 173–186. Wingenbach, T. S. H., Ashwin, C., & Brosnan, M. (2018). Sex differences in facial emotion recognition across varying expression intensity levels from videos. PLoS ONE, 13(1). Wrosch, C., Jobin, J. & Scheier, M.F. (2017). Do the emotional benefits of optimism vary across older adulthood? A life span perspective. Journal of Personality, 85(3),388- 397. Young, S. (2009). The function of parental communication p ­ atterns: Reflection-­ enhancing and ­reflection-­discouraging approaches. Communication Quarterly, 57(4), 379–394. Yuki, M., Maddux, W., & Masuda, T. (2007). Are the windows to the soul the same in the East and West: Cultural differences in using eyes and mouth as cues to recognize emotions in Japan and the United States. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 43, 303–311. Zhong, C.B., & Leonardelli, G.J. (2008) Cold and lonely: Does social exclusion literally feel cold? Psychological Science, 19(9), 838–842. Ziegele, M. and Reinecke, L. (2017). No place for negative emotions? The

effects of message valence, communication channel, and social distance on users’ willingness to respond to SNS status updates. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 704–713. Zimbardo, P. G. (1977). Shyness: What it is, what to do about it. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Chapter 5: Listening Abrams, H. B., & Kihm, J. (2015). An introduction to MarkeTrak IX: A new baseline for the hearing aid market. Hearing Review, 22, 16. Andrade, C. C., Pereira, C. R., & Silva, P. A. D. (2018). The silent impact of hearing loss: Using longitudinal data to explore the effects on depression and social activity restriction among older people. Ageing and Society, 38(12), 2468–2489. Arsenault, A. (2007, May). Too much information?: Gatekeeping and information dissemination in a networked world. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, San Francisco. Bainbridge, K. E., & Ramachandran, V. (2014). Hearing aid use among older U.S. adults; the national health and nutrition examination survey, 2005–2006 and 2009–2010. Ear and Hearing, 35, 289–294. Barker, L. L. (1971). Listening behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Barker, A. B., Leighton, P., & Ferguson, M. A. (2017). Coping together with hearing loss: A qualitative metasynthesis of the psychosocial experiences of people with hearing loss and their communication partners. International Journal of Audiology, 56(5), 297–305. Barwood, C. H. S., & Murdoch, B. E. (2013). Unravelling the influence of mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) on cognitive-linguistic processing: A comparative group analysis. Brain Injury, 27(6), 671–676. Beckman, H. B., & Frankel, R. M. (1984). The effect of physician behavior on the collection of data. Annals of Internal Medicine, 101, 692–6. Bender, S., Bluschke, A., Dippel, G., Rupp, A., Weisbrod, M., & Thomas, C. (2014). Auditory post-processing in a passive listening task is deficient in Alzheimer’s disease. Clinical Neurophysiology, 125(1), 53–62. Bippus, A. M. (2001). Recipients’ criteria for evaluating the skillfulness of

421

422

References

comforting communication and the outcomes of comforting interactions. Communication Monographs, 68, 301–313. Bodie, G. D., St. Cyr, K., Pence, M., Rold, M., & Honeycutt, J. (2012). Listening competence in initial interactions I: Distinguishing between what listening is and what listeners do. International Journal of Listening, 26, 1–28. Bodie, G. D., Worthington, D. L., & Gearhart, C. C. (2013). The Listening Styles Profile–Revised (LSP R): A scale revision and evidence of validity. Communication Quarterly, 61, 72–90. Bodie, G. D., Vickery, A. J., Cannava, K., & Jones, S. M. (2015). The role of “active listening” in informal helping conversations: Impact on perceptions of listener helpfulness, sensitivity, and supportiveness and discloser emo­ tional improvement. Western Journal of Communication, 79, 151–173. Brownell, J., & Wolvin, A. (2010). What every student should know about listening. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Burgoon, J. K., Berger, C. R., & Waldron, V. R. (2000). Mindfulness and interpersonal communication. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 105–127. Burleson, B. R. (1984). Comforting communication, in H. Sypher and J. Applegate (eds), Communication by children and adults: Social cognitive and strategic processes, 63–104. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Burleson, B. R. (2007). Constructivism: A general theory of communication skill, in B.B. Whaley and W. Samter (eds), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars, 105–128. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. Burleson, B. R. (2008). What counts as effective emotional support? in M.T. Motley (ed.) Studies in applied interpersonal communication, 207–227. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Burleson, B. R. (2011). A constructivist approach to listening. International Journal of Listening, 25, 27–46. Burleson, B. R., & Samter, W. (1985). Individual differences in the perception of comforting messages: An exploratory investigation. Central States Speech Journal, 36, 39–50. Burleson, B. R., Hanasono, L., Bodie, G., Holmstrom, A., McCullough, J., Rack, J., & Rosier, J. (2011). Are gender differences in responses to supportive communication a matter of ability,

motivation, or both? Reading patterns of situation effects through the lens of a dual-process theory. Communication Quarterly, 59, 37–60. Burleson, B. R., Hanasono, L., Bodie, G., Holmstrom, A., Rack, J., Rosier, J., & McCullough, J. (2009). Explaining gender differences in responses to supportive messages: Two tests of a dual-process approach. Sex Roles, 61, 265–280. Burleson, B. R., Holmstrom, A. J., & Gilstrap, C. M. (2005). “Guys can’t say that to guys”: Four experiments assessing the normative motivation account for deficiencies in the emotional support provided by men. Communication Monographs, 72, 468–501. Cameron, A.-F., & Webster, J. (2011). Relational outcomes of multicommunicating: Integrating incivility and social exchange perspectives. Organization Science, 22, 754–771. Cameron, A. F., & Webster, J. (2013). Multicommunicating: Juggling multiple conversations in the workplace. Information Systems Research, 24, 352–371. Cameron, A., Barki, H., Ortiz de Guinea, A., Coulon, T., & Moshki, H. (2018). Multicommunicating in meetings: Effects of locus, topic relatedness, and meeting medium. Management Communication Quarterly, 32(3), 303–336. Cameron, A. F., Webster, J., Barki, H., & Ortiz de Guinea, A. (2016). Four common multicommunicating misconceptions. European Journal of Information Systems, 25, 465–471. Casey, J. E. (2012). A model to guide the conceptualization, assessment, and diagnosis of nonverbal learning disorder. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 27, 35–57. Castro, D. R., Cohen, A., Tohar, G., & Kluger, A. N. (2013). The role of active listening in teacher-parent relations and the moderating role of attachment style. International Journal of Listening, 27, 136–145. Clark, R. A., & Delia, J. G. (1997). Individuals’ preferences for friends’ approaches to providing support in distressing situations. Communication Reports, 10, 115–121. Coates, J. (1986). Women, men and language. London, UK: Longman. Cowan, N., & AuBuchon, A. M. (2008). Short-term memory loss over time without retroactive stimulus interference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 230–235.

Daimler, M. (2016). Listening is an overlooked leadership tool. Harvard Business Review. David, D., Zoizner, G., & Werner, P. (2018). Self-stigma and age-related hearing loss: A qualitative study of stigma formation and dimensions. American Journal of Audiology, 27, 126–136 Davidowitz, M., & Myrick, R. (1984). Responding to the bereaved: An analysis of “helping” styles. Death Education, 8, 1–10. Desjardins, J. L. & Doherty, K.A. (2017). Changes in psychosocial measures after a 6-week field trial. American Journal of Audiology, 26, 119–128. Dexter, V. J. (2013). Research synthesis with meta-analysis of empathy training studies in helping professions. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 73, 10A(E). Dieker, N. (2016). Infographic: How much of your workday do you spend actually working? The Content ­Strategist, May 9. https://contently .com/strategist/2016/05/09/infographic-much-workday-spend-actually-working/ Dyche, L., & Swiderski, D. (2005). The effect of physician solicitation approaches on ability to identify patient concerns. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20, 267–70. Emanuel, R., Adams, J., Baker, K., Daufin, E., Coke, E., Fitts, E., Himsel, J., Holladay, L., & Okeowo, D. (2008). How college students spend their time communicating. International Journal of Listening, 22, 13–28. Feng, B., & Lee, K. J. (2010). The influence of thinking styles on responses to supportive messages. Communication Studies, 61, 224–238. Feng, B., & Magen, E. (2016). Relationship closeness predicts unsolicited advice giving in supportive interactions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33, 751–767. Floyd, K. (2014). Empathic listening as an expression of affection. International Journal of Listening, 28, 1–12. Flynn, J., Valikoski, T., & Grau, J. (2008). Listening in the business context: Reviewing the state of research. International Journal of Listening, 22, 141–151. Fraser, S. A., Kenyon, V., Lagacé, M., Wittich, W., & Southall, K. E. (2016). Stereotypes associated with agerelated conditions and assistive device use in Canadian media. The Gerontologist, 56(6), 1023–1032.

References

Gearhart, C. G., & Bodie, G. D. (2011). Active-empathic listening as a general social skill: Evidence from bivariate and canonical correlations. Communication Reports, 24, 86–98. Gearhart, C. C., Denham, J. P., & Bodie, G. D. (2014). Listening as a goaldirected activity. Western Journal of Communication, 78, 668–684. Glanz, B. A. (2007). What can I do? Ideas to help those who have experienced loss. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress. Gobat, N., Kinnersley, P., Gregory, J.W., & Robling, M. (2015). What is agenda setting in the clinical encounter? Consensus from literature review and expert consultation. Patient Education and Counselling, 98, 822–9. Goldsmith, D. J., & Fitch, K. (1997). The normative context of advice as social support. Human Communication Research, 23, 454–476. Gonzalez, V.M. & Mark, G. (2004). Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness: Managing multiple working spheres. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Vienna, Austria. Goodman, G., & Esterly, G. (1990). Questions—The most popular piece of language, in J. Stewart (ed.), Bridges not walls, 5th edn, 69–77. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. Gordon, A. M., & Chen, S. (2016). Do you get where I’m coming from? Perceived understanding buffers against the negative impact of conflict on relationship satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 239–260. Griffin, E. A. (2006). A first look at communication theory with conversations with communication theorists (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Hale, J. L., Tighe, M. R., & Mongeau, P. A. (1997). Effects of event type and sex on comforting messages. Communication Research Reports, 14, 214–220. Halone, K. K., & Pecchioni, L. L. (2001). Relational listening: A grounded theoretical model. Communication Reports, 14, 59–65. Hansen, J. (2007). 24/7: How cell phones and the internet change the way we live, work, and play. New York, NY: Praeger. The Hearing Foundation of Canada. (2018). Hearing health: Statistics. http://www.hearingfoundation.ca/ statistics/

Hofsoe, S.M., Lehane, C.M., Wittich, W., Hilpert, P. & Dammeyer, J. (2018). Interpersonal communication and psychological well-being among couples coping with sensory loss: The mediating role of perceived spouse support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1–22. Holmstrom, A. J., Burleson, B., and Jones, S. (2005). Some consequences for helpers who deliver “cold comfort”: Why it’s worse for women than men to be inept when providing emotional support. Sex Roles, 53, 153–172. Huang, K., Yeomans, M., Brooks, A. W., Minson, J., & Gino, F. (2017). It doesn’t hurt to ask: Question-asking increases liking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 430. et al 2017 (p. 255) Hyde, R. B. (1993). Council: Using a talking stick to teach listening. Speech Communication Teacher, 7, Winter, 1–2. Imhof, M. (2003). The social construction of the listener: Listening behavior across situations, perceived listening status, and cultures. Communication Research Reports, 20, 357–366. Itzchakov, G., & Kluger, A. N. (2017). Can holding a stick improve listening at work? The effect of listening circles on employees’ emotions and cognitions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(5), 663–676. Itzchakov, G., DeMarree, K. G., Kluger, A. N., & Turjeman-Levi, Y. (2018). The listener sets the tone: Highquality listening increases attitude clarity and behavior-intention consequences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(5), 762–778. Janusik, L. A., & Wolvin, A. D. (2009). 24 hours in a day: A listening update to the time studies. The International Journal of Listening, 23, 104–120. Jiang, W., Zhao, F., Guderley, N., & Manchaiah, V. (2016). Daily music exposure dose and hearing problems using personal listening devices in adolescents and young adults: A systematic review. International Journal of Audiology, 55(4), 197–205. Johnson, S. (1987). Going out of our minds: The metaphysics of liberation. Freedom, CA: Crossing. Jones, S. M., & Burleson, B. R. (2003). Effects of helper and recipient sex

on the experience and outcomes of comforting messages: An experimental investigation. Sex Roles, 48, 1–19. Keaton, S. A., Bodie, G. D., & Keteyian, R. V. (2015). Relational listening goals influence how people report talking about problems. Communication Quarterly, 63, 480–494. Keller, H. (1933). Helen Keller in Scotland: A personal record written by herself. Edited by James Kerr Love, London: Methuen & Co. Kelly, L., & Brown, J.B. (2002). Listening to Native patients: Changes in physicians’ understanding and behaviour. Canadian Family Physician, 48, 1645–1652. Kelly-Campbell, R., & Plexico, L. (2012). Couples’ experiences of living with hearing impairment. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing, 15(2), 145–161 Keyton, J., Caputo, J., Ford, E., Fu, R., Leibowitz, S. A., Liu, T., . . . Wu, C. (2013). Investigating verbal workplace communication behaviors. Journal of Business Communication, 50, 152–169. Kirtley Johnston, M., & Reed, K. (2017). Listening environment and the bottom line: How a positive environment can improve financial outcomes. International Journal of Listening, 31(2), 71–79. Kuhn, R., Bradbury, T. N., Nussbeck, F. W., & Bodenmann, G. (2018). The power of listening: Lending an ear to the partner during dyadic coping conversations. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(6), 762–772. Lambert, N. M., Gwinn, A. M., Baumeister, R. F., Strachman, A., Washburn, I. J., Gable, S. L., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). A boost of positive affect: The perks of sharing positive experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 24–43. Langer, E. (1990). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Langewitz W., Denz, M., Keller, A., Kiss, A., Ruttimann, S., & Wossmer, B. (2002). Spontaneous talking time at start of consultation in outpatient clinic: Cohort study. BMJ. Lehane, C. M., Dammeyer, J., & Elsass, P. (2017). Sensory loss and its consequences for couples’ psychosocial and relational wellbeing: An integrative review. Aging and Mental Health, 21, 337–347.

423

424

References

Lehane, C. M., Dammeyer, J., & Wittich, W. (2017). Intra- and interpersonal effects of coping on the psychological well-being of adults with sensory loss and their spouses. Disability and Rehabilitation. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/09638288.20 17.1410583 Lipetz, L., Kluger, A.N., & Bodie, G. D. (2018). Listening is listening is Listening: Employees’ perception of listening as a holistic phenomenon. International Journal of Listening, 1–26 Lucas, L., Katiri, R., & Kitterick, P. T. (2018). The psychological and social consequences of single-sided deafness in adulthood. International Journal of Audiology, 57(1), 21–30. MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., & Thompson, E. R. (2008). “Good” and “bad” advice: How to advise more effectively. In M. T. Motley (Ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal communication (­ pp. 145–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. MacGeorge, E. L., Guntzviller, L. M., Brisini, K. S., Bailey, L. C., Salmon, S. K., Severen, K., & . . . Cummings, R. D. (2017). The influence of emotional support quality on advice evaluation and outcomes. Communication Quarterly, 65, 80–96. Maisel, N. C., Gable, S. L., & Strachman, A. (2008). Responsive behaviors in good times and bad. Personal Relationships, 15, 317–338. Manchaiah, V.K.C., Stephens, D. & Lunner, T, (2013). Communications partners’ journey through their partner’s hearing impairment. International Journal of Otolaryngology, 1–11. Manning, J. (2015). Positive and negative communicative behaviors in coming-out conversations. Journal of Homosexuality, 62, 67–97. Mauksch, L. B., Dugdale, D. C., Dodson, S., & Epstein, R. (2008). Relationship, communication, and efficiency in the medical encounter: Creating a clinical model from a literature review. Archives of Internal Medicine, 168, 1387–95. Marvel, M. K, Epstein, R. M., Flowers, K., & Beckman H. B. (1999). Soliciting the patient’s agenda: Have we improved? Journal of the American Medical Association, 281, 283–7. Marulanda-Carter,L and Jackson, T.W. (2012). Effects of e-mail addiction and interruptions on employees. Journal of Systems and Information Technology 14(1), 82–94.

Miczo, N., & Burgoon, J. K. (2008). Facework and nonverbal behavior in social support interactions within romantic dyads. In M. T. Motley (Ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal communication (pp. 245–266). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nichols, M. P. (2009). The lost art of listening: How learning to listen can improve relationships (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Noakes, S. (2018). If the doctor is listening, you have 11 seconds. CBC News, July 23. Pasupathi, M., & Hoyt, T. (2010). Silence and the shaping of memory: How distracted listeners affect speakers’ subsequent recall of a computer game experience. Memory, 18(2), 159–169. Pence, M. E., & Vickery, A. J. (2012). The roles of personality and trait emotional intelligence in the active-empathic listening process: Evidence from correlational and regression analyses. International Journal of Listening, 26, 159–174. Powers, W. G., & Witt, P. L. (2008). Expanding the theoretical framework of communication fidelity. Communication Quarterly, 56, 247–267. Prager, K. J., & Buhrmester, D. (1998). Intimacy and need fulfillment in couple relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 435–469. Ralph, B. C. W., Thomson, D. R., Cheyne, J., & Smilek, D. (2013). Media multitasking and failures of attention in everyday life. Psychological Research. Ranpura, A. (2013, March 12). How we remember, and why we forget. Brain Connection. Reinsch, N.L, Turner, J.W. & Tinsley, C.H. (2008). Multicommunicating: A practice whose time has come? Academy of Management Review 33(2), 391–403. Reis, H. T., & Clark, M. S. (2013). Responsiveness. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 400–426). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Reis, H. T., Smith, S. M., Tsai, F., Carmichael, C., Capariello, P., Rodrigues, A., & Maniaci, M. (2010). Are you happy for me? How sharing positive events with others provides personal and interpersonal benefits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 311–329. Rey-Bellet, S., Dubois, J., Vannotti, M., Zuercher, M., Faouzi, M., Devaud, K., . . . Rodondi, P. (2017). Agenda

setting during follow-up encounters in a university primary care outpatient clinic. Health Communication, 32(6), 714–720. Robinshaw, H. (2007). Acquisition of hearing, listening and speech skills by and during key stage 1. Early Child Development and Care, 177, 661–678. Rogers, C. (2003). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. London, UK: Constable. Ruben, M. A., & Hall, J. A. (2016). Healthcare providers’ nonverbal behavior can lead patients to show their pain more accurately: An analogue study. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 40, 221–234. Shaw, C., & Hepburn, A. (2013). Managing the moral implications of advice in informal interaction. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 46, 344–362. Scholl, I., Zill, J. M., Harter, M., & Dirmaier, J. (2014). An integrative model of patient centeredness—a systematic review and concept analysis. PLoS One. Singh, G., & Launer, S. (2016). Social context and hearing aid adoption. Trends in Hearing, 20, 1–10. Singh, G., & Launer, S. (2018). Time of day and hearing aid adoption. Trends in Hearing, 22, 1–14. Singh Ospina, N, Phillips, K.A., Rodriguez-Gutierrez, R., Castaneda-Guarderas, A. . . . Montonri, V.M. (2018). Eliciting the patient’s agenda—Secondary analysis of recorded clinical encounters. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2, 252. Smith, M. (2010). Hearing into being. Women at Heart. Spitzberg, B. H. (1994). The dark side of (in)competence, in W.R. Cupach and B.H. Spitzberg (eds), The dark side of interpersonal communication, 25–50. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Street Jr., R. L. (2013). How clinician– patient communication contributes to health improvement: Modeling pathways from talk to outcome. Patient Education and Counseling, 92, 286–291. Todorov, A., Chaiken, S., & Henderson, M. D. (2002). The heuristic-systematic model of social information processing. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 195–211). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

References

Toller, P. (2011). Bereaved parents’ experiences of supportive and unsupportive communication. Southern Communication Journal, 76, 17–34. Versfeld, N. J., & Dreschler, W. A. (2002). The relationship between the intelligibility of time-compressed speech and speech-in-noise in young and elderly listeners. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111(1, Pt 1), 401–408. Vickery, A. J., Keaton, S. A., & Bodie, G. D. (2015). Intrapersonal communication and listening goals: An examination of attributes and functions of imagined interactions and active-­empathic listening behaviors. Southern Communication Journal, 80, 20–38. Villaume, W. A., & Bodie, G. D. (2007). Discovering the listener within us: The impact of trait-like personality variables and communicator styles on preferences for listening style. International Journal of Listening, 21, 102–123. Weaver, J. B., & Kirtley, M. D. (1995). Listening styles and empathy. Southern Communication Journal, 60, 131–140. Weger, H., Jr., Castle, G. R., & Emmett, M. C. (2010). Active listening in peer interviews: The influence of message paraphrasing on perceptions of listening skill. International Journal of Listening, 24, 34–49. Weger, H., Bell, G. C., Minei, E. M., & Robinson, M. C. (2014). The relative effectiveness of active listening in initial interactions. International Journal of Listening, 28, 13–31. Winsor, J.L., Curtis, D.B., & Stephens, R.D. (1997). National preferences in business and communication education: An update. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 3, 170–179. Yildirim, C., & Correia, A.-P. (2015). Exploring the dimensions of nomo­phobia: Development and validation of a self-reported questionnaire. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 130–137.

Chapter 6: Language Adler, R. B., & Elmhorst, J. (2010). Communicating at work: Principles and practices for business and the professions (10th ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Airton, L. (2018). Gender: Your guide. A gender-friendly primer on what to say, what to know, and what to do in

the new gender culture. Avon, MA: Adams Media, Simon & Schuster Canada. Alberti, R. E., & Emmons, M. L. (2008). Your perfect right: Assertiveness and equality in your life and relationships (9 th ed.). San Luis Obispo, CA: Impact. Allen, K. (2010). Vantage theory and linguistic relativity. Language Sciences, 32, 158–169. Arroyo, A., & Harwood, J. (2012). Exploring the causes and consequences of fat talk. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40, 167–187. Arroyo, A., Segrin, C. G., & Harwood, J. T. (2014). Appearance-related communication mediates the link between self-objectification and health and well-being outcomes. Human Communication Research, 40(4), 463–482. Asante, M. K. (2002). Language and agency in the transformation of American identity. In W. F. Eadie and P. E. Nelson (Eds.), The changing conversation in America: Lectures from the Smithsonian, 77–89. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Au, T. K., Kwok, A. F., Tong, L. C., Cheng, L., Tse, H. M., & Jun, S. (2017). The social costs in communication hiccups between native and nonnative speakers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(3), 369–383. Bateson, G., & Jackson, D. D. (1964). Some varieties of pathogenic organization. Disorders of Communication [Research Publications: Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease], 42, 270–283. Bialystok, E. (2009). Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 3–11. Bippus, A. M., & Young, S. L. (2005). Owning your emotions: Reactions to expressions of self-versus other-attributed positive and negative emotions. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 26–45. Boroditsky, L. (2009). How does language shape the way we think? In M. Brockman (ed.) What’s next? Dispatches on the future of science. Toronto: Random House. Boroditsky, L., & Gaby, A. (2010). Remembrances of times east: Absolute spatial representations of time in an Australian Aboriginal community. Psychological Science, 21(11), 1635–1639.

Brown, T. L., & Alderson, K. G. (2010). Sexual identity and heterosexual male students’ usage of homosexual insults: An exploratory study. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 19(1–2), 27–42. Bullock, B. E., & Toribio, A. J. (2012). The Cambridge handbook of linguistic code-switching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Burn, S. M., Kadlec, K., and Rexter, R. (2005). Effects of subtle heterosexism on gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 49(2), 23–38. Christenfeld, N., & Larsen, B. (2008). The name game. Psychologist, 21, 210–213. Chuang, L., Wu, C., Lin, K., & Hsieh, C. (2014). Relative and absolute reliability of a vertical numerical pain rating scale supplements with a faces pain scale. Physical Therapy, 94(1), 129–138. Cook, V., & Bassetti, B. (Eds.). (2011). Language and bilingual cognition. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Corning, A. F., & Bucchianeri, M. M. (2016). Is fat talk more believable than self-affirming body talk? Body Image, 19, 122–125. Corning, A., Bucchianeri, M., & Pick, C. (2014). Thin or overweight women’s fattalk: Which is worse for other women’s body satisfaction? Eating Disorders, 22, 121–135. Cotton, J. L., O’Neill, B. S., & Griffin, A. (2008). The “name game”: Affective and hiring reactions to first names. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 18–39. Derwing, T. (2003). What do ESL students say about their accents? Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 545–564. Derwing, T., & Munro (2009b). Putting accent in its place: Rethinking obstacles to communication. Language Teaching, 42, 476–490. Deutscher, G. (2010). Through the language glass: Why the world looks different in other languages. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books. Dillard, J. P. (2014). Language, style, and persuasion. In T. M. Holtgraves (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 177–187). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Dindia, K. (2006). Men are from North Dakota, women are from South Dakota. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary

425

426

References

(Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 3–18). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dougherty, D. S., Kramer, M. W., Klatzke, S. R., & Rogers, T. K. K. (2009). Language convergence and meaning divergence: A meaning centered communication theory. Communication Monographs, 76, 20–46. Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2010). By their words ye shall know them: Language abstraction and the likeability of describers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 366–374. Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2014). “A giant leap for mankind” but what about women? The role of systemjustifying ideologies in predicting attitudes toward sexist language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33, 667–680. Dragojevic, M., Gasiorek, J., & Giles, H. (2016). Accommodative strategies as core of CAT. In H. Giles (Ed.), Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal and social identities across contexts (pp. 13–35). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dunleavy, K. N., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2009). Idiomatic communication in stages of coming together and falling apart. Communication Quarterly, 57(4), 416–432. Dunn, C. D. (2013). Speaking politely, kindly, and beautifully: Ideologies of politeness in Japanese business etiquette training. Multilingua, 32, 225–245. Ecker, J., Rae, J., & Bassi, A. (2015). Showing your pride: A national survey of queer student centres in Canadian colleges and universities. Higher Education, 70(5), 881–898. Eid, P. (2012). Les inégalités ‘ethnoraciales’dans l’accès à l’emploi à Montréal Le poids de la discrimination. Recherches Sociographiques, 53(2),415–450. Eisenberg, E. M., & Witten, M. G. (1987). Reconsidering openness in organizational communication. Academy of Management Review, 12, 418–426. Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions revealed: Recognizing faces and feelings to improve communication and emotional life. New York, NY: Times Books/Henry Holt and Co. El-Alayli, A., Myers, C. J., Petersen, T. L., & Lystad, A. L. (2008). “I don’t mean to sound arrogant, but. . .” The effects

of using disclaimers on person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 130–143. Engeln, R., & Salk, R. H. (2014). The demographics of fat talk in adult women: Age, body size, and ethnicity. Journal of Health Psychology, 21(8), 1655–1664. Everett, C. (2013). Linguistic relativity: Evidence across languages and cognitive domains. Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter. Fandrich, A. M., & Beck, S. J. (2012). Powerless language in health media: The influence of biological sex and magazine type on health language. Communication Studies, 63, 36–53. Ferraro, G., & Andreatta, S. (2012). Cultural anthropology: An applied perspective (9th ed.). Independence, KY: Cengage. Florio, G. M. (2016, October 2). Why we need to stop calling women “girls.” Bustle. Friedman, R., Hong, Y., Simons, T., Chi, S., Oh, S. & Lachowicz, M. (2018). The impact of culture on reactions to promise breaches: Differences between east and west in behavioral integrity perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 43(2), 273–315. Fuertes, J. N., Gottdiener, W., Martin, H., Gilbert, T. C., & Giles, H. (2012). A meta-analysis of the effects of speakers’ accents on interpersonal evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(1), 120–133. Gapinski, K. D., Brownell, K. D., & Lafrance, M. (2003). Body objectification and “fat talk”: Effects on emotion, motivation, and cognitive performance. Sex Roles, 48(9), 377–388. Gasiorek, J., & Vincze, L. (2016). Modeling motives for bilingual accommodation by minority and majority language speakers. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 35, 305–316. Geddes, D. (1992). Sex-roles in management: The impact of varying power of speech style on union members’ perception of satisfaction and effectiveness. Journal of Psychology, 126, 589–607. Giles, H. (Ed.). (2016). Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal and social identities in context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gleason, J. B., & Greif, E. B. (1983). Men’s speech to young children. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley

(eds), Language, gender, and society, 140–150. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gluszek, A., & Dovidlo, J. F. (2010). The way they speak: A social psychological perspective on the stigma of non-native accents in communication. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 214–237. Gordon, T. (1970). P.E.T.: Parent effectiveness training. New York: Wyden. Gudykunst, W. B. (2005). Theorizing about interpersonal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Guerin, B. (2003). Combating prejudice and racism: New interventions from a functional analysis of racist language. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 29–45. Guertin, C., Barbeau, K., Pelletier, L., & Martinelli, G. (2017). Why do women engage in fat talk? Examining fat talk using Self-Determination Theory as an explanatory framework. Body Image, 20, 7–15. Guertin, C., Barbeau, K., & Pelletier, L. (2018). Examining fat talk and self-compassion as distinct motivational processes in women’s eating regulation: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Health Psychology. Gustafsson S. M, Ba¨ck, E. A, & Lindqvist, A. (2015). Introducing a genderneutral pronoun in a natural gender language: The influence of time on attitudes and behavior. Frontiers of Psychology, 6, 893 -XXX. Hall, E. T. (1959). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday. Hancock, A. B., Stutts, H. W., & Bass, A. (2015). Perceptions of gender and femininity based on language: Implications for transgender communication therapy. Language & Speech, 58, 315–333. Hanzlíková, D., & Skarnitzl, R. (2017). Credibility of native and non-native speakers of English revisited: Do non-native listeners feel the same? Research in Language, 15(3), 285–298. Hess, A. (2016, March 29). Who’s “they”? The New York Times. Hosman, L. A., & Siltanen, S. A. (2006). Powerful and powerless language forms: Their consequences for impression formation, attributions of control of self and control of others, cognitive responses, and message memory. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 25, 33–46.

