Communication

selection.pdf

Home >English homework help >Communication

FO CUS Q U ES T I O NS

Perceiving and Understanding

A few years ago, Robbie and I adopted a young dog who had been abandoned. Our new family member, whom we named Cassie, seemed small to us—she was fully grown

and weighed just 35 pounds. Previously, we’d owned an Irish set- ter and a Lab mix, each of whom weighed about 70 pounds—twice Cassie’s weight. A few weeks after Cassie joined us, my 6-year-old nephew, Harrison, came to spend a week with us. I picked him up at the airport, and we drove home, chattering all the way.

When I opened the door of our home, Cassie ran to meet the new person and shower him with kisses. “She’s so big!” Harrison shrieked as Cassie jumped on him, putting her paws on his shoulders so that her head was even with Harrison’s. “She’s a big, BIG dog,” he announced. Because we were accustomed to dogs twice Cassie’s size, and because Robbie and I are adults, Cassie seemed small to us. But to a boy who weighed 45 pounds and was less than 4 feet tall, she seemed large! Our perceptions refl ected our different experiences and even our physical sizes. Perceptions—and differences among people’s perceptions—are major infl uences on human communication.

This chapter focuses on perception, a basic communication pro- cess that is critical to our efforts to create meaning as we commu- nicate with ourselves and others. Perception is the process by which we notice and make sense of phenomena. To explore the relation- ships between perception and communication, this chapter discusses three interrelated facets of perception and considers infl uences on how people perceive and why they sometimes differ in their percep- tions. We’ll conclude the chapter by identifying ways in which skillful perception can improve our effectiveness as communicators.

1. What is perception?

2. What factors infl uence our perceptions?

3. How does the self-serving bias aff ect the accuracy of our perceptions?

4. Does mind reading help or hinder communication?

5. How can we use language to enhance skill in perceiving?

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one. Albert Einst ein

44 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

The Perception Process Perception is the active process of selecting, organizing, and interpreting people, objects, events, situations, and activities. The fi rst thing to notice in this defi nition is that perception is an active process. We are not passive receivers of what is “out there” in the external world. Instead, we select certain things to notice, and then we organize and interpret what we have selectively noticed. What anything means to us depends on which aspects of it we attend to and how we organize and interpret what we notice.

Perception and communication infl uence each other. Perception shapes our under- standing of others’ communication and the choices we make in our own communica- tion. For example, if you perceive a co-worker as hostile, you are likely to notice only his or her unfriendly behaviors and to communicate defensively or to minimize inter- action. Communication also infl uences our perceptions of people and situations. The language and nonverbal behaviors that other people use affect our perceptions of their intelligence, honesty, and so forth.

The second important aspect of the defi nition is that perception consists of three interrelated processes: selection, organization, and interpretation (Figure 3.1). These processes blend into one another. We organize perceptions even as we select what to perceive, and we interpret in an ongoing manner. Each process affects the other two. What we notice about people and situations infl uences how we interpret them. Also, our interpretation of a person or situation directs us to selectively notice certain, and not other, aspects of the person or setting.

Selection Stop for a moment and notice what is going on around you right now. Is music playing in the background? Or do you perhaps hear several different kinds of music from dif- ferent places? Is the room warm or cold, messy or clean, large or small, light or dark? Is laundry piled in the corner waiting to be washed?

Can you smell anything: food cooking, traces of cologne? Who else is in the room and nearby? Do you hear other conversations? Is a window open? Can you hear sounds of activities outside? Is it raining? Now, think about what’s happening inside you. Are you tired or hungry? Do you have a headache or an itch anywhere? On what kind of paper is your book printed? Is the type large, small, easy to read?

Chances are that you weren’t conscious of most of these phenomena when you began reading this chapter. Instead, you focused on reading and understanding the material in the chapter. You selectively attended to what you defi ned as important in this moment, and you were unaware of many other things going on around you. This is typical of how we live our lives. We can’t attend to everything in our environment, because far too much is there, and most of it isn’t relevant to us at any given time.

A number of factors infl uence which stimuli we notice. First, some qualities of external phenomena draw our attention. For instance, we notice things that

STAND OUT because they are larger more intense, or unusual. We’re more likely to hear a loud voice than a soft one and to notice a bright shirt more than a drab one. We also pay attention to what matters to us, so out of the 18 messages that appear when you check for text messages, you’re likely to fi rst notice those from people you want to hear from. Change also compels attention, which is why we

Organization Selection

Interpretation

Figure 3.1 The Perception Process

en ga

g e

Le ar

ni ng

45CHAPTER 3 PERCEIVING AND UNDERSTANDING

become more attentive when a speaker shows a slide to enliven a speech or when a new person joins a dialogue in a chat room.

Sometimes, we deliberately infl uence what we notice by talking to ourselves. We tell ourselves to be alert if we have to drive when we’re tired. We remind ourselves to speak loudly when we are addressing a large group without a microphone. We prompt ourselves not to interrupt during team discussions. We warn ourselves to stay in char- acter when we have claimed an alternate identity in online chat rooms. These are examples of intrapersonal communication that helps us attend selectively to specifi c behaviors.

Our self-concepts may also infl uence our perceptions. People who consider them- selves attractive and desirable may perceive other attractive people as more available than do people with lower self-concepts. Researchers (Tsai & Reis, 2009) showed that lonely people tend to perceive others more negatively than people who are not lonely. It may be the case that lonely people are lonely because they see others as unattractive or unapproachable.

Our needs, interests, and motives infl uence what we choose to notice. If you’re bored in your job, you’re likely to notice ads for other jobs. If you are interested in politics, you’re likely to pay attention to political stories in the news. If you’ve just bro- ken up with a partner, you’re more likely to notice attractive and available people than if you are in a satisfying relationship. Motives also explain the oasis phenomenon, in which thirsty people in a desert see an oasis although none is present. If we really want something, we may perceive it when it doesn’t exist.

People tend to perceive things they desire as closer or more accessible than they really are. In one study, the researchers (Balcetis & Dunning, 2010) had people sit across the table from a full bottle of water and then had them either eat pretzels or drink water from an eight-ounce glass. The participants were then asked to estimate how many inches separated them from the bottle of water. Consistently, the partici- pants who were thirsty from eating pretzels perceived the water bottle as being closer than the other participants. In another experiment, participants were given the chance to win a $25 gift card or a $0 gift card by tossing beanbags at it. The person whose beanbag landed closest won the gift card. Once again, the researchers found that peo- ple underestimated the distance between themselves and the desirable object.

