Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries.
Published in Canada by
Oxford University Press
8 Sampson Mews, Suite 204,
Don Mills, Ontario M3C 0H5 Canada
www.oupcanada.com
Copyright © Oxford University Press Canada 2020
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First Edition published in 2006
Second Edition published in 2009
Third Edition published in 2012
Fourth Edition published in 2016
Original edition published by Oxford University Press, Inc.,
198 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10016-4314, USA.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Permissions Department at the address above
or through the following url: www.oupcanada.com/permission/permission_request.php
Every effort has been made to determine and contact copyright holders.
In the case of any omissions, the publisher will be pleased to make
suitable acknowledgement in future editions.
Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication
Title: Interplay : the process of interpersonal communication / Ronald B. Adler, Constance Winder,
Lawrence B. Rosenfeld, Russell F. Proctor II.
Names: Adler, Ronald B. (Ronald Brian), 1946- author. | Winder, Constance, 1961- author. |
Rosenfeld, Lawrence B., author. | Proctor, Russell F., II, author.
Description: Fifth Canadian edition. | Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
Identifiers: Canadiana (print) 20190202378 | Canadiana (ebook) 20190202386 | ISBN 9780199033478
(softcover) | ISBN 9780199038701 (looseleaf) | ISBN 9780199033522 (EPUB)
Subjects: LCSH: Interpersonal communication—Textbooks. | LCGFT: Textbooks.
Classification: LCC BF637.C45 A35 2020 | DDC 302.2—dc23
Cover image: Ion Barbu/EyeEm/Getty Images
Cover design: Farzana Razak
Interior design: Farzana Razak
Oxford University Press is committed to our environment.
Wherever possible, our books are printed on paper which comes from
responsible sources.
Printed and bound in the United States of America
1 2 3 4 — 23 22 21 20
Brief Contents
Publisher’s Preface
Preface xviii
PART 1 |
xi
FOUNDATIONS OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Chapter 1
Interpersonal Process 2
Chapter 2
Communication and the Self 38
Chapter 3
Perceiving Others 78
Chapter 4
Emotions 110
PART 2 |
CREATING AND RESPONDING TO MESSAGES
Chapter 5
Listening 142
Chapter 6
Language 174
Chapter 7
Non-verbal Communication 208
PART 3 |
DIMENSIONS OF INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
Chapter 8
Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships 240
Chapter 9
Communication Climate 274
Chapter 10 Managing Conflict 304
PART 4 |
CONTEXTS OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Chapter 11 Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners 336
Chapter 12 Work, Group, and Team Communication 364
Glossary 393
References 400
Name index 455
Subject Index 457
Contents
Publisher’s Preface
Preface xviii
Relative Status of Men and Women
xi
Communication Competence 28
PART 1 | FOUNDATIONS OF
INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Chapter 1 Interpersonal Process 2
Why We Communicate 4
The Communication Process 8
Chapter 2 Communication
and the Self 38
A Model of Communication 8
Insights from the Transactional
Communication Model 8
Communication Principles 10
Communication and the Self-Concept
The Nature of Interpersonal
Communication 12
Quantitative and Qualitative
Definitions 12
Personal and Impersonal Communication:
A Matter of Balance 15
Communication Misconceptions 16
Interpersonal Communication
and Technology 17
Characteristics of Computer-Mediated
Communication 18
Interpersonal Communication and Cultural
Diversity 22
40
How the Self-Concept Develops 43
Self-Concept Development in
Context 45
Characteristics of the Self-Concept 48
The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy and
Communication 51
Presenting the Self: Communication as
Impression Management 54
Public and Private Selves 54
Characteristics of Impression
Management 55
Why Manage Impressions? 58
How Do We Manage Impressions? 58
Identity Management and Honesty 60
Disclosing the Self
61
Self-Disclosure Factors 62
Models of Self-Disclosure 63
Benefits and Risks of Self-Disclosure
Culture 22
Intercultural Communication 23
Interpersonal and Intercultural
Communication 24
Attitudes toward Violence 26
Acceptance of Diversity 27
Communication Competence Defined
and Described 29
Characteristics of Competent
Communication 31
Summary 34
Multiple-choice Questions 35
Activities 36
Discussion Questions 37
Journal Ideas 37
Physical Needs 5
Identity Needs 6
Social Needs 6
Practical Needs 7
Comparison of Canadian and US Culture
27
Alternatives to Self-Disclosure
26
Silence and Secrecy 68
Lying 69
Equivocation 70
68
65
Contents
Chapter 4 Emotions
Hinting 71
The Ethics of Evasion 72
Guidelines for Self-Disclosure
What Are Emotions?
72
Is the Other Person Important to You? 72
Is the Risk of Disclosing Reasonable? 73
Is the Self-Disclosure Appropriate? 73
Is the Disclosure Reciprocated? 73
Will the Effect Be Constructive? 74
Summary 74
Multiple-choice Questions 75
Activities 76
Discussion Questions 77
Journal Ideas 77
Chapter 3 Perceiving Others
The Perception Process
78
80
86
Access to Information 86
Physiological Influences 86
Psychological Influences 89
Social Influences 89
Cultural Influences 93
Common Tendencies in Perception
Perceiving Others More Accurately
Summary 106
Multiple-choice Questions 107
Activities 108
Discussion Questions 109
Journal Ideas 109
Physiological Changes 113
Cognitive Interpretations 114
Outward Expression 115
Influences on Emotional Expression
Personality 116
Culture 116
Gender 120
Social Conventions and Roles
Social Media 121
Emotional Contagion 121
116
120
Recognize Your Feelings 122
Choose the Best Language 123
Share Multiple Feelings 124
Recognize the Difference between
Feeling and Acting 124
Accept Responsibility for Your
Feelings 125
Choose the Best Time and Place to
Express Your Feelings 125
Managing Emotions 125
96
We Make Snap Judgments 96
We Cling to First Impressions 97
We Judge Ourselves More Charitably than
We Do Others 98
We Are Influenced by Our
Expectations 98
We Are Influenced by the Obvious 99
We Assume Others Are Similar
to Us 100
Perception Checking 101
Building Empathy 102
113
Expressing Emotions Effectively 122
Reality Is Constructed 80
Steps in the Perception Process 80
Influences on Perception
110
100
Facilitative and Debilitative
Emotions 126
Thoughts as a Cause of Feelings 126
Irrational Thinking and Debilitative
Emotions 128
Minimizing Debilitative Emotions 132
Maximizing Facilitative Emotions 134
Summary 136
Multiple-choice Questions 137
Activities 138
Discussion Questions 139
Journal Ideas 139
PART 2 | CREATING AND
RESPONDING TO MESSAGES
Chapter 5 Listening
The Nature of Listening
142
144
The Importance of Listening
Listening Defined 145
Listening Styles 147
144
vii
viii
Contents
148
The Challenge of Listening
Recognizing Barriers to Listening 148
Avoiding Poor Listening Habits 149
150
Components of Listening
Silent Listening 156
Questioning 157
Paraphrasing 160
Empathizing 163
Supporting 164
Analyzing 165
Evaluating 166
Advising 166
Which Style to Use? 167
Chapter 7 Non-verbal
Communication 208
Non-verbal Communication Defined 210
Characteristics of Non-verbal
Communication 211
Non-verbal Communication Is Always
Occurring 211
Non-verbal Communication Is Primarily
Relational 212
Non-verbal Communication Is
Ambiguous 212
Non-verbal Communication Occurs in
Mediated Messages 213
Non-verbal Communication Is Influenced
by Culture and Gender 215
Summary 169
Multiple-choice Questions 170
Activities 171
Discussion Questions 172
Journal Ideas 172
Chapter 6 Language 174
176
Is Symbolic 176
Is Governed by Rules
Is Subjective 178
and Worldview 179
The Influence of Language
176
180
218
Types of Non-verbal Communication 222
Precision and Vagueness 190
The Language of Responsibility 195
198
High- versus Low-context Cultures
Functions of Non-verbal Communication
Creating and Maintaining
Relationships 218
Regulating Interaction 219
Influencing Others 219
Influencing Ourselves 220
Concealing/Deceiving 221
Naming and Identity 180
Credibility and Status 183
Affiliation 184
Power and Politeness 185
Sexism 187
Sexual Orientation 188
Racism 189
Uses (and Abuses) of Language 190
Culture and Language
201
Summary 204
Multiple-choice Questions 204
Activities 206
Discussion Questions 207
Journal Ideas 207
Types of Listening Responses 155
Language
Language
Language
Language
Gender and Language
200
Extent of Gender Differences 201
Online Language and Gender 202
Non-Gender Influences on Language
Use 203
Hearing 150
Attending 151
Understanding 151
Remembering 154
Responding 155
The Nature of Language
Verbal Communication Styles
Code-Switching 200
198
Body Movement 222
Touch 224
Voice 225
Distance 227
Territoriality 229
Time 230
Physical Attractiveness 231
Clothing 231
Physical Environment 232
Contents
Summary 234
Multiple-choice Questions 235
Activities 236
Discussion Questions 237
Journal Ideas 238
Causes and Effects of
Defensiveness 282
Climate Patterns 283
PART 3 | DIMENSIONS OF
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS
Chapter 8 Dynamics of Interpersonal
Relationships 240
Why We Form Relationships
242
Evaluation versus Description 285
Controlling Communication versus
Problem Orientation 287
Strategy versus Spontaneity 287
Neutrality versus Empathy 289
Superiority versus Equality 289
Certainty versus Provisionalism 291
Invitational Communication
Appearance 242
Similarity 243
Complementarity 244
Rewards 245
Competence 246
Proximity 247
Disclosure 247
292
The Language of Choice 293
Responding Non-defensively to
Criticism 294
248
Intimacy and Distance in Relationships
Forms of Intimacy 248
Forms of Distance 249
The Influence of Culture and Gender on
Intimacy 250
Models of Relational Dynamics
283
Creating Supportive Climates
253
Stages of Relational Development 253
Dialectical Tensions in Relationships 259
Characteristics of Relational
Development 262
Communicating about Relationships 263
Content and Relational Messages 263
Maintaining and Supporting
Relationships 265
Repairing Damaged Relationships 268
Summary 270
Multiple-choice Questions 270
Activities 272
Discussion Questions 272
Journal Ideas 273
Chapter 9 Communication Climate
Chapter 10 Managing Conflict 304
What Is Conflict? 306
Expressed Struggle 307
Interdependence 307
Perceived Incompatible Goals 307
Perceived Scarce Resources 307
Inevitability 307
Conflict Styles 308
Avoidance (Lose–Lose) 309
Accommodation (Lose–Win) 310
Competition (Win–Lose) 311
Compromise 312
Collaboration (Win–Win) 313
Which Style to Use? 314
Conflict in Relational Systems
274
What Is Communication Climate? 276
How Communication Climates Develop 276
Levels of Message Confirmation
Summary 299
Multiple-choice Questions 300
Activities 301
Discussion Questions 302
Journal Ideas 302
277
316
Complementary and Symmetrical
Conflict 316
Serial Arguments 317
Toxic Conflict: “The Four Horsemen” 318
Conflict Rituals 319
Variables in Conflict Styles 321
Gender 321
Culture 322
ix
x
Contents
Conflict Management in Practice
324
Steps for the Win–Win Approach
325
Summary 330
Multiple-choice Questions 331
Activities 332
Discussion Questions 333
Journal Ideas 334
Communicating in Organizations 366
Chapter 11 Communication in Close
Relationships: Friends, Family, and
Romantic Partners 336
Communication in Friendships 338
Types of Friendships 338
Friendships, Gender, and
Communication 339
Friendship and Social Media 342
Communication in Successful
Friendships 342
Advancing Your Career
361
381
Networking 381
Interviewing 382
Patterns of Family Communication 347
Summary 360
Multiple-choice Questions
Activities 362
Characteristics of Groups and
Teams 369
Personal Skills in Work Groups and
Teams 370
Group Cultures 373
Face-to-Face and Mediated
Relationships 374
Types of Leadership 376
Types of Power 376
Leadership that Supports Diversity and
Inclusion 379
Creating the Family through
Communication 345
Characteristics of Romantic
Relationships 355
Effective Communication in Romantic
Relationships 358
Formal Communication 366
Informal Communication 367
Relationships in Work Groups and
Teams 369
Leadership, Power, and Influence in Working
Groups 375
Communication in the Family 345
Communication in Romantic
Relationships 355
363
Chapter 12 Work, Group, and Team
Communication 364
PART 4 | CONTEXTS OF
INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Families as Communication
Systems 348
Effective Communication in Families
Discussion Questions
Journal Ideas 363
350
Summary 388
Multiple-choice Questions 389
Activities 390
Discussion Questions 391
Journal Ideas 392
Glossary 393
References 400
Name index 455
Subject Index 457
Publisher’s Preface
The fifth edition of Interplay builds on the successful approach used in the previous Canadian editions that have served instructors and students well. It gives first-time students
a useful, compelling, and accurate introduction to the academic study of interpersonal
communication. Readers of Interplay come away with a new appreciation of how scholarship about communication in interpersonal relationships can make a difference in their
everyday lives. To that end, this fifth edition presents new and expanded coverage of key
concepts while retaining the trusted qualities and features of the previous editions.
Key Features
• An accessible writing style based on the belief that even complicated ideas can be presented in a straightforward way.
• A commitment to showing how scholarship offers insights about the process of interpersonal communication.
• Thought-provoking photos and cartoons that thoughtfully and compellingly illustrate
the text’s insights.
Increased Coverage of Contemporary
Issues Impacting Day-to-Day Life
• To help students better understand the issues and contexts they will face in their everyday lives, this edition features expanded content on communication and the self, technology, culture, and work throughout. Some new
topics include:
42
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
SELF-ASSESSMENT
HOW MUCH COMPASSION DO YOU SHOW
YOURSELF?
Please read each statement carefully before
answering. To the left of each item, indicate how
often you behave in the stated manner, using the following scale:
Almost Never
1
2
1.
Communication and the Self
• Chapter 2 – Self-compassion
• Chapter 4 – Change your Self-Talk
• Chapter 4 – Combining Daily Mindfulness
with Reappraisal
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
3
Almost Always
4
5
When I fail at something important to me, I
become consumed by feelings of inadequacy.
I try to be understanding and patient towards
those aspects of my personality I don’t like.
When something painful happens, I try to take a
balanced view of the situation.
When I’m feeling down, I tend to feel like most
other people are probably happier than I am.
I try to see my failings as part of the human condition.
When I’m going through a very hard time, I give
myself the caring and tenderness I need.
When something upsets me, I try to keep my
emotions in balance.
When I fail at something that’s important to me,
I tend to feel alone in my failure.
When I’m feeling down I tend to obsess and fixate on everything that’s wrong.
10. When I feel inadequate in some way, I try to
remind myself that feelings of inadequacy are
shared by most people.
11. I’m disapproving and judgmental about my own
flaws and inadequacies.
12. I’m intolerant and impatient towards those
aspects of my personality I don’t like.
7.
8.
9.
Lower scores on items 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 12 and
higher scores on the remaining items (2, 3, 5, 6, 7,
and 10) indicate greater self-compassion.
SOURCE: Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K.D., and Van
Gucht, D. (2011). Construct and factorial validation
of a short form of the self-compassion scale. Clinical
Psychology and Psychotherapy, 18, 250–5.
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
SELF-CONTROL, SELF-COMPASSION, SOCIAL TEMPTATIONS, AND PROCRASTINATION
Most of us have been distracted or put something off
that we know we should be doing—maybe even reading this chapter! Procrastination is the voluntary delay
of important, necessary, and intended action despite
knowing there will be negative consequences for this
delay (Sirois and Pychyl, 2013). Many colleges and universities have student success programs that focus on
improving our time management skills, but research
suggests a different approach will probably work better.
Procrastination researcher Tim Pychyl and his colleagues have identified many of the challenges that
make us vulnerable to putting things off and suffering
for it (Pychyl and Sirois, 2016; Sirois and Giguire,
2018). They know we delay boring or difficult tasks
that have long-term payoffs and are not much fun for
more pleasant activities that are immediately rewarding, less because we failed to manage our time effectively than because we didn’t feel like doing the boring
adl33478_ch02_038-077.indd
42
or difficult thing. Socializing with others is something
that it is immediately rewarding for most people and
is very tempting when we’re working on a difficult,
boring, or frustrating task. We want to feel better so
we ditch the schoolwork and engage in social activities to improve our negative mood. We “give in to feel
good” (Pychyl and Sirois, 2016; Sirois and Giguire,
2018). The irony is we then feel bad about procrastinating! Rather than thinking about procrastination as a
time management problem, we’re better off thinking
about it as a challenge in regulating our emotions and
coping. It’s more correctly conceptualized as a test of
our self-control and our self-compassion. So, how do
we say “no” to the immediate gratification of socializing either in person or online when those temptations
are available 24/7?
Research suggests we can learn to tolerate and
modify the negative emotions we experience during
01/25/20 02:44 PM
Publisher’s Preface
7 | Non-verbal Communication
• Chapter 4 – Social Media and Emotional Contagion
• Chapter 6 – Online Language and Gender
• Chapter 7 – Emojis, Mediated Messages,
and Nonverbal Communication
could be a compliment or a criticism, and the
vague statement, “I’m almost done” could mean
you have to wait a few minutes or an hour.) Most
non-verbal behaviour has the potential to be even
more ambiguous than verbal statements like these.
To understand why, consider how you would interpret silence from your companion during an evening together. Think of all the possible meanings of
this non-verbal behaviour—affection, anger, preoccupation, boredom, nervousness, thoughtfulness—the possibilities are many.
The ambiguity of non-verbal behaviour was
illustrated when a supermarket chain tried to
emphasize its customer-friendly approach by
instructing employees to smile and make eye contact with customers. Some customers mistook the
service-with-a-smile approach as sexual come-ons.
As this story suggests, non-verbal cues are much
more ambiguous than verbal statements when it
comes to expressing willingness to become physically involved (La France, 2010).
Because non-verbal behaviour is so ambiguous, caution is wise when you’re responding to
non-verbal cues. Rather than jumping to conclusions about the meaning of a sigh, smile,
slammed door, or yawn, it’s far better to use the
kind of perception-checking approach described
in Chapter 3. “When you yawned, I got the idea I
might be boring you. But maybe you’re just tired.
What’s going on?” The ability to consider more
than one possible interpretation for non-verbal
behaviour illustrates the kind of cognitive complexity that we identified in Chapter 1 as an element of communication competence. Popular
advice on the subject notwithstanding, it’s usually
not possible to read a person like a book.
Non-verbal Communication Occurs
in Mediated Messages
1 | Interpersonal Process
HIGH
Parent and child
discuss their changing
relationship.
Not all mediated communication is solely verbal.
Video calls/chat obviously provide non-verbal
information, as do photos on social networking
apps and messaging platforms. Even text-based
digital communication has non-verbal features.
The most obvious way to represent non-verbal
expressions in type is with emoji. Emoji, as we
25
Husband and wife from different
cultural backgrounds develop
mutual understanding.
Over time, able-bodied and
disabled fellow employees
develop ways to work
effectively together.
Traveller unintentionally
violates customs of a culture
that he or she doesn’t understand.
English-speaking caller
requests directory assistance
from English-speaking
telephone operator.
LOW
adl33478_ch07_208-238.indd
INTERCULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
HIGH
FIGURE 1.2 Possible Interactions among Interpersonal and Intercultural Dimensions of Person-to-Person
Communication
far less difficult than that for the international traveller. In between these extremes falls a whole range
of encounters in which culture plays varying roles.
What is the relationship between intercultural
communication and interpersonal relationships?
William Gudykunst and Young Kim (2003) summarize an approach that helps answer this question.
They suggest that interpersonal and intercultural
factors combine to form a two-by-two matrix in
which the importance of interpersonal communication forms one dimension and intercultural
significance forms the other (see Figure 1.2). This
model shows that some interpersonal transactions
(for example, a conversation between two siblings
who have been raised in the same household) have
virtually no intercultural elements. Other encounters (such as a traveller from Senegal trying to get
directions from an Iranian-Canadian taxi driver
in Vancouver) are almost exclusively intercultural,
without the personal dimensions that we discuss
throughout this book.
Still other exchanges—the most interesting ones
for our purposes—contain elements of both intercultural and interpersonal communication. This
range of encounters is broad in the global village:
business people from different backgrounds try to
wrap up a deal; Canadian-born and immigrant
children learn to get along in school; health care
educators seek effective ways to serve patients from
around the world; neighbours from different racial
TAKE TWO
described in Chapter 4, can help communicate
emotion and clarify a meaning that isn’t evident
from words alone (Derks et al., 2008; Lo, 2008;
Riordan, 2017; Riordan and Kreuz, 2010). For
example, see how each graphic below creates a different meaning for the same statement:
• You’re driving me crazy
• You’re driving me crazy
• You’re driving me crazy
Yet the meaning of emoji can be ambiguous
(Skovholt et al., 2014). A smiley face could have
a number of meanings, such as “I’m happy,” “I’m
kidding,” or “I’m teasing you.” Other online communication markers are also ambiguous (Vandergriff, 2013). Exclamation marks (sometimes more
than one!!!) can be used at the end of sentences
213
01/25/20 02:51 PM
Culture
• Chapter 1 – Individuals’ and Collectivists’
Cultural Values
• Chapter 2 – Ableism and “Person First” Language
• Chapter 6 – Code Switching in Canada
CONCEPTS IN INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
• Culture: the language, values, beliefs, traditions, and customs people share and learn.
• In-groups: groups of people with whom we identify.
• Out-groups: groups of people whom we view as
different.
• Co-culture: a subgroup that is part of an encompassing culture.
• Intercultural communication: the process
by which members of two or more cultures
exchange messages in a manner that is influenced by their different cultural perceptions and
symbol systems.
11 | Communication in Close Relationships: Friends, Family, and Romantic Partners
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
adl33478_ch01_001-037.indd
25
213
Chris Wildt/Cartoonstock
Technology
INTERPERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE
xii
01/25/20 02:42 PM
Work
• Chapter 5 – Multicommunicating at Work
• Chapter 11 – Social Media and Relationships with
Co-workers
• Chapter 12 – Leadership that Supports Diversity and
Inclusion
SOCIAL MEDIA AND RELATIONSHIPS WITH CO-WORKERS
Search the phrase “social media and co-workers” and
you’ll find a host of articles about the pros and cons
of friending and following workmates online. This kind
of sharing involves both risks and rewards. On the
positive side, social media can help create bonds by
allowing colleagues to learn about each other’s lives
away from the job. It can help colleagues get to know
each other on a deeper level, which can positively
influence their productivity (Goodman, 2014).
Along with these benefits, however, online sharing
with co-workers has its risks. Some experts believe
the risks are so great that they categorically recommend against friending colleagues (Wu, 2017).
Others suggest proceeding with caution (Penning,
2016; Whittenberry, 2016). And while you might think
that using filters to manage what content certain
audiences (family and friends versus professional
colleagues) can see is a cautious strategy, recent
research suggests it might not achieve the results
you want. Anika Batenburg and Jos Bartels (2017)
found that integrating work and personal contacts on
social media platforms produced higher levels of likeability among colleagues than a “segmenting” strategy, which involved restricting or filtering professional
contacts’ access to personal information. These
investigators suggest that because liking is related
to self-disclosure, being included in a colleague’s
inner circle of friends might increase the likeability
of that individual; similarly, when one is kept out of
that circle they might feel rejected and their liking
of the co-worker might actually decrease. Additional
research has revealed that we are more likely to want
to integrate our co-workers into our inner social media
circles when we perceive them to be trustworthy and
sociable (van Prooijen et al., 2018).
As you know, our perceptions of others are not
always accurate (see Chapter 3) and filters do not
ensure privacy; people who have less restricted
access to your posts can always share them with a
broader audience. We’ve suggested throughout this
book that it’s important to keep your online audience
in mind when you’re choosing what to share on social
media. Although it may feel private and fleeting, it’s
not. Before you hit “post,” imagine how your manager,
your most reserved co-worker, and your grandmother
or another older relative would react if they saw your
post. Self-monitoring is your friend. Although this suggestion seems obvious, everyone is aware of people
whose social media posts have cost them their jobs.
Critical thinking: What’s your preference in terms of
including co-workers in your social media? What are
the benefits of your approach? What are the potential
costs?
Share Joys and Sorrows
Share Laughs and Memories
When you have bad news, you want to tell friends
who will offer you comfort and support (Vallade
et al., 2016). When a friend has good news, you
want to hear about it and celebrate. When sharing
sorrows and joys with friends, it’s often important
how quickly and in what order the news is delivered. The closer the friendship, the higher the
expectation is that you’ll share such things soon
after they happen. If a friend asks, “How come I’m
the last to find out about your new job?” you may
have committed an expectancy violation.
A hallmark of a healthy relationship is shared
laughter (Kurtz and Algoe, 2017). One study found
that close friends have a distinctive laugh, and that
people across cultures can pinpoint in seconds
how intimate friends are by listening to them chortle together (Bryant et al., 2016). Another study
found that friends regularly prod and deepen each
other’s memory banks—so much so that “sharing
a brain” is an accurate description for the bond
between very close friends (Iannone et al., 2016). If
you get together with long-time pals and laugh as
adl33478_ch11_335-363.indd
343
01/25/20 02:57 PM
343
Publisher’s Preface
Engaging Pedagogy
This edition of Interplay builds on the pedagogical approach that has successfully
helped students appreciate how scholarship leads to a better understanding of
communication in the “real world.”
168
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
TAKE TWO
TYPES OF LISTENING RESPONSES
• Silent listening: staying attentive and nonverbally responsive, without saying anything.
• Questioning: asking the speaker for additional
information.
• Open questions allow for a variety of
extended responses.
• Closed questions only allow a limited range
of answers.
• Sincere questions are aimed at understanding others.
• Counterfeit questions are disguised attempts
to send a message, not receive one.
• Paraphrasing: restating, in your own words, the
message you thought the speaker sent.
• Empathizing: showing that you identify with a
speaker.
• Supporting: revealing your solidarity with the
speaker’s situation.
• Analyzing: offering an interpretation of a speaker’s message.
• Evaluating: appraising the speaker’s thoughts or
behaviour in some way.
• Advising: providing the speaker with your opinion about what she should do.
• “Take Two” boxes recap core
concepts and terms to ensure students
understand their meaning and draw
linkages between them.
These skills comprise what pioneering therapist
Carl Rogers (2003) calls active listening (see
Weger et al., 2014). Rogers maintains that helpful interpersonal listening begins with reflective,
non-directive responses. Once you have gathered
the facts and demonstrated your interest and
concern, it’s likely that the speaker will be more
receptive to (and perhaps even ask for) your analyzing, evaluating, and advising responses (MacGeorge et al., 2017).
You can improve the odds of choosing the best
style in each situation by considering three factors.
1. Think about the situation, and match
your response to the nature of the problem. People sometimes need your advice.
In other cases, your encouragement and
support will be most helpful, and in still
other cases, your analysis or judgment may
be truly useful. And, as you have seen, there
are times when your questioning and paraphrasing can help others find their own
answer.
2. Besides considering the situation, you also
should think about the other person when
deciding which approach to use. It’s important to be sure that the other person is open to
receiving any kind of help. Furthermore, you
BUILDING WORK SKILLS
WHICH LISTENING STYLE IS BEST?
2 | Communication and the Self
Explore the various types of listening responses by completing the following steps:
65
1.
2.
Known
to self
Not known
to self
1
OPEN
2
BLIND
3
HIDDEN
4
UNKNOWN
Known
to others
Not known
to others
FIGURE 2.3 Johari Window
Source: From Group process: An introduction to group dynamics. Copyright © 1963,
1970 by Joseph Luft. Used with the permission of Mayfield Publishing Company.
Part 1 represents the information that both
you and the other person already have. This part
is your open area. Part 2 represents the blind area:
information of which you are unaware, but that
the other person knows. You learn about information in the blind area primarily through feedback from others. Part 3 of the Johari Window
represents your hidden area: information that
you know, but are not willing to reveal to others.
Items in this hidden area become public primarily
through self-disclosure. Part 4 of the Johari Window represents information that is unknown to
both you and to others. At first, the unknown area
seems impossible to verify. After all, if neither you
nor others know what it contains, how can you be
sure it exists at all? We can deduce its existence
because we are constantly discovering new things
about ourselves. For example, it is not unusual
to discover that you have an unrecognized talent, strength, or weakness. Items move from the
unknown area into the open area when you share
your insight, or into the hidden area when you
keep it secret.
The relative size of each area in our personal
Johari Window changes from time to time according
to our moods, the subject we’re discussing, and our
relationship with the other person. Despite these
changes, a single Johari Window could represent
most people’s overall style of disclosure.
adl33478_ch02_038-077.indd
65
CHECK IT!
3.
Describe the four quadrants of the Johari Window
and the relationship of each to receptivity to feedback.
4.
5.
Join with two partners to form a trio. Designate members as persons A, B, and C.
Person A begins by sharing an actual, current work- or school-related problem with B. The problem need
not be a major life crisis, but it should be a real one. Person B should respond in whatever way seems
most helpful. Person C’s job is to categorize each of B’s responses as either: silent listening, questioning,
paraphrasing, empathizing, supporting, analyzing, evaluating, or advising.
After a four- to five-minute discussion, C should summarize B’s response styles. Person A then describes
which of the styles were most helpful and which were not helpful.
Repeat the same process twice, switching roles so that each person has been in all of the positions.
Based on your findings, your threesome should draw conclusions about what combination of response
styles can be most helpful.
Benefits and Risks
of Self-Disclosure
By now, it should be clear that neither all-out disclosure nor complete privacy is desirable. On the
one hand, self-disclosure is a key factor in relationship development, and relationships suffer
when people keep important information from
each other (Porter and Chambless, 2014). On the
other hand, revealing deeply personal information
can threaten the stability, or even the survival, of a
relationship. Communication researchers use the
term privacy management to describe the choices
people make to reveal or conceal information about
themselves (Hammonds, 2015; Petronio, 2013). In
the following pages, we will outline both the risks
and benefits of opening yourself to others.
adl33478_ch05_141-173.indd
168
01/25/20 02:48 PM
• “Check It!” questions give students a
great tool for study and review.
Benefits of Self-Disclosure
Although the amount of self-disclosure varies from
one person and relationship to another, all of us
share important information about ourselves at one
time or another. There are a variety of reasons we
disclose personal information (Duprez et al., 2015).
Catharsis Sometimes, you might disclose information in an effort to “get it off your chest.” Catharsis can indeed relieve the burden of pent-up
emotions (Pennebaker, 1997), whether face-to-face
or online (Vermeulen et al., 2018), but when it is
the only goal of disclosure, the results of opening
up may not be positive. Later in this chapter, we’ll
discuss guidelines for self-disclosure that improve
your chance of achieving catharsis in a way that
helps, instead of harms, relationships.
Self-Clarification It’s often possible to clarify your
beliefs, opinions, thoughts, attitudes, and feelings by
01/25/20 02:44 PM
184
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
The remarkable thing was that Fox was a complete fraud! He was a professional actor who had
been coached by researchers to deliver a lecture
of double-talk—a patchwork of information from
a Scientific American article mixed with jokes,
non-sequiturs, contradictory statements, and
meaningless references to unrelated topics. When
wrapped in a linguistic package of high-level,
sophisticated professional jargon, and delivered by
an engaging, humorous, and well-spoken person,
the meaningless gobbledygook was judged favourably. In other words, Fox’s credibility came more
from his vocabulary and style of speaking than
from the ideas he expressed.
REFLECTION
• “Reflection” sidebars offer first-person
accounts of how principles covered in
the text apply to real life.
ACCENTS AND SELF-FULFILLING
PROPHECIES
My mother-in-law came to Canada from Italy with
her husband and children about 50 years ago.
The family settled in an Italian-Canadian community and she was able to continue to speak Italian
in order to manage the household and raise her
family. Her husband and kids all learned to speak
English but she did not. As the only non-Italianspeaking in-law in this big, warm, tightknit family,
this posed some communication challenges. I
quickly figured out her receptive English vocabulary was very good and when it was just the two of
us, she would speak a bit of English and I would
muddle along with my rudimentary Italian and we
could understand each other. I noticed she never
spoke English in front of her husband and children. I was puzzled. I pushed my husband to tell
me why this was and discovered that in her early
days in Canada, she tried speaking English and
her young and much more fluent children teased
her about her pronunciation. She immediately lost
confidence and quit trying—believing that she
could never be as fluent as her children. I was
shocked that good-natured teasing could have
such a negative impact on a person’s beliefs
about themselves and I resolved to never make
fun of people’s accents or pronunciations.
adl33478_ch06_174-207.indd
184
Affiliation
Accent and vocabulary are not the only ways in
which language reflects the status of relationships.
An impressive body of research has shown how
language can build and demonstrate solidarity
with others. Communicators adapt their speech
in a variety of ways to indicate affiliation and
accommodation, including through their choice of
vocabulary, rate of talking, number and placement
of pauses, and level of politeness (Giles, 2016). In
one study, the likelihood of mutual romantic interest increased when conversation partners’ use of
pronouns, articles, conjunctions, prepositions,
and negations matched (Ireland et al., 2011). The
same study revealed that when couples use similar language styles while instant messaging, the
chances of their relationship continuing increased
by almost 50 per cent.
Close friends and lovers often develop a set of
special terms that serve as a way of signifying their
relationship (Dunleavy and Booth-Butterfield,
2009). Using the same vocabulary serves to set these
people apart from others. The same process works
among members of larger groups, ranging from
online communities to street gangs and military
units. Convergence is the process of adapting one’s
speech style to match that of others with whom the
communicator wants to identify (Dragojevic et al.,
2016). Language matching creates bonds not only
between friends but also between strangers online
(Rains, 2016; Riordan et al., 2013).
When two or more people feel equally positive
about one another, their linguistic convergence
will be mutual. But when one communicator wants
or needs approval, convergence is more one-sided
(Muir et al., 216). We see this process when employees seeking advancement start speaking more like
their superiors. One study even showed that adopting the swearing patterns of bosses and co-workers
in emails is a sign that an employee is fitting into
an organization’s culture (Lublin, 2017).
The principle of speech accommodation works
in reverse too. Communicators who want to set
themselves apart from others adopt the strategy of
divergence, that is, speaking in a way that emphasizes their differences (Gasiorek and Vincze, 2016).
01/25/20 02:49 PM
xiii
Publisher’s Preface
6 | Language
Racism
Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock
xiv
• “Self-Assessment” quizzes allow readers
to analyze their current communication
behaviour and its consequences.
234
How often do you hear biases like sexist language, sexually prejudiced language, and racist language in the language of people around you? How often
do you use them yourself?
SELF-ASSESSMENT
SEXIST LANGUAGE
Section I
For each of the following statements, rate your agreement or disagreement on a scale ranging from 1 to 5,
where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree.”
1. Women who think that being called a chairman is sexist are misinterpreting the word.
2. Worrying about sexist language is a trivial
activity.
3. If the original meaning of he was “person,”
we should continue to use he to refer to
both males and females today.
4. The elimination of sexist language is an
important goal.
5. Sexist language is related to the sexist
treatment of people in society.
6. When teachers talk about the history of
Canada, they should change expressions
such as our forefathers to expressions that
include women.
7. Teachers who require students to use
non-sexist language are unfairly forcing
their political views on their students.
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
Section II
For each of the following statements, rate your willingness on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 = “very
unwilling” and 5 = “very willing.”
BUILDING WORK SKILLS
CULTURAL VALUES AT WORK
An important beginning strategy to communicate more effectively at work is being aware of your workplace
values and behaviour, and how they’re influenced by your culture.
Take a moment to assess your workplace or your school environment in terms of some of the types of
non-verbal communication discussed in this chapter. Pay particular attention to touch, proxemics and territoriality, time, clothing, and physical environment. Describe your workplace in terms of these elements, and then
identify the values communicated. Here are some questions to get your started:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Whereas sexist language
usually defines the world as
made up of superior men and
inferior women, and sexually
prejudiced language usually
implies that heterosexuality is
superior to any other sexual
orientation, racist language
reflects a worldview that classifies members of one racial
group as superior and others
as inferior (Asante, 2002). Not
all language that might have
racist overtones is deliberate.
For example, the connotations
adl33478_ch06_174-207.indd
8. When you are referring to a married woman,
how willing are you to use the title “Ms
Smith” rather than “Mrs Smith”?
9. How willing are you to use the word
“server” rather than “waiter” or “waitress”?
10. How willing are you to use the expression
“husband and wife” rather than “man and
wife”?
11. How willing are you to use the term “flight
attendant” instead of “steward” or “stewardess”?
Total = ______.
Add your responses to the 11 statements, making sure to reverse-score (i.e., 5 = 1, 4 = 2, 3 = 3,
2 = 4, and 1 = 5) statements 1, 2, and 3. Scores can
range from 11 to 55, and scores that are 38 or higher
reflect a supportive attitude towards non-sexist language; and scores between 28 and 37 reflect a neutral attitude. Scholars note that women are typically
less tolerant of sexist language than are men, which
may have an impact on these scores (Douglas and
Sutton, 2014).
SOURCE: This “Self-Assessment” box contains 11 of
the 21 items on the Inventory of Attitudes toward Sexist/Nonsexist Language-General, developed by Parks
and Robertson (2000).
189
01/25/20 02:49 PM
Who initiates touch? Who touches whom?
Who gets the most territory? Who gets the least? Who gets the window?
Do some people prefer greater or less social distance? Who? How do you know?
How important is punctuality? Can some people keep others waiting with impunity?
What do people wear? Are there differences?
Is the physical environment clean? Are some places cleaner than others? Is the space well designed for
the work to be done? Are some places better than others?
report feeling closer to one another, having better
functioning relationships, and having higher levels
of commitment (Arriaga et al., 2008).
Environmental influences can even shape perceptions and communication in virtual space. For
example, people who meet online in a formal virtual setting, such as a library, communicate more
formally than those who meet in a casual virtual
cafe (Pena and Blackburn, 2013).
You might want to keep these concepts in mind
when you’re designing or decorating the spaces
in which you live, study, and work. Your physical
environment—real or virtual—can affect your
interpersonal communication.
CHECK IT!
List the 10 types of non-verbal communication
and provide an example of each.
• “Building Work Skills” exercises help students
apply knowledge they have gained about
interpersonal communication to situations they
will likely encounter in the workplace.
SUMMARY
Non-verbal communication consists of messages
expressed by non-linguistic means. It is pervasive;
in fact, non-verbal messages are always available
as a source of information about others. Often what
we do conveys more meaning than what we say,
and non-verbal behaviour shapes perception. Most
non-verbal behaviour conveys messages about
relational attitudes and feelings, in contrast to verbal statements, which are better suited to expressing ideas. Messages that are communicated
non-verbally are usually more ambiguous than verbal communication. Contrary to what some might
think, non-verbal cues also play a role in mediated
communication. Non-verbal communication is also
affected by culture and gender.
Non-verbal communication serves many functions. It can help create and maintain relationships. It also serves to regulate interactions,
influence others and influence yourself. In addition,
non-verbal communication can be used to conceal
284
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
adl33478_ch07_208-238.indd
234
01/25/20 02:51 PM
• “Focus on Research” profiles highlight
scholarship that students will find interesting
and useful on topics ranging from digital life
and social anxiety to the connection between
interpersonal ability and socioeconomic status.
BEING SNUBBED BY A PHONE
You and your friends are having a meal and during the
conversation one or more members of the group concentrates on their phone for a while rather than contributing to the conversation. Maybe that someone is
you? No big deal, right? How about when it’s just two
people having a conversation? Does it matter more?
Research suggests that spending time on your phone
during a social interaction negatively affects both
conversational and relational quality and although
it’s increasingly common, it contributes negatively to
a communication climate by sending a disconfirming
non-verbal message to the person who is being temporarily ignored.
Studies conducted in a variety of countries, including Canada, have all found that being snubbed by a
smartphone (called “phubbing”) has negative effects
on people and relationships (Abeele and PostmaNilsenova, 2018; Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas,
2016, 2018; David and Roberts, 2017; Dwyer et al.,
2018; Wang et al., 2017). Researchers have found
that as phubbing increases in a social interaction
people experience greater threats to the fundamental
needs (see Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in Chapter
1) and they suggest that phubbing is a form of social
exclusion that threatens people’s needs for belonging,
self-esteem, and meaningful existence (Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas, 2018). Similarly, research examining the effects of phubbing in romantic relationships
has found phubbing to be associated with increases in
conflict over phone use, decreases in relational satisfaction, and even increases in the risk of depression
(David and Roberts, 2017; Wang et al., 2018).
