Psychology CST Assignment TWM

Section: CST 110 - Powell (Spring 2024) Join: 715767

Content Classroom Gradebook

Courses / NVCC - CST 110 Introduction to Human C… Leshaela

My Spaces /

Course Work 4: Dialogic Communication Review

We need only scan the cable news networks and assorted newspaper

columns to notice that American society is frequently shaped as

aggressive, polarized, and uncivil. Popular news and entertainment

shows model communication as combative, not as a means to

understand each other or critically examine statements and evidence.

The same can be said for expressions on Facebook, Twitter, and other

social media tools, where it is not uncommon to find people making

disparaging, hateful, and even violent statements about others. Mass

media tools can enhance our communication with each other, but

sometimes they seem to encourage us to treat others poorly.

As we have already discussed, to be a competent communicator means

you are able to understand and respect other people in a variety of

contexts. In this chapter, we discuss how to communicate effectively and

respectfully in any situation. In subsequent chapters, we will explain how

this method of interaction works in specific contexts. The method is

called dialogue , which, simply put, is communicating in a way that

both respects others and encourages them to want to listen, while also

listening in a way that encourages others to want to speak.1 Scholar

John Poulakos expounds upon this definition by identifying three

components necessary for dialogue to take place: the self, the other, and

the in between. For Poulakos, the focus is on the “actual happenings

between” people where they “stand before each other prepared to meet

the uniqueness of their situation and follow it wherever it may lead.”2

Dialogue thus requires an openness to change and appreciation for the

other person’s perspective. 

In this chapter, we will first explore the concept and discuss the various

components of good dialogic communication identified by

communication scholars. In the second part of the chapter, we will

examine various attitudes of dialogue to illustrate not just what dialogue

is, but also what it looks like. Finally, we will offer some suggestions for

developing dialogic communication in any context.

Defining Dialogue Like many things in this book, dialogue may sound simple on the

surface, but it is more complicated than meets the eye—and

challenging to put into practice! Perhaps you associate the term

dialogue with conversations in movies or plays, or maybe you regard

any exchange between people as a dialogue. As we will illustrate,

dialogue is much more nuanced. In this section, we will investigate the

four key elements of dialogue, paying particular attention to the notion

of civility. This will then allow us to see how each of these components

serves as the foundation for the dialogue characteristics we will discuss

later in the chapter.

Civility

The first, and perhaps most essential, component of dialogue is civility.

We always want people to treat us with respect, and so it stands to

reason we should do the same in our dealings with others. Civility is

the ability to treat others with respect, so we can have a lasting,

peaceful, and positive interaction. Many people associate being civil

with being passive, fake, or weak, but as we will see, that is not the

case.3  There are three fundamental parts of civil behavior, and as we

explore each, keep in mind that just because people may be familiar

with some of these concepts does not mean they always know how to

consistently put them into practice.

Politeness. Parents always remind their children to be polite to others,

but how is it that when people become adults they sometimes model

aggressive and hostile behavior toward others? Politeness is a simple

concept, simply meaning to show consideration for others in

accordance with societal expectations. The difficulty is not with

showing consideration for others, but rather with navigating the

societal expectations in given contexts. We have different social norms

and rules for different places, people, events, and cultures. More

succinctly, politeness is the use of tact when speaking to others.

Politeness often gets confused with “being nice,” or as a tactic for

manipulating others. Some people view politeness in others as an

attempt to hide something, making them skeptical of the motives of

others. We propose that people view politeness as a contrast to

rudeness rather than as a veil for some ulterior motive that may not be

there. Rudeness consists of behaviors that make others uncomfortable,

violate social decency, and are inappropriate or demeaning, while

politeness consists of none of those things. Civil communicators

exercise a degree of self-monitoring, assessing the contexts in which

they find themselves to determine the best way to be considerate

toward other people and thus avoid being seen as rude. Politeness

often manifests itself through the exhibition of good manners.

Good manners refer to those polite behaviors that encourage

positive relationships with others. Good manners are sometimes

legislated, like putting electronics in “airplane mode” while in flight, but

most are social expectations people have of others. Here are a few

good manners that apply to most communication settings.

Be on time for meetings and appointments.

Patiently wait in line.

Don’t talk with your mouth full.

Say “please” and “thank you.”

