Psychology of Communication 3030601692, 9783030601690

Citation preview

Jessica Röhner Astrid Schütz

Psychology of Communication

Psychology of Communication

Jessica Röhner • Astrid Schütz

Psychology of Communication

Jessica Röhner University of Bamberg Bamberg, Germany

Astrid Schütz University of Bamberg Bamberg, Germany

ISBN 978-3-030-60169-0    ISBN 978-3-030-60170-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60170-6 Translation from the German language edition: “Psychologie der Kommunikation” by Jessica Röhner and Astrid Schütz, © Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2020. Published by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. All Rights Reserved. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

We wrote this book to provide a general outline of human communication with everything that makes it unique, its core phenomena, and the various applied fields that have been derived from them. For this reason, this book explains the most important communication models and uses practical examples to help deepen its readers’ understanding and make them want to dig deeper into this fascinating subject. We would like to thank Ricarda Bühler, Henrike Cwikla, Anna Dirk, Leonie Fresz, Tina Hahnemann, Annabel Katharina Heller, Takuma Kimura, Tina Horlitz, Oliver Lauenstein, Cathleen Lehmann, Tilman Limpert, Sophie Meska, Jasmin Reinhard, Johannes Reischel, Rebecca Riedl, Markus Russin, Nelli Schulz, Philipp Thoss, Falk Abel Nicolai Vambrie, Steffi Weidlich, Gesine Winter, and Steffi Ziegenbalg for all the helpful information they provided during our research and the insightful comments they made on earlier versions of the manuscript. We would also like to thank Nadine Bartholome, Nina Hubatsch, and Marine Anais Groulon for helping us create the illustrations included in this book. The first author also expresses her heartfelt gratitude to her husband, her father and his wife, her brother, her parents-in-law, Erika Thoss, her friends, numerous old and new colleagues, her students, the team at the DRK Hospital Chemnitz Rabenstein, the teams of Dr. Peter Jungberg, Dr. Gitta Gericke, and Dr. Christiane Siebenhaar, and her mentor, Prof. Dr. Astrid Schütz, for supporting her work during the past 5 years. Bamberg, Germany 

Jessica Röhner Astrid Schütz

v

Contents

1

Definitions ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.1 What Is Communication? ����������������������������������������������������������������    1 1.1.1 Possible Reasons for the Ambiguity and Diversity of the Concept of Communication����������������������������������������    2 1.1.2 Components of Communication ������������������������������������������    6 1.2 What Is Communicative Competence (Communication Competence)? ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������    8 1.3 What Is Communication Psychology?����������������������������������������������    9 1.3.1 Factors Influencing Communication������������������������������������   10 1.3.2 Communication Behavior ����������������������������������������������������   11 1.3.3 Results and Consequences of Communication Behavior��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   11 1.3.3.1 Impressions of the Sender�������������������������������������   11 1.3.3.2 Impressions of the Message ����������������������������������   14 1.4 Summary, Comprehension Questions, and Further Reading������������   16 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   18 Answers to the Comprehension Questions������������������������������������������������   20

2

 lassic Models of Communication ��������������������������������������������������������   21 C 2.1 An Overview of Communication Models����������������������������������������   21 2.2 Communication Model by Shannon and Weaver������������������������������   22 2.3 Communication Model by Schulz von Thun������������������������������������   24 2.4 Grice’s Maxims of Conversation������������������������������������������������������   26 2.5 Rogers’s Rules for Successful Communication��������������������������������   28 2.6 Communication Model by Watzlawick��������������������������������������������   30 2.7 Summary, Comprehension Questions, and Further Reading������������   36 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   38 Answers to the Comprehension Questions������������������������������������������������   40

vii

viii

Contents

3

 n Integrative Communication Model by Hargie A and Colleagues������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   41 3.1 Basics������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   41 3.2 Characteristics of the Individual ������������������������������������������������������   43 3.2.1 (Prior) Knowledge����������������������������������������������������������������   43 3.2.2 Motives����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   46 3.2.3 Attitudes��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   47 3.2.4 Personality����������������������������������������������������������������������������   50 3.2.5 Emotions ������������������������������������������������������������������������������   53 3.2.6 Age����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   54 3.2.7 Gender����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   55 3.3 Characteristics of the Situation ��������������������������������������������������������   56 3.4 Goals ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   57 3.5 Mediating Processes��������������������������������������������������������������������������   59 3.5.1 Cognitive Processes��������������������������������������������������������������   59 3.5.2 Affective Processes ��������������������������������������������������������������   60 3.6 Response Behavior����������������������������������������������������������������������������   60 3.7 Feedback ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   61 3.8 Perception ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   61 3.9 Summary, Comprehension Questions, and Further Reading������������   62 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   63 Answers to the Comprehension Questions������������������������������������������������   69

4

 eans of Nonverbal Communication����������������������������������������������������   71 M 4.1 Haptic Signals ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   76 4.2 Body Language ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   78 4.2.1 Gestures��������������������������������������������������������������������������������   78 4.2.1.1 Functions of Gestures��������������������������������������������   79 4.2.1.2 Analysis of Gestures����������������������������������������������   79 4.2.1.3 Diversity of Gestures and Their Potential to Change ��������������������������������������������������������������   81 4.2.2 Head Movements������������������������������������������������������������������   82 4.2.3 Posture����������������������������������������������������������������������������������   82 4.2.4 Gazing and Mutual Gazing ��������������������������������������������������   83 4.2.5 Facial Expressions����������������������������������������������������������������   84 4.3 Proxemics������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   86 4.4 Physical Characteristics��������������������������������������������������������������������   87 4.5 Summary, Comprehension Questions, and Further Reading������������   88 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   89 Answers to the Comprehension Questions������������������������������������������������   93

Contents

ix

5

 eans of Verbal Communication ����������������������������������������������������������   95 M 5.1 Listening ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   95 5.2 Questions������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������   98 5.2.1 Question Types and Their Influence on How We Answer Questions ��������������������������������������������   98 5.2.1.1 Open-Ended Questions������������������������������������������   99 5.2.1.2 Closed-Ended Questions����������������������������������������   99 5.2.1.3 Leading Questions ������������������������������������������������  100 5.2.2 Question Wording and Its Influence on How We Answer Questions ��������������������������������������������  100 5.2.3 Formal Aspects of Questions and Their Influence on How We Answer Questions ��������������������������������������������  102 5.3 Explanations��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  103 5.4 Laughter and Humor ������������������������������������������������������������������������  106 5.5 Summary, Comprehension Questions, and Further Reading������������  107 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  109 Answers to the Comprehension Questions������������������������������������������������  112

6

 orms of Communication������������������������������������������������������������������������  113 F 6.1 Intrapersonal Communication����������������������������������������������������������  118 6.2 Interpersonal Communication (Intracultural and Intercultural)��������  118 6.2.1 Individual Communication ��������������������������������������������������  121 6.2.1.1 Direct Individual Communication ������������������������  121 6.2.1.2 Mediated Individual Communication��������������������  122 6.2.2 Mass Communication ����������������������������������������������������������  127 6.2.2.1 Direct Mass Communication ��������������������������������  128 6.2.2.2 Mediated Mass Communication����������������������������  128 6.3 Practical Application of Different Communication Forms ��������������  131 6.4 Summary, Comprehension Questions, and Further Reading������������  132 References��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  134 Answers to the Comprehension Questions������������������������������������������������  137

Glossary������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  139 Author Index����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  143 Subject Index����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  151

About the Authors

Jessica  Röhner  is a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Psychology, University of Bamberg, Germany. Her research focuses on alternative approaches to the measurement of psychological characteristics, response distortion, artificial intelligence, prejudice, and discrimination. She has a Ph.D. in psychology from the Technical University of Chemnitz. In 2015, she was awarded the Hogrefe Poster Award on Psychological Assessment. Dr. Röhner is the author or co-­author of 7 monographs, 36 book chapters or encyclopedia entries, and 13 papers in refereed scientific journals. Jessica Röhner has presented her findings at national and international conferences and as an invited speaker at various universities and institutions. She is internationally recognized as an expert in the fields of implicit measures, prejudice and discrimination, and phenomena of response distortion. She writes methodological tutorials and is a reviewer for journals such as Behavior Research Methods, Experimental Psychology, and the European Journal of Psychological Assessment. In addition, she has collaborated with researchers from Israel, Canada, and the US. Her studies have appeared in high-impact journals, such as Behavior Research Methods and Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. She is a fellow of the Association for Psychological Science, the Association for Research in Personality, the Psychonomic Society, and the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Astrid  Schütz  is a professor at the Department of Psychology, University of Bamberg, Germany, where she heads the Personality Psychology and Assessment research group as well as the Competence Center for Applied Personnel Psychology. She studies the impact of personality and situational factors on social behavior, focusing on how personal views and situational constraints shape social interactions and how these interactions in turn affect well-being and effectiveness. She has developed qualitative and quantitative tools to measure self-concept, (implicit) attitudes, and interactive behavior. Utilizing laboratory research as well as naturalistic studies, her goal is to better understand the interplay of self-images and self-presentation with well-being and performance. She is also the University’s officer for gender equality and served as the University’s Vice President in the field of research and xi

xii

About the Authors

academic careers from 2012 to 2015. Before joining the University of Bamberg in 2011, she was a professor of psychology at Chemnitz University of Technology from 1999 to 2011 and a visiting scholar at the University of Virginia, Case Western Reserve University, Universidad de Huelva, and the University of Southampton. Her current research interests include personality differences and self-presentation as well as social interaction in face-to-face and virtual environments. Prof. Schütz has authored or co-authored 20 books and 3 psychometric tests, co-­edited 8 books or journal volumes, and authored or co-authored more than 128 book chapters or encyclopedia entries. She has published more than 184 papers in refereed journals and more than 182 conference presentations. Her publications have been cited 13,000 times (h-index 59 in Google Scholar). She is associate editor of the Journal of Individual Differences and Frontiers in Psychology and a member of the editorial board of Self and Identity. She has received funding for more than 10 research projects and has been awarded a Feodor Lynen Fellowship from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. She is a fellow of the American Psychological Society and the Society of Experimental Social Psychology and has served as a member of the Task Force on European Research Funding of the German Rectors’ Conference.

Chapter 1

Definitions

Abstract  This introductory chapter explains the terms communication, communicative competence (or communication competence), and communication psychology. These terms form the foundation for the remainder of this book. Keywords  Communication · Communicative competence (communication competence) · Communication psychology · Factors that influence communication · Communication behavior · Results or consequences of communication

1.1 What Is Communication? We spend a lot of our time communicating in some manner. Yet, it is not easy to say what exactly defines communication. Popular takes tend to be vague and there is only a small number of scientific definitions in the relatively young subfield of communication psychology. To better illustrate this, please participate in the following experiment. Write down whatever definition of communication spontaneously comes to your mind on the blank lines below. Continue reading this chapter only after doing so. Your definition: ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Röhner, A. Schütz, Psychology of Communication, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60170-6_1

1

2

1 Definitions

Next, please try answering the following questions using your own definition of communication: 1. What are the essential components of communication? 2. Is a monologue a form of communication? 3. Is it possible to not communicate at all? 4. Is nodding your head as much a part of communication as saying “Yes”? 5. Is sending an emoticon like a form of communication? 6. Does exposure to advertising represent a communicative act? 7. Does communication only take place when the recipients of a message interpret it correctly? 8. You are waving while walking toward a friend of yours. Is this communication? 9. Your friend turns away from you. Is this communication? 10. Did this experiment demonstrate that finding a complete and concise definition is not that easy? The English word communication is derived from the Latin “communicatio” which can be translated as “message” or “exchange of information.” While communication is a universal everyday phenomenon, there are vastly different views regarding what exactly it is. The forms of information transmission that constitute communication thus range from face-to-face exchanges (see Sect. 6.2.1) to the exposure to advertising through mass media or other channels (see Sect. 6.2.2). Online searches further highlight how important and prevalent communication is: Entering the term “communication” into a search engine yields 3,350,000,000 results (when we searched on August 3, 2023). Before introducing a more detailed list of the components of communication in the subsequent sections, we will first go over three possible reasons why the concept is so ambiguous and diverse.

1.1.1 Possible Reasons for the Ambiguity and Diversity of the Concept of Communication 1. The first reason could be the prevalence of communication metaphors (see Krippendorff, 1994; Frindte, 2001) that are widespread in our everyday language. Communication metaphors are figurative comparisons meant to illustrate the construct “communication” with the help of previous experiences (e.g., with concrete examples from our own lives). These illustrations can make complex constructs such as communication easier to understand. However, as you may have noticed with your own attempt above, definitions based on concrete examples are often incomplete. It can therefore hardly surprise that each communication metaphor only covers a single aspect of the overall concept.

1.1 What Is Communication?

3

Box 1.1 contains an overview of popular communication metaphors. Box 1.1 Communication Metaphors 1. Message carrying metaphor 2. Sharing metaphor 3. Container metaphor 4. Argument as war metaphor 5. Control metaphor 6. Conduit metaphor (flow of signs)

Let us take a closer look at three of these communication metaphors. After failing an exam, Peter says to Anne: “I guess I didn’t really get our statistics professor’s message.” This statement illustrates the message carrying metaphor which assumes that people exchange messages when communicating (Fig.  1.1). Even though we do not actually get a message “passed into our hand”—like the baton in a relay—, this metaphor highlights how messages are transferred from one person to another. In this example, Peter uses the metaphor to explain to his friend that there is something he has not yet understood. Following a fierce argument with his girlfriend, Andy turns to his friend for advice: “She definitely interpreted me saying that I would rather go to the baseball game this weekend than visit her parents as me not caring about her family.” This is an example of the container metaphor (Fig.  1.2) according to which there is a content inside a message that differs from the mere message “container” on the outside (i.e., separation of message and content).

Fig. 1.1  Message carrying metaphor

4

1 Definitions

Fig. 1.2 Container metaphor

Larry and his cousin Tom hold fundamentally different political beliefs which regularly results in heated debates during family gatherings. After another such incident, Larry tells his best friend Allison: “It was a real battle of words. But I was able to push him more and more into a corner with my argument, so he lost ground and finally gave up. I won this time.” This sequence illustrates the argument as war metaphor (Fig. 1.3). It is based on the idea that communicating parties fight each other with arguments in an attempt to defeat their opponent. Different definitions focus on different metaphors. Therefore, we can approach the construct of communication from different angles. This makes finding a uniform definition difficult.

5

Argu ment

s

1.1 What Is Communication?

Argu

ment

s

Fig. 1.3  Argument as war metaphor

2. The second reason why the concept of communication seems so elusive is the fact that its definition is open to change over time. A comparison between the entries for communication across reference works from the last few decades reveals not only qualitative changes to the definition, but also that it has become much more extensive. In addition, more and more phenomena are subsumed under the term communication, especially in the age of new media and global networking. While mediated communication consisted primarily of correspondences, telegram, and telephone before the introduction of computer technology and the Internet, today we take the inclusion of many other forms of communication for granted, such as online chatting, e-mail, or microblogging. The steadily increasing number of ways in which we can communicate has led to a growing list of distinct forms of communication. It is therefore possible to divide the broad concept of communication into distinct sub-areas: Direct versus mediated communication as well as individual versus mass communication (see Chap. 6). This also means that more and more phenomena have become part of communication, making it difficult to include them all in one short and concise definition. 3. The third reason why the concept of communication is so ambiguous and diverse is the fact that it does not only cover the directly observable side of communication. Whenever we observe a conversation between two people from the outside, we can only see a part of what defines communication. The cognitive and affec-

6

1 Definitions

tive processes involved remain hidden. These include the impression the conversation partners form of each other, whether they understand and how they evaluate the other’s message, or certain reactions resulting from the conversation either immediately (e.g., amusement) or in the long run (e.g., changing attitudes). The inclusion of such aspects makes it even more difficult to arrive at a precise and comprehensive definition.

1.1.2 Components of Communication The prevalence of communication metaphors, the changes the term’s definition has undergone over time, and the inclusion of components that cannot be observed directly together have resulted in a plenitude of definitions of “communication.” As early as 1977, communication researcher Klaus Merten (cited in Burkart & Hömberg, 1995) counted a total of 160 attempts at defining the term while criticizing that the majority of these definitions were based on incorrect assumptions and did not stand up to critical examination (Merten, 2007). New definitions continue to crop up today and according to Keunke (2012), it is likely that the total number has grown substantially since Merten’s analysis. As a consequence, several classification systems were created in an effort to scientifically systemize the myriad of definitions. The lowest common denominator across all of them is the inclusion of three core components: Sender, message, and recipient (cd. Six et al., 2007). However, a comprehensive definition requires more than these components. So what is communication then? In spite of all the difficulties and specifics that come with any definition, the following characteristics of communication are especially important (see Six et al., 2007): 1. Communication takes place between at least two participants (called sender and recipient). The notable exception to this rule is intrapersonal communication (e.g., when we are talking to ourselves; see Sect. 6.1). It is also important to keep in mind that sender and recipient are not always real people (see human-­computer communication; Sect. 6.2.1.2.2). The relationship between the participants is established through an exchange of signs (either directly, i.e., face-to-face, or indirectly, i.e., through media; see Chap. 6). Successful communication is built on a shared repertoire and understanding of these signs, often combined with shared experiences and knowledge. Signs can enter communication processes as symptoms, icons, and symbols (see Box 1.2). 2. The message consists of the signs encoded by the sender and decoded by the recipient. It should be noted that the message sent and the message received are not necessarily the same (e.g., in the case of misunderstandings).

1.1 What Is Communication?

7

Box 1.2 What Is a Sign? Signs can be separated into symptoms, icons, and symbols. Symptoms emerge from causal natural connections between a sign and what it signifies (e.g., a sweaty forehead as a symptom of anxiety or nervousness). By contrast, icons are based on similarities between a sign and what it signifies (e.g., a smile emoji as a sign of an actual smile). Lastly, arbitrary (non-natural) relationships between a sign and what it signifies can give rise to symbols. Since the relevant connections are not natural in this last case, as they are in the case of symptoms, people need to learn the meaning of symbols (e.g., human languages). Consequently, different character arrangements can symbolize or mean the same across different languages (e.g., to talk [English] = sprechen [German]  =  snakker [Norwegian]  =  hablar [Spanish]  =  parler [French]). People learn symbols through experience, which is why they are not born speaking a particular language and can learn one or several languages over the course of their lives. There are also mixed forms of signs (e.g., Egyptian hieroglyphics are perceived as a mixture of icons and symbols).

3. Sending and receiving messages both require suitable means or modalities (e.g., language and facial expressions during direct communication or a stable connection during mediated communication). 4. Communication always takes place within a certain context. The conversation climate, alongside other factors such as the prevailing communication rules, can impact the entire communication process and its outcomes. The participants are by no means passive, but not all of their behavior can be observed directly: Participants perform visible (e.g., gestures) and invisible actions (e.g., forming an impression of their conversation partner). 5. Communication can be characterized as an interactive process and is shaped by mutual influence. The degree of reciprocity depends on various aspects such as the given form of communication (e.g., direct personal communication versus mass communication; see Chap. 6). 6. Even though communication always has a goal (e.g., seeking entertainment or information), people are not always completely aware of the fact that they are communicating. Disagreement with another person’s statement may for example elicit an involuntary frown. Communication is thus always goal-oriented, but not always entirely conscious. Box 1.3 contains a concise summary of the six components of communication following the work by Six et al. (2007).

8

1 Definitions

Box 1.3 Components of Communication 1. Communication has participants. 2. Communication has a message. 3. Communication is supported by certain means and modalities. 4. Communication is context-sensitive and participants perform various actions. 5. Communication is interactive. 6. Communication can be more or less intentional.

1.2 What Is Communicative Competence (Communication Competence)? Communication is not always successful and people differ in how well they are able to communicate. The ability to act appropriately and reach interpersonal goals without hurting the interests of other participants is known as communicative competence (or communication competence) (see Wiemann, 1977; Blanz et al., 2013). Communicative competence goes beyond mere knowledge of a language and also encompasses its effective use, which makes it an important component of the superordinate concept of social competence. In addition to communicative competence, social competence includes other aspects such as empathy and perspective-taking. Communicative competence leads to successful communication. It can therefore hardly surprise that communicative competence is an important prerequisite to establish and maintain social contacts, reach goals, and resolve conflicts in our everyday lives. Considering how important it is to interact successfully with others across different casual and professional contexts, communicative competence marks a key skill and is therefore an essential addition to technical expertise when it comes to performing a myriad of different jobs successfully (see Schütz & Werth, 2007). Communicative competence includes the abilities to adequately present our own position and find suitable ways and modes of conveying a message. Both insecurity and arrogance can hinder effective communication (see Schütz, 2005). Interpersonal sensitivity is another component of communicative competence. This is the ability to recognize the feelings and concerns of our communication partners (e.g., based on their facial expressions). Communicative competence is thus more than just self-perception. It requires the ability to communicate via language and pay attention to situational, interpersonal, and normative conditions. When working in teams, communicative competence can facilitate the efficient exchange of information between team members, which allows them to identify conflicts early and resolve them constructively. This can be more difficult to accomplish, however, when teams communicate virtually and non-verbal signals become largely unavailable (Erler et al., 2012).

1.3 What Is Communication Psychology?

9

In our interconnected and globalized world, the ability to successfully interact with individuals and groups of different cultural backgrounds is getting more and more important. This ability is known as intercultural competence. Openness (see Sect. 3.2.4) and empathy are two necessary prerequisites for this form of competence.

1.3 What Is Communication Psychology? Communication psychology is a relatively young subfield of psychology that is best explained by taking a closer look at what exactly communication psychologists do: Examining the structures and processes of communication by analyzing social systems that range from relationships between two individuals, so-called dyads (e.g., couples), to relationships within families, work teams, and other groups or even societal contexts (Frindte, 2001). Communication psychologists study direct interpersonal communication as well as mediated communication. They do not only concentrate on communication behavior, but also on the factors and conditions that shape it and the results or consequences of communicative actions (i.e., the communication results). Communication results are primarily individual and social constructions of reality since communication with others influences how we perceive our environment: When we read a magazine article and are persuaded by the arguments it presents, the way we construct our reality—the way we see our world—changes. The influence of mass media (e.g., television and the Internet) garners frequent and intensive attention in this context as it presents a particular image of reality to a large and diverse audience. Comparing idealized representations with our personal reality may for example make us feel dissatisfied. Studies have shown that women experience particularly large discrepancies between their own body and the ideal body type after seeing female models in advertisements (Petersen, 2005). Publicly mediated constructions of reality can deviate more or less strongly from objective facts (see Box 1.4). Propaganda, for example, is often founded on the principle of “proving” one unproven assertion by referring to another unproven assertion (Merten, 2000).

Box 1.4 Post-truth Post-truth was the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2016. The prefix “post” means “after” and the term post-truth suggests that objective facts are less relevant to the formation of public opinions and reactions than feelings and personal beliefs (see Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, 2020). Just like the music genre “post-punk” invokes the music of the late 1970s and early 1980s that followed the previously dominant punk era and stylistically moved away from it further and further, the term post-truth describes an era in which facts are increasingly outshone by “perceived reality.” The uncritical dissemination of fake news online and offline is one key characteristic of the post-truth era.

10

1 Definitions

Object of communication psychological research

Factors that influence communication

Communication behavior

Results and consequences of communication behavior

Fig. 1.4  Object of communication psychological research

The goals of communication psychology are the analysis, explanation, and prediction of the processes and results of communication while taking into account relevant psychological factors. To this end, communication psychologists consider the experiences, cognitions, and behaviors of participants alongside the characteristics of the environments and situations in which communications take place. The knowledge gained in this manner can be applied to create a foundation on which to optimize communication (Six et  al., 2007) in private (e.g., communication in romantic relationships or families) as well as professional contexts (e.g., communication between doctors and their patients, communication between colleagues in teams). The complex object of communication psychological research can be separated, based on the given focus, into the psychology of direct communication and the psychology of mediated communication (see Chap. 6). Whereas the former aims to analyze, explain, and ultimately predict the processes and results of direct communication under consideration of psychological factors, the latter applies the same approach to mediated communication between individuals and mass communication (for a more detailed distinction, see Six et al., 2007). Communication psychology consists of three major pillars that influence one another (Fig. 1.4).

1.3.1 Factors Influencing Communication Various factors have an impact on communication. These consist of the characteristics of the communication environment (e.g., What is the communication climate in a company? Which communication offers are being made?), situational factors (e.g., What is the relationship between the communicating parties? Are other people

1.3 What Is Communication Psychology?

11

present or not? What is the reason for their communication?), and the characteristics of the participants including their personality traits, communicative competence, and mood (e.g., Is a person introverted or extraverted? Is a person experienced in negotiating or a novice?).

1.3.2 Communication Behavior Analyses of communication behavior need to factor in both the persistent behavioral patterns of participants (e.g., the general preference for face-to-face communication over mediated communication via the phone or e-mail) and the current behavior of sender and recipient (e.g., the actual decision in favor of a particular form of communication in a given situation). For example, an employee might generally prefer to communicate via e-mail with other members of their team. However, when working on a current and very complex project alongside everybody else, they might have a preference for face-to-face communication. Thus, more enduring behavioral patterns can differ from a person’s current behavior.

1.3.3 Results and Consequences of Communication Behavior Communication processes affect those involved in particular ways. On the one hand, the recipients form an impression of the sender and, on the other hand, they also form an impression of the content covered in their message. 1.3.3.1 Impressions of the Sender Forming an impression of another person is called social perception (Kenny, 1994). In our everyday lives, we tend to form such impressions very quickly and intuitively. The lens model by Brunswik (1943) describes how people form impressions (Fig. 1.5) and can be applied to our perception of objects and other people. In either case, it is important to note that the attribute being assessed is not directly observable. The model distinguishes between proximal and distal features. Distal features cannot be observed directly. Instead, we have to deduce them based on at least one observable proximal feature. Our observation of this proximal feature then informs our judgment about the distal feature in question. Here is an example: Imagine a stranger approaching you and asking if they can borrow your cell phone for an emergency call. In this situation, you have to decide relatively quickly whether to lend them your phone or not. Can you trust this stranger (i.e., your decision)? You have to assess the distal feature (i.e., the stranger’s trustworthiness). Because you cannot directly observe this characteristic, you have to rely on proximal features that are observable. One such feature could be the stranger’s appearance: You will probably perceive them as more trustworthy if they are well-groomed than if they

12

1 Definitions

1

2

Deducing distal features

Sending proximal features

Judgement/Feedback 3 Fig. 1.5  Lens model by Brunswik (1943)

are drunk or unkempt. The model also makes claims about three correlations on which we will not elaborate here. The recommended literature at the end of the chapter has more detailed information for those who are interested. Our example illustrates the basics of the model. But it also shows that our social perceptions (i.e., impressions of others) are not necessarily correct. Possible distortions in our social perception can have various causes and may for example be cognitive in nature. The halo effect and horn effect are two common systematic observation errors (Fig. 1.6). The former refers to the phenomenon that particularly salient positive characteristics of another person (e.g., their attractiveness) create an impression that is so positive that it determines our entire perception of them (i.e., assumed intelligence, perceived trustworthiness, assumed competence). Our general perception thus becomes distorted in a positive direction (Thorndike, 1920). Accordingly, we tend to treat attractive people more favorably than unattractive ones (Langlois et al., 2000) and expect them to have more positive traits such as honesty and intelligence (Eagly et al., 1991). By contrast, the horn effect refers to the phenomenon that characteristics of another person we perceive as negative (e.g., strong dialect, a certain accent, a certain ethnicity) can create a general impression of them that is equally negative (e.g., with regard to their intelligence or competence). How we perceive others is therefore often strongly biased. In addition, there are ways in which senders can control the impression recipients form of them—for example by how they present themselves (assertive, defensive, offensive, and protective self-presentation; see Röhner & Schütz, 2019). People make use of different forms of self-presentation by displaying specific behaviors to elicit specific perceptions in others. Assertive self-presentation aims to make a positive impression by acting in a likable, sincere, or competent manner (Schütz, 1998). Defensive self-presentation, meanwhile, is an attempt to restore a

1.3 What Is Communication Psychology?

13

Fig. 1.6  Halo effect and horn effect

threatened self-image, for example following a public scandal in which somebody’s dishonest behavior clashed with their previous self-presentation. Repudiation, reinterpretation, and the denial of responsibility are possible strategies to accomplish this (Schütz, 2000). Offensive self-presentation uses attacks on others (e.g., by directly or indirectly degrading competitors) to leave a positive impression by virtue of contrast. Lastly, protective self-presentation aims to prevent the formation of a negative impression in others. Another phenomenon that can influence our impression of others is the perception of a sender’s charisma. Through this perceptual phenomenon, a charismatic person manages to convey a vision in a manner that motivates others to pursue that vision (Caspi et al., 2019). Charisma is also about convincing others, for example of being the ideal candidate for a leading position. Charismatic individuals use a range of verbal and nonverbal behaviors to imbue the messages they communicate with the desired effect (e.g., Rosenberg & Hirschberg, 2009). These verbal and nonverbal behaviors include a captivating tone, fluent speech, maintaining eye contact with an audience, and a relaxed posture. Senders perceive the effects they have on their recipients. This functions as feedback. For example, senders might perceive themselves as competent or incompetent depending on whether they manage to achieve a communication goal such as persuading their audience. This feedback influences the senders’ self-image and selfesteem (Schütz, 2005).

14

1 Definitions

1.3.3.2 Impressions of the Message Under the right circumstances, communication can lead to attitudinal changes in its addressees. Another person mentioning how many people are suffering from hunger may make us reluctant to throw away (excess) food. People are not always persuaded to the same extent, however. Concrete instructions on how to act are more likely to convince us than general recommendations (Cialdini, 2000). For example, if we are told that we should only buy the food we actually need when getting groceries (e.g., by writing a shopping list in advance), the message is more likely to succeed than if we are only confronted with a general appeal. Cialdini (2000) identified several principles that so-called persuasion or sales experts frequently use (Box 1.5). Box 1.5 Persuasion and Sales Experts Often Use the Following Identifiable Principles (Cialdini, 2000) 1. Reciprocity: Free samples and gifts are used to make recipients want to return the favor (e.g., by making a donation). 2. Consistency: Nobody wants to be perceived as fickle. We strive to appear consistent. So if we are approached in the street and asked if we would like to listen to some information on animals in need and say yes, we find it hard to refuse a subsequent request for a donation (which was not mentioned initially). This technique has become known as the foot-in-the-door technique (Freedman & Fraser, 1966). 3. Social proof: Simply put, this is the attempt to increase the value of an option based on the principle that “everybody does or owns it.” Why do you think so many commercials tout their respective products as the “best-selling”? 4. Liking: Sympathy for the person selling a product influences our buying behavior more than our preference for the actual product (Frenzen & Davis, 1990). The thought “The sales representative was so friendly to me!” is a powerful one and we buy more from likeable people than from unlikeable ones. 5. Authority: We often follow the rule that one should obey authorities with expertise and tend to follow their advice. We identify authorities for example by their titles or clothing. Especially when we are not experts ourselves, we are prone to rely on such external signals (i.e., heuristic information processing). Noticing a seal that claims that we are looking at the “no. 1 dentist recommended toothpaste” may thus convince us to make the purchase. 6. Scarcity: We tend to find scarcer options more interesting than easily available ones. Thus, advertisers often try to make their products more attractive by presenting them as scarce. Pay attention to how infomercials frequently refer to the “limited numbers” that are still available of the products they are advertising.

1.3 What Is Communication Psychology?

15

Do you smoke? Do you read the warning labels on cigarette packages? Does this change your attitude toward smoking? Do you watch political debates on TV? Do you tend to be convinced by attractive and well-dressed candidates, or do you pay closer attention to their arguments? What kind of advertising appeals to you, or how do you let yourself be convinced by a product? Do your friends answer these questions differently? Obviously, the same message does not make the same impression on everybody. Not everybody can be influenced to the same extent under the same circumstances at all times. But why is that? Answering the question how one person can be influenced by another person or group is at the center of persuasion research. Persuasion refers to the concerted effort to change a person’s attitude through messages (see Petty & Cacioppo, 1996). This means that persuasion is communication with the goal of convincing others. One of the characteristics of highly effective communication is the successful use of persuasion, for example by convincing others to buy a particular brand of detergent, to sort their trash, or to vote for a particular party. If we want to successfully persuade somebody, we first need to know the reason why they might be resisting persuasion in the first place (Hargie, 2019). For example, if you hope to persuade your best friend to sort their trash, you first need to find out why they are not yet doing so. Where does their resistance come from? It is possible that your friend thinks that waste sorting is completely overrated and unnecessary. Resistance to a desired behavior (e.g., separating trash), however, does not necessarily result from the rejection of the corresponding attitude (Fig. 1.7). On the contrary, people who do not display a desired behavior (e.g., separating trash) may have a positive attitude toward waste sorting. Whether this attitude is translated into actual behavior, however, depends on multiple factors, including the evaluation of the behavior’s consequences (Ajzen, 1991, 2012).

Fig. 1.7  Attitude-discrepant behavior

16

1 Definitions

Determining what causes resistance is a necessary first step before a suitable message can be formulated (O’Keefe, 2002; Perloff, 2003). Studies suggest that messages become more convincing if the desired behavior is described in detail rather than in general terms (Tanner Jr. et al., 1989). Even if a message is potentially effective, it will not be equally effective in all situations and for all recipients. The elaboration likelihood model explains when and how people process information by differentiating between two routes of information processing: The central route and the peripheral route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The central route involves a more careful and critical consideration of the presented arguments. By contrast, the peripheral route refers to processes of persuasion that do not require deep thinking about relevant information (e.g., classical or operant conditioning or heuristic processing). Whether or not we subject a message to a critical review depends on our motivation and aptitude. In addition to cognitive abilities, situational factors (such as the available time) are also involved. When we are overburdened or do not have much time, we are more likely to use heuristic information processing. This is for example the case when we assess a sender’s credibility based on specific characteristics (e.g., “I can trust experts”) and then base our judgment on them. In addition to these external factors, personality traits can affect the way we process information and how easily we can be swayed. One personality trait, the so-called need for cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982), influences people’s typical processing depth. Essentially, it determines how much we enjoy thinking about things and people differ in this regard depending on whether their need for cognition is high or low. Cacioppo and Petty (1982) developed a scale to measure the need for cognition which illustrates that people with a high need for cognition are more likely to apply the central route when processing information and less susceptible to the influence of peripheral cues such as the attractiveness of a communicating person (for an overview, see Cacioppo et al., 1996). Instead, they examine the quality of an argument more intensively. Accordingly, researchers believe that people’s need for cognition affects how they process information, perceive the content of advertising, and make decisions (Beißert et al., 2014). The interplay between situational factors (e.g., Do we have the time to follow another person’s argumentation closely or do we have to make a decision within a few seconds?) and personality factors (e.g., Do we enjoy thinking about things thoroughly?) determines if we focus on the central content of a message (e.g., the quality of the arguments in favor of waste sorting) or on its peripheral content (e.g., liking the communicating person). The impression a message makes on us is thus determined by many factors, which makes successful persuasion a very complex undertaking.

1.4 Summary, Comprehension Questions, and Further Reading The term communication is quite the buzzword: Everybody seems to talk about, everybody is doing it, but nobody seems to know exactly what it really is. Upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that it is not so easy to find a suitable definition of communication.

1.4 Summary, Comprehension Questions, and Further Reading

17

Six et  al. (2007) defined communication through six characteristics: There must be (1) participants, (2) a message, as well as (3) certain means and modalities. Communication is (4) context-sensitive, (5) interactive, and (6) more or less intentional. Communication requires that all six of these characteristics are present. Communicative competence (communication competence) is a communicating person’s ability to select adequate behavior to reach interpersonal goals without hurting the interests of other participants in a given communication. This is an essential component of social competence and allows people to succeed in their professional and private lives. Communicative competence consists of the abilities to find suitable ways of conveying messages while correctly identifying the feelings and concerns of communication partners. Communication psychology is a relatively young subdiscipline of psychology. Its primary interests are the factors that influence communication (i.e., What are the conditions under which communication takes place?), communication behavior (i.e., Who prefers which kind of communication and under which circumstances?), and the results or consequences of communication behavior (i.e., Which impression does the sender make?).

Comprehension Questions 1. What are possible reasons for why there are so many ambiguous definitions of the term communication? 2. What is communicative competence (communication competence)? 3. Which subdiscipline of psychology examines the factors that influence communication, communication behavior, and the results or consequences of communication behavior? 4. What are the results and consequences of communication behavior? 5. What are the different types of “signs” that can be distinguished and how do they differ?

Recommended Reading Brunswik, E. (1943). Organismic achievement and environmental probability. Psychological Review, 50(3), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060889 Krippendorff, K. (1994). Der verschwundene Bote. Metaphern und Modelle der Kommunikation [The missing messenger. Metaphors and models of communication]. In K. Merten, S. J. Schmidt, & S. Weischenberg (Eds.), Die Wirklichkeit der Medien [The Reality of the Media] (pp. 79–113). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Six, U., Gleich, U., & Gimmler, R. (Eds.). (2007). Kommunikationspsychologie und Medienpsychologie [Communication Psychology and Media Psychology]. Beltz.

18

1 Definitions

References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-­5978(91)90020-­T Ajzen, I. (2012). Attitudes and persuasion. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 368–393). Oxford University Press. Beißert, H., Köhler, M., Rempel, M., & Beierlein, C. (2014). Eine deutschsprachige Kurzskala zur Messung des Konstrukts Need for Cognition: Die Need for Cognition Kurzskala (NFC-K) [A German-language short scale for measuring the construct need for cognition: The Need for Cognition Short Scale (NFC-K)]. GESIS-Working Papers, 32, 3–32. GESIS - Leibniz-Institut für Sozialwissenschaften. Blanz, M., Florack, A., & Piontkowski, U. (Eds.). (2013). Kommunikation. Eine interdisziplinäre Einführung [Communication. An Interdisciplinary Introduction]. Kohlhammer. Brunswik, E. (1943). Organismic achievement and environmental probability. Psychological Review, 50(3), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060889 Burkart, R., & Hömberg, W. (Eds.). (1995). Kommunikationstheorien. Ein Textbuch zur Einführung [Communication Theories: An Introductory Textbook] (2nd ed.). Wilhelm Braumüller. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­3514.42.1.116 Cacioppo, J.  T., Petty, R.  E., Feinstein, J.  A., & Jarvis, W.  B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-­2909.119.2.197 Caspi, A., Bogler, R., & Tzuman, O. (2019). “Judging a book by its cover”: The dominance of delivery over content when perceiving charisma. Group & Organization Management, 44(6), 1067–1098. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601119835982 Cialdini, R. B. (2000). Influence. Science and Practice (4th ed.). Pearson. Eagly, A.  H., Ashmore, R.  D., Makhijani, M.  G., & Longo, L.  C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-­2909.110.1.109 Erler, S., Jaek, A., & Schütz, A. (2012). Der Faktor Mensch in der Virtuellen Produktentwicklung [The human factor in virtual product development]. In E. Beutner, H. Neukirchner, & G. Maas (Eds.), Virtuelle Produktentwicklung [Virtual Product Development]. Vogel. Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/ h0023552 Frenzen, J.  K., & Davis, H.  L. (1990). Purchasing behavior in embedded markets. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1086/208532 Frindte, W. (2001). Einführung in die Kommunikationspsychologie [Introduction to Communication Psychology]. Beltz. Hargie, O. (Ed.) (2019). The Handbook of Communication Skills (4th ed.). Routledge. Kenny, D. A. (1994). Interpersonal Perception. Guilford. Keunke, S. (2012). Kommunikation. Versuch einer Begriffssynthese [Communication. Attempt at a Term Synthesis]. https://www.sozwiss.hhu.de/fileadmin/redaktion/ Fakultaeten/Philosophische_Fakultaet/Sozialwissenschaften/Kommunikations-­_ und_ Medienwissenschaft_III/Dateien/Kommunikation_Versuch_einer_Begriffssynthese_0416.pdf Krippendorff, K. (1994). Der verschwundene Bote. Metaphern und Modelle der Kommunikation [The missing messenger. Metaphors and models of communication]. In K.  Merten, S.  J. Schmidt, & S.  Weischenberg (Eds.), Die Wirklichkeit der Medien [The Reality of the Media] (pp. 79–113). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

References

19

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(3), 390–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-­2909.126.3.390 Merten, K. (2000). Struktur und Funktion von Propaganda [Structure and function of propaganda]. Publizistik, 45(2), 143–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-­000-­0075-­x Merten, K. (2007). Einführung in die Kommunikationswissenschaft [Introduction to Communication Science]. LIT Verlag. O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion. Theory and Research (2nd ed.). Sage. Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries (2020). Post-truth. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/ definition/english/post-­truth?q=post-­truth Perloff, R. M. (2003). The Dynamics of Persuasion (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum. Petersen, L.-E. (2005). Der Einfluss von Models in der Werbung auf das Körperselbstbild der Betrachter/innen [The influence of models in advertising on the viewers’ body self-image]. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 17(2), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1026/1617-­6383.17.2.54 Petty, R.  E., & Cacioppo, J.  T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0065-­2601(08)60214-­2 Petty, R.  E., & Cacioppo, J.  T. (1996). Attitudes and Persuasion. Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Routledge. Röhner, J., & Schütz, A. (2019). Selbstdarstellung [Self-presentation]. In M.  A. Wirtz (Ed.), Dorsch –Lexikon der Psychologie (19th ed., p. 1594). Hogrefe. Rosenberg, A., & Hirschberg, J. (2009). Charisma perception from text and speech. Speech Communication, 51(7), 640–655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2008.11.001 Schütz, A. (1998). Audience perceptions of politicians’ self-presentational behaviors concerning their own abilities. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138(2), 173–188. https://doi. org/10.1080/00224549809600369 Schütz, A. (2000). Politischer Skandal und Varianten defensiver Selbstdarstellung: Der Fall Clinton [Political scandal and variants of defensive self-representation: The case Clinton]. In J.  Borchert, S.  Leitner, & K.  Stolz (Eds.), Politische Korruption. Jahrbuch für Europa- und Nordamerika-Studien (Vol. 3, pp. 199–223). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­322-­99573-­5_9 Schütz, A. (2005). Je selbstsicherer, desto besser? Licht und Schatten positive Selbstbewertung [The More Confident, the Better? Light and Shadow of a Positive Self-Image]. Beltz. Schütz, A., & Werth, L. (2007). Soft Skills im Führungskontext [Soft skills in the leadership context]. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 3, 3–5. Six, U., Gleich, U., & Gimmler, R. (Eds.). (2007). Kommunikationspsychologie und Medienpsychologie [Communication Psychology and Media Psychology]. Beltz. Tanner, J. F., Day, E., & Crask, M. R. (1989). Protection motivation theory: An extension of fear appeals theory in communication. Journal of Business Research, 19(4), 267–276. https://doi. org/10.1016/0148-­2963(89)90008-­8 Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(4), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071663 Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of a model of communicative competence. Human Communication Research, 3(3), 195–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-­2958.1977.tb00518.x

20

1 Definitions

Answers to the Comprehension Questions 1.  Many different communication metaphors; changing definition of “communication” over time. 2.  Communicative competence (communication competence) is the ability of people participating in communications to act appropriately and reach interpersonal goals without hurting the interests of other participants. 3.  Communication psychology. 4.  An impression of the sender and an impression of the message. 5.  Symptoms (causal natural connections between signs and what they signify), icons (similarities between signs and what they signify), and symbols (arbitrary relationships between signs and what they signify).

