Week 5 assignment

7.2 Conversation Management

Connecting with other people is an integral part of life, and your ability to engage in everyd ay 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 diffi culty initiating a conversation with a stranger; they are shy; they get tongue-tied, self- conscious, or embarrassed in social situations; or they never know what to say when they h ave to engage in conversation. As we discussed in Chapter 5, these individuals may have co mmunication apprehension or may be shy, introverted, or have an unwillingness to commu nicate. In this section, we examine the importance of everyday conversations when initiatin g interpersonal relationships with others.

The Conversation Process

In every situation, there is a process we use to meet and engage in conversations with othe rs. 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 o n 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 co nversations with one another than with people whose driveways were farther away, and p eople 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 (Why te, 1956). Other researchers found that people who lived in apartments tended to have grea ter social contact and more friendships with people in the same building and particularly fr om their same floor. They also tended to converse with people whose doors faced theirs rat her than with those whose doors were next to theirs or some distance away (Festinger, Sch achter, & Back, 1963). In a more recent study, individuals who own dogs were found to spe nd more time outside, be more recognizable to their neighbors, and serve as a source of con versation (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 r un into most often due to simple geographic proximity. However, meeting people can be re garded as a numbers game: You are more likely to meet other people if you put yourself in s ituations 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 throug h mediated channels. Engage in social activities, join colleagues in the break room, join a clu b, or walk around your neighborhood. Despite the belief that Americans don’t know or trus t their neighbors anymore, research has found that most know at least some of the individu als 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 p otentially 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.

Establishing Rapport

Once you meet someone, how do you improve your chances of making a favorable first imp ression? The idiom breaking the ice describes the second step in the conversation process: e stablishing rapport. Having rapport with someone means that you connect or communicate 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 fou ndation upon which you can build a close relationship. Rapport is also an important aspect of building and maintaining satisfying relationships in the workplace, as it is an essential co mponent 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. H owever, psychiatrist Leonard Zunin (1986) argues that when we meet people, we have abo ut four minutes to establish rapport. He suggests that at a typical party, if the host or hostes s 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 relationship continues, i t is by mutual consent; if one person is unwilling, the potential relationship 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 peo ple do not respond favorably if they perceive 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 others. Hum or may be used, but you can also notice and comment on something interesting about the ot her person, and using your strengths and interests can help you find ways of initiating conv ersation with others.

• Showing that you care. Asking appropriate questions about personal interests, giving your t otal 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 t wo months by becoming interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to g et other people interested in you” (1990, p. 54).

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

Andrew Hobbs/Photodisc/Thinkstock

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

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 n ext step is to ask a non- threatening question, to comment about some element of the occasion or the environment i n which the two of you are talking, or to listen carefully and to respond to what the other p erson says. For example, you might ask general questions such as, “Where are you from?” o r “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 oth er person the opportunity to share information. When you ask a question or make a comme nt, stick to facts rather than opinions, and focus on noncontroversial subjects. Try to use op en-

ended questions that ask who, what, where, when, why, and how. Such questions require m ore 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 rapp ort with another person. To do this, pay attention to how the other person is speaking— how fast and how loudly the person talks and the pattern of give and take in the conversati on. 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 o ther.

The first two steps we have discussed will generally get you through the crucial first four m inutes and avoid disagreement, during which time you and the other person will decide to e nd 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 natura lly unfold on its own.

Turn-Taking

An important but often overlooked aspect of the conversation process is turn- taking. A conversation requires that both communicators act as speakers and as listeners, a nd the transition between these two roles should occur fluidly and naturally. Recall from C hapter 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 communic ator dominates the interaction by speaking the majority of the time, it becomes less of a con versation and more of a monologue. Both individuals need to take turns for the conversatio n to be maintained.

Listening

When you think of communicating, what words come to mind? Most likely the words speaki ng, talking, and writing jump out right away; but what about listening? One of the most negle cted interpersonal communication skills, and a core competency we must master, is listenin g. Listening is a complex psychological process of physically hearing, interpreting, and unde rstanding the significance of a sound (Hayes, 1991). If you do not listen during an interactio n, you cannot understand others, respond appropriately to what they say, or provide feedb ack. 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 because research shows that we engage in listening more than any other single form of communicat ion activity. One study estimated that 45% of all communication time is spent listening, co mpared with 30% speaking, 16% reading, and 9% writing (Hayes, 1991). Listening is also a n important aspect of the conversation process. Though most people think they are good listeners, studies show that the majority of people listen poorly and inefficiently (Lee & Hatesohl, 1993). Minimal training to build listening sk ills 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 5 00 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 wan der 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 tha n just the physiological act of your ears perceiving a sound and transmitting the auditory se nsation 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 gi ve to a message (decoding). Effective listening is important in all facets of interpersonal co mmunication.