In fact, just gazing at your phone (not even touching it) during a social interaction negatively affects
the quality of the interaction. Researchers in the
Netherlands compared the effects of gazing at a
newspaper versus gazing at a phone during a face-toface conversation and found that phone gazing had a
unique ability to devalue the quality of the interaction
with the conversational partner (Abeele and PostmaNilsenova, 2018). People judged the phone gazing as
significantly more harmful than newspaper gazing. In
adl33478_ch09_274-303.indd
284
addition, these researchers found that phone gazing
while listening to a conversational partner disrupted
the connection between the two more than phone
gazing while speaking to the partner. In a similar Canadian study, Ryan J. Dwyer and his colleagues (2018)
had people go out to dinner in a restaurant with
family and friends and either have their phone in plain
sight on the table during the meal or have it hidden
away throughout the entire meal. People were randomly assigned to either condition. These researchers found that people who had their phones in view
reported feeling distracted and reported enjoying the
time spent with family and friends less than those in
the “phone out of sight” group. These investigators
suggest that even though our phones can connect
us to others all over the world, they might very well
disconnect us from those sitting across the table.
The findings of these studies reveal that both the
person being ignored (the “phubee”) and the person
distracted by their phone (the “phubber”) suffer individually when both parties are not fully present during
social interactions. Moreover, their relationship suffers too. So what should we do? If you tend to be
the phubbee, it’s probably best to exercise patience
and compassion. Phubbing is highly correlated with
fear of missing out, lack of self-control, and internet
addiction (Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas, 2016).
The collaborative strategies for conflict resolution
described in Chapter 10 might help you work out a
solution in relationships that are important to you.
Similarly, if you tend to be the phubber, gaining
self-awareness about your potentially disrespectful
behaviour and using problem-solving strategies with
your communication partners might help you balance
your need to be included in your social network with
your need to be fully present with others and connect
with them in meaningful ways.
Critical thinking: Do you think there are times when
phubbing is more or less damaging to relationships?
If so, what factors influence the consequences of
phubbing?
01/25/20 02:54 PM
189
Publisher’s Preface
Contemporary Design
We have created a design that reflects the vibrancy and excitement of interpersonal
communication today without sacrificing content or authoritativeness.
64
198
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
TABLE 6.3 Pronoun Uses and Their Effects
My career
ambitions
Breadth
Feelings about
my physical
appearance
Feelings about
our relationship
Pronoun
Pros
Cons
Recommendations
“I” Language
Takes responsibility for
personal thoughts, feelings,
and wants. Less defenceprovoking than “you”
language
Can be perceived as
egotistical, narcissistic,
and self-absorbed
Use descriptive “I” messages in
conflicts when the other person
does not perceive a problem.
Combine “I” with “we” language
in conversations.
“We” Language
Signals inclusion,
immediacy, cohesiveness,
and commitment
Can speak improperly for
others
Combine with “I” language,
particularly in personal
conversations.
Use in group settings to enhance
a sense of unity.
Avoid when expressing personal
thoughts, feelings, and wants.
“You” Language
Signals other-orientation,
particularly when the topic is
positive
Can sound evaluative
and judgmental,
particularly during
confrontations
Use “I” language during
confrontations. Use “You”
language when praising or
including others.
Depth
My opinions
about our
mutual friends
My relationships
with members of
the opposite sex
My academic life
My family background
and problems
FIGURE 2.2 Sample Model of Social Penetration
beliefs or an analysis of another person), you are
giving others valuable information about yourself.
The fourth level of self-disclosure—and usually
the most revealing one—involves the expression
of feelings. At first glance, feelings might appear
to be the same as opinions, but there’s a big difference. “I don’t think you’re telling me what’s on
your mind” is an opinion. Notice how much more
we learn about the speaker by looking at three
different feelings that could accompany this statement: “I don’t think you’re telling me what’s on
your mind . . .
. . . and I’m suspicious.”
. . . and I’m angry.”
. . . and I’m hurt.”
Awareness of Self-Disclosure:
The Johari Window Model
Another way to illustrate how self-disclosure operates in communication is a model called the Johari
adl33478_ch02_038-077.indd
Window, developed by Joseph Luft and Harry
Ingham (Janas, 2001; Luft, 1969).
Imagine a frame that contains everything there is
to know about you: your likes and dislikes, your goals,
your secrets, your needs—everything. This frame
could be divided into information you know about
yourself and things you don’t know. It could also be
split into things others know about you and things
they don’t know. Figure 2.3 illustrates these divisions.
Too much use of any pronoun comes across as
inappropriate, so combining pronouns is generally
a good idea, and it suggests you’re able to see things
from multiple perspectives (Pennebaker, 2011). If
your “I” language expresses your position without
being overly self-absorbed, your “you” language
shows concern for others without judging them,
and your “we” language includes others without
speaking for them, you’ll probably come as close as
possible to the ideal mix of pronouns.
Culture and Language
TAKE TWO
• Social penetration model: two ways, measured
by breadth and depth, that communication can
be more or less disclosing.
• Breadth: the range of subjects discussed.
• Depth: the personal nature of information (significant and private self-disclosures, clichés,
facts, opinions, and feelings).
64
01/25/20 02:44 PM
So far, we’ve described attributes that characterize most languages, with a particular emphasis on
English. Although there are some remarkable similarities among the world’s many languages (Lewis
et al., 2013), they also differ in important respects
that affect communication within and between
CHECK IT!
Describe three harmful linguistic habits that
contribute to conflict.
adl33478_ch06_174-207.indd
language groups. In this section, we’ll outline some
of those factors.
High- versus Low-context Cultures
Anthropologist Edward Hall (1959) identified two
distinct ways that members of various cultures
deliver messages. A low-context culture uses
language primarily to express thoughts, feelings,
and ideas as directly and logically as possible. To
low-context communicators, the meaning of a
statement lies in the words spoken. By contrast,
a high-context culture relies heavily on subtle,
often non-verbal cues to maintain social harmony. High-context communicators pay close
attention to non-verbal behaviours, the history of
relationships, and social rules that govern interaction between people. In Table 6.4, we summarize
some key differences in how people from low- and
high-context cultures communicate.
Mainstream culture in Canada, the United
States, and northern Europe can be categorized
near the low-context end of the scale. In these
low-context cultures, communicators generally
value straight talk and grow impatient with indirect
behaviours such as hinting (Tili and Barker, 2015).
198
01/25/20 02:49 PM
Aids to Student Learning
Textbooks today must speak to the needs and interests of today’s students, providing them
with an accessible introduction to a body of knowledge. To accomplish this, the book
incorporates numerous features to promote and support student learning.
• Chapter Openers preview the contents of each chapter with chapter outlines, key terms,
and learning outcomes that provide a concise overview of the key concepts.
2
Communication and the Self
KEY TERMS
lechatnoir/iStockphoto
benevolent lie
breadth
cognitive conservatism
collectivistic culture
depth
distorted feedback
equivocation
face
facework
impression management
individualistic culture
Johari Window
obsolete information
perceived self
presenting self
privacy management
reference groups
reflected appraisal
self-compassion
self-concept
self-control
self-disclosure
self-esteem
self-fulfilling prophecy
significant other
social comparison
social expectations
social penetration model
LEARNING OUTCOMES
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:
CHAPTER OUTLINE
Communication and the Self-Concept
How the Self-Concept Develops
Self-Concept Development in Context
Characteristics of the Self-Concept
The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy and Communication
Presenting the Self: Communication as Impression
Management
Public and Private Selves
Characteristics of Impression Management
Why Manage Impressions?
How Do We Manage Impressions?
Identity Management and Honesty
Disclosing the Self
•
•
Models of Self-Disclosure
Benefits and Risks of Self-Disclosure
•
•
•
•
Alternatives to Self-Disclosure
Silence and Secrecy
Lying
Equivocation
Hinting
The Ethics of Evasion
Describe the characteristics and development of the self-concept
Explain the influence of language, cultural values, and self-fulfilling prophecies in shaping the
self-concept
Analyze how the self-concept affects communication with others
Describe how people manage impressions in person and online to enhance their presenting image
Explain the characteristics of and reasons for self-disclosure
Explain the risks of, benefits of, guidelines for, and alternatives to self-disclosure
Guidelines for Self-Disclosure
Is the Other Person Important to You?
Is the Risk of Disclosing Reasonable?
Is the Self-Disclosure Appropriate?
Is the Disclosure Reciprocated?
Will the Effect Be Constructive?
Self-Disclosure Factors
adl33478_ch02_038-077.indd
38
01/25/20 02:44 PM
adl33478_ch02_038-077.indd
39
01/25/20 02:44 PM
xv
Publisher’s Preface
End-of-Chapter Learning Tools
• Chapter Summaries ensure a thorough understanding of key concepts and aid in
reviewing for tests and exams.
• Multiple-Choice Quizzes provide students with a quick assessment tool to ensure comprehension of material discussed in the chapter.
270
8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
the past—in other words, to remember that you,
too, have wronged others and needed their forgiveness (Exline et al., 2008). Given that it’s in our
own best interest to be forgiven, we would do well
to remember these words from Richard Walters
(1984) who sees forgiveness as a choice requiring courage and continuous acts of will: “When
we have been hurt we have two alternatives: be
destroyed by resentment, or forgive. Resentment is
death; forgiving leads to healing and life” (p. 366).
d. the person with average ability who
spilled the coffee
Social exchange theory suggests
3.
a. we seek relationships with people who
are competent in social exchange.
b. we seek relationships with people who
can give us rewards greater than the
costs we encounter dealing with them.
c. we terminate relationships with people
when our social exchanges with them are
stagnant.
d. we terminate relationships with people
who are low on the social exchange index.
SUMMARY
Explanations for why we form relationships with
some people and not with others include appearance (physical attractiveness), similarity, complementarity, rewards, competence, proximity, and
disclosure. Intimacy and distance are important
parts of our relationships with others and there are
several ways to establish both. Culture and gender
influence intimacy in relationships by informing the
social rules that govern intimate communication.
Also, each culture defines the extent to which any
relationship should be formal and distant or close
and intimate.
Some theorists argue that interpersonal relationships may go through as many as 10 stages
of growth and deterioration. They suggest that
communication may reflect more than one stage
at a given time, although one stage will be dominant. Another way to analyze the dynamics of interpersonal communication is in terms of dialectical
tensions, that is, mutually opposing, incompatible
desires that are part of our relationships and that
can never be completely resolved. These tensions
include integration–separation, stability–change,
and expression–privacy. Both views characterize
relationships as constantly changing, so that communication is more of a process than a static thing.
Relational messages are sometimes expressed
overtly by verbal metacommunication; however, they
are more frequently conveyed non-verbally. Interpersonal relationships require maintenance to stay
healthy. Relational maintenance requires partners to
use positive and open communication that includes
assurances and demonstrates commitment to the
relationship. It also entails sharing tasks, investing
in each other’s social networks and offering social
support through the exchange of emotional, informational and instrumental resources.
Some relationships become damaged over time
and others are hurt through relational transgressions. Apologies and forgiveness are particularly
important strategies for repairing damaged relationships.
MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
1.
a. We are attracted to people who are similar
to us and dislike those who are different.
b. We are attracted to people who are different than ourselves rather than people
who are similar.
c. We are attracted to people who are similar to ourselves and we are also attracted
to those whose different characteristics
complement our own.
d. Neither similarities nor differences affect
our motivation to form relationships
adl33478_ch08_239-273.indd
a.
b.
c.
d.
a.
b.
c.
d.
270
a.
b.
c.
d.
In Elliot Aronson and colleagues’ study of how
competence and imperfection combine, their
subjects found which of the following quiz
show contestants most attractive?
a. the person with superior ability who did
not spill the coffee
b. the person with average ability who did
not spill the coffee
c. the person with superior ability who
spilled the coffee
01/25/20 02:52 PM
denial
compartmentalizing
accepting
reframing
The finding that frequent interaction during
the day via cellphone can be a source of conflict in relationships is evidence of which of
the following dialectical tensions?
because our relationships are influenced
most by proximity.
2.
8.
9.
Metacommunication is the term used to
describe
Fabiola helps her friend Gabrielle move to a
new place when her relationship with Alberto
ends. Fabiola is providing Gabrielle with which
type of social support?
a.
b.
c.
d.
emotional
informational
instrumental
all of the above
10. Which of the following apologies contains the
components people look for in an apology, in
order of importance?
a. Sorry you found that remark insensitive.
I will avoid that sort of straight talk with
you in the future.
b. I acted selfishly and didn’t consider your
perspective. I will make things right and I
am so sorry for being so thoughtless.
c. Oh, l didn’t realize you would be offended.
So sorry.
d. We obviously had a misunderstanding but
I will make things right. Sorry.
integration–separation dialectic
stability–change dialectic
expression–privacy dialectic
dynamic–static dialectic
Grace and Zoe enjoy sharing their beliefs
about spirituality, politics, and the meaning
7.
emotional
physical
intellectual
shared activities
a. messages that refer to other messages
or communication about communication.
b. the aspects of communication that convey how communication partners feel
about one another.
c. communication that helps maintain and
repair relationships.
d. communication that conveys emotional
support.
handshakes and friendly facial expressions.
small talk and searching for common ground.
engagement and marriage.
avoidance and personal space.
Sal has reinterpreted Akeno’s unwillingness
to share some information about parts of his
past as an interesting and admirable quality
rather than feeling hurt and excluded by his
privacy. Which of the following strategies has
Sal used to manage this tension in her relationship with Akeno?
5.
6.
Which of the following statements is true
regarding why we form relationships?
a.
b.
c.
d.
The hallmark of the “experimenting” stage of
relational development is
4.
271
of life with each other. They find these discussions interesting and they feel secure knowing they can safely share their deeply held
beliefs with each other. Their relationship
involves which type of intimacy?
Answers: 1. c; 2. c; 3. b; 4. b; 5. d; 6. a; 7. c; 8. a; 9. c; 10. b
xvi
adl33478_ch08_239-273.indd
271
01/25/20 02:52 PM
• Student Activities reinforce concepts and ideas through practical, interactive exercises.
• Discussion Questions draw out key issues while encouraging readers to form their own
conclusions about interpersonal communication
• Journal Ideas encourage students to think in depth about concepts and strategies discussed in the chapter and how they relate to their personal goals.
272
8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
ACTIVITIES
1. Critical Thinking Probe
Some critics claim that Knapp’s model of relational
stages is better at describing romantic relationships than other types. Use a variety of romantic
and non-romantic interpersonal relationships from
your experience to evaluate the breadth of his
model. If the model does not describe the developmental path of all types of interpersonal relationships, can you suggest alternative models?
2. Invitation to Insight
How do you manage the dialectical tensions in your
important relationships? Is there a pattern to what
you and the other person do, or does it depend on the
type of relationship you have? Identify at least two
dialectical tensions in two different relationships—
one relationship, perhaps, with a person with
whom you work closely, and the other with a romantic partner. How is each tension managed? Which
approach do you and your partner tend to use
(denial, disorientation, alternation, segmentation,
balance, integration, recalibration, or reaffirmation)? What seem to be the conditions that determine which method you and your partner use?
3. Ethical Challenge
Consider the notion that we often face conflicting
goals when we communicate in an attempt to meet
our own needs and those of others. Use the information found on pages 259–62 to identify a situation in which your personal goals conflict with those
of another person. What obligation do you have to
communicate in a way that helps the other person
reach their goals? Is it possible to honour this obligation and still try to satisfy your own needs?
4. Skill Builder
Describe three unexpressed relational messages
in one or more of your interpersonal relationships.
a. Explain how you could have used metacommunication to express each one. Consider skills you
learned in other chapters, such as perception
checking, “I” language, and paraphrasing.
b. Discuss the possible benefits and drawbacks
of this kind of metacommunication in each of
the situations you identified. On the basis of
your discussion here, what principles do you
believe should guide your decisions about
whether and when to focus explicitly on relational issues?
5. Role Play
Choose a partner. Pretend you don’t know each
other and you want to initiate contact with this
person in class. What strategies might you use?
(Review the strategies listed on pages 253–5.)
Role-play your attempts to initiate contact. Which
strategies worked well? Are there any you would
not try in this context? Now reverse roles and think
of another context or situation in which your partner might want to initiate contact with you (e.g., at
work, at a party). Role-play initiating contact in this
new situation. Afterward, again analyze the strategies that worked, those that didn’t, and the ones
that felt appropriate or inappropriate in this situation, and discuss why.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1.
Why do we form relationships with other
people?
2.
Describe the four different types of intimacy
presented in this chapter and give an example
of each from your own relationships. Do you
adl33478_ch08_239-273.indd
272
think an ideal intimate relationship would
include all four? Why or why not?
3.
4.
Describe the dialectical tensions that exist in
one of your relationships (e.g., with your parents, a friend, or a romantic partner). How do
you manage these tensions in that relationship?
5.
Despite its importance, metacommunication
is not a common feature of most relationships. Why do you think this is?
6.
Review the strategies for relationship maintenance and repair described on pages 265–70.
Which do you use in your most satisfying
relationships? Which, if any do you use in
your least satisfying relationships? Is there a
relationship between the number of maintenance strategies you use and your satisfaction
with your relationships? Why or why not?
7.
While forgiveness has tremendous benefits
it can be challenging. Are some transgressions in relationships easier for you to forgive
than others? What factors might contribute
to individual differences in people’s ability to
forgive?
JOURNAL IDEAS
1.
You can get a sense of how your desires
for both intimacy and distance operate by
reflecting on a relationship with an important person you see regularly. For this journal exercise you might choose a friend,
family member, or romantic partner. For at
least a week, chart how your communication with this relational partner reflects your
desire for either intimacy or distance. Use
a 7-point scale, in which behaviour seeking
high intimacy receives a 7 and behaviour
designed to avoid physical, intellectual,
and/or emotional contact receives a 1. Use
ratings from 2 to 6 to represent intermediate stages. Record at least one rating per
day, making more detailed entries if your
desire for intimacy or distance changes
during that period. What tactics did you
use to establish or maintain distance?
After charting your communication, reflect
on what the results tell you about your
personal desire for intimacy and distance.
Consider the following questions:
•
Was there a pattern of alternating
phases of intimacy and distance during the time you observed?
•
•
•
•
2.
Was this pattern typical of your communication in this relationship over a
longer period of time?
Does your communication in other
relationships contain a similar mixture
of intimacy and distance?
Most importantly, are you satisfied
with the results you discovered in this
exercise?
If you are not satisfied, how would you
like to change your communication
behaviour?
Choose one of the dialectal tensions
described in this chapter and describe
how it operates in one of your close relationships. Review this journal entry in a
couple of weeks and see if the tension
has changed. If so, how has it changed?
Why do you think it has changed? If no
change has occurred, why do you think it
has remained so stable? Are there environmental factors that influence how these
competing needs affect this relationship?
If so, what are they?
Do you think Knapp’s model of the stages of
relational development can be adapted to collectivist cultures? Why or why not?
01/25/20 02:52 PM
adl33478_ch08_239-273.indd
273
01/25/20 02:52 PM
273
Publisher’s Preface
Resources for Instructors and Students
Interplay is part of a comprehensive package of learning and teaching tools that includes
resources for both students and instructors, all available on the book’s Ancillary Resource
Centre, at: www.oup.com/he/Adler-Interplay5Ce
For the Instructor
• An “Instructor’s Manual” includes lecture suggestions, additional questions for
encouraging class discussion, and lists of complementary web and video resources for
each chapter.
• A “Test Bank” offers a comprehensive set of multiple-choice, true-or-false, short-answer, and essay questions for every chapter.
• PowerPoint slides, summarizing key points from each chapter and incorporating figures and tables from the textbook, are available to adopters of the text.
• An Image Bank featuring all of the photos, figures, and cartoons used in the text.
Instructors should contact their Oxford University Press sales representative for details on
these supplements and for login and password information.
For the Student
• A “Student Study Guide” offers self-testing study questions, chapter overviews, links to
useful resources, and case study exercises with sample scenarios.
xvii
Preface
It has been a pleasure and a privilege to research and update this latest Canadian edition of Interplay.
Now, perhaps more than at any other time in my life, I believe in the importance of a collective, lifelong
commitment to developing and refining our interpersonal communication knowledge and skills. While
I have long believed effective interpersonal communication skills are the foundation of meaningful personal relationships, increasingly I see how much they support mutual respect, co-operation, and civility
generally.
Learning more about interpersonal communication is an investment that benefits us both personally
and collectively and I want to thank those of you who read this book for your commitment to this endeavour. I also want to express my gratitude to the many people who contributed to this fifth edition for their
involvement. To the reviewers, Michael Lee (University of Winnipeg), Bev Snell (Red River College), and
those who wished to remain anonymous, you gave me excellent advice, identified gaps, and helped me
better understand how you use this textbook; thank you.
To the remarkably talented team at Oxford University Press, Toronto—Phyllis Wilson, Stephen
Kotowych, Liz Ferguson, Emily Kring, Katherine Kawalerczak, and Michelle Welsh—your intelligence,
creativity, and expertise have made this edition even better than the last. I’m particularly grateful to Amy
Hick for her intelligent and careful editing, superb suggestions, and for being such a pleasure to work
with. It has been my tremendous good fortune to work with such an outstanding team.
I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues who never fail to make my life interesting and fun.
In particular, I would like to acknowledge Jonathan Lau for his research support, and Juanita Wattam-­
Simeon for making my working life so enjoyable. Bernice Cipparrone McLeod and Fidelia Torres gave me
valuable feedback and Susan Heximer and Jessica Paterson shared e­ xcellent resources that have made this
edition more inclusive and up-to-date. I would also like to thank Chris Sinclair for helping me make the
many decisions that are part of writing.
Finally, to my family, Gerlando, Owen, and Oliver, no matter what kind of day I have you make it a
better one, and I feel extraordinarily lucky to know and love you.
Connie Winder
George Brown College, Toronto
PART ONE
Foundations of Interpersonal
Communication
Sam Edwards/iStockphoto
Rawpixel/iStockphoto
1
Interpersonal Process
CHAPTER OUTLINE
Why We Communicate
Physical Needs
Identity Needs
Social Needs
Practical Needs
The Communication Process
A Model of Communication
Insights from the Transactional Communication Model
Communication Principles
The Nature of Interpersonal Communication
Quantitative and Qualitative Definitions
Personal and Impersonal Communication:
A Matter of Balance
Communication Misconceptions
Interpersonal Communication and Technology
Characteristics of Computer-Mediated Communication
Interpersonal Communication and Cultural Diversity
Culture
Intercultural Communication
Interpersonal and Intercultural Communication
Comparison of Canadian and US Culture
Attitudes toward Violence
Acceptance of Diversity
Relative Status of Men and Women
Communication Competence
Communication Competence Defined and Described
Characteristics of Competent Communication
KEY TERMS
asynchronous
channel
co-culture
cognitive complexity
communication competence
computer-mediated communication (CMC)
content dimension
culture
dyad
environment
ethnocentrism
in-groups
intercultural communication
interpersonal communication
media richness
mediated communication
multimodality
noise (external, physiological, psychological)
out-groups
permanence
prejudice
qualitative interpersonal communication
quantitative interpersonal communication
relational culture
relational dimension
self-monitoring
social media
stereotyping
synchronous
transactional communication
LEARNING OUTCOMES
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identify examples of the physical, identity, social, and practical needs you attempt to satisfy by
­communicating
Explain the interpersonal communication process: its transactional nature, governing principles, and
characteristics
Describe the degrees to which your communication is qualitatively impersonal and interpersonal
Explain the advantages and drawbacks of various types of computer-mediated communication compared to face-to-face communication
Define culture and co-culture, and explain the concept of degrees of intercultural communication
Compare Canadian and American perceptions of violence, diversity, and the relative status of men and
women and explain how these differences affect our interpretation of American interpersonal communication research findings
Identify principles of communication competence and characteristics of competent communicators
4
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
t­ eamwork/relationship-building skills were ranked
first among the abilities employers were looking
for in both entry-level and mid-level hires. This
same study noted that new graduates were most
likely to lack “human skills,” which include interpersonal communication and relationship skills.
More than four decades of research have identified
the lack of effective communication as central to
relational breakups, including divorce (Gottman,
2003). In addition, workplace communication
errors contribute to interpersonal conflict, loss of
productivity, and unnecessary waste, and in fields
such as aviation (Tiewtrakul and Fletcher, 2010)
and health care, even loss of life (Carter et al., 2009;
Vilensky and MacDonald, 2011). If you pause now
and make a mental list of communication problems you’ve encountered, you’ll see that, no matter how successful your relationships are at home,
with friends, at school, or at work, there is plenty
of room for improvement in your everyday life.
The information that follows will help you improve
the way you communicate with some of the people
who matter most to you.
Why We Communicate
Research demonstrating the importance of ­communication has been around longer than you
might think. Frederick II, e­ mperor
of the Holy Roman E
­ mpire from
1220 to 1250, carried out ­language
deprivation experiments. A medi­
eval historian described one of his
dramatic, and inhumane, ­
­
experi-­
ments:
© lechatnoir/iStockphoto
Everyone communicates. Students and professors,
parents and children, employers and employees,
friends, strangers, and enemies—we all communicate. We have been communicating with others
from the moment of our birth and will keep on
doing so until we die.
Why study an activity you’ve been doing your
entire life? You might be surprised just how much
there is to learn about one of our most fundamental activities. First, you will discover there is no
evidence to support some widely held assumptions
about communication. For example, more communication is not always better, communication
will not solve all problems and effective communication is not a natural ability. You will also learn
about decades of research evidence confirming
the necessity of interpersonal communication
and meaningful relationships in maintaining our
health, well-being, and longevity. In this sense,
exploring human communication is rather like
studying anatomy or botany—everyday objects
and processes take on new meaning.
A second, more compelling reason for studying
interpersonal communication is that all of us could
learn to communicate more effectively. A survey
by the Business Council of Canada (2018) revealed
that once job candidates had met the threshold
for vocationally specific skills, ­
interpersonal/
Interpersonal communication occurs when people treat one another as
unique individuals, regardless of the context or the number of people
involved. Why should we study something that happens every day?
He bade foster mothers and
nurses to suckle the children, to
bathe and wash them, but in no
way to prattle with them, for he
wanted to learn whether they
would speak the Hebrew language, which was the oldest, or
Greek, or Latin, or Arabic, or
perhaps the language of their
parents, of whom they had been
born. But he laboured in vain
because all the children died.
1 | Interpersonal Process
For they could not live without the petting and
joyful faces and loving words of their foster
mothers. (Ross and McLaughlin, 1949, p. 366)
Contemporary researchers have found less drastic ways to illustrate the importance of communication, but have found similarly disturbing effects
of social isolation. During the 1950s as part of an
effort to understand “brainwashing,” Donald Hebb,
a psychologist at McGill University, conducted a
study in which student volunteers were paid to
spend days or weeks by themselves deprived of
stimulation including meaningful human contact.
Most volunteers only lasted a few hours, few lasted
more than two days, and none of them lasted a week
(Bond, 2014). Participants quickly became anxious,
acutely restless, and began to experience hallucinations. Afterwards they suffered from prolonged
anxiety, high levels of emotionality, and had difficulty completing cognitive tasks such as arithmetic
problems. The study was quickly cut short due to the
extreme distress participants experienced.
Accounts from prisoners of war held in solitary confinement attest to the risks human beings
are willing to take to communicate with others.
Prisoners have described the unique torment of
prolonged solitary confinement as more unbearable than other tortures and deprivations. They
have described tapping on walls to spell out words
and risking torture and even death for doing so
because the need to communicate is so fundamental to human survival (McCain, 1999). Researchers
have identified solitary confinement, unlike other
captivity stressors such as physical abuse and deprivation of food, as negatively affecting long-term
cellular aging (Stein et al., 2018). Prisoners have
reported preferring to be brutally interrogated
and physically tortured rather than spend time
in solitary confinement (Bachar and Aherenfeld,
2010). Indeed, courts in Ontario and British Columbia have recognized the devastating psychological harm caused by solitary confinement, as
has the United Nations (Proctor, 2018). The United
Nations Standard Minimum Rules (the Nelson
Mandela Rules) define solitary as “the confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact” (United Nations
Office on Drugs and Crime, 2016). The Mandela
Rules include indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement in the list of prohibited cruel, inhumane,
or degrading punishments or tortures. Meaningful human contact is a necessity of life and many
would argue a basic human right.
Although it is true that all of us need some
solitude, often more than we get in this always-on
world, each of us has a point beyond which we do
not want to be alone. Beyond this point, solitude
changes from a pleasurable to a painful condition.
In other words, we all need people. We all need to
communicate.
Physical Needs
Communication is so important that its presence or
absence affects physical health. Studies confirm that
people who process a negative experience by talking
about it report improved life satisfaction, as well as
enhanced mental and physical health, compared to
those who only think about it (Lyubomirsky et al.,
2006; Sousa, 2002). A study conducted with police
officers found that being able to talk easily to colleagues and supervisors about ­work-related trauma
was connected to better physical and mental health
(Stephens and Long, 2000). Even when we have
not experienced anything particularly stressful or
traumatic, spending time engaged in conversations
with others has benefits. Ten minutes of talking a
day, face to face or on the phone, improves memory and improves people’s intellectual functioning
(Ybarra et al., 2008).
Without regular, meaningful social contact, we
suffer. Physicians have identified a higher prevalence of health problems among people who report
feeling socially isolated. Loneliness in childhood
and adolescence results in poorer sleep, symptoms
of depression, and poorer overall health. In older
adults, loneliness is associated high blood pressure,
cardiovascular disease, cognitive decline, dementia, impaired immunity, and earlier mortality
(Hawkley and Capitanio, 2015; Luo et al., 2012).
Evidence gathered by numerous researchers over
many decades shows that satisfying relationships
can literally be a matter of life and death (e.g., Cohen
et al., 1997; Hall and Havens, 2002; Holt-Lunstad
5
6
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
et al., 2015; Maté, 2003; Robles, 2010: Rosenquist
et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2016). For example:
• People who lack strong relationships run a
greater risk of early death than people who are
obese or exposed to air pollution.
• Divorced, separated, and widowed people are
5 to 10 times more likely to need p
­ sychiatric
hospitalization than their happily married
­counterparts.
• People with more supportive social networks
are less susceptible to depression and cognitive
decline.
• Pregnant women under stress and without supportive relationships have three times as many
complications as pregnant women who suffer
from the same stress, but have strong social
support.
• Socially connected people’s wounds heal faster.
• Socially isolated people are four times as susceptible to the common cold as those who have
active social networks.
Research like this demonstrates the importance
of satisfying personal relationships, and it explains
the conclusion of social scientists that communication is essential for health. Not everyone needs the
same amount of contact, and the quality of communication is almost certainly as important as the
quantity. Nonetheless, the point remains: personal
communication is essential for our well-being. As
distinguished psychologist John Cacioppo says,
“Social connection is to humans what water is to
fish: you don’t notice it until it’s missing and then
you realize it’s really important” (Bielski, 2018).
Identity Needs
Communication does more than enable us to
survive. It’s the way—indeed, the major way—we
learn who we are (Fogel et al., 2002; Khanna, 2004,
2010). As you’ll read in Chapter 2, our sense of
identity comes from the way we interact with other
people. Do we think of ourselves as clever or foolish, skilful or inept, attractive or ugly? The answers
to these questions don’t come from looking in the
mirror. We decide who we are on the basis of how
others react to us.
Deprived of communication with others, we
would have no sense of identity. This is illustrated
by the famous Wild Boy of Aveyron, who spent
his early childhood without any apparent human
contact. The boy was discovered in January 1800
when he was digging for vegetables in a French village garden. He showed no behaviour one would
expect in a social human. He could not speak, but
uttered only weird cries. More significant than this
absence of social skills was his lack of any identity
as a human being. As author Roger Shattuck (1980,
p. 37) put it, “The boy had no human sense of being
in the world. He had no sense of himself as a person related to other persons.” Only through the
influence of a loving “mother” did the boy begin to
behave—and, we can imagine, think of himself—
as a human.
Modern stories support the essential role that
communication plays in shaping identity. In 1970,
the authorities discovered a 12-year-old girl (whom
they called Genie) who had spent virtually all her
life in an otherwise empty, darkened bedroom
with almost no human contact. The child could
not speak and had no sense of herself as a person
until she was removed from her family and “nourished” by a team of caregivers (Rymer, 1993).
Like Genie and the Wild Boy of Aveyron, each
of us enters the world with little or no sense of
identity. We gain an idea of who we are from the
way others define us. As we explain in Chapter 2,
the messages children receive in their early years
are the strongest identity shapers, but the influence
of others continues throughout our lives.
Social Needs
Some social scientists have argued that besides
helping define who we are, communication is
the principal way relationships are created (Duck
and Pittman, 1994; Hubbard, 2001). For example,
Julie Yingling (1994) asserts that children “talk
friendships into existence.” Canadian teenagers
value friendships the most, ahead of a comfortable life, recognition, and excitement (Bibby, 2001),
and they spend a great deal of time developing
and maintaining these relationships through
communication. As we discuss in Chapter 8,
1 | Interpersonal Process
sometimes we deal with social needs directly by
discussing our r­ elationships with others. But more
often, communication satisfies a variety of social
needs without our ever addressing them overtly.
Communication helps us to help and be helped
by others, to feel included and worthwhile, to
have fun and relax with others, and to exert influence and control in social situations (Rubin et al.,
1988). Because relationships with others are so
vital, some theorists have gone so far as to argue
that c­ ommunication is the primary goal of human
existence. Anthropologist Walter Goldschmidt
(1990) calls the drive for meeting social needs “the
human career.” Positive social interaction and
­support appear to be the strongest determinants of
quality of life (Leung and Lee, 2005).
Beyond our immediate circle of contacts, we
can satisfy social needs by communicating with
a larger community. Yet there appears to be an
increasing trend in North American society for
people to live more socially isolated lives than their
parents and grandparents did (Putnam, 2000).
Since the 1950s, we eat together less often, belong
to fewer social clubs, and enjoy fewer visits from
friends (Putnam, 2000). Large-scale social ­changes
such as industrialization, capitalism, and the proliferation of cheap and efficient transportation
have changed the communities in which we live.
Many of us live farther away from our families,
friends, and places of work than our ancestors did.
In addition, advances in technology have allowed
us to do our banking, shop for groceries, visit the
library, and be entertained and go to school and
work without leaving our homes. While there are
numerous advantages to being able to connect to
the world remotely, there is increasing evidence
that active, meaningful face-to-face involvement
with other people is essential to our happiness,
resilience, well-being, and longevity (Burke at al.,
2010; Sagioglou and Greitemeyer, 2014; Pinker,
2015; Turkle, 2011, 2015).
Practical Needs
We shouldn’t overlook the everyday, important
functions of communication. It is the tool that lets
us tell the hairstylist to take just a little off the sides,
direct the doctor to where it hurts, and inform the
plumber that the broken pipe needs attention now!
Beyond these obvious needs, a wealth of
research demonstrates that communication is an
essential part of effectiveness in a variety of daily
situations. Canadian employers have identified
interpersonal communication skills as essential in
helping graduating university and college students
gain employment and advance in their careers
(Business Council of Canada, 2018; Employment
and Social Development Canada, 2014; Munroe
and Watt, 2014).). The ability to communicate
effectively, establish and maintain relationships,
and work effectively in teams distinguishes successful job candidates and employees from their
less successful peers. More importantly, workplace errors by professionals ranging from pilots
to surgeons more frequently involve failures in
communication than technical errors alone (Wilson, Whyte, Gangadharan, and Kent, 2017). Communication is just as important outside of work.
Decades of research findings suggest that married
couples who communicate effectively are more
likely to enjoy greater marital satisfaction than
couples who lack effective communication skills
(Kirchler, 1988; Litzinger and Gordon, 2005; Rehman and Holtzworth-Munroe, 2007; Ridley et al.,
2001). Same-sex couples’ satisfaction with their
long-term relationships (both studies mentioned
were done in the US before same-sex marriage
was legalized there) is also strongly influenced by
their communication and problem-solving skills
(Peplau and Fingerhut, 2007; Quam et al., 2010).
On the scholastic front, college and university students are more likely to successfully complete their
programs when they are engaged in both academic
and social activities, such as interacting regularly
with faculty and peers and engaging in campus
activities (Demetriou and Schmitz-Sciborski, 2011;
Tinto, 1993). Students who are able to cultivate and
maintain strong, supportive relationships are also
more likely to be successful in their academic pursuits (Bíró., Veres-Balajti, and Kósa, 2016; DaSilva,
Zakzanis, Henderson and Ravindran, 2017).
Psychologist Abraham Maslow (1968) suggests,
in a theory called Maslow’s hierarchy of needs,
that human needs fall into five categories, each
7
8
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
of which must be satisfied before we concern ourselves with the next one. As you read on, think
about the ways in which communication is often
necessary to satisfy each need. The most basic
needs are physical: sufficient air, water, food, and
rest, and the ability to reproduce as a species. The
second category of Maslow’s needs involves safety:
protection from threats to our well-being. Beyond
physical and safety concerns are the social needs
we have already mentioned. After those necessities
are met, Maslow suggests that each of us has the
need for self-esteem: the desire to believe that we
are worthwhile, valuable people. The final category
of needs involves self-actualization: the desire to
develop our potential to the maximum, to become
the best people we can be.
CHECK IT!
Why do we communicate? Describe the four types
of needs communication helps us to meet.
The Communication Process
So far, we have talked about communication as if
its meaning were perfectly clear. In fact, scholars
have debated the definition of communication for
years with no simple conclusions (Littlejohn and
Foss, 2008). One thing is clear: human communication is a complex process with many components. In this section, we’ll discuss some features
and principles of communication.
A Model of Communication
As the old saying goes, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” That’s what scientists had in mind
when they began creating models of the communication process in the 1950s. The early models
were simplistic, linear, and u
­ nidirectional—illustrating something the sender of a message did to
a passive receiver. Subsequent models were more
interactional, with senders and receivers taking
turns, but still characterized communication as
s­ equential. However, as you know, many of today’s
­exchanges involve communication partners sending and receiving messages simultaneously.
Over time, communication models have become
increasingly sophisticated in an attempt to represent all the factors that affect human interaction.
No model can completely represent the process of
communication, any more than a map can capture
everything about the neighbourhood where you
live. Still, the model in Figure 1.1 provides a starting point for explaining the insights and principles
discussed below.
Insights from the Transactional
Communication Model
Figure 1.1 illustrates a number of important characteristics of communication. As you read on, note
how the following insights help explain the richness of this process.
Sending and Receiving Are Usually
­Simultaneous
In the following scenarios, ask yourself who is
sending a message and who is receiving one.
• A teacher is explaining a difficult concept to a
student after class.
• A parent is lecturing a teenager about the
family’s curfew rules.
• A salesperson is giving a customer information
about a product.
The natural impulse is to identify the teacher,
parent, and salesperson as senders, while the student, teenager, and customer are receivers. Now
imagine a confused look on the student’s face; the
teenager interrupting defensively; the customer
blankly staring into the distance. It’s easy to see
that these verbal and non-verbal responses are
messages being “sent,” even while the other person
is talking. Because it’s often impossible to distinguish sending from receiving, our communication
model replaces these roles with a more accurate
word: communicator. This term reflects the fact
people can simultaneously be senders and receivers who exchange multiple messages.
1 | Interpersonal Process
Noise
Noise
Noise
Communicator
sends,
receives ,
assigns meaning
Communicator
sends,
receives,
assigns meaning
Channel(s)
Noise
Channel(s)
Noise
A’s Environment
Noise
B’s Environment
FIGURE 1.1 Communication Model
Meanings Exist in and among People
Messages, whether they are verbal or non-verbal,
don’t have meanings in themselves; rather, meanings
reside in the people who express and interpret them.