Chapter 2

Classic Models of Communication

Abstract  This chapter will discuss influential conceptual approaches to human communication. It will begin with a general overview of psychological communication models before introducing a selection of classic models of communication. Keywords  Communication models · Rules of communication · Conversation maxims · Shannon and Weaver · Schulz von Thun · Grice · Rogers · Watzlawick

2.1 An Overview of Communication Models There are several models that try to explain the process of communication. These models differ with regard to their scientific tradition, complexity, and focus (see Sect. 1.1). We can distinguish between so-called general and psychological communication models. General communication models are interdisciplinary in nature. As such, they approach communication by integrating ideas from different scientific disciplines. By contrast, psychological communication models have a more limited and specific perspective. Krauss and Fussell (1996) identified four groups of psychological communication models in an extensive literature review (Fig. 2.1). 1. Encoder/decoder models view communication as a process through which an internal representation (e.g., the definition of the word “communication”) is encoded via a cypher (e.g., language). The encoded cypher is transmitted to the addressee of a message through the communication channel and must be decrypted from there. The primary foci of encoder/decoder models are thus a comprehensive understanding of the encoding process, the transmission of messages, and their subsequent decoding. The models attempt to provide an answer to the question how messages can be transmitted optimally. To this end, they also address possible sources of interference and problems that may compromise smooth communication. The communication model by Shannon and Weaver (1949; see Sect. 2.2), which is also known as the “transmission model,” and the communication model by Schulz von Thun (2000; see Sect. 2.3) are examples of models in this category. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Röhner, A. Schütz, Psychology of Communication, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60170-6_2

21

22

2  Classic Models of Communication

Fig. 2.1 Psychological communication models

Psychological Communication Models

Encoder/ Decoder Models

Intentionalist Models

Perspectivetaking Models

Dialogic Models

2. Intentionalist models are primarily concerned with the communicating person’s intention to convey a “meaning” to a recipient. These models explore the fundamental question of how communication can succeed (i.e., how sender and recipient can reach an agreement regarding what is being “said”). How can this be achieved? The conversation maxims in the communication model by Grice (1975; see Sect. 2.4) are an example of a model in this category that tries to answer this question. 3. Perspective-taking models are mainly interested in how people can put themselves in another person’s shoes and thereby understand each other better. The willingness of communicating individuals to look at a given situation from another point of view is central to this question. One important example of this category are Rogers’s rules for successful communication (1951; see Sect. 2.5) which can be derived from his client-centered approach to psychotherapy. 4. Dialogic models focus on how the participants of a communication process can construct a shared reality. The axioms by Watzlawick (e.g., Watzlawick et al., 2017) are an example of the attempt to identify the central features of this process. The main part of this chapter will discuss examples of all four groups of psychological communication models in greater detail. However, the models selected here are by no means mutually exclusive and none of them claim to cover every single facet of communication. Each of them instead provides its own piece to the jigsaw puzzle of communication from a particular perspective in order to understand the phenomenon more thoroughly. All of the models are linked by the principle that a message is delivered from one person to another (see Sect. 1.1.2). Even though classic models mainly address communication between individuals, communication is not necessarily limited to how people exchange messages (see Heringer, 2017). Communication also includes exchanges between people and machines (e.g., human-computer communication; see Sect. 6.2.1.2.2) and exchanges between multiple machines.

2.2 Communication Model by Shannon and Weaver In the 1940s, Claude E. Shannon and Warren Weaver developed a communication model that has since become a classic. Devised by a mathematician and a telecommunications specialist, this model was at first strictly technical in nature, but is

2.2  Communication Model by Shannon and Weaver

23

Signal

Channel

Interference

Sender

Encoder

Decoder

Recipient

Fig. 2.2  Elements of communication according to Shannon and Weaver (1949)

today also frequently cited in psychological works. Its original focus is especially apparent in its ties to the tradition of information theory as both researchers worked for a telephone company. The model is unconcerned with the meaning of a message and exclusively focuses on its transmission and reception. As a binary mathematical approach, the goal of the model is to optimize communication in technical transmissions (i.e., to reduce interference). In the context of communications engineering, communication means the exchange or transfer of information between systems. Shannon and Weaver (1949) identified six necessary elements that must be present during communication (Fig. 2.2). Interferences make up a seventh element. The starting point of the communication process is the source of information (the sender) which selects a message and transfers it by means of a transmitter (the encoder) in the form of signals. These signals are transferred in a specific channel and subsequently received and deciphered by the addressee (the recipient) using a receiver (the decoder). In the case of spoken language, the source of information is the brain. The transmitter uses their vocal cords to produce changing sound pressure (i.e., the signal) that is transmitted through the air (i.e., the channel). However, interferences (e.g., noise) may disturb the signal transmission process. In addition to the signal (i.e., the message), the transmission process may contain additional elements. This can happen without the sender’s intention and causes “noise.” Possible sources of interference include sound distortion (when communicating over the phone), atmospheric interferences (when communicating via radio), or distorted images (when communicating via television). When applied to the context of direct communication, interferences can for example occur when the channel (i.e., the air) is not completely “quiet.” You may experience this yourself when attending a lecture: In this situation you cannot expect that all of your classmates will pay close attention to what your professor is saying. If all students were silent, the ideal conditions for transferring a message would be given. If some students, however, are uninterested in the topic of the lecture, they might start whispering with each other. In this latter case, the channel is no longer free of background noise and you may not be able to understand everything that is being said.

24

2  Classic Models of Communication

In general, the successful transmission of a message requires attention on both sides. It should also be possible to integrate the content of the message into previous knowledge. At least in part, this necessitates shared knowledge regarding signs and meanings (e.g., a common language). The cyphers used for encoding and decoding must also match each other and the transmission should be as free of interferences as possible to allow for feedback to the sender (e.g., by asking questions or asking them to repeat what they said). According to Shannon and Weaver, errors during encoding or decoding (e.g., translation errors when the communication participants speak different languages or ambiguous meaning) can cause the recipient to react in an unexpected way or not react at all. These errors can lead to a lack of correspondence between the message sent and the message received. An ambiguous statement may thus be misinterpreted by the recipient and fail to lead to the intended reaction.

2.3 Communication Model by Schulz von Thun The communication model by Schulz von Thun (2000) has seen a lot of practical application due to its hands-on approach and practicability. It is for example an excellent tool to question our own communication behavior. However, the model lacks empirical validation and is primarily of heuristic value. In an attempt to stress the applicability of classic communication models in practical contexts, Schulz von Thun also draws on ideas by scholars such as Watzlawick (1969) and Bühler (1934). He suggests looking at human communication from four perspectives on both the sending and the receiving side. These perspectives are at the core of his communication model that he first developed in 1981 (Schulz von Thun, 1981; Fig. 2.3) and are known as the “four beaks” (on the sender’s side) and the “four ears” (on the recipient’s side). According to the model, each statement consists of four layers at the same time.

Self-revelation (what I show about myself)

Sender

Factual level (the information I share)

Message

Relationship (what is our relationship with each other)

Appeal (what I want you to do)

Fig. 2.3  Communication model by Schulz von Thun (2000)

Recipient

2.3  Communication Model by Schulz von Thun

25

1. Factual level. A message usually contains factual information that the sender wants to communicate to the recipient (e.g., to explain something). 2. Self-revelation. Each message also contains information about the sender, which can consist of intentional self-portrayal (e.g., showing one’s expertise in a certain field) and unintended self-disclosure (e.g., trembling as a sign of nervousness or fear). 3. Relationship. How a sender addresses a recipient reveals how the former defines the relationship with the latter (“I was right to think that this would be too hard for you.” versus “If you take another careful look at it, I’m sure you will come up with the right solution.”). 4. Appeal. When a person says something, they usually want it to have a real-world effect. A message is intended to make its recipients think, feel or do certain things or refrain from doing them. On the receiving side, von Thun also identifies “four ears,” one for each of the four layers listed above: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Factual level: How can I understand the situation at hand? Self-revelation: What kind of person is this? Relationship: How does this person talk to me? Who do they think I am? Appeal: What should I think, feel, do, or refrain from?

When two people have difficulties communicating with each other, the reason is often a mismatch between the sender’s intention and the recipient’s perception of what is being said. A sender may for example want to communicate an appeal (e.g., to receive concrete support) whereas the recipient focuses on the relationship layer and expresses sympathy. According to Schulz von Thun, communication quality depends on whether recipients are able to decode the meaning contained within the sender’s message. By saying “It’s hot in here,” a sender may try to prompt another person to turn down the heat. Because the sender did not explicitly state this request, however, the recipient may interpret their statement differently. Schulz von Thun (2000) also assumes that lopsided reception habits can impede communication. Recipients may for example be prone to notice the appeal layer of messages and therefore driven to respond to the needs of their interaction partners, potentially in an effort to gain approval. In this case, they may interpret messages as appeals even if they are not intended as such by their senders. People with low self-­ esteem for example tend to adapt to the wishes of others (Schütz, 2005). In order to make the relationship and appeal layers of messages clearer, it can therefore be helpful to openly address or ask about implicit intentions. The more important it is for a given communication to succeed, the more helpful this degree of openness becomes.

26

2  Classic Models of Communication

2.4 Grice’s Maxims of Conversation The foundation of Grice’s view is to conceive of communication as a cooperative enterprise that aims to create understanding between a sender and a recipient. Regardless of the concrete goal communication partners try to achieve (ranging from confessions of love to insults), they must convey their message in such a manner that others can follow and make sense of it. This is the only way for them to reach their communication goal. The literal meaning of linguistic expressions is to be distinguished here from communicative meaning (i.e., the implication) as the two may differ from each other. Grice argues that communication cannot take place unless the parties involved pursue a shared interest, however small. Thus, he posits that the cooperative principle constitutes the fundamental principle of communication. This principle states that participants must take two aspects into account whenever they formulate a message: Mutually accepted interaction goals and the current point in time of the conversation. From here, Grice derived four conversation maxims, which can increase the efficiency of a communication process if the participants comply with them. Grice believes that misunderstandings and inefficiency (e.g., in the form of wasted time) result when these maxims are violated. Table  2.1 gives an overview of the four maxims. If you want, you can try an interesting little experiment in your everyday life and see if you can adhere to all of the maxims during a conversation. You will probably realize that following these maxims is rather challenging. The maxim of quality alone demands a great deal from communication participants. Nietzsche wrote that Table 2.1  Conversation maxims by Grice 1. Maxim of Quantity “Try to convey the necessary information.” Make your contribution as informative as required for the current purposes of the exchange. Avoid information that is not required.

Violation of maxim: Saying too little or too much (e.g., answering the question “when is your birthday?” by saying “in March”) 3. Maxim of Relation “Be relevant.” Say what is relevant to the current exchange. Do not say what is not relevant to the current exchange. Violation of maxim: Saying things that are irrelevant or trivial (e.g., talking at length about personal impressions and experiences during a scientific presentation and getting sidetracked)

2. Maxim of Quality “Try to make your contribution one that is true.” Do not say anything you think to be wrong. Do not say anything for which you lack adequate evidence. Violation of maxim: Irony or unfounded assertion (e.g., false statements of any kind) 4. Maxim of Manner “Be perspicuous.” Avoid obscurity of expression. Avoid ambiguity. Be concise and orderly. Follow logical sequences. Violation of maxim: Saying things that are unclear or confusing (e.g., explaining how to mix a chemical solution in the wrong order)

2.4  Grice’s Maxims of Conversation

27

“Whoever does not believe himself always lies” (Nietzsche, 1886)—and initially, it may seem nice to always tell the truth. But is that truly the case? Studies suggest that people tell an average of one to two lies per day (DePaulo et al., 1996). Lies are even more common in diagnostic situations in which there is something important at stake (e.g., during job interviews; see Röhner & Schütz, 2020, 2023). In a study by Weiss and Feldmann (2006) for example, applicants admitted that they had told an average of two to three lies during 15-minute interviews to better match the job profile. In this case, the applicants essentially used up their average daily quota of lies within 15 minutes. On top of this, the chance of people correctly identifying the lies of others as such is approximately random (i.e., as accurate as guessing the outcome of a coin flip), yet we tend to overestimate our ability to do so (Bond Jr. & DePaulo, 2006; DePaulo et al., 1997). As a consequence, there are intensive research efforts that seek to identify the features of lies and develop mechanisms to uncover them (Röhner & Ewers, 2016; Röhner et al., 2022). The results of one such study suggest that asking unexpected questions can improve the accuracy of lie detection because they can throw off liars who often prepare a “story” in advance (Vrij & Granhag, 2014).

Box 2.1 White Lies Versus Black Lies While people lie once or twice per day, the majority of their everyday lies are so-­called white lies. Examples include claiming to be a little better at something than you really are or not telling another person the truth to avoid hurting their feelings. White lies are told without malicious intent and include minor embellishments (DePaulo et al., 1997). By contrast, lies that harm other people are known as black lies.

It can be similarly difficult in our daily conversations to always adhere to the maxim of relation, which tells us to “be relevant.” It is easy to imagine how we may digress when talking about a wonderful vacation or an amazing concert by our favorite band. What is truly relevant in these cases and what is not? Strict adherence to Grice’s maxims is probably more of an ideal than a realistic expectation. Let us take a closer look at an example of an everyday situation in which the maxims above are violated. Sophy and Carol have been best friends since preschool. 1. Carol is excited to meet her friend to show Sophy her new haircut and ask her for her opinion on it. Sophy, however, does not think that the new hairstyle looks good on Carol. To avoid hurting her friend’s feelings, she deliberately violates one of the maxims and tells Carol that she likes it. This example shows a violation of the maxim of quality to illustrate that there can be good reasons for us not to tell the exact truth in certain situations (white lies). Depending on the communication goals we pursue, we may perceive such a statement as successful or not. If Sophy would like to tell Carol that her new haircut might have been a mistake, she has not (yet) reached her goal. If her dominant goal is to avoid making Carol feel insecure, however, she succeeded.

28

2  Classic Models of Communication

2. Sophy flunked an important college exam and goes to the office of her professor’s assistant to ask him what exactly she did wrong. However, the assistant is in a hurry and evades the question: “Unfortunately, I can’t really tell you more about that.” (violation of the maxim of quantity) 3. Carol met Tom at a party during the first week of the new term, but forgot to ask him for his phone number in her excitement. She remembers, however, that Sophy had to give a presentation with him in class a little while ago. She asks her friend, hoping to learn Tom’s number from her (Box 2.2). Box 2.2 Violations of Maxims Carol: “Can you give me Tom’s number?” Sophy: “It’s something that starts with 0171…”. → Sophy violates the maxims of quantity and manner. Alternative: Sophy: “I don’t have his number.” → Sophy violates the maxim of quality. Although Sophy knew Tom’s number at the time of the presentation, she can no longer remember it and has to choose between different maxims. Since she no longer has the information Carol asked for, her choice lies between violating the maxims of quantity and manner or the maxim of quality.

2.5  Rogers’s Rules for Successful Communication How can we take another person’s perspective in a particular situation and understand them better? One possible path toward successful perspective-taking was described by Carl Rogers (1951) in his rules of client-centered psychotherapy. While he primarily developed them for professional counseling and therapy, these guidelines can also help navigate other social relationships. Rogers assumes a humanistic perspective and believes that all individuals strive for autonomy and self-realization. Counselors and therapists who wish to support their clients in this should exhibit three behavioral characteristics that enable them to communicate with their clients in a suitable manner. These characteristics are empathy, congruence, and unconditional positive regard (Fig. 2.4). Among the three characteristics, empathy is the most relevant for how we can successfully take the perspective of others. This makes empathy especially relevant for communication. Therefore, we will discuss empathy in greater detail below while the other two components will not be covered in this chapter. Empathy is defined by two features. On the one hand, it is about putting yourself in another person’s shoes and feel their feelings. On the other hand, it is about telling that person what you understand. Rogers founded his central assumptions about successful communication on his experience as a therapist as well as his therapy

2.5  Rogers’s Rules for Successful Communication

29

Fig. 2.4  Rogers’s three components of behavioral characteristics for counseling and therapy

Empathy

Unconditional positive regard

Congruence

studies that were based on audio recordings and pioneering at the time. It was then that Rogers (1961) first observed how much the success of therapy depends on the formation of a relationship between therapist and client based on the three variables listed above. Current psychotherapy research also confirms the importance of the therapeutic relationship as does a more recent study that shows how subjective variables are more relevant than objective ones: Clients are more inclined to judge their therapy based on their therapist’s communicative competence and their ability to respond to their needs than on the objectively measurable success of the therapy (Dehn-Hindenberg, 2007). New insights in this regard come from research on the role of mirror neurons which, for example, react to another person’s movements. Mirror neurons are neurons (i.e., nerve cells) that can be found in human brains and the brains of some animals (e.g., monkeys, birds; Temple & Frings, 2020). These neurons are involved when we perform actions ourselves (e.g., threatening gestures) and when we observe these actions in others. The discovery of mirror neurons was a major scientific breakthrough and researchers quickly established connections between their functions and the feeling of empathy. Mirror neurons have been linked to the emergence of empathy and our ability to recognize different emotions (e.g., fear, anger, joy, sadness; Temple & Frings, 2020). The exact role mirror neurons play in the emergence of empathy, however, remains unclear. In a review article, Lamm and Majdandžić (2015) conclude that mirror neurons are not the only factor that is required for humans to feel empathy. Studies that show how empathy strongly depends on social conditions corroborate this claim (for an overview, see Engen & Singer, 2013). Apparently, mirror neurons need stimulation at a young age, for example by being cared for, which in turn can have various effects such as unconscious imitation. This behavior is still very pronounced in infants and toddlers and can be regarded as an intuitive way to establish relationships (Bauer, 2005).

30

2  Classic Models of Communication

2.6 Communication Model by Watzlawick Paul Watzlawick’s (1969) communication model is built on five axioms, a priori claims that are inaccessible to attempts to prove them (Box 2.3). As such, these assumptions are primarily of heuristic value. In addition, communication is circular in Watzlawick’s model. Unlike the relatively static model of sender and recipient, he stresses the role of dynamics and interactivity. This means that it does not only matter how somebody reacts to another person’s message, but also how this reaction affects the original sender (Röhner & Schütz, 2021). The two central strengths of this model are that it incorporates psychological processes and that it distances itself from the assumption that senders and recipients are always driven to send and receive clear messages. The model emphasizes that human communication is not only about exchanging factual information. Instead, sending and receiving messages is always guided by personal interests. Job applicants may for example highlight their strengths and play down their weaknesses during an interview, thus deviating from the hypothetical transmission of all available facts (as it is postulated in Grice’s model; see Sect. 2.4). This phenomenon is known as faking good (Röhner & Schütz, 2019a), which refers to the observation that people tend to have a certain idea regarding what is considered desirable in a given situation and are therefore able to present themselves accordingly or at least try doing so (Bensch et al., 2019; Röhner & Schütz, 2019b). An applicant may for example try to make an especially conscientious impression if they believe that conscientiousness is a trait that is expected by the interviewers. The opposite, i.e., faking bad (Röhner & Schütz, 2019c), may also occur. This could be the case when an applicant was forced to apply by a service provider, but does not want to actually get the job, for example because of a long commute or a low salary. Faking behavior does not only occur in professional contexts, but also in many other situations like social media and assessments of all kinds. “From the first day of his life, man begins to learn the rules of communication although the actors do not necessarily become aware of them” (Watzlawick et al., 2017, p. 13; translated by the authors). Communication disruptions are seen as the consequence of violations of the axioms (Watzlawick et al., 2017). Watzlawick identifies metacommunication as a means to detect and, if necessary, remedy such disruptions. Metacommunication is communication about the current conversation (e.g., “We should talk about our conversation style.”, “Please let me finish!”). Concretely, the five axioms of communication according to Watzlawick et al. (2017) are as follows: Box 2.3 Watzlawick Summarizes Human Communication with Five Axioms 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Axiom about the impossibility to avoid communication Axiom about the content and the relationship aspect of communication Axiom about the punctuation of communication Axiom about digital versus analog communication Axiom about symmetric versus complementary communication

2.6  Communication Model by Watzlawick

31

Axiom 1: “One cannot not communicate.” This axiom is based on the fact that all behavior communicates something in an interpersonal situation (e.g., acting or not acting, silence, words or not having words). As such, all behavior is communication. Is it possible not to show any behavior at all? No. And therefore, it is also not possible to not communicate. Watzlawick assumes that, as soon as people perceive each other, communication takes place (intentionally or unintentionally). Even a classmate who is absorbed in his notes in front of the examination hall communicates: When we walk by, we probably deduce from his posture that he wants to be left alone. Similarly, by acting (e.g., addressing our classmate) or not acting (e.g., not addressing our classmate) we communicate as well. The effect of our behavior depends on how the recipient interprets it. You may have made similar observations on the train or the subway: People communicate through their behavior and thus show for example if they want you to sit next to them or not. Take a closer look! You will notice clear communication where you may not expect it. Axiom 2: “All communication has a content aspect and a relationship aspect.” This axiom encourages us to separate communication into its content (i.e., the WHAT of the message) and its relationship aspect (i.e., the HOW of the message), similar to how we divide a human being into body and mind. The content aspect is mainly communicated verbally and purely consists of factual information. The relationship aspect, however, is transmitted verbally and nonverbally. It indicates how the recipient should understand the factual information and how the sender defines the relationship between the two parties. Imagine a professor asking their student: “And you actually did write this term paper yourself?” With this question, the professor wants to inquire about the paper at the content level. However, how the professor inquires about it can express astonishment or doubt depending on the inflection, facial expression, and gestures. The same applies to a boss asking their employee: “Have you finished the task already?” The relationship aspect of the communication thus colors the content aspect and may convey fondness or dislike. The WHAT and the HOW of a message may directly contradict each other, making successful communication difficult. In the case of irony, the communicator’s intention can for example only be deduced from their facial expressions, inflection, and context. This makes it challenging to correctly identify irony in written messages. The distinction between the content and the relationship aspect is particularly important when communication fails. Such difficulties often arise from the relationship aspect, for example when relationship conflicts play out at the content level or when the communicating parties disagree about the nature of their relationship. Think about your own relationships with partners, friends, and families here: How often do you argue about things like housework when the actual concern is not the content (e.g., doing the dishes) but the relationship (e.g., feeling neglected)? The phenomena of mobbing, bossing, staffing, and bullying are socially destructive forms of conflict resolution at school and work (see Box 2.4). Communication disruptions are almost unavoidable in these cases or might even be deliberately caused by the communicating parties.

32

2  Classic Models of Communication

Box 2.4 Mobbing and Associated Phenomena The term mobbing describes behavior that is characterized by a sustained process of hostility and harassment (see Alsaker, 2019) in which one individual (the victim) may become the target of systematic aggressive behavior by a group of other individuals (the perpetrators). In many instances, there is no easy way for the victim to escape this abuse (e.g., because they cannot quit their job without considerable negative consequences). There is also no possible way for the victim to defend themselves against the abuse (e.g., because the perpetrators are in a higher position). At the center of mobbing lies the perpetrators’ intention to demonstrate their power to the victim. Mobbing is often sustained over long periods of time because nobody intervenes and the victim feels powerless (Alsaker, 2019). Heinz Leymann, pioneer of mobbing research, identified a total of 45 related acts of abuse, which include: –– –– –– –– –– –– ––

Interrupting the victim while they are talking Condescending glances and gestures toward the victim Breaking off communication with the victim Talking about the victim behind their back Spreading rumors about the victim (e.g., claiming they are mentally ill) Frequently assigning work to the victim Assigning “insulting” work to the victim (e.g., tasks that are far below the victim’s qualification or competence) –– Forcing the victim to harm their health (e.g., massive overtime without appropriate compensation) Mobbing can take place in various contexts and its perpetrators can be in different positions. Therefore, the classic definition of mobbing (i.e., abuse among colleagues) is to be distinguished from the phenomena of bossing (i.e., employees are bullied by their boss) and staffing (i.e., a boss is bullied by their employees). The term bullying is more commonly used in school environments when students experience physical and psychological abuse. All of these forms of physical and psychological violence have in common that communication disruptions are condoned or actively caused (e.g., because the victim does not get a chance to comment on accusations). Many of the behaviors that shape mobbing, bossing, staffing, and bullying involve communication processes (e.g., talking behind another person’s back, spreading rumors, exclusion from the communication community, etc.).

2.6  Communication Model by Watzlawick

33

Axiom 3: “Different communication processes are structured differently.” According to the third axiom, communication is circular. This quality also makes it readily understandable to objective observers. Communication is without a clearly defined beginning or end. Instead, it constitutes a continuous exchange. It is up to the communication partners’ subjective interpretations which elements are causes and which elements are effects. Watzlawick’s view is characterized by a constructivism which states that we all live in a constructed reality formed by our personal experiences and judgments. Since we believe this subjective reality to be true, it shapes our actions, which may cause frictions when our interaction partners assume a different “reality.” This phenomenon is commonly observed in preschools and elementary schools when the pedagogical staff tries to settle conflicts, but the fighting children know very well: “They started it!” The story in which someone wants to borrow a hammer (Watzlawick, 1983), which we modified in the following example, illustrates the principle of subjective reality in a humorous way (see Box 2.5).

Box 2.5 The Principle of Subjective Reality You may be familiar with situations like the following. Imagine arriving at a university abroad as an exchange student and meeting a fellow exchange student called John Miller. He tells you that he has been at the university for a while and that he is going to return home after the next term. You are in the same course and are assigned to prepare a presentation together. While working on the presentation, you run into a few problems using the computer room. Since you know that John has used it many times, you consider asking him for help. But you suddenly hesitate. When you asked him for another favor yesterday, John acted a little strange. He also did not greet you the other day and declined a dinner invitation. Is he feeling stressed at the moment? Or maybe he does not want to help you at all? Maybe he does not want to share his knowledge with you, so he can shine in front of your professor? If someone else were to ask you for a favor, you would not hesitate for a second. You are certain that John thinks you depend on him. That’s enough! Furiously, you run to his apartment and when he opens the door, you yell at him that you do not need his help.

Watzlawick posits that we create our reality as the punctuation of communication procedures. This means that we often ascribe particular importance to certain events and thereby essentially turn them into the causes or triggers for later events. If we then explain or excuse our own behavior with the behavior of others, this tendency can interfere with successful interactions. Our conversation partner, however, may in turn interpret their own behavior as a consequence of our behavior (see Box 2.6). This is also common when people describe arguments with their partners (“It was your fault!”; Schütz, 1999). Pressure and coercion may follow.

34

2  Classic Models of Communication

Box 2.6 Consequences of Different Punctuations on a Regular College Day Sarah (S) and Dave (D) are at odds with each other. Their conversations are frequently characterized by an unfavorable communication pattern. D: Criticizing S for being unreliable

Perception of D: Insufficient contribution

Perception of S: Unclear division of work

S: Only working on the parts that are definitely hers to take care of

Both sides interpret their own behavior as a reaction to the other side’s behavior. Their individual punctuation of their partner’s communication procedures leads them to perceive the other’s actions as the cause of their own. Dave thinks that Sarah does not finish her part of the project in time because she lacks motivation. Meanwhile, Sarah blames the unclear work division for the delay. The search for a guilty party (“It’s your fault!”) pushes them both into a cul-de-sac and they may end up accusing each other of stubbornness or even malice. Metacommunication (i.e., a conversation about their respective perceptions) can offer a way out.

Axiom 4: “Human communication involves digital and analog modalities.” Watzlawick differentiates between two modalities of human communication: Digital and analog communication. This distinction is closely related to the second axiom as digital and analog communication methods complement each other (similar to how the content and relationship aspects do). The transmission of a communication’s content aspect is primarily digital while the transmission of the relationship aspect is mostly analog. In addition to the “talking-to-each-other” (i.e., digital modality), body language, a person’s way of speaking, and the context (i.e., analog modality) are equally important. It is easy to see that separating the two modalities makes them difficult to interpret. One shortcoming of the analog modality is its ambiguity. A smile may try to elicit sympathy, but it may also express contempt. By contrast, digital modality lacks a perfect vocabulary to define relationships beyond doubt. Digitally paying lip service is also considerably easier than conveying the same message in a believable way through the analog modality. Most of us are

2.7  Summary, Comprehension Questions, and Further Reading

35

probably familiar, from stories or personal experience, with the often seemingly helpless plea when a romantic partner is breaking up with us: “Look me in the eyes and tell me that you really don’t love me anymore!” The nonverbal, analog elements are especially important when communicating about relationships. Taking this form of communication into account helps interpret the overall message when body language clashes with what is being said (e.g., forced smile when reporting success, wild threats with anxious posture). Moreover, it is important to note that digital communication has access to logical operators and utilizes them frequently. There is practically no possible way in which the statement “I wasn’t in Chicago last week” can be communicated with analog means. The ambiguity of digital and analog communication can cause difficulties with interpersonal communication. In an analogous manner to the second axiom, it is therefore possible to say: If there is a discrepancy between the digital and the analog message, communication can be disrupted. Axiom 5: “Interpersonal communication procedures are either symmetric (i.e., equal) or complementary, depending on whether the relationship of the partners is based on differences or parity.” In complementary relationships, different behaviors add to each other and thereby determine the interaction process. This is based on the differences between the interaction partners, which aim for supplementation. Communication partners who aim for a symmetric relationship, meanwhile, try to avoid disparity. Since our lives are full of different social relationships and roles, we alternate between symmetry and complementarity. Institutions and social contexts frequently dictate corresponding behavior (e.g., professor and student, customer and salesperson). Thus, complementarity does not necessarily mean that one of the parties involved is inferior or passive. Complementary relationships do not usually emerge when one side forces this kind of relationship on the other, but rather because the other side accepts the defined role. When the definition of the roles changes, the relationship usually changes as well (e.g., professor and student play on the same baseball team which renders their previously complementary relationship temporarily symmetric). Complementarity can turn into a problem when it becomes too far-­reaching or inflexible. Similarly, an extreme resistance to complementarity (e.g., because we do not want to feel inferior) can result in symmetric escalation (see Box 2.7). Box 2.7 Symmetric Escalation When striving for equality, we sometimes feel the need to be a little “more equal” than others. We may try to gain a small advantage over others in an area that is important to our self-image. In response, others may try to reduce this new complementarity and potentially gain a small advantage themselves. This cycle brings about an unstable relationship system that is shaped by rivalry.

36

2  Classic Models of Communication

2.7 Summary, Comprehension Questions, and Further Reading We can distinguish between different psychological communication models based on their respective main focus (see Krauss & Fussell, 1996): Encoder/decoder models (e.g., communication model by Shannon and Weaver), intentionalist models (e.g., Grice’s maxims), perspective-taking models (e.g., Roger’s rules for successful communication), and dialogic models (e.g. communication model by Watzlawick). The following is an overview of the four model categories. To emphasize their differences, the overview lists their central questions and possible answers to them based on the specific models discussed as examples throughout this chapter. 1. Encoder/decoder models: How do we encode messages? How do we transmit them? How do we decode them? How can we transmit messages optimally? Which problems and interferences may arise during transmission? The communication model by Shannon and Weaver would answer these questions as follows: The information source (e.g., Tom’s brain) selects a message (e.g., “I like you, Lisa.”) and sends it with a transmitter (i.e., Tom’s vocal cords) that generates changing sound pressure (i.e., the signal). This process is known as encoding. The signals are now transmitted to the addressee (i.e., Lisa) through the channel (i.e., the air). Lisa’s hearing and brain allow her to decode the message. If the message is transmitted optimally, Lisa can understand it without issues. However, there may be “noise” in the channel that makes a seamless transmission difficult (e.g., if the channel is not completely clear because Lisa and Tom are at a train station and a train arrives). 2. Intentionalist models: How can senders ensure that their recipients understand the messages they send? How can both sides come to an agreement regarding what is being said? In Grice’s view, the answers would be as follows: It is possible to increase the efficiency of communication and ensure understanding with the help of four maxims (i.e., maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relation, and maxim of manner). Violating these maxims results in misunderstandings, disagreements, and wasted time. If Tom wants to tell Lisa that he likes her, he should not say too much nor too little (i.e., maxim of quantity), he should tell her the truth (i.e., maxim of quality), he should avoid irrelevant information (i.e., maxim of relation), and he should avoid talking in an unclear or confusing manner (i.e., maxim of manner). Do: “I really like you, Lisa.” Don’t: “Erm…well…it’s perfectly natural to like some people more than others. So what I’m trying to say, without getting sidetracked, because my friend Peter told me that it’s important to keep things brief to avoid violating the maxims of quantity and relation and after a while also the maxim of manner… What was I trying to say? Oh, yeah, I like you.” 3. Perspective-taking models: How can we understand each other better when we communicate? Rogers’s rules for successful communication focus on empathy when answering this question. As such, it is important to first put yourself into the other person’s

2.7  Summary, Comprehension Questions, and Further Reading

37

shoes and then communicate back to them what you understood. Lisa should therefore try to see things from Tom’s perspective as he is talking to her. When he is finished, she should let him know what she understood of his message. 4. Dialogic models: How do we construct a common reality when we communicate? Watzlawick’s communication model would answer this question by referring to five axioms of communication that describe in depth what constitutes communication and how we construct reality with it. Communication is more than the mere exchange of information (e.g., Tom does not want to make a fool of himself and this influences how he communicates). How we send and receive messages depends on our interests (e.g., Lisa may not be interested in Tom at all and therefore not listening). The five axioms are: Axiom about the impossibility to avoid communication (Even if Tom does not tell Lisa that he likes her, his posture and bashful smile when they run into each other may give it away.); axiom about the content and the relationship aspect of communication (In addition to the content of a message, Tom also communicates how Lisa should understand it. Depending on HOW Tom phrases the WHAT of his message, whether he is for example serious or ironic, Lisa will understand it differently.); axiom about the punctuation of communication (Tom and Lisa will differ regarding how they punctuate their conversation as a sequence of causes and effects: Who acted and who reacted?); axiom about digital versus analog communication (Digitally, Tom can use words to express that he likes Lisa. To communicate this in an analog manner, he could look her in the eyes or grab her hand.); and axiom about symmetric versus complementary communication (Tom and Lisa may communicate symmetrically or complementarily, depending on whether their relationship is based on difference or equality). What all models have in common is the insight that messages do not necessarily arrive correctly at their recipient. Konrad Lorenz is said to have put it this way: Thought does not always mean said, said does not always mean heard right, heard does not always mean understood right, understood does not always mean agreed, agreed does not always mean applied, applied does by no means mean retained. (Konrad Lorenz)

Comprehension Questions 1. What are the different categories of psychological communication models? 2. What are the elements of communication according to Shannon and Weaver? 3. What are the four “ears” in the communication model by Schulz von Thun? 4. Grice posits four maxims of conversation. Which one of them would be violated in the following example? A person in the street asks you for the time and you reply: “It will rain tomorrow.” 5. Carl Rogers emphasized the importance of empathy for successful communication. What are the two characteristics that define empathy? 6. Paul Watzlawick formulated a total of five axioms of communication. The first axiom is “One cannot not communicate.” What does this axiom mean for actual communication? 7. What is the difference between so-called “white lies” and “black lies”? Which one of Grice’s maxims do they violate?

38

2  Classic Models of Communication

Recommended Reading Grice, P. (1980). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press. Schütz, A., & Hoge, L. (2007). Positives Denken. Vorteile – Risiken – Alternativen [Positive Thinking. Advantages – Risks – Alternatives]. Kohlhammer. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (2017). Menschliche Kommunikation. Formen, Störungen, Paradoxien [Human Communication. Forms, Disorders, Paradoxes] (13th ed.). Hogrefe.

References Alsaker, F. (2019). Mobbing [Bullying]. In M. A. Wirtz (Ed.), Dorsch – Lexikon der Psychologie (19th ed.). Hogrefe. https://dorsch.hogrefe.com/stichwort/mobbing/ Bauer, J. (2005). Die Neurobiologie der Empathie. Warum wir andere Menschen verstehen können [The neurobiology of empathy. Why we can understand other people]. Psychologie Heute, 32, 50–53. Bensch, D., Maaß, U., Greiff, S., Horstmann, K. T., & Ziegler, M. (2019). The nature of faking: A homogeneous and predictable construct? Psychological Assessment, 31(4), 532–544. https:// doi.org/10.1037/pas0000619 Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2 Bühler, K. (1934). Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache [Language Theory. The Representation Function of Language]. Fischer-Verlag. Dehn-Hindenberg, A. (2007). Die Bedeutung von Kommunikation und Empathie im Therapieprozess: Patientenbedürfnisse in der Ergotherapie [The importance of communication and empathy in the therapeutic process. Patient needs in occupational therapy]. Ergotherapie und Rehabilitation, 46(7), 5–10. DePaulo, B. M., Charlton, K., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., & Muhlenbruck, L. (1997). The accuracy-­ confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(4), 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0104_5 DePaulo, B.  M., Kashy, D.  A., Kirkendol, S.  E., Wyer, M.  M., & Epstein, J.  A. (1996). Lying in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 979–995. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-­3514.70.5.979 Engen, H.  G., & Singer, T. (2013). Empathy circuits. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(2), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2012.11.003 Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.) Syntax and Semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). Academic Press. Heringer, H.  J. (2017). Interkulturelle Kommunikation [Intercultural Communication] (5th ed.). UTB. Krauss, R. M., & Fussell, S. R. (1996). Social psychological models of interpersonal communication. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (pp. 655–701). The Guilford Press. Lamm, C., & Majdandžić, J. (2015). The role of shared neural activations, mirror neurons, and morality in empathy  – A critical comment. Neuroscience Research, 90, 15–24. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.neures.2014.10.008 Nietzsche, F. (1886). Also sprach Zarathustra [Thus Spake Zarathustra]. Reclam.