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 conve rsation partner is communicating. This can take place face-to- face or over mediated channels, such as via videoconferencing or on a mobile phone or land line. It thus involves the “technical” aspects of listening and can be hampered by communic ation barriers such as the types of noise we discussed in Chapter 1, including hearing impai rment, bad cellular connections, or environmental distractions such as other people talking around you. To approach the political conversation with your family member, which you k now 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 abilit ies. 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 c onversation and not participating in any other activities (that is, not multitasking) is optim al for the listening process. In fact, individuals who multitask habitually have trouble listeni ng because they are unable to attend to the interaction (Carr, 2010). Nonverbal cues such a s making eye contact show that you are giving your conversation partner your full attentio n (Orick, 2002)— as does putting down your phone and not looking at any other screens during the conversa tion. So, when talking to your family member about your political beliefs, give them your ful l 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 sta ge. In this way, your own experiences and background become relevant to the interaction. Elements of the self and your cultural background will be influential as you interpret what s omeone is saying. As you and your family member discuss your political differences, you wi ll likely try to understand their perspective better by considering where they come from cul turally and who they are as a person. How are they different from and similar to you? Are t hey older, younger, or do they live in a different region of the country? You hope they are ta king into account the same considerations. The fourth listening stage is responding, where both conversation partners communicate th at they are attending to and interpreting one another’s messages. This can occur in two pri mary ways. First, you can offer feedback, which is when you express attention and understa nding cues as you are listening. Feedback can be positive or negative, depending on how yo u 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 res pond during a conversation by paraphrasing after your partner has finished speaking, or re stating what the other person has said in your own words, and then asking if you have capt ured their ideas correctly. In the family political conversation example, as you listen to why your family member believes what they do about a particular political candidate, you can of fer 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 un derstood what you have said correctly?”). Finally, the fifth listening stage, remembering, involves how accurately you are able to recal l 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 information to a third party, showing that they actively listened to what the original speaker had communicated (Orick, 2002). Being able to accurately remember y our political conversation with your family member at a later date, especially the specifics o f what they said, shows them that you were an active, respectful, and eager participant in th at interaction. Your methods of meeting other people and engaging them in conversation are familiar to y ou; for this reason, such patterns may be hard to change, even if your behaviors are ineffect ive. 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 your self 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 p eople— striking up conversations with them, establishing a rapport, and learning to listen effectivel y. (The IPC Research Applied feature addresses a specific communication challenge when o ne or both of the partners are in the military.)

IPC Research Applied

Small Talk and Phatic Communication

A final important component in the conversation process is the act of small talk (also know n as phatic communication). Small talk is defined as “the phase of conversation that follows t he exchange of greetings but precedes the discussion of more serious topics” (Knutson & A yers, 1986, p. 5). Examples of small talk topics include the weather, current events, and com ments about the event or environment where the individuals are talking (for example, “Thi s restaurant is really nice. I hear they have a great shrimp cocktail”). Many people dislike s mall talk or view it only as a necessary (and sometimes even an unnecessary) evil in their c onversations with others. However, one research study analyzed the conversations of 17 fri endship pairs and determined that small talk has a number of important functions (Knutso n & 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 othe r parts of the conversation, but it is also a key form of communication in and of itself (Knuts on & Ayers, 1986).

Small talk can also serve a purpose beyond its immediate functions in a two- person conversation. For example, small talk is an important method for building rapport, s olidarity, and trust between work colleagues and is thus an essential gateway to effective b usiness and professional interactions (Pullin, 2010). Specifically, in our culture, small talk i n organizational contexts can create a relaxing atmosphere, diffuse tensions and power diff erentials, and provide insight into the different views and backgrounds of employees. Patri cia Pullin (2010) thus recommends that companies value and create a space for small talk. I n addition, in initially identifying the importance of small talk in our communication with o thers, 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 initiate a conversation with a stranger. Overall, despite its bad reputat ion, small talk does possess many benefits at the interpersonal, professional, and even socie tal level. (See the Web Field Trip feature for a perspective on the impact of technology on co nnecting with others.)