References

Hosseini, M., & Tammimy, Z. (2016). Recognizing users gender in social media using linguistic features. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 192–197. Ireland, M. E., Slatcher, R. B., Eastwick, P. W., Scissors, L. E., Finkel, E. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). Language style matching predicts relationship initiation and stability. Psychological Science, 22, 39–44. Jones, M., Crowther, J., & Ciesla, J. (2014). A naturalistic study of fat talk and its behavioral and affective consequences. Body Image, 11, 337–345. Kapidzic, S., & Herring, S. C. (2011). Gender, communication, and self-presentation in teen chatrooms revisited: Have patterns changed? Journal of Computer-­ Mediated Communication, 17, 39–59. Kim, T.-Y. (2007). The dynamics of ethnic name maintenance and change: Cases of Korean ESL immigrants in Toronto. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 28(2), 117–133. Lassonde, K. A., & O’Brien, E. J. (2013). Occupational stereotypes: Activation of male bias in a gender-neutral world. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 387–396. Leaper, C., & Ayres, M. M. (2007). A ­meta-analytic review of gender variations in adults’ language use: Talkativeness, affiliative speech and assertive speech. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(4), 328–363. Leaper, C., & Robnett, R. D. (2011). Women are more likely than men to use tentative language, aren’t they? A meta-analysis testing for gender differences and moderators. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 129–142. Lebuda, I., & Karwowski, M. (2013). Tell me your name and I’ll tell you how creative your work is: Author’s name and gender as factors influencing assessment of products’ creativity in four different domains. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 137–142. Lee, J. J., & Pinker, S. (2010). Rationales for indirect speech: The theory of the strategic speaker. Psychological Review, 117, 785–807. Lei, X. (2006). Sexism in language. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 5(1), 87–94. Leung, C., & Lewkowicz, J. (2013). Language communication and communicative competence: A view from contemporary classrooms. Language & Education: An International Journal, 27, 398–414.

Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2013). Ethnologue: Languages of the world (17th ed.). Dallas, TX: SIL International. Lieberson, S. (2000). A matter of taste: How names, fashions, and culture change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lipman, J. (2018). That’s what she said. What men need to know (and women need to tell them) about working together. New York: William Morrow/ Harper Collins. Loyd, D. L., Phillips, K. W., Whitson, J., & Thomas-Hunt, M. C. (2010). Expertise in your midst: How congruence between status and speech style affects reactions to unique knowledge. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13(3), 379–395. Lublin, J. S. (2017, January 10). The telltale sign a new hire isn’t fitting in. The Wall Street Journal. Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2010). What we hide in words: Emotive words and persuasive defintions. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1997–2013. Maiz-Arevalo, C. (2015). Jocular mockery in computer-mediate communication: A contrastive study of a Spanish and English Facebook community. Journal of Politeness Research, 11, 289–327. Makin, V. S. (2004). Face management and the role of interpersonal politeness variables in euphemism production and comprehension. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. The Sciences and Engineering, 64(8-B), 4077. McCallum, N. L., & McGlone, M. S. (2011). Death be not profane: Mortality salience and euphemism use. Western Journal of Communication, 75, 565–584. McGlone, M. S., Beck, G., & Pfiester, A. (2006). Contamination and camouflage in euphemisms. Communication Monographs, 73, 261–282. Mehrabian, A. (2001). Characteristics attributed to individuals on the basis of their first names. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 127, 59–88. Meir, I., Sandler, W., Padden, C., & Aronoff, M. (2010). Emerging sign languages. In M. Marshark & P. E. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (Vol. 2, pp. 267–280). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Motskin, A., Gallinger, Z. & Oman, N. (2017). Gord, Sheila, Graham and

Beverley? The most distinctively Canadian names are not what you’d expect. The 10 and 3, March 6. http:// www.the10and3.com/gord-sheilagraham-and-beverley-the-mostdistinctively-canadian-namesare-not-what-youd-expect/ Muir, K., Joinson, A., Cotterill, R., & Dewdney, N. (2016). Characterizing the linguistic chameleon: Personal and social correlates of linguistic style accommodation. Human Communication Research, 42, 462–484. Mulac, A. (2006). The gender-linked language effect: Do language differences really make a difference? In: Dindia, K., Canary, D.J. (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication, second ed. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 219–239. Mulac, A., Giles, H., Bradac, J. J., & Palomares, N. A. (2013). The gender-linked language effect: An empirical test of a general process model. Language Sciences, 38, 22–31. Munro, M. J. & Derwing, T. M. (2015). A prospective for pronunciation research in the 21st century: A point of view. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation, 1(1), 11–42. Naftulin, D., Ware, J., & Donnelly, F. (1973). The Doctor Fox lecture: A paradigm of educational seduction. Journal of Medical Education, 48, 630–635. Ng, S. H., & Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993. O’Dea, C. J., Miller, S. S., Andres, E. B., Ray, M. H., Till, D. F., & Saucier, D. A. (2015). Out of bounds: Factors affecting the perceived offensiveness of racial slurs. Language Sciences, 52, 155–164 Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. (1923). The meaning of meaning. New York: Harcourt Brace. Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. (1946). The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism (8th ed.). New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World. Okamoto, D. G., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2001). Gender, status and the dynamics of topic change. American Sociological Review, 66(6), 852–873. Orbe, M. P., & Bruess, C. J. (2004). Contemporary issues in interpersonal communication. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

427

428

References

Oreopoulos, P., & Decheif, D. (2011). Why do some employers prefer to interview Matthew, but not Samir? New evidence from Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Working Paper Series (Metropolis British Columbia), 11–13, 4–68. O’Sullivan, P. B., & Flanagin, A. J. (2003). Reconceptualizing “flaming” and other problematic messages. New Media and Society, 5, 69–94. Palomares, N. A. (2008). Explaining gender-based language use: Effects of gender identity salience on references to emotion and tentative language in intra- and intergroup contexts. Human Communication Research, 34, 263–286. Palomares, N. A., & Lee, E. (2010). Virtual gender identity: The linguistic assimilation to gendered avatars in ­computer-mediated communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 5–23. Pantos, A. J., & Perkins, A. W. (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit attitudes toward foreign accented speech. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 32(1), 3–20. Parks, J. B., & Roberton, M. A. (2000). Development and validation of an instrument to measure attitudes toward sexist/nonsexist language. Sex Roles, 42, 415–438. Parks, J. B., & Roberton, M. A. (2008). Generation gaps in attitudes toward sexist/ nonsexist language. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 27, 276–283. Parton, S., Siltanen, S. A., Hosman, L. A., & Langenderfer, J. (2002). Employment interviews outcomes and speech style effects. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 144–161. Pascoe, C.J. & Diefendorf, S.(2019). No homo: Gendered dimensions of homophobic epithets online. Sex Roles 80: 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11199-018-0926-4 Payne, B. (2010). Your art is gay and retarded: Eliminating discriminating speech against homosexual and intellectually disabled students in secondary arts education classroom. Art Education, 63(5), 52–54. Peer, E., & Babad (2014). The Doctor Fox research (1973) revisited: “Educational seduction” ruled out. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(1), 36–45. Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). The secret lives of pronouns: What our words say about us. New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Pennesi, K. (2016). “They can learn to say my name”: Redistributing respons-

ibility for integrating immigrants to Canada. Anthropologica, 58(1), 46–59. Pennesi, K. (2017). Universal design for belonging: Living and working with diverse personal names. Journal of Belonging, Identity, Language, and Diversity (J-BILD), 1(1), 25–44. Pfeifer, T. H. (2009). Deconstruction Cartesian dualisms of western racialized systems. Journal of Black Studies, 39(4), 528–547. Pflug, J. (2011). Contextuality and computer-mediated communication: A cross cultural comparison. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 131–137. Piercey, M. (2000). Sexism in the English language. TESL Canada Journal/La revue TESL du Canada, 17(2), 110–115. Pilgeram, R. (2007). “Ass-kicking” women: Doing and undoing gender in a US livestock auction. Gender, Work and Organization, 14, 572–595. Proctor, R. F. (1989). Responsibility or egocentrism? The paradox of owned messages. Speech Association of Minnesota Journal, 26, 57–69. Proctor, R. F., and Wilcox, J. R. (1993). An exploratory analysis of responses to owned messages in interpersonal communication. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 50, 201–220. Quinto-Pozos, D. (2008). Sign language contact and interference: ASL and LSM . Language in Society, 37, 161–189. Rains, S. A. (2016). Language style matching as a predictor of perceived social support in computer-mediated interaction among individuals coping with illness. Communication Research, 43, 694–712. Rakow, L. F. (1992). Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful. Southern Communication Journal, 57, 132–142. Reid, S. A., & Ng, S. H. (1999). Language, power, and intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 119–139. Rentscher, K. E., Rohrbaugh, M. J., Shoham, V., & Mehl, M. R. (2013). Asymmetric partner pronoun use and demand-withdraw interaction in couples coping with health problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 691–701. Reyes, A. (2005). Appropriation of African American slang by Asian American youth. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9, 509–532. Richards, I. A. (1948). Emotive meaning again. Philosophical Review New York, 57, 145–157. Riordan, M. A., Markman, K., M., & Stewart, C. O. (2013). Communication

accommodation in instant messaging: An examination of temporal convergence. Journal of Language & Social Psychology, 32, 84–95. Rohrbaugh, M. J., Shoham, V., Skoyen, J. A., Jensen, M., & Mehl, M. R. (2012). We-talk, communal coping, and cessation success in a couple-focused intervention for health-compromised smokers. Family Process, 51, 107–121. Romaine, S. (1999). Communicating gender. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rudiger, J. A., & Winstead, B. A. (2013). Body talk and body-related co-­ rumination: Associations with body image, eating attitudes, and psychological adjustment. Body Image, 10(4), 462–471. Salk, R. H., & Engeln-Maddox, R. (2011). “If you’re fat, then I’m humongous!”: Frequency, content, and impact of fat talk among college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35(1), 18–28. Sandler, W. (2013). Vive la difference: Sign language and spoken language in language evolution. Language & Cognition, 5, 189–203. Scudder, J. N., & Andrews, P. H. (1995). A comparison of two alternative models of powerful speech: The impact of power and gender upon the use of threats. Communication Research Reports, 12, 25–33. Schwartz, H. A., Eichstaedt, J. C., Kern, M. L., Dziurzynski, L., Ramones, S. M., Agrawal, M., . . . Ungar, L. H. (2013). Personality, gender, and age in the language of social media: The open-vocabulary approach. PLoS ONE, 8, e73791. Sczesny, S., Formanowicz, M. & Moser, F. (2016). Can gender-fair language reduce gender stereotyping and discrimination? Frontiers of Psychology, 7, 25. Seider, B. H., Hirschberger, G., Nelson, K. L., & Levenson, R. W. (2009). We can work it out: Age differences in relational pronouns, physiology, and behavior in marital conflict. Psychology and Aging, 24, 604–613. Shannon, A., & Mills, J. S. (2015). Correlates, causes, and consequences of fat talk: A review. Body Image, 15, 158–172. Simmons, R. A., Gordon, P. C., & Chambless, D. L. (2005). Pronouns in marital interaction: What do “you” and “I” say about marital health? Family Process, 47, 405–419.

References

Slatcher, R. B., Vazire, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Am “I” more important than “we”? Couples’ word use in instant messages. Personal Relationships, 15, 407–424. Smith-McLallen, A., Johnson, B. T., Dovidio, J. F., & Pearson, A. R. (2006). Black and white: The role of color bias and implicit race bias. Social Cognition, 24, 46–73. Statistics Canada (2017). Census Brief: Ethnic and cultural origins of Canadians: Portrait of a rich heritage. October 25. https://www12.statcan .gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/ as-sa/98–200-x/2016016/98–200x2016016-eng.cfm Steen, S., & Schwartz, P. (1995). Communication, gender, and power: Homosexual couples as a case study. In M. A. Fitzpatrick and A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining family interactions, 310–343. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stonefish, T., & Lafreniere, K. (2015). Embracing diversity: The dual role of gay-straight alliances. Canadian Journal of Education, 38(4), 1–27. Sullivan, P. (2004). Communication differences between male and female team sport athletes. Communication Reports, 17, 121–128. Tagliamonte, S. A. (2014). Situating media influence in sociolinguistic context. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(2), 223–232. Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow. Tannen, D. (1994). Talking from 9 to 5: Women and men in the workplace: Language, sex and power. New York: Morrow. Tannen, D. (2001). But what do you mean? Women and men in conversation. In J. M. Henslin (Ed.), Down to earth sociology: Introductory readings (11th ed., pp. 168–173). New York, NY: Free Press. Taylor, C. G., Meyer, E. J., Ristock, J., Short, D. & Campbell, C. (2016). Gaps between beliefs, perceptions, and practices: The every teacher project on LGBTQ -inclusive education in Canadian schools. Journal of LGBT Youth, 13(1–2), 112–140. Tili, T. R., & Barker, G. G. (2015). Communication in intercultural marriages: Managing cultural differences and conflicts. Southern Communication Journal, 80, 189–210 Timmerman, L. M. (2002). Comparing the production of power in language

on the basis of sex. In M. Allen, R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, & N. Burrell (Eds.), Interpersonal communication research: Advances through ­meta-analysis (pp. 73–88). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Timming, A. R. (2017). The effect of foreign accent on employability: A study of the aural dimensions of aesthetic labour in customer-facing and non-customer-facing jobs. Work, Employment & Society, 31(3), 409–428. Turman, P. D. (2008). Coaches’ immediacy behaviors as predictors of athletes’ perceptions of satisfaction and team cohesion. Western Journal of Communication, 72, 162–179. Usnier, J.-C., & Roulin, N. (2010). The influence of high and low-­context communication styles on the design, content, and language of ­business-to-business web sites. Journal of Business Communication, 47(2), 189–227. Valles, S. A. (2014, June 17). Don’t call them “kids.” Inside Higher Ed. Vangelisti, A.L., Knapp, M. L., & Daly, J. A. (1990). Conversational narcissism. Communication Monographs, 57, 251–274. van Leent, L. (2017). Supporting school teachers: Primary teachers’ conceptions of their responses to diverse sexualities. Sex Education, 17(4), 440–453. Ware, J., & Williams, R. (1980). A reanalysis of the Doctor Fox experiments. Instructional Evaluation, 4, 15–18. Wire, J. (2010, October 9). 20 awesomely untranslatable words from around the world. Matador Abroad. Wolfram, W., & Schilling-Estes, N. (2006). American English: Dialects and variation (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Wood, J. T. (2002). A critical response to John Gray’s Mars and Venus portrayals of men and women. Southern Communication Journal, 67. Wood, J. T., & Fixmer-Oraiz, N. (2017). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, & culture (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage. Yum, J. O. (2012). Communication competence: A Korean perspective. China Media Report Overseas, 8, 1–7. Zack, J., Mannheim, A., & Alfano, M. (2010). “I didn’t know what to say?”: Four archetypical responses to homophobic rhetoric in the classroom. The High School Journal, 93(3), 98–110.

Zimmermann, J., Wolf, M., Bock, A., Peham, D., & Benecke, C. (2013). The way we refer to ourselves reflects how we relate to others: Associations between first-person pronoun use and interpersonal problems. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 218–225.

Chapter 7: Non-verbal Communication Adler, N. & Stewart, J. (2007). The MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status. University of California, San Francisco, Research/ psychosocial notebook. Retrieved from: https:// macses.ucsf.edu/research/psychosocial/ subjective.php Afifi, W. A. (2017). Nonverbal communication. In S. M. Yoshimura (Ed.), Nonverbal communication research (pp. 5–21). San Diego, CA: Cognella. Agthe, M., Sporrle, M., & Maner, J. K. (2011). Does being attractive always help? Positive and negative effects of attractiveness on social decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1042–1054. Akechi, H., Senju, A., Uibo, H., Kikuchi, Y., Hasegawa, T., & Hietanen, J. K. (2013). Attention to eye contact in the West and East: Autonomic responses and evaluative ratings. PLOS One, 8, e59312. Albada, K. F., Knapp, M. L., & Theune, K. E. (2002). Interaction appearance theory: Changing perceptions of physical attractiveness through social interaction. Communication Theory, 12, 8–40. Andersen, P. A., Guerrero, L. K., & Jones, S. M. (2006). Nonverbal behavior in intimate interactions and intimate relationships. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 259–278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Andersen, P. A., & Wang, H. (2009). Beyond language: Nonverbal communication across cultures. In L. A. Samovar, R. E. Porter, & E. R. McDaniel (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 264–281). Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Anderson, P. (1999). Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. Arman, G., & Adair, C. K. (2012). Cross-cultrual differences in perception of time: Implications for multinational teams. European Journal of

429

430

References

Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(5), 657–680. Arriaga, X. B., Agnew, C. R., Capezza, N. M., & Lehmiller, J. J. (2008). The social and physical environment of relationship initiation: An interdependence analysis. In S. Sprecher, A. Wenzel, & J. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of relationship initiation (pp. 197–215). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Baron-Cohen, S. Wheelwright, S., & Hill, J. (2001). The “Reading the mind in the eyes” test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger Syndrome or high-­ functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 41–252. Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L., & Johnson, T. (2002). Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52, 566–580. Beaulieu, C. M. (2004). Intercultural study of personal space: A case study. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 794–805. Bennett, J. (2010, July 19). The beauty advantage: How looks affect your work, your career, your life. Newsweek. Berger, C. R. (1987). Communicating under uncertainty. In M. Roloff & G. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New ­directions in communication research (pp. 39–62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Berger, C. R., & Kellermann, K. (1994). Acquiring social information. In J. M. Wiemann & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Communicating strategically (pp. 1–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bhowon, U. (2016). Perceptions and reasons for veiling: A qualitative study. Psychology and Developing Societies, 28, 29–49. Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and context. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bjornsdottir, R. T., Alaei, R., & Rule, N. O. (2017). The perceptive proletarian: Subjective social class predicts interpersonal accuracy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 41(2), 185–201 Bohns, V. K., & Wiltermuth, S. S. (2012). It hurts when I do this (or you do that): Posture and pain tolerance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 341–345. Bruce, S. M., Mann, A., Jones, C., & Gavin, M. (2007). Gestures expressed by children who are congenitally deafblind: Topography, rate, and function. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 101, 637–652.

Buller, D.B., and Aune, K. (1988). The effects of vocalics and nonverbal sensitivity on compliance: A speech accommodation theory explanation. Human Communication Research, 14, 301–332. Burgoon, J. K., Birk, T., & Pfau, M. (1990). Nonverbal behaviors, persuasion, and credibility. Human Communication Research, 17, 140–169. Burgoon, J. K., & Le Poire, B. A. (1999). Nonverbal cues and interpersonal judgments: Participant and observer perceptions of intimacy, dominance, and composure. Communication Monographs, 66, 105–124. Burgoon, J. K., & Levine, T. R. (2010). Advances in deception detection. In S. W. Smith & S. R. Wilson (Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication research (pp. 201–220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Burgoon, J., Schuetzler, R., & Wilson, D. (2015). Kinesic patterning in deceptive and truthful interactions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 39, 1–24. Burns, K.L., and Beier, E.G. (1973). “Significance of vocal and visual channels for the decoding of emotional meaning. Journal of Communication, 23, 118–130. Byron, K. (2008). Carrying too heavy a load? The communication and miscommunication of emotion by email. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 309–327. Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J., & Yap, A. J. (2010). Power posing: Brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21, 1363–1368. Cesario, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Making message recipients “feel right”: How nonverbal cues can increase persuasion. Psychological Science, 19, 415–420. Chang, C., Chang, C., Zheng, J., & Chung, P. (2013). Physiological emotion analysis using support vector regression. Neurocomputing: An International Journal, 122, 79–87. Chen, Y., Mark, G., & Ali, S. (2016). Promoting positive affect through smartphone photography. Psychology of Well-Being, 6, 8. Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Ho, S., & Henrich, J. (2016). Listen, follow me: Dynamic vocal signals of dominance predict emergent social rank in humans. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 145, 536–547.

Clarke, L. (2013). Women in the niqab speak. A study of the niqab in Canada. Gananoque, Ontario: Canadian Council of Muslim Women. (p. 374) Crane, D.R. (1987). Diagnosing relationships with spatial distance: An empirical test of a clinical principle. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13, 307–310. Cuddy, A. J. C., Wilmuth, C., Yap, A. J., & Carney, D. R. (2015). Preparatory power posing affects nonverbal presence and job interview performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1286–1295. Davis, M., Markus, K. A., & Walters, S. B. (2006). Judging the credibility of criminal suspect statements: Does mode of presentation matter? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 181–198. DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 3, 203–243. Derks, D., Bos, A., & Von Grumbkow, J. (2008). Emoticons in computer-­ mediated communication: Social motives and social context. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11(1), 99–101. Dindia, K. (2006). Men are from North Dakota, women are from South Dakota. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 3–18). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Driscoll, M. S., Newman, D. L., & Seal, J. M. (1988). The effect of touch on the perception of counselors. Counselor Education and Supervision, 27, 344–354. Dunbar, N. E., & Segrin, C. (2012). Clothing and teacher credibility: An application of Expectancy Violations Theory. ISRN Education, 2012, Article ID 140517. Egland, K. I., Stelzner, M. A., Andersen, P. A., & Spitzberg, B. S. (1997). Perceived understanding, nonverbal communication, and relational satisfaction. In J. E. Aitken & L. J. Shedletsky (Eds.), Intrapersonal communication processes (pp. 386–396). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. (1972). Similarities and differences between cultures in expressive movements, in R.A. Hinde (ed.), Nonverbal communication. Oxford, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(2), 124–129.