References

39

Rogers, C. (1951). Client-Centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications and Theory. Constable. Rogers, C. (1961). On Becoming a Person. A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy. Constable. Röhner, J., & Ewers, T. (2016). Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff: Construct- and faking-­ related variance on the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Behavior Research Methods, 48, 243–258. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-­015-­0568-­1 Röhner, J., & Schütz, A. (2019a). Faking behavior. In V.  Zeigler-Hill & T.  K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-­3-­319-­28099-­8_2341-­1 Röhner, J., & Schütz, A. (2019b). Fälschung eines erwünschten Eindrucks [Faking a desired impression]. In M. A. Wirtz (Ed.), Dorsch – Lexikon der Psychologie (19th ed., p. 583). Hogrefe. Röhner, J., & Schütz, A. (2019c). Fälschung eines unerwünschten Eindrucks [Faking an undesired impression]. In M. A. Wirtz (Ed.), Dorsch – Lexikon der Psychologie (19th ed., p. 583). Hogrefe. Röhner, J., & Schütz, A. (2020). Verfälschungsverhalten in Psychologischer Diagnostik. Report Psychologie, 45, 16–23. Röhner, J., & Schütz, A. (Eds.). (2021). Essenzen – Im Gespräch mit Paul Watzlawick [Essences – Conversing with Paul Watzlawick]. Hogrefe. Röhner, J., & Schütz, A. (2023). Phänomene der Antwortverzerrung in der Diagnostik [Phenomena of Response Biases in Diagnostics]. Hogrefe. Röhner, J., Thoss, P.  J., & Schütz, A. (2022). Lying on the dissection table: Anatomizing faked responses. Behavior Research Methods, 54, 2878–2904. https://doi.org/10.3758/ s13428-­021-­01770-­8 Schulz von Thun, F. (1981). Miteinander reden 1: Störungen und Klärungen. Allgemeine Psychologie der Kommunikation [Talking to Each Other 1 – Disturbances and Clarifications. General Psychology of Communication]. Rowohlt. Schulz von Thun, F. (2000). Miteinander reden. Menschliche Kommunikation [Talking to Each Other. Human Communication]. Huber. Schütz, A. (1999). It was your fault! Self-serving biases in autobiographical accounts of conflicts in married couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(2), 193–208. https://doi. org/10.1177/0265407599162004 Schütz, A. (2005). Je selbstsicherer, desto besser? Licht und Schatten positive Selbstbewertung [The More Confident, the Better? Light and Shadow of a Positive Self-Image]. Beltz. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press. Temple, T., & Frings, C. (2020). Spiegelneurone [Mirror neurons]. In M.  A. Wirtz (Ed.), Dorsch – Lexikon der Psychologie (19th ed.). Hogrefe. https://dorsch.hogrefe.com/stichwort/ spiegelneurone/ Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). Eliciting information and detecting lies in intelligence interviewing: An overview of recent research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 936–944. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3071 Watzlawick, P. (1969). Menschliche Kommunikation [Human Communication]. Huber. Watzlawick, P. (1983). Anleitung zum Unglücklichsein [Guide to Unhappiness]. Piper. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (2017). Menschliche Kommunikation. Formen, Störungen, Paradoxien [Human Communication. Forms, Disorders, Paradoxes] (13th ed.). Hogrefe. Weiss, B., & Feldman, R. S. (2006). Looking good and lying to do it: Deception as an impression management strategy in job interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(4), 1070–1086. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-­9029.2006.00055.x

40

2  Classic Models of Communication

Answers to the Comprehension Questions 1.  Encoder/decoder models, intentionalist models, perspective-taking models, and dialogic models. 2.  Source of information (sender), transmitter (encoder), signal, channel, addressee (recipient), receiver (decoder), and interferences. 3.  Factual level, self-revelation, relationship, and appeal. 4.  Maxim of relation. 5.  Putting ourselves in another person’s shoes and telling them what we understand. 6. All behavior communicates something. Even when we are silent, we are communicating. 7.  “White lies” are told without bad intentions and are often little embellishments. “Black lies” are malicious or selfish and are told to harm others. Both types of lies violate the maxim of quality.

Chapter 3

An Integrative Communication Model by Hargie and Colleagues

Abstract  Building upon an earlier model on social skills by Argyle (1983), Hargie and colleagues developed a complex communication model (Fig. 3.1) for skilled interpersonal communication (Hargie & Marshall, 1986; Hargie, 1997; Dickson et al., 1997). Keywords  Integrative communication model · Hargie et al. · Characteristics of the individual · Characteristics of the situation · Goals · Mediating processes · Response behavior · Feedback · Perception

3.1 Basics The foundation of the model comprises three basic assumptions (Box. 3.1).

Box 3.1 Basic Assumptions of the Integrative Communication Model 1. People act in a goal-oriented manner (i.e., with a specific intention). 2. People are sensitive to the consequences of their actions. 3. People adjust subsequent actions based on the information they receive.

The model by Hargie and Dickson (2004) is primarily concerned with the crucial components and processes of dyadic interactions (see Fig. 3.1, Box 3.2). As such, it stresses the significance of the following six components for skilled interactions between individuals:

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Röhner, A. Schütz, Psychology of Communication, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60170-6_3

41

42

3  An Integrative Communication Model by Hargie and Colleagues

Feedback

Goal

Perception

Response Behavior

Mediating Processes

Mediating Processes

Response Behavior

Perception

Feedback

Goal

Personsituation context

Fig. 3.1  Communication process according to Hargie and Dickson (2004, p. 23)

Box 3.2 Components of Skilled Interpersonal Interaction 1. Characteristics of the individual (see Sect. 3.2) and characteristics of the situation (see Sect. 3.3); (person-situation context) 2. Goal(s) (see Sect. 3.4) 3. Mediating processes (see Sect. 3.5) 4. Response behavior (see Sect. 3.6) 5. Feedback (see Sect. 3.7) 6. Perception (see Sect. 3.8)

In this model, communication is perceived as a dynamic and interactive process in which both parties involved send and receive information within a defined context. The characteristics of the communicating individuals as well as the particular situation in which their interaction takes place may influence their communication behavior. Additionally, how the communicating individuals see themselves (i.e., their self-concept) or how they assess their own abilities (i.e., their self-efficacy) can shape their perception and goals during communication.

3.2  Characteristics of the Individual

43

A given situation may require that individuals act according to particular roles; or it may exert its influence through physical circumstances. For example, Kaya and Erkip (1999) emphasized how exactly the way a room is arranged and furnished can impact the communication process by documenting how subjective feelings (e.g., discomfort) may lead to negative or aggressive behaviors and expressions. When people communicate in rooms that are uncomfortable for them, they choose fewer personal topics, tend to avoid eye contact, and are generally more reserved. Conversely, communication behavior can also influence individuals and situations. Interacting with others can change our own beliefs, attitudes, or even previous knowledge (see Sect. 1.3). Barriers that impede the communication process can occur at any of the six stages (e.g., when a sender’s feedback is not received by its intended recipient).

3.2 Characteristics of the Individual People’s characteristics that may influence the communication process include (prior) knowledge, motives, attitudes, personality, emotions, age, and gender. All of these factors can shape the communication process by influencing our perceptions, goals, and behavior. We will discuss all of them in turn.

3.2.1 (Prior) Knowledge Interactions are actively shaped by our knowledge about people, the given circumstances, and how the world works in general. The constructivist paradigm (see Westmeyer & Weber, 2011; Westmeyer, 1999) posits that learning and knowledge acquisition both represent active construction processes instead of resulting from passive images of our environment. While there are different forms of constructivism, their basic idea can be simplified as follows: We all construct our own worlds depending on various factors, which means that nobody sees the “real” image of our environment (see Fig. 3.2; Schütz & Hoge, 2007). Picture a situation in which you find your neighbor, whom you know as an adept businessman and loving father, slouched over and rosy-cheeked in the middle of the sidewalk. Based on your prior knowledge about him, you would certainly interpret this situation as a medical emergency and call a doctor. However, other passers-by, who do not know your neighbor, may draw a different conclusion due to their lack of relevant knowledge. Their interpretation of what they see may thus depend on their personal patterns of perception and their acquired worldviews. To them, your neighbor may look like nothing but a drunkard and it is unlikely that they will stop and try to help. Especially in situations in which people require assistance, for example during assaults and fights, reports often show that bystanders misinterpret what is happening out of fear of getting involved in other people’s problems or

44

3  An Integrative Communication Model by Hargie and Colleagues

Fig. 3.2 Constructivism

rom View f e A v ti c e p s per

View perspe from ctive B

View from perspective D

View from perspective C

caught up in an unpleasant situation. Our presuppositions or prior knowledge about people therefore influence the way we interpret our observations and thus construct reality, which in turn naturally influences our communication behavior. Depending on our (prior) knowledge, we either tell the man that we are calling an ambulance or choose not to talk to him and keep walking because we assume he simply had too much to drink. One important concept that sheds light on how knowledge is organized are schemas. In general, this term refers to an individual’s expectations and experiences as they are arranged in mental knowledge structures. These structures form a kind of network that informs how people see and understand the world. It is possible to distinguish between several types of schemas (see Box 3.3; Fiske & Taylor, 1991):

Box 3.3 Overview: Schema Types –– Self-schemas consist of knowledge about our own traits, abilities, etc. –– Person schemas facilitate our social categorization of others. They consist of our organized knowledge about other people’s traits and abilities. (continued)

3.2  Characteristics of the Individual

45

–– Role schemas cover concepts (based on occupation, gender, race, etc.) that shape expectations regarding people’s behavior or adherence to certain norms depending on their social roles. –– Event schemas provide a script for how familiar social situations usually play out (e.g., buying bread at the bakery). –– Causal schemas help identify causal relations.

Schemas are closely related to categories. A category is a more or less typical representation of a particular group. For example, the “fruit” category includes apples, pears, and plums. Categorization is necessary to reduce complexity and thus enables people to interact with complex social environments. However, there are problems that can arise when we categorize other people as is the case when we stereotype them. Stereotypes differ from categories since they turn mere categorization (here defined as the simple process of telling two or more categories apart from one another) into a value judgment that can be positive, neutral, or negative. Stereotypes are predominantly cognitive in nature (i.e., they pertain to our thoughts about certain groups like jobs or nationalities; Fischer et al., 2013). As such, they are subjective assumptions that form the foundation on which we simplify and schematize; and these processes often lead to biases (see Bergius & Six, 2020). Stereotypes generally ignore individual characteristics as members of the same group become undifferentiated and are perceived as largely interchangeable. Let us examine the following two stereotypes: “Doctors don’t make mistakes” and “Psychologists have psychological issues themselves.” These examples show that, contrary to popular belief, stereotypes do not necessarily entail negative judgments. They also suggest that stereotypes can have negative consequences—both for the people about whom they are formed (e.g., when laypeople mistrust psychologists) and for those who harbor them (e.g., when a physician’s dubious assessment remains unquestioned). It is also important to note that stereotypes can often lead to self-­ fulfilling prophecies (see Box 3.4; Merton, 1948; Snyder et al., 1977).

Box 3.4 What Are Self-Fulfilling Prophecies? It is possible to manufacture facts through so-called self-fulfilling prophecies. Here is a simple example: If Suzanne’s horoscope tells her that she will meet the man of her dreams this week, she may change her behavior based on this information (e.g., leaving the house more often, putting on makeup, approaching men more confidently). Through expectations, reactions in line with these expectations, and the selective perception of events in line with these expectations, the expected outcome becomes more likely: Because of her changed behavior and efforts, her chance of meeting a suitable partner is indeed higher. In an analogous manner, negative expectations can close the door on opportunities.

46

3  An Integrative Communication Model by Hargie and Colleagues

Research projects are trying to change negative associations with particular (e.g., ethnic) groups. One approach to accomplish this is to present test subjects with stereotype-inconsistent information (i.e., information that contradicts the stereotype). Lai et al. (2014) were able to reduce negative attitudes toward Blacks this way, though the effect was only temporary. The related stereotypes seem so firmly established in adulthood that they return within a few hours to days (Lai et  al., 2016). Therefore, recent studies have been analyzing the process of how exactly such associations change in greater detail (Röhner & Lai, 2021). In summary, we organize our knowledge with the help of categorization (i.e., mentally putting together representatives of the same group) and schemas (i.e., creating and inferring expectations about the world). Communication allows us to pass on what we have learned to others. Over the course of multiple generations, this process results in the creation of culture (Tomasello, 1999). It is not necessary for every single one of us to reinvent the wheel when it comes to basic operations—just like not all of our distant ancestors had to relearn from scratch how to light a fire. Instead, basic operations can be taught and transferred between individuals through documentation and observation. The effective transfer of information also requires its management: Knowledge management represents a cooperative effort to collect and impart knowledge (see Schütz & Schröder, 2004). It should be noted, however, that not everybody may be willing to pass on their knowledge in every situation, for example in order to maintain a competitive advantage. To ensure that messages are understood and interpreted “correctly” during communication, particularly during direct interpersonal communication, the involved parties must share the same knowledge or create such a shared foundation. Cognitive science calls all information known to all communicating parties their common ground (Clark, 1996). The assumption here is that everybody participating in a conversation forms hypotheses about which knowledge they do or do not share with their interlocutors. For example, when accepting an invitation to a party, we may assume that we created shared knowledge by telling our host about our lactose intolerance. Accordingly, we would expect that this knowledge has become part of our common ground and that our host will refrain from offering us a dessert made with cow’s milk.

3.2.2 Motives People enter each communication process with intentions and motives. These can, among other things, lead them to start a conversation in the first place. Students who are about to take an exam may for example ask their friends, who have already passed it, what exactly the exam covered. Why would they do that? Most likely, they want to be able to make a prediction as to how the upcoming exam may play out for them, or in other words: They simply want to know what to expect. This desire represents a motive, which can be interpreted as an internal response to our needs (Guirdham, 1996). In general, three basic human needs can be distinguished (see Box 3.5; Deci, 1992; Aronson, 1999):

3.2  Characteristics of the Individual

47

Box 3.5 Basic Human Needs –– The need for control and predictability over/of situations. –– The need for connection and intimacy with other people. –– The need for superiority and competence.

A study by Schütz and DePaulo (1996), in which participants discussed works of art, shows how our needs influence our communicative behavior. Individuals with high self-esteem were particularly concerned with communicating competence, which was for example made evident by their tendency to express their criticism clearly and as fact rather than subjective opinion. By contrast, individuals with low self-esteem were more focused on making a likeable impression and thus expressed their criticism in a more careful and reserved manner. The participants’ communication behavior was determined by whether their need for superiority and competence was stronger than their need for connection and intimacy (or vice versa): Our individual needs clearly influence how we communicate. Therefore, if you are looking for feedback on a project, you may want to ask several people for their opinion and take into account their potential needs that may affect their respective interpretation of your performance.

3.2.3 Attitudes Have you ever seen elderly men argue about politics? Have you ever tried to persuade an enthusiastic Volkswagen driver to buy a Ford? As you have certainly already observed in your everyday life, our attitudes also play an important role in our interactions. If you consider a classmate lazy and unwilling to contribute anything to group projects, you will probably not be particularly fond of them and reluctant to work alongside them. According to Breckler (1984) and Crites et al. (1994), attitudes consist of three components (see Fig. 3.3): –– Cognition covers our thoughts and beliefs about someone or something (i.e., person, situation, event, idea, etc.). In our example, this is the belief that your classmate is lazy. –– Affect encompasses our feelings about someone or something (i.e., positive or negative), which takes the shape of liking or disliking. In our example, this is the feeling that you do not like your classmate. –– Behavior is expressed through our tendency to act in a certain manner toward someone or something (e.g., approach or avoidance behavior). In our example, this is the attempt to avoid working together with your classmate.

48

3  An Integrative Communication Model by Hargie and Colleagues

Attitude

Cognition

Affect

Behavior

(Thoughts and beliefs)

(Feelings)

(Toward others)

Fig. 3.3  Components of attitudes

It is important to stress, however, that there is not always a direct relationship between our attitudes and our behavior (see Box 3.6). Subjective norms may for example impact the translation of attitudes into behavior. Not every student who agrees that protesting for lower tuition fees is important joins such protests themselves (a phenomenon known as the intention-behavior gap; see Ajzen, 2012; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Similarly, not every team member who disagrees with their supervisor’s company policy will be willing to admit this to their boss’s face.

Box 3.6 The Theory of Reasoned Action and the Theory of Planned Behavior What determines our behavior in addition to our attitudes? The theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) assumes that our behavior is influenced by our behavioral intentions. However, these behavioral intentions are not only shaped by our attitudes but also by our subjective norms. What exactly does this mean? Let us illustrate this theory using the example of attitudes toward tuition fees and behavioral expressions such as going out to join a protest. In this case, the behavior shown does not directly result from a potential protester’s attitude toward tuition fees. Rather, it is directly shaped by their behavioral intentions (which here refer to their intention to participate in the protest). These behavioral intentions are in turn determined by the same person’s attitude toward making the trip required to join the protest. This last attitude results from the expectation that their participation will lead to the desired outcome (i.e., that tuition fees will be (continued)

3.2  Characteristics of the Individual

49

lowered) alongside their personal evaluation of this outcome (i.e., how positive or negative lower tuition fees are in their eyes). So why do not all proponents show up to the protest? This is because behavioral intentions are also governed by subjective norms (i.e., subjectively perceived social consequences). Should a student for example think that their best friend considers protests unnecessary, they may decide against participating. Later on, the theory of reasoned action was expanded to include perceived behavioral control as one of its components. This expansion is known as the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). An individual’s perceived behavioral control is determined by their locus of control (i.e., their perception regarding required resources and available opportunities). In addition to the abovementioned factors, a student’s decision to join a protest in our example would also depend on whether the student believes to possess the resources and opportunities assumed to be required to do so. There are many possible reasons why they may decide against attending: They may not have enough money to drive to where the protest takes place; or they may be afraid of getting into trouble if they are absent from their internship on that day; or they may simply be sick in bed with food poisoning. However, people are not always motivated to question their attitudes and behavior—a fact addressed by the MODE model (Fazio, 1990).

In addition, we are not always able to consciously access all of our attitudes. Explicit attitudes (i.e., attitudes that are consciously accessible to an individual) need to be distinguished from implicit attitudes (i.e., attitudes that are not consciously accessible to an individual; see also Strack & Deutsch, 2004). Individuals are able to provide information about their explicit attitudes by themselves, which is why diagnosticians often use self-reports to measure them. But how is it possible to measure attitudes of which the individuals being tested are not necessarily aware? The most commonly used tool for this is the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald et al., 1998). This procedure is designed as a computer-based association task during which participants assign words or sometimes images to different categories (see for example, Röhner, 2014; Röhner & Schütz, 2019). The time required for these assignments as well as possible errors are used to calculate an IAT effect (Greenwald et al., 2003a, b; Röhner & Thoss, 2019) which can be used as an indicator of implicit attitudes. You can take an IAT yourself at https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ to get a better picture. Because of its indirect recording method (i.e., because it does not explicitly ask participants for their attitudes and instead infers them based on reaction times), the IAT was for a long time assumed to be immune to faking attempts by test takers (Röhner, 2014) and the test has seen particularly widespread use whenever sensitive issues are examined (e.g., sexism, pedophilia, and racism). However, studies have shown that the IAT is by no means immune to deception (Röhner et al., 2011) even if it is more difficult to fake than for

50

3  An Integrative Communication Model by Hargie and Colleagues

example classic self-­report questionnaires. Moreover, there are various different faking strategies that have been identified (Röhner et  al., 2013, 2023), making it more challenging to correctly recognize cases of faking (Röhner & Ewers, 2016a, b; Röhner & Thoss, 2018).

3.2.4 Personality Personality traits can also influence how we communicate. Since this section will discuss the role of personality traits in communication, Box 3.7 introduces important basic dimensions of personality as examples.

Box 3.7 The Big Five of Personality The Big Five refer to five personality dimensions that have gained wide international acceptance as basic dimensions: Openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (OCEAN). People who score high on neuroticism tend to be awkward, nervous, sad, and insecure. People who score high on extraversion tend to see themselves as gregarious, active, optimistic, and cheerful. People who score high on openness to experience are inquisitive and creative. They also prefer variety and appreciate new experiences (see also Schütz et al., 2016). People who score high on agreeableness see themselves as benevolent, understanding, and altruistic. Lastly, people who score high on conscientiousness describe themselves as punctual, tidy, and disciplined (Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1993). The HEXACO model is built on the Big Five model and constitutes a Big Six model of personality (Ashton & Lee, 2007). In addition to the Big Five traits, the model postulates honesty/humility as a sixth factor. The name of the model incorporates all of the included traits: Honesty/humility, Emotionality, eXtraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to experience. Because the dimensions are not independent of each other, an additional Big Two model of personality differentiates between Plasticity (i.e., extraversion and openness to experience) and Stability (i.e., neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) at a superordinate level (DeYoung, 2006).

The extraversion/introversion dimension has a strong influence on our communicative behavior. Studies have shown that extraverted and dominant people talk, smile, and nod more while also making more eye contact than introverted and submissive people (Simpson et al., 1993; Tucker & Friedman, 1993). Another personality trait known as self-monitoring determines how much we control our self-image in a given situation. In general, self-monitoring refers to a person’s tendency to adapt the way they present themselves to situational requirements and expectations

3.2  Characteristics of the Individual

51

(Snyder, 1974). People who are inclined to self-monitor are able and motivated to control their demeanor and expressive behavior. This allows them to act in line with the demands of a situation as they perceive them (e.g., Röhner et  al., 2023). By comparison, people with a weaker tendency to self-monitor want to maintain congruence between their self-image and their behavior, regardless of the situation. Consequently, they are less likely to change their behavior due to external demands (see Laux & Renner, 2002; Schütz & Röhner, 2019b). People who score high on self-monitoring are thus for example better at suppressing overt expressions of triumph over opponents than those who score low on self-monitoring (Friedman & Miller-Herringer, 1991). Our personality also determines the communication channel we choose. Self-­ esteem is a person’s fundamental attitude toward themselves (i.e., how we judge our self-image; see Schütz & Röhner, 2019c). People with low self-esteem have been found to prefer communication via e-mail across different situations (e.g., sharing confidential information or requesting a salary increase). People with high self-­ esteem, meanwhile, prefer face-to-face communication (Joinson, 2004). Hertel et al. (2008) examined how the personality traits extraversion and neuroticism influence our preference for mediated interpersonal communication. They found that both extraverts and people who score low on neuroticism (compared to introverts and people who score high on neuroticism) prefer face-to-face communication to sending e-mails. This was especially true for potentially threatening communications (e.g., social conflicts). The effects of extraversion were mediated by the self-assessment of the participants’ social skills. Concretely, extraverts perceive themselves as more socially competent, which in turn makes them more likely to opt for face-to-face communication in situations that might lead to conflicts. The effects of neuroticism were mediated by social anxiety. In summary, our preference for direct versus mediated communication depends on our personality and the given context. Personality disorders also impact communication. The so-called borderline personality disorder is for example associated with extreme communicative behavior. The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), a classification manual by the American Psychiatric Association (APA, 2013), defines this disorder as a far-reaching pattern of instability with regard to interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affect. It is also associated with increased impulsiveness. The diagnosis of the disorder requires that five of its nine criteria are met. People with borderline personality disorder tend to have interpersonal relationships that are unstable, yet at the same time very intense. They are characterized by turnabouts—from idealization to degradation. Those close to them are alternately confronted with statements like “I love you” and “I hate you.” Further criteria are disproportionate yet strong feelings of anger that people with the disorder find hard to control. Unsurprisingly, borderline personality disorder is also accompanied by serious interpersonal difficulties. Blumer and Renneberg (2010) suggest that their struggles with closeness and distance causes people with borderline symptoms to prefer the Internet to other

52

3  An Integrative Communication Model by Hargie and Colleagues

forms of communication as it offers a relatively anonymous communication medium. The authors reported survey results that show how people with borderline-­specific cognitions indeed use chats, Internet blogs, and instant messengers more often than people without such cognitions. The social areas in which this preference was especially pronounced were allowing closeness, making new acquaintances, and finding support. These findings are compatible with the assumption that this group of people has a hard time maintaining interpersonal closeness to others. Apart from borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder also impacts communication behavior. According to the DSM-V (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include the following: A grandiose feeling of self-importance, an excessive desire for admiration, exploitative behavior in interpersonal relationships, a lack of empathy, and arrogant and boastful behavior. Narcissistic personality disorder (i.e., a pathological form) differs from a narcissistic personality (i.e., a non-pathological form). Furthermore, the classic variant of grandiose narcissism is to be distinguished from vulnerable narcissism, a form with which the need for admiration is only shown indirectly (Schütz & Röhner, 2019a). Holtzman et al. (2019) tested if grandiose narcissism comes with identifiable linguistic idiosyncrasies. Participants were instructed to complete various tasks (e.g., describing themselves) while their responses were recorded and analyzed with the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) program which allows researchers to count how often participants use words from different categories. Participants also filled out several questionnaires to assess their narcissism (e.g., Narcissistic Personality Inventory, NPI; Schütz et al., 2004). The study found that people with grandiose narcissism display a characteristic linguistic profile which includes frequent use of expletives and words with sexual connotations. By contrast, the same individuals hardly used words that express insecurity, anxiety, or fear. Their use of language suggests that people with grandiose narcissism seek to get attention while appearing confident and self-assured. Communication psychological research has failed, however, to provide meaningful evidence for the greatly simplified assumptions of everyday psychology (e.g., connections between the sound of a person’s voice and their personality). Is a person with a “trustworthy voice” really trustworthy? Is somebody who is arguing loudly really self-confident or are they nervous? These questions remain unanswered. Let us demonstrate their complexity with a recent research example. Schild et al. (2019) studied the connection between voice pitch and trustworthiness. The researchers asked 181 men for a self-assessment regarding their general trustworthiness as well as their trustworthiness in economic questions and relationships. They also measured the men’s trustworthiness with behavioral variables (e.g., with socalled trust games; Thielmann & Hilbig, 2015). Finally, 95 other participants were asked to judge the men’s trustworthiness based on audio recordings. The results of the study found no significant relationship between the men’s voice and their trustworthiness.

3.2  Characteristics of the Individual

53

3.2.5 Emotions Besides rational elements, emotions also play an important part in communication. Especially during communications between individuals, emotions provide a lot of information. Recipients may for example use emotions to quickly assess a sender’s current condition and thereby better gauge a given situation. This is a mostly unconscious process (e.g., Schwarz, 1990). Overall, there are three ways in which emotions can become relevant in communication processes (see Box 3.8; Dillard, 1998):

Box 3.8 Emotions in Communication Processes –– Emotion-motivated communication is behavior triggered by underlying emotions. –– Emotion-manifesting communication provides information about the emotional state of the communicating party. –– Emotion-inducing communication includes language and behavior that evoke emotions in others. The following examples illustrate the three forms of emotional communication in greater detail. 1. Kenny, who is not particularly tall, has been waiting in line for hours to secure a front-row seat at a concert by his favorite band. When it finally begins, a much taller fan pushes his way past him and blocks Kenny’s view. His angry gestures and expressions of resentment are examples of emotion-motivated communication. Kenny’s anger is the reason for his communication behavior. 2. Mary has been sick for a while and is now waiting for the results of a blood test at her doctor’s clinic. Seeing her nervously walk up and down, her head lowered, the doctor understands that she is afraid. This is an example of emotion-­ manifesting communication. 3. Steph is telling her friend Bernadette a scary campfire story. Its horrific ending makes Bernadette cry out in fear. This is an example of emotion-inducing communication. Steph’s storytelling was so effective that it managed to scare her friend. Skills pertaining to our own emotions or the emotions of others (i.e., perceiving, understanding, using, and regulating) are known as emotional competence or emotional intelligence and can be assessed with specialized tests. We are able to improve our ability to perceive and regulate emotions in ourselves and others. Geßler et al. (2019) designed the emotional competence training EmoTrain specifically for managers. The program focuses on the perception and regulation of emotions since studies have shown the importance of high emotional competence for the well-­ being and success of managers and their teams (see Geßler et al., 2019). Competent emotion work is thus not only a pillar of communicative competence (see Sect. 1.2), but also the foundation of successful teamwork.

54

3  An Integrative Communication Model by Hargie and Colleagues

It should be noted that not all emotions are displayed. The ability to control our own emotions and their expression in certain situations has both advantages and disadvantages. So-called display rules tell us which facial expressions are considered appropriate or inappropriate in a given situation (Meyer et al., 1999). Some professions, such as flight attendants, are required to do a high amount of emotion work as they are expected to display certain emotions while suppressing others. This can be a burden in the long run. Emotion work is the process of bringing our own emotions in line with display rules. The two ways to accomplish this are known as surface acting and deep acting (see Hochschild, 2012). Surface acting means that an emotion is only displayed at the surface level, like smiling when we are feeling sad. Deep acting, by contrast, is an attempt to really feel the required emotion. Sieverding (2009) studied the effects of suppressing negative emotions (e.g., fear) among students in a simulated job interview. She found that interviewers deemed interviewees more competent when they suppressed negative emotions and their expression. This suppression, however, also came with a disadvantage. Women who had suppressed their negative emotions during the mock interview subsequently suffered from more depressive feelings. This effect was not present in male participants. We do not perceive every emotion correctly. There are also interindividual differences regarding how well people can recognize emotions. Alexithymia (Nemiah et al., 1976; see Box 3.9) is a disorder that lowers the affected person’s ability to identify, express, and describe emotions. People with alexithymia also have difficulties differentiating emotions from physical sensations. Their communication style is often matter-of-fact and describes the outside world more than their own experiences, which can make it difficult for them to communicate with others (Berenbaum, 1993). Box 3.9 Does the Brain Work Differently in People with Alexithymia? Huber et al. (2002) compared a clinical sample of people who scored high on the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20; Bagby et al., 1994) to a healthy control group. After emotionally stimulating both groups, the researchers used positron emission tomography (PET) to measure their brain activity. Compared to their healthy counterparts, people with alexithymia showed less activity in limbic and paralimbic areas. Additionally, the researchers found an activation of speech-related centers.

3.2.6 Age The age of the individuals who communicate with each other may impact both their own behavior and the behavior they expect from others. We can for example observe this when old people are treated in a patronizing manner due to age stereotypes (Dickson, 1999; Hummert et al., 1998). This may include avoiding communication

3.2  Characteristics of the Individual

55

with older people (e.g., talking about them with somebody else in their presence instead of talking to them directly) or so-called secondary baby talk (e.g., “Another teeny-weeny…”). However, older people are not only addressed differently than younger people. They also talk differently from younger people. Our use of language thus becomes a subtle indicator of our age as older people more often use words that refer to positive emotions than negative ones (Pennebaker & Stone, 2003). The authors of this study argue that this change in expression results from an increase in positive affect with old age. Older people thus talk more often about positive emotions because they have a more positive affect. Another result reported by Pennebaker and Stone (2003) is the increased use of longer words (i.e., words with more than six letters) among older people. This change may be connected to increasingly complex views.

3.2.7 Gender Communication differences between men and women are a fiercely debated topic in our everyday lives. Plenty of literature discusses the differences in verbal and nonverbal communication between men and women. Theories about the origin of these differences are especially common. One popular assumption is that differences in their socialization cause men and women to communicate differently (e.g., women are expected to be more sensitive and men to be more dominant). We have to be careful, however, when it comes to the popular science on gender differences in communication behavior. While culture and power seem to explain some of these differences, studies suggest that these explanations are oversimplified (Noller, 1993). Although the origin of the differences in how men and women communicate remains unclear, there are several differences that can be noted. Typically, men keep a greater interpersonal distance than women, make less eye contact, and touch their communication partners less often. Women smile more, are more expressive at the nonverbal level, more experienced with regard to decoding nonverbal messages and emotions, more inclined to take another person’s perspective, and more willing to accept being physically restricted by their communication partners (Burgoon, 1994; Briton & Hall, 1995; Eisenberg et al., 1996). Simply put, this list may suggest that women communicate better. As stated before, however, it is crucial to avoid simplifications and generalizations regarding gender differences. The following finding illustrates their complexity. While women tend to be more experienced in deciphering nonverbal messages, men usually perform better when the task is to expose a liar (Rosenthal & DePaulo, 1979). An even closer look reveals that not all women struggle equally with this task. One factor that affects their performance is a woman’s status. More oppressed women are more prone to ignoring signs of lies (Hall, 1979). This may represent a form of self-protection mechanism as these women essentially tune out negative signs that are outside of their control. Communication differences naturally shape our daily interactions. In the medical field, the gender of doctors and patients may for example color how they

56

3  An Integrative Communication Model by Hargie and Colleagues

communicate with each other. Studies have shown that female doctors tend to communicate in a more emotional manner while their male colleagues act more dominantly. Female patients, meanwhile, are more inclined to discuss psychosocial issues and share personal information than male ones. These results suggest that same-sex dyads lead to more favorable interactions while opposite-sex dyads are less favorable (Klöckner Cronauer & Schmid Mast, 2010).

3.3 Characteristics of the Situation In addition to the characteristics of the communicating parties, situational factors also shape communication processes. The interaction between the characteristics of the individuals involved (see Sect. 3.2) and the characteristics of the situation determines the context in which communication takes place (i.e., person-situation context). Some of the key characteristics of a situation (see Argyle et al., 1981; Hargie, 1997) are listed in Box 3.10. Box 3.10 Key Characteristics of a Situation –– Goal structure: Which goals are present in a situation? Which steps are required to reach them? –– Roles: Which behavior is appropriate for me in the situation? How am I expected to behave? –– Surroundings: How do the surroundings in which a conversation takes place make me feel? External factors such as lighting and furniture can influence what people share and how much they say during a conversation. –– Language and manner of speaking: Which manner of speaking does the situation demand and how should I express myself (e.g., everyday conversation versus formal conversation)?

The characteristics in Box 3.10 are not the only situational factors that influence communication processes. Cultural and subcultural differences also play a part. One study for example found a positive relationship between the two personality traits extraversion and openness to experience and social activity in an American sample. Here, people who were more extraverted and open to new experiences also had a higher level of social activity. This intuitive relationship, however, was not found in a German sample. Therefore, the two personality traits are not generally linked to more social activity across cultures, or in other words: Cultural differences matter for this relationship (Nezlek et al., 2011). There are also cultural differences with regard to how important social factors are for individual well-being (Koydemir et al., 2013). Moreover, the way we think does not only impact how we talk. Recent studies show that our language also influences our thoughts (see Box 3.11).

3.4 Goals

57

Box 3.11 How Our Language Influences Our Thoughts Language plays an important role in communicative situations. One way in which this becomes apparent is how sentence structure affects how speakers of a language think. Languages can be right-branching (e.g., English) or leftbranching (e.g., Japanese). This distinction is based on where and in which order sentences typically present information. Both languages usually place the main subject (e.g., “The students”) at the beginning of a sentence. The order in which the additional information that follows (e.g., “are enjoying Professor Miller’s lecture”) is presented, however, differs across the two language types. The structure of a right-branching sentence (i.e., subject followed by predicate followed by object) makes information gradually accessible to its recipients who do not need to store information necessary for comprehension in their memory for long. Left-branching sentences, meanwhile, present information after the subject in a different order (i.e., object followed by predicate). As such, recipients need to retain all information in a sentence until its end in order to understand it. Example (Subject, Predicate, Object; “wa,” “no,” and “wo” are connecting words without English equivalents): English (right-branching): The students are enjoying Professor Miller’s lecture. Japanese (left-branching): Gakusei wa Miller kyoujyu no jyugyou wo tanoshinde iru. A recent study showed that speakers of left-branching languages remember stimuli that were presented early during a memory task better than speakers of right-­branching languages (Amici et al., 2019). The researchers explain this difference in memory performance by pointing to the importance for speakers of left-branching languages to remember information from the beginning of a sentence until its end. Before the eventual addition of the predicate makes it possible to understand a sentence in its entirety, it remains relatively vague and open. By contrast, speakers of right-branching languages are able to process information in the same order in which it is presented. Our language clearly impacts the way we think.

3.4 Goals One of the central assumptions in the communication model by Hargie and colleagues is that people pursue goals when they communicate (see Sect. 3.1). But what are goals? In general, we can understand goals as mental representations of desired end states. They are ideas about what we would like to accomplish. There are various ways in which we can describe or distinguish between different types of goals. Two general distinctions are instrumental versus consummatory goals and implicit versus explicit goals (see Table 3.1).

58

3  An Integrative Communication Model by Hargie and Colleagues

Table 3.1  Different types of goals Instrumental goals They are pursued to ultimately achieve something else (= means to an end). Implicit goals They work at a reflex level, are mostly automatic, and difficult to identify.

Consummatory goals They meet a goal directly (= end). Explicit goals They are accessible to their pursuers, can be verbalized easily, and are readily identifiable.

Goals always include content and process aspects (Maes & Gebhardt, 2000). Their content aspects answer the question “What do I want to accomplish?” while the process aspects answer the question “How can I accomplish it?”. Goals may differ in their importance (see Austin & Vancouver, 1996): Some goals are more important to us than others. It may for example be more important to us to go to bed early the night before a big exam than to dance all night at our favorite club because the goal “passing the exam” is more important to us at that particular time than the goal “having fun.” How do we decide which goals are more important to us than others? We base our decision for a particular goal on its psychological value and our expectation regarding whether a certain behavior will allow us to reach the desired goal (Locke & Latham, 1990; see Box 3.12).

Box 3.12 Expectancy-Value Models These models try to explain and predict human behavior with the help of the following variables: (1) The expectancy that a certain behavior will produce a certain outcome and (2) the value of this outcome. The motivation (M) to show a certain behavior is assumed to result from the product of the expectancy (E) to reach a desired outcome with this behavior and the outcome’s value (V): M = E × V. Here is a simple example: If we believe that we will not reach a certain goal (e.g., winning the lottery), our expectancy is (E = 0). If the value of winning the jackpot is (V = 1) to us, our motivation to play the lottery is (M = 1 × 0 = 0). Therefore, we will not buy a lottery ticket. If we do believe that there is a slim chance of (E = 0.1) for us to win, while everything else remains the same, our motivation increases (M = 1 × 0.1 = 0.1). In this case, we are more likely to play the lottery. When two people interact with each other, they both do so in a goal-oriented manner. Therefore, the relationship between their goals influences their social interaction. Goals can be the same, complementary, or conflicting (see Box 3.13).

3.5  Mediating Processes

59

Box 3.13 Goal Compatibility 1. Same goals: Both parties pursue the same goal or similar goals. In this case, their goals may interfere with each other (e.g., both Alex and Sarah would like to tell the other about their problems at work). 2. Complementary goals: Both parties’ goals are compatible (e.g., Alex wants to vent and Sarah is okay with listening). 3. Conflicting goals: One party’s goal clashes with the other party’s goal (e.g., Alex wants to talk about his problems at work while Sarah wants to go clubbing with him). Depending on their goal compatibility, Sarah will react differently to Alex in this example and her communicative behavior will change. She may either listen carefully, nod sympathetically, and pat Alex on the shoulder (in case of complementary goals) or let Alex know that she would like to go out instead of listening to his complaints about work today (in case of conflicting goals).

3.5 Mediating Processes Mediating processes establish a connection between our pursued goals, our perception of other people and situations, and our decision on how to react to other people’s statements. At this stage, both cognitive and affective processes shape our communications.

3.5.1 Cognitive Processes People usually communicate because they want to accomplish certain goals (e.g., persuading somebody). Cognitive processes thus play an important role in communication as they allow us for example to act strategically. Wyer and Gruenfeld (1995) postulated five stages to produce a reply. These are tasks the responding individual needs to fulfil. 1. Semantic encoding processes: The message is interpreted. For this, we make use of previously established structures and concepts about the meaning of linguistic signs. 2. Organization: The information is integrated into mental models about a certain topic (e.g., a particular person). 3. Storage and retrieval: The representations become part of our memory and are subsequently retrieved when we need them.

60

3  An Integrative Communication Model by Hargie and Colleagues

4. Inference processes: Our decisions on how to respond are always influenced by what we believe our actions will lead to and how we think they will be interpreted by others. Our assumptions about others and our relationship with them also matter. 5. Response generation: Once we have decided on a response behavior and the goal we want to achieve, a response is generated. Imagine, for example, hearing from a friend that your classmate Peter cheated on a recent exam. First, you need to correctly understand and interpret this message (i.e., first stage: semantic encoding processes). Next, you integrate the new information that Peter might have cheated in your previous knowledge (e.g., person schema; see Sect. 3.2; i.e., second stage: organization). You store all of this information, so you can later access this new information about Peter when necessary (i.e., third stage: storage and retrieval). However, you may also remember that your friend occasionally spreads rumors and tends to tell fibs when there is nothing interesting to talk about. In this case, you may consider the new information less relevant (i.e., fourth stage: inference processes) and respond with caution (i.e., fifth stage: response generation).