Organization We don’t perceive randomly; instead, we organize our percep- tions in meaningful ways. Constructivism is a theory that states that we organize and interpret experience by applying cognitive structures called cognitive schemata, or just schemata (the sin- gular noun is schema). We rely on four schemata to make sense of phenomena: prototypes, personal constructs, stereotypes, and scripts (Burleson & Rack, 2008) (see Figure 3.2).

Prototypes Prototypes are knowledge structures that defi ne the clearest or ideal examples of some category (Fehr, 1993). For exam- ple, you probably have a prototype of a teacher, a friend, and a team leader. You may also have prototypes of people in India or Afghanistan that are based on what you have witnessed in mass media. A prototype is an ideal, or best example, of a category. We

Prototype The most representative example of a category

Personal Construct

A bipolar, mental yardstick we use to measure people and situations

Stereotype A predictive generaliza- tion about individuals and situations based on the category in which we place them

Script A guide to action in particular situations

Figure 3.2 Cognitive Schemata

en ga

g e

Le ar

ni ng

46 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

use prototypes to defi ne exemplars: Jane is a model leader; Burt exemplifi es a good friend; Ned is an ideal co-worker. The person who exemplifi es a whole group, or cat- egory, is the category’s prototype. We classify people by asking which of our prototypes they most closely resemble. Damion explains his prototype of a good friend.

Damion My ideal of a friend is my buddy Jackson. He stood by me when I got into a lot of trouble a couple of years ago. I got mixed up with some guys who used drugs, and I started using them. Pretty soon, the coach caught on to me, and he suspended me from the team. That made me feel like a total loser, and I got deeper into drugs. Jackson didn’t give up on me, and he wouldn’t let me give up either. He took me to a drug center and went with me every day for three weeks. He never turned away when I was sick or even when I cried most of one night when I was getting off the drugs. He just stood by me. Once I was straight, Jackson went with me to ask the coach about getting back on the team.

Prototypes are useful to us because they allow us to group people, events, and situa- tions into broad categories. However, when our prototypes don’t match those of others, we may run into problems. For example, if your prototype of an ideal team member is a jokester, and the team leader’s prototype of an ideal member is an effi cient worker, you may fi nd your job on the line!

Personal Constructs A personal construct is a mental yardstick that allows us to measure a person or situ- ation along a bipolar dimension of judgment (Kelly, 1955). Examples of personal con- structs are intelligent–not intelligent, kind–not kind, and trustworthy–not trustworthy. How intelligent, kind, and trustworthy is a speaker, journalist, friend, or co-worker? Whereas prototypes help us decide into which broad category a person, situation, or event fi ts, personal constructs allow us to make more detailed assessments of particular qualities of phenomena we perceive. Nai Lee’s commentary offers an example of a per- sonal construct.

Nai Lee One of the ways I look at people is by whether they are individualistic or related to others. In Korea, we think of ourselves as members of families and communities. The emphasis on individuals was the fi rst thing I noticed when I came to this country, and it is still an important way I look at people.

Context infl uences which personal constructs are prominent in our assessments of others. If you are thinking about a person as a date, you’re likely to rely on constructs such as fun–not fun, intelligent–not intelligent, and attractive–not attractive. When perceiving a co-worker, you’re more likely to rely on constructs such as reliable–not reliable, cooperative–not cooperative, experienced–not experienced, and motivated– not motivated. Constructs such as fair–not fair, knowledgeable–not knowledgeable, and interesting–not interesting may guide your perceptions of teachers. We assess people according to the constructs we use, not according to all the constructs that could be used. Thus, we may not perceive qualities that are not highlighted by the constructs we apply. This reminds us that the processes of selecting and organizing interact to affect our perceptions.

47CHAPTER 3 PERCEIVING AND UNDERSTANDING

Stereotypes A stereotype is a predic- tive generalization about a person or situation. Based on the category (established by prototypes) in which we place something and how it measures up against per- sonal constructs we apply, we predict what it will do. For instance, if you place someone in the category of “liberal people,” you might stereotype the person as likely to vote Democratic, to support social services, and to oppose the death penalty. You may have ste- reotypes of fraternity and sorority members, profes- sors, athletes, and people from other cultures.

Winowa People have a stereotype of Native Americans. People who are not Native Americans think we are all alike—how we look, how we act, what we believe, what our traditions are. But that isn’t true. The Crow and Cherokee are as diff erent as people from Kenya and New York. Some tribes have a history of aggression and violence; others have traditions of peace and harmony. We worship diff erent spirits and have diff erent tribal customs. All these diff erences are lost when people stereotype us all as Native Americans.

Stereotypes don’t necessarily refl ect actual similarities among phenomena that you group into a single category, as Winowa’s commentary illustrates. Our stereotypes may keep us from seeing differences between people we have grouped into a category, as the FYI box on the next page demonstrates.

Stereotypes may be accurate or inaccurate. In some cases, we have incorrect under- standings of a group, and in other cases some members of a group don’t conform to what is typical of the group as a whole. Although we need stereotypes in order to pre- dict what will happen, we should remember that they are selective, subjective, and not necessarily accurate. In her commentary, Phyllis describes how a stereotype affects her.

Phyllis I’ll tell you what stereotype really gets to me: the older student. I’m 38 and working on a B.A., and I’m tired of being treated like a housewife who’s dabbling in courses. Some students treat me like their mother, not a peer. And some faculty are even worse. One professor told me that I shouldn’t worry about grades because I didn’t have to plan a career like the younger students. Well, I am planning a career, I am a student, and I am serious about my work.

What personal constructs do you rely on when perceiving the people in this photo?

Ph ot

of us

io n

Pi ct

ur e

Li b

ra ry

/A la

m y

48 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

Scripts The fi nal cognitive schema we use to organize perceptions is the script, which is a guide to action. A script is a sequence of activities that spells out how we and others are expected to act in a specifi c situation. If you run into a friend who is with some- one you don’t know, and your friend says, “Hi, this is Ben,” you don’t have to think about what you are supposed to say; your meeting-new-person script tells you that you should say, “Hi, I’m (your name)” and perhaps smile or offer to shake hands. Although we’re often unaware of them, scripts guide many of our daily activities. You have a script for greeting casual acquaintances as you walk around campus (“Hey, how ya doing?” “Fine.” “See ya.”). You have scripts for texting friends to check in with them (<hi. where r u?> <gotta take a call. brb.>) (Carl, 2006). You also have scripts for talk- ing with professors, engaging in interviews, and communicating online. Scripts orga- nize perceptions into lines of action.

Dianne Holmberg and Samantha MacKenzie (2002) studied scripts for dating relationships. They found that partners who see their relationship as consistent with their perceptions of normative scripts for dating have generally positive evaluations of their relationships. Conversely, partners who perceive inconsistency between most people’s perceptions of how dating relationships progress and what is happening in their own relationship tend to have less positive assessments of their relationship. Similarly, Sandra Metts (2006) has identifi ed consistent scripts for heterosexual fl irting.