7.3 Relationship Development

Researchers in social psychology and communication have long been interested in underst anding how we develop relationships with others. What factors contribute to wanting to m eet and spend time with one individual but not another? As you can imagine, there is no sin gle explanation of our relationship initiation messages; rather, a variety of related compone nts come into play. In this section, we describe three perspectives that explain how we com e to know other people and why we decide to form (or not form) relationships with them. E ach 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 communi cation is a contradiction- ridden dialogue where relationship partners continuously face and struggle with opposing tensions (Baxter, 2004; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). These dialectical tensions represent t he push and pull of divergent ends of a continuum between the self and the relationship. Di alectical tensions are present in romantic, friend, and family relationships, as well as in lon g- distance relationships (Sahlstein, 2004). Namely, there are three primary pairs of relations hip dialectics that should be consistently attended to and managed in relationships, often vi a 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 n ot healthy and cannot be sustained. Instead, it is best for relationships to involve both partn ers negotiating time together and time on their own. The autonomy and connection dialecti c acknowledges the push and pull between seeking to be independent and focusing on the s elf versus wanting to feel connected to a partner. The struggle between autonomy and conn ection is typically the primary dialectic in romantic relationships and can even be a reason f or 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 ver sus others (Kelly, Duran, & Miller-Ott, 2017; Miller- Ott & Kelly, 2016). The constant availability afforded by a mobile phone essentially forces cl ose 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 an d tiring, and being able to predict your partner’s every move can become tedious and borin g. The novelty and predictability dialectic reflects the tension between wanting to experien ce newness versus wanting to be able to predict routine patterns in a relationship. Relation al partners tend to prefer that novelty be in the form of small gestures, such as receiving su rprise gifts, and predictability occur in relation to larger relational patterns, such as keepin g dates and communicating about plans. Research has also found that this tension can be pr ominent in the experiences of the cultural adjustment of immigrants (Erbert, Perez, & Garei s, 2003). Specifically, immigrants were particularly attuned to the differences between thei r old and new cultures and found that adjusting to their new culture involved learning abou t 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 sharin g 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 discus s versus keep private. For example, divorced and stepfamily members often struggle with t his tension, and they manage it by segmenting information into safe and unsafe topics (Brai thwaite & Baxter, 2006). This was a particular issue for children communicating with a par ent with whom they did not live (i.e., the nonresidential parent). More specifically, these chi ldren sought open communication with their nonresidential parent, but these children had difficulty achieving this openness because the parent was not privy to the children’s everyd ay life and because they did not want to hurt the nonresidential parent’s feelings, particular ly 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 hop e to get out of the interaction? These questions are at the heart of uncertainty reduction the ory (URT), which was introduced by communication theorists Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese 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 y ou may develop. You experience uncertainty when “details of situations are ambiguous, co mplex, 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).

Thomas Barwick/Stone/Getty Images

Scholars now focus on learning more about how we manage uncertainty during our interac tions in both new and established relationships.

Uncertainty reduction theory is laid out via a series of specific predictions, called axioms, w hich state that uncertainty will decrease during first meetings as messages such as verbal c ommunication, information- seeking, and nonverbal expressiveness increase (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Initially, URT was significant because it was intuitive and was also the first authentic interpersonal comm unication theory, but subsequent research failed to consistently support URT’s predictions. Indeed, research studies found that certain communication situations such as romantic infi delity and forming new friendships with others could actually increase your uncertainty ab out your partner (Planalp & Honeycutt, 1985; Planalp, Rutherford, & Honeycutt, 1988). Such findings led to a fundamental shift in uncertainty research. Instead of focusing exclusi vely on the reduction of uncertainty in relation to how we interact with others, scholars no

w concentrate their efforts on understanding how we manage our uncertainty. The notion of uncertainty management acknowledges that interpersonal communication can increase, decrease, or maintain our uncertainty about the other person, our relationship with that pe rson, and even how we view ourselves. For example, one study determined that young adul t siblings experienced uncertainty about their relationships with each other, even though si blings tend to know one another most of their lives (Bevan, Stetzenbach, Batson, & Bullo, 2 006). This relationship uncertainty increased when the siblings also engaged in topic avoid ance, or avoiding the discussion of certain topics such as money and household rules (Beva n et al., 2006). Thus, uncertainty management is a broad concept that allows us to study ho w uncertainty waxes and wanes in relation to interpersonal communication in both new an d 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 theories introduced in this section, POV theory states that our communication is not guided by a de sire to decrease uncertainty. Instead, when we first meet someone, we are motivated by a d esire 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 ph ysically attractive? Did they ask us questions about us that made it seem as if they were list ening to what we were saying? Similarly, your conversation partner is making that evaluati on of you based on how you communicated. Individuals strive to form relationships with others so that they can achieve positive relatio nal 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 tr y to spend more time together. For example, the individual who wrote the “missed connecti ons” ad presented in the beginning of the chapter believed their brief first meeting was posi tive and held the possibility of a rewarding future relationship. However, when one or both partners perceive an interaction as negative, they are likely to have a less positive POV abo ut the relationship and will not pursue a future relationship. Today, this assessment could b e 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 e vidence 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, perceiv ed similarity, and information seeking. In essence, the more individuals communicated wit h and experienced intimacy, liking, attraction, and similarity with their conversation partne rs, the greater their POV regarding a future relationship with that individual. Further, when uncertainty and POV in initial interactions are directly compared to one another, research has consistently found that POV is a more important motivator than uncertainty and is mor e strongly related to how the individuals interact with one another (Grove & Werkman, 199

1; Sunnafrank, 1990). Sunnafrank’s POV theory has also been extended to understanding m ore established relationships. In such relationships, unexpected events could cause one or b oth individuals to reevaluate the value of their relationship (Ramirez, Sunnafrank, & Goei, 2 010). 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

Christopher Malcom/The Image Bank/Getty Images

Self- disclosure can help us build rapport with others and help us learn more about ourselves.

Have you had the experience of meeting someone for the first time and having him or her t ell you personal information that you did not want to hear? Have you opened up to someon e and shared your thoughts or feelings but then regretted it later? The intentional act of sha ring private and personal aspects of oneself with other people is called self- disclosure (Wheeless, 1978). According to this definition, basic information 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 m

ore about yourself. If you develop a relationship with someone, you gradually disclose mor e information about yourself. Identifying, understanding, and then verbalizing your ideas, b eliefs, 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 iss ues or feelings. For example, imagine that you are becoming friends with someone at work, and you are both building that friendship by sharing things about yourself. You tell your wo rk 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 giv en 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 something in common with another person, it is also risky. Sharing information about yourself makes you vulnera ble. When others know you well, they have information that they might use against you in s ome way, such as by telling others, and you may fear being taken advantage of (Farber, 200 6). You might also want to protect yourself from criticism or rejection. For example, how mi ght you react if a new romantic partner disclosed that she had cheated on one of her previo us partners? Would you be less likely to trust her, or would you want to hear more about th e situation to determine what happened? Would you be willing to listen to your partner’s e xplanations about why it happened and how it will not happen in your relationship? You m ay never know unless you test that assumption and disclose information and are also recep tive 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- disclosure 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, y ou usually discuss obvious or nonthreatening subjects, thus remaining only at the surface o r outer layer of the onion. At this peripheral level, you might compliment someone about th ings 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 informatio n 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 r ewarding future interactions with the other person will be. If this sounds familiar, you are c orrect— Sunnafrank’s (1988, 1990) POV theory was based on the broad concepts of social penetrati on. Once you mutually determine that you want to establish some type of relationship, discl osure gradually continues to more personal topics (Svennivig, 2000). As this happens, acco rding to social penetration theory, more layers of the onion are peeled back and revealed. T he central layers of the onion represent the most personal or private details about you, suc h 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!

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 re cent 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: r eciprocity and appropriateness.

Reciprocity

Sidney Jourard (1971) emphasized that disclosure must be reciprocal; both parties must di sclose the same degree of information. Face-to-face self- disclosure is most beneficial for a relationship when it is equally reciprocated between bot h partners. So, when you self- disclose to another person, in a sense, you are placing a burden on that person to share info rmation with you to approximately the same degree. If you continue to share personal infor mation 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 inter ested in developing a relationship with the person who is disclosing to you, the shared info rmation 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 divul ge 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 k nowledge 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 dimension of communication competence, which indicates that individuals should strive to follow rule s and consider the context or situation surrounding the interaction. For example, sharing in timate details about your relationships or discussing personal issues in professional situati ons such as the classroom or the workplace is inappropriate in most circumstances. Disclos ure that is excessive and inappropriate to the context is referred to as overdisclosure. To de termine what is appropriate, you must consider the communication context, which will imp act your decisions about appropriateness. Consider the following contextual factors:

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

• 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)

Let’s look at an example to consider how each factor works in an interpersonal communicat ion situation. Perhaps you have started dating someone you really like, and you want to dis close to them that you have a chronic health condition that will affect your relationship if y ou two choose to pursue it. Your condition isn’t serious, but it does need to be managed, an d 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 r elationship is to the point where you feel comfortable sharing this personal information wit h 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 ti me 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, s ome 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 part ner 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 inter action and not overwhelm him or her with information. As with all communication, as you can see by this example, self- disclosure must be appropriate to the context in which the communication occurs.

Erik Palmer/FogStock/Thinkstock

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.

Self-Disclosure Online

Opportunities for self- disclosure have expanded exponentially with the growth of the Internet, emerging technolo gies, and social media. Individuals have been able to disclose about themselves online for th e past two decades, and this outlet for self-disclosure is unique and thus distinct from face- to-face self-disclosure in two important ways.

First, self- disclosing on social media can be done either exclusively (that is, directed to only the receiv er by private message) or nonexclusively (by posting to many individuals in their networks via public comments, status updates, or wall postings). For example, one study found that Facebook users utilize various methods of nonexclusive disclosure to update their friend ne tworks 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 vi a status 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 i n the “About” section of their profile without explanation (Bevan et al., 2015). It is likely tha

t Facebook users do this to avoid “boasting” online about their positive news in a way that c ould be seen as self- aggrandizing and to seek social support from their networks about their negative informati on (Bevan et al., 2015).

The extent to which a self- discloser provides information to a receiver exclusively is referred to as disclosure personal ism (Bazarova, 2012). For example, exclusive disclosures about both positive and negative t opics on Facebook were viewed as more intimate and personal than nonexclusive disclosur es (Bazarova, 2012). Further, when disclosures were exclusive to a particular individual rat her than shared with one’s broader network, there were also greater perceptions of relatio nship intimacy and liking of the discloser (Bazarova, 2012). Such research indicates that sh aring intimate information with large groups of social network users is an efficient way to d isclose but can sometimes have unintended results depending on how the message and the relationship are perceived. For example, McEwan (2013) notes that sharing information ab out yourself on social media can be less of an interpersonal interaction and more of a “mass personal” broadcast (that is, a blend of mass and interpersonal communication) that preve nts 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, ther e is no such relationship. For example, researchers found that honest self- disclosure on Facebook is not positively related to relationship intimacy (Park, Jin, & Jin, 20 11). As we discussed in Chapter 2, on social networking sites such as Facebook, users are ea sily able to create and change their self- images. Being honest and conscious of what is disclosed may not be as important in this co ntext 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 di sclosure is generally viewed as relationally beneficial by this group, as it is related to increa sed trust, commitment, closeness, and understanding in multiple cultures. As social media g rows 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 informati on and form a negative impression of you. As we discussed in Chapter 6, exercise caution w hen 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 (Jo urard, 1971). Based on Jourard’s idea, psychologist James Pennebaker (1989) formally theo rized that disclosure and mental and physical health are interrelated. His theory of inhibitio n and confrontation posits that there is a clear relationship between disclosure and health: Namely, keeping important psychological experiences to yourself, or inhibition, can increas e 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 gene rally links self- disclosure with health, has overwhelmingly found evidence of a positive association betwe en 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 conf rontation, students who wrote about their traumatic experiences visited the university heal th 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 experie nce health issues such as headaches, asthma, heart disease complications, and even early ca ncer death (Pennebaker, 1993). In terms of interpersonal communication, engaging in expr essive writing in the manner suggested by Pennebaker’s (1989) theory has been found to h elp individuals caring for spouses diagnosed with cancer become more person- centered in their communication (Harvey, Manusov, & Sanders, 2019) and assist lesbian, ga y, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) hate speech victims to psychologically a nd physiologically cope with a hate speech incident (Crowley, 2014). Overall, research sho ws that self- disclosure 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 honestly 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 n egative consequences of self- disclosure identified by Robin Kowalski (1999). It is also important to keep in mind that alt

hough self- disclosure has an impact on relationships, individuals, and health, it is not always or entirel y beneficial, as we discussed earlier.

Table 7.2: The negative consequences of self-disclosure

Negative consequence

Being rebuffed by the other person

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

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

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

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

Giving the other person power over you and being in danger of the other person using that information against you 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 pro blems (pp. 225–248). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.