Communication Post

9

Communication and Self-Concept

When I was 8 years old, I thought I would grow up to be a novelist. By age 12, my parents had taught me to cook and bake, and it become clear to me that I

would be a pastry chef. When I was 20 and in love with my college sweetheart, I realized I would be a stay-at-home wife and mother. When I was 22 years old and had left my college sweetheart, I was sure that I would be single and a teacher. Then I began graduate school and met Robbie, and I started to defi ne myself as a scholar and teacher and a part- ner to Robbie. Today, I am not single, not a novelist, not a stay-at-home wife and mother, and not a pastry chef, although I do bake bread every week. My sense of who I am has changed as a result of experiences and people that have affected how I see myself.

How did you defi ne yourself when you were 8, 12, and 20 years old? It’s likely that your defi nition of yourself today is different from your defi nition of yourself at earlier times in your life. Our sense of our- selves changes as we experience new relationships, situations, and people. How you see yourself today is shaped by others’ interactions with you throughout your life. Similarly, the self you become in the future will refl ect people and experiences that have been part of your life as well as those to come.

In this chapter, we will explore how the self is formed and how it changes in the process of communicating with others and with ourselves. First, we will defi ne the self and explore the central role of communication in creating the self. In the second section of the chapter, we’ll discuss guidelines for enhancing your self-identity.

You cannot belong to anyone else, until you belong to yourself. Pearl Bailey

1. What role does communication play in developing personal identity?

2. What is the generalized other, and how does it shape personal identity?

3. What are the values and risks of self-disclosing communication?

4. How can you create a supportive context for your personal growth?

FOCUS QUES TIONS

181

Communication and Personal Identity The self is an ever-changing system of perspectives that is formed and sustained in communication with others and ourselves. This defi nition emphasizes that the self is a process. Each of us evolves and changes throughout our lives. The defi nition also calls attention to the idea that the self consists of perspectives: views about ourselves, others, and social life that arise out of our experiences and interactions with others. Finally, the defi nition highlights communication as a critically important infl uence on who we are and how we see ourselves.

Th e Self Arises in Communication with Others The distinguished scholar, George Herbert Mead, spent most of his career studying personal identity. His conclusion was that the self is not innate but is acquired in the process of communicating with others. We aren’t born with clear understandings of who we are and what our value is. Instead, we develop these understandings in the process of communicating with others who tell us who we are, what we should and should not do, how valuable we are, and what is expected of us. As we internalize oth- ers’ perspectives, we come to perceive ourselves through their eyes.

One particularly powerful way in which communication shapes the self is through self-fulfi lling prophecies—expectations or judgments of ourselves that we bring about through our own actions. If you have done poorly in classes where teachers didn’t seem to respect you and have done well with teachers who thought you were smart, you know what a self-fulfi lling prophecy is. Because we internal- ize others’ perspectives, we may label ourselves as they do and then act to fulfi ll the labels we have internalized. We may try to live up or down to the ways we and others defi ne us.

When I was 7 years old, I took a swimming class. No matter how hard I tried to fol- low the teacher’s directions, I sank in the pool. I couldn’t swim and couldn’t even fl oat. After 3 weeks, the teacher told me that I would never learn to swim and I should stay away from water. For the next 43 years, I accepted the teacher’s label of nonswimmer. When I was 50, Robbie challenged my statement that I couldn’t swim. He said I could learn to swim if I wanted to, and he volunteered to coach me. After just a few days of one-on-one coaching, I was swimming and fl oating. Now, I feel safe going in pools or the ocean because I am not trapped by an outdated, inaccurate label.

Like me, many of us believe inaccurate things about ourselves. In some cases, the labels were once true but aren’t any longer, yet we continue to apply them to ourselves (remember indexing, which we discussed in Chapter 4). In other cases, the labels were never valid, but we believed them anyway. Sometimes, children are mislabeled as slow when the real problem is that they have physiological diffi culties such as impaired vision or they are struggling with a second language. Even when the true source of diffi culty is discovered, the children already may have adopted a destructive self- fulfi lling proph- ecy. If we accept others’ judgments, we may fulfi ll their prophecies. The FYI feature on page 182 illustrates the power of positive (and negative) prophecies. To explain the impact of others on ourselves, Mead identifi ed two kinds of others whose communication infl uences how we see ourselves and what we believe is possible and desirable for us.

182 PART III CONTEXTS OF COMMUNICATION

EUGENIO

My father was not at home much when I was growing up. He worked in Merida, where the tourists go and spend money. My grandfather lived with us, and he raised me. He taught me to read and to count, and he showed me how to care for our livestock and repair the roof on our house after the rains each year. He is the one who talked to me about life and what matters. He is the one who taught me how to be a man.

A Positive Prophecy

For years, Georgia Tech ran a program called Challenge, a course designed to help disadvantaged students succeed academically. Yet when administrators reviewed the records, they found that

students enrolled in Challenge did no better than disadvantaged students who did not attend. Norman Johnson, a special assistant to the president of Georgia Tech, explained the reason for the dismal results of Challenge. He said, “We were starting off with the idea the kids were dumb. We didn’t say that, of course, but the program was set up on a defi cit model.” Then Johnson suggested a new strategy: “Suppose we started with the idea that these youngsters were unusually bright, that we had very high expectations of them?” (Raspberry, 1994, p. 9A). Challenge teachers were then trained to expect success from their students and to communicate their expectations through how they treated students. The results were impressive: In 1992, 10% of the fi rst-year Challenge students had perfect 4.0 grade point averages for the academic year. That 10% was more than all the minority students who had achieved 4.0 averages in the entire decade of 1980–1990. By comparison, only 5% of the students who didn’t participate in Challenge had perfect averages. When teachers expected Challenge students to do well and communicated those expectations, the students in fact did do well—a case of a positive self-fulfi lling prophecy.

ENGAGEMENT

fyi

Particular Others The fi rst perspectives that affect us are those of particular others. As the term implies, these are specifi c people who are especially signifi cant to us and who shape how we see ourselves. Mothers, fathers, siblings, peers, and, often, day-care providers are others who are signifi cant to us in our early years. For some of us, particular others also include aunts, uncles, grandparents, and friends.

In general, Hispanics, Latinas and Latinos, Asians and Asian Americans, and African Americans often have closer and larger extended families than European Americans. As Eugenio points out in his commentary, people other than parents can affect how children see themselves, others, and the social world.

The process of seeing ourselves through the eyes of others is called refl ected appraisal, or the “looking-glass self ” (Cooley, 1912). As

infants interact with others, they learn how others see them—they see themselves in the looking glass, or mirror, of others’ eyes. This is the beginning of a self-concept. Note that the self starts outside of us with others’ views of who we are. In other words, we fi rst see ourselves from the perspectives of others. If parents communicate to children that they are special and cherished, the children will probably see them- selves as worthy of love. On the other hand, children whose parents communicate that they are not wanted or loved may come to think of themselves as unlovable.

