Failure to Communicate

shandrikaf

01CH_Bevan_Interpersonal.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Failure to Communicate

1Introduction to Interpersonal Communication

KT images/Taxi/Getty Images

Learning Outcomes

After reading this chapter, you should be able to

ሁ Understand the specific components of communication. ሁ Describe the overarching models of the communication process. ሁ Define interpersonal communication, including its principles, barriers, and benefits. ሁ Understand how we can develop communication competence. ሁ Explain the principles of competent interpersonal communication and apply these techniques to

their own interpersonal communication encounters.

Introduction

Introduction Humans are social beings. We depend on other people to meet our needs, and we form and interact in organized groups such as families, neighborhoods, teams, clubs, and societies to spend time with and assist one another. Communication with other people helps us under- stand ourselves, others, and our world. Our bonds with siblings, friends, romantic partners, neighbors, colleagues, and classmates give our lives meaning, even when these bonds chal- lenge and frustrate us. For these reasons, how we communicate, connect with others, and build and maintain relationships is the subject of this text.

You probably know from your own experiences that communication can go awry, and any number of barriers can arise. Perhaps the receiver, the recipient of a message, cannot hear or does not pay attention to the message being sent. Maybe equipment used to transmit the message fails, such as when a call from a smartphone is dropped. You can also likely recall instances of successful communication when the interaction resulted in positive change or mutual understanding. Consider the following conversation:

Kim sends Pat an e-mail: Hey, hope you’re having a good day. What are we doing for dinner tonight?

Pat replies via e-mail: You never told me you were going to be home early enough to have dinner together, so I’m not sure.

Kim, via e-mail: I did. I told you yesterday.

Pat, via e-mail: I don’t remember you saying anything about being home for dinner. I’m leaving work now, so text my cell.

Kim replies via text message: Ugh, this is an annoying way to carry on this conversa- tion. But I still have to say, you never listen when I tell you something.

Pat does not reply because he is driving home.

Kim, via text message: Are you ignoring me?

Pat checks his phone once he is home and sees Kim’s text. He calls Kim, who is now on her way home from work: Hey, it’s me. I just got your text because I was driving. I wasn’t ignoring you.

Kim: Fine, whatever. I’m almost home. I’ll talk to you then. Bye.

Once they are both home, Kim and Pat continue their conversation face-to-face.

Pat: You’re making a big deal out of nothing. Can’t we just figure out what we’re doing for dinner? I’m hungry.

Kim (rolling her eyes): Oh, I’m making a big deal out of nothing?

You have likely engaged in a similar conversation. The interaction contains multiple elements of interpersonal communication (IPC), a type of communication that involves two indi- viduals interacting face-to-face or via mediated channels. We will use Kim and Pat’s interac- tion as an example throughout this chapter to illustrate the complexity of their seemingly everyday encounter.

Section 1.1What Is Communication?

In this chapter, we examine the nature of communication and its importance in your life. We discuss several important definitions, elements, and models of communication and briefly explore the foundation of communication as an academic discipline. In addition, we define interpersonal communication and communication competence, investigate the barriers of interpersonal communication, and the benefits of studying it, and consider the principles of being a competent interpersonal communicator.

1.1 What Is Communication? Communication, in its various forms, channels, and contexts, is a fundamental aspect of being human. In fact, as newborns, our first cry is a message to the world that we have arrived, and as infants, we are often consoled by a gentle touch or the soothing voice of our caregivers. We soon learn to express our thoughts, feelings, needs, and desires through behavior and language, to listen and respond to others when they communicate with us, and to use com- munication to build, maintain, and even end relationships.

The word communication can be traced back to the Latin word communicare, which means “to join or unite,” “to connect,” “to participate in,” or “to share with all.” Other words that emerge from this root word include common, commune, communion, and community. Reflecting its roots, this text defines communication as a process where two or more individuals strive to create shared meaning using verbal and nonverbal messages in a variety of contexts. This definition highlights five primary characteristics of communication:

• Two or more people are involved. • It is a process. • There is an attempt to create shared meaning. • Both verbal and nonverbal messages influence interactions. • It occurs in a variety of contexts.

We discuss the intricacies of each element next.

1. Communication Involves Two or More People Communication requires a minimum of two individuals. In other words, we cannot communi- cate unless there is at least one other person to interact with. When two individuals commu- nicate, be it face-to-face, by text, via social media platforms such as Twitter, or by video-call- ing services such as FaceTime, they are engaging in interpersonal communication. Certainly, communication occurs between more than two individuals, and mediated channels, such as television and social media, can even allow us to communicate with millions of people. Use of a mediated communication channel simply means that some form of information tech- nology is employed to help a message travel from the sender, the person who initiates the interaction, to the receiver(s). Take one of Kim’s text messages to Pat about their dinner, for example: A smartphone is needed to propel what she is communicating to him. When Kim and Pat are at home together, they communicate face-to-face, and their communication is no longer mediated. Finally, talking to ourselves or internally exploring who we are as individu- als is called intrapersonal communication. We evaluate intrapersonal communication in more detail in Chapter 2.

Section 1.1What Is Communication?

2. Communication Is a Process In 1960, communication theorist David Berlo described communication as a constantly evolv- ing interaction or activity that changes each of us and changes our relationships over time. The word “process” might bring to mind an action that has some purpose or is directed to some end—an action that is dynamic, ongoing, and ever changing. When you meet someone for the first time, for example, you approach each other as strangers. The communication that occurs during this first meeting influences or shapes your next meeting. If the first meeting was a positive experience, you will generally expect the second interaction to be positive as well. On the other hand, if the first meeting did not go well, you may approach the second meeting with some trepidation because you expect to have a similar experience.

Communication is a continuous and complex process affected by past events, influenced by how the current interaction unfolds, and impacting interactions to come as well as the future of the relationship. Because communication is ongoing, we continually work to build, main- tain, alter, and sometimes even terminate relationships. Over time, we change and others change, and thus our communication within our relationships changes.

3. Communication Attempts to Create Shared M e a n i n g The purpose of human communication is to help people generate and share their thoughts, feelings, experiences, beliefs, opinions, or anything they can think to express. People communicate in the hope that such ideas have meaning for others too and that they will understand.

As an example of how people can share meaning through words, the symbols of lan- guage, picture the following event:

A black bear cub, apparently aban- doned by its mother, wandered into a rural neighborhood and lived in the trees there for more than five days. Because the animal showed no signs of leaving, authorities were called to capture the bear and remove it from the property. They shot the cub with a tranquilizer gun, but the cub scurried up a large tree and fell asleep. The tree was too tall for any ladder to reach and too wide to encircle with a safety har- ness, a requirement if an authority were to climb, but the cub was in danger of falling to an almost certain death at any moment. For approximately one hour, neighbors and wildlife officials anxiously waited for a resolution. Then the cub awakened and began to move. The small branch on which the cub rested broke, and the bear suddenly dropped a few feet to a second branch. The cub dangled high above the ground, holding onto the branch with its front paws. Slowly it lost its grip and dropped toward the ground, bouncing off two or three tree branches on the way down. As it fell, wildlife officers ran toward the tree, gripping a tarp tightly, and caught the cub safely using the open canvas.

Jose Luis Pelaez/The Image Bank/Getty Images ሁ A primary goal of communication is to share

meaning and connect with others.

Section 1.1What Is Communication?

Although you were not present to witness this event, you can easily visualize it because of a shared language and shared use of symbols. When we talk with other people about an experi- ence, however, the communication is only an abstraction of that experience. For example, a reporter who witnessed this event might write a story about the cub, sharing her perception of the situation as it unfolded. She might report as many facts as possible, but she also might make it sound like a more dramatic event than it was to keep readers interested.