3.5.2 Affective Processes By coloring our behavior and decisions, affective processes control and influence them. They can for example explain where we look for the causes of disharmonious relationships and how we react to them (e.g., if we actively try to do something about a situation or put up with it). People with a positive attitude tend to look for the causes of conflicts in unstable factors that are usually outside the people involved in a relationship. They are more likely to actively overcome their problems. People who are less positive tend to look for the causes in internal and stable factors. This means that they seek blame in themselves and tend to react passively (Forgas, 1994). According to Wyer and Gruenfeld (1995), reciprocity is another way in which emotions can mediate communication. It refers to our tendency to mirror the affect or emotion displayed by our communication partners. So make sure to avoid angry yelling during conversations unless you want the other person to yell back at you. In summary, cognitive and affective processes mediate between goals, perceptions, and decisions in various ways (e.g., in the form of strategic response generation or emotional reciprocity).

3.6 Response Behavior After deciding on plans and strategies, responding is about executing them. We can therefore think of response behavior as a form of acting. When taking an exam, a biology student’s plan may for example be: “If the examiner asks me about the process of cellular respiration, I will explain the individual steps exactly as I studied

3.8 Perception

61

them.” However, we do not always succeed in translating our plans into (response) behavior. Jordan (1998) distinguished between two types of errors in this regard. Slips occur when we perform actions (responses) that are part of our plan in an incorrect sequence or when we perform actions (responses) that are not part of our plan at all. Lapses occur when we do not perform planned actions (responses), e.g., because we forget about them. If our biology student for example forgets to mention the citric acid cycle as they explain cellular respiration during their exam, they commit a lapse. Meanwhile, they would commit a slip if they were to start their explanation with the citric acid cycle and end it with glycolysis (i.e., the actual first step).

3.7 Feedback Feedback is a fundamental part of communication that can be transmitted internally or externally. Internal feedback is transmitted from inside our bodies (e.g., heart palpitations). When we feel our heart beating fast, our conclusion is: “I am excited.” Externally transmitted feedback is received from our environment with our visual, auditory, and tactile senses. All participants of a communication pursue certain goals and at the same time provide their communication partners with information with what they say and do. This information serves as feedback. The facial expressions and gestures we observe in others may for example tell us how they feel about a certain topic. However, sometimes we misinterpret these two types of feedback. A heavy heartbeat might feel as if it was caused by noticing an attractive person that just entered the room even though its actual cause is our elevated pulse after rushing up the stairs. While giving a talk, you may interpret your colleague’s frown as criticism or as interest as he is paying close attention. The effects of feedback can be positive or negative, which frequently depends on what the person giving feedback says and how they phrase it. Feedback that lacks specificity (i.e., remains vague) may affect motivation and performance negatively. This applies to praise and criticism alike. The order in which feedback is given also matters. For a long time, the so-called sandwich method, which surrounds negative feedback with positive feedback, remained popular. More recent studies suggest, however, that people who receive feedback tend to prefer to hear criticism first and positive comments later (Slowiak & Lakowske, 2017). Giving appropriate and effective feedback is an important communication skill that can also be trained (Stöcker & Schütz, 2019). It is preferable for feedback to avoid a framing of “good” versus “bad” and instead focus on what should be kept or changed.

3.8 Perception Healthy individuals do not perceive all information that would be available to them. Our perception is selective. When we are having a conversation on a busy street, we select what is being said and concentrate on it. By comparison, we perceive

62

3  An Integrative Communication Model by Hargie and Colleagues

relatively little of the people and cars that are passing by. We also do not perceive all information we receive correctly (e.g., in the case of misunderstandings). Human perception is an active process. We are by no means passively receptive—and as a consequence, we should never assume that we perceive others in a correct and unbiased (i.e., objective) manner. Our social perception is always inferential and selective. It also heavily relies on our knowledge, expectations, and attributions. The results are an imprecise and biased perception or miscommunication (Hinton, 1993). The perception of ourselves (i.e., meta-perception), what we think others think of us, is also important.

3.9 Summary, Comprehension Questions, and Further Reading According to the complex communication model by Hargie and colleagues, communication consists of six components: Characteristics of the individual and characteristics of the situation (= person-situation context), goal(s), mediating processes, response behavior, feedback, and perception. Whereas noise was considered a transmission problem in the communication model by Shannon and Weaver we discussed in Sect. 2.2 (Do you remember our example of students talking to each other during a lecture?), we saw in this chapter that barriers that impede the communication process can arise in all six components in the model by Hargie and colleagues. Here are a few examples: 1. Person-situation context: (a) Characteristics of the individual: (i) Personality: People prefer different forms of communication depending on their personality (e.g., extraversion versus introversion). (ii) Age: We speak differently with older people (e.g., secondary baby talk) than with younger people. (iii) Prior knowledge: We do not necessarily share prior knowledge with our communication partners (i.e., common ground). (b) Characteristics of the situation: The role structure influences our communication behavior by determining which behavior is appropriate and expected from us. 2. Goal(s): We may pursue goals that are completely different from the goals our communication partners pursue (Do you remember Alex and Sarah?). 3. Mediating processes: (a) Cognitive processes: Our responses are sometimes strategic (Do you remember cheating Peter?). (b) Affective processes: What goes around comes around. Reciprocity causes us to mirror the affects and emotions we see in others.

References

63

4. Response behavior: We may commit lapses and slips in our responses. When sharing one of your grandmother’s recipes with a friend, you may for example forget to mention a certain ingredient altogether (i.e., lapse) or you may mention its addition at the wrong time (e.g., as the fourth step instead of the second step, i.e., slip). 5. Feedback: We may receive internal and external feedback when interacting with others. If our heart is beating fast and our mouth is feeling dry because we are excited (i.e., internal feedback) or when a contribution we make is met with applause (i.e., external feedback), the feedback can influence our further communication. 6. Perception: We do not (correctly) perceive all information that would be available to us. Comprehension Questions 1. What are the six components that make up the integrative communication model by Hargie and colleagues? 2. What are the characteristics of the individual that can influence the communication process in the communication model by Hargie and colleagues? 3. Anne gets a surprise visit from a friend with a huge bouquet of flowers. She does not know what to say and is so happy that tears of joy are running down her cheeks. Why is Anne’s behavior an example of emotionally motivated communication? 4. What are display rules? 5. Feedback is a fundamental component of communication in the integrative communication model by Hargie and colleagues. What is the difference between internally transmitted feedback and externally transmitted feedback? 6. What is the instrument Greenwald et al. (1998) developed to study implicit (i.e., not necessarily consciously accessible) attitudes? In which areas is this instrument used?

Recommended Reading Hargie, O., & Dickson, D. (2004). Skilled Interpersonal Communication. Research, Theory and Practice (4th ed.). Routledge.

References Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-­5978(91)90020-­T Ajzen, I. (2012). Attitudes and persuasion. In K. Deaux & M. Snyder (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 368–393). Oxford University Press. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Prentice-Hall.

64

3  An Integrative Communication Model by Hargie and Colleagues

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 Amici, F., Sánchez-Amaro, A., Sebastián-Enesco, C., Cacchione, T., Allritz, M., Salazar-Bonet, J., & Rossano, F. (2019). The word order of languages predicts native speakers’ working memory. Scientific Reports, 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-­018-­37654-­9 Argyle, M. (1983). The Psychology of Interpersonal Behaviour (4th ed.). Penguin Press. Argyle, M., Furnham, A., & Graham, J. A. (1981). Social Situations. Cambridge University Press. Aronson, E. (1999). The Social Animal (8th ed.). W. H. Freeman. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907 Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 338–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-­2909.120.3.338 Bagby, R.  M., Parker, J.  D. A., & Taylor, G.  J. (1994). The twenty-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale: I. Item selection and cross-validation of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-­3999(94)90005-­1 Berenbaum, H. (1993). Alexithymia and movie preferences. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 59(3–4), 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1159/000288661 Bergius, R., & Six, B. (2020). Stereotyp, stereotyp [Stereotype, stereotype]. In M. A. Wirtz (Ed.), Dorsch – Lexikon der Psychologie (19th ed.). Hogrefe. https://dorsch.hogrefe.com/stichwort/ stereotyp-­stereotyp/ Blumer, T., & Renneberg, B. (2010). Lebt es sich im Internet leichter? Borderline-spezifische Kognitionen und Internetnutzung [Does the Internet make life easier? Borderline-specific cognitions and Internet use]. Zeitschrift für Psychiatrie, Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 58(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1024/1661-­4747.a000006 Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). NEO-Fünf-Faktoren-Inventar nach Costa und McCrae  – Deutsche Fassung [NEO-FFI. NEO Five-Factor Inventory by Costa and McCrae – German Version]. Hogrefe. Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1191–1205. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-­3514.47.6.1191 Briton, N. J., & Hall, J. A. (1995). Beliefs about female and male nonverbal communication. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 32(1–2), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544758 Burgoon, J. K. (1994). Nonverbal signals. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.) Handbook of Interpersonal Communication (2nd ed., pp. 229–285). Sage. Clark, H. H. (1996). Using Language (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press. Crites, S. L., Fabrigar, L. R., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 619–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294206001 Deci, E.  L. (1992). Article commentary: On the nature and functions of motivation theories. Psychological Science, 3(3), 167–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­9280.1992.tb00020.x DeYoung, C.  G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1138–1151. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-­3514.91.6.1138 Dickson, D. (1999). Communication Skills and Health Care Nursing (2nd ed.). Blackwell Science. Dickson, D., Hargie, O., & Morrow, N.  C. (1997). Communication Skills Training for Health Professionals (2nd ed.). Chapman and Hall. Dillard, J. (1998). The role of affect in communication, biology, and social relationships. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.) Handbook of Communication and Emotion. Research, Theory, Applications, and Contexts (pp. 17–32). Academic Press. Eisenberg, N., Martin, C. L., & Fabes, R. A. (1996). Gender development and gender effects. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), The Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 358–396). Simon & Schuster.

References

65

Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The mode model as an integrative framework. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 75–109. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0065-­2601(08)60318-­4 Fischer, P., Asal, K., & Krüger, J. (2013). Sozialpsychologie für Bachelor [Social Psychology for BA Students]. Springer. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social Cognition (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill. Forgas, J. P. (1994). Sad and guilty? Affective influences on the explanation of conflict in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 56–68. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-­3514.66.1.56 Friedman, H. S., & Miller-Herringer, T. (1991). Nonverbal display of emotion in public and in private: Self-monitoring, personality, and expressive cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(5), 766–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­3514.61.5.766 Geßler, S., Köppe, C., Fehn, T., & Schütz, A. (2019). Training emotionaler Kompetenzen (EmoTrain). Ein Gruppentraining zur Förderung von Emotionswahrnehmung und Emotionsregulation bei Führungskräften [Training of Emotional Competences (EmoTrain): A Group Exercise for the Development of Emotion Perception and Regulation Among Managers]. Hogrefe. Greenwald, A.  G., McGhee, D.  E., & Schwartz, J.  L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­3514.74.6.1464 Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003a). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I.  An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­3514.85.2.197 Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003b). "Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm": Correction to Greenwald et al. (2003). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 481. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087889 Guirdham, M. (1996). Interpersonal Skills at Work (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall. Hall, J.  A. (1979). A Cross-National Study of Gender Differences in Nonverbal Sensitivity. Northeastern University. (Unpublished manuscript). Hargie, O. (1997). Interpersonal communication: A theoretical framework. In O. Hargie (Ed.), The Handbook of Communication Skills (2nd ed., pp. 29–63). Routledge. Hargie, O., & Dickson, D. (2004). Skilled Interpersonal Communication. Research, Theory and Practice (4th ed.). Routledge. Hargie, O., & Marshall, P. (1986). Interpersonal communication: A theoretical framework. In O. Hargie (Ed.), The Handbook of Communication Skills (pp. 29–63). Croom Helm. Hertel, G., Schroer, J., Batinic, B., & Naumann, S. (2008). Do shy people prefer to send e-mail?: Personality effects on communication media preferences in threatening and nonthreatening situations. Social Psychology, 39(4), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-­9335.39.4.231 Hinton, P. R. (1993). The Psychology of Interpersonal Perception. Routledge. Hochschild, A. R. (2012). The Managed Heart. Commercialization of Human Feeling. University of California Press. Holtzman, N. S., Tackman, A. M., Carey, A. L., Brucks, M. S., Küfner, A. C. P., Deters, F. G., Back, M. D., Donnellan, M. B., Pennebaker, J. W., Sherman, R. A., & Mehl, M. R. (2019). Linguistic markers of grandiose narcissism: A LIWC analysis of 15 samples. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(5–6), 773–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X19871084 Huber, M., Herholz, K., Habedank, B., Thiel, A., Müller-Küppers, M., Ebel, H., Subič-Wrana, C., Köhle, K., & Heiss, W.-D. (2002). Differente Muster regionaler Hirnaktivität nach emotionaler Stimulation bei alexithymen Patienten im Vergleich zu Normalpersonen. Eine positronenemissionstomographische (PET-)Studie mit 15O-H2O und emotionaler Stimulierung durch autobiografische Erinnerung [Different patterns of regional brain activation during emotional stimulation in alexithymics in comparison with wormal controls. A positron emission tomography (PET) study with 15O-H2O and emotional stimulation by way of autobiographic recall]. PPmP  – Psychotherapie  – Psychosomatik  – Medizinische Psychologie, 52(11), 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-­2002-­35276

66

3  An Integrative Communication Model by Hargie and Colleagues

Hummert, M. L., Shaner, J. L., Garstka, T. A., & Henry, C. (1998). Communication with older adults: The influence of age stereotypes, context and communicator age. Human Communication Research, 25(1), 124–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-­2958.1998.tb00439.x Joinson, A.  N. (2004). Self-esteem, interpersonal risk, and preference for e-mail to face-to-­ face communication. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(4), 472–478. https://doi.org/10.1089/ cpb.2004.7.472 Jordan, J. M. (1998). Executive cognitive control in communication: Extending plan-based theory. Human Communication Research, 25(1), 5–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-­2958.1998. tb00435.x Kaya, N., & Erkip, F. (1999). Invasion of personal space under the condition of short-term crowding: A case study on an automatic teller machine. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(2), 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0125 Klöckner Cronauer, C., & Schmid Mast, M. (2010). Geschlechtsspezifische Aspekte des Gesprächs zwischen Arzt und Patient [Gender-specific aspects of the physician-patient interaction]. Die Rehabilitation, 49(5), 308–314. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-­0030-­1262850 Koydemir, S., Şimşek, Ö. F., Schütz, A., & Tipandjan, A. (2013). Differences in how trait emotional intelligence predicts life satisfaction: The role of affect balance versus social support in India and Germany. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being, 14(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-­011-­9315-­1 Lai, C. K., Marini, M., Lehr, S. A., Cerruti, C., Shin, J.-E. L., Joy-Gaba, J. A., Ho, A. K., Teachman, B. A., Wojcik, S. P., Koleva, S. P., Frazier, R. S., Heiphetz, L., Chen, E. E., Turner, R. N., Haidt, J., Kesebir, S., Hawkins, C. B., Schaefer, H. S., Rubichi, S., . . . Nosek, B. A. (2014). Reducing implicit racial preferences: I.  A comparative investigation of 17 interventions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1765–1785. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036260 Lai, C. K., Skinner, A. L., Cooley, E., Murrar, S., Brauer, M., Devos, T., Calanchini, J., Xiao, Y. J., Pedram, C., Marshburn, C. K., Simon, S., Blanchar, J. C., Joy-Gaba, J. A., Conway, J., Redford, L., Klein, R.  A., Roussos, G., Schellhaas, F.  M. H., Burns, M., . . . Nosek, B.  A. (2016). Reducing implicit racial preferences: II.  Intervention effectiveness across time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(8), 1001–1016. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000179 Laux, L., & Renner, K.-H. (2002). Self-Monitoring und Authentizität: Die verkannten Selbstdarsteller [Self-monitoring and authenticity: The misjudged self-presenters]. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 23(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.1024/0170-­1789.23.2.129 Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance. Prentice Hall. Maes, G., & Gebhardt, W. (2000). Self-regulation and health behavior: The health behavior goal model. In M.  Boekaerts, P.  R. Pintrich, & M.  Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 343–368). Academic Press. Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8(2), 193–210. https://doi. org/10.2307/4609267 Meyer, W.-U., Schützwohl, A., & Reisenzein, R. (1999). Einführung in die Emotionspsychologie. Band II: Evolutionspsychologische Emotionstheorien [Introduction to Emotional Psychology. Volume II: Evolutionary Psychological Theories of Emotion]. Huber. Nemiah, J. C., Freyberger, H., & Sifneos, P. E. (1976). Alexithymia. A view of the psychosomatic process. In O. W. Hill (Ed.), Modern Trends in Psychosomatic Medicine (Vol. 3, pp. 430–439). Butterworths. Nezlek, J. B., Schütz, A., Schröder-Abé, M., & Smith, C. V. (2011). A cross-cultural study of relationships between daily social interaction and the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 79(4), 811–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-­6494.2011.00706.x Noller, P. (1993). Gender and emotional communication in marriage: Different cultures or differential social power? Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1–2), 132–152. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0261927X93121008 Pennebaker, J.  W., & Stone, L.  D. (2003). Words of wisdom: Language use over the life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 291–301. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-­3514.85.2.291

References

67

Röhner, J. (2014). Faking the Implicit Association Test (IAT): Predictors, Processes, and Detection [Doctoral dissertation, TU Chemnitz]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279845320_ Faking_the_Implicit_Association_Test_IAT_Predictors_Processes_and_Detection Röhner, J., & Ewers, T. (2016a). How to analyze (faked) Implicit Association Test data by applying diffusion model analyses with the fast-dm software: A companion to Röhner & Ewers (2016). The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12, 220–231. https://doi.org/10.20982/ tqmp.12.3.p220 Röhner, J., & Ewers, T. (2016b). Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff: Construct- and faking-related variance on the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Behavior Research Methods, 48, 243–258. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-­015-­0568-­1 Röhner, J., Holden, R. R. & Schütz, A. (2023). IAT faking indices revisited: Aspects of replicability and differential validity. Behavior Research Methods, 55, 670–693. https://doi.org/10.3758/ s13428-­022-­01845-­0 Röhner, J., & Lai, C. K. (2021). A diffusion model approach for understanding the impact of 17 interventions on the race Implicit Association Test. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(9), 1374–1389. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220974489 Röhner, J., Schröder-Abé, M., & Schütz, A. (2011). Exaggeration is harder than understatement, but practice makes perfect! Experimental Psychology, 58(6), 464–472. https://doi. org/10.1027/1618-­3169/a000114 Röhner, J., Schröder-Abé, M., & Schütz, A. (2013). What do fakers actually do to fake the IAT? An investigation of faking strategies under different faking conditions. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(4), 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.02.009 Röhner, J., & Schütz, A. (2019). Impliziter Assoziationstest (IAT) [Implicit Association Test (IAT)]. In M. A. Wirtz (Ed.), Dorsch – Lexikon der Psychologie (19th ed., p. 813). Hogrefe. Röhner, J., & Thoss, P. J. (2018). EZ: An easy way to conduct a more fine-grained analysis of faked and nonfaked Implicit Association Test (IAT) data. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 14(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.14.1.p017 Röhner, J., & Thoss, P. J. (2019). A tutorial on how to compute traditional IAT effects with R. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 15(2), 134–147. Röhner, J., Thoss, P. J. & Uziel, L. (2023). Can people with higher versus lower scores on impression management or self-monitoring be identified through different traces under faking? Educational and Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644231182598 Rosenthal, R., & DePaulo, B. M. (1979). Sex differences in accommodation in nonverbal communication. In R. Rosenthal, (Ed.), Skill in Nonverbal Communication: Individual Differences (pp. 68–103). Oelgeschlager, Gunn, & Hain. Schild, C., Stern, S., & Zettler, I. (2019). Linking men’s voice pitch to actual and perceived trustworthiness across domains. Behavioral Ecology, 31(1), 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1093/ beheco/arz173 Schütz, A., & DePaulo, B. M. (1996). Self-esteem and evaluative reactions: Letting people speak for themselves. Journal of Research in Personality, 30(2), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1006/ jrpe.1996.0010 Schütz, A., & Hoge, L. (2007). Positives Denken. Vorteile  – Risiken  – Alternativen [Positive Thinking. Advantages – Risks – Alternatives]. Kohlhammer. Schütz, A., Marcus, B., & Sellin, I. (2004). Die Messung von Narzissmus als Persönlichkeitskonstrukt: Psychometrische Eigenschaften einer Lang- und einer Kurzform des Deutschen NPI (Narcissistic Personality Inventory) [Measuring narcissism as a personality construct: Psychometric properties of a long and a short version of the German Narcissistic Personality Inventory]. Diagnostica, 50(4), 202–218. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-­1924.50.4.202 Schütz, A., & Röhner, J. (2019a). Narzissmus [Narcissism]. In M. A. Wirtz (Ed.), Dorsch – Lexikon der Psychologie (19th ed., pp. 1218–1219). Hogrefe. Schütz, A., & Röhner, J. (2019b). Selbstüberwachung [Self-monitoring]. In M.  A. Wirtz (Ed.), Dorsch – Lexikon der Psychologie (19th ed.). Hogrefe.

68

3  An Integrative Communication Model by Hargie and Colleagues

Schütz, A., & Röhner, J. (2019c). Selbstwert [Self-worth]. In M. A. Wirtz (Ed.), Dorsch – Lexikon der Psychologie (19th ed.). Hogrefe. Schütz, A., Rüdiger, M., & Rentzsch, K. (2016). Lehrbuch Persönlichkeitspsychologie [Textbook on the Psychology of Personality]. Hogrefe. Schütz, A., & Schröder, M. (2004). Selbst und Wissensmanagement [Self and knowledge management]. In G.  Reinmann & H.  Mandl (Hrsg.), Der Mensch im Wissensmanagement: Psychologische Konzepte zum besseren Verständnis und Umgang mit Wissen (pp. 143–151). Hogrefe. Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of affective states. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 527–561). The Guilford Press. Sieverding, M. (2009). 'Be cool!': Emotional costs of hiding feelings in a job interview. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(4), 391–401. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-­2389.2009.00481.x Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Biek, M. (1993). Personality and nonverbal social behavior: An ethological perspective of relationship initiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(5), 434–461. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1993.1020 Slowiak, J. M., & Lakowske, A. M. (2017). The influence of feedback statement sequence and goals on task performance. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 17(4), 357–380. https:// doi.org/10.1037/bar0000084 Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037039 Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9), 656–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­3514.35.9.656 Stöcker, A., & Schütz, A. (2019). Feedback, Formulierung von [Phrasing of feedback]. In M.  A. Wirtz (Ed.), Dorsch  – Lexikon der Psychologie (19th ed.). Hogrefe. https://dorsch. hogrefe.com/stichwort/feedback-­formulierung-­von/ Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220–247. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327957pspr0803_1 Thielmann, I., & Hilbig, B. E. (2015). The traits one can trust: Dissecting reciprocity and kindness as determinants of trustworthy behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(11), 1523–1536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215600530 Tomasello, M. (1999). The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Harvard University Press. Tucker, J. S., & Friedman, H. S. (1993). Sex differences in nonverbal expressiveness: Emotional expression, personality, and impressions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 17, 103–117. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF01001959 Westmeyer, H. (1999). Konstruktivismus und Psychologie [Constructivism and psychology]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 4, 507–525. Westmeyer, H., & Weber, H. (2011). Der Mensch als konstruierendes Wesen [Man as a constructing being]. In B.  Pörksen (Ed.), Schlüsselwerke des Konstruktivismus. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­531-­93069-­5_5 Wyer, R. S., Jr., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (1995). Information processing in interpersonal communication. In D. E. Hewes (Ed.), The Cognitive Bases of Interpersonal Communication (pp. 7–47). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Answers to the Comprehension Questions

69

Answers to the Comprehension Questions 1.  Person-situation context (i.e., characteristics of the individual and characteristics of the situation), goal(s), mediating processes, response behavior, feedback, and perception. 2.  (Prior) knowledge, motives, attitudes, personality, emotions, age, and gender. 3.  Anne’s speechlessness and tears (i.e., her behavior in this situation) are caused by her great happiness about her friend’s visit (i.e., the emotion that explains her behavior). 4.  Display rules are rules regarding which facial expressions are considered appropriate or inappropriate in a given situation. 5. Internally transmitted feedback is feedback from inside our bodies (e.g., our heartbeat while giving a talk). Externally transmitted feedback is feedback from our environment (e.g., the audience applauding after our talk). 6.  The instrument is known as Implicit Association Test (IAT) and is used to analyze variables such as stereotypes and prejudices.

Chapter 4

Means of Nonverbal Communication

Abstract  This chapter will introduce and explain selected skills of nonverbal communication. In particular, we will discuss haptic signals, body language, proxemics (i.e., use of space), and physical characteristics. Keywords  Nonverbal communication · Haptic signals · Body language · Gestures · Head movements · Posture · Gazing and mutual gazing · Facial expression · Proxemics · Physical characteristics Popular science claims that we can learn everything about other people by paying close attention to their nonverbal communication. But is it really true that somebody who looks to the top right as they talk is lying? Are crossed arms always a sign that the person we are talking to does not like us? What is nonverbal communication? Is it truly more reliable than the things we say? We hope to provide answers to these and other questions in this chapter. What is nonverbal communication and how does it differ from its verbal counterpart? Nonverbal communication primarily focuses on HOW we say something (e.g., are we looking at somebody in a friendly or unfriendly way?). By contrast, verbal communication is mostly concerned with WHAT we say (e.g., are we telling somebody that we like or dislike them?). Nonverbal communication allows for the simultaneous transmission of messages in both directions (Remland, 2000) as two people can for example keep eye contact to show their interest while they communicate. Verbal communication, meanwhile, is usually sequential (e.g., people take turns when talking to each other). Nonverbal communication tends to be continuous and often provides information about our emotional states whereas verbal communication uses symbols in the form of words and mostly covers cognitive aspects (Richmond & McCroskey, 2000). Verbal communication can also convey complex information by combining ideas with logical operators (see above). Since nonverbal communication is clearly different from verbal communication, it is possible to ask if nonverbal communication might be the more important one of the two. Popular scientific publications often claim that communication is 55% nonverbal, 38% paraverbal (e.g., volume, voice pitch, accent), and only 7% verbal. This so-called 7-38-55 rule was first proposed by Albert Mehrabian (1972), though its © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Röhner, A. Schütz, Psychology of Communication, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60170-6_4

71

72

4  Means of Nonverbal Communication

scope is frequently exaggerated in practice. It would appear that it hardly matters WHAT we say, but we should definitely take expensive seminars on how to optimize our nonverbal communication (i.e., HOW to say it). It is important to put this thesis into perspective. In a classic study, Mehrabian and colleagues examined how people judge others based on their facial expression and tone. They instructed speakers to stress the neutral word “maybe” in three different ways as they were being recorded. The three readings conveyed neutrality toward or liking and dislike of an imaginary other. The study participants then listened to the recordings while being shown photographs of faces that also expressed neutrality, liking, or dislike. Since all three possible facial expressions were combined with all three readings of the word “maybe,” there were a total of nine possible combinations. The results showed that the facial expression shown had a stronger impact on the participants’ judgment than the tone (Mehrabian & Ferris, 1967). A second study examined the effect of a message’s tone (i.e., neutral, positive, or negative) and content (i.e., neutral, positive, or negative) on its participants’ assessments with regard to whether the speaker liked or disliked the person they were speaking to or if they felt indifferent toward them. In this case, the findings showed that the tone of a message had a stronger effect on the participants’ assessments than its content when both were available (Mehrabian & Wiener, 1967). Both studies thus suggest that nonverbal and paraverbal signals are more important than verbal ones by themselves. This applies especially to incongruent messages. However, there are limits to the generalizability of these findings that are often overlooked in practice. On the one hand, both studies (only) examined the importance of a message with regard to an assessment of how the speaker felt about another person (i.e., it was a message about a relationship). Based on this alone, it is unclear if nonverbal communication performs equally well when it comes to communicating facts. On the other hand, all speakers were female. There may thus be situations in which the findings do not apply. A study by McMahan (1976) confirmed the dominance of nonverbal signals. The phenomenon, however, was especially pronounced when adults found themselves in situations with incongruent messages (i.e., situations in which the contents of the verbal and nonverbal messages differ). Attempts to manipulate another person verbally are therefore likely to fail if the accompanying nonverbal communication does not match the spoken message. This is because people trust nonverbal messages more than verbal ones (Fig. 4.1). When somebody tells you that they enjoy spending time with you, but you notice how they are looking away and are forcing a smile, you are probably less inclined to believe their words. The same is probably true when you are back at the office after a sickness and your colleague tells you with a grumpy expression that they were happy to take over your workload. You might not believe that they enjoyed replacing you while you were gone. A double bind is a situation in which we receive conflicting messages from our communication partners (e.g., Heringer, 2017). The results of a study by Jacob et  al. (2013) emphasize with an experimental design that nonverbal messages strongly influence our judgments. The participants

4  Means of Nonverbal Communication

73

Did you have a great time last night too? Yes, of course. I'll give you a call soon.

Fig. 4.1  Discrepancy between verbal and nonverbal message

of this study watched videos in which professional actors made verbal statements that were neutral, positive, or negative. At the same time, the actors’ nonverbal expression was also neutral, positive, or negative. As they asked the participants to identify the actors’ emotional state, the researchers tried to determine the factors that informed the participants’ assessment. At average, the influence of the nonverbal message was nine times higher than the influence of the verbal message. However, the findings also revealed significant differences across participants with regard to how much more dominant the nonverbal message was, ranging from 55.24% to 100%. While all participants were more strongly swayed by the nonverbal message, the extent to which this was the case varied (i.e., from a little more than half to exclusively). The higher a participants’ emotional intelligence (see Sect. 3.2.5), the stronger was the influence of the nonverbal message in this study. Emotionally intelligent individuals may have learned over their lives that verbal messages are easier to falsify and thus place greater faith in their ability to decode nonverbal cues. But nonverbal messages do not only influence how we perceive messages overall. They also affect how we react to them. Daniali and Flaten (2019) analyzed the influence of nonverbal communication (e.g., frequency of smiling, frequency of eye contact, facing the patient) by medical and nursing staff on the pain intensity reported by their patients. They found that patients reported less pain when staff smiled more often, spoke more confidently, made a lot of eye contact, faced the patients, and made frequent gestures. The opposite was true when the staff smiled less, spoke monotonously, did not make eye contact, faced away from the patients, and did not make gestures. In the latter case, patients reported feeling more pain.

74

4  Means of Nonverbal Communication

Daniali and Flaten explained these findings as the result of the patients assessing the situation and the likelihood of treatment success based on nonverbal cues (see Sect. 1.3.3). Whereas frequent smiling, a confident tone, frequent eye contact, facing the patient, and frequent gestures communicate safety and reduce stress, a lack of smiling, monotonous tone, lack of eye contact, facing away from the patient, and a lack of gestures suggest problems. Studies have also shown that we perceive pain as stronger when we feel stressed (e.g., Aslaksen & Flaten, 2008; Edwards et al., 2002). In summary, nonverbal communication colors how we perceive situations and may thus for example impact how we perceive pain. In other words: HOW something is said not only influences HOW we understand it, but also WHAT our reaction is. Why are nonverbal messages so important? In the case of discrepant messages, nonverbal communication becomes a warning sign to the recipient. When we spot discrepancies, we often assume nonverbal signals to be more “trustworthy” (Zuckerman et al., 1982). They are indeed harder to control than our verbal communication. There are for example features that differentiate an authentic smile from a fake one (see Box 4.1). Box 4.1 Fake Smile or Real Smile? How can you tell if a smile is fake or authentic? Guillaume Benjamin Amand Duchenne de Boulogne (1806–1875) was the first to study the anatomical differences between the two. Paul Ekman introduced the term Duchenne smile in his honor. A Duchenne smile (i.e., an authentic smile) meets specific criteria, namely the simultaneous and symmetrical contraction of the zygomaticus major and the orbicularis oculi muscles (Ekman et al., 1990). The zygomaticus major pulls our lips up and back toward our cheekbone. The orbicularis oculi muscle raises our cheeks, which causes our eyes to contract as crow’s feet become visible at the corners of our eyes. The crow’s feet are absent in a fake smile or appear and disappear very abruptly. Try verbally agreeing with somebody’s suggestion while vehemently shaking your head. This way you can test for yourself which message your conversation partner is more likely to believe. Additionally, please pay attention to which is easier: Saying yes after you start shaking your head or shaking your head while you are saying yes. Surely, you are more likely to start nodding because you are saying yes than saying no because you are shaking your head. Trained performers, however, are able to deceive others very effectively at a nonverbal level since we tend to put a lot of faith in these signals due to their perceived uncontrollability. On the whole, however, it is far more difficult to decode nonverbal communication than we commonly assume. Police officers often try to use nonverbal behavior as a means to distinguish lies from truths. However, studies on the potential of nonverbal behavior in the detection of lies suggest that the sole observation of nonverbal behavior during police interrogations is of little help (Klosinski & Hermanutz, 2010). Nonverbal behavior may have many different backgrounds. This makes it

4  Means of Nonverbal Communication

75

difficult to interpret correctly. Somebody who is sweating a lot might be nervous, possibly because they are trying to hide something or because they feel found out. But maybe it is simply very hot or they are nervous because they have to talk in front of an audience or they have a sickness that causes them to sweat more like hyperthyroidism. At best, we are able to identify signs of excitement and nervousness that can have various causes. It is also important to consider individual differences when perceiving such signs of excitement and nervousness. Some people might have a habit of nervous finger tapping or knuckle cracking. Different cultures also set different display rules (see Sect. 3.2.5). These may for example influence our facial expressions and the intensity with which we show our emotions. Furthermore, so-called attributions of credibility (see Box 4.2), which are simple and quick everyday beliefs and assumptions about what makes people credible, influence how we perceive communication situations and how they play out. They are, however, relatively independent of whether these characteristics are truly useful for the distinction between truths and lies (Litzcke et al., 2006). People all over the world believe for example that it is possible to identify a liar by their nervous gestures and the fact that they avoid eye contact (The Global Deception Research Team, 2006). But meta-analyses show that there is only a very low correlation between nonverbal behavior and deception (DePaulo et al., 2003). It is not as easy to spot a lie as we often believe. Box 4.2 Attributions of Credibility Versus Assessments of Credibility When we assume that our conversation partner believes a statement to be credible, we are making an attribution of credibility (see Köhnken, 1990). This is different from complex assessments of credibility which describes a systematic and hypothesis-­driven process by experts (e.g., a psychological assessment in court). International comparisons show that the meaning of nonverbal messages can differ. Our assumption that nonverbal signals are universal may thus lead to misunderstandings. In most parts of Europe and North America, a head shake is akin to saying no. In India, meanwhile, horizontal head movement signalizes agreement while vertical movement signalizes denial. And in Japan, nodding is usually merely a way to show attention. Hand gestures should also be used with caution when abroad. While a finger circle means “okay” or even praise among divers or in Germany, it is used as an offensive gesture in Southern Europe, Brazil, or Russia and also widely understood as such. What is commonly used as a greeting between heavy metal fans in America means that somebody was duped (horned) in Southern Europe and the Baltic States. Pointing your hand at another person this way does therefore not mean that you are greeting them as a like-minded heavy metal fan, but that you are marking them as “horned.” In general, it is therefore advised not to act rashly when judging the meaning of nonverbal communication in intercultural exchanges.

76

4  Means of Nonverbal Communication

Fig. 4.2  Methods of nonverbal communication

To give a better idea what exactly constitutes nonverbal communication, the following sections will discuss selected components of nonverbal communication in greater detail. To this end, we will distinguish between haptic signals, body language, proxemics, and physical characteristics (see Fig.  4.2; Hargie & Dickson, 2004).

4.1 Haptic Signals When we make systematic use of haptic signals (i.e., touching others in a manner that is within a normative frame) during our communications, they can help us achieve our goals. In most instances, we see others who touch us in a positive light, especially if we regard them highly due to their attractiveness, expertise, or status (Burgoon et al., 1992). Studies have even shown that wait staff receive higher tips when they briefly touch their customers on their arm or shoulder (Lynn et al., 1998). Similarly, women who ask other women that smoke for a cigarette are more likely to actually receive one when they touch the other woman’s forearm than when they do not touch them. This effect is especially strong when the touched women

4.1  Haptic Signals

77

actually feel the touch (Joule & Guéguen, 2007). However, the target person is not necessarily aware of this effect. But does this mean that we should touch others as often as possible when communicating with them? Does this always allow us to achieve our goals? Once again, it is important not to overgeneralize such findings. When we touch others, they do not necessarily perceive this as positive. There are rules that govern the circumstances under which we may touch others, whom we may touch, and how we may do so. There are also differences in this regard across cultures and contexts (Argyle, 1988). Let us briefly illustrate this with two examples. The status of the interacting individuals is the first factor to consider as it determines who may touch whom and where. Hall (1996) examined the touching behavior during an academic meeting and found that people of higher status were more likely to touch those of lower status on their shoulders and arms. By contrast, people of lower status tended to touch those of higher status primarily through conventional and common gestures like handshakes. A second important factor is the gender of the interacting individuals. When two people of comparable status and opposite sex interact, men are more likely to touch women than the other way around (Hall, 1996). The effect of the touch also depends on the gender of the communicating parties. A study by Vaidis and Halimi-Falkowicz (2008) found that participants were most likely to fill out a long questionnaire when a woman asked a man while touching him. Findings on handshakes during job interviews further corroborate the importance of touch (see Box 4.3). Box 4.3 The Right Handshake for a Job Interview? How we shake hands at the beginning of a job interview can positively or negatively affect how likely we are to get the job. Stewart et al. (2008) studied the quality of applicants’ handshakes in a mock interview context by rating their handshakes on five dimensions (i.e., grip, strength, duration, vigor, and eye contact). These dimensions had an influence on the evaluation of the applicants’ interview performance as applicants with a “better” handshake were also deemed suitable for employment. With regard to grip and strength, women’s handshakes were rated more negatively than men’s. However, the negative handshake rating did not affect women’s employability rating in this study, suggesting that women were able to make up for this “shortcoming” with a stronger performance during the interview (and thus a higher interview rating). Women who surprised with a strong handshake, though, benefitted more from it than their male counterparts (Stewart et al., 2008). In summary, there are implicit rules that determine who can initiate physical contact, when this is allowed, and which kind of contact they may initiate. However, there are certain circumstances under which these rules on physical contact become more relaxed. Even people who barely know each other or do not know each other at all may express their sympathy or happiness in the case of very intensive

78

4  Means of Nonverbal Communication

emotions (e.g., sadness, fear, horror, or great joy) through touch (see Grunwald, 2008). Examples include instances of mourning when the bereaved hug each other to express their grief or winning game show contestants that throw their arms around hosts and other contestants alike. Why is that? Our bodies convert tactile stimulation into neurochemical signals that lead to relaxation on both the neurobiological and the psychological level (Grunwald, 2008). Touch is thus not only part of our nonverbal communication. It can also help us regain our psychological balance after strong emotional spikes. Seeing how important this is, it can hardly surprise that even fetuses can already perceive skin deformations caused by touch (Grunwald, 2008).

4.2 Body Language Colloquially, we often use the terms body language and nonverbal communication interchangeably. However, body language is in fact a subcategory of nonverbal communication. As such, all body language is nonverbal communication, but not all nonverbal communication is also body language. Here is an example: When Carl nods at Iris, he uses body language because he only uses his body to communicate with her. When he drives past her in a Porsche to impress her, he uses nonverbal communication. Specifically, he communicates with his car as a status symbol. Body language includes gestures, head movements, posture, gazing and mutual gazing, and facial expressions. We will discuss all of these in turn.

