Peer Response 2

froggermom02

07CH_Bevan_Interpersonal.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Peer Response 2

7Beginning Interpersonal Relationships

Fuse/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes

After reading this chapter, you should be able to

ሁ Explain how perceptions and impressions frame and shape the relationship initiation process. ሁ Identify how individuals start and manage conversations with others. ሁ Compare and contrast three of the primary theories of relationship development. ሁ Explain why self-disclosure is significant when beginning relationships. ሁ Describe Knapp’s five stages of relationship formation. ሁ Apply strategies for competent communication during relationship initiation and formation.

Introduction

Introduction To the blonde journalist that was at my register a few days ago. Even though I had to check your ID I do not remember your name and wish I would of asked before you left :(

I highly enjoyed our interaction and conversation together. Even though it was in a hectic environment, I could of stood there all day and night talking with you! You had such beautiful, kind eyes, great smile, awesome personality and just great energy! We both share some similar experience and traumas due to my past profession and you as a journalist.

If for some reason you do read this, please don’t take this as me trying to hit on you.

I genuinely enjoyed our interaction and you as a person. All I am looking for is a chance to reconnect and make a friendship with an awesome person! :)

Either way... if you read this or not...I wish you all the best and safe travels with your career. (Anonymous, n.d.)

Even the first few minutes of the initial interaction with another person can be powerful: The fact that people place ads to reconnect with relative strangers is an example of just how much of a lasting impression those first moments can leave. The above excerpt is a “missed connec- tions” advertisement posted on Craigslist. Such missed connections occur when individuals meet each other, exchange glances, exchange smiles, or initiate a conversation. At least one person finds the other attractive or memorable, even in that brief interaction, but the interac- tion abruptly ends, for one reason or another, before contact information is shared or future plans are made. “Missed connections” ads also indicate that interpersonal communication does not just happen: For people to communicate, one person must take the initiative and make contact with another person. The other person must then respond in some way for a connection to occur. Sometimes that initial connection is broken, often to one communica- tor’s regret.

Earlier in this text, we defined communication as a process—a series of steps in which an idea is formed, a message is encoded, and this message is sent via a channel to a receiver who decodes or interprets the message and responds to it. Now we turn our attention to how we first make these connections with other people, engage in conversations to get to know them better, listen and share information, and begin to form close relationships.

In sum, in Chapter 7, we discuss how relationships are initiated. Relationships are the impor- tant and close connections or associations that we forge and maintain with other people via communication. We explore the importance of first impressions and perceptions, how we carry on conversations with others, the concepts of self-disclosure, and the stages of inter- personal relationships.

Section 7.1First Impressions Matter: Perceptions and Impressions

7.1 First Impressions Matter: Perceptions and Impressions

When you initially meet someone, you immediately form an impression of the person—and the person forms an impression of you. These impressions are formed based on how indi- viduals look, including their physical attractiveness and what they are wearing; what they say; and how they sound. As you learned in Chapter 2, when you interact with others, each person presents an image of himself or herself. We each have a self that we display in social situations—a public personality that we show to other people. To create a positive impression when you first meet someone, you need to understand the process of creating first impres- sions and the ways you can manage the impressions you create with others. In this section, we discuss perceptions and impressions.

Perceptions When we communicate, we must first perceive others and the world before us. Perception is a dynamic process that involves selecting, organizing, and interpreting the world around us. We do not objectively see things that are external to us; rather, we become aware of objects, events, people, and messages by perceiving them via one or more of our five senses. We can- not process and attend to everything we are exposed to in our daily lives, but perception allows us to make sense of and organize what we do encounter. The process of perception involves three general stages:

1. selection, which occurs when something stimulates our senses in some way, and we respond by focusing on or attending to it

2. organization, which occurs when we arrange the information that we have per- ceived in a manner that makes sense to us

3. interpretation, which is a subjective process that occurs when we explain and assign meaning to the thing that we have selected and organized

Within these stages, there are four specific concepts that we employ when we perceive some- thing; each is described below.

Selective Perception Consider the last face-to-face interaction you had with someone. Close your eyes and try to remember everything you can about what you both said, where it took place, how it started and concluded, and what communication barriers were present. Though you may attempt to perceive everything that is part of a specific interaction, doing so is impossible. There are too many stimuli. Thus, in the selection part of the perception process, we engage in selective perception, directing our attention to the task of perceiving some stimuli and ignoring or dis- regarding others. The stimuli that we choose to perceive catch our attention in a number of ways. A stimulus may be appealing in some way, such as a photo you find beautiful. A stimulus may be the most dominant, such as extremely loud yelling. Or a stimulus may be something important to you, such as a thought you want to communicate. You are likely to notice these types of stimuli first in the selection process and then continue to organize them in the next step of the perception process.

Section 7.1First Impressions Matter: Perceptions and Impressions

Schemas Assume you have been invited to a concert. You have been to the venue before, and you remember that the acoustics are wonderful and all the seats offer great views of the stage. You know that parking is convenient, and several restaurants are nearby where you can eat before the concert. You also like the group performing. You are excited about attending the concert, and you expect to have a terrific evening.

Your expectation that the concert will be fun is based on the operation of a schema. Sche- mas are organized collections of informa- tion about a subject that are stored in your memory from past experiences. Schemas can be based on personal experiences you have had and also formed as part of your dominant cultural and co-cultural member- ships. These mental structures or templates help you process and categorize new information quickly, rather than starting from a blank slate every time you encounter a new situation. As such, schemas are a significant part of the organization process of perception. You tend to believe in the validity of your schemas, and they create expectations about a situation (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).

You have schemas about social situations, objects, and people and their social roles. We all assume roles in our lives—functions or positions that we have in our society. We may occupy several social roles at the same time. For example, someone may be a wife, mother, daugh- ter, doctor, and community volunteer, but each of these roles has a different set of expected behaviors. A person schema is an expectation about what a specific person will be like based on certain characteristics he or she has. For example, you are referring to a person schema when you say something like, “Every person I’ve known named Jose has been a nice guy.”

A role schema is a set of expectations you have about how someone in a certain role should look or behave. For example, you might state, “Parents should not swear in front of their chil- dren.” These person schemas and role schemas are mental images based on your personal experiences or on the behavior of other people in your life who have played these roles. Per- son and role schemas can also be formed through your personal experiences and your cul- tural norms and beliefs. You make judgments about people based, in part, on whether they conform to these schemas, and your impressions contribute to your decision about whether to get to know them better.

Stereotypes When we use stereotypes, we are answering the question “What can I expect to happen?” by relying on predictive, broad generalizations. As discussed earlier in this text, stereotypes are a specific type of schema; they are preconceived opinions you hold about someone or something. A stereotype assumes that all members of a particular group possess the same

Paul Chesley/The Image Bank/Getty Images ሁ We have schemas for social situations, objects,

and people and their social roles. One person can occupy several of these social roles at the same time, such as grandmother, teacher, and community leader.

Section 7.1First Impressions Matter: Perceptions and Impressions

or similar characteristics. Whereas schemas are based on your own experiences, stereotypes are usually not based on reason, fact, or past experiences. You may form stereotypes based on what others have said, images portrayed by the media, or mistaken beliefs you have about people. Stereotypes are also often guided, reinforced, or determined by cultural beliefs about race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, and class.

Schemas are more likely to be related to individual characteristics of a person, but stereo- types ignore the individual characteristics and assume that a person possesses personality traits or holds attitudes that are typical of an entire group. Stereotypes are often negative and reflect prejudices, preconceived opinions of dislike, hostility, or unjust behavior. Schemas, on the other hand, do not necessarily have negative connotations (Pennington, 2000).

Prototypes Another way to organize the perceptions that you select is by using prototypes. Prototypes represent a mental image you have about the attitudes and behaviors of the ideal person in a specific role. As with schemas and stereotypes, they can be formed and reinforced based on both personal experiences and on cultural beliefs. Your prototype of a best friend, for exam- ple, would probably include what you think their personality should be like, what interests and beliefs they should have, and what you can talk to them about. This prototype is the epitome of what you envision a best friend to be. The person who actually becomes your best friend will probably have a great deal in common with your prototype of a best friend. However, if your friend suddenly becomes unavailable to talk to when you need them, the gap between the prototype and the actual person will grow. If that happens, the relationship might change, and, although you might still be friends, you may no longer be best friends (Pennington, 2000).

Prototypes, like stereotypes and schemas, are oversimplifications and generalizations. To some extent, we need to generalize across the many perceptions we select each day to catego- rize them in a useful and efficient way. You will not, for example, need to relearn or seriously consider each time how to interact with the checkout person at the grocery store because you have a prototype in your mind for how that general type of interaction should unfold. You thus carry these mental images into your interactions with other people, but these ways to organize your perceptions become problematic when you start to rely on them as your only source of information about a person or situation. When you meet people and initially interact with them, it is important that you keep an open mind and guard against letting your preconceived ideas influence your early judgments of others. In that way, you can get to know another person as the unique individual he or she is based on how that person acts and the interactions you share. If you build a relationship with that person, over time, some of your initial impressions will be confirmed and others will be discarded (Zunin, 1986).

Implicit Personality Theory How do these perceptions work together to form a general impression or perception of some- one? Implicit personality theory provides an explanation of how perceptions are predicted to fit together. According to this theory, once we know a small amount about someone’s char- acteristics or traits, we use that information to fill in our general expectation about that per- son with other similar qualities. Which personality characteristics go together is typically determined by our previous experiences and interactions with others.