References

Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York: Norton. Ekman, P. (2003). Emotions revealed: Recognizing faces and feelings to improve communication and emotional life. New York, NY: Times Books/Henry Holt and Co. Ekman, P. (2009), Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics and marriage, 4th edn. New York: W.W. Norton. Evans, G. W., & Wener, R. E. (2007). Crowding and personal space invasion on the train: Please don’t make me sit in the middle. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 90–94. Fabri, M., & Moore, D. (2005). Is empathy the key? Effective communication via instant messaging, in Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Networking Entities, October, St. Polten, Austria. Feghali, E. (1997). Arab cultural communication patterns. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(3), 345–378. Feldman, R., Gordon, I., Schneiderman, I., Weisman, O., & Zagoory-Sharon, O. (2010). Natural variations in maternal and paternal care are associated with systematic changes in oxytocin following parent–infant contact. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 35, 1133–1141. Feldman, R., Rosenthal, Z., & Eidelman, A. I. (2014). Maternal-preterm skinto-skin contact enhances child physiologic organization and cognitive control across the first 10 years of life. Biological Psychiatry, 75, 56–64. Feldstein, S., Dohm, F.A., and Crown, C.L. (2001). Gender and speech rate in the perception of competence and social attractiveness. Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 785–806. Field, T. (2007). The amazing infant: Touch research institute at the University of Miami School of Medicine. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Finnegan, R., 2005. Communicating: the multiple modes of human interconnection. Routledge, New York, NY. Flaskerud, J. H. (2013). Western cultural notions of time and stress. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 34, 558–561. Frevert, T. K., & Walker, L. S. (2014). Physical attractiveness and social status. Sociology Compass, 8, 313–323. Friend, M., & Bryant, J. B. (2000). A developmental lexical bias in the

interpretation of discrepant messages. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46, 342–369 2000 (p. 364) Gallace, A., and Spence, C. (2010). The science of interpersonal touch: An overview. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34, 246–259. Gifford, R. (2011). The role of nonverbal communication in interpersonal relations. In L. M. Horowitz & S. Strack (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal psychology: Theory, research, assessment, and therapeutic interventions (pp. 171–190). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Gillis, R. L., & Nilsen, E. S. (2017). Consistency between verbal and nonverbal affective cues: A clue to speaker credibility. Cognition and Emotion, 31(4), 645–656. Gino, F., Norton, M., & Ariely, D. (2010). The counterfeit self: The deceptive costs of faking it. Psychological Science, 21(5), 712–720. Gordon, R., Crosnoe, R., & Wang, X. (2013). Physical attractiveness and the accumulation of social and human capital in adolescence and young adulthood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78, 1–137. Grant, C. H., III, Cissna, K. N., & Rosenfeld, L. B. (2000). Patients’ perceptions of physicians’ communication and outcomes of the accrual to trial process. Health Communication, 12(1), 23–39. Grebelsky-Lichtman, T. (2014). Parental patterns of cooperation in ­parent-child interactions: The relationship between nonverbal and verbal communication. Human Communication Research, 40, 1–29. Grebelsky-Lichtman, T. (2015). Parental response to child’s incongruence: Verbal versus nonverbal primacy in parent-child interactions. Communication Monographs, 82, 484–509. Gueguen, N., & Jacob, C. (2005). The effect of touch on tipping: An evaluation in a French bar. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 24, 295–299. Gueguen, N., Jacob, C., & Boulbry, G. (2007). The effect of touch on compliance with a restaurant’s employee suggestion. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26, 1019–1023. Gueguen, N., & Vion, M. (2009). The effect of a practitioner’s touch on a

patient’s medication compliance. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 14, 689–694. Gueguen, N., Meineri, S., & Charles-Sire, V. (2010). Improving medication adherence by using practitioner nonverbal techniques: A field experiment on the effect of touch. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 33, 466–473. Gueguen, N. (2013). Effects of a tattoo on men’s behavior and attitudes towards women: An experimental field study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1517–1524. Gueguen, N., Meineri, S., & Fischer-Lokou, J. (2013). Men’s music ability and attractiveness to women in a real-life courtship context. Psychology of Music. Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2006). Nonverbal communication in close relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gunraj, D. N., Drumm-Hewitt, A. M., Dashow, E. M., Upadhyay, S. S. N., & Kline, C. M. (2016). Texting insincerely: The role of the period in text messages. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1067–1075. Hackman, M., & Walker, K. (1990). Instructional communication in the televised classroom: The effects of system design and teacher immediacy. Communication Education, 39, 196–206. Hall, E.T. (1963) A system for the notion of proxemic behaviour. American Psychologist, 65, 1003–1026. Hall, J. A. (2006a). How big are nonverbal sex differences? The case of smiling and nonverbal sensitivity. In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (2nd ed., pp. 55–81). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hall, J. A. (2006b). Women and men’s nonverbal communication: Similarities, differences, stereotypes, and origins. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 201–218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hall, J. A., Andrzejewski, S. A., & Yopchick, J. E. (2009). Psychosocial correlates of interpersonal sensitivity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33, 149–180 Hall, J. A., & Andrzejewski, S. A. (2017). Who draws accurate first impressions? Personal correlates of sensitivity to nonverbal cues. In S. M. Yoshimura (Ed.), Nonverbal communication

431

432

References

research (pp. 52–68). San Diego, CA: Cognella. Hall, J. A., & Compton, B. L. (2017). Preand post-interaction physical attractiveness ratings and experience-based impressions. Communication Studies, 68(3), 260–277. Hasler, B. S., & Friedman, D. A. (2012). Sociocultural conventions in ­avatar-mediated nonverbal communication: A cross-cultural analysis of virtual proxemics. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 41, 238–259. Hasler, B. S., Salomon, O., Tuchman, P., Lev-Tov, A., & Friedman, D. (2017). Real-time gesture translation in intercultural communication. AI & Society, 32, 25–35. Hayes, R. A., Carr, C. T., & Wohn, D. Y. (2016). One click, many meanings: Interpreting paralinguistic affordances in social media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60, 171–187 Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273–281. Hideg, I., & Kleef, G. A. (2017). When expressions of fake emotions elicit negative reactions: The role of observers’ dialectical thinking. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(8), 1196–1212. Hogh-Olesen, H. (2008). Human spatial behaviour: The spacing of people, objects, and animals in six crosscultural samples. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 8, 245–280. Horan, S. M., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2013). Understanding the routine expression of deceptive affection in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly, 61, 195–216. Howlett, N., Pine, K., Orakcıog˘lu, I., & Fletcher, B. (2013). The influence of clothing on first impressions: Rapid and positive responses to minor changes in male attire. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 17, 38–48. Jundi, S. V., Mann, A., Hope, S., Hillman, L., Warmelink, J., & Lara Gahr, E. (2013). Who should I look at? Eye contact during collective interviewing as a cue to deceit. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19, 661–671. Kaisler, , R. E., & Leder, H. (2016). Trusting the looks of others: Gaze effects of faces in social settings. Perception, 45(8), 875–892.

Kalman, Y. M., Scissors, L. E., Gill, A. J., & Gergle, D. (2013). Online chronemics convey social information. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1260–1269. Katsumi, Y., Kim, S., Sung, K., Dolcos, F., & Dolcos, S. (2017). When nonverbal greetings “make it or break it“: The role of ethnicity and gender in the effect of handshake on social a­ pp­raisal. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 41, 345–365. Kaya, N., & Burgess, B. (2007). Territoriality: Seat preferences in different types of classroom arrangements. Environment and Behavior, 39, 859–876. Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2008). The spreading of disorder. Science, 322, 12 December, 1681–1685. Kim, E. J., & Buschmann, M. T. (1999). The effect of expressive physical touch on patients with dementia. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 36, 235–243. Kinzler, K. D., Shutts, K., Dejesus, J., & Spelke, E. S. (2009). Accent trumps race in guiding children’s social preferences. Social Cognition, 27, 623–634. Kleman, E. E. (2008). “May I interest you in today’s special?”: A pilot study of restaurant servers’ compliancegaining strategies. Rocky Mountain Communication Review, 5, 32–42. Knapp, M. L., & Hall, J. A. (2010). Nonverbal communication in human interaction, 7th edn. Boston: Cengage. Knapp, M. L., & Hall, J. A. (2013). Nonverbal communication in human interaction, 8th edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Knofler, T., & Imhof, M. (2007). Does sexual orientation have an impact on nonverbal behavior in interpersonal communication? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31, 189–204. Horan, S. M., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010). Investing in affection: An investigation of affection exchange theory and relational qualities. Communication Quarterly, 58, 394–413. Kouzakova, M., van Baaren, R., & van Knippenberg, A. (2010). Lack of behavioral imitation in human interactions enhances salivary cortisol levels. Hormones and Behavior, 57, 421–426. Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 992–1004.

Kraus, M. W., Huang, C., & Keltner, D. (2010). Tactile communication, cooperation, and performance: An ethological study of the NBA . Emotion, 10, 745–749. Krumhuber, E., Manstead, A. S. R., Cosker, D., Marshall, D., & Rosin, P. L. (2009). Effects of dynamic attributes of smiles in human and synthetic faces: A simulated job interview setting. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 33, 1–15. Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Aggression and violence in the inner city: Effects of environment via mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33, 543–571. La France, B. H. (2010). What verbal and nonverbal communication cues lead to sex?: An analysis of the traditional sexual script. Communication Quarterly, 58, 297–318. Lapakko, D. (1997). Three cheers for language: A closer examination of a widely cited study of nonverbal communication. Communication Education, 46, 63–67. Latimer, M, Finley GA, Rudderham S, Inglis S, Francis J, Young S, HuttMacLeod D. (2014). Expression of pain in Mi’kmaq children from one Atlantic Canadian community: A qualitative study. CMAJ Open,2, 133–8.et al 2014 (p. 348) Ledbetter, A. M. (2008). Chronemic cues and sex differences in relational e-mail: Perceiving immediacy and supportive message quality. Social Science Computer Review, 26, 466–482. Lemay, E. P., Clark, M. S., & Greenberg, A. (2010). What is beautiful is good because what is beautiful is desired: Physical attractiveness stereotyping as projection of interpersonal goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 339–353. Levine, R. V. (1988). The pace of life across cultures, in J.E. McGrath (ed.), The social psychology of time, 39–60. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Liu, J., Hu, J., & Furutan, O. (2013). The influence of student perceived professors’ “hotness” on expertise, motivation, learning outcomes, and course satisfaction. Journal of Education for Business, 88, 94–100. Litchmore, R.V. & Safdar,S. (2016). Meanings of the Hijab: Views of Canadian Muslim women. Asian Journal of Social Psychology,19, 198–208. (p. 374)

References

Lo, S. (2008). The nonverbal communication functions of emoticons in computer-mediated communication. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11, 595–597. Lock, C. (2004, July 31). Deception detection: Psychologists try to learn how to spot a liar. Science News, 16, 72. Lorenzo, G. L., Biesanz, J. C., & Human, L. J. (2010). What is beautiful is good and more accurately understood: Physical attractiveness and accuracy in first impressions of personality. Psychological Science, 21, 1777–1782. Ma-Kellams, C., Wang, M. C., & Cardiel, H. ( 2017). Attractiveness and relationship longevity: Beauty is not what it is cracked up to be. Personal Relationships, 24( 1), 146– 161. Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., & Gailliot, M. T. (2008). Selective attention to signs of success: Social dominance and early stage interpersonal perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(4), 488–501. Mann, S., Ewens, S., Shaw, D., Vrij, A., Leal, S., & Hillman, J. (2013). Lying eyes: Why liars seek deliberate eye contact. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20, 452–461. Maricchiolo, F., Gnisci, A., Bonaiuto, M., & Ficca, G. (2009). Effects of different types of hand gestures in persuasive speech on receivers’ evaluations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 239–266. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. Marsh, A. A., Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2003). Nonverbal “accents”: Cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. Psychological Science, 14,373–376. Matsumoto, D. (2006). Culture and nonverbal behavior. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 219–235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McDaniel, E., & Andersen, P.A. (1998). International patterns of interpersonal tactile communication: A field study. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 22, 59–75. McDuff, D., Girard, J. M., & Kaliouby, R. e. (2017). Large-scale observational evidence of cross-cultural differences in facial behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 41(1), 1–19 Mehrabian, A., and Weiner, M. (1967). Decoding of inconsistent

­communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 109–114. Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton. Mehrabian, A. (2008). Communication without words. In C. D. Mortensen (Ed.), Communication theory (2nd ed., pp. 193–200). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Michalak, J., Mischnat, J., & Teismann, T. (2014). Sitting posture makes a difference: Embodiment effects on depressive memory bias. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 21, 519–524. Miwa, Y., & Hanyu, K. (2006). The effects of interior design on communication and impressions of a counselor in a counseling room. Environment and Behavior, 38, 484–502. Morton, J.B., and Trehub, S.E. (2001). Children’s understanding of emotion in speech. Child Development, 72, 834–843. Murphy, N. A. (2007). Appearing smart: The impression management of intelligence, person perception accuracy, and behavior in social interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 325–339. Myers, S. A., Byrnes, K. A., Frisby, B. N., & Mansson, D. H. (2011). Adult siblings’ use of affectionate communication as a strategic and routine relational maintenance behavior. Communication Research Reports, 28, 151–158. Nagel, F., Maurer, M., & Reinemann, C. (2012). Is there a visual dominance in political communication? How verbal, visual, and vocal communication shape viewers’ impressions of political candidates. Journal of Communication, 62, 833–850. Nair, S., Sagar, M., Sollers, J., III, Consedine, N., & Broadbent, E. (2015). Do slumped and upright postures affect stress responses? A randomized trial. Health Psychology, 34, 632–641. Nasar, J. L., & Devlin, A. S. (2011). Impressions of psychotherapists’ offices. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58, 310–320. Park, J., Baek, Y. M., & Cha, M. (2014). Cross-cultural comparison of nonverbal cues in emoticons on Twitter: Evidence from big data analysis. Journal of Communication, 64, 333–354. Pena, J., & Blackburn, K. (2013). The priming effects of virtual environments on interpersonal perceptions

and behaviors. Journal of Communication, 63, 703–720. Perry, A., Rubinsten, O., Peled, L., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. G. (2013). Don’t stand so close to me: A behavioral and ERP study of preferred interpersonal distance. Neuroimage, 83, 761–769. Peterson, R. D., & Palmer, C. L. (2017). Effects of physical attractiveness on political beliefs. Politics and the Life Sciences, 36(2), 3–16. Petrilli,C.M., Mack, M., Petrilli, J.J., Hickner, A., Saint, S. & Chopra, V. (2015). Understanding the role of physician attire on patient perceptions: A systematic review of the literature— targeting attire to improve likelihood of rapport (TAILOR) investigators. BMJ Open, 5, 1–18. Porter, S., Brinke, L., & Wallace, B. (2012). Secrets and lies: Involuntary leakage in deceptive facial expressions as a function of emotional intensity. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 36, 23–37. Rhode, D. L. (2010). The beauty bias: The injustice of appearance in law and life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Richmond, V. P., McCroskey, J. C., & Johnson, A. D. (2003). Development of the Non-verbal Immediacy Scale (NIS): Measure of self- and other-perceived non-verbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51, 504–517. Riggio, H. R. (2006). Structural features of sibling dyads and attitudes toward sibling relationships in young adulthood. Journal of Family Issues, 27(9), 1233–1254. Riordan, M. A., & Kreuz, R. J. (2010). Emotion encoding and interpretation in computer-mediated communication: Reasons for use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1667–1673. Riordan, M. A. (2017). Emojis as tools for emotion work: Communicating affect in text messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10. Rockwell, P. (2007a). The effects of cognitive complexity and communication apprehension on the expression and recognition of sarcasm. In A. M. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (Vol. 49, pp. 185–196). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Rockwell, P. (2007b). Vocal features of conversational sarcasm: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 36, 361–369. Rogers, L. E. (2001). Relational communication in the context of family. Journal of Family Communication, 1, 25–35.

433

434

References

Sangster, J. (2002). “She is hostile to our ways”: First Nations girls sentenced to Ontario training school for girls, 1933–1960. Law and History Review, 20, 1–36. Sebastian, R., & Bristow, D. (2008). Formal or informal? The impact of style of dress and forms of address on business students’ perceptions of professors. Journal of Education for Business, 83, 196–201. Schotter, E. R., Berry, R. W., McKenzie, C. R. M., & Rayner, K. (2010). Gaze bias: Selective encoding and liking effects. Visual Cognition, 18, 1113–1132. Shafir, T., Taylor, S. F., Atkinson, A. P., Langenecker, S. A., & Zubieta, J. (2013). Emotion regulation through execution, observation, and imagery of emotional movements. Brain and Cognition, 82, 219–227. Shamay, S. G., Tomer, R., & AharonPeretz, J. (2002). Deficit in understanding sarcasm in patients with pre-frontal lesion is related to impaired empathic ability. Brain and Cognition, 48, 558–563. Shellenbarger, S. (2013, May 28). Just look me in the eye already. Wall Street Journal. Skovholt, K. Gronning, A., & Kankaanranta, A. (2014). The communicative functions of emoticons in workplace e-mails. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(4), 780–797. Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Hilpert, P., Cantarero, K., Frackowiak, T., Ahmadi, K., . . . Pierce, J. D. (2017). Preferred interpersonal distances: A global comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(4), 577–592. Sommer, R. (1969). Personal space: The behavioral basis of design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Sporer, S. L., & Schwandt, B. (2007). Moderators of nonverbal indicators of deception: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 1–34. Stewart, G. L., Dustin, S. L., Barrick, M. R., & Darnold, T. C. (2008). Exploring the handshake in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1139–1146. Stonefish, T., & Kwantes, C. T. (2017). Values and acculturation: A native Canadian exploration. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 61, 63–76. Tai, K., Zheng, X., & Narayanan, J. (2011). Touching a teddy bear mitigates

negative effects of social exclusion to increase prosocial behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6), 618–626. Teven, J. J. (2010). The effects of supervisor nonverbal immediacy and power use on employees’ ratings of credibility and affect for the supervisor. Human Communication, 13, 69–85. Thompson, D., & Filik, R. (2016). Sarcasm in written communication: Emoticons are efficient markers of intention. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21, 105–120. Ting-Toomey, S. (2017). Mindful intercultural nonverbal communication. In S. M. Yoshimura (Ed.), Nonverbal communication research (pp. 24–48). San Diego, CA: Cognella. Uhls, Y. T., Michikyan, M., Morris, J., Garcia, D., Small, G. W., Zgourou, E., & Greenfield, P. M. (2014). Five days at outdoor education camp without screens improves preteen skills with nonverbal emotion cues. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 387–392. Vandergriff, I. (2013). Emotive communication online: A contextual analysis of computer-mediated communication cues. Journal of Pragmatics, 51, 1–12. Van Horen, F., and Mussweiler, T. (2014). Soft assurance: Coping with uncertainty through haptic sensations. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology 54, 73–80. Van Swol, L. M. (2003). The effects of nonverbal mirroring on perceived persuasiveness, agreement with an imitator, and reciprocity in a small group discussion. Communication Research, 30, 461–480. Varnum, M. E. W., Blais, C., Hampton, R. S., & Brewer, G. A. (2015). Social class affects neural empathic responses. Culture and Brain, 3, 122–130. Vicaria, I., & Dickens, L. (2016). Metaanalyses of the intra- and interpersonal outcomes of interpersonal coordination. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 40(4), 335–361. Vrij, A. (2006). Nonverbal communication and deception. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 341–360). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Vrij, A., Edward, K., Roberts, K. P., & Bull, R. (2000). Detecting deceit via analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 24, 239–263.

Walther, J. B., & D’Addario, K. P. (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 324–347. Walther, J. B. (2009). Nonverbal dynamics in computermediated communication or :( and the net :(‘s with you, :) and you :) alone. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 461–479). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Walther, J. B., Deandrea, D., & Tong, S. T. (2010). Computer-mediated communication versus vocal communication and the attenuation of preinteraction impressions. Media Psychology, 13(4), 364–386. Weinstein, N., Przybyiski, A. K., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Can nature make us more caring? Effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, (10), 1315–1329. Weisbuch, M., Ambady, N., Clarke, A. L., Achor, S., & Weele, J. V.-V. (2010). On being consistent: The role of verbal-nonverbal consistency in first impressions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 261–268 Wiemann, J. M., & Knapp, M. L. (2008). Turn-taking in conversations. In C. D. Mortensen (Ed.), Communication theory (2nd ed., pp. 226–245). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Wilkerson, A., Carlson, N. E., Yen, I. H., & Michael, Y. L. (2012). Neighborhood physical features and relationships with neighbors: Does positive physical environment increase neighborliness? Environment and Behavior, 44, 595–615 Yan, W., Wu, Q., Liang, J., Chen, Y., & Fu, X. (2013). How fast are the leaked facial expressions: The duration of micro-expressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 37, 217–230. Yuki, M., Maddux, W., & Masuda, T. (2007). Are the windows to the soul the same in the East and West: Cultural differences in using eyes and mouth as cues to recognize emotions in Japan and the United States. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 43, 303–311. Zebrowitz, L. A., & Montepare, J. M. (2008). First impressions from facial appearance cues. In N. Ambady & J. J. Skowronski (Eds.), First impressions (pp. 171–204). New York, NY: Guilford.

References

Zick, A., Granieri, M., & Makoul, G. (2007). First-year medical students’ assessment of their own communication skills: A video-based, open-ended approach. Patient Education and Counseling, 68, 161–166.

Chapter 8: Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships Adamopoulos, J. (1991). The emergence of interpersonal behavior: Diachronic and cross-cultural processes in the evolution of intimacy. In S. Ting-Toomey and F. Korzenny (eds), Cross-cultural interpersonal communication, 155–170. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Albada, K. F., Knapp, M. L., & Theune, K. E. (2002). Interaction appearance theory: Changing perceptions of physical attractiveness through social interaction. Communication Theory, 12, 8–40. Alford, J. R., Hatemi, P. K., Hibbing, J. R., Martin, N. G., & Eaves, L. J. (2011). The politics of mate choice. The Journal of Politics, 73, 362–379. Antonuccio, D., & Jackson, R. (2009). The science of forgiveness. In W. O’Donohue & S. R. Graybar (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary psychotherapy: Toward an improved understanding of effective psychotherapy (pp. 269–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (2004). Close relationships as including other in the self. In H. T. Reis, and C. E. Rusbult (eds), Close relationships: Key readings, 365– 379. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis. Aronson, E. (2008). The social animal (10th edition). New York: Worth, Arriaga, X. B., Capezza, N. M., Goodfriend, W., Ray, E. S., & Sands, K. J. (2013). Individual well-being and relationship maintenance at odds: The unexpected perils of maintaining a relationship with an aggressive partner. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 676–684. Bachman, G. F., & Guerrero, L. K. (2006). Forgiveness, apology, and communicative responses to hurtful events. Communication Reports, 19, 45–56. Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2008). Becoming friends by chance. Psychological Science, 19, 439–440. Baker, A. J. (2008). Down the rabbit hole: The role of place in the initiation and

development of online relationships. In A. Barak (Ed.), Psychological aspects of cyber-space: Theory, research, applications (pp. 163–184). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Baker, L. R., & Oswald, D. L. (2010). Shyness and online social networking services. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(7), 873–889. Barelds, D. P. H., Dijkstra, P., Koudenburg, N., & Swami, V. (2011). An assessment of positive illusions of the physical attractiveness of romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(5), 706–719. Barry, D. (1990). Dave Barry turns 40. New York: Fawcett Columbine. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., Aaker, J. L., & Garbinsky, E. N. (2013). Some key differences between a happy life and a meaningful life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(6), 505–516. Baxter. L.A. (1987). Symbols of relationship identity in relationship culture. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 261–280. Baxter, L. A. (1992). Forms and functions of intimate play in personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 18, 336–363. Baxter, L. A. (1994). A dialogic approach to relationship maintenance. In D.J. Canary and L. Stafford (eds), Communication and relational maintenance, 233–254. San Diego: Academic Press. Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2006). Social dialetics: The contradictions of relating. In B. Whaley & W. Samter (eds), Explaining communication: Contemporary communication theories and exemplars, 305–324. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York: Guilford Press. Baxter, L. A., & Wilmot, W. W. (1985). Taboo topics in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 253–269. Bazarova, N. N. (2012). Public intimacy: Disclosure interpretation and social judgments on Facebook. Journal of Communication, 62, 815–832. Becker, J. A. H., Ellevold, B., & Stamp, G. H. (2008). The creation of defen-

siveness in social interaction II: A model of defensive communication among romantic couples. Communication Monographs, 75, 1, 86–110. Ben-Ari, A. (2012). Rethinking closeness and distance in intimate relationships: Are they really two opposites. Journal of Family Issues, 33(3), 391–412. Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. (1978). Interpersonal attraction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefit relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 66–73. Boyle, A. M., & O’Sullivan, L. F. (2016). Staying connected: Computermediated and face-to-face communication in college students’ dating relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19, 299–307. Braithwaite, C., Baxter, L. A., & Harper, A. M. (1998). The role of rituals in the management of the dialectical tension of “old” and “new” in blended families. Communication Studies, 49, 101–120. Brandau-Brown, F. E., & Ragsdale, J. D. (2008). Personal, moral, and structural commitment and the repair of marital relationships. Southern Communication Journal, 73, 68–83. Brand, R. J., Bonatsos, A., D’Orazio, R., & DeShong, H. (2012). What is beautiful is good, even online: Correlations between photo attractiveness and text attractiveness in men’s online dating profiles. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 166–170. Brantley, A., Knox, D., & Zusman, M. E. (2002). When and why gender differences in saying “I love you” among college students. College Student Journal, 36, 614–615. Butzer, B., & Kuiper, N. A. (2008). Humour use in romantic relationships: The effects of relationship satisfaction in pleasant versus conflict situations. Journal of Psychology, 142(3), 245–260. Cacioppo, J. T., Cacioppo, S., Gonzaga, G. C., Ogburn, E. L., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2013). Marital satisfaction and break-ups differ across on-line and off-line meeting venues. PNAS , 110, 10135–10140. Campos, B., & Kim, H. S. (2017). Incorporating the cultural diversity of family and close relationships into the study of health. American Psychologist, 72(6), 543–554.  Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., Hause, K. S., & Wallace, L. A. (1993). An inductive

435

436

References

analysis of relational maintenance strategies: Comparisons among lovers, relatives, friends and others. Communication Research Reports, 10(1), 3–14. Cheng, Y., & Gruhn, D. (2016). Perceived similarity in emotional reaction profiles between the self and a close other as a predictor of emotional well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33, 711–732. Cole, D. A., Nick, E. A., Zelkowitz, R. L., Roeder, K. M., & Spinelli, T. (2017). Online social support for young people: Does it recapitulate in-person social support; can it help? Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 456–464. Collins, T. J., & Gillath, O. (2012). Attachment, breakup strategies, and associated outcomes: The effects of security enhancement on the selection of breakup strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 210–222. Conlan, S. K. (2008). Romantic relationship termination. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. The Sciences and Engineering, 68(7-B), 4884. Conville, R. L. (1991). Relational transitions: The evolution of personal relationships. New York: Praeger. Cottrell, C. A., Neuberg, S. L., & Li, N. P. (2007). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 208–231. Craig, E., & Wright, B. (2012). Computermediated relational development and maintenance in Facebook. Communication Research Reports, 29, 119–129. Dailey, R. M., McCracken, A. A., Jin, B., Rossetto, K. R., & Green, E. W. (2013). Negotiating breakups and renewals: Types of on-again/ off-again dating relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 77, 382–410. Dainton, M., Stafford, L., and Canary, D.J. (1994). Relational maintenance strategies and physical affection as predictors of love, liking and satisfaction in marriage. Communication Reports, 7(2), 88–98. Dainton, M. (2013). Relationship main­ tenance on Facebook: Development of a measure, relationship to general maintenance, and relationship satisfaction. College Student Journal, 47, 112–121. Dance, F. (1967). Toward theory of human communication: Original essays. In

Frank Dance (ed.), Human communication theory, pp. 288–309. New York: Holt. DeMaris, A. (2007). The role of relationship inequity in marital disruption. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 177–195. Dindia, K. (2000a). Self-disclosure research: Advances through metaanalysis. In M.A. Allen, R. W. Preiss, B. M. Gayle, & N. Burrell (eds), Interpersonal communication: Advances through meta-analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dindia, K. (2002). Self-disclosure research: Knowledge through metaanalysis. In M. Allen and R. W. Preiss (eds), Interpersonal communication research: Advances through metaanalysis, 169–185. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1993). Individualistic and collectivistic perspectives on gender and the cultural context of love and intimacy. Journal of Social Issues, 49(3), 53–69. Dunleavy, K. N., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2009). Idiomatic communication in stages of coming together and falling apart. Communication Quarterly, 57(4), 416–432. Duran, R. L., Kelly, L., & Rotaru, T. (2011). Mobile phones in romantic relationships and the dialectic of autonomy versus connection. Communication Quarterly, 59(1), 19–36. Eastwick, P. W., Luchies, L. B., ­Finkel, E. J., & Hunt, L. L. (2013). The predicative validity of ideal partner preferences: A review and metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 623–665. Eaton, J., & Struthers, C. W. (2006). The reduction of psychological aggression across varied interpersonal contexts through repentance and forgiveness. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 195–206. Eden, J., & Veksler, A. E. (2016). Relational maintenance in the digital age: Implicit rules and multiple modalities. Communication Quarterly, 64, 119–144. Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Zell, L. (2008). Not so innocent: Does seeing one’s own capability for wrongdoing predict forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 495–515. Exline, J. J., Deshea, L., & Holeman, V. T. (2007). Is apology worth the risk? Predictors, outcomes, and ways to avoid

regret. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 26, 479–504. Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2013). Gratitude and forgiveness in relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 638–643). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Finkle, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2010). Attraction and rejection. In R. F. Baumeister & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Advanced social psychology: The state of the science (pp. 419–459). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Fisher, H. (2007, May-June). The laws of chemistry. Psychology Today, 40, 76–81. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83. Fogel, A., & Branco, A.U. (1997). Metacommunication as a source of indeterminism in relationship development. In A. Fogel and M. C. D. P. Lyra (Eds.), Dynamics and indeterminism in developmental and social processes, 65– 92. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Foster, E. (2008). Commitment, communication, and contending with heteronormativity: An invitation to greater reflexivity in interpersonal research. Southern Communication Journal, 73, 84–101. Fox, J., & Warber, K. M. (2013). Romantic relationship development in the age of Facebook: An exploratory study of emerging adults’ perceptions, motives, and behaviors. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 3–7. Fox, J., Warber, K. M., & Makstaller, D. C. (2013). The role of Facebook in romantic relationship development: An exploration of Knapp’s relational stage model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 771–794. Fox, S. (2011, February 28). Peer-to-peer healthcare. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Frisby, B. N., Sidelinger, R. J., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2015). No harm, no foul: A social exchange perspective on individual and relational outcomes associated with relational baggage. Western Journal of Communication, 79, 555–572. Frost, D. M., & Forrester, C. (2013). Closeness discrepancies in romantic relationships: Implications for relational well-being, stability, and mental health. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 456–469.