Respect other people’s property.

Don’t look at, or answer, your mobile phone while in the middle of

a conversation. 

As you can probably imagine, engaging in each of these behaviors can

help create a positive perception of a person by others. Just think

about what we tend to think of people who do the opposite.

Respect for others. Respect is acknowledging the inherent dignity

of the other person as a human being, regardless of what we may think

about him or her. Respect does not mean subservience or deference,

but rather an effort to understand another person and an

acknowledgement of his or her ideas and presence. Scholar Richard

Johannesen refers to this as a spirit of mutual equality, and describes it

this way: “although society may rank participants of dialogue as of

unequal status or accomplishment, the participants themselves view

each other as persons, not as objects to be manipulated or exploited.

The exercise of power and superiority is to be avoided. Participants do

not impose their opinion, cause or will.”4 In other words, everyone has

an equal stake in the discussion, and no one person is privileged over

another. Communication with a spirit of mutual equality entails not

forcing one’s perspective on someone else but instead remaining open

to receiving the perspective of another as equally significant as one’s

own position or ideas. No one likes to be ignored or to go unnoticed,

and so providing that minimum level of recognition is a good baseline

for treating people with respect. When we do this to others, we

encourage them to reciprocate, and this creates a positive relationship

in which we can have honest and frank discussions, even when we

disagree.

Respect for self. Civility is not only about how we treat others, but it is

also about how we treat ourselves. We must respect our own opinions,

ideas, and humanity in interactions just as much as we need to do that

for other people. To do this is an important, if generally

unacknowledged, component of civility whereby we are assertive. To

be assertive means to clearly, calmly, and confidently make our

positions and ideas known to others. It is important that we feel

comfortable expressing our opinions and hearing those of other

people. It is disrespectful to ourselves and devalues what we have to

say if we sit quietly and never share our own ideas, thus eliminating a

Video

Please visit the textbook on a web or mobile device to view video content.

chance for other people to understand our perspective and perception

of the situation.5

Assertiveness is not to be confused with aggressiveness.

Aggressiveness implies a desire to win, compete, or otherwise move

the other side to silence. Aggressiveness is rude and creates a very

uncomfortable situation for everyone and can come across in the

words we use, the volume and tone of voice we use, and the facial

expressions and hand gestures we make. When we are assertive, we

are comfortable knowing we have made our contribution, regardless of

whether the idea is adopted by others. On the contrary, when we are

aggressive, we seek to win and dominate the conversation. Knowing

how to be assertive, but not aggressive, is a key component of being

civil.

Assigned as

Responses

Reply Showing ordered by

Review

Q4.1

A�er watching the video above and reflecting on Petrow's definition of civility, create your own definition of civility that you think e�ectively updates it for our time and share that definition in a discussion post.

�

All Responses Newest Responses

Q4.2 Review

What are the three fundamental parts of civility?

Select an answer and submit. For keyboard navigation, use the up/down arrow keys to select an answer.

a Politeness, respect for self, respect for others

b Consistency, structure, space

c Beliefs, values, morals

d Cultural, global, national considerations

Show Correct AnswerShow Submitted Answer

Check My Answer

Presentness

Being civil does not in and of itself create dialogue; there are other

important components to this form of communication we must note.

One of the biggest challenges to engaging in dialogue with another

person or group of people is giving them your undivided attention.

When we give our full attention to someone and avoid mental

distractions, or noise, we are then practicing presentness .

Presentness involves a commitment to the moment, and more

specifically, the other person in the moment with us. As

communication scholar Ron Arnett puts it, “relationship centered

communication that is sensitive to what happens to both self and

other approaches dialogic communication.”7 This is harder than it

sounds; just think about a time where you received particularly good or

bad news and then had to pay attention in class. You were likely not

able to give undivided attention to the class because of the distraction

the news became.

It is important to note that the human attention span is finite, which

means we only can maintain attention for a certain period of time

because doing so requires a great deal of mental effort. Our ability to

focus is a skill we can build with practice8  Many people erroneously

believe they can multitask and pay attention to someone while doing

something else. For any cognitive function that requires you to focus,

such as driving, reading, or paying attention to a speaker, it is actually

physically impossible to multitask. As molecular biologist John Medina

notes, “We are biologically incapable of processing attention-rich

inputs simultaneously.”9  So, as you can probably see, it is impossible

to do something else that requires cognitive effort while participating

in a dialogue, because you simply would not be paying attention to

what the other person is saying. It also should be noted that doing

something else while someone is talking to you is considered rude in

almost any social setting.

Seeds of Peace: The Maine Experience6

In the early 1990s, journalist John Wallach began a program called

Seeds of Peace designed to bring young people from geographic

locations rife with conflict together, so that individuals on both sides of

the conflict interact with their perceived “enemies.” The youths range in

age from 13 to 18, and spend parts of their summer with each other at

a camp in Maine where they live and interact together. The goal is that

through meeting and talking with each other for an extended period of

Video

Please visit the textbook on a web or mobile device to view video content.

time that these “seeds” of peaceful interaction will return home and

build a foundation for peace as they grow older and become more

active in their communities. To ensure that the impact is not restricted

to the summer, the participants in this very selective camp receive

continual support after they leave in the form of dialogue sessions,

cross-cultural visits, and development workshops. As of 2014, there

have been participants in the Seeds of Peace program from the Middle

East, Afghanistan, South Asia, and India. It is an astounding example of

how dialogue can help improve relations between parties who are

seemingly in perpetual conflict.

Assigned as Review

Q4.3

Share an example from the Seeds video that you think would benefit your own

Responses

Reply Showing ordered by

community.

�

All Responses Newest Responses

Unconditional Positive Regard

So far we have explored how dialogue involves civility and presentness,

but those are only parts of the equation. The third element of dialogue

is what psychologist Carl Rogers referred to as

unconditional positive regard , or accepting others with a positive

attitude. Although he applied it specifically to therapists, it works in any

interactions we might have with people. Keeping an open mind and

seeing the potential good in others creates an environment where

people feel comfortable expressing ideas and speaking about

potentially controversial topics. Unconditional positive regard does not

mean you agree with the other person, only that you believe the other

person wants the best for you and you want the best for her or him.

Operating with unconditional positive regard is not easy, and it

involves taking some risks, but the rewards outweigh potential costs.

Of course, if a person repeatedly shows you he or she is deceitful or

cannot be trusted, then your positive regard will diminish. Without the

presence of deceit, however, you should believe in the best of others.

Most interactions are not competitive, and so we should not operate

within them as if the other person is “playing us.” The idea of

unconditional positive regard illustrates the importance of character in

any communication situation.

Mutual Equality

In any social, familial, or professional setting there is a power

distribution. Parents have power over children, supervisors have power

over employees, and so on. This can, and often does, influence the

communication patterns and styles people use when interacting with

each other, and in many cases, the simple presence of positional

authority can diminish the chance of a true dialogue between people.

In a dialogue, the expressions and ideas of every party are valued at the

same level; no one person is valued less or seen as unable to provide a

positive contribution. The premise that each person can make an

equal contribution to the interaction is the

principle of mutual equality , and it is the fourth and final component

of a good dialogue.

A dialogue depends on the free exchange of ideas between parties,

even when those ideas might be at odds. As Ron Arnett puts it,

dialogue conducted with a spirit of mutual equality seeks the “unity of

contraries,” or a way to bridge positions that seem at odds. These

tensions occur when authority is present, but also when interests seem

mutually exclusive, such as a concern for self versus the community or

power and responsibility. For mutual equality to happen in a system or

environment where one has authority or power over another requires

setting aside the power dimensions and communicating in a way that

values the contributions made by everyone. Here are some actions

that create mutual equality.

Collaborating on a solution

Sharing your goals with all involved

Paraphrasing what others say to ensure understanding

Now look at these behaviors that stress the power dimensions

between participants, and see how they might discourage dialogue.

Responding to every statement others make

Keeping information from other participants

Beginning the discussion with your desired decision

Engaging in communication with others in a civil manner and setting

aside any existing power dimensions creates a dialogic environment

where people are comfortable expressing ideas, even when they

conflict. Creating this type of environment, though, is much harder

than explaining what it looks like. Now that we have defined what

dialogue is, let’s briefly take a moment and illustrate what dialogue is

not.

Q4.4 Review

Keeping an open mind and seeing potential good in others are behaviors considered in this element of dialogue, _________.