4.2.1 Gestures Gestures are limb movements, especially movements of our hands and arms. There are many different ways to categorize gestures. For example, Ekman and Friesen (1969) distinguish between emblems (i.e., nonverbal signals that can completely replace spoken language because they have a clear linguistic equivalent apart from cultural differences) and illustrators (i.e., nonverbal signals that accompany spoken language and make it for example easier to understand the latter). Whereas emblems can thus take the place of language (e.g., applause instead of verbal praise), illustrators merely emphasize what is being said (e.g., hitting the table with your fist while yelling that you are angry). Ekman and Friesen (1969) distinguish between further types of gestures and the reading recommendations at the end of the chapter include their article for those who are interested. The specific meaning of a gesture may also differ depending on how exactly we perform it. Kendon (2004) introduced the concept of gesture families in this context. A gesture family comprises gestures that have at least one similarity with regard to their form or movement. Even though the meanings of the gestures in the same family all have a certain basic theme in common, they do differ in their respective meaning and in how exactly they are performed. To illustrate this with an example, one fairly common gesture family is known as Open Hand Supine (OHS;

4.2  Body Language

79

Kendon, 2004). Generally, an open hand with its palm up communicates that we are offering or receiving something. The performance of the gesture is based on the act of giving, pointing, and offering objects on the open palm of the hand (Müller, 2004). Changes to the form (e.g., the hand becomes larger or smaller) and movement (e.g., rotation or moving the hand up and down) of this basic gesture change its meaning, creating sub-forms that make up the gesture family. As part of the Open Hand Supine gesture family, Kendon (2004) identifies the Palm Presentation gesture (i.e., the open hand offered by rotating the wrist), the Palm Addressed gesture (i.e., the open hand is moved closer to another person), and the Open Hand Supine with Lateral Movement gesture (i.e., the open hand is moved sideways or back). Although all of these gestures belong to the same gesture family, they mean different things. Imagine you are visiting a market and notice a vendor in front of her stall with several accessories on the palm of her hand. In this situation, the Palm Presentation gesture symbolizes the general offering and presenting of the objects in question. Since you are currently looking for a pair of cute earrings, you approach the vendor who now performs the Palm Addressed gesture by moving her open hand closer to you. While you are in fact interested in making a purchase, you would like the vendor to bring down the price a little. After asking for a “better” price, the vendor pulls back her hand (Open Hand Supine with Lateral Movement gesture) to let you know that she is not willing to part with her goods for a lower price. However, we do not only encounter Open Hand Supine gestures in the fairly specific context of goods being offered for purchase. When giving a talk, we may similarly use the Palm Presentation gesture to “offer” a conversation topic. 4.2.1.1 Functions of Gestures Generally, gestures have three functions (Bressem, 2018). The first is the representation of objects (i.e., representative function). For example, we can use gestures to represent a phone. The second function of gestures is the regulation of behavior (i.e., appeal function). A teacher may for example hold out their open hand to let a group of students who are running through the hallways know that they should stop what they are doing. The gesture essentially functions as a kind of “stop sign.” Lastly, gestures can also convey information about the current state of the person performing them (i.e., expressive function). After a successful date, we may for example express our excitement about a great evening by raising our fist into the air. The functions of gestures are thus similar to those of spoken language (Bressem, 2018). This is also why sign language is able to completely replace spoken language. 4.2.1.2 Analysis of Gestures We are often not aware that we are using gestures in our everyday lives. The data gloves technique (see Box 4.4) is one possible way to illustrate how common and diverse our use of gestures really is. It also allows us to record and analyze the gestures we use. 3D printing can then give them a permanent shape (gesture sculptures; Groninger & Mittelberg, 2019).

80

4  Means of Nonverbal Communication

Box 4.4 How Can We Study Body Language? We are basically always using body language when we are communicating with others. We also tend to use multiple forms of body language at the same time. For example, we may express our happiness about a surprise by smiling, jumping up and down, and hugging our communication partner. This little example shows how important it is to pay close attention when studying body language as to not miss any aspect of it. Traditional methods to study body language are arduous and involve video recording with subsequent coding. The coding process was done by trained coders and took a long time, even in the case of brief interactions. Nowadays there are methods that help simplify this time-­consuming manual work. The following is a description of selected methods to study posture and body movement (see Pfeiffer, 2013b), hand gestures (Pfeiffer, 2013a), and facial expressions (see Waller & Smith Pasqualini, 2013). 1. Motion capture: Precursors of today’s motion capture technology were already used in the late 1970s (see Sturman, 1999). This method is a modern tracking technique that allows for the documentation and recording of the position and direction of the limbs. Posture and body movement are of particular interest. There are various forms of motion capture with the most famous being the so-­called optical tracking. During optical tracking, subjects wear a special dark suit that researchers equip with special sensors known as markers. These markers can be made from reflecting spheres and are filmed and tracked with multiple cameras. A designated analysis software uses these markers as reference points and can precisely determine the subject’s body movement based on the movement of the markers. Other applications of this technique include the analysis of movement during running or while performing certain tasks (see Müller et al., 2014) and digital animation for movies (e.g., Captain Davy Jones in the second and third Pirates of the Caribbean movies or the dragon Smaug in the movie The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug). 2. Data gloves: Grimes already developed the first data gloves in 1983 (Dobrea & Sîrbu, 2008). Whereas motion capture provides a method to record the movement of a person’s entire body, data gloves focus on recording hand gestures. For this purpose, subjects wear the data gloves over their hands while a computer documents their position with great precision. This method is especially useful to document hand movements while the hands are obscured by other body parts as is often the case when people stand next to or in front of each other during interactions. 3. Facial Action Coding System (FACS): FACS was developed to study facial expressions (Ekman & Friesen, 1978; Ekman et al., 2002). It is a coding system that allows for the identification of the smallest units of facial movement based on the movement of the facial muscles. The system distinguishes between various so-called action units (AU) that are associated (continued)

4.2  Body Language

81

with specific movements (e.g., puckering our lips to form a “kissing” mouth). Each AU has a specific number and name (e.g., AU 18, “lip puckerer”). Additionally, so-called action descriptors (AD) are associated with general movements (e.g., movements of the head or eyes). This coding system makes it possible to record facial expressions. Movies like Avatar have also made increasing use of FACS to help animate facial expressions. FACS has been further developed for the use with babies and toddlers (Baby FACS; Oster, 2006), chimpanzees (ChimpFACS; Vick et al., 2007), and rhesus macaques (MaqFACS; Parr et al., 2010). These variants allow researchers to study the development of facial expressions in humans and compare facial expressions across species.

4.2.1.3 Diversity of Gestures and Their Potential to Change Because gestures may vary across cultures, they can lead to misunderstandings. However, there are not only cultural differences. Gestures can also change over time (Fricke, 2019). Technological progress for example changed the gesture for talking on the phone (Fig. 4.3). Before the days of cell phones and smartphones, phone calls were typically expressed by holding a fist next to the ear as if holding the handset. With time, the fist changed into a slightly opened hand as the gap between the thumb and the pinky began to represent a cell phone. In this regard, gestures can communicate information about how to use a particular object (e.g., how to use a phone).

Fig. 4.3  Stages in the technological development of phones and associated phone gestures

82

4  Means of Nonverbal Communication

Gestures do not only allow us to communicate with other people. Human-­ computer communication (see Sect. 6.2.1.2.2) also relies more and more on gestures as they become more relevant for how we use technological equipment (e.g., to play videogames). The future ways in which we use cell phones, robots, and self-driving cars may also incorporate more and more gestures.

4.2.2 Head Movements Head movements are a specific subcategory of gestures. One way we use head movements is to indicate that the speaker is changing. Have you ever noticed how we communicate with another person or even multiple people and usually know when we can say something without interrupting somebody else? Imagine how awful it would be if we had to verbally communicate this change: “Alright, I am done with my part now. It’s your turn!” Fortunately, head movements allow us to change seamlessly while conversing with others. We may do this by nodding or with other light head movements. When two people talk to each other, turn-taking usually works by establishing or interrupting eye contact through head movements (Kendon, 1979). For example, when Julia and Mary are talking and Julia lowers her head, her interrupting the eye contact with Mary tells the latter that it is her turn now. The head movements of our conversation partners show us whether it is our time to speak or not. This is why turn-taking is more difficult during phone calls than direct contact.

4.2.3 Posture Our posture can provide others with information about our emotions, attitudes, and status. Study results on posture sometimes contradict each other, creating a need for future research on the subject. However, the dimension tension/relaxation has proven to be an important aspect of how we communicate with our bodies. According to Argyle (1994), we are able to determine a person’s status based on how relaxed they are. People of higher status tend to show more relaxed posture when sitting or standing (e.g., slightly leaning to the side while sitting, arms crossed or hands in their pockets while standing) than people of lower status. People of lower status, meanwhile, tend to be upright and stiff when sitting or standing. One research topic that has received a lot of attention in this regard for a while is the concept of power posing which refers to nonverbal expressions of power (Körner & Schütz, 2018). Carney et  al. (2010) suggested the concept to describe posture that symbolizes power. We speak of high levels of power posing when people have a dominant posture that takes up a lot of physical space. By contrast, low levels of power posing are defined by slouching, submissive posture. Research on embodiment (i.e., the interaction between our body and psychological processes) and power examine the

4.2  Body Language

83

influence of power posing on our psychological and physical processes and our behavior. Findings on the effect of posture on our hormone levels (i.e., increase in testosterone and reduction in the stress hormone cortisol) initially garnered great attention. Since then, however, they have been criticized for their lack of replicability (Körner & Schütz, 2019). Still, other effects are replicable, such as the effect of power posing on feeling powerful, on our self-image, and emotions. To adequately interpret these results, it is therefore important to differentiate between posture that expresses power and other posture (Körner & Schütz, 2020). Does our posture also inform others about our personality? Is the eccentric-­ looking fashion designer who struts along the catwalk with his favorite model at the end of a show extraverted, self-confident, or even arrogant? In our daily lives, we are quick to judge other people’s personality by their posture. However, there is hardly any experimental evidence for this connection. While it may seem intuitive, further research needs to clarify if posture and personality are indeed linked. Beware rash judgments and prejudices! Although our personality may influence our posture, there are many other factors that do the same. This makes research on the relationship between posture and personality difficult. Somebody with a very upright posture might have high self-esteem. But perhaps their posture is the result of ballet training and they are actually filled with self-doubt in private. Or they suffer from back pain or are an enthusiastic archer. It is also possible that multiple of these reasons apply at once. This brief example shows that an unequivocal and correct interpretation of somebody’s posture is much more difficult than it may appear at first.

4.2.4 Gazing and Mutual Gazing When we are looking at another person’s face, our gaze can be one-directional (gazing) or we can meet eyes with our communication partner (mutual gazing). In both situations, our gaze can accompany verbal communication or take place without it. It can communicate our intentions, regulate interpersonal interactions, and express emotions (Patterson, 1983). Depending on the context and our facial expression, however, gazing and mutual gazing can mean very different things. They may express affection or confrontation; but they can also be a way to assert dominance. For example, when we are flirting, our first eye contact (i.e., mutual gazing) should not last too long to prevent it from feeling threatening (Bossi, 1995). But how long exactly is “too long”? Binetti et al. (2016) tried to answer this question empirically. Almost 500 participants between the ages of 11 and 79 watched videos featuring four actors and four actresses who had been instructed to gaze at the viewers for different amounts of time (ranging from 100 to 10,300 milliseconds). Before and after making eye contact, they looked at the ground for 500 milliseconds. The participants were asked if the eye contact felt too short or too long to them. On average, they considered eye contact that lasted for 3.2 seconds pleasant. Meanwhile, none of the participants found eye contact that lasted less than one second or more

84

4  Means of Nonverbal Communication

than nine seconds pleasant. It was thus unpleasant to the participants if the eye contact was too short (e.g., signaling a lack of interest) or too long (e.g., brash flirtation, curiosity, intimidation). There are also interindividual differences regarding whether we feel comfortable or uncomfortable when others look at us. People who are very anxious, for example, experience this as a trigger of their anxiety (Wieser et al., 2009). Gazing and mutual gazing provide us with important information about social perception and allows us to gauge other people’s mental states, beliefs, and emotions. This is highly relevant when we are interacting with others. A recent study examined gazing among psychopaths. Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by deception, a lack of empathy and feelings of guilt, as well as antisocial behavior (see DSM-V; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Gehrer et  al. (2019) compared gazing by psychopathic and non-psychopathic criminals. The participants were asked to look at pictures of human faces and identify their gender alongside their emotional expression. While doing so, the researchers tracked the participants’ eye movement for analysis. They found that psychopathic participants looked at the eyes in the images less frequently and for shorter periods of time. This was true when they were asked to identify the gender of the person in the image or their emotional expression. Whether these differences are one of the factors causing psychopathy, a concomitant, or a result of psychopathy is a question that demands further investigation.

4.2.5 Facial Expressions Our facial expression is a rich source of information for the transmission of our emotions and other cues that are vital for successful social interactions. The expression somebody carries on their face may for example influence whether we trust them or consider them guilty (Zebrowitz, 2017; Zhang et al., 2018). Minute changes in our facial expression modify the messages we send because our facial expression influences how others see us. We tend to view a smiling person in a more positive light, for example, than somebody with a neutral expression (Otta et al., 1994). Meanwhile, a crying person seems less aggressive and evokes sadness in those who look at them (Hendriks & Vingerhoets, 2006). This is why conditions like the Moebius syndrome can contribute to misunderstandings in interpersonal interactions (see Box 4.5). Our facial expression, however, does not only affect how we are perceived by the people around us. It may even influence how we feel ourselves. For example, studies have

Box 4.5 Moebius Syndrome and Interpersonal Difficulties Moebius syndrome is a disorder that is characterized by paralysis of the face, leading to limited facial expressivity in those affected. They are often not able to frown, blink, or smile. This makes it very difficult for affected people to interact with others and build relationships with them. Misunderstandings and rejection by others are very common, especially when they are unaware of the condition (Briegel, 2006).

4.2  Body Language

85

shown that we feel happier after moving the facial muscles involved in smiling—a phenomenon known as the facial feedback hypothesis (Strack et al., 1988). If our facial expressions are this important for the transmission of emotions, do people express their feelings the same way across cultures? Do our emotions have a form of universal facial representation? There is evidence for the universality of facial expressions. The origin of this hypothesis can be found in a study for which participants from Papua New Guinea were asked to identify the emotions expressed in three photographs. Although the faces in these photographs were of people with a European background, the participants were able to correctly identify the emotions shown in 80% of the cases (Ekman & Friesen, 1971). After a translator read them a brief story, adult participants were asked to indicate which of three photographs showed a facial expression that matched the story (while child participants picked one of two photographs). For example, one of the stories featured a man or a woman who was visited by a friend, which made them feel happy. This means that the happy face was the matching one in this case. The authors’ results, however, were criticized as the photographs used showed overly clear and static facial expressions. For this reason, Ekman and Friesen (1971) also asked the participants from Papua New Guinea to express the emotions described in the stories themselves. Video recordings of their expressions were then shown to participants in the US who were able to correctly identify the expressions in 47% of the cases (Ekman, 1971). These findings led to the conclusion that there are universal facial expressions for emotions that are genetically determined. Studies of this kind, however, have received much criticism over the years. One major criticism has been the fact that the participants merely acted as if they were experiencing a certain emotion while expressing them. They did not actually feel them. In addition, there are differences with regard to how strongly and when different cultures permit the facial expression of emotions. Culturally shaped display rules (see Sect. 3.2.5) indeed strongly influence how openly individuals may express their emotions. When Friesen (1972) showed a movie that was aimed to evoke disgust to participants from Japan and North America and analyzed their recorded reactions, both groups showed similar reactions. During interviews that followed this presentation, however, only North American participants continued to show negative facial expressions while their Japanese counterparts did no longer express these emotions. They seemed to control their emotional expression more strongly. Barrett et al. (2019) systematically analyzed studies on the expression of anger, happiness, surprise, disgust, sadness, and fear in a recent literature review. Their verdict on the current state of knowledge is that it seems doubtful that there truly is a particular facial expression for each of these emotions. Instead, there are considerable differences regarding how people communicate them. Even though it is true that people commonly raise the corners of their mouths to express happiness, for example, their concrete facial expressions still differ. Culture is one of the reason for these differences, and in general, the authors argue, different individuals communicate their emotions in different ways (see Sect. 3.2.5). The same applies to our use of emoticons (i.e., when we communicate facial expressions in mediated contexts). While we frequently assume that emoticons carry universal meaning, recent studies

86

4  Means of Nonverbal Communication

suggest that there are different styles in emoticon use that vary with culture and language (see Sect. 6.2.1.2). Situational factors also matter, which means that even the same person may convey the same emotion with different facial expressions across different situations (Barrett et al., 2019). For example, we expect flight attendants to show a friendly facial expression even if it does not match how they are actually feeling (see Herpertz et  al., 2016). The correct interpretation of facial expressions therefore hinges upon situational and cultural factors.

4.3 Proxemics Proxemics includes aspects of territoriality, personal space, and interpersonal distance alongside questions of orientation and seating arrangement (see Hargie & Dickson, 2004). In this chapter, we will only discuss interpersonal distance. The anthropologist Edward T. Hall pioneered the study of interpersonal distance. With regard to personal space and interpersonal distance, Hall (1966) distinguished between four categories of face-to-face interactions (Fig. 4.4). –– The intimate distance of roughly 6–18 inches expresses familiarity (e.g., protection, love) and is reserved for people to whom we feel very close. –– The personal distance of roughly 1.5–4 feet indicates close connections and is characteristic of informal communication with friends.

Fig. 4.4  Four categories of interpersonal distance

4.4  Physical Characteristics

87

–– The social distance of roughly 4–12 feet is where professional and impersonal interactions take place. –– The public distance varies between 12 feet and as far as a person can see or hear. This is where public speaking takes place (e.g., during large gatherings), a ­situation in which the speaker does not necessarily need to recognize all members of the audience. Hall emphasized that he developed these categories based on his observations of White, middle-class North Americans. Nevertheless, his categories are sometimes assumed to have intercultural validity. Culture, however, shapes how we experience interpersonal distance and people from Arab or Southern European cultures, for example, interact at closer distances (Watson, 1970; Watson & Graves, 1966). While Hall’s categorization may thus serve as a rule of thumb for Western cultures, it does by no means apply to all cultural contexts. Culture is not the only factor that has an influence on the distance at which we communicate with others. A study by Altman and Vinsel (1977) found that the distance at which we interact differs depending on whether we are sitting or standing. Specifically, we tend to interact at the intimate or personal distance when standing. Sitting, meanwhile, is much more common during interactions at the social and public distances. Interpersonal distance therefore does not only depend on why we communicate and with whom, but also on whether we are sitting or standing while doing so. Moreover, a study by Six et al. (1983) suggests that the actual number of people who are present is less important for our subjective perception of density and comfort than their gender and how familiar we are with them. Familiarity and gender thus also affect whether we feel comfortable or not when we are close to others.

4.4 Physical Characteristics We use the physical characteristics of others to form an impression of aspects such as their ethnicity, gender, state of health, or age. Physical attractiveness is highly important in this regard as we tend to consider attractive people friendlier, more competent, and more intelligent than less attractive ones (Feingold, 1992; Langlois et al., 2000). It is possible, however, to optimize our attractiveness. For example, Ebster and Reisinger (2007) used makeup to change the appearance of salespeople and make them appear very attractive, attractive, or unattractive. This was accomplished by subtly manipulating factors such as their facial symmetry. Salespeople wearing attractive makeup were perceived as more trustworthy and competent compared to their colleagues with unattractive makeup. Even the rating of the product they sold became more positive and the likelihood of a purchase increased when the salespeople wore attractive makeup (Ebster & Reisinger, 2007). However, there seems to be a limit to this effect as very high attractiveness can also lead to undesirable outcomes: The assessments of salespeople with attractive makeup were better than the assessments of those with very attractive makeup.

88

4  Means of Nonverbal Communication

In addition to somebody’s attractiveness, their height, body shape, and clothes also influence how we perceive them (see Hargie & Dickson, 2004). We perceive taller people, especially men, as stronger, more dominant, and more independent than shorter people (Melamed & Bozionelos, 1992; Young & French, 1996; Boyson et al., 1999). How we dress also matters. In one field experiment, people were either dressed like college students or in formal attire before entering various shops and expressing their interest in different products: The better they were dressed, the faster they were served, the shorter they had to wait, and the more likely it became that they were offered certain services such as a test drive (Jungbauer-Gans et al., 2005).

4.5 Summary, Comprehension Questions, and Further Reading This chapter discussed how nonverbal communication is primarily about the HOW of a message. Among other things, it tells our communication partners how to understand what we are saying. When we say: “Enough is enough!” while hitting the table with our fist, we leave no doubt that we are serious. If we say the same sentence without hitting the table and instead wink at our communication partner and laugh, they know that we are joking. Their interpretation of the situation switches from serious to humorous. The reason is that we tend to “listen” more to nonverbal than verbal signals when the two are in conflict. Nonverbal communication includes haptic signals (e.g., when we touch a grieving friend’s arm with our hand to comfort them), the various forms of body language (e.g., when a driver signals with their hand that a pedestrian may cross the street), proxemics (e.g., when keeping a greater distance to our partner during the first date than once we are married), and physical characteristics (e.g., when how we dress affects how we are perceived). Research on the exciting field of nonverbal communication has provided many insights on its various effects. However, while there are plenty of courses claiming that a few lessons in nonverbal communication are able to solve all of the problems we face in our lives, there are still many questions that remain unanswered. Comprehension Questions 1. How do we communicate nonverbally? 2. What are the forms of body language? 3. After a phone call with a friend, Sarah breaks into tears, runs into her room, and locks herself in. Her mother is concerned, knocks on her door, and asks her if everything is alright. Fighting her tears, Sarah says: “Yes.” In this example, there is a contradiction between Sarah’s nonverbal and verbal message. What is the result? 4. What are attributions of credibility? 5. Where do we encounter emblems and illustrators? 6. What determines how a gesture looks and what it means?

References

89

Recommended Reading Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire or nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49–98. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1969.1.1.49 Ekman, P., & Rosenberg, E. L. (Eds.) (2005). What the Face Reveals: Basic and Applied Studies of Spontaneous Expression Using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS) (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

References Altman, I., & Vinsel, A. M. (1977). Personal space. An analysis of E. T. Hall’s proxemics framework. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Human Behavior and Environment. Advances in Theory and Research (Vol. 2, pp. 181–259). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­1-­4684-­0808-­9_5 American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 Argyle, M. (1988). Bodily Communication (2nd ed.). Methuen. Argyle, M. (1994). Psychology of Interpersonal Behaviour (5th ed.). Penguin. Aslaksen, P. M., & Flaten, M. A. (2008). The roles of physiological and subjective stress in the effectiveness of a placebo on experimentally induced pain. Psychosomatic Medicine, 70(7), 811–818. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e31818105ed Barrett, L. F., Adolphs, R., Marsella, S., Martinez, A. M., & Pollak, S. D. (2019). Emotional expressions reconsidered: Challenges to inferring emotion from human facial movements. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(1), 1–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619832930 Binetti, N., Harrison, C., Coutrot, A., Johnston, A., & Mareschal, I. (2016). Pupil dilation as an index of preferred mutual gaze duration. Royal Society Open Science, 3(7), 1–68. https://doi. org/10.1098/rsos.160086 Bossi, J. (1995). Augen-Blicke: Zur Psychologie des Flirts [Moments: On the Psychology of Flirting]. Huber. Boyson, A. R., Pryor, B., & Butler, J. (1999). Height as power in women. North American Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 109–114. Bressem, J. (2018). Sprache multimodal  – Strukturen und Funktionen von Gesten im Sprachgebrauch [Multimodal language  – Structures and functions of gestures in language use]. In C. Rora & M. Sichardt (Eds.), Gesten gestalten. Spielräume zwischen Sichtbarkeit und Hörbarkeit (pp. 35–55). Olms. Briegel, W. (2006), Neuropsychiatric findings of Möbius sequence – a review. Clinical Genetics, 70(2), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-­0004.2006.00649.x Burgoon, J.  K., Walther, J.  B., & Baesler, E.  J. (1992). Interpretations, evaluations, and consequences of interpersonal touch. Human Communication Research, 19(2), 237–263. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-­2958.1992.tb00301.x Carney, D. R., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Yap, A. J. (2010). Power posing: Brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1363–1368. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0956797610383437 Daniali, H., & Flaten, M. A. (2019). A qualitative systematic review of effects of provider characteristics and nonverbal behavior on pain, and placebo and nocebo effects. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00242 DePaulo, B.  M., Lindsay, J.  J., Malone, B.  E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-­2909.129.1.74 Dobrea, D.-M., & Sîrbu, A. (2008). A complex non-contact bio-instrumental system. In N.  Wickramasinghe & E.  Geisler (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Healthcare Information Systems (pp. 251–260). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-­1-­59904-­889-­5.ch035

90

4  Means of Nonverbal Communication

Ebster, C., & Reisinger, H. (2007). Erfolg durch Schönheit - warum sich körperliche Attraktivität im Verkauf auswirkt [Success through beauty  – how physical attractiveness affects sales]. Wirtschaftspsychologie Aktuell, 14, 38–40. Edwards, L., McIntyre, D., Carroll, D., Ring, C., & Martin, U. (2002), The human nociceptive flexion reflex threshold is higher during systole than diastole. Psychophysiology, 39(5), 678–681. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-­8986.3950678 Ekman, P. (1971). Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotion. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 19, 207–283. Ekman, P., Davidson, R.  J., & Friesen, W.  V. (1990). The Duchenne smile: Emotional expression and brain physiology: II. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­3514.58.2.342 Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). The repertoire or nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49–98. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1969.1.1.49 Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17(2), 124–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030377 Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1978). Facial Action Coding System (FACS). APA PsycTests. Ekman, P., Friesen, W.  V., & Hager, J.  C. (2002). Facial Action Coding System. Manual and Investigator’s Guide. Research Nexus. Feingold, A. (1992). Good-looking people are not what we think. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 304–341. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-­2909.111.2.304 Fricke, E. (2019). Gesten – gestern, heute, übermorgen. Vom Forschungsprojekt zur Ausstellung [Gestures – yesterday, today, the day after tomorrow. From the research project to the exhibition]. In E. Fricke & J. Bressem (Eds.), Gesten – gestern, heute, übermorgen [Gestures – Yesterday, Today, the Day After Tomorrow] (pp. 32–45). Universitätsverlag Chemnitz. Friesen, W.  V. (1972). Cultural Differences in Facial Expressions in a Social Situation: An Experimental Test on the Concept of Display Rules [Doctoral dissertation, University of California]. Gehrer, N. A., Scheeff, J., Jusyte, A., & Schönenberg, M. (2019). Impaired attention toward the eyes in psychopathic offenders: Evidence from an eye tracking study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 118, 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2019.04.009 The Global Deception Research Team. (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(1), 60–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105282295 Groninger, H., & Mittelberg, I. (2019). Von Erinnerungen zu Objekten: Motion-Capture-Skulpturen gestischer Raumbeschreibungen [From memories to objects: Motion capture sculptures of gestural space descriptions]. In E. Fricke & J. Bressem (Eds.), Gesten – gestern, heute, übermorgen [Gestures – Yesterday, Today, the Day After Tomorrow] (pp. 158–165). Universitätsverlag Chemnitz. Grunwald, M. (Ed.) (2008). Human Haptic Perception. Basics and Applications. Birkhäuser Basel. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­7643-­7612-­3 Hall, E. T. (1966). The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday. Hall, J.  A. (1996). Touch, status, and gender at professional meetings. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02248713 Hargie, O., & Dickson, D. (2004). Skilled Interpersonal Communication. Research, Theory and Practice (4th ed.). Routledge. Hendriks, M. C.P., & Vingerhoets, A. J. J. M. (2006). Social messages of crying faces: Their influence on anticipated person perception, emotions and behavioural responses. Cognition and Emotion, 20(6), 878–886. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930500450218 Heringer, H.  J. (2017). Interkulturelle Kommunikation [Intercultural Communication] (5th ed.). UTB. Herpertz, S., Nizielski, S., Hock, M., & Schütz, A. (2016). The relevance of emotional intelligence in personnel selection for high emotional labor jobs. PLoS ONE 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0154432

References

91

Jacob, H., Kreifelts, B., Brück, C., Nizielski, S., Schütz, A., & Wildgruber, D. (2013). Nonverbal signals speak up: Association between perceptual nonverbal dominance and emotional intelligence. Cognition and Emotion, 27(5), 783–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2012.73999 9 Joule, R.-V., & Guéguen, N. (2007). Touch, compliance, and awareness of tactile contact. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104(2), 581–588. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.104.2.581-­588 Jungbauer-Gans, M., Berger, R., & Kriwy, P. (2005). Machen Kleider Leute? Ergebnisse eines Feldexperiments zum Verkäuferverhalten [Does clothing make the man? Conclusions from a field experiment on the behavior of sales assistants]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 34(4), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-­2005-­0404 Kendon, A. (1979). Die Rolle sichtbaren Verhaltens in der Organisation sozialer Interaktion [The role of visible behavior in the organization of social interaction]. In K. R. Scherer & H. G. Wallbott (Eds.), Nonverbale Kommunikation: Forschungsberichte zum Interaktionsverhalten (pp. 202–237). Beltz. Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture. Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 Klosinski, C., & Hermanutz, M. (2010). Lügenentdeckung durch Beobachtung von nonverbalem Verhalten – Mythos oder Möglichkeit? [Lie detection by observing non-verbal behavior – myth or possibility?]. Polizei & Wissenschaft, 2, 34–45. Köhnken, G. (1990). Glaubwürdigkeit: Untersuchungen zu einem psychologischen Konstrukt [Credibility – Investigations of a Psychological Construct]. Psychologie Verlags Union. Körner, R., & Schütz, A. (2018). Power posing. In V.  Zeigler-Hill & T.  K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­28099-­8_2323-­1 Körner, R., & Schütz, A. (2019). Power Posing – Eine Zusammenfassung des Wissensstands über die Effekte dominanter versus submissiver Körperhaltungen [Power posing – A summary of the state of knowledge about the effects of dominant versus submissive postures]. Report Psychologie, 44, 10–16. Körner, R., & Schütz, A. (2020). Dominance or prestige – A review of the effects of power poses and other body postures. Manuscript submitted for publication. 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(3), 390–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-­2909.126.3.390 Litzcke, S.  M., Hermanutz, M., & Klossek, A. (2006). Nonverbale Warnsignale  – Glaubhaftigkeitsdiagnostik und Glaubwürdigkeitsattribution [Non-verbal warning signals  – Credibility diagnostics and credibility attribution]. In S.  Schwan & S.  M. Litzcke (Eds.), Nachrichtendienstpsychologie 4 (pp.  5–19). Fachhochschule des Bundes für Öffentliche Verwaltung. Lynn, M., Le, J.-M., & Sherwyn, D.  S. (1998). Reach out and touch your customers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 60–65. https://doi. org/10.1177/001088049803900312 McMahan, E.  M. (1976). Nonverbal communication as a function of attribution in impression formation. Communication Monographs, 43(4), 287–294. https://doi. org/10.1080/03637757609375939 Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal Communication. Aldine Transaction. Mehrabian, A., & Ferris, S. R. (1967). Inference of attitudes from nonverbal communication in two channels. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 31(3), 248–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/ h0024648 Mehrabian, A., & Wiener, M. (1967). Decoding of inconsistent communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6(1), 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024532 Melamed, T., & Bozionelos, N. (1992). Managerial promotion and height. Psychological Reports, 71(2), 587–593. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.71.6.587-­593

92

4  Means of Nonverbal Communication

Müller, C. (2004). Forms and uses of the Palm Up Open Hand: a case of a gesture family? C. Müller & R. Posner (Eds.), The Semantics and Pragmatics of Everyday Gestures. Proceedings of the Berlin Conference April 1998 (pp. 233–256). Weidler. Müller, N. H., Truschzinski, M., Fink, V., Schuster, J., Dinkelbach, H. Ü., Heft, W., Kronfeld, T., Rau, C., & Spitzhirn, M. (2014). The Smart Virtual Worker – Digital human models for the simulation of industrial work processes. Technical Safety, 7–8, 32–35. Oster, H. (2006). Baby FACS: Facial Action Coding System for Infants and Young Children. Unpublished monograph and coding manual. Otta, E., Lira, B. B. P., Delevati, N. M., Cesar, O. P., & Pires, C. S. G. (1994). The effect of smiling and of head tilting on person perception. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 128(3), 323–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1994.9712736 Parr, L. A., Waller, B. M., Burrows, A. M., Gothard, K. M., & Vick, S. J. (2010). MaqFACS: A muscle-based facial movement coding system for the rhesus macaque. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 143(4), 625–630. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.21401 Patterson, M. L. (1983). Nonverbal Behavior. A Functional Perspective. Springer. Pfeiffer, T. (2013a). Documentation of gestures with data gloves. C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & S. Teßendorf (Eds.), Body – Language – Communication. An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction (pp. 868–879). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261318.868 Pfeiffer, T. (2013b). Documentation of gestures with motion capture. C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & S. Teßendorf (Eds.), Body – Language – Communication. An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction (pp. 857–868). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261318.857 Remland, M. S. (2000). Nonverbal Communication in Everyday Life. Houghton Mifflin. Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2000). Nonverbal Behavior in Interpersonal Relations (4th ed.). Pearson. Six, B., Martin, P., & Pecher, M. (1983). A cultural comparison of perceived crowding and discomfort: The United States and West Germany. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 114(1), 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1983.9915397 Stewart, G. L., Dustin, S. L., Barrick, M. R., & Darnold, T. C. (2008). Exploring the handshake in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1139–1146. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-­9010.93.5.1139 Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: A nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 768–777. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-­3514.54.5.768 Sturman, D.  J. (1999). A Brief History of Motion Capture for Computer Character Animation. https://education.siggraph.org/static/HyperGraph/animation/character_animation/motion_ capture/history1.htm Vaidis, D.  C. F., & Halimi-Falkowicz, S.  G. M. (2008). Increasing compliance with a request: Two touches are more effective than one. Psychological Reports, 103(1), 88–92. https://doi. org/10.2466/pr0.103.1.88-­92 Vick, S.-J., Waller, B. M., Parr, L. A., Smith Pasqualini, M. C., & Bard, K. A. (2007). A cross-­ species comparison of facial morphology and movement in humans and chimpanzees using the Facial Action Coding System (FACS). Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 31, 1–20. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10919-­006-­0017-­z Waller, B. M., & Smith Pasqualini, M. C. (2013). Analysing facial expression using the facial action coding system (FACS). C.  Müller, A.  Cienki, E.  Fricke, S.  H. Ladewig, D.  McNeill, & S.  Teßendorf (Eds.), Body  – Language  – Communication. An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction (pp.  917–932). De Gruyter. https://doi. org/10.1515/9783110261318.917 Watson, O. M. (1970). Proxemic Behavior. A Cross-Cultural Study. De Gruyter Watson, O.  M., & Graves, T.  D. (1966). Quantitative research in proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 68(4), 971–985.

Answers to the Comprehension Questions

93

Wieser, M. J., Pauli, P., Alpers, G. W., & Mühlberger, A. (2009). Is eye to eye contact really threatening and avoided in social anxiety?—An eye-tracking and psychophysiology study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2008.04.004 Young, T.  J., & French, L.  A. (1996). Height and perceived competence of U.S. presidents. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82(3), 1002–1002. https://doi.org/10.1177/003151259608200301 Zebrowitz, L.  A. (2017). First impressions from faces. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(3), 237–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416683996 Zhang, Q., Chen, L., & Yang, Q. (2018). The effects of facial features on judicial decision making. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(4), 698–709. Zuckerman, M., Spiegel, N. H., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1982). Nonverbal strategies for decoding deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6, 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00987066

Answers to the Comprehension Questions 1. Haptic signals, various types of body language, proxemics, and physical characteristics. 2. Gestures, head movements, posture, gazing and mutual gazing, and facial expressions. 3.  The nonverbal and verbal messages contradict each other in this example. The result is an incongruent message. 4.  The recipient believes or doubts the sender’s message without subjecting it to a systematic analysis. 5. Gestures. 6.  Culture; point in time (e.g., because the meaning of gestures can change over time due to technological developments).

Chapter 5

Means of Verbal Communication

Abstract  In this chapter, we will discuss selected means of verbal communication. In particular, we will take a closer look at listening, questions, explanations, and laughter and humor. Keywords  Verbal communication · Listening · Questions · Question types · Open-ended questions · Closed-ended questions · Leading questions · Question wording · Formal aspects of questions · Explanations · Laughter and humor

5.1 Listening When we talk about the means of verbal communication, most of us probably immediately think of people asking questions. By contrast, we may not consider listening as a means of communication at all. However, listening is in fact one of the most widely used parts of communication that we also develop very early (Brownell, 2018). But how can we communicate by listening? Is it not merely a passive process during which not much is happening? That is not the case at all! Listening serves various functions. For example, it allows us to analyze what is being said, show our conversation partners that we are interested and attentive, and focus on their message (see Hargie & Dickson, 2004). Listening is a sign of interest and attention. In certain interaction contexts, showing our communication partners that we are interested and paying attention can be especially important, for example when our communication partner suffers from memory problems that make it difficult for them to exchange information. This may be the case when we are interacting with people with dementia, a condition that frequently leads to communication problems as dementia causes the afflicted to forget events, people who are involved, or parts of a communication. People with dementia have a hard time expressing themselves due to communication barriers such as word-finding difficulties or difficulties with processing information. These problems can lead to misunderstandings and may have a negative impact on interactions with others, possibly leading people with dementia to abort them

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Röhner, A. Schütz, Psychology of Communication, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60170-6_5

95

96

5  Means of Verbal Communication

altogether (Pozzebon et  al., 2016). As a consequence, they often feel isolated and lonely. Alsawy et al. (2020) set out to develop recommendations for interactions with people with dementia. To this end, they asked an affected sample which features of communication situations make these situations meaningful in their eyes. They filmed the participants with dementia during an interaction with a caregiver (e.g., solving a jigsaw puzzle). Next, the participants were shown the resulting recordings in segments as the researchers asked them about features of the communication situation (e.g., How did you feel? Why did you feel that way?). They found that three features were especially important to the participants: Sharing moments of emotional connection, feeling competent in their communication skills, and feeling listened to, understood, and appreciated. They perceived continued communication as a sign of appreciation while aborted communication made them feel powerless (Alsawy et al., 2020). The participants with dementia appreciated the caregivers’ efforts to interact with them. This was even true when the caregivers did not understand what the participants tried to share but still continued to interact with and listen to them in an appreciative manner. Listening served a central function and signalized appreciation. Listening does not only convey interest. It also facilitates successful communication by increasing our focus and enables us to ask questions. Prior knowledge, which may include prejudices (see Sect. 3.2.1) and biased perceptions of others (see Sect. 1.3.3.1) may hinder open listening (see active listening). Inadequate listening is especially problematic when the stakes are high (e.g., when grading performances, trying to resolve conflicts, or making a diagnosis or report). Ernstmann et al. (2017) examined whether communication between medical staff and patients with prostate cancer affects their quality of life as it relates to their health. The patients periodically filled out questionnaires to provide information on aspects such as their physical resilience, their specific discomfort, and their psychological state. They were also asked about the communication with their attending doctor. The results showed that the patients reported fewer limitations to their quality of life when they were satisfied with the communication with their attending doctor. When the latter took the time to address the needs and concerns of their patients, the treatment was more likely to succeed. The term talking medicine has emerged in this context to describe medical interventions whose effect is brought about by the communication between physicians and their patients (Egger, 2017). Ernstmann et al. (2017) suggest two reasons for this effect. On the one hand, well-­ informed medical staff is more likely to detect sudden changes in a patient’s condition. On the other hand, patients are more likely to follow therapeutic advice if they feel taken seriously. Furthermore, the treatment of diseases is more likely to succeed when patients are well-informed (e.g., about potential side effects and the benefits of particular treatments; van Tol-Geerdink et  al., 2006). Many patients, however, do not use the information available to them in a systematic manner. Instead, they process it in a biased way (e.g., influenced by their personal beliefs regarding the success of their treatment; see Holmboe & Concato, 2000). The

5.1 Listening

97

medical staff is thus a highly important source of information for patients (Sharpley & Christie, 2007). Listening makes communication more likely to succeed. But how can we be good listeners? For this, it is first important to understand that hearing is not the same as “listening.” You have probably experienced this for yourself. Imagine a team meeting at the end of a long workday during which you are forced to listen to a seemingly unending tangent by a self-important colleague. It can be easy to “space out.” Why are we not always listening? Listening is not a passive process that can be done automatically or on the side. It requires resources (e.g., attention). This turns listening into an effort we have to make and one during which we may make mistakes (see Imhof, 2009). For example, we have to correctly receive, understand, and store information over various channels (e.g., verbal and nonverbal). We can learn to become better listeners, however. Let us explain this process by looking at how we store information. We do by no means store all information we receive. Active engagement with received information (e.g., putting what we hear into our own words, imagining pictures or mnemonics for received information, or comparing it to examples from our previous experience) makes it more robust in our long-term memory (Imhof, 2009). When we talk to others, we usually want them to react to the things we say and not just passively listen to them (Halone & Pecchioni, 2001). But how can we show our conversation partners that we are listening attentively? So-called active listening is a way to express our interest and attention both verbally (e.g., by asking questions) and nonverbally (e.g., by nodding, smiling, or making eye contact; see Duggan & Parrott, 2001; Kramer, 2001). Psychologist Carl Rogers was the first to describe this special form of listening as a tool for client-centered psychotherapy (see Sect. 2.5). This technique allows conversation partners to understand messages the way they are intended. Active listening consists of three components: (1) Actively following what is being said (showing our attention by making eye contact, sounds, etc.), (2) actively understanding the message (trying to put the gist of the message into our own words, to paraphrase), (3) understanding and reproducing the emotional content of the message (mirroring). Putting this rather theoretical explanation into practice may look like this: We let our conversation partner finish. We try to follow what they are saying. We potentially summarize the message we receive or ask questions if we are unsure. We keep eye contact and do not allow ourselves to get distracted by other thoughts or activities. Box 5.1 lists nonverbal signals that we tend to interpret as indicators of inattention (see Duggan & Parrott, 2001). Box 5.1 Indicators of Inattention –– Lack of (mutual) gazing –– Facial expression that does not “fit” the content of the conversation –– Signs of tiredness or alternative interests (e.g., yawning, reading, looking at the clock)

98

5  Means of Verbal Communication

Are all listeners who nod also paying attention? As we already discussed in the chapter on nonverbal communication, we cannot interpret nonverbal signals in isolation and without context. This means that nodding does not necessarily indicate attention. The listener’s gender has an effect in this regard since men and women do not typically nod for the same reason. Men are more likely to nod when they agree with others. Women, by contrast, often nod when they merely want to show their attention, even if they disagree with what is being said (Stewart & Logan, 1998). People also differ in their ability to listen to others and judge them correctly (Hartung & Renner, 2011). There are many reasons for inattention: Paying attention is more difficult for some of us than others. However, the situation also matters as we have a harder time paying attention under certain circumstances. We may be more inclined to focus on the content of a message and think about it critically or pay less attention to the content. Instead, we may focus on certain characteristics of the sender. This depends on our motivation, our capacity, and the surrounding conditions (see Sect. 1.3.3.2).