Refl ected appraisals are not confi ned to childhood but continue throughout our lives. Sometimes, a teacher is the fi rst to see potential in a student that the student has not recognized in herself or himself. When the teacher communicates that the student is

CHAPTER 9 COMMUNICATION AND SELF-CONCEPT 183

talented in a particular area, the student may come to see himself or herself that way. Later, in professional life we encounter co- workers and bosses who refl ect their apprais- als of us (we’re on the fast track, average, or not suited to our positions). The friends and romantic partners we choose throughout life become primary looking glasses for us.

The Generalized Other The second per- spective that infl uences how we see ourselves is that of the generalized other. The gener- alized other is the collection of rules, roles, and attitudes endorsed by the overall society and social communities to which we belong (Mead, 1934). In other words, the general- ized other is made up of the views of society and social communities to which we belong.

Broadly shared social perspectives are communicated by other people who have internalized those views and also by social institutions such as schools and media. For example, when we read popular magazines and go to movies, we are inundated with messages about how we are supposed to look and act. We learn how our culture defi nes success, and we are likely to internalize this view. Communication from media infuses our lives, repeatedly telling us how we are supposed to be, think, act, and feel. Access to the Web and the Internet expands the perspectives we encounter, which may become part of how we view the world and our place in it.

Institutions that organize our society communicate values that further convey the perspective of the generalized other. For example, our judicial system asserts that, as a society, we value laws and punish those who break them. The number of prisons and ceaseless media attention to crime further tell us that Western society values lawful behavior and punishes unlawful behavior. The Western institution of marriage com- municates society’s view that when people marry they become a single unit, which is why the law assumes that married couples have joint ownership of property. In other societies, parents arrange marriages, and newlyweds become part of the husband’s family. The number of schools, as well as the extent of graduate and professional edu- cation, inform us that Western society values learning.

Institutions also refl ect and express prevailing social prejudices. For instance, we may be a lawful society, but many wealthy defendants can afford better legal counsel than poor ones can. Similarly, although we claim to offer equal educational opportuni- ties to all, many students whose families have money and infl uence can get into better schools than students whose families have limited fi nancial resources (Cose, 2004). These and other values are woven into the fabric of our culture, and we learn them with little effort or awareness. Only by making a conscious and sustained effort can we become more aware of what society communicates about different groups. We have an ethical responsibility to refl ect carefully on social values so that we can make con- scious choices about which ones we will accept for ourselves.

From the moment we enter the world, we interact with others. As we do, we learn how they see us, and we take their perspectives inside ourselves. Once we have inter- nalized the views of particular others and the generalized other, we engage in internal dialogues with those social perspectives. Through the process of internal dialogues, or

Who are the people who are your looking glass? For whom are you a looking glass?

© Le

ig h M

. W ilc

o

184 PART III CONTEXTS OF COMMUNICATION

conversations with ourselves, we reinforce the social values we have learned and the views of us and the world that others have communicated.

Communication with Family Members For most of us, family members are the fi rst and most important infl uence on how we see ourselves. Because family interaction dominates our early years, it usually sculpts the foundations of our self-concepts (Bergen & Braithwaite, 2009). Parents and other family members communicate who we are and what we are worth through direct defi nitions, life scripts, and attachment styles.

Direct Defi nition As the term implies, direct defi nition is communication that explicitly tells us who we are by labeling us and our behaviors. Parents and other family members defi ne us by the symbols they use to describe us. For instance, parents might say, “You’re my sweet little girl” or “You’re a big, strong boy” and thus communicate to the child what sex it is and what the sexual assignment means (girls are sweet, boys are big and strong). Children who hear such messages may internalize their parents’ views of the sexes and use those as models for themselves.

Family members provide direct communication about many aspects of who we are. Positive labels enhance our self-esteem (Brooks & Goldstein, 2001): “You’re so smart,” “You’re sweet,” “You’re great at soccer.” Negative labels can damage chil- dren’s self-esteem: “You’re a troublemaker,” “You’re stupid,” and “You’re impossible” are messages that can demolish a child’s sense of self-worth. Direct defi nition also takes place as family members respond to children’s behaviors. If children clown around and parents respond by saying, “What a cut-up; you really are funny,” the children are likely to perceive themselves as funny. If a child receives praise for

dusting furniture (“You’re great to help me clean the house”), help- ing others is reinforced as part of the child’s self-concept. From direct defi nition, children learn how others see them and what others value and expect of them, and this shapes how they regard themselves and what they expect of themselves.

Life Scripts Family members also shape our self-concepts by communicating life scripts, which are rules for living and identity (Berne, 1964; Harris, 1969, Steiner, 1994). Like scripts for plays, life scripts defi ne our roles, how we are to play them, and the basic elements of what our families see as the right plot for our lives. Think back to your child- hood to recall some of the identity scripts that your family communicated to you. Were you told, “Save your money for a rainy day,” “Always help others,”

Refl ecting on Your Life Scripts

To take control of our lives, we must fi rst understand infl uences that shape it currently. Identify the life scripts your parents taught you.

1. First, recall explicit messages your parents gave you about “who we are” and “who you are.” Can you hear their voices telling you codes you were expected to follow?

2. Next, write down the scripts. Try to capture the language your parents used in teaching the scripts.

3. Now review each script. Which ones make sense to you today? Are you still following any that have become irrelevant or nonfunc- tional for you? Do you disagree with any of them?

4. Commit to changing scripts that aren’t productive for you or that confl ict with values you now hold.

In some cases, we can rewrite scripts. To do so, we must become aware of the scripts we were taught and take responsibility for scripting our lives.

Y Lif S i t

SHARPE N YOUR SKILL

CHAPTER 9 COMMUNICATION AND SELF-CONCEPT 185

“Look out for yourself,” or “Don’t live on credit”? These are examples of identity scripts people learn in families.

Our basic identity scripts are formed early, probably by age 5. This means that fundamental understandings of who we are and how we are supposed to live are forged when we have almost no control. We aren’t allowed to coauthor or even edit our initial life scripts, because adults have power. As children, we aren’t even conscious of learning scripts. It is largely an unconscious process by which we internalize scripts that others write and assign to us, and we absorb them with little if any awareness. As adults, however, we are no longer passive recipients of others’ scripts. We have the capacity to review the life scripts that were given to us and to challenge and change those that do not fi t the selves we now choose to be. The Sharpen Your Skill feature on page 184 invites you to review your life scripts and chal- lenge those that no longer work for you.

Attachment Styles Finally, parents communicate who we are through their attachment styles, patterns of parent- ing that teach us how to view ourselves and personal rela- tionships. From his studies of interaction between parents and children, John Bowlby (1973, 1988) concluded that we learn attachment styles in our earliest relationships. These early relationships are especially important because they form expectations for later relationships (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Miller, 1993; Trees, 2006). Four distinct attachment styles have been identifi ed (see Figure 9.1).