Prototypes, personal constructs, stereotypes, and scripts are cognitive schemata that organize our thinking about people and situations. We use them to make sense of experience and to predict how we and others will act. The Sharpen Your Skill box

on page 49 invites you to refl ect on how your cognitive schemata affect your perceptions of others.

Interpretation To interpret experiences, we ask why something happens or why someone says, does, or doesn’t do a particular thing. Interpretation is the subjec- tive process of creating explanations for what we observe and experience. If you have ever been around a young child, then you know that “Why?” is an inces- sant question: Why is the sky blue? Why are you angry with me? Why do teachers have to give tests? Why can’t I have the toy I want? Children’s inter- est in why is a search to fi gure out what causes things to happen and people to act as they do. Although adults are per- haps more sophisticated than children, we are no less interested in fi guring out why things happen and why people behave as they do.

DIVERSITY

The Census Bureau’s Dilemma

Systems of organizing or classifying are arbitrary constructions invented by humans. Yet we sometimes

act as if our classifi cations are objectively true. Consider the dilemma of the U.S. Census Bureau, which found that its method of classifying races no longer works. The mushrooming diversity of Americans has created problems for the Bureau. The racial categories created in 1978 are no longer adequate to classify people with diverse languages, cultures, and ethnic heritages.

Lumping diverse groups into single categories such as Asian (which includes Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, Nepalese, etc.) or Native American (which includes Crow, Lumbee, Paiute, etc.) is inappropriate. The traditional classifi cations count Middle Easterners as White, and Alaskans as Alaskan Natives rather than as people born in the United States. Another defi ciency of the standard categories is that they don’t acknowledge multiracial identities, which many citizens have.

49CHAPTER 3 PERCEIVING AND UNDERSTANDING

Attributions Our quest to fi gure out the why of things brings us to the concept of attribution, which is the act of explaining why some- thing happens or why a person acts a par- ticular way (Manusov & Spitzberg, 2008; for the classic research in this area, see Heider, 1958; Kelley, 1967). We attribute our own and others’ behaviors to causes.

Attributions have four dimensions. The fi rst is the internal–external locus: the attribution of a person’s behavior to internal factors (“He’s short tem- pered”) or external factors (“The traf- fi c jam frustrated him”). The second dimension is stability, the explanation of actions as the result of stable, endur- ing factors that won’t change over time (“She’s a nervous person”; “This job is always stressful”) or variable (unstable) temporary factors (“She’s nervous right now because of a big deal she’s closing”; “This is a stressful period at work”). The third dimension is specifi city, the expla- nation of actions as the result of global factors (“She’s intelligent”) or specifi c factors (“She’s gifted at math”). Finally, the dimension of control is the ascribing of responsibility for actions either to people themselves (“She doesn’t try to control her temper”) or to factors beyond their personal control (“She has a chemical imbalance”). In a recent study (Nagourney, 2008), volunteers were given a mild electric shock to their wrists. Some volunteers were told that another person chose to administer the shock. Other volunteers were told the shock was randomly selected by a computer. The volunteers who believed another person chose to shock them reported greater pain. Figure 3.3 illustrates the three dimensions of attribution.

The Self-Serving Bias Although we need explanations of our own and others’ behaviors, the explanations, or attribu- tions, we develop aren’t necessarily accurate. Research shows that we tend to construct attributions that serve our personal interests (Hamachek, 1992; Manusov & Spitzberg, 2008; Sypher, 1984). This phenomenon is known as the self-serving bias. Thus, we are inclined to attribute our positive actions and our successes to internal and stable factors. We’re also likely to claim that good results come about because of the personal control we exerted. You might attribute making an A on a test to being a smart

Dimension

1. Locus

2. Stability

Internal

Stable

External

Unstable

3. Specificity Specific Global

Beyond personal control4. Responsibility

Within personal control

Beyond personal control

Figure 3.3 The Dimensions of of Attribution

Siz ing Up Ot he rs Pay attention to the cognitive schemata you use the next time you meet a new person. First, notice how you classify the person. Do you categorize her or him as a potential friend, date, co-worker, and so on? Identify your prototype of the category into which you place the person.

Next, identify the constructs you use to assess the person. Do you focus on physical constructs (attractive–not attractive), mental constructs (intelligent–not intelligent), psychological constructs (secure–not secure), or interpersonal constructs (available–not available)? Would diff erent constructs be prominent if you used a diff erent prototype to classify the person?

Third, note how you stereotype the person. According to the prototype and constructs you’ve applied, what do you expect him or her to do? Would your expectations diff er if you had placed him or her in a diff erent category?

Finally, identify your script, or how you expect interaction to unfold between you according to the prototype, personal constructs, stereotypes, and scripts that you applied.

SHARPEN YOUR SKILL

en ga

g e

Le ar

ni ng

50 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

person (internal, stable, global) who studies hard (personal control). In her commen- tary, Chandra refl ects on a self-serving attribution.

Chandra I wait tables to make money for school. It used to be that when I didn’t make good tips, I would say that the customers were cheap or in bad moods or my manager assigned me to a slow station. When I made good tips, I always thought that it was because I am such a considerate server. Then we got a new manager, who told me that I made better tips when I was feeling good. He pointed out that I was really friendly and attentive to customers when I was in a good mood but that I could be careless when I felt down.

Conversely, we tend to avoid taking responsibility for negative actions and failures and instead attribute them to external and unstable events that are beyond personal control. To explain a failing grade on a test, you might say that you did poorly because the professor (external) put a lot of tricky questions on that particular test (unstable, specifi c) so that regardless of how hard you studied, you couldn’t do well (outside per- sonal control). The self-serving bias can distort our perceptions, leading us to take excessive credit for what we do well and to deny responsibility for our failings. It can also lead us to judge others less kindly than ourselves (Manusov, 2006; Schutz, 1999; Sedikides et al., 1998). The FYI box on page 51 shows how taking responsibility for problems may affect perceptions and loyalty to companies.

In summary, perception involves three interrelated processes. The fi rst— selection—involves noticing certain things and ignoring others within the total context. The second process is organization, wherein we use prototypes, personal constructs, stereotypes, and scripts to order what we have selectively perceived. Finally, we engage in interpretation to make sense of the perceptions we have gathered and organized. Attributions are a primary way that we explain what we and others do. And although we’ve discussed each process separately, they inter- act continually. Thus, our interpretations shape the knowledge schemata we use to organize experiences, and how we organize perceptions affects what we notice and interpret. We’re now ready to consider some factors that infl uence what and how we perceive.

Infl uences on Perception A few years ago, I went to a neighborhood cookout, at which a neighbor who did not attend was discussed. The absent person had been behaving oddly ever since he moved into our neighborhood. He had thrown a rock at one person’s dog, had been seen going into another neighbor’s house when the owners weren’t home, had been verbally abu- sive to several members of the community, and had shot squirrels and birds, which nobody else in the neighborhood did.

At the picnic, neighbors were sharing stories of what he had done and what it meant. A woman who is a psychologist ventured the opinion that he was suffering from depres- sion and needed help. The legal aspects of his behavior were the focus of an attorney’s comments, who observed that the man could be arrested for breaking and entering and verbal harassment. A third person, who had recently left an abusive partner, was

51CHAPTER 3 PERCEIVING AND UNDERSTANDING

afraid that our neighbor posed a threat to all of us. Those of us who have dogs and cats in our families were concerned that the neighbor might shoot our pets. As this exam- ple illustrates, people don’t always perceive situations in the same ways. How each of us perceived our neighbor was shaped by many factors in our backgrounds, our train- ing, and our individual interests.

Physiological Factors The most obvious reason perceptions vary among people is that we differ in our sen- sory abilities and physiologies. The fi ve senses are not the same for all of us. Music that one person fi nds deafening is barely audible to another. On a given day on my campus, students wear everything from shorts and sandals to heavy jackets, a sign that they have different sensitivities to cold.

Our physiological states also infl uence perception. If you are tired, stressed, or sick, you’re likely to perceive things more negatively than when you are well and rested. For instance, a playful insult from a friend might anger you if you were feeling down but might not bother you if you felt good. Each of us has biorhythms, which infl uences how alert we are at different times of day.

CAREER

We Failed and We’re Sorry

Have you ever made a complaint about a product or service? If so, did you get a response and did it aff ect how you perceive the organization that made the product or off ered the service? Communication researchers San Bolkan and John Daly (2009) had people write letters to organizations complaining about a product or service that had been unsatisfactory. When organizations responded to the complaints, Bolkan and Daly analyzed the responses and how they aff ected the perceptions of the people who wrote the letters. Bolkan and Daly identifi ed three types of responses:

◆ Excuses deny responsibility for the problem (“Your fl ight was canceled, but it’s not our fault.”).

◆ Justifi cations accept responsibility, yet try to minimize the severity of the problem and blame (“Like all airlines, sometimes we have scheduling problems.”).

◆ Apologies acknowledge blameworthiness, express sympathy, and ask for forgiveness (“We’re sorry we canceled your fl ight and caused you inconvenience. We hope you’ll give us another chance.”).

Bolkan and Daly found that the diff erent types of responses to complaints aff ected consumers’ perceptions of the organizations and their intention to continue using its products and services. Excuses tended to result in negative perceptions of an organization whereas justifi cations did not have this eff ect unless they were extensive—that is, too many justifi cations led consumers to distrust the organizations. Apologies increased consumers’ perceptions that the product or service was bad, yet also increased consumers’ perception that the organization had responded well and increased consumers’ intentions to do business with the organization in the future. Bolkan and Daly’s advice to organizations: Take responsibility for problems, communicate respect and sympathy for consumers, provide justifi cations if appropriate, and apologize.

52 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

Expectations Imagine that a friend tells you she wants you to meet a person whom she describes as “one of the coolest people I’ve ever met: He’s funny and considerate and so interested in other people. You’ll fi nd him really easy to talk to and lots of fun.” Chances are you would expect to like the new person and would in fact perceive the good qualities your friend led you to expect. If instead your friend had said, “This guy is a real drag. He’s always cracking bad jokes, and he’s self-centered,” you might expect not to like the man, and you might see only his shortcomings.

Based on a series of studies, John Bargh (1997, 1999) reports that how we act may be affected by subliminal priming of expectations. In one study, participants were told that they would be taking two tests. The researcher told each participant to go into a room and take a test and then to come out of the room and fi nd the researcher to progress to the second test. One-half of the participants then took a test that pre- sented them with a group of terms related to politeness. The other half of the par- ticipants took a test that presented them with a group of terms related to rudeness. When participants fi nished the test and went to look for the researcher, they found the researcher talking with another person. Of the participants who had worked with the terms related to rudeness, 63 percent interrupted the researcher’s conversation, but only 17 percent of the participants who had worked with politeness terms interrupted the conversation. Apparently, their perceptions of appropriate behavior were affected by exposure to words that made rudeness or politeness salient to them.

Expectations affect our perceptions in a variety of communication situations. If we are told in advance that a new person on the job is “a real team player,” we’re likely to notice the new employee’s cooperative behaviors and not likely to see competitive or self- serving behaviors that the new person may also present. If we’re forewarned that a speaker tends to distort facts, we’re likely to perceive misrepresentations in the speech. On the other hand, if we’re told that the speaker is trustworthy, we may listen less critically and not perceive any slanting or distortions. Our sense of time has been radically reshaped by communication technologies that lead us to expect extremely quick exchanges. Just a decade ago, most people expected replies to business correspondence within a week to 10 days. Now, many people expect nearly instant responses, and we grumble if a friend isn’t online when we IM her or him or if a text message isn’t answered for several hours.

The infl uence of expectations on communication is the basis of positive visual- ization, which is a technique used to enhance success in a variety of situations by teaching people to visualize themselves positively. According to psychologists, positive visualization works because we act as we see ourselves. Businesses coach managers to visualize successful negotiations and meetings (Lau, 1989). Athletes learn to imag- ine playing well, and those who engage in positive visualization often improve their

H i &

L ou

is ©

1 98

4 Ki

ng F

ea tu

re s

Sy nd

ic at

53CHAPTER 3 PERCEIVING AND UNDERSTANDING

athletic performance (Porter & Foster, 1986).

Positive visualization is also used to reduce speaking anxiety by guiding appre- hensive speakers through imagined positive speak- ing experiences. This tech- nique allows people to form a mental picture of them- selves as effective speakers and to then enact that men- tal picture in actual speak- ing situations (Hamilton, 1996). Researchers report that positive visualization is especially effective in reducing chronic communi- cation apprehension (Ayres & Hopf, 1990; Bourhis & Allen, 1992). The goal of positive visualization in this context is to create detailed positive images of yourself in communication situations. Such visualizations encourage positive expectations of your actual communication.

What happens when our expectations are violated? That’s the question asked by expectancy violation theory. Research shows that when our expectations are vio- lated, we become more cognitively alert as we struggle to understand and cope with unexpected behaviors or events (Afi fi & Metts, 1998; Bevan, 2003; Burgoon, 1993).