That story, however, is just one person’s representation, which is a simplified version of the entire occurrence. Each witness noticed or focused on different things during the experience. For example, the wildlife official standing directly under the tree focused her attention on where to best place the tarp to catch the cub. Meanwhile, a neighbor, positioned at a greater distance from the tree, might instead be better able to view the whole scene, including the potential damage to the tree, nearby structures, or cars if the cub did happen to fall. Each individual’s story would be slightly different even though there would also be a great deal of shared meaning about specific elements of the event. We will return to the importance of these different meanings when we discuss culture and perceptions later in this text.

One of the primary goals of human communication is to share meaning and connect with oth- ers, but this is not always easy. We can look up a word in a dictionary, but the definition does not necessarily account for the word’s unique meaning for the person who uses it. Meaning is not in the message itself; meaning is in the communicator, with the ultimate goal being that it will be shared between those in the interaction. We each respond to messages based on personal experiences, cultures, and interpretations. But this can make communication dif- ficult because verbal and nonverbal messages mean something slightly different to each of us. It is generally easier to create shared meaning when we have an established relationship with someone because that person has shared experiences with us. Communication is thus considered successful when meaning is generally shared with others and all parties come to a mutual understanding about the content of the messages exchanged.

4. Communication Is Verbal and Nonverbal Messages are the actual pieces of information exchanged between individuals in an interac- tion, and these messages take two broad forms: verbal and nonverbal. Verbal communica- tion is, put simply, the use of language or words (both written and spoken) to communicate. Language provides us with the unique ability to create, use, and exchange common words or symbols that represent objects and events. Symbols are words, pictures, sounds, marks, or objects used to represent particular ideas, objects, or qualities. We can also use written and spoken language to describe past, present, and future events and to wish, dream, and imagine objects that do not exist or are not immediately present (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1996).

Nonverbal communication includes visual and vocal means, other than language, used to communicate. There are eight distinct forms of nonverbal communication (Burgoon, Guer- rero, & Manusov, 2011):

• physical appearance and attractiveness • body movement, including posture, facial expressions, and eye contact (kinesics) • physical contact with another through touch (haptics) • personal space and distance from one another (proxemics) • voice and the way something is said, including tone, pitch, rate, height, and even

silence (vocalics)

Section 1.1What Is Communication?

• time and the way it is used (chronemics) • scents or odors (olfactics) • use or display of objects used to create and shape messages (artifactics)

Although verbal and nonverbal communication are often studied separately, they are inter- twined and either complement or contradict one another. Their interplay can change the nature and interpretation of the interaction.

Think back to the example of Kim and Pat’s communication at the beginning of the chap- ter. They were clearly using verbal communication via language in their e-mails and texts, but they also engaged in nonverbal communication, including the tones and volumes of their voices, use of eye contact, gestures, personal distance, and touch. At times, the verbal and nonverbal messages they were using may have communicated the same thing. For example, Kim’s voice might have sounded angry and been at a higher pitch than normal, and she might have rolled her eyes when she texted, “Fine, whatever. I’m almost home myself. I’ll talk to you then. Bye.” Maybe Pat’s messages offered different or conflicting meanings if he had smiled and spoken in a calm tone of voice when he said, “You are making a big deal out of nothing.” Even Pat’s silence when he was driving home was perceived by Kim as a nonverbal message of being ignored.

Communication via e-mail, text message, and social media can involve different forms of non- verbal communication such as using capital letters to emphasize a point, exclamation marks to convey excitement, and photos to depict who we are online. Additionally, gifs (graphi- cal interchange format), soundless video clips that loop autonomously, and emojis, digital icons that represent emotions, images, or ideas, can be used to replace physical facial expres- sions and other things we wish to communicate and help people interpret the meaning of a particular statement. We will return to the importance of verbal and nonverbal messages in face-to-face and mediated contexts in Chapter 4.

5. Communication Occurs in a Variety of Contexts The context, or the situation or setting in which communication takes place, affects what we expect to hear and see, the mean- ing of what is said, and whether and how we communicate. When we speak of con- text, we must consider that people commu- nicate differently in different settings. For example, you would not communicate and behave at a party the same way you would at work. You may talk and laugh loudly at a party, yell to someone from across the room, and likely dress casually, but you would probably not exhibit these same behaviors in the workplace.

Any number of contextual cues can influ- ence communication. For example, the time and place of the interaction are important considerations. Does the interaction occur on a weekend night or during a weekday?

Klaus Vedfelt/Tax/Getty Images ሁ Context, such as the setting in which

communication takes place, influences how people communicate. Consider how the conversation between these two people might differ if they were in an office instead of at a music festival.

Section 1.2Two Models of Communication

Does the interaction take place face-to-face or via a mediated technology such as Skype? In addition, the cultures of each communicator, as well as the culture in which the interaction is taking place, are often consciously and subconsciously taken into account. Culture, which we will discuss in more depth in Chapter 3, involves the traditions, beliefs, and standards for behaviors that are passed down from one generation to the next.

Our psychological state and who we are as people also affects our communication. Our self- concept, or our idea of who we are that is created by what we think about ourselves and how others respond to us, may impact how we perceive situations. For example, you might have a better time at a party right after receiving an excellent grade in a course because you feel better about yourself than you might after receiving a poor grade. In addition, the social situa- tion, the participants in the interaction, and their relational history influence communication.

As you have learned, communication occurs in a particular context, which includes the time, place, and people involved in the interaction. All of these contextual aspects fit into the larger context of culture. Overall, it is important to recognize that context often significantly shapes communication.

1.2 Two Models of Communication Communication as an academic discipline has both a long and a short history. Broadly, the study of communication is rooted in the traditions of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and ancient Greek philosophy. Specifically, the art of persuasion, known as rhetoric, promoted citizen par- ticipation in democracy during this time. Rhetoric remains an important area in communica- tion today. In contrast, the modern study of communication, and the emergence of interper- sonal communication in particular, began in the 20th century. In the first four decades of that century, speech and oratory aspects of communication were studied at American universities in different social science and humanities departments such as anthropology, English, politi- cal science, and sociology. However, from 1940 to the mid-1960s, the study of communication started to evolve into a distinct discipline.

It was also in the 1960s that the field of interpersonal communication “came into its own as an identifiable academic discipline” (Bryant & Pribanic-Smith, 2010, p. 26). The early focus was on persuasion, influence, and group communication, but there was also a growing inter- est during the 1970s in how cognition was related to interpersonal interaction. The study of interpersonal communication continued to advance between the 1970s and 1980s, with sub- stantial growth in university courses and the founding of professional associations and jour- nals (Bryant & Pribanic-Smith, 2010). The field of interpersonal communication continues to grow and evolve with the ever-changing nature of social interactions thanks to the popularity of social media and technological conduits that facilitate interpersonal communication, such as texting and video chatting.

Since the 1940s, when the study of communication split from other academic disciplines, communication scholars proposed their own theories and models to explain communication interactions. Theories are claims and beliefs researchers develop and then test in controlled studies or in real-world situations. When communication scholars create and test theories, they provide information about the communication process that is based on research and evi- dence. Such practices also help advance communication as an academic discipline. Research- ers also create models to illustrate communication concepts and theories. Models are simple

Section 1.2Two Models of Communication

representations, in an ideal form, of a process or an object. Although models provide a simpli- fied view of something that is typically more complex, they are useful because they clarify the nature of a phenomenon or a process. A model also highlights the elements a scholar believes are particularly important and allows us to examine how an element is related to other parts of the model. Theories and models are important tools to illustrate the researcher’s system- atic thinking about a topic.

With new research findings in interpersonal communication, researchers expanded upon the discipline’s preliminary models and theories. To illustrate the evolution of these communica- tion models, we will discuss two types of communication models: (1) the linear model and (2) the transaction model. Let’s examine these models and discuss how they differ.