5.2 Questions Asking and answering questions are both integral parts of conversations because questions allow us to initiate, keep up, and guide them. It is also possible to ask questions nonverbally, for example with a critical facial expression. The goal of a question can be to get information (e.g., “Where is the nearest pharmacy?”) or to convey it (e.g., as a leading question: “You do understand what this means for your grade?”). Questions can also raise interest in a particular topic (e.g., “How can we improve our quarterly performance?”) or show our interest (e.g., “How do you interpret this?”). Lastly, we can use questions to encourage others to become more involved in a conversation (e.g., “What do you think about this?”). How we ask our questions may affect the answers we receive. In this regard, the specific type of question we use, how we phrase it, and mere formal aspects may all have an influence. In this section, we will explore this interplay between questions and their answers in greater detail.

5.2.1 Question Types and Their Influence on How We Answer Questions The specific question type we use can have a significant influence on the answer. We may reduce the number of available response alternatives to limit an answer’s scope or lead others in a way that makes a particular answer more likely. For example, openended questions allow respondents to choose how and what they answer. Closedended questions, meanwhile, can often be answered in one or two words. We can distinguish between different question types and we will describe some of them below.

5.2 Questions

99

5.2.1.1 Open-Ended Questions Open-ended questions are also known as wh-questions (e.g., “Why does the earth rotate around the sun?”, “What are you particularly satisfied with at your university?”, “Why didn’t James attend the seminar last week?”) and require longer responses than closed-ended questions (e.g., open-ended question: “When do you think would be a good time to talk about this?” versus closed-ended question: “Should we talk about this now or later?”). One of the advantages of open-ended questions is that they allow for a deeper insight into their respondents’ feelings, opinions, and attitudes. Their potential disadvantage, however, is that answering them usually takes more time than answering other question types. Respondents may also digress, unless the asking person intervenes, and share irrelevant information that does not help answering the question but takes up a lot of time. When time is of the essence, this becomes especially problematic. In this case, it can be preferable to use other question types (e.g., closed-ended questions; see Sect. 5.2.1.2). 5.2.1.2 Closed-Ended Questions Closed-ended questions include yes/no questions (e.g., “Have you ever been to New York?”), choice questions that provide two or multiple options (e.g., “Coffee or tea?” or “Coffee, tea, or hot chocolate?”), and identification questions (e.g., “When is your birthday?”). Unlike open-ended questions, closed-ended questions only have a limited number of possible answers. This way, closed-ended questions encourage short and quick replies. It can hardly surprise that they are especially common when we need to obtain information quickly (Fig. 5.1).

Have you been standing here this whole time?

Yes.

Did you see the culprit?

Yes. Did he run to the left or to the right?

To the left.

Fig. 5.1  Examples of closed-ended questions

100

5  Means of Verbal Communication

We may expect this question type to influence how respondents answer—and in fact, there is scientific evidence for this. One study on the self-reported frequency of alcohol consumption, for example, showed that participants tended to report more frequent drinking when they were asked closed-ended questions (with choices ranging from “three times per day” to “never”) than when the question was presented in an open-ended format (Gmel & Lokosha, 2000). 5.2.1.3 Leading Questions Another question type that limits the possible answers even further than closed-­ ended questions are leading questions. The way we phrase questions can increase the probability that we receive certain answers. This can be done to different extents and defines leading questions which can be rhetorical tricks or attempts at manipulation. Consider these examples: “Have you ever seen a nicer car?” versus “Surely I can assume that, like any person with at least a rudimentary conscience, you do not wear real fur or leather?” Leading questions can be manipulative and distort answers. But not all of us are equally susceptible to them. A respondent’s age plays an important role. Preschoolers are much more likely than children of elementary school age to change their answers to be in line with leading questions even if they are about central aspects of an event (Cassel et al., 1996). This is something that needs to be considered in eyewitness reports. There are other factors that determine how strongly we are swayed by leading questions besides age. Gudjonsson (2003) found, for example, that susceptibility is especially high among people with a low intelligence quotient (IQ), poor memory, low self-esteem, high anxiety, and low distrust. A recent study further shows that witnesses are influenced more strongly by leading questions when they are questioned in a foreign language (Alm et al., 2019). When we are questioned as witnesses in a foreign language, we experience an increased cognitive load, which in turn makes us more susceptible to leading questions.

5.2.2 Question Wording and Its Influence on How We Answer Questions Depending on the type of question we ask, those answering them will go into more or less detail. Answers, however, do not only change with the question type, but also depend on the wording of questions (i.e., how we ask). Give the following little experiment a try. Pick six people you know. Copy the questions below with their respective response options and cut them out individually. Give three of your “test subjects” the question of group A and the other three the question of group B (see below) with their respective response options. Your “test subjects” are not allowed to use any additional information or see the question and response options of the other half. Then calculate the estimated average population

5.2 Questions

101

per group. Use the arithmetic mean for this comparison by separately adding the answers of your “test subjects” for groups A and B (e.g., 2 million + 2.5 million + 3 million for group A and 3 million + 3.5 million + 4 million for group B) and dividing these sums by the number of people per group (three in this case). When comparing the arithmetic means for the two groups, you will probably notice that the population estimate made by the “test subjects” in group B is higher than the estimate made by group A. Group A: What is the population of Berlin? 1.5 million, 2 million, 2.5 million, 3 million, 3.5 million, or 4 million. Group B: What is the population of Berlin? 2.5 million, 3 million, 3.5 million, 4 million, 4.5 million, or 5 million. The question with its response options provides an “anchor” regarding the population that causes estimates (among those who do not know the answer) in group A to be lower. Why is that? How a question is presented can serve as a form of anchor for how we word our reply to it. Gaskell et al. (1993) interviewed people about how annoyed they were about television commercials. Those who were given response options suggesting greater frequency (e.g., daily, on most days, once per week) stated that they were annoyed more often than people who were given response options suggesting lower frequency (e.g., once per week or more, once per month, once per year). Schwarz and Scheuring (1992) showed that 62% of the patients with psychosomatic symptoms reported to suffer from these symptoms more than twice per month when they were given response options ranging from “twice per month or less often” to “several times a day.” When the options ranged from “never” to “more than twice per month,” however, only 39% of the respondents did the same. Similarly, students show different response patterns when evaluating lectures depending on the response options provided (Sedlmeier, 2006). The mere length of a question is an important consideration when asking it as it can strongly influence how it will be answered. Findings by Wilson (1990) suggest a positive correlation between the length of a question and the length of the answer. In other words: The longer the question, the longer the answer. Thus, if you only need a short answer, do not ask a long question. The intonation of a question is another relevant factor. A study by Gubi-Kelm and Schmidt (2018) found that different intonations differ in their effect. Leading questions with a falling intonation at their end influence respondents more strongly than leading questions with a rising intonation at their end. Our pitch at the end of a sentence thus influences the effect of a leading question. Pitch apparently affects how much freedom respondents feel they have when giving their answer. To illustrate this effect, have the following question read to you by somebody else—once with rising intonation and once with falling intonation: “You did understand, didn’t you?” The way questions are worded does not only impact how they are answered. It may even retroactively influence our perception of events. Loftus and Zanni (1975) compared the influence of indefinite and definite articles in questions by showing 100 students a short movie about a car accident before asking them questions about

102

5  Means of Verbal Communication

it. Half of the questions were about events that had actually happened in the movie while the other half was about events that had not been present. The researchers also worded the questions in different ways by either using definite or indefinite articles. For example, they either asked the students if they had seen “a” broken headlight or “the” broken headlight. Reponses to questions using the definite article were much less uncertain than those to questions using the indefinite article and the respondents reported recognizing or remembering things that had never actually happened. Apparently, the use of the definite article suggests that something happened or was present. Finally, the way a question is asked can influence our imagination in such a manner that merely imagining an event can strengthen our subjective confidence that it really happened (Loftus, 2001). This can create false memories (see Box 5.2). Even when we do not intend to influence the answers we receive to the questions we ask, we still may end up doing so inadvertently. Box 5.2 False Memories In one experiment, the participants’ relatives provided childhood photographs of the participants without letting them know. These photographs were then professionally edited and inserted into a different context (e.g., the childhood photograph was inserted into a hot-air balloon). The combination of the deceptively real images and the question if the participants had ever ridden a hot-air balloon suggested to them that they had in fact done so even though this event had never taken place. Remarkably, the participants began to recall supposed memories about the event and talk about it as if it had really happened (Wade et al., 2002).

Asking for facts is especially important when hearing a witness. In their book Eyewitness Testimony, Loftus and Zanni (1975) collected ingenious studies that show how the way witnesses are questioned can create new memories or change the content of old ones. Ibabe and Sporer (2004) similarly demonstrated the influence of questions on memory.

5.2.3 Formal Aspects of Questions and Their Influence on How We Answer Questions There are other aspects of questions that influence how they are answered besides the question type and its wording. Give the following experiment a try. Once again, pick six people you know—ideally not the same as in the previous experiment. Give Question A to three of the six and Question B to the other three. Copy the questions below with their respective blank lines for responses and cut them out individually.

5.3 Explanations

103

Make sure that each “test subject” receives the correct number of lines for their respective group. The “test subjects” may not copy each other’s responses or see the other group’s question. Next, calculate the average word count for both groups. Like before, use the arithmetic mean for this comparison by separately adding the number of words written by your “test subjects” for groups A and B (e.g., 10 words + 12 words + 8 words for group A and 15 words + 20 words + 13 words for group B) and dividing these sums by the number of people per group (three in this case). When comparing the arithmetic means for the two groups, you will probably notice that the answers written by “test subjects” in group B are longer (i.e., consist of more words) than those written by group A. A) What is your opinion on climate change? _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ B) What is your opinion on climate change? _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ “Test subjects” who were given the second variant of the question probably wrote longer responses than those who were given the first variant. Spörrle et al. (2007) showed that even mere formal characteristics of open-ended questions (e.g., the number of lines provided for responses) in questionnaires communicate implicit expectations regarding the quality and quantity of the responses. Even though the question type and its wording are the same in both cases above, the number of blank lines affects the length of the answers.

5.3 Explanations When we ask a question, we usually expect an answer. Often, the answer we receive is an explanation. Explanations can serve many goals. They may for example convey information to a conversation partner, reduce complexity, establish shared understanding, clarify techniques and procedures, or ensure the retention of a lesson learned (see Hargie & Dickson, 2004). As Box 5.3 shows, explanations can be

104

5  Means of Verbal Communication

interpretive, descriptive, or “reason giving” (Brown & Armstrong, 1983). Explanations that give reasons can further be divided into causal and functional explanations (Pavitt, 2000). Box 5.3 Types of Explanations 1. Interpretive explanations focus on the WHAT (e.g., “What does this mean for our trip next weekend?”). Their goal is to interpret or clarify information or make the meaning of a statement or expression clearer. 2. Descriptive explanations focus on the HOW (e.g., “How can we get everything ready in time for our departure?”). Their primary concern are processes, structures, and exact procedures. 3. Reason giving explanations focus on the WHY (e.g., “Why do we need to bring a map when we can just use our phones?”). They contain reasons based on principles, motives, values, and more. We can also understand them as explanations that focus on cause-and-effect relationships (i.e., causal explanations) or functions (i.e., functional explanations).

We can think of explanations as a form of interaction between the explaining party, the problem explained, and the party who receives the explanation. Whenever we explain something, we need to consider the problem at hand alongside the knowledge and other characteristics of our communication partner to find an adequate way to explain. Hargie and Dickson (2004) suggested the so-called “P 5” to illustrate this process: 1. Pre-assessment of the explainee’s knowledge (Assess what the person to whom you want to or have to explain something already knows.) 2. Planning (What are the goals that need to be achieved? What should the person to whom you explain something know, feel, or be able to do after the explanation? What are the key points that should be included? In which order should you explain things?) 3. Preparation (Get the necessary materials, e.g., a laptop and projector for a PowerPoint presentation.) 4. Presentation (Explain.) 5. Post-mortem (Make sure that the other party understood your explanation.) There are several things that need to be considered when explaining something to somebody else. These considerations should include factors such as their social and cultural background, their motivation, their language skills, and their prior knowledge. One study shows how adjusting explanations to previous knowledge reduces cognitive comprehension problems when experts explain things to laypeople without technical knowledge. This adjustment also facilitates the acquisition of new knowledge (Nückles et al., 2006). Explanations are not necessarily monologues. Therapists and counselors often use the method of guided discovery or the even more elaborate Socratic dialogue to

5.3 Explanations

105

ensure that their clients genuinely understand the content of the conversation. Socratic dialogues are meant to engender reflection, introspection, and independent thought. The explaining side asks a series of (naïve) questions that put the person who initially asked a question into an active position. This allows the latter party to get closer to the answer by thinking about it themselves (Stavemann, 2007). The way Socratic dialogues are typically used in therapeutic settings consists of seven steps (see Stavemann, 2007). Selection of a subject or a dysfunctional thought First attempt at definition by the client (i.e., “What is this?”) Specification of the question and creation of a connection to daily life Further specification or rephrasing Refutation by functional, logical disputation of the subject or dysfunctional thought 6. Direction toward a functional model free of contradictions 7 . Result 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Box 5.4 contains an abridged example of such a Socratic dialogue. The use of the method is not limited to therapy and counseling. Box 5.4 Example of a Socratic Dialogue A father says the following to his therapist: “I am a bad father.” (Step 1: Selection of a subject or a dysfunctional thought). In response, the therapist initiates Step 2 (First attempt at definition by the client) by asking: “What is that: a bad father?”. The patient might think about the question and answers: “Well, a bad father is…one that does everything wrong.” Since the therapist would like to move on to Step 3 (Specification of the question and creation of a connection to daily life), she asks: “Why do you think that you are a bad father?” The patient’s reply is: “My son got into a fight at school.” Next, the therapist specifies the problem by rephrasing it (Step 4: Further specification or rephrasing): “Fathers whose children get into fights at school are bad fathers?” The patient replies: “Yes.” During Step 5 (Refutation by functional, logical disputation of the subject or dysfunctional thought), the therapist tries to refute the patient’s belief by asking further questions, such as: “Are you saying that your son didn’t have a choice? He had to get into a fight because of the way you are? If so, who is responsible for the way you are?” This confuses the patient. The therapist continues: “Are there really objectively good and bad fathers? What does it mean to be guilty? Is your behavior your father’s fault?” (Step 6: Direction toward a functional model free of contradictions). The patient answers: “No, it’s not. Because he can’t influence what I decide to do…” At the end, the patient summarizes the conversation (Step 7: Result). He may for example say: “People can only be held responsible for what is actually in their power. I am not responsible for my son’s decisions. But I can decide how to deal with them now.”

106

5  Means of Verbal Communication

5.4 Laughter and Humor In addition to questions and explanations, laughter is also an important means of communication. Laughter consists of a vocal (i.e., its sound) and a visual (i.e., the corresponding facial expression) signal (Ruch & Ekman, 2001). There are many things that make us laugh, such as hearing a joke, watching a funny video, or talking with others (Bachorowski & Owren, 2001; La Pointe et al., 1990; Provine, 1993). Vettin and Todt (2004) studied human laughter during conversations and found that we laugh on average 5.8 times during a ten-minute conversation. This means that people tend to laugh every 1.7 minutes when talking with others. Do we laugh more often when we are with people we know than with strangers? Surprisingly, our frequency of laughter does not differ between dyads with familiar others and unfamiliar ones. At first glance, this might seem strange. Should we really laugh as often when with strangers as we do when we are with people we know? Laughter could, however, be a way to build new relationships with strangers (Grammer, 1990). This can explain why we laugh so often when talking to people we do not know. Whether the person in front of us is a friend or a stranger may thus not influence how often we laugh. The reason why we laugh, however, may differ. This last question requires further research. When do we laugh? It is wrong to assume that laughter is always the response to something funny. The participants in a study by Vettin and Todt (2004) laughed both after their own remarks during conversations and after remarks by their conversation partners. Another related finding of interest here is that laughter is by no means limited to actual jokes. It often follows relatively banal statements when we talk with others (Provine, 1993). Therefore, we do not only laugh when we are amused. Instead, these findings suggest that laughter primarily serves a communicative function in conversations (e.g., to soften or change a contribution if the other person does not react as expected). The various communicative functions of laughter lead to a variety of types of laughter that can be distinguished. One classic distinction can be made between Duchenne (e.g., genuine) and non-Duchenne (i.e., not genuine) laughter (Gervais & Wilson, 2005). Scholars have elaborated on this rather basic distinction by identifying different kinds of Duchenne laughter that are accompanied by different facial expressions depending on their cause, such as embarrassment or amusement (Ruch et al., 2013). What elicits different types of laughter? Ruch et al. (2013) suggest six factors that may influence the vocal and visual expression of laughter (Box 5.5). Box 5.5 Factors That Influence How We Laugh 1. Eliciting stimulus (e.g., joke versus positive emotion) 2. Social situation (e.g., being with friends versus being with an authority figure) 3. Habitual and dispositional factors (e.g., personality traits) 4. Current affective factors (e.g., neutral versus depressed) 5. Organismic factors (e.g., tired versus energetic) 6. Cognitive factors (e.g., high cognitive load versus low cognitive load)

5.5  Summary, Comprehension Questions, and Further Reading

107

Thus, there are many different reasons why we laugh. In addition, there are situations in which we try to stifle our laugh (e.g., to avoid embarrassing somebody after they made a mistake or to hide our emotions). Such attempts at regulation as well as changes to the intensity of laughter are further factors that influence it. This makes it easy to see how we sometimes struggle to correctly interpret other people’s laughter. The phenomenon of gelotophobia has been the focus of many recent studies. Gelotophobia is a pathological fear of being laughed at (see Titze, 2009). Those affected tend to view laughter negatively, frequently avoid social situations, and believe that others are looking for reasons to laugh at them. They also underestimate their own sense of humor (Ruch et al., 2009). In addition to laughter—which, as we saw, is not only a reaction to things we find funny—, humor itself is an important means of communication. Our ability to develop and understand humor is something uniquely human (Caron, 2002; Gervais & Wilson, 2005). Humor is a highly valued social skill. Most of us prefer the company of people with a sense of humor. This preference applies to our circle of friends as well as to our romantic partners (e.g., Goodwin, 1990; Sprecher & Regan, 2002; Todosijević et al., 2003). In this regard, humor is a form of social lubricant. It helps us build and maintain relationships and facilitates interactions. In groups, we can also use humor to strengthen social bonds and foster group cohesion. It may further counteract stress, help us express negative emotions, or shield us from outside attacks (Faulkner, 1987; Koller, 1988). In the workplace, meanwhile, humorous remarks can be a handy response to insults and attacks as they put the insulting or attacking party themselves in an unfavorable light (Holmes, 2000; Sollitt-Morris, 1996). However, we do not only use humor in direct individual communication. Humor is especially common in advertisements (i.e., in mediated communication, see Sect. 6.2.2.2). An estimated 30 to 42% of all ads contain humor (Markiewicz, 1974; Weinberger et al., 1995). Why is humor so popular in advertising? Several studies have found that consumers develop a positive attitude toward humorous ads and the brands they advertise (Bahrens & Großerohde, 1999; Perry et  al., 1999; Zhang & Zinkhan, 2006). In one study, Strick et al. (2009) gave their participants mock magazines with funny versus neutral cartoons. These cartoons were accompanied by ads for different brands of energy drinks. The findings showed that brands that were advertised near cartoons were rated more highly by the participants. Their purchase decision was also influenced by the type of cartoon (i.e., humorous or neutral) as they were more likely to buy products that were near humorous cartoons. Mere association with humor may thus influence our perception of products and the likelihood with which we buy them.

5.5 Summary, Comprehension Questions, and Further Reading In this chapter, we took a look at the following means of verbal communication: Listening, questions, explanations, and laughter and humor.

108

5  Means of Verbal Communication

We saw that listening is more than a passive process during which senders speak and recipients absorb what they say. Listening forms the foundation for a critical reflection on what is being said. People who are not listening may show so in various ways, such as by not making eye contact. At the same time, not every nod is a sign of attention. The gender and culture of the listener play an important part here. We regularly use questions and do so intuitively: “Well, I’ll just ask about that.” The answer we receive, however, is often influenced by the question type, its wording, or even mere formal aspects. For example, we usually receive a more detailed answer when asking an open-ended question instead of a closed-ended one (e.g., “How are you today?” versus “Are you doing well today?”). The type of question asked is especially impactful when hearing witnesses because we tend to consider the features of a question in an attempt to answer “correctly”—even features that the person asking the question is not aware of. A good explanation takes several factors into account, such as the problem at hand alongside the previous knowledge and language skills of its recipient. In short, do not try to explain the human circulatory system to a preschooler at the college level with all the associated jargon. Laughter and humor serve various functions, including the establishment of relationships. This is why we do not only laugh when we are with friends, but also when interacting with strangers. Humor is a form of ‘social lubricant.’ It allows us to build and maintain relationships and facilities our interactions with others. Comprehension Questions 1. What are some of the means of verbal communication? 2. What are the three components of active listening? 3. A new colleague at work introduces herself and invites you to have lunch at a restaurant. You open the menu and look at the meat dishes. Your new colleague, who has ordered a large and colorful salad with tofu strips, asks you: “I can assume that you, like every decent person, wish to do something against intensive animal farming and therefore refrain from eating meat?” What type of question is she using? 4. Which different forms of explanations can be distinguished? 5. Why can humor be a “social lubricant”? 6. What is gelotophobia?

Recommended Reading Loftus, E. F., & Zanni, G. (1975). Eyewitness testimony: The influence of the wording of a question. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5(1), 86–88. https://doi.org/10.3758/ BF03336715 Vettin, J., & Todt, D. (2004). Laughter in conversation. Features of occurrence and acoustic structure. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28(2), 93–115. https://doi. org/10.1023/B:JONB.0000023654.73558.72

References

109

References Alm, C., Helmy Rehnberg, N., & Lindholm, T. (2019). Language and eyewitness suggestibility. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 16(3), 201–212. https://doi. org/10.1002/jip.1529 Alsawy, S., Tai, S., McEvoy, P., & Mansell, W. (2020) “It’s nice to think somebody’s listening to me instead of saying ‘oh shut up’”. People with dementia reflect on what makes communication good and meaningful. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 27(2), 151– 161. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12559 Bachorowski, J.-A., & Owren, M.  J. (2001). Not all laughs are alike: Voiced but not unvoiced laughter readily elicits positive affect. Psychological Science, 12(3), 252–257. https://doi. org/10.1111/1467-­9280.0034 Bahrens, F., & Großerohde, B. (1999). Die Wirkung von Humor in der Werbung: Ein Überblick [The effect of humor in advertising: An overview]. In M.  Friedrichsen & S.  Jenzowsky (Eds.), Fernsehwerbung. Theoretische Analysen und empirische Befunde (pp.  235–257). Westdeutscher Verlag. Brown, G.  A., & Armstrong, S. (1983). Explaining and explanations. In E.  C. Wragg (Ed.), Classroom Teaching Skills (pp. 121–148). Routledge. Brownell, J. (2018). Listening. Attitudes, Principles, and Skills (6th ed.). Routledge. Caron, J. E. (2002). From ethology to aesthetics: Evolution as a theoretical paradigm for research on laughter, humor, and other comic phenomena. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 15(3), 245–281. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2002.015 Cassel, W. S., Roebers, C. E. M., & Bjorklund, D. F. (1996). Developmental patterns of eyewitness responses to repeated and increasingly suggestive questions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 61(2), 116–133. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1996.0008 Duggan, A. P., & Parrott, R. L. (2001). Research note: Physicians’ nonverbal rapport building and patients’ talk about the subjective component of illness. Human Communication Research, 27(2), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-­2958.2001.tb00783.x Egger, J. W. (2017). Theorie und Praxis der biopsychosozialen Medizin. Körper-Seele-Einheit und sprechende Medizin [Theory and Practice of Biopsychosocial Medicine. Body-soul Unity and Talking Medicine]. Facultas. Ernstmann, N., Weissbach, L., Herden, J., Winter, N., & Ansmann, L. (2017), Patient-physician communication and health-related quality of life of patients with localised prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy  – A longitudinal multilevel analysis. BJU International, 119(3), 396–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13495 Faulkner, J. E. (1987). Sociology Through Humor. West Group Gaskell, G., Wright, D., & O’Muircheartaigh, C. (1993). Reliability of surveys. The Psychologist, 6(11), 500–503. Gervais, M., & Wilson, D. S. (2005). The evolution and functions of laughter and humor: A synthetic approach. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 80(4), 395–430. https://doi.org/10.1086/498281 Gmel, G., & Lokosha, O. (2000). Self-reported frequency of drinking assessed with a closedor open-ended question format: A split-sample study in Switzerland. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 61(3), 450–454. Goodwin, R. (1990). Sex differences among partner preferences: Are the sexes really very similar? Sex Roles, 23(9–10), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289765 Grammer, K. (1990). Strangers meet: Laughter and nonverbal signs of interest in opposite-­ sex encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14(4), 209–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00989317 Gubi-Kelm, S., & Schmidt, A. F. (2018) The role of intonation for interrogative suggestibility. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(1), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3384 Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions. A Handbook. Wiley. Halone, K.  K., & Pecchioni, L.  L. (2001). Relational listening. A grounded theoretical model. Communication Reports, 14(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/08934210109367737

110

5  Means of Verbal Communication

Hargie, O., & Dickson, D. (2004). Skilled Interpersonal Communication. Research, Theory and Practice (4th ed.). Routledge. Hartung, F.-M., & Renner, B. (2011). Social curiosity and interpersonal perception: A judge × trait interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 796–814. https://doi. org/10.1177/0146167211400618 Holmboe, E. S., & Concato, J. (2000). Treatment decisions for localized prostate cancer. Asking men what’s important. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 15, 694–701. https://doi. org/10.1046/j.1525-­1497.2000.90842.x Holmes, J. (2000). Politeness, power and provocation: How humour functions in the workplace. Discourse Studies, 2(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445600002002002 Ibabe, I., & Sporer, S.  L. (2004). How you ask is what you get: On the influence of question form on accuracy and confidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(6), 711–726. https://doi. org/10.1002/acp.1025 Imhof, M. (2009). Hören ist noch nicht zuhören [Hearing is not yet listening]. UGB-Forum, 9, 277–279. Koller, M.  R. (1988). Humor and Society: Explorations in the Sociology of Humor. Cap & Gown Press. Kramer, M. (2001). Business Communication in Context. Principles and Practice. Pearson. La Pointe, L. L., Mowrer, D. M., & Case, J. L. (1990). A comparative acoustic analysis of the laugh responses of 20- and 70-year-old males. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 31(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.2190/GU55-­AF9Q-­M586-­4HM3 Loftus, E. F. (2001). Imagining the past. The Psychologist, 14(11), 584–587. Loftus, E. F., & Zanni, G. (1975). Eyewitness testimony: The influence of the wording of a question. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 5(1), 86–88. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03336715 Markiewicz, D. (1974). Effects of humor on persuasion. Sociometry, 37(3), 407–422. https://doi. org/10.2307/2786391 Nückles, M., Winter, A., Wittwer, J., Herbert, M., & Hübner, S. (2006). How do experts adapt their explanations to a layperson’s knowledge in asynchronous communication? An experimental study. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 16(2), 87–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11257-­006-­9000-­y Pavitt, C. (2000), Answering questions requesting scientific explanations for communication. Communication Theory, 10, 379–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-­2885.2000.tb00199.x Perry, S.  D., Jenzowsky, S., Hester, J.  B., King, C., & Yi, H. (1999). Die Kraft des Humors. Kontextwirkungen von humorvollen Programmumfeldern [The power of humor. Context effects of humorous program environments]. In M.  Friedrichsen & S.  Jenzowsky (Eds.), Fernsehwerbung. Theoretische Analysen und empirische Befunde (pp.  337–356). Westdeutscher Verlag. Pozzebon, M., Douglas, J., & Ames, D. (2016). Spouses’ experience of living with a partner diagnosed with a dementia: A synthesis of the qualitative research. International Psychogeriatrics, 28(4), 537–556. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610215002239 Provine, R.  R. (1993). Laughter punctuates speech: Linguistic, social and gender contexts of laughter. Ethology, 95(4), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-­0310.1993.tb00478.x Ruch, W., Beermann, U., & Proyer, R. T. (2009). Investigating the humor of gelotophobes: Does feeling ridiculous equal being humorless? Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 22(1–2), 111–143. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2002.015 Ruch, W., & Ekman, P. (2001). The expressive pattern of laughter. In A. Kaszniak (Ed.), Emotions, Qualia, and Consciousness (pp. 426–443). World Scientific. Ruch, W., Hofmann, J., & Platt, T. (2013). Investigating facial features of four types of laughter in historic illustrations. European Journal of Humour Research, 1(1), 99–118. Schwarz, N., & Scheuring, B. (1992). Selbstberichtete Verhaltens- und Symptomhäufigkeiten: Was Befragte aus Antwortvorgaben des Fragebogens lernen [Frequency reports of behaviors and symptoms: What respondents learn from the response alternatives of the questionnaire]. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie, 21(2), 197–208.

References

111

Sedlmeier, P. (2006). The role of scales in student ratings. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.09.002 Sharpley, C.  F., & Christie, D.  R. H. (2007), Patient information preferences among breast and prostate cancer patients. Australasian Radiology, 51(2), 154–158. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1440-­1673.2007.01687.x Sollitt-Morris, L. (1996). Language, Gender and Power Relationships. The Enactment of Repressive Discourse in Staff Meetings of Two Subject Departments in a New Zealand Secondary School [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wellington]. Spörrle, M., Gerber-Braun, B., & Försterling, F. (2007). The influence of response lines on response behavior in the context of open-question formats. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 66, 103–107. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-­0185.66.2.103 Sprecher, S., & Regan, P.  C. (2002). Liking some things (in some people) more than others: Partner preferences in romantic relationships and friendships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(4), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407502019004048 Stavemann, H.  H. (2007). Sokratische Gesprächsführung in Therapie und Beratung [Socratic Dialogue in Therapy and Counselling] (2nd ed.). Beltz. Stewart, J., & Logan, C. (1998). Together: Communicating Interpersonally (5th ed.). McGraw Hill. Strick, M., van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., & van Knippenberg, A. (2009). Humor in advertisements enhances product liking by mere association. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014812 Titze, M. (2009). Gelotophobia: The fear of being laughed at. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 22(1–2), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1515/HUMR.2009.002 Todosijević, B., Ljubinković, S., & Arančić, A. (2003). Mate selection criteria: A trait desirability assessment study of sex differences in Serbia. Evolutionary Psychology, 1, 116–126. https:// doi.org/10.1177/147470490300100108 van Tol-Geerdink, J. J., Stalmeier, P. F. M., van Lin, E. N. J. T., Schimmel, E. C., Huizenga, H., & van DaalJan-Willem Leer, W. A. J. (2006). Do patients with localized prostate cancer treatment really want more aggressive treatment? Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24(28), 4581–4586. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.05.9592 Vettin, J., & Todt, D. (2004). Laughter in conversation. Features of occurrence and acoustic structure. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28(2), 93–115. https://doi. org/10.1023/B:JONB.0000023654.73558.72 Wade, K. A., Garry, M., Don Read, J., & Lindsay, D. S. (2002). A picture is worth a thousand lies: Using false photographs to create false childhood memories. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 597–603. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196318 Weinberger, M. G., Spotts, H., Campbell, L., & Parsons, A. L. (1995). The use and effect of humor in different advertising media. Journal of Advertising Research, 35(3), 44–56. Wilson, J. (1990). Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Basil Blackwell. Zhang, Y., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006). Responses to humorous ads: Does audience involvement matter? Journal of Advertising, 35(4), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-­3367350408

112

5  Means of Verbal Communication

Answers to the Comprehension Questions 1.  Listening, asking questions, giving explanations, and laughter and humor. 2.  Actively following what is being said; actively understanding the message (i.e., paraphrasing); and understanding and reproducing the emotional content of the message (i.e., mirroring). 3.  Leading question. 4.  Interpretive explanations, descriptive explanations, and reason giving explanations (causal or functional). 5.  Humor helps us build and maintain social relationships and facilitates interactions with others. 6.  Gelotophobia is a pathological fear of being laughed at.

Chapter 6

Forms of Communication

Abstract  This final chapter will give an overview of the diversity of human forms of communication. It will discuss possible criteria to distinguish between them. As a navigational aid, we developed a bespoke flowchart for the identification of different communication forms. Keywords  Forms of communication · Intrapersonal communication · Interpersonal communication · Intracultural communication · Intercultural communication · Individual communication · Direct individual communication (face-to-face communication) · Mediated individual communication · Non-digital mediated individual communication · Digital mediated individual communication · Computer-mediated individual communication · Human-computer communication · Mass communication · Direct mass communication · Mediated mass communication · Non-digital mediated mass communication · Digital mediated mass communication Communication can take many forms that can be categorized in various ways. The rapid development of more and more new media, however, makes it increasingly difficult to represent all forms of media in a comprehensive manner and accurately distinguish between the individual categories (see Sect. 1.1). Intuitively, it makes sense to place face-to-face communication in a different category than communication via e-mail. But it is less clear where exactly the difference lies between chatting with a friend and picking different dialogue options in an offline role-playing videogame. First, please write down the forms of communication you are familiar with and that you would distinguish: ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Röhner, A. Schütz, Psychology of Communication, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60170-6_6

113

114

6  Forms of Communication

Now please answer the questions below in order: 1. In your opinion, what form of communication is the radio? 2. What form of communication is a personal conversation with your boss? 3. Does a casual chat with your neighbor fit into the same category as a communication with your guild in a medieval online videogame? Explain your answer. Following Six et al. (2007) and Tropp (2014), communication can be categorized into direct communication (i.e., communication without the use of technical aids) and mediated communication (i.e., communication with the use of technical aids). In contrast to direct communication, mediated communication is not bound by spatial and temporal barriers when transmitting messages through its medium. One example is communication via social media. Another distinction can be made between individual and mass communication (Six et al., 2007) or individual and public communication. Here, individual communication covers both face-to-face conversations and mediated communication between individuals (e.g., communication via phone or e-mail). By comparison, mass or public communication includes both communication via classic mass media, such as print media (e.g., newspapers and books) or audio recordings (e.g., radio and LPs), and communication via so-called new mass media (e.g., Internet news and online blogs). Furthermore, we can differentiate between communication whose participants share the same cultural background (intracultural) and communication whose participants come from different cultural backgrounds (intercultural; see Heringer, 2017). This allows us to distinguish between intracultural communication and intercultural communication. The cultural backgrounds of the participating parties can make all aforementioned forms of communication⁠—direct communication, mediated communication, individual communication, and public communication— intracultural or intercultural. This creates a wide range of possible communications and makes communication an extremely broad concept (see Sect. 1.1). Therefore, there are further ways to subdivide communication and we would like to briefly elaborate on them here. One further way to distinguish between different forms of communication is by looking at the number of recipients. Instances with only a single recipient (e.g., sending a text message to a friend) would thus constitute a 1:1 communication while communications with a potentially unlimited number of recipients (e.g., newspaper ads) would be examples of 1:n communication. The temporal dimension in which communication takes place is yet another way to identify different forms. What matters here is whether all participants must contribute to the communication at the same time or if their contribution can be delayed. Thus, we can distinguish simultaneous communication (e.g., face-to-face communication) from delayed communication (e.g., communication via e-mail). Watzlawick (2005) suggested further ways to differentiate: Explicit versus implicit, digital versus analog, congruent versus incongruent, and symmetrical versus complementary (see Sect. 2.6).

6  Forms of Communication

115

Fig. 6.1  Overview of important forms of communication

Based on previous classifications, we developed an overview of the most important forms of communication for this book (Fig.  6.1). For the remainder of this chapter, we would like to distinguish between intrapersonal communication (i.e., communication within the same individual) and interpersonal communication (i.e., communication between individuals) on a fairly abstract first level. On a second level, interpersonal communication can be divided into intracultural communication (i.e., communication between individuals with the same cultural background) and intercultural communication (i.e., communication between individuals with ­different cultural backgrounds). Both intracultural and intercultural communication can then, on a third level, be divided into individual communication (i.e., communication between a limited number of parties) and mass communication (i.e., communication with a potentially unlimited number of recipients). On a fourth level, both intracultural and intercultural individual communication and intracultural and intercultural mass communication can be further divided into direct communication (i.e., without the use of media) and mediated communication (i.e., with the use of media). In recent times, mediated individual communication (e.g., text messages, instant messengers, microblogs, moblogs, VoIP calls, etc.) have more and more replaced direct individual communication (i.e., face-to-face conversations). In mass communication, this shift from direct to mediated communication is even more pronounced. Mass communication rarely happens in a direct way anymore. It is easy to illustrate this phenomenon: Can you think of an example of mass communication that does not make use of media at all? You probably struggle to come up with an answer, which is why we collected three examples to illustrate what direct mass communication can look like: In ancient Greece, citizens used the agora to hear about

116

6  Forms of Communication

political announcements. In Iceland, new laws used to be decided together once a year in Thingvellir. And in Hyde Park in London, there is a particular place (the Speakers’ Corner) that can be used by anyone at any time to hold a public speech. Mediated mass communication is much more common. It was one of the central propaganda tools of the Nazi regime in Germany. One of the regime’s most important means of communication was a radio receiver known as “Volksempfänger.” Today mass communication takes place almost exclusively via media. This may for example allow individuals to exert great influence with web blogs. Examples range from uncovering environmental scandals to publicizing plagiarism and scheduling flash mobs. On a fifth level, it is possible to further subdivide both intracultural and intercultural mediated individual communication and intracultural and intercultural mediated mass communication as both may take place with the use of a computer (i.e., digital) or without it (i.e., non-digital). Mediated individual communication can for example take the form of a written note to our roommate that reads “Please do the dishes” (i.e., non-digital mediated individual communication) or an e-mail exchange with a friend (i.e., digital mediated individual communication or more precisely: computer-mediated human-to-human communication). Depending on whether or not the sender and the recipient have a shared cultural background, the former case can be an example of intracultural or intercultural non-digital mediated individual communication while the latter case can be an example of intracultural or intercultural digital mediated individual communication. Examples of mediated mass communication can include spraying graffiti in a public place to share a message with a large number of people (i.e., non-digital mediated mass communication) or sharing a public status update on social media (i.e., digital mediated mass communication). Depending on whether or not the sender and the recipient have a shared cultural background, the former case can be an example of intracultural or intercultural non-digital mediated mass communication while the latter case can be an example of intracultural or intercultural digital mediated mass communication. Looking at the many possible forms of communication, it is easy to see how it can be difficult to correctly identify which of them is taking place in a specific situation. For classification purposes, we developed the following flowchart (Fig. 6.2): First, we identify the form of communication at the highest level by determining the number of recipients. Next, we ask specific questions to subdivide the given form of communication into its various subordinate types. This makes it easier to identify the form of communication while also providing a general overview. The following is a more detailed discussion of some of the forms of communication.

6  Forms of Communication

117

How many people take part in the communication?

1

>1

Intrapersonal communication

Interpersonal communication

Do the participants of the communication have the same cultural background?

Yes

No

Intracultural communication

Intercultural communication

Is the communication public and is the number of recipients potentially unlimited?

No

Yes

Individual communication

Mass communication

Do the participants make use of technological media?

No

Yes

Yes

No

Direct individual communication

Mediated individual communication

Mediated mass communication

Direct mass communication

Does the communication require the use of computers?

No

Yes

Yes

No

Non-digital mediated individual communication

Digital mediated individual communication

Digital mediated mass communication

Non-digital mediated mass communication

Does the communicating person communicate with other people beside the computer?