Three aspects of a violation of expectations infl uence how we will interpret it (Afi fi & Metts, 1998). First, our interpretations are affected by whether the violation is posi- tive (someone gives you a gift that you had not anticipated) or negative (your supervi- sor criticizes you). Second, our interpretations are infl uenced by the extent to which the behavior deviates from expected behavior. If your supervisor has never criticized you before, criticizing you now would be a signifi cant deviation from expectations. Third, our interpretations are affected by the impact of the violation on a relationship. Think about the different impacts on a dating relationship if the person you are dating doesn’t call when she or he promises and if she or he dates your best friend.

Cognitive Abilities In addition to physiological, cultural, and social infl uences, perception is shaped by our cognitive abilities. How elaborately we think about situations and people, and the extent of our knowledge of others, affect how we select, organize, and interpret experiences.

Cognitive Complexity People differ in the number and types of knowledge schemata they use to organize and interpret people and situations. Cognitive complexity is the number of personal con- structs used (remember, personal constructs are bipolar dimensions of judgment), how

One gift of growing older is enriched perspective. What might these people be able to share that two 20-year-olds cannot?

eff G

re en

b er

g /P

ho to

Ed it

54 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

abstract they are, and how elaborately they interact to shape perceptions. Most chil- dren have fairly simple cog- nitive systems. They rely on few schemata, focus more on concrete constructs (tall–not tall) than abstract psycholog- ical ones (secure–not secure), and often don’t perceive rela- tionships between different perceptions (How is security related to extroversion?).

Many adults have greater cognitive complexity, which affects the accuracy of per- ceptions. The older we get, the richer is our perspec- tive for perceiving situations and people. Thus, compared with a person of 20, some- one who is 60 has a more

complex fund of experiences on which to draw. Throughout my 20s, I was easily upset when a class didn’t go well or when a friend and I argued. Often, I became disheart- ened because I perceived these as signifi cant problems. In my mid-30s, my father died. After his death, a less-than-perfect class or a minor argument with a friend didn’t acutely distress me, because I had a very different perspective on what a serious problem was.

The extent of discrimination that is still experienced by women, minorities, and gays and lesbians understandably discourages many college students. I am more hopeful than some because I have seen signifi cant changes in my lifetime. When I attended college, women and minorities were not admitted on an equal basis with Caucasian men, and almost all gays and lesbians concealed their sexual orientations. When I entered the job market, there were few laws to protect women, minorities, and gays and lesbians against discrimination in hiring, pay, and advancement. The substantial progress made during my life leads me to hold optimistic perceptions about society’s ability to alleviate the inequities that still exist.

Cognitive complexity infl uences our perceptions of others. If you can think of peo- ple only as good or bad, you have limited ways of perceiving others. Similarly, people who focus on concrete data tend to have less sophisticated understandings than people who also perceive psychological data. For example, you might notice that a person is attractive, tells jokes, and talks a lot. At a more abstract psychological level, you might infer that the behaviors you observe refl ect a secure, self-confi dent personality. This is a more sophisticated explanation because it includes perceptions of why the person acts as she or he does.

What if you later fi nd out that the person is quiet in classes? Someone with low cognitive complexity would have diffi culty integrating the new information with earlier observations, would likely either dismiss the new information because it doesn’t fi t, or replace the former perception with the more recent data and redefi ne

Before games, coaches often prime players to see themselves beating the opposition.

am es

S ha

ff er

/P ho

to Ed

55CHAPTER 3 PERCEIVING AND UNDERSTANDING

the person as shy. A more cognitively complex person would integrate all the information into a coherent account. Perhaps a cognitively complex person would interpret the person as more confi dent in social situations than in academic ones. Research shows that cognitively complex people are fl exible in interpreting com- plicated phenomena and are able to integrate new information into their think- ing about people and situations. People who are less cognitively complex tend to ignore information that doesn’t fi t their impressions or to throw out old ideas and replace them with new impressions (Crockett, 1965; Delia, Clark, & Switzer, 1974). Either way, they screen out some of the nuances and inconsistencies that are part of human nature.

Person-Centeredness Person-centeredness is the ability to perceive another as a unique individual. When we perceive distinctions between people, we can adapt our communication to particu- lar individuals. Person-centeredness is linked to cognitive complexity. People who are cognitively complex are able to perceive others and situations in more comprehensive and integrated ways than are less cognitively complex people. This allows them to adapt their communication to particular listeners (Zorn, 1991). Thus, an effective politician may adopt a different speaking style and emphasize different topics when talking with elderly citizens, elementary school children, members of unions, and business execu- tives. Skillful group leaders recognize and adapt their communication to differences in members’ abilities, needs, and so forth. When texting or chatting online, we use com- mon shorthand (for instance, brb, lol) with people we know understand it, as Emma points out.

Emma I talk diff erently when I’m e-mailing my parents and aunt than when I’m chatting online with friends. My parents and aunt don’t know a lot of standard online lingo like myob [mind your own business], OMG [oh my gosh] or abbreviations like r for are and u for you. It takes more time to explain them to the family than it takes to just spell everything out.

To adapt communication to others, we must understand something about them. In relationships that aren’t highly personal, communicators sometimes tailor messages to the general characteristics of groups. For example, more educated people tend to be more critical and better informed, so effective speakers include strong evidence and show respect for listeners’ knowledge when addressing people with high levels of education. Because uncertainty and change foster anxiety, effective managers commu- nicate reassurance and provide maximum information to subordinates during times of organizational change. To be effective in a job interview, an interviewee should research the history and image of the company to fi nd out what the company looks for in new employees.

We have different degrees of insight into people with whom we interact. You need to know your intimates well to create satisfying relationships; you need to know profes- sors and co-workers less well but well enough to work with them; you need to know clerks only well enough to transact business. As we get to know someone better, we gain insight into how he or she differs from others in their group (“Rob’s not like other political activists”; “Ellen’s more interested in people than most computer science majors are”). The more we interact with someone and the greater the variety of experi- ences we have together, the more knowledge we gain about their motives, feelings, and

56 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

behaviors. As we come to understand others as individuals, we fi ne tune our perceptions of them. Consequently, we rely less on stereotypes to per- ceive them.

Person-centeredness is not the same as empa- thy. Empathy is the ability to feel with another person—to feel what he or she feels in a situation. Feeling with another is an emotional response that some scholars believe is not really possible. Our feelings tend to be guided by our emotional tendencies and experiences, so it may be impos- sible to feel precisely what another person feels. However, it is possible to recognize others as unique persons, to identify connections between us and them, and to adapt our communication to their frames of reference (Muehlhoff, 2006). In his commentary, Steve explains how he devel- oped person-centeredness with his girlfriend, Sherry.

St eve You really have to know somebody on an individual basis to know what they like and want. When I first started dating Sherr y, I sent her red roses to let her know I thought she was special. That ’s the “lovers’ flower,” right? It turns out there were zillions of red roses at her father’s funeral. Now, they make Sherr y sad because they remind her he’s dead. I also took her chocolates once, before I found out that she’s allergic to chocolate. By now I know what she likes, but my experience shows that the general rules don’t always apply to individuals.

When we take the perspective of another person, we try to grasp his or her percep- tions and meanings. To do this, we have to suspend our own perspective long enough to enter the world of another person. This allows us to gain some insight into that person’s point of view so we can communicate more effectively with him or her. At a later point in interaction, we may choose to express our perspective or disagree with the other person’s views. This is appropriate and important in honest communication, but voicing our views is not a substitute for the equally important skill of attempting to understand another’s perspective.

Social Roles Our social roles also shape our percep- tions and our communication. Both the training we receive to fulfi ll a role and the actual demands of the role affect what we notice and how we interpret, evaluate, and respond to it. Because I’m a teacher, my perceptions of classes focus on how interested students seem, whether they

An Empathic Judge

On May 1, 2009, Justice David Souter announced he would be retiring from the

Supreme Court. Immediately, people wanted to know whom President Obama would pick to replace Souter. Speaking in the White House press briefi ng room, the President told reporters that a key quality he was looking for in the next Supreme Court Justice is empathy. He said he wanted a justice who can understand what it’s like to be poor or gay or disabled or otherwise not privileged in America. According to President Obama, empathy is what allows a person to understand and identify with people’s hopes and struggles, and this is essential to making sound decisions about justice.

Appre ciat ing M u lt iple Pe rspe ct i ves Select a controversial issue that’s in the news. Find two Web sites or blogs that have dramatically diff erent, even opposing, perspectives on the issue. Monitor these for two weeks and report to class on diff erences in how the issue is discussed on the diff erent sites or blogs.

SHARPEN YOUR SKILL

57CHAPTER 3 PERCEIVING AND UNDERSTANDING

appear to have read assigned material, and whether what they’re learning is use- ful in their lives. Students have told me that they think about classes in terms of number and diffi culty of tests, whether papers are required, and whether the professor is interesting. We have differ- ent ways of perceiving classes. When I am consulting with attorneys, I am more careful to state evidence for the ideas and suggestions I offer than I am in casual conversations with friends.

People’s professions infl uence what they notice and how they think and act. In the earlier example, members of my community perceived our neighbor dif- ferently because of our distinct profes- sional roles, as well as other factors. The attorney in the group focused on the legal—or illegal—nature of the neigh- bor’s behavior, and the psychologist’s training led her to perceive his behaviors as evidence of emotional problems.

Membership in Cultures and Social Communities Membership in a culture infl uences per- ceptions. A culture consists of beliefs, values, understandings, practices, and ways of interpreting experience that a number of people share (Klopf, 1991). In addition to an overall culture, people may belong to social communities that shape their experiences, perspectives, and knowledge. A social community is a group of people who are part of an overall soci- ety (for example, America) but also distinct from the overall society in that they hold values, understandings, and practices that are not shared by people outside the group. Gender, race, religion, and sexual orientation are examples of criteria that may indicate the existence of a social community and may affect how members of the community act—including how they communicate.

The overall culture to which we belong also infl uences our perceptions. Western culture’s emphasis on technology and its offspring, speed, lead us to expect things to happen fast—almost instantly. We fax memos, IM friends, jet across the country, and microwave meals. In countries such as Nepal, Belize, and Mexico, life proceeds at a more leisurely pace, and people spend more time talking, relaxing, and engaging in low-key activities. The Sharpen Your Skill box on this page invites you to trace how one American value, individualism, is refl ected in cultural practices and everyday behaviors.

Noticing Indi vidualis m The United States is a highly individualistic country that expects and rewards personal initiative and regards each person as unique and important. How do the individualistic values of our culture infl uence our perceptions and activities? Check it out by observing the following:

◆ How is seating arranged in restaurants? Are there large communal eating areas or private tables and booths for individuals or small groups?

◆ How are living spaces arranged? How many people live in the average house? Do families share homes? Does each member of the family have his or her own bedroom and/or other space?

◆ How many people share a car in your family? How many cars are there in the United States?

Other cultures, including Hispanic and Asian ones, are more collectivist and defi ne identity in terms of membership in family and community rather than individuality. Because families are more valued in collectivist cultures, elders are given great respect and care. Rather than perceiving themselves as autonomous, as is typical in cultures that value individualism, people in communal cultures tend to think of themselves as members of and accountable to groups.

Diff erences between collectivist and individualistic cultures are also evident in child-care policies. More communal countries have policies that refl ect the value they place on families. In every developed country except the United States, new parents, including adoptive parents, receive a period of paid parental leave, and some countries provide nearly a year’s paid leave (Douglas, 2004; Wood, 2013).

SHARPEN YOUR SKILL

58 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

In summary, differences based on physiology, expectations, cognitive abilities, social roles, and membership in cultures and social communities affect how we perceive oth- ers and experiences. By extension, all these infl uences on perception affect how we communicate.

Guidelines for Improving Skill in Perceiving In the fi nal pages of this chapter, we identify four guidelines for enhancing skills in perceiving people and situations in ways that enhance your understanding of them and facilitate effective communication.

Avoid Mind Reading Because perception is subjective, people differ in what they notice and in the mean- ing they attribute to it. One of the most common problems in communication is mind reading, which in this sense means assuming we understand what another person thinks or feels. When we mind read, we act as if we know what’s on someone else’s mind, and this can get us into trouble. For example, we can misinterpret a co-work- er’s absence from meetings if we assume that it signals disinterest instead of compet- ing commitments. Mind reading is also a common cause of tension between spouses (Dickson, 1995; Gottman, 1993).

Consider a few examples of the problems mind reading can cause. One person might assume a friend is angry because the friend hasn’t responded to a text message in 24 hours. This guess could well be wrong—the friend might be preoccupied or might have a dead phone battery. Mind reading also occurs when we say or think, “I know he’s upset” (Has he said he is upset?) or “She doesn’t care about me anymore” (maybe she is too preoccupied or worried to be attentive). In actuality, we seldom really know what others think, feel, or perceive. When we mind read, we impose our perspectives on others instead of allowing them to say what they think. This can cause misunderstandings and resentment because most of us prefer to speak for ourselves.

Check Perceptions with Others The second guideline follows directly from our insight about the inadvisability of mind reading. Because perceptions are subjective, checking our perceptions with others is a good idea. In the earlier example, we could ask, “Why didn’t you respond?” Rather than assuming a friend is angry, it might be valuable to ask, “Are you angry with me?” It’s especially important to check perceptions when communicating online, because we don’t have access to many of the nonverbal cues that help us interpret face-to-face communication. Sarcasm, irony, and other forms of communication may not be obvi- ous online. Checking perceptions enhances clarity between people and invites produc- tive dialogue, not blame and defensiveness.

Perception checking is an important communication skill because it helps people arrive at mutual understandings of each other and their interaction. To check percep- tions, fi rst state what you have noticed. For example, you might say, “Lately, you’ve given me less feedback on my work than in the past.” Then, you check whether the

59CHAPTER 3 PERCEIVING AND UNDERSTANDING

other perceives the same thing: “Would you agree?” Finally, it’s appropriate to invite the other person to help you understand her or his behavior. So in the example, if the other person agrees that he or she is less pleased with your work, you could say, “Can you give me some insight into why you’re giving me less feed- back?” If the other person doesn’t agree that she or he is giving less feedback, a useful question might be, “Could you remind me of the feedback you’ve given me on the last few reports?”

When checking perceptions, it’s important to use a tentative tone rather than a dogmatic or accusatory one. This minimizes defensiveness and encourages good discussion. Just let the other person know that you are perceiving something and would like that person to clarify his or her perceptions of what is happening and what it means. The Sharpen Your Skill feature on this page provides guidance for developing skill in checking perceptions.

Distinguish Facts from Inferences and Judgments Effective communicators recognize the difference between factual statements and nonfactual statements such as inferences and judgments. A fact is based on observa- tion or proof. For instance, “The student, Taylor, is late to class most days” is a fac- tual statement. An inference is a deduc- tion that goes beyond what you know or assume to be a fact. For instance, if Taylor’s teacher has known other students who were late to class because they didn’t care about the class, the teacher might gener- alize from them to infer, “Taylor doesn’t care about this class.” Note that the infer- ence goes beyond facts that the teacher knows about Taylor as an individual.

A judgment is a belief or opinion that is based on observations, feelings, assumptions, or other phenomena that are not facts. In our example, the teacher might judge that “Taylor is an irrespon- sible student.” But judging Taylor as irre- sponsible goes beyond the facts. Taylor’s lateness to class may be due to a work shift that ends right before the class. The teacher might treat Taylor differently if

Checking perceptions is critical to eff ective parent-child communication.

SW P

ro du

ct io

ns /J

up ite

r I m

ag es

Pe rception C he cking To gain skill in perception checking (and all communication behaviors), you need to practice. Try this:

1. Monitor your tendencies to mind read, especially in established relationships in which you feel you know your partners well.

2. The next time you catch yourself mind reading, stop. Instead, tell the other person what you are noticing and invite her or him to explain how she or he perceives what’s happening. First, fi nd out whether your partner agrees with you about what you noticed. Second, if you agree, fi nd out how your partner interprets and evaluates what is happening.

3. Engage in perception checking for two or three days so that you have lots of chances to see what happens. When you’ve done that, refl ect on the number of times your mind reading was inaccurate.

4. Think about how your perception checking aff ected interaction with your friends and romantic partners.

SHARPEN YOUR SKILL

60 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

a work schedule, rather than laziness, explained the tardiness. To communi- cate effectively, we need to avoid mis- taking nonfactual statements for factual ones. The Sharpen Your Skill box to the left allows you to check your ability to distinguish facts from inferences and judgments.

It’s easy to confuse inferences with facts when we use language that makes inferences and judgments appear to be factual. When we say, “This person is rude,” we’ve made a statement that sounds factual, and we may then perceive it as factual when it really isn’t. To avoid this tendency, substitute a more tenta- tive word for is. For instance, “This per- son seems rude” and “This person may be rude” are more tentative statements that keep us from treating an inference or judgment as a fact. The Sharpen Your Skill box that appears below allows you to develop your skill in using tentative language.

Monitor the Self-Serving Bias We discussed the self-serving bias earlier in this chapter. You’ll recall that it involves attributing our successes and nice behaviors to internal, stable qualities that we con-

trol and attributing our failures and bad behaviors to external, unstable factors beyond our control. Because this bias can distort perceptions, we need to monitor it carefully. Monitoring is the process of calling behaviors or other phenomena to our attention so that we can observe and regulate them. Try to monitor the tendency to explain away your failures or adverse behaviors as not your fault and to take personal credit for accomplishments that were helped along by luck or situ- ational factors.

Monitoring the self-serving bias also has implications for how we perceive others. Just as we tend to judge ourselves generously, we may judge others harshly.

Dist ingu ishing Facts f rom In f e rences and Judgments

Which of the following are factual statements?

1. There are 50 states in the United States.

2. People from small towns are friendly.

3. Actors are egotistical.

4. German shepherds tend to suff er from hip dysplasia.

5. Students who come to class late are disrespectful.

6. Acid rain can destroy trees.

7. College students take jobs to earn money for dating and clothes.

8. Older students aren’t career oriented.

9. Evelyn made a total score of 690 on her SAT.

10. Evelyn would not do well in college.

Statements 1, 4, 6, and 9 are facts; statements 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10 are inferences.

SHARPEN YOUR SKILL

Using Tentati ve Language To become more sensitive to the tendency to confuse facts with inferences and judgments, pay attention to the language you use for the next 24 hours when you describe people and interactions. Listen for words such as is and are, which imply factual knowledge. Do you notice instances in which tentative language would be more accurate?

Now, extend your observations to other people and the language they use. When you hear others say “She is,” “They are,” or “He is,” are they really making factual statements, or are they making inferences or judgments?

SHARPEN YOUR SKILL

61CHAPTER 3 PERCEIVING AND UNDERSTANDING

Monitor your perceptions to see whether you attribute others’ successes and admira- ble actions to external factors beyond their control and their shortcomings and blunders to internal factors they can (should) con- trol. If you do this, substitute more gener- ous explanations for others’ behaviors, and notice how that affects your perceptions of them. The FYI box on this page discusses research that links different attributional tendencies to different levels of satisfaction with personal relationships. Words crystal- lize perceptions. Until we label an experi- ence, it remains nebulous and less than fully formed in our thinking. Only when we name our feelings and thoughts do we have a clear way to describe and think about them. But just as words crystallize experiences, they can freeze thought. Once we label our perceptions, we may respond to our labels rather than to the actual phenomena.

Attribution Patterns and Relationship Satisfaction

Investigations have shown that happy and unhappy couples have distinct attribution

styles (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Fletcher & Fincham, 1991; Graham & Conoley, 2006; McNulty & Karney, 2001; Segrin, Hanzal, & Domschke, 2009). Happy couples make relationship-enhancing attributions. Such people attribute nice things a partner does to internal, stable, and global reasons. “She got the fi lm for us because she is a good person who always does sweet things for us.” They attribute unpleasant actions by a partner to external, unstable, and specifi c factors. “He yelled at me because all the stress of the past few days made him short with everyone.”