Select an answer and submit. For keyboard navigation, use the up/down arrow keys to select an answer.

a Presentness

b Unconditional Positive Regard

c Mutual Equality

d None of the above

Show Correct AnswerShow Submitted Answer

Check My Answer

“Dialogue is public engagement with di�erence and o�ers no assurances for correctness or resolution. The absence of dialogue propelled by tenacious hope to meet ideas contrary to one’s own assures societal demise.”10   — Ronald Arnett, Duquesne University

What Is Not Dialogue People commonly misconstrue two other forms of communication as

dialogue, when, in fact, they are not. True dialogic communication

contains a deep respect and recognition for the other parties in the

interaction, and it is also not about winning anything but rather about

understanding peoples’ unique positions and perspectives. This is not

to say these other forms of communication do not have their place;

they do. In most interactions with others, dialogue works far better.

Just because we are talking with someone else does not mean we are

in a dialogue with him or her. In fact, sometimes we are actually

conducting a monologue. A monologue is a style of communication

where only one voice is respected. This does not mean it is the only

voice that is heard, but it does mean that only one voice matters in the

discussion. In certain contexts, monologues work well, such as in the

military where commanding officers need their troops to follow a

directive. Without such a structure, the military loses discipline and is

far less effective. Monologues are also sometimes helpful in crises

when time is of the essence, such as when emergency personnel are

coordinating search and rescue efforts after a tornado or other natural

disaster. Monologues, though, are not helpful in situations where group

participation and commitment are necessary for success.

In addition to monologues, some people also confuse dialogue with a

more competitive form of communication, debate . In debates,

parties critically listen to each other with the goal of defeating the

opponent’s argument rather than understanding a perspective or

finding common ground. This is, unfortunately, the type of

communication modeled for most people through television news

programs. Two people with opposing views are asked to speak in short

periods of time and argue his or her side against the other person's

side. There is no attempt to build common ground but rather to “win

points” by undermining the ideas and evidence of the other person.

This type of communication does not promote collaboration, and

although it is necessary and even appropriate in some situations, it

often can get in the way of true understanding.

Q4.5 Review

Which is true about dialogue?

Select an answer and submit. For keyboard navigation, use the up/down arrow keys to select an answer.

a Debate, as long as it is civil, is a type of dialogue.

b It involves winning.

c It involves a deep understanding for people’s perspectives.

d It occurs as long as two people are talking.

Show Correct AnswerShow Submitted Answer

Check My Answer

Science vs. Faith: Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

One of the most popular PBS television programs to run in the 1990s

was Bill Nye the Science Guy, hosted by scientist and former Boeing

mechanical engineer Bill Nye. Since his show finished airing, Nye has

made numerous appearances promoting science education to people

across the United States. Ken Ham is CEO of Answers in Genesis, and

founder of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. Ham

established the Creation Museum to make the case to the public that

the Christian Bible’s book of Genesis explains creation literally. In

February 2014, the two men, one a proponent of evolution, and the

other an adamant evangelical creationist, met to debate their

positions. The central goal for both parties was to prove the other

wrong. They did not attempt to understand each other or explore the

Video Please visit the textbook on a web or mobile device to view video content.

positions the other articulated, but rather sought to demonstrate how

the opponent’s evidence was erroneous. This is an example of a

debate, not a dialogue. It is also one of the more common approaches

to communicating ideas in the public forum, whether in a formal

setting like this, or in a two-minute clip on a cable news show. The idea

is to push one’s position at the expense of the other.

Assigned as

Responses

Review

Q4.6

O�en, debate is a productive exercise. What values and skills mentioned in this video from the Harvard debate team might serve you well in your thinking and education?

�

Reply Showing ordered byAll Responses Newest Responses

Attitudes Necessary for Dialogue Now that we have uncovered the philosophy behind dialogue, we can

better understand the different attitudes one needs to effectively

participate in dialogue. These attitudes help illustrate what the proper

context is for dialogue to take place. Without the right attitude, true

dialogue and understanding are difficult to come by. In this section, we

will examine four different attitudes that contribute to a strong positive

dialogic experience between people. 

Open-mindedness

Central to dialogue is the belief that no one has a monopoly on good

ideas, and that the ideas of others might be better than our own. When

we enter into a dialogue, we must be ready to critique our own ideas as

well as those of other people. Often, someone else may see something

in our ideas that could be improved or notice something we missed,

and we must be ready to accept this feedback. Dialogue is a matter of

identifying the best idea possible through an understanding of multiple

perspectives. Being open-minded calls us to withhold judgment while

we completely listen to our conversational partners; in doing that, we

can gather all the information possible about an issue. This attitude

flows from the central premise of dialogue related to respecting other

people.

Q4.7 Review

Which thought does not go with open-mindedness?

Select an answer and submit. For keyboard navigation, use the up/down arrow keys to select an answer.

a “No one has a monopoly on good ideas.”

b “He might have a better idea than me.”

c “I am open to feedback on my idea.”

d “His idea will never get us a top grade.”

Show Correct AnswerShow Submitted Answer

Check My Answer

Genuineness

Recall that in a dialogue we must respect ourselves as well as the other

party, and in order to do so, according to Richard Johannesen, we

must enter into an interaction with an attitude that is genuine.11

Genuineness means being direct, honest, and straightforward

regarding what we believe and think. This allows us to be true to

ourselves as well as the other person by not hiding our thoughts or

denying ourselves the right to contribute to the dialogue. People who

try to communicate strategically or tactically are more likely engaging

in debate, and, in trying to manipulate the course of the discussion,

prohibit true dialogue from taking place. This is self-centered rather

than other-centered communication, which carries great risk for the

relationship if uncovered.

Being genuine can carry its own risk, as you might be operating in a

genuine manner while the other person is not, thus creating a situation

where you might be taken advantage of by the other party. We must be

genuine to create trust, but being genuine also makes us vulnerable in

interactions with people who are not trustworthy. In these situations,

you might want to reveal truths in a gradual manner as you get to know

the other person. This will minimize, but not eliminate, the risk; as long

as your contribution is true and honest, you are still being genuine.

Sensitivity

While being genuine (direct, honest, and straightforward) is important

for furthering dialogic communication, you should also be sensitive

to how others might receive and be affected by your “honest” verbal

and nonverbal messages. As we discussed in the chapter on

communication, culture, and diversity, understanding and respecting

diversity is key for engaging in competent communication. We need to

remember that the people we communicate with are not always the

same as us. They might come from different religious backgrounds or

have different ideological points of view. Additionally, in the chapter on

perception and the self, we explored how perception is integral to the

communication process. How we communicate with others inevitably

affects how others see us, how they see themselves, and how they view

our relationship with them. Therefore, it is critical that you are sensitive

to what others might perceive as insensitive communication, from

everyday exchanges where offenses might be “smaller” but are still

intentional and insulting to the other person (e.g., interrupting a

colleague during a meeting), to those that are not necessarily

intentionally insulting but can come across as such (e.g., a white

person assuming someone with dark skin is “from somewhere else”

and asking them where they are from, even though they are both

English speakers living in the same city), to intentional mean-spirited

statements and actions, including “-ist” language that is meant to

denigrate and cause distress to the other person.

Activating sensitivity as you interact with others will help you engage in

good dialogue as it shows others that you care how your messages

affect others. Receivers should also display sensitivity in how they

interpret and react to insensitive messages, although senders bear the

most burden with regard to sensitivity. It really is true to advise yourself

and others to think before you speak!

Agreeableness

One of the key characteristics of a good dialogue is being agreeable .

Being agreeable means remaining open to the idea that you might

agree with the other person. We often focus on the overall argument or

position and not its parts. If we enter into a discussion with an attempt

to be agreeable, we allow ourselves to recognize points we might agree

with as opposed to a totalizing statement of agreeing or disagreeing

with a person. We might disagree with her or his conclusion but find

places of agreement in the evidence the person uses to get there.

When we stress areas of agreement rather than the things on which we

disagree, we create a much more comfortable climate for

communication and generate a positive impression of ourselves for

other people.

Agreeable communicators not only seek to find the things on which

they agree with another person, but they recognize the person is not

the argument. They do not equate a person’s character or identity

simply with a position he or she may take on an issue. 

Q4.8 Review

A couple is in disagreement about which house they should buy. Partner one listens while partner two points out some ideas about each house that partner one had not initially thought about. Partner one readily accepts these points. Which attitude necessary for dialogue does this represent?

Select an answer and submit. For keyboard navigation, use the up/down arrow keys to select an answer.

a Genuineness

b Presentness

c Open-mindedness

d Agreeableness

Show Correct AnswerShow Submitted Answer

Check My Answer

Q4.9 Review

Joan and Steve are working on a group project. Joan makes PowerPoint slides that Steve believes will earn them a bad grade. Rather than being direct, Steve tries to tactfully talk to Joan about her work. Which attitude necessary for dialogue is Steve neglecting in his approach?

Select an answer and submit. For keyboard navigation, use the up/down arrow keys to select an answer.

a Genuineness

b Presentness

c Open-mindedness

d Agreeableness Show Correct AnswerShow Submitted Answer

Check My Answer

Ethical Integrity

As you might imagine, an attitude derived from a sense of morality and

desire for fairness is important for anyone engaging in dialogic

communication. Morality is our inner sense of right and wrong. Our

desire for fairness is shaped by that understanding in specific contexts.

Holding true to our sense of right and wrong and consistently applying

it in any situation we might encounter is a hallmark of integrity , or

the maintenance of a consistent application of our values in every

situation. There are a whole host of different ethical approaches, some

derived from philosophy and others from theology. Regardless, they

each inform our sense of what is right and good in a particular

situation. Strong ethical character has long been a hallmark of

communication, going all the way back to the Roman philosopher and

teacher Quintilian, who required his students to demonstrate that they

were “a good man speaking well.”12

No matter the philosophy or theology that informs one’s moral center,

a good person always seeks what is good for his or her community, not

necessarily what is best for himself or herself, and is clear about that

motive when explaining a position to others. Law professor Steven

Carter describes this type of moral integrity as having three main

components: “(1) discerning what is right and what is wrong, (2) acting

on what you have discerned, even at personal cost, and (3) saying

openly that you are acting on your understanding of right from

wrong.”13 In dialogue, we must be willing to examine ideas—even our

own—for how they reflect our values and then act according to those

values.

In fact, in 1999 the National Communication Association created, and

since promotes, a Credo for Ethical Communication. The Credo

contains nine principles for ethical communication. Take a look at what

professionals who study communication believe are the tenets of

ethical communication:

NCA Credo for Ethical Communication

(approved by the NCA Legislative Council, November 1999) 

Questions of right and wrong arise whenever people communicate.

Ethical communication is fundamental to responsible thinking,

decision making, and the development of relationships and

communities within and across contexts, cultures, channels, and

media. Moreover, ethical communication enhances human worth and

dignity by fostering truthfulness, fairness, responsibility, personal

integrity, and respect for self and others. We believe that unethical

communication threatens the quality of all communication and

consequently the well-being of individuals and the society in which we

live. Therefore we, the members of the National Communication

Association, endorse and are committed to practicing the following

principles of ethical communication: 

We advocate truthfulness, accuracy, honesty, and reason as essential

to the integrity of communication. 

We endorse freedom of expression, diversity of perspective, and

tolerance of dissent to achieve the informed and responsible decision

making fundamental to a civil society. 

We strive to understand and respect other communicators before

evaluating and responding to their messages. 

We promote access to communication resources and opportunities as

necessary to fulfill human potential and contribute to the well-being of

families, communities, and society. 

We promote communication climates of caring and mutual

understanding that respect the unique needs and characteristics of

individual communicators. 

We condemn communication that degrades individuals and humanity

through distortion, intimidation, coercion, and violence, and through

the expression of intolerance and hatred. 

We are committed to the courageous expression of personal

convictions in pursuit of fairness and justice. 

We advocate sharing information, opinions, and feelings when facing

significant choices while also respecting privacy and confidentiality. 

We accept responsibility for the short- and long-term consequences for

our own communication and expect the same of others.14

Q4.10 Review

A person seeking what is good for his or her community, not necessarily what is best for himself or herself is an example of:

Select an answer and submit. For keyboard navigation, use the up/down arrow keys to select an answer.

a A good person

b Agreeableness

c Sensitivity

d Genuineness

Show Correct AnswerShow Submitted Answer

Check My Answer

Each of the attitudes we have discussed—open-mindedness,

genuineness, agreeableness, and ethical integrity—all serve as the

foundation to actual communicative behaviors that create a dialogue

born from the definition of dialogue we explored earlier in the chapter.