The Linear Model of Communication In 1948, Bell Telephone Company engineer and mathematician Claude Shannon was assigned the task of determining the most efficient way to transmit electrical signals from one loca- tion to another. As a result, Shannon developed one of the most influential early linear mod- els of communication. He called his model the mathematical theory of communication, and it was originally published in The Bell System Technical Journal. Shannon later worked with mathematician Warren Weaver to create a description of this communication model that was accessible to the general public, which is known today as the Shannon–Weaver model of com- munication (see Figure 1.1). A number of linear models were developed at this time, but the Shannon–Weaver model is the most significant.

Figure 1.1: The Shannon–Weaver model of communication ሁ The linear model of communication, developed by Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver, was originally created to represent mechanical communication and was the first model to visually depict the communication process.

Source: Shannon, C. E. (1948, July, October). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 379–423. Courtesy of Nokia Corporation and AT&T Archives © 1948 Nokia. All Rights Reserved.

Shannon postulated that all communication could be broken down into three components: an information source, a channel or path, and a destination (Weaver & Shannon, 1963). In this

Information source Transmitter

Message

Signal Received signal

Message

Receiver Destination

Noise source

Section 1.2Two Models of Communication

model, the information source is the sender, who has a message to transmit. This message is transformed into a signal that travels along a channel (the medium or the means through which a message is transmitted) before reaching its destination. The transmitter and receiver shown in the Shannon–Weaver model were devices such as telephone handsets that sent and received the information signal. The Shannon–Weaver model focused on the mechanism of transmitting electrical signals, not on the content of the message. Because it focused on the mechanical and technical issues involved in message transmission, the model did not explain the complexities of human communication. Nevertheless, Shannon made two important con- tributions to the field of communication.

First, Shannon defined and quantified the sometimes-imprecise notion of information, which is defined as stimuli from individuals’ surroundings that contribute to their beliefs and knowledge (Brashers, Goldsmith, & Hsieh, 2002). He believed that telephone signals, radio waves, photographs, film, and other media could all be considered information, and this information could be encoded in binary digits, or bits, which would enable relay circuits to perform complex mathematical operations and to transmit this digital information without error. Almost 50 years elapsed before Shannon’s information concept had practical applica- tion, but today this concept forms the operational basis used for computers and other elec- tronic devices, making items such as mobile devices, DVDs, and broadband communication possible. In fact, Shannon is now referred to as the father of information technology and is credited with single-handedly creating today’s digital revolution (Waldrop, 2001).

Second, the Shannon–Weaver model introduced the idea of noise into the communication process. Shannon defined noise as anything that interferes with, corrupts, or changes the communication signal as it travels through a channel. In essence, noise is anything in the background that impacts or affects how we interpret a communication message. Again, Shan- non primarily focused on technical noise in the signal transmission, such as static on a tele- phone line. But he recognized that communicators could experience semantic noise, which occurs when messages are understood or interpreted differently or when interference arises because of the language used by one or more of the communication participants. We will return to the concept of noise in the next section.

In the Shannon–Weaver model, the sender of the message is the primary and only active par- ticipant in the communication process. The sender is responsible for clearly and accurately communicating to the receiver, who passively accepts whatever message the sender trans- mits. If the communicated message fails to produce shared meaning or desired results due to noise, then researchers simply examine how the sender formed the message or develop methods for improving message transmission. If we use the linear model to analyze Kim and Pat’s conversation about what to have for dinner, we might assume Kim is responsible for clear communication and she is at fault when Pat does not know that she is available to have dinner with him. We might suggest that Kim’s question, “What are we doing for dinner tonight?”, should be more explicit or clearer, such as, “I’m available for dinner with you tonight after all—do you want to do something?”

In the 1950s and early 1960s, researchers adapted the Shannon–Weaver model and applied its concepts to the process of human communication. Several scholars during this time made contributions to our knowledge of interpersonal communication. One model in particular still affects our understanding of interpersonal communication today: the transaction model.

Section 1.2Two Models of Communication

The Transaction Model of Communication As communication became established as a distinct discipline, researchers recognized that communication was not inherently linear and that both senders and receivers were influ- ential, active participants in the communication process. As a result, researchers developed the interaction model of communication. The interaction model depicted the sender and the receiver, as the linear model of communication does, but also emphasized both participants’ sequential turns when they exchanged messages.

As the study of communication progressed, researchers recognized it was not necessary to receive a message before sending a message. Communicators send and receive messages at the same time and had mutual influence during the interaction. For example, while one per- son is speaking, the second person could smile or frown and thus send a nonverbal message. The two participants in the interaction are both simultaneously a sender and a receiver of messages. Instead of comparing communication to shooting an arrow, as in the linear model, or hitting a tennis ball back and forth, as in the interaction model, communication can be more accurately described as a dance. Researchers acknowledged that participants would rely on each other’s cues and that their combined movements influenced the direction of their interaction. This interplay between the communicators is a transaction, and these later models of communication are known as transaction models.

A transaction model of interpersonal communication identifies four major components of the communication process:

• Both parties are active participants who simultaneously serve as senders and receivers.

• Information flows in both directions. • There are both verbal and nonverbal messages. • Communication takes place to meet the needs of both people.

The sender and receiver are mutually responsible for the creation of meaning. The two par- ties must negotiate to achieve as much shared meaning as possible. Elements of the transac- tion model—feedback, context, and noise, among others—are detailed here. Each of these can influence shared meaning between the parties.

Sender and Receiver Though senders and receivers are addressed as separate elements of communication, each party in an interaction should be considered both a sender and a receiver, or, simply, a com- municator. The sender is the source of the communication. That initiation can be as simple as eye contact or as formal as a mailed wedding invitation. Most communication research- ers agree that senders can initiate an interaction either intentionally or unintentionally. For example, if you call “hello!” across the street to your neighbor, but a cable repairman nearby thinks you are calling to him instead and says hello as well, you have unintentionally begun an interaction with the repairman.

Recall that the receiver is the recipient of the message the sender transmits. As noted previ- ously, early communication models considered the receiver a passive participant in the com- munication process, but researchers today believe the receiver is actively engaged in the com- munication process. Communication participants are simultaneously senders and receivers.

Section 1.2Two Models of Communication

Before communication can occur, the sender must first encode the idea she wants to com- municate or put the idea into some form or code the other person can understand. Therefore, encoding involves the creation of meaning. Language is a type of verbal communication code. Nonverbal communications, such as gestures, eye contact, and touch, are codes as well. If the other person does not understand the message, she will not be able to decode or interpret the message in the way the sender intends. This is called miscommunication, and it is likely that there is a barrier present that is causing this miscommunication to occur. For example, placing the thumb and forefinger together to form a circle is a nonverbal code that can mean “OK” in the United States. However, the same gesture is considered offensive in Brazil and Germany (Hayden, 2007).

Message In the communication process, the message is the content of the communication itself—the idea the sender wishes to communicate to the receiver. Messages are

• perceived via one or more of our five senses (sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell); • planned, unintentional, or somewhere in between; and • communicated via both verbal and nonverbal codes.

Messages are only understood if the idea is encoded by the sender and decoded by the receiver in a similar manner and if shared meaning is achieved.

According to interpersonal communication scholars, messages also contain both content and relational dimensions (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). The content dimension of the message is the information the sender wants to communicate to the receiver. The relational dimension of the message is the relationship between the two communicators. The nature of the relationship can include factors such as who has more or less power, how much communi- cators like or dislike each other, and the feelings one or both communicators experience dur- ing the interaction. Typically, the content dimension is transmitted through verbal communi- cation, and the relational dimension is more subtly expressed via nonverbal communication.

When compared with the content dimen- sion of a message, the relational dimension is often less clear or ambiguous and may require verbal verification. For example, if your boss says, “I’d like to see you in my office,” the content of the message is clear and simple. However, the relational dimen- sion may cause you to feel concern. Maybe you analyze your boss’s tone of voice or facial expressions. Perhaps you mentally review your recent work and interactions with your boss to predict if the meeting will be a positive or a negative experience. As you can see from this example, verbal and nonverbal messages and the content and relational dimensions of messages all affect message encoding and decoding.

Blue Images/Corbis/Getty Images ሁ We can use both verbal codes and nonverbal

codes, such as hand gestures, to communicate a message.

Section 1.2Two Models of Communication

Channel Multiple channels can be used to transmit messages in an interaction. For example, when two people talk face-to-face, they use the auditory channel when they speak and listen, the visual channel when they observe each other’s gestures and facial expressions, and the tactile chan- nel when there is physical contact. In addition, the channel could be mediated in some way, which, as noted earlier, means that a form of information technology is intervening between the sender and the receiver in the communication process. When communication occurs via a mediated channel, other channel options are often limited. For example, mediated chan- nels would easily support the visual and auditory channels described above, but make tactile (touch) and olfactory (scent) channels impossible to use.

Feedback As mentioned previously, for communication to be effective, the message must have the same or similar meaning—a shared understanding—for both communicators. We cannot be sure if the message sent is the same as the message received until we assess the feedback, another element of the communication process. Feedback is any information a communicator gets from others in response to a message. Feedback can be verbal or nonverbal and often includes elements of both. For example, if you tell a child his lunch is ready, he might race into the house (nonverbal) and shout “hooray” (verbal)—both elements are forms of feedback. Feed- back is an important component in the communication process because it is the method we use to gauge the success of the communication. Feedback also provides the opportunity to alter our messages and to try to communicate again if the previous message is not understood or if shared understanding is not achieved.

Noise Every day we are presented with countless messages and sensory experiences, from signs and advertisements to interactions with strangers. These messages or sensations inevita- bly influence how both individuals interpret the interaction, and are thus classified as noise. Recall that noise was first discussed in relation to Shannon and Weaver’s linear model of communication, though Shannon’s primary view of noise was technological in nature. Com- munication scholars have since determined there are four specific types of noise that, though often unrelated to the message and usually occurring in the background, can impact how that message is interpreted.

• Physical noise includes distractions that originate from the environment and external stimuli rather than from the communicators—such as a ringing or vibrating phone, traffic outside your window, other students talking during class, or even spam e-mail. Physical noise is thus an external form of noise.

• Psychological noise occurs when one or both communicators’ cognitions or mental states interfere with how messages are interpreted. Biases, prejudices, stereotypes, and even extreme emotions such as rage are examples of psychological noise. Psy- chological noise is thus an internal form of noise and is most likely to occur when a communicator has extreme views or even a viewpoint on the opposite end of the spectrum. Our own anxieties, worries, and self-doubts can be forms of psychological noise as well.

Section 1.2Two Models of Communication

• Physiological noise occurs when one or both communicators have an impairment that influences communication interpretation. Examples of physiological impair- ment include visual or speech impairments, difficulty with or loss of hearing, memory loss, and mental health issues that interfere with one’s ability to encode or decode messages. Biases such as racial and gender prejudices and extreme emo- tional experiences in the heat of an argument can also be examples of physiological noise.

• Semantic noise occurs when one or both communicators assign different meanings to a message. One example of semantic noise involves communicators who speak different languages—for example, one individual only speaks English, and the other only understands Spanish. Other examples can include different interpretations of a nonverbal signal, such as the aforementioned “OK” hand gesture in the U.S. ver- sus Brazil and Germany. Use of complex terms or jargon can also create semantic noise. Even speech that is too vague or ambiguous can lead to semantic noise due to misinterpretation.

Any or all of these forms of noise can be present in an interaction. Obviously, the more noise that there is during an interaction, the more difficulty the communicators will have focusing on the messages that they are exchanging and on creating shared meaning. In some cases, asking for clarification, learning unfamiliar jargon, attempting to understand potential cul- tural differences prior to visiting a new place, turning off smartphone notifications, or sim- ply using noise-canceling headphones can assist in managing noise. Though we cannot fully eliminate noise from our interactions, knowing that noise can affect our communication can help us anticipate and deal with it.

Context The transaction model acknowledges that communication does not take place in a vacuum; rather, a simple shift in where or when an interaction takes place can significantly alter it. As defined earlier in the chapter, context is the circumstance in which an interaction occurs, and it surrounds and infuses the interaction and affects the communicators’ messages. A number of contextual aspects—including time, place, environment, the psychological dimension of each communicator, and culture—can play an integral role in shaping or changing the mes- sages being shared.

Together, these elements combine to illustrate the process of communication as depicted by the transaction model of communication. For example, Kim and Pat are both senders and receivers in their interaction. Their messages are the things they say both verbally and non- verbally to each other, and they used both mediated (e-mail, text messages, and calls) and face-to-face channels to communicate these messages. When Kim said to Pat, “Fine, what- ever,” she is providing him with feedback that indicates she is not being considerate of or taking seriously the message Pat has sent. There could be multiple types of noise present, including physical noise in the form of distractions at work and while on the road and even psychological noise as both Kim and Pat became more angry and frustrated. Finally, the con- text could involve the time of day—that it was close to dinnertime—and how each felt about the other and the relationship they share. The transaction model thus is useful because it not only describes each of these elements but helps us identify the role of each element in a given interaction.

Section 1.3What Is Interpersonal Communication?

1.3 What Is Interpersonal Communication? This text focuses on interpersonal communication: the building block for all other types of communication. This communication involves the smallest number of communicators— two, also known as a dyad. It can be unplanned, such as when people unexpectedly meet, exchange greetings, and have an impromptu conversation. It can also be planned, such as when two people arrange to sit down for coffee at a certain time and place to talk about a problem. Interpersonal communication can take place in an informal setting—a home, a yard, or a supermarket, for instance. Interpersonal communication can also occur in a formal set- ting, such as an employer’s office or a classroom. Interpersonal communication can even take place via mediated channels like smartphones, computers, or social media.

Aspects of a typical interaction can be both planned and unplanned, both formal and infor- mal. For example, a doctor–patient encounter would likely be considered a primarily formal and planned interaction. However, this interaction also can include informal greetings and chitchat when the doctor first enters the examination room. If the patient provides informa- tion about his symptoms during the exam that the doctor did not anticipate, unplanned com- munication will occur. If the patient follows up later with the doctor via e-mail, the interaction will span both face-to-face and mediated channels. As this example illustrates, the study of interpersonal communication is important because such interactions are complex, multilay- ered, and can reveal a lot about the communication process.

Goals of Interpersonal Communication As social animals, humans want and need connections with other people. We communicate to accomplish any number of mutual goals and to relate to one another. Specifically, interper- sonal communication is a social process, and we usually communicate for one of four primary goals:

1. to meet human needs 2. to accomplish an objective via an interaction (an instrumental goal) 3. to present ourselves to others in a specific way (a self-presentation goal) 4. to build and maintain relationships with others (a relationship goal)

Meeting Human Needs One of the most basic reasons people interact with others is to satisfy human needs. In 1943, psychologist Abraham Maslow developed a theory of human motivation, proposing that all humans have an essential nature and a set of basic human needs that motivate us to seek psychological health and full humanness, or self-actualization (Maslow, 1968). The hierarchy of human needs that Maslow identified is usually represented as a pyramid. As the arrow in Figure 1.2 indicates, Maslow theorized that human needs emerge from the bottom of the pyr- amid and ascend thereon. Lower-level needs must be satisfied first, and higher-level needs only arise once basic needs are realized. Basic physiological needs—the necessities for life such as food, water, and shelter—are the strongest needs. Maslow believed the first reason to communicate is for survival. Communication enables us to call attention to ourselves, to warn others of danger, and to exchange critical information to meet these physiological needs. Then we can turn our attention to the need for safety and security. We may have enough food to eat today, but we also need to feel secure that we will have food, water, and shelter tomorrow and the day after as well. Once these safety needs are met, we can then address social needs

Section 1.3What Is Interpersonal Communication?

such as the need to belong. Friendship, acceptance by others, and the ability to both give and receive love are powerful needs for all humans, and they drive much of our interpersonal communication. After we satisfy these needs, we are then motivated to fulfill esteem needs, such as the need for recognition, the pride of accomplishment, and the satisfaction of self- respect. Finally, self-actualization is at the top of Maslow’s hierarchy. A self-actualized per- son is able to recognize and pursue dreams, desires, and goals and to strive to reach her full potential as an individual. This drive for self-actualization is only activated, however, when lower-level needs are met.

Figure 1.2: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs ሁ Basic needs, those closer to the bottom of the pyramid, must be met before one is in the position to seek out self-actualization.

Interpersonal communication and interactions with others can help us satisfy these different human needs (“Maslow’s Hierarchy,” 2009). For example, babies cry when they are hungry, communicating their basic human need for food. A student starting at a new school will reach out to make friends by attending orientation activities, striving to fulfill her social needs. An

Physiological needs

Need for food, water, shelter, sleep, and other necessities to sustain life

Safety needs

Need for security, freedom from the threat of physical and emotional harm, and protection from violence

Social needs

Need for affection, friendship, and appreciation; to belong and to receive and give love

Esteem needs

Need for self-respect and respect from others

Self- actualization

Drive toward purpose, meaning, and full potential

Section 1.3What Is Interpersonal Communication?

adult whose basic needs are met might schedule visits with a therapist to discuss how to reach his full potential, or become more self-actualized.

Accomplishing an Objective Communication researchers Ruth Anne Clark and Jesse Delia (1979) put forward an influ- ential set of three goals in their research on strategic communication. These three goals— instrumental, self-presentational, and relational—have been studied extensively by many communication scholars in multiple contexts, such as conflict, social support, and mediated encounters.

The first of these goals is to accomplish an objective, or an instrumental goal. Here, someone communicates primarily because they have a practical purpose. Returning to our encounter at the beginning of the chapter, when Kim asks Pat what they are doing for dinner that night, she is accomplishing her objective of finding out their meal plan. Incidentally, Kim is also meeting her human physiological need for food with this question, showing that one commu- nication message can accomplish multiple goals.

Presenting Ourselves to Others In addition to interacting with other people to meet personal needs, another primary func- tion of interpersonal communication is to (attempt to) manage how the other person in the interaction perceives who we are as a person, otherwise known as a self-presentation goal. If we say “excuse me” to someone who is in our way, preventing us from getting past, our self- presentation goal is to be polite. Alternately, if we roughly shove them out of the way, our self- presentation goal is to be rude. In Kim and Pat’s interaction, Kim’s question (“Oh, I’m making a big deal out of nothing?”) at the end of the interaction is her defensive response to how Pat is describing her—thus, the goal of her message is her self-presentation.

The image that we seek to present to others also varies greatly according to our cultural back- ground. Communication is one of the most important ways that societies maintain and pass on knowledge about their society and culture. When we communicate with others, we learn about what is important in their culture, and we also learn about our own cultural heritage. Think about a recent time when you visited another culture—it could have been a foreign country, a different region of the United States, or even a group or association with inter- ests that differ from yours. You may have tried to learn about this culture before your visit, possibly by reading books, checking on websites, and asking friends who are members of or have previously visited that culture. When immersed in that culture, you likely were highly engaged and observant—you more carefully observed your and others’ nonverbal behaviors as well as elements of the environment that could give you better insight into your immediate surroundings and how they reflect that culture. In other words, your self-presentation goal in this example was to fit in to the culture and to be respectful and educated about their values and customs.

Building and Maintaining Relationships A final important function of interpersonal communication is to help build and maintain rela- tionships with other people. According to Clark and Delia (1979), this is a relational goal. Because humans are social animals, we form a variety of relationships, and we often band

Section 1.3What Is Interpersonal Communication?

together into larger groups to offer one another the protection and strength of numbers and to pool our talents to help one another. Our ancestors employed this interpersonal communi- cation function for survival. In fact, psychologist and cognitive neuroscientist Merlin Donald (1991) argued that Homo erectus was a unique species because they were the first hunter- gatherers and were no longer living in isolation from one another. Their society, even in the absence of language, was one “where cooperation and social coordination of action were cen- tral to the species survival strategy” (Donald, 1991, pp. 149–150).

Today, our relationships might seem as if they are no longer about “survival,” but they remain fundamentally tied to our mental and physical health. For example, you probably have a vari- ety of relationships and group memberships that you believe are central to who you are, including the relationships with your family of origin and the family and friendships that you form as an adult. Interpersonal communication is an integral component of building and maintaining these relationships; quite simply, a close relationship cannot begin or continue to exist without interpersonal communication. Interpersonal communication helps us meet needs for belonging, for acceptance, and even for self-actualization, and it enables us to share values and principles, which are the foundation of human society.

Interpersonal Communication Barriers Along with these four interpersonal communication goals come a number of barriers that serve as impediments to the creation of shared meaning between the two communicators. Interpersonal communication barriers differ from noise in that noise is almost always pres- ent and is not always problematic—it is merely an interference that needs to be identified and acknowledged. In contrast, interpersonal communication barriers always present challenges when interacting with others.

Misperceptions The most frequent and broadest barrier of interpersonal communication is misperception. As this chapter has illustrated, there are many factors that can cause misperceptions. For exam- ple, the receiver may not decode the message the way the sender intended. Kim and Pat’s interaction clearly illustrates this misperception: Kim believed Pat was ignoring her when he did not respond to her text right away, but Pat was merely driving and unable to reply. As a result of this misperception, conflict occurs. Certainly, a conflict about what to do for dinner is not likely to end Kim and Pat’s relationship, but if the couple continually experience similar misperceptions in their interactions, it is likely that their relationship will suffer and possibly even come to an end.

Misperceptions can also have serious consequences in medical interactions. One study found that primary care physicians (PCPs) who took more time to educate their patients about what to expect during the appointment, encouraged patients’ opinions, and checked to make sure that the patients understood what they said were less often named in malpractice claims than physicians who did not strive to reduce misperceptions in these ways (Levinson, Roter, Mullooly, Dull, & Frankel, 1997). Those PCPs without malpractice claims engaged in active listening and used facilitative comments such as “Go on, tell me more about that,” giving their patients more opportunity to share information and ask questions, thus increasing shared meaning and decreasing patient–provider misperceptions (Levinson et al., 1997).

Section 1.3What Is Interpersonal Communication?

Long-Distance Relationships Technological and transportation advances now enable us to live almost anywhere, and we are also more likely to move multiple times to different homes, cities, and even countries dur- ing our lives (Zechner, 2008). One side effect of this increased mobility is the growth of long- distance relationships (LDRs), where “communication opportunities are restricted (in the view of the individuals involved) because of geographic parameters and the individuals within the relationship have expectations of a continued close connection” (Stafford, 2005, p. 7). LDRs can take many forms, including romantic, friendship, or familial, and individuals can play a variety of roles in these LDRs, such as providing social support, resources, and care (Bevan & Sparks, 2011). As you read about the LDR barriers below, think about an LDR that you are currently involved in: How do you overcome these barriers to successfully maintain this relationship?

According to Erin Sahlstein (2006), a communication scholar and expert in the study of LDRs, although LDRs have similarities with geographically close relationships, individuals in long-dis- tance relationships may encounter the following specific barriers due to a greater disconnect- edness in space and time, which can affect the partners’ ability to maintain their relationships:

• unforeseen time, cost, and convenience issues • tension and stress management issues • belated information sharing • limited opportunities to provide comfort, reassurance, and support • fewer interactions, in terms of both quantity and quality • difficulties assisting with individual and relationship crises

There are a number of ways that LDR partners work to overcome these barriers, according to Sahlstein’s (2004) research: They recognize there are both positive and negative aspects associated with each of these interdependent relational states and they feel appreciation for each other and relationship rejuvenation and renewal when they do reunite. Ever-evolving technologies such as video-chatting services and transportation options that increase the likelihood of being in an LDR also provide options for distant partners to overcome barriers and connect and reconnect. We will take another look at LDRs in Chapter 8.

Increase in Intergenerational Relationships Mary Lee Hummert (2012) proposes that “age is one of the most salient, and perhaps automatic, ways of categorizing ourselves as well as others” (p. 223). This is espe- cially the case in intergenerational interac- tions, which occur when members of dif- ferent generations communicate with one another. Members of a particular genera- tion, such as baby boomers or Generation Z, experience similar social trends, histori- cal events, political and social occurrences, and technological advances that shape their individual perspectives and views about the world (Myers & Davis, 2012). Members of

David Sacks/Photodisc/Thinkstock ሁ Intergenerational communication occurs when

communicators in an interaction are members of different generations.

Section 1.3What Is Interpersonal Communication?

different generations who interact with one another are likely to approach the same situa- tion or event in different ways, creating an intergenerational communication barrier (Myers & Davis, 2012). Hummert (2012) presents the following three associations between life stage or age and communication that may also prompt intergenerational communication barriers:

• Developmental stages of particular age groups can affect how members prefer to communicate and influence their actual communication practices. For example, younger individuals prefer to use smartphones and social media much more than individuals who are 65 and older (Anderson & Perrin, 2017), creating a channel preference barrier between generations that may make it more difficult to initiate and maintain an interaction.

• Age groups or generations are often characterized by differences in economic resources and status, meaning that different generations often have more or less power, influence, and money, and more or less debt than others, resulting in inter- generational conflict. The current phenomenon called the “sandwich generation,” where adult children are taking care of both their younger offspring and their aging parents financially and as informal health caregivers, is an example of one such pre- dicament that can cause intergenerational communication barriers.

• Age-related beliefs or stereotypes can negatively influence if and how members of different generations interact with one another. For example, Gen Z individuals use different words such as “yeet” and view moving back into their family home as a nec- essary step toward debt reduction, whereas their parents may not understand their language and might view their children returning home as lazy or a sign of failure. These barriers may then impede shared meaning between these two age groups.

Increased life expectancy, advances in medical testing and treatment options, and even the growing use of social media applications such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram all increase the probability that we will communicate with someone from a different generation.

Emerging studies also reveal that online intergenerational interactions can create construc- tive connections. Researchers have found that having a parent on Facebook actually decreased parent–child conflict for college students (Kanter, Afifi, & Robbins, 2012). Overall, intergen- erational communication can also be warm and respectful (Hummert, 2012). Whether the interactions are positive or negative, such communication experiences can certainly provide new and different insights about the world around us and underscore the importance of acknowledging multiple communication viewpoints.

Benefits of Studying Interpersonal Communication Though we are born with an innate ability to communicate, humans still have much to learn about communication, and everyone can benefit from systematically studying interpersonal communication. What are some specific benefits of an increased understanding of commu- nication between two people? Let’s discuss some specific benefits of studying interpersonal communication.

Understanding the Difficulty in Forming and Maintaining Interpersonal Relationships A better understanding of interpersonal communication can improve how we relate to oth- ers in interpersonal relationships. Though it seems logical and natural for us to form and

Section 1.3What Is Interpersonal Communication?

maintain interpersonal relationships, many of us have trouble doing both. For example, Americans reported having one-third fewer confidants (that is, someone they could have an “important discussion with”) in 2011 than in 1985; this is a decrease from approximately three to two confidants (Brashears, 2011). In addition, even though we are surrounded by others every day (via both mediated and face-to-face channels), many individuals experience chronic loneliness, which is defined as an ongoing, bothersome experience that occurs when an individual’s social network is viewed as somehow deficient; in other words, a person has fewer relationships than she desires (Peplau & Perlman, 1982; Perlman & Peplau, 1981). In a recent survey conducted by Cigna and Ipsos (2018), at least a third of American adults expe- rienced feelings linked to loneliness. Further, Generation Z individuals (born between the late 1990s and early 2000s) were the loneliest generation, with loneliness decreasing as indi- viduals age (Cigna & Ipsos, 2018). A 2017 report from the Jo Cox Foundation found that nine million people in Britain were often or always lonely, which prompted former Prime Minister Theresa May to appoint a minister of loneliness. On October 15, 2018, the first position paper on the country’s loneliness strategy was published; it included practical suggestions such as physicians having the ability to “socially prescribe” participation in community activities and having postal workers identify and check on isolated individuals on their routes (U.K. Depart- ment of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, 2018). These findings suggest that individuals have fewer people they can depend on and that many adults consistently struggle with loneliness.

Individuals have similar difficulties maintaining their relationships. The U.S. divorce rate, which is one of the highest of all industrialized nations, is a major indicator of this struggle (Mullins, Brackett, McKenzie, & Djamba, 2012). According to the National Center for Health Statistics (Goodwin, Mosher, & Chandra, 2010), 35% of first marriages will end in separation or divorce within 10 years. Paul Amato (2010) notes that 43–46% of all U.S. marriages were predicted to end in divorce at the conclusion of the 20th century. An emerging trend since the mid-1990s is the notable jump in divorces among older age groups, also referred to as gray divorces (Kreider & Ellis, 2011). Americans age 50 and over were twice as likely to divorce in 2017 as they were in the 1990s (Stepler, 2017). Nearly all the interpersonal predictors of divorce in Amato’s (2010) review of divorce research reflect difficulty with interpersonal communication between spouses. Such difficulties include

• domestic violence behaviors, • acts of infidelity, • the frequency of conflict, and • the perception that there are numerous relational issues between the spouses.

Many of the recent gray divorces are remarriages (Stepler, 2017), which researchers note are often burdened by communication issues related to stepchildren relationships, money and wills, and healthcare issues and decisions (Brown & Lin, 2012).

Researchers can also identify the impact of interpersonal communication on relation- ship maintenance if they can define the specific reasons couples enter marital therapy. For example, one study found that problematic communication was the most frequent reason spouses reported entering couples’ therapy (Doss, Simpson, & Christensen, 2004). Another study found that marital therapists ranked communication as the third most significant prob- lem area for the couples that they see in therapy (Whisman, Dixon, & Johnson, 1997). These findings emphasize not only the complexity of maintaining relationships, but also serve as important justifications for further studies about the role of interpersonal communication in

Section 1.3What Is Interpersonal Communication?

relationships. We will return to many of these issues—including relationship maintenance, infidelity, conflict, and relationship deterioration and termination—later in the text.

Understanding Links to Physical and Mental Health Interpersonal communication—both constructive and destructive—is also related to physi- cal and mental health. Constructive communication involves positive, beneficial messages such as showing that you are supportive, listening to your partner, and being open and willing to share your thoughts and feelings. Destructive communication is comprised of negative and harmful messages that include hostility, insults, and shouting or yelling. For example, greater levels of communication apprehension and topic avoidance during discussions with a close relational partner are examples of destructive communication and are related to greater severity of irritable bowel syndrome symptoms (Bevan, 2009).

The greatest amount of research on destructive communication and health, however, focuses on behaviors during conflicts. Specifically, across studies, the use of competitive or hostile messages in interpersonal conflicts is consistently linked to compromised functions in the cardiovascular, endocrine, and immune systems (Canary & Lakey, 2012; Robles & Kiecolt- Glaser, 2003). This relationship between hostile messages and health also includes nonver- bal communication. For example, husbands’ negative facial expressions during conflicts are associated with wives’ physical illness symptoms (Gottman, Levenson, & Woodin, 2001). But conflict avoidance can also be harmful. A 17-year study of 192 married couples considered the effects of different conflict management styles and found that when both spouses sup- pressed their anger, mortality was twice as likely than when one or both spouses expressed their anger to one another (Harburg, Kaciroti, Gleiberman, Julius, & Schork, 2008).

In contrast, two constructive messages that are beneficial to one’s health are affectionate behaviors and social support. Kory Floyd (2002, in press) tested his affection exchange the- ory and consistently found that giving and receiving affectionate messages is an important method for reducing individuals’ physiological stress. In addition, a statistical review of 81 studies on social support and health found that the presence of social support in one’s life contributed to increased cardiovascular, endocrine, and immune system functioning (Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996). Social support also increases the likelihood that patients will adhere to their prescribed medical treatment regimens (DiMatteo, 2004). Overall, a study that examined patterns of findings in previous research (called a meta-analysis) determined that those with adequate interpersonal relationships have a 50% higher likelihood of sur- vival compared to those whose relationships are poor (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010). This interpersonal relationship effect is as significant as quitting smoking and has more of an impact than other risk factors such as lack of exercise and obesity (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010). A more recent meta-analysis that included over 72,000 participants spanning 11 countries also found that increased marital quality was linked to better physical health and greater psychological well-being (Robles, Slatcher, Trombello, & McGinn, 2014).

These are just a few of the hundreds of studies that found a significant link between commu- nication and health. There are numerous ways that communication and relationship quality are associated with health, and the potential physiological benefits of interpersonal commu- nication further emphasize the importance of continued study (see the Web Field Trip feature for more on the importance of interpersonal communication to mental health).

Section 1.3What Is Interpersonal Communication?

Understanding the Constant Evolution of Interpersonal Communication Our methods of communication rapidly and constantly change, now more than ever before. Interpersonal communication was once limited to face-to-face or written formats such as letters, which often took weeks or months to arrive at their destination. The invention and adoption of the telegraph in the mid-1800s first allowed individuals to efficiently communi- cate over great distances. But it is only in the last 30 years that how we communicate with one another has substantially shifted and expanded. This shift started with the widespread adoption of the Internet and e-mail, ramped up with the proliferation of smartphones, text messaging, and the development of social media, and continues today with the expansion of videoconferencing services. With one click, tap, or swipe, we can friend, unfollow, or tweet at an individual online and alter our interpersonal relationships. But the increased incidence of cyberbullying also reveals the dark side of such online interactions.

Researchers have accordingly responded to these rapid changes in communication. In just the five years between 2014 and 2019, there has been an explosion in the number of studies that examine how smartphones and social media impact how we relate to one another. For exam- ple, U.S. teens now have multiple forms of communication at their disposal when interacting with friends, including face-to-face, mobile, social media, and video-gaming technologies (Lenhart, Smith, Anderson, Duggan, & Perrin, 2015). However, text messaging remains domi- nant: Its usage by teens increased from 51% in 2006 to 88% in 2015 (Lenhart et al., 2015). In addition, though romantic partners use phones significantly more than any other form of mediated communication to interact with each other, use of text messaging most strongly influences couples’ communication and their satisfaction with their relationship (Coyne, Stockdale, Busby, Iverson, & Grant, 2011). To fully understand the nature of interpersonal communication, we must consider its continual evolution. Each chapter in this text includes the feature IPC in the Digital Age, which highlights specific research into the interesting new ways that we can relate to each other.

Web Field Tr ip: Mak ing Inter personal Connec t ions Mental Health America is an organization that aims to help community members achieve overall wellness by focusing on the importance of mental health. The organization’s Live Your Life Well campaign (http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/live-your-life-well) sug- gests 10 tools that you can use to achieve mental wellness. Take a moment to review each of the ten tools, and then consider the questions below.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. According to Mental Health America, connecting with others is the top tool for liv- ing life well. How might our connections with others affect our individual health and overall well-being?

2. How might you apply some of the suggested relationship tips to your own interper- sonal situations?

IPC in the Digital Age: It’s Not Mediated Versus Face- to-Face Communication, but Mediated and Face-To-Face Communication Early studies of online interpersonal interactions focused on one of two objectives: (1) comparing face-to-face and computer-mediated communication (CMC) to determine which is preferred or optimal in particular contexts or situations, or (2) examining one or more forms of CMC in complete isolation from face-to-face interaction. Now, however, there is a new line of research with roots in the communication department at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. The scholars behind this research argue that continued sepa- ration of face-to-face and CMC analyses will not accurately ref lect current communication styles. Instead, according to researchers John Caughlin and Liesel Sharabi (2012, 2013), the interaction between mediated and nonmediated communication is interdependent, or is mutually inf luential, and is a fairly common occurrence. They call this natural alternation between CMC and face-to-face the communication interdependence perspective.

This interdependence of mediated and nonmediated communication is a plausible connec- tion considering that many of our daily conversations do not have a clear beginning or end; rather, they can recur at different times and in different forms. For example, Kim and Pat’s interaction did not take place as a single event. Kim first e-mailed Pat about their potential dinner plans, they then continued their interaction via texting and talking on the phone as they both commuted home, transitioning to face-to-face discussions once Kim arrived.

Caughlin and Sharabi’s (2012, 2013) research determined that face-to-face and CMC com- munication simultaneously occur and that there is frequent interdependence and overlap between these two modes of communication. In addition, the more that romantic partners are able to integrate their nonmediated and mediated communication, the more their relationships are close and satisfying (Caughlin & Sharabi, 2012). When romantic partners only discussed certain topics via mediated channels, relationship closeness and satisfac- tion declined, but the opposite was true for topics only discussed face-to-face—in such cases, both closeness and satisfaction increased (Caughlin & Sharabi, 2013). These find- ings, though preliminary, offer an interesting and accurate representation of the intricate and multifaceted ways we currently interact with one another. We have different channels available for exchanging verbal and nonverbal messages, and knowing this will help us determine which messages work best for the different circumstances we may encounter. Think about the most recent interaction you had with a romantic partner or a close friend, and then consider the questions below.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Can you pinpoint when your interaction started—the very first time you discussed a particular topic with this person?

2. Can you identify the different channels you have since used to continue this conversa- tion—did you text, e-mail, use the phone, videoconference, use social media, talk in person, write a note, any or all of the above?

3. How did shifting between different mediated and nonmediated forms of communica- tion change the nature of the interaction? Was it easy for you to make the transitions?

Section 1.3What Is Interpersonal Communication?

Critical Thinking Questions

1. According to Mental Health America, connecting with others is the top tool for liv- ing life well. How might our connections with others affect our individual health and overall well-being?

2. How might you apply some of the suggested relationship tips to your own interper- sonal situations?

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Can you pinpoint when your interaction started—the very first time you discussed a particular topic with this person?

3. How did shifting between different mediated and nonmediated forms of communica- tion change the nature of the interaction? Was it easy for you to make the transitions?

How This Book Will Help You Communicate More Competently Section 1.4

1.4 How This Book Will Help You Communicate More Competently

The field of interpersonal communication encompasses a large body of information. The pri- mary goals of this text are to increase your awareness of the principles of effective interper- sonal communication and to enable you to appropriately and effectively apply these principles in your everyday interactions. Remember that communication is a process, which means that your goals might change over the course of an interaction or that a new goal might become more important. Interpersonal communication is a lifelong study that requires ongoing prac- tice for everyone. The notion of being both appropriate and effective in your interactions with others is called communication competence, and we will return to this term throughout the text to illustrate its utility in a variety of communication situations.

Competent sometimes has a connotation of “good enough” or “passable.” However, as it relates to interpersonal communication, competence is what we think of when we envision the quali- ties of a skilled communicator (Spitzberg, 2000; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2011). Communication researchers Brian Spitzberg and William Cupach introduced the concept of communication competence nearly 35 years ago, and their definition that includes the essential aspects of communication competence is our focus here. Though Spitzberg and Cupach (2011) believe that being interpersonally skilled is essential for developing interpersonal relationships, they also estimate that 7% to 25% of adults are not interpersonally competent. Yet, with some guidance, such as what is offered in this text, communication competence is an important interpersonal skill that many individuals can improve.

Effectiveness and appropriateness are both essential parts of communication competence— we need to be both effective and appropriate to be communicatively competent. However, these two parts can conflict with one another, and learning to successfully balance them can be a challenge. The following sections elaborate on both aspects that define communication competence, describe three factors that can improve your communication competence, and introduce a test that you can complete to determine your current level of communication competence.

Communication Effectiveness The first aspect of being a competent communicator is being effective. Being an effective com- municator means, quite simply, achieving your goals. Effectiveness refers to how well you are able to get what you want from an interaction. This can be as simple as achieving shared meaning with another person when the message you encode is decoded in a similar manner. Effectiveness can also involve specific goals, or intentions, that you bring to and take part in during an interaction. For example, you might make an appointment with your boss to ask for a raise, and, in this case, you would not classify the communication as effective simply because you and your boss both understand what the meeting is about. Instead, you would feel that the interaction is effective only if your boss increases your salary.

Though being an effective communicator seems simple, it becomes more complicated when you acknowledge that there are two communicators with separate but interdependent com- munication goals. In other words, is it possible for both individuals to be effective communi- cators and to achieve multiple outcomes they both seek? The answer to this question depends on a number of factors. Consider again the meeting you scheduled with your boss. If the com- municators’ goals conflict—you seek a raise but your boss’s goal is to not agree to one—then

Section 1.4How This Book Will Help You Communicate More Competently

it is difficult to achieve mutual communication effectiveness. However, if you and your boss compromise, each giving up something to reach an agreement that works for both of you, then you and your boss will likely leave the interaction feeling as if you at least somewhat accomplished your goals. However, if both communicators have similar goals—you and your boss both want you to get a raise—it is much easier for everyone to feel as if they are effec- tive. Further, it is possible to still feel you are effective even if you do not achieve all of your initial goals. As we noted earlier in this chapter, communication is a process, so your goals are likely to shift during an interaction. Thus, if your boss responds to your request for a raise by telling you that the company is in trouble and that they are struggling just to keep you on as an employee, your goal will likely switch from seeking more money to making a strong case to keep your job.

Communication Appropriateness Communication competence is also inher- ently defined by appropriateness, or the consideration of the rules, norms, and expectations of others in an interaction. For example, communicators are appropriate when they learn and follow rules—which are directions indicating the obligated, pre- ferred, and prohibited behaviors in certain contexts and situations—during an interac- tion (Shimanoff, 1980). These rules take into account the broader context of the interaction, and the context of the interac- tion assists in determining which appropri- ateness standards are to be met (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2011).

Some rules are established by a society or culture in the form of social norms. For example, in U.S. culture, it is a customary social norm to shake hands when you first meet someone in a professional setting. Rules or norms can also be unique to a relationship; for instance, one might follow the rules of monogamy when in an exclusive relationship with a romantic partner. Some rules can even be specific to an individual. For example, a professor might ask students to refrain from using laptops or tablets during class. Such rules and expectations are often implicit, meaning that they are not directly and clearly stated, yet we are aware of them. In fact, we are often most mindful and conscious of rules and expectations when they are broken.

As noted above, sometimes it is difficult to balance effectiveness and appropriateness during an interaction, but both are necessary elements of communication competence. The ability to be both effective and appropriate takes practice. You might get what you want if you are effective but not appropriate, yet doing so will likely upset, hurt, or damage your relationship with the other person. Conversely, if you follow the rules and act the way you are expected to—if you are appropriate but not effective—you might not get what you want. However, communicators who make an effort to get along and treat others with respect are more likely to achieve their goals.

Klaus Vedfelt/Iconica/Getty Images ሁ Social norms can help you determine what

is appropriate in a specific communication interaction. In American culture, for example, shaking hands with a new acquaintance is a customary behavior in professional contexts.

Section 1.4How This Book Will Help You Communicate More Competently

Factors That Facilitate Communication Competence How can we become competent communicators? According to Spitzberg and Cupach’s (1984) model of communication competence, which goes beyond their definition to help us increase our competence, there are three things that can assist us in being more competent: (1) knowledge, (2) motivation, and (3) skill.

Knowledge is the necessary awareness of which behaviors or messages are effective or appropriate in a particular situation. This knowledge can be about content, such as the topic of the conversation or information about the other communicator. For example, you might have knowledge about someone’s food or movie preferences. But knowledge can also be about procedure, such as how an interaction should or could proceed. For example, you might know how to best solve a problem or predict someone’s reaction to a message. Both content and procedural knowledge can improve communication competence.

The second factor that facilitates an individual’s communication competence is motiva- tion, which Spitzberg and Cupach (2011) define as a force that energizes and guides us to approach or avoid in a social situation. In other words, we have to actually want to be effective and appropriate in order to be competent. We may have the knowledge that we need to be competent, but choose to not use it. Conflict is an example of an interpersonal situation where communicators often are not motivated to be competent. If you are engaged in a conflict with a close relational partner, you might get so upset and frustrated by the topic and the messages exchanged that you intentionally decide to insult your partner, punch a hole in a wall, or storm out—all of which display limited communication competence.

Finally, skill is a factor that facilitates competence. Skill is the ability to demonstrate the behaviors deemed most competent in a particular situation or context. Skill is dependent on knowledge and motivation; we must possess both before we can develop skill. However, even if we are knowledgeable and motivated, there is no guarantee we will be skilled in an interac- tion. For example, you might know how to behave and be motivated to act accordingly in a specific situation, but perhaps you still perform poorly. This type of response can happen in a job interview, a public speaking situation, and even a first date.

Complete the communication competence scale provided in the following Self-Test feature. Communication competence is an important interpersonal skill, and it requires awareness of our individual communication patterns. Try to be honest with yourself as you complete the scale, or even ask a friend, family member, or romantic partner to complete it on your behalf. Then evaluate your results and reflect on areas you could improve. The next sections discuss techniques for improving your intrapersonal communication and developing your communi- cation competence.

Self-Test: Inter personal Communic at ion Competence The following self-test is based on Spitzberg and Cupach’s model of communication compe- tence (1984). Answer each item honestly as it currently applies to you in typical conversa- tions with others. Use a 5-point scale for your responses to each item. Rate each question according to the following scale:

(continued on next page)

Self-Test: Inter personal Communic at ion Competence (cont inued)

1 for strongly disagree

2 for slightly disagree

3 for unsure

4 for slightly agree

5 for strongly agree

1. I act in ways that meet situational demands for appropriateness.

2. I successfully achieve my interpersonal goals.

3. I show my understanding of others by ref lecting their thoughts and feelings to them.

4. It is easy for me to manage conversations the way I want them to proceed.

5. I show my engagement in conversation both nonverbally and verbally.

6. I use a wide range of behaviors, including self-disclosure and humor, to adapt to others.

7. I am aware of the rules that guide social behavior.

8. Once I set an interpersonal goal for myself, I know the steps to take to achieve it.

9. I know that empathy means to try to see it through others’ eyes and feel what they feel.

10. I know how to change topics and control the tone of my conversations.

11. I know how to respond because I am perceptive and attentive to others’ behaviors.

12. I have enough knowledge and experiences to adapt to others’ expectations.

13. I want to communicate with others in an appropriate manner.

14. I am motivated to obtain the conversational goals I set for myself.

15. I want to understand other people’s viewpoints and emotions.

16. I want to make my conversations with others go smoothly.

17. I want to be engaged in the conversations I have with other people.

18. I want to adapt my communication behavior to meet others’ expectations.

Scoring

Now we will identify your separate and overall communication competence scores. To do this, we will do a bit of math to determine your average score based on the categories out- lined in the sections below. This will give you a score, out of 5, where

Higher values (generally 3.5 to 5) indicate greater communication competence.

Middle values (generally 2.5 to 3.5) indicate moderate communication competence.

Lower values (generally 1 to 2.5) indicate less communication competence.