reaction paper

comst.docx

Home >Reading homework help >reaction paper

erhaps you played this game as a child. The group of children chooses a victim—

either as punishment for committing a real or imagined offense or just for “fun.” Then for a period of time, that victim is given the silent treatment. No one speaks to him or her, and no one responds to anything the victim says or does.

If you were the subject of this silent treatment, you probably experienced a range of emotions. At first you might have felt—or at least acted—indifferent. But after a while the strain of being treated as a nonperson probably began to grow. If the game went on long enough, it’s likely you found yourself either retreating into a state of depression or lashing out with hostility— partly to show your anger and partly to get a response from the others. Adults, as well as children, have used the silent treatment in vir- tually every society throughout history as a powerful tool to express displeasure and for social control.1 We all know intuitively that communication—the company of others—is one of the most basic human needs, and that lack of contact is among the cruelest punish-

ments a person can suffer. Besides being emotionally painful, being deprived of compan-

ionship is so serious that it can affect life itself. Fredrick II, emperor of Germany from 1196 to 1250, may have been the first person to prove the point systematically. A medieval historian described one of his significant, if inhumane, experiments:

He bade foster mothers and nurses to suckle the children, to bathe and wash them, but in no way to prattle with them, for he wanted to learn whether they would speak the Hebrew language, which was the oldest, or Greek, or Latin, or Arabic, or perhaps the language of their parents, of whom they had been born. But he labored in vain because all the children died. For they could not live without the petting and joyful faces and loving words of their foster mothers.*

Fortunately, contemporary researchers have found less barbaric ways to illustrate the importance of communication. In one study of isolation, subjects were paid to remain alone in a locked room. Of the five subjects, one lasted for eight days. Three held out for two days, one commenting, “Never again.” The fifth subject lasted only two hours.2

The need for contact and companionship is just as strong outside the labora- tory, as individuals who have led solitary lives by choice or necessity have discovered. W. Carl Jackson, an adventurer who sailed across the Atlantic Ocean alone in fifty-one days, summarized the feelings common to most loners:

I found the loneliness of the second month almost excruciating. I always thought of myself as self-sufficient, but I found life without people had no meaning. I had a definite need for somebody to talk to, someone real, alive, and breathing.†

Why We Communicate

You might object to stories like this, claiming that solitude would be a welcome relief from the irritations of everyday life. It’s true that all of us need solitude, often more than we get, but each of us has a point beyond which we do not want to be alone. Beyond this point, solitude changes from a pleasurable to a painful condition. In other words, we all need relationships. We all need to communicate.

*Ross, J. B., & McLaughlin, M. M. (Eds.). (1949). A portable medieval reader. New York, NY: Viking. †Jackson, W. C. (1978, September 7). Lonely dean finishes “excruciating” voyage. Wisconsin State Journal. Retrieved from http://newspaperarchive.com/wisconsin-state-journal/1978-09-07/page-2/. Reprinted with permission.

Communication is so important that its presence or absence affects physical health. In extreme cases, communication can even become a matter of life or death. When he was a Navy pilot, U.S. Senator John McCain was shot down over North Vietnam and held as a prisoner of war for six years, often in solitary confinement. He and his fellow POWs set up clandestine codes in which they sent messages by tapping on walls to laboriously spell out words. McCain describes the importance of keeping contact and the risks that inmates would take to maintain contact with one another:

The punishment for communicating could be severe, and a few POWs, having been caught and beaten for their efforts, had their spirits broken as their bodies were battered. Terri- fied of a return trip to the punishment room, they would lie still in their cells when their comrades tried to tap them up on the wall. Very few would remain uncommunicative for long. To suffer all this alone was less tolerable than torture. Withdrawing in silence from the fellowship of other Americans . . . was to us the approach of death.*

Other prisoners have also described the punishing effects of social isolation. Reflecting on his seven years as a hostage in Lebanon, former news correspondent Terry Anderson said flatly, “I would rather have had the worst companion than no companion at all.”3

The link between communication and physical well-being isn’t restricted to pris- oners. Medical researchers have identified a wide range of health threats that can result from a lack of close relationships. For instance:

· A meta-analysis of nearly 150 studies and over 300,000 participants found that socially connected people—those with strong networks of family and friends—live an average of 3.7 years longer than those who are socially isolated.4  

· A lack of social relationships jeopardizes coronary health to a degree that rivals ciga- rette smoking, high blood pressure, blood lipids, obesity, and lack of physical activity.5  