In the next, and final section of this chapter, we will explore some of

those behaviors.

Dialogic Behaviors Knowing what dialogue is and even approaching it with the right

attitude does not guarantee a successful interaction using this style of

communication. What we can control, however, is our attempt to

create what group communication scholar Jack Gibb calls a supportive

communication climate. Gibb contrasts a supportive climate, where

people are comfortable exchanging ideas and differing opinions with

each other, with a defensive communication climate. A defensive

climate is one where people feel attacked and threatened by the other

party. Gibb identified six contrasting behavior types that could create

either supportive or defensive communication climates. In Table 4.1,

you can see his communication behavioral typology.15 

Table 4.1  Supportive and Defensive Behavior Types

 Supportive Behaviors    Defensive Behaviors  

Description:

Nonjudgmental statement

or account

Evaluation: Statement

that passes judgment in

some way

Problem orientation:

Seeks to find a good

solution to a problem 

Control: Seeks to impose a

specific solution

Spontaneity: Thought up

at the moment

Strategy: Preplanned

approach designed to

manipulate a person or

situation

Empathy: Cares about the

other person’s feelings

Neutrality: Doesn’t care

about others’ feelings

Equality: Two people are

equal as humans

Superiority: One person is

greater than the other in

some characteristic (e.g.,

power, wealth, intellect)

Provisionalism: An idea

seems promising, pending

further consideration

Certainty: An answer is

final and requires no

further consideration

In this section, we will build upon Gibb’s categories and offer six

specific behaviors you can employ to conduct a successful dialogue by

creating a supportive communication climate. Be forewarned,

however, that these behaviors are easier explained than implemented;

they take a lot of patience and practice.

Q4.11 Review

All of the following except ______ are considered supportive dialogic behaviors.

Select an answer and submit. For keyboard navigation, use the up/down arrow keys to select an answer.

a Spontaneity

b Provisionalism

c Neutrality

d Problem orientation

Show Correct AnswerShow Submitted Answer

Check My Answer

Separate Facts from Interpretation

In the previous chapter, we covered the perception process, and the

final stage in that process is interpretation. As you recall,

interpretations take symbols, events, and experiences and give them

meaning, but we all do not give the same meaning to the same things.

These interpretations are not facts, and to have a good dialogue we

must avoid treating them as such. When people offer interpretations or

judgments that are different from ours, they do not necessarily have

the facts wrong; they just have a different way of seeing something.

Rather than suggesting others are incorrect, interpretive differences

illustrate a perceptual gap between ourselves and the other person

that we need to bridge through dialogue.

We often deny the opportunity for dialogue by issuing opinions as

though they should be accepted as facts. For instance, saying, “The

cost for car insurance is $750 a year,” is a statement of a fact. If you

instead said, “The car insurance here is expensive,” you would be

offering an interpretation, not a fact. You could adjust this second

statement to make it more dialogic by adding the qualifier, “I believe

that” to the beginning of the interpretation, making it clear that your

statement is an interpretation and not a fact. The more specific and

factual we can be in a dialogue, the easier it will be to understand why

someone believes the way she or he does.

Ask Clarifying Questions

As you can probably imagine, in many situations it can be difficult to

either keep up with a conversational partner or differentiate between

fact and interpretation. The most effective dialogic tool for managing

these challenges is asking clarifying questions. These questions must

be handled in a manner consistent with the principles and attitudes

inherent in dialogic communication, meaning they are not judgmental

and they do not implicitly state a position in the form of a question.

Nondialogic questions might look like the following examples in the

left column of Table 4.2.

Table 4.2  Nondialogic and Dialogic Questions

 Nondialogic Questions   Dialogic Questions 

“So, you are telling me you

did not take out the

garbage last night despite

what our neighbors said?” 

“What time did you take

out the garbage last

night?” 

“Don’t you think that

spending money on that

dress is a waste of your

hard-earned cash?” 

“How much money will you

have left after buying that

dress?” 

“Can’t you see how that job

is beneath you?” 

“What new responsibilities

will you have in this

position?” 

Each of these questions is not designed to achieve understanding but

is rather a tool to forward a position disguised as a question. These are

examples of leading or loaded questions. These questions do not

encourage dialogue, as they do not demonstrate open-minded

communication.

Clarifying questions, on the other hand, are focused on furthering

understanding through the solicitation of information from another

party. These questions do not attack or express judgment, but rather

invite further explanation on a topic or issue. Look to the right column

of Table 4.2 for some examples of clarifying questions that encourage

dialogue.

Each of these seeks information and does not imply judgments. By

asking questions this way, communicators invite discussion without

putting a person on the defensive.

Q4.12 Review

“How much money will we have le� a�er you buy tickets for the game?”

Select an answer and submit. For keyboard navigation, use the up/down arrow keys to select an answer.

a This is an example of a nondialogic question.

b This is an example of a dialogic question.

c This is an implied position on the matter.

d This statement makes a judgement.

Show Correct AnswerShow Submitted Answer

Check My Answer

Allow Other People to Speak Fully

We all can think of a time when we got excited and wanted to either

add to the conversation or respond to what someone was saying. In

order to create a climate that encourages dialogue, however, we must

allow the other person to finish their thoughts before we jump in. This

is one of the most common conversational miscues people make:

believing they know where someone is going with a statement and so,

in their excitement, jumping in and finishing the statement for the

other person. Although it may be done with a desire to show support

for the other person, this interruption can be construed as rude and

may actually end up hurting more than helping to facilitate dialogue.

Interruptions often hurt the listener as well as the speaker by denying

them the opportunity to hear everything.

To allow other people to speak fully and thus avoid interruptions, it is

essential to put your desire to speak to the side so you can focus on

your role as a listener. This role is just as important as speaking in a

dialogue, and demonstrating the ability and desire to pay attention to

the speaker throughout his or her statement helps create an

environment in which you listen in a way that encourages others to

speak. Additionally, when you listen carefully to the speaker

throughout his or her statement, you are modeling that behavior and

communicating to others that they should also listen in a way that

encourages you to speak.

Take Notes

One thing you can do to keep yourself from interrupting someone and

keep pace with what is being said is to take notes. Students do this in

most all classes, mainly to create organized study materials for

upcoming exams. Little do they realize that note taking would benefit

their ability to have constructive and successful interactions with other

people. We simply cannot recall everything another person says. The

more time that passes between the action and the time we try to

remember it, the more we forget. This cognitive loss makes it even

more important to keep a written record of important points in

conversations so that later, when we need to revisit what was covered,

we can return to our notes.

Taking notes also assists us during conversations or presentations in

that rather than interrupting a person in the moment he or she says

something, we can write down our questions or comments and wait

until it is our turn to speak. This keeps us from forgetting the comment

or question and allows us to contextualize it with the statement to

which our question or comment is responding. Note taking also

demonstrates to the other people in the conversation that you are

paying attention, which creates a comfortable communication climate

where people feel as if you value their contributions. This is a way of

physically demonstrating respect for the other person by giving her or

him your attention.

Give Complete Attention

Earlier in the chapter we pointed out how multitasking interferes with

effective dialogue. Many professors have policies regarding the use of

computers and cell phones in their classes, likely because they have

witnessed students using computers to do things other than follow

along in class. The same thing happens in business meetings, where

colleagues often will text or look at their phone during meetings. These

activities are disrespectful to the other people in the conversation

because they show that person is not paying complete attention. Not

only do distractions increase the risk of important information being

missed, but relationships and personal credibility could be damaged

as well. 

Whether it is in class or in a meeting, it is important to give someone

your complete attention. You would want the same when you speak,

and so giving others your attention is equally important. Keep in mind

that attention does not mean simply staring at the other person; it

rather involves being fully present and expressing interest in what is

being said.

Own Your Own Statements

The final behavior we will discuss that encourages a dialogic climate

for communication is owning your own statements. This involves using

“I” language instead of “you” language. “You” language puts people on

the defensive because it can come across as accusatory. We often do

this when we have negative feelings and begin blaming other people or

events for the way we feel, thus abdicating our ability to control our

own emotions. This diminishes respect for ourselves and comes across

as though others can control us. See Table 4.3.

Table 4.3  “You” and “I” Language

 “You” Language   “I” Language 

 “You are a liar.”   “I think I need more

convincing.” 

 “You never let me finish.”   “I have not fully explained

myself.”