No

Yes

Human-computer communication

Computer-mediated human-to-human individual communication

Fig. 6.2  Flowchart of the forms of communication

118

6  Forms of Communication

6.1 Intrapersonal Communication The word intrapersonal is derived from the Latin words “intra” (English: “within” or “inside”) and “persona” (English: “person”). As such, intrapersonal communication is communication (i.e., the reception and processing of information) that takes place within an individual (e.g., receiving impressions from the environment). Thinking, talking to ourselves, or other forms of symbolic self-communication (e.g., thinking aloud) are also parts of intrapersonal communication. The possible goals of this form of communication can include self-motivation (e.g., “I can do this!”), self-management, and time management. We can also think of meditation as a form of intrapersonal communication as long as it is not guided from the outside (e.g., guided meditation). Meditation can be used in various contexts, such as self-awareness, psychotherapy, or rehabilitation (see Walsh & Shapiro, 2006). It can have a positive effect on anxiety and depressive states (e.g., McGee, 2008). There are various forms of meditation and people who meditate can do so for different reasons (e.g., clearing negative states such as anxiety, pursuit of wisdom; see Sedlmeier et al., 2012). How exactly meditation works is currently under investigation in various research projects.

6.2 Interpersonal Communication (Intracultural and Intercultural) The word interpersonal is derived from the Latin words “inter” (English: “between”) and “persona” (English: “person”). Interpersonal communication is thus every exchange of information between at least two individuals (i.e., two people who participate in the communication). The participants of a communication can have the same cultural background or different backgrounds, which means that we can distinguish between intracultural communication and intercultural communication. When a sender communicates with a limited number of recipients, we speak of individual communication (see Sect. 6.2.1). Mass communication, by contrast, sees senders communicate with a potentially unlimited number of recipients (see Sect. 6.2.2). As a result, we can distinguish four categories of interpersonal communication: Intracultural individual communication, intracultural mass communication, intercultural individual communication, and intercultural mass communication. Interpersonal communication includes communication in different languages. People who do not speak a common language may instead use facial expressions and gestures to communicate with each other. In such situations, we may mistakenly assume that the meaning of facial expressions and gestures are universal—a dangerous assumption we already discussed in a previous chapter (see, for example, Sect. 3.2.5). However, misunderstandings are still possible even when all communication partners have learned the others’ language or make use of translation software or

6.2  Interpersonal Communication (Intracultural and Intercultural)

119

dictionaries. In part, this is because the meaning of words cannot be understood independently of their respective language (see Heringer, 2017). When we look up a word in a dictionary, it can seem as if there were an equivalent term for every word in every language. But their meanings are not always identical. In German, for example, the words “Freund” (male) and “Freundin” (female) indicate a close relationship with another person. Their English translation is “friend”—a word that is used much more broadly in the US and does not necessarily indicate a close relationship (see Heringer, 2017). The German “Freund” or “Freundin” would be a “close friend” instead. This can lead to misunderstandings, for example when a German tourist in the US is happy to make a lot of friends and assumes a deeper bond. Corpus analyses are a way to give insight into how words are used in different languages. We can use them to illustrate and investigate the co-occurrence of words. When entering a word in a corpus analysis tool, we get an overview of different words that are close to our entry in their respective language. Misunderstandings are also possible when two people share the same mother tongue, but speak different dialects. Accents and dialects also influence our perception. They are clues to a speaker’s origin (Krzeminska, 2014). Languages, accents, and dialects are parts of our identity, showing us who is a member of our in-group and who is not (see Giles & Johnson, 1981). Attitudes (see Sect. 3.2.3) toward accents and dialects can color our impression (see Sect. 1.3.3.1) of the speaker (Hansen et al., 2018). Speaking with an accent or dialect can have negative effects such as prejudices (e.g., Thorne, 2005). For example, one recent study on job interviews conducted in German showed that applicants that look “Southern European” and speak standard German without an accent are perceived as more competent than applicants that look “Northern European” and speak standard German without an accent (Hansen et al., 2017). The authors explained this finding as the result of the particularly positive impression made by the first group of applicants that was caused by their standard accent invalidating negative expectations due to stereotypes. Accents and dialects have gained increasing scholarly attention. For this purpose, a comprehensive knowledge of accents and dialects as well as their documentation are extremely helpful (see Box 6.1). Box 6.1 Linguistic Maps as Documentation of Regional Linguistic Differences From 1876 to 1887, German dialect researcher Georg Wenker compiled the first atlas of German dialects, which was published as the language atlas of the German Empire. In his research, he used questionnaires with sample sentences which were translated by speakers of dialects into their respective dialect. This allowed Wenker to create a map of dialects that illustrated the diversity and distribution of German dialects. His atlas continues to be considered the most comprehensive documentation of German dialects and has since been digitized into the Digital Wenker Atlas (Schmidt & Herrgen, 2001–2005).

120

6  Forms of Communication Cultural Differences

Symbols

abc αβγ авг

Rituals

Heroes/Heroines

Values

• Joan of Arc • Mahatma Ghandi • Nelson Mandela

• Dominant feminine beauty ideal

Initiation rites • Confirmation (predominantly Christian culture) • Secular coming-of-age ceremonies • Bar mitzvah/Bat mitzvah (predominantly Jewish culture) • Puberty ceremony (predominantly Hindu culture) • Ant ceremony: Young men put on a glove filled with so-called "bullet ants" (Sateré-Mawé, indigenous group in Brazil)

Mauritania versus United States

Fig. 6.3  Cultural differences in symbols, heroes, rituals, and values

Communication can involve participants from the same culture or from different cultures. Accordingly, we can distinguish between intracultural and intercultural communication. Culture influences people and the way they communicate (Frindte & Geschke, 2019). In turn, people also influence their culture. Hofstede (1993) claimed that our culture shapes our symbols (Which words, gestures, images, and objects do we use?), heroes (Whom do we admire?), rituals (How do we greet and grieve? Which ceremonies do we hold?), and values (What is permitted and what is forbidden? What is beautiful and what is ugly?; see Fig. 6.3). There are several elements that play a role in intercultural communication. Awareness of cultural differences in communication can increase our communication competence (see Sect. 1.2). It is also more and more important in an increasingly globalized world. For the remainder of this chapter, we will continue to point out selected cultural differences. But we would also like to emphasize that interpersonal communication is always, by definition, communication between different individuals. While there are certainly cultural differences that may apply to the majority of individuals from a particular culture, these differences are not always present and should not be ­considered barriers to communication. Being sensitive to cultural differences in communication, however, is vital when we want to avoid misunderstandings and promote successful communication. Prejudices, stereotypes (see Sect. 3.2.1), and ethnocentrism (Box 6.2) can get in the way of successful intercultural communication. Box 6.2 Ethnocentrism The concept of ethnocentrism refers to our tendency to align (center) the standards by which we judge other groups with the standards of our own group. This leads to the notion that the conditions in our own culture (e.g., its values and rites) are correct or normal. By contrast, we perceive the conditions in other cultures as unusual and may look down on them. This can lead to favoritism toward our own group and degradation of other groups (Lippert & Wakenhut, 1983).

6.2  Interpersonal Communication (Intracultural and Intercultural)

121

6.2.1 Individual Communication Individual communication is the exchange of information between at least two people. It can involve one-on-one conversations or exchanges between larger groups. The participants may share the same cultural background (i.e., intracultural individual communication; e.g., an American talking to their American neighbor) or have different cultural backgrounds (intercultural individual communication; e.g., an American talking to their Mexican neighbor). What matters is that the possible number of communicating individuals is limited. Whenever people communicate directly with each other (i.e., face-to-face; e.g., your neighbor comes over and the two of you chat), we speak of direct individual communication (see Sect. 6.2.1.1). Meanwhile, we speak of mediated individual communication when people get in touch with each other using technological media (see Sect. 6.2.1.2; e.g., your neighbor sends you a text message to ask if you would like to go out together). 6.2.1.1 Direct Individual Communication Direct individual communication involves the unmediated exchange of information between individuals. This form of communication is also known as face-toface communication—a term that already hints at three aspects that define direct individual communication: (1) It is bound to a specific place and time, which means that all participants must simultaneously be present in the same place; (2) it only requires the use of natural media (also known as primary media), for example air for the transmission of sound waves that allow us to hear our conversation partners; (3) the communication can take place both at the verbal and nonverbal level. Often, the participants constantly switch roles, going back and forth between being senders and recipients. Even in situations when one person is clearly assigned the role of sender, for example during meetings, lectures, or presentations, they still tend to perceive their receiving audience with its reactions, which in turn influence the sender. While this can be more or less conscious, communication still takes place! An audience’s usually nonverbal reactions may for example cause the communicating person to change the content or style of their presentation (Box 6.3). Box 6.3 Possible Effects of Audience Reactions on Speakers A speaker whose detailed theoretical presentation and monotone voice make their audience yawn is able to tell by this reaction that the listeners are bored. If they possess the necessary competence, they will react to this observation, for example by changing their presentation style (speech tempo, volume, use of questions, etc.), in order to enliven their lecture.

122

6  Forms of Communication

A typical example of direct individual communication is a dialogue between two people. In this case, the goal of communication may be to describe a condition (e.g., our own mood or a particular situation) or to make the conversation partner do or believe something. The relevant processes involved are subject of extensive scientific research programs. These include: • Impression management and persuasion (How can we influence other people’s attitude toward something? How successful are we when trying to do so?) • Self-presentation (Which image of ourselves do we try to convey to others? How successful are our attempts?) • Social perception (How does one person perceive another?) We often make use of facial expressions and gestures during direct individual communication. They can serve several functions, such as allowing us to emphasize what we are saying (see Sect. 4.2.1.1). Assuming that facial expressions and gestures carry universal meaning is one potential problem that may arise in intercultural direct individual communication (see Heringer, 2017). Contrary to popular belief, horizontal head movements, for example, do not communicate negation in every culture. Neither do vertical head movements necessarily mean affirmation (see Chap. 4). Even simple gestures, such as counting with our fingers, may look different across cultures. Whereas people in the US typically start counting with the index finger on their left hand, people in Germany usually start with their right-hand thumbs (Heringer, 2017). Despite this difference, simply counting fingers should allow us to tell the right number with relative ease regardless of our cultural background. Under different circumstances, however, the way in which people indicate numbers with their fingers can have huge consequences as a scene from the movie Inglourious Basterds (Tarantino, 2009) shows. The partisans’ disguise as soldiers of the German Wehrmacht is busted when one of them orders three drinks by gesturing with his index, middle, and ring fingers. This makes the “real” German Wehrmacht soldiers realize that the partisans are not also German. 6.2.1.2 Mediated Individual Communication Just like direct individual communication, mediated individual communication is an exchange of information between at least two people or groups of people. The main difference between the two forms is that the exchange happens through technological media in the case of mediated individual communication (i.e., it is no longer unmediated as it is in direct individual communication; see Sect. 6.2.1.1). Mediated individual communication can take the form of correspondences or phone calls. Computers are another medium that we can use for mediated individual communication. We can distinguish between non-digital mediated individual communication (i.e., without the use of a computer; see Sect. 6.2.1.2.1) and digital mediated individual communication (i.e., with the use of a computer; see Sect. 6.2.1.2.2). Joinson (2003) identified the following important criteria for mediated individual communication:

6.2  Interpersonal Communication (Intracultural and Intercultural)

123

(a) Transmitted signals: These signals influence our subjective perception of social presence which in turn determines whether we perceive our communication partners as warm and empathetic (Box 6.4). This perception, however, also depends on other factors. These include the participants’ personalities, their competence in using the specific medium, and the context. Rice (1993) found that different people tend to agree on how much various media allow for the experience of presence, suggesting that the technological conditions of these media are mostly unaffected by individual differences. Leder et al. (2019) compared the effectiveness of a traditional safety training with a virtual reality-­ based (VR-based) safety training. Their findings showed that participants perceived less social presence when the safety training was mediated with VR. However, the participants did not learn less than when a traditional safety training was used.

Box 6.4 Definition: Social Presence Social presence refers to the feeling of being aware of the presence of others in a mediated (communication) situation (Biocca et al., 2003).

(b) Costs of communication: Charges for text messages and telegrams are sometimes incurred per character or length, making them good examples of cases in which the costs of communication can determine the extent of the transmitted message. In the past, the so-called telegram style therefore already emerged as a unique form of communication that allowed senders to keep communication costs low. Similarly, we can observe a distinct shortened style in text messages. We may for example use the acronym “lol” instead of “laughing out loud” or abbreviate “talk to you later” as “TTYL.” It is important to keep in mind that many different factors determine whether costs arise and to what extent (e.g., the terms of a cell phone plan). (c) Anonymity: Although mediated communication often allows its participants to remain anonymous (e.g., during computer-mediated communication), the communicating parties are sometimes identifiable. However, this is not always the case. Anonymity can lead to a loss of inhibitions that is frequently referred to as flaming in academic publications on communication (see Hiltz et al., 1989). It can thus hardly come as a surprise that phenomena like mobbing and bullying (see Sect. 2.6) frequently occur on the Internet or that new phenomena like trolling have developed. Trolling refers to the sharing of hurtful messages and comments online, usually in order to provoke, offend, or humiliate others (see Cambridge Dictionary, 2020). The communication of people who engage in trolling (trolls) is intentionally destructive, malicious, and often contains lies (see Buckels et al., 2014). Buckels et al. (2014) made over 400 participants fill out various personality tests and asked them questions about their online behavior to identify which personality traits are connected to trolling. Their questions

124

6  Forms of Communication

covered aspects such as the average amount of time the participants spent writing comments online and what they found particularly enjoyable while doing so (e.g., conversing with others, making friends, trolling others). The focus of the study was to determine if the personality traits psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and sadism are related to trolling behavior. Psychopathy is associated with pathological lying, a lacking sense of guilt, lack of empathy, and a tendency to degrade others. Machiavellianism is defined by qualities such as low adherence to conventional moral standards, pursuit of power, and low affective commitment in interpersonal relationships. Sadism, meanwhile, is centered around behavior that aims to humiliate and harm others. The authors found positive correlations between trolling and psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and sadism. Participants who scored high on these traits were thus more likely to also engage in trolling. The connection to sadism was especially strong as this particular personality trait was directly linked to trolling behavior (i.e., participants who scored high on sadism expressed little interest in behaviors like chatting with others or having discussions). Due to this finding, Buckels et al. (2014) concluded that online trolling is a way in which sadism can be expressed. (d) Exclusivity: This criterion focuses on the degree to which a particular service allows private communication between the communicating parties. The degree of exclusivity can vary between providers and services. This can cause the ­parties to switch to another medium when they wish to communicate about private matters. Table 6.1 (adapted from Bierhoff & Frey, 2006) provides an overview of some of these criteria for selected forms of mediated individual communication. In text-based exchanges, emoticons are a staple of mediated individual communication (e.g., text messages, e-mails, letters, etc.; Park et  al., 2013) where they represent a form of nonverbal communication. Adding a ;-) to our message may for example show our recipient that it was meant as a joke. In a similar manner to how we often assume that facial expressions have universal meaning in direct individual communication (see Sect. 6.2.1.1), we tend to believe that emoticons are also used the same way across different cultures. In a study on intercultural similarities and differences in emoticon use, Park et al. (2013) found two emoticon styles. The horizontal style dominates in Western cultures where readers are used to reading horizontally from left to right. Here, the common sequence is to place the eyes first on the left, followed by the mouth on the right. In Eastern cultures, where readers are Table 6.1  Criteria of mediated individual communication Medium Instant messaging Chat E-mail Text messages Online calls Adapted from Bierhoff and Frey (2006)

Synchronicity High High Medium Medium High

Anonymity High High Medium Medium Medium

6.2  Interpersonal Communication (Intracultural and Intercultural)

125

Emotion

Surprise

Sadness

Happiness

Horizontal style

:o

:(

:)

Vertical style

@@

T_T

^_^

Fig. 6.4  Part conveying emotion in the horizontal versus vertical emoticon styles

used to reading from top to bottom, a vertical emoticon style is more prevalent. This style depicts the eyes above the mouth (Park et al., 2013). Two sources of misunderstandings in intercultural mediated individual communication are unfamiliarity and misinterpretation of emoticons. This also applies to intercultural mediated mass communication (see Sect. 6.2.2.2). The horizontal style expresses surprise with :o, which becomes @@ in the vertical style. Sadness is expressed with :( (horizontal) and T_T (vertical) and happiness with :) (horizontal) and ^_^ (vertical). This means that the difference lies in which part of the emoticon conveys its meaning (see red-­ colored parts in Fig. 6.4). In the vertical style, the shape of the eyes conveys the emoticon’s meaning while the mouth is either represented by an underscore or missing altogether. By contrast, the horizontal style conveys meaning through the shape of the mouth. It is also interesting to note in this comparison that the preference for one of the two styles depends not so much on where their users live (geography), but on which language they primarily use. In Indonesia and the Philippines, where people mostly read horizontally from left to right in local languages or English, the horizontal emoticon style is the norm. 6.2.1.2.1  Non-Digital Mediated Individual Communication When we exchange information without using digital media, we engage in non-­ digital mediated individual communication. Examples include letters, postcards, and telegrams. 6.2.1.2.2  Digital Mediated Individual Communication Digital mediated individual communication is the computer-based exchange of information. We can distinguish between two forms. The first is computer-mediated human-to-human individual communication, which is frequently shortened to computer-mediated communication (CMC). During this form of communication, two or more individuals use computers to communicate with each other. This can include chats, e-mail, microblogging, moblogging, instant messaging, and social networks—as long as the number of recipients is not unlimited. The second form is known as human-computer communication. In contrast to computer-mediated human-to-human communication, the focus here lies on communication with

126

6  Forms of Communication

Fig. 6.5  Example of human-computer communication following Röhner and Thoss (2019)

computers instead of through them. This makes human-computer communication a special form of individual communication because the “communication partner” (i.e., an artificial intelligence) is not a real person even though a human partner is often simulated (e.g., via a virtual avatar). Examples include communications with computers via voice commands (e.g., commands like “Search for florists near me” or “Search for forms of communication”), videogames without interactions with other human players, learning software (e.g., when a computer tests our knowledge and corrects our mistakes), and programming computer software (e.g., when a computer calculates psychological research data; Fig. 6.5). A growing number of programming languages has been developed for this last case (e.g., C++, Java, Python, or R). Whenever our “communication partner” is an artificial intelligence, we are part of a human-computer communication. The defining characteristic of this form of communication is that there is no exchange between real people. Human-computer communication can for example fail when the voice control of a computer is unable to detect dialects or when a computer does not automatically correct speech impediments and therefore fails to “understand.” By comparison, computer-mediated human-to-human individual communication is communication with other real people via a computer. Here is an example to illustrate this difference: Traditional offline role-playing games require their players to communicate with several ­in-­game characters that were programmed in advance (i.e., with artificial intelligences or with a computer). More recent online role-playing games, however, allow their players to interact and communicate with other real players. The first case is a human-computer communication, the second case a computer-mediated human-to-­ human individual communication. Over the past few decades, communication with the aid of computers has become increasingly important. Unsurprisingly, this new medium has influenced interpersonal communication as well. It is also more and more supplanting older

6.2  Interpersonal Communication (Intracultural and Intercultural)

127

communication media (i.e., older forms of mediated individual communication) like phone and letters. The possibilities for communication with artificial intelligences also keep evolving. Interactions with smart robots that can respond to voice commands and interact with humans are just one example. The recent development toward self-driving cars has made successful human-computer communication all the more important. A recent study asked its participants what kind of communication they hope for in driverless vehicles (Fuest et al., 2019). Concretely, the central question was whether vehicles should yield to pedestrians or keep driving. For this purpose, the researchers showed the participants different scenarios in a virtual reality. They found several ways in which pedestrians determine whether a self-driving car is yielding to them or not, including slowing down and braking (Fuest et al., 2019). In the absence of other signals like waving or flashing the headlights, these indicators correspond with the behavior of human drivers.

6.2.2 Mass Communication Mass communication is the public dissemination of information. Just like with individual communication, mass communication is thus about an exchange of information between individuals. The difference, however, is that the number of communicating individuals is potentially unlimited in the case of mass communication. Direct mass communication (see Sect. 6.2.2.1) sees its sender(s) communicate directly with a large number of people (e.g., when giving a lecture without the use of technological media). It is also possible to make use of technological media to communicate with a large number of people. In this case, we speak of mediated mass communication (see Sect. 6.2.2.2). The definition by Maletzke (1972) is frequently applied to describe the concept of mass communication. In brief, its central ideas are as follows: (1) Statements are public (i.e., there is no limit to the number of recipients at the outset); (2) the message is usually disseminated via media; (3) its dissemination is usually indirect (i.e., it is not bound by place, time, or even the spatiotemporal conditions of senders or recipients); (4) communication is usually one-way (i.e., without switching the sender); and (5) the recipients are perceived as a dispersed audience. In this context, dispersed means that the recipients usually do not know each other, have no relationships with each other, and are often in different places. The recipients constitute a large and heterogenous group of people that cannot be defined precisely. The characteristics of mass communication (i.e., public communication with a potentially unlimited number of dispersed recipients) are even more likely to create instances of intercultural communication than is the case for individual communication. The original conception of mass communication exclusively as a “one-way road” was later broadened when it became clear that cognitive and motivational processes play a crucial role in how people receive information. In other words: There are

128

6  Forms of Communication

huge differences with regard to what message “arrives” at different recipients (see container metaphor, Sect. 1.1.1). Furthermore, it is important to note that the recipients’ behavior also influences the sender (e.g., thumbs up or thumbs down). A communicating person may thus adapt their message to the reaction of their audience. When selecting the most appropriate medium or form of presentation to reach a particular target group, knowledge about the acceptance, use, and effect of mass media communication is key! Lasswell (1948) developed a procedure based on five questions for the analysis of mass communication (Box 6.5).

Box 6.5 Analysis of Mass Communication According to Lasswell (1948) Who? (sender) Says what? (content and structure of message) In which channel? (e.g., written or verbal) To whom? (recipient with specific characteristics) At which time? And to what effect?

6.2.2.1 Direct Mass Communication Direct mass communication does not require technology, only senders and recipients. This is communication via primary media (e.g., spoken language and body language). Neither the sending nor the receiving party needs to make use of technology. Public speeches in front of a large audience without the use of media are part of this category. This form of communication has become relatively rare, but we can still find it at some lectures, talks, or election campaign events. Listening is a factor that plays an important role in these examples (see Sect. 5.1). How people usually listen, however, can differ across cultures. Attentiveness and interest are relevant parts of active listening (see Sect. 5.1) and facilitate communication. People with different cultural backgrounds may signal both differently. For example, whereas German listeners tend to signal attention and interest through eye contact (see Sect. 4.2.4), Japanese listeners often do so by closing their eyes (Heringer, 2017). While Spaniards show their attention and interest by actively participating in a conversation, potentially even interrupting the speaker, Canadians very rarely do so out of politeness (Heringer, 2017). 6.2.2.2 Mediated Mass Communication In contrast to direct mass communication, mediated mass communication hinges on the use of technology. We already mentioned primary media (i.e., neither sender nor recipient require technology) in the section on direct individual communication and

6.2  Interpersonal Communication (Intracultural and Intercultural)

129

direct mass communication (see Sects. 6.2.1.1 and 6.2.2.1). In mediated mass communication, the communicating parties make use of secondary media (i.e., the sender requires technology, e.g., printed text, morse code) and tertiary media (i.e., both sender and recipient require technology, e.g., film, radio, LP, audio CD, e-book reader; Pross, 1972). We are constantly surrounded by mediated mass communication. Depending on the required media, we can distinguish between different subcategories to this form of communication. One popular way to categorize them is based on how “new” they are (i.e., traditional, new, and newest mass media). Whether we perceive a medium as old or new, however, is not a stable dimension, but changes over time (e.g., because of new developments or new inventions), rendering this classification system problematic. For the discussion in this book, and in an analogous manner to the earlier sections on the taxonomy of mediated individual communication, we therefore decided to distinguish between non-digital mediated mass communication (i.e., mass communication that does not make use of a computer, see Sect. 6.2.2.2.1) and digital mediated mass communication (i.e., mass communication that makes use of a computer, see Sect. 6.2.2.2.2). Advertising is a part of mediated mass communication and can be non-digital (e.g., billboards) or digital (e.g., advertising sites on the Internet). To ensure that advertising works internationally and can be successful across cultures, advertising contents need to be adjusted to cultural beliefs and values (e.g., Derjanecz, 2001). Whether advertising products with scantily clad women is likely to produce ­successful outcomes, for example, depends on the culture (Nelson & Paek, 2005). Many large companies that want to operate at a global scale therefore adapt their advertisements to the respective culture. Missteps can harm business. A notable example that attracted a lot of attention was the blunder of a supermarket chain that advertised bacon-flavored chips as part of a Ramadan promotion (ITV News, 2015). To explain this mistake: Ramadan is the fasting month of Muslims whose religion forbids the consumption of pork. Cultures are not static. They change over time. And as a consequence, advertising also changes within the same culture. The emancipation of women has changed the image of women in many parts of the world. This has also led to changes in how women are portrayed in advertising in the corresponding cultures. In the 1950s, it was for example rather common for advertisements in the US to send messages in line with the discriminatory gender role expectations that were predominant at the time. Kitchen appliances were advertised as perfect gifts for women and sources of their happiness—a portrayal that has been criticized by scholars like the sociologist Friedan (1966). 6.2.2.2.1  Non-Digital Mediated Mass Communication Non-digital mediated mass communication is the exchange of information without the use of digital media. This category includes media such as print media (e.g., this book, billboards, magazines, or the many flyers handed to university students) and audiovisual media (e.g., television).

130

6  Forms of Communication

6.2.2.2.2  Digital Mediated Mass Communication Digital mediated mass communication centers around the use of computer technology. This includes computers, online media, and mobile media (e.g., databases and websites on the Internet; Batinic & Appel, 2008). Technological innovations and new developments in media technology also allow this form of communication to evolve. For example, there are now media built on technologies that go beyond conventional computer technology, inasmuch as they do not explicitly feel to their users as if they are still using computer media. Users are no longer required to use a computer mouse or sit in front of a monitor. Google Glass is an example for such a technology. This miniature computer was developed by Google and is placed on an eyeglass frame that users wear on their head. By moving their head and blinking, they can use the device to search the Internet, send data, or even take pictures of their surroundings. Due to the many ways in which we can communicate, different forms of communication are increasingly blending together. This can create situations in which mistakes in our privacy settings can turn a message that was intended as an individual communication into a mass communication⁠—possibly with serious consequences (Box 6.6).

Box 6.6 The Small But Significant Difference Between Mediated Individual Communication and Mediated Mass Communication on Social Networks and Microblogs The use of social networks (e.g., Facebook) and microblogs (e.g., Twitter) can take the form of mediated individual communication (e.g., when sending a Facebook message to a friend or a group of people selected by the sender). But it can also be a form of mediated mass communication (e.g., a public status update). Users, however, do not always consider the possible consequences that come with this latter use as the following brief discussion will show. Numerous news outlets have reported on the dangers of status updates that talk about vacation plans or new purchases via public mass communication. Many users share social media posts like “Finally on vacation from tomorrow and then England for 5 weeks” or “Making use of the long weekend next week for a trip to Italy”—and make them visible to everybody! On the humorously named website “Pleaserobme.com”, information on empty apartments can be gleaned from users’ status updates for possible burglaries under the title “new opportunities.” There are countless other examples that highlight the possible negative consequences of “unintended” public communication. People have been fired after sharing negative comments about their bosses on social media. Tenancies have been terminated after pictures of rowdy parties were posted online. Others lost their driver’s license after sharing pictures in which they were driving a car while being inebriated or on drugs. All of these examples show that users on social networks and blogs often have an incomplete understanding of who their potential audience will be when they share certain information online (see social presence in Sect. 6.2.1.2).

6.3  Practical Application of Different Communication Forms

131

Box 6.7 Mass Media The audience of mass media is dispersed. The potential of mass media lies in part in its ability to reach a large audience. Thus, it can have a much broader impact than direct interpersonal communication. Whether knowledge is shared or not is harder to determine in this case than in direct interpersonal communication. Recipients of a TV ad do not get to ask any questions if they did not understand the message.

6.3 Practical Application of Different Communication Forms In this chapter, we introduced different forms of communication and pointed out their differences, similarities, and distinct characteristics. We would like to close the chapter with an example to illustrate how the different forms of communication may overlap in practice, how several of them may take place simultaneously, and how the form of communication may change repeatedly during a short time. Dr. Miller is a computer science lecturer at an American university who is working on a software that can create tables on various data to make it usable. For this, she communicates with an artificial intelligence, a computer (i.e., digital mediated individual communication, or more concretely: human-computer communication). The other day, her boss approached her with the request to teach these skills to five of her colleagues during a seminar (i.e., direct individual communication, face-to-­ face communication). Dr. Miller is happy to help and starts working on a presentation that covers the necessary theoretical background, using her laptop to prepare a few slides (i.e., digital mediated individual communication, human-computer communication while working on the slides for the presentation, and computer-­mediated human-to-human individual communication during the presentation for her colleagues). On the day of the presentation, Dr. Miller is getting nervous. She gives herself a little pep talk (i.e., intrapersonal communication). Her team consists of four American colleagues (i.e., intracultural digital mediated individual communication) alongside one visiting researcher from India (i.e., intercultural digital mediated individual communication). Two of her colleagues discuss a meeting from the day before in a side conversation during Dr. Miller’s presentation (i.e., direct individual communication, face-to-face communication). There are also a few students who are interested in the seminar. Since the computer room in which the seminar is taking place only has six desks, however, a recording of the seminar will be made available as a webinar to a limited number of students who register in advance (i.e., digital mediated individual communication). To sign up, students need to fill out a registration form by hand at the administration office (i.e., non-digital mediated individual communication). Registered students do not only gain access to the webinar; they are also added to an e-mail list through which they can openly ask questions and communicate with Dr. Miller and their classmates (i.e., digital

132

6  Forms of Communication

mediated individual communication, or more concretely: computer-mediated human-to-­human communication). 10% of the registered students are exchange students from other cultures. As such, all aforementioned forms of communication with the students are simultaneously intracultural and intercultural. A TV station has also become aware of the new software. It decides to film part of the seminar and a subsequent interview with Dr. Miller for a national broadcast (i.e., mediated mass communication). The plan is to broadcast the program on television (i.e., non-­ digital mediated mass communication) while also making it available on the website of the TV station (i.e., digital mediated mass communication). 5% of the viewership have a cultural background outside of the US. The majority of 95% has an American cultural background. Consequently, the forms of mass communication take place at an intracultural and intercultural level. Viewers who have the program running in the background while making a phone call, surfing the Internet, or receiving mail engage in the respective forms of communication at the same time. After the seminar, Dr. Miller is a little annoyed that a professor from a related discipline, who uses the same computer room for research on speech recognition, forgot to switch off their equipment, which caused the artificial intelligence to repeatedly, and mistakenly, register parts of the seminar as voice commands, disturbing the recording (i.e., digital mediated individual communication, or more concretely: human-computer communication). On the way to the train station, she asks the visiting researcher if he was able to follow the seminar, which was held in English (i.e., intercultural direct individual communication, intercultural face-to-face communication), while reading a text message from her husband (i.e., digital mediated individual communication). This example shows in how many different forms of communication we take part every day and how frequently we switch between them. We are often not aware of this and do not need to actively think about it. New developments lead to new forms of communication. Why don’t you pay close attention to the forms of communication you use in your daily life?

6.4 Summary, Comprehension Questions, and Further Reading This chapter covered different forms of communication. To summarize, here is a little “who is who” of human communication:

6.4  Summary, Comprehension Questions, and Further Reading

133

–– Communication with ourselves (e.g., talking to ourselves): Intrapersonal communication –– Communication with at least one other person…: Interpersonal communication ⚬⚬ …when sender(s) and recipient(s) have the same cultural background…: Intracultural communication ⚬⚬ …when sender(s) and recipient(s) have different cultural backgrounds…: Intercultural communication ▪▪ …with a limited number of recipients…: Individual communication ⦁⦁ …and they do not make use of media (e.g., a casual chat with our neighbor): Direct individual communication ⦁⦁ …and they make use of media…: Mediated individual communication ⚬⚬ …which is not digital (e.g., postcard to a friend): Non-digital mediated individual communication ⚬⚬ …which is digital: Digital mediated individual communication ▪▪ It is a communication with another real person using a computer (e.g., e-mail to our boss): Computer-mediated human-to-human individual communication ▪▪ It is a communication with a computer (e.g., playing an offline role-playing game): Human-computer communication ▪▪ …with a potentially unlimited number of recipients…: Mass communication ⦁⦁ …and they do not make use of media (e.g., lecture without using media): Direct mass communication ⦁⦁ …and they make use of media…: Mediated mass communication ⚬⚬ …which is not digital (e.g., newspaper): Non-digital mediated mass communication ⚬⚬ …which is digital (e.g., status update on a microblog that is shared publicly): Digital mediated mass communication We showed how a simple flowchart can help distinguish between different forms of communication. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the transition between different forms of communication can be seamless (Do you recall the examples of accidental mass communication in Box 6.7?). Often, several forms of communication may also take place at the same time (Do you recall the example of Dr. Miller whose seminar involved human-computer communication, face-to-face communication, digital mediated individual communication, and mediated mass communication?). Lastly, communication at large as well as the various forms of communication are constantly evolving. The Voyager Golden Record provides a striking example. It consists of two phonograph records containing information like images and sounds that were sent as a message from Earth into space (see https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/golden-­record/). So far, there has been no response. Should an answer arrive someday, we would have new forms of communication (e.g., intrastellar versus interstellar forms of communication). We also addressed potential risks that come with certain forms of communication (Do you remember the phenomenon of trolling?).

134

6  Forms of Communication

Psychologists are not the only ones who take a closer look at mass media. In his book Amusing Ourselves to Death, media scientist Neil Postman already discussed the effects of mass media consumption at the end of the last millennium (2006): ‘Now…this’ (…) is a means of acknowledging the fact that the world as mapped by the speeded-up electronic media has no order or meaning and is not to be taken seriously. There is no murder so brutal, no earthquake so devastating, no political blunder so costly— for that matter, no ball score so tantalizing or weather report so threatening—that it cannot be erased from our minds by a newscaster saying, ‘Now…this.’ (Neil Postman, 2006, p. 99)

Comprehension Questions 1. Which forms of communication can be distinguished? 2. Which form of communication is characterized by the following criteria: Bound to a certain time and place, only making use of primary media, possible understanding at a verbal and nonverbal level? 3. What is the difference between human-computer communication and computer-­mediated human-to-human individual communication? 4. What are examples of human-computer communication that are becoming more and more important today? 5. What is social presence? 6. According to Maletzke (1972), what are the characteristics of mass communication?

Recommended Reading Batinic, B., & Appel, M. (2008). Medienpsychologie [Media Psychology]. Springer. Renner, K.-H., Schütz, A., & Machilek, F. (Eds.) (2005). Internet und Persönlichkeit. Differentiell-psychologische und diagnostische Aspekte der Internetnutzung [Internet and Personality. Differential-psychological and Diagnostic Aspects of Internet Use]. Hogrefe

References Batinic, B., & Appel, M. (2008). Medienpsychologie [Media Psychology]. Springer. Bierhoff, H.-W., & Frey, D. (2006). Handbuch der Sozialpsychologie und Kommunikationspsychologie [Handbook of Social Psychology and Communication Psychology]. Hogrefe. Biocca, F., Harms, C., & Burgoon, J. K. (2003). Toward a more robust theory and measure of social presence: Review and suggested criteria. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 456–480. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761270 Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 97-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.016 Cambridge Dictionary. (2020). Trolling. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ trolling

References

135

Derjanecz, A. (2001). Interkulturelle Marketingkommunikation: Verbraucherverhalten und Werberezeption in (West)Deutschland und Ungarn [Intercultural marketing communication: Consumer behavior and reception of advertising in (West) Germany and Hungary]. Culture Scan, 1(2). Friedan, B. (1966). Der Weiblichkeitswahn, oder Die Mystifizierung der Frau [The Femininity Illusion, or The Mystification of Women]. Rowohlt. Frindte, W., & Geschke, D. (2019). Lehrbuch Kommunikationspsychologie [Textbook Communication Psychology]. Beltz. Fuest, T., Maier, A. S., Bellem, H., & Bengler, K. (2019). How should an automated vehicle communicate its intention to a pedestrian? – A virtual reality study. In T. Ahram, W. Karwowski, S. Pickl, & R. Taiar (Eds.), Human Systems Engineering and Design II. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Human Systems Engineering and Design (IHSED2019): Future Trends and Applications, September 16-18, 2019, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Munich, Germany (pp. 195–201). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­27928-­8_30 Giles, H., & Johnson, P. (1981). The role of language in ethnic group relations. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup Behaviour (pp. 199–243). Basil Blackwell. Hansen, K., Rakić, T., & Steffens, M. C. (2017). Competent and warm? How mismatching appearance and accent influence first impressions. Experimental Psychology, 64(1), 27–36. https:// doi.org/10.1027/1618-­3169/a000348 Hansen, K., Rakić, T., & Steffens, M. C. (2018). Foreign-looking native-accented people: More competent when first seen rather than heard. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(8), 1001–1009. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617732389 Heringer, H.  J. (2017). Interkulturelle Kommunikation [Intercultural Communication] (5th ed.). UTB. Hiltz, S. R., Turoff, M., & Johnson, K. (1989). Experiments in group decision making, 3: disinhibition, deindividuation, and group process in pen name and real name computer conferences. Decision Support Systems, 5(2), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-­9236(89)90008-­0 Hofstede, G. (1993). Interkulturelle Zusammenarbeit. Kulturen — Organisationen — Management. Gabler Verlag. ITV News (2015, June 24). Tesco promotes Ramadan deals using smokey bacon Pringles. https://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-­0 6-­2 4/tesco-­p romotes-­r amadan-­d eals-­u sing-­ bacon-­flavoured-­pringles Joinson, A. N. (2003). Understanding the Psychology of Internet Behaviour: Virtual Worlds, Real Lives. Palgrave Macmillan. Krzeminska, M. (2014). How polished is your English?: Attitudes towards Polish-accented English in the UK. LSC Final Essay. Lasswell, H.  D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L.  Bryson (Ed.), The Communication of Ideas (pp. 37–51). Harper and Row. Leder, J., Horlitz, T., Puschmann, P., Wittstock, V., & Schütz, A. (2019). Comparing immersive virtual reality and powerpoint as methods for delivering safety training: Impacts on risk perception, learning, and decision making. Safety Science, 111, 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ssci.2018.07.021 Lippert, E., & Wakenhut, R. (1983). Ethnozentrismus [Ethnocentrism]. In E.  Lippert & R. Wakenhut (Eds.), Handwörterbuch der Politischen Psychologie (pp. 88–96). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­322-­85710-­1_11 Maletzke, G. (1972). Massenkommunikation [Mass communication]. In C.  F. Graumann (Ed.), Handbuch der Psychologie. Sozialpsychologie (Vol. 7, pp. 1511–1535). Hogrefe. McGee, M. (2008). Meditation and psychiatry. Psychiatry, 5(1), 28–40. Nelson, M.  R., & Paek, H.-J. (2005). Cross-cultural differences in sexual advertising content in a transnational women’s magazine. Sex Roles, 53, 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11199-­005-­6760-­5 Park, J., Barash, V., Fink, C., & Cha, M. (2013). Emoticon style: Interpreting differences in emoticons across cultures. Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v7i1.14437

136

6  Forms of Communication

Postman, N. (2006). Amusing Ourselves to Death. Penguin Books Pross, H. (1972). Medienforschung: Film, Funk, Presse, Fernsehen [Media Research: Film, Radio, Press, Television]. Habel. Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness: Using social presence theory to compare traditional and new organizational media. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 451–484. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1468-­2958.1993.tb00309.x Röhner, J., & Thoss, P. J. (2019). A tutorial on how to compute traditional IAT effects with R. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 15(2), 134–147. Schmidt, J. E., & Herrgen, J. (2001–2005). Digitaler Wenker-Atlas (DiWA). Teil 1: Georg Wenkers Sprachatlas des Deutschen Reichs [Digital Wenker Atlas (DiWA). Part 1: Georg Wenker‘s Linguistic Atlas of the German Reich]. Forschungszentrum Deutscher Sprachatlas. Sedlmeier, P., Eberth, J., Schwarz, M., Zimmermann, D., Haarig, F., Jaeger, S., & Kunze, S. (2012). The psychological effects of meditation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1139–1171. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028168 Six, U., Gleich, U., & Gimmler, R. (Eds.). (2007). Kommunikationspsychologie und Medienpsychologie [Communication Psychology and Media Psychology]. Beltz. Tarantino, Q. (Director). (2009). Inglourious Basterds [Film]. A Band Apart, Studio Babelsberg, Visiona Romantica Thorne, S. (2005). Accent Pride and Prejudice: Are speakers of stigmatized variants really less loyal? Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 12, 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296170500172460 Tropp, J. (2014). Moderne Marketing-Kommunikation. System – Prozess – Management [Modern Marketing Communication. System  – Process  – Management] (2nd ed.). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Walsh, R., & Shapiro, S. L. (2006). The meeting of meditative disciplines and western psychology: A mutually enriching dialogue. American Psychologist, 61(3), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.103 7/0003-­066X.61.3.227 Watzlawick, P. (2005). Wie wirklich ist die Wirklichkeit? Wahn  – Täuschung  – Verstehen [How Real Is Reality? Illusion – Deception – Understanding]. Piper.

Answers to the Comprehension Questions

137

Answers to the Comprehension Questions 1. Intrapersonal communication; the two types of interpersonal communication (intracultural and intercultural): Individual communication and mass communication; direct individual communication and mediated individual communication as different forms of individual communication; non-digital mediated individual communication and digital mediated individual communication as different forms of mediated individual communication; computer-­mediated individual communication and human-computer communication as different forms of mediated individual communication; direct mass communication and mediated mass communication as different forms of mass communication; non-digital mediated mass communication and digital mediated mass communication as different forms of mediated mass communication. 2.  Direct individual communication. 3. Human-computer communication is communication with an artificial intelligence (a computer), e.g., communication with characters that were programmed in advance for an offline role-playing game. Computer-mediated human-tohuman individual communication is communication with other human beings by using a computer, e.g., in online chats. 4.  Communication with robots; self-driving cars. 5.  Social presence is the feeling of being aware of the presence of others in a mediated (communication) situation. 6.  Statements are public; the message is usually disseminated via media; its dissemination is usually indirect; communication is usually one-way; and the recipients are perceived as a dispersed audience.

Glossary

Axioms of communication by Watzlawick  A model that makes five basic assumptions about human communication: (1) Axiom about the impossibility to avoid communication; (2) axiom about the content and the relationship aspect of communication; (3) axiom about the punctuation of communication; (4) axiom about digital versus analog communication; and (5) axiom about symmetric versus complementary communication. Body language  A form of nonverbal communication, which means that all body language is nonverbal communication, but not all nonverbal communication is also body language. Here is an example: When Carl nods at Iris, he uses body language because he only uses his body to communicate with her. When he drives past her in a Porsche to impress her, he uses nonverbal communication that is not body language. Instead, he uses a status symbol to communicate. Body language includes gestures, head movements, posture, gazing and mutual gazing, and facial expressions. Characteristics of the individual  Can shape the communication process. They include (prior) knowledge, motives, attitudes, personality, emotions, age, and gender. One research finding that shows how personality influences communication processes is that people with low self-esteem prefer communication via e-mail in situations that may lead to conflict whereas people with high self-esteem prefer face-to-face communication to directly address interpersonal difficulties. Characteristics of the situation  Can shape the communication process beside the characteristics of the individuals involved. The key characteristics of a situation are the goal structure (Which goals are present in a situation? Which steps are required to reach them?), roles (Which behavior is appropriate for the participants in the situation? How are they expected to behave?), surroundings (How do the surroundings in which a conversation takes place make its participants feel?), and language as well as manner of speaking (Which manner of speaking does the situation demand and how should the participants express themselves?).

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Röhner, A. Schütz, Psychology of Communication, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60170-6

139

140

Glossary

Communication metaphors  Figurative comparisons that illustrate the construct communication with the help of previous experiences (e.g., sharing metaphor or container metaphor). Communication model by Schulz von Thun  Distinguishes between four layers of a message: Factual level, self-revelation, relationship, and appeal. The model can be used to analyze human communication with a focus on either senders or recipients. Communication model by Shannon and Weaver  An encoder/decoder model on the transmission of messages. The model identifies sender, encoder, signal, channel, decoder, recipient, and possible interferences as the components of communication. Communication psychology  A relatively young subfield of psychology that studies the factors that influence communication, communication behavior, and the results or consequences of communication behavior. Communication rules by Rogers  A model that describes the foundation for the establishment of a supportive therapeutic relationship. It describes three basic characteristics therapists should exhibit: Empathy, congruence, and unconditional positive regard. Communicative competence (communication competence)  The ability of communicating parties to act appropriately and reach interpersonal goals without massively hurting the interests of other participants. It is a part of social competence and an important skill in our private and professional lives. Communicative competence includes the abilities to find suitable ways of conveying a message and recognize the feelings and concerns of our communication partners. Components of communication by Six et al. (2007)  Six et al. (2007) identify six components of communication. It consists of: (1) Participants; (2) a message; and (3) means and modalities of communication. Communication is: (4) Context-sensitive; (5) interactive; and (6) more or less intentional. Explanations  Typically an interaction in which one party explains something to another party. Good explanations take into account the problem at hand alongside the prior knowledge and other characteristics of their recipient. Explanations can be interpretive, descriptive, or reason giving. Interpretive explanations focus on the WHAT (e.g., “What does this mean for my grade on the exam?”). Their goal is to interpret or clarify information or to make the meaning of a statement or expression clearer. Descriptive explanations focus on the HOW (e.g., “How can I best prepare for an oral exam?”). Their primary concern are processes, structures, and exact procedures. Reason giving explanations focus on the WHY (e.g., “Why is it my responsibility to retrieve the equipment that will be used for my presentation?”). They contain reasons that are for example based on principles or motives. Reason giving explanations can be divided into causal explanations that focus on cause-and-effect relationships and functional explanations that focus on functions. Feedback  Information that participants convey during interactions in response to the messages and actions of others. It can influence further communication. Feedback can be transmitted internally or externally. Internal feedback is trans-

Glossary

141

mitted from inside our own bodies (e.g., heart palpitations during a presentation as a sign of nervousness). Externally transmitted feedback is received from our environment with our visual, auditory, and tactile senses (e.g., the audience’s interested facial expressions during a presentation; enthusiastic applause after a presentation; pat on the shoulder after defending our dissertation). Forms of communication  Can for example be divided into intrapersonal communication and interpersonal communication depending on the number of recipients. At a subordinate level, interpersonal communication can be divided into individual communication and mass communication. Both of these forms can be further divided into a direct or mediated variant. Lastly, both mediated individual communication and mediated mass communication can be non-digital (i.e., without the use of a computer) or digital (i.e., with the use of a computer). Goals  Mental representations of desired end states that contain content and process aspects. Different types of goals include for example instrumental versus consummatory goals and implicit versus explicit goals. Haptic signals  People give these signals when they touch others during communication, which frequently makes those they touch see them in a more positive light. Societal norms, the given context, and cultural differences determine who may touch whom under which circumstances and how. Individual communication  Exchange of information between a limited number of participants. It can be divided into direct individual communication and mediated individual communication. Integrative communication model by Hargie and colleagues  Identifies six components of communication: (1) Characteristics of the individual and characteristics of the situation (person-situation context); (2) goal(s); (3) mediating processes; (4) response behavior; (5) feedback; and (6) perception. Barriers that impede the communication process can occur at any of the six stages. Interpersonal communication  Exchange of information between at least two participants. Depending on the number of participants, two subcategories can be distinguished. If the number of participants is limited, we speak of individual communication. If the number of participants is potentially unlimited, we speak of mass communication. Intrapersonal communication  Reception and processing of information take place within the same individual (e.g., when talking to ourselves). The goals of this form of communication include self-motivation, self-management, and time management. Laughter and humor  Laughter primarily serves communicative functions and we do not only laugh when talking with friends, but also when we talk to strangers. Humor can be used in groups to strengthen social bonds and foster group cohesion, counteract stress, help us express negative emotions, or shield us from outside attacks. Listening  Allows us to show attention and focus on the message our communication partners are sharing. Listening is also the foundation for a critical reflection on what is being said. Active listening is a special form of listening.

142

Glossary

Mass communication  The public dissemination of information with a potentially unlimited number of recipients. Following Maletzke (1972), the central characteristics of mass communication are: (1) Statements are usually public; (2) the message is usually disseminated via media; (3) its dissemination is usually indirect; (4) communication is usually one-­way; and (5) the recipients are perceived as a dispersed audience. Here, dispersed means that the recipients usually do not know each other and have no relationships with each other. The recipients constitute a large and heterogenous group of people that cannot be defined precisely. Mass communication can be divided into direct mass communication without the use of media and mediated mass communication that uses media. Nonverbal communication  Focuses on HOW we say something. Nonverbal communication can take place simultaneously (i.e., multiple parties can communicate nonverbally at the same time, e.g., when they express interest and attention through mutual eye contact), tends to be continuous (i.e., without a clear beginning or end), and often provides information about emotional states. It includes haptic signals, body language, proxemics, and physical characteristics. Physical characteristics  Are the basis for our impression of another person’s ethnicity, gender, or age. How we perceive others is in part determined by their attractiveness, height, body shape, and clothing. Proxemics  Includes aspects of territoriality, personal space, interpersonal distance, and questions of orientation and seating arrangement. Psychological communication models  According to Krauss and Fussell (1996), psychological communication models can be divided into four categories based on their focus: Encoder/decoder models, intentionalist models, perspective-taking models, and dialogic models. Questions  Allow us to initiate, keep up, and guide conversations. The question type, its wording, or mere formal aspects of a question can influence how it is answered. Question types include open-ended questions, closed-ended questions, and leading questions. Results or outcomes of communicative behavior  Refer to how the communication process affects its participants: Recipients form an impression of the sender as well as the content of their message. Verbal communication  Usually focuses on the content of a message. Verbal communication is mostly sequential (i.e., the communicating parties take turns), makes use of symbols in the form of words, and primarily covers cognitive aspects.

Author Index

A Adolphs, R., 85, 86 Ajzen, I., 15, 48, 49 Allritz, M., 57 Alm, C., 100 Alpers, G.W., 84 Alsaker, F., 32 Alsawy, S., 96 Altman, I., 87 American Psychiatric Association (APA), 51, 52, 84 Ames, D., 96 Amici, F., 57 Ansmann, L., 96 Appel, M., 130 Arančić, A., 107 Argyle, M., 56, 77, 82 Armstrong, S., 104 Aronson, E., 46 Asal, K., 45 Ashmore, R.D., 12 Ashton, M.C., 50 Aslaksen, P.M., 74 Austin, J.T., 58 B Bachorowski, J.-A., 106 Back, M.D., 52 Baesler, E.J., 76 Bagby, R.M., 54 Bahrens, F., 107 Banaji, M.R., 49 Barash, V., 124, 125 Bard, K.A., 81

Barrett, L.F., 85, 86 Barrick, M.R., 77 Batinic, B., 130 Bauer, J., 29 Beavin, J.H., 22, 30 Beermann, U., 107 Beierlein, C., 16 Beißert, H., 16 Bellem, H., 127 Bengler, K., 127 Bensch, D., 30 Berenbaum, H., 54 Berger, R., 88 Bergius, R., 45 Berscheid, E., 45 Biek, M., 50 Bierhoff, H.-W., 124 Binetti, N., 83 Biocca, F., 123 Bjorklund, D.F., 100 Blanchar, J.C., 46 Blanz, M., 8 Blumer, T., 51 Bogler, R., 13 Bond, C.F., 27 Borkenau, P., 50 Bossi, J., 83 Boyson, A.R., 88 Bozionelos, N., 88 Brauer, M., 46 Breckler, S.J., 47 Bressem, J., 79 Briegel, W., 84 Briton, N.J., 55 Brown, G.A., 104

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Röhner, A. Schütz, Psychology of Communication, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60170-6

143

144 Brownell, J., 95 Brück, C., 72 Brucks, M.S., 52 Brunswik, E., 12 Buckels, E.E., 123, 124 Bühler, K., 24 Burgoon, J.K., 55, 76 Burkart, R., 6 Burns, M., 46 Burrows, A.M., 81 Butler, J., 88 C Cacchione, T., 57 Cacioppo, J.T., 15, 16 Calanchini, J., 46 Cambridge Dictionary, 123 Campbell, L., 107 Carey, A.L., 52 Carney, D.R., 82 Caron, J.E., 107 Carroll, D., 74 Case, J.L., 106 Caspi, A., 13 Cassel, W.S., 100 Cerruti, C., 46 Cesar, O.P., 84 Cha, M., 124, 125 Charlton, K., 27, 75 Chen, E.E., 46 Chen, L., 84 Christie, D.R.H., 97 Cialdini, R.B., 14 Clark, H.H., 46 Concato, J., 96 Conway, J., 46 Cooley, E., 46 Cooper, H., 27, 75 Coutrot, A., 83 Crask, M.R., 16 Crites, S.L., 47 Cuddy, A.J.C., 82 D Daniali, H., 73, 74 Darnold, T.C., 77 Davidson, R.J., 74 Davis, H.L., 14 Day, E., 16 Deci, E.L., 46 Dehn-Hindenberg, A., 29 Delevati, N.M., 84 DePaulo, B.M., 27, 47, 55, 75

Author Index Derjanecz, A., 129 Deters, F.G., 52 Deutsch, R., 49 Devos, T., 46 DeYoung, C.G., 50 Dickson, D., 41, 42, 54, 76, 86, 88, 95, 103, 104 Dillard, J., 53 Dinkelbach, H.Ü., 80 Dobrea, D.-M., 80 Don Read, J., 102 Donnellan, M.B., 52 Douglas, J., 96 Duggan, A.P., 97 Dustin, S.L., 77 E Eagly, A.H., 12 Ebel, H., 54 Eberth, J., 118 Ebster, C., 87 Edwards, L., 74 Egger, J.W., 96 Eisenberg, N., 55 Ekman, P., 74, 78, 80, 85, 106 Engen, H.G., 29 Epstein, J.A., 27 Erkip, F., 43 Erler, S., 8 Ernstmann, N., 96 Ewers, T., 27, 50 F Fabes, R.A., 55 Fabrigar, L.R., 47 Faulkner, J.E., 107 Fazio, R.H., 49 Fehn, T., 53 Feingold, A., 87 Feinstein, J.A., 16 Feldman, R.S., 27 Ferris, S.R., 72 Fink, C., 124, 125 Fink, V., 80 Fischer, P., 45 Fishbein, M., 48 Fiske, S.T., 44 Flaten, M.A., 73, 74 Florack, A., 8 Forgas, J.P., 60 Försterling, F., 103 Fraser, S.C., 14 Frazier, R.S., 46

Author Index Freedman, J.L., 14 French, L.A., 88 Frenzen, J.K., 14 Frey, D., 124 Freyberger, H., 54 Fricke, E., 81 Friedan, B., 129 Friedman, H.S., 50, 51 Friesen, W.V., 78, 80, 85 Frindte, W., 2, 9, 120 Frings, C., 29 Fuest, T., 127 Furnham, A., 56 Fussell, S.R., 21, 36 G Gangestad, S.W., 50 Garry, M., 102 Garstka, T.A., 54 Gaskell, G., 101 Gebhardt, W., 58 Gehrer, N.A., 84 Gerber-Braun, B., 103 Gervais, M., 106, 107 Geschke, D., 120 Geßler, S., 53 Giles, H., 119 Gimmler, R., 6, 7, 10, 17, 114 Gleich, U., 6, 7, 10, 17, 114 Gmel, G., 100 Goodwin, R., 107 Gothard, K.M., 81 Graham, J.A., 56 Grammer, K., 106 Granhag, P.A., 27 Graves, T.D., 87 Greenwald, A.G., 49, 63 Greiff, S., 30 Grice, H.P., 22 Groninger, H., 79 Großerohde, B., 107 Gruenfeld, D.H., 59, 60 Grunwald, M., 78 Gubi-Kelm, S., 101 Gudjonsson, G.H., 100 Guéguen, N., 77 Guirdham, M., 46 H Haarig, F., 118 Habedank, B., 54 Hager, J.C., 80 Haidt, J., 46

145 Halimi-Falkowicz, S.G.M., 77 Hall, E.T., 86, 87 Hall, J.A., 55, 77 Hallam, M., 12, 87 Halone, K.K., 97 Hansen, K., 119 Hargie, O., 15, 41–63, 76, 86, 88, 95, 103, 104 Harms, C., 123 Harrison, C., 83 Hartung, F.-M., 98 Hawkins, C.B., 46 Heft, W., 80 Heiphetz, L., 46 Heiss, W.-D., 54 Helmy Rehnberg, N., 100 Hendriks, M.C.P., 84 Henry, C., 54 Herbert, M., 104 Herden, J., 96 Herholz, K., 54 Heringer, H.J., 22, 72, 114, 119, 122, 128 Hermanutz, M., 74 Herpertz, S., 86 Herrgen, J., 119 Hertel, G., 51 Hester, J.B., 107 Hilbig, B.E., 52 Hiltz, S.R., 123 Hinton, P.R., 62 Hirschberg, J., 13 Ho, A.K., 46 Hochschild, A.R., 54 Hock, M., 86 Hofmann, J., 106 Hofstede, G., 120 Hoge, L., 43 Holden, R.R., 51 Holland, R.W., 107 Holmboe, E.S., 96 Holmes, J., 107 Holtzman, N.S., 52 Hömberg, W., 6 Horlitz, T., 123 Horstmann, K.T., 30 Huber, M., 54 Hübner, S., 104 Huizenga, H., 96 Hummert, M.L., 54 I Ibabe, I., 102 Imhof, M., 97 ITV News, 129

146 J Jackson, D.D., 22, 30 Jacob, H., 72 Jaeger, S., 118 Jaek, A., 8 Jarvis, W.B.G., 16 Jenzowsky, S., 107 Johnson, K., 123 Johnson, P., 119 Johnston, A., 83 Joinson, A.N., 51, 122 Jordan, J.M., 61 Joule, R.-V., 77 Joy-Gaba, J.A., 46 Jungbauer-Gans, M., 88 Jusyte, A., 84 K Kalakanis, L., 12, 87 Kashy, D.A., 27 Kaya, N., 43 Kendon, A., 78, 79, 82 Kenny, D.A., 11 Kesebir, S., 46 Keunke, S., 6 King, C., 107 Kirkendol, S.E., 27 Klein, R.A., 46 Klöckner Cronauer, C., 56 Klosinski, C., 74 Klossek, A., 75 Köhle, K., 54 Köhler, M., 16 Köhnken, G., 75 Koleva, S.P., 46 Koller, M.R., 107 Köppe, C., 53 Körner, R., 82, 83 Koydemir, S., 56 Kramer, M., 97 Krauss, R.M., 21, 36, 142 Kreifelts, B., 72 Krippendorff, K., 2 Kriwy, P., 88 Kronfeld, T., 80 Krüger, J., 45 Krzeminska, M., 119 Küfner, A.C.P., 52 Kunze, S., 118 L La Pointe, L.L., 106 Lai, C.K., 46

Author Index Lakowske, A.M., 61 Lamm, C., 29 Langlois, J.H., 12, 87 Larson, A., 12, 87 Lasswell, H.D., 128 Latham, G.P., 58 Laux, L., 51 Le, J.-M., 76 Leder, J., 123 Lee, K., 50 Lehr, S.A., 46 Lindholm, T., 100 Lindsay, D.S., 102 Lindsay, J.J., 27, 75 Lippert, E., 120 Lira, B.B.P., 84 Litzcke, S.M., 75 Ljubinković, S., 107 Locke, E.A., 58 Loftus, E.F., 101, 102 Logan, C., 98 Lokosha, O., 100 Longo, L.C., 12 Lynn, M., 76 M Maaß, U., 30 Maes, G., 58 Maier, A.S., 127 Majdandžić, J., 29 Makhijani, M.G., 12 Maletzke, G., 127, 134, 142 Malone, B.E., 75 Mansell, W., 96 Marcus, B., 52 Mareschal, I., 83 Marini, M., 46 Markiewicz, D., 107 Marsella, S., 85, 86 Marshall, P., 41 Marshburn, C.K., 46 Martin, C.L., 55 Martin, L.L., 85 Martin, P., 87 Martin, U., 74 Martinez, A.M., 85, 86 McCroskey, J.C., 71 McEvoy, P., 96 McGee, M., 118 McGhee, D.E., 49, 63 McIntyre, D., 74 McMahan, E.M., 72 Mehl, M.R., 52 Mehrabian, A., 71, 72

Author Index Melamed, T., 88 Merten, K., 6, 9 Merton, R.K., 45 Meyer, W.-U., 54 Miller-Herringer, T., 51 Mittelberg, I., 79 Morrow, N.C., 41 Mowrer, D.M., 106 Mühlberger, A., 84 Muhlenbruck, L., 27, 75 Müller, C., 79 Müller, N.H., 80 Müller-Küppers, M., 54 Murrar, S., 46 N Naumann, S., 51 Nelson, M.R., 129 Nemiah, J.C., 54 Nezlek, J.B., 56 Nietzsche, F., 26, 27 Nizielski, S., 72, 86 Noller, P., 55 Nosek, B.A., 49 Nückles, M., 104 O O’Keefe, D.J., 16 O’Muircheartaigh, C., 101 Ostendorf, F., 50 Oster, H., 81 Otta, E., 84 Owren, M.J., 106 Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, 9 P Paek, H.-J., 129 Park, J., 124, 125 Parker, J.D.A., 54 Parr, L.A., 81 Parrott, R.L., 97 Parsons, A.L., 107 Patterson, M.L., 83 Paulhus, D.L., 123, 124 Pauli, P., 84 Pavitt, C., 104 Pecchioni, L.L., 97 Pecher, M., 87 Pedram, C., 46 Pennebaker, J.W., 52, 55 Perloff, R.M., 16

147 Perry, S.D., 107 Petersen, L.-E., 9 Petty, R.E., 15, 16, 47 Pfeiffer, T., 80 Piontkowski, U., 8 Pires, C.S.G., 84 Platt, T., 106 Pollak, S.D., 85, 86 Postman, N., 134 Pozzebon, M., 96 Pross, H., 129 Provine, R.R., 106 Proyer, R.T., 107 Pryor, B., 88 Puschmann, P., 123 R Rakić, T., 119 Rau, C., 80 Redford, L., 46 Regan, P.C., 107 Reisenzein, R., 54 Reisinger, H., 87 Remland, M.S., 71 Rempel, M., 16 Renneberg, B., 51 Renner, B., 98 Renner, K.-H., 51 Rentzsch, K., 50 Rice, R.E., 123 Richmond, V.P., 71 Ring, C., 74 Roebers, C.E.M., 100 Rogers, C., 22, 28–29, 36, 37, 97, 140 Röhner, J., 12, 27, 30, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 126 Rosenberg, A., 13 Rosenthal, R., 55, 74 Rossano, F., 57 Roussos, G., 46 Rubenstein, A.J., 12, 87 Rubichi, S., 46 Ruch, W., 106, 107 Rüdiger, M., 50 S Salazar-Bonet, J., 57 Sánchez-Amaro, A., 57 Schaefer, H.S., 46 Scheeff, J., 84 Schellhaas, F.M.H., 46 Scheuring, B., 101 Schild, C., 52

148 Schimmel, E.C., 96 Schmid Mast, M., 56 Schmidt, A.F., 101 Schmidt, J.E., 119 Schönenberg, M., 84 Schröder, M., 46 Schröder-Abé, M., 49, 50, 56 Schroer, J., 51 Schulz von Thun, F., 21, 24–25, 37, 140 Schuster, J., 80 Schütz, A., 8, 12, 13, 25, 27, 30, 33, 43, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 61, 82, 83 Schützwohl, A., 54 Schwartz, J.L.K., 63 Schwarz, M., 118 Schwarz, N., 53, 101 Sebastián-Enesco, C., 57 Sedlmeier, P., 101, 118 Sellin, I., 52 Shaner, J.L., 54 Shannon, C.E., 21–24, 36, 37, 62 Shapiro, S.L., 118 Sharpley, C.F., 97 Sherman, R.A., 52 Sherwyn, D.S., 76 Shin, J.-E.L., 46 Sieverding, M., 54 Sifneos, P.E., 54 Simon, S., 46 Simpson, J.A., 50 Şimşek, Ö.F., 56 Singer, T., 29 Sîrbu, A., 80 Six, B., 45, 87 Six, U., 6, 7, 10, 17, 114 Skinner, A.L., 46 Slowiak, J.M., 61 Smith, C.V., 56 Smith Pasqualini, M.C., 80 Smoot, M., 12, 87 Snyder, M., 45, 51 Sollitt-Morris, L., 107 Spiegel, N.H., 74 Spitzhirn, M., 80 Sporer, S.L., 102 Spörrle, M., 103 Spotts, H., 107 Sprecher, S., 107 Stalmeier, P.F.M., 96 Stavemann, H.H., 105 Steffens, M.C., 119 Stepper, S., 85 Stern, S., 52

Author Index Stewart, G.L., 77 Stewart, J., 98 Stöcker, A., 61 Stone, L.D., 55 Strack, F., 49, 85 Strick, M., 107 Sturman, D.J., 80 Subič-Wrana, C., 54 T Tackman, A.M., 52 Tai, S., 96 Tanke, E.D., 45 Tanner, J.F., 16 Tarantino, Q., 122 Taylor, G.J., 54 Taylor, S.E., 44 Teachman, B.A., 46 Temple, T., 29 The Global Deception Research Team, 75 Thiel, A., 54 Thielmann, I., 52 Thorndike, E.L., 12 Thorne, S., 119 Thoss, P.J., 49, 50, 126 Tipandjan, A., 56 Titze, M., 107 Todosijević, B., 107 Todt, D., 106 Tomasello, M., 46 Trapnell, P.D., 124 Tropp, J., 114 Truschzinski, M., 80 Tucker, J.S., 50 Turner, R.N., 46 Turoff, M., 123 Tzuman, O., 13 U Uziel, L., 51 V Vaidis, D.C.F., 77 van Baaren, R.B., 107 van DaalJan-Willem Leer, W.A.J., 96 van Knippenberg, A., 107 van Lin, E.N.J.T., 96 van Tol-Geerdink, J.J., 96 Vancouver, J.B., 58 Vettin, J., 106

Author Index Vick, S.-J., 81 Vingerhoets, A.J.J.M., 84 Vinsel, A.M., 87 Vrij, A., 27 W Wade, K.A., 102 Wakenhut, R., 120 Waller, B.M., 80 Walsh, R., 118 Walther, J.B., 76 Watson, O.M., 87 Watzlawick, P., 22, 24, 30–35, 36, 37, 114, 139 Weaver, W., 21, 22–24, 36, 37, 62 Weber, H., 43 Weinberger, M.G., 107 Weiss, B., 27 Weissbach, L., 96 Werth, L., 8 Westmeyer, H., 43 Wiemann, J.M., 8 Wiener, M., 72 Wieser, M.J., 84 Wildgruber, D., 72 Wilson, D.S., 106, 107 Wilson, J., 101 Winter, A., 104 Winter, N., 96

149 Wittstock, V., 123 Wittwer, J., 104 Wojcik, S.P., 46 Wright, D., 101 Wyer, M.M., 27 Wyer, R.S. Jr., 59, 60 X Xiao, Y.J., 46 Y Yang, Q., 84 Yap, A.J., 82 Yi, H., 107 Young, T.J., 88 Z Zanni, G., 101, 102 Zebrowitz, L.A., 84 Zettler, I., 52 Zhang, Q., 84 Zhang, Y., 107 Ziegler, M., 30 Zimmermann, D., 118 Zinkhan, G.M., 107 Zuckerman, M., 74

Subject Index

A Accent, 12, 71, 119 Action invisible, 7 visible, 7 Addressee, 21, 23, 36 Advertising, 2, 9, 14–16, 107, 129 Affect, 47, 51, 55, 60, 62, 106, 124 Age, 29, 54–55, 62, 87, 100 Agreeableness, 50 Alexithymia, 54 Anonymity, 123, 124 Appeal, 14, 25, 79 Argument as war metaphor, 3–5 Assessment of credibility, 75 Attitude, 6, 15, 43, 46, 47–50, 60, 82, 99, 107, 119, 122 explicit, 49 implicit, 49 Attitudinal change, 14 Attribution of credibility, 75 Audience, dispersed, 127, 131 Authority, 14 Axiom about digital vs. analog communication (Watzlawick), 30, 34–35, 37 Axiom about symmetric vs. complementary communication (Watzlawick), 30, 35, 37 Axiom about the content and the relationship aspect of communication (Watzlawick), 30, 31–32, 37 Axiom about the impossibility to avoid communication (Watzlawick), 30, 31, 37 Axiom about the punctuation of communication (Watzlawick), 30, 33–34, 37

B Behavior, 7, 9, 10, 11–16, 17, 24, 28–29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48–49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60–61, 62, 63, 74, 75, 77, 79, 83, 84, 123, 124, 127, 128 Big Five, 50 Big Two, 50 Blank line, 103 Body language, 34, 35, 78–86, 88, 128 Body shape, 88 Borderline personality disorder, 51–52 Bossing, 31–32 Bullying, 31–32, 123 C Category, 44–46, 49, 52 Causal schema, 45 Channel, 21, 23, 36, 51, 97, 128 Characteristics of the individual, 43–56, 62 Characteristics of the situation, 56–57, 62 Charisma, 13 Clothes, 88 Cognition, 10, 16, 47, 52, 59–60, 62, 106 Common ground, 46, 62 Communication computer-mediated human-to-human individual, 125, 126, 131, 133 costs of, 123 digital mediated individual, 116, 122, 125–127, 131, 132, 133 digital mediated mass, 116, 129, 130, 132, 133

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 J. Röhner, A. Schütz, Psychology of Communication, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60170-6

151

152 Communication (cont.) direct individual, 107, 115, 121–122, 124, 128, 131, 132, 133 direct mass, 115, 127–129, 133 face-to-face, 6, 11, 51, 86, 113, 114, 131, 132, 133 forms of, 5, 52, 62, 113–134 human-computer, 6, 22, 82, 125–127, 131, 132, 133 individual, 107, 114, 115, 116, 118, 121–127, 130, 131, 132, 133 intercultural, 114, 115, 118, 120, 127, 131, 132, 133 interpersonal, 9, 35, 46, 51, 115, 118–131, 132, 133 intracultural, 114, 115, 118, 120, 121, 131, 132, 133 intrapersonal, 6, 115, 118, 131, 133 mass, 5, 7, 10, 114, 115, 116, 118, 125, 127–131, 132, 133 mediated individual, 115, 116, 121, 122–127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133 mediated mass, 116, 125, 127, 128–130, 132, 133 non-digital mediated individual, 116, 122, 125, 131, 133 non-digital mediated mass, 116, 129, 132, 133 nonverbal, 55, 71–88, 98, 124 public, 114, 127, 130 Communication environment, 10 Communication goal, 13, 26, 27 Communication metaphors, 2–4 Communication model, 21–37, 41–63 general, 21 psychological, 21–37 Communication model by Hargie et al., 41–63 Communication psychology, 1, 9–16, 17 Communication quality, 25 Communication results, 9 Communicative competence/communication competence, 8–9, 11, 17, 29, 53, 120 Conduit metaphor (flow of signs), 3 Congruence, 28, 51 Conscientiousness, 30, 50 Consistency, 14 Construction of reality, 9 Constructivism, 33, 43 Container metaphor, 3 Content aspect, 31, 34, 58 Context of a communication, 7, 8, 17, 56–57 Control metaphor, 3 Cooperative principle, 26 Culture, 46, 55, 56, 75, 77, 81, 85, 86, 87, 108, 120, 122, 124, 128, 129, 132

Subject Index D Data glove, 79, 80 Decoder, 21, 23, 36 Deep acting, 54 Dialect, 12, 119, 126 Dialogic model, 22, 30–35, 36, 37 Display rule, 54, 75, 85 Distance interpersonal, 55, 86, 87 intimate, 86, 87 personal, 86, 87 public, 87 social, 87 Double bind, 72 Duchenne smile, 74, 106 E Elaboration likelihood model, 16 Emblem, 78 Embodiment, 82 Emoticon, 2, 85, 86, 124, 125 Emotion, 29, 43, 53–54, 55, 60, 62, 71, 73, 75, 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 97, 106, 107 Emotional competence, 53 Emotional intelligence, 53, 73 Emotion-inducing communication, 53 Emotion-manifesting communication, 53 Emotion-motivated communication, 53 Emotion work, 53, 54 Empathy, 8, 9, 28–29, 36–37, 52, 84, 123, 124 Encoder, 21, 23, 36 Encoder/decoder model, 21, 22–24, 36 Ethnocentrism, 120 Event schema, 45 Exclusivity, 124 Expectancy, 58 Expectancy-value model, 58 Explanation, 10, 103–105, 108 causal, 104 descriptive, 104 functional, 104 interpretive, 104 reason giving, 104 Extraversion, 50, 51, 56, 62 Eyewitness Testimony (book), 102 F Facial Action Coding System (FACS), 80–81 Facial expressions, 7, 8, 31, 54, 61, 72, 75, 78, 80–81, 83, 84–86, 97, 98, 106, 118, 122, 124 universality of, 85 Facial feedback hypothesis, 85

Subject Index Factual level, 25 Failure of communication, 31 Fake news, 9 Feature distal, 11–12 proximal, 11–12 Feedback, 13, 24, 43, 47, 61, 63 external, 61, 63 internal, 61, 63 Flaming, 123 Four beaks, 24–25 Four ears, 24–25 G Gazing, 78, 83–84, 97 lack of, 97 mutual, 78, 83–84, 97 Gelotophobia, 107 Gender, 43, 45, 55–56, 77, 84, 87, 98, 108, 129 Gesture, 7, 29, 31, 32, 53, 61, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78–82, 118, 120, 122 Gesture family, 78–79 Goal, 7, 8, 13, 15, 17, 26, 27, 41, 42, 43, 56, 57–59, 60, 61, 62, 76, 77, 104, 118, 122 complementary, 58–59 conflicting, 58–59 consummatory, 57 content aspect of, 58 explicit, 57 implicit, 57 importance of, 58 instrumental, 57 process aspect of, 58 same, 58–59 Goal compatibility, 58–59 Goal structure, 56 Guided discovery, 104 H Halo effect, 12 Handshake, 77 Haptic signal, 76–78, 88 Head movement, 75, 78, 82, 122 Height, 88 Heuristic information processing, 14, 16 HEXACO model, 50 Horn effect, 12 Humor, 107, 108

153 I Icon, 6, 7 Illustrator, 78 Impression management, 122 Inference processes, 60 Inhibition, loss of, 123 Intentionalist model, 22, 36 Intentionality, 8, 14, 25, 31, 123 Interacting individuals gender of, 55–56, 77 status of, 76, 77, 82 Interactive process, 7, 8, 17, 42 Intercultural competence, 9 Interference, 21, 23, 24, 36 Interpersonal distance, 55, 86, 87 K Key skill, 8 Knowledge, 6, 24, 43–46, 60, 62, 96, 104, 108, 131 Knowledge management, 46 L Language left-branching, 57 right-branching, 57 Language and manner of speaking, 56 Lapse, 61, 63 Laughter, 106–107, 108 Lens model by Brunswik, 11–12 Lie black, 27 white, 27 Liking, 14, 16, 47, 72 Listening, 95–98, 107, 108, 128 Lopsided reception habits, 25 M Machiavellianism, 124 Manipulation, 100 Maxim of manner (Grice), 26–28, 36 Maxim of quality (Grice), 26–28, 36 Maxim of quantity (Grice), 26–28, 36 Maxim of relation (Grice), 26–28, 36 Means of communication, 7, 8, 17, 71–88, 95–108, 116 Media, 2, 5, 6, 9, 30, 113, 114, 115, 116, 121, 122, 123, 125, 127–131, 133 mass, 2, 9, 114, 127–131 natural, 121

154 Media (cont.) new, 5, 113, 114, 129 newest, 129 primary, 121, 128 print, 114, 129 secondary, 129 social, 30, 114, 116, 130 tertiary, 129 traditional, 129 Mediating process, 42, 59–60, 62 Memory, false, 102 Message, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14–16, 17, 21, 22–24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 46, 55, 59, 60, 71–75, 84, 88, 95, 97, 98, 114, 116, 123, 124, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133 incongruent, 72 Message carrying metaphor, 3 Metacommunication, 30, 34 Mirror neuron, 29 Mobbing, 31–32, 123 Modality analog, 30, 34–35, 37, 114 digital, 30, 34–35, 37, 114 Modality of communication, 7, 8, 17, 71–88, 95–108, 116 Moebius syndrome, 84 Motion capture, 80 Motivation, 13, 16, 49, 51, 53, 58, 61, 98, 104, 118, 127 Motive, 43, 46–47, 104 N Narcissistic personality disorder, 52 Need, 16, 29, 35, 46–47, 52, 96 Need for cognition, 16 Need for connection and intimacy, 47 Need for control and predictability, 47 Need for superiority and competence, 47 Neuroticism, 50, 51 Noise, 23, 36, 62 O Openness to experience, 50, 56 Organization, 59, 60 Orientation (proxemics), 86 P P 5 (Hargie & Dickson), 104 Participant of a communication, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 22, 24, 26, 61, 114, 118, 120, 121, 123

Subject Index Perception, 8, 11–13, 25, 34, 42, 43, 45, 49, 53, 60, 61–62, 63, 84, 87, 96, 101, 107, 119, 122, 123 Personality, 11, 16, 43, 50–52, 56, 62, 83, 84, 106, 123, 124 Personal space, 86–87 Person schema, 44, 60 Person-situation context, 42, 56, 62 Perspective-taking model, 22, 28–29, 36–37 Persuasion, 14–16, 122 Physical attractiveness, 16, 76, 87 Physical characteristics, 76, 87–88 Planning (P 5), 104 Plasticity, 50 Post-mortem (P 5), 104 Post-truth, 9 Posture, 13, 31, 35, 37, 78, 80, 82–83 Power posing, 82–83 Pre-assessment of the explainee’s knowledge (P 5), 104 Preparation (P 5), 104 Presentation (P 5), 104 Process affective, 59, 60, 62, 106 cognitive, 59–60, 62 Proxemics, 76, 86–87, 88 Psychopathy, 84, 124 Punctuation of communication procedures, 30, 33–34, 37 Q Question, 95, 96, 97, 98–103, 105, 108 choice, 99 closed-ended, 99–100, 108 formal aspects of, 102–103 identification, 99 intonation of, 101 leading, 98, 100, 101 length of, 101 open-ended, 99, 103, 108 wh-, 99 wording of, 100–102 yes/no, 99 Question type, 98–100, 103, 108 R Receiver, 23 Recipient, 2, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 36, 37, 43, 53, 57, 74, 108, 114, 115, 116, 118, 121, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 131, 133 Reciprocity (emotions), 60, 62

Subject Index Reciprocity (persuasion), 14 Relationship, 25, 30, 31, 34, 35, 106, 107, 108 complementary, 35 symmetric, 35 Relationship aspect, 30, 31, 34, 37 Response behavior, 42, 60–61, 63 Response generation, 60 Rhetorical trick, 100 Role, 35, 43, 45, 56, 62, 129 Role schema, 45 Route central, 16 peripheral, 16 S Sadism, 124 Scarcity, 14 Schema, 44–45, 46, 60 Seating arrangement, 86 Self-esteem, 25, 47, 51, 83, 100 Self-fulfilling prophecy, 45 Self-monitoring, 50–51 Self-presentation, 12–13, 122 Self-revelation, 25 Self-schema, 44 Semantic encoding processes, 59, 60 Sender, 6, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 36, 43, 53, 98, 108, 116, 118, 121, 123, 127, 128, 129, 130, 133 7-38-55 rule, 71–72 Sharing metaphor, 3 Sign, 6, 7, 24, 59 Signal, transmitted, 123 Situation, 10, 11, 16, 27, 30, 31, 42, 43, 45, 51, 56–57, 59, 62, 72, 75, 96, 98, 106, 107, 118, 121, 123 Situational factors, 10, 16, 50–51, 56, 86

155 Slip, 61, 63 Social competence, 8, 17 Social lubricant, 107, 108 Social perception, 11, 12, 62, 84, 122 Social presence, 123, 130 Social proof, 14 Socratic dialogue, 104–105 Source of information, 23, 36, 84, 97 Stability, 50 Staffing, 31–32 Status, 55, 76, 77, 78, 82 Stereotype, 45–46, 54–55, 119, 120 age, 54–55 Storage and retrieval, 59–60 Subjective perception of density, 87 Surface acting, 54 Surroundings, 56, 98 Symbol, 6, 7, 71, 120 Symmetric escalation, 35 Symptom, 6, 7 T Territoriality, 86 Theory of planned behavior, 48–49 Theory of reasoned action, 48–49 Tiredness, 97, 106 Touch, 55, 76–78, 88 Transmitter, 23, 36 Trolling, 123–124 U Unconditional positive regard, 28–29 V Value, 45, 58, 120, 129 Violation of maxim (Grice), 26, 27–28, 36