Imagine that a friend says “I’m sorry” after showing
up two hours late for a pre-arranged meeting. There
are several possible “meanings” that this expression
might have: a genuine apology, an insincere attempt
to defuse your anger, or even a sarcastic jibe. It’s easy
to imagine that your friend might mean one thing
and you might have a different interpretation of it.
The possibility of multiple interpretations means
that it’s often necessary to negotiate a shared meaning in order for satisfying communication to occur.
Environments Affect Communication
Problems often arise because communicators
occupy different environments (sometimes called
contexts)—that is, fields of experience that help
them make sense of other people’s behaviour. In
communication terminology, environment refers
not only to a physical location, but also to the personal experiences and cultural backgrounds that
the participants bring to a conversation. Environments aren’t always obvious. For example, playing
a co-operative versus a competitive game creates
different communication environments, as do the
values, beliefs, and cultural backgrounds and personal histories of the players.
Notice how the model in Figure 1.1 shows that
the environments of A and B overlap. This intersecting area represents the background that the
communicators have in common. If this overlap
didn’t exist, communication would be difficult, if
not impossible.
Whereas similar environments facilitate satisfying communication, different backgrounds can
make effective communication more challenging.
Consider just some of the factors that might contribute to different environments and to difficulties:
• A might belong to one cultural group and B to
another.
• A might be rich and B poor.
• A might be rushed and B have nowhere to go.
• A might have lived a long, eventful life, and B
might be young and inexperienced.
• A might be passionately concerned with the
subject and B indifferent to it.
Noise Affects Communication
Another factor that makes communication difficult is what scientists call noise—anything that
9
10
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
interferes with the transmission and reception
of a message. Three types of noise can disrupt
communication. External noise includes those
factors outside the receiver that make it difficult
to hear or listen, as well as many other kinds of
distractions. For instance, someone sitting next
to you and speaking loudly on their phone, or
a siren going by may prevent you from hearing
a speaker’s remarks. Physiological noise involves
biological factors in the receiver that interfere
with accurate reception, such as hearing loss,
illness, and so on. Psychological noise refers to
cognitive factors that make communication less
effective. For instance, a person being spoken
down to or disrespected may become so irritated
that they have trouble listening objectively to the
rest of a speaker’s message.
Channels Make a Difference
Communication scholars use the term channel
to describe the medium through which messages
are exchanged (Ledbetter, 2014). Along with faceto-face interaction, we can exchange messages
using mediated communication. Mediated channels include the telephone, text messaging, email,
and social media platforms. The communication
channel being used can affect the way a receiver
responds to a message (O’Sullivan, 2000). For
example, ending a relationship by sending your
ex-lover a text message makes a different statement than delivering the bad news in person, and
receiving criticism on social media is a very different experience compared to receiving the same
information in an email sent only to you.
Most people intuitively recognize that the
selection of the channel depends on the kind of
message they are sending and the relationships
between sender and receiver. Generally, we build
trust through face-to-face interactions (Brooks
et al., 2017) and people prefer to share highly
emotional messages (e.g., romantic break-up,
resigning from a job) in face-to-face encounters or telephone conversations but, as we’ll discuss a bit later in this chapter, all channels have
their advantages and disadvantages for both the
sender and the receiver.
Communication Principles
In addition to the insights offered by the communication model, there are other principles that
guide our understanding of communication.
Communication Is Transactional
As we saw in the model of communication introduced earlier in this chapter, communication is
transactional communication—that is, a dynamic
process created by the participants through their
interaction with one another.
Perhaps the most important consequence of the
transactional nature of communication is the degree
of mutual influence that occurs when we interact. To
put it simply, communication isn’t something we do
to others; rather, it’s an activity we do with them. In
this sense, communication is rather like dancing—
at least, the kind of dancing we do with partners.
Like dancing, communication depends on
the involvement of a partner. A great dancer who
doesn’t consider and adapt to the skill level of his
or her partner can make both of them look bad.
In communication and dancing, even two talented
partners don’t guarantee success. When two skilled
dancers perform without coordinating their movements, the results feel bad to the dancers and look
foolish to an audience.
Finally,
relational
communication—like
­dancing—is a unique creation that arises out of the
way in which the partners interact. The way you
dance probably varies from one partner to another
because of the co-operative, transactional nature
of dancing. Likewise, the way you communicate
almost certainly varies with different partners. As
we’ll examine later in this chapter, the ability to
adapt increases your competence as a communicator. Psychologist Kenneth Gergen (1991) captures
the transactional nature of communication well
when he points out how our success depends on
interaction with others: “One cannot be ‘attractive’
without others who are attracted, a ‘leader’ without
others willing to follow, or a ‘loving person’ without others to affirm with appreciation” (p. 158). The
transactional nature of relationships requires that
we communicate with other people, not to them.
1 | Interpersonal Process
REFLECTION
CHOOSING THE CHANNEL
I’m an average person in just about every way,
except that I have a speech impediment. I have
good days and bad days with my speech. On the
bad days, I get the idea that strangers think I’m
slow and incompetent, even though people who
know me don’t think I’m either.
Texting and email have become a very satisfying way for me to communicate, especially with
people I don’t know very well. With text messages
and email, people can form opinions about me
without thinking just about how I sound. I’ve found
that my impediment isn’t a problem once people
know me, but at first, I think it is a real barrier; text
and email remove that barrier completely.
CHECK IT!
When developing a model for interpersonal communication, what insights regarding the nature of
interpersonal communication must we consider,
and why?
Communication Can Be Intentional
or Unintentional
Some communication is clearly deliberate: you
probably plan your words carefully before asking
your manager for a raise or offering constructive
criticism. Some scholars (e.g., Motley, 1990) argue
that only intentional messages like these qualify
as communication. However, others (e.g., Baxter
and Montgomery, 1996; Buck and VanLear, 2002)
suggest that even unintentional behaviour is communicative. Suppose, for instance, that a friend
overhears you muttering complaints to yourself.
Even though you didn’t intend her to hear your
remarks, they certainly did carry a message. In
addition to these slips of the tongue, we unintentionally send many non-verbal messages. You may
not be aware of your sour expression, impatient
shifting, or sigh of boredom, but others notice
them nonetheless.
Even the seeming absence of a behaviour has
communicative value. Recall the times when you
sent an email or left a voicemail message and received
no reply. You probably assigned some meaning to the
lack of a reply. Was the other person angry? Indifferent? Too busy to reply? Whether or not your hunch
was correct, the point remains that all behaviour has
communicative value. “Nothing” never happens.
In this book, we will look at the communicative value of both intentional and unintentional
behaviour. We take the position that whatever you
do—whether you speak or remain silent, confront
or avoid a person, show emotion or keep a poker
face—you provide information to others about
your thoughts and feelings. In this sense, we’re like
transmitters that can’t be shut off.
Communication Has a Content
and a ­Relational Dimension
Virtually all messages have a content dimension
which involves the information being explicitly
discussed (e.g., “Please pass the salt,” “Not now,
I’m tired,” “You forgot to buy milk”) and a relational dimension (Watzlawick et al., 1967), which
expresses how you feel about the other person (e.g.,
whether you like or dislike him or her, feel in control
or subordinate, feel comfortable or anxious, and so
on). For instance, consider how many different relational messages you could communicate by simply
saying “thanks a lot” in different ways.
Sometimes, the content of a message is all that
matters. For example, you may not care how the
person behind the counter feels about you, as long
as you get your order. In a qualitative sense, however, the relational dimension of a message is often
more important than the content under discussion.
This explains why disputes over apparently trivial
subjects become so important. In such cases, we’re
not really arguing over whose turn it is to do the
dishes or whether we should go out or stay in.
Instead, we’re disputing the nature of the relationship. Who is in control? How important are we to
each other? In Chapter 8, we’ll explore several key
relational issues in detail.
11
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
TAKE TWO
DIMENSIONS OF EVERY MESSAGE
• Content: refers to the information explicitly
being discussed.
• Relational: refers to how the communicators
feel about each other.
Communication Is Irreversible
We sometimes wish that we could back up in time,
erasing words or acts and replacing them with
better alternatives. Unfortunately, such reversal is
impossible. Sometimes, further explanation can
clear up the confusion or an apology can mollify
another person’s hurt feelings, but other times,
no amount of explanation can erase the impression you have created. It is no more possible to
“unreceive” a message than to “unsqueeze” a tube
of toothpaste. Words said and deeds done are
irretrievable. Nowhere is this more evident than
with social media. Once you have sent or posted
that comment or those pictures they can live on
forever, well beyond your control.
Communication Is Unrepeatable
Because communication is an ongoing process, an
event cannot be repeated. The friendly smile that
worked so well when you met a stranger last week
may not succeed with the person you encounter
tomorrow. Even with the same person, it’s impossible to recreate an event. Why? Because both you
and the other person have changed. You have
both lived longer. The behaviour isn’t original.
Your feelings about each other may have changed.
You need not constantly invent new ways to act
around familiar people, but you should realize
that the “same” words and behaviour are different
each time they are spoken or performed. Chapter 8 takes a closer look at communication as a
dynamic and continuous process in the context
of our relationships.
JackF/iStockphoto
12
Consider a time when you wished to take back something you communicated to another person. How did it
affect your relationships—both with that person and
with others in your life?
CHECK IT!
What are the five principles that guide our
understanding of interpersonal communication?
­
Describe them and explain their significance.
The Nature of Interpersonal
Communication
Now that you have a better understanding of communication principles, it’s time to look at what
makes some types of communication uniquely
interpersonal.
Quantitative and Qualitative
Definitions
Interpersonal communication has been defined in
two ways (Redmond, 1995). Most definitions describe
a quantitative interpersonal communication as
any interaction between two people. Social scientists call two people who are interacting a dyad, and
they often use the adjective dyadic to describe this
type of communication. So, in a quantitative sense,
the terms dyadic communication and interpersonal
1 | Interpersonal Process
Tom Toro The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank.
communication can be used interchangeably. If we use a quantitative definition, a sales clerk helping
a customer or a police officer
ticketing a speeding driver would
be examples of interpersonal acts,
whereas a teacher leading a class
or an actor performing before an
audience would not.
Dyadic communication is different from the kind of interaction
that occurs in larger groups (Wilmot, 1995). In a group, participants can form coalitions to get
support for their positions. In a
dyad, though, the partners must
work matters out with each other.
This difference explains why, if a
task calls for competition, children prefer to play in three- or
four-person groups, and if it calls
for co-operation, they prefer to be
in dyads (Benenson et al., 2000).
Despite the unique qualities of dyads, you might
object to the quantitative definition of interpersonal
communication. For example, consider a routine
transaction between a sales clerk and customer, or
the rushed exchange when you ask a stranger on the
street for directions. Communication of this sort
hardly seems the same as when you talk to a friend
about a personal problem or share with family
members your experiences of a year in school.
The impersonal nature of some two-person
exchanges—the kind when you think, “I might
as well have been talking to a machine”—has led
some scholars (e.g., Miller and Steinberg, 1975;
Stewart and Logan, 1998) to argue that quality,
not quantity, is what distinguishes interpersonal
communication. Qualitative interpersonal communication occurs when people treat one another
as unique individuals, regardless of the context
in which the interaction occurs or the number of
people involved. When quality of interaction is the
criterion, the opposite of interpersonal communication is impersonal interaction, not group, public,
or mass communication.
13
Several features distinguish qualitatively interpersonal communication from less personal
exchanges.
The first is uniqueness. Whereas impersonal
exchanges are governed by the kind of social rules
we learn from parents, teachers, and etiquette
guides, the way we communicate in a truly p
­ ersonal
­relationship is unlike our behaviour with ­anyone
else. In one relationship, you might exchange good-­
natured insults, while in another, you are careful
never to offend your compatriot. ­Communication
scholar Julia Wood (2009) coined the term relational
­culture, in which people in close relationships create
their own unique ways of i­ nteracting.
A second characteristic of qualitatively interpersonal communication is irreplaceability. Because
interpersonal relationships are unique, they cannot be replaced. This explains why we usually feel
so sad when a close friendship or love affair cools
down. We know that no matter how many other
relationships we have in our lives, none of them
will ever be quite like the one that just ended.
Interdependence is a third characteristic
of qualitatively interpersonal relationships.
Here, the fate of the partners is connected. You
14
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
might be able to brush off the anger, affection,
excitement, or depression of someone you’re
not involved with interpersonally, but in an
­i nterpersonal relationship, the other’s life affects
you. Sometimes, interdependence is a pleasure,
and at other times, it’s a burden. In either case,
interdependence is a fact of life in qualitatively
interpersonal relationships.
A fourth measure of interpersonal communication is disclosure of personal information. In
impersonal relationships, we don’t reveal much
about ourselves, but in many interpersonal ones,
communicators feel more comfortable sharing
their thoughts and feelings. This does not mean
REFLECTION
IRREPLACEABLE LOSS
My dad died when I was 29 years old. Ever since
I was a child, I had always thought I would never
reach 30. Fortunately, I did and have made it
well past, but something changed forever when I
was 29. I lost a relationship that could never be
replaced. After my dad died, I felt suddenly “grown
up” or as if I didn’t have a “safety net” any more.
Nothing had really changed in my life to account
for this feeling of being on my own except the
absence of my dad and our unique ways of interacting. No one else called me by the nickname he
did. It was gone. Our ways of talking, our jokes,
our shared memories seemed to be evaporating.
I couldn’t hold on to them all by myself. I remembered sitting beside my dad at his mom’s funeral.
I was 10 years old. I felt sad, but a bit relieved
that she had died because she had been sick
with Alzheimer’s disease for some time. It was the
first funeral I had been to, and I was nervous, so
I watched my dad carefully to see what to do. At
one point in the service, he turned to me and with
a wink said, “Well, I’m an orphan now.” (His father
had deserted the family when he was a child.) I
burst out laughing. Thinking back now, I wonder if
there was a little tinge of truth in his joke. I wonder
if he felt the same way I did when he died—all
grown up and alone without that relationship to
catch him if he fell.
that all interpersonal relationships are warm and
caring, or that all self-disclosure is positive. It’s
possible to reveal negative, personal information:
“I’m really mad at you . . .”
In impersonal communication, we seek payoffs
that have little to do with the people involved. You
listen to professors in class or talk to potential buyers of your used car in order to reach goals that
have little to do with developing personal relationships. By contrast, you spend time in qualitatively
interpersonal relationships with friends, lovers,
and others because of the fifth characteristic of
such communication, intrinsic rewards. It often
doesn’t matter what you talk about, as developing
the relationship is what’s important.
As discussed in this book, interpersonal communication is interaction characterized by the
qualities of uniqueness, irreplaceability, interdependence, disclosure, and intrinsic rewards. As
such, it forms only a small fraction of our interaction. Most of our communication is relatively
impersonal. We chat pleasantly with cashiers or
fellow passengers on the bus, discuss the weather
or current events with most classmates and neighbours, and deal with co-workers and teachers in a
polite way; but considering the number of people
with whom we communicate, interpersonal relationships are by far the minority.
TAKE TWO
DEFINING INTERPERSONAL
COMMUNICATION: QUANTITY VERSUS
QUALITY
• Quantitative interpersonal communication:
definitions focus on the ­
­
number of people
involved.
• Qualitative
interpersonal
communication:
­definitions focus on the nature of the interaction
between the people involved in terms of its
uniqueness, irreplaceability, amount of disclosure, and intrinsic rewards, as well as the interdependence of the people involved.
1 | Interpersonal Process
The rarity of qualitatively interpersonal communication is not necessarily a bad thing. Most of
us do not have the time or energy to create personal relationships with everyone we encounter. In
fact, the scarcity of interpersonal communication
contributes to its value. Like precious and oneof-a-kind works of art, qualitatively interpersonal
relationships are special because they are rare.
Personal and Impersonal
Communication: A Matter of Balance
Now that the differences between qualitatively interpersonal and impersonal communication are clear,
we need to ask some important questions. Is personal communication better than the impersonal
variety? Is more personal communication the goal?
Most relationships are neither personal nor
impersonal. Rather, they fall somewhere between
these two extremes. Consider your own communication and you will find that there is often a
personal element in even the most impersonal situations. You might appreciate the unique sense of
humour of a supermarket cashier or spend a few
moments sharing private thoughts with the person
cutting your hair. And even the most tyrannical,
demanding, by-the-book manager might show an
occasional flash of humanity.
Just as there’s a personal element in many
impersonal settings, there is also an impersonal
side to our relationships with the people we care
about most. There are occasions when we don’t
want to be personal: when we’re distracted, tired,
busy, or just not interested. In fact, interpersonal
communication is somewhat like rich food—it’s
fine in moderation, but too much can make you
uncomfortable. The blend of personal and interpersonal communication can shift in various stages
of a relationship. The communication between
young lovers who talk only about their feelings
may change as their relationship develops. Several
years later, their communication has become more
routine and ritualized, the percentage of time they
spend on personal, relational issues drops, and the
conversation about less intimate topics increases. In
Chapter 8, we discuss how c­ ommunication c­ hanges
as relationships pass through various stages; and in
Chapter 2, we describe various t­ heories of self-disclosure. As you read this i­nformation, you’ll see
even more clearly that, while ­interpersonal communication can make life worth living, it isn’t possible or desirable all the time.
SELF-ASSESSMENT
HOW INTERPERSONAL ARE YOUR
RELATIONSHIPS?
Select three important relationships to assess.
These might include your relationships with people
at work or school, with friends, or with your family. For
each relationship, answer the following q
­ uestions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
To what extent is the relationship characterized by uniqueness? How much is this
relationship one of a kind?
Low level of
High level of
uniqueness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 uniqueness
To what extent is the relationship
­irreplaceable?
Very easy
Very hard to
to replace
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 replace
To what extent are you and your relationship
partner interdependent; that is, to what
extent do your actions affect the other?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High
Little
interdependence
interdependence
To what extent is communication in the
relationship marked by high disclosure of
personal information?
Little
High
disclosure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 disclosure
To what extent does the relationship create
its own intrinsic rewards?
Little intrinsic
High intrinsic
value
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 value
Referring to your answers, decide how q
­ ualitatively
interpersonal (or how impersonal) each relationship is. (If you have more fives, sixes, and sevens
in your answers, then your relationship is more
interpersonal. If you have more ones, twos, and
threes, then the relationship is more impersonal.)
How satisfied are you with your findings? What
can you do to improve your s
­ atisfaction with these
relationships?
15
16
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
Communication Misconceptions
Now that we have described what communication is, we need to identify some things that it
isn’t. Avoiding these common misconceptions
(adapted from McCroskey and Richmond, 1996)
can save you a great deal of trouble in your personal life.
Not All Communication Seeks
Understanding
Most people operate on the implicit, but flawed,
assumption that the goal of all communication is
to maximize understanding between communicators. While some understanding is necessary for
us to coordinate our interaction, there are some
types of communication in which understanding
as we usually conceive it is not the primary goal.
­Consider, for example, the following situations:
• The social rituals we enact every day: “How’s
it going?” you ask. “Great,” the other person replies. The primary goal in exchanges
like these is mutual acknowledgement: there
is obviously no serious attempt to exchange
information.
• Many attempts to influence others: A quick
analysis of most commercials and advertisements shows that they are aimed at persuading
viewers to buy products, not helping viewers
understand the content of the ad. In the same
way, many of our attempts to persuade others to
act as we want don’t involve a desire to get the
other person to understand what we want—just
to comply with our wishes.
• Deliberate ambiguity and deception: When
you decline an unwanted invitation by saying,
“I can’t make it,” you probably want to create the impression that the decision is really
beyond your control. (If your goal were to be
perfectly clear, you might say, “I don’t want to
get together. Truthfully, I’d rather do almost
anything than accept your invitation.”) In fact,
we often equivocate precisely because we want
to hide our true thoughts and feelings (this is
explained in detail in Chapter 9).
REFLECTION
ONLINE REGRET
I’ve been told that real world regret often involves
sadness and shame about what we didn’t do (e.g.,
didn’t visit an ill relative, failed to speak up as
a bystander), but that online regret is all about
wishing we hadn’t done something. I know that is
true in terms of my experiences posting and tagging pictures on social media and I’ve resolved to
never post or tag before asking. I’ve legitimately
angered friends by posting or tagging pictures of
us doing dumb things over the years but my worst
offence, and one in which I really didn’t foresee
the potential negative consequences, involved
posting pictures of my sister’s kids. I really hadn’t
thought through the possibility of those cute pics
being used for inappropriate or illegal purposes,
or even the chances of my nieces and nephews
being bullied or harassed because of what I did.
And it never crossed my mind that my picture sharing could lead to strangers stealing these pics
and posting them as their own (which is known
as digital kidnapping). I have learned the hard way
that you can’t really take anything back on the
internet—in terms of our digital lives communication really is irreversible!
More Communication Is Not Always Better
While failure to communicate effectively can certainly cause problems, too much communication
can also be a mistake. Sometimes, excessive communication is simply unproductive, as when two
people go over the same ground again and again
without making progress. There are other times
when talking too much actually aggravates a problem. We’ve all had the experience of “talking ourselves into a hole”—making a bad situation worse
by pursuing it too far. As McCroskey and Wheeless (1976, p. 5) put it, “More and more negative
communication merely leads to more and more
negative results.” There are even times when no
interaction is the best course. When two people
are angry and hurt, they may say things they
don’t mean and will later regret. In such cases, it’s
1 | Interpersonal Process
TAKE TWO
Not all communication seeks understanding.
Some examples include:
• everyday social rituals;
• persuasion and coercion; and
• deliberate ambiguity and deception.
probably best to spend time cooling off, thinking
about what to say and how to say it. In Chapter 4,
we will help you decide when and how to share
feelings.
Communication Will Not Solve All Problems
Sometimes, even the best-planned, best-timed
communication won’t solve a problem. For
example, imagine that you ask an instructor to
explain why you received a poor grade on a project you believe deserved top marks. The instructor
clearly outlines the reasons why you received the
low grade and sticks to that position after listening
thoughtfully to your protests. Has communication
solved the problem? Hardly.
Sometimes, clear communication is even the
cause of problems. Suppose, for example, that a
friend asks you for an honest opinion of an expensive outfit they just bought. Your clear and sincere
answer, “I think it’s a terrible colour on you,” might
do more harm than good. Deciding when and how
to self-disclose isn’t always easy. See Chapter 2 for
suggestions.
Effective Communication Is Not
a Natural Ability
Most people assume that communication is an
aptitude that is developed without the need for
training—rather like breathing. Although nearly
everyone does manage to function passably without much formal communication training, most
people operate at a level of effectiveness far below
their potential. In fact, communication skills are
similar to athletic ability. Even the least gifted
among us can improve with training and practice.
Interpersonal Communication
and Technology
The relationship between human communication
and technology is a very long one. From cave art
and hieroglyphics through to the printing press and
social networks, humans have engaged in invention
to support their desire to communicate. In the interpersonal realm, until a few decades ago, face-to-face
communication seemed essential to starting and
maintaining most, if not all, personal relationships.
Other channels did exist, primarily telephone or
postal correspondence, but most interpersonal communication seemed to require physical proximity.
Face-to-face communication is still vitally
important, but increasingly technology also plays
a role in starting and maintaining relationships.
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) provides us with other ways to interact both socially
and at work. CMC describes any communication
that involves two or more electronic devices. Social
media is the term that describes all online communication channels that allow community-based
input, interaction, content sharing, and collaboration. Mediated communication technologies allow
people to communicate with each other privately,
in curated social networks, and publicly 24/7.
Some critics argue that the almost hypnotic attraction of the internet and social media discourages
people from spending time face to face with others.
Problematic internet use, which is internet use that
interferes with the ability to accomplish daily routines, is associated with social anxiety, loneliness,
and depression, but sorting out whether the internet is the cause or symptom of such problems is
difficult (Tokunaga, 2014). For some individuals,
internet use can and does interfere with the quality
of their face-to-face personal relationships. Email,
text messages, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and online video games are ways
to stay in touch and interact with others, but, as
Sherry Turkle (2011, 2015) and Susan Pinker (2014)
point out, they are no substitute for real conversation and physical human connection. You can’t
give someone a hug, wipe away their tears, or really
share all the sensations of a delicious meal without
being in their company.
17
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
On the other hand, there is considerable research
that suggests that mediated communication can
actually enhance interpersonal communication in
certain contexts. Social networking creates opportunities for people to connect with friends and relatives anywhere globally, anytime. In addition, it
allows people to interact with individuals they may
never have otherwise had the opportunity to meet.
They can share interests, develop businesses, build
and maintain friendships and romantic relationships (Anderson and Rainie, 2018). While there is
growing evidence that there is no substitute for faceto-face communication for our long-term health
and well-being (Pinker, 2014), mediated communication plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining our interpersonal relationships.
Characteristics of
Computer-Mediated Communication
Like face-to-face communication, mediated communication contains the same elements described
in the communication model introduced earlier
in this chapter (communicators, environments,
messages, channels, and noise). It also satisfies the
same physical, identity, social, and practical needs.
Despite these similarities, mediated communication
differs from the in-person variety in
some important ways. Table 1.1 provides an overview of differences by
communication channel. Each channel has its advantages and drawbacks
and you can boost your communication effectiveness by choosing the
channel that is best, depending on
the nature of the message, the recipient, and the situation.
in Chapter 7, face-to-face communication is rich in
non-verbal messages. By c­ omparison, most mediated
channels are leaner. Text-based messages are inherently leaner than verbal messages delivered on the
phone, via video chat/conferencing, or in person. Even
with the addition of embedded images and brief videos (e.g., emojis, gifs, memes, etc.), text-based messages
lack many of the more nuanced non-verbal cues that
help communicators better understand each other’s
intentions and emotions, and thus are more easily misunderstood. For some people the absence of non-verbal
cues such as voice tone, facial expressions, etc., makes
text-based communication more comfortable. For shy
individuals in particular, use of text-based channels
can actually enhance the quality of their friendships
and reduce their anxiety about participating in discussions (Hammick and Lee, 2014). However, pared
down, text-based communication creates more opportunities for misunderstanding. Without non-verbal
cues, it’s easier to misinterpret messages, particularly
those that might be interpreted as conveying humour,
irony, or sarcasm. When choosing the best channel to
send a message it’s important to consider the advantages and drawbacks of each and keep in mind that
we tend to interpret positive text-based messages as
more neutral than intended and neutral messages
as more negative than intended (Byron, 2008).
Morsa Images/iStockphoto
18
Leanness
Social scientists use the term media
richness to describe the abundance
of non-verbal cues that add clarity to
a message (Otondo et al., 2008). Conversely, leanness describes messages
that carry less information due to the
lack of non-verbal cues. As you’ll read
A lot of people argue that the internet has a negative effect on communication, while others argue that now we can communicate better than we
ever have before. What do you think?
1 | Interpersonal Process
TABLE 1.1
Characteristics of Communication Channels
Synchronization
Richness/Leanness
Permanence
Face to Face
Synchronous
Rich
Low
Video Chat
Synchronous
Moderately rich
Low
Telephone
Synchronous
Moderately lean
Low
Voicemail
Asynchronous
Moderately lean
Moderate
Text/Instant Messaging
Asynchronous (but potentially quick)
Lean
Moderate
Email
Asynchronous
Lean
High
Social Networking
Typically asynchronous
Lean (but can include
photos and videos)
High
Asynchronicity
Asynchronous communication occurs when there
is a time gap between when the message was sent
and when it is received. Email, voicemail, snail
mail, text messages, and social networking posts
are asynchronous. By contrast, synchronous
communication occurs in real time. In-­
person
communication, phone calls, and video chat/
conferencing are ex­amples of synchronous communication. Asynchronous messages are different from synchronous messages because you have
more time to respond to them as well as the option
to not respond at all. But as we discussed earlier this
chapter, not responding is still communicating—all
behaviour has communicative value. Asynchronous messages give us a chance to think about our
responses and they also allow us to share information with people in different time zones in ways that
were previously impossible. For example, recent
immigrants to Canada are more likely to use the
internet (email, text messaging, and Skype) every
day to communicate with relatives and friends
abroad (Canadian Internet R
­ egistration Authority,
2018; Statistics Canada, 2008). CMC provides not
only increased opportunities for communication
locally, but also the ability to maintain relationships
over long distances.
Permanence
A third difference between face-to-face and mediated communication is permanence, or how long
the message endures. Unlike our face-to-face
c­ onversations, the messages, photos, and videos we
post or send to each other can be saved indefinitely.
This can be a tremendous advantage. For example,
when your doctor or specialist electronically records your conversation about a health condition
you’re able to access it anytime in the future; or
when you’ve forgotten where to meet your friend
you can look up the address she texted to you
earlier. But there are obvious disadvantages too.
Regretting information posted on social media
is common, more so among young people (under
25 years) (Chou et al., 2019; Xie and Kang, 2015).
The most common regrets involve posting about
sensitive topics, content with strong sentiment,
lies, and personal secrets (Wang et al., 2011),
often impulsively. We’ve all heard of social media
missteps that have hurt people’s relationships
with family, friends, and colleagues or adversely
affected their reputations or careers. In more
extreme instances, others can intercept information. For instance, a study conducted by Internet
Watch Foundation (IWF) found that 89 per cent of
the sexually explicit photos and videos of young
people they found on public websites were self-­
generated (e.g., selfies, sexting messages sent privately). These images had never been intended for
public viewing (IWF, 2015), but were still accessible
and distributed by unintended viewers. Even with
privacy settings and other safeguards, the reality is
we don’t control the information we share online,
it can potentially be accessed by anyone, and it
can never truly be deleted from the internet. We’ll
look at some of these challenges when we discuss
19
20
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
­ ersonal disclosure in Chapter 2, and when we
p
examine communication climates and conflict in
later chapters. In the meantime, however, it’s wise to
be cautious and considerate online and remember
that despite feeling private and transitory, the
online world is public and potentially permanent.
Think twice before communicating something
that might haunt you for a lifetime.
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
OUR DIGITAL LIVES AND INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Although this textbook is not specifically focused on
the impact of technology on communication we will
certainly discuss both the benefits and challenges
of digital life on specific elements of interpersonal
communication and our relationships with others.
Research on the effects of technology and the internet on everything from children’s development to dating to business success has increased exponentially
in recent years. In terms of the impact on communication and interpersonal relationships, the findings are
mixed in terms of benefits versus detriment. Janna
Anderson, director of Elon University’s Imagining the
Internet Centre, and Lee Rainie, director of Internet
and Technology Research at the Pew Research Centre (2018), canvased technology experts, scholars,
and health specialists and asked them to respond to
the following:
Please share a brief personal anecdote about
how digital life has changed your daily life, your
family’s life or your friends’ lives in regard to
well-being—some brief observation about
life for self, family or friends. Tell us how this
observation or anecdote captures how hyperconnected life changes people’s well-being
compared to the way life was before digital connectivity existed.
They received responses from 1,150 people from
around the world, the majority of whom (79 per cent)
were based in North America. Their respondents
included people from a wide cross-section of
­occupations including professors, teachers, research
scientists, futurists, consultants, advocates,
activists, technology developers, administrators,
­
entrepreneurs, business leaders, authors, editors,
journalists, legislators, politicians, and lawyers.
Analysis of the responses revealed that 47 per
cent of their respondents predicted people will be
more helped than harmed by digital life in the next 10
years, 32 per cent predicted the reverse (more harmed
than helped), and the remaining 21 per cent predicted
no change in people’s well-being as a result of digital
life. These investigators identified a number of themes
in the responses related to the ways digital life helps
us or harms us, as well as respondents’ ideas about
potential remedies to mitigate the harm. Those most
relevant to our focus on interpersonal communication
include the potential of digital life to increase our ability to meet and maintain our connections with others,
thereby increasing our connectedness, self-fulfillment,
and contentment. On the negative side, digital life has
the potential to increase our stress (overload), possibly erode our face-to-face communication skills, and
diminish our trust in others.
Included below is a small selection of quotes from
some of Anderson and Rainie’s (2018) respondents
that help illustrate the positive and negative impacts
of digital life on our interpersonal lives.
. . . I have met and developed relationships
with people outside any sphere of reference
I never would have had thanks to my digital
life. . . . When forced to only have relationships
with people you can meet in person, you tend
to live in a more-narrow world, with people more
like you. Digital communications broadens your
horizons, or it can if you want it to.
I often find myself stressed out at the end of
the day; as a result I tend to enjoy relaxing
and staying in for the night. Without the modern hyperconnected lifestyle this would result
1 | Interpersonal Process
in me reading or doing other solo activities.
Through voice-chat applications and online
multiplayer gaming, I connect with friends to
play video games. While I don’t have the energy
to be social in one way, the ease of connecting
over the internet enables me to enjoy time with
friends and maintain our relationships.
My family and I use our smartphones to send
photos, video chat and send text messages
on a daily basis, allowing us to stay in contact
more frequently. . . . On the negative side, I
look at headlines way too much as a form of
stimulus any time I have a second to spare—
even when I’m with my children. I’d say I’m less
present, less able to focus on reading long
form text, than I was before my smartphone
came into my life.
My brother spent a period between graduating
school and obtaining a job idly watching screens
and interacting only via them. He spent all day
and into the night constantly immersed in this.
The TV was always on in the background while he
played intense online video games on his laptop,
while also continuously texting or messaging
others about the game. Technology became his
life. It was difficult to separate him from his virtual world and to interest him in physical human
interaction. He became grumpy, began sleeping
less and less, and stopped dedicating time to
his own physical needs. Although it was a scary
time, he was later able to pull himself out of it
and eventually reconnect with the real world.
While he was lucky to be able to quit, some are
not able to do so.
I have a young friend who lives in another state
in a rural area. Over time, I have realized from
their social media posts that he/she is emerging as gender non-conforming. In the past,
this is a journey that I would probably not have
known about, especially since his/her immediate family is very conservative and have not
accepted this facet of the young person’s identity. I am so grateful to have been included in
this revelation so I can offer my unconditional
love and support. And I am even more grateful
that a person who in the past would have felt
isolated, unnatural, and broken now knows that
they are in fact part of a global community. He/
she can find and utilize peer support groups
as well as myriad medical, psychological and
spiritual resources that would not have been
available to someone in a small town in the
past. I believe this will probably save lives. I
definitely hope that it will help increase our
ability as a society to accept others who don’t
conform to our preconceived notions of what
is normal.
Anderson and Rainie (2018b) report that even
respondents who predicted that human well-being will
be harmed also pointed out that digital tools will continue to improve some aspects of our lives and that
there is no turning back. In terms of how we mitigate
the dangers of our digital lives some respondents
identified education as a key mechanism.
The primary change needs to come in education. From a very early age, people need to
understand how to interact with networked,
digital technologies. They need to learn how to
use social media, and learn how not to be used
by it. They need to understand how to assemble reliable information and how to detect crap.
They need to be able to shape the media they
are immersed in. They need to be aware of
how algorithms and marketing—and the companies, governments, and other organizations
that produce them—help to shape the ways in
which they see the world. Unfortunately, from
preschool to grad school, there isn’t a lot of
consensus about how this is to be achieved.
We are hopeful that learning more about interpersonal communication will help you to take advantage of the benefits of digital life and support you in
mitigating the potential harm to your relationships,
health, and over all well-being.
Critical thinking: Can you think of a brief personal
anecdote about how digital life has affected your
daily life, your family’s life, or your friends’ lives
with regard to well-being? What are your predictions
in terms of digital life being a helpful or harmful
­influence on our interpersonal communication and
relationships? Why?
21
22
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
CHECK IT!
What is the general consensus regarding the effects
of technology on interpersonal ­communication?
Interpersonal Communication
and Cultural Diversity
Almost a half century ago, communication guru
Marshall McLuhan (1964) coined the metaphor
of the world as a “global village” where members
of all nations are connected by communication
technology. Just as with members of a traditional
village, McLuhan suggested, the affairs and fates
of the occupants of Planet Earth are connected—
for better or worse. This analysis has proved to
be increasingly true in the years since McLuhan
introduced it. The growth in communication technology, including international telephone service,
the internet, and global media coverage brings the
world into our homes. Although relatively cheap
transportation has reduced the barrier of distance,
thus making travel easier for more people than
ever before, Canadians don’t need to go far to be
exposed to the global village.
Demographic changes have been transforming
Canada into a microcosm of the global village. At
the time of the last national census, one-fifth of
Canadians identified themselves as immigrants
(Statistics Canada, 2018). Canada is increasingly
a nation of people with diverse ethnic origins
with Canadians reporting over 250 different ethnic origins and ancestries, and four in ten people
identified more than one ancestry at the time of
the most recent census (Statistics Canada, 2017).
The Canadian concept of multiculturalism, where
people value, celebrate, and preserve their cultural heritage rather than becoming assimilated
into the dominant culture, helps to create this
microcosm of global diversity. Over the past 30
years, Canadians have expressed increasingly
positive attitudes toward newcomers (Environics
Institute, 2018). Economic integration also creates ties that bind nations and people. National
economies are increasingly ­connected with and
affected by developments around the world.
According to Industry Canada, no other major
economy is as trade-oriented as Canada. The
country depends on international trade to grow
and prosper; because Canada’s economy is very
small, domestic-based companies increasingly
enter global markets in order to remain viable
and competitive (Kingston, 2017).
Given all this information, it makes sense
to examine how interpersonal communication
operates between members of different cultures.
Throughout this book, we will see that when
people from different backgrounds interact, they
face a set of challenges that are often different from
when members of the same culture communicate.
Culture
Defining culture is not an easy task. For our purposes, Larry Samovar and his colleagues (2012)
offer a clear and comprehensive definition of culture as “the language, values, beliefs, traditions,
and customs people share and learn.”
This definition shows that culture is, to a great
extent, a matter of perception and definition.
When you identify yourself as a member of a
­culture, you must not only share certain characteristics, but you must also recognize yourself, and
others like you, as possessing these features; and
see others who don’t possess them as members of
different categories. For example, height doesn’t
seem like a significant factor in distinguishing
“us” from “them,” whereas skin colour is often
considered significant—at least in some cases. It’s
not hard, though, to imagine some future society
where height is the differentiating feature. Social
scientists use the term in-groups for groups with
which we identify and out-groups for those that
we view as different (Tajfel and Turner, 1992).
Social scientists use the term co-culture to
describe the perception of membership in a subgroup
that is part of an encompassing culture. For example,
North American culture includes categories based on
a number of factors including but not limited to:
• age (e.g., teen, senior citizen)
• ethnicity (e.g., South Asian, Indigenous)
1 | Interpersonal Process
• sexual orientation (e.g., LGBTQ+, heterosexual)
• geographic region (e.g., Northerner, Quebecker)
• physical disability (e.g., person who uses a
wheelchair, person who is blind)
• religion (e.g., Muslim, Catholic)
• profession (e.g., nurse, musician)
Members of co-cultures develop distinctive
communication patterns and membership in
these groups enriches people’s lives and provides
meaningful connections. There also can be tensions between membership in co-cultures and
the larger culture. Children of recent newcomers
to Canada face these tensions as they navigate
between the languages, values, beliefs, traditions, and customs of their schools, friends, and
homes. Tensions between members of different
co-cultural groups can also occur. For instance,
a potential barrier to effective interprofessional
teamwork in health care stems from differences
in values and in the educational training systems
of the various health care professionals tasked to
work together. The traditional culture of physician training has focused on a task-oriented
approach to patient care and an authoritarian
decision-making model that can create friction
with nurses and social workers whose training focused more on relationships and patient
self-determination (Hall, 2005).
When we think of culture in this way, it becomes
apparent that most of us live our lives as members
of many cultural and co-cultural groups. No single label or category can fully explain someone’s
identity—they are all woven together. As we’ll see
in Chapters 2 and 3, it’s important to understand
how this shapes our identities and our perceptions
of others, and ultimately how this influences our
interpersonal communication.
Intercultural Communication
Having defined culture, we can go on to define
intercultural communication as the process by
which members of two or more cultures exchange
messages in a manner that is influenced by their
different cultural perceptions and symbol systems,
both verbal and non-verbal (Samovar et al., 2012).
Note that intercultural communication (at least as
we’ll use the term here) doesn’t always occur when
people from different cultures interact. The cultural
backgrounds, perceptions, and symbol systems of
the participants must have a significant influence
on the exchange before we can say that culture has
made a difference. Consider a few examples where
culture does and doesn’t play a role:
• A group of preschool children is playing in
a park. These three-year-olds don’t realize
that their parents may have come from different countries or even that they don’t all speak
the same language. At this point, we couldn’t
say that intercultural communication is taking place. Only when different norms become
apparent—about diet, sharing, or parental
discipline, for example—do the children begin
to think of one another as different.
• Members of a school basketball team from a
variety of cultural backgrounds—some East
Asian, some South Asian, some Caribbean, and
some European—are intent on winning the
league championship. During a game, cultural
distinctions aren’t important. There’s plenty of
communication, but it is not fundamentally
intercultural. Away from their games, the players are friendly when they meet, but they rarely
socialize. If they did, they might notice some
fundamental differences in the way members of
each cultural group communicate.
• A husband and wife were raised in homes with
different religious traditions. Most of the time
their religious heritage makes little difference
and the partners view themselves as a unified
couple. Every so often, however—perhaps during holidays or when meeting members of each
other’s family—the different backgrounds are
highlighted. At those times, we can imagine
the partners feeling quite different from each
other—thinking of themselves as members of
separate cultures.
These examples show that in order to view ourselves as members of a culture, there has to be some
distinction between “us” and “them,” between inand out-group. We may not always be able to say
precisely what the differences are. We may have
23
24
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
only a feeling that something is different. There are
occasions when cultural influences are powerful,
but so subtle that they go unrecognized.
Interpersonal and Intercultural
Communication
stock_photo_world/shutterstock
At this point, you may be wondering whether there
is any communication that is not intercultural, or
at least co-cultural. Indeed, there are many cases
when communication isn’t influenced by intercultural considerations. Even in an increasingly
diverse world, there are still plenty of relationships
in which people share a basically common background. The people who gather to play bocce ball
at the local Italian community centre, the Irish
marchers in a St Patrick’s Day parade, or the group
of people from a small town who knit together on
Wednesday evenings are likely to share similar
personal histories, norms, customs, and values.
Even when people with different cultural backgrounds communicate, those differences may not
be important. David may be a Jewish man whose
ancestors came from Eastern Europe, while Lisa
is a third-generation Japanese-Canadian woman
whose parents are practising Christians, but they
have created a life together that transcends their
differences, and that enables them to deal comfortably with those differences when they do arise.
Rather than classifying some exchanges as intercultural and others as free from cultural influences,
we may more accurately talk about degrees of cultural significance (Lustig, Koester, and Halualani,
2018). Encounters can fit along a spectrum of interculturalness. At the most intercultural end are situations where differences between the backgrounds
and beliefs of communicators are high. A traveller
visiting a new country for the first time with little
knowledge of local society would be an obvious
example. At the least intercultural end of the spectrum fall exchanges where cultural differences
matter little. A student from Montreal who attends
a small university in the Maritimes may find life
somewhat different, but the adjustment would be
This group could be participating in intercultural communication or in co-cultural communication. Can they ­participate
in both?
1 | Interpersonal Process
INTERPERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE
HIGH
LOW
Parent and child
discuss their changing
relationship.
Husband and wife from different
cultural backgrounds develop
mutual understanding.
Over time, able-bodied and
disabled fellow employees
develop ways to work
effectively together.
Traveller unintentionally
violates customs of a culture
that he or she doesn’t understand.
English-speaking caller
requests directory assistance
from English-speaking
telephone operator.
INTERCULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
HIGH
FIGURE 1.2 Possible Interactions among Interpersonal and Intercultural Dimensions of Person-to-Person
­Communication
far less difficult than that for the international traveller. In between these extremes falls a whole range
of encounters in which culture plays varying roles.
What is the relationship between intercultural
communication and interpersonal relationships?
William Gudykunst and Young Kim (2003) summarize an approach that helps answer this question.
They suggest that interpersonal and intercultural
factors combine to form a two-by-two matrix in
which the importance of interpersonal communication forms one dimension and intercultural
significance forms the other (see Figure 1.2). This
model shows that some interpersonal transactions
(for example, a conversation between two siblings
who have been raised in the same household) have
virtually no intercultural elements. Other encounters (such as a traveller from Senegal trying to get
directions from an Iranian-Canadian taxi driver
in Vancouver) are almost exclusively intercultural,
without the personal dimensions that we discuss
throughout this book.
Still other exchanges—the most interesting ones
for our purposes—contain elements of both intercultural and interpersonal communication. This
range of encounters is broad in the global village:
business people from different backgrounds try to
wrap up a deal; Canadian-born and immigrant
children learn to get along in school; health care
educators seek effective ways to serve patients from
around the world; neighbours from different racial
TAKE TWO
CONCEPTS IN INTERCULTURAL
COMMUNICATION
• Culture: the language, values, beliefs, traditions, and customs people share and learn.
• In-groups: groups of people with whom we identify.
• Out-groups: groups of people whom we view as
different.
• Co-culture: a subgroup that is part of an encompassing culture.
• Intercultural communication: the process
by which members of two or more cultures
exchange messages in a manner that is influenced by their different cultural perceptions and
symbol systems.
25
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
or ethnic backgrounds look for ways to make their
streets safer and cleaner; middle-class teachers
seek common ground with students from low-­
income neighbourhoods—the list seems almost
­endless. In situations like these, ­communicators
are trying to establish some degree of relationship
and ­understanding.
Donald Reilly/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank.
26
Comparison of Canadian
and US Culture
Since the population of the United States is roughly
ten times that of Canada and five times that of
the United Kingdom (Index Mundi, 2017), it follows logically that a very large proportion of the
research on interpersonal communication in Western culture has been conducted with US citizens.
Canadians have a much smaller database of homegrown studies to inform them about their interpersonal communication practices. So, to what extent
can we apply US findings to the Canadian context?
In order to answer this question, we need to examine the similarities and differences between the
two cultures, particularly in areas that are relevant
to interpersonal communication. There are differences between American and Canadian values in a
few key areas that influence how individuals from
each country might judge the appropriateness
and effectiveness of various types of interpersonal
communication differently.
So, how exactly are Canadian values similar to
US values, and how are they different? There has
been considerable discussion, debate, and research
comparing the values and behaviour of Canadians
and Americans (Adams, 2003, 2017; Canadian Race
Relations Foundation, 2014). The consensus appears
to be that, although the two cultures are very similar when placed in the context of the many cultures
in the world (Hofstede, 1980, 2001), there are some
differences that are important to many Canadians.
For instance, Michael Adams, founder of the nonprofit social research organization Environics Institute, has reported on large social values surveys
conducted in Canada and the United States over a
20-year period beginning in 1992, with the most
recent survey being administered in both countries
in 2016. He and his Environics colleagues have used
those surveys in combination with individual interviews and previously compiled Canadian survey
findings (dating back to 1983) to conduct a comparative analysis of Canadian and American culture
and to track shifts in social values (Adams, 2003,
2017). Values were defined as “ideas that motivate
people to behave the way they do, good, bad or neither” (Adams, 2003, p. 12). Large, diverse, and representative samples of Canadians and Americans
were questioned about a wide variety of social values and Canadian survey data is publicly available
on the Envrionics Institute’s website.
Canadians and Americans described ­different
values, attitudes, and beliefs in a variety of areas.
Some of the most significant in terms of their
impact on interpersonal communication are attitudes toward violence, tolerance of diversity, and
the relative status of men and women.
Attitudes toward Violence
Michael Adams (2003, 2017) argues that Canadians are markedly differentiated from Americans by their attitudes toward violence. Generally,
1 | Interpersonal Process
fewer Canadians perceive that they are surrounded
by violence than do their US counterparts. Canadians are less likely to perceive violence as a normal part of everyday life or as a way of solving
problems. When compared with Americans, far
fewer Canadians endorsed the view that “violence
is a part of everyday life— it’s no big deal.” This was
particularly true when comparing the attitudes of
young Canadian and American men (ages 15 to
24). Thirty-four per cent of young American men
endorsed the view that violence was an acceptable
part of everyday life whereas 13 per cent of young
Canadian men shared that view (Adams, 2014).
Acceptance of Diversity
Canadians consistently express more positive attitudes toward immigration (Adams 2007b, 2010,
2017; Environics Research Institute, 2018; Pew
Research Centre, 2003; Soroka and Robertson,
2010) when compared to the United States and
many Western countries. Public opinion surveys
conducted over the past two decades suggest that
the majority of Canadians endorse the idea
that immigrants have a good influence on their
country. The majority of Americans surveyed
did not appear to share that belief (Parker et al.,
2018). Americans were also more likely to report
that they believe newcomers from other countries
threaten traditional American customs and values. Even if respondents in both countries were
not being completely truthful in order to appear
more socially acceptable, Canadians appear to
believe that in Canadian culture, intolerance of
immigrants is not socially acceptable. It is important to note that these data have the potential to be
misleading, because they might be interpreted to
imply that Canadians are neither ethnocentric, nor
racist and prejudiced toward immigrants and minorities. There is abundant evidence that Canadians
can be ethnocentric, racist, and prejudiced (Canadian Race Relations Foundation, 2017). However,
it appears that Canadians are different from Americans to the extent to which we believe these things
are not acceptable in Canada.
In addition to being open-minded toward cultural diversity, Canadians are more accepting of
diversity in people’s sexuality than Americans.
Data from World Values Surveys indicate that
Canadians are more open-minded toward LGBTQ+
(lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, two-spirited,
queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, pansexual,
agender, gender queer, bigender, gendervariant,
pangender) people than are Americans (Ingelhart,
2014). Canadian attitudes both influence and are
influenced by Canadian laws that guarantee equal
rights to all people regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation, including the right to be
legally married and to be protected against discrimination in employment and housing. LGBTQ+
people do not have these same legal protections in
all states in the US. Canada provides a gender neutral option on passports (“x”) and other government issued documents for individuals who do not
identify as male (“m”) or female (“f”) (McQuigge,
2017). Again, greater acceptance of sexual diversity
and fluidity in gender identity in Canada does not
mean that LGBTQ+ people do not experience prejudice and discrimination, but it does appear that
Canadians are aware that these negative attitudes
and prejudiced behaviours are wrong.
The majority of Canadians also want their communities to be fully accessible to people with disabilities and want Canada to be a leader on this
front (Angus Reid, 2015). Significantly more Canadians with disabilities are employed compared
to Americans with disabilities but Canadians
acknowledge that we still have a long way to go on
this front (McQuigge, 2017; United States Department of Labor Statistics, 2018). And, unlike the
United States, which has a single dedicated federal
law protecting the rights of people with disabilities, the rights of Canadians with disabilities are
only protected at the federal level under the general
umbrella of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Most provinces, other than Ontario, do
not have specific legislation focusing solely on protecting the rights of people with disabilities (Malhotra and Rowe, 2014).
Relative Status of Men and Women
There is growing recognition in Canada and
throughout the world that the binary gender
27
28
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
c­ategorizations of “male” and “female” and the
characteristics we have learned to associate with
those categories can be unnecessarily restrictive.
In Chapter 3 we discuss how generalizations about
groups or categories of people negatively affect the
accuracy of our perceptions. Despite the limitations and inaccuracies of this way of categorizing
human beings, gender is one the most salient characteristics children and adults use to cluster individuals (Ellemers, 2018). A great deal of research
has been conducted using this binary classification, on everything from discrimination and
equal rights to interpersonal communication
and human relationships, and some of that information informs the content of this book.
Discrimination against women exists in Canada,
but Canadians are less willing than their US counterparts to endorse a view of patriarchal authority (the
father must be master in his own home) or a view
that men are naturally superior to women. According to the Environics 2016 survey data, 23 per cent
of Canadians and 50 per cent of Americans said
the father of a household must be the boss (Adams,
2017). Adams (2003, 2005, 2017) argues that Canadians’ more egalitarian views regarding the status
of women and their unwillingness to endorse traditional family models of patriarchal authority have
contributed to making us take a more inclusive view
of what constitutes a family. More Canadians support the view that common-law partners and samesex couples are “proper” families (Adams, 2003,
2017; Mitchell, 2014).
At the same time that we see differences, we are
also aware that in a global context, the values that
are the basis for Canadian society are perceived as
more similar to those of US society than to those
of many other cultures (Grabb and Curtis, 2010;
Ingelhart et al., 2014).
When we look at the cultural dimensions such
as individualism versus collectivism, uncertainty
avoidance, and “power distance” (social hierarchy),
Canada and the United States have very similar
rankings. Geert Hofstede and his colleagues used
extensive statistical data to examine cultural values in 53 different countries around the world
(Hofstede, 1984, 2001, 2011; Hofstede et al., 2010).
One value dimension they measured indicates
the extent to which people’s personal goals take
priority over their allegiance to the group, “that
is, individualism as opposed to collectivism.” The
United States, Australia, Britain, the Netherlands,
and Canada all rank very high in promoting individualism. Similarly, Canada and the United States
are similar in regard to the degree to which their
respective cultures are tolerant of uncertainty compared to countries such as Portugal, Greece, and
Japan, which are classified as uncertainty avoidant.
Finally, power distance, which is a concept similar to that of social hierarchy, is also very similar
in the United States and Canada, whose cultures
are more egalitarian than cultures such as India
and Mexico but less egalitarian when compared to
Israel, Denmark, and New Zealand. We will discuss these cultural dimensions in more detail in
Chapter 2.
Given the similarities between the two cultures,
at least in a global context, it seems fair to assume
US interpersonal communication research findings have at least some applicability to Canadians.
At the same time, it’s important to be sensitive
to the fact that there are real and significant differences between the two cultures and to keep a
critical eye open to the possibility that these cultural differences might influence our interpretations and the applicability of US research findings
in a Canadian context.
CHECK IT!
What differences have been noted between Canadian and US values, and why do they matter?
Communication Competence
“What does it take to communicate better?” is
probably the most crucial question to ask as you
read this book. Answering it has been one of the
leading challenges for communication scholars.
While all the answers aren’t in yet, research has
discovered a great deal of important and useful
information about communication competence.
1 | Interpersonal Process
Communication Competence
Defined and Described
Most scholars agree that communication competence is the ability to achieve goals in a manner
both effective and appropriate (Spitzberg, 2000).
To understand these two dimensions, consider
how you might handle everyday communication
challenges, such as declining an unwanted social
invitation or asking a friend to stop an annoying
behaviour. In cases like these, effective communication would get the results you want. Appropriate
communication would do so in a way that, in most
cases, enhances the relationship in which it occurs.
You can appreciate the importance of both
appropriateness and effectiveness by imagining
approaches that would satisfy one of these criteria,
but not the other. Effectiveness without appropriateness might satisfy your goals but leave others
unhappy. Conversely, appropriateness without
effectiveness might leave others content, but you
frustrated. With the goal of balancing effectiveness
and appropriateness, in the following paragraphs
we outline several important characteristics of
communication competence.
Motivation and Open-Mindedness Are Key
In order to become a more competent communicator, you must have some desire to improve your
communication skills with a variety of people.
You need to be open to new ways of thinking and
behaving. Without an open-minded attitude, a
communicator will have trouble interacting competently with people from different backgrounds.
To understand open-mindedness, it is helpful to
consider three traits that are incompatible with
it. Ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s own culture is superior to others. An ethnocentric person
thinks—either privately or openly—that anyone
who does not belong to his or her in-group is somehow strange, wrong, or even inferior.
Ethnocentrism leads to an attitude of p
­ rejudice—
an unfairly biased and intolerant a­ ttitude toward
others who belong to an out-group. (Note that the
root term in prejudice is “pre-judge.”) An important
element of prejudice is ­stereotyping—exaggerated
TAKE TWO
OBSTACLES TO OPEN-MINDEDNESS
• Ethnocentrism: the belief that one’s own culture
is superior to others.
• Prejudice: an unfairly biased and intolerant attitude toward others who belong to an out-group.
• Stereotyping: exaggerated generalizations about
a group.
generalizations about a group. Stereotypical prejudices include the obvious exaggerations that all
women are emotional, all men are sex-crazed
and insensitive goons, all older people are out of
touch with the modern world, and all gay men
are flamboyant. Stereotyping can even be a risk
when it comes to one’s knowledge of the cultural
characteristics within one’s own milieu, which we
explore in Chapter 2. Despite general similarities
within a culture, not every individual group member shares the same values and beliefs. It’s encouraging to know that open-minded communicators
can overcome pre-existing stereotypes and learn
to appreciate people from different backgrounds as
individuals.
There Is No Single Ideal or Effective
Way to Communicate
Your own experience shows that a variety of communication styles can be effective. Some very successful communicators are serious, while others
use humour; some are gregarious, while others are
quieter; and some are more straightforward,
while others hint diplomatically. Just as there are
many kinds of beautiful music or art, there are many
kinds of competent communication. Furthermore,
a type of communication that is competent in one
setting might be a colossal blunder in another. The
joking insults you routinely trade with one friend
might offend a sensitive family member, and last
Saturday night’s romantic approach would probably be out of place at work on Wednesday morning. No list of rules or tips will guarantee your
success as a communicator.
29
30
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
Flexibility is especially important when members of different cultures meet. Some communication skills seem to be universal (Ruben, 1989)—for
example, every culture has rules that require
speakers to behave appropriately. But the definition of what kind of communication is appropriate in a given situation varies considerably
from one culture to another (Gudykunst, 2003).
On an obvious level, customs like belching after
a meal or appearing nude in public, which might
be appropriate in some parts of the world, would
be considered outrageous in others. But there are
more subtle differences in competent communication. For example, qualities like self-disclosure
and speaking in a straightforward manner—
much valued in North America—are likely to be
considered overly aggressive and insensitive in
many Asian cultures, where subtlety and indirectness are considered important (Kim et al., 1998;
Merkin et al., 2014).
Culture has a significant influence on how we
experience our personal relationships. Knowledge of people’s cultural backgrounds and coculture memberships is helpful in becoming a more
competent communicator. If, for example, you
understand that a potential friend’s background
is likely to regard displays of respect as especially
important, or that maintaining eye contact with
a supervisor might be considered disrespectful in
some cultures, you can adjust your communication accordingly. Competent communicators are
able to adapt their style to suit the individual and
cultural preferences of others (Chen, 1997; Friedman et al., 2018).
Competence Is Situational
Because competent behaviour varies so much from
one situation and person to another, it’s a mistake
to think that communication competence is a trait
that a person either possesses or lacks (Spitzberg,
1991). It’s more accurate to talk about degrees or
areas of competence.
You and the people you know are probably
quite competent in some areas and less so in
others. For example, you might deal quite skilfully with peers, but at the same time feel clumsy
interacting with people much older or younger,
wealthier or poorer, or more or less “attractive”
than you. In fact, your competence may vary
from situation to situation. This means it’s an
overgeneralization to say, in a moment of distress,
“I’m a terrible communicator!” It’s more accurate
to say, “I didn’t handle this situation very well, but
I’m better in others.”
Competence Requires Mindfulness
Knowledge of how to communicate with people
from different backgrounds is often ­
“culturespecific,” to use Samovar and his ­colleagues’ terminology (2012). The rules and customs that work with
one group might be quite different from those that
succeed with another. The ability to “shift gears”
and adapt one’s style to the norms of another culture
or co-culture is an essential ingredient of communication competence (Kim et al., 1996).
How can a communicator acquire the
culture-specific information that leads to competence? One important element is what Stella
Ting-Toomey (1999) and others call mindfulness—
awareness of one’s own behaviour and that of
others. Communicators who lack this quality
blunder mindlessly through intercultural encounters, oblivious of how their own behaviour may
confuse or offend others, and how behaviour that
they consider bizarre may simply be different from
their norm. Strategies to help increase your mindfulness might include observing what members
of a different culture do and using these insights
to communicate in ways that are most effective.
In addition, you can formally study a culture by
­taking courses or informally by travelling, reading,
and having contact with people from different cultural groups (Ting-Toomey and Chung, 2012).
Competence Can Be Learned
To some degree, biology is destiny when it comes
to communication style (Beatty and McCroskey,
1997). Studies of identical and fraternal twins suggest that some traits, including sociability, a short
temper, and the ability to relax seem to be partially
a function of our genetic makeup. Fortunately,
biology isn’t the only factor that shapes how we
communicate. Communication competence is, to
1 | Interpersonal Process
a great degree, a set of skills that anyone can learn
(Fortney et al., 2001). For instance, problem-based
simulations have been shown to reduce communication apprehension in nursing students (Kim
et al., 2018). In fact, direct instruction in interpersonal communication skills has demonstrated
benefits for individuals working in a variety of professions (Clayton et al., 2012; Jin et al. 217; Seenan
et al., 2016). Even without systematic training, it’s
possible to develop communication skills through
the processes of observation and trial and error.
We learn from our own successes and failures, as
well as from observing other models—both positive and negative. Of course, it’s our hope that you
will become a more competent communicator by
reading and applying what you learn from this
book too.
Characteristics of Competent
Communication
Despite the fact that competent communication
varies from one situation to another, scholars
have identified several common denominators
that characterize effective communication in most
­contexts.
A Large Repertoire of Skills
As we’ve already seen, good communicators do
not use the same approach in every situation. They
know that it’s best sometimes to be blunt and, at
other times, to be tactful—that there is a time to
speak up and a time to be quiet.
The chances of behaving competently increase
with the number of options you have about how
to communicate (Pillet-Shore, 2011). For example,
if you want to start a conversation with a stranger,
your chances of success increase as you have more
options available. All it might take to get the conversational ball rolling is a self-introduction. In
other cases, seeking assistance might work well:
“I’ve just moved here. What kind of neighbourhood is the east end?” A third strategy is to ask a
question about some situational feature: “I’ve never
heard this band before. Do you know anything
about them?” You could also offer a sincere compliment and follow it up with a question: “Great
shoes! Where did you get them?” Just as a chef has
a wide range of herbs and spices to choose from, a
competent communicator can draw from a large
array of behaviours.
Adaptability
Having a large repertoire of possible behaviours is
one ingredient of competent communication, but
you have to be able to choose the right one for a
particular situation (Hendon et al., 2017). Communicators who are able to take another person’s perspective and adapt their communication
accordingly experience fewer interpersonal misunderstandings and are able to resolve conflicts
effectively (Edwards et al., 2017). Effective communication means choosing the right response for
the situation.
These choices include the channel you select
for a particular message too. Each of us has our
preferred modes of communication. Some preferences, such as use of social media, appear to be
influenced by age. Canadians aged 18 to 36 are
more likely to use Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram compared to adults who are 37 years of age
or older (Poushter et al., 2018). Communication
scholars suggest the willingness to embrace a variety of communication channels, referred to as
multimodality, makes us more effective as communicators (Chan, 2015). As we discussed ­earlier
in this chapter, choosing the best channel for
your message involves considering both content
and relational aspects of the message. As a rule
of thumb, more complex and personal messages
usually require richer and more synchronous
channels, such as face-to-face and phone conversations (Eden and Vesker, 2016). It is wise to
consider your recipient’s preferences and the context of the communication. For instance, in most
workplaces email, phone, and voicemail are still
traditionally preferred whereas texting and use of
social media may be considered inappropriate or
unprofessional, depending on the nature of the
work (DeClerq, 2018; Gale, 2017; Wayne, 2014).
Another component of adaptability is being able
to accept uncertainty and ambiguity sometimes.
Our desire for certainty and clarity in communication with others can make us uncomfortable in
31
32
Kali9/iStockphoto
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
­erson’s point of view (Davis
p
1983; Edwards et al., 2017). We’ll
discuss empathy and perspective
taking in more detail in Chapter 3. For now, it’s important to
understand that empathy and perspective taking are essential skills
because people may not always
clearly express their thoughts
and feelings. Using cognitive and
emotional processes to discover
more about others’ experiences
helps us communicate our interest in others, better understand
them, and respond appropriately.
Empathy has been associated
with enhanced personal relationWhich characteristics of competent communication might be most relevant ships and prosocial behaviour and
to these communicators?
can be increased through training (Teding van Berkhout and
unfamiliar situations where we’re unsure about
Malouff, 2016). Empathy has also
how to communicate. There are times you won’t been identified as possibly the most vital componknow which approach is best, and that’s to be ent of intercultural communication competence
expected. Communication scholars suggest that (Arasaratnam and Doerfel, 2005; Ni et al., 2015).
the ability to live with that uncertainty is an essential ingredient of intercultural communication
Cognitive Complexity
competence (Gudykunst, 1993).
Cognitive complexity is the ability to construct
a variety of different frameworks for viewing
Ability to Perform Skilfully
an issue. Imagine that a long-time friend never
Once you’ve chosen the best way to communicate, responded to the message you sent to her but you
you have to do it effectively. In communication, as expected a response. One possible explanation is
in other activities, practice is the key to skilful per- that she is offended by something you’ve done.
formance. Much of the information in this book Another possibility is that something has hapwill introduce you to new tools for communicat- pened in another part of her life that is upsetting.
ing, and the Skill Builder activities at the end of Or perhaps nothing at all is wrong and you’re just
each chapter will help you practise them. Patience being overly sensitive. Researchers have found that
and perseverance are required to develop your a large number of constructs for interpreting the
skills. It’s normal to feel disappointed in yourself behaviour of others leads to greater “conversational
for not doing as well as you had hoped with some sensitivity,” thereby increasing the chances of actskills but, as we’ll discuss in Chapter 2, it’s import- ing in ways that will produce satisfying results
ant to be patient and kind to yourself in order to (Burleson, 2007; Burleson and Caplan, 1998).
preserve and develop your skills.
Empathy and Perspective Taking
We are more effective communicators when we
try to understand and empathize with the other
Self-Monitoring
Psychologists use the term self-monitoring to
describe the process of paying close attention to
one’s own behaviour and using these observations
1 | Interpersonal Process
to shape the way one behaves. Self-monitors are
able to move a part of their consciousness outside
of themselves to observe their behaviour from a
detached viewpoint. In doing so, they’re able to
think such thoughts as these:
CHECK IT!
What are the characteristics of a competent
­communicator?
“I’m making a fool of myself.”
“I’d better speak up now.”
“This approach is working well. I’ll keep it up.”
need to be faithful to one’s true beliefs. Likewise,
an excess of empathy and cognitive complexity can
It’s no surprise that self-monitoring generally lead you to see all sides of an issue so well that you
increases one’s effectiveness as a communicator become incapable of acting. In other words, both a
(Day et al., 2002; Tyler 2008). The ability to ask deficiency and an excess can lead to incompetent
yourself the question, “How am I doing?” and to communication.
change your behaviour if the answer isn’t positive
How does your behaviour as an interpersonal
is a tremendous asset for communicators.
communicator measure up against the standards
Although the qualities we’ve discussed so of competence described in this chapter? Like most
far do play an important role in communicative people, you’ll probably notice some areas of your
competence, they can be ineffective when car- life that are very satisfying and others that you
­
ried to excess (Spitzberg, 1994). For example, too would like to change. As you read on in this book,
much ­self-monitoring can make a person so self-­ you’ll find that the information we provide in each
con­scious that the concern for appearance (“How chapter offers advice that can help your communido I sound?” “How am I doing?”) overshadows the cation become more productive and rewarding.
BUILDING WORK SKILLS
TAKING THE OTHER PERSON’S PERSPECTIVE WHEN SENDING MESSAGES
Have you ever received a telephone or email message that left you wondering what the sender wanted you to
do or why they wanted you to know what they had to say? A message may have been missing the most important information (e.g., the person’s name or phone number). Or a message may have had so much detailed,
irrelevant information that you couldn’t wade through it all. These kinds of messages are particularly frustrating at work. We have probably all received them and sent them. Often, we leave these messages before we
have really thought through our requests of others—before we have taken their perspective.
For this skill-building exercise, you need a partner from class. First, think about a need to communicate
with someone at your workplace or at school, a request to make or information to share. If you can’t think of
a real example, you and your partner can use one of the examples below:
• A colleague has asked you to switch shifts because she has an appointment. You are willing to do so, but
must get the permission of your supervisor. Leave a message for your supervisor.
• You have come down with some sort of illness and will have to miss class. You have a test and an assignment due. Leave a message for your teacher.
Jot down your message. Now, read your message from the point of view of the person you are leaving it
for. Is it complete? Is it well-organized? Will the recipient understand the context? Are there irrelevant details
that could be omitted? Have you told him or her what you want or why he or she needs to know? Once you’re
satisfied with your message, you can do one of the following: leave it on the voicemail of your partner from
class; email it to your partner; or just read it, uninterrupted, to your partner.
continued
33
34
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
Ask your partner to imagine he or she is the person you intended to send the message to. Your partner can
then give you some feedback about the quality of your message, particularly your ability to take the recipient’s
perspective.
SUMMARY
Communication is important for a variety of reasons. Besides satisfying practical needs, meaningful communication contributes to physical health,
plays a major role in defining our identity, and forms
the basis for our social relationships.
Communication is a complex process that can
be represented in a communication model. The
model we present in this chapter depicts how
communicators usually send and receive mes­
­
sages simultaneously. The meaning of these
messages resides in the people who exchange
them, not in the messages themselves. Environment and noise affect communication, as do the
channels we choose for sending our messages.
A variety of principles help explain how communication operates. Communication is transactional—
that is, it’s a dynamic process that people create
through interaction. Messages can be intentional
or unintentional, and they almost always have
both a content and a relational dimension. Once
expressed, messages cannot be withdrawn. Also,
communication is unrepeatable.
Interpersonal communication can be defined
quantitatively (by the number of people involved) or
qualitatively (by the nature of interaction between
them). In a qualitative sense, interpersonal relationships are unique, irreplaceable, interdependent,
intrinsically rewarding, and usually characterized by
self-disclosure. Qualitatively interpersonal communication is relatively infrequent, even in many close
relationships. While some research suggests that
computer-mediated communication (CMC) is more
impersonal than face-to-face communication, other
research shows that it can enhance interpersonal
relationships.
Increasing multiculturalism in Canada and
closer, globalized economic connections between
Canada and other nations compel us to look at
interpersonal communication in the context of cultural diversity. Intercultural communication is the
process by which people belonging to two or more
cultures share messages in a manner that is influenced by their different cultural perceptions and
symbol systems.
When we review interpersonal communication
research, it is important to keep in mind that the
majority of studies have been conducted in the
United States and, although Canadians and their
US counterparts are very similar in many respects,
they do differ in terms of some significant social
values. These include attitudes toward violence,
ethnic and cultural diversity, and the relative status
of men and women.
To understand the communication process,
it’s important that we recognize and avoid several
common misconceptions. Despite the value of
­self-expression, more communication is not always
better than less. In fact, there are times when
more communication can make problems worse.
Even at its best, communication is not a panacea
that will solve every problem. Effective communication is not a natural ability. While some people
have greater aptitude at communicating, everyone
can learn to interact with others more effectively.
Communication competence is the ability to
be both effective and appropriate—that is, to get
desired results from others in a manner that maintains the relationship on terms that are acceptable to everyone. There is no single ideal way to
­communicate. Flexibility and adaptability are characteristics of competent communicators, as is the
skillset that includes empathy and perspective taking. Also important to being a competent communicator are the abilities to utilize cognitive-complexity
skills and self-monitor. The good news is that communication competence can be learned.
1 | Interpersonal Process
MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
1.
Prolonged solitary confinement
5.
a. is only a negative experience for some
people.
b. is considered torture under the United
Nations Standard Minimum Rules.
c. is preferred to physical torture among
most prisoners.
d. has few if any long-term effects on humans.
2.
3.
6.
Transactional communication
a. is the dynamic process created by communicators interacting with each other.
b. suggests that the way you communicate
with others varies from person to person.
c. suggests that communication depends
on the involvement of a partner.
d. all of the above.
Virtually all messages have a content component and a relational component. How are
they different?
a. The content component refers to explicit
information in the message and the relational component refers to how you feel
about the message itself.
b. The content component refers to all
aspects of the message and the relational component only refers to how the
participants feel about the interaction.
c. The relational component refers to how
you feel about the other person and the
content component refers to the information that is explicitly discussed.
d. The content component refers to information that is explicitly discussed and
the relational component refers to the
­subtext.
Your friend said they were sorry after they
spilled coffee on your new top. You think
they’re insincere, but another friend thinks
the apology is genuine. This difference of
opinion best illustrates which insight from
the communication model presented in this
chapter?
a. Sending and receiving are usually simultaneous.
b. Different channels have different disadvantages.
c. Meanings exist in and among people.
d. Psychological noise affects communi­
cation.
4.
a. You can communicate many different
relational messages simply by saying,
“Thanks a lot.”
b. All behaviour has some communicative
value.
c. Some scholars argue that only intentional
messages qualify as a communication.
d. An ignored email is an example of
non-communication.
An example of physical noise is
a. worrying about an upcoming test.
b. daydreaming about a great party you
attended.
c. hearing loss.
d. feeling irritated by the person beside you
talking on their phone.
Which statement is false?
7.
Which statement is false?
a. An apology or explanation can be helpful,
but it can never erase the impression you
created.
b. Clear explanations can clear up a miscommunication to the point that it is the
same as if it had never occurred.
c. Every act of communication is unique.
d. The irreversibility of communication is
very evident in social media.
35
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
8.
Computer-mediated communication (CMC)
can enhance interpersonal communication in
certain contexts. However, it
a. can also interfere with the ability to
accomplish daily routines.
b. can create more opportunities for misunderstanding.
c. is associated with anxiety, loneliness,
and depression.
d. all of the above.
9.
Which of the following statements regarding
culture and interpersonal communication is
false?
a. When people from different backgrounds
interact, they face a unique set of
­challenges.
b. Members of co-cultures develop distinctive communication patterns.
c.
Sometimes, culture does not play a role
in communication.
d. It is more accurate to classify ­exchanges
as intercultural or free from cultural
­influences rather than viewing ­exchanges
as containing degrees of cultural
­significance.
10. Which of the following are characteristics of
competent communication?
a. Having a large repertoire of skills and
adaptability.
b. The ability to perform skilfully and with
empathy.
c. The ability to communicate with cognitive
complexity and self-monitoring.
d. All of the above.
Answers: 1. b; 2. c; 3. c; 4. d; 5. c; 6. c; 7. b; 8. d; 9. d; 10. d
36
ACTIVITIES
1. Invitation to Insight
How much time do you spend communicating?
Conduct an informal study to answer this question
by keeping a two-day log of your activities. Using
your findings, answer the following questions:
a. What percentage of your waking time is spent
speaking with and listening to others?
b. Using the explanation on pages 12–15 of this
chapter, describe what percentage of your entire
communication is qualitatively interpersonal.
c. How satisfied are you with your findings?
How would you like to change your everyday
­communication?
2. Critical Thinking Probe
As we discussed in this chapter, communication is
transactional—it is something we do with others
and not to them. How does face-to-face communication differ from mediated communication, such
as social media? Are they equally transactional?
Are they equally interpersonal?
3. Invitation to Insight
How competent are you as a communicator? You
can begin to answer this question by interviewing
different people who you trust and who will provide
you with some honest feedback (e.g., family members, friends, or co-workers). Conduct interviews
with a variety of people to determine if you are more
competent in some relationships than in others.
a. Describe the characteristics of competent
communicators outlined on pages 31–3 of this
chapter. Be sure your interviewee understands
each of them.
b. Ask your interviewee to rate you on each of the
observable qualities. (It won’t be possible for
others to evaluate internal characteristics, such
as cognitive complexity and s
­elf-monitoring.)
Be sure this evaluation considers your
communication in a variety of situations,
because it’s likely you aren’t uniformly
competent—or incompetent—in all of them.
1 | Interpersonal Process
c.
If your rating is not high in one or more areas,
discuss with your partner how you could raise
it.
d. Consider whether another person might rate
you differently. Why might this happen?
4. Skill Builder
Knowing how you want to communicate isn’t the
same as being able to do it competently. The
technique of behaviour rehearsal provides a way
to improve a particular communication skill before
you use it in real life. Behaviour rehearsal consists
of four steps:
a. Define your goal. Begin by deciding how you
want to behave.
b. Break the goal into the kinds of behaviour it
involves. Most goals are made up of several
verbal and non-verbal parts. You may be able
to define these parts by thinking about them
yourself, by observing others, by reading about
them, or by asking others for advice.
c. Practise each behaviour before using it in
real life. You can practise a new behaviour by
rehearsing it alone and then with others before
you put it into action. Another approach is to
picture yourself behaving in new ways. This
mental image can increase your effectiveness.
d. Try out the behaviour in real life. You can
improve your chances of success in two ways.
First, work on only one subskill at a time, and
start with easy situations. Don’t expect yourself suddenly to behave flawlessly in the most
challenging situations. Second, begin by practising your new skills in situations where you
have a chance of success.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1.
Why do humans communicate? Which reasons are most relevant to you?
2.
Why study interpersonal communication?
How might you benefit?
3.
Think of someone who you believe is an effective interpersonal communicator. Give examples
of the characteristics of competent communication that this person demonstrates.
4.
Give an example of each of the four communication misconceptions described in this chapter. How have these misconceptions affected
you?
5.
Is it important to consider interpersonal communication in the context of cultural diversity? Why or why not?
JOURNAL IDEAS
At the end of each chapter you will find a couple
of ideas to help you keep a reflective journal.
There is considerable evidence (Armarego,
2007; Bolton, 2005; Brown, 2009; Sinclair
and Woodward, 1997) that journal writing
helps students integrate theory into practice.
In order to become better at performing particular skills (communication skills, perhaps)
people need to reflect on, analyze, and critically
evaluate their current practice. We hope these
­ uestions stimulate the beginnings of such selfq
reflection.
1.
Review the misconceptions people have
about communication and describe an
example of each that you have experienced or directly observed.
2.
How does technology affect your interpersonal communication in positive and negative ways?
37
Communication and the Self
lechatnoir/iStockphoto
2
CHAPTER OUTLINE
Communication and the Self-Concept
How the Self-Concept Develops
Self-Concept Development in Context
Characteristics of the Self-Concept
The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy and Communication
Presenting the Self: Communication as Impression
Management
Public and Private Selves
Characteristics of Impression Management
Why Manage Impressions?
How Do We Manage Impressions?
Identity Management and Honesty
Disclosing the Self
Self-Disclosure Factors
Models of Self-Disclosure
Benefits and Risks of Self-Disclosure
Alternatives to Self-Disclosure
Silence and Secrecy
Lying
Equivocation
Hinting
The Ethics of Evasion
Guidelines for Self-Disclosure
Is the Other Person Important to You?
Is the Risk of Disclosing Reasonable?
Is the Self-Disclosure Appropriate?
Is the Disclosure Reciprocated?
Will the Effect Be Constructive?
KEY TERMS
benevolent lie
breadth
cognitive conservatism
collectivistic culture
depth
distorted feedback
equivocation
face
facework
impression management
individualistic culture
Johari Window
obsolete information
perceived self
presenting self
privacy management
reference groups
reflected appraisal
self-compassion
self-concept
self-control
self-disclosure
self-esteem
self-fulfilling prophecy
significant other
social comparison
social expectations
social penetration model
LEARNING OUTCOMES
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Describe the characteristics and development of the self-concept
Explain the influence of language, cultural values, and self-fulfilling prophecies in shaping the
self-concept
Analyze how the self-concept affects communication with others
Describe how people manage impressions in person and online to enhance their presenting image
Explain the characteristics of and reasons for self-disclosure
Explain the risks of, benefits of, guidelines for, and alternatives to self-disclosure
40
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
Who are you? Before reading on, take a few minutes
to try a simple experiment. First, make a list of the
10 words or phrases that describe the most important features of who you are. Some of the items on
your list may involve social roles (student, sibling,
parent). Some may be physical characteristics
(physically fit, tall, dark haired), others might refer
to abilities or dispositions (musical, inquisitive,
creative). Or perhaps you can best define yourself
in terms of moods, feelings, or attitudes (optimistic, critical, or energetic). You might consider your
social characteristics (outgoing, shy, or argumentative), or highlight belief systems (environmentalist, Buddhist, vegetarian, conservative). You could
include references to your work (blogger, barista,
student advisor). Finally, you could focus on particular skills (swimmer, carpenter, cook). In any
case, choose 10 words or phrases that best describe
you, and write them down. Next, re-order your list
from most fundamental to least fundamental to
your identity.
How do you feel after trying this exercise? Most
people find the experience a powerful one. They
say that it clarifies how each of the items selected is
fundamental to their identity and they gain a clear
picture of the parts of themselves they value and
the parts they’re unhappy with.
the most significant part of one person’s self-­
concept might consist of social roles, whereas for
another it might be physical appearance, health,
friendships, accomplishments, or skills.
Self-esteem is the part of the self-concept that
involves evaluations of self-worth. A communicator’s self-concept might include being quiet, argumentative, or serious. Their self-esteem would be
determined by how they felt about these qualities.
Our competence in doing things we value, such as
maintaining satisfying relationships, influences
how good we feel about ourselves, and, in turn, our
feelings of self-esteem influence how we approach
the things we do. As Figure 2.1 shows, people who
feel good about themselves have positive expectations about how they will communicate (Baldwin
and Keelan, 1999). Self-esteem depends on our
assessment of how well we do things that matter
to us. As we’ll discuss in the next few pages, other
people have a great deal of influence over the things
we value and our assessment of our worth. It’s
important to note that although high self-­esteem
has benefits it does not ensure interpersonal success. We have all encountered individuals with
what appears to be an inflated sense of self- worth,
who come across as conceited, condescending,
and generally irritating. The good news is that our
appraisals of ourselves, whether overly harsh or
much too generous, can be changed and a positive
Communication
yet realistic self-evaluation is a good starting point
for positive communication with others.
and the Self-Concept
The ability to be kind to yourself rather than
The list you just created offers clues about your overly critical has been identified as an importself-concept, that is, the relatively stable set of ant component of our self-concept (Neff, 2003).
perceptions you hold of yourself. One way to Self-compassion “involves being touched by
­
understand the self-concept is to imagine a special one’s own suffering, generating the desire to
mirror that not only reflects physical features, but alleviate one’s suffering and treat oneself with
also allows you to view other aspects of yourself—­ understanding and concern” (Neff, 2013, p. 28).
emotional states, talents, likes, dislikes, values, Self-­compassion is a tendency to be caring and
roles, and so on. The reflection in that mirror understanding rather than harshly critical of
would be your self-concept.
oneself. It requires acceptance that imperfection
Any description of your self-concept that you is part of our shared experience of being human.
constructed in this exercise is only a partial one. To It’s important to note that self-compassion is very
make it complete, you would have to keep adding different from self-pity because self-compassion
items until your list ran into hundreds of words. involves the acknowledgement that others have
Of course, not every dimension of self-concept that similar problems whereas self-pity exaggerates
you could list is equally important. For example, personal suffering. When a person engages in
2 | Communication and the Self
POSITIVE CYCLE
NEGATIVE CYCLE
High self-esteem
Low self-esteem
Positive thoughts
“I did well.”
Positive thoughts
“I can do it.”
Desirable behaviour
Negative thoughts
“I failed again.”
Negative thoughts
“I can’t do it.”
Undesirable behaviour
(e.g., gives up easily, won’t try)
FIGURE 2.1 The Relationship between Self-Esteem and Communication Behaviour
Source: Adapted from Johnson, H.M. (1998). How do I love me? 3rd edn (pp. 3, 5). Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing Co.
self-pity, they become so wrapped up in their own
problems they ignore their inter-connectedness
with other people and are unable to step back from
their situation to get a more objective perspective
(Neff, 2003). People who have self-compassion
have been found to be enjoy greater happiness,
cope with failure more constructively, be more
resourceful, be less susceptible to social anxiety
and negative body image problems, and enjoy
better health and improved relationships (Blackie
and Kocovski, 2018; Kelly and Stevenson, 2016;
Martin and Kennett, 2018; Neff and Beretvas,
2012; Yarnell and Neff, 2013; Wasyikiw, 2012).
You can learn to be less self-critical and more selfcompassionate (Neff and Germer, 2013; Smeets
et al., 2014). The questions in the self-compassion
assessment on page 42 can be used to help you
better understand this concept and the extent to
which you are compassionate with yourself.
Self-control is sometimes called self-regulation,
and it involves your ability to change your
thoughts, emotions, moods, impulses, or performance of some task in order to achieve a personal
goal or meet a social or cultural expectation
(Baumeister and Alquist, 2009). Self-control has
been associated with many positive outcomes,
including secure and satisfying relationships. The
most impressive evidence regarding the value of
self-control comes to us from a study done by
Yuichi Shoda, Walter Mischel, and Philip Peake
(1990), often referred to as the “marshmallow
experiment.” Four-year-old children were asked
to choose between getting one marshmallow im­
mediately or getting three marshmallows if they
were able to wait (delayed gratification), while in the
presence of that first marshmallow (temptation).
The children who displayed more self-control,
being able to wait for the larger reward, were, as a
group, more successful both socially and academically as adults than the children who were unable
to delay gratification. Additional studies have
demonstrated that higher levels of self-control
are associated with a variety of positive outcomes
including greater academic and occupational success, more positive and satisfying interpersonal
relationships, and greater happiness and life satisfaction (Baumeister and Tierney, 2011; de Ridder
et al., 2012; Hoffman et al., 2014; Moffitt et al.,
2011; Tangney et al., 2004). Now you may think,
“Well, I would have eaten that marshmallow.
I couldn’t wait.” Fortunately, self-control can be
developed—you can build self-control, strength,
and stamina. Practising self-control in one area
(e.g., engaging in an academic study program) can
help you develop self-control in other areas (e.g.,
exercising more or drinking less), but it is important to have a concrete, step-by-step plan that is
manageable and creates better habits (Oaten and
Cheng, 2006; Itzchakov et al., 2018; Uziel and
Baumeister, 2017).
41
42
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
SELF-ASSESSMENT
HOW MUCH COMPASSION DO YOU SHOW
YOURSELF?
Please read each statement carefully before
answering. To the left of each item, indicate how
often you behave in the stated manner, using the following scale:
Almost Never
1 2 3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Almost Always
4
5
When I fail at something important to me, I
become consumed by feelings of inadequacy.
I try to be understanding and patient towards
those aspects of my personality I don’t like.
When something painful happens, I try to take a
balanced view of the situation.
When I’m feeling down, I tend to feel like most
other people are probably happier than I am.
I try to see my failings as part of the human condition.
When I’m going through a very hard time, I give
myself the caring and tenderness I need.
When something upsets me, I try to keep my
emotions in balance.
8. When I fail at something that’s important to me,
I tend to feel alone in my failure.
9. When I’m feeling down I tend to obsess and fixate on everything that’s wrong.
10. When I feel inadequate in some way, I try to
remind myself that feelings of inadequacy are
shared by most people.
11. I’m disapproving and judgmental about my own
flaws and inadequacies.
12. I’m intolerant and impatient towards those
aspects of my personality I don’t like.
7.
Lower scores on items 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 12 and
higher scores on the remaining items (2, 3, 5, 6, 7,
and 10) indicate greater self-compassion.
SOURCE: Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K.D., and Van
Gucht, D. (2011). Construct and factorial validation
of a short form of the self-compassion scale. Clinical
Psychology and Psychotherapy, 18, 250–5.
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
SELF-CONTROL, SELF-COMPASSION, SOCIAL TEMPTATIONS, AND PROCRASTINATION
Most of us have been distracted or put something off
that we know we should be doing—maybe even reading this chapter! Procrastination is the voluntary delay
of important, necessary, and intended action despite
knowing there will be negative consequences for this
delay (Sirois and Pychyl, 2013). Many colleges and universities have student success programs that focus on
improving our time management skills, but research
suggests a different approach will probably work better.
Procrastination researcher Tim Pychyl and his colleagues have identified many of the challenges that
make us vulnerable to putting things off and suffering
for it (Pychyl and Sirois, 2016; Sirois and Giguire,
2018). They know we delay boring or difficult tasks
that have long-term payoffs and are not much fun for
more pleasant activities that are immediately rewarding, less because we failed to manage our time effectively than because we didn’t feel like doing the boring
or difficult thing. Socializing with others is something
that it is immediately rewarding for most people and
is very tempting when we’re working on a difficult,
boring, or frustrating task. We want to feel better so
we ditch the schoolwork and engage in social activities to improve our negative mood. We “give in to feel
good” (Pychyl and Sirois, 2016; Sirois and Giguire,
2018). The irony is we then feel bad about procrastinating! Rather than thinking about procrastination as a
time management problem, we’re better off thinking
about it as a challenge in regulating our emotions and
coping. It’s more correctly conceptualized as a test of
our self-control and our self-compassion. So, how do
we say “no” to the immediate gratification of socializing either in person or online when those temptations
are available 24/7?
Research suggests we can learn to tolerate and
modify the negative emotions we experience during
2 | Communication and the Self
tasks we would rather avoid and reduce our procrastination tendencies (Eckert et al., 2016). According
to Pychyl, who writes a very helpful procrastination
blog called “Don’t Delay” for Psychology Today, step
one involves becoming aware of the feelings of not
wanting to do something, but not “becoming” those
feelings—be non-judgmentally aware of them. For
instance, perhaps you don’t feel like reading the rest
of this chapter because you find it boring compared
to messaging and chatting with your friends. Period.
No judgment.
Step two involves figuring out the next action—I
have to put my phone down (maybe where I can’t hear
it and/or turn off alerts), open the book, and find the
place I left off reading. I can do that, I can open the
book and find that spot. Pychyl suggests you’ll again
have to acknowledge your whole body screaming that
TAKE TWO
• Self-concept: the relatively stable set of perceptions you hold of yourself.
• Self-esteem: the part of the self-concept that
involves evaluations of self-worth.
• Self-compassion: treating one’s self with kindness and concern when facing inadequacy or
suffering
• Self-control: the ability to change (one’s
thoughts, behaviours, emotions, etc.) in order
to conform to an expectation.
• Procrastination: the voluntary delay of important, necessary, and intended action despite
knowing there will be negative consequences
for this delay.
you don’t want to do that right now and the feeling
can be overwhelming but you just chip away. Stepby-step, acknowledge the emotions that are working
against you and continue to make tiny choices that
will propel you through the task at hand—one page
or section at a time for this chapter! Regulating those
negative emotions means acknowledging they exist
and then muscling through them in small manageable
steps to accomplish the task you would rather not do,
but ultimately need to get done
Finally, when you experience setbacks it’s important
to see them as a normal part of being human. Practise
self-compassion (but not self-pity) to lower your stress
rather than being overly self-critical (Sirois, 2014).
For more procrastination research and tips check out
Psychology Today’s “Don’t Delay” blog, https://www
.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/dont-delay
bodies that float into view, almost as if they were
strange objects belonging to someone else. Then the
connection is made, almost as if the child were realizing, “The hand is me,” “The foot is me.” These first
revelations form the child’s earliest concept of self.
As the child develops, this rudimentary sense
of identity expands into a much more complete
and sophisticated picture that resembles the self-­
concept of adults. This evolution is almost totally
a product of social interaction (Goodvin et al.,
2008; Schmidt, 2006). Two complementary theories describe how interaction shapes the way individuals view themselves: reflected appraisal and
social comparison (Harter, 2012; Sedikides and
Skowronski, 1995). Both of these processes happen
in face-to-face and online interactions with others.
Reflected Appraisal
How the Self-Concept Develops
Researchers generally agree that the self-concept
does not exist at birth (Kail and Barnfield, 2014). At
about six or seven months, children begin to recognize “self” as distinct from surroundings. If you
have ever watched children at this age, you’ve probably marvelled at how they can stare with great fascination at a foot, a hand, and other parts of their
Before reading on, try the following exercise. Either
by yourself or aloud with a partner, think of someone you know or once knew who helped enhance
your self-concept by acting in a way that made
you feel accepted, worthwhile, important, appreciated, or loved. For instance, you might remember a teacher who took time to encourage you, or
a grandparent who never criticized or questioned
your youthful foolishness.
43
44
© Zoe Waelchli
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
healthy self-concepts (Brown
et al., 2009). Along with family,
the messages from many other
significant others shape our
self-concept. A teacher from
long ago, a special friend or
relative, or even a barely known
acquaintance who “likes” something you’ve posted on social
media can all leave an imprint
on how you view yourself (Li et
al., 2018). Carol Dweck (2006,
2010) advises that when an
adult says things to children
such as, “I think you worked
hard to solve the problem,”
Self-concept starts developing when we’re only a few months old, but con- children understand that their
tinues into adulthood, largely due to social interaction. What interactions abilities to work hard and persist produce good results. As a
have you had in the past year that changed the way you saw yourself?
result, they are more likely to
show tenacity and perseverance
After thinking about this supportive person, when faced with the next challenge, and with this
think of someone who acted in either a big or small “growth” mindset they understand that they can
way to diminish your self-esteem. For instance, develop their abilities. On the other hand, if adults
you may have had a coach who criticized you in say, “You’re smart” when children solve probfront of the team, or one member of a group of lems, children are more likely to develop a “fixed”
friends who excludes you from group messages mindset. They may come to believe that people are
and makes excuses when you see pictures posted born with their abilities (e.g., intelligence) and no
online of social activities you were excluded from. amount of practice, perseverance, or effort is going
After thinking about these two types of people, to change the outcome. People with fixed mindyou should begin to see that everyone’s self-­ sets are more likely to quit after they’ve failed and
concept is shaped by reflected appraisal—that much less likely to take chances and tackle diffiis, perceptions of the judgments of those around cult projects because they believe that they do not
them. To the extent that you have received sup- possess the ability to be successful—they live up to
portive messages, you’ve learned to appreciate their fixed expectations and limit their opportunand value yourself. To the extent that you perceive ities for learning and growth.
critical signals, you’re likely to feel less valuable,
You might argue that not every part of your
lovable, capable, and secure (Lemay and Dudley, self-concept is shaped by others, that there are cer2009). Your self-concept can be seen, at least in tain objective facts recognizable by self-observation
part, as a product of the messages you’ve received alone. After all, nobody needs to tell you whether
throughout your life.
you’re taller than others, speak with an accent,
Social scientists use the term significant have curly hair, and so on. These facts are obvious.
other to describe a person whose evaluations are Indeed, some features of the self are immediately
especially influential. Messages from parents, of apparent. But the significance we attach to them—
course, are an early and important influence on the that is, the rank we assign them in the hierarchy
self-concept. Supportive parents are more likely of our list and the interpretation we give them—
than unsupportive ones to raise children with depends greatly on the opinions of others.
2 | Communication and the Self
Social Comparison
So far, we’ve looked at the way messages from other
people shape the self-concept. In addition to using
these messages, each of us forms our self-image by
the process of social comparison, by evaluating
ourselves in terms of how we compare with others
(Festinger, 1954; Wolf et al., 2018).
We decide whether we’re superior or inferior
and similar or different by comparing ourselves to
what social scientists call reference groups—others
against whom we evaluate our own characteristics.
You might feel ordinary or inferior in talent, friendships, or attractiveness if you compare yourself with
an unsuitable reference group. People differ in their
tendencies to compare themselves to others and
those with greater sensitivity to and awareness of
others experience more uncertainty and instability
regarding their self-concepts (Buunk and Gibbons,
2006; Vogel et al., 2015), particularly when comparing their abilities (Yang et al., 2018).
Comparing yourself with inappropriate reference groups, such as professional athletes, Mensa
geniuses, or billionaires, will likely make you feel
very ordinary or inferior in terms of your athleticism, intelligence, and personal wealth. Even comparing yourself to a more suitable reference group,
such as the social networking profiles of your
friends and acquaintances, can create unrealistic
expectations and unhappiness (Appel et al., 2016;
Chae, 2018; Chou and Edge, 2012; Qiu et al., 2012).
Social networking allows people to portray their
most idealized self-views—focusing on the positive
aspects of their lives, and leaving out all the imperfections that are inevitably part of being alive.
People who are more prone to social comparison
tend to spend more time passively browsing other
people’s profiles and are more susceptible to negative self-perceptions and greater unhappiness (Lee
2014; Verduyn et al., 2015; Vogel et al., 2015). For
example, a steady diet of browsing other peoples’
vacation photos, pics of joyous family celebrations,
and happy couples displaying their amazing accomplishments and flawless lives can convince you your
life and your achievements pale in comparison.
How often do we see pictures of others cleaning
their toilets, arguing with each other, ­feeling bored,
or completing tedious tasks? Not that we want to
necessarily see these things, but routine, possibly
mundane and downright unpleasant activities are
part of all our lives. Without complete, accurate
information about other people, it is easy to compare yourself to them negatively and feel like you’re
missing out (Morry et al., 2018). In addition, when
we’re not feeling good about ourselves we’re more
vulnerable to unfavourable social comparisons on
social media. Once you place yourself alongside a
truly representative and realistic sample, you have a
better chance of developing a more accurate understanding of yourself.
CHECK IT!
Describe the processes of reflected appraisal
and social comparison in the development of self-­
concept.
Self-Concept Development
in Context
Whose opinions about us matter the most? Which
reference groups are available to us for comparison? When we think about how the self-concept
develops, we need to consider forces that are larger than our family, friends, and immediate community members. Our identities are shaped by our
age and place in history, our gender identity, our
­sexual orientation, our physical ability or disability,
­cultural background, and the co-cultural groups
we belong to. These elements create the larger
social context in which our self-concepts develop.
Language and Identity
Some aspects of culture, such as language, have
obvious implications for shaping the way we think
and feel about ourselves. If you live in a culture
where everyone speaks the same language, then
language will have little noticeable impact on
how you view yourself and others. But what happens when some members of a society speak the
45
46
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
dominant language and others speak a minority
language or dialect? Speakers of a non-dominant
language can feel pressured to assimilate or they
can decide not to speak the majority language.
In either case, the impact of language on the self-­
concept is powerful. Comfort and confidence in
speaking a language increases the extent to which
people identify themselves with the language
group (Freynet and Clement, 2015), and speakers
of the dominant language have power and privilege that minority language speakers often do not
have (Rivest et al., 2017).
The issue of language and identity is evident
in Canada’s diverse multicultural society. It’s
strongly felt by two groups in particular: Indigenous peoples and francophone Canadians. The
residential school system, which was developed
in the late nineteenth century and existed until
the 1990s, is responsible for the loss of Indigenous languages and cultures. These schools separated Indigenous children from their families and
communities, prevented parents from contacting
their children, forced Indigenous children to learn
and use English or French, and forbade them from
using their ancestral languages. This was done
to break their connections to their culture and
identity (The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). In addition to enduring the
abuse of being forcibly separated from their families, Indigenous children lost their languages and
their traditions. Many Indigenous leaders assert
that the loss of Indigenous languages has caused
Indigenous peoples to lose their spirit as well.
The loss of hundreds of languages that have
already passed into history is an intellectual
catastrophe in every way comparable in magnitude to the ecological catastrophe we face today
as the earth’s tropical forests are swept by fire.
Each language still spoken is fundamental to
the personal, social, and—a key term in the discourse of indigenous peoples—spiritual identity
of its speakers. They know that without these languages they would be less than they are, and they
are engaged in the most urgent struggles to protect their linguistic heritage. (Prodanovic, 2013;
Zepeda and Hill, 1991)
Although the federal government has apologized for the atrocities committed by the residential
school system, the pain and loss of relationships,
culture, and identity remain a notorious legacy.
Knowing one’s language is a crucial component
of identity and at the time of the most recent census only 15.6 per cent of Canada’s North American First Nations, Métis, or Inuit peoples knew
an Indigenous language well enough to carry on
a conversation (Statistics Canada, 2016). Indigenous communities are working to revitalize their
languages, but the passing of Elders who have specialized grammatical and cultural knowledge seriously jeopardizes this work. In addition, limited
language resources and the social and emotional
barriers created by colonization have created additional challenges (Rosborough, 2017).
The preservation of the French language in Canada, particularly in Quebec, has created considerable controversy over the years. Perhaps the most
hotly debated measure was Bill 101. Under this
legislation, which was passed in 1977 by the Quebec National Assembly, the only language permitted on commercial signs was French, and the right
to attend an English-language elementary school
was severely restricted. Many Quebeckers believed
that, in order for francophone culture to survive,
the French language needed to be protected in an
increasingly English-speaking world. Since 1977,
several amendments to the legislation have helped
to ease some of the tensions between French and
English-speaking Quebeckers. Pro-French laws
have succeeded in preserving the language in Quebec. Almost all Quebeckers (95 per cent) maintain
a knowledge of French and four-fifths of the population speak French at home (Bourhis and Sioufi,
2017). As well, national polls have shown increased
support for bilingual policies (Jebwab, 2011). However, Francophones remain a linguistic minority in
North America and preserving a unique cultural
identity can be challenging in a world where English is increasingly the language of business and
commerce and the third most widely spoken language in the world, after Mandarin and Spanish
(McCarthy, 2018).
Even within a language system, the labels that
members of a co-culture use to define themselves
2 | Communication and the Self
can both reflect and help define their sense of
identity. For instance, personal pronouns like he/
him and she/her immediately summon meanings
we ascribe to female and male social categories
in our culture (Wood and Eagly, 2015). Although
people use the terms sex and gender interchangeably there is an important difference (Katz-Wise
and Hyde, 2014). Sex refers to biological characteristics, whereas gender refers to the social, behavioural, and psychological dimensions cultures
define as masculine and feminine. Rather than
a binary, two-category system (male or female),
researchers have identified gender as being more
fluid, multidimensional, and something embedded
in an individual’s experience (Rogers and Ahmed,
2017; Tobin et al., 2010). Identities such as gender
fluid or non-­binary aim to capture possibilities
other than male or female (Becker et al., 2017).
Our gender identities are our own internal sense of
being a woman, a man, both, neither, or anywhere
along the gender spectrum. In English, pronouns
are gendered and the traditional gender pronouns
she/her, he/him do not fit everyone’s gender identity. When requested, using non-binary pronouns
like they/them communicates respect for another
person’s identity. As researcher and scholar Lee
Airton (2018) points out, using they as a singular
pronoun can be difficult and stressful at first and
will probably take practice, but when you try to get
it right, and respect someone’s choice of pronoun,
you can have a profound effect on the well-being of
that individual. When we discuss confirming messages in Chapter 9, it will become increasingly clear
how fundamental this type of acknowledgement is
in creating a supportive tone in your relationships.
XiXinXing/iStockphoto
Cultural Values and Norms
How is a child practising her letters learning not only
how to write words, but learning a culture and identity
as well?
In addition to language, there are several cultural
values that shape our identities and our perceptions of others. Sometimes, they influence our
thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of ourselves
and others in ways we may not even be aware of.
We’ll examine several of these cultural differences
in Chapter 3, when we look at how culture shapes
our views of other people. In addition, we’ll look at
cultural differences in the use of language, silence,
and context in Chapter 6. While all these cultural
values influence our perceptions of ourselves and
others, the most powerful dimension of culture
on our identities is the emphasis different cultures
place on the importance of the individual versus
the importance of the group.
Members of an individualistic culture view
their primary responsibility as helping themselves,
whereas communicators in a collectivistic ­culture
feel loyalties and obligations to in-groups: extended
family, the community, or even the organization
(Hofstede, 2011). Individualistic cultures are also
characterized by self-reliance and competition,
whereas members of a collectivistic culture are
more attentive to and concerned with the opinions of others. The individualism–collectivism
47
48
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
dimension has been relied on most heavily to
examine and explain differences in communication patterns across cultures (Merkin, Taras, and
Steel, 2014).
Among the world’s most individualistic countries are the United States, Canada, Australia, and
the UK. Latin American (e.g., Colombia and Costa
Rica), Asian (e.g., South Korea and China), South
Asian (e.g., Pakistan and Indonesia), and Caribbean (e.g., Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago) cultures are generally more collectivistic (Hofstede,
1980, 2001, 2011). Table 2.1 summarizes some differences between individualistic and collectivistic
cultures.
The differences between individualistic and
collectivistic cultures show up in communication
patterns. For instance, people from more individualistic cultures tend to be more expressive,
straightforward, and direct in their communication; while people from more collectivist cultures
are likely to be more indirect and restrained in
their communication and use persuasion, silence,
ambiguity, and third-party communication in
order to preserve relationship harmony (Merkin
et al., 2014).
It must be noted that while cultural values of
individualism and collectivism describe general
TABLE 2.1
cultural differences between nations they are not
necessarily accurate when describing the values
or communication styles of specific individuals
within a culture or a nation. Sometimes there are
greater differences within cultures than between
them (Taras et al., 2016).
There are many other factors that influence
individuals’ values and their communication
styles, such as their personality, age, education
level, occupational status, political beliefs, and so
forth. This conceptualization of cultures differing,
in terms of the value placed on the individual versus the group, helps us to understand how groups
of people from different cultural backgrounds
might differ in terms of their conceptualizations
of themselves and their preferred communication
styles. However, it doesn’t help us know how to
communicate effectively with an individual—for
that we need to keep an open mind and remember
and apply the characteristics of competent communication, as described in Chapter 1.
Characteristics of the Self-Concept
Now that you have a better idea of how your
self-concept has developed, we can take a closer
look at some of its characteristics.
The Self in Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures
Aspect of Culture
Individualistic
Collectivistic
View of self in relation to
group
Separate, unique individual; should be
independent, self-sufficient
Part of extended families or in-groups;
“we” or group orientation
Care philosophy
Care for self and immediate family
before others
Care for extended family before self
Group membership
Many flexible group memberships;
friends based on shared interests and
activities
Emphasis on belonging to a very few
permanent in-groups, which have a
strong influence over the person
What is rewarded
Individual achievement, initiative, and
decision making
Contribution to group goals and
well-being; co-operation with in-group
members; group decision making
Credit and blame assignment
Individually assigned
Shared by the group
What is valued and admired
Autonomy, change, youth, individual
security, and equality
Duty, order, tradition, age, group
security, status, and hierarchy
2 | Communication and the Self
The Self-Concept Is Subjective
The way we view ourselves may be at odds with
other people’s perceptions—and often with the
observable facts (Simine and Carlson, 2010). For
instance, people are notoriously bad judges of their
own communication skills. A random sample of
men was asked to rank themselves on their ability to get along with others. Defying mathematical
laws, every subject put himself in the top half of the
population. Sixty per cent rated themselves in the
top 10 per cent of the population, and an amazing
25 per cent believed they were in the top 1 per cent.
In the same study, 70 per cent of the men ranked
the quality of their leadership in the top quarter
of the population, whereas only 2 per cent thought
they were below average. Sixty per cent said they
were in the top quarter in athletic ability, whereas
only 6 per cent viewed themselves as below average (Myers, 1980). These results are consistent with
people’s bias to overestimate their abilities and
rate themselves more favourably than others in a
wide variety of areas (Fay et al., 2012; Vazire and
­Carlson, 2010).
There are also times when we view ourselves
more harshly than the facts warrant. We have all
experienced a temporary case of the “uglies,” convinced we look much worse than others say we do.
Research confirms what common sense ­suggests—
people are more critical of themselves when they
are experiencing a negative mood than when
they’re feeling more positive (Brown and Mankowski, 1993; Cantazaro and Wei, 2010). Although
everyone suffers occasional bouts of self-doubt that
affect communication, some people suffer from
long-term states of excessive self-doubt and criticism,
reliably remembering when things went wrong,
and consistently forgetting when they went well
(Hardy et al., 2015; Howe and Dweck, 2016; Ng
and Abbott, 2016). This chronic self-doubt can of
course influence communication with others.
Self-evaluations can be distorted for several
reasons, including:
• Obsolete information Effects of past failures
in school or social relationships can linger long
after they have occurred even though they don’t
REFLECTION
INDIVIDUALS’ AND COLLECTIVISTS’
CULTURAL VALUES
Growing up in Canada, having immigrated from
China when I was six years old, I learned that
many of my family’s customs and traditions were
different from those of my friends at school. As a
child who loved playing sports, I quickly realized
that my friends who did not have Chinese heritage
identified as individuals in ways I did not. Sure,
everyone on our soccer, volleyball, and baseball
teams wanted to win, but many of my teammates
wanted to achieve their personal best for themselves as much or more than for the team. Growing up I had been explicitly taught that the team
was more important than any individual player. In
Chinese we have a different name for the private
or individual self (Xiao Wo, or “little me” or self)
and the self that belongs to the group or team
(Da Wo, or “big me” or the collective). In English
and French there is no real equivalent for the idea
of a collective self (Da Wo) and it took me a long
time to figure out how to navigate sports and have
attention paid to me as an individual player. Seriously, it took a while before I learned not to feel
deeply embarrassed if I won individual praise or
an award. I think my friends thought I was being
“fake modest” but it actually felt really awful to
stand out like that!
predict failure in the future. Likewise your past
successes don’t guarantee future success.
• Distorted feedback Overly critical remarks
from parents, classmates, teachers, employers,
or even rude strangers can have a lasting effect.
Other distorted messages may be overly positive. For instance, an administrator may claim
to be an excellent manager because her assistants pour on false praise in order to keep their
jobs.
• Perfectionism From the time most of us learn
to understand language, we are exposed to
models who appear to be perfect. The implicit
message is, “A well-adjusted, successful person
has no faults.” This naive belief in perfection
49
50
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
can distort our perceptions of ourselves and
others.
• Social expectations Curiously, we belong to a
society that rewards those people who downplay the strengths that we demand they possess.
We deem these people “modest” and find their
behaviour agreeable. We usually consider those
who show off their strengths as braggarts or
egoists, confusing them with people who boast
about accomplishments that they do not possess (Miller et al., 1992). This convention leads
most of us to talk freely about our shortcomings
while downplaying our accomplishments.
CHECK IT!
Thinkstock/Laikwunfai
Briefly describe how individualism and collectivism
influence the development of the self-concept and
interpersonal communication.
You might be a relaxed conversationalist with
people you know, but at a loss for words
with strangers. You might be patient when
explaining things on the job, but have no tolerance for such explanations at home. The self-concepts of most communicators react to these
changes (“I’m patient at work, but I’m not patient
at home”), and these changes affect self-esteem
(“I’m not as good a person at home as I am in
public”). We also change over the course of our
lives. Think back to the list of words and phrases
you chose to describe yourself at the beginning
of this chapter. How many were true 10 years ago
and how many do you think will be true 10 years
from now? It’s important to acknowledge changes
in our self-concepts even though it’s not always
easy, as we’ll see.
The Self-Concept Resists Change
A realistic self-concept should recognize the
way we’ve changed over time, but the tendency
to resist revision of our self-perception is strong.
A Healthy Self-Concept Is Flexible
Once we fasten onto a self-concept, the tendency
People change. From moment to moment, we is to seek out people who confirm it. Numerous
aren’t the same. We wake up in the morning in a studies (e.g., North and Swann, 2009; Stets and
jovial mood and become irritated by lunchtime. Cast, 2007) show that both university/college students and married couples with
high self-esteem seek out partners who view them favourably, whereas those with low
self-esteem are more inclined
to seek out people who view
them unfavourably. This tendency to look for information
that conforms to an existing
self-concept has been labelled
cognitive conservatism and
appears to hold true for people
in a variety of cultures (Church
et al., 2012). Understandably,
we’re reluctant to revise a
favourable self-concept. If you
were a thoughtful, romantic
partner early in a relationship,
it would be hard to admit that
How do perfectionism and social expectations relate to low self-esteem?
2 | Communication and the Self
TAKE TWO
Cognitive conservatism: the tendency to look for
information that conforms to an existing self-­
concept.
you might have become less considerate and
attentive lately. Likewise, if you used to be a serious student, it isn’t easy to admit that you’ve
slacked off recently. Curiously, the tendency to
cling to an outmoded self-perception holds even
when the new image would be more favourable.
For example, some of our former students still
view themselves as underachievers despite being
successful on several measures. Some people have
difficulty believing compliments about the person they’ve become (Kille et al., 2017). This sort of
cognitive conservatism fosters unnecessary doubt
and negative self-perceptions. These students can
become their own worst enemies, denying themselves the validation they deserve, and need, to
enjoy satisfying relationships.
Once the self-concept is firmly rooted, it
becomes more difficult to change. Research suggests that mindfulness, being non-judgmentally
aware of your immediate experiences, allows us
to have more flexibility in our self-concepts and
remain open to incorporating accurate messages
about who we are and how we’ve changed (Hanley
and Garland, 2017; Hanley et al., 2015).
The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
and Communication
The self-concept is such a powerful influence on
the personality that it not only determines how you
see yourself in the present, but also can actually
affect your future behaviour and that of others.
Such occurrences come about through a phenomenon called the self-fulfilling prophecy.
A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a person’s expectations of an event and their subsequent behaviour based on those expectations
make the anticipated outcome more likely to occur
(­Watzlawick, 2005). As you saw in the discussion surrounding Figure 2.1 this circular process
involves four stages:
1. Holding an expectation (for yourself or for
others)
2. Behaving in accordance with that expectation
3. The expectation coming to pass
4. Reinforcing the original expectation
Self-fulfilling prophecies occur all the time,
although you may never have given them that
label. For example, think of some experiences you
may have had:
• You expected to become nervous and botch a
presentation, and later did so.
• You’re nervous about seeing a person you’re
romantically attracted to at a party. You expect
they won’t notice or talk to you. You make very
little eye contact with anyone at the party and
end up feeling bad and leaving early.
In each of these cases, there’s a good chance that
the event took place as it did because you predicted
that it would. You needn’t have botched the presentation, and you might have had a better time at
the party if you hadn’t gone to it with such pessimism. In other words, what helped make each
event happen the way it did was your expectation
of things going a certain way.
Types of Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
There are two types of self-fulfilling prophecies.
Self-imposed prophecies are ones that influence
your behaviour. You’ve probably had the experience of waking up in a cross mood and saying
to yourself, “This will be a bad day.” Once you
come to such a conclusion, you’ll likely act in
ways that make it come true. If you avoid the
company of others because you expect they have
nothing to offer, your suspicions will have been
confirmed—nothing exciting or new is likely to
happen. On the other hand, if you approach the
51
52
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
same day with the idea that it could be a good
one, this expectation may well be met. Smile at
people, and they’re more likely to smile back.
Enter a class determined to learn something, and
you probably will. In these cases and other similar ones, your attitude has a great deal to do with
how you see yourself and how others see you.
For example, Jenna Clark and Melanie Green
(2018) discovered that people who expect online
communication to contribute to the growth of
their interpersonal relationships (Stage 1: holding an expectation) were more willing to engage
in relationship-building social processes such
as sharing information about themselves and
offering social support within their online communications (Stage 2: behaving in accordance
with that expectation). This in turn creates more
positive expectations for the interaction’s success
(Stage 3: expectation coming to pass), which in
turn reinforces their original expectation (Stage
4). These investigators suggest that our expectations about social media and interpersonal relationships influence the outcomes of our online
interactions.
A second category of self-fulfilling prophecy
is one that governs someone else’s actions. The
classic example was demonstrated by Robert
Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson in a study they
describe in their book Pygmalion in the Classroom (1968). The experimenters told teachers
that 20 per cent of the children in a certain elementary school showed unusual potential for
intellectual growth. The names of the 20 p
­ er cent
were drawn by means of a table of random numbers—much as if they were drawn out of a hat.
Eight months later, these unusual or “magical”
children showed significantly greater gains in
IQ than the remaining children, who had not
been singled out for the teachers’ attention. The
change in the teachers’ behaviour toward these
allegedly “special” children led to changes in
the intellectual performance of the randomly
selected children. Among other things, the
teachers gave the “smart” students extra time to
answer questions and provided more feedback
to them. These children did ­better, not because
they were any more intelligent than their classmates, but because their teachers (significant
others) communicated the expectation that they
could. In other words, it wasn’t just what the
teachers believed that made a difference, it was
how these beliefs were conveyed by the teachers’
behaviour.
Notice that it isn’t just the observer’s belief
that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy for the person who is the target of the expectations. The
observer must communicate that belief verbally
or non-verbally for the prediction to have any
effect.
CHECK IT!
The self-concept is subjective. Describe four reasons it can be distorted.
Influence of Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
The influence of self-fulfilling prophecies on
communication can be strong, acting either to
improve or to harm relationships. If you assume
that another person is unlikeable, you will probably act in ways that communicate your feelings. In such a case, the other person’s behaviour
will probably match your expectations, since we
usually do not go out of our way to be nice to
TAKE TWO
Self-fulfilling prophecy: occurs when a person’s
expectations of an event and her or his subsequent behaviour based on those expectations
make the outcome more likely than it would otherwise be. Such prophecies can be self-imposed
(influenced by your own behaviour) or governed by
the behaviour of others.
2 | Communication and the Self
© Zachary Kanin The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank
people who aren’t nice to us.
If, on the other hand, you treat
the other person as likeable,
the results will probably be
more positive.
The self-fulfilling prophecy
is an important force in interpersonal communication, but
we don’t want to suggest that it
explains all behaviour. There are
certainly times when the expectation of an event will not bring
it about. Your hope of drawing
an ace in a card game will not in
any way affect the chance of that
card turning up in an already
shuffled deck. Nor will your
belief that good weather is coming stop the rain from falling. In
the same way, believing you’ll do
well in a job interview when you’re clearly not qualified for the position is unrealistic. To connect the
53
self-fulfilling prophecy with the “power of positive
thinking” is an oversimplification.
BUILDING WORK SKILLS
THE SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY
Imagine yourself at work or school. Pretend you have to interact with someone (a customer, colleague, client,
supervisor, etc.) who has a reputation for being difficult. If you can’t imagine a situation, try one of the scenarios described below.
You are the assistant coach of a soccer team of eight-year-old girls and boys. The mother of a child on
your team has left you a voicemail to call her back. The last time you saw her, she accused your colleague, the head coach, of playing other children more frequently and not giving her child enough shifts.
She claimed the head coach didn’t know how to put together a winning team. In her message, she didn’t
say what she wanted to talk to you about.
You work at the returns counter of a major department store. There is a man in line whom you saw a colleague assist last week. At that time, he attempted to return a pair of pants that he had bought a month
earlier and had worn and washed. He said he didn’t like the style and it didn’t suit him, and he wanted
a full refund. He yelled at your colleague and accused him of being incompetent when he explained that
the store’s policy did not allow such returns. You have to serve this man next.
List the ways in which your prior knowledge of this person might negatively affect your perception of her or his
communication. How might your expectations influence your communication? What could you do to reduce the
effects of the self-fulfilling prophecy in this situation?
54
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
silverkblack/iStockPhoto
Public and Private Selves
Do you think it’s dishonest for people to have public
selves and private selves?
Presenting the Self:
­Communication as
Impression Management
So far, we’ve described how communication
shapes the way communicators view themselves.
Now we turn the tables and focus on the topic of
impression management—the communication
strategies that people use to influence how others
view them. In the following pages, you will see
that many of our messages are aimed at creating
desired impressions.
To understand why impression management
exists, we have to discuss the notion of self in more
detail. So far, we’ve referred to the self as if each of
us had only one identity. In truth, however, each
of us possesses several selves, some private and
others public. These selves are often quite different.
The perceived self is the person you believe
you are in moments of honest self-examination.
The perceived self may not be accurate in every
respect. For example, you may think you’re much
more (or less) empathetic than an objective test
would suggest. Accurate or not, the perceived self
is powerful because we believe it reflects who we
are. The perceived self is called “private” because
you’re unlikely to reveal all of it to another person.
You can verify the private nature of the perceived
self by thinking of elements of your self-perception
that you would not disclose. For example, you
might be reluctant to share some feelings about
your appearance (“I think I’m rather unattractive”), your goals (“The most important thing to me
is becoming rich”), or your motives (“I care more
about myself than about others”).
In contrast to the perceived self, the presenting
self is a public image—the way we want to appear
to others. In most cases, the presenting self we
seek to create is a socially approved image: diligent student, loving partner, conscientious worker,
loyal friend, and so on. Sociologist Erving Goffman (1959, 1983) uses the word face to describe
this socially approved identity, and he coined the
term facework to describe the verbal and non-­
verbal ways in which we act to maintain our own
presenting image and the images of others. (See
Chapter 9 for more on presenting self and face.)
He argues that each of us can be viewed both as a
kind of playwright who creates roles that we want
others to believe and as the performer who acts out
those roles. Goffman (1983) suggests that each of
us maintains face by putting on a front when we
are around others we want to impress. In contrast,
behaviour in the back region—when we’re alone—
may be quite different. You can recognize the difference between public and backstage behaviour by
remembering a time when you observed a driver,
2 | Communication and the Self
TAKE TWO
• Perceived self: the person you believe yourself
to be in moments of honest self-examination;
physical traits, personality characteristics,
attitudes, aptitudes, and all other parts of the
image you want to present to the world
• Presenting self: a public image, the way you
want to appear to others.
• Face: your socially approved identity; different
selves we present to different people.
• Facework: the verbal and non-verbal ways in
which you act to maintain your own presenting
image and the images of others.
alone in their car, behaving in ways that would
never be acceptable in public. All of us engage
in backstage ways of acting that we would never
exhibit in front of others. Just think about how
you behave in front of the bathroom mirror when
the door is locked, and you’ll appreciate the difference between public and private behaviour. If you
knew someone was watching, would you behave
­differently?
Characteristics of Impression
Management
Now that you have a sense of what impression
management is, we can look at some characteristics of this process.
We Strive to Construct Multiple Identities
It’s an oversimplification to suggest we use impression-management strategies to create just one
identity. In the course of even a single day, most
people play a variety of roles: “respectful student,”
“joking friend,” “friendly neighbour,” and “helpful
co-worker,” to suggest just a few. We even play a
variety of roles around the same person. As you
grew up, you almost certainly changed characters
as you interacted with your parents. In one situation, you acted as the responsible adult (“You can
trust me to look after our place while you’re away”)
and at another time you were the helpless child (“I
can’t find my socks!”). At certain times—perhaps
on birthdays or holidays—you were a dedicated
family member, and at other times you may have
played the role of rebel. Similarly, research suggests
people utilize different aspects of traditional femininity and masculinity as parts of their identities,
highlighting or minimizing different traits in different situations (van Breen et al., 2017).
The ability to construct multiple identities is
one element of communication competence and
well-being. Each of us constructs multiple identities, many of which may be independent and even
conflicting, in order to feel good about ourselves
and to maintain a sense of belonging (Vignoles
et al., 2006). Multiple identities are integral to
existing and communicating in society, but
they’re not without some challenges—particularly if one of those identities feels imposed on
you. The challenges of a more fluid identity are
apparent for many Indigenous Canadians who
frequently negotiate between the “traditional”
and “non-traditional” elements of their unique
heritage and contemporary culture (Friederers,
2006). Newcomers to Canada face unique multiple identity challenges too. For example, how do
you retain your cultural heritage and also identify with mainstream Canadian society? Research
suggests newcomers who are able to balance
their multiple identities achieve greater levels of
well-being than either those who abandon their
cultural heritage or those who fail to embrace
Canadian culture, or those who feel they don’t
belong or identify with either culture (Berry and
Hou, 2016; Jedwab, 2013, 2016). A positive sense
of self that incorporates all the multifaceted components of our identities (e.g., our various cultures, co-cultures and ethnicities, race, gender
identity, sexuality, disabilities, and body image,
etc.) enhances self-confidence and self-esteem,
which are protective factors when facing discrimination (Ai et al., 2014; Forber-Pratt and
Zape, 2017; Kelly et al., 2004; Schafer and Ferraro,
2011; Sellers et al., 2003). It might be tempting to
regard some of your identities as more “real” than
others, but it’s more accurate to recognize that all
of them are you in various roles. Communication
55
56
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
researchers argue that differentiating between
“fake” and “real” selves is counterproductive
(Tracy and Trethewey, 2005). Instead, it’s healthier
to recognize that competent communicators are
multifaceted people with a variety of roles and
identities—all of which are you.
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
HOW LIVING ABROAD CAN INCREASE SELF-CONCEPT CLARITY
It is a truism that the world is increasingly interconnected. Colleges and universities are actively
recruiting more international students and companies
frequently locate their offices throughout the world.
As a result, more and more individuals have experienced living abroad. This prompted Hajo Adams and
his colleagues (2018) to wonder how living in a foreign country for a significant amount of time (not just
visiting) affects the development of the self-concept.
Specifically, Adams and his colleagues (2018)
were interested in learning more about how experi­
ences living abroad affected the structure, rather than
the content, of people’s self-concept. The structural
component they examined was self-concept clarity,
which refers to the ways in which people’s knowledge
about themselves is organized. Individuals high in
self-concept clarity have a clear sense of who they
are. They’re confident about their identities—their
skills, beliefs, and the nature of their personalities.
They know who they are, remain consistent over time,
and do not have beliefs that conflict with each other.
People with high levels of self-concept clarity are less
susceptible to depression, anxiety, and stress; are
more likely to use effective coping strategies when
dealing with life’s challenges; and enjoy better relationship quality when compared to those with less
self-concept clarity (Bigler et al., 2001; Campbell
et al., 2003; Lewandowski et al., 2010).
Previous research found that transitional experiences such as a change in job or romantic partner
tend to decrease self-concept clarity (Light and Visser, 2013; Slotter et al., 2010). In contrast, Adams
and his colleagues (2018) discovered that living
abroad is a rare kind of transitional experience that
increases self-concept clarity. They conducted a series of six studies involving 1,874 participants all of
which provided evidence that individuals who had
lived abroad reported higher self-concept clarity than
those who had not or those who had signed up to live
abroad but who had not yet done so. After controlling for personality factors and possible self-reporting
biases, they concluded that living abroad increased
self-concept through self-discerning reflections. So,
what is self-discerning reflection?
When living in a foreign culture people have a
unique opportunity to examine parts of their identities and determine the extent to which these are
reflections of their cultural upbringing or truly things
that define them. Living in a different culture provides
a contrast, which helps make your own cultural values and beliefs more visible. When you’re immersed
in the norms and values of your own culture they’re
often invisible, but when you’re surrounded by different norms and values there are opportunities for
self-examination and self-questioning. Adams and his
colleagues (2018) give the example of a German person who is punctual, something valued in German
culture. When living in a culture that does not value
punctuality this person is forced to reflect on their
beliefs about punctuality—is it an important part
of their identity or is it a remnant of their upbringing
that can easily be discarded? Living abroad provides
a multitude of opportunities for this type of self-­
examination and as a result, individuals’ self-concepts
come into sharper focus. Adams and his colleagues
(2018) conclude their research paper by quoting
­German philosopher Hermann von Keyserling who, in
1919, observed that, “The shortest path to oneself
leads around the world.”
Critical thinking: Can you think of a time when some
aspect of your cultural upbringing came into sharper
focus because you were exposed to a different culture? Do you think there are ways, other than living
abroad, to gain perspective on the structure of your
self-concept? What might they be and how might they
work in developing self-concept clarity?
2 | Communication and the Self
As we perform our multiple identities, our audience is made up of other actors who are trying to
create their own characters. Identity-related communication is a kind of process theatre in which we
improvise scenes where our character reacts with
others. For example, perhaps you try to present
yourself as easygoing and funny by joking about
something that has gone wrong, but your partner
does not see the humour or the appropriateness of
a relaxed approach. Your partner’s response may
well elicit another version of yourself.
Virtually all conversations provide an arena
in which communicators construct their identities in response to the behaviour of others. As we
saw in Chapter 1, communication is not made up
of discrete events that can be separated from one
another. Instead, what happens at one moment is
influenced by what each communicator brings to
the interaction and by what had happened in their
relationship up to that point.
Identity Management Can Be Deliberate
or Unconscious
s­ ympathetic in response to another’s message) only
in face-to-face settings, when their expressions can
be seen by the other person. When they’re speaking over the phone and their reactions cannot be
seen, they don’t make the same expressions (Chovil,
1991). Studies like these suggest that much of our
behaviour is aimed at sending messages to others—
in other words, is identity management.
You can see by now that much identity management is unconscious. The experimental subjects
described by Brightman and colleagues didn’t consciously think, “Somebody is watching me eat this
salty sandwich so I’ll make a face” or “Since I’m
in a face-to-face conversation, I’ll show I’m sympathetic by mimicking the facial expressions of
my conversational partner.” Decisions like these
are often made instantaneously and outside of our
conscious awareness.
It seems an exaggeration to suggest that all
behaviour is aimed at making impressions. Young
children are certainly not strategic communicators.
Babies spontaneously laugh when they’re pleased
and cry when they’re sad or uncomfortable, without any notion of creating an impression on others.
Likewise, there are almost certainly times when we
as adults act spontaneously. On the whole, however, impression management strategies influence
our communication.
There’s no doubt that sometimes we’re highly aware
of managing the impressions we create. Most job
interviews and first dates are
clear examples of deliberate
identity management. But in
other cases, we unconsciously
act in ways that are performances for others. For example,
in a classic experiment, participants expressed facial disgust
in reaction to eating sandwiches laced with a supersaturated solution of salt water only
when there was another person
present; when they were alone,
they made no faces upon eating the same snack (Brightman
et al., 1975). Another study
showed that communicators engage in facial mimicry
What are some advantages and disadvantages of managing your identity?
(such as smiling or looking
bogdankosanovic/iStockphoto
Identity Management Is Collaborative
57
58
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
People Differ in Their Degree
of Identity Management
Some people are much more aware of their
­identity-management behaviour than others (Kopp,
1988; Snyder, 1979). There are advantages to being
able to effectively self-monitor and adjust our communication. People who pay attention to themselves are generally able to handle social situations
smoothly, often putting others at ease. They are
also good “people readers” who can adjust their
behaviour in response to others (Flynn et al., 2006).
Along with these advantages, there can be drawbacks to being an extremely high self-monitor (Leone
and Hall, 2003; Leone and Hawkins, 2006; Oyamot
et al., 2010). Such people’s analytical nature may
prevent them from experiencing events completely,
since part of their attention will always be taken up
with viewing the situation from a detached position.
High self-monitors’ ability to act makes it difficult
to tell how they’re really feeling. For example, high
self-monitors have been observed to manipulate
their Facebook profiles in order to appear more
extroverted, happy, and popular when compared to
lower self-monitors (Hall and Pennington, 2013). In
fact, because high self-monitors change roles often,
they may have a hard time themselves knowing
how they really feel. By contrast, low self-monitors
express what they’re thinking and feeling without
paying much attention to the impression they create.
While they may be more in touch with their feelings,
their reactions may not help them to achieve their
desired outcomes in some interpersonal situations.
By now, it should be clear that neither extremely
high nor low self-monitoring is the ideal. There are
some situations when paying attention to yourself
and adapting your behaviour can be useful, and other
times when reacting without considering the effect
on others is a better approach. This need for a range
of behaviour demonstrates once again the notion of
communicative competence, as outlined in Chapter
1—flexibility is the key to successful relationships.
Why Manage Impressions?
Why bother trying to shape the opinions of others?
Sometimes, we create and maintain a front to follow social rules.
Social rules govern our behaviour in a variety of
settings. For example, ridiculing or humiliating a
friend or family member in public is a violation of
fundamental social rules regarding saving others’
face. Expressing your boredom when a close friend
is describing their extreme distress about a recent
experience violates our understanding of friendship. More superficially, chewing with your mouth
open, clearing your throat, or belching loudly
without saying “excuse me,” picking your nose,
and spitting in public are all social rule violations
in mainstream Canadian society and violating
these rules may not be in your best interest. Other
times, being completely open about our identities
may create risks we will discuss a bit later in this
chapter.
CHECK IT!
Describe four characteristics of impression
management.
Even when social roles do not dictate the
proper way to behave, we often manage the
impression we create for personal reasons or to
achieve relational goals. You might, for example,
dress up for a visit to traffic court in the hope that
your front (responsible citizen) will persuade the
judge to treat you sympathetically. You might
act in a more friendly and lively way than you
feel when you meet someone new so that you’ll
appear likeable. In situations like these, you
aren’t being deceptive as much as “putting your
best foot forward.”
All these examples show that it is difficult—
perhaps even impossible—not to create impressions. After all, you’re always sending some sort of
message.
How Do We Manage Impressions?
How do we create a public face? In our technological age, which provides many options for communicating, the answer depends in part on the
communication channel chosen.
2 | Communication and the Self
In face-to-face interaction, communicators can
manage their front in three ways: with their
manner, their appearance, and the setting. Manner consists of a communicator’s words and
non-verbal actions. Your manner plays a major
role in shaping how others view you. In Chapters 6 and 7, we describe in detail how words and
non-verbal behaviour create impressions. Since
you have to speak and act, the question is not
whether or not your manner sends a message,
but rather whether or not these messages will be
intentional.
Along with manner, a second dimension of
identity management is appearance—the personal
items people use to shape an image. Sometimes,
appearance is part of creating a professional image.
A physician’s white lab coat and a police officer’s
uniform set the wearer apart as someone special.
A tailored suit and a rumpled outfit create very different impressions in the business world. Off the
job, clothing is just as important. We choose clothing that sends a message about ourselves: “I’m stylish,” “I’m sexy,” “I’m athletic,” and a host of other
possible messages.
A final way to manage impressions is through
the choice of setting—physical items we use to
influence how others view us. In the car culture
of modern Western society, the automobile is a
large part of identity management. This explains
why many people lust after cars and trucks that
are far more expensive and powerful than they
really need. A sporty convertible or a powerful
pickup truck doesn’t just get a driver from one
place to another; it also makes a statement about
the kind of person they are. The physical setting
we choose and the way we arrange it is another
important way to manage impressions. What
colours do you choose for the place you live?
What artwork is on your walls? What music do
you play? If possible, we choose a setting that we
enjoy, but in many cases, we create an environment that will present the desired front to others.
If you doubt this fact, just remember the last time
you straightened up your place before guests
arrived.
Impression Management in Mediated
­Communication
Impression management is just as pervasive and
important in mediated communication.
At first glance, the technology of mediated communication seems to limit the potential for identity management. Texting and email, for example,
appear to lack the richness of other channels. They
don’t convey the tone of your voice or your posture, gestures, or facial expression. What is missing
in mediated communication can actually be an
advantage for communicators who want to manage
the impressions they make (Pelled et al., 2017).
When sending electronic messages, people can
choose their level of clarity or ambiguity, seriousness or humour, logic or emotion. The asynchronicity of electronic correspondence allows a sender
to say difficult things without forcing the receiver to
respond immediately, and it permits the receiver
to ignore a message rather than give an unpleasant response. Options like these show that mediated communication can serve as a tool for identity
management at least as well as the face-to-face variety (Tong and Walther, 2011; Lane, 2018). Part of
Snapchat’s appeal is that it involves less impression
management because photos and videos vanish in
a few seconds, unlike other social media platforms
Liza Donnelly The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank
Face-to-Face Impression Management
59
60
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
where pictures and videos can be repeatedly scrutinized and shared with an unintended audience.
Social networking platforms such as Facebook,
Twitter, and Instagram allow users to manage their
impressions (Levordashka and Utz, 2017). Consider how featuring or withholding the following
kinds of information affects how people might
regard your online profile: age, photo, educational
or career accomplishments, sexual orientation, job
title, interests, personal philosophy and religious
beliefs, and organization affiliations. You can easily think of a host of other kinds of material that
could be included or excluded, and the effect
that each would have on how others regard you.
Content you choose to share on social media may
be influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by the
extent to which you are managing impressions.
For instance, one study found that when individuals wanted to fit in with group tastes they shared
less unique music and movies but when they were
trying to present their best possible selves, they
tended to share more prestigious music and films
(Johnson and Ranzini, 2018). When undergraduate Facebook users were asked how they think they
come across in their profiles most acknowledged
that their presentations were highly positive, but
not too positive (Toma and Carlson, 2015). Overly
positive self-authored content about one’s self
(bragging) is perceived negatively in mediated
communication (Scott and Ravenscroft, 2017), as it
is in face-to-face interactions. Viewing your online
presence from another perspective can be a valuable impression management exercise. Depending
on what you discover when you enter your name in
a search engine; you may decide to engage in some
“reputation management” (Osborn et al., 2016).
You may want to change your privacy settings,
customize who can see certain updates, and delete
unwanted information.
Identity Management and Honesty
At first, identity management might sound like
an academic label for manipulation or phoniness.
And there certainly are situations where impression management is dishonest. A manipulative
date who pretends to be affectionate or thoughtful
in order to gain sexual favours is clearly unethical
and deceitful. So are job applicants who lie about
their academic records to get hired or salespeople
who pretend to be dedicated to customer service
when their real goal is to make a quick buck.
Online deception is common—indeed most
people believe other people lie, at least sometimes,
online (Hancock and Woodworth, 2013; Toma
et al., 2016). Lies about appearance tend to be most
expected, but people also expect others to lie about
their age, interests, and activities. On sites with
greater anonymity (e.g., anonymous chatrooms
and hook-up apps), people suspect others will lie
about their gender. People admit they’re not always
honest online in order to protect their privacy or
appear more attractive. A common justification
for lying in mediated communication is “everyone
lies online” (Drouin et al., 2016). In more extreme
cases people have been lured into a relationship
(catfished) by someone who has created a completely fictional persona online.
But not all cases of identity management are so
clearly wrong. In a job interview, is it legitimate
to appear more confident and reasonable than you
really feel? Likewise, in a boring conversation are
you justified in being more attentive than you feel
like being, out of courtesy to the other person? And
are there times you would be foolish to provide
complete and truthful information online? Managing your online identity helps to protect your
privacy and security. Situations like these suggest
that managing impressions doesn’t necessarily
make you a liar. In fact, it is almost impossible to
imagine how we could communicate effectively
without making decisions about which front to
present in one situation or another. Each of us has
a repertoire of faces—a cast of c­haracters—and
part of being a competent communicator is to
choose the best role for a situation. It’s an oversimplification to say that there is only one honest
way to behave in each circumstance and that every
other response would be insincere and dishonest.
Instead, identity management involves deciding
which face—which part of yourself—to reveal.
Which face to show to others is an important decision, but, in any case, you are sharing a real part
of yourself.
2 | Communication and the Self
CHECK IT!
What are the advantages and disadvantages of
mediated communication for identity management?
Disclosing the Self
What we share about ourselves and what we keep
hidden is part of impression management. So
what constitutes self-disclosure? You might argue
that aside from secrets, it’s impossible not to make
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
RECOGNIZE THE PERSON FIRST
According to the Rick Hansen Foundation (2018), one
in seven Canadians has a disability and that number
will rise to one in five in 2036. Yet disability is something many of us do not think about too much. By now,
it’s probably apparent that our identities are social
constructions. How and what we choose to include in
our identities depends a great deal on the social concepts and perspectives available to us. For people
with disabilities, who face barriers to participation in
daily activities, the impact of societal perspective on
how identity is constructed is often obvious.
For decades, North American society understood
the concept of disability from an exclusively medical
perspective—disabilities have been characterized
as illnesses and dysfunctions residing within individuals. This perspective has perpetuated an “ableist”
worldview that most of us are so immersed in we
don’t even see. From the ableist perspective, certain
abilities are essential to function in the world and if
somehow you don’t have those abilities then you are
disabled. From this perspective, the person with the
disability should strive toward the able-bodied norm
(Pena et al., 2016). More informed thinking flips this
social construction around. People’s impairments
only create disabilities in situations where attitudes
and the environment are not supportive. Impairment
is only a disability when there are disabling environmental factors (e.g., lack of ramps and elevators,
documents not accessible to a screen reader, no
hearing aids, wheelchairs or prostheses, etc.) (Pena
et al., 2016). Changes to the physical environment,
innovations in assistive technologies, inclusive policies, and initiatives to make the world more accessible have gone a long way to remove barriers in the
physical environment. Still, changing people’s mindsets and attitudes has proven challenging.
Changing attitudes is no easy task but changing
our language is one way to start. Using “person first”
language when referring to a person who has a disability recognizes the person first and the disability
second. For example, referring to someone as a “person who uses a wheelchair” puts the person first and
describes the type of disability they have, whereas
“wheelchair-bound person” uses a person’s disability
as a means to describe their identity.
Because people with disabilities comprise such a
large and diverse group, this approach is not everyone’s preference. Some people identify strongly
and proudly with their disability and the community of activism that gives them strength (Pulrang,
2017). They prefer to reclaim the term “disabled” to
describe themselves and to build a common culture
and empower themselves. There is evidence that for
people with certain disabilities (e.g., multiple sclerosis) embracing their disability as part of who they
are predicts better overall well-being (Bogart, 2015).
It’s important to note that they refer to themselves as
disabled but that doesn’t necessarily mean they want
others to do the same. Using “person first” language
is a more respectful approach, unless you’re directed
otherwise.
Disability is the one identity category we will all
embody if we live long enough (Dolmage, 2014). It’s
in all our best interests to both conceptualize and
create a world that is inclusive and accessible for all.
Critical thinking: Do you think the ways we describe
and refer to each other in casual conversation have
an effect on our self-concepts? Why or why not? How
are language, culture, and the physical environments
we live in similar or different in helping us define ourselves?
61
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
yourself known to others. After all, every time you
open your mouth to speak, you’re revealing your
tastes, interests, desires, opinions, beliefs, or some
other bit of information about yourself. Even when
the subject is not a personal one, your choice of
what to talk about tells the listener something
about who you are. In Chapter 7, we’ll discuss the
fact that each of us communicates non-verbally.
If every verbal and non-verbal behaviour
in which you engage is self-revealing, how can
self-disclosure be distinguished from any other
act of communication? Psychologist Paul Cozby
(1973) suggests that for communication to be considered self-disclosing, it must contain personal
information about the sender and be purposefully
communicated verbally to another person.
Depth
A self-disclosing statement is generally regarded
as being personal—containing relatively “deep”
rather than “surface” information. Of course, what
is personal and intimate for one person may not
be for another. You may feel comfortable admitting your spotty academic record, short temper, or
fear of spiders to anyone who asks, whereas others
would be embarrassed to do so. Even basic demographic information, such as age, can be extremely
personal for some people.
Availability of Information
Although this definition is a start, it ignores the fact
that some messages intentionally directed toward
others are not especially revealing. For example,
telling an acquaintance, “I don’t like clams” is quite
different from announcing, “I don’t like you.” Let’s
take a look at several factors that further distinguish
self-disclosure from other types of communication.
Self-disclosing messages must contain information
that the other person is not likely to know at the
time or to be able to obtain from another source
without a great deal of effort. For example, describing your recent relationship break-up might feel like
an act of serious disclosure because the information
concerns you, is offered intentionally, is honest and
accurate, and is considered personal. However, if
the other person could obtain that information elsewhere without much trouble—from social media or
mutual friends, for example—your communication
might not be as revealing as you think.
Honesty
Context of Sharing
Self-Disclosure Factors
It almost goes without saying that true self-­ Sometimes, the self-disclosing nature of a statement
disclosure has to be honest. It’s not revealing to say, comes from the setting in which it is uttered. For
“I’ve never felt this way about
anyone before” to every Saturday night date, or to preface
every lie with the statement
“Let me be honest . . .”
As long as you are honest
and accurate to the best of
your knowledge, communication can qualify as an act of
self-disclosure. On the other
hand, painting an incomplete
picture of yourself (telling
only part of what is true) is not
genuine disclosure. We’ll talk
more about the relationship
between honesty and discloIf as little as 2 per cent of our communication qualifies as self-disclosure, how
sure later in this chapter.
do we get to know one another?
Motortion/iStockphoto
62
2 | Communication and the Self
instance, relatively innocuous information about
family life seems more personal when a student
shares it with the class (Frisby and Sidelinger, 2013),
or when an athlete tells it to her coach (Officer and
Rosenfeld, 1985), or when it’s shared online (Jiang
et al., 2013; Kaishan et al., 2017; Ruppel et al., 2017).
In these situations the person disclosing the information has less control over who has access to the
information, how others might interpret what they
have revealed, and what others might do with the
information. Information that might not qualify
as self-disclosure in one-on-one interactions with
peers or at a gathering of friends and relatives is
often perceived as personally revealing in these
more public or power-imbalanced contexts.
We can summarize our definitional tour by saying that self-disclosure (1) has the self as subject,
(2) is intentional, (3) is directed at another person,
(4) is honest, (5) is revealing, (6) contains information generally unavailable from other sources, and
(7) gains much of its intimate nature from the context and culture in which it is expressed.
Although many acts of communication may
be self-revealing, this definition makes it clear
that few of our statements may be classified as
self-­
disclosure. Most conversations—even among
friends and romantic partners—focus on everyday
mundane topics and disclose little or no personal
information (Alberts et al., 2005; Dindia et al., 1997).
CHECK IT!
Describe all the qualities of self-disclosure.
Models of Self-Disclosure
Now that you have an understanding of what
self-disclosure is, let’s take a look at two models
that help us better understand how it operates in
­relationships.
Degrees of Self-Disclosure:
The Social Penetration Model
Social psychologists Dalmas Taylor and Irwin Altman (1987) created the social penetration model,
which describes relationships in terms of breadth
and depth of disclosure. Figure 2.2 depicts a student’s self-disclosure in one relationship as an
example. The first dimension of self-disclosure
in this model involves the breadth of information volunteered—the range of subjects being discussed. For example, the breadth of disclosure in
your relationship with a fellow worker will expand
as you begin revealing information about your life
away from the job, as well as on-the-job details.
The second dimension of disclosure is the depth
of the information being volunteered—the shift
from relatively unrevealing messages to more
­personal ones.
Depending on the breadth and depth of information shared, a relationship can be defined as casual or intimate. In a casual relationship, the breadth
may be great, but not the depth. A more intimate
relationship is likely to have much depth in at least
one area. The most intimate relationships are those
in which disclosure is great in both breadth and
depth. Altman and Taylor (1973) see the development of a relationship as a progression from the
periphery of their model to its centre, a process that
usually takes place gradually. Each of your personal
relationships probably has a different combination
of breadth of subjects and depth of revelation.
One way to classify the depth of disclosure is
to look at the types of information that can be
revealed. Clichés are ritualized, stock responses
to social situations—virtually the opposite of self-­
disclosure: “How are you doing?” “Fine.” Although
hardly revealing, clichés can serve as a valuable
kind of shorthand that makes it easy to keep the
social wheels greased. Another kind of message
involves communicating facts. Not all factual
statements qualify as self-disclosure. To qualify,
they must fit the criteria of being intentional, significant, and not otherwise known: “This isn’t my
first try at college. I dropped out a year ago with
terrible grades.” Disclosing personal facts like
these suggests a level of trust and commitment that
signals a desire to move the relationship to a new
level of intimacy.
Opinions can be a revealing kind of self-­
disclosure since they often reveal more about a
person than facts alone do. Every time you offer a
personal opinion (such as your political or religious
63
64
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
My career
ambitions
Feelings about
my physical
appearance
Breadth
Feelings about
our relationship
Depth
My opinions
about our
mutual friends
My relationships
with members of
the opposite sex
My academic life
My family background
and problems
FIGURE 2.2 Sample Model of Social Penetration
beliefs or an analysis of another person), you are
giving others valuable information about yourself.
The fourth level of self-disclosure—and usually
the most revealing one—involves the expression
of feelings. At first glance, feelings might appear
to be the same as opinions, but there’s a big difference. “I don’t think you’re telling me what’s on
your mind” is an opinion. Notice how much more
we learn about the speaker by looking at three
different feelings that could accompany this statement: “I don’t think you’re telling me what’s on
your mind . . .
. . . and I’m suspicious.”
. . . and I’m angry.”
. . . and I’m hurt.”
Awareness of Self-Disclosure:
The Johari Window Model
Another way to illustrate how self-disclosure operates in communication is a model called the Johari
Window, developed by Joseph Luft and Harry
­Ingham (Janas, 2001; Luft, 1969).
Imagine a frame that contains everything there is
to know about you: your likes and dislikes, your goals,
your secrets, your needs—everything. This frame
could be divided into information you know about
yourself and things you don’t know. It could also be
split into things others know about you and things
they don’t know. Figure 2.3 illustrates these divisions.
TAKE TWO
• Social penetration model: two ways, measured
by breadth and depth, that communication can
be more or less disclosing.
• Breadth: the range of subjects discussed.
• Depth: the personal nature of information (significant and private self-disclosures, clichés,
facts, opinions, and feelings).
2 | Communication and the Self
Known
to self
Known
to others
Not known
to others
Not known
to self
1
OPEN
2
BLIND
3
HIDDEN
4
UNKNOWN
FIGURE 2.3 Johari Window
Source: From Group process: An introduction to group dynamics. Copyright © 1963,
1970 by Joseph Luft. Used with the permission of Mayfield Publishing Company.
Part 1 represents the information that both
you and the other person already have. This part
is your open area. Part 2 represents the blind area:
information of which you are unaware, but that
the other person knows. You learn about information in the blind area primarily through feedback from others. Part 3 of the Johari Window
represents your hidden area: information that
you know, but are not willing to reveal to others.
Items in this hidden area become public primarily
through self-disclosure. Part 4 of the Johari Window represents information that is unknown to
both you and to others. At first, the unknown area
seems impossible to verify. After all, if neither you
nor others know what it contains, how can you be
sure it exists at all? We can deduce its existence
because we are constantly discovering new things
about ourselves. For example, it is not unusual
to discover that you have an unrecognized talent, strength, or weakness. Items move from the
unknown area into the open area when you share
your insight, or into the hidden area when you
keep it secret.
The relative size of each area in our personal
Johari Window changes from time to time according
to our moods, the subject we’re discussing, and our
relationship with the other person. Despite these
changes, a single Johari Window could represent
most people’s overall style of disclosure.
CHECK IT!
Describe the four quadrants of the Johari Window
and the relationship of each to receptivity to feedback.
Benefits and Risks
of Self-Disclosure
By now, it should be clear that neither all-out disclosure nor complete privacy is desirable. On the
one hand, self-disclosure is a key factor in relationship development, and relationships suffer
when people keep important information from
each other (Porter and Chambless, 2014). On the
other hand, revealing deeply personal information
can threaten the stability, or even the survival, of a
relationship. Communication researchers use the
term privacy management to describe the choices
people make to reveal or conceal information about
themselves (Hammonds, 2015; Petronio, 2013). In
the following pages, we will outline both the risks
and benefits of opening yourself to others.
Benefits of Self-Disclosure
Although the amount of self-disclosure varies from
one person and relationship to another, all of us
share important information about ourselves at one
time or another. There are a variety of reasons we
disclose personal information (Duprez et al., 2015).
Catharsis Sometimes, you might disclose information in an effort to “get it off your chest.” Catharsis can indeed relieve the burden of pent-up
emotions (Pennebaker, 1997), whether face-to-face
or online (Vermeulen et al., 2018), but when it is
the only goal of disclosure, the results of opening
up may not be positive. Later in this chapter, we’ll
discuss guidelines for self-disclosure that improve
your chance of achieving catharsis in a way that
helps, instead of harms, relationships.
Self-Clarification It’s often possible to clarify your
beliefs, opinions, thoughts, attitudes, and feelings by
65
Willing to disclose
Willing to disclose
Open to feedback
I
Willing to disclose
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
Willing to disclose
66
Open to feedback
III
Open to feedback
II
Open to feedback
IV
FIGURE 2.4 How Limited Disclosure Blocks Communication
Source: From Group process: An introduction to group dynamics. Copyright © 1963, 1970 by Joseph Luft. Used with the permission of Mayfield Publishing Company.
talking about them with another person. This gaining
of insight by “talking the problem out” is central to
most psychotherapy, but it also goes on in other relationships, ranging all the way from close friendships
to conversations with bartenders or hairdressers.
Self-Validation If you disclose information with
the hope of seeking the listener’s agreement (“I
think you did the right thing”), you are seeking
validation of your behaviour—confirmation of a
belief you hold about yourself. On a deeper level,
this sort of self-validating disclosure seeks confirmation of important parts of your self-concept.
Validation from others is a significant motivator for
public social media posts (Bazarova and Choi, 2014).
Self-validation through self-disclosure is an important part of the “coming out” process through which
LGBTQ+ people share their sexual orientation and
choose to integrate this knowledge into their personal, familial, and social lives (Manning, 2015).
Reciprocity A well-documented conclusion from
research is that one person’s act of self-disclosure
makes it more likely that the other person will reveal personal information (Sprecher et al., 2015).
There is no guarantee that revealing personal information about yourself will trigger self-disclosures by
others, but your own honesty can create a climate
that makes the other person feel safer, and perhaps
even obligated to match your level of candour. Sometimes, revealing personal information will cause the
other person to do so within the same conversation.
It’s easy to imagine how telling a partner how you
feel about the relationship (“I’ve been feeling bored
lately”) would generate the same degree of candour
(“You know, I’ve felt the same way!”). This kind of
give and take occurs online as well (Dai et al., 2016).
It’s important to keep in mind that reciprocity does
not always occur at the same time. Telling a friend today about your job-related problems might help her
feel comfortable telling you about her family history
later, when the time is right for this sort of disclosure.
Impression Management Sometimes, we reveal
personal information to make ourselves more attractive, and research shows that this strategy seems
to work. One study revealed that both men’s and
women’s attractiveness was associated with the
amount of self-disclosure in conversations (Stiles et
al., 1996). Consider a couple on their first date. It’s
not hard to imagine how one or both partners might
share personal information to appear more sincere,
interesting, sensitive, or curious about the other person. The same principle applies in other situations.
A salesperson might say, “I’ll be honest with you . . .”
primarily to show that they’re on your side.
Maintenance and Enhancement of Relationships Research demonstrates that we like people
who disclose personal information to us. In fact,
the relationship between self-disclosure and liking works in several directions. In face-to-face
and online interactions we like people who disclose personal information to us (Dindia, 2002;
Kashian et al., 2017; Lin and Utz, 2017). In face-toface interactions, we reveal more about ourselves
2 | Communication and the Self
to people we like, and we tend to like others more
after we have disclosed to them (Dindia, 2002).
Beyond fostering liking, disclosure (if it’s appropriate, of course) is related to relationship maintenance too. For instance, appropriate self-disclosure
is associated with greater martial satisfaction
across numerous cultures (Cordova, Gee, and Warren, 2005; Kito, 2005; Quek and Fitzpatrick 2013).
Not surprisingly, partners who reveal personal
information to each other often avoid the sorts of
misunderstandings that lead to unhappiness and
build greater trust and intimacy. In contrast, the
tendency to hide personal information from others
has been identified as a predictor of interpersonal
conflict and less relationship satisfaction (Uysal
et al., 2012).
Moral Obligation Sometimes, we disclose personal information out of a sense of moral obligation.
People who are HIV positive, for example, are often
faced with the choice of whether or not they should
tell their partners. Hirsch Allen and his ­colleagues
in British Columbia (2014) found that 73 per cent
of HIV-positive men and women in their study disclosed their HIV-positive status to their sexual partners. This rate of disclosure is slightly higher than
studies done in countries where there is less criminalization of non-disclosure. However, ­additional
research has revealed that it is people’s belief that
they have a moral duty to tell their partners that
consistently predicts disclosure rates among people
who are HIV positive. Laws criminalizing non-disclosure in a particular jurisdiction have been much
less influential (O’Byrne, 2012).
The Risks of Self-Disclosure
While the benefits of disclosing are certainly
important, opening up can also involve risks
that make the decision to disclose a difficult and
sometimes painful one (Afifi and Coughlin, 2007;
Christofides et al., 2012). The risks (and fears) of
self-disclosure fall into six common categories
(Greene et al., 2006; Rosenfeld, 2000), including
rejection, causing a negative impression, deceased
relational satisfaction, loss of influence, loss of
control, and hurting the other person. We’ll take a
closer look at these in the following pages.
TAKE TWO
BENEFITS OF SELF-DISCLOSURE
• Catharsis: revealing thoughts, feelings, and
emotions to release emotional burden.
• Self-clarification: talking about beliefs, thoughts,
opinions, and attitudes to gain insight.
• Reciprocity: disclosing information to increase the
likelihood that the other person will do the same.
• Impression management: revealing personal
information in order to make ourselves more
attractive.
• Maintenance and enhancement of relationships:
foster liking and maintain healthy relationships
through disclosure.
• Moral obligation: disclosing information because
of a sense of duty.
Rejection John Powell (1969) sums up the risks
of disclosing in answering the question that forms
the title of his book Why Am I Afraid to Tell You
Who I Am? “I am afraid to tell you who I am, because, if I tell you who I am, you may not like who
I am, and that’s all I have.” The fear of disapproval is powerful. Sometimes, it’s exaggerated and
il­logical, but there are real dangers in revealing
­personal information:
A: I’m starting to think of you as more than a
friend. To tell the truth, I think I love you.
B: I think we should stop seeing one another.
Negative Impression Even if disclosure does not
lead to total rejection, it can create a negative impression.
A: You know, I’ve never had a relationship that
lasted more than a month.
B: Really? I wonder what that says about you.
Decrease in Relational Satisfaction Besides affecting other people’s opinions of you, disclosure
can lead to a decrease in the satisfaction that comes
from a relationship. Consider a scenario like this,
where the incompatible wants and needs of both
people become clear through disclosure:
67
68
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
A: Let’s get together with Youssef and Sahar on
Saturday night.
B: To tell you the truth, I’m tired of seeing
Youssef and Sahar. I don’t have much fun
with them, and I think Youssef is kind of a
jerk.
A: But they’re my best friends!
Loss of Influence Another risk of disclosure is a
possible loss of influence in the relationship. Once
you confess a secret weakness, your control over
how the other person views you can be diminished.
A: I’m sorry I was so sarcastic. Sometimes, I
build myself up by putting you down.
B: Is that it? I’ll never let you get away with that
again!
Loss of Control Revealing something personal
about yourself means losing control of the information. What might happen if the person tells someone
else what you disclosed—people you prefer didn’t
know, or whom you would like to tell yourself?
A: I never really liked Nor. I agreed to go out
because it meant a good meal in a nice restaurant.
B: Really? Nor would certainly like to know
that!
Hurting the Other Person Even if revealing hidden information leaves you feeling better, it might
hurt others—cause them to be upset, for example.
It’s probably easy to imagine yourself in a situation
like this:
A: Well, since you asked, I have felt less
attracted to you lately.
B: I know! I don’t see how you can stand me
at all!
Alternatives to Self-Disclosure
Though self-disclosure plays an important role in
interpersonal relationships, it’s not the only type
of communication available. To understand why
complete honesty is not always easy or ideal, consider some familiar situations:
You’ve grown increasingly annoyed by some
habits of the person you live with. You fear that
bringing up this topic could lead to an unpleasant conversation and maybe damage the relationship.
Your friend, who is headed out the door for an
important job interview, says, “I know I’ll never
get this job! I’m really not qualified, and besides,
I look terrible.” You agree with your friend’s
assessment.
You’ve just been given a large, extremely ugly
lamp as a gift by a relative who visits your home
often. How would you answer the question,
“Where will you put it?”
Although honesty is desirable in principle,
it often has risky, potentially unpleasant consequences. It is tempting to sidestep situations where
self-disclosure would be difficult, but examples like
the ones you just read show that avoidance is not
always possible. Research and personal experience
show that communicators—even those with the
best intentions—are not always completely honest
when they find themselves in situations when honesty would be uncomfortable (Ennis et al., 2008;
Scott, 2010). Four common alternatives to self-­
disclosure are remaining silent or being secretive,
lying, equivocating, and hinting. We will take a
closer look at each one.
Silence and Secrecy
One alternative to self-disclosure is to keep your
thoughts and feelings to yourself. Keeping silent
is one way to avoid disclosing information you
would rather keep private, particularly in situations when you are not asked directly about it.
In their exploration of the dark and light sides of
avoidance and secrets, Tamara Afifi, John Caughlin, and Waid Afifi (2007) discuss what characterizes secrecy. They suggest that secrets involve
intentionally concealing private information that
the individual considers too risky to reveal. Not
all silence is secretive; however, when you choose
silence over disclosure you have made a choice
to conceal information, at least in that particular
situation. As we’ve discussed throughout this text,
talk–silence patterns vary by culture, and many
2 | Communication and the Self
TAKE TWO
RISKS OF SELF-DISCLOSURE
• Rejection: disclosure may cause disapproval.
• Negative impression: even if disclosure doesn’t
cause outright rejection, it can make you look
bad.
• Decrease in relational satisfaction: relationships
can suffer from disclosure.
• Loss of influence: disclosure may reveal your
weakness, and you may have less influence
over others.
• Loss of control: people can tell others what you
have disclosed and thus control information
that you want to manage.
• Hurting the other person: disclosure might cause
the other person to be upset.
Canadians find prolonged silences uncomfortable,
but this is not the case in many Asian and Canadian Indigenous cultures. Within any culture,
some people are more inclined to keep their emotions and thoughts to themselves (Vrij et al., 2003).
Determining whether or not information is private
(others have no claim to it) or whether it is a secret
(we are keeping it from people who have a right to
know) involves considering the ethics of evasion,
which we will discuss a little later in this chapter.
Lying
A lie is a deliberate attempt to hide or misrepresent
the truth.
Lying to gain unfair advantage over an unknowing victim seems clearly wrong. Lies can provoke
negative emotions in the recipient, damage their
trust of the liar, and can motivate revenge and further dishonesty. Lies are damaging to relationships
(Lupoli et al., 2018; Tyler et al., 2006). However,
not all lies are created equally. A benevolent lie is
defined (at least by the person who tells it) as one
that is not malicious—and perhaps is even helpful
to the person it’s told to. The most obvious reason
for benevolent lying is to protect the other person’s
feelings. You can almost certainly recall times
when you have been less than truthful in order to
avoid hurting someone you care for. Benevolent
lies are common even in our closest relationships
(DePaulo et al., 2009). Our perceptions of the
liar’s motivation appear to determine the extent
to which we judge lies as undermining our trust
of others (Cantarero et al., 2018). When people lie
for self-serving reasons (e.g., to make themselves
look better or gain an advantage) we judge them as
untrustworthy, but when people tell lies with the
intention of benefiting others we tend to trust them
more (Levine and Schweiter, 2015).
Cross-cultural research suggests our understanding of what constitutes a lie is influenced by
socio-cultural conventions, at least to some extent.
In a series of studies done over the past two decades
researchers in Canada and China have found that
Chinese children are significantly more likely than
Canadian children to judge lying to hide one’s good
deeds as positive and telling the truth about one’s
good deeds as undesirable (Lee et al., 1997). In these
investigations, Chinese adults, unlike Canadian
adults and both Chinese and Canadian children,
considered untruthful statements made to conceal
a person’s own good deeds not to be lies at all (Fu
et al., 2001; Xu et al., 2009). Similarly, Chinese children aged 9 to 17 years judged lies told to benefit
a group they belonged to (e.g., their class, school,
country) less negatively as they got older (Fu et al.,
2016). These investigators suggest that that the
emphasis Chinese culture places on modesty and
its importance for maintaining group cohesiveness
and harmony influences Chinese people’s conceptualizations of lies and their moral judgments.
According to research conducted at Cornell
University’s Social Media Lab, the most frequent
type of lies we tell each other via mediated communication is “butler lies.” Butler lies are small lies
that help us manage our availability, in much the
same way as a butler might manage the access to
an employer (Hancock et al., 2009; Reynolds et al.,
2013; Smith et al., 2014). Examples of butler lies are
things like “I’m on my way” (when you haven’t left),
or “Can’t meet later. Busy” (when you’re not busy)
or “Sorry, just got your message” (when you got it a
while ago). They make use of ambiguities that arise
from the fact that both communicators are not in
the same place. People report using butler lies to
avoid hurting other people’s feelings or to save face
69
70
Andjic/Dreamstime.com
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
that are not literally false but cleverly avoid an ­unpleasant truth
(Bello, 2005).
The value of equivocation
becomes clear when you consider the alternatives. Consider
the dilemma of what to say when
you’ve been given an unwanted
present—an ugly painting, for
example—and the giver asks
what you think of it. How can
you respond? On the one hand,
you need to choose between telling the truth and lying. At the
same time, you have a choice of
whether to make your response
clear or vague. Figure 2.5 disWhen do you think benevolent lying is the right thing to do? When is it harmful?
plays these choices.
After considering the alternaand to help manage the pressure of being expected
tives, we clearly see that the first
to always be available.
option—an equivocal, true response—is far preferTable 2.2 presents some common reasons given able to the other choices in several respects—mainly,
for lying.
because it spares the receiver embarrassment. Rather
than flatly saying no to an unappealing invitation, it
may be kinder to say, “I have other plans”—even if
those plans are to stay home and watch television.
The underlying content of equivocal messages (e.g.,
unwillingness to accept the invitation) is often
What reasons do people give for lying and what
are the effects of lies?
understood by their recipients but these ambiguous
messages are taken as more polite than the truth
might be (Bello and Edwards, 2005). However, when
Clearly, lies can elicit different responses and the risks of a negative interpretation of an equivocal
are not equal in terms of the damage they do to message are high, for example, in response to your
relationships. An occasional benevolent lie in co-worker bringing up a recent job interview you
an otherwise honest relationship does not pose had with another company in front of your supermuch threat. Major deception though—especially visor, most people prefer not to equivocate (Bello
when it’s part of a pattern of deceit—is a different et al., 2016). In high-risk situations people are more
matter. Lying about major parts of your relation- likely to tell the truth or lie.
Some forms of equivocation rely on telling parship can lead to the end of that relationship. So, if
tial
truths (Rogers et al., 2017). Imagine you had
preserving a relationship is important to you, then
­honesty—at least about important matters—really promised to be home right after class but instead
went out for drinks with classmates. Upon arriving
does appear to be the best policy.
home late you might justify being late by saying,
“One of my friends from class needed to talk about
Equivocation
a personal problem.” Even if your time at the pub
Lying isn’t the only alternative to self-disclosure. included this conversation this technically honest
When faced with difficult choices, communicators statement is clearly an act of deception. Communican—and often do—use equivocation: statements cators who hedge the truth view this strategy as
CHECK IT!
2 | Communication and the Self
TABLE 2.2
Some Reasons for Lying
Reason
Example
Save face for self
“Oh, I never got that invitation!”
Save face for others
“Don’t worry about forgetting my get-together. It really was no big deal.”
Acquire resources
“Oh, please let me add this class. If I don’t get in, I’ll never graduate on time!”
Protect resources
“I’d like to lend you the money, but I’m short myself.”
Initiate interaction
“Excuse me, I’m lost. Do you live around here?”
Be socially gracious
“No, I’m not bored—tell me more about your vacation.”
Avoid conflict
“It’s not a big deal. We can do it your way. Really.”
Avoid interaction
“That sounds like fun, but I’m busy Saturday night.”
Be able to leave
“Oh, look what time it is! I’ve got to run!”
Present a competent image
“Sure I understand. No problem.”
Increase social desirability
“Yes, I’ve done a fair amount of skiing.”
SOURCE: Adapted from Dunbar, N.E., Gangi, K., Coveleski, S., Adams, A., Bernhold, Q., and Giles, H. (2016). When is it acceptable to lie? Interpersonal and intergroup
perspectives on deception. Communication Studies, 67(2), 129–46.
less ethically dubious than more blatant forms of
deception. Technically speaking, they reason, they
did not tell a lie. Nevertheless, when those on the
receiving end discover the full story, they’re likely
to be just as offended as if the person had told them
an outright lie (McGregor, 2017).
Hinting
Hints are more direct than equivocal statements.
Whereas an equivocal message is not necessarily
aimed at changing another’s behaviour, a hint seeks
to get the desired response from the other person.
As Michael Motley (1992) suggests, some hints are
designed to save the receiver from embarrassment.
For example:
Direct Statement
Face-Saving Hint
I liked your old hairstyle
better than the new
one.
This is a new look for you.
You have such great hair!
You can wear any style.
I’m too busy to
I know you’re busy; I’d
continue with this
better let you go.
conversation. I wish you
would let me go.
Equivocal
OPTION I:
(Equivocal,
True Message)
OPTION II:
(Equivocal,
False Message)
“What an unusual
painting! I’ve never
seen anything
like it!”
“Thanks for the
painting. I’ll hang
it as soon as I
can find just the
right place.”
OPTION III:
(Clear,
True Message)
OPTION IV:
(Clear,
False Message)
Direct Statement
Face-Saving Hint
“It’s just not my kind
of painting. I don’t
like the colours, the
style, or the subject.”
“What a beautiful
painting! I love it.”
Please don’t smoke
here; it bothers me.
I’m pretty sure that smoking
isn’t permitted here.
I’d like to invite you out
for lunch, but I don’t
want to risk a “no”
answer to my invitation.
Gee, it’s almost lunch
time. Have you ever
eaten at that new Italian
restaurant around the
corner?
True
False
Clear
FIGURE 2.5 Dimensions of Truthfulness and Equivocation
Other hints are less concerned with protecting
the receiver than with saving the sender from
embarrassment, such as:
71
72
William Haefeli/Cartoonstock
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
TAKE TWO
ALTERNATIVES TO SELF-DISCLOSURE
• Silence or secrecy: saying nothing.
• Lying: deliberately attempting to hide or misrepresent the truth.
• Equivocation: giving a response that has two or
more equally plausible meanings.
• Hinting: making a face-saving remark designed
to get a desired response.
The success of a hint depends on the other person’s ability to pick up the unexpressed message.
Your subtle remarks may go right over the head of
an insensitive receiver or one who chooses not to
respond to them. If this happens, you still have the
choice to be more direct. If the costs of a straightforward message seem too high, you can withdraw
without risk.
The Ethics of Evasion
We can clearly see why people often choose hints,
equivocations, and/or benevolent lies instead of complete self-disclosure. These strategies are easier ways
to manage difficult situations than the alternatives
for both the speaker and the receiver of the message. In this sense, successful liars, equivocators,
and hinters can be said to possess a certain kind of
communicative competence. On the other hand,
there are times when honesty is the right approach,
even if it’s painful. At times like these, evaders could
be viewed as lacking either the competence or the
integrity to handle a situation effectively.
Are hints, benevolent lies, and equivocations
ethical alternatives to self-disclosure? Some of the
examples in these pages suggest the answer is a
qualified yes. Many social scientists and philosophers agree. For example, researchers David Buller
and Judee Burgoon (1994) argue that the morality
of a speaker’s motives for lying, not the deceptive
act itself, ought to be judged. Another approach is
to consider whether the effects of a lie will be worth
the deception. Ethicist Sissela Bok (1978) says
deception may be justified if it does good things,
prevents harm, and/or protects a larger truth. Perhaps the right questions to ask, then, are whether
an indirect message is truly in the interests of the
receiver, and whether this sort of evasion is the
only effective way to behave. Bok suggests another
way to check the justifiability of a lie: imagine how
others would respond if they knew what you were
really thinking or feeling. Would they accept your
reasons for not telling the truth?
Guidelines for Self-Disclosure
Self-disclosure is a special kind of sharing that is
not desirable in every situation. Let’s look at some
guidelines that can help you recognize how to
express yourself in a way that’s rewarding for you
and for the others involved.
Is the Other Person Important
to You?
There are several ways in which someone might be
important. Perhaps you have an ongoing relationship deep enough that sharing significant parts
of yourself justifies keeping your present level of
togetherness intact. Or perhaps the other person is
someone you know, but not intimately. Now you see
a chance to grow closer, and disclosure may be the
path toward developing that personal relationship.
2 | Communication and the Self
BUILDING WORK SKILLS
DISCLOSURE AT WORK
Imagine a situation at work where you’ve made a mistake. Imagine that part of the reason for your error is
related to something personal (for example, a conflict in a relationship, a disability you have, or a bias you
have). In order for the problem to be corrected, you need to tell either your co-worker, or your supervisor. Whom
would you tell? What would you say? How much information would you reveal? Describe the risks and benefits
of the choices you made. Share your approach and list of the risks and benefits with a classmate. Do they
agree with your analysis? Why or why not?
Is the Risk of Disclosing
Reasonable?
Most people intuitively calculate the potential benefits of disclosing against the risks of doing so (Afifi
and Steuber, 2009). Even if the probable benefits are
great, opening yourself up to almost certain rejection may be asking for trouble. For instance, it might
be foolhardy to share your important feelings with
someone who is likely to betray your confidences
or ridicule them. On the other hand, knowing that
your partner will respect the information makes the
prospect of speaking out more reasonable.
Revealing personal thoughts and feelings can
be especially risky on the job (Connell, 2012). The
politics of the workplace sometimes require communicators to keep their feelings to themselves in
order to accomplish both personal and organizational goals. You may find the opinions of a manager or customer personally offensive, but decide
to bite your tongue rather than risk your job or lose
goodwill for the company.
Is the Self-Disclosure Appropriate?
It is important, and quite interesting, to recognize that revealing your emotions and thoughts
to others activates the same reward centres in the
brain that are activated by food and sex (Tamir
and Mitchell, 2012). However, while self-disclosure
is intrinsically rewarding, it’s not always the best
course of action. Generally, it’s not wise to reveal
highly personal secrets in public forums such as
in classrooms or on social media sites (Frisby and
Sidelinger, 2013). One of the problems with online
communication is that the experience of being
online (as the user perceives it, often in private
or at home) is not the same reality as is found on
the internet, where privacy settings can and are
breached, and monitoring by companies and third
parties is routine. It’s been said, “If you’re not paying for something, then you’re not the customer;
you’re the product being sold.” On the other hand,
sharing personal information in private settings is
part of relationship development and can promote
trust and intimacy (Greene et al., 2006).
But even during a phase of high disclosure,
sharing everything about yourself isn’t necessarily
­constructive. Self-disclosure is not an all-or-­nothing
proposition. It’s possible to reveal information in
some situations and keep it to yourself in others. In
any case, disclosure should be relevant and appropriate to the situation at hand.
Is the Disclosure Reciprocated?
There is nothing quite as disconcerting as talking
your heart out to someone, only to discover that
the other person has yet to say anything to you
that is even half as revealing. You think to yourself,
“What am I doing?” Unequal self-disclosure creates an unbalanced relationship, one with potential
problems.
The reciprocal nature of effective disclosure
doesn’t mean that you are obliged to match every
one of another person’s revelations. In order to
maintain mutual investment in a relationship, disclosure needs to be balanced over time.
73
74
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
kali9/iStockphoto
another person, and usually at a
great cost to the relationship. It’s
important to consider the effects
of your candour before opening
up to others. Comments such as
“I’ve always thought you were
pretty unintelligent,” or “Last
year, I made love to your best
friend,” may sometimes resolve
old business and thus be constructive, but they can also be
devastating—to the listener, to
the relationship, and to your
self-esteem.
Self-disclosure has its risks and rewards. When has disclosing something about
yourself helped a relationship you’ve had? When has it hurt a relationship?
Will the Effect Be C
­ onstructive?
Self-disclosure can be a vicious tool if it’s not used
carefully. Every person has a psychological boundary to subjects that are extremely sensitive to them.
Intruding in that area is a sure way to disable
CHECK IT!
Describe the five factors you need to consider
before disclosing information about yourself to
others.
SUMMARY
The self-concept is a relatively stable set of views
that people hold about themselves. It begins to
develop soon after birth, and is shaped by the
appraisals of significant others and by social comparisons with reference groups. The self-concept
develops in the context of the larger socio–cultural
environment. Language affects the development
of our self-concept, as do a number of cultural values. The most fundamental of these values is a
culture’s individualistic–collectivistic orientation.
The self-concept is subjective and can be substantially different from the way a person is perceived
by others. Although the self may evolve, the self-­
concept resists change.
A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a person’s
expectations of an event influence the outcome.
A prophecy can consist of predictions (positive
or negative) by others, or it may be self-imposed.
It’s possible to change one’s self-concept in ways
that lead to more effective communication. Identity management consists of an individual’s strategic communication designed to influence other
people’s perceptions. Identity management aims
at presenting one or more faces to others, which
may be different from the spontaneous behaviour
that takes place in private. Some communicators
are high self-monitors who are very conscious of
their own behaviour, while others are less aware
of how their words and actions affect others.
Communicating through mediated channels can
enhance a person’s ability to manage impressions.
Since each person has a variety of faces that they
can reveal, choosing which one to present is a central concern of competent communicators.
Self-disclosure consists of honest, revealing
messages about the self that are intentionally
2 | Communication and the Self
directed toward others. Disclosed communication contains information that is generally
unavailable from other sources. The percentage
of messages that are truly self-disclosing is relatively low.
Two models for examining self-disclosure in
relationships are the social penetration model and
the Johari Window. The social penetration model
describes two dimensions of self-disclosure:
breadth and depth. The Johari Window uses four
window panes to illustrate how much information
a person reveals to others, hides, is blind to, and
is unaware of.
Communicators choose to disclose or not to disclose personal information for a variety of reasons.
Four alternatives to revealing self-disclosures are
silence, lies, equivocations, and hints. When deciding whether or not to disclose, communicators
should consider a variety of factors, such as the
importance of the other person to them, the risk
involved, and the appropriateness, relevance, and
constructiveness of the disclosure.
MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
1.
A relatively stable set of perceptions you hold
about yourself and the ability to treat yourself
with concern are
a.
b.
c.
d.
2.
reflected appraisal and social comparison
reflected appraisal and self-control
reference groups and significant others
power distance and uncertainty avoidance
6.
a. The self-concept changes easily and is
subjective.
b. The self-concept is subjective and distorted feedback can have a lasting effect.
c. The self-concept changes easily and is
unaffected by social expectations.
d. The self-concept is distorted by obsolete
information, but not by social expectations.
self-devaluation.
equivocation.
distorted feedback.
self-fulfilling prophecies.
Which of the following statements is false?
a. Facework describes the verbal and
non-verbal ways in which we act to maintain our own presenting image.
b. The person you believe yourself to be at
moments of private self-examination is
called the perceived self.
c. Identity management includes the communication strategies that people use to
influence how others view them.
d. The presenting self is a private image—
the way we want to appear to ourselves.
collectivistic
resistant
avoidant
individualistic
Which of the following is true about the
self-concept?
Ying is nervous about her job interview and
has convinced herself that she will not do well.
Her nervousness causes her to be tongue-tied
during the interview and she does not impress
the employer. Ying’s expectations and subsequent behaviour demonstrate the power of
a.
b.
c.
d.
People from which type of culture are more
likely to be restrained and use persuasion,
silence, and ambiguity in their communication?
a.
b.
c.
d.
4.
self-concept and self-disclosure.
self-esteem and self-compassion.
self-concept and self-compassion.
self-esteem and self-concept.
What are the two theories that explain how
social interaction shapes the self-concept?
a.
b.
c.
d.
3.
5.
7.
Which of the following statements about identity management is true?
a. We strive to construct a single, coherent
identity.
b. Identity management is done privately.
c. People differ in the degree of identity
management.
d. Identity management is always conscious.
75
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
8.
Which of the following statements is false?
a. Mediated communication can serve as a
tool for identity management at least as well
as the face-to-face variety.
b. Part of the appeal of Snapchat is that it
requires less impression management.
c. Overly positive self-authored content
about one’s self is usually perceived positively in mediated communication.
d. Identity management is sometimes dishonest
9.
The social penetration model includes
a. the reciprocity and depth of information
volunteered.
b. catharsis and self-validation of information volunteered.
c. the breadth and depth of information volunteered.
d. the breadth and social influence of information volunteered.
10. Silence, lies, equivocations, and hints are
a. alternatives to revealing self-disclosures.
b. “butler” methods that maintain our identity management.
c. ways of making use of ambiguities due to
the asynchronous nature of the communication.
d. benevolent distortions of the truth.
Answers: 1. c; 2. a; 3. a; 4. b; 5. d; 6. d; 7. c; 8. c; 9. c; 10. a
76
ACTIVITIES
1. Invitation to Insight
What reference groups do you use to define your
self-concept? You can recognize your social comparison groups by answering the following questions:
a. Select one area in which you compare yourself to others. In what area is the comparison
made? (For example, is the comparison based
on wealth, intelligence, social skill?)
b. In the selected area, ask yourself, “Which
people am I better or worse than?”
c. In the selected area, ask yourself, “Which
people am I the same as or different from?”
What is the effect of using these groups as a basis
for judging yourself? How might you view yourself
differently if you used other reference groups as a
basis for comparison?
2. Invitation to Insight
Describe two incidents in which self-fulfilling prophecies you imposed on yourself affected your communication. Explain how each of these predictions
shaped your behaviour, and describe how you
might have behaved differently if you had made a
different prediction.
3. Critical Thinking Probe
What social forces affect the development of
self-concept in childhood and beyond? To what
degree do these forces contribute to healthy or
unhealthy self-concepts? Use three specific messages to illustrate your answers. Then, discuss
how individuals can reduce the effect of unhealthy
forces in their everyday lives.
4. Skill Builder
a. Make a list of some personal information you
have not shared with a family member. Then,
make a second list of information you haven’t
disclosed to a friend.
b. For each item on your lists, consider the worst
consequences if you were to reveal this information and the best possible consequences
from disclosing this information.
c. Evaluate the most likely outcome if you were
to disclose, and then conduct a risk–benefit
analysis to decide whether or not to keep the
information private or share it.
5. Ethical Challenge
You can gain a clearer sense of the ethical implications of impression management by following
these directions:
a. Make a list of the different presenting selves
you try to communicate at school or work, to
family members, to friends, and to various
types of strangers—in either face-to-face
2 | Communication and the Self
c­ ommunication or by computer-mediated communication.
b. Which of these selves are honest, and which
are deceptive?
c. Are any deceptive impressions you try to create
justified? What would be the consequences of
being completely candid in the situations you
have described?
Referring to your answers to these questions,
develop a set of guidelines to distinguish ethical
and unethical impression management.
6. Role Play
With a partner, imagine yourselves in each of the
following situations. Choose your respective parts
in each scenario, and then choose the most effective way you could act. Role-play your choices.
a. You offer to teach a friend a new skill, such as
playing the guitar, using a computer program,
or sharpening up a tennis backhand. Your
friend is making slow progress, and you find
yourself growing impatient.
b. At a party, you meet someone you find very
attractive, and you’re pretty sure the feeling is
mutual. You feel an obligation to spend most of
your time with the person you came with, but
the opportunity here is very appealing.
c. At work, you face a belligerent customer. You
don’t believe that anyone has the right to treat
you this way.
d. A friend or family member makes a joke about
your appearance that hurts your feelings. You
aren’t sure whether or not to make an issue of the
remark or to pretend that it doesn’t bother you.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1.
What is the difference between self-concept
and self-esteem? How does each affect interpersonal communication?
2.
Are language and culture important in the
development of one’s self-concept? Why or
why not?
3.
Given the characteristics of self-concept, how
amenable is it to change? Support your position by referring both to the characteristics of
the self-concept and research regarding influences on its development.
4.
Where do you draw the line between identity
management as competent communication
and dishonest manipulation? Support your
position by referring to arguments presented
in this chapter.
5.
How are lying, silence, hinting, and equivocation different? Are they morally different?
JOURNAL IDEAS
1.
Create a list of words or a collage of pictures
(or a bit of both) that represents aspects of
your self-concept that you present to others
(presenting self). Create a second word list
or collage that represents your private self.
How did you learn about these aspects
of yourself? Consider the processes of
reflected appraisal and social comparison
in your analysis—who are your significant
others and reference groups? How accurate
is this representation? What are possible
reasons for an inaccurate assessment?
What would you like to change?
2.
Recall a couple of times when you disclosed
personal information with very different
outcomes (one positive situation and one
negative situation). Review the guidelines for
self-disclosure (found on page 72) to analyze
each situation and the different outcomes.
77
ferrantraite/iStockphoto
3
Perceiving Others
CHAPTER OUTLINE
The Perception Process
Reality is Constructed
Steps in the Perception Process
Influences on Perception
Access to Information
Physiological Influences
Psychological Influences
Social Influences
Cultural Influences
Common Tendencies in Perception
We Make Snap Judgments
We Cling to First Impressions
We Judge Ourselves More Charitably than
We Do Others
We Are Influenced by Our Expectations
We Are Influenced by the Obvious
We Assume Others Are Similar to Us
Perceiving Others More Accurately
Perception Checking
Building Empathy
KEY TERMS
achievement culture
androgyny
attribution
confirmation bias
empathy
fundamental attribution error
gender
halo effect
horns effect
interpretation
narratives
negotiation
nurturing culture
organization
perception
perception checking
power distance
primacy effect
punctuation
selection
self-serving bias
sensation
standpoint theory
uncertainty avoidance
LEARNING OUTCOMES
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:
•
•
•
•
•
Describe the subjective nature of perceiving interpersonal messages and relationships
Explain how access to information, physiological, psychological, social, and cultural factors influence
interpersonal perception
Summarize common tendencies in perception that can sometimes lead to misperceptions
Use perception checking to clarify your understanding of another person’s point of view
Describe the value of empathy in interpersonal communication and relationships
80
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
“Some people see the glass half full. Others see
it half empty. I see a glass that’s twice as big as
it needs to be.”
so different to each of us. After examining the perceptual factors that make understanding so difficult,
we’ll look at tools for bridging the perceptual gap.
– George Carlin
It all depends on how you look at it! Doughnut, hole,
or misshapen beignet? Sincere, phony, or trying too
hard? Attractive or not your type? As we discussed
in Chapter 2, each of us has our unique point of
view. Who you are and how you were raised are
unique to you, which means that no one perceives
the world exactly the way you do. This essential
principle significantly affects interpersonal relations, as communicators attempt to share meaning from perspectives that are often quite different.
The brilliance of many observational comedians is
their ability to describe something, often very commonplace, that we pay little attention to, from an
unexpected, unique, and humorous angle.
Just like the boxes in Figure 3.1, every interpersonal situation can be seen from multiple points
of view. Take a minute to study that figure. How
many ways can you discover to view this image? If
you see only one or two, keep looking. (You can see
at least four ways of viewing the image by looking
at Figure 3.2.) If it’s hard to make quick and accurate sense of simple drawings, imagine the challenge
involved in trying to understand the perspectives
of other human beings, who are far more complex
and multi-dimensional.
In this chapter, we provide tools for communicating in the face of perceptual differences. We’ll begin
by explaining that we construct reality by assigning
meaning to our sensations. Then we’ll introduce
some of the many reasons why the world appears
The Perception Process
How do our perceptions affect our communication with others? Recall from the communication
model presented in Chapter 1, meanings exist in
and among people. Each of us actively constructs
our own reality. So, how do we do this?
Reality Is Constructed
Most social scientists agree that the world we know
isn’t “out there.” Rather we create our reality by
interpreting and assigning meaning to the information we gather through our senses. Sensation
describes how our sense organs (e.g., eyes, ears,
nose, mouth, skin) pick up information from the
environment (e.g., light waves, sound waves, chemicals, pressure, and temperature) and translate
them into messages our brains can process. The
process of assigning meaning to the information
we receive from our senses is perception. Our ears
sense sounds in hertz and decibels but our brains
perceive a friend’s laughter and a favourite song.
Our eyes sense light waves of varying intensities
but our brains perceive a colleague looking puzzled.
Sensations are the raw materials of our experiences
in the world and perceptions are the meanings we
assign to them. The process of making meaning of
our interactions with others involves four steps,
which we’ll discuss next.
Steps in the Perception Process
Selection
Since we’re exposed to more sensory input than we
can possibly manage, the first step in perception is
the selection of which data we will attend to. There
are several factors that cause us to notice some
messages and ignore others (Wood et al., 2016).
FIGURE 3.1
Two Cubes Touching
• Intensity. Something that is louder, larger, or
brighter stands out. Someone who laughs or
3 | Perceiving Others
FIGURE 3.2
•
•
•
•
Four Ways of Viewing Two Cubes Touching
talks loudly at a party attracts more attention
(although not always favourable) than quieter
guests do.
Repetition. Repetitious stimuli can also attract
our attention. Just as a quiet, but steadily dripping tap can come to dominate our awareness, people to whom we’re often exposed will
become noticeable.
Contrast or change. Unchanging people or
things are less noticeable. For example, we may
appreciate our significant others more when
they leave.
Motives. Our intentions in a situation also determine what we pay attention to. For example,
someone on the lookout for a romantic adventure will be especially aware of attractive potential partners, whereas the same person in an
emergency might be oblivious to anyone except
the police or medical personnel.
Emotional state. Our moods shape what we
select. People in a sad mood notice less of what’s
going on around them than those in happier
moods (Kaspar et al., 2013; Zimasa et al., 2017).
Organization
After selecting information from the environment,
the next stage is organization, or arranging it in
some meaningful way (out of many possibilities) to
help make sense of the world. The raw sense data
we perceive can be organized in more than one
way. (See Figure 3.2 for a visual example of this
principle.) We organize using perceptual schema,
which are cognitive frameworks (Macrae and
Bodenhausen, 2001).
We use various types of schema to classify other
people, including the following (Freeman and
Ambady, 2011):
• Physical (e.g., thin or heavy, accent or no accent,
old or young)
• Role-based (e.g., student, electrician, spouse)
• Interaction-based (e.g., friendly, helpful, aloof,
sarcastic)
• Psychological (e.g., generous, anxious, moody,
shy)
Once we’ve chosen an organizing schema to
classify people, we use that schema to make generalizations about members of the groups who fit our
categories. For example, if you’re especially aware of
a person’s attractiveness, you might be alert to the
differences in the way beautiful and plain people
are treated (more on this in Chapter 7). If religion
plays an important part in your life, you might
think of members of your faith differently than
you do of others. We then organize our observations into generalizations. (“Teachers usually. . . .,”
“Shy people often . . .,” “Men tend to . . . .”). There’s
81
82
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
THE MYTH OF MULTI-TASKING AND SOCIAL MEDIA
Given that our attention is limited and we select what
to pay attention to in any given moment, is it really
possible to multi-task? Well, maybe if the tasks are
several things required to prepare a meal (e.g., sautéing onions while you’re chopping other vegetables
and waiting for a pot of water to boil) or one of the
tasks is very familiar and routine, like having a shower
and running through your to-do list for the day in your
head. But most of us have scorched a few onions
when the recipe is too complicated and forgotten if
we’ve already shampooed our hair when we have too
much on our minds. So, what about checking Facebook during class or returning texts while studying?
Is it possible to do both effectively?
Unfortunately, the answer is no, Even if the class is
slow and boring and even if you can check the slides
online and review the textbook later. There is conclusive evidence that students who media multi-task
in class recall less material in both the short term
and the long term—even when they have a chance to
read the textbook and return to the teacher’s slides
ahead of the test (Glass and Kang, 2019). In addition, when one student is using social media in class,
it negatively affects the performance of students sitting nearby, who are distracted without even knowing
it (Sana and Weston, 2013)! There is evidence that
we don’t even enjoy or remember television shows as
much when we’re multi-tasking (e.g., watching a show
and checking Facebook) (Oveido et al., 2015).
Both research and experience tell us that our
brains can only select and process so much information at one time. Mobile devices provide a distraction
that impairs our cognitive focus (Carrier et al., 2015),
our learning (Kuznekoff et al., 2015; Mendoza et al.,
2018), studying (David et al., 2015), remembering
­othing wrong with making generalizations—
n
in fact, it would be impossible to get through life
without them—but they need to be made accurately. And, overgeneralizations (typically involving descriptors such as “always” and “never”) can
lead to problems of stereotyping, which you’ll read
about in a few pages.
(Uncapher et al., 2016), our exam and test scores
(Glass and Kang, 2019), our productivity (Duke et al.,
2018), and even our enjoyment of other media (Oveido
et al., 2015) and our time face to face with friends and
family (Dwyer et al., 2018). Far more seriously, media
multi-tasking increases our chances of accidental
death or injury (e.g., texting and driving and distracted
pedestrians—for information on persuading friends to
stop texting and driving see Wang, 2016).
The problem is when we attempt to divide our
attention we inevitably miss things and it takes
time to get back into the task we left, even if we left
only briefly. So, we actually waste time and do both
tasks more poorly and more slowly than if we had
focused on them one at a time. Worse still, as the
complexity of the tasks increases so do the drops
in our accuracy and speed. In addition, when we orient our attention away from our immediate social
environment we tend to enjoy what we’re doing less
(Killingsworth and Gilbert, 2010). Do you remember
the “marshmallow experiment” we referred to in the
self-control section of Chapter 1? Our phones are the
ultimate marshmallows and as temping and irresistible as they are, if not used judiciously our attempts
at media multi-tasking can cost us much more than
some burned food or extra clean hair. When you’re
travelling, or in class, or studying, or socializing face
to face, or watching your favourite show—give it your
full and undivided attention.
Critical thinking: Given that the self-concept is subjective (Chapter 2) and people frequently defy basic rules
of probability when calculating their abilities, how would
you convince people that they might not actually be able
to media multi-task as well as they think they can?
We can also organize specific communication
transactions in different ways, and these differing
organizational schemes can have a powerful effect
on our relationships. Communication theorists
have used the term punctuation to describe the
determination of causes and effects in a series of
interactions (Watzlawick et al., 1967). You can
3 | Perceiving Others
Interpretation
Once we’ve selected and organized our perceptions, we interpret them in a way that makes some
sort of sense. Interpretation—attaching meaning
to sense data—plays a role in almost every interpersonal act. Is the person who smiles at you across
a crowded room interested in romance or simply
being polite? Is a friend’s kidding a sign of affection or irritation? Should you take an invitation to
“drop by any time” literally or not?
The way a communication sequence is punctuated affects its perceived meaning. Which comes
first, the demanding or the withdrawing?
Withdrawing
Withdrawing
Demanding
Demanding
Withdrawing
FIGURE 3.3
Communication Sequence
fizkes/iStockphoto
begin to understand how punctuation operates by visualizing a running quarrel between
spouses. Notice that the order
in which each partner punctuates this cycle affects how
the dispute looks. One partner
begins by blaming the other:
“I withdraw because you’re so
demanding.” The other partner
organizes the situation differently: “I’m demanding because
you withdraw.” These kinds
of demand–withdraw arguments are common in intimate
relationships across cultures
(Christensen et al., 2006; EldHow can we work to “de-categorize” our views of others?
ridge, 2017; Holley et al., 2018).
Once the cycle gets rolling, it’s
There are several factors that cause us to interimpossible to say which accusation is accurate, as
Figure 3.3 indicates. The answer depends on how pret a person’s behaviour in one way or another:
Relational satisfaction. A behaviour that seems
the sequence is punctuated.
Anyone who has seen two children argue about positive when you’re happy with a partner might
“who started it” can understand that squabbling seem completely different when the relationship
over causes and effects is not likely to solve a con- isn’t satisfying. For example, couples in unsatisflict. In fact, the kind of finger-pointing that goes fying relationships are more likely than satisfied
along with assigning blame will probably make partners to blame one another when things go
matters worse (Huynh et al., 2016). Rather than wrong (Diamond and Hicks, 2012). The opposite
arguing about whose punctuation of an event is is true too. Partners in satisfying relationships are
correct, it’s far more productive to recognize that
a dispute can look different to each party and then
Demanding
move on to the more important question: “What
can we do to make things better?”
83
84
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
likely to view each other more benevolently than
accurately (Segrin et al., 2009).
Expectations. If you expect people to treat you
badly you will be more likely to interpret their
behaviour negatively. For example, insecure people
with low self-esteem, who expect their friends to
view them as vulnerable and insecure, perceive
their friends’ honest and genuine behaviour as less
authentic (perpetuating their insecurities) than
do confident people without such expectations
(Lemay and Dudley, 2009).
Personal experience. What meanings have similar events held? If, for instance, you’ve been taken
advantage of by landlords in the past, you might be
skeptical about reclaiming your cleaning deposit.
Assumptions about human behaviour. Do
you assume people are lazy, dislike work, avoid
responsibility, and must be coerced into doing
things, or do you believe people generally exercise
self-direction and self-control? Imagine the differences between a manager who assumes workers fit
the first description and one who assumes they fit
the second.
Knowledge of others also affects the way we
interpret their actions. For instance, if you know
a friend has just been jilted by a lover or fired from
a job, you’ll interpret their aloofness differently
than if you were unaware of what happened. If you
know an instructor is rude to all students, you’ll be
less likely to take their remarks personally.
Although we have talked about selection,
organization, and interpretation separately, the
three phases of perception can occur in different sequences. For example, a parent’s or babysitter’s past interpretations (such as “Sebastian is
a troublemaker”) can influence future selections
(his behaviour becomes especially noticeable) and
the organization of events (when there’s a fight, the
TAKE TWO
• Punctuation: the determination of causes and
effects in a series of interactions.
REFLECTION
PROBLEMATIC PUNCTUATION
When I was living with my parents, my father
was always asking where I was going or where
I had been. I interpreted his questions as being
too nosy, and I usually responded with hostility
or silence. This made him even more concerned
about what I was doing.
Now, I recognize that each of us was punctuating this situation differently. He saw me as
being the problem: “I ask you what you’re doing
because you never tell me.” I saw him as the
cause of the problem: “I never tell you what I’m
doing because you’re always pestering me.” Who
started the cycle? Either way, we both lost. I have
come to realize how hanging onto our different
ways of punctuating the situation kept us from
understanding one another.
assumption is that Sebastian started it). Like all
communication, perception is an ongoing process
in which it’s hard to pin down the beginnings and
endings.
Negotiation
In Chapter 1 you read that meaning is created both
in and among people. So far, our discussion has
focused on the inner components of perception—
selection, organization, and interpretation—that
take place in each individual’s mind. Now, we
need to examine the part of our sense-making that
occurs among people. Negotiation is the process
by which communicators influence one another’s
perceptions.
Negotiation can operate in subtle ways. For
example, it’s rare to draw a conclusion about something or someone without comparing notes with
others. Imagine you think a person you met is
attractive and you mention this to friends. If they
disagree with you (“I don’t find that person attractive”), you might shift your initial perception—not
radically but a bit. In one study that examined this
process, college students rated the attractiveness of
3 | Perceiving Others
models in a series of photos (Yang and Lee, 2014).
Those who were able to see others’ evaluations of the
same photos slowly shifted their ratings to match the
consensus, while those who were unable to see other
people’s ratings did not. Our interpretations are not
only influenced by our own individual experiences
but also by the interpretations of others.
Another way to explain negotiation is to view
interpersonal communication as the exchange of
stories. Scholars call the stories we use to describe
our personal worlds narratives (Bromberg, 2012).
Just as the cubes in Figure 3.1 (on page 80) can be
viewed in several ways, almost every interpersonal
situation can be described by more than one narrative. These narratives often differ. People who value
cleanliness and order may label their housemates
as dirty and sloppy, while those housemates would
likely describe a concern for tidiness as obsessive.
An employee who is punctual but refuses to stay
late might see themselves as having clear work/
life balance boundaries whereas their supervisor
might interpret that same behaviour as demonstrating a lack of commitment to the job. When
our narratives clash with those of others, we can
either hang onto our own point of view, and refuse
to consider anyone else’s (usually not productive),
or try to negotiate a narrative that creates at least
some common ground.
CHECK IT!
Describe the factors that influence the way we
interpret human behaviour.
The best chance for smooth communication is
to have shared narratives. For example, romantic partners who celebrate their successful struggles against relational obstacles are happier than
those who do not have this shared appreciation
(Flora and Segrin, 2000). Likewise, couples who
agree about the important turning points in their
relationships are more satisfied than those who
have different views of what incidents were most
important (Baxter and Pittman, 2001).
Shared narratives do not have to be accurate
to be powerful (Martz et al., 1998; Murray et al.,
1996). Couples who report being happily married
after 50 or more years seem to collude in a relational narrative that does not always jibe with the
facts (Miller, 2006). They agree that they rarely
have conflicts, although objective analysis reveals
that they have had their share of disagreements.
Without overtly agreeing to do so, they choose
to blame outside forces or unusual circumstances
for their problems, instead of blaming each other.
They offer the most charitable interpretations of
each other’s behaviour, believing that their spouse
acts with good intentions even when things don’t
go well. They seem willing to forgive, or even forget transgressions. Examining this research, Judy
Pearson (2000) asks:
Should we conclude that happy couples have a poor
grip on reality? Perhaps they do, but is the reality
of one’s marriage better known by outside onlookers than by the players themselves? The conclusion
is evident. One key to a long happy marriage is to
tell yourself and others that you have one and then
to behave as though you do! (p. 186)
TAKE TWO
THE FOUR STEPS IN PERCEPTION
• Selection: the process of determining which
information we will pay attention to; influenced
by stimuli intensity, repetition, contrast, or
change as well as our motives and emotional
state.
• Organization: the process by which we arrange
information in a meaningful way using perceptual schema (physical, role, interaction, and
psychological constructs).
• Interpretation: the process of making sense of
perceptions within our own minds; influenced by
relational satisfaction, expectations, personal
experience, assumptions, and knowledge of
others.
• Negotiation: the process by which communicators influence one another’s perceptions.
85
86
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
Influences on Perception
A variety of factors influence how we select, organize, interpret, and negotiate information about
others. The information we have available to us
affects our perceptual judgments, as do physiological, cultural, social, and psychological factors.
Access to Information
We can only make sense of what we know, and
none of us knows everything about even the closest people in our lives. When new information
becomes available, perceptions change. If you see
your doctor only at their office your conclusions
about them will be based on their behaviours in
those roles. If you see them commuting to work, at
the grocery store, or at a concert your perceptions
of them might change.
We often gain access to new information about
others when their roles overlap. A work party is
a good example of a place where you might see
people that you had only ever seen in “work” mode
behaving quite differently in “party” mode. Similarly, the first time a close friend or romantic partner takes you to one of their family gatherings you
might see your friend or partner playing the role of
“spoiled child,” or “dutiful grandchild.” If you’ve
ever said, “I saw a whole new side of you tonight,”
chances are it’s because you gained access to information you didn’t have before.
Social media can provide new information
that affects perceptions. That’s why job hunters
are encouraged to clean up their online profiles
and be careful to manage the impressions they
make (Walton et al., 2015). It’s also why children and parents may not want to be part of each
other’s social media networks (Child and Westermann, 2013; Erickson et al., 2016), which we
discuss further in Chapter 11. As we discussed
in Chapter 2, the information we glean about
others on social media is incomplete because
we only have access to what others choose to
share. While meta-­
a nalysis of peoples’ online
“digital footprints” can predict some components (e.g., agreeableness, e­xtroversion, etc.) of
their p
­ ersonalities (Azucar et al., 2018), these
predictions are predictive for groups rather than
individuals. The accuracy of our perceptions of
individuals is substantially ­better when we have
opportunities to interact face to face—even when
those interactions are brief (Amady et al., 2000:
Okdie et al., 2011).
Physiological Influences
Sometimes, our different perspectives come from
our physical environment and the ways that our
bodies differ from others.
The Senses
The differences in how each of us sees, hears,
tastes, touches, and smells stimuli can affect interpersonal relationships (Croy et al., 2013). Consider
the following examples arising from physiological
differences:
“Turn down the TV! It’s giving me a headache.”
“It’s not too loud. If I turn it down, it’ll be impossible to hear it.”
“It’s freezing in here.”
“Are you kidding? We’ll suffocate if you turn up
the heat!”
“Why don’t you pass that truck? The highway’s
clear for half a mile.”
“I can’t see that far, and I’m not going to get us
killed.”
These disputes aren’t just over matters of opinion.
Our reception of sensory data is different. Differences in vision and hearing are the easiest to
recognize, but other gaps also exist. There is evidence that identical foods taste different to different people (Puputti et al., 2018). Similarly, people
differ significantly in their preferences for different
odours (Ferdenzi et al., 2017). Likewise, temperature variations that are uncomfortable to some
of us are inconsequential to others. Remembering
these differences won’t eliminate them, but it will
remind us that other people’s preferences aren’t
wrong or crazy, just different.
3 | Perceiving Others
87
Age
We experience the world differently throughout our
lifetimes. Age alters not just our bodies but also our
perspectives. Consider how you have viewed your
parents over the years. When you were a child, you
probably thought their knowledge and abilities
were almost unlimited—they knew and could do
so many things! As a teen, you may have seen them
as over-controlling and out of date. In adulthood,
many people regard their parents as knowledgeable
and wise and recognize that parents are vulnerable
to the same stresses and challenges everyone faces.
Although your parents have changed over time it’s
likely that your perceptions of them have changed far
more than they have.
Think of the last time you came down with a
cold, flu, or some other ailment. Do you remember how different you felt? You probably had
much less energy than usual. It’s likely that you
felt less sociable and that your thinking was to make sound judgments (Almodes et al., 2016;
slower than usual. Such changes have a strong Killgore, 2010; Peretti et al., 2018). This helps to
impact on how you relate to others. It’s good to explain why the world looks much better and
realize that someone else may be behaving dif- problems often seem less insurmountable after a
ferently because of illness. In the same way, it’s good sleep.
important to let others know when you feel ill so
they can give you the understanding
you need. Just as illness can affect
your relationships, so can excessive
fatigue.
When you’ve been working long
hours or studying late for an exam,
the world can seem quite different
than when you’re well rested. Lack
of sleep negatively affects our moods
and our ability to concentrate, and
increases our anxiety. It compromises our interpersonal functioning
and job performance during the day
(Beatie et al., 2015). People who are
sleep deprived have a reduced frustration tolerance, less empathy, increased
negative mood, and greater difficulty Our biological states can strongly affect how we perceive the world. Can
processing emotions and using them you think of a time when your perception was affected by pain or fatigue?
fizkes/Shutterstocko
Health and Fatigue
88
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
Hunger
Our digestive system plays a significant role in
our interpersonal behaviour. Hungry people often
feel grumpy and people who have overeaten are
more likely to feel tired. Being hungry seems to
affect our capacity for decision making as well.
Researchers in Israel found that judges’ decision
making appeared to be influenced by the length
of time since they had last eaten (Danzinger et al.,
2013). Hunger also appears to be related to a propensity for increased anger and aggression (hence
the addition of hangry to our vocabularies). Hunger affects our perceptions, negatively affects our
emotions, and appears to reduce our feelings of
connectedness to others (Li and Zhang, 2014).
Biological Cycles
Are you a “morning person” or a “night person”?
Each of us has a daily cycle in which all sorts of
changes constantly occur, including variations in
body temperature, sexual drive, alertness, tolerance to stress, and pain (Jankowski, 2013; Tsaousis,
2010). We often aren’t conscious of these changes,
but they can affect the way we relate toward each
other. For instance, analysis of online gaming
and social media activities suggests people’s propensity to socialize (e.g., make friend requests) is
also influenced by their biological rhythms (Zhang
et al., 2015).
Neurological Differences
Some differences in perception are rooted in neurology. These include challenges such as attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism
spectrum disorder, as well as mental health challenges (e.g., bipolar disorder, s­
chizophrenia)
and degenerative conditions (e.g., dementia,
­Alzheimer’s disease). A common element among
these challenges is that they appear to involve differences in brain and nervous system functioning.
For example, many people with autism spectrum disorder experience difficulty understanding the actions of others and they may struggle
with social relationships. Brain imaging research
suggests that these d
­ ifficulties may be related to
neurological differences that make understanding
other people’s intentions and emotions more difficult (Greimel et al., 2010; Iacoboni and Dapretto,
2006; Khalil et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2013; Saito et al.,
2018). People with bipolar disorder experience significant mood swings in which their perceptions of
social interactions, friends, family members, and
even attempts at social support shift dramatically
(Doherty and MacGeorge, 2013; de Brito Ferreira
Fernandes et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2016). Finally,
studies have shown that people with ADHD often
struggle with aspects of language perception (e.g.,
recognizing others’ vocal cues indicating anger)
and empathy (Kis et al., 2017).
Some neurological differences are the result of
alcohol and drug consumption. Certain prescription drugs may be prescribed specifically to do
just that. For instance, some anti-anxiety medications can increase people’s perceptions of others
as more agreeable and less threatening (Rappaport
et al., 2018). Non-prescription substances, such as
caffeine and alcohol, can affect our perceptions
too. One study found that consumption of a moderate amount of caffeinated coffee prior to participating in a group activity not only increased
participants’ task relevant participation but also
increased their positive evaluations and satisfaction with themselves and other group members
of the group (Unnava et al., 2018). Alcohol also
changes our perceptions of others and ourselves.
There is evidence that alcohol changes our brain
chemistry by increasing the release of endorphins
and the “feel good” neurotransmitter dopamine,
which may contribute to changes in our perceptions. One example of this is the “beer goggles”
phenomenon. This is the idea that people tend to
rate others, particularly those they might find sexually attractive when sober, as even more attractive when they’ve consumed an alcoholic drink or
two. Evidence for this is mixed, however. Several
studies conducted in laboratories have provided
evidence to support the idea (Jones et al., 2003;
Lyvers et al., 2011), but at least one study (Maynard et al., 2016) conducted in the field (i.e., in
actual pubs) found no evidence for an increase in
perceptions of attractiveness as a result of alcohol
3 | Perceiving Others
consumption. A study conducted in France found
that people who consumed alcohol rated themselves as more attractive (Bègue et al., 2013)! In
this study both people who had consumed alcohol (experimental group) and those who believed
they had consumed alcohol but had not (placebo
group) rated themselves more highly (e.g., as more
attractive, bright, original, and funny) in relation
to a speech they had given, than did those who did
not drink (control group). This suggests that the
influence of alcohol on perception is quite possibly
both physiological and psychological. We’ll examine some of the psychological influences on our
perceptions in the next section.
Psychological Influences
Along with physiology, our psychological state also
influences the way we perceive others.
Mood
Our emotional state strongly influences how we
view people and events, and, therefore, how
we communicate (Lount, 2010). An early experiment using hypnotism dramatically demonstrated
how our varying moods influence our perceptions
of events (Lebula and Lucas, 1945). Each subject
was shown the same series of six pictures, each time
having been put in a different mood. The descriptions of the pictures differed radically depending
on the emotional state of the subject. The following examples are from one subject in various emotional states while describing a picture of children
digging in a swampy area:
Happy mood: “It looks like fun, reminds me of
summer. That’s what life is for, working out in the
open, really living—digging in the dirt, planting,
watching things grow.”
Anxious mood: “They’re going to get hurt or cut.
There should be someone older there who knows
what to do in case of an accident. I wonder how
deep the water is.”
Critical mood: “Pretty horrible land. There ought
to be something more useful for kids of that age
to do instead of digging in that stuff. It’s filthy
and dirty and good for nothing.”
Although there’s a strong relationship between mood
and happiness, it’s not clear which comes first—the
perceptual outlook or the amount of relational satisfaction. There is some evidence that perception leads
to satisfaction (Fletcher et al., 1987), and some that
suggests satisfaction drives positive perceptions (Luo
et al., 2010). In other words, the attitude or expectation we bring to a situation shapes our level of happiness or unhappiness. Once started, this process can
create a spiral. If you’re happy about your relationship, you’ll be more likely to interpret your partner’s
behaviour in a charitable way. This, in turn, can lead
to greater happiness. Of course, the same process
can work in the opposite direction. One remedy for
serious distortions—and unnecessary conflicts—is
to monitor your own moods. If you’re aware of being
especially critical or sensitive, you can avoid overreacting to others and you can warn others—“This
isn’t a good time for me to discuss this with you—
I’m feeling irritated at the moment.”
Self-Concept
A second factor that influences perception is the
self-concept (Hinde et al., 2001). For example, the
recipient’s self-concept has proved to be the greatest
factor in determining whether people who are being
teased interpret the teaser’s motives as being friendly
or hostile, and whether they respond comfortably or
defensively (Alberts et al., 1996). As we discussed in
Chapter 2, there is considerable evidence that the
way we think and feel about ourselves ­influences
our perceptions of others. For instance, there is evidence that perceiving oneself as funny is related to
perceiving others as funny (Bosacki, 2013). There
is also neurological evidence that parts of your
self-concept you may be blind to (e.g., implicit introversion/extroversion) influence your perceptions of
other people’s emotions (Suslow et al., 2017).
Social Influences
Within any society, one’s personal point of view
plays a strong role in shaping perceptions.
89
90
Uplight pictures/Shutterstock
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
given society identifies as masculine and feminine behaviour.
People can be more or less masculine or more or less feminine, or have both masculine
and feminine characteristics in
equal proportion. Androgyny
is the combination of both masculine and feminine characteristics, or the quality of being
neither feminine nor masculine. As we discussed in Chapter
1, the binary nature of the male/
female dichotomy in gender
roles is restrictive and limiting
for many people. Increasingly,
Canadian society is embracing
One remedy for serious distortions—and unnecessary conflicts—is to mongender diverse and non-binary
itor your own moods. What are some things you can do to change your mood
gender categories (Grant, 2018).
in the moment?
That said, a great deal of
Social scientists have developed standpoint research to date has examined communication in
theory to describe how a person’s position in terms of the male/female dichotomy and found
the world shapes their view of society in general that men and women perceive the social world difand of specific individuals (Wood, 2008). Stand- ferently. Trying to tease apart the extent to which
point theory is most often applied to the differ- biology and socialization account for these difference between the perspectives of privileged social ences is often very difficult, but it’s important to
groups and of people who have less power (Stevens understand that—whether learned or hard wired—
et al., 2017), as well as to the different perspectives these perceptual and communication differences
of women and men (Dougherty, 2001). Unless exist. For instance, neurological evidence suggests
one has been disadvantaged, it can be difficult to women are more responsive to human faces than
imagine how different the world might look to men (Proverbio, 2017) and observational data sugsomeone who has been treated badly because of gest they’re better at reading emotions and genrace, ethnicity, gender, biological sex, sexual orien- erally more perceptive about interpreting others’
tation, or socio-economic class. After some reflec- non-verbal cues (Hall and Andrzejewski, 2017;
tion, though, it’s easy to understand how being Thompson and Voyer, 2014).
marginalized can make the world seem like a very
Sex-role stereotypes can influence perception.
different place.
In one study, debate judges rated hypothetical
We look now at how some specific types of female debaters as significantly more aggressive
societal roles affect an individual’s perception.
than their male counterparts despite the fact that
both male and female debaters used similar language (Mathews, 2016). Another study found that
Sex and Gender Roles
participants judged ambiguous text messages as
Although people often use the terms sex and gender more negative when the sender was identified as
as if they’re identical, they are not (Katz-Wise and female—particularly when the recipient was male
Hyde, 2014). Sex refers to biological characteris- (Kingsbury and Coplan, 2016). Studies conducted
tics of a male or female, whereas gender refers to in the workplace have found that sex-role stereothe social and psychological dimensions of what a types influence people’s perceptions of leadership
3 | Perceiving Others
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
DO YOU SEE WHAT I SEE?
Chris Davis, 28 years old, was apprehended last
night on charges of domestic abuse. Two police officers arrived at the location of the dispute at 7:05
p.m. At that time they found Robin Brown, 28 years
old, Chris’s partner, on the living-room couch bleeding with a black eye. Robin reported that Chris had
become angry about a telephone call and had begun
shouting obscenities and then grabbed, punched, and
kicked Robin to the floor before leaving the house.
After reading this report, ask yourself:
•
•
•
•
•
If you had witnessed this interaction between
Chris and Robin would you report it to the
police?
Do you think Chris should be convicted of
assault?
As crimes go, how violent was the incident?
Should Robin leave Chris for good?
Do you think Chris has acted this way in the
past?
Did you assume that Chris was a man and Robin
a woman? If you didn’t, would your answers be different? What if you found out that Chris and Robin were
both men or both women, or if you knew that Robin
was a man and Chris was a woman?
Studies suggest the influence of gender on perceptions of crimes such as intimate partner violence
(IPV) and stalking are pervasive (Allen and Bradley,
2018; Cass and Mallicoat, 2015; Cormier and Woodworth, 2008; Crittenden et al., 2017; Dunlap et al.,
2012; Finnegan et al., 2018). For example, Canadian
and American university students perceived incidents of IPV and stalking differently when the experimenters varied the genders of the perpetrator and
victim (Allen and Bradley, 2018; Cormier and Woodworth, 2008). Investigators have found that students
perceived same-sex scenarios of IPV (perpetrator
and victim—both male or both female) and the less
and innovation. Women who display the characteristics typically associated with leadership (e.g.,
assertive, decisive) and innovation (e.g., risk taking,
initiative, championing change) are not recognized
c­ ommon opposite-sex scenario (i.e., female perpetrator and male victim) to be less abusive than the
more common opposite-sex scenario (i.e., female
victim and male perpetrator). Students were more
likely to report the male perpetrator and female victim scenario of IPV to the police and were more likely
to believe that the heterosexual male perpetrator
should be convicted of assault compared to the other
three perpetrators. The students in this study were
also more adamant that the heterosexual female victim should leave the relationship compared to the
homosexual victims and the heterosexual male victim (Cormier and Woodworth, 2008). Similarly, students were more likely to perceive stalking cases in
which a man was criminally harassing a woman as
worthy of reporting and prosecution, and they perceived the male perpetrator more negatively and
the female victim more positively than in scenarios
where the roles were reversed (Cass and Mallicoat,
2015; Dunlap et al., 2012)
Canadian police officers, on the other hand,
appear to be less influenced by gender in their perceptions of IPV and stalking. They were more inclined
to take all forms of abuse and stalking more seriously than the students and deem them criminal and
worthy of reporting (Cormier and Woodworth, 2008;
Finnegan et al., 2018). In stalking cases, however,
they were more likely to rate the anticipated harm
to female victims of male perpetrated stalking as
greater than when perpetrators were female and victims were male (Finnegan et al., 2018). These studies demonstrate the powerful influences of gender
stereotypes, previous experience, and occupational
roles on our perceptions.
Critical thinking: Can you think of other instances
where gender and occupational roles might influence
people’s perceptions differently?
or rewarded, in terms of their work performance,
to the same extent as men who display these characteristics (Ely et al., 2011; Heilman, 2012; Johnson
et al., 2008; Luksyte et al., 2016).
91
92
Liza Donnelly/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
Occupational Roles
The kind of work we do also governs our view of the
world. Imagine five people taking a walk through
a park. One, a botanist, is fascinated by the variety of trees and plants. Another, a zoologist, is
on the lookout for interesting animals. The third,
a meteorologist, keeps an eye on the sky, noticing
changes in the weather. The fourth, a psychologist,
is totally unaware of nature, concentrating instead
on the interactions among the people in the park.
The fifth, a pickpocket, quickly takes advantage
of the others’ absorption to collect their wallets.
There are two lessons in this little story. The first,
of course, is to watch your wallet carefully. The
second is that our occupational roles often govern
our perceptions.
Perhaps the most dramatic illustration of how
occupational roles shape perception occurred in the
early 1970s. Stanford University psychologist Philip
Zimbardo (1971; Haney and Zimbardo, 2009)
recruited a group of well-educated, middle-class
young men. He randomly chose 11 to serve as
“guards” in a mock prison set up in the basement
of Stanford’s psychology building. He issued uniforms, handcuffs, whistles, and billy clubs to the
guards. The remaining 10 subjects became “prisoners” and
were put in rooms with metal
bars, bucket toilets, and cots.
Zimbardo let the guards
establish their own rules for the
experiment. The rules were tough:
no talking during meals, rest periods, or after lights out. They took
head counts at 2:30 a.m. Troublemakers received short rations.
Faced with these conditions,
the prisoners began to resist.
Some barricaded their doors
with beds. Others went on hunger strikes. Several ripped off
their identifying number tags.
The guards reacted to the rebellion by clamping down hard
on protesters. Some became
sadistic, physically and verbally abusing the prisoners. The
experiment was scheduled to
go on for two weeks, but after six days Zimbardo
realized that what had started as a simulation had
become too real, and stopped it. The roles they had
taken on led the guards and prisoners to perceive,
and then treat, each other very differently.
You can probably think of ways in which the
jobs you’ve held have affected how you view others.
If you have worked in customer service, you’re
probably more patient and understanding with
those in similar positions (although you could also
be a bit more critical).
Relational Roles
Think back to the “Who am I?” list you made in
Chapter 2. It’s likely your list includes roles you
play in relation to others: you may be a sibling,
roommate, spouse, friend, and so on. Roles like
these don’t just define who you are—they affect
your perception.
Take, for example, the role of parent. As most
new parents will attest, having a child alters the
ways they see the world. They might perceive
their crying infant as a helpless soul in need of
3 | Perceiving Others
c­omfort whereas nearby strangers might have a
less compassionate appraisal. There is considerable
neurological evidence that pregnancy and being
involved in caring for one’s young child changes
people’s brains, which in turn affects their perceptions and caregiving behaviours (Abraham et al.,
2014; Hoekzema et al., 2017).
The roles involved in romantic relationships
can also dramatically affect perception. These
roles have many labels: partner, spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, and so on. There are times when
your affinity biases your perception. You may see
your partner as more attractive than other people
do and as more attractive than previous partners,
regardless of whether that’s objectively accurate
(Swami and Allum, 2012). As a result, you may
overlook some faults that others notice (Segrin
et al., 2009). Your romantic role can also change
the way you view others. Researchers have found
that when people are in love, they pay less attention
to other potential romantic candidates and judge
them as less attractive than they otherwise would
(Cole et al., 2016; McNulty et al., 2018).
Perhaps the most telltale sign of “love goggles”
is when they come off. Many people have experienced breaking up with a romantic partner and
wondering later, “What did I ever see in that person?” The answer, at least in part, is that you saw
what your relational role led you to see.
Cultural Influences
Culture exerts a powerful influence on the way we
view other people’s communication. In this section we’ll explore cultural differences regarding
the value of talk and silence, approaches to logic
and thinking, views of social obligations, distribution of power, and the extent to which people
avoid uncertainty and value achievement and nurturance. These are just some of the ways in which
cultures differ, and these differences influence our
perceptions of ourselves and other people.
Talk and Silence
As we discussed in Chapter 2, many Western cultures tend to view talk as desirable and use it for
social purposes as well as to perform tasks. Silence
has a negative value in these cultures. It’s likely to
be interpreted as lack of interest, unwillingness
to communicate, hostility, anxiety, shyness, or a
sign of interpersonal incompatibility. Westerners
are uncomfortable with silence, which they find
embarrassing and awkward.
On the other hand, Asian cultures tend to perceive talk quite differently (Kimm, 2002). Silence
is valued, as Taoist sayings indicate: “In much talk
there is great weariness” or “One who speaks does
not know; one who knows does not speak.” Unlike
Westerners, Japanese and Chinese communicators believe that remaining quiet is the proper
state when there is nothing to be said. To Asians,
a talkative person is often considered a show-off or
a fake.
These different perceptions of speech and silence
can lead to communication problems when people
from different cultures meet. Communicators may
view each other with disapproval and mistrust.
Only when they recognize the different standards
of behaviour can they adapt to one another, or at
least understand and respect their differences.
Social Obligations
People from collectivistic and individualistic cultures perceive interpersonal behaviour and obligations differently. For example, Au et al. (2001) gave
hospitality-school students in China and Canada
a description of how a service provider handled a
complaint from a customer whose coat was stained
with tea. Results showed that the students from
China (collectivists whose primary responsibility is to help the group) were more likely than the
students from Canada (individualists whose primary responsibility is to take care of oneself) to
see the service provider as the person at fault. In
addition, Janoff-Bulman and Leggatt (2002), looking at motivational differences in the perception of
social obligations by Latino American (collectivistic) undergraduates and Anglo American (individualistic) undergraduates, found that although
individuals from both cultures reported a strong
sense of obligation toward close friends and
family members, Latino Americans felt a stronger
93
94
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
REFLECTION
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN HUMOUR
I was born and raised in Russia. One thing I find
very different here [Canada] is the way people
use humour. When I first arrived in this country, I
noticed that my host family joked and teased me
a lot. I was often offended and hurt. The problem
was that neither my host family nor I understood
the differences in meaning people attach to the
same way of behaving. In Russia, people do not
tease to express affection. In Canada, though,
joking is often a way to show friendship. Once I
realized this cultural difference, I became better
at socializing.
­ otivation than Anglo Americans to help more
m
distant family and friends.
Thinking and Logic
The way members of a culture are taught to think
and reason shapes the way they interpret other
people’s messages (Gudykunst and Kim, 2003).
One important force that affects thinking is a culture’s system of logic. Members of individualistic cultures, such as Canadians and Americans,
prize rationality and linear, logical thinking. They
value the ability to be impartial—to analyze a
situation from a detached perspective. They rely
on facts, figures, and experts to make decisions.
Members of individualistic societies tend to see
the world in terms of dichotomies, such as good–
bad, right–wrong, happy–sad, and so on. In contrast, members of collectivistic cultures are more
likely to be intuitive. They prefer to get a feel for
the big picture and are less impressed by precision, classification, or detachment. Collectivistic
cultures are also less prone to see the world in
either–or terms. They accept the fact that people,
things, or ideas can be both right and wrong,
good and bad at the same time. Such categorizing doesn’t mean that members of individualistic
cultures are never intuitive or that collectivistic
ones are never rational. The differences in ways
of t­hinking are a matter of degree. Nonetheless,
it’s easy to imagine how an individualist raised in
mainstream Canadian culture and someone from
an extremely collectivistic Asian or Indigenous
culture could find their interactions perplexing.
For instance, consider what might happen when
a conflict arises between two romantic partners,
friends, or co-workers. “Why don’t we look at this
rationally,” the individualist might say. “Let’s figure out exactly what happened. Once we decide
whose fault the problem is, we can fix it.” By contrast, the partner with a more collectivistic way of
thinking might say, “Let’s not get caught up in a
lot of details or an argument about who is right or
wrong. If we can get a feel for the problem, we can
make things more harmonious.” Although both
partners might be speaking the same language,
their modes of thinking about their relationship
would be dramatically different.
Distribution of Power
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
states that “every individual is equal before the
law and under the law and has the right to equal
protection and equal benefit of the law without
discrimination.” For members of democratic societies, this principle of equality is so fundamental
that we accept it without question. However, not
all cultures share this belief. Some operate on the
assumption that certain groups of people (an aristocracy or an economic class, for example) and
some institutions (such as a church or the government) have the right to control the lives of individuals. Geert Hofstede (1980, 2011) coined the term
power distance to describe the degree to which
members of a society accept an unequal distribution of power.
Cultures with low power distance believe in
minimizing the difference between various social
classes. Rich and poor, educated and uneducated
groups may still exist, but there is a pervasive
belief that one person is as valuable as another.
Low power-distance cultures also support the
notion that challenging authority is acceptable—
even desirable. Citizens are not necessarily punished for raising questions about the status quo.
3 | Perceiving Others
According to Hofstede’s research, Canadian and
US societies have relatively low power distance,
though not the lowest in the world. Austria,
­Denmark, Israel, and New Zealand proved to be
the most egalitarian countries. At the other end of
the spectrum are countries with a high degree of
power distance: Philippines, Mexico, Venezuela,
India, and Singapore.
The degree of power distance in a culture is
reflected in key relationships (Santilli and Miller,
2011). Children who are raised in cultures with
high power distance are expected to obey their
parents and other authority figures to a degree that
would astonish most children raised in Canada or
the United States. Power automatically comes with
age in many countries. For example, the Korean
language has separate terms for older brother, oldest brother, younger sister, youngest sister, and so
on. Parents in cultures with low power distance
do not expect the same unquestioning obedience
and are not surprised when children ask why when
requested or told to do something.
On-the-job communication is different in low
and high-power distance societies (Zerfass et al.,
2016). In countries with high power distance
employees have much less input into the way they
do their work. In fact, workers from these cultures
are likely to feel uncomfortable when given the
freedom to make their own decisions (Madlock,
2012) or when a more egalitarian supervisor asks
for their opinion. The reverse is true when management from a more egalitarian tradition does business in a country where workers are used to high
power distance. Managers may be surprised to find
employees do not expect much say in decisions and
do not feel unappreciated when not consulted. They
may regard the dutiful and respectful employees as
lacking initiative and creativity. Given these differences, it’s easy to understand why multinational
companies need to consider cultural differences
in values and related perceptions when they set up
shop in a new country.
Uncertainty Avoidance
The desire to resolve uncertainty seems to be a trait
shared by people around the world (Berger, 1988).
While uncertainty may be universal, cultures have
different ways of coping with an unpredictable
future. Hofstede (2011) uses the term uncertainty
avoidance to describe the degree to which members of a culture feel threatened by or uncomfortable in ambiguous situations and how much they
try to avoid them.
A culture’s degree of uncertainty avoidance is
reflected in the way its members communicate.
In countries where people avoid uncertainty, such
as Portugal, Belgium, Greece, and Japan, deviant
people and ideas are considered dangerous, and
intolerance and ethnocentrism are high (Cargile
and Bolkan, 2013). People in these cultures are
especially concerned with security, so they have
a strong need for clearly defined rules and regulations. By contrast, people in a culture that is less
threatened by the new and unexpected are more
likely to tolerate—or even welcome—people who
don’t fit the norm. Residents of countries such as
Singapore, the UK, Denmark, Sweden, the United
States, and Canada are less threatened by change.
Following established rules and patterns isn’t
necessarily expected, and different behaviour may
even be welcomed.
Achievement and Nurturing
The term achievement culture describes societies
that place a high value on material success and a
focus on the task at hand, while nurturing culture
is a descriptive term for societies that regard the
support of relationships as an especially important
goal.
People from achievement versus nurturing cultures voice their opinions in significantly different
ways (Hofstede, 2016; van den Bos et al., 2010). In
achievement cultures (e.g., the US), which emphasize out-performing others, those who see themselves as highly capable feel more empowered to
voice their opinions and are satisfied when they
can do so. In contrast, in nurturing cultures (e.g.,
the Netherlands), which emphasize helping, those
who see themselves as less capable feel valued as
important group members and feel more satisfied
when they have the opportunity to voice their
opinions. People in nurturing cultures are more
95
96
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
inclined to behave in ways that promote harmony
and use a more sensitive and indirect communication style when compared to the more assertive
and direct style of those in achievement cultures
(Merkin et al., 2014). Canada is considered a moderately achievement-oriented culture. Clearly,
what constitutes an effective communicator is
perceived differently in cultures that vary on this
dimension.
As you think about the cultural values
described here, realize that cultural misunderstandings do not occur just between people
from different countries. In Canada’s increasingly multicultural society, people from different cultural backgrounds are likely to encounter
one another “at home,” in the communities they
share. As we discussed in Chapter 2, most Canadians belong to co-cultural groups and must
navigate the varying values and norms that shape
perception when they communicate with others.
In some instances, there is considerable harmony
in the values and norms that exist in their co-­
cultures; for others, there is considerable discord.
What we all share is the fact that our cultural values shape our perceptions.
CHECK IT!
Describe the four general areas of influence on our
perceptions and provide examples within each area.
Common Tendencies
in Perception
It is obvious that many factors distort the way we
interpret the world. Social scientists use the term
attribution to describe the process of attaching
meaning to behaviour (Turri, 2017). We attribute meaning both to our own actions and to
the actions of others, but we often use different
yardsticks. Research has uncovered several perceptual tendencies that may lead to inaccurate
attributions.
We Make Snap Judgments
Our ancestors had to make quick judgments about
whether strangers were likely to be dangerous, and
while there are still times when this ability can be
a survival skill, in many cases judging others without enough knowledge or information can get us
into trouble. Most of us have felt badly misjudged
by others who made unfavourable snap judgments.
Despite the risks of rash decision making, in
some circumstances people can make surprisingly
accurate judgments in the blink of an eye (Gladwell,
2004). The best snap judgments come from people
whose decisions are based on experience and
expertise. However, even non-experts can be good
at making split-second decisions. For instance,
research has demonstrated that people can accurately judge a stranger’s level of self-­esteem based on
a brief observation of the target introducing themselves in a public situation (Hirschmuller et al.,
2017). Similar findings have been reported for
people’s judgments of the suitability of speed dating candidates as potential romantic partners and
inferences about politicians based on snap judgments (Kurzban and Weeden, 2005; Wanke et al.,
2013). However, it’s important to keep in mind
that the physical attractiveness of the person being
judged can and often does cloud the accuracy of
our snap judgments.
Snap judgments become particularly problematic when they are based on stereotyping—­
exaggerated beliefs associated with a categorizing
system. Stereotypes that people automatically
make on “primitive categories” such as race, sex,
and age (Devos, 2014) may be founded on a kernel
of truth but they go beyond the facts at hand and
make claims that usually have no valid basis.
Three characteristics distinguish stereotypes
from reasonable generalizations.
• The first involves categorizing others on the basis
of easily recognized, but not necessarily important characteristics. For example, perhaps the
first thing you notice about a person is the colour of their skin—but that may not be nearly
as significant as the person’s intelligence or
achievements.
3 | Perceiving Others
• The second feature that characterizes stereotypes is ascribing a set of characteristics to most
or all members of a group. For example, you
might unfairly assume that all older people are
doddering or that all men are insensitive to
women’s concerns.
• Finally, stereotyping involves applying these generalizations to a particular individual. Once you
believe all old people are demented or all men are
jerks, it’s a short step to considering a particular
senior as senile or a particular man as a sexist pig.
Stereotypes exist in all cultures around the world
(Cuddy et al., 2009) and can plague intercultural
communication (Allen, 1995; Buttny, 1997; Kashima
et al., 2013). By adulthood, we tend to engage in
stereotyping frequently, effortlessly, and often
unconsciously, using what researchers call implicit
bias to make our judgments (Morin, 2015). Once
we create and hold stereotypes, we seek out isolated
behaviours that support our inaccurate beliefs in
an attempt to be cognitively consistent (Kashima et
al., 2013). Interpersonal communication has been
found to play a role in stereotype maintenance. For
example, researchers have found that when people
are relaying stories to each other (e.g., gossip, things
in the news, recounting their own experiences, even
children’s stories) they tend to communicate information that is consistent with our stereotypes and
leave out information that is inconsistent with our
stereotypes (Lyons and Kashima, 2003, 2006).
One way to avoid the kinds of communication
problems that come from excessive stereotyping is
to “de-categorize” others, giving yourself a chance
to treat people as individuals. Changing labels can
aid the process of de-categorizing. Instead of talking about Asian co-workers, gay friends, or foreign
students, dropping the descriptors “Asian,” “gay,”
and “foreign” might help you perceive others more
neutrally.
CHECK IT!
What are stereotypes and how are they different
from other generalizations we make about people?
We Cling to First Impressions
Snap judgments are significant because our initial
impressions of others often carry more weight
than the ones that follow. This is due, in part, to
what scientists call the primacy effect—our tendency to pay attention to and remember things
that happened first in a sequence (Miller et al.,
2004). You can probably recall some of the first
impressions you held of people who are now your
close friends. You probably immediately liked
some of your friends but others “grew on you”—
your initial appraisal of them was not as positive. Either way, your first impressions played a
significant role in the interactions that followed.
Social scientists have found that first impressions
are often based on physical appearance and tend
to be inaccurate (Olivola and Todorov, 2010). The
term halo effect describes the tendency to form
an overall positive impression of a person based
on a single positive characteristic. Positive first
impressions are often based on physical attractiveness, which can lead people to attribute all
sorts of other virtues to a good-looking person
(Dion et al., 1972; Langlois et al., 2000; Lemay et
al., 2010). For example, employment interviewers
rate mediocre but attractive job applicants higher
than less attractive candidates (Watkins and
Johnston, 2000). Unfortunately, the opposite
also holds true. The horns effect (also called the
“devil” or “pitchfork” effect) occurs when a negative appraisal adversely influences perceptions
that follow (Koenig and Jaswal, 2011).
Once we form a first impression—whether it’s
positive or negative—we are susceptible to confirmation bias: the tendency to seek out, remember, and organize our impressions to support that
opinion. For example, once a potential employer
forms a positive impression in a job interview,
they tend to ask questions that confirm their
image of the applicant (Powell et al., 2012). This
might include asking leading questions aimed at
supporting positive views (“What valuable lesson did you learn from that setback?”), interpret
applicant answers in a positive light (“Ah, taking time away from school to work was a good
idea!”), encourage the applicant (head nodding,
97
98
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
smiling, “Good point!”), and sell the company’s
virtues (“I think you would like working here”).
Likewise, applicants who create a negative first
impression are operating under a cloud that may
be impossible to dispel. We all have a tendency to
confirm what we already believe to be true. Given
the almost unavoidable tendency to form first
impressions, the best approach is to keep an open
mind, look for information that might challenge
your initial beliefs, and be willing to change your
opinion if events prove you mistaken.
We Judge Ourselves More
Charitably than We Do Others
While we evaluate others critically, we tend to judge
ourselves more generously (McClure et al., 2011),
and social scientists use two theories to explain this
phenomenon. The first is called the fundamental
attribution error: the tendency to give more weight
to personal qualities (dispositional) than to the situation when making attributions (Ross, 1977, 2001).
For instance, recipients of a work-related email containing spelling and grammatical errors are more
likely to assume the sender is unintelligent (personal quality) than to assume that English is not the
sender’s first language (contextual factor) (Vignovic
et al., 2010). On the other hand, when we experience
failure, like making spelling mistakes of our own
in an email message, we quickly find explanations
outside ourselves, such as being in a hurry. When
we’ve done something well, however, we’re quick to
take personal credit rather than attribute the success to the situation. This self-serving bias means
when we perform poorly, we usually blame external
forces (situational) and when we perform well we
credit ourselves rather than the situation (Sheppard
et al., 2008). Consider a couple of examples:
• When they make an error, we think they weren’t
listening well or trying hard enough; when we
make the mistake, the problem was unclear directions.
• When he makes an overly critical comment
it’s because he is insensitive; when we do it, it’s
because the situation called for it.
Research has found that people working in
virtual teams, as opposed to in-person teams, are
quicker to blame partners when mistakes occur
(Walther and Barazova, 2007). These researchers suggest that “unseen, unknown, and remote”
teammates make easy scapegoats when something goes wrong. When working on virtual
teams we often lack the contextual information
about our colleagues (e.g., current workload, last
minute demands, previous work performance,
etc.) but when teammates have greater awareness
of their colleagues’ activities they are more likely
to make more accurate attributions (Trainer and
Redmiles, 2018).
Research also shows that when people are aware
of both the positive and negative characteristics of
another person, they tend to be more influenced
by the undesirable traits (Baumeister et al., 2001;
Kellermann, 1989; Sparks and Baumeister, 2008).
This attitude sometimes makes sense. If the negative quality clearly outweighs any positive ones,
you would be foolish to ignore it. For example,
a surgeon with shaky hands and a teacher who
hates children would be unsuitable for their jobs,
regardless of their other virtues. But much of the
time, it’s a bad idea to pay excessive attention to
negative qualities and overlook good ones. People
who make more complex attributions about other
people’s behaviour (that is, those who take into
account many different causes for behaviour) are
more accurate in their social judgments and less
prejudiced and punitive in their conclusions about
other people (Tam et al., 2008). In addition, people
who take into account many different reasons for
other people’s behaviour are viewed by their peers
as thoughtful, empathic, socially skilled, and wise
(Fast et al., 2008).
We Are Influenced by Our
Expectations
Suppose you took a class and were told in advance
by several friends that the instructor is terrific.
Would this affect the way you perceive the
teacher? Research shows that it almost certainly
would. Studies of students’ exposure to teacher
3 | Perceiving Others
Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock
ratings have found that students who read posi- We Are Influenced by the Obvious
tive comments about their instructors on a
website viewed those teachers as more credible, Being influenced by what is most obvious is undercompetent, attractive, and favourable than did standable. As you read earlier, we select stimuli
students who were not exposed to the same posi- from our environment that are noticeable—that
tive comments (Edwards et al., 2007; Reber et al., is, intense, repetitious, unusual, or otherwise
attention-grabbing. The problem is that the most
2017)
However, expectations do not always lead obvious factor is not necessarily the only cause—or
to more positive appraisals. There are times the most significant one—of an event. For example:
when we raise our expectations so high that
• When two children (or adults, for that matter)
we’re disappointed with the events that occur. If
fight, it may be a mistake to blame the one who
you’re told that someone you are about to meet
lashes out the loudest. Perhaps the other one
is extremely attractive, you may be disappointed
was at least equally responsible, by teasing or
when the person doesn’t live up to your unrealisrefusing to co-operate.
tic expectations. Our expectations influence the
• You might complain about an acquaintance
way we see others, both positively and negatively,
whose malicious gossiping or arguing has
and may lead to self-fulfilling prophecies (DiPaola
become a bother, forgetting that by putting up
et al., 2010). For instance, couples with histories
with that kind of behaviour you’ve been at least
of high conflict tend to expect their partners to
partially responsible.
be less responsive to their needs and experience
• You might blame an unhappy work situation
more negative conflict outcomes than couples who
on your manager, overlooking other factors
expect their partners to be responsive and to value
beyond their control, such as a change in the
them. When couples change their expectations of
economy, the policy of higher management, or
each other, they behave differently during the condemands of customers or other workers.
flict and feel more positive afterwards (Marigold
and Anderson, 2016).
It’s important to be aware of
the influence of our expectations
when we are making decisions
about others. Many professions
require that proposals be evaluated through “blind review”—
that is, the person submitting
the proposal is not allowed to
offer identifying information
that might influence the evaluator’s appraisal. For example,
orchestras often use “blind
auditions” where musicians
perform behind a screen