A secure attachment style develops when a child’s primary caregiver responds in a consistently attentive and loving way to a child. In response, the child develops a posi- tive sense of self-worth (“I am lovable”) and a positive view of others (“People are loving and can be trusted”). People with secure attachment styles tend to be outgoing, affec- tionate, and able to handle the challenges and disappointments of close relationships without losing self-esteem. A majority of middle-class children in the United States are securely attached, but fewer children in lower economic classes are (Greenberg, 1997).

A fearful attachment style is cultivated when the caregiver communicates in negative, rejecting, or even abusive ways to a child. Children who are treated this way often infer that they are unworthy of love and that others are not loving. Thus, they learn to see themselves as unlovable and others as rejecting. Not surprisingly, people with fearful attachment styles are apprehensive about relationships. Although they often want close bonds with others, they fear others will not love them and that they are not lovable. Thus, as adults they may avoid others or feel insecure in relationships. In some societies, members of certain groups learn early that they are less valuable than members of other groups. Zondi makes this point in her commentary.

ZONDI

In South Africa, where I was born, I learned that I was not important. Most daughters learn this. My name is Zondomini, which means between happiness and sadness. The happiness is because a child was born. The sadness is because I am a girl, not a boy. I am struggling now to see myself as worthy as a woman.

Figure 9.1 ATTACHMENT STYLES

Positive Negative

P o

si ti

ve N

eg at

iv e

SECURE ANXIOUS/

AMBIVALENT

FEARFULDISMISSIVE

Views of self

V ie

w s

of o

th er

s

186 PART III CONTEXTS OF COMMUNICATION

A dismissive attachment style is also promoted by caregivers who are uninterested in, rejecting of, or abusive toward children. People who develop this style do not accept the caregiver’s view of them as unlovable. Instead, they dismiss others as unworthy. Consequently, children develop a positive view of themselves and a low regard for others and relationships. This prompts a defensive tendency to view relationships as unnecessary and undesirable.

The fi nal pattern is the anxious/ ambivalent attachment style, which is the most complex of the four. Each of the other three styles results from some consistent pattern of treatment by a caregiver. The

anxious/ambivalent style, however, is fostered by inconsistent treatment from the care- giver. Sometimes the adult is loving and attentive, yet at other times she or he is indifferent or rejecting. The caregiver’s communication is not only inconsistent but also unpredictable. He or she may respond positively to something a child does on Monday and react negatively to the same behavior on Tuesday. Naturally, this unpredictability creates great anxiety in a child (Miller, 1993). Because children tend to assume that adults are right, children often assume that they themselves are the source of any problem. In her commentary, Noreen explains how inconsistent behaviors from her father confused and harmed her as a child.

NOREEN

When I was little, my father was an alcoholic, but I didn’t know that then. All I knew was that sometimes he was nice to me, and sometimes he was really nasty. Once, he told me I was his sunshine, but later that same day he said he wished I’d never been born. Even though now I know the alcohol made him mean, it’s still hard to feel I’m okay.

In adult life, people who have anxious/ambivalent attachment styles tend to be pre- occupied with relationships. On one hand, they know that others can be loving, so they’re drawn to relationships. On the other hand, they realize that others can hurt them and be unloving, so they are uneasy with closeness. Reproducing what the care- giver did, people with anxious/ambivalent attachment styles may act inconsistently. One day they invite affection, the next day they rebuff it and deny needing closeness.

The attachment style learned in a child’s fi rst close relationship tends to persist (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Belsky & Pensky, 1988; Bowlby, 1988; Guerrero, 1996). However, this is not inevitable. We can modify our attachment styles by chal- lenging the unconstructive views of us that were communicated in our early years and by forming relationships, particularly romantic ones, that foster secure connections today (Banse, 2004; Neyer, 2002).

Parents’ communication is a key infl uence on self-concept.

© St

ev e C

he nn

/C OR

BI S

CHAPTER 9 COMMUNICATION AND SELF-CONCEPT 187

Communication with Peers Peers are the second group of people whose communication infl uences our self-con- cept. From childhood playmates to work associates, friends, and romantic partners, we interact with peers throughout our lives. As we do, we learn how others see us, and this affects how we see ourselves.

Refl ected Appraisals Refl ected appraisals of peers join with those we saw in the eyes of family members and shape our self-images. Peers’ appraisals of us have impact through- out our lives. We’re affected by our co-workers’ judgments of our professional compe- tence, our neighbors’ views of our home and family, and the appraisals of friends.

Direct Defi nitions Peers also offer direct defi nitions of us: “You’re smart,” “You’re clumsy,” “You’re kind.” The ways that peers defi ne us often have pivotal impact on how we perceive ourselves, our abilities, and our limitations. Peers are particularly strong in com- menting directly on conformity to expectations of gender. Some college-age men think drinking and sexual activity embody masculinity. Men who are not interested in drinking and hooking may be ridiculed and excluded for not being real men (Cross, 2008; Kimmel, 2008). Women who don’t wear popular brands of clothing or who weigh more than what is considered ideal may be ridiculed as unfeminine (Adler, 2007; Barash, 2006).

Social Comparisons A third way in which communication with peers affects self- concept is through social comparison, our rating of ourselves relative to others with respect to our talents, abilities, qualities, and so forth. Whereas refl ected appraisals are based on how we think others view us, in social comparisons we use others to evaluate ourselves.

We gauge ourselves in relation to others in two ways. First, we compare ourselves with others to decide whether we are like them or different from them. Are we the same age, color, or religion? Do we have similar back- grounds, interests, political beliefs, and social commitments? Assessing similarity and dif- ference allows us to decide with whom we fi t. Research has shown that people generally are most comfortable with others who are like them, so we tend to gravitate toward those we regard as similar (Whitbeck & Hoyt, 1994). However, this can deprive us of diverse per- spectives of people whose experiences and beliefs differ from ours. When we limit our- selves only to people like us, we impoverish the social perspectives that form our understand- ings of the world.

Second, we engage in social comparisons to assess specifi c aspects of ourselves. Because there are no absolute standards of beauty, intelligence, musical talent, athletic ability, and so forth, we measure ourselves in relation

Virtual Identity Development

Having make-believe friends is common among children. With technology, today’s

children are creating their own make-believe friends and even their own identities. One popular game, The Sims, allows players to create families and living spaces and then to direct interactions among family members. Marjorie Taylor (1999), a psychologist who has studied imaginary playmates, says that children create Sims characters who are just like themselves or characters who allow them to experiment with diff erent identities. Researchers who study both children and technology think such games are great resources that help children learn to think about relationships and ways of interacting with others (Schiesel, 2006).