References

Frost, D. M., Rubin, J. D., & D ­ arcangelo, N. (2016). Making meaning of significant events in past relationships: Implications for depression among newly single individuals. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33, 938–960. Gadlin, H. (1977). Private lives and public order: A critical view of the history of intimate relations in the United States. In G. Levinger and H.L. Raush (eds), Close relationships: Perspectives on the meaning of intimacy, 33–72. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press. Gartzia, L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2016). Too masculine, too bad: Effects of communion on leaders’ promotion of cooperation. Group & Organization Management, 41(4), 458–490. Gershon, I. (2010). Breaking up is hard to do: Media switching and media ideologies. The Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 20(2), 389–405. Girme, Y. U., Overall, N. C., & Faingataa, S. (2014). Date nights’ take two: The maintenance of shared relationship activities. Personal Relationships, 21, 125–149. Gao, G. (2001). Intimacy, passion, and commitment in Chinese and US American romantic relationships. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, 329–342 Goldsmith, D. J., & Domann-Scholz, K. (2013). The meanings of “open communication” among couples coping with a cardiac event. Journal of Communication, 63, 266–286. Guerrero, L. K., & Bachman, G. (2008). Communication following relational transgressions in dating relationships: An investment-model explanation. Southern Communication Journal, 73, 4–23. Guerrero, L. K., & Bachman, G. F. (2010). Forgiveness and forgiving com­ munication in dating relationships: An expectancy-investment explanation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 801–823. Guillory, J. E., Hancock, J. T., Woodruff, C., & Keilman, J. (2015). Text messaging reduces analgesic requirements during surgery. Pain Medicine, 16, 667–672. Half, R. (2016, May 29). Job interview tips: 8 ways an interview is like dating. Robert Half. Hall, J. A., & Baym, N. K. (2012). Calling and texting (too much): Mobile

maintenance expectations, (over) dependence, entrapment, and friendship satisfaction. New Media and Society, 14, 316–331. Hall, J. A., Larson, K. A., & Watts, A. (2011). Satisfying friendship maintenance expectations: The role of friendship standards and biological sex. Human Communication Research, 37, 529–552. Hall, J.A. (2015). Sexual selection and humor in courtship: A case for warmth and extroversion Evolutionary Psychology, 13, 1–10. Hall, J.A. (2017). Humor in romantic relationships: A meta-analysis. Personal Relationships, 24, 306–322. Hand, L. S., & Furman, W. (2009). Rewards and costs in adolescent other-sex friendships: Comparisons to same-sex friendships and romantic relationships. Social Development, 18(2), 270–287. Hannon, P. A., Finkel, E. J., Kumashiro, M., & Rusbult, C. E. (2012). The soothing effects of forgiveness on victims’ and perpetrators’ blood pressure. Personal Relationships, 19, 279–289. Harasymchuk, C., & Fehr, B. (2013). A prototype analysis of relational boredom. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 627–646. Heine, S. J., Foster, J. A. B., & Spina, R. (2009). Do birds of a feather ­u niver­sally flock together? Cultural variation in the similarity-attraction effect. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12(4), 247–258. Hess, J. A. (2000). Maintaining non­ voluntary relationships with disliked partners: An investigation into the use of distancing behaviors. Human Communication Research, 26, 458–488. Houser, M. L., Fleuriet, C., & Estrada, D. (2012). The cyber factor: An analysis of relational maintenance through the use of computer-mediated com­ munication. Communication Research Reports, 29, 34–43. Hsieh, S. H., & Tseng, T. H. (2017). Playfulness in mobile instant messaging: Examining the influence of emoticons and text messaging on social interaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 405–414. Hui, C. M., Molden, D. C., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Loving freedom: Concerns with promotion or prevention and the role of autonomy in relationship well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 61–85.

Jaschinski, C., & Kommers, P. (2012). Does beauty matter? The role of friends’ attractiveness and gender on social attractiveness ratings of individuals on Facebook. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 8, 389–401. Johnson, A. J., Becker, A. H., Craig, E. A., Gilchrist, E. S., & Haigh, M. M. (2009). Changes in friendship commitment: Comparing geographically close and long-distance young-adult friendships. Communication Quarterly, 57, 395–415. Johnson, A. J., Haigh, M. M., Becker, J. A. H., Craig, E. A., & Wigley, S. (2008). College students’ use of relational management strategies in email in long distance and geographically close relationships. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 13, 381–404. Johnson, A. J., Haigh, M. M., Craig, E. A., & Becker, J. A. H. (2009). Relational closeness: Comparing undergraduate college students’ geographically close and long-distance friendships. Personal Relationships, 16, 631–646. Johnson, A. J., Wittenberg, E., Haigh, M., Wigley, S., Becker, J., Brown, K., & Craig, E. (2004). The process of relationship development and deterioration: Turning points in friendships that have terminated. Communication Quarterly, 52, 54–67. Johnson, K. R., & Holmes, B. M. (2009). Contradictory messages: A content analysis of Hollywood-produced romantic comedy feature films. Communication Quarterly, 57, 352–373. Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 599–628. Kim, H., Edwards, A. B., Sweeney, K. A., & Wetchler, J. L. (2012a). The effects of differentiation and attachment on satisfaction and acculturation in Asian-White American international couple relationships: Assessment with Chinese, South Korean, and Japanese partners in relationships with white American partners in the United States. American Journal of Family Therapy, 40, 320–335. Kito, M., Yuki, M., Thomson, R. (2017). Relational mobility and close relationships: A socioecological approach to explain cross-cultural differences. Personal Relationships, 24, 114–130.

437

438

References

Klohnen, E. C., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is attractive—self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity or attachment security? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 709–722. Knapp, M. L., Vangelisti, A. L., & ­Caughlin, J. P. (2014). Interpersonal com­munication in human relationships (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2002). Information seeking beyond initial interaction: Negotiating relational uncertainty within close relationships. Human Communication Research, 28, 243–257. Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2003). Manifestations of relationship conception in conversation. Human Com­ munication Research, 29, 482–515. Kreager, D. A., Felson, R. B., Warner, C., & Wenger, M. R. (2013). Women’s education, marital violence, and divorce: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 565–581. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Barrick, M. R., & Stevens, C. K. (2005). Opposites attract: A multi-sample demonstration of complementary person–team fit on extraversion. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 935–958. Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Stevens, C. K. (2001). Goal congruence in project teams: Does the fit between members’ personal mastery and performance goals matter? Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1083–1095. Kuiper, N. A. (2010). Introductory comments: Special issue of EJOP on humor research in personality and social psychology. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 6(3), 1–8. Kulik, C. T., Rae, B., Sardeshmukh, S. R., & Perera, S. (2015). Can we still be friends? The role of exit conversations in facilitating Post‐Exit relationships. Human Resource Management, 54(6), 893–912. Lakey, B. (2013). Social support processes in relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 711–730). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lane, B. L., Piercy, C. W., & Carr, C. T. (2016). Making it Facebook official: The warranting value of online relationship status disclosures on relational characteristics. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 1–8.

Ledbetter, A. M., & Keating, A. T. (2015). Maintaining Facebook friendships: Everyday talk as a mediator of threats to closeness. Western Journal of Communication, 79, 197–217. Ledbetter, A. M., Mazer, J. P., DeGroot, J. M., Meyer, K. R., Mao, Y., & Swafford, B. (2011). Attitudes toward online social connection and self-disclosure as predictors of Facebook communication and relational closeness. Communication Research, 38(1), 27–53. Lee, P. (2008). Stages and transitions if relational identity formation in intercultural friendship: Implications for identity management theory. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1(1), 51–69. LeFebvre, L., Blackburn, K., & Brody, N. (2015). Navigating romantic relationships on Facebook: Extending the relational dissolution model to account for social networking environments. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 78–98. Lemay, E. P., Clark, M. S., & Greenberg, A. (2010). What is beautiful is good because what is beautiful is desired: Physical attractiveness stereotyping as projection of interpersonal goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 339–353. Levine, T. R., Aune, K., & Park, H. (2006). Love styles and communication in relationships: Partner preferences, initiation, and intensification. Communication Quarterly, 54, 465–486. Lewandowski, G. W. Jr., Aron, A., & Gee, J. (2007). Personality goes a long way: The malleability of opposite-sex physical attractiveness. Personal Relationships, 14, 571–585. Lewicki, R. J., Polin, B., & Lount, R. B. (2016). An exploration of the structure of effective apologies. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 9, 177–196. Lippert, T., & Prager, K.J. (2001). Daily experiences of intimacy: A study of couples. Personal Relationships, 8, 283–298. Lou, N. M., & Li, L. M. W. (2017). Interpersonal relationship mindsets and rejection sensitivity across cultures: The role of relational mobility. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 200–206. Lukacs, V., Quan-Haase, A. (2015). Romantic breakups on Facebook: New scales for studying post-breakup behaviors, digital distress, and surveil-

lance. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 492–508. Luo, S., & Zhang, G. (2009). What leads to romantic attraction: Similarity, reciprocity, security, or beauty? Evidence from a speed-dating study. Journal of Personality, 77, 933–964. Lydon, J. E., & Quinn, S. K. (2013). Relationship maintenance processes. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 573–588). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. MacGeorge, E. L., Feng, B., & Burleson, B. R. (2011). Supportive communication. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 317–354). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. MacIntosh, H., Reissing, E. D., & Andruff, H. (2010). Same-sex marriage in Canada: The impact of legal marriage on the first cohort of gay and lesbian Canadians wed. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 19(3), 79–90. Marshall, T. (2008). Cultural differences in intimacy: The influence of genderrole ideology and individualism— collectivism. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(1), 143–168. Marshall, T. (2010). Love at the cultural crossroads: Intimacy and commitment in Chinese Canadian relationships. Personal Relationships, 17, 391–411. Martin, A., Jacob, C., & Gueguen, N. (2013). Similarity facilitates relationships on social networks: A field experiment on Facebook. Psychological Reports, 113, 217–220. McGuire, K. C., & Kinnery, T. A. (2010). When distance is problematic: Communication, coping, and relational satisfaction in female college students’ long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 27–46. Merolla, A. J. (2008). Communicating forgiveness in friendships and dating relationships. Communication Studies, 59, 114–131. Merolla, A. J. (2010). Relational maintenance and noncopresence reconsidered: Conceptualizing geographic separation in close relationships. Communication Theory, 20, 169–193. Merolla, A. J., Weber, K. D., Myers, S. A., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2004). The impact of past dating relationship solidarity on commitment, satisfaction, and investment in current relationships. Communication Quarterly, 52, 251–264.

References

Mikkelson, A. C., Hesse, C., & Pauley, P. M. (2016). The attributes of relational maximizers. Communication Studies, 67, 567–587. Miller-Ott, A. E., & Kelly, L. (2016). Competing discourses and meaning making about romantic partners’ cell-phone contact with non-present others. Communication Studies, 67, 58–76. Miller-Ott, A. E., Kelly, L., & Duran, R. L. (2012). The effects of cell phone usage rules on satisfaction in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly, 60, 17–34. Mongeau, P. A., & Henningsen, M. L. M. (2008). Stage theories of relationship development. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 363–375). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Montesi, J.L., Conner, B.T., Gordon, E.A., Fauber, R.L., Kim, K.H., and Heimberg, R.G. (2013). On the relationship among social anxiety, intimacy, sexual communication, and sexual satisfaction in young couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 81–91. Montgomery, B.M. (1993). Relationship maintenance versus relationship change: A dialectical dilemma. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 205–223. Montoya, R., & Horton, R. S. (2013). A meta-analytic investigation of the processes underlying the similarityattraction effect. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 64–94 Morris, D. (1973). Intimate behavior. New York: Bantam. Neff, K. D., & Suizzo, M. A. (2006). Culture, power, authenticity and psychological well-being within romantic relationships: A comparison of European American and Mexican Americans. Cognitive Development, 21, 441–457. O’Donnell, M. B., Bentele, C. N., Grossman, H. B., Le, Y., Jang, H., & Steger, M. F. (2014). You, me, and meaning: An integrative review of connections between relationships and meaning in life. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 24(1), 69–79. Ogolsky, B. G., & Bowers, J. R. (2013). A meta-analytic review of relationship maintenance and its correlates. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 343–367. Orcutt, H. K. (2006). The prospective relationship of interpersonal forgiveness

and psychological distress symptoms among college women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 350–361. Overall, N. C., & Sibley, C. G. (2008). Attachment and attraction toward romantic partners versus relevant alternatives within daily interactions. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1126–1137. Papp, L. M., Danielewicz, J., C ­ ayemberg, C. (2012). Are we Facebook official? Implications of dating partners’ Facebook use and profiles for intimate relationship satisfaction. Cyber­Psychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 15, 85–90. Pausch, R. (2008). The last lecture. New York, NY: Hyperion. Peyton, A., & Goei, R. (2013). The effectiveness of explicit demand and emotional expression apology cues in predicting victim readiness to accept an apology. Communication Studies, 64, 411–430. Prentice, C. M., & Kramer, M. W. (2006). Dialectical tensions in the classroom: Managing tensions through communication. Southern Communication Journal, 71, 339–361. Proyer, R. T. (2017). A new structural model for the study of adult playfulness: Assessment and exploration of an understudied individual differ­ ences variable. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 113–122. Rains, S. A., Peterson, E. B., & Wright, K. B. (2015). Communicating social support in computer-mediated contexts: A meta-analytic review of content analyses examining support messages shared online among individuals coping with illness. Communication Monographs, 82, 403–430. Ramirez, A., Sumner, E. M., Fleuriet, C., & Cole, M. (2015). When online dating partners meet offline: The effect of modality switching on relational communication between online daters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20, 99–114. Rawlins, W. K. (1992). Friendship matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life course. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Reid, C. A., Green, J. D., & Davis, J. L. (2018). Attitude alignment increases trust, respect, and perceived reasoning ability to produce attraction. Personal Relationships, 25(2), 171–189. Reis, H. T., & Clark, M. S. (2013). Responsiveness. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of

close relationships (pp. 400–426). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Reis, H. T., Smith, S. M., Tsai, F., Carmichael, C., Capariello, P., Rodrigues, A., & Maniaci, M. (2010). Are you happy for me? How sharing positive events with others provides personal and interpersonal benefits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(2), 311–329. Rick, S. I., Small, D. A., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). Fatal (fiscal) attraction: Spendthrifts and tightwads in marriage. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 228–237. Robbins, S. A., & Merrill, A. F. (2014). Understanding posttransgressional relationship closeness: The roles of perceived severity, rumination, and communication competence. Com­ munication Research Reports, 31, 23–32. Rochadiat, A. M., Tong, S. T., & Novak, J. M. (2018). Online dating and courtship among Muslim American women: Negotiating technology, religious identity, and culture. New Media & Society, 20(4), 1618–1639. Rodriguez, L. M., Overup, C. S., Wickham, R. E., Knee, C. R., & Amspoker, A. B. (2016). Communication with former romantic partners and current relationship outcomes among college students. Personal Relationships,23, 409–424. Rodway, P., Schepman, A., & Lambert, J. (2013). The influence of position and context on facial attractiveness. Acta Psychologica, 144, 522–529. Rohn, U. (2014). Social networking sites across cultures and countries: Proximity and network effects. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 14, 28–34. Ruesch, J., & Bateson, G. (1951). Communication: The social matrix of psychiatry. New York: Norton. Sahlstein, E., & Dun, T. (2008). “I wanted time to myself and he wanted to be together all the time”: Constructing breakups as managing autonomyconnection. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 9, 37–45. Sanford, A. A. (2010). “I can air my feelings instead of eating them”: Blogging as social support for the morbidly obese. Communication Studies, 61, 567–584. Schaffer S. P. Lei K. Reyes L. (2008). A framework for cross-disciplinary team learning and performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly., 21(3), 7–21

439

440

References

Segrin, C., & Flora, J. (2005). Family communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Semmer, N. K., Elfering, A., Jacobshagen, N., Perrot, T., Beehr, T. A., & Boos, N. (2008). The emotional meaning of instrumental social support. International Journal of Stress Management, 15, 235–251. Seppala, E. (2015, May 7). Why compassion is a better managerial tactic than toughness. Harvard Business Review. Shiota, M. N., & Levenson, R. W. (2007). Birds of a feather don’t always fly farthest: Similarity in big five personality predicts more negative marital satisfaction trajectories in long-term marriages. Psychology and Aging, 22, 666–675. Shirley, J. A., Powers, W. G., & Sawyer, C. R. (2007). Psychologically abusive relationships and self-disclosure orientations. Human Communication, 10, 289–301. Shonbeck, K. (2011). Communicating in a connected world. In K. M. Galvin (Ed.), Making connections: Readings in relational communication (5th ed., pp. 393–400). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Singh, R., Simons, J. J. P., Young, D. P. C. Y., Sim, B. S. X., Chai, X. T., Singh, S., & Chiou, S. (2009). Trust and respect as mediators of the other- and self-profitable trait effects on interpersonal attraction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1021–1038. Singh, R., Tay, Y. Y., & Sankaran, K. (2017). Causal role of trust in interpersonal attraction from attitude similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(5), 717–731. Singh, R., Wegener, D. T., Sankaran, K., Singh, S., Lin, P. K. F., Seow, M. X., . . . Shuli, S. (2015). On the importance of trust in interpersonal attraction from attitude similarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 829–850. Sprecher, S. (2014). Effects of actual (manipulated) and perceived similarity on liking in get-acquainted interactions: The role of communication. Com­ munication Monographs, 81, 4–27. Spielmann, S. S., MacDonald, G., & Tackett, J. L. (2012). Social threat, social reward, and regulation of investment in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 19, 601–622. Sprecher, S., Treger, S., & Wondra, J. D. (2013). Effects of self-disclosure

role on liking, closeness, and other impressions in get-acquainted interactions. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 30, 497–514. Sprecher, S., Wenzel, A., & Harvey, J. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of relationship initiation. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Stafford, L. (2011). Measuring relationship maintenance behaviours: Critique and development of the Revised Relationship Maintenance Behaviour Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 278–303. Stein, J. (2017, March 13). Snapchat faces the public. Time. Sullivan, T. A. (2014). Greedy institutions, overwork, and work–life balance. Sociological Inquiry, 84(1), 1–15. Tannen, D. (1986). That’s not what I meant! How conversational style makes or breaks your relations with others. New York: Ballantine Books. Tashiro, T., & Frazier, P. (2003). “I’ll never be in a relationship like that again”: Personal growth following romantic relationship breakups. Personal Relationships, 10, 113–128. Taylor, S. E. (2007). Social support, in H. S. Friedman and R. C. Silver (eds), Foundations of health psychology, 145–171. New York: Oxford University Press. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Tidwell, N. D., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Perceived, not actual, similarity predicts initial attraction in a live romantic context: Evidence from the speed-dating paradigm. Personal Relationships, 20, 199–215. Ting-Toomey, S. (1991). Intimacy expressions in three cultures: France, Japan, and the United States. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 29–46. Tong, S. (2013). Facebook use during relationship termination: Uncertainty reduction and surveillance. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 788–793. Treger, S., Sprecher, S., & Erber, R. (2013). Laughing and liking: Exploring the interpersonal effects of humor use in initial interactions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 532–543. Uskul, A. K., Hynie, M., & Lalonde, R. N. (2004). Inter-dependence as a mediator between culture and interpersonal closeness for Euro-Canadians

and Turks. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 174–191. Utz, S. (2007). Media use in long-distance friendships. Information, Communication & Society, 10, 694–713. Van Lear, C.A. (1991). Testing a cyclical model of communicative openness in relationship development: Two longitudinal studies. Communication Monographs, 58, 337–361. Walters, R. (1984). Forgiving: An essential element in effective living. Studies in Formative Spirituality, 5, 365–374. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: W.W. Norton. Weder, M. (2008). Form and function of metacommunication in CMC . In S. Kelsey & K. St. Amant (Eds.), Handbook of research on computer mediated communication (Vols. 1–2, pp. 570–586). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference/IGI Global. Weisskirch, R. S. (2009) Parenting by cell phone: Parental monitoring of adolescents and family relations. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 38, 1123–1139. Weisskirch, R. S. (2011). No crossed wires: Cell phone communication in parent– adolescent relationships. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(7–8), 447–451. Whited, M. C., Wheat, A. L., & Larkin, K. T. (2010). The influence of forgiveness and apology on cardiovascular reactivity and recovery in response to mental stress. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 33, 293–304. Wilmot, W. W. (1987). Dyadic communication, 3rd edn. New York: Random House. Yang, C., Brown, B. B., & Braun, M. T. (2014). From Facebook to cell calls: Layers of electronic intimacy in college students’ interpersonal relationships. New media and Society, 16(1), 5–23. Yang, Y. C., Boen, C., Gerken, K., Li, T., Schorpp, K. & Harris, K.M. (2016). Social relationships and physio­logical determinants of longevity across the human life span. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(3), 578–83. Yuki, M., Maddux, W., & Masuda, T. (2007). Are the windows to the soul the same in the East and West: Cul­ tural differences in using eyes and

References

mouth as cues to recognize emotions in Japan and the United States. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 43, 303–311. Zhang, S., & Stafford, L. (2008). Perceived face threat of honest but hurtful evaluative messages in romantic relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 72, 19–39.

Chapter 9: Communication Climate Abeele, M. M. P. V., & PostmaNilsenova, M. (2018). More than just gaze: An experimental vignette study examining how phonegazing and newspaper-gazing and phubbing-while-speaking and ­phubbing-while-listening compare in their effect on affiliation. Communication Research Papers, 35(4), 303–313. Alberts, J. K. (1988). An analysis of couples’ conversational complaints. Communication Monographs, 55, 184–197. Alberts, J. K. (1990). Perceived effectiveness of couples’ conversational complaints. Communication Studies, 40, 280–291. Alberts, J. K., & Driscoll, G. (1992). Containment versus escalation: The trajectory of couples’ conversational complaints. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 394–412. Allan, B., & Smylie, J. (2015). First peoples, second class treatment: The role of racism in the health and well-being of Indigenous peoples in Canada. Toronto: Wellesley Institute. Baier, D., Hong, J.S., Kliem, S. & Bergmann, M.C. (2018). Consequences of bullying on adolescents’ mental health in Germany: Comparing face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying. Journal of child and Family Studies, 1–11. Bakar, H. A., Dilbeck, K. E., & McCroskey, J. C. (2010). Mediating role of supervisory communication practices on relations between leader– member exchange and perceived employee commitment to workgroup. Communication Monographs, 77 (4), 637–656. Bartels, J., Pruyn, A., De Jong, M., & Joustra, I. (2008). Multiple organizational identification levels and the impact of perceived external prestige and communication climate. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 28, 173–190.

Beck, C. E., & Beck. E. A. (1996). The manager’s open door and the communication climate. In K. M. Galvin and P. Cooper (eds), Making connections: Readings in relational communication, 286–290. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Becker, J. A. H., Ellevold, B., & Stamp, G. H. (2008). The creation of defensiveness in social interaction II: A model of defensive communication among romantic couples. Communication Monographs, 75, 1, 86–110. Berry, K., & Adams, T. E. (2016). Family bullies. Journal of Family Communication, 16, 51–63. Bloch, A. S., & Weger, H. W., Jr. (2012, May). Associations among friendship satisfaction, self-verification, selfenhancement, and friends’ communication skill. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Phoenix, AZ. Bolkan, S., & Holmgren, J. L. (2012). “You are such a great teacher and I hate to bother you but . . .”: Instructors’ perceptions of students and their use of email messages with varying politeness strategies. Communication Education, 61, 253–270. Bowes, L., Wolke, D., Joinson, C., Lereya, S. T., & Lewis, G. (2014). Sibling bullying and risk of depression, anxiety, and self-harm: A prospective cohort study. Pediatrics, 134, 1032–1039. Bradley, G. L., & Campbell, A. C. (2016). Managing difficult workplace conversations: Goals, strategies, and outcomes. International Journal of Business Communication, 53, 443–464. Brody, N., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2016). Bystander intervention in cyberbullying. Communication Monographs, 83, 94–119. Browne, A. J. (2007). Clinical encounters between nurses and First Nations women in a western Canadian hospital. Social Science & Medicine, 64, 2165–2176. Browne, A. J., & Fiske, J. A. (2001). First Nations women’s encounters with mainstream health care services. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 23, 126–147. Browne, A. J., Varcoe, C., Lavoi, J., Smye, V., Wong, S. T., Krause, M. . . . Fridkin, A. (2016). Enhancing health care equity with Indigenous populations: Evidence-based strategies from an ethnographic study. BMC Health Services Research, 16,1–17.

Camacho, S., Hassanein, K., & Head, M. (2018). Cyberbullying impacts on victims’ satisfaction with information and communication technologies: The role of perceived cyberbullying severity. Information & Management, 55(4), 494–507. Canales, M. K., Weiner, D., Samos, M., Wampler, N. S., Cunha, A., & Geer, B. (2011). Multi-generational perspectives on health, cancer, and biomedicine: Northeastern Native American perspectives shaped by mistrust. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 22, 894–911. Carpenter, C. J. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the “but you are free” compliance-gaining technique. Communication Studies, 64, 6–17. Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among youth: A comprehensive review of current international research and its implications and application to policy and practice. School Psychology International, 34, 575–612. Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2016). How “phubbing” becomes the norm: The antecedents and consequences of snubbing via smartphone. Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 9–18. Chotpitayasunondh, V., & Douglas, K. M. (2018). The effects of “phubbing” on social interaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48(6), 304–316. Cissna, K. N., & Sieberg, E. (2006). Patterns of interactional confirmation and disconfirmation. In J. Stewart (ed.), Bridges not walls, 9th edn, pp. 429–439. New York: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. Dailey, R. M. (2009). Confirmation from family members: Parent and sibling contributions to adolescent psychosocial adjustment. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 273–299. Dailey, R. M. (2010). Testing components of confirmation: How acceptance and challenge from mothers, fathers, and siblings are related to adolescent selfconcept. Communication Monographs, 77, 592–617. Danielson, C. M., & Emmers-Sommer, T. M. (2016). “It was my fault”: Bullied students’ causal and controllable attributions in bullying blogs. Journal of Health Communication, 21, 408–414. David, S. (2016). Emotional agility. New York, NY: Avery. David, M. & Roberts, J.. (2017). Phubbed and alone: Phone snubbing, social

441

442

References

exclusion, and attachment to social media. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 155–163. Draper, P. (2005). Patronizing speech to older patients: A literature review. Review of Clinical Gerontology, 15, 273–279. Dwyer, R. J., Kushlev, K., & Dunn, E. W. (2018). Smartphone use undermines enjoyment of face-to-face social interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 233–239. Foss, S. K., & Griffin, C. L. (1995). Beyond persuasion: A proposal for an invitational rhetoric. Communication Monographs, 62, 2–18. Gallo, C. (2012, July 26). How one brand builds customer loyalty in 10 feet and 10 seconds. Forbes. Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication, 11, 141–148. Gibb, J. R. (2008). Defensive com­ munication. In C. D. Mortensen (Ed.), Communication theory (2nd ed., pp. 201–208). Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Giumetti, G., & Kowalski, R. (2016). Cyberbullying matters: Examining the incremental impact of cyberbullying on outcomes over and above tradi­ tional bullying in North America. In R. Navarro, S. Yubero, & E. Larranaga (Eds.), Cyberbullying across the globe: Gender, family, and mental health (pp. 117–130). New York: Springer. Gold, S. N., & Castillo, Y. (2010). Dealing with defenses and defensiveness in interviews. In D. L. Segal & M. Hersen (Eds.), Diagnostic interviewing (pp. 89–102). New York, NY: Springer. Goldman, Z. W., & Goodboy, A. K. (2014). Making students feel better: Examining the relations between teacher confirmation and college students’ emotional outcomes. Communication Education, 63(3), 259–277. Goodboy, A. K., Martin, M. M., & Goldman, Z. W. (2016). Students’ experiences of bullying in high school and their adjustment and motivation during the first semester of college. Western Journal of Communication, 80, 60–78. Gottman, J. (2000). Welcome to the love lab. Psychology Today Online, September. www.psychologytoday.com/ articles/200009/welcome-the-love-lab Gottman, J. (2003). “Why marriages fail,” in K.M. Galvin and P.J. Cooper (eds), Making connections: Readings in rela-

tional communication, 258–266. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Gottman, J., & Levenson, R.W. (1999). Rebound from marital conflict and divorce prediction. Family Process, 38(3), 287–292. Hall, E., Travis, M., Anderson, S., & Henley, A. (2013). Complaining and Knapp’s relationship stages: Gender differences in instrumental complaints. Florida Communication Journal, 41, 49–61. Harwood, J., Bouchard, E., Giles, H., & Tyoski, S. (1997). Evaluations of patronizing speech and three response styles in a non-service-providing context. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25, 170–195. Holtzman, S., DeClerck, D., Turcotte, K., Lisi, D., & Woodworth, M. (2017). Emotional support during times of stress: Can text messaging compete with in-person interactions? Computers in Human Behavior, 71,130–139. Homburg, C., & Furst, A. (2007). See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil: A study of defensive organizational behavior towards customer complaints. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35, 523–536. Hoorens, V., Pandelaere, M., Oldersma, F., & Sedikides, C. (2012). The hubris hypothesis: You can self-enhance but you’d better not show it. Journal of Personality, 80, 1237–1274. Hornsey, M. J., Oppes, T., & Svensson, A. (2002). “It’s ok if we say it, but you can’t”: Responses to intergroup and intragroup criticism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 293–307. Johnson, A. J., Hample, D., & Cionea, I. A. (2014). Understanding argumentation in interpersonal communication. Communication Yearbook, 38, 145–173. Johnson, Z. D., & LaBelle, S. (2016). Student-to-student confirmation in the college classroom: An initial investigation of the dimensions and outcomes of students’ confirming messages. Communication Education, 65, 44–63. Katt, J. A., & Collins, S. J. (2013). The power of provisional/immediate language revisited: Adding student personality traits to the mix. Com­munication Research Reports, 30, 85–95. Kholer, T., Jansen, C., Plath, S., Reese, J., Lay, J., . . . & Pfaff, H. (2010). Communication, social capital, and workplace health management as de-

terminants of the innovative climate in German banks. International Journal of Public Health, 55(6), 561–570. Koc, E. (2010). Services and conflict management: Cultural and European integration perspectives. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34, 88–96. Lannin, D. G., Bittner, K. E., & Lorenz, F. O. (2013). Longitudinal effect of defensive denial on relationship instability. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 968–977. Leets, L. (2002). Experiencing hate speech: Perceptions and responses to anti-semitism and antigay speech. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 341–361. Le Poire, B. A., & Yoshimura, S. M. (1999). The effects of expectancies and actual communication on nonverbal adaptation and communication outcomes: A test of interaction adaptation theory. Communication Monographs, 66, 1–30. Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Riforgiate, S., & Fletcher, C. (2011). Work as a source of positive emotional experiences and the discourses informing positive assessment. Western Journal of Communication, 75, 2–27. Ma, Z., & Jaeger, A. M. (2010). A comparative study of the influence of assertiveness on negotiation outcomes in Canada and China. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 17(4), 333–346. Martin, M. M., Goodboy, A. K., & Johnson, Z. D. (2015). When professors bully graduate students: Effects on student interest, instructional dissent, and intentions to leave graduate education. Communication Education, 64, 438–454. Modesti, S. (2012). Invitation accepted: Integrating invitational rhetoric in educational contexts. Current Issues in Education, 15, 1–12. Moss, S. (2016, June 7). Why some bosses bully their best employees. Harvard Business Review. Muhonen, T., Jönsson, S., & Bäckström, M. (2017). Consequences of cyberbullying behaviour in working life. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 10(5), 376–390. Neufeld, H. T. (2014). Patient and caregiver perspectives of health provision practices for First Nations and Métis women with gestational diabetes mellitus accessing care in Winnipeg, Manitoba. BMC Health Services Research,14(1), Article, 440.

References

O’Reilly, J., Robinson, S. L., Berdahl, J. L., & Banki, S. (2015). Is negative attention better than no attention? The comparative effects of ostracism and harassment at work. Organization Science, 26, 774–793. Oster, R. T., Bruno, G., Montour, M., Roasting, M., Lightening, R., Rain, P., . . . Bell, R. C. (2016). Kikiskawâwasow—prenatal healthcare provider perceptions of effective care for First Nations women: An ethnographic community-based participatory research study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 16, Article, 216 Osterman, K. (2001). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70, 323–367. Park, H., & Antonioni, D. (2007). Personality, reciprocity, and strength of conflict resolution strategy. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 110–125. Parramore, L. S. (2014, June 2). The social death penalty: Why being ostracized hurts even more than bullying. AlterNet. Patrick, V. M., & Hagtvedt, H. (2012). “I don’t” versus “I can’t”: When empowered refusal motivates goal-directed behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 371–381. Pingault, J., & Schoeler, T. (2017). Assessing the consequences of cyberbullying on mental health. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 775–777. Proctor, R. F., & Wilcox, J. R. (1993). An exploratory analysis of responses to owned messages in interpersonal communication. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 50, 201–220. Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2014). Argumentative and aggressive communication (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Robbins, A. (2015, April 29). Doctors throwing fits. Slate. Roberts, J. A., & David, M. E. (2016). My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: Partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 134–141. Rogers, S.L., Howieson, J. & Neame, C. (2018). I understand you feel that way, but I feel this way: THe benefits of I-language and communicating perspective during conflict. PeerJ, 1–13. Roper, R. R., Johnson, A. J., & Bostwick, E. N. (2017). A target’s perspective: Verbal aggressiveness, coping strat­

egies, and relational harm. Communication Research Reports, 34, 21–28. Roter, D. & Hall, J. A. (2006). Doctors talking with patients/patients talking with doctors: Improving communication in medical visits. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Saltz, R. (2012, March 23). An encounter with Simone Weil. New York Times. Seider, B. H., Hirschberger, G., Nelson, K. L., & Levenson, R. W. (2009). We can work it out: Age differences in relational pronouns, physiology, and behavior in marital conflict. Psychology and Aging, 24, 604–613. Seppala, E. (2015, May 7). Why compassion is a better managerial tactic than toughness. Harvard Business Review. Shuler, S., and Sypher, B. D. (2000). Seeking emotional labor. Managing the heart enhances the work experience. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(1), 50–89. Snapp, C. M., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Hurt feelings among new acquaintances: Moderating effects of interpersonal familiarity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 315–326. Sopow, E. (2007). The communication climate change at the RCMP. Strategic Communication Management, 12(1), 20–23. Stewart, J. (2012). Bridges not walls: A book about interpersonal communication, 11th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill. Strom, R. E., & Boster, F. J. (2007). Dropping out of high school: A meta-­ analysis assessing the effect of messages in the home and school. Communication Education, 56(4), 433–452. Suzuki, L. K., Davis, H. M., & Greenfield, P. M. (2008). Self-enhancement and self-effacement in reaction to praise and criticism: The case of multiethnic youth. Ethos, 36(1), 78–97. Titsworth, S., McKenna, T. P., Mazer, J. P., & Quinlan, M. M. (2013). The bright side of emotion in the classroom: Do teachers’ behaviors predict students’ enjoyment, hope and pride? Communication Education, 62(2), 191–209. Tracy, S. J. (2002). When questioning turns to face threat: An interactional sensitivity in 911 call-taking. Western Journal of Communication, 66, 129–157. Trees, A. R., Kerssen-Griefp, J., & Hess, J. A. (2009). Earning influence by communicating respect: Facework’s contributions to effective instructional

feedback. Communication Education, 58, 397–416. Tsang, J.-A. (2006). The effects of helper intention on gratitude and indebtedness. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 199–205 Vang, Z. M., Gagnon, R., Lee, T., Jimenez, V., Navickas, A., Pelletier, J. & Shenker, H. (2018). Interactions between Indigenous women awaiting childbirth away from home and their southern, non-Indigenous health care providers. Qualitative Health Research, 28(12), 1858–1870. Wang, X., Xie, X., Wang, Y., Wang, P., & Lei, L. (2017). Partner phubbing and depression among married Chinese adults: The roles of relationship satisfaction and relationship length. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 12–17. Weger, H., Bell, G. C., Minei, E. M., & Robinson, M. C. (2014). The relative effectiveness of active listening in initial interactions. International Journal of Listening, 28, 13–31. Wiebe, W. T., Zhang, Y. B. (2017). Conflict initiating factors and management styles in family and nonfamily intergenerational relationships: Young adults’ retrospective written accounts. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 36(3), 368–379. Wilmot, W.W. (1987). Dyadic communication, 3rd edn. New York: Random House. Wolfer, R., & Scheithauer, H. (2014). Social influence and bullying behavior: Intervention-based network dynamics of the fairplayer.manual bullying prevention program. Aggressive Behavior, 40, 309–319. Xie, Y., Hample, D., & Wang, X. (2015). A cross-cultural analysis of argument predispositions in China: Argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, and personalization of conflict. Argumentation, 29, 265–284. Young, J., & Schrodt, P. (2016). Family communication patterns, parental modeling, and confirmation in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly, 64, 454–475. Yurtsever, G., & de Rivera, J. (2010). Measuring the emotional climate of an organization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 110, 501–516. Zeman, B. (2010). Beyond choice theory: Using language to take effective control of your life. International Journal of Choice Theory and Reality Theory, 30, 36–40.

443

444

References

Zhang, S., & Stafford, L. (2008). Perceived face threat of honest but hurtful evaluative messages in romantic relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 72, 19–39. Zhang, Y., Fang, Y., Wei, K., & Wang, Z. (2012). Promoting the intention of students to continue their participation in e-learning systems: The role of the communication environment. Information Technology & People, 25, 356–375

Chapter 10: Managing Conflict Afifi, T., McManus, T., Steuber, K., & Coho, A. (2009). Verbal avoidance and dissatisfaction in intimate conflict situations. Human Communication Research, 35, 357–383. Alberts, J. K., Tracy, S. J., & Tretheway, A. (2011). An integrative theory of the division of domestic labor: Threshold level, social organizing and sensemaking. Journal of Family Communication, 11, 21–38. Aloia, L. S., & Solomon, D. H. (2017). Sex differences in the perceived appropriateness of receiving verbal aggression. Communication Research Reports, 34(1), 1–10. Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471. Ansara, D. L., & Hindin, M. J. (2010). Exploring gender differences in patterns of intimate partner violence in Canada: A latent class approach. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 64, 849–854. Archer, J. (2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A metaanalytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 313–351. Bach, G. R., & Wyden, P. (1983). Intimate enemy: How to fight fair in love and marriage. New York, NY: Avon Books. Bannink, F. (2010). Handbook of solution-focused conflict management. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe Publishing. Bass, E. C., Saldarriaga, L., Cunha, J., Chen, B., Santo, J. B., Bukowski, W. M., . . . Bukowski, W. M. (2018). A cross-cultural analysis of the relations of physical and relational aggression with peer victimization. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 42(1), 132–142.

Bertoni, A., & Bodenmann, G. (2010). Satisfied and dissatisfied couples: Positive and negative dimensions, conflict styles, and relationship with family of origin. European Psychologist, 15(3), 175–184. Bevan, J. L., Cummings, M. B., Engert, M. L., & Sparks, L. (2017). Romantic serial argument perceived ­resol­vability, goals, rumination, and conflict strategy usage: A preliminary longitudinal study. In J. A. Samp (Ed.), Communicating interpersonal conflict in close relationships: Contexts, challenges and opportunities (pp. 128–143). New York, NY: Routledge. Bowes, A., & Katz, A. (2011). When sarcasm stings. Discourse Processes, 48, 215–236. Brandt, A. (2013). 8 keys to eliminating passive-aggressiveness. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Burk, W. J., Denissen, J., Van Doorn, M. D., Branje, S. J. T., & Laursen, B. (2009). The vicissitudes of conflict measurement: Stability and reliability in the frequency of disagreements. European Psychologist, 14, 153–159. Burleson, B. R., & Denton, W. H. (2014). The association between spousal initiator tendency and partner marital satisfaction: Some moderating effects of supportive communication values. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 42, 141–152. Cai, D. A., & Fink, E. L. (2002). Conflict style differences between individualists and collectivists. Communication Monographs, 69, 67–87. Canary, D. (2003). Managing interpersonal conflict: A model of events re­lated to strategic choices. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 515–549). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Caughlin, J. P., & Arr, T. D. (2004). When is topic avoidance unsatisfying? Examining moderators of the association between avoidance and dissatisfaction. Human Communication Research, 30, 479–513. Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., Williams, J. H., Langhout, R. D., Cortina, L. M., Magley, V. J., . . Langhout, R. D. (2001). Incivility in the workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), 64–80. Croucher, S. M., Bruno, A., McGrath, P., Adams, C., McGahan, C., Suits, A., &

Huckins, A. (2012). Conflict styles and high-low cultures: A cross-cultural extension. Communication Research Reports, 29, 64–73. Fabes, R. A., Martin, C. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2003). Young children’s play qualities in same-, other-,and mixed-sex peer groups. Child Development, 74(3), 921–932. Farr, R. H., & Patterson, C. J. (2013). Coparenting among lesbian, gay and heterosexual couples: Associations with adopted children’s outcomes. Child Development, 84(4), 1226–1240. Filley, A. C. (1975). Interpersonal conflict resolution. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Fowler, C., & Dillow, M. R. (2011). Attachment dimensions and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Communication Research Reports, 28, 16–26. Gayle, B. M., Preiss, R. W., & Allen, M. A. (1998). Embedded gender expectations: A covariate analysis of conflict situations and issues. Communication Research Reports, 15, 379–387. Gent, S. E., & Shannon, M. (2011). Bias and effectiveness of third-party conflict management mechanisms. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 28, 124–144. Gottman, J. (1994). Why marriages succeed or fail and how you can make yours last. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Gottman, J. (2003). Why marriages fail. In K.M. Galvin and P.J. Cooper (eds), Making connections: Readings in relational communication, 258–266. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Gross, M. A., Guerrero, L. K., & Alberts, J. K. (2004). Perceptions of conflict strategies and communication competence in task-oriented dyads. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 32, 249–270. Gross, M. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (2000). Managing conflict appropriately and effectively: An application of the competence model to Rahim’s organizational conflict styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(3), 200–226. Hahlweg, K., & Richter, D. (2010). Prevention of marital instability and distress. Results of an 11-year longitudinal follow-up study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48, 377–383. Hanzal, A., & Segrin, C. (2009). The role of conflict resolution styles in mediating the relationship between enduring

References

vulnerabilities and marital quality. Journal of Family Communication, 9, 150–169. Harper, M. S., & Welsh, D. P. (2007). Keeping quiet: Self-silencing and its association with relational and individual functioning among adolescent romantic couples. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 24, 99–116. Haase, C. M., Holley, S., Bloch, L., Verstaen, A., & Levenson, R. W. (2016). Interpersonal emotional behaviors and physical health: A 20-year longitudinal study of long-term married couples. Emotion, 16, 965–977. Heine, S.J., Takata, T., and Lehman, D. (2000). Beyond self-presentation: Evidence for self-criticism among Japanese. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 71–78. Huffman, A., Culbertson, S. S., Henning, J. B., & Goh, A. (2013). Work-family conflict across the lifespan. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28, 761–780. Jandt, F. E. (2017). Conflict and communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Johnson, A. J., & Cionea, I. A. (2017). Serial arguments in interpersonal relationships: Relational dynamics and interdependence. In J. A. Samp (Ed.), Communicating interpersonal conflict in close relationships: Contexts, challenges and opportunities (pp. 111–127). Kabat-Farr, D., Cortina, L. M., & Marchiondo, L. A. (2018). The emotional aftermath of incivility: Anger, guilt, and the role of organizational commitment. International Journal of Stress Management, 25(2), 109–128. Keeshig-Tobias, L. (1990). Stop stealing our stories. Globe and Mail, 26 January. Kim, M. S., Tasaki, K., Kim, I. D., & Lee, H. (2007). The influence of social status on communication predispositions. Focusing on independent and interdependent self-construals. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 17(2), 303–329. LaLonde, M. (1992). Parents as role models. Ha-Shilth-Sa, 19, 2–3. Lansford, J. E., Skinner, A. T., Sorbring, E., Giunta, L. D., Deater‐Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., . . . Chang, L. (2012). Boys’ and girls’ relational and physical aggression in nine countries. Aggressive Behavior, 38(4), 298–308. Laurent, H., & Powers, S. (2007). Emotion regulation in emerging adult couples: Temperament, attachment, and HPA

response to conflict. Biological Psychology, 76(1–2), 61–71. Laursen, B., & Pursell, G. (2009). Conflict in peer relationships. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 267–286). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Lim, L. L. (2009). The influences of harmony motives and implicit beliefs on conflict styles of the collectivist. International Journal of Psychology, 44(6), 401–409. Lindstrom, G., Choate, P., Bastien, L., Weasel Traveller, A., Breaker, S., Breaker, C., Good Striker, W., and Good Striker, E. (2016). Nistawatsimin: Exploring First Nations parenting: A literature review and expert consultation with Blackfoot Elders. Calgary, AB: Mount Royal University. Liu, E., & Roloff, M. E. (2015). Stress in serial arguments: Implications of seeking mutual resolution, listening, and hostility. Argumentation & Advocacy, 52, 61–47. Liu, E., & Roloff, M. E. (2016). Regret for complaint withholding. Communication Quarterly, 64, 72–92. Ma, R., & Chuang, R. (2001). Persuasion strategies of Chinese college students in interpersonal contexts. Southern Communication Journal, 66, 267–278. Ma, Z., & Jaeger, A. M. (2010). A comparative study of the influence of assertiveness on negotiation outcomes in Canada and China. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 17(4), 333–346. Malis, R. S., & Roloff, M. E. (2006). Correlates of the perceived resolv­ ability and relational consequences of serial arguing in dating relationships: Argumentative features and the use of coping strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 676–686. Martin, M. M., Anderson, C. M., Burant, P.A., & Weber, K. (1997). Verbal aggression in sibling relationships. Communication Quarterly, 45, 304–317. McGinn, M. M., McFarland, P. T., & Christensen, A. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of demand/withdraw. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 749–757. Messman, S. J., & Mikesell, R. L. (2000). Competition and interpersonal conflict in dating relationships. Communication Reports, 13, 21–34. Miller-Ott, A. E., & Kelly, L. (2013). Communication of female relational

aggression in the college environment. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 14, 19–27. Missotten, L., Luyckx, K., Leeuwen, K., Klimstra, T., & Branje, S. (2016). Adolescents’ conflict resolution styles toward mothers: The role of parenting and personality. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(8), 2480–2497. Morrison, S., & Schrodt, P. (2017). The perceived threat and resolvability of serial arguments as correlates of relational uncertainty in romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 68, 56–71. Ocana, A., & Hindman, D. (2004, May). Unacquainted roommates, conflict style, and relational outcomes. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA. Oduro-Frimpong, J. (2007). Semiotic silence: Its use as a conflict-management strategy in intimate relationships. Semiotica, 167, 283–308. Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Masumoto, T., Yokochi, Y., Pan, X., Takai, J., and Wilcox, R. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs, 68, 235–258. Ohbuchi, K., & Atsumi, E. (2010). Avoidance brings Japanese employees what they care about in conflict management: Its functionality and “good member” image. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 3, 117–129. Olson, L. N. (2002). “As ugly and painful as it was, it was effective.” Individuals’ unique assessment of communication competence during aggressive conflict episodes. Communication Studies, 53, 171–188. Olson, L. N., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2004). “If you hit me again, I’ll hit you back”: Conflict management strategies of individuals experiencing aggression during conflicts. Communication Studies, 55, 271–285. Ostrov, J. M. & Crick, N. R. (2007). Forms and functions of aggression during early childhood: A short-term longitudinal study. School Psychology Review, 36(1), 22–43. Park, Y., Fritz, C., & Jex, S. M. (2018). Daily cyber incivility and distress: The moderating roles of resources at work and home. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2535–2557.

445

446

References

Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. (2013). The price of incivility. Harvard Business Review, 91(1–2), 114–21, 146. Radanielina-Hita, M. L. (2010). Let’s make peace! A cross-cultural analysis of the effects of serial arguing behaviors in romantic relationships: The case of Malagasy romantic partners. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 39(2), 81–103. Raider, E., Coleman, S., & Gerson, J. (2006). Teaching conflict resolution skills in a workshop. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 695–725). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2014). Argumentative and aggressive communication (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Reznik, R. M., Miller, C. W., Roloff, M. E., & Gaze, C. M. (2015). The impact of demand/withdraw patterns on health in emerging adults’ serial arguments with parents. Communication Research Reports, 32, 35–44. Ridley, C. A., Wilhelm, M. S., & Surra, C. A. (2001). Married couples’ conflict responses and marital quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 517–534. Roloff, M. E., Reznik, R. M., Miller, C. W., & Johnson, K. L. (2015). “I thought we settled this?!” Antecedents and consequences of resolution of an initial episode in a serial argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 15, 8–31. Russell, V. M., Baker, L. R., McNulty, J. K., Overall, N. C., Russell, V. M., Baker, L. R., . . . Overall, N. C. (2018). “You’re forgiven, but don’t do it again!” Direct partner regulation buffers the costs of forgiveness. Journal of Family Psychology, 32(4), 435–444. Samter, W., & Cupach, W. R. (1998). Friendly fire: Topical variations in conflict among same and cross-sex friends. Communication Studies, 49, 121–138. Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 57–88. Segrin, C., & Flora, J. (2017). Family conflict is detrimental to physical and mental health. In J. A. Samp (Ed.), Communicating interpersonal conflict in close relationships: Contexts, challenges and opportunities (pp. 207–224). New York, NY: Routledge.

Segrin, C., Hanzal, A., & Domschke, T. J. (2009). Accuracy and bias in newlywed couples’ perceptions of conflict styles and the association with marital satisfaction. Communication Monographs, 76, 207–233. Simons, D. A., & Wurtele, S. K. (2010). Relationships between parents’ use of corporal punishment and their children’s endorsement of spanking and hitting other children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 34, 639–646. Simpson, L.B.(2011). Dancing on our turtle’s back. Winnipeg: ARP. Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. (1978). Comparison of four instruments measuring conflict behavior. Psychological Report, 42, 1139–1145. Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (2007). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument. Mountain View, CA: Xicom. (Original work published 1974). Ting-Toomey, S., Oetzel, J., & Yee-Jung, K. (2001). Self-construal types and conflict management styles. Communication Reports, 14, 87–104. Velásquez, A., Santo, J., Saldarriaga, L., López, L., & Bukowski, W. (2010). Context-dependent victimization and aggression: Differences between allgirl and mixed-sex schools. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 56(3), 283–302. Wang, Q., Fink, E. L., & Cai, D. A. (2012). The effect of conflict goals on avoidance strategies: What does not communicating communicate? Human Communication Research, 38, 222–252. Warren, K., Schoppelrey, S., & Moberg, D. (2005). A model of contagion through competition in the aggressive behaviors of elementary school students. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 283–292. Weider-Hatfield, D. (1981). A unit in conflict management skills. Com­ munication Education, 30, 265–273. Weingart, L. R., Behfar, K. J., Bendersky, C., Todorova, G., & Jehn, K. A. (2015). The directness and oppositional intensity of conflict expression. The Academy of Management Review, 40, 235–262. Williams-Baucom, K. J., Atkins, D. C., Sevier, M., Eldridge, K. A., & Christensen, A. (2010). “You” and “I” need to talk about “us”: Linguistic patterns in material interactions. Personal Relationships, 17, 41–56. Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2014). Interpersonal conflict (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Woodin, E. M. (2011). A two-dimensional approach to relationship conflict: Meta-analytic findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 325–335. Wright, C. N., & Roloff, M. E. (2009). Relational commitment and the silent treatment. Communication Research Reports, 26, 12–21. Xie, Y., Hample, D., & Wang, X. (2015). A cross-cultural analysis of argument predispositions in China: Argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, argument frames, and personalization of conflict. Argumentation, 29, 265–284. Zahn-Waxler, C., & Polanichka, N. (2004). All things interpersonal: Socialization and female aggression. In M. Putallaz & K. Bierman (Eds.), Aggression, antisocial behavior, and violence among girls: A developmental perspective (pp. 48–68). New York, NY: Guilford. Zhang, Y. B., Harwood, J., & Hummert, M. L. (2005). Perceptions of conflict management styles in Chinese intergenerational dyads. Communication Monographs, 72(1), 71–91. Zhang, Z., Zhang, Y., & Wang, M. (2011). Harmony, illusory relationship costs, and conflict resolution in Chinese contexts. In A. Y. Leung, C. Chiu, & Y. Hong (Eds.), Cultural processes: A social psychological perspective (pp. 188–209). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Zobel, A., Barkow, K., & SchulzeRauschenbach, S., (2004). High neuroticism and depressive temperament are associated with dysfunctional regulation of the hypothalamicpituitary-adrenocortical system in healthy volunteers. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 109, 392–399.

Chapter 11: Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners Acevedo, B. P., & Aron, A. (2009). Does a long-term relationship kill romantic love? Review of General Psychology, 13, 59–65. Afifi, W. A., & Afifi, T. D. (2009). Avoidance among adolescents in conversations about their parents’ relationship: Applying the theory of motivated information management. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26(4), 488–511. Alberti, J. (2013). I love you, man: Bromances and the construction of masculinity, and the continuing evolution

References

of the romantic comedy. Quarterly Review of Film and Video, 30, 159–172. Aldeis, D., & Afifi, T. D. (2013). College students’ willingness to reveal risky behaviors: The influence of relationship and message type. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 92–113. Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Kingsbury, M., & Scheider, B. H. (2013). Friendship: An old concept with a new meaning? Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 33–39. Anderson, C., Brion S., Moore D.A., & Kennedy J.A. (2012). A statusenhancement account of overconfidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 718–735. Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1984). The rules of friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 211–237. Avtgis, T. A. (1999). The relationship between unwillingness to communicate and family communication patterns. Communication Research Reports, 16, 333–338. Ball, H., Wanzer, M. B., & Servoss, T. J. (2013). Parent-child communication on Facebook: Family communication patterns and young adults’ decisions to “friend” parents. Communication Quarterly, 61, 615–629. Barbato, C.A., Graham, E. E., & Perse, E.M. (2003). Communicating in the family: An examination of the relationship of family communication climate and interpersonal communication motives. Journal of Family Communication, 3(3), 123–148. Bartlett, N. H., Patterson, H. M., VanderLaan, D. P., & Vasey, P. L. (2009). The relation between women’s body esteem and friendships with gay men. Body Image, 6, 235–241. Batenburg, A., & Bartels, J. (2017). Keeping up online appearances: How self-disclosure on Facebook affects perceived respect and likability in the professional context. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 265–276. Baxter, L. A., & Akkoor, C. (2011). Topic expansiveness and family communication patterns. Journal of Family Communication, 11, 1–20. Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2006). Social dialetics: The contradictions of relating. In B. Whaley & W. Samter (Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary communication theories and exemplars, 305–324. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Baxter, L. A., Dun, T., & Sahlstein, E. (2001). Rules for relating communi-

cated among social network members. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 173–200. Baxter, L. A., & Pederson, J. R. (2013). Perceived and ideal family communication patterns and family satisfaction for parents and their college-aged children. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 132–149. Berscheid, E., Schneider, M., & Omoto, A. M. (1989). Issues in studying close relationships: Conceptualizing and measuring closeness. In C. Hendrick (ed.), Close relationships, 63–91. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 66–73. Bleske-Rechek, A., Somers, E., Micke, C., Erickson, L., Matteson, L., Stocco, C., … Ritchie, L. (2012). Benefit or burden? Attraction in cross-sex friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 569–596. Bryant, G. A., Fessler, D. M. T., Fusaroli, R., Clint, E., Aaroe, L., Apicella, C. L., … Zhou, Y. (2016). Detecting affiliation in colaughter across 24 societies. PNAS , 113, 4682–4687. Bukowski, W., Newcomb, A., & Hartup, W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendship in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bukowski, W. M., Motzoi, C. C., & Meyer, F. (2009). Friendship as process, function, and outcome. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 217–231). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Byers, E. S. (2011). Beyond the birds and the bees and was it good for you? Thirty years of research on sexual communication. Canadian ­Psycho­logy, 52, 20–28. Carvalho, J., Francisco, R., & Relvas, A. P. (2015). Family functioning and information and communication technologies: How do they relate? A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 99–108. Caughlin, J. P. (2003). Family communication standards: What counts as excellent family communication and how are such standards associated with family satisfaction? Human Communication Research, 29, 5–40. Caughlin, J. P., & Petronio, S. (2004). Privacy in families. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.),

Handbook of family communication (pp. 379–412). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Chapman, G. (2010. The 5 love languages. Chicago, IL: Northfield. Child, J. T., & Westermann, D. A. (2013). Let’s be Facebook friends: Exploring parental Facebook friend requests from a Communication Privacy Management (CPM) perspective. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 46–59. Choi, M. H. K. (2016, September). Like. Flirt. Ghost: A journey into the social media lives of teens. Wired. Christofides, E., Muise, A., & Desmarais, S. (2012). Risky disclosures on Facebook: The effect of having a bad experience on online behavior. Journal of Adolescent Research, 27(6), 714–731. Cohen, E. L. (2010). Expectancy violations in relationships with friends and media figures. Communication Research Reports, 27, 97–111. Coyne, S. M., Padilla-Walker, L. M., Day, R. D., Harper, J., & Stockdale, L. (2014). A friend request from dear old dad: Associations between parent-child social networking and adolescent outcomes. ­Cyberpsycho­logy, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 8–13. Croom, C., Gross, B., Rosen, L. D., & Rosen, B. (2016). What’s her Face (book)? How many of their Facebook “friends” can college students actually identify? Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 135–141. Crosswhite, J. M., Rice, D., & Asay, S. M. (2014). Texting among United States young adults: An exploratory study on texting and its use within families. Social Science Journal, 51, 70–78. Dailey, R. M. (2006). Confirmation in p ­ arent-adolescent relationships and adolescent openness: Toward extending Confirmation Theory. Communication Monographs, 73, 434–458. Dailey, R. M. (2010). Testing components of confirmation: How acceptance and challenge from mothers, fathers, and siblings are related to adolescent selfconcept. Communication Monographs, 77, 592–617. David-Barrett, T., Rotkirch, A., Carney, J., Izquierdo I. B., Krems J. A., Townley, D., . . . Dunbar, R. I. M. (2015). Women favour dyadic relationships, but men prefer clubs: Cross-cultural evidence from social networking. PLOS ONE , 10, e0118329.

447

448

References

Davis, K. L., & Haynes, M. T. (2012). With or without you: The absence of fathers and affection received from mothers as predictors of men’s affection with their romantic partners. Florida Communication Journal, 40, 29–45 Demir, M. D., Simsek, O., & Procsal, A. (2013). I am so happy ‘cause my best friend makes me feel unique: Friendship, personal sense of uniqueness and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 1201–1224. Denes, A. (2012). Pillow talk: Exploring disclosures after sexual activity. Western Journal of Communication, 76, 91–108. DePaulo, B. (2006). Singled out: How singles are stereotyped, stigmatized, and ignored, and still live happily ever after. New York, NY: St. Martin’s. Depaulo, B. (2018). Single people aren’t to blame for the loneliness epidemic. The Atlantic, August 28 Diamond, L. M. (2013). Sexuality in relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 589–614). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Donovan, E. E., Thompson, C. M., LeFebvre, L., & Tollison, A. C. (2017). Emerging adult confidants’ judgments of parental openness: Disclosure quality and post-disclosure relational closeness. Communication Monographs, 84, 179–199. Dunbar, R. I. M. (2014). The social brain: Psychological underpinnings and implications for the structure of organizations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 109–114. Ebersole, D. S., & Hernandez, R. A. (2016). “Taking good care of our health”: Parent-adolescent perceptions of boundary management about health information. Communication Quarterly, 64, 573–595. Egbert, N., & Polk, D. (2006). Speaking the language of relational maintenance: A validity test of Chapman’s (1992) five love languages. Communication Research Reports, 23, 19–26. Ellis, K. (2002). Perceived parental confirmation: Development and validation of an instrument. Southern Communication Journal, 67, 319–334. Epstein, R. (2010, January/February). How science can help you fall in love. Scientific American Mind, 26–33. Epstein, R., Pandit, M., & Thakar, M. (2013). How love emerges in arranged

marriage: Two cross-cultural studies. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 43, 341–360. Epstein, R., Warfel, R., Johnson, J., Smith, R., & McKinney, P. (2013). Which relationship skills count most? Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 12, 297–313. Farber, J. (2016, October 4). The rise of the “bromosexual” friendship. The New York Times. Fahs, B., & Munger, A. (2015). Friends with benefits? Gendered performances in women’s casual sexual relationships. Personal Relationships, 22, 188–203. Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fehr, B. (2000). Adult friendship. In S. Hendrick & C. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 71–82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fehr, B. (2013). The social psychology of love. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 201–233). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Fife, E. M., Leigh Nelson, C. C., & Messersmith, A. S. (2014). The influence of family communication patterns on religious orientation among college students. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 72–84. Fleming, C. B., White, H. R., Oesterle, S., Haggerty, K. P., & Catalano, R. F. (2010). Romantic relationship status changes and substance use among 18-to 20-year olds. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 71, 847–856. Floyd, K., Boren, J. P., Hannawa, A. F., Hesse, C., McEwan, B., & Veksler, A. E. (2009). Kissing in marital and cohabiting relationships: Effects on blood lipids, stress, and relationship satisfaction. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 113–133. Floyd, K., & Riforgiate, S. (2008). Affectionate communication received from spouses predicts stress hormone levels in healthy adults. Communication Monographs, 75, 351–368. Galovan, A. M., Holmes, E. K., Schramm, D. G., & Lee, T. R. (2013, March 8). Father involvement, father-child relationship quality, and satisfaction with family work: Actor and partner influences on marital quality. Journal of Family Issues. Galupo, M. P., & Gonzalez, K. A. (2013). Friendship values and cross-category friendships: Understanding adult

friendship patterns across gender, sexual orientation, and race. Sex Roles, 68, 779–790. Galvin, K. M., Bylund, C. L., & Brommel, B. J. (2008). Family communication: Cohesion and change, 7th edn. New York: Longman. Galvin, K. M. (2015). The family communication tree: Deep roots, strong branches. In L. H. Turner & R. L. West (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of family communication (pp. 1–8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Galvin, K. M., Bylund, C. L., & Brommel, B. J. (2007). Family communication: Cohesion and change (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Garfield, R. (2015). Breaking the male code: Unlocking the power of friendship. New York, NY: Gotham. Gillespie, B. J., Frederick, D., Harari, L., & Grov, C. (2015). Homophily, close friendship, and life satisfaction among gay, lesbian, heterosexual, and bisexual men and women. PLOS ONE , 10, e0128900. Gillespie, B. J., Lever, J., Frederick, D., & Royce, T. (2015). Close adult friendships, gender, and the life cycle. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 709–736. Golish, T. D. (2000). Is openness always better? Exploring the role of topic avoidance, satisfaction, and parenting styles of stepparents. Communication Quarterly, 48, 137–158. Golish, T. D., & Caughlin, J. P. (2002). “I’d rather not talk about it”: Adolescents’ and young adults’ use of topic avoidance in stepfamilies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 78–106. Goodman, C. K. (2014, February 19). Social media can help strengthen workplace friendships. The Miami Herald. Gottman, J. (2003). Why marriages fail. In K.M. Galvin and P.J. Cooper (eds), Making connections: Readings in relational communication, 258–266. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Green, K. J., & Morman, M. T. (2011). The perceived benefits of the friends with benefits relationship. Human Communication, 14, 327–346. Greif, G. L. (2009). Buddy system: Understanding male friendships. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Guerrero, L. K., & Chavez, A. (2005). Relational maintenance in crosssex friendships characterized by

References

different types of romantic intent: An exploratory study. Western Journal of Communication, 69, 339–358. Halatsis, P., & Christakis, N. (2009). The challenge of sexual attraction within heterosexuals’ cross-sex friendship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 919–937. Hall, J. A. (2011). Sex differences in friendship expectations: A metaanalysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 723–747. Hall, J. A., Larson, K. A., & Watts, A. (2011). Satisfying friendship maintenance expectations: The role of friendship standards and biological sex. Human Communication Research, 37, 529–552. Hall, J. A. (2012). Friendship standards: The dimensions of ideal expectations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 884–907. Halliwell, D. (2016). “I know you, but I don’t know who you are”: Siblings’ discursive struggles surrounding experiences of transition. Western Journal of Communication, 80, 327–347. Hand, L. S., & Furman, W. (2009). Rewards and costs in adolescent other-sex friendships: Comparisons to same-sex friendships and romantic relationships. Social Development, 18(2), 270–287. Haselton, M. G., & Galperin, A. (2013). Error management in relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 234–254). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Henline, B. H., Lamke, L. K., & Howard, M. D. (2007). Exploring perceptions of online infidelity. Personal Relationships, 14, 113–128. Hesse, C., & Mikkelson, A. C. (2017). Affection deprivation in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly, 65, 20–38. Holmstrom, A. J. (2009). Sex and gender similarities and differences in communication values in same sex and cross-sex friendships. Communication Quarterly, 57, 224–238. Holmstrom, A. J., Burleson, Hopcke, R. H., & Rafaty, L. (2001). Straight women, gay men: Absolutely fabulous friendships. Berkeley, CA: Wildcat Canyon Press. Horan, S. M. (2012). Affection exchange theory and perceptions of relational transgressions. Western Journal of Communication, 76, 109–126.

Horan, S. M., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2013). Understanding the routine expression of deceptive affection in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly, 61, 195–216. Iannone, N. E., McCarty, M. K., & Kelly, J. R. (2016, July 26). With a little help from your friend: Transactive memory in best friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. Jackl, J. A. (2016). “Love doesn’t just happen…”: Parent-child communication about marriage. Communication Quarterly, 64, 193–209. Jiang, L. C., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Absence makes the communication grow fonder: Geographic separation, interpersonal media, and intimacy in dating relationships. Journal of Communication, 63, 556–577. Jin, B. (2013). Hurtful texting in friendships: Satisfaction buffers the distancing effects of intention. Communication Research Reports, 30, 148–156. Johnson, A. J., Becker, A. H., Craig, E. A., Gilchrist, E. S., & Haigh, M. M. (2009). Changes in friendship commitment: Comparing geographically close and long-distance young-adult friendships. Communication Quar­ terly, 57, 395–415. Jonason, P. K. (2013). Four functions for four relationships: Consensus definitions of university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 1407–1414. Jung, E. H., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). Senior citizens on Facebook: How do they interact and why? Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 27–35. Keating, D. M. (2016). Conversation orientation and conformity orientation are inversely related: A meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 33, 195–206. Kees, N. L., Aberle, J. T., & Fruhauf, C. A. (2007). Aging parents and end-of-life decisions: Helping families negotiate difficult conversations. In D. Linville & K. M. Hertlein (Eds.), The therapist’s notebook for family health care: Homework, handouts, and activities for individuals, couples, and families coping with illness, loss, and disability (pp. 211–216). New York, NY: Haworth Press. Kellas, J. K. (2005). Family ties: Communicating identity through jointly told family stories. Communication Monographs, 72, 365–389. Kellas, J. K. (2010). Transmitting relational worldviews: The relationship

between mother-daughter memorable messages and adult daughters’ romantic relational schemata. Communication Quarterly, 58, 458–479. Kellas, J. K., & Horstman, H. K. (2015). Communicated narrative sensemaking: Understanding family narratives, storytelling, and the construction of meaning through a communicative lens. In L. H. Turner & R. L. West (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of family communication (pp. 76–90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kellas, J. K., Horstman, H. K., Willer, E. K., & Carr, K. (2015). The benefits and risks of telling and listening to stories of difficulty over time: Experimentally testing the expressive writing paradigm in the context of interpersonal communication between friends. Health Communication, 30, 843–858. Kemp, S. (2016, February 2). Are young people really leaving Facebook? LinkedIn. Kennedy-Lightsey, C. D., & Dillow, M. R. (2011). Initiating and avoiding communication with mothers: Young adult children’s perceptions of hurtfulness and affirming styles. Southern Communication Journal, 76(5), 482–501. Kiser, L. J., Baumgardner, B., & Dorado, J. (2010). Who are we, but for the stories we tell: Family stories and healing. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 2, 243–249. Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2006). Family communications patterns theory: A social cognitive approach. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 50–65). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Koerner, A. F., & Schrodt, P. (2014). An introduction to the special issue on family communication patterns. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 1–15. Koesten, J. (2004). Family communication patterns, sex of subject, and com­ munication competence. Communication Monographs, 71, 226–244. Koroshnia, M. M., & Latifian, M. M. (2008). An investigation on validity and reliability of revised family communication patterns instrument. Journal of Family Research, 3, 855–875. Kurtz, L., & Algoe, S. (2017). When sharing a laugh means sharing more:

449

450

References

Testing the role of shared laughter on short-term interpersonal conse­ quences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 41, 45–65. LaBelle, S., & Myers, S. A. (2016). The use of relational maintenance behaviors in sustained adult friendships. Com­munication Research Reports, 33, 310–316. Laërtius, D. (1853). The lives and opinions of eminent philosophers. Literally translated by C. D. Yonge; Henry G. Bohn. London: J. Haddon & Son Ledbetter, A. M., Mazer, J. P., DeGroot, J. M., Meyer, K. R., Mao, Y., & Swafford, B. (2011). Attitudes toward online social connection and self-disclosure as predictors of Facebook communication and relational closeness. Communication Research, 38(1), 27–53. Ledbetter, A. M., & Schrodt, P. (2008). Family communication patterns and cognitive processing: Conversation and conformity orientations as predictors of informational reception apprehension. Communication Studies, 59, 388–401. Ledbetter, A. M., & Vik, T. A. (2012). Parental invasive behaviors and emerging adults’ privacy defenses: Instrument development and validation. Journal of Family Communication, 12, 227–247. Lehmiller, J. J., VanderDrift, L. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2011). Sex differences in approaching friends with benefits relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 275–284. Lehmiller, J. J., VanderDrift, L. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2014). Sexual communication, satisfaction, and condom use behavior in friends with benefits and romantic partners. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 74–85. Lenhart, A., & Duggan, M. (2014, February 11). Couples, the internet, and social media. Pew Research Internet Project. Leopold, T. (2018). Gender differences in the consequences of divorce: A study of multiple outcomes. Demography, 55(3), 769–797. Lerner, R. M., Rothbaum, F., Boulos, S., & Castellino, D. R. (2002). Develop­ mental systems perspective on parenting. In M. Bornstein (ed), Handbook of parenting, Vol. 2: Biology and ecology of parenting, 2nd edn, 315–344. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Liu, D., & Yang, C.-C. (2016). Media niche of electronic communication channels in friendship: A meta-analysis. Journal

of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21, 451–466. Loving, T. J., & Slatcher, R. B. (2013). Romantic relationships and health. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 617–637). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. MacGeorge, E. L., Samter, W., Feng, B., Gillihan, S. J., & Graves, A. R. (2004). Stress, social support, and health among college students after September 11, 2001. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 655–670. Malachowski, C. C., & Dillow, M. R. (2011). An examination of relational uncertainty, romantic intent, and attraction on communicative and relational outcomes in cross-sex friendships. Communication Research Reports, 28, 356–368. McBride, M. C., & Bergen, K. M. (2015). Work spouses: Defining and understanding a “new” relationship. Communication Studies, 66, 487–508. McEwan, B., & Guerrero, L. K. (2010). Freshman engagement through communication: Predicting friendship formation strategies and perceived availability of network resources from communication skills. Communication Studies, 61, 445–463. McEwan, B., & Horn, D. (2016). ILY & can U pick up some milk: Effects of relational maintenance via text messaging on relational satisfaction and closeness in dating partners. Southern Communication Journal, 81, 168–181. McGoldrick, M., & Watson, M. (2016). Siblings and the life cycle. In M. McGoldrick, N. A. Garcia Preto, & B. Carter (Eds.), The expanding family life cycle: Individual, family, and social perspectives (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson Education. Merolla, A. J. (2008). Communicating forgiveness in friendships and dating relationships. Communication Studies, 59, 114–131 Miller, B., & Mundey, P. (2015). Follow the rules and no one will get hurt: Performing boundary work to avoid negative interactions when using social networking sites. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 1–15. Miller, R. W. (2016, February 12). Here’s what it actually means to have a work wife. BuzzFeed. Miller-Ott, A., & Kelly, L. (2015). The presence of cell phones in romantic partner face-to-face interactions: An

expectancy violation theory approach. Southern Communication Journal, 80, 253–270. Miller-Ott, A. E., & Linder, A. (2013). Romantic partners’ use of facework and humor to communicate about sex. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 14, 69–78. Mongeau, P. A., Knight, K., Williams, J., Eden, J., & Shaw, C. (2013). Identifying and explicating variation among friends with benefits relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 37–47. Murdock, G.P. (1965). Social structure. New York: Free Press. Myers, S.A. (2003). Sibling use of relational maintenance behaviors. In K.M. Galvin and P. J. Cooper (eds), Making connections: Readings in relational communication, 300–308. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Ngcongo, M. (2016). The dialectics of mobile communication in South African romantic relationships. Journal of African Media Studies, 8, 75–90. Noller, P. (1995). Parent-adolescent relationships. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining family interactions (pp. 77–111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Olson, D. H. (2000). Circumplex Model of marital and family systems. Journal of Family Therapy, 22(2), 144–167. Owen, J., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Friends with benefits relationships as a start to exclusive romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 982–996. Penning, K. (2016, January 19). Should we be friends? Friending coworkers on social media. AG Careers. Peterson, C. (2006). A primer in positive psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Petronio, S. (2000). The boundaries of privacy: Praxis of everyday life. In S. Petronio (ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures, 37–49. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Petronio, S. (2013). Brief status report on communication privacy management theory. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 6–14. Plander, K. L. (2013). Checking accounts: Communication privacy management in familial financial caregiving. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 17–31. Proscal, A. D., Demir, M., Dogan, A., Ozen, A., & Sumer, N. (2015). Crosssex friendship and happiness. In

References

M. Demir (Ed.), Friendship and happiness: Across the life-span and cultures (pp. 171–185). New York, NY: Springer. Reich, S. M., Subrahmanyam, K., & Espinoza, G. (2012). Friending, IM ing, and hanging out face-to-face: Overlap in adolescents’ online and offline social networks. Developmental Psychology, 48, 356–368. Rittenour, C. E., Myers, S. A., & Brann, M. (2007). Commitment and emotional closeness in the sibling relationship. Southern Communication Journal, 72, 169–183. Robbins, N. K., Low, K. G., & Query, A. N. (2016). A qualitative exploration of the “coming out” process for asexual individuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 751–760. Rossetto, K. R., Manning, J., & Green, E. W. (2017). Perceptions of paternal support after transitioning to college: Interpretations based on the generative fathering framework. Western Journal of Communication, 81, 405–425. Russell, E. M., Babcock, M. J., Lewis, D. M. G., Ta, V. P., & Ickes, W. (2018). Why attractive women want gay male friends: A previously undiscovered strategy to prevent mating deception and sexual exploitation. Personality and Individual Differences, 120(Complete), 283–287. Russell, E. M., DelPriore, D. J., Butterfield, M. E., & Hill, S. E. (2013). Friends with benefits, but without the sex: Straight women and gay men exchange trustworthy mating advice. Evolutionary Psychology, 11, 132–147. Sapadin, L. A. (1988). Friendship and gender: Perspectives of professional men and women. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 387–403. Sarkisian, N., & Gerstel, N. (2016). Does singlehood isolate or integrate? Examining the link between marital status and ties to kin, friends, and neighbors. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33, 361–384. Saslow, L. R., Muise, A., Impett, E. A., & Dubin, M. (2013). Can you see how happy we are? Facebook images and relationship satisfaction. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 411–418. Schrodt, P., & Carr, K. (2012). Trait verbal aggressiveness as a function of family communication patterns. Communication Research Reports, 29(1), 54–63. Schrodt, P., & Shimkowski, J. R. (2017). Family communication patterns and

perceptions of coparental communication. Communication Reports, 30, 39–50. Semlak, J. L., & Pearson, J. C. (2011). Big Macs/peanut butter and jelly: An exploration of dialectical contradictions experienced by the sandwich generation. Communication Research Reports, 28, 296–307. Semmer, N. K., Elfering, A., Jacobshagen, N., Perrot, T., Beehr, T. A., & Boos, N. (2008). The emotional meaning of instrumental social support. International Journal of Stress Management, 15, 235–251. Shimkowski, J. R. (2016). Consuming to cope: Investigating college students’ expressive suppression as an indirect effect of family communication and drinking context. Communication Studies, 67, 419–437. Sillars, A., Holman, A. J., Richards, A., Jacobs, K. A., Koerner, A., & Reynolds-Dyk, A. (2014). Conversation and conformity orientations as predictors of observed conflict tactics in parent-adolescent discussions. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 16–31. Solomon, S., & Knafo, A. (2007). Value similarity in adolescent friendships. In T. C. Rhodes (Ed.), Focus on adolescent behavior research (pp. 133–155). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Statistics Canada (2017). Families, households and marital status: Key results from the 2016 Census. The Daily, Wednesday, August 2. Stephenson-Abetz, J., & Holman, A. (2012). Home is where the heart is: Facebook and the negotiation of “old” and “new” during the transition to college. Western Journal of Communication, 76, 175–193. Stern, M. J., & Messer, C. (2009). How family members stay in touch: A quantitative investigation of core family networks. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 654–676. Sternberg, R. J. (2004). A triangular theory of love. In H. T. Reis & C. E. Rusbult (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 258–276). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Sumter, S. R., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). Perceptions of love across the lifespan: Differences in passion, intimacy, and commitment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37, 417–427. Tannen, D. (2016, March 25). When friends are “like family.” The New York Times.

Theiss, J. A., & Solomon, D. H. (2007). Communication and the emotional, cognitive, and relational consequences of first sexual encounters between partners. Communication Quarterly, 55, 179–206. Thompson, P. A., & Schrodt, P. (2015). Perceptions of joint family storytelling as mediators of family communication patterns and family strengths. Communication Quarterly, 63, 405–426. Thorson, A. R., & Horstman, H. A. K. (2014). Buy now, pay later: Family communication patterns theory, parental financial support, and emerging adults’ openness about credit card behaviors. Journal of Family Com­ munication, 14, 53–71. Toma, C. L., & Choi, M. (2015). The couple who Facebooks together, stays together: Facebook self-­presentation and relationship longevity among college-aged dating couples. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18, 367–372. Tong, S. T., & Walther, J. B. (2011b). Relational maintenance and computermediated communication. In K. B. Wright & L. M. Webb (Eds.), Computer mediated communication and personal relationships (pp. 98–118). New York: Peter Lang. Utz, S. (2007). Media use in long-distance friendships. Information, Communication & Society, 10, 694–713. Valenzuela, S., Halpern, D., & Katz, J. E. (2014). Social network sites, marriage well-being and divorce: Survey and state-level evidence from the United States. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 94–101. Vallade, J. I., Dillow, M. R., & Myers, S. A. (2016). A qualitative exploration of romantic partners’ motives for and content of communication with friends following negative relational events. Communication Quarterly, 64, 348–368. VanderDrift, L. E., Wilson, J. E., & Agnew, C. R. (2013). On the benefits of valuing being friends for nonmarital romantic partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 115–131. Vangelisti, A. (Ed.). (2004). Handbook of family communication. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. van Prooijen, A., Ranzini, G., & Bartels, J. (2018). Exposing one’s identity: Social judgments of colleagues’ traits can influence employees’ Facebook boundary management. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 215–222.

451

452

References

Watson, S. (2016, January). We’ve reached peak PDA . The Telegraph. Weger, H., & Emmett, M. C. (2009). Romantic intent, relationship uncertainty, and relationship maintenance in young adults’ cross-sex friendships. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 26, 964–988. Weigel, D. J. (2008). Mutuality and the communication of commitment in romantic relationships. Southern Communication Journal, 73, 24–41. Weigel, D. J., Brown, C., & O’Riordan, C. K. (2011). Every day expressions of commitment and relational uncertainty as predictors of relationship quality and stability over time. Communication Reports, 24, 38–50. Wells, T. M., & Dennis, A. R. (2016). To email or not to email: The impact of media on psychophysiological responses and emotional content in utilitarian and romantic communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 1–9. Whitty, M. T. (2005). The realness of cybercheating: Men’s and women’s representations of unfaithful internet relationships. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 57–67. Williamson, H. C., Nguyen, T. P., Bradbury, T. N., & Karney, B. R. (2016). Are problems that contribute to divorce present at the start of marriage, or do they emerge over time? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33, 1120–1134. Whitteberry, K. (2016, February 19). Should you “friend” your coworkers on social media? iOffice. Wu, J. (2017, January 23). Social media in the workplace: 5 reasons to not friend co-workers. Maximize Social Business. Zhang, S., & Stafford, L. (2009). Relational ramifications of honest but hurtful evaluative messages in close relationships. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 481–501.

Chapter 12: Work, Group, and Team Communication Adler, R. B., & Rodman, G. (2008). Understanding human communication, 10th edn. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Adler, R. B., & Elmhorst, J M. (2019). Communicating at work: Strategies for success in business and the professions, 12th edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Alsharo, M., Gregg, D., & Ramirez, R. (2017). Virtual team effectiveness: The role of knowledge sharing and trust. Information & Management, 54(4), 479–490. Anders, A. D. (2018). Networked learning with professionals boosts students’ self-efficacy for social networking and professional development. Computers & Education,127, 13–29. Andrews, P. H., & Baird, J. E. (2005). Communication for business and the professions, 8th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. Ashkanasy, N. M., Wilderom, C., & Peterson, M. F. (eds). (2000). Handbook of organizational culture and climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Badura, K. L., Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Yan, T. T., & Jeon, G. (2018). Gender and leadership emergence: A meta‐analysis and explanatory model. Personnel Psychology, 71(3), 355–367. Baker, W. (2000). Achieving success through social capital. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Berman, E. M., West, J. P., & Richter, N. M. (2002). Workplace relations: Friendship patterns and consequences (according to managers). Public Administration Review, 62, (2), 217–230. Betts, S., & Healy, W. (2015). Having a ball catching on to teamwork: An experiential learning approach to teaching the phases of group development. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 19, 1–9. Bolles, R. N. (2008). What colour is your parachute? A practical manual for job hunters and careers changers. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press. Bourdrias, J.S., Brunet, L., Morin, A.J., Savoie, A., Plunier, P., and Cacciatore, G. (2010). Empowering employees: The moderating role of perceived organizational climate and justice. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 42(4), 201–211. Breuer, C., Hüffmeier, J., & Hertel, G. (2016). Does trust matter more in virtual teams? A meta-analysis of trust and team effectiveness considering virtuality and documentation as moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), 1151 – 1177. Brilhart, J. K., Galanes, G. J., & Adams, K. (2001). Effective group discussion, 10th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. Bryant, E.M., & Sias, P. M. (2011). Sensemaking and relational consequences of peer co-worker deception.

Communication Monographs, 78(1), 115–137. Buettner R. (2017). Getting a job via career-oriented social networking markets: The weakness of too many ties. Electronic Markets, November, 371–385. Business Council of Canada, (2018). Navigating change: 2018 Business council skills survey. Toronto: Morneau Shepell. (p. 3 of 50) Cameron, A., Barki, H., Ortiz de Guinea, A., Coulon, T., & Moshki, H. (2018). Multicommunicating in meetings: Effects of locus, topic relatedness, and meeting medium. Management Communication Quarterly, 32(3), 303–336. Canadian Council of Chief Executives (2014). Preliminary survey report: The skill needs of major Canadian employers. Taking action for Canada: Jobs and skills for the 21st century. www.ceocouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ Preliminary-report-on-skills-survey-Jan-20–2014–2.pdf CareerBuilder (2014). Employers share most unusual things they found on candidates’ social media profiles. Retrieved from: http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?sd=6%2F26%2F2014&id=pr8 29&ed=12%2F31%2F2014 Carmon, A. F., & Pearson, J. C. (2013). Family business employees’ family communication and workplace experiences. Journal of Family Business Management, 3(2), 88–107. Chan, S. H. J., & Lai, H. Y. I. (2017). Understanding the link between communication satisfaction, perceived justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Research, 70(Complete), 214–223. Clark, W. R., Clark, L. A., & Crossley, K. (2010). Developing multidimensional trust without touch in virtual teams. Marketing Management Journal, 20(1), 177–193. Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1983). Culture and school performance. Educational Leadership, 40(5), 14–15. De Groot, T., & Gooty, J. (2009). Can nonverbal cues be used to make meaningful personality attributions in employment interviews. Journal of Business Psychology, 24, 179–192. Dunleavy, K. N., Chory, R. M., & Goodboy, A. K. (2010). Responses to deception in the workplace: Perceptions of credibility, power, and trustworthiness. Communication Studies, 61, 239–255.

References

Dutton, K. (2010). Split-second persuasion. The ancient art and new science of changing minds. Scarborough, ON: Doubleday Canada. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. New York: Random House. Dweck, C. S. (2010). Even geniuses work hard. Educational Leadership, 68(1), 16–20. Elliott-Dawe, C. (2018). Synergism in perioperative services. AORN Journal, 107(6), 726 – 736. Ferdman, B. M., Barrera, V., Allen, A., & Vuong, V. (2009, August). Inclusive behaviors and the experience of inclusion. In B. G. Chung (Chair), Inclusion in organizations: Measures, HR practices, and climate. Symposium presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL. Ferdman, B. M. (2014). The practice of inclusion in diverse organizations: Toward a systemic and inclusive framework. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion. p. 3 -54. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Ferdman, B. M. (2017). Paradoxes of inclusion: Understanding and managing the tensions of diversity and multiculturalism. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(2), 235–263. Fortado, B. (2011). A field exploration of informal workplace communication. Sociology Mind, 1 (4), 212–220. Foulk, T., Woolum, A., Erez, A., Foulk, T., Woolum, A., & Erez, A. (2016). Catching rudeness is like catching a cold: The contagion effects of low-intensity negative behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 50–67. French, J. R., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. French, J. R., and Raven, B. (1968). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright and A. Zander (eds), Group dynamics: Research and theory, 259–269. New York: Harper and Row. Friedman, R., Hong, Y., Simons, T., Chi, S. (., Oh, S. (., & Lachowicz, M. (2018). The impact of culture on reactions to promise breaches: Differences between east and west in behavioral integrity perceptions. Group & Organization Management, 43(2), 273–315 Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Basic Books. Goris, J. R. (2007). Effects of satisfaction with communication on the relationship between individual-job congruence and job performance/ satisfaction. The Journal of Management Development, 26(28), 737–752. Government of Canada (2018). Department of Employment and Social Development: How do I prepared for an interview? Retrieved from: https:// www.jobbank.gc.ca/content_pieceseng.do?cid=208 Hatala, J., & Yamkovenko, B. (2016). Weak ties and self-regulation in job search: The effects of goal orientation on networking. Journal of Career Development, 43(6), 541–555. Hill, S. & Bartol, K. (2018). Five ways to improve communication in virtual teams. MIT Management Review Magazine, Frontiers, Fall. Retrieved from: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/ five-ways-to-improve-communication-in-virtual-teams/ Hirshberg, J.J.& Ferdman, B.M. (2011). Leader-member exchange, cooperative group norms and workplace inclusion in workgroups. In M. Shuffler, S. Burke, & D. Diaz-Granados (Chairs), Leading across cultures: Emerging research and trends from multiple levels. Symposium presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, San Antonio, TX. (p. 27 of 50) Hoch, J. E. (2013). Shared leadership and innovation: The role of vertical leadership and employee integrity. Journal of Business Psychology, 28, 159–174. Hofmann, E., Hartl, B., Gangl, K., Hartner-Tiefenthaler, M., & Kirchler, E. (2017). Authorities’ coercive and legitimate power: The impact on cognitions underlying cooperation. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(5), 1–15. Hofstede, G. (1980, 2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behavior, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hunt, V., Layton, D. & Prince, S. (2015). Diversity matters. New York, NY: McKinsey & Company. et al, 2015 (p. 27 of 50) Janis, I. L. (1983). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascos, 2nd edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review

and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706. Karau, S. J., and Williams, K. D. (2001). Understanding individual motivation in groups: The collective effort model. In M. E. Turner (ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research. Applied social research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz, C., & Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors’ Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 512–519. Krackhardt, D., & Hanson, J. R. (1993). Informal networks: The company behind the chart. Harvard Business Review, 71, 104–111. Lacerenza, C. N., Marlow, S. L., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (2018). Team development interventions: Evidence-based approaches for improving teamwork. The American Psychologist, 73(4), 517. Lai, D. W., L., Shankar, J., & Khalema, E. (2017). Unspoken skills and tactics: Essentials for immigrant professionals in integration to workplace culture. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 18(3), 937–959. Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. (1989). TeamWork: What must go right/What can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lee, Y., & Antonakis, J. (2014). When preference is not satisfied but the individual is: How power distance moderates person–job fit. Journal of Management, 40(3), 641–675. Leroy, H., Palanski, M., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 255–264. Lin, C., Standing, C. & Liu, Y. C. (2008). A model to develop effective virtual teams. Decision Support Systems, 45, 1031–1045. Lloyd, K. J., Boer, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2017). From listening to leading: Toward an understanding of supervisor listening within the framework of leader-member exchange theory. International Journal of Business Communication, 54(4), 431–451. Locker, K. O. (2000). Business and administrative communication, 5th edn. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

453

454

References

Lopez‐Kidwell, V., Niven, K., & Labianca, G. (2018). Predicting workplace relational dynamics using an affective model of relationships. Journal of Org­ anizational Behavior, 39(9), 1129–1141. Mao, H., & Hsieh, A. (2012). Organizational level and friendship expectation at work. Asian Business and Management, 11(4), 485–506. Martin, R. (2014). Leadership and integrative thinking. In Conversation, 5(1), 2–8. Mills, C. (2010). Experiencing gossip: The foundations for a theory of embedded organizational gossip. Group and Organization Management, 35(2), 213–240. Mohr, D. C., Young, G. J., & Burgess, J. F. (2012). Employee turnover and operational performance: The moderating effect of group-oriented organiza­ tional culture. Human Resource Management Journal, 4(22), 216–233. Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373–412. Morrison, R. L. (2004). Informal relationships in the workplace: Associations with job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover decisions. New Zealand Psychological Society, 33(3), 114–128. Morrison, R. L., & Wright, S. L. (2009). Friends and enemies in organizations. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Perlow, L.A., Hadley, C.N. & Eun, E, (2017). Stop the meeting madness. Harvard Business Review, July-August. Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2017/07/ stop-the-meeting-madness PwC, (2018). The workforce of the future. The competing forces shaping 2030. London, UK: PricewaterhouseCoopers. (p. 9 of 50) Reinsch, N. L., Turner, J. W., & Tinsley, C. H. (2008). Multicommunicating:

A practice whose time has come? Academy of Management Review, 33, 391–403 Ritter, B. A., Small, E. E., Mortimer, J. W., & Doll, J. L. (2018). Designing management curriculum for workplace readiness: Developing students’ soft skills. Journal of Management Education, 42(1), 80–103. Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., Shanock, L., Scott, C., & Shuffler, M. (2010). Employee satisfaction with meetings: A contemporary facet of job satisfaction. Human Resource Management, 49, 149–172. Rollinson, D. (2008). Organisational behaviour and analysis: An integrated approach, 4th edn. Harlow: Prentice Hall. Ruck, K., Welch, M., & Menara, B. (2017). Employee voice: An antecedent to organisational engagement? Public Relations Review, 43(5), 904–914. Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, 57–88. Shannon, M. L., & Stark, C. P. (2003). The influence of physical appearance on personnel selection. Social Behavior and Personality, 31(6), 613–623. Sias, P. M. (2009). Organizing relationships: Traditional and emerging perspectives on workplace relationships. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Sias, P. M., & Cahill, D. J. (1998). From coworkers to friends: The development of peer friendships in the workplace. Western Journal of Communication, 62, 273–299. Simons, T. (2008). The integrity dividend: Leading by the power of your word. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143–150.

Stewart, C. J., & Cash, W. B. (2011). Interviewing: Principles and practices, 13th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. Tenhiälä, A. & Salvador, F. (2018). When communication should be formal. MIT Sloan Management Review, 60(1), 1–6. Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33, 261–289. Tsai, M.-T., Chuang, S.-S., & Hsieh, W.-P. (2009). An integrated process model of communication satisfaction and organizational outcomes. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 37(6), 825–834. Utz, S., & Breuer, J. (2016). Informational benefits from social media use for professional purposes: Results from a longitudinal study. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 10(4), article 3. Valaei, N., & Rezaei, S. (2016). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment: An empirical investigation among ICT- SMes. Management Research Review, 39(12), 16630–1694. Wanberg, C. R., Kanfer, R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of networking intensity among unemployed job seekers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 491–503. Wang, D., Waldman, D. & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99 (2), 181–198. Yakubovich, V. (2005). Weak ties, information, and influence: How workers find jobs in a local Russian labor market. American Sociological Review, 70(3), 408–421. Yoon, J., & Thye, S. (2011). A theoretical model and new test of managerial legitimacy in work teams. Social Forces, 90(2), 639–659.

Name Index Adams, Hajo, 56 Adams, Michael, 26–7, 28 Afifi, Tamara, 68, 347 Afifi, Waid, 68 Airton, Lee, 47 Alderson, Kevin, 188 Altman, Irwin, 63 Anders, Abram, 383–4 Anderson, Janna, 20–1 Aristotle, 355 Aronson, Elliot, et al., 247 Au, K., et al., 93 Barry, Dave, 261 Bartels, Jos, 343 Bartol, Kathryn, 374–5 Batenburg, Anika, 343 Bateson, G., 176 Baxter, Leslie, 259, 262 Bjornsdottir, R. Thora, 214–15 Bok, Sissela, 72 Booth-Butterfield, Melanie, 122 Booth-Butterfield, Steven, 122 Boroditsky, Lera, 176, 179 Bradberry, T., 123 Briggs, Jean, 116, 118, 119 Brightman, V., et al., 57 Brown, Tyler, 188 Browne, Annette, et al., 291 Buller, David, 72 Burgoon, Judee, 72, 221 Business Council of Canada, 4 Cacioppo, John, 6 Cameron, Ann-Francis, et al., 153–4, 372–3 Carlin, George, 80 Caughlin, John, 68, 354–5 Chapman, Gary, 358–9 Chavez, A., 341 Clark, Jenna, 52 Coplan, Robert, 117 Cozby, Paul, 62 Cuddy, Amy, et al., 221 Darwin, Charles, 216 David, Susan, 134, 293 DePaulo, Bella, 360 Dickens, Leah, 225 Diefendorf, J.M., 188 Dindia, Kathryn, 202

Dunbar, Robin, 338 Dunleavy, Katie, et al., 378–9 Dweck, Carol, 44, 382 Dwyer, Ryan J., et al., 284 Elfenbein, Hillary, et al., 119–20 Ellis, Kathleen, 353 Ferdman, Bernardo, et al., 379 Filley, Albert, 312 Fisher, H., 371 Fitzpatrick, Mary Ann, 348–9 Foss, Sonja, 292 Frederick II, 4–5 French, John, 376 Friedman, Ray, et al., 379 Galvin, Kathleen, et al., 345 Gergen, Kenneth, 10 Gershon, Ilana, 258 Gibb, Jack, 285–92 Goffman, Erving, 54, 373 Goldschmidt, Walter, 7 Goleman, Daniel, 112, 121 Gordon, Thomas, 197 Gottman, John, 113, 122, 277, 280, 318–19, 322, 354 Gray, John, 201 Green, Melanie, 52 Greif, Geoffrey, 340 Griffin, Cindy, 292 Gudykunst, William, 25, 200 Guéguen, Nicolas, et al. 219 Guerrero, L.K., 342 Guertin, Camille, et al., 181 Hall, Edward, 198, 228–9, 230 Hall, J.A., 223, 231, 233 Hall, Jeffrey, 263 Hall, Judith, 217 Harvard Business Review, 367 Hebb, Donald, 5 Heine, Steven, et al., 244 Hill, Sharon, 374–5 Hirsch, Allen, 67 Hocker, Joyce, 307, 314 Hofstede, Geert, 28, 94, 95 Holtzman, Susan, et al., 286–7 Industry Canada, 22 Ingham, Harry, 64

Internet Watch Foundation, 19 Izard, Caroll, 113 Jackson, D.D., 176 Jacobson, Lenore, 52 James, William, 242 Janoff-Bulman, R., 93 Johnson, Sonia, 156 Keller, Helen, 152 Kim, Tae-Young, 182 Kim, Young, 25 Kingsbury, Mila, 117 Knapp, M.L., 223, 231, 233, 253–9 Koerner, Ascan, 348–9 Kuo, F.E., 233 LaFasto, Frank, 369 LaGuardia, Fiorello, 216 Landay, Karen, et al., 375–6 Langer, Ellen, 147 Larson, Carl, 369 Leggatt, H.K., 93 Levine, Tim, 221 Lipman, Joanne, 185, 188 Luft, Joseph, 64 McCarty, Megan, et al., 120 McCroskey, J.C., 16 McLuhan, Marshall, 22 Marshall, Tara, 251 Martin, Roger, 377 Maslow, Abraham, 7–8 Mischel, Walter, 41 Monty, Jean Claude, 105 Morley, Michael, 71 Mulac, Anthony, 201 Ogden, C.K., 179 Park, Young Ah, et al., 320 Pascoe, J.M., 188 Pausch, Randy, 269 Payne, Brian, 188 Peake, Philip, 41 Pearson, Judy, 85 Pennesi, Karen, 182 Pinker, Susan, 17 Plato, 355 Pogrebtsova, Ekaterina, et al., 135–6 Powell, John, 67

456

Name Index

Proctor, Russell, 197 Pyshyl, Tim, 42–3 Rainie, Lee, 20–1 Raven, Bertram, 376 Rawlins, William, 259 Richards, I.A., 179 Rick Hansen Foundation, 61 Rogers, Carl, 168 Romaine, Suzanne, 187 Rosenthal, Robert, 52 Russell, Michelle, et al., 315 Samovar, Larry, et al., 22, 30 Sangster, Joan, 216 Shattuck, Roger, 6

Shoda, Yuichi, 41 Slatcher, Richard, et al., 197 Sommer, Robert, 229–30 Sternberg, Robert, 355–6 Sullivan, W.C., 233

Vang, Zoua, et al., 290–1 van Leent, Lisa, 188 Vicaria, Ishabel, 225 von Keyserling, Hermann, 56

Tagliamonte, Sali, 178 Tannen, Deborah, 186, 201, 259–60 Taylor, Catherine, 188 Taylor, Dalmas, 63 Ting-Toomey, Stella, 30 Tracy, Sarah, 283 Turkel, Sherry, 17

Walters, Richard, 270 Wheeless, L., 16 Wilcox, James, 197 Wilmot, William, 307, 314 Wood, Julia, 13, 201 World Values Surveys, 27

United Nations, 5

Zimbardo, Philip, 92, 114

Yingling, Julie, 6

Subject Index abbreviations, 178 ableism, 61 abstraction: language and, 191–3, 194, 195 abstraction ladder, 191 abuse: relationships and, 246 accents, 183, 184 acceptance: as communication strategy, 262 accommodation: conflict and, 308, 310–11, 313, 314 accuracy, interpersonal, 214–15 acknowledgement: confirmation and, 278 acronyms, 178 adaptability: communication competence and, 31–2 adolescents: online language and, 203–4 advice: as listening response, 166–7, 168 affection: “deceptive,” 358; romantic relationships and, 357–8 age: perception and, 87; power distance and, 95 aggression, 278, 280–1; direct, 312; gender and, 321; passive, 311–12 agreement: criticism and, 296–8 alcohol: perception and, 88–9 alternation: as communication strategy, 262 ambiguity: communication competence and, 31–2; deliberate, 16; language and, 190–1, 195; non-verbal communication and, 212–2; socially anxious people and, 117–18 ambushing: listening and, 150 analyzing: as listening response, 165–6, 168 anger: gender and, 120; venting, 124 apology: relational repair and, 269 appearance: relationships and, 242–3 appraisal, reflected, 43–4 appropriateness: communication competence and, 29, 30; self-disclosure and, 73 approval: fallacy of, 128 argumentativeness, 278–9 arguments, serial, 317–18 assertiveness: culture and, 322; language and, 196 assurances: relational maintenance and, 265–6 asynchronicity: computer-mediated communication and, 19 attending: listening and, 151 attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 88

attraction, interpersonal, 242 attribution, 96; fundamental error in, 98 autism spectrum disorder, 88 avoidance: conflict and, 308, 309–10, 313, 314; relationships and, 249–50; stage of, 257–8, 259 back region: impression management and, 54–5 barrier behaviours, 229, 230 beauty, 231 “beer goggles,” 88–9 behaviour: descriptions of, 193, 194; emotions and, 124; public/private, 251; relational, 370–1 beliefs: destiny/growth, 252 bias: confirmation, 97–8, 100; gender, 91; interpretation, 117; language and, 183; pessimism, 132; self-serving, 98, 100 bilingualism, 180, 183 Bill 101 (French language), 46 biological cycles: perception and, 88 “blind” review/audition, 99 body movement, 222–4 bonding stage, 256, 259 boundaries: families and, 352, 353 boys: online language and, 203–4; see also gender brainstorming: conflict management and, 327 “bromances,” 340 bullying, 280–1 burka, 232 “but” statements, 195, 197 caffeine: perception and, 88 Canada: as achievement culture, 96; culture in, 26–8; diversity of, 22; lying in, 69; singleness in, 360; workplace in, 373 career advancement, 381–8 catharsis: self-disclosure and, 65 causation: fallacy of 130–1 cellphones: connection–autonomy and, 260; as disconfirming message, 280; gazing at, 284; romantic relationships and, 359; snubbing and, 284 certainty: provisionalism and, 291–2, 327 channels, 10, 17, 18; breakups and, 258; characteristics of, 19; communication competence and, 31; impression management and, 58 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 27, 94

children: adult, 352; comforting, 165; emotions and, 122, 123; moving out and, 351–2; non-verbal communication and, 224–5, 226; power distance and, 95; touch and, 224–5 China: conflict in, 323; lying in, 69 chronemics, 230, 231 circumscribing stage, 257, 259 clarification: questions and, 157, 159 class: interpersonal accuracy and, 214–15 clichés: self-disclosure and, 63 climate: see communication climate closure, relationship, 258–9 clothing: designer knock-off, 232; formal, 232; job interview and, 385; as non-verbal communication, 231–2 co-culture, 22–3, 25 code-switching, 200–1 cognitive complexity, 32 cognitive conservatism, 50–1 collaboration: conflict and, 309, 313–14, 324–30 collectivism: assertiveness and, 279; Canadian and US view of, 28; conflict and, 310, 322–3; defensiveness and, 282; emotional values and, 118–20; examples of, 48; exclusion and, 130; non-verbal communication and, 216–17; perception and, 93–4; relationships and, 251, 252–3; self-concept and, 47–8, 49 co-location, workplace, 374 commitment: empathy and, 105; friendships and, 344; relational, 256, 356–7; romantic relationships and, 355, 356–7 communication: close relationships and, 336–63; confirming, 276–8, 281, 283, 292, 353–4; controlling, 287; culture and, 22–6, 30, 290–1; definition of, 8; dialectical tensions and, 261–2; dimensions of, 11–12; disconfirming, 276–7, 280–1, 283; downward, 366–7, 368; excessive, 16–17; family, 347–55; formal workplace, 366–7, 368; friendships and, 338–45; group, 13; horizontal, 367, 368; impersonal, 13–15; impression management and, 54–61; informal workplace, 367–9; intentional/unintentional, 11; intercultural, 23–6; invitational, 292–9; as irreversible, 12; learning, 17; misconceptions about, 16–17;