· Socially isolated people are four times more susceptible to the common cold than are those who have active social networks.6  

· Divorced, separated, and widowed people are five to ten times more likely to need mental hospitalization than their married counterparts. Happily married people also have lower incidences of pneumonia, surgery, and cancer than do single peo- ple.7 (It’s important to note that the quality of the relationship is more important than the institution of marriage in these studies.)  By contrast, a life that includes positive relationships created through communi- cation leads to better health. As little as ten minutes per day of socializing improves memory and boosts intellectual function.8 Conversation with others reduces feelings of loneliness and its accompanying maladies.9 Stress hormones decline the more often people hear expressions of affection from loved ones.10  Research like this demonstrates the importance of having satisfying personal rela- tionships. Not everyone needs the same amount of contact, and the quality of commu- nication is almost certainly as significant as the quantity. The key point is that personal communication is essential for our well-being.  IDENTITY NEEDS  Communication does more than enable us to survive. It is the way—indeed, the only way—we learn who we are. As Chapter 2 explains, our sense of identity comes from the way we interact with other people. Are we smart or stupid, attractive or ugly, skill- ful or inept? The answers to these questions don’t come from looking in the mirror. We decide who we are based on how others react to us.  *McCain, J. (1999). Faith of my fathers (p. 212). New York, NY: Random House.  

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

In the film Up in the Air, Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) learns the hard way that life without friendship, family, and love is void of meaning. (See the film summary at the end of this chapter.)

Deprived of communication with others, we would have no sense of ourselves. A dramatic example is the “Wild Boy of Aveyron,” who spent his early childhood without any apparent human contact. The boy was discovered in January 1800 digging for vegetables in a French village garden. He showed no behaviors that one would expect in a social human. The boy could not speak but rather uttered only weird cries. More significant than this lack of social skills was his lack of any identity as a human being. As author Roger Shattuck put it, “The boy had no human sense of being in the world. He had no sense of himself as a person related to other persons.”11

Only with the influence of a loving “mother” did the boy begin to behave—and, we can imagine, think of himself—as a human.

Like the boy of Aveyron, each of us enters the world with little or no sense of identity. We gain an idea of who we are from the way others define us. As Chapter 2 explains, the messages we receive in early childhood are the strongest, but the influ- ence of others continues throughout life.

SOCIAL NEEDS

Besides helping to define who we are, communication provides a vital link with oth- ers. Researchers and theorists have identified a whole range of social needs that we satisfy by communicating. These include pleasure, affection, companionship, escape, relaxation, and control.12

Research suggests a strong link between effective interpersonal communication and happiness. In one study of more than 200 college students, the happiest 10 per- cent described themselves as having a rich social life. (The very happy people were no different from their classmates in any other measurable way such as amount of sleep, exercise, TV watching, religious activity, or alcohol consumption.)13 In another study, women reported that “socializing” contributed more to a satisfying life than virtually any other activity, including relaxing, shopping, eating, exercise, TV, or prayer.14 Mar- ried couples who are effective communicators report happier relationships than less skillful husbands and wives—a finding that has been supported across cultures.15

Despite knowing that communication is vital to social satisfaction, a variety of evidence suggests that many people aren’t very successful at managing their inter- personal relationships. For example, one study revealed that one-quarter of the more than 4,000 adults surveyed knew more about their dogs than they did about their neighbors’ backgrounds.16 Research also suggests that the number of friendships is in decline. One widely recognized survey reported that, in 1985, Americans had an average of 2.94 close friends. Twenty years later, that number had dropped to 2.08.17 It’s worth noting that educated Americans reported having larger and more diverse networks. In other words, a higher education can enhance your relational life as well as your intellect.

Because connections with others are so vital, some theorists maintain that positive relationships may be the single most important source of life satisfaction and emotional

well-being in every culture.18 If you pause now and make a mental list of your own relationships, you’ll probably see that, no matter how successfully you interact with at home, with friends, at school, and at work, there is plenty of room for improvement in your everyday life. The information that follows will help you improve the way you communicate with the people who matter most to you.

PRACTICAL GOALS

Besides satisfying social needs and shaping our identity, communication is the most widely used approach to satisfying what communication scholars call goals: getting others to behave in ways we want. Some instrumental goals are quite basic: Communication is the tool that lets you tell the hair stylist to take just a little off the sides, lets you negotiate household duties, and lets you convince the plumber that the broken pipe needs attention now!

Other instrumental goals are more important. Career success is the prime exam- ple. As the On the Job box on page 8 shows, communication skills are essential in virtually every career. They can even make the difference between life and death. The Los Angeles Police Department cited “bad communication” among the most common reasons for errors in shooting by its officers.19 The ability to communicate effectively is just as essential for doctors, nurses, and other medical practitioners.20 Researchers dis- covered that “poor communication” was the root of more than 60 percent of reported medical errors—including death, serious physical injury, and psychological trauma.21 Research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and elsewhere revealed a significant difference between the communication skills of physicians who had no malpractice claims against them and those with previous claims.22

Psychologist Abraham Maslow suggested that the physical, identity, social, and practical needs we have been discussing fall into five hierarchical categories, each of which must be satisfied before we concern ourselves with the less fundamental needs.23 The most basic of these needs are physical: sufficient air, water, food, and rest, and the ability to reproduce as a species. The second of Maslow’s needs is safety: protection from threats to our well-being. Beyond physical and safety needs are the social needs we have mentioned already. Beyond these, Maslow suggests, each of us has self-esteem needs: the desire to believe that we are worthwhile, valuable people. The final category of needs described by Maslow is self-actualization: the desire to develop our potential to the maximum, to become the best person we can be. As you read on, think about the ways in which communication is often necessary to satisfy each level of need.

The Process of Communication

We have been talking about communication as though the meaning of this word were perfectly clear. Communication scholars have argued for years about communication definitions. Despite their many disagreements, most would agree that at its essence, communication is about using messages to generate meanings.24 Notice how this basic definition holds true across a variety of contexts—public speaking, small groups, mass media, etc. Before going further, we need to explain systematically what happens when people exchange messages and create meanings in interpersonal communication. Doing so will introduce you to a common working vocabulary and, at the same time, preview some of the topics that are covered in later chapters.

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

Communication and Career Success

No matter what the field, research confirms what experienced workers already know—that commu- nication skills are crucial in finding and succeed- ing in a job. Communication skills often make

the difference between being hired and being rejected. In one widely followed annual survey, employers list the skills and qualities for their ideal candidate. Communication skills always top the list, ahead of technical skills, initiative, analytical ability, and computer skills.a

In another survey, managers across the country rated the abilities to speak and listen effectively as the two most important factors in helping college graduates find jobs in a competitive workplace— more important than technical competence, work experience, and specific degree earned.b When 170 well-known business and industrial firms were asked to list the most common reasons for not

offering jobs to applicants, the most frequent replies were “inability to communicate” and “poor communication skills.”c

Once you have been hired, the need for com- munication skills is important in virtually every career.d Engineers spend the bulk of their working lives speaking and listening, mostly in one-to-one and small-group settings.e Accoun- tants and the firms that hire them consistently cite effective communication as essential for career success.f One executive at computer giant Sun Microsystems made the point force- fully: “If there’s one skill that’s required for suc- cess in this industry, it’s communication skills.”g Writing in The Scientist, a commentator echoed this sentiment: “If I give any advice, it is that you can never do enough training around your overall communication skills.”h

A LINEAR VIEW

In the early days of studying communication as a social science, researchers created models to illustrate the communication process. Their first attempts resulted in a lin- , which depicts communication as something a sender “does to” a receiver. According to the linear model in Figure 1.1,

A (the person creating the message) (puts thoughts into symbols and gestures) a message (the information being transmitted), sending it through a (the medium through which the message passes) to a (the person attending to the message) who (makes sense of the message), while contending with noise (distractions that disrupt transmission).

Notice how the appearance of and vocabulary in Figure 1.1 represent how radio and television broadcasting operate. This isn’t a coincidence: The scientists who cre- ated it were primarily interested in early electronic media. The widespread use of this model has affected the way we think and talk about communication. There is a lin- ear, machinelike quality to familiar phrases, such as “We’re having a communication breakdown” and “I don’t think my message is getting through.” While this is some- times the case in mediated forms of communication, these familiar phrases (and the thinking they represent) obscure some important features of human communication. Does interpersonal communication really “break down,” or are people still exchang- ing information even when they’re not talking to each other? Is it possible to “get a message through” to someone loudly and clearly, but still not get the desired reaction? Here are some other questions to consider about the shortcomings of the linear model:

Noise

Noise 9

Sender Channel(s)

Noise

Message

Noise

Channel(s) Receiver

Noise

FIGURE 1.1 Linear Communication Model

· When you’re having a face-to-face conversation with a friend, is there only one sender and one receiver, or do both of you send and receive messages simultaneously?  

· Do you purposely encode every message you send, or do you engage in some behaviors unconsciously that still communicate messages to others?  

· Even when you send a message electronically (e.g., through texting or email), is the message’s meaning affected by larger factors such as culture, environment, and relational history?  These and other questions have led scholars to create models that better represent interpersonal communication. We will look at one of these models now.  A TRANSACTIONAL VIEW  A (Figure 1.2) updates and expands the linear model to better capture communication as a uniquely human process. Some concepts and terms from the linear model are retained in the transactional model, whereas oth- ers are enhanced, added, or eliminated.  The transactional model uses the word communicator instead of sender and receiver. This term reflects the fact that people typically send and receive messages simultane- ously and not in a unidirectional or back-and-forth manner, as suggested by the linear model. Consider, for example, what might happen when you and a housemate negoti- ate how to handle household chores. As soon as you begin to hear (receive) the words sent by your housemate, “I want to talk about cleaning the kitchen . . . ,” you grimace and clench your jaw (sending a nonverbal message of your own while receiving the verbal one). This reaction leads your housemate to interrupt herself defensively, send- ing a new message: “Now wait a minute . . . .”  

Noise

Messages

Noise

Communicator

(sends and receives)

Noise

A's ENVIRONMENT

Channel(s)

B's ENVIRONMENT

Communicator

(sends and receives)

Channel(s)

Noise

FIGURE1.2 Transactional Communication Model © Cengage Learning

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

A transactional model also shows that communicators often occupy different —fields of experience that affect how they understand others’ behavior. In communication terminology, environment refers not only to a physical location but also to the personal experiences and cultural background that participants bring to a conversation.

Consider just some of the factors that might contribute to different environments:

Person A might belong to one ethnic group and person B to another. A might be rich and B poor. A might be rushed and B have nowhere to go. A might have lived a long, eventful life and B might be young and inexperienced. A might be passionately concerned with the subject and B indifferent to it.

Notice how the model in Figure 1.2 shows that the environments of individuals A and B overlap. This area represents the background that the communicators have in common. As the shared environment becomes smaller, communication usually becomes more challenging. Consider a few examples in which different perspectives can make understanding difficult:

· Bosses who have trouble understanding the perspectives of their employees will be less effective managers, and workers who do not appreciate the challenges of being a boss are more likely to be uncooperative (and probably less suitable for advancement).  

· Parents who have trouble recalling their youth are likely to clash with their chil- dren, who have never known and may not appreciate the responsibility that comes with parenting.  

· Members of a dominant culture who have never experienced how it feels to be marginalized may not appreciate the concerns of people from minority co-cultures, whose own perspectives make it hard to understand the cultural blindness of the majority.  Communication channels retain a significant role in the transactional model, as they did in the linear model. Although it’s tempting to see channels simply as neutral conduits for delivering a message, a closer look reveals the important role they play. For instance, should you say “I love you” in person? Over the phone? In a text mes- sage? By renting space on a billboard? By sending flowers and a card? Via email? In a voice mail? Channel selection matters just as much when sending breakup messages. A study of 1,000 cell phone users found that 45 percent had used their mobile phone to end a relationship (usually by text).25 Obviously, this way of delivering bad news runs the risk of wounding and infuriating the person being dumped (“She didn’t even have the guts to tell me to my face”).  The transactional model also retains the concept of noise but with a broader focus. In the linear model, the focus is on noise in the channel—what is known as external noise. For instance, loud music or too much cigarette smoke in a crowded room might make it difficult for you to pay attention to another person. The transactional model shows that noise also resides within communicators. This includes physiological noise, which involves biological factors that interfere with accurate reception: illness, fatigue, hearing loss, and so on. Communicators can also encounter psychological noise: forces within that interfere with the ability to understand a message accurately. For instance, a student might become so upset upon learning that she failed a test that she would be unable (perhaps unwilling is a better word) to understand clearly where she went wrong. Psychological noise is such an important communication problem that we have devoted much of Chapter 10 to investigating its most common form, defensiveness.  

For all the insights they offer, models can’t capture some important features of interpersonal communication. A model is a “snapshot,” while communication more closely resembles a “motion picture.” In real life it’s difficult to isolate a single discrete “act” of communication from the events that precede and follow it.26 Consider the “Zits” cartoon on this page. If you read only the final frame, it appears that Jeremy is the victim of his mother’s nagging. If you then read the first three frames, you might conclude that if Jeremy were more responsive to his mother, she might not need to be so persistent. And if you watched the two of them interact over the days and weeks preceding the incident in this cartoon, you would have a larger (but still incomplete) picture of the relational history that contributed to this event. In other words, the com- munication pattern that Jeremy and his mother have created together contributes to the quality of their relationship.

This leads to another important point: Transactional communication isn’t some- thing that we do to others; rather, it is an activity that we do with them. In this sense, interpersonal communication is rather like dancing—at least the kind of dancing we do with partners. Like dancing, communication depends on the involvement of a partner. And like good dancing, successful communication doesn’t depend only on the person who takes the lead. A great dancer who forgets to consider and adapt to the skill level of his or her partner can make both people look bad. In communica- tion and dancing, even having two talented partners doesn’t guarantee success. When two skilled dancers perform without coordinating their movements, the results feel bad to the dancers and look foolish to an audience. Finally, relational communication—like dancing— is a unique creation that arises out of the way in which the partners interact. The way you dance probably varies from one partner to another. Like- wise, the way you communicate almost certainly varies from one partner to another.

Now we can summarize the definition of that we have been developing. It is a transactional process involving participants who occupy different but overlapping environments and create relationships through the exchange of messages, many of which are affected by external, physiological, and psychological noise. Whether or not you memorize this definition is a matter for you and your instructor to decide. In any case, notice how it reflects a more sophis- ticated view of the process than you might have had before reading this far. With this definition in

The relationships among the characters on the television show How I Met Your Mother illustrate the transactional nature of interpersonal communication. (See the TV summary at the end of this chapter.)

of interaction.

INTERPERSONAL AND IMPERSONAL COMMUNICATION

Scholars have characterized interpersonal communication in a number of ways.27 The most obvious definition focuses on the number of people involved. A quantitative defi- nition of interpersonal communication includes any interaction between two people, usually face to face. Social scientists call two interacting people a , and they often use the adjective dyadic to describe this type of communication. So, in a quantitative sense, the terms dyadic communication and interpersonal communication can be used interchangeably. Using a quantitative definition, a salesclerk and customer or a police officer ticketing a speeding driver would be examples of interpersonal acts, whereas a teacher and class or a performer and audience would not.

You can probably see the problems with a quantitative definition of interpersonal communication. For example, consider a routine transaction between a salesclerk and customer or the rushed exchange when you ask a stranger on the street for directions. Communication of this sort hardly seems interpersonal—or personal in any sense of the word. In fact, after transactions like this, we commonly remark, “I might as well have been talking to a machine.”

The impersonal nature of some two-person exchanges and the personal nature of others have led some scholars to argue that quality, not quantity, is what distinguishes interpersonal communication.28 Taking a qualitative approach, interpersonal commu- nication occurs when people treat one another as unique individuals, regardless of the context in which the interaction occurs or the number of people involved. When quality of interaction is the criterion, the opposite of interpersonal communication is , not group, public, or mass communication.

Several features distinguish qualitatively interpersonal communication from less- personal communication.29 The first feature is uniqueness. Communication in imper- sonal exchanges is determined by social rules (e.g., laugh politely at others’ jokes, don’t dominate a conversation) and by social roles (e.g., the customer is always right, be especially polite to senior citizens). Qualitatively interpersonal relationships are characterized by the development of unique rules and roles. For example, in one relationship you might exchange good-natured insults, whereas in another you are careful never to offend your partner. Likewise, you might handle conflicts with one friend or family member by expressing disagreements as soon as they arise, whereas the unwritten rule in another relationship is to withhold resentments until they build up and then clear the air periodically. One communication scholar uses the term rela- tional culture to describe people in close relationships who create their own unique ways of interacting.30

A second feature of qualitatively interpersonal relationships is irreplaceability. Because interpersonal relationships are unique, they have no substitute. This explains why we usually feel so sad when a close friendship or love affair cools down. We know that no matter how many other relationships fill our lives, none of them will ever be quite like the one that just ended.

Interdependence is a third feature of qualitatively interpersonal relationships. At the most basic level, the fate of the partners is connected. You might be able to brush off the anger, affection, excitement, or depression of someone you’re not involved with personally, but in an interpersonal relationship the other’s life affects you. Sometimes interdependence is a pleasure, and at other times it is a burden. In either case, it is a fact of life in qualitatively interpersonal relationships. Interdependence goes beyond

the level of joined fates. In interpersonal relationships, our very identity depends on the nature of our interaction with others. As psychologist Kenneth Gergen puts it: “One cannot be ‘attractive’ without others who are attracted, a ‘leader’ without others willing to follow, or a ‘loving person’ without others to affirm with appreciation.”31

MARTIN BUBER’S I AND THOU

Martin Buber is arguably the most influential advocate of qualitatively inter- personal communication, as defined on pages 12–15. His book Ich und Du (I and Thou) is a worldwide classic, selling millions of copies since its publica- tion in 1922.a

Buber states that “I-It” and “I-Thou” represent two ways in which humans can relate to one another. “I-It” relationships are stable, predictable, detached. In an “I-It” mode we deal with people because they can do things for us: pump gas, laugh at our jokes, buy products we are selling, provide information or amusement. “I-It” is also the approach of science, which attempts to understand what makes people tick in order to explain, pre- dict, and control their behavior. Buber would have regarded advertisers as operating in an “I-It” mode, crafting messages that lead people to buy their products or services. “I-It” relationships exist in personal relationships as well as impersonal ones: On an everyday basis, parents and children, bosses and employees, service providers and customers—even lovers—deal with one another as objects (“I wish she would leave me alone.” “Can you pick me up after work?” “How can I get him/her to love me?”).

In profound contrast to “I-It” relationships, Buber described an “I-Thou” way of interacting. “I-Thou” relationships are utterly unique. Because no two teachers or students, parents or children, husbands or wives, bosses or employees are alike, we encounter each person as an individual and not as a member of some category. An “I-Thou” posture goes further: Not only are people different from one another, but also they change from moment to moment. An “I-Thou” rela- tionship arises out of how we are now, not how we might have been yesterday or even a moment ago. In an “I-Thou” relationship, persuasion and control are out of the question: We certainly may explain our point of view, but ultimately we respect the fact that others are free to act.

Buber acknowledges that it is impossible to create and sustain pure “I-Thou” relationships. But without this qualitatively interpersonal level of contact, our lives are impoverished. To paraphrase Buber, without “I-It” we cannot exist, but if we live only with “I-It,” we are not fully human.

Think of your most important relationships:

· To what degree can they be described as “I-Thou” or “I-It”?  

· How satisfied are you with this level of relating?  

· What obligation do you have to treat others in an “I-Thou” manner?  

Based on your answers to these questions, how might you change your style of communication?

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

HOW PERSONAL ARE YOUR FACEBOOK RELATIONSHIPS?

If you’re a Facebook user, scroll through your list of friends on that site. Con- sider how personal (or impersonal) your relationships are with those people:

· “highly impersonal”? (Perhaps you can rank them on a scale of 1 to 10.)  

· -  dent, disclosing, and intrinsically rewarding) affect your appraisals?  

·  exclusively on Facebook? Through other mediated channels (phone, text, email)? Face to face? How does this ratio affect your friendships?  You can complete this activity by visiting CengageBrain.com to access the Speech Communication CourseMate for Looking Out/ Looking In, and, if requested, email your responses to your instructor.  

A fourth feature of interpersonal relationships is often (though not always) the amount of disclosure of personal information. In impersonal relationships we don’t reveal much about ourselves, but in interpersonal relationships we feel more comfort- able sharing our thoughts and feelings. This doesn’t mean that all interpersonal rela- tionships are warm and caring, or that all self-disclosure is positive. It’s possible to reveal negative, personal information: “I’m really angry with you.” The point is, we tend to reserve these kinds of disclosures—both positive and negative—for our more personal relationships.

A fifth feature of interpersonal communication is intrinsic rewards. In impersonal communication we seek payoffs that have little to do with the people involved. You lis- ten to instructors in class or talk to potential buyers of your used car in order to reach goals that usually have little to do with developing personal relationships. By contrast, you spend time in qualitatively interpersonal relationships with friends, lovers, and others because you find the time personally rewarding. It often doesn’t matter what you talk about: The relationship itself is what’s important.

Because relationships that are unique, irreplaceable, interdependent, disclosing, and intrinsically rewarding are rare, qualitatively interpersonal communication is rela- tively scarce. We chat pleasantly with shopkeepers or fellow passengers on the bus or plane; we discuss the weather or current events with most classmates and neighbors; we enjoy bantering with online acquaintances on social networking websites; but con- sidering the number of people with whom we communicate, personal relationships are by far in the minority.

Some observers argue that communicators who strive to acquire a large number of “friends” on social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter are engaging in superficial, impersonal relationships. As one critic put it:

The idea . . . is to attain as many of these not really-friends as possible. . . . Like cheap wine, “friends” provide a high that can only be sustained by acquiring more and more of them. Quantity trumps quality.32

Most relationships aren’t either interpersonal or impersonal. Rather, they fall some- where on a continuum between these two extremes. Your own experience probably reveals that there’s often a personal element in even the most impersonal situations.

You might appreciate the unique sense of humor of a grocery checker or connect on a personal level with the person cutting your hair. And even the most tyrannical, demanding, by-the-book boss might show an occasional flash of humanity.

Just as there’s a personal element in many impersonal settings, there is also an impersonal element in our relationships with the people we care most about. There are occasions when we don’t want to be personal: when we’re distracted, tired, busy, or just not interested. Sometimes all we want to know about certain friends is what they post on social media sites. In fact, interpersonal communication is rather like rich food—it’s fine in moderation, but too much can make you uncomfortable.

Most of us don’t have the time or energy to create highly personal relationships with everyone we encounter, either in person or via social media. In fact, the scarcity of qualitatively interpersonal communication contributes to its value. Like precious jewels and one-of-a-kind artwork, interpersonal relationships are special because of their scarcity.

Communication Principles and Misconceptions

Now that we’ve looked at definitions and approaches to communication, it’s important to identify some principles of interpersonal interaction—and what communication can and can’t accomplish.

COMMUNICATION PRINCIPLES

It’s possible to draw several important conclusions about communication from what you have already learned in this chapter.

Communication Can Be Intentional or Unintentional Some communication is clearly intentional: You probably plan your words carefully before asking the boss for a raise or offering constructive criticism. Some scholars argue that only intentional messages like these qualify as communication. Others contend that even uninten- tional behavior is communicative. Suppose, for instance, that a friend overhears you muttering complaints to yourself. Even though you didn’t intend for her to hear your remarks, they certainly did carry a message. In addition to these slips of the tongue, we unintentionally send many nonverbal messages. You might not be aware of your sour expression, impatient shifting, or sigh of boredom, but others view them nonethe- less. Scholars have debated without reaching consensus about whether unintentional behavior should be considered communication, and it’s unlikely that they will ever settle this issue.33 In Looking Out/Looking In, we will look at the communicative value of both intentional and unintentional behavior.

It’s Impossible Not to Communicate Because both intentional and unintentional behaviors send a message, many theorists agree that it is impossible not to commu- nicate. Whatever you do—whether you speak or remain silent, confront or avoid, act emotional or keep a poker face—you provide information to others about your thoughts and feelings. In this sense we are like transmitters that can’t be shut off.

Of course, the people who decode your message may not interpret it accurately. They might take your kidding seriously or underestimate your feelings, for example. The message that you intend to convey may not even resemble the one that others infer from your actions. Thus, when we talk about “a communication breakdown” or “miscommunication,” we rarely mean that communication has ended. Instead, we mean that it is inaccurate, ineffective, or unsatisfying.34

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

This explains why the best way to boost understanding is to discuss your inten- tions and your interpretations of the other person’s behavior until you have negotiated a shared meaning. The perception-checking skills described in Chapter 3, the tips on clear language offered in Chapter 5, and the listening skills introduced in Chapter 7 will give you tools to boost the odds that the meanings of messages you send and receive are understandable to both you and others.

“We can pause, Stu—we can even try fast-forwarding— but we can never rewind.”

CommunicationIsUnrepeatable Because communication is an ongoing process, it is impossible to repeat the same event. The friendly smile that worked so well when meeting a stranger last week might not suc- ceed with the person you meet tomorrow. It might feel stale and artificial to you the sec- ond time around, or it might be wrong for the new person or occasion. Even with the same person, it’s impossible to re-create an event. Why? Because neither you nor the other person is the same person. You’ve both lived longer. Your feelings about each other may have changed. You need not constantly invent new ways to act around familiar people, but you should realize that the “same” words and behavior are different each time they are spo- ken or performed.

CommunicationIsIrreversible Wesome- times wish that we could back up in time, erasing words or acts and replacing them

with better alternatives. As the cartoon on this page points out, such reversal is impos- sible. Sometimes, further explanation can clear up another’s confusion, or an apology can mollify another’s hurt feelings, but other times no amount of explanation can erase the impression you have created. It is no more possible to “unreceive” a message than to “unsqueeze” a tube of toothpaste. The same is true of most electronic messages: Once you hit “send,” they can’t be taken back. Words said, messages sent, and deeds done are irretrievable.

Communication Has a Content and a Relational Dimension Practically all exchanges operate on two levels. The involves the information being explicitly discussed: “Turn left at the next corner.” “You can buy that for less online.” “You’re standing on my foot.” In addition to this sort of obvious content, mes- sages also have a that expresses how you feel about the other person: whether you like or dislike the other person, feel in control or subordinate, feel comfortable or anxious, and so on.35 For instance, consider how many different relational messages you could communicate by simply saying, “I’m busy tonight, but maybe some other time” in different ways.

Sometimes the content dimension of a message is all that matters. For example, you may not care much about how the customer service rep feels about you as long as you get a technician scheduled to fix your car. At other times, though, the relational dimension of a message is more important than the content under discussion (consider times when a customer service rep has spoken to you in a tone that seemed dismissive or rude). This explains why arguments can develop over apparently trivial subjects such

as whose turn it is to wash the dishes or how to spend the weekend. In cases like this, what’s really being tested is the nature of the relationship. Who’s in control? How impor- tant are we to each other? Chapter 8 will explore these key relational issues in detail.

COMMUNICATION MISCONCEPTIONS

It’s just as important to know what communication is not as to know what it is.36 Avoiding the following misconceptions can save you a great deal of personal trouble.

MoreCommunicationIsNotAlwaysBetter Whereasnotcommunicatingenough can cause problems, there are also situations when too much communication is a mistake. Sometimes excessive communication is simply unproductive, as when two people “talk a problem to death,” going over the same ground again and again with- out making progress. As one communication book puts it, “More and more negative communication merely leads to more and more negative results.”37 Even when you aren’t being critical, too much communication can backfire. Pestering a prospective employer after your job interview or texting too many “call me” messages can generate the opposite reaction from what you’re seeking.

Meanings Are Not in Words The biggest mistake we can make is to assume that saying something is the same thing as communicating it. As Chapter 3 explains, the words that make perfect sense to you can be interpreted in entirely different ways by others. Chapter 5 describes the most common types of verbal misunderstandings and suggests ways to minimize them. Chapter 7 introduces listening skills that help ensure that the way you receive messages matches the ideas that a speaker is trying to convey. As the old saying goes, “Words don’t mean—people mean.”

Successful Communication Doesn’t Always Involve Shared Understanding

George Bernard Shaw once remarked, “The problem with communication. . . is the illusion that it has been accomplished.” This observation may sound cynical, but research (and most likely your personal experience) demonstrates that misunderstand- ings are common.38 In fact, evidence suggests that people who are well acquainted may be more likely to misunderstand one another than relative strangers.39

Mutual understanding can be one measure of successful communication,40 but there are times when success comes from not completely understanding one another. For example, we are often delib- erately vague in order to spare another’s feelings. Imagine how you might reply when a friend asks, “What do you think about my new tattoo?” You might tactfully say, “Wow—that’s really unusual,” instead of honestly and clearly answering, “I think it’s grotesque.” In cases like this we sacri- fice clarity for the sake of kindness and to maintain our relationships.

Some research suggests that satisfy- ing relationships depend in part on flawed understanding. Couples who think their partners understand them are more satis- fied with each other than those who actu- ally understand what the other says and

“My wife understands me.”

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

means.41 In other words, more satisfying relationships can sometimes come from less- than-perfect understanding. Chapter 2 describes in detail the way we sometimes sac- rifice clarity for the sake of maintaining relationships.

Communication Will Not Solve All Problems Sometimes even the best-planned, best-timed communication won’t solve a problem. Imagine, for example, that you ask an instructor to explain why you received a poor grade on a project that you believe deserved top marks. The instructor clearly outlines the reasons why you received the poor grade and sticks to that position after listening thoughtfully to your protests. Has communication solved the problem? Hardly.

Sometimes clear communication is even the cause of problems. Suppose, for example, that a friend asks you for an honest opinion of the $200 outfit she has just bought. Your clear and sincere answer, “I think it makes you look fat,” might do more harm than good. Deciding when and how to self-disclose isn’t always easy. See Chapter 2 for suggestions.