TECHNOLOGY

fyi

188 PART III CONTEXTS OF COMMUNICATION

to others. Am I as good a goalie as Hendrick? Am I as smart as Maya? Through comparing ourselves to oth- ers, we decide how we measure up on various criteria. This is normal and necessary if we are to develop real- istic self-concepts. However, we should be wary of using inappropriate standards of comparison. It isn’t realistic to judge our attractiveness in relation to stars and models, or our athletic ability in relation to professional players. Likewise, we won’t have valid assessments of ourselves if we compare ourselves to people who are clearly less attractive, athletic and so forth (Buunk, Groothof, & Siero, 2007; Suls, Martin, & Wheeler, 2002).

Self-Disclosure Our self-concepts are also affected— challenged, changed, reinforced, enlarged—by our self-disclosures and others’ responses to them. Self- disclosure is the revelation of personal information about ourselves that others are unlikely to learn on their own. We self-disclose when we express private hopes and fears, intimate feelings, and personal experiences, per- ceptions, and goals.

Self-disclosures vary in how personal they are. To a co- worker who is upset about not receiving a promotion, you might disclose your experience in not getting a promo- tion some years ago. To your best friend, you might dis- close more intimate feelings and experiences. Although we don’t reveal our private selves to everyone and don’t

do it a great deal of the time even with intimates, self-disclosure is an important kind of communication. How others respond to our self-disclosures can profoundly affect how we see and accept ourselves, as Tim’s commentary shows. Self-disclosure is most likely to take place when the communication climate is affi rming, accepting, and supportive.

TIM Two years ago, I had a crisis with my faith. I was afraid to tell any of my friends because they are all Christians. I thought they would think less of me because I was doubting. Finally, I had to tell someone, so I told Steven, who had pledged his life to Christ at the same time I did. He was incredible about accepting what I said—about accepting me when I was doubting. He let me talk, and he helped me work through my doubts without judging me. I think his acceptance is a big reason I could accept my own doubts and get beyond them.

A number of years ago, Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham created a model that describes different kinds of knowledge and perceptions that are related to self-concept and personal growth (Luft, 1969). They called the model the Johari Window, which is a combination of their fi rst names, Joe and Harry (Figure 9.2). The panes, or areas, in the Johari Window refer to four types of information and perceptions that are relevant to the self:

Who are your sources for social comparisons today? How do you assess yourself relative to them?

© D

en ni

s M ac

Do na

ld /P

ho to

Ed it

T

CHAPTER 9 COMMUNICATION AND SELF-CONCEPT 189

The open, or free, area contains information that is % known both to ourselves and to others. Your name, your major, and your tastes in music are probably information that you share easily with others. Our co- workers and casual acquaintances often know informa- tion about us that is in our open area.

The blind area contains perceptions of us that others % have but we don’t. For example, others may perceive us as leaders, even though we don’t see ourselves that way. Co-workers and supervisors may recognize strengths, weaknesses, and potentials of which we are unaware. Friends may see us as more or less generous than we perceive ourselves.

The hidden area contains information and perceptions % that we have about ourselves but choose not to reveal to others. You might not tell most people about your vulnerabilities or about traumas you’ve experienced. You might conceal self-doubts when interviewing for a job. Even with our closest intimates, we may choose to preserve some areas of privacy.

The unknown area is made up of information about ourselves that neither % we nor others know. The unknown area is the most diffi cult to understand because, as the area’s name implies, it contains information and perceptions that are not known. We cannot know how we will handle a job layoff unless we experience one; we cannot know if we’re good at bridge unless we try playing it. The unknown area includes your untapped resources, untried talents, and unknown reactions to experiences you’ve never had. David, who started college after serving in the Army, provides an example of what had been an unknown to him.

DAVID

I was shipped out to Iraq shortly after American troops were assigned there. Talk about scared—I was terrifi ed. I was also really unsure of how I would do. Could I stand up to the physical challenges? Would I freeze up in battle? Could I kill someone if I had to? Being a soldier in Iraq taught me some things about myself I don’t think I could have learned any other way.

Because a healthy self-concept requires knowledge of yourself, it’s important to gain access to information in our blind and unknown areas. To reduce your unknown area, you might enter unfamiliar situations. You might also try novel activities, interact with people whose cultural backgrounds differ from yours, and experiment with new ways of communicating. To decrease your blind area, you could ask others how they per- ceive you, or you could pay attention to how they act toward you. To diminish your hidden area, in carefully chosen relationships you might disclose information that you do not share with most people.

Uncertainty reduction theory, which we mentioned in Chapter 8, asserts that people fi nd uncertainty uncomfortable and so are motivated to use communication

Figure 9.2 THE JOHARI WINDOW

Known to self

Unknown to self

K n

o w

n to

o th

er s

U n

kn o

w n

to o

th er

s

OPEN AREA

BLIND AREA

UNKNOWN AREA

HIDDEN AREA

190 PART III CONTEXTS OF COMMUNICATION

to reduce uncertainty. Uncertainty is very high during initial encounters. Because we fi nd uncertainty uncomfortable, we use both indirect and direct strategies to reduce it (Berger, 1977, 1988; Gudykunst, 1995; Kim, 1995). We gain information indirectly by observing the person: How does Chris react to various people and situations? Does Chris like spicy foods? Does Chris listen to the same kinds of music that I do? Is Chris easily irritated? How fl exible is Chris in adapting when there is a change in plans? We also use direct communication to gain information and reduce our uncertainty about a new acquaintance: Where are you from? What’s your major? Do you follow politics? What’s your family like?

Self-disclosure is another way to reduce uncertainty early in relationships. We want to share our private selves and see how others respond to our disclosures. We may also hope that if we disclose something personal, others will reciprocate by disclosing to us, which would reduce our uncertainty. Because there are risks in self-disclosing, it’s wise not to disclose too much too quickly. Initial self-disclosures should involve limited risk to the discloser: I’m afraid of heights; I hope I get accepted to law school. If low-level disclosures are met with respect and affi rmation, higher-level disclosures may follow: I have a diffi cult relationship with my father; I was seriously depressed a few years ago.

According to researchers, careful self-disclosure not only fosters personal growth but also tends to increase closeness, at least among Westerners (Derlega & Berg, 1987; Greene, Derlega, & Mathews, 2006). Yet people vary in their perceptions of the link between disclosure and intimacy. For some people, talk is a primary way of developing intimacy, whereas other people regard sharing experiences and being together as more conducive to closeness than talking intimately.

Although self-disclosure is important in the early stages of a relationship, it is not a primary communication dynamic in most enduring relationships (Dindia, 2000; Wood & Duck, 2006b). When we’re fi rst getting to know colleagues, friends, or intimate partners, we have to reveal parts of ourselves and learn about them, so disclosures are necessary and desirable. However, in relationships that endure over time, disclosures make up little of the total communication. Once co-workers and friends have estab- lished relationships, the bulk of their communication focuses on task issues, not fur- ther personal disclosures. In intimate relationships, frequency of disclosure also tends to decline over time, yet partners continue to reap the benefi ts of the trust and depth of personal knowledge created by early disclosures. Also, partners do continue to dis- close new experiences and insights to one another; it’s just that mature relationships usually see less disclosure than embryonic ones.