Unhappy couples use reverse attribution patterns. They explain nice actions as resulting from external, unstable, and specifi c factors. “She got the tape because she had some extra time today.” They see negative actions as stemming from internal, stable, and global factors. “He yelled at me because he is a nasty person who never shows any consideration to anybody else.” Negative attributions encourage pessimistic views and sap motivation to improve a relationship. Whether positive or negative, attributions may be self-fulfi lling prophecies.

In this chapter, we’ve discussed perception, which is a basic communication process. It involves selecting, organizing, and interpreting experiences. These three facets of the perception process are not separate in practice; instead, they interact such that each affects the others.

What we selectively notice affects how we organize and interpret phenomena. At the same time, our inter- pretations infl uence what we notice in the world around us. Selection, organization, and interpretation interact

continually in the process of perception. Our sensory capacities and physiological conditions affect what we perceive. In addition, expectations, cognitive abilities, social roles, and cultural context infl uence how we per- ceive experiences and how we communicate with our- selves and others.

Skillful perception enhances communication. We discussed four guidelines for enhancing skills in per- ceiving. First, because people perceive differently, we should avoid mind reading. Extending this, we dis- cussed the importance of checking perceptions, which involves stating how we perceive something and asking

S U M M A R Y

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 2 C e n g a g e L e a r n i n g . A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e c o p i e d , s c a n n e d , o r d u p l i c a t e d , i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t . D u e t o e l e c t r o n i c r i g h t s , s o m e t h i r d p a r t y c o n t e n t m a y b e s u p p r e s s e d f r o m t h e e B o o k a n d / o r e C h a p t e r ( s ) . E d i t o r i a l r e v i e w h a s d e e m e d t h a t a n y s u p p r e s s e d c o n t e n t d o e s n o t m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t t h e o v e r a l l l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e . C e n g a g e L e a r n i n g r e s e r v e s t h e r i g h t t o r e m o v e a d d i t i o n a l c o n t e n t a t a n y t i m e i f s u b s e q u e n t r i g h t s r e s t r i c t i o n s r e q u i r e i t .

62 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

how another person perceives it. A third guideline is to distinguish facts from inferences in our perceptions and the symbols we use to label them. Finally, monitor- ing self-serving bias helps us perceive ourselves more

accurately. We need to know when we are making fac- tual descriptions and when we are making inferences that we should check.

The Refl ect, Discuss, and Apply Questions that fol- low 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 CourseMate for Communication Mosaics. Your CourseMate includes

a student workbook, WebLinks, TED Talks hyper- links and activities, chapter glossary and fl ashcards, interactive video activities, Speech Builder Express, and InfoTrac College Edition. For more information or to access this book’s online resources, visit www .cengagebrain.com.

attribution, 49 cognitive complexity, 53 cognitive schemata, 45 constructivism, 45 culture, 57 empathy, 56 expectancy violation theory, 53 individualism, 57 inference, 59 interpretation, 48 judgment, 59 mind reading, 58

monitoring, 60 perception, 44 personal construct, 46 person-centeredness, 55 positive visualization, 52 prototype, 45 schemata, 45 script, 48 self-serving bias, 49 social community, 57 stereotype, 47

1. As a class, discuss how you communicate with people both online and face to face. What differences can you identify in how you communicate in each medium? What differences can you identify in how others communicate with you online and in person?

2. How do physiological factors affect your perceptions? How do your biorhythms affect your daily schedules?

3. Read a local paper and pay attention to how the language in stories shapes your perceptions of events and people. Identify examples of how language shapes perceptions.

4. Think of someone you know who is person- centered. Describe the specifi c skills this person uses and how they affect his or her communication.

5. Go to a grocery store and notice how products are placed on shelves (at eye level, lower, or higher) and the colors and designs on product packaging. Identify factors discussed in this chapter that are used to make products stand out and gain shoppers’ attention.

6. Volunteer to work in a context that allows you to interact with people you have not spent time with—for example, volunteer at a homeless shelter. At the start of your work, make a list of schemata (prototypes, personal constructs, stereotypes, and scripts) you have about these people before you interact with them. After spending time interacting with them, review your list of schemata and evaluate how accurate they were.

REVIEW, REFLECT, EXTEND

KEY CONCEPTS

Reflect, Discuss, Apply

63CHAPTER 3 PERCEIVING AND UNDERSTANDING

1. Learn more about fact–inference confusion and other ways in which language and perception affect our thinking by visiting the website of the Institute of General Semantics. You can access it by going to the book’s online resources for this chapter and clicking on WebLink 3.1.

2. Paul Watzlawick (1984). The invented reality: How do we know what we believe we know? Don’t let the publication date of this book fool you. It is as useful today as when it was published in raising awareness of how our perceptions shape our sense of reality.

Recommended Resources

64 PART II COMMUNICATION PROCESSES AND SKILLS

1. Both Jim and his parents make attributions to explain his grades. Describe the dimensions of Jim’s attributions and those of his parents.

2. How might you assess the accuracy of Jim’s attributions? What questions could you ask him to help you decide whether his perceptions are well founded or biased?

3. What constructs, prototypes, and scripts seem to operate in how Jim and his parents think about college life and being a student?

4. What could you say to Jim to help him and his parents reach a shared perspective on his academic work?

EXPERIENCE COMMUNICATION CASE STUDY

College Success

Apply what you’ve learned in this chapter by analyzing the following case study, using the accompanying questions as a guide. These questions and a video of the case study are also available online at your CourseMate for Communication Mosaics.

Your friend Jim tells you about a problem he’s having with his parents. According to Jim, his parents have unrealistic expectations of him. He tends to be an average student, usually making C’s, a few B’s, and an occasional D in his courses. His parents are angry that his grades aren’t better. Jim tells you that when he went home last month, his father said this:

en ga

g e

Le ar

ni ng

Jim’s father: I’m not paying for you to go to school so you can party with your friends. I paid my own way and still made

Phi Beta Kappa. You have a free ride, and you’re still just pull-

ing C’s. You just have to study harder.

Jim [to you]: I mean, I like to hang out with my friends, but that’s got nothing to do with my grades. My dad’s this bril-

liant guy, I mean, he just cruised through college; he thinks

it’s easy. I don’t know how it was back then, but all my classes

are hard. I mean, no matter how much studying I do, I’m not

gonna get all A’s. What should I do? I mean, how do I con-

vince them that I’m doing everything I can?