458

Subject Index

models of, 8–10; multi-, 153–4, 372–3; need for, 4–8; principles of, 10–12; professional, 366; relational, 253–70; romantic relationships and, 355–60; self and, 38–77; as simultaneous, 8; supportive, 283–92; transactional, 10; as unrepeatable, 12; upward, 366, 368; verbal, 200, 210, 211; verbal styles of, 200; workplace, 364–92; see also faceto-face communication; interpersonal communication; mediated communication; non-verbal communication communication apprehension, 126 communication climate, 274–303; inclusion and, 379, 381; patterns in, 283; supportive, 283–92; workplace, 370–1, 378 communication competence, 28–34; multiple identities and, 55; relationships and, 246–7 communication privacy management theory, 352 communicator: as term, 8 comparison level (CL), 245–6 comparison level of alternatives, 245–6 compartmentalization: as communication strategy, 262 competition: conflict and, 308–9, 311–12, 313, 314; culture and, 322 complaining, 278, 280 complexity, cognitive, 32 compromise: as communication strategy, 261–2; conflict and, 309, 312, 313, 314 computer-mediated communication: see mediated communication confirmation: levels of, 277–81 conflict: applied management of, 324–30; complementary, 316–17; definition of, 306–8; family, 354–5; inevitability of, 307–8; management of, 304–34; parental, 324; recurring, 317–18, 354; relational systems and, 316–21; symmetrical, 316–17; toxic, 318–19; work groups and, 371 conflict styles, 308–16; culture and, 322– 4; gender and, 321–2; use of, 314–16 conformity: work groups and, 370 conformity orientation: families and, 348–50 connection–autonomy dialectic, 260, 263; families and, 350–2; friendships and, 345 consent, 192–3 conservatism, cognitive, 50–1 contagion, emotional, 103, 121, 378 contexts (environments), 9 contrast: perception and, 81 control: self-disclosure and, 68 convergence: linguistic, 184, 185, 200; vocal patterns and, 227 “conversational narcissists,” 197

conversation orientation: families and, 348–50, 368 “costs”: relationships and, 245–6 cover letter, 385 “crazy making,” 311–12 credibility: language and, 183–4 criticism: defensiveness and, 294–8; divorce and, 318 cultural significance: degrees of, 24–5 culture: achievement, 95–6; Asian, 93, 322–4; Canadian and US, 26–8; communication and, 22–6, 30; communication styles and, 290–1; conflict styles and, 310–11, 322–4; definition of, 22–3, 25; emotional expression and, 116, 118–20; group, 373–4; health care and, 158; high-context, 101, 198–9, 288, 310, 322–3; integrity breaches and, 379; intimacy and, 250–3; language and, 198–201; low-context, 100, 198–9, 288, 310–11, 322; lying and, 69; marriage and, 357; multiple, 251; names and, 182; non-verbal communication and, 215–17; nurturing, 95–6; perception and, 93–6, 101; personal space and, 228; power distance and, 377; relational mobility and, 252; relational, 13; self-concept and, 45–8; similarity thesis in, 244; time and, 230; touch and, 225; Western 93, 357 cyberbullying, 280–1, 293 dating: online, 255; speed, 243 deception: deliberate, 16; non-verbal communication and, 221–2; online, 60; relationships and, 250; see also lies “deep like,” 342 defensiveness: avoiding, 294–8; causes and effects of, 282–3; divorce and, 318; supportive behaviours and, 285–92 “demand-withdraw pattern,” 316 denial: as communication strategy, 261 description: behavioural, 193, 194; evaluation and, 285–7 “desires romance”: cross-sex relationships and, 341 dialectical tensions: managing, 261–2; relationships and, 259–62 dialects, 177 differentiating stage, 256–7, 259 disability, 61; Canadian and US view of, 27 disclaimers, 185 disfluencies, 226, 227 distance: forms of, 249–50; intimacy and, 248–53; intimate, 228–9, 230; as non-verbal communication, 227–9; personal, 229, 230; public, 229, 230; social, 229, 230; see also power distance divergence, linguistic, 184–5, 200 diversity: Canadian and US view of, 27; cultural, 22–6; workplace, 379–81

divorce: communication problems and, 355; predictors of, 318–19; social network use and, 359 drugs: perception and, 88 dyad, 12–13, 148 education: communication and, 7 egalitarianism: power distance and, 95 “elevator syndrome,” 229 ellipses, 215 email: emoticons and, 215; grammar in, 178; non-verbal communication and, 212; relational maintenance and, 266 emblems, 216, 224 emoji, 117, 212, 213, 227; workplace email and, 215 emoticons, 117, 212 emotions, 110–40; activating agents and, 133; behaviour and, 124; cognitive interpretations of, 114; counterfeit, 123, 124; debilitative, 126, 128–34; definition of, 113–16; duration of, 126; expression of, 115–21, 122–5, 251; facilitative, 126, 134, 136; first-order, 113; intimacy and, 248–9, 250; managing, 125–36; mixed, 126; monitoring, 132–3; multiple, 124; non-verbal communication and, 210–11, 212, 214, 215–16; physiological changes and, 113–14; reading, 214; recognition of, 119–20; responsibility for, 125; valued, 116, 118–20; see also feelings “emotion coaching/dismissing,” 122 empathy, 32, 102–6; definition of, 102–3; ethics and, 104; as listening response, 163–4, 168; neutrality and, 289; sympathy and, 103; workplace and, 380 emphasis, verbal, 226, 227 employment: communication and, 7, 366; initiating stage and, 254; seeking, 381–8; see also work groups; workplace endorsement: confirmation and, 278 environment: communication and, 9; conflict and, 324; as non-verbal communication, 232–4 equality: superiority and, 289–91 equivocation: self-disclosure and, 70–1, 72 ethics: empathy and, 104; evasion and, 72 ethnocentrism, 29 euphemism, 193, 195 evaluation: description and, 285–7; as listening response, 166, 168 evasion: ethics of, 72 exclamation marks, 213, 215 exclusion, 130, 281 expectations: fallacy of catastrophic, 131–2; perception and, 84, 98–9; violations of, 342–5 experimenting stage, 254–5, 259 expression–privacy dialectic, 260, 261; families and, 352

Subject Index

extroversion, 116; teams and, 245 eye contact: avoiding, 229; culture and, 219, 223; deception and, 221 eyes: dilation of, 221; emotional cues and, 120, 217; non-verbal communication and, 222–3 face: Asian cultures and, 322–3; defensiveness and, 282–3, 285; non-verbal communication and, 222–3 Facebook, 342, 381; emotions and, 121; “Official” (FBO), 255–6 face-saving: language and, 185, 191; pauses and, 226 face-threatening acts, 282–3, 285 face-to-face communication: computer-mediated communication and, 18–20; importance of, 17–18; impression management and, 59; meetings and, 372–3; as support, 286–7; trust and, 10; workplace, 374–5 facework, 54 facts: paraphrasing, 161; self-disclosure and, 63 fallacies: irrational thoughts and, 128–32 families, 338; communication in, 345–55; confirming communication, and, 353–4; conflict in, 354–5; consensual, 349–50; creation of, 345–7; as cultures, 347; definition of, 345; laissez-faire, 349–50; nuclear, 348; pluralistic, 349–50; protective, 349–50; subsystems in, 348; as systems, 348–50 family business: communication in, 368–9 “fat talk,” 181 feedback: directive/reflective, 156; as response, 155–6 feelings: denying others’ rights to, 163, 165; emotions and, 113; self-disclosure and, 64, 68; see also emotions fidelity, listening, 153 “fight-or-flight pattern,” 316 filling in the gaps: listening and, 149–50 first impressions, 97–8, 242–3; job ­interview and, 384–5; perception and, 97–8 flexibility: communication competence and, 30; self-concept and, 50 forgetting, 154–5 forgiveness: behaviour change and, 315; transgressions and, 269–70 “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse,” 318–19 Fox, Dr Myron L., 183–4 francophone Canadians: language and, 46 friendships: “bromosexual,” 340; communication in, 338–45; cross-sex, 340–1; expectancies in, 342–5; gender and, 339–42; heterosexual cross-sex, 341; infrequent/frequent contact in, 339; low- and high-obligation, 339;

male, 340; online maintenance of, 342; same-sex, 339–40; short- and long-term, 338; social media and, 342; task- and maintenance-oriented, 339; types of, 338–9; workplace, 367 friends with benefits (FWB), 341 front: impression management and, 54–5 gaslight effect, 292 “gaze window,” 219 gender: Canadian and US view of, 27–8; conflict style and, 321–2; emotions and, 120; friendships and, 339–42; friends with benefits and, 341; intimacy and, 250–3; language and, 185, 187–8, 201–4; leadership and, 375–6; listening and, 164–5; non–verbal communication and, 217–18; perception and, 90–1; physical attractiveness and, 231; sex and, 47 generalizations, 81–2; stereotypes and, 96–7 Genie, 6 gestures, 223–4 ghosting, 292 “Gibb Categories,” 285–92 girls: Indigenous, 217; online language and, 203–4; see also gender goals: conflict and, 307; rewording, 293 grammar: mediated communication and, 178 grief: support and, 165 groupthink, 370 “growth mindset,” 382 halo effect, 97, 100, 231 “hangry,” 88 haptics, 224–5, 226 harassment: laws on, 281 harmony, 116, 322–3 head scarves, 232, 233 health: communication and, 5–6; perception and, 87 hearing: aids for, 152–3; “into being,” 156–7; listening and, 145–6, 150; loss in, 150, 152–3 hedges, 186, 201, 202, 215 helplessness: fallacy of, 131 hidden agenda: questions and, 160 hijab, 232 hinting: self-disclosure and, 71–2 HIV status, 67 homophobia, 191 honesty: impression management and, 60; self-disclosure and, 62, 68, 72 horns effect, 97, 100 humour: cultural differences in, 94; language and, 178; romantic relationships and, 253 hunger: perception and, 88 identity: communication and, 6; multiple, 55–7; names and, 180–2

“I language,” 195, 196–8, 286; conflict management and, 326; relational repair and, 269 immigration: Canadian and US view of, 27; work group culture and, 373 impairment: disability and, 61 impression management, 54–61; degree of, 58; deliberate/unconscious, 57; face-to-face, 59; non-verbal communication and, 219–20; self-disclosure and, 66; see also first impressions incivility, 292–3; cyber, 320; workplace, 320, 378 inclusion: workplace, 379–81 Indigenous people: conflict and, 323; health care and, 290–1; language and, 46; multiple identities and, 55; non-verbal communication and, 217; perspective taking and, 102; as polychronic, 230 individualism: assertiveness and, 279; Canadian and US view of, 28; conflict and, 310–11, 322; defensiveness and, 282; emotional values and, 118–20; examples of, 48; exclusion and, 130; non-verbal communication and, 216–17; perception and, 93–4; relationships and, 251, 252–3; self-concept and, 47–8, 49 infants: touch and, 224–5 infatuation, 356 infidelity, 269; online, 359–60 influence: self-disclosure and, 68; workplace, 380 information: criticism and, 295–6; personal, 14, 161–2 information overload: listening and, 149 in-groups, 22, 23–4, 25 initializations, 178 initiating stage, 253–4, 259 Instagram, 342 insults, anti-gay, 188, 191 integrating stage, 255–6, 259 integration–separation dialectic, 259–60, 261; families and, 352 intelligence, emotional, 112, 115, 123 intensifying stage, 255, 259 intensity: debilitative emotions and, 126; perception and, 80–1 interdependence, 13–14, conflict and, 307; families and, 348 internet: communication and, 17–20; friendships and, 342; see also mediated communication interpersonal communication, 2–37; culture and, 22–6; definition of, 14; digital life and, 20–1; impersonal communication and, 15; intercultural communication and, 24–6; interdependence and, 13–14; nature of, 12–17; qualitative/quantitative, 12–15; stereotypes and, 97; technology and, 17–21

459

460

Subject Index

interpretation: emotions and, 114; others’ interpretation and, 85; perception and, 83–4, 85 interruptions, 157, 185 interview, employment, 382–8 intimacy: culture and, 250–3; desire for, 250; distance and, 248–53; emotional, 248–9, 250; gender and, 250–3; intellectual, 249, 250; level of, 251–2; physical, 248, 250; romantic relationships and, 355 intimate partner violence (IPV): gender and, 91 Inuit: emotions and, 116, 118 isolation, social, 5 “it statements,” 195 Japan: conflict in, 322–3 jealousy, 121, 126 Johari Window Model, 64–5 judgments: self v. others, 98; snap, 96–7 “kangaroo care,” 224–5 kinesics, 222–4, 226 labels, harmful, 292 labour, emotional, 121 language, 174–207; affiliative, 202; convergence and, 184, 185, 200; credibility and status and, 183–4; direct, 185, 200; dominant/non-dominant, 46; elaborate, 200; emotive, 194–5; evaluative, 194–5; formal/informal, 200; French, 46; gender and, 201–4; Indigenous, 46; indirect, 185, 200; influence of, 180–90; love, 358–9; nature of, 176–80; no English equivalents for, 180; online, 202–3; “person first,” 61; powerful/powerless, 185–6; precision and, 190–5; racist, 189–90; relative, 193–4, 195; responsible, 131, 195–8, 293; rules and, 176–8; self-concept and, 45–7; sexist, 187–8; sign, 176, 210; as subjective, 178–9; succinct, 200; as symbolic, 176; uses of, 190–8; vague, 190–5; worldview and, 179–80; written, 202–3; see also “I language”; “we language”; “you language” “Language of Choice,” 281, 293–4 leadership: designated, 376; distributed, 376; diversity and inclusion and, 379–81; emergent, 376; expert power and, 377; gender and, 375–6; work groups and, 375–6 leanness, media, 18 learning management system (LMS), 383 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, twospirited, queer (LGBTQ+) people, 27; language and, 188; social recognition and, 256; conflict patterns and, 322; friendships and, 341–2 lies: benevolent, 69; “butler,” 69–70;

self-disclosure and, 69–71; see also deception liking, 356 LinkedIn, 381 listening, 142–73; active, 168; analytical, 148; barriers to, 148–9; challenge of, 148–50; Chinese characters for, 151; choice of style of, 167–9; components of, 150–5; critical, 148; defensive, 150; definition of, 145–7; fake, 150; friendships and, 344; gender and, 164–5; hearing and, 145–6, 150; importance of, 144–5; insulated, 150; mindful, 147, 150; mindless, 147; nature of, 144–8; poor habits of, 149–50; reflective, 295–6; relational, 148; selective, 149; silent, 156–7, 168; styles of, 147–8; task-oriented, 147–8 “listening circles,” 156 listening fidelity, 153 listening responses, 155–69 living abroad: self-concept and, 56 logic: perception and, 94 loneliness, 5 “lookism,” 231 love, 355–6; “language,” 358–9; types of, 356 MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status, 214–15 maintenance: relational, 253, 257, 259, 265–6; romantic relational, 360 Mandela Rules, 5 marriage: arranged, 357; confirming communication in, 354; as social recognition, 256 “marshmallow experiment,” 41, 82 meaning, 9; behaviour and, 96; language and, 179; perception and, 80, 83–4 media: language and, 178 mediated communication, 10, 17–21; computer-, 17–21; grammar and, 178; impression management and, 59–60; initiating relationships and, 254; listening and, 145; non-verbal communication and, 213, 215; personality and, 116; proxemics of, 228; romantic relationships and, 359–60; socially anxious people and, 117–18; workplace, 372–3, 374–5 medicine: listening in, 157–8; touch and, 225 meetings: multi-communicating in, 372–3 men: friendship and, 340; gay, 341–2; see also gender mental health: perception and, 88 messages: content, 11, 263–5; disagreeing, 278–80, 281; disconfirming, 280; non-linguistic, 210; relational, 11–12, 212, 263–5 metacommunication, 265 micro-expressions, 222 Mi’kmaq people, 102, 217

mindfulness, 30, 135–6 mirroring: non-verbal, 224, 225 mobility, relational, 252–3 “modality switching,” 255 monochronic, 230, 231 mood: non-verbal communication and, 220–1; perception and, 81, 89 motives: perception and, 81 mouth: emotional cues and, 120, 217 multi-communication, 153–4, 372–3 multiculturalism, 22 multimodality, 31 multi-tasking, 82, 153 Murphy’s Law, 131 Muslims: head covering and, 232, 233; social media and, 255 names: baby, 182; Canadianized, 182; identity and, 180–2 narratives, 85; family, 346; shared, 85 needs, 5–8; hierarchy of, 7–8 negotiation: perception and, 84–5 neighbourhoods: as non-verbal communication, 232–3 networked learning intervention, 383–4 neurology: perception and, 88–9 neutrality: empathy and, 289 Newfoundland and Labrador: English in, 177 niqab, 232 #nohomo, 188 noise, 9–10; external, 10; listening and, 149 nomaphobia, 154 non-verbal communication, 11, 18, 208–38; characteristics of, 211–18; confirmation and, 278; as continuous, 211; culture and, 215–17; definition of, 210–11; disconfirming, 284; emotions and, 115; functions of, 212, 218–22; gender and, 217–18; job interview and, 385; listening and, 151, 155, 156; mood and, 220–1; relational messages and, 212, 264–5; types of, 222–34; universal, 215–16 non-verbal learning disorder, 151 norms, cultural, 47–8 numerical ratings, 193–4 occupation: language use and, 203; ­perception and, 92 oculesics, 223, 226 open-mindedness: empathy and, 104, 105 openness: relational maintenance and, 265 opinions: self-disclosure and, 63–4 opposites: attraction of, 244–5 optimism, learned, 134 organization: perception and, 81, 85 organizations: communication in, 366–9 ostracism, 281 others: perception of, 78–109; significant, 44 out-groups, 22, 23–4, 25

Subject Index

overgeneralization: fallacy of, 129 paralanguage, 225–7 paraphrasing: as listening response, 160–2, 168 “parrot-phrase,” 160 passion: romantic relationships and, 355 pauses, 226 perception, 78–109; accurate, 100–6; conflict and, 308, 310–11; cultural influences on, 93–6; definition of, 80; influences on, 86–96; listening and, 148; obvious, and, 99–100; physiological influences on, 86–9; process of, 80–5; psychological influences on, 89; social influences on, 89–93; tendencies in, 96–100 perception checking, 101–2, 103; non-verbal communication and, 213, 215 perfection: fallacy of, 128; self-concept and, 49–50 personality: emotions and, 116–21; introverted, 116; neurotic, 116 perspective taking, 32, 33–4; empathy and, 102 “phone gazing,” 284; see also cellphones “phubbing,” 284 physical attractiveness: as non-verbal communication, 231 physicians: clothing and, 232; listening and, 157–8 play: intimacy and, 249 police: gender bias and, 91 politeness: language and, 185–7 politics: mate choice and, 243 polychronic, 230, 231 Pormpuraawans, 179–80 positivity, 134; relational maintenance and, 265–6 posture, 223–4 power: coercive, 377–8; conflict and, 311; expert, 377, 378; family conflicts and, 354; language and, 185–7, 203; legitimate, 376–7, 378; referent, 378–9; reward, 377, 378; vocal cues and, 227; workplace, 376–9 power distance, 379; Canadian and US view of, 28; high/low, 94–5; perception and, 94–5; work and, 95; workplace and, 377 prejudice, 29 primacy effect, 97 prison experiment, 92 privacy: friendships and, 342; management of, 65; romantic relationships and, 360; see also expression–privacy dialectic problem orientation: controlling communication and, 287 problem solving, win-win, 313–14 procrastination, 42–3 profile, online, 381, 385

pronouns: formality and, 200; plural, 187; self-concept and, 47 prophecy, self-fulfilling, 51–3 provisionalism: certainty and, 291–2, 327 proxemics, 227–9 pseudo-listening, 149 psychopathology: leaders and, 375–6 “public displays of affection” (PDA), 357 punctuation, 215; interactions and, 82–3, 84 Quebec: language in, 46 questions: closed-ended, 159; counterfeit, 159–60, 288; elaboration and, 159; job interview, 386–8; as listening response, 155, 157–60, 168; open-ended, 157, 159; physicians’, 157–8; sincere, 159, 160; tag, 159 racism, 189–90 rational–emotive approach, 126–8, 132–4 Reading the Mind In the Eyes Test, 214–15 reaffirmation: as communication strategy, 262 reappraisal, 114, 135–6 reciprocity: self-disclosure and, 66, 73, 248 recognition: confirmation and, 277–8; social, 256; workplace and, 380 reference groups: self-concept and, 45 reframing: as communication strategy, 262 refusal, “empowered,” 293–4 regret, 16, 19 regulators: non-verbal communication as, 219 rejection: self-disclosure and, 67 “rejects romance,” 341 relational roles: perception and, 92–3 relational systems: conflict in, 316–21 relationships: abusive, 246; casual/­ intimate, 63; change and, 262–3; close, 336–63; complementarity and, 244–5; culture and, 250–3; damaged, 268–70; development of, 253–63; dynamics of, 240–73; gender and, 250–3; humour and, 253; intimacy and distance in, 248–53; long-distance, 266; models of dynamics in, 253–63; non-verbal communication and, 218–19; proximity, and, 247; reasons for, 242–8; self-disclosure and, 66–8; social tone of, 276; workplace, 366, 367, 369–75; see also romantic relationships relativity, linguistic, 179–80, 181 religion: mate choice and, 243 remembering: listening and, 154–5 repetition: perception and, 81 reputation management, 60 reservation: relationships and, 250 residential schools, 217; language and, 46 responding: listening and, 155–69;

non-directive, 168; non-verbal, 155 responsibility: language and, 131, 195–8, 293 restraint: relationships and, 250 resumé, 385 rewards: relationships and, 245–6 rhetoric, invitational, 292 richness, media, 18 rituals: conflict, 319, 321, 322 ; family, 346–7; social, 16 romance: cross-sex friendships and, 341; mutual, 341 romantic relationships, 338; characteristics of, 355–8; communication in, 355–60; effective communication in, 358–60 rules: family, 346–7; phonological, 177, 179; pragmatic, 177, 179; semantic, 177, 179; social media, 342; social, 58; syntactic, 177, 179 rumination, 126 sadness: gender and, 120 safety: as need, 8; work and, 379 sarcasm, 227 satisfaction: job, 373–4; perception and, 89; sexual and relational, 348 schema: emotional, 113; perceptual, 81 secrecy: self-disclosure and, 68–9, 72 selection: perception and, 80–1, 85 self: communication and, 38–77; defensiveness and, 282–3; perceived, 54; presentation of, 54–61; presenting, 54–5, 282–3, 285 self-actualization: as need, 8 self-clarification: self-disclosure and, 65–6 self-compassion: 40–1, 42–3 self-concept, 40–54; change and, 50–1; characteristics of, 48–50; clarity of, 56; conflict and, 324; development of, 43–8; distortions in, 49–50; perception and, 89; as subjective, 49–50 self-control, 41, 42–3 self-disclosure, 61–8; alternatives to, 68–72; benefits of, 65–7; breadth of information and, 63, 64; constructive, 74; definition of, 63; depth of information and, 63, 64; factors in, 62–3; friendships and, 339, 340; gender and, 250–1; guidelines for, 72–4; models of, 63–5; relationships and, 247–8; risks of, 67–8, 73; setting and, 62–3 self-esteem, 40; as need, 8 self-fulfilling prophecies, 51–3, 184, 132 self-monitoring, 58; communication competence and, 32–3; social media and, 343 self-regulation, 41 self-talk: emotions and, 127–34 self-validation: self-disclosure and, 66 sensation, 80

461

462

Subject Index

senses, 86 sex: gender and, 47 sexism: language and, 187–8 sex roles: perception and, 90–1 sexting, 19 sexual activity: romantic relationships and, 358 sexual assault: consent and, 192–3 sexual attraction: friendships and, 340–1 sexual orientation: Canadian and US view of, 27; friendships and, 341–2; language and, 188 shared activities, 249; friendships and, 339; relational maintenance and, 265 should: fallacy of, 129 shyness, 116 significance: cultural, 24–5; minimizing, 163–4 silence: as listening response, 156–7, 168; perception and, 93; self-disclosure and, 68–9, 72; as style, 200 silent treatment, 309, 312 similarity: assumption of, 100; difference and, 244–5 similarity thesis, 243–4 singleness, 360 skills: communication competence and, 31, 32 sleep deprivation, 87 Snapchat, 121, 342 social comparison: self-concept and, 43, 45 social conventions: emotions and, 120–1 social exchange theory, 245–6 social loafing, 370 socially anxious people: emotions and, 117–18 social media: co-workers and, 343; cyberbullying and, 281; definition of, 17; emotions and, 121; experimenting stage and, 254–5; families and, 352–3; friendships and, 342; as irreversible, 12; job-seeking and, 382; listening and, 145; multi-tasking and, 82; perceptions and, 86; regret and, 16, 19; relational maintenance and, 266; relationship breakups and, 258; romantic relationships and, 360; timing and, 248 social networking: impression management and, 60; job-seeking and, 381–2, 383–4; professional, 381, 383–4; relational maintenance and, 265; romantic relationships and, 359–60 social penetration model, 63–4 social roles: emotions and, 120–1 social tone: relationships and, 276 socio-economic status (SES): interpersonal accuracy and, 214–15 solitary confinement, 5 space: personal, 228, 229, 230; virtual, 234; see also distance “speaker’s staff,” 156

spiral: confirmation/disconfirmation, 283; de-escalatory/escalatory, 316 spontaneity: strategy and, 287–9, 327 spouse, “work,” 340 stability–change dialectic, 260–1 stage hogging, 149 stage theories: relational development and, 253–9 stagnation stage, 257, 259 stalking: gender and, 91 standpoint theory, 90 statements: questions as, 159–60 status: conflict style and, 324; language and, 183–4; territory and, 230 step-families, 347 stereotypes: gender, 321; generalizations and, 96–7; language and, 187; perception and, 90–1; prejudice and, 29 stigma: sexist language and, 187 stonewalling: divorce and, 319 strategy: spontaneity and, 287–9, 327 “strictly platonic”: cross-sex relationships as, 341 Stroop effect, 176 struggle, expressed, 307 superiority: equality and, 289–91 support: communication and, 283–92; emotional, 266; grief and, 165; informational, 266; instrumental, 266; as listening response, 164–5, 168; relationships and, 266–7; sincere, 165; texting as, 286–7 surveillance: romantic relationships and, 360 sympathy: empathy and, 103 synchronicity, 19 synergy, workplace, 369 talk: “fat,” 181; perception and, 93; “small,” 254 “talking stick,” 156 task orientation: listening and, 147–8 teams: blame and, 98; characteristics of, 369–70; definition of, 369; opposites on, 245; personal skills in, 370–1; relationships in, 369–75; virtual, 374–5; see also work groups technology: communication and, 17–21; families and, 352–3; information, 153 temperament: conflict and, 323–4 termination stage, 258–9 territoriality, 229–30 texting, 178, 286–7; non-verbal communication and, 212 they, 47, 187 thinking: as cause of emotions, 126–8; ­irrational, 128–32, 133, 134; perception and, 94; rapid, 149 time: communication climate and, 290–1; disclosure and, 248; love language and, 358; as non-verbal communication, 215, 230–1

tone: questions and, 160; social, 276; voice, 227 touch, 224–5; love language and, 359 training: communication competence and, 30–1 transactional communication model, 8–10 transgressions, relational, 268–70, 345 “triangle of meaning,” 179 triangular theory of love, 355–6 trust: attraction and, 243; workplace, 374, 378–9 turn-taking signals, 219 Twitter, 121, 178 “two culture theory,” 201 “two-eyed seeing,” 102 uncertainty: avoidance of, 95; Canadian and US view of, 28; communication competence and, 31–2 understanding: listening and, 151, 153 United States: culture in, 26–8 values: Canadian and US, 26–8; cultural, 47–8, 49; definition of, 26; emotional, 116, 118–20 valuing: communication climate and, 276–7, 292 verbal communication: non-verbal and, 210, 211; styles of, 200 vocabulary, 183; emotional, 115–16, 123–4 vocal patterns: convergence of, 227 voice: as non-verbal communication, 225–7; tone of, 227 websites: high- and low-content culture and, 199 “we language,” 196–8, 197, 198, 287; distant, 202; warm, 202 Wild Boy of Aveyron, 6 win-win conflict management, 325–30 win-win problem solving, 313–14 women: “fat talk” and, 181; Indigenous, 290–1; Muslim, 232, 233, 255; straight, 341–2 words: emotions and, 115–16, 123–4; love language and, 358 work groups, 369–70; definition of, 369; development of, 371; personal skills in, 370–1; relationships in, 369–75 Workopolis, 382 workplace: Canadian, 373; communication in, 364–92; communication climate in, 276; incivility in, 320, 378; multi-communicating in, 153–4; ostracism in, 281; recurring conflict in, 318; self-disclosure and, 73; social media and, 343; toxic, 378 “work spouse,” 340 worldview: language and, 179–80 “you language,” 196–8, 286