Section 7.1First Impressions Matter: Perceptions and Impressions

For example, research has found that people who perceive that someone is physically attrac- tive (a nonverbal aspect of interpersonal communication we discussed in Chapter 4) will also think that he or she is kind, friendly, generous, and smart as well, even if they have no direct evidence for the existence of those personality traits (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972; Lan- glois et al., 2000). Grouping positive personality characteristics in this way is called the halo effect. In contrast, the reverse halo effect, also called the horn effect, describes the group- ing of negative characteristics on the assumption that the individual only has other negative traits as well.

As with stereotypes and prototypes, we use implicit personality theory to organize and inter- pret our interactions with others. The danger associated with this theory occurs when we do not check our perceptions via communication or are unwilling to learn more about the per- son to more accurately understand who the individual is. In other words, rather than allowing our implicit (usually initial) assumptions about someone to “fill in” the rest of their personal- ity characteristics, we must be open to communicating with them and allowing the percep- tions that stem from our direct interactions to determine how we perceive who they are as a person.

Impressions At the broadest level, an impression is the overall effect of someone or something, which is based to some extent on your experience with that individual or that thing. There are three important aspects of impression that researchers study: how we form impressions of other people, how long these impressions last, and how we attempt to manage the impressions others form of us. Interpersonal communication is instrumental in assisting us in forming impressions of others and managing others’ impressions of us.

Impression Fo r m a t i o n The saying “You never get a second chance to make a good first impression” is true. Not only do we form impressions and make judgments about people quickly, but these split-second impressions are often long lasting and difficult to change. With impression formation, you are decoding, or interpreting, dimensions of another person’s “image,” be it how they appear, their nonverbal messages, or what they say.

For example, studies have shown that when you first meet someone, you form general impres- sions of the person based on facial appearance alone—and you form these impressions in less than a tenth of a second. Based on that split-second impression, you immediately judge the attractiveness, trustworthiness, and likeability of the other person, and you also form impres- sions of specific traits, such as competence or aggressiveness, that you believe the person possesses (Willis & Todorov, 2005).

Researchers have found that you usually approach new people with preconceived ideas about their personalities, attitudes, and beliefs as well as certain expectations of how they should behave (Uleman, 1999). Any number of things can aid in forming these impressions. For example, wearing the color red in a job application context led participants in one German study to form impressions that the job candidate was less intelligent and would be less likely to be hired in comparison to applicants wearing blue or green clothing (Maier et al., 2013). In this way, implicit personality theory and stereotypes can come into play when you form impressions of others.

Section 7.1First Impressions Matter: Perceptions and Impressions

But in many ways, the ability to make quick assessments of other people is a valuable trait; the judgments you make can help you detect potential threats and keep you safe. You continu- ally encounter strangers as you walk down the street, sit next to them in a crowded movie theater, or swipe left or right on a dating app. Your safety may depend on your ability to judge their personalities and accurately predict the behavior of people you encounter. This ability to form accurate impressions of others can help you sense if it is a good idea to give your num- ber to someone that you have just met or if you can trust the person you are talking to via an app enough to meet in person.

Impression Management At the same time that we are forming impressions of others, we also trying to influence the impressions others form of us. The act of encoding, or creating, dimensions of your own image is called impression management. When you are preparing to go on a first date with some- one, for example, you probably pay particular attention to your grooming, your clothing, and other aspects of your appearance. When you see the other person, you most likely put your best “self ” forward, and you do your best to smile and convey a positive image. These are all attempts to create a good first impression.

Social psychologists have identified two common techniques that people use for impression management: self-enhancement and other-enhancement. Self-enhancement includes behav- iors such as paying attention to how you dress, describing yourself in positive ways, and playing up your accomplishments, which help you present yourself in the best way possible. Researchers have found that people who used self-enhancement techniques when trying to make a date with another person were more successful than people who were more honest or modest about their accomplishments (Rowatt, Cunningham, & Druen, 1998).

Other-enhancement refers to attempts to create a favorable impression by making the other person feel good. The most obvious method is by flattering the other person; flattery, or complimenting a person, is an other-enhancement technique that has been found to increase the likelihood that the other person will comply with a request you make of him or her (Grant, Fabrigar, & Lim, 2010). However, flattery should not be overdone because it can backfire and seem insincere. Agreeing with another person, being interested in what the other person has to say, and asking for advice on issues are additional other-enhancement tech- niques that can create positive impressions in others.

It might seem as if these techniques and methods are manipulative or disingenuous. However, effective use of impression management relies on one’s ability to identify when and how to best apply such techniques. The key is to avoid manipulative use and overuse. We all want to put our best foot forward, yet our impression management should not create a false impres- sion. We should present the best aspects of who we are.

Eternity in an Instant/The Image Bank/Getty Images ሁ We can use other-enhancement to create a

favorable impression in an interaction.

Section 7.1First Impressions Matter: Perceptions and Impressions

Four Components of Impressions According to Michael Eaves and Dale Leathers (2018), there are four components, or dimen- sions, of impressions, and each have their own way of being communicated:

1. Credibility emphasizes believability and trustworthiness. Consistency between the verbal and nonverbal messages, high level of eye contact, and use of short, purpose- ful pauses are cues that indicate credibility.

2. Likeability emphasizes affability and friendliness. Likeability cues include sincerely smiling, maintaining mutual gaze, and open body postures.

3. Interpersonal attractiveness emphasizes sociability, interestingness, and emo- tional expressiveness. Physical attractiveness, being facially animated, and being willing to disclose about oneself are cues that show you are interpersonally attractive.

4. Dominance emphasizes power and assertiveness. Dominance cues include staring, frequently interrupting others, and speaking in a loud voice.

Depending on the situation, one of the dimensions of impression may be more important than others (Eaves & Leathers, 2018). For example, during a job interview, the candidate will likely focus more on managing his or her credibility and likeability. In addition, we may base these impressions on a number of communication cues, including what individuals say and how they look and speak. For example, surgeons who used a more dominant tone of voice with their patients were more likely to have been involved in malpractice suits than surgeons with less dominant vocal tones (Ambady et al., 2002). (See the Everyday Communication Challenges feature for a look at how impressions of others and ourselves are interpreted online.)

Ever yday Communic at ion Challenges: Is t he Grass A lways Greener on Your Fr iends’ Facebook Pages? The introduction and growth of Facebook has changed the way that we communicate in many ways, but has it also altered our perceptions and impressions of ourselves? Has it changed how we perceive others? As we discussed in Chapter 2, social media users will often consciously craft an image of themselves online that is positive and that will garner favorable impressions from others. These positive social media selves have been found to improve users’ perceptions of themselves and other peoples’ perceptions of the user.

For example, a study by Hui-Tzu Grace Chou and Nicholas Edge (2012) sought to determine if the online selves of others affect users’ impressions of themselves. This research consid- ered these general ideas:

• Were users comparing the status of their own lives to what they saw on their Facebook friends’ pages?

• Did they perceive that they were as happy as and having as much fun as their Facebook friends based on the posts they read and the pictures that they viewed of them?

• If they did not perceive themselves as happier than their Facebook friends, how did such a comparison make the users feel?

(continued on next page)

Section 7.1First Impressions Matter: Perceptions and Impressions

Overall, it is important to remember that your impressions of others are not necessarily com- plete and accurate. These impressions can be wrong, especially if the other person is trying to manage the impression you receive. But how do you know if your impressions are correct or incorrect? You can test your first impressions by

1. communicating your impressions to the other person and asking if he or she agrees with your judgment,

2. communicating with other people about the person and asking if their opinions are similar to yours, and

3. observing their actions to see if their behavior matches your prediction (Pennington, 2000).

Ever yday Communic at ion Challenges: Is t he Grass A lways Greener on Your Fr iends’ Facebook Pages? (cont inued) Chou and Edge (2012) surveyed 425 college students and examined variables such as years since joining Facebook and hours spent on Facebook in relation to perceptions that others are happier and have better lives than the participants. Results indicated that the more hours a user spent on Facebook, the more he or she felt that others had a better life. In addition, participants who had been Facebook users for longer were more likely to believe that others were happier and less likely to feel that life was fair. Interestingly, the opposite was the case when participants spent time with their friends in a face-to-face context: Individuals were less likely to perceive that others were happier and had better lives.

Chou and Edge (2012) argue that Facebook users may remember positive photos and information seen on Facebook more readily and then conclude from such information that others are better off. This was not the case during in-person interactions—where there are more cues and messages about the person and less ability to manage one’s impression com- pared with Facebook—which indicates that social networking sites are a unique context for forming and managing impressions and perceptions. Apply these findings to your own perceptions of your online friends, and then consider the following questions. Remember that most users are likely trying to project a positive image of themselves online and that these depictions are only partial glimpses of each individual life. Spending face-to-face time with your friends will give you a more accurate impression and allow you to see that the grass is not always greener on the other side!

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Do you ever compare yourself to your online friends in relation to what they post about themselves online? Does doing so make you feel better or worse about your own life?

2. How might these research findings impact what you post about yourself online? Will you consider how others might perceive what you post?

3. How can social network users enjoy the content posted by others without allowing it to negatively impact them?

Section 7.2Conversation Management

7.2 Conversation Management Connecting with other people is an integral part of life, and your ability to engage in everyday conversations is crucial to your mental and physical well-being and success. Some people are gregarious; they enjoy meeting people, getting to know them, asking them questions, and exchanging information. However, other people have difficulty initiating a conversation with a stranger; they are shy; they get tongue-tied, self-conscious, or embarrassed in social situa- tions; or they never know what to say when they have to engage in conversation. As we dis- cussed in Chapter 5, these individuals may have communication apprehension or may be shy, introverted, or have an unwillingness to communicate. In this section, we examine the impor- tance of everyday conversations when initiating interpersonal relationships with others.

The Conversation Process In every situation, there is a process we use to meet and engage in conversations with others. Let’s look at the main components in the conversation process.

Meeting People The environment in which you live and work plays a major role in your chances of meeting other people, which is the first necessary part of the conversation process. Early research on housing developments, for example, found that location matters in terms of who talked to whom. Specifically, neighbors whose houses had adjacent driveways had more frequent conversations with one another than with people whose driveways were farther away, and people whose houses were in the middle of the block tended to have more frequent contact with other people on that block than those whose houses were at the end of the block (Whyte, 1956). Other researchers found that people who lived in apartments tended to have greater social contact and more friendships with people in the same building and particularly from their same floor. They also tended to converse with people whose doors faced theirs rather than with those whose doors were next to theirs or some distance away (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1963). In a more recent study, individuals who own dogs were found to spend more time outside, be more recognizable to their neighbors, and serve as a source of conversation (Power, 2013), thus decreasing their physical distance from others.

The reason for these results seems obvious: You tend to get to know the people you see or run into most often due to simple geographic proximity. However, meeting people can be regarded as a numbers game: You are more likely to meet other people if you put yourself in situations that allow you to interact with others. If you find it difficult to meet people, make an effort to seek out situations where you can interact with others, be it in person or through mediated channels. Engage in social activities, join colleagues in the break room, join a club, or walk around your neighborhood. Despite the belief that Americans don’t know or trust their neighbors anymore, research has found that most know at least some of the individuals who live around them, and more than half say they would trust a neighbor with a key to their home (Parker et al., 2018). Thus, these geographically proximal conversations could poten- tially be built upon and grown into interpersonal relationships. If you prefer to interact with others online, join an online group for a hobby or cause that interests you, or enlarge your circle of friends on the social networking sites you already belong to.

Section 7.2Conversation Management

Establishing Rapport Once you meet someone, how do you improve your chances of making a favorable first impression? The idiom breaking the ice describes the second step in the conversation pro- cess: establishing rapport. Having rapport with someone means that you connect or commu- nicate well and understand each other. In other words, rapport means that your interactions with another person are smooth and harmonious (Spencer-Oatey, 2005) and that you likely achieve shared meaning. This initial rapport can be the foundation upon which you can build a close relationship. Rapport is also an important aspect of building and maintaining satisfy- ing relationships in the workplace, as it is an essential component of effective face-to-face business and professional interactions (Pullin, 2010).

As we mentioned earlier, we form first impressions of other people in less than a second. However, psychiatrist Leonard Zunin (1986) argues that when we meet people, we have about four minutes to establish rapport. He suggests that at a typical party, if the host or host- ess introduces two strangers, they will tend to converse for a minimum period—on average, about four minutes—before they decide to continue the conversation or to move on. If a rela- tionship continues, it is by mutual consent; if one person is unwilling, the potential relation- ship is lost for that moment. At the core of establishing rapport, says Zunin (1986), are four key principles:

• Conveying confidence. Choosing not to exude confidence—the belief that you can be successful or excel at something—may create a temporary sympathy from the other person in the conversation, but most people do not respond favorably if they per- ceive the other person lacks confidence or is self-demeaning or overly apologetic.

• Being creative. Making contacts means finding ways to tune into the feelings of oth- ers. Humor may be used, but you can also notice and comment on something inter- esting about the other person, and using your strengths and interests can help you find ways of initiating conversation with others.

• Showing that you care. Asking appropriate questions about personal interests, giving your total attention, and being a good listener show the other person that you care. Indeed, Dale Carnegie, author of the best-selling book How to Win Friends and Influence People, said, “You can make more friends in two months by becoming interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to get other people interested in you” (1990, p. 54).

• Being considerate. Being sensitive and aware that you are relating to another unique individual is one way to show consideration. Zunin (1986) describes consider- ation best by saying that some people we meet leave us feeling a little better about ourselves after we talk with them. Listening skills (which we address later in this chapter) are some of the most important ways in which you express consideration for other people—by making good eye contact, appropriately smiling, being engaged with the other person, and responding with meaningful questions and comments. The feeling of consideration is thus a combination of the other three factors: confi- dence, creativity, and caring.

Culture can help determine the best way to initiate a conversation. In the United States, for example, a smile, a handshake, or a simple “hello” are ways to initiate a conversation. The next step is to ask a non-threatening question, to comment about some element of the occasion or the environment in which the two of you are talking, or to listen carefully and to respond to what the other person says. For example, you might ask general questions such as, “Where are

Section 7.2Conversation Management

you from?” or “Have you been in this area long?” Questioning the other person is a useful strategy many people employ because it allows them to avoid focusing on themselves, and it gives the other person the opportunity to share information. When you ask a question or make a comment, stick to facts rather than opinions, and focus on noncontroversial subjects. Try to use open-ended questions that ask who, what, where, when, why, and how. Such questions require more than a yes or no answer and encourage the other person to talk.

You might also use a technique called speech mirroring to help you establish and build rapport with another person. To do this, pay attention to how the other per- son is speaking—how fast and how loudly the person talks and the pattern of give and take in the conversation. Then try to subtly match your speech with the pace and characteristics of the speech set by the other person. This technique can help both of you feel more comfortable with each other.

The first two steps we have discussed will generally get you through the crucial first four minutes and avoid disagreement, during which time you and the other person will decide to end the conversation or to continue. If you both desire to continue the conversation, you will worry less about establishing and maintaining rapport from that point on. It should naturally unfold on its own.

Turn-Taking An important but often overlooked aspect of the conversation process is turn-taking. A con- versation requires that both communicators act as speakers and as listeners, and the transi- tion between these two roles should occur fluidly and naturally. Recall from Chapter 4 that we use many nonverbal messages to regulate when each communicator takes turns during an interaction, and a conversation is no different. Indeed, when one communicator domi- nates the interaction by speaking the majority of the time, it becomes less of a conversation and more of a monologue. Both individuals need to take turns for the conversation to be maintained.

Listening When you think of communicating, what words come to mind? Most likely the words speak- ing, talking, and writing jump out right away; but what about listening? One of the most neglected interpersonal communication skills, and a core competency we must master, is listening. Listening is a complex psychological process of physically hearing, interpreting, and understanding the significance of a sound (Hayes, 1991). If you do not listen during an interaction, you cannot understand others, respond appropriately to what they say, or pro- vide feedback. Parents and teachers teach children to speak, read, and write, but very few people have had formal lessons about listening. This gap in education is particularly troubling

Andrew Hobbs/Photodisc/Thinkstock ሁ When establishing rapport during the initial

phase of an interaction, we can use open-ended questions to encourage the other person to share information.

Section 7.2Conversation Management

because research shows that we engage in listening more than any other single form of com- munication activity. One study estimated that 45% of all communication time is spent listen- ing, compared with 30% speaking, 16% reading, and 9% writing (Hayes, 1991). Listening is also an important aspect of the conversation process.

Though most people think they are good listeners, studies show that the majority of peo- ple listen poorly and inefficiently (Lee & Hatesohl, 1993). Minimal training to build listening skills is one possible explanation, but another reason is that people think faster than they can speak. Humans have the mental capacity to hear and understand words spoken at 400 to 500 words per minute; however, most people speak at about 100 to 125 words per minute. While someone is speaking to you, you have a great deal of extra time to let your mind wander and to think of things other than what the speaker is saying.

We sometimes confuse hearing with listening. Listening involves hearing, but it is more than just the physiological act of your ears perceiving a sound and transmitting the auditory sen- sation to your brain. As we learned earlier in this text, listening is essential to the process of creating meaning (encoding) and attempting to discern the meaning that other people give to a message (decoding). Effective listening is important in all facets of interpersonal communication.

Learning how to be a more effective listener involves understanding a five-step process: receiving, attending, interpreting, responding, and remembering. We explain each stage below, using the example of trying to have a conversation with a family member from the other side of the political spectrum about a particular political candidate.

The first stage in the listening process is receiving, which involves hearing what your conver- sation partner is communicating. This can take place face-to-face or over mediated channels, such as via videoconferencing or on a mobile phone or landline. It thus involves the “techni- cal” aspects of listening and can be hampered by communication barriers such as the types of noise we discussed in Chapter 1, including hearing impairment, bad cellular connections, or environmental distractions such as other people talking around you. To approach the politi- cal conversation with your family member, which you know will be touchy, you might create an environment that is quiet and private to allow you both to receive the messages you will communicate to one another to the best of your abilities.

Attending is the second listening stage, and it means that you devote attention or conscious awareness to the messages you are decoding. In other words, focusing exclusively on the con- versation and not participating in any other activities (that is, not multitasking) is optimal for the listening process. In fact, individuals who multitask habitually have trouble listening because they are unable to attend to the interaction (Carr, 2010). Nonverbal cues such as making eye contact show that you are giving your conversation partner your full attention (Orick, 2002)—as does putting down your phone and not looking at any other screens during the conversation. So, when talking to your family member about your political beliefs, give them your full attention and show them you are doing so.

The third stage of listening is interpreting. In essence, you interpret what you have listened to when you understand what your conversation partner has communicated by linking this new information to your previous knowledge. You are making meaning in this listening stage. In this way, your own experiences and background become relevant to the interaction. Ele- ments of the self and your cultural background will be influential as you interpret what some- one is saying. As you and your family member discuss your political differences, you will likely

Section 7.2Conversation Management

try to understand their perspective better by considering where they come from culturally and who they are as a person. How are they different from and similar to you? Are they older, younger, or do they live in a different region of the country? You hope they are taking into account the same considerations.

The fourth listening stage is responding, where both conversation partners communicate that they are attending to and interpreting one another’s messages. This can occur in two primary ways. First, you can offer feedback, which is when you express attention and under- standing cues as you are listening. Feedback can be positive or negative, depending on how you feel about what you are hearing. Examples include nodding, saying “uh-huh,” or shaking your head no, turning away, or pulling out your phone. Second, you can respond during a conversation by paraphrasing after your partner has finished speaking, or restating what the other person has said in your own words, and then asking if you have captured their ideas correctly. In the family political conversation example, as you listen to why your family mem- ber believes what they do about a particular political candidate, you can offer feedback by nodding or narrowing your eyes as you are thinking through what they are saying. Then, you respond by paraphrasing what they said (“Can I make sure that I have understood what you have said correctly?”).

Finally, the fifth listening stage, remembering, involves how accurately you are able to recall the information you listened to after the conversation is over—the extent to which you can remember it. Listening effectiveness is frequently assessed by how well individuals can remember what they heard. Further, effective listeners are able to accurately convey informa- tion to a third party, showing that they actively listened to what the original speaker had com- municated (Orick, 2002). Being able to accurately remember your political conversation with your family member at a later date, especially the specifics of what they said, shows them that you were an active, respectful, and eager participant in that interaction.

Your methods of meeting other people and engaging them in conversation are familiar to you; for this reason, such patterns may be hard to change, even if your behaviors are ineffective. Do you have difficulty walking up to strangers and talking with them? Do you think you come on too strong or are too talkative, or have you been told that you need to assert yourself more? Do you feel you need to sharpen your conversational skills or want to feel more comfortable making small talk? Improving your conversational competency is not difficult; it simply requires that you learn and use the above methods of making contact with other people— striking up conversations with them, establishing a rapport, and learning to listen effectively. (The IPC Research Applied feature addresses a specific communication challenge when one or both of the partners are in the military.)

IPC Research Applied: Conversat ions and Topic Avoidance in Milit ar y and Nonmilit ar y Romant ic Relat ionships Perhaps one of the biggest relationship challenges a couple can face is when one or both partners are enlisted in the military. The great lengths of time spent apart during deploy- ment, concerns regarding the safety of the military partner, frequent relocation, and the

(continued on next page)

IPC Research Applied: Conversat ions and Topic Avoidance in Milit ar y and Nonmilit ar y Romant ic Relat ionships (cont inued) physical and mental stress that both partners can go through are unique experiences that few nonmilitary couples consistently face. It is no surprise, then, that military spouses are more likely to divorce than couples with no military spouse. There are almost 1.4 million active duty U.S. service members who have over 1.9 million family members (Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of Defense, 2012). For these reasons, the communication between military couples has become a new and growing area of interper- sonal communication research.

A study by Brandi Frisby and her colleagues from West Virginia University (2011) sought to learn more about and compare everyday conversation patterns and the act of avoiding discussion of certain topics (called topic avoidance) in military and nonmilitary couples. They specifically examined the types of topics that each couple avoided, the frequency in which they engaged in everyday talk with each other, the importance of such talk to their relationships, and how each topic is related to the participants’ individual stress.

The sample included 118 military and 94 nonmilitary participants, each of whom was cur- rently involved in a romantic relationship. These participants completed a written survey about their topic avoidance, everyday conversation patterns, and stress. Frisby and her col- leagues (2011) found that military and nonmilitary romantic partners were just as likely to avoid most of the topics they examined, including prior dating relationships, negative relationship behaviors, and topics that spark conf lict. However, nonmilitary romantic part- ners were more likely than military partners to avoid talking about religion, the status of their relationship, marriage, and living together. Overall, nonmilitary couples avoided more topics than did military partners. However, though military and nonmilitary participants engaged in the same amount of everyday conversation and experienced the same levels of stress, military couples rated their everyday talk as more important. In addition, higher levels of topic avoidance and a lower frequency of everyday conversation each contributed to the stress levels of the military participants.

These findings show that there are both similarities and differences regarding specific com- munication patterns for nonmilitary and military romantic partners. Frisby and her col- leagues (2011) speculate that military partners may uniquely recognize the importance of everyday conversation because they spend less time together and have fewer opportunities to interact than nonmilitary couples. This may also explain why military partners experi- ence more stress when there is greater topic avoidance and less everyday conversation. Learning more about the everyday communication patterns between military romantic partners can hopefully help to ease the stress and difficulties that they must deal with on a regular basis. Doing so can benefit their relationships as well as their individual well-being.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. What resources can be provided to service members and their families to help them communicate with one another more frequently?

2. Do you think these findings may also extend to service members’ other family mem- bers, such as their parents, siblings, and children? How might everyday communica- tion patterns be different for these different types of relationships?

3. If you had the opportunity to conduct research on service members’ communication with their family members, what would you study and why?

Section 7.2Conversation Management

(continued on next page)

Critical Thinking Questions

1. What resources can be provided to service members and their families to help them communicate with one another more frequently?

3. If you had the opportunity to conduct research on service members’ communication with their family members, what would you study and why?

Section 7.2Conversation Management

Small Talk and Phatic Communication A final important component in the conversation process is the act of small talk (also known as phatic communication). Small talk is defined as “the phase of conversation that follows the exchange of greetings but precedes the discussion of more serious topics” (Knutson & Ayers, 1986, p. 5). Examples of small talk topics include the weather, current events, and comments about the event or environment where the individuals are talking (for example, “This restau- rant is really nice. I hear they have a great shrimp cocktail”). Many people dislike small talk or view it only as a necessary (and sometimes even an unnecessary) evil in their conversations with others. However, one research study analyzed the conversations of 17 friendship pairs and determined that small talk has a number of important functions (Knutson & Ayers, 1986). Namely, small talk serves as a conduit for

• information exchange, • discussions about more intimate and serious topics, • relationship validation, • self-presentation in interactions with others, and • nonthreatening behaviors that help in killing time (Knutson & Ayers, 1986).

These functions of small talk show that it is not only an important way to transition to other parts of the conversation, but it is also a key form of communication in and of itself (Knutson & Ayers, 1986).

Small talk can also serve a purpose beyond its immediate functions in a two-person conversa- tion. For example, small talk is an important method for building rapport, solidarity, and trust between work colleagues and is thus an essential gateway to effective business and profes- sional interactions (Pullin, 2010). Specifically, in our culture, small talk in organizational con- texts can create a relaxing atmosphere, diffuse tensions and power differentials, and provide insight into the different views and backgrounds of employees. Patricia Pullin (2010) thus recommends that companies value and create a space for small talk. In addition, in initially identifying the importance of small talk in our communication with others, communication scholar Mark Knapp (1978) argued that small talk helps us maintain a sense of community and fellowship with one another and thus helps build acceptance and social cohesion. In this way, if a culture approves of small talk, its members know that it is an acceptable way to initi- ate a conversation with a stranger. Overall, despite its bad reputation, small talk does possess many benefits at the interpersonal, professional, and even societal level. (See the Web Field Trip feature for a perspective on the impact of technology on connecting with others.)

Web Field Tr ip: Connec ted but Not Connec t ing In an opinion piece for the New York Times, MIT psychology professor Sherry Turkle con- siders the effects of our increased technological connectivity on our ability to connect with others. Though we can constantly be in touch with others via digital means, such as e-mails or text messages, our in-person relationships are suffering. Turkle emphasizes the importance of the “messy and demanding” conversations, which often occur face-to-face, that help us understand one another on a deeper level (Turkle, 2012, para. 11). Visit the New York Times website (http://www.nytimes.com/) and search for Turkle’s article, “The

(continued on next page)

Section 7.3Relationship Development

7.3 Relationship Development Researchers in social psychology and communication have long been interested in under- standing how we develop relationships with others. What factors contribute to wanting to meet and spend time with one individual but not another? As you can imagine, there is no single explanation of our relationship initiation messages; rather, a variety of related com- ponents come into play. In this section, we describe three perspectives that explain how we come to know other people and why we decide to form (or not form) relationships with them. Each perspective takes a unique position on how interpersonal communication is relevant to relationship development—together, they paint a detailed picture of these often-complicated communication processes.

Relationship Dialectics Theory Communication scholars Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery viewed relationship initia- tion and continuation as an interpersonal communication process. Specifically, in their rela- tionship dialectics theory, they propose that building a close relationship through com- munication is a contradiction-ridden dialogue where relationship partners continuously face and struggle with opposing tensions (Baxter, 2004; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). These dia- lectical tensions represent the push and pull of divergent ends of a continuum between the self and the relationship. Dialectical tensions are present in romantic, friend, and family rela- tionships, as well as in long-distance relationships (Sahlstein, 2004). Namely, there are three primary pairs of relationship dialectics that should be consistently attended to and managed in relationships, often via interpersonal communication: autonomy and connection, novelty and predictability, and openness and closedness.

Autonomy and Connection A relationship where the partners are constantly together or in contact or always apart is not healthy and cannot be sustained. Instead, it is best for relationships to involve both partners negotiating time together and time on their own. The autonomy and connection dialec- tic acknowledges the push and pull between seeking to be independent and focusing on the self versus wanting to feel connected to a partner. The struggle between autonomy and con- nection is typically the primary dialectic in romantic relationships and can even be a reason

Web Field Tr ip: Connec ted but Not Connec t ing (cont inued) Flight from Conversation.” Review the content, and then take a moment to consider the fol- lowing questions.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. How might our increased connectivity affect our small talk and phatic communica- tion skills? How might it affect self-ref lection skills?

2. Consider the following statement: “In the silence of connection, people are comforted by being in touch with a lot of people—carefully kept at bay” (Turkle, 2012, para. 9). Do you agree with this assessment? Why or why not?

Section 7.3Relationship Development

for romantic dissolution (Sahlstein & Dun, 2008). This dialectical tension is characterized in today’s interpersonal communication by mobile phone usage, such that romantic partners, and even parents and their college-age children, struggle with how much to be available to communicate with one another versus others (Kelly, Duran, & Miller-Ott, 2017; Miller-Ott & Kelly, 2016). The constant availability afforded by a mobile phone essentially forces close relational partners to confront this tension by having them communicatively negotiate how much or how little to call and text one another.

Novelty and Predictability Always being unsure about what is going to happen in the relationship is uncomfortable and tiring, and being able to predict your partner’s every move can become tedious and boring. The novelty and predictability dialectic reflects the tension between wanting to experience newness versus wanting to be able to predict routine patterns in a relationship. Relational partners tend to prefer that novelty be in the form of small gestures, such as receiving sur- prise gifts, and predictability occur in relation to larger relational patterns, such as keeping dates and communicating about plans. Research has also found that this tension can be prom- inent in the experiences of the cultural adjustment of immigrants (Erbert, Perez, & Gareis, 2003). Specifically, immigrants were particularly attuned to the differences between their old and new cultures and found that adjusting to their new culture involved learning about and adapting to these unfamiliar and surprising experiences (Erbert et al., 2003).

Openness and Closedness The final major dialectical tension is openness and closedness, a continuum between shar- ing and concealing information. We may choose particular times or situations in which to be open or closed, or, instead, we may alternate between specific topics that we want to discuss versus keep private. For example, divorced and stepfamily members often struggle with this tension, and they manage it by segmenting information into safe and unsafe topics (Braith- waite & Baxter, 2006). This was a particular issue for children communicating with a parent with whom they did not live (i.e., the nonresidential parent). More specifically, these children sought open communication with their nonresidential parent, but these children had diffi- culty achieving this openness because the parent was not privy to the children’s everyday life and because they did not want to hurt the nonresidential parent’s feelings, particularly when it came to the relationship the child had with the stepparent (Braithwaite & Baxter, 2006).

Uncertainty Reduction Theory and Management When you first meet someone, when you begin to talk, what is your goal? What do you hope to get out of the interaction? These questions are at the heart of uncertainty reduction theory (URT), which was introduced by communication theorists Charles Berger and Richard Cal- abrese in 1975. Berger and Calabrese’s theory predicted that the primary motivation in an initial interaction is to reduce uncertainty about the other person and the relationship you may develop. You experience uncertainty when “details of situations are ambiguous, com- plex, unpredictable, or probabilistic; when information is unavailable or inconsistent; and when people feel insecure in their own state of knowledge or the state of knowledge in gen- eral” (Brashers, 2001, p. 478).

Uncertainty reduction theory is laid out via a series of specific predictions, called axioms, which state that uncertainty will decrease during first meetings as messages such as verbal

Section 7.3Relationship Development

communication, information-seeking, and nonverbal expressiveness increase (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Initially, URT was sig- nificant because it was intuitive and was also the first authentic interpersonal com- munication theory, but subsequent research failed to consistently support URT’s predic- tions. Indeed, research studies found that certain communication situations such as romantic infidelity and forming new friend- ships with others could actually increase your uncertainty about your partner (Pla- nalp & Honeycutt, 1985; Planalp, Ruther- ford, & Honeycutt, 1988).

Such findings led to a fundamental shift in uncertainty research. Instead of focusing exclusively on the reduction of uncertainty in relation to how we interact with others, scholars now concentrate their efforts on under- standing how we manage our uncertainty. The notion of uncertainty management acknowl- edges that interpersonal communication can increase, decrease, or maintain our uncertainty about the other person, our relationship with that person, and even how we view ourselves. For example, one study determined that young adult siblings experienced uncertainty about their relationships with each other, even though siblings tend to know one another most of their lives (Bevan, Stetzenbach, Batson, & Bullo, 2006). This relationship uncertainty increased when the siblings also engaged in topic avoidance, or avoiding the discussion of certain top- ics such as money and household rules (Bevan et al., 2006). Thus, uncertainty management is a broad concept that allows us to study how uncertainty waxes and wanes in relation to interpersonal communication in both new and established relationships.

Predicted Outcome Value Theory To determine what motivates us when we communicate in initial interactions, Michael Sun- nafrank (1986) developed predicted outcome value (POV) theory. Unlike the other theo- ries introduced in this section, POV theory states that our communication is not guided by a desire to decrease uncertainty. Instead, when we first meet someone, we are motivated by a desire to maximize relationship outcomes. Thus, predicted outcome value is our evaluation, based on an initial meeting, of whether a future relationship with another person will likely be either positive or negative. Did they say things that made us laugh? Did we find them physi- cally attractive? Did they ask us questions about us that made it seem as if they were listening to what we were saying? Similarly, your conversation partner is making that evaluation of you based on how you communicated.

Individuals strive to form relationships with others so that they can achieve positive rela- tional outcomes (Sunnafrank, 1986). If both communicators perceive that the interaction was positive, they likely will believe that future interactions will also be positive and will both try to spend more time together. For example, the individual who wrote the “missed connections” ad presented in the beginning of the chapter believed their brief first meeting was positive and held the possibility of a rewarding future relationship. However, when one or both part- ners perceive an interaction as negative, they are likely to have a less positive POV about the

Thomas Barwick/Stone/Getty Images ሁ Scholars now focus on learning more

about how we manage uncertainty during our interactions in both new and established relationships.

Section 7.4Self-Disclosure and Relationship Development

relationship and will not pursue a future relationship. Today, this assessment could be as quick as swiping left or right on a dating app.

When we consider the larger implications on relationship development, how does research about POV compare with research about uncertainty? In three studies, Sunnafrank found evi- dence that supported POV theory (Sunnafrank, 1988, 1990; Sunnafrank, & Ramirez, 2004). In these studies, an individual’s POV about his or her partner was positively related to the amount of verbal communication, nonverbal affiliation, intimacy, liking, attraction, perceived similarity, and information seeking. In essence, the more individuals communicated with and experienced intimacy, liking, attraction, and similarity with their conversation partners, the greater their POV regarding a future relationship with that individual. Further, when uncer- tainty and POV in initial interactions are directly compared to one another, research has con- sistently found that POV is a more important motivator than uncertainty and is more strongly related to how the individuals interact with one another (Grove & Werkman, 1991; Sunnaf- rank, 1990). Sunnafrank’s POV theory has also been extended to understanding more estab- lished relationships. In such relationships, unexpected events could cause one or both indi- viduals to reevaluate the value of their relationship (Ramirez, Sunnafrank, & Goei, 2010). This also applies in online contexts. One research study (Young, Kelsey, & Lancaster, 2011) found that the frequency and immediacy of e-mails between college students and their professors can contribute to the students’ POV of developing a student–teacher relationship.

7.4 Self-Disclosure and Relationship Development Have you had the experience of meeting someone for the first time and having him or her tell you personal information that you did not want to hear? Have you opened up to someone and shared your thoughts or feelings but then regretted it later? The intentional act of sharing private and per- sonal aspects of oneself with other people is called self-disclosure (Wheeless, 1978). According to this definition, basic informa- tion about you, such as your name, would not be classified as self-disclosure; rather, self-disclosure refers to information that is private and would likely not be revealed by anyone other than you. Self-disclosure from this perspective is thus an intentional choice.

Self-disclosure is important for building rapport with other people, but it also helps you learn more about yourself. If you develop a relationship with someone, you gradually disclose more information about yourself. Identifying, understanding, and then verbalizing your ideas, beliefs, and experiences are processes that enable you to better explore and analyze yourself, which helps you to question or reinforce your self-concept. As you disclose more to others, you may become aware of previously untapped issues or feelings. For example, imagine that

Christopher Malcom/The Image Bank/Getty Images ሁ Self-disclosure can help us build rapport with

others and help us learn more about ourselves.

Section 7.4Self-Disclosure and Relationship Development

you are becoming friends with someone at work, and you are both building that friendship by sharing things about yourself. You tell your work friend that you have a full-time job, are in school, are raising a daughter, and take care of your aging father. Your work friend replies, “Wow. That is a lot to take on. I really admire you.” When you hear that, you realize that you do juggle many important tasks and that you are stronger than you had given yourself credit for. In this way, self-disclosure can be a form of the looking-glass self we described in Chapter 2. It can also help you to shape, form, and alter your self-concept, self-image, and self-esteem.

Although self-disclosure can have many benefits, such as finding out that you have some- thing in common with another person, it is also risky. Sharing information about yourself makes you vulnerable. When others know you well, they have information that they might use against you in some way, such as by telling others, and you may fear being taken advan- tage of (Farber, 2006). You might also want to protect yourself from criticism or rejection. For example, how might you react if a new romantic partner disclosed that she had cheated on one of her previous partners? Would you be less likely to trust her, or would you want to hear more about the situation to determine what happened? Would you be willing to listen to your partner’s explanations about why it happened and how it will not happen in your relation- ship? You may never know unless you test that assumption and disclose information and are also receptive to others when they disclose risky information about themselves to you.

Social Penetration Theory In 1973, social psychologists Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor proposed a theory of self-dis- closure called social penetration theory. In this theory, Altman and Taylor compared the disclosure process to peeling back an onion layer by layer. When you first meet someone, you usually discuss obvious or nonthreatening subjects, thus remaining only at the surface or outer layer of the onion. At this peripheral level, you might compliment someone about things you can easily observe, such as a person’s clothing, or discuss mundane topics, such as the weather. Your conversation at this level usually involves learning more than you tell by asking questions to reduce uncertainty about the other person and to find common ground.

As a relationship progresses, people reveal more details about themselves. This information represents the middle layers of the onion. You might ask about the other person’s family, interests, social activities, and other such topics. Continued progression of the relationship will depend, in part, on the responses you get because this type of disclosure enables you to pinpoint commonalities that can help you determine if you want to get to know this person more.

Self-disclosure allows you to reduce uncertainty about each other and to predict how costly or rewarding future interactions with the other person will be. If this sounds familiar, you are correct—Sunnafrank’s (1988, 1990) POV theory was based on the broad concepts of social penetration. Once you mutually determine that you want to establish some type of relation- ship, disclosure gradually continues to more personal topics (Svennivig, 2000). As this hap- pens, according to social penetration theory, more layers of the onion are peeled back and revealed. The central layers of the onion represent the most personal or private details about you, such as your values, fears, and feelings, and are revealed only to a few close relational partners. As such, they are the most difficult to get to and most likely to make us cry—much like peeling an actual onion down to the center will likely do!

Section 7.4Self-Disclosure and Relationship Development

Self-Disclosure in Person The vast majority of self-disclosure occurs in face-to-face contexts, though early social media research determined that college student Facebook users were more likely to self-disclose on the site than in general (Christofides, Muise, & Desmarais, 2009), and a more recent review of online self-disclosure research found a consistent relationship between online and off-line self-disclosure patterns (Desjarlais, Gilmour, Sinclair, Howell, & West, 2015). Whether face- to-face or online, there are two important things to consider when disclosing about yourself: reciprocity and appropriateness.

Reciprocity Sidney Jourard (1971) emphasized that disclosure must be reciprocal; both parties must dis- close the same degree of information. Face-to-face self-disclosure is most beneficial for a rela- tionship when it is equally reciprocated between both partners. So, when you self-disclose to another person, in a sense, you are placing a burden on that person to share information with you to approximately the same degree. If you continue to share personal information with someone and he or she does not reciprocate, you may decide to disclose less or not at all. If the relationship is ongoing, conflict usually results if one person feels that he or she is doing all the giving and getting little in return. On the other hand, if you are not interested in develop- ing a relationship with the person who is disclosing to you, the shared information can make you uncomfortable because you now know things about this person you did not care to know, and the other person has an unspoken assumption that you will divulge personal information as well.

Individuals often rely on nonverbal listening feedback cues such as nodding, touch, and eye contact to ensure that they have not shared more than they should have. You can use this knowledge about nonverbal communication cues to determine whether the information you are sharing is at approximately the same level of what your partner is sharing.

Appropriateness In-person disclosures must also be appropriate. Think back to the appropriateness dimen- sion of communication competence, which indicates that individuals should strive to follow rules and consider the context or situation surrounding the interaction. For example, shar- ing intimate details about your relationships or discussing personal issues in professional situations such as the classroom or the workplace is inappropriate in most circumstances. Disclosure that is excessive and inappropriate to the context is referred to as overdisclosure. To determine what is appropriate, you must consider the communication context, which will impact your decisions about appropriateness. Consider the following contextual factors:

• target: the person with whom you are sharing and the nature of your relationship with them

• situation: the time and place of the disclosure • amount: how much information you disclose • depth: the level of detail you disclose • duration: how long you talk (Brockbank & McGill, 2006)

Section 7.4Self-Disclosure and Relationship Development

Let’s look at an example to consider how each factor works in an interpersonal communi- cation situation. Perhaps you have started dating someone you really like, and you want to disclose to them that you have a chronic health condition that will affect your relationship if you two choose to pursue it. Your condition isn’t serious, but it does need to be managed, and it will impact elements of your day-to-day interactions with a partner. So, you decide you are ready to disclose this information.

• Your target is the person you are dating, and you have determined that the nature of your relationship is to the point where you feel comfortable sharing this personal information with them.

• You choose a situation—a night at your house where you have made dinner—that is conducive to this type of disclosure because it is private, quiet, and gives you both time to discuss the information for as long as you like.

• You strike a balance between amount and depth by sharing the diagnosis of your condition, some background about it, how it affects you, and how it will affect your relationship, should it blossom. You try not to share too much or too little so as to give your new romantic partner a chance to process the information and determine how to proceed.

• This links to the last factor, duration—you will talk first, but you want to give your partner a chance to respond soon into the interaction and not overwhelm him or her with information.

As with all communication, as you can see by this example, self-disclosure must be appropri- ate to the context in which the communication occurs.

Self-Disclosure Online Opportunities for self-disclosure have expanded exponentially with the growth of the Inter- net, emerging technologies, and social media. Individuals have been able to disclose about themselves online for the past two decades, and this outlet for self-disclosure is unique and thus distinct from face-to-face self-dis- closure in two important ways.

First, self-disclosing on social media can be done either exclusively (that is, directed to only the receiver by private message) or nonexclusively (by posting to many individ- uals in their networks via public comments, status updates, or wall postings). For exam- ple, one study found that Facebook users utilize various methods of nonexclusive dis- closure to update their friend networks on major life events (Bevan et al., 2015). When the life events are negative, such as a divorce or death in the family, Facebook users prefer to share that information directly via status

Erik Palmer/FogStock/Thinkstock ሁ Technology offers additional opportunities for

self-disclosure. On the Internet, for example, the information we share with others can be either exclusive, via personal messages, or nonexclusive, via postings on message boards.

Section 7.4Self-Disclosure and Relationship Development

updates or photo captions. But when the events are positive—an engagement or receiving a promotion—users disclose more indirectly by posting a photo with no caption or changing information in the “About” section of their profile without explanation (Bevan et al., 2015). It is likely that Facebook users do this to avoid “boasting” online about their positive news in a way that could be seen as self-aggrandizing and to seek social support from their networks about their negative information (Bevan et al., 2015).

The extent to which a self-discloser provides information to a receiver exclusively is referred to as disclosure personalism (Bazarova, 2012). For example, exclusive disclosures about both positive and negative topics on Facebook were viewed as more intimate and personal than nonexclusive disclosures (Bazarova, 2012). Further, when disclosures were exclusive to a particular individual rather than shared with one’s broader network, there were also greater perceptions of relationship intimacy and liking of the discloser (Bazarova, 2012). Such research indicates that sharing intimate information with large groups of social network users is an efficient way to disclose but can sometimes have unintended results depending on how the message and the relationship are perceived. For example, McEwan (2013) notes that sharing information about yourself on social media can be less of an interpersonal interaction and more of a “masspersonal” broadcast (that is, a blend of mass and interpersonal commu- nication) that prevents true reciprocity from occurring.

The honesty of self-disclosure is the second factor that differs in online contexts. In face-to- face disclosures, honest and intentional self-disclosure is positively related to relationship intimacy; but in certain online contexts, there is no such relationship. For example, research- ers found that honest self-disclosure on Facebook is not positively related to relationship intimacy (Park, Jin, & Jin, 2011). As we discussed in Chapter 2, on social networking sites such as Facebook, users are easily able to create and change their self-images. Being honest and conscious of what is disclosed may not be as important in this context as it is in face-to- face disclosures. However, Desjarlais and colleagues’ (2015) review of online self-disclosure research focused on adolescents and young adults and found that this form of disclosure is generally viewed as relationally beneficial by this group, as it is related to increased trust, commitment, closeness, and understanding in multiple cultures. As social media grows in size and influence, mediated self-disclosure may becoming more accepted as part of our culture as well.

Though sharing information about oneself to a group of people via mediated channels has a certain appeal, it is important to remember that this form of self-disclosure is less private and more permanent than face-to-face disclosures. If the disclosure is made publicly, potential employers view this information and form a negative impression of you. As we discussed in Chapter 6, exercise caution when you post about yourself online, and verify which other users can access the information.

Self-Disclosure and Health Jourard first argued in 1971 that self-disclosure is linked to individual well-being. Specifically, those who actively avoid disclosing to others increase their vulnerability to stress, which then increases the likelihood of compromising personal physical health (Jourard, 1971). Based on Jourard’s idea, psychologist James Pennebaker (1989) formally theorized that disclosure

Section 7.4Self-Disclosure and Relationship Development

and mental and physical health are interrelated. His theory of inhibition and confronta- tion posits that there is a clear relationship between disclosure and health: Namely, keep- ing important psychological experiences to yourself, or inhibition, can increase stress levels. That stress can lead to the development of other health issues. Conversely, when you disclose, as a form of confrontation, your personal experiences—when you decrease inhibition—you lower your stress levels. This decrease in stress can benefit overall health.

Research that tests the theory of inhibition and confrontation, as well as research that gener- ally links self-disclosure with health, has overwhelmingly found evidence of a positive asso- ciation between the sharing of private information about oneself and individual health and well-being (Tardy, 2000). For example, in one study that tested the theory of inhibition and confrontation, students who wrote about their traumatic experiences visited the university health center less frequently than did those who did not disclose via writing (Pennebaker, 1989). In addition, individuals who were less emotionally expressive were more likely to experience health issues such as headaches, asthma, heart disease complications, and even early cancer death (Pennebaker, 1993). In terms of interpersonal communication, engaging in expressive writing in the manner suggested by Pennebaker’s (1989) theory has been found to help individuals caring for spouses diagnosed with cancer become more person-centered in their communication (Harvey, Manusov, & Sanders, 2019) and assist lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) hate speech victims to psychologically and physiologi- cally cope with a hate speech incident (Crowley, 2014). Overall, research shows that self-dis- closure can be good for the body and the soul and has at least six positive consequences, as illustrated in Table 7.1 (Farber, 2006).

Table 7.1: The positive consequences of self-disclosure Positive consequence Implied statement

Feeling emotionally closer to another person (intimacy)

“Being able to talk with you like this makes me feel closer to you.”

Feeling validated or affirmed by the other person “I’m telling you this because I want you to tell me that what I did was right.”

Strengthening your identity “He got mad at me when I said that, but I don’t care.”

Exploring your feelings “The more I talk about this, the more I understand the different feelings I have.”

Achieving a greater sense of authenticity—being true to yourself

“It feels so good to be able to talk about this hon- estly with someone.”

Relieving the burden of painful or shameful experiences

“It is such a relief to get this off my chest.”

Source: Adapted from Farber, B. A. (2006). Self-disclosure in psychotherapy. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

However, self-disclosure can sometimes be painful and even harmful. Table 7.2 summarizes some of the negative consequences of self-disclosure identified by Robin Kowalski (1999). It is also important to keep in mind that although self-disclosure has an impact on relationships, individuals, and health, it is not always or entirely beneficial, as we discussed earlier.

Section 7.5Stages in Forming Close Relationships

Table 7.2: The negative consequences of self-disclosure Negative consequence Outcome

Being rebuffed by the other person Feeling rejected

Burdening another person with your secrets so that he or she might worry about it, feel responsible for doing something, or identify with your pain

Feeling guilt

Creating undesired impressions about yourself or being seen as dif- ferent because of the disclosure and perhaps changing the way the other person sees you

Feeling regret

Increasing your feelings of vulnerability or feeling that you have given away too much of yourself

Feeling vulnerable and perhaps wanting to close up again to feel safe

Facing undesirable parts of yourself and acknowledging that you are not the person you wish to be

Feeling shame

Giving the other person power over you and being in danger of the other person using that information against you

Feeling violated or fearful

Source: Adapted from: Kowalski, R. M. (1999). Speaking the unspeakable: Self-disclosure and mental health. In R. M. Kowalski & M. R. Leary (Eds.), The social psychology of emotional and behavioral problems (pp. 225–248). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

7.5 Stages in Forming Close Relationships In 1978, communication scholar Mark Knapp presented his stage model of interpersonal relationships, which attempted to answer the question of how communication changes as relationships progress through the phases of formation and termination. Knapp presented 10 sequential stages: five for coming together, and five for breaking apart. In between stages, the relational partners remain in a state of relationship maintenance, which we discuss in Chapter 8. Since its introduction, the stage model has been widely used to understand how individuals communicatively go through the process of beginning and ending relationships, leading researchers to call it “a full treatment of the relational life-cycle” (Avtgis, West, & Anderson, 1998, p. 281). Further, the stage model has been validated in multiple research studies (Avtgis et al., 1998; Welch & Rubin, 2002) and is relevant in the era of social media (Fox, Warber, & Makstaller, 2013).

Overall, Knapp’s stage model of relationships offers a useful way to chart how interpersonal communication is inherent in how relationships grow and wither away. However, there are some caveats to keep in mind. First, though we can conceive of friendships as progressing through these stages, the stage model is best applied to romantic relationships. Second, the stage model does not account for what happens once bonding has occurred. Thus, relation- ship maintenance, discussed in the next chapter, is not considered in depth. Third, the stage model assumes that relationship partners proceed sequentially through the stages; in reality, some partners may remain stuck in one stage or may move back and forth between stages.

The next sections describe the first five stages of relationship formation and how communi- cation is a part of each (Figure 7.1). The final five stages are discussed in Chapter 10. Keep in mind that though this model is a general framework for understanding how we communi- cate as relationships initiate and develop, it should not be viewed as a required relationship checklist. Every relationship is a bit different and progresses in a different way.

Section 7.5Stages in Forming Close Relationships

Figure 7.1: The five stages of relationship formation ሁ Knapp’s stage model of interpersonal relationships can help explain how relationships form and, in some cases, deteriorate. During the formation stages, partners come together and establish a relationship.

Source: Adapted from Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Initiating In the initiating stage, we become aware of the other person for the first time. This commu- nicative exchange is usually brief, typically lasting less than a minute. Nonverbal messages, such as eye contact or smiling, take place, as do short verbal exchanges of basic demographic information. If the first contact takes place online, the first message constitutes the initiation stage. In this stage, limited information determines whether we wish to interact more with this person.

Think back to the “missed connections” ad at the beginning of the chapter. The individual took part in the initiating stage with the person they were trying to locate. The person who placed the ad would like to move on to the next stage of relationship formation.

Experimenting If the interaction continues, the pair has moved into the experimenting stage. In this stage, according to URT and POV theory, based on this interaction, we first assess our uncertainty and the reward value of pursuing a relationship with the other person. We seek to gain more information so that we can make such decisions. We also seek to make a good impression (Avtgis et al., 1998). Small talk is a hallmark of experimenting, as it allows communicators to look for similarities and differences that help them determine whether they want to pursue a relationship. Most interactions we have with others never progress beyond the experiment- ing stage (Knapp, 1978).

Relationship maintenance

Stage 5 Bonding

Relationship formation coming together

Stage 4 Integrating

Stage 3 Intensifying

Stage 2 Experimenting

Stage 1 Initiating

Section 7.6Strategies for Communicating Competently When Forming Interpersonal Relationship

Intensifying The third stage is the intensifying stage, when a true interpersonal relationship develops. Intimacy and closeness grow and are exhibited via multiple verbal and nonverbal messages. Self-disclosure begins in earnest, and the pair may engage in more intimate nonverbal behav- iors such as standing closer together and engaging in more eye contact or touch. As the pair moves further into this stage, they also engage in more in-depth disclosures, such as about each other’s personal values (Avtgis et al., 1998), and even more intimate nonverbal behav- iors. This stage often includes the most excitement and joy.

Integrating In the integrating stage, the partners come to see themselves as a social unit. The pair may use joint pronouns such as “we” and “our” rather than singular pronouns like “I” and “my.” They may introduce each other to their friends; others begin to consider them a couple as well. In these ways, the integrating stage involves declarations that the two share a relationship. Yet, the individuals may also observe dialectical tensions, such as a struggle between autonomy and connection, as partners settle into the seriousness of the relationship. The intensifying and integrating stages can be accelerated faster than partners wish due to social media, as partners can learn about one another via their online profiles (Fox et al., 2013). Social media also creates a heightened pressure to announce the relationship publicly faster than before, creating another test for both partners as they negotiate these stages (Fox et al., 2013).

Bonding As a couple’s relationship grows, they may reach the bonding stage, where there is com- plete trust in one another and a formal or ritualistic declaration of their commitment to each other and the relationship. Family and friend relationships are blended, and communication between the partners is at its most advanced level (Welch & Rubin, 2002). In romantic rela- tionships, bonding can include getting engaged or married, buying a house, or having a child together. Friends can also bond—examples may include serving as a bridesmaid or grooms- man in a wedding or as a child’s godparent. Thus, bonding involves a significant level of com- mitment that is acknowledged by social or legal institutions.

7.6 Strategies for Communicating Competently When Forming Interpersonal Relationships

This chapter has explored ways to improve your competency in forming perceptions and impressions, making contact and conversing with other people, initiating relationships, and determining when and how much to disclose to another person. To conclude our discussion of interpersonal communication skills, we discuss strategies for competent communication when you are initiating interpersonal relationships.

Manage Others’ Perceptions and Impressions of You Though we unconsciously communicate every day to shape and form how others perceive us, research has identified specific communication behaviors that can help us make a more favor- able impression on others. According to Eaves and Leathers (2018), personal appearance cues and vocal communication cues are key to impression management. Personal appear- ance cues that are beneficial include meeting the clothing expectations of the individuals with

Section 7.6Strategies for Communicating Competently When Forming Interpersonal Relationship

whom you will be interacting and being formal and conservative in your dress when you first meet someone, especially in a business and professional context. Helpful vocal cues include speaking at a moderate rate of 125 to 150 words per minute, not using a monotone voice, articulating and pronouncing words correctly, and using deliberate pauses. Being conscious of and employing these messages can be advantageous in multiple impression management situations. You can learn to test your intended first impression in the same way that you learned to test the first impressions you receive from others: by verifying if what is sent is the same as what is received. Communicate the impression you intend to send with someone you already know and trust, asking for honest feedback about your behavior. Your friend can help you identify if your behaviors match the impression you intend to make.

Consider Your Relationship Stage and Dialectical Tensions Now that you know about relationship dialectics and relationship stages, you can consider how these work in relation to how you communicate in your own close relationship. You should think about your partner and his or her perspective as well as your own. One thing to consider is whether you and your partner are in the same relationship stage or are experiencing a similar dialectic tension. Are you in the bonding stage while your partner remains in the integrating stage? Are you experiencing the openness side of the dialectic while your partner is more on the closed side? How does your communication change when different stages or tensions are experienced? How can you use interpersonal communication to bring them into alignment?

Table 7.3 summarizes the five stages of relationship formation discussed in this chapter. Con- sidering the role of interpersonal communication in each of these aspects of your relationship can help you and your partner move closer together.

Table 7.3: Relationship formation: The first five stages of Knapp’s model of interpersonal relationships

Stage Explanation Example

Initiating The first stage of formation: One individual becomes aware of the existence of the other individual for the first time.

Making initial eye contact and smiling

Experimenting The second stage of formation: The individual first assesses his or her uncertainty or the reward value of pursuing a relationship with the other individual.

Starting to learn more about the other person and forming an impression of the person

Intensifying The third stage of formation: A true relationship develops between the two individuals.

Engaging in more in-depth self-disclosures and more intimate behaviors such as touching

Integrating The fourth stage of formation: The partners come to see themselves as a social unit.

Others beginning to see them more as a couple rather than as individuals

Bonding The fifth stage of formation: The partners undergo a formal or ritualistic declaration of their commitment to each other and to the relationship.

Making a formal or public commitment to one another

Source: Adapted from Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Summary and Resources

Engage in Competent Self-Disclosure Self-disclosure is a key factor in developing and maintaining close relationships. Though there are some risks when disclosing, you can learn to exercise competent self-disclosure by identifying the appropriate information to self-disclose. Tailor your disclosures to the person, setting, and topic, and do not disclose too much to someone you don’t know. Also, strive to disclose in a reciprocal manner. Do not disclose significantly more or less than the other per- son because doing so could damage your relationship. Finally, be aware of what and how you self-disclose online. Remember that many people may see your disclosures—including those to whom you may not have wanted to self-disclose.

Summary and Resources Impressions are important when we first meet other people. Perceptions occur when we select, organize, and interpret the world around us through our senses. Selection stimulates our senses in some way, and we respond by focusing on or attending to specific messages, organizing information in a way that makes sense based on our past experiences and our expectations. We form impressions about others when we first meet them, and we simultane- ously manage others’ impressions of us in our interactions with them. Conversations allow you to share information, ideas, thoughts, and feelings with other people. You may sometimes take everyday conversations for granted because they are such a common part of your life. However, it is through these conversations that you connect with people and begin to build relationships. Engaging with other people in competent conversations is crucial to your well- being and to your success.

Someone must take the first step to initiate the conversation and make contact, which involves meeting people, forming first impressions, managing impressions, and breaking the ice dur- ing the initial phase of interaction. Once the initial contact has been made and both people have decided to continue the conversation, a primary goal is to build rapport and to find com- monalities and differences. During these interactions, listening is a crucial element of com- munication competence.

When you converse with other people, you decide how much personal information to share and to what degree. Self-disclosure can have many positive benefits, but it can also be risky or have negative consequences. However, it is an important process if you want to develop meaningful relationships. Open and appropriate communication, contingent on each unique relationship, can help a relationship progress through Knapp’s first five stages of interper- sonal relationship development.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. This chapter discusses several different perceptions that can influence first impres-

sions. What can we do to reduce the impact of stereotypes, prototypes, and halo and reverse halo effects on our perceptions of others?

2. What schemas do you carry with you about people and the roles they play? Can you identify schemas you have about students? Teachers? Think about how your sche- mas might influence your judgments and how you communicate when you meet new people who assume these roles.

3. Think about a recent interaction that you had when managing the other’s impres- sion of you was particularly important. How did you adjust your communication

Summary and Resources

to manage that person’s impression? Which of the four components of impression were more important in that situation and why?

4. How does self-disclosure in person differ from self-disclosure online? Are there dif- ferent risks and benefits for each of these communication channels?

5. Consider one of your own close relationships. How do the stages of Knapp’s relation- ship stage model apply to your relationship’s development? How would you revise the model to improve its application to the progression of relationships?

Key Terms attending The second stage of the listening process during which the listener devotes attention or conscious awareness to the message he or she is decoding.

autonomy and connection A dialectic that acknowledges the push and pull between being independent and wanting to feel con- nected to one’s partner.

bonding stage The fifth stage of Knapp’s relational stage model where there is a formal or ritualistic declaration of the part- ners’ commitment to each other and to the relationship.

credibility The component of impres- sions that involves believability and trustworthiness.

dialectical tensions In relationship dialectics theory, these represent the push and pull of divergent ends of a continuum between the self and the relationship.

disclosure personalism The extent to which a self-discloser provides information to a receiver exclusively.

dominance The component of impressions that involves a person’s level of power and assertiveness.

experimenting stage The second stage of Knapp’s relational stage model where we first assess our uncertainty and the reward value of pursuing a relationship with an individual.

gregarious The personality trait of being sociable, friendly, and fond of the company of others.

halo effect A part of implicit personality theory that asserts that we group together positive personality characteristics.

implicit personality theory A theory about perceptions that predicts that once we know a small amount about someone’s characteristics or traits, we use that small bit of information to “fill in” our general expectation about that person with other similar qualities.

impression The overall effect of someone or something, which is based to some extent on one’s experience with it.

impression formation The act of decod- ing or interpreting dimensions of another person’s image.

impression management The act of encoding or creating dimensions of one’s own image.

initiating stage The first stage of Knapp’s relational stage model, where we first become aware of the existence of the other person.

integrating stage The fourth stage of Knapp’s relational stage model, where the relationship partners come to see them- selves as a social unit.

Summary and Resources

intensifying stage The third stage of Knapp’s relational stage model, where a true interpersonal relationship between two individuals first develops.

interpersonal attractiveness The com- ponent of impressions that involves how sociable, interesting, and emotionally expressive an individual is.

interpretation The third step of the per- ception process in which we explain and assign meaning to the thing that we have selected and organized.

interpreting The third stage of the listen- ing process during which the listener links new information from the communicator to his or her own previous knowledge.

likeability The component of impres- sions that involves how affable and friendly someone is.

listening A complex psychological process of physically hearing, interpreting, and understanding the significance of a sound.

novelty and predictability A dialectic that reflects the tension between wanting to experience newness and wanting to be able to predict routine patterns in a relationship.

open-ended question A question that requires a comment rather than a yes or no answer.

openness and closedness A dialectic that reflects the continuum between sharing and concealing information.

organization The second step in the perception process in which we arrange the information that we have perceived in a manner that makes sense to us.

other-enhancement An attempt to make a favorable impression by making the other person feel good.

overdisclosure Information that is exces- sive and inappropriate to the context of the communication.

perception A dynamic process that involves selecting, organizing, and inter- preting the world around us.

person schema An expectation one has about what a specific person will be like based on the person’s characteristics.

predicted outcome value (POV) theory A theory that predicts that, when we first meet someone, we communicate in a way that will maximize relationship outcomes.

prototype A generalized mental image one has about the attitudes and behaviors of the ideal person in a specific role.

rapport A close and harmonious relation- ship in which individuals understand each other’s feelings or ideas and communicate well.

receiving The first stage of the listening process during which the listener hears what his or her conversation partner is communicating.

reciprocal When, in a relationship, we disclose to the same degree as the other person.

relationship dialectics theory A theory that proposes that building a close relation- ship through communication is a contra- diction-ridden dialogue where relationship partners continuously face and struggle with opposing tensions.

relationships Important and close con- nections or associations that we forge and maintain with other people via communication.

Summary and Resources

remembering The fifth stage of the lis- tening process during which the listener demonstrates the extent to which he or she can accurately recall information after a conversation is over.

responding The fourth stage of the listen- ing process during which both conversa- tion partners communicate that they are attending to and interpreting one another’s messages.

reverse halo effect A part of implicit per- sonality theory that asserts that we group together negative personality characteris- tics; also known as the horn effect.

role schema A set of expectations one has about how someone in a certain role should look or behave.

schemas Organized collections of informa- tion about a subject that are stored in one’s memory from past experiences.

selection The first step in the perception process in which something stimulates our senses in some way, and we respond by focusing on or attending to it.

self-disclosure The act of revealing private or personal information about the self to other people.

self-enhancement The presentation of the self in the best way possible.

small talk The second stage of a conversa- tion that is characterized by surface-level conversation, which precedes discussions about more serious topics.

social penetration theory A theory that suggests that self-disclosure deepens, in stages, as relationships develop.

speech mirroring A technique used to help one establish and build rapport with another person that involves paying atten- tion to how the other person is speaking and trying to match one’s own speech with the pace and characteristics of the other’s speech.

stage model of interpersonal relation- ships Knapp’s model that identifies and describes 10 sequential stages, five for com- ing together and five for breaking apart, of relationship formation and termination.

theory of inhibition and confronta- tion Pennebaker’s theory that disclosure is related to mental health and physical well-being.

topic avoidance The act of avoiding dis- cussion of certain topics in conversation.

turn-taking A communicative act that involves switching off between speaking and listening during an interaction.

uncertainty A cognitive state that is expe- rienced when one has limited knowledge or uncertain information about a situation.

uncertainty management A perspective that states that interpersonal communica- tion can increase, decrease, or maintain our uncertainty about the self, the other person, or the relationship.

uncertainty reduction theory A theory that proposes that an individual’s primary motivation in an initial interaction is to reduce uncertainty about the other person and the relationship that may develop.