Although infrequent self-disclosures do not necessarily indicate a lack of closeness, a noticeable decline in the level of disclosure that has become standard in a relationship may be a sign that intimacy is waning. When a friendship, a romance, or a close work- ing relationship wanes, typically the depth of disclosure decreases (Baxter, 1987; Duck & Wood, 2006).

Researchers have investigated online self-disclosure. Some people invent online personalities that don’t match them—different races, sexes, sexual orientations, physical appearances, and so forth. Experimenting with identity can be helpful to adolescents as they try out different versions of themselves, a process that is criti- cal to personal development. A shy teen may create an extroverted online identity that allows her or him to test how it feels to be more sociable (Turkle, 2004). Other research shows that people who are successful at online dating tend to engage in sub- stantial positive self-disclosure and are honest about their intentions (Gibbs, Ellison, &Heino, 2006).

CHAPTER 9 COMMUNICATION AND SELF-CONCEPT 191

Communication with Society As we noted earlier, particular others are not the only infl uence on how we view our- selves. We now consider in more detail how communication with the generalized other shapes self-concept. As we interact with the generalized other, we learn which aspects of identity society considers important, how society views various social groups, and, by extension, how it views us as members of particular groups. Modern Western culture emphasizes race, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic level as key aspects of personal identity and value (Andersen & Collins, 2007; Healey & O’Brien, 2004).

Race In North America, race is considered a primary aspect of personal identity (González, Houston, & Chen, 2007). It is one of the fi rst aspects of a person that we notice, and it is an aspect of identity that is shaped by broad cultural views. The race that has been privileged historically in the United States is Caucasian. In the early years of this country’s life, some people considered it normal and right for white men to own black women, men, and children and to require them to work for no wages and in poor conditions. At that time, people also considered it natural that white men could vote but women and black men and women could not.

Although discrimination against people of color has declined since American’s early days, Caucasian privilege continues today. White children often have access to better schools with more resources than do children of African American or Latin heritage (Cose, 2004). The upper levels of government, education, and business are dominated by European American men, whereas people of color and European American women continue to fi ght for equal rights in admission, hiring, and advancement.

Perhaps the greatest indicator of white privilege is the assumption that white is the standard or normal race. For instance, people who are not white are often identifi ed by their race (black congressman, Indian student), but whites seldom are (Baum, 2008; Roediger, 2006). A relatively new area of scholarship and teaching is Critical Whiteness Studies, which aims to make whiteness as visible and as open to analysis as any other race.

It’s important to understand that race is socially constructed. What “black” or “white” means is not decided strictly by genes or skin color. Instead, society defi nes the meaning of race. The word white wasn’t used to describe race or identity until Europeans colonized the United States. They invented the label white as a way to increase solidarity among European settlers, who actually had diverse ethnic back- grounds. By calling themselves white, these

Multiracialism

For many people, the question is not “What race or nationality are you?” but “What races or

nationalities are you?” Below are a few well-known Americans with multiracial heritage. You can probably add to the list below.

Jennifer Beals – Actress, her father is black; her mother is white.

Mariah Carey – Singer/actress, her father is Venezuelan/African American; her mother is Irish.

Naomi Campbell – Model, her mother is a black Jamaican) her father is multiracial, at least partly Chinese.

Soledad O’Brien – Reporter/news anchor, her father is Australian (his parents are Irish, hence the surname O’Brien); her mother, is a black Cuban.

Barack Obama – U.S. President, his father was a black Kenyan; his mother was white American.

Alicia Keys – Singer, her father is black; her mother is Italian.

Derek Jeter – Baseball player, his father is black; his mother is white.

DIVERSITY fyi

192 PART III CONTEXTS OF COMMUNICATION

diverse groups could gloss over differences between them and use their common skin hue to distinguish themselves from people of color. The fi rst generations of Irish immi- grants were not considered white (Negra, 2006).

Growing numbers of people have multiple racial and ethnic identities. For example, if a man is one-fourth black, one-fourth Chinese, one-fourth Thai, one-eighth white, and one-eighth American Indian, what race is he? The increasing presence of multi- racial individuals is challenging current categories of race and changing the cultural fabric of the nation (Brunsma, 2006).

Gender Gender is another category that is important in Western culture. Historically, Western society has valued men more than women and considered men more rational, competent, and entitled to various social advantages and opportunities. In the 1800s, women in the United States as well as other Western cultures were not allowed to own property, gain professional training, or vote.

Society’s gender prescriptions are less rigid today than they were in the past. Many men wear jewelry, tweeze their eyebrows, and use gels and spray to style their hair; many women wear slacks and don’t use makeup. Despite relaxation in the generalized other’s views of gender, social gender prescriptions persist (Holmes, 2008; Vannoy, 2001; Wood, 2009). In most cultures, girls and women are expected to be caring, def- erential, and cooperative, whereas boys and men are supposed to be independent, assertive, and competitive. Women who violate social expectations of gender by assert- ing themselves or refusing to defer are likely to receive social disapproval, to be called bitches, and otherwise to be reprimanded for violating prescriptions for their gender. Beth’s commentary indicates how others respond to her lack of conformity to the gen- eralized other’s perspective on femininity. Men who refuse to conform to social views of masculinity and who are gentle and caring risk being called wimps.

Sexual Orientation A third aspect of iden- tity that is salient to the generalized other in Western culture is sexual orientation. Historically and today, heterosexuals are viewed as normal, and people who have other sexual orientations are often regarded as abnormal. Society communicates this viewpoint not only directly but also through

privileges given to heterosexuals but denied to gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals. For example, a woman and a man can be married in any state or culture. Marriage confers social and legal recognition of their commitment (Wood, 2006b). For years, United States law has refused to allow marriage between two men or two women who want to be life partners. In recent years, we have witnessed challenges to this law. Many gay men and lesbians reject and resist negative social views of their identity, and they form communities that support positive self-images. These communities can serve as a gen- eralized other that is different from the mainstream culture.

Some states have passed laws that allow gays and lesbians to marry. At the same time, religious and secular groups are challenging same-sex marriage. Regardless of whether same-sex marriage is able to sustain legal standing, the very fact that some Americans support it and some areas choose to perform same-sex marriage shows that social disapproval of gays and lesbians is diminishing. Society is also becoming more aware of other sexual orientations and sexualities, including transsexual and

BETH

I get along with kids, but I don’t want to have any of my own. I don’t really like kids. Everyone—my parents, my friends, my boyfriend— thinks that is so weird. But I know a lot of guys who don’t like kids, and nobody thinks they’re weird or anything.

CHAPTER 9 COMMUNICATION AND SELF-CONCEPT 193

transgendered, bisexual, and intergendered people (Glenn, 2002). As with race and gender, the generalized other’s perspective on sexuality and sexual orientation is not fi xed but evolving. A transgendered woman whom I know wrote the following refl ec- tion on what it felt like growing up biologically male when she felt female and how she feels now that she lives as a woman.

CHRISTINE

Being accepted as the girl I am has been my dream from age 4 or 5. Becoming a woman among women has been my dream for over 30 years. I was brought up in the Roman Catholic Church. From a very early age I disliked the Church. I’m sure a large part of my rejection was also due to “God” never answering my prayers to have me wake up as a girl. I cried so many nights as a child.

Never did I appreciate how so quickly life-changing living as an integrated, authentic self would be. Never in my wildest dreams did I believe that “genetic” women (“gg’s” as the community calls them— genetic girls) would so quickly embrace me, invite me into their private world, and want to help me fi nd my place among them.

Socioeconomic Level Socioeconomic level is a fourth facet of identity that the gener- alized other considers important. Because North America is an income-conscious soci- ety, the income level to which we belong affects everything from how much money we make to the kinds of schools, jobs, friends, and lifestyle choices we see as possibilities for ourselves. Socioeconomic level is diffi cult to pinpoint because, unlike sex and race, it is not necessarily visible. Even though we can’t see or point to socioeconomic level, it—and the generalized other’s views of different socioeconomic levels—profoundly shapes our lives.

Socioeconomic level isn’t just the amount of money a person has. It’s a basic part of how we understand the world and how we think, feel, and act (Acker, 2005). Socioeconomic level affects which stores we shop in, the restaurants we patronize, and the schools we attend. It infl uences how we dress, including our views of what it means to be well dressed. It also infl uences who our friends are, what forms of recreation we enjoy, where we live and work, and what kind of vehicles we drive (Bornstein & Bradley, 2003; Langston, 1998; Lareau, 2003).

GENEVA

I don’t fi t in at this college. That hits me in the face every day. I walk across campus and see girls wearing shoes that cost more than all four pairs I own. I hear students talking about restaurants and trips that I can’t aff ord. Last week, I heard a guy complaining about being too broke to get a CD player for his car. I don’t own a car. I don’t know how to relate to these people who have so much money. Without my scholarship, I could never have come here. I know students here see the world diff erently than I do, and they see themselves as entitled to a lot more than I think I’m entitled to.

As Geneva’s commentary indicates, socioeconomic level affects our ideas about what we need and what we are entitled to. For example, people with economic security have the resources and leisure time to seek fulfi llment of abstract needs such as self- actualization. They can afford therapy, yoga, retreats for spiritual development, and elite spas to condition their bodies. These are not feasible for people who are a step away from poverty. Members of the middle and upper income levels assume they will

194 PART III CONTEXTS OF COMMUNICATION

attend college and enter good professions, yet these often are not realistic options for people who have lower incomes (Langston, 1998). Guidance counselors may encourage academically gifted lower-income students to go to work or pursue vocational educa- tion after high school, whereas they routinely steer middle-income students of average ability towtard good colleges and high-status careers. In such patterns, we see how the perspective of the generalized other shapes not just our sense of who we are but also the concrete realities of our lives.

Race, gender, sexual preference, and socioeconomic level are primary in our soci- ety’s views of individuals and their worth. It’s important to realize that these views of identity intersect. Race interacts with gender, so women of color experience double oppression and devaluation in our culture (Anzaldúa, 1999; Hernández & Rheman, 2002; Higginbotham, 1992; Lorde, 1992; Zinn & Dill, 1996). Socioeconomic level and gender are also interlinked, with women far more likely than men to live at the poverty level. Gender and race intersect, so Hispanic and black men face barriers not faced by white men.

In addition to race, gender, sexual preference, and socioeconomic level, the gen- eralized other communicates other views that we may internalize. For instance, Western societies clearly value intelligence, competitiveness, individualism, and ambi- tion. People, especially men, who conform to these social values receive more respect than those who don’t. Mainstream Western society also values slimness, particularly in Caucasian women. The generalized other expresses physical ideals for men as well. Strength and sexual prowess are two expectations of “real men,” which may explain why increasing numbers of men are having cosmetic surgery.

As we interact with particular others and participate in social life (the generalized other), we learn what and whom our society values. We also learn how our society sees us in terms of our race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic level, and other fac- tors. If we do not refl ect on the ethical and pragmatic implications of these values, we may internalize them and come to share the views generally endorsed in our society.

The human self originates in communication. From interaction with family mem- bers, peers, and society as a whole, we learn the prevailing values of our culture and of particular people who are signifi cant to us. What we learn guides how we perceive and communicate with others and ourselves. We’re now ready to discuss three challenges related to personal growth.

Guidelines for Communicating with Ourselves Throughout this chapter, we’ve drawn on the basic communication processes covered in Part I of this book. For example, we’ve noted that others are an especially important infl uence on the process of perceiving ourselves. Our sense of identity evolves as we listen to others and observe their actions toward us. We’ve also learned that the sym- bols others use to defi ne us shape how we perceive ourselves and that we can edit our self-talk to change our self-concepts. To demonstrate further how basic communication processes apply to interaction with ourselves, we will discuss three guidelines for com- municating with ourselves in ways that foster personal growth and a healthy society.

Refl ect Critically on Social Perspectives We’ve seen that people tend to internalize the perspectives of the generalized other. In many ways this is useful, even essential, for collective life. If we all made up our own rules about when to stop and go at traffi c intersections, wrecks would prolifer- ate. If each of us operated by our own inclinations, we would have no shared stan- dards regarding tax payment, robbery, and so forth. Life would be chaotic.

Yet not all social views are as constructive as traffi c rules and criminal law. The generalized other’s unequal valuing of different social groups fuels discrimination against people whose only fault is not being what society currently defi nes as normal or good. Each of us has an ethical responsibility to exercise critical judgment about which social views we personally accept and which ones we will allow to guide our behaviors, attitudes, and values. In addition, we have an ethical obligation to use our communication to contribute to constructive change in our society.

The generalized other’s perspective is not fi xed, nor is it based on objective, absolute truths. Instead, the values and views endorsed by a society at any given time are arbi- trary and subject to change. The fl uidity of social values becomes especially obvious when we consider how widely values differ between cultures. For example, the Agta people in the Philippines and the Tini Aborigines in Australia view hunting skill as a feminine ideal (Estioko-Griffi n & Griffi n, 1997). A group in French Polynesia recog- nizes three sexes (Glenn, 2002), and some groups in India have a category of identity for female men (Nanda, 2004).

Social views also change over time in a single society. For instance, in the early 20th century many people with disabilities were kept in their homes or put in institutions. Today, many schools place students who have physical or mental dis- abilities in regular classes. Also, as we have seen, the Western generalized other’s perspectives on race, gender, and sexual orientation are not what they were 50 or even 5 years ago.

Social perspectives change in response to individual and collective efforts to revise social meanings. Each of us has an ethical responsibility to speak out against social perspectives that we perceive as wrong or harm- ful. By doing so, we participate in the ongoing process of refi ning who we are as a society and the views of the gen- eralized other that affect how we see ourselves and each other.

Commit to Personal Growth Most of us perceive ways we could improve as communicators. Maybe we want to be more assertive, more mind- ful when listening, or more confi dent as public speakers. Following three suggestions will help you nurture your own personal growth.

CHAPTER 9 COMMUNICATION AND SELF-CONCEPT 195

Identifying Social Values in Media

Select four popular magazines, and read the articles and advertisements in them.

What do the articles and ads convey about what and who is valued % in the United States?

What do articles convey about how women or men are regarded % and what they are expected to be and do?

How many ads aimed at women focus on beauty, looking young, % losing weight, taking care of others, and attracting men?

How many ads aimed at men emphasize strength, virility, success, % and independence?

To extend this exercise, note the cultural values conveyed by television, fi lms, billboards, and news stories. Pay attention to who is highlighted and how diff erent genders, races, and professions are represented.

Social Values in Media

SHARPE N YOUR SKILL

196 PART III CONTEXTS OF COMMUNICATION

Set Realistic Goals Although willpower can do marvel- ous things, it has limits. We need to recognize that trying to change how we see ourselves works only if our goals are realistic. It’s not realistic and usually not effective to expect dramatic growth immediately. If you are shy and want to be more extroverted, it’s realistic to decide that you will speak up more often and attend more social functions. On the other hand, setting the goal of being the life of the party may not be reasonable.

Realistic goals require realistic standards. Dissatisfaction with ourselves often stems from unrealistic expectations. In a culture that emphasizes perfectionism, it’s easy to be trapped into expecting more than is humanly possible. If you set a goal of being a totally perfect communicator in all situ-

ations, you set yourself up for failure. More reasonable and more constructive is to establish a series of small goals that you can meet. You might focus on improving one communication skill. When you are satisfi ed with your ability at that skill, you can focus on a second one.

Assess Yourself Fairly Being realistic also involves making fair assessments of our- selves. This requires us to make reasonable social comparisons, place judgments of ourselves in context, realize that we are always in process, and assess ourselves in the perspective of time. Remembering our discussion of social comparison, we know that selecting reasonable yardsticks for ourselves is important. Comparing your aca- demic work with that of a certifi ed genius is not appropriate. It is reasonable to mea- sure your academic performance against others who have intellectual abilities and life situations similar to yours. Setting realistic goals and selecting appropriate stan- dards of comparison are important guidelines when you want to bring about change in yourself.

To assess ourselves effectively, we also should appreciate how our individual quali- ties and abilities fi t together to form the whole self. Recall systems theory, which we discussed in Chapter 1. It reminds us that we treat ourselves unfairly if we judge spe- cifi c aspects of our communication outside their overall context. Most often, we do this by highlighting our shortcomings and overlooking what we do well. This leads to a distorted self-perception.

It’s more realistic to judge yourself from an overall perspective. Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs, and he also struck out 1,330 times. If he had defi ned himself only in terms of his strikeouts, he probably would never have become a world-renowned baseball player. One of my colleagues faults himself for being slow to grade and return students’ papers. He compares himself with others in my department who return students’ work more quickly. However, this man has twice as many offi ce hours as any of his colleagues, which should temper his self-criticism about the length of time he takes to return papers. His judgment that he is slow in returning papers is based on comparing himself with colleagues who spend less time talking with their students than he does. However, he doesn’t compare himself with them when thinking about his offi ce hours. In our efforts to improve self-concept, then, we should acknowledge our strengths and virtues as well as parts of ourselves we want to change.

PE AN

UT S:

© U

ni te

d F ea

tu re

Sy nd

ica te

, In c.

CHAPTER 9 COMMUNICATION AND SELF-CONCEPT 197

To create and sustain a healthy self-concept, we also need to be attentive to unre- alistic assessments of us that others may make. Bosses sometimes have unreason- able expectations. If we measure our abilities by the unreasonable standards of our bosses, we may underestimate our effectiveness. Parents also can have expectations that are unrealistic or inconsistent with our goals and values. We should consider others’ views of us, but we should not accept them uncritically.

A key foundation for improving self-concept is to accept yourself as someone in pro- cess. The human self is continuously in process, always changing, always becoming. This implies several things. First, it means that it’s healthy to accept who you are now as a starting point. You don’t have to like or admire everything about yourself, but accepting who you are today allows you to move forward. The person you are today has been shaped by all the experiences, interactions, refl ected appraisals, and social comparisons during your life. You cannot change your past, but you do not have to be bound by it forever. Only by realizing and accepting who you are now can you grow in new ways.

Accepting yourself as in process also implies that you realize you can change. Who you are today is not who you will be in 5 or 10 years. Because you are in process, you are always changing and growing. Don’t let yourself be hindered by negative self- fulfi lling prophecies or by the belief that you cannot change (Rusk & Rusk, 1988). You can change if you set realistic goals, make a genuine commitment, and work for the changes you want. Just remember that you are not fi xed as you are but always in the process of becoming.

Self-Disclose Appropriately Appropriate self-disclosure can foster personal aware- ness, which is a foundation of growth and change. For self-disclosure to be safe and to foster growth, it should take place gradually and with appropriate caution. It’s unwise to tell anyone too much about ourselves too quickly, especially if revelations could be used against us. We begin by disclosing superfi cial information (“I haven’t had expe- rience in this kind of assignment,” “I’m afraid of heights”). If a person responds to early disclosures with acceptance, we’re likely to reveal progressively more intimate information (“My father served time in prison,” “I’m not very skillful at reprimanding people for poor work”). If the person accepts these disclosures, communication may continue to deepen.

In the early stages of relationship development, reciprocity of disclosure seems important. If you mention a personal weakness to a new acquaintance, you’ll be more comfortable if the other person shares a weakness, too. Most of us are willing to keep disclosing to a person we don’t know well only as long as the other person is also reveal- ing personal information (Cunningham, Strassberg, & Haan, 1986). This principle also applies to contexts other than personal relationships: For example, when we self-dis- close to a co-worker, we are likely to feel a bit nervous if no reciprocal disclosure is forthcoming. The need to reciprocate disclosures immediately recedes in importance once a stable relationship is established.

Along with potential advantages, self-disclosure also entails risks (Derlega et al., 1993). The risks of self-disclosure found by communication researchers include that others might reject you or think less of you, that private information you share could be used against you, that being too honest could hurt others, and that you might lose power by exposing weaknesses. These are important risks. Being careful to self-disclose gradually and appropriately lessens these risks.

198 PART III CONTEXTS OF COMMUNICATION

Create a Supportive Context for the Change You Seek Just as it is easier to swim with the tide than against it, it is easier to promote changes in ourselves in contexts that support our efforts. You can do a lot to create a climate that supports your growth by choosing contexts and people who help you realize your goals.

First, think about settings. If you want to improve your physical condition, it makes more sense to participate in intramural sports than to hang out in bars. If you want to lose weight, it’s better to go to restaurants that serve healthful foods and offer light choices than to go to cholesterol castles. If you want to become more outgoing, you need to put yourself in social situations rather than in librar-

ies. But libraries are a better context than parties if your goal is to improve academic performance. Bob’s com- mentary illustrates the influence of setting on personal behavior.

Second, the people we are with have a great deal to do with how we see ourselves and how worthy we feel we are. This means you can create a sup- portive context by consciously choos- ing to be around people who believe in you and encourage your personal growth. It’s equally important to steer

clear of people who pull you down or say you can’t change. In other words, people who refl ect positive appraisals of us enhance our ability to improve. One way to think about how others’ communication affects how we feel about ourselves is to recognize that people can be uppers, downers, or vultures (Simon, 1977). The FYI feature on page 199 explains uppers, downers, and vultures.

Other people are not the only ones who can be uppers, downers, and vultures. We also communicate with ourselves, and our messages infl uence our self-esteem. One of the most crippling kinds of self-talk in which we can engage is self-sabotage. This involves telling ourselves we are no good, we can’t do something, there’s no point in trying to change, and so forth. We may be repeating judgments others made of us or inventing negative self-fulfi lling prophecies. Either way, self-sabotage defeats us because it undermines our belief in ourselves. Self-sabotage is poisonous; it destroys our motivation to grow.

We can be downers or even vultures to ourselves, just as others can be. In fact, we can probably do more damage to our self-concept than others can because we are most aware of our vulnerabilities and fears. This may explain why vultures were originally described as people who put themselves down (Simon, 1977). We can also be uppers for ourselves. We can affi rm our worth, encourage our growth, and fortify our sense of self-worth. Positive self-talk is a useful way to interrupt and challenge negative messages from yourself and others. The next time you hear yourself saying, “I can’t do this,” or someone else says, “You’ll never change,” chal- lenge the self-defeating message by saying out loud to yourself, “I can do it. I will change.” Use positive self-talk to resist counterproductive communication about yourself.

BOB

I never drank much until I got into this one group at school. All of them drank all the time. It was easy to join them. In fact, it was pretty hard not to drink and still be one of the guys. A while ago, I decided I was drinking too much. It was hard enough not to drink, because the guys were always doing it, but what really made it hard was the ways the guys got on me for abstaining. They let me know I was being uncool and made me feel like a jerk. Finally, I had to get a diff erent apartment to stop drinking.

Before leaving this discussion, we should make it clear that improving your self- concept is not facilitated by uncritical positive communication. None of us grows and improves when we listen only to praise, particularly if it is less than honest. The true uppers in our lives offer constructive criticism to encourage us to reach for better ver- sions of ourselves.

Uppers, Downers, and Vultures

Uppers are people who communicate positively about us and who refl ect positive appraisals of our self-worth. They notice our strengths, see our progress, and accept our

weaknesses and problems without discounting us. When we’re around uppers, we feel more upbeat and positive about ourselves. Uppers aren’t necessarily unconditionally positive in their communication. A true friend can be an upper by recognizing our weaknesses and helping us work on them. Instead of putting us down, an upper believes in us and helps us believe in our capacity to change. Downers are people who communicate negatively about us and our worth. They call attention to our fl aws, emphasize our problems, and put down our dreams and goals. When we’re around downers, we tend to feel down about ourselves. Refl ecting their perspectives, we’re more aware of our weaknesses and less confi dent of what we can accomplish. Downers discourage belief in ourselves. Vultures are extreme downers. They attack our self-concepts. Sometimes vultures initiate harsh criticism of us. In other cases vultures discover our weak spots and exploit them, picking us apart by focusing on sensitive areas in our self-concept. By telling us we are inadequate, vultures demolish our self-esteem.

fyi

Summary In this chapter, we explored the self as a process that evolves over the course of our lives. We saw that the self is not present at birth but develops as we interact with others. Through communication, we learn the per- spectives of particular others and the generalized other, or the broad social community. Refl ected appraisals, direct defi nitions, and social comparisons further shape how we see ourselves and how we change over time. The perspective of the generalized other includes social views of aspects of identity, including race, gender, sex- ual preference, and income level. However, these are arbitrary social constructions that we can challenge. When we resist counterproductive social views, we pro- mote change in society.

The second half of the chapter focused on concrete ways we can apply basic communication processes to facilitate our personal growth and our participation in society. As members of a culture, we have an ethical obligation to use our communication to speak out against social values that we consider wrong or harmful. In doing so, we participate in the continuous evolution of our collective world.

In addition, you can foster your personal growth by set- ting realistic goals and assessing yourself fairly. Creating contexts that support the changes you seek makes it easier to promote those changes. Transforming how we see ourselves is not easy, but it is possible. We can make amazing changes in who we are and who we will become when we embrace our human capacity to make choices.

CHAPTER 9 COMMUNICATION AND SELF-CONCEPT 199

200 PART III CONTEXTS OF COMMUNICATION

Review, Refl ect, Extend The Key Concepts, For Further Refl ection and Discussion questions, Recommended Resources, and Experience Communication Case Study that follow will help you review, refl ect on, and extend the information and ideas presented in this chapter. These resources, and a diverse selection of additional study tools, are also available

online at the Premium Website for Communication Mosaics. Your Premium Website includes a student workbook, interactive video activities, a book companion website, Speech Builder Express, and InfoTrac College Edition. For more information or to access this book’s online resources, visit www.cengage.com/login.

anxious/ambivalent attachment style, 186 attachment style, 185 direct defi nition, 184 dismissive attachment style, 186 downer, 199 fearful attachment style, 185 generalized other, 183 life script, 184 particular others, 182 refl ected appraisal, 182

secure attachment style, 185 self, 181 self-disclosure, 188 self-fulfi lling prophecy, 181 self-sabotage, 198 social comparison, 187 uncertainty reduction theory, 189 upper, 199 vulture, 199

KEY CONCEPTS

1. Discuss society’s views (the generalized other) of women and men. What are current social expectations for each sex? What behaviors, appearances, and attitudes violate social prescriptions for gender? Do you agree or disagree with these social expectations?

2. If you could revise the generalized other, how would you do it? Would race–ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic class be important aspects of self in your revision?

FOR FURTHER REFLECTION AND DISCUSSION

1. If you would like to learn more about how the attachment styles discussed in this chapter affect romantic relationships, go to the book’s online resources for this chapter and click on WebLink 9.1.

2. T. Rusk and N. Rusk. (1988). Mindtraps: Change your mind, change your life. Los Angeles: Price Stern Sloan. This book offers practical advice on how to change yourself by challenging self- defeating intrapersonal communication.

3. The fi lm Nell dramatizes the impact of communication with others on self-concept. View the fi lm, and notice how Nell’s world changes as she begins to communicate with others.

4. Some societies have more rigid lines for class membership than the United States does. One of the most rigid systems is the caste system in India. To learn about how a person’s caste affects his or her opportunities in life, go to the book’s online resources for this chapter and click on WebLink 9.2.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES