English essay questions

chapterone.pptx

Home >Education homework help >English essay questions

chap t er

Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).

Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.

one

A First Look At interpersonAL CommuniCAtion

Chapter 1

Topics covered in this chapter

Define Interpersonal Communication Models of Interpersonal Communication Principles of Interpersonal Communication Social Media in Everyday Life

Guidelines for Interpersonal Communication Competence

After studying this chapter, you should be able to . . .

Give examples of the three types of relationships in Buber’s view of communication.

Identify the key features that define interpersonal communication. Distinguish content and relationship levels of meaning.

Apply the transactional model of interpersonal communication to a specific interaction.

List the range of needs that people try to meet in a particular interaction.

Recognize eight principles behind effective interpersonal communication.

Explain how the definition of interpersonal communication and its features apply to social media.

Apply the guidelines discussed in this chapter to assess communication competence in a particular interaction.

You’ve been interviewing for 2 months, and so far you haven’t gotten a single job offer. After another interview that didn’t go well, you text a friend. Instead of a terse response, your friend texts back to suggest getting together for lunch. Over pizza, you disclose that you’re starting to worry that you won’t ever get hired because the economy is so bad. Your friend listens closely and lets you know he understands how you feel and he isn’t judging you. Then he tells you about other people he knows who also haven’t yet gotten job offers. All of a sudden, you don’t feel so alone. Your friend reminds you how worried you felt last term when you were struggling with your physics course and then made a B on the final. As you listen to him, your sagging confidence begins to recover.

START… experiencing this chapter’s topics with an online video!

READ… the complete chapter text in a rich, interactive eBook!

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

Before leaving, he tells you about a virtual interview website that allows you to practice interviewing skills, and he works with you to communicate more effec- tively in interviews. By the time you leave, you feel hopeful again.

Interpersonal communication is central to our everyday lives. We count on others to care about what is happening in our lives and to help us cel- ebrate good moments and deal with problems and disappointments. In ad- dition, we need others to encourage our personal and professional growth. Friends and romantic partners who believe in us enable us to overcome self-defeating patterns and help us become the people we want to be. Coworkers who give us advice and feedback help us increase our effective- ness on the job. And sometimes we just want to hang out with people we like, trust, and have fun with.

In the workplace, interpersonal communication is critically important. A 2010 national survey of employers reported that 89% of employers consider that college students should focus on learning to communicate effectively orally and in writing in order to be successful professionally (Rhodes, 2010). Similarly, in 2012 employers said that key qualities for job applicants were interpersonal skill, oral communication skill, and adaptability (Selingo, 2012). A very recent poll (Hart Research, 2013) found that 93% of employers think a job candidate’s demonstrated capacity to think critically and communicate clearly is more important than their undergraduate major.

Leaders of organizations such as FedEx and GlaxoSmithKline list com- munication as a vital skill for their employees (O’Hair & Eadie, 2009). The pivotal role of communication in health care (see first Communication in Everyday Life: Workplace) makes it unsurprising that an increasing num- ber of medical schools base admissions, in part, on applicants’ communi- cation skills, especially their ability to communicate empathy to patients (Rosenbaum, 2011).

In this chapter, we take a first look at interpersonal communication. We start by defining interpersonal communication and providing a model of how it works. Then we consider how interpersonal communication meets important human needs. Next, we discuss principles of effective interper- sonal communication and consider how social media affect interpersonal communication. To close the chapter, we identify guidelines for achieving competence in interpersonal communication.

DeFining interpersonAL CommuniCAtion

When asked to distinguish interpersonal communication from communication in general, many people say that interpersonal communication involves fewer people, often just two. According to this definition, an exchange between a homeowner and a plumber would be interpersonal, but a conversation involving parents and four children would not. Although interpersonal communication often involves only two or three people, this isn’t a useful definition.

Chapter 1

Perhaps you are thinking that intimate contexts define interpersonal communi- cation. Using this standard, we would say that a couple on a first date in a romantic restaurant engages in more interpersonal communication than an established couple in a shopping mall. Again, this context is not the key.

The best way to define interpersonal communication is by focusing on what happens between people, not where they are or how many are present. For starters, then, we can say that interpersonal communication is a distinct type of interaction between people.

A Communication Continuum

We can begin to understand the unique character of interpersonal communication by tracing the meaning of the word interpersonal. It is derived from the prefix inter-, meaning “between,” and the word person; interpersonal communication literally oc- curs between people. In one sense, all communication happens between people, yet many interactions don’t involve us personally. Communication exists on a contin- uum from impersonal to interpersonal (see Figure 1.1).

Much of our communication is not really personal. Sometimes we don’t ac- knowledge others as people at all but treat them as objects; they bag our grocer- ies, direct us around highway construction, and so forth. In other instances, we

do acknowledge people, yet we

interact with them on a surface level and often in terms of their social roles rather than person- ally. For instance, I often run into neighbors when I’m walking my dog, Cassie. We engage in small talk about weather and home projects. Through this kind of interaction, we acknowledge each other as people, but we don’t get really personal. With a select few people, we communicate in deeply intimate ways. These dis- tinctions are captured in poetic terms by the philosopher Martin Buber (1970), who distinguished among three levels of communi- cation: I–It, I–You, and I–Thou.

I–It Communication In an I–It relationship, we treat oth- ers very impersonally, almost as objects. In I–It communication, we do not acknowledge the hu- manity of other people; we may not even affirm their existence. Sometimes we do not treat sales- people, servers in restaurants, and

Diagnosis: Cultural Miscommunication

If you plan a career in the field of health, learn all you can about different cultures. Patients’ cultural beliefs and values affect how they perceive medical practitioners and how they can be most effectively treated. Con- sider a few examples of cultural misunderstandings (Galanti, 2000).

Some Asian cultures practice coining, in which a coin (often heated) is rubbed vigorously over a sick person’s back to draw out the illness. The resulting red welts are perceived as evidence that the illness came out. However, on seeing red welts on children’s backs, some American health professionals have had Asian parents investigated for child abuse.

American culture emphasizes autonomy and each person’s right to in- formation about herself or himself. As a result, physicians routinely share a poor prognosis directly with patients before discussing it with other family members. However in places such as Mexico, China, Iran, and the Philippines it is considered extremely insensitive to burden a person, par- ticularly a sick person, with bad news. Instead, family members should be told, and they, not the physician, decide when and how to tell the patient.

One hospital got a lesson in cul- tural values when it tried to assign a patient to Room 4. In the patient’s home country, China, the character for 4 is pronounced almost identically to the character for the word death. The Chinese patient did not want to be in a room called “Death”!

Communication in Everyday Life

WoRkpLACE

Do you think training in intercultural communication should be

required as part of medical school?

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

clerical staff as people but only as instruments to take our orders and deliver what we want. In the extreme form of I–It relation- ships, others are not even acknowledged. When a homeless person asks for money for food, some people look away as if the person weren’t there. In dysfunctional families, parents may ignore chil- dren and refuse to speak to them, thereby treating the children as

things—as “its”—not as unique individuals. Students on large campuses may also feel they are treated as “its,” not as people. Jason, a sophomore in one of my classes, makes this point.

At this school, I get treated like a number a lot of the time. When I go to see my adviser, he asks what my identification number is—not what my name is. Most of my professors don’t know my name. In high school, all the teachers called on us by name. It felt more human there. Sometimes I feel like an “it” on this campus.

I–You Communication The second level Buber identified is I–You communication, which accounts for the majority of our interactions. People ac- knowledge one another as more than objects, but they don’t fully engage each other as unique individuals. For example, suppose you go shopping, and a salesclerk asks, “May I help you?” It’s unlikely you will have a deep conversation with the clerk, but you might treat him or her as more than an object (Wood, 2006a). Perhaps you say, “I’m just browsing today. You know how it is at the end of the month—no money.” The clerk might laugh and commiserate about how money gets tight by the end of the month. In this interaction, the clerk doesn’t treat you as a faceless shopper, and you don’t treat the clerk as just an agent of the store.

I–You relationships may also be more personal than interactions with salesclerks. For instance, we talk with others in classes, on the job, and on sports teams in ways that are somewhat personal. The same is true of interaction in Internet forums, where people meet to share ideas and common interests. Interaction is still guided by our roles as peers, as members of a class or team, and as people who have common inter- ests. Yet we do affirm the existence of others and recognize them as individuals within those roles. Teachers and students

often have I–You relationships. In the workplace, most of us have many I–You relationships that are pleasant and functional.

I–Thou Communication The rarest kind of relationship involves I–Thou communication. Buber regarded this as the highest form of human dialogue because each person affirms the other as cherished and unique. When we interact on an I–Thou level, we meet others in their wholeness and individuality. Instead of deal- ing with them as occupants of

Jason

Impersonal

Interpersonal

You

Thou

Figure 1.1

The Communication Continuum

Cengage Learning

Communication in Everyday Life

InSIghT

Poor Interpersonal Communication as the Number One Cause of Divorce

According to a nationwide poll, a majority of people perceive communica- tion problems as the number one reason marriages fail (Roper poll, 1999). Poll results showed that, regardless of age, race, sex, or income level, Americans reported that communication problems are the most com- mon cause of divorce; 53% of those who were polled said that ineffective communication was the principal reason for divorce. Compare this with the frequency with which people named other causes of divorce: money problems, 29%; interference from family members, 7%; sexual problems, 5%; previous relationships, 3%; and children, 3%. This finding is consis- tent with the long-standing insight of marital therapists that good com- munication is essential to satisfying marriages (Scarf, 2008).

Chapter 1

social roles, we see them as unique human beings whom we know and accept in their totality. In I–Thou communication, we open ourselves fully, trusting others to accept us as we are, with our virtues and vices, hopes and fears, and strengths and weaknesses. Buber believed that only in I–Thou relationships do we become fully human, which for him meant that we discard the guises and defenses we use most of the time and allow ourselves to be completely genuine (Stewart, 1986). Much of our communication involves what Buber called “seeming,” in which we’re preoccupied with our image and careful to manage how we present ourselves. In I–Thou rela- tionships, however, we engage in “being,” through which we reveal who we really are and how we really feel. I–Thou relationships are not common because we can’t afford to reveal ourselves totally to everyone all the time. Thus, I–Thou relation-

ships and the communication in them are rare and special.

Features of Interpersonal Communication

Building on Buber’s poetic description, we can define interpersonal communica- tion as a selective, systemic process that allows people to reflect and build personal knowledge of one another and create shared meanings. We’ll discuss the key terms in this definition.

Selective First, as we noted earlier, we don’t communicate intimately with the majority of people we encounter. In some cases, we neither want nor need to com- municate with others even at the I–You level. For instance, if we get a phone call from a pollster, we may only respond to the questions and not engage the caller in any personal way. We invest the effort and take the risks of opening ourselves fully with only a few people. As Buber realized, most of our communication occurs on I–It or I–You levels. This is fine because I–Thou relationships take more time, energy, and courage than we are willing to offer to everyone.

Systemic Interpersonal communication is also systemic, which means that it takes place within various systems, or contexts, that influence what happens and the meanings we attribute to interaction. The communication between you and me right now is embedded in multiple systems, including the interpersonal communication course you are taking, our academic institutions, and American society. Each of these systems influences what we expect of each other, what I write, and how you interpret what you read. Communication between me and Chinese students taking a class in interpersonal communication would reflect the context of Chinese culture.

Consider an example of the systemic character of communication. Suppose Ian gives Mia a solid gold pendant and says, “I wanted to show how much I care about you.” What do his words mean? That depends in large part on the systems within which he and Mia interact. If Ian and Mia have just started dating, an expensive gift means one thing; if they have been married for 20 years, it means something differ- ent. On the other hand, if they don’t have an established relationship, and Mia is en- gaged to Manuel, Ian’s gift may have yet another meaning. What if Ian argued with Mia the previous day? Then, perhaps, the gift is to apologize more than to show love. If Ian is rich, a solid gold pendant may be less impressive than if he is short on cash. Systems that affect what this communication means include Mia’s and Ian’s relation- ship, their socioeconomic classes, cultural norms for gift giving, and Mia’s and Ian’s personal histories. All these contexts affect their interaction and its meaning.

Everyday Skills To prac- tice identifying types of relationships, complete the activity “Communi- cating in Your Relation- ships” at the end of the chapter or online.

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

Because interpersonal communication is systemic, situation, time, people, cul- ture, personal histories, and so forth interact to affect meanings. We can’t just add up the various parts of a system to understand their impact on communication. Instead, we have to recognize that all parts of a system interact; each part affects all others. In other words, elements of communication systems are interdependent; each element is tied to all the other elements.

All systems include noise, which is anything that distorts communication or interferes with people’s understandings of one another. Noise in communication systems is inevitable, but we can be aware that it exists and try to compensate for the difficulties it causes.

There are four kinds of noise. Physiological noise is distraction caused by hunger, fatigue, headaches, medications, and other factors that affect how we feel and think. Physical noise is interference in our environments, such as noises made by others, overly dim or bright lights, spam and pop-up ads, extreme temperatures, and crowded conditions. Psychological noise refers to qualities in us that affect how we communicate and how we interpret others. For instance, if you are preoccupied with a problem, you may be inattentive at a team meeting. Likewise, prejudice and defensive feelings can interfere with communication. Our needs may also affect how we interpret others. For example, if we really need affirmation of our professional competence, we may be predisposed to perceive others as communicating more praise for our work than they really do. Finally, semantic noise exists when words themselves are not mutually un- derstood. Authors sometimes create semantic noise by using jargon or unnecessarily technical language. For instance, to discuss noise, I could write,“Communication can be egregiously obstructed by phenomena extrinsic to an exchange that actuate mis- representations and symbolic incongruities.” Although that sentence may be accurate, it’s filled with semantic noise. Similarly, the abbreviations typical in texts and tweets may not be understood by people who use social media infrequently.

I wish professors would learn about semantic noise. I really try to pay attention in class and to learn, but the way some faculty talk makes it im- possible to understand what they mean, especially if English is a second language. I wish they would remember that we’re not specialists like they are, so we don’t know all the technical words.

Some noise is more than one type. Listening to your favorite music on your iPod while walking across campus creates both physical noise and psychological noise. Social media can be so distracting that people have accidents. One survey found that 1,000 people visited emergency rooms in a single year because they tripped, fell, or walked into something while using a cell phone to talk or text (Richtel, 2010). This is particularly worrisome when we realize that people between the ages of 8 and 18 spend more than 7 hours a day using electronic devices (Lewin, 2010a). In summary, when we say that communication is systemic, we mean three things. First, all communication occurs within multiple systems that affect mean- ings. Second, all parts and all systems of communication are interdependent, so they affect one another. Finally, all communication systems have noise, which can

be physiological, physical, psychological, or semantic.

process Interpersonal communication is an ongoing, continuous process. This means, first, that communication evolves over time, becoming more personal as people interact. Friendships and romantic relationships gain depth and significance

Carmella

Chapter 1

over the course of time, and they may also decline in quality over time. Relationships on the job also evolve over time. Ellen may mentor Craig when he starts working at her firm, but over time they may become equal colleagues. Because relationships are dynamic, they don’t stay the same but continually change just as we do.

My daughter is my best friend, but it wasn’t always that way. As a child, she was very shy and dependent. She was a sullen teenager who resented everything I said and did. Now that she’s 22, we’ve become really good friends. But even now, our relationship has all of the echoes of who we were with each other at different times in our lives.

An ongoing process also has no discrete beginnings and endings. Suppose a friend stops by and confides in you about a troubling personal problem. When did that com- munication begin? Although it may seem to have started when the friend came by, earlier interactions may have led the friend to feel that it was safe to talk to you and that you would care about the problem. We can’t be sure, then, when this communica- tion began. Similarly, we don’t know where it will end. Perhaps it ends when the friend leaves, but perhaps it doesn’t. Maybe your response to the problem helps your friend see new options. Maybe what you learn changes how you feel toward your friend. Because communication is ongoing, we can never be sure when it begins or ends.

Because interpersonal interaction is a process, what happens between people is linked to both past and future. In our earlier example, the meaning of Ian’s gift re- flects prior interactions between him and Cheryl, and their interaction about the gift will affect future interactions. All our communication occurs in three temporal dimensions: past, which affects what happens now; present, which reflects the past and sets the stage for the future; and future, which is molded by what occurs in this moment and past ones (Dixson & Duck, 1993; Wood, 2006a). How couples handle early arguments affects how they deal with later ones. Yesterday’s email response from a friend influences what we write today and, in turn, what our friend may write back tomorrow. In communication, past, present, and future are always interwoven.

The ongoing quality of interpersonal communication also suggests that we can’t stop the process, nor can we edit or unsay what has been said. In this sense, com-

munication is irreversible: We can’t take it back. This implies that we have an ethical responsibility to recog- nize the irreversibility of communication and to com- municate carefully.

personal knowledge Interpersonal commu- nication fosters personal knowledge and insights. To connect as unique individuals, we have to get to know others personally and understand their thoughts and feelings. With family members whom you have known all of your life, you understand some of their wor- ries, concerns, and personal issues in ways that new acquaintances cannot. Longtime friends have a history of shared experiences and knowledge that allows them to interact more deeply than casual friends can.

Jana

AMC/Photofest

Walt (Bryan Cranston) and Jesse’s (Aaron Paul) relationship during the course of Emmy award–winning drama Breaking Bad changed dramatically from teacher–student to feuding partners in crime.

Sharing personal information and experiences means that interpersonal com- munication involves ethical choices. We can use our knowledge to protect people we care about. We can also use it to hurt those people, for example by attacking vul- nerabilities others have revealed to us. Ethical communicators choose not to exploit or treat casually personal information about others.

Meaning Creating The heart of interpersonal communication is shared meanings between people. We don’t merely exchange words when we communi- cate. Instead, we create meanings as we figure out what each other’s words and be- haviors stand for, represent, or imply. Meanings grow out of histories of interaction between unique persons. For example, my partner, Robbie, and I are both continu- ally overcommitted, and we each worry about the pace of the other’s life. Often, one of us says to the other, “bistari, bistari.” This phrase will mean nothing to you unless you know enough Nepalese to translate it as meaning, “Go slowly, go gradually.” When one of us says, “bistari, bistari,” we not only suggest slowing down but also remind each other of our special time living and trekking in Nepal.

Like Robbie and me, most close friends and romantic partners develop vocab- ularies that have meaning only to them. People who work together also develop meanings that grow out of their interactions over time and the shared field in which they work.

You may have noticed that I refer to meanings, not just one meaning. This is because interpersonal communication involves two levels of meaning (Rogers, 2008; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). The first level, called the

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

Just as every person is unique, so is every interpersonal relationship. Each develops its own distinctive patterns and rhythms and even special vocabulary that are not part of other interpersonal relationships (Nicholson, 2006). In the process of becoming close, people work out personal roles and rules for interac- tion, and these may deviate from general social rules and roles (Duck, 2006; Dain- ton, 2006; Wood, 2006a). With one friend, you might play pickup basketball and get together for films. With a different, equally close friend, you might talk openly about feelings.

As our relationships with others deepen, we build trust and learn how to com- municate in ways that make each other feel comfortable and safe. The personal knowledge we gain over time in relationships encourages us to know and be known: We share secrets, fears, and experiences that we don’t tell to just anyone. This is part of what Buber meant by “being” with others. Personal knowledge is a process, one that grows and builds on itself over time as people communicate interperson- ally. Sometimes, we may even feel that our closest friends know us better than we know ourselves, as Lizelle explains.

What I like best about long-term relationships is all the layers that de- velop. I know the friends I’ve had since high school in so many ways. I know what they did and felt and dreamed in high school, and I know them as they are now. They have the same kind of in-depth knowledge of me. We tell each other everything, so it sometimes seems that my deep- est friends know me better than I know myself.

lizelle

Chapter 1

content meaning, deals with literal, or denotative, meaning. If a parent says to a 5-year-old child,“Clean your room now,” the content meaning is that the room is to be cleaned immediately.

The second level is the relationship meaning. This refers to what communi- cation expresses about relationships between communicators. The relationship meaning of “Clean your room now” is that the parent has the right to order the child; the parent and child have an unequal power relationship. If the parent says, “Would you mind cleaning your room?” the relationship meaning reflects a more equal relationship. Suppose a friend says,“You’re the only person I can talk to about this,” and then discloses something that is worrying him. The content level includes the actual issue itself and the information that you’re the only one with whom he will discuss this issue. But what has he told you on the relationship level? He has communicated that he trusts you, he considers you special, and he probably expects you to care about his troubles.

My father needs to learn about relationship meanings. Whenever I call home, he asks me if anything’s wrong. Then he asks what the news is. If I don’t have news to report, he can’t understand why I’m calling. Then Mom gets on the phone, and we talk for a while about stuff—nothing important, just stuff. I don’t call to tell them big news. I just want to touch base and feel connected.

Cultures vary in how much they emphasize content- and relationship-level meanings. In high-context cultures, great emphasis is put on holistic understand- ing of meanings based on a collective understanding of context. Words themselves have little meaning until placed in the context of culture, relationships, and people. Some cultures are low-context, which means that communicators do not assume a great deal of shared, collective knowledge. Because a high level of collective knowl- edge is not assumed, the content level of meaning is given great priority. Words and literal meaning are emphasized and specifics are provided in conversation. The United States is a low-context culture, whereas many Asian cultures are high-con- text, which means that collective knowledge is assumed. In high-context cultures, less emphasis is given to content-level meaning and to providing specifics because communicators can assume that others share their collective knowledge. For exam- ple, in a low-context culture, a person might say to a coworker,“Let’s get together to talk about our project. We can meet in my office at 2 today and you can bring the draft. I’ll order some coffee for us.” In a high-context culture, the message might be “Let’s meet at 2 to discuss our project.” In the high-context culture, the communi- cator assumes that the coworker will share cultural understandings about where to meet, what to bring, and whether there will be a beverage (Lim, 2002).

Scholars have identified three general dimensions of relationship-level meanings. The first dimension is responsiveness, and it refers to how aware of others and involved with them we are. Perhaps you can remember a conversation you had with some- one who shuffled papers and glanced at a clock or kept looking at a computer screen while you were talking. If so, you probably felt she wasn’t interested in you or what you were saying. In Western culture, low responsiveness is communicated on the rela- tionship level of meaning when people don’t look at us, or when they are preoccupied with something other than talking with us. Higher responsiveness is communicated

ani

Everyday Skills To

practice distinguishing between content and relationship levels of meaning, complete

the activity “Levels of Meaning” at the end of the chapter or online.

by eye contact, nodding, and feedback that indicates involvement (Richmond & McCroskey, 2000).

A second dimension of relationship meaning is liking, or affection. This con- cerns the degree of positive or negative feeling that is communicated. Although liking may seem synonymous with re- sponsiveness, the two are actually distinct. We may be responsive to people we don’t like but to whom we must pay attention. We may also be responsive by glaring or scowling, which indicate we are attentive to the other person but we are not affectionate. Also, realize that we are sometimes preoccu- pied and unresponsive to people about whom

we care. We communicate that we like or dislike others by what we actually say as well as by tone of voice, facial expressions, how close we sit to them, and so forth.

Power, or control, is the third dimension of relationship meaning. This refers to the power balance between communicators. Friends and romantic partners sometimes en- gage in covert power struggles on the relationship level. One person suggests going to a particular movie and then to dinner at the pizza parlor. The other responds by saying she doesn’t want to see that movie and isn’t in the mood for pizza. They could be argu- ing on the content level about their different preferences for the evening. If arguments over what to do or eat are recurrent, however, chances are the couple is negotiating power—who gets to decide where to go and what to do. In many relationships, power is imbalanced: teacher–student, parent–child, coach–athlete. Usually both people in relationships like these recognize that one has more power, but sometimes the person who has less power challenges the person who has more. For instance, a student may question a teacher’s authority, and a player may argue with a coach’s instructions.

Thus far, we have seen that communication exists on a continuum, ranging from impersonal to interpersonal. We’ve also defined interpersonal communication as a selective, systemic process that allows people to build personal knowledge of one another and to create meanings. Meanings, we have seen, reflect histories of all interactions and involve both content and relationship levels. To further clarify the nature of interpersonal communication we’ll first discuss three efforts to model the communication process.

Models of Interpersonal CoMMunICatIon

A model is a representation of a phenomenon such as an airplane, a house, or human communication. Models show how a phenomenon works. Early models of interpersonal communication were simplistic, so we will discuss them very briefly. We’ll look more closely at a current model that offers sophisticated insight into the process of interpersonal communication.

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

Chapter 1

Linear Models

The first model of interpersonal communication (Laswell, 1948) depicted commu- nication as a linear, or one-way, process in which one person acts on another per- son. This was a verbal model that consisted of five questions describing a sequence of acts that make up communication:

Who? Says what?

In what channel?

To whom?

With what effect?

A year later, Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver (1949) offered a revised model that added the feature of noise. Earlier in this chapter, we noted that noise is anything that interferes with communication. Noise might be spam in online communication, regional accents, or background conversations in the workplace. (Figure 1.2 shows Shannon and Weaver’s model.)

These early linear models had serious shortcomings. They portrayed commu- nication as flowing in only one direction—from a sender to a passive receiver. This implies that listeners never send messages and that they absorb only passively what speakers say. But this isn’t how communication really occurs. Listeners nod, frown, smile, look bored or interested, and so forth, and they actively work to make sense of others’ messages. Linear models also erred by representing communication as a sequence of actions in which one step (listening) follows an earlier step (talk- ing). In actual interaction, however, speaking and listening often occur simultane- ously or they overlap. On the job, coworkers exchange ideas, and each listens and responds as one person speaks; those who are speaking are also listening for cues from others. Online, as we compose our messages, instant messages (IMs) pop up on our screens. At any moment in the process of interpersonal communication, participants are simultaneously sending and receiving messages and adapting to one another.

Figure 1.2

The Linear Model of Communication

Information Source

Receiver

Transmitter

Destination

Sender

Message

Signal

Received Signal

Message

Noise Source

Receiver

Cengage Learning. Adapted from Shannon & Weaver, 1949.

Interactive Models

Interactive models portrayed communication as a process in which listeners give feedback, which is a response to a message. In addition, interactive models recognize that communicators create and interpret messages within personal fields of experi- ence (see Figure 1.3). The more communicators’ fields of experi- ence overlap, the better they can understand each other. When fields of experience don’t overlap enough, misunderstandings may occur. Madison’s commentary gives an example of this type of misunderstanding.

I studied abroad last year. For the first couple of weeks that I was in Germany, I thought Germans were the rud-

est people I’d ever met. They aren’t friendly with small talk and saying hello; they push and bump into others and don’t apologize. After I got to know some Germans, I realized they are very nice, but they have different social norms than Americans—especially Americans from the South!

Although the interactive model is an improvement over the linear model, it still portrays communication as a sequential process in which one person is a sender and another is a receiver. In reality, everyone who is involved in communication both sends and receives messages. Interactive models also fail to capture the dynamic na- ture of interpersonal communication and the ways it changes over time. For example, two people communicate more openly after months of exchanging email messages than they did the first time they met in a chat room. Two coworkers communicate more easily and effectively after months of working together on a project team.

Transactional Models

The transactional model of interpersonal communication is more accurate be- cause it emphasizes the dynamism of interpersonal communication and the mul- tiple roles people assume during the process. In addition, this model includes the feature of time to call our attention to the fact that messages, noise, and fields of experience vary over time (see Figure 1.4).

The transactional model recognizes that noise is present throughout interpersonal communication. In addition, this model includes the feature of time to remind us that people’s communication varies over time. Each communicator’s field of experience, and the shared field of experience between communicators, changes over time. As we en- counter new people and have new experiences that broaden our outlooks, we change how we interact with others. As we get to know others over time, relationships may become more informal and intimate. For example, people who meet online sometimes decide to get together face to face, and a serious friendship or romance may develop.

The transactional model also makes it clear that communication occurs within systems that affect what and how people communicate and what meanings are

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

Field of Experience

Encoder Source Decoder

Message

Feedback

Decoder Receiver Encoder

Figure 1.3

The Interactive Model of Communication

Cengage Learning. Adapted from Schramm, 1955.

madison

Chapter 1

created. Those systems, or contexts, include the shared systems of both communicators (shared social networking sites, campus, town, workplace, religion, social groups, or culture) and the per- sonal systems of each person (family, religious association, friends). Finally, we should emphasize that the transactional model doesn’t label one person a sender and the other a receiver. In- stead, both people are defined as communicators who participate equally and often simultaneously in the communication process. This means that, at a given moment in communication, you may be sending a message (speaking or nodding your head), receiv- ing a message, or doing both at the same time (interpreting what

someone says while nodding to show you are interested).

The transactional nature of interpersonal communication im- plies that communicators share responsibility for effectiveness. People often say,“You didn’t express yourself clearly,” or“You mis- understood me,” as if understanding rested with a single person. In reality, responsibility for good communication is shared. One person cannot make communication successful, nor is one per- son totally responsible for problems. Misunderstandings often

arise in email and online communication because feedback tends to be delayed, a

problem that instant messaging can decrease. Another limitation of online commu- nication is the inability to convey inflection and nonverbal behaviors, such as winks, that tell another person we are joking. Sometimes we add emoticons—such as :) or

:(—to signal emotions online. Because interpersonal communication is an ongoing, transactional process, all participants share responsibility for its effectiveness.

Now that we have defined and modeled interpersonal communication, let’s con- sider important human needs that it helps us meet.

The Interpersonal Imperative

Have you ever thought about why you communicate? Psychologist William Schutz (1966) developed interpersonal needs theory, which asserts that we create and sus- tain relationships to meet three basic needs. The first need is for affection, the desire to give and receive love and liking. The second need is for inclusion, the desire to be social and to be included in groups. The third need is for control,

which is a desire to influence the people and events in our lives. Expanding on Schutz’s ideas, Abraham Maslow (1968) pro-

posed that we communicate to meet a range of human needs. According to Maslow, basic needs must be satisfied before we can focus on those that are more abstract (see Figure 1.5).

physical needs

At the most basic level, humans need to survive, and communi- cation helps us meet this need. Babies cry to alert others when they are hungry or in pain or danger. Beyond survival, children

Communication

Time1

Time2

Timen

Social Systems

Communicator A

Shared Field of Experience

Communicator B

Communicator A’s Field of Experience

Communicator B’s Field of Experience

Symbolic Interactions Over Time

Noise

Figure 1.4

The Transactional Model of Communication

Cengage Learning

Self-

Actualization

Needs

Self-Esteem Needs (Respect)

Belonging Needs (Inclusion, Fun)

Safety and Protection Needs (Shelter)

Physical Needs for Survival (Air, Food, Sex)

Most Abstract

Most Basic

Figure 1.5

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Cengage Learning

Communication also helps protect us from dangers and harm. When foods are determined to be unsafe, news media inform the public. Workers persuade managers to do something about unsafe working conditions, and professionals

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

need interaction if they are to thrive. As we grow older, we continue to rely on com- munication to survive and to thrive. Good communication between doctors and patients is related to effective treatment and to patients’ physical health (Fleishman, Sherbourne, & Crystal, 2000). Our effectiveness in communicating affects what jobs we get and how much we earn to pay for medical care, food, leisure activities, and housing.

Furthermore, researchers have amassed impressive evidence to document the close link between physical health and relationships with others (Cacioppo & Pat- rick, 2009). College students who are in committed relationships have fewer men- tal health problems and are less likely to be obese (Braithwaite, Delevi, & Fincham, 2010), cancer patients who are married live longer than single cancer patients (“Cancer,” 2009), and people who lack close emotional connections with others are more likely to develop dementia than are people who have strong relationships (Beekman, Deege, Jonker, & Schoevers, Stek, Tjalling, van Tilburg, 2012; Brody, 2013). So important is the connection between meaningful interpersonal relation- ships and health that doctors John Cacioppo and William Patrick (2009) assert that “social isolation has an impact on health comparable to the effect of high blood pressure, lack of exercise, obesity, or smoking” (p. 5). Given this information, it is unsurprising that people who have strong social connections live almost 4 years longer than people with weaker social ties (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010). We also rely on communication to manage our practical needs and preferences.

We describe exactly where we want a tattoo; we negotiate for a lower price at a con- signment shop; we explain our housing preferences to a realtor; and we talk with a personal trainer to develop a workout program that helps us meet our goals.

Safety needs

We also meet safety needs through communication. If your roof is leaking or if termites have invaded your apartment, you must talk with the property manager or owner to get the problem solved so that you have safe shelter. If someone is threat- ening you, you need to talk with authorities to gain protection. If you take the car keys from a friend who has been drinking and say, “I’ll drive you home,” you may save a life. We go online to research symptoms we have and to learn about medi- cal conditions affecting friends or family members. After the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech, many campuses around the country developed plans for email alerts and sirens to warn students of any dangers.

My mom is a worrier, and she was really concerned when I decided to come to this big school instead of the one near home. She calls me like five times a day just to ask what I’m doing and if I’m okay. I get on her case about that a lot, but I really like knowing she stays in touch and always has my back.

Chloe

Chapter 1

communicate with each other to do their jobs. Residents in communities with toxic waste dumps rely on social networks to organize and then communicate with offi- cials and media to call attention to environmental toxins that endanger their safety.

Belonging needs

The third level in Maslow’s hierarchy is belonging, or social, needs. All of us want to feel that we fit in our work and social groups. We want others’ company, acceptance, and affirmation, and we want to give companionship, acceptance, and affirmation to others. The painful feeling of being excluded or rejected is often described as be- ing “frozen out” or getting the “cold shoulder.” It turns out, the cold sensation is not just metaphorical, but is real. Researchers Hans Ijezerman and Justin Saddlemyer (2012) found that our body temperature drops when we feel excluded.

The connection between belonging needs and health is well established. People who are deprived of human interaction over a long time may fail to develop a con- cept of themselves as humans. The “Communication in Everyday Life: Diversity” feature summarizes two dramatic cases of social isolation. The first case is that of Victor, a wild boy found in France in 1800; the second case is that of Ramu, or “Ghadya ka Bacha,” the “wolf boy” (Gerstein, 1998; Shattuck, 1994). Doctors who examined Ramu concluded that he was a feral child, which means he was raised in the wild with little or no human contact. As a result, he did not have a sense of himself as a person or a human being. His self-concept and self-esteem were shaped by those with whom he interacted, presumably wolves.

Two other cases are documented by sociologist Kingsley Davis (1940, 1947). Anna and Isabelle, two girls who were not related to one another, received minimal human contact and care during the first 6 years of their lives. Authorities who dis- covered the children reported that both girls lived in dark, dank attics. Anna and Isabelle were so undeveloped intellectually that they behaved like 6-month-olds. Anna was startlingly apathetic and unresponsive to others. She did not progress well despite care, contact, and nutrition. She died 4 years after she was discovered. Isabelle fared better. When she was found, she communicated by grunts and ges-

tures and was responsive to hu- man interaction. After 2 years

in systematic therapy, Isabelle’s intelligence approached normal levels for her age.

How do we explain the differ- ence between these two isolated children and what happened to them? There was one major dif- ference. Anna was left alone all the time and had no human con- tact. Food was periodically put in her room, but nobody talked to her or played with her. Isa- belle, on the other hand, shared her space with her mother, who

Social Networking on the Job

For years, employers discouraged workers from social networking while on the job, but now many employers are encouraging it. Social text and Microsoft’s SharePoint 2010 are two of the leaders in online social tools for the workplace. Employees who join create and maintain their own profile page with personal information, photos, and informa- tion such as birthday and college at-

tended. Rather than having “friends,” they have “colleagues.” They can post real-time status updates on their pro- file page and participate on internal wikis that allow team collaboration (Swift, 2010).

Communication in Everyday Life

SoCIAL MEDIA

Do you agree that social networking at work is good for workers and employers?

was deaf and mute. The family had renounced both of them and sequestered them in an attic.

Although Isabelle didn’t have the advantage of normal family interaction, she did have contact with a mother. Because the mother was deaf and mute, she couldn’t teach Isabelle to speak, but she

did teach Isabelle to interact with

gestures and sounds that both of them understood. Thus, Isabelle suffered less extreme deprivation than Anna.

Self-Esteem needs

Moving up Maslow’s hierarchy, we find self-esteem needs, which involve valuing and respecting ourselves and being valued and respected by others. As we will see in Chapter 2, communica- tion is the primary way we figure out who we are and who we can be. We gain our first sense of self from others who communicate how they see us. Parents and other family members tell children they are pretty or plain, smart or slow, good or bad, helpful or difficult. As family members communicate their perceptions, children begin to form images of themselves.

This process continues throughout life as we see our- selves reflected in others’ eyes. In elementary school, our teachers and peers influence our percep- tions of how smart we are, how good we are at soccer, and how attractive we are. Later, friends and romantic partners reflect their views of us as loving or un- loving, generous or selfish, open

or closed, and trustworthy or untrustworthy. In professional life, our coworkers and supervisors communicate in ways that suggest how much they respect us and our abilities. Through all the stages of our lives, our self-esteem is shaped by how others communicate with us.

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

Communication in Everyday Life

DIvERSITY

Missing Socialization

Most of us take socialization for granted. We are born into families, and

they socialize us as members of the human world of meaning and action. But what if there were no humans around to socialize you? Would you still be human? The question of what it means to be human is at the heart of two extraordinary stories of “wild children” who appear to have grown up without human contact (Douthwaite, 2002; Gerstein, 1998; Shattuck, 1994). The first case took place in 1800. One day, French hunters found a strange creature in the woods. They were unsure what the creature was— perhaps a wild pig or monkey, they thought. The hunters tied the creature to a pole and brought it out of the woods for villagers to see. Quickly, it was determined that the creature was a human boy—filthy, naked, mute, and wild, but human nonetheless. When scientists were consulted, they said the boy was severely mentally disabled and unteachable. However, Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard disagreed. He was a young doctor who de- voted many years to trying to socialize the wild boy, whom he named Vic- tor. Itard was not successful, perhaps because Victor had missed human socialization during a critical developmental period early in life. The story

of Victor is portrayed in François Truffaut’s film The Wild Child.

A second case occurred in India in the middle of the 20th century. A young, naked, starving boy found his way to the hospital at Balram- pur, India. He showed no ability to interact with people and had heavy calluses as though he moved on all fours. In addition, there were scars on the boy’s neck as though he had been dragged by animals. The boy, named Ramu by the hospital staff, spent most of his time playing with a stuffed animal, as a wild animal might in its lair. He showed no interest in communicating; indeed, he seemed to feel no connection with other people. Ramu howled when he smelled raw meat in the hospital kitchen more than 100 yards from his room—far too great a distance for the hu- man sense of smell to detect a scent. Ramu also didn’t eat like a human; he tore meat apart and lapped milk from a container. Most of the doctors

and scientists who examined Ramu concluded that he was a “wolf boy”— “Ghadya ka Bacha” in the Hindi lan- guage—who had grown up in the wild and had been socialized by wolves.

Would you say Ramu was a wolf, a boy, or something else?

Chapter 1

Self-Actualization needs

According to Maslow, the most abstract human need is self-actualization. Maslow (1954/1970) defined self-actualization as fully developing and using our unique “talents, capacities, potentialities” (p. 150). To achieve this, we need to refine talents that we have and cultivate new potentials in ourselves. As humans, we seek more than survival, safety, belonging, and esteem. We also thrive on growth. Each of us wants to cultivate new dimensions of mind, heart, and spirit. We seek to enlarge our perspectives, engage in challenging and different experiences, learn new skills, and test ourselves in unfamiliar territories.

Communication fosters our personal growth. Therapists can be powerful re- sources in helping us identify our potentials. Friends, family, coworkers, and teach- ers can help us recognize promise in ourselves that we otherwise might not see. Adam recalls how such a person affected him in his first job.

Mr. Bentley really helped me when I had my first job. It wasn’t much—just serving at a sandwich shop—but he mentored me. He noticed I was awk- ward interacting with people, and he said I could learn social skills. He showed me how to be more effective—how to make customers feel com- fortable, how to notice subtle cues that they needed something. Before that job, I’d thought of myself as kind of an introvert, somebody not very good with people. But Mr. Bentley saw a possibility in me that I hadn’t seen in myself, and, as a result, I developed social skills and confidence that I never had before.

Another way in which we seek personal growth is by experimenting with new versions of ourselves. For this, too, we rely on communication. Sometimes we talk with friends about ways we want to grow or with coworkers about ways we want to advance professionally. At other times, we try out new styles of identity without telling anyone what we’re doing. Some people experiment with their identities on- line where visual cues won’t expose their real race, sex, age, or other characteristics. Lashelle’s commentary stresses the importance of feedback from others in actual- izing our potential.

A person who changed my life was Mrs. Dickenson, my high school his- tory teacher. She thought I was really smart, and she helped me see myself that way. I’d never considered myself all that intelligent, and I sure

adam

lashelle

Cengage Learning

Understanding and interacting with diverse people is also critical to success in professional life. Today’s and tomorrow’s employers think it is very important

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

hadn’t thought I would go to college, but Mrs. Dickenson helped me to see a whole new image of who I could be. She stayed after school a lot of days to talk to me about my future and to help me get ready for the SAT. If it weren’t for her, I wouldn’t be in college now.

Others also help us self-actualize through inspiration and teaching. Mother Teresa was well known for inspiring others to be generous, compassionate, and giving. She had the ability to see the best in others and to help them see it in themselves. Mohandas Gandhi embodied the principle of nonviolent resistance so gracefully and effectively that he inspired thousands of Indians to define themselves as nonviolent resisters. Years later, in the United States, the Rev- erend Martin Luther King Jr. followed Gandhi’s example with his nonvio- lent resistance of racism. Spiritual leaders such as Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad also inspire people to grow personally. As we inter-

act with teachers and leaders who inspire us, we may come to understand their visions of the world and of themselves, and we may weave them into our own self-concepts.

participating Effectively in a Diverse Society

In our era, the likelihood of meeting the needs Maslow discussed depends on our ability to participate effectively in a very diverse social world. Western culture in- cludes people of different ethnicities, genders, social classes, sexual orientations, ages, spiritual commitments, and abilities. The United States is becoming increas- ingly diverse. In 2009, almost 49% of births in the United States were minorities, and 48.3% of children under 5 years old were minorities (Nasser & Overberg, 2010). In 2010 Caucasians made up 64% of the population, but by 2050 there will be no majority race in the United States (Cooper, 2012; Yen, 2012).

In a recent survey of first-year students at colleges and universities, nearly half said that learning about other cultures is essential or very important (Hoover, 2010). Research also shows that exposure to students from a range of backgrounds is one of the best predictors of whether first-year college students return for a sec- ond year (Berrett, 2011).

Most of us realize that we expand intellectually and personally when we engage people who differ in background, ethnicity, age, and so forth. Dante notes the im- portance of this type of communication.

My friend Bobby is about as different from me as a person could get. He’s black; I’m white. He’s from a big city; I grew up on a farm. He’s liberal politically; I’m conservative. That’s what I like about Bobby—he doesn’t see a lot of things the way I do. When we talk, we often start out at differ- ent points, but we listen to each other and each of us learns other ways of looking at things.

dante

Purestock/Jupiter

Chapter 1

for employees to be able to interact effectively with different kinds of people. Job applicants who can do this have a keen advantage.

Understanding and adapting to social diversity is critical to professional success and even to

professional competence. Doc- tors, for instance, need to realize that some Hispanic patients are reassured by eye contact, whereas some patients from traditional Asian backgrounds are uneasy when looked at directly. Social workers need to understand that many people of Spanish and Asian heritage have extended families that are much larger than most Caucasian families.

In summary, interpersonal communication meets human needs ranging from survival to self-actualization and growth through encounters with a diver-

sity of people. Of course, our ability to meet our needs depends on the effectiveness of our interpersonal communication. That is why the final sections of this chapter identify principles that enhance effectiveness.

prinCipLes oF interpersonAL CommuniCAtion

There are eight basic principles for effectiveness in interpersonal communication.

principle 1: We Cannot not Communicate

A key principle to keep in mind is that we cannot avoid communicating when we are with others because they interpret what we do and say as well as what we don’t do and don’t say. Even if we choose to be silent, we’re communicat- ing. What we mean by silence and how others interpret it depend on cultural backgrounds.

Because Westerners typically are more verbal than many other cultural groups, they are likely to regard silence as a signal of anger, disinterest, or lack of knowl- edge. Some Native Americans and members of many Eastern cultures might inter- pret silence as thoughtfulness or respect. Either way, silence communicates.

Communicating in a Multicultural World

Communicating effectively with diverse people begins with learning how people in different cultures view communication and actually practice it. One excellent resource for learning more is the website of the Society for Cross-Cultural Research. In addition to presenting a wealth of good information, this site provides links to many other intercultural communi- cation sites.

Go to the Society for Cross-Cultural Research’s website: http://www

.sccr.org/

Communicating comfortably and effectively with diverse people is also essential to career success as organizations become increasingly global and diverse. The Cornell University library site, focused on work- place diversity, offers links to other sites: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu

/library/research/subjectGuides/workplaceDiversity.html

Communication in Everyday Life

DIvERSITY

Even when we don’t intend to communicate, we do so. We may be unaware of a grimace that gives away our disapproval or an eye roll that shows we dislike someone, but we are communicating nonetheless. Unconscious communication of- ten occurs on the relationship level of meaning as we express feelings about others through subtle, often nonverbal communication. Regardless of whether we aim to communicate and whether others understand our intentions, we continuously, un- avoidably communicate.

principle 2: Interpersonal Communication Is Irreversible

Perhaps you have been in a heated argument in which you lost your temper and said something you later regretted. It could be that you hurt someone or revealed something about yourself that you meant to keep private. Later, you might have tried to repair the damage by apologizing, explaining what you said, or denying what you revealed. But you couldn’t erase your communication; you couldn’t unsay what you had said.

You may have had similar experiences when communicating by email or posting on Facebook. Perhaps you read a message that made you angry, and you dashed off a barbed reply, sent it, and then wished you could unsend it. Perhaps you posted a picture of yourself when you were not sober, and your parents saw it. The fact that communication is irreversible reminds us that what we say and do matters. It has impact. Once we say something to another person, our words become part of the relationship. Remembering this principle keeps us aware of the importance of choosing when to speak and what to say—or not to say!

principle 3: Interpersonal Communication Involves Ethical Choices

Ethics is the branch of philosophy that focuses on moral principles and codes of conduct. Ethical issues concern right and wrong. Because interpersonal communi- cation is irreversible and affects others, it always has ethical implications. What we say and do affects others: how they feel, how they perceive themselves, how they think about themselves, and how they think about others. Thus, responsible people think carefully about ethical implications of their communication.

Our everyday lives are filled with ethical choices. Should you not tell someone something that might make him less willing to do what you want? If you read a message on your social network that makes you angry, do you fire off a nasty reply, assuming that you will never meet the person and so won’t face any consequences? Do you judge another person’s communication from your own individual perspec- tive and experience? Or do you try to understand her communication on her terms and from her perspective? In work settings, should you avoid giving negative feed- back because it could hurt others’ feelings even if it might help them advance? In these and many other instances, we face ethical choices. Throughout this book, we note ethical issues that arise when we interact with others. As you read, consider what kinds of choices you make and what moral principles guide your choices.

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

Chapter 1

principle 4: people Construct Meanings in Interpersonal Communication

The significance of communication doesn’t lie in words and nonverbal behaviors. Instead, meaning arises out of how we interpret communication. This calls our atten- tion to the fact that humans use symbols, which sets us apart from other creatures.

As we will see in Chapter 4, symbols, such as words, have no inherent or true meanings. Instead, we must interpret them. What does it mean if someone says, “You’re sick”? To interpret the comment, you must consider the context (a counsel- ing session, a professional meeting, after a daredevil stunt), who said it (a psychia- trist, a supervisor, a subordinate, a friend, an enemy), and the words themselves, which may mean various things (a medical diagnosis, a challenge to your profes- sional competence, a compliment on your zaniness, disapproval).

In close relationships, partners gradually coordinate meanings so that they share understandings of issues and feelings important to their connection. When a rela- tionship begins, one person may regard confrontation as healthy, and the other may avoid arguments. Over time, partners come to share meanings for conflict—what it is, how to handle it, and whether it threatens the relationship or is a path to growth. The meanings we attribute to conflict are shaped by cultural backgrounds. Because standing up for your own ideas is emphasized in the United States, many people who were born and raised in this country value confrontation more than do many Asians who

were raised in traditional Asian families. Conflict means different things to each group.

Even one person’s meanings vary over time and in response to experiences and moods. If you’re in a good mood, a playful gibe might strike you as funny or as an invitation to banter. The same remark might hurt or anger you if you’re feeling down. The meaning of the gibe, like all communication, is not preset or absolute. Meanings are created by people as they communicate in specific contexts.

principle 5: Metacommunication Affects Meanings

The word metacommunication comes from the prefix meta, meaning “about,” and the root word communication. Thus, metacommunication is communication about

communication. For example, during a conversation with your friend Pat, you notice that Pat’s body seems tense and her voice is sharp. You might say,“You seem really stressed in our conversation.” Your statement is metacommunication because it communicates about Pat’s nonverbal communication.

We can use words to talk about other words or nonverbal behaviors. If an argument between Joe and Marc gets out of hand, and Joe makes a nasty per- sonal attack, Joe might later say, “I didn’t really mean what I just said. I was just so angry it came out.” This metacommunication may soften the hurt caused by the attack. If Joe and Marc then have a productive

Acitelli also found that women are more likely than men to appreciate metacommunication when there is no conflict or immediate problem to be resolved. For example, while curled up on a sofa and watching TV, a woman might say to her male partner, “I really feel comfortable snuggling with you.” This statement comments on the relationship and the nonverbal communication

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

conversation about their differences, Marc might conclude by saying, “ This has really been a good talk. I think we understand each other a lot better now.” This comment verbally metacommunicates about the conversation that preceded it.

Metacommunication can increase understanding. For instance, teachers some- times say, “ The next point is really important.” This comment signals students to pay special attention to what follows. A parent might tell a child, “What I said may sound harsh, but I’m only telling you because I care about you.” The comment tells the child how to interpret a critical message. A manager tells a subordinate to take a comment seriously by saying, “I really mean what I said. I’m not kidding.” On the other hand, if we’re not really sure what we think about an issue, and we want to try out a stance, we might say, “I’m thinking this through as I go, and I’m not really wedded to this position, but what I tend to believe right now is . . . .” This preface to your statement tells listeners not to assume that what you say is set in stone.

We can also metacommunicate to check on understanding: “Was I clear?” “Do you see why I feel like I do?” “Can you see why I’m confused about the problem?” Questions such as these allow you to find out whether another person understands what you intend to communicate. You may also metacommunicate to find out whether you understand what another person expresses to you. “What I think you meant is that you are worried. Is that right?” “If I follow what you said, you feel trapped between what you want to do and what your parents want you to do. Is that what you were telling me?” You may even say, “I don’t understand what you just told me. Can you say it another way?” This question metacommunicates by letting the other person know you did not grasp her message and that you want to understand.

Effective metacommunication also helps friends and romantic partners express how they feel about their interactions. Linda Acitelli (1988, 1993) has studied what happens when partners in a relationship talk to each other about how they perceive and feel about their interaction. She reports that women and men alike find metacommunication helpful if there is a conflict or problem that must be ad- dressed. Both sexes seem to appreciate knowing how the other feels about their differences; they are also eager to learn how to communicate to resolve those dif- ferences. During a conflict, one person might say, “I feel like we’re both being really stubborn. Do you think we could each back off a little from our positions?” This expresses discontent with how communication is proceeding and offers an alterna- tive. After conflict, one partner might say, “This really cleared the air between us. I feel a lot better now.”

I never feel like an argument is really over and settled until Andy and I have said that we feel better for having thrashed out whatever was the problem. It’s like I want closure, and the fight isn’t really behind us un- til we both say, “I’m glad we talked,” or something to say what we went through led us to a better place.

tara

Everyday Skills To

practice metacommu- nication, complete the activity “Improve Your

Metacommunication” at the end of the chapter or online.

Chapter 1

between the couple. According to Acitelli and others (Wood, 1997, 1998), men generally find talk about relationships unnecessary unless there is an immediate problem to be addressed. Understanding this gender difference in preferences for metacommunication may help you interpret members of the other sex more accurately.

principle 6: Interpersonal Communication Develops and Sustains Relationships

Interpersonal communication is the primary way we build, refine, and transform relationships. Partners talk to work out expectations and understandings of their interaction, appropriate and inappropriate topics and styles of communicating, and the nature of the relationship itself. Is it a friendship or a romantic relationship? How much and in what ways can we count on each other? How do we handle disagreements—by confronting them, ignoring them, or using indirect strategies to restore harmony? What are the bottom lines, the “thou shalt not” rules for what counts as unforgivable betrayal? What counts as caring—words, deeds, both? Be- cause communication has no intrinsic meanings, we must generate our own in the course of interaction.

Communication also allows us to construct or reconstruct individual and joint histories. For instance, when people fall in love, they often redefine for- mer loves as “mere infatuations” or “puppy love,” but definitely not the real thing. When something goes wrong in a relationship, partners may work together to define what happened in a way that allows them to continue. Marriage counsel- ors report that couples routinely work out face-saving explanations for affairs so that they can stay together in the aftermath of infidelity (Scarf, 1987). Partners often talk about past events and experiences that challenged them and ones that were joyous. The process of reliving the past reminds partners how long they have been together and how much they have shared. As partners communicate thoughts and feelings, they generate shared meanings for themselves, their inter- action, and their relationship.

Communication is also the primary means by which people construct a future for themselves and their relationships. For intimates, talking about a vision of a shared future is one of the most powerful ties that link people (Dixson & Duck, 1993; Wood, 2006a). Romantic couples often dream together by talking about the family they plan and how they’ll be in 20 years. Likewise, friends discuss plans for the future and promise reunions if they must move apart, and work colleagues talk about advancement and challenges down the road. Communication allows us to express and share dreams, imaginings, and memories, and to weave all of these into shared understandings of a continuing relationship.

I love talking about the future with my fiancé. Sometimes, we talk for hours about the kind of house we’ll have and what our children will be like and how we’ll juggle two careers and a family. I know everything won’t work out exactly like we think now, but talking about it makes me feel so close to Dave and like our future is real.

Karen

principle 7: Interpersonal Communication Is not a panacea

As we have seen, we communicate to satisfy many of our needs and to create rela- tionships with others. Yet it would be a mistake to think communication is a cure- all. Many problems can’t be solved by talk alone. Communication by itself won’t end hunger, abuses of human rights around the globe, racism, intimate partner violence, or physical diseases. Nor can words alone bridge irreconcilable differences between people or erase the hurt of betrayal. Although good communication may increase understanding and help us solve problems, it will not fix everything. We should also realize that the idea of talking things through is distinctly Western. Not all societies think it’s wise or useful to communicate about relationships or to talk extensively about feelings. Just as interpersonal communication has many strengths and values, it also has limits, and its effectiveness is shaped by cultural contexts.

principle 8: Interpersonal Communication Effectiveness Can Be Learned

It is a mistake to think that effective communicators are born, that some people have a natural talent and others don’t. Although some people have extraordinary talent in athletics or writing, those who don’t can learn to be competent athletes and writers. Likewise, some people have an aptitude for communicating, but all of us can become competent communicators. This book and the course you are taking should sharpen your understandings of how interpersonal communication works and should help you learn skills that will enhance your effectiveness in relating to others.

soCiAL meDiA in everyDAy LiFe

As in every chapter, we will explore how social media are relevant to the ideas presented in the foregoing pages. Consider what the definition of interpersonal communication implies for communication via social media. When we talk with people face to face (f2f ), we are aware of their immediate physical context, which is not the case with much online and digital interaction. We may not know who else is present and what else is happening around a person we text. When the systems within which communication occurs are unknown to us, it’s more dif- ficult to interpret others. Also, because nonverbal communication is restricted online and especially digitally, we may miss out on meaning, particularly on the relationship level.

Our definition of interpersonal communication also emphasizes process— changes in communication that happen over time. Think about how online and digital communication have evolved in the course of the past two

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

Chapter 1

decades. When email first emerged, most people treated it much like letter writing: An email started with “Dear” or “Hello” and ended with a closing such as “ Thank you” or “Sincerely.” As email became more popular and as all of us were flooded with email messages, the opening and closing courtesies largely disappeared. As email traffic continued to increase, abbreviations started being used: BRB (be right back), LOL (laughing out loud), and so forth. Texting brought more innovation in use of symbols. Vowels are often dropped, single letters serve for some words (u for you, r for are), and phrases are more acceptable than complete sentences. The rules of grammar, syntax, and spelling have been loosened for digital natives who are accustomed to the autocorrect function that is standard on most phones and computers.

Our definition of interpersonal communication also highlights meanings, which are at the heart of our interaction via social media. We blog and tweet to tell others what issues and events mean to us; we follow others’ blogs and tweets to learn what they think. Emerging norms for using social media also challenge some long-standing meanings. For example, having dinner with others tradition- ally has meant interacting in a focused and continuous way with the people at the table; attending a meeting has meant being mentally present in the meeting. Yet people increasingly send or check texts during meals and meetings, which may mean they are partially present in multiple spaces, yet not fully present in any one.

We also discussed human needs that we satisfy through communication, and these are met by interaction on social media just as they are met by f2f interaction. For example, Facebook and other social networking sites are a major source for sat- isfying our needs for belonging. You might take a moment to reflect on the extent to which you rely on digital and online communication to meet physical, safety, belonging, self-esteem, and self-actualization needs and to participate effectively in a diverse society.

Consider also how the eight principles of interpersonal communication apply to online and digital interaction. For instance, the principle that we cannot not com- municate implies that just as texting friends is communication, so is not texting them. When we don’t answer others’ texts, they may interpret this as meaning we are angry or uninterested in them. Or consider the principle that interpersonal communication is irreversible. Have you ever sent a text or tweet and then regret- ted it but been unable to call it back? Have you ever wished you could erase some of your electronic footprints—embarrassing photos you posted years ago or flames that you regret? Our online and digital communication is irreversible, just as our face-to-face communication is.

A third principle is that interpersonal communication involves ethical choices. Important ethical issues infuse the online and digital world. Is it ethical to misrepresent yourself or your goals when creating your profile for an online dating site? Is exaggerating just a little (saying you are 5’10” when you are really 5’8”) unethical? What about flaming or cyberbullying and cyberstalking? How does the anonymity of much online communication affect the ethical (or un- ethical) choices people make? These are critical questions to keep in mind as you communicate interpersonally using social media. Continue this discussion by thinking about how the remaining five principles we discussed apply to inter- action via social media.

Everyday Skills To

understand your reasons for using social media, complete the activity

“Your Use of Social

Media” at the end of this chapter or online.

Sometimes we handle interactions well, and other times we don’t. What are the differences between effective and ineffective communication? Scholars define interpersonal communication competence as the ability to communicate effectively, appropriately, and ethically. Effectiveness involves achieving the goals we have for specific interactions. In different situations, your goals might be to explain an idea, to comfort a friend, to stand up for your position, to negotiate a raise, or to persuade someone to change behaviors. The more effectively you communicate, the more likely you are to be competent in achieving your goals.

Competence also emphasizes appropriateness. This means that competent communication is adapted to particular situations and people. Language that is appropriate at a party with friends may not be appropriate in a job interview. Appropriateness also involves contexts. It may be appropriate to kiss an intimate in a private setting but not in a classroom. Similarly, many people choose not to argue in front of others but prefer to engage in conflict when they are alone.

Five skills are closely tied to competence in interpersonal communication: (1) de- veloping a range of communication skills, (2) adapting communication appropriately,

(3) engaging in dual perspective, (4) monitoring communication, and (5) committing to ethical interpersonal communication. We’ll discuss each of these skills now.

Develop a Range of Skills

No single style of communication is best in all circumstances, with all people, or for pursuing all goals. Because what is effective varies, we need to have a broad rep- ertoire of communication behaviors. Consider the different skills needed for inter- personal communication competence in several situations.

To comfort someone, we need to be soothing and compassionate. To negotiate a good deal on a car, we need to be assertive and firm. To engage constructively in conflict, we need to listen and build a supportive climate. To support a friend who is depressed, we need to affirm that person, demonstrate that we care, and encour- age the friend to talk about his or her problems. To build good work relationships, we need to communicate supportively, express our ideas clearly, and listen well. Be- cause no single set of skills composes interpersonal communication competence, we need to learn a range of communicative abilities.

Adapt Communication Appropriately

The ability to communicate in a range of ways doesn’t make us competent unless we also know which kinds of communication to use in specific interactions. For instance, knowing how to be both assertive and deferential isn’t useful unless we

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

guiDeLines For interpersonAL CommuniCAtion CompetenCe

Chapter 1

can figure out when each style of communication is appropriate. Although there is no neat formula for adapting communication appropriately, it’s generally important to consider personal goals, context, and the people with whom we communicate.

Your goals for communication are a primary guideline for selecting appropriate behaviors. If your purpose in a conversation is to give emotional support to someone, then it isn’t effective to talk at length about your own experiences. On the other hand, if you want someone to understand you better, talking in depth about your life may be highly effective. If your goal is to win an argument and get your way, it may be competent to assert your point of view, point out flaws in your partner’s ideas, and re- fuse to compromise. If you want to work through conflict in a way that doesn’t harm a relationship, however, other communication choices might be more constructive.

For most of my life, I wasn’t at all assertive, even when I should have been. Last spring, though, I was so tired of having people walk all over me that I signed up for a workshop on assertiveness training. I learned how to assert myself, and I was really proud of how much more I would stand up for myself. The problem was that I did it all the time, regardless of whether something really mattered enough to be assertive. Just like I was always passive before, now I’m always assertive. I need to figure out a better way to balance my behaviors.

Context is another influence on decisions of when, how, and about what to com- municate. It is appropriate to ask your doctor about symptoms during an office exam, but it isn’t appropriate to do so when you see the doctor in a social situation. When a friend is feeling low, that’s not a good time to criticize, although at another time criti- cism might be constructive. Sometimes in-person communication is more appropri- ate than texting or emailing. When communicating online, it’s useful to compensate for the lack of nonverbal cues by adding emoticons and expressing warmth explicitly. Remembering Buber’s discussion of the I–Thou relationship, we know it is im- portant to adapt what we say and how we say it to particular people. As we have seen, interpersonal communication increases our knowledge of others. Thus, the more in- terpersonal the relationship, the more we can adapt our communication to unique partners. Abstract communicative goals, such as supporting others, call for distinct behaviors in regard to specific people. What feels supportive to one friend may not to another. One of my closest friends withdraws if I challenge her ideas, yet another friend relishes challenges and the discussions they prompt. What is effective in talk- ing with them varies. We have to learn what our intimates need, what upsets and pleases them, and how they interpret various kinds of communication. Scholars use the term person-centeredness to refer to the ability to adapt messages effectively to particular people (Bernstein, 1974; Burleson, 1987). Appropriately adapted commu-

nication, then, is sensitive to goals, contexts, and other people.

Engage in Dual perspective

Central to competent interpersonal communication is the ability to engage in dual perspective, which is understanding both our own and another person’s perspec- tive, beliefs, thoughts, or feelings (Phillips & Wood, 1983). When we adopt dual

mary margaret

As Asha says, engaging in dual perspective isn’t necessarily easy, because all of us naturally see things from our own points of view and in terms of our own ex- periences. Parents often have trouble understanding the perspectives of children, particularly teenagers (Fox & Frankel, 2005). Yet we can improve our ability to en- gage in dual perspective (Greene & Burleson, 2003). Three guidelines can help you increase your ability to take the perspective of others.

First, be aware of the tendency to see things only from your own perspective, and resist that inclination.

Second, listen closely to how others express their thoughts and feelings, so you gain clues of what things mean to them and how they feel.

Third, ask others to explain how they feel, what something means to them, or how they view a situation. Asking questions and probing for details com- municates on the relationship level that you are interested and that you want to understand.

Making a commitment to engage in dual perspective and practicing the three guidelines just discussed will enhance your ability to recognize and respond to others’ perspectives.

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

perspective, we understand how someone else thinks and feels about issues. To meet another person in genuine dialogue, we must be able to realize how that per- son views himself or herself, the situation, and his or her own thoughts and feel- ings. We may personally see things much differently, and we may want to express our perceptions. Yet we also need to understand and respect the other person’s perspective.

Research (Tomasello, 2009) shows that the tendency to try to understand and help others may be innate in humans. Infants as young as 14 months old offer to pick up an object dropped by an adult not related to them (Wade, 2009). This in- nate tendency to reach out to others thrives when it is nurtured by adults around a child.

People who cannot take the perspectives of others are egocentric. They impose their perceptions on others and interpret others’ experiences through their own eyes. Consider an example. Roberto complains that he is having trouble writing a report for his supervisor. His coworker Raymond responds, “All you have to do is outline the plan and provide the rationale. That’s a snap.” “But,” says Roberto, “I’ve always had trouble writing. I just go blank when I sit down to write.” Ray- mond says, “That’s silly. Anyone can do this. It just took me an hour or so to do my report.” Raymond has failed to understand how Roberto perceives writing. If you have trouble writing, then composing a report isn’t a snap, but Raymond can’t get beyond his own comfort with writing to understand Roberto’s different perspective.

Sometimes it’s very difficult for me to understand my daughter. She likes music that sounds terrible to me, and I don’t like the way she dresses sometimes. For a long time, I judged her by my own values about music and dress, but that really pushed us apart. She kept saying, “I’m not you. Why can’t you look at it from my point of view?” Finally, I heard her, and now we both try to understand each other’s point of view. It isn’t always easy, but you can’t have a relationship on just one person’s terms.

asha

Chapter 1

Monitor Your Communication

The fourth ability that affects interpersonal commu- nication competence is monitoring, which is the capacity to observe and regulate your own communication. Most of us do this much

of the time without even thinking about it. Before bringing up a touchy topic, you remind yourself not to get defensive and not to get pulled into counterproductive arguing. During the discussion, Chris says something that upsets you. You think of a really good zinger but stop yourself from saying it because you don’t want to hurt Chris. In each instance, you monitored your communication.

Monitoring occurs both before and dur- ing interaction. Often, before conversations we indicate to ourselves what we do and don’t want to say. During communication, we stay alert and edit our thoughts before expressing them. Online communication offers us especially effective ways to monitor our communication. We can save messages, reread them to see if they express what we really intend, and edit them before sending or posting. Our ability to monitor allows us to adapt communication in advance and gauge our effectiveness as we interact.

Of course, we don’t monitor all the time. When we are with people who un- derstand us or when we are talking about unimportant topics, we don’t necessarily need to monitor communication with great care. Sometimes, however, not moni- toring can result in communication that hurts others or that leads us to regard our- selves negatively. In some cases, failure to monitor results from getting caught up in the dynamics of interaction. We simply forget to keep a watchful eye on ourselves, and so we say or do things we later regret. In addition, some people have poorly de- veloped monitoring skills. They have a limited awareness of how they come across to others. Communication competence involves learning to attend to feedback from others and to monitor the impact of our communication as we interact with them.

Commit to Ethical Communication

The final requirement for interpersonal competence is commitment to ethical com- munication. This commitment requires that you invest energy in communicating ethically with others as unique human beings both f2f and on social media. This implies that you can’t treat another person as merely a member of some group, such as men, coworkers, or customers. Responding to another as a unique and valuable person also means you can’t dismiss the other person’s feelings as wrong, inappro- priate, or silly. Instead, you must honor the person and the feelings he or she ex- presses, even if you feel differently.

A commitment to ethical communication also requires you to respect yourself and your ideas and feelings. Just as you must honor those of others, you must re- spect yourself and your own perspective. Finally, ethical communicators are com- mitted to the integrity of the communication process itself. They realize that it is

interactive and always evolving, and they are willing to deal with that complexity. In addition, they are sensitive to multiple levels of meaning and to the irreversibility of communication. Commitment, then, is vital to relationships, other people, our- selves, and communication.

In sum, interpersonal communication competence is the ability to communicate in ways that are effective and appropriate. The five requirements for competence are

(1) developing a range of communication skills; (2) adapting them appropriately to goals, others, and situations; (3) engaging in dual perspective; (4) monitoring com- munication and its impact; and (5) committing to ethical interpersonal communi- cation. Consider which aspects of communication competence you would most like to improve, and make a contract with yourself to work on them during this course.

ChApter summAry

In this chapter, we launched our study of interpersonal communication. We began by defining interpersonal communication and considering different models of the process. We then saw that communicating with others allows us to meet basic needs for survival and safety as well as more abstract hu- man needs for inclusion, esteem, self-actualization, and effective participa- tion in a socially diverse world.

We discussed eight principles of interpersonal communication. First, it is impossible not to communicate. Whether or not we intend to send certain messages and whether or not others understand our meanings, communica- tion always occurs when people are together. Second, communication is ir- reversible because we cannot unsay or undo what passes between ourselves and others. Third, interpersonal communication always has ethical implica- tions. Fourth, meanings reside not in words alone but rather in how we in- terpret them. Fifth, metacommunication affects meanings in interpersonal interaction. Sixth, we use communication to develop and sustain relationships. In fact, communication is essential to relationships because it is in the process of interacting with others that we develop expectations, understandings, and rules to guide relationships. Seventh, although communication is powerful and important, it is not a cure-all. Eighth, effectiveness in interpersonal com- munication can be learned through committed study and practice of princi- ples and skills. We noted that the foundations of communication discussed in the chapter are relevant to digital and online communication. We also dis- cussed how the foregoing ideas are relevant to digital communication.

Competent interpersonal communicators interact in ways that are effec- tive, appropriate, and ethical. This means that we should adapt our ways of communicating to specific goals, situations, and others. Effectiveness and appropriateness require us to recognize and respect differences that re- flect personal and cultural backgrounds. Guidelines for doing this include developing a range of communication skills, adapting communication sen- sitively, engaging in dual perspective, monitoring our own communication, and committing to effective and ethical interpersonal communication. In later chapters, we focus on developing the skills that enhance interpersonal communication competence.

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

Chapter 1

Instructions: Listed below are

10 interpersonal communication

situations. Imagine that you are involved in each situa- tion. Then, indicate how confident you are that you could communicate competently using the following scale.

Key Concepts

Practice defining the chapter’s terms by using online flashcards.

content meaning 18

dual perspective 36

ethics 2

feedback 21

I–It communication 12

interactive model 21

interpersonal communication 14

interpersonal communication competence 3

I–Thou communication 13

I–You communication 13

linear model 20

metacommunication 30

model 19

monitoring 40

noise 15

person-centeredness 40

process 17

relationship meaning 18

symbol 30

systemic 14

transactional model 21

PRACTICE…

Continuing the Conversation

When you’ve watched the video online, critique and ana- lyze this encounter based on the principles you learned in this chapter. Then compare your work with the author’s suggested responses. Online, even more videos will let you continue the conversation with your instructor.

Your supervisor asks you to mentor a new em- ployee, Toya. After 2 weeks, you perceive that the new person is responsible and punctual, and takes initiative. At the same time, you realize that Toya is careless about details. You’ve also noticed that she seems insecure and wants a lot of affirmation and praise. You want to give her honest feedback so she can improve her performance, yet you are afraid she will react defensively. You ask her to meet with you to discuss her first 2 weeks.

You: How are you liking the job?

Toya: I like it a lot, and I’m trying to do my best. Nobody has said anything, so I guess I’m okay.

You: I’ve noticed how responsible you are.

Toya: Thanks. So I guess I’m doing okay?

You: What if someone suggested that there are ways you can improve?

Toya: What do you mean? Nobody’s said anything to me.

What would you say next to Toya? How would you meet your ethical responsibilities as her men- tor and also adapt to her interpersonal needs for reassurance?

What is your ethical responsibility to Toya, your supervisor, and the company? Reflect thought- fully about potential tensions among these responsibilities.

How would your communication differ if you acted according to a linear or transactional model of communication?

Assessing Yourself

Begin the process of applying this chapter’s concepts by taking a self-assessment quiz here or online—where you will find out what the results mean.

Purpose: To allow you to assess how satisfied you are with your ability to communicate in different situations.

PRACTICE…

FLASHCARDS…

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

5 Very satisfied that I could communicate competently

4 Somewhat satisfied that I could communicate competently

3 Not sure how effectively I could communicate

2 Somewhat dissatisfied with my ability to commu- nicate effectively

1 Very dissatisfied with my ability to communicate effectively

1. Someone asks you personal questions that you feel uncomfortable answering. You’d like to tell

	the person that you don’t want to answer, but you don’t want to hurt the person’s feelings.
	2. You think a friend of yours is starting to drink more alcohol than is healthy. You want to bring up the topic with your friend, but you don’t want to create a barrier in the friendship.
	3. You really care about the person you’ve been dating recently, but neither of you has ever put your feelings in words. You’d like to express how you feel but aren’t sure how
		your partner will respond.
	4.	During a heated discussion about social is- sues, the person with whom you are talking says, “Why won’t you hear me out fairly??!”
	5.	A friend shares his creative writing with you and asks if you think he has any talent. You

don’t think the writing is very good, and you need to respond to his request for an opinion.

6. Your roommate’s habits are really getting on your nerves. You want to tell your room- mate you’re bothered, but you don’t want to cause hurt.

7. A classmate asks you for notes for the classes he missed. You agree but then discover he has missed nearly half of the classes and expects you to bail him out. You feel that’s exploitive.

You go to a party and discover that you don’t know anyone there.

The person you have been dating declares “I love you.” You care about the person but your feelings are not love, at least not yet. The person expects some response from you.

A person that you care about comes to you whenever he has problems he wants to dis- cuss, and you give him attention and advice. When you want to talk about your problems, however, he doesn’t seem to have time. You want the friendship to continue, but you don’t like feeling that it’s one-way.

TOTAL (Add up the numbers you placed in each blank. Make sure that your total is between 10 and 50).

Everyday Skills

Build your communication skills further by completing the following activities here or online.

1. Communicating in Your Relationships

Consider how Buber’s theory of communication applies to your life. For each of the three types of relationship (I–It, I–You, I–Thou) identify one per- son with whom you share that relationship.

I—It:

I—You:

I—Thou:

How does communication differ in the relation- ships? What ethical obligations do you feel in each type of relationship? What don’t you say in I– It and I–You relationships that you do say in I–Thou relationships? How do different levels of commu- nication affect the closeness you feel with others? Which of these three kinds of relationship can be created or sustained using social media?

2. Levels of Meaning

For the next 48 hours, observe others communi- cating on the relationship level of meaning.

Chapter 1

Record examples of the following:

Communicating responsiveness

Communicating lack of responsiveness

Expressing liking

Expressing disliking

Expressing superiority

Expressing subordination

Expressing equality

What do your observations tell you about the re- lationship issues being negotiated and expressed in your relationships?

c. Lately, someone who used to be a close friend seems to be avoiding you. When you do see the friend, he seems eager to cut the conversation short. He doesn’t meet your eyes and doesn’t tell you anything about his life anymore. You want to know what is going on and how to interpret his communication.

Metacommunication:

Improve Your Metacommunication

For each of the scenarios described here, write out one verbal or nonverbal metacommunica- tion that would be appropriate to express your feelings about what has been said or to clarify understanding.

a. You are arguing with a person who seems more interested in winning the argument than in working things through so that both of you are satisfied. You want to change how the argument is proceeding.

Metacommunication:

b. Your manager at work routinely gives you orders instead of making requests. You resent it when she says to you, “Take over the front room,” “Clean up the storeroom now,” and “I want you in early tomorrow.” You want to change how your manager expresses expectations for your performance.

Metacommunication:

d. You have just spent 10 minutes telling your father why you want to study abroad next year. Earlier, your father said that studying abroad was just an extravagance, but you’ve tried to explain why it will broaden your education and your marketability when you look for a job next year. You aren’t sure your father has understood your points.

Metacommunication:

4. Your Use of Social Media

Review the emails, texts, and tweets that you have sent in the past 12 hours. Identify which of the six needs that interpersonal communication meets motivated each of your social media messages. Do you use social media to meet some needs more than other needs?

Message Need(s)

Do… Additional interactive discussions, online quizzes, and activities that your instructor may assign for a grade.

A First Look at Interpersonal Communication

Engaging with Ideas

Reflect and write about the ideas in this chapter by considering questions about personal, workplace, and ethical applications, here or online.

personal Application List the six needs that inter- personal communication helps us meet. By each need, list one example of communication you have engaged in to meet that need. Compare your answers to those of your classmates.

Workplace Application Interview a professional in the field you plan to enter. Ask him or her to explain the communication skills needed for success and

advancement in the field.

Which skills do you already

have? Which ones do you need to develop or improve? Write out a personal action plan for using this book and the course it accompanies to enhance your effective- ness in interpersonal communication.

Ethical Application Consider the ethical implica- tions of the interactive and the transactional models of interpersonal communication. How do our ethical responsibilities to others differ when we conceive of communication as interactive versus transactional?

Thinking Critically

Think and write critically about the ideas in this chapter, here or online.

Visit the placement office on your campus, and read descriptions of job openings. Record the number of job descriptions that call for commu- nication skills. Share your findings with others in your class.

Identify a relationship of yours that has become closer over time. Describe the earliest stage of the relationship. Was it an I–It or an I–You rela- tionship at that time? During that early stage of the relationship, what did you talk about? Were

there topics or kinds of

talk you avoided? Now,

describe the current relationship. What do you now talk about? Can you identify differences over time in your own and the other person’s shared

fields of experience?

3. The National Communication Association pro- vides information on careers for people with back- grounds in communication. Learn about these by visiting their website. [[http://www.natcom.org

/CommunicationCareerPaths/]]

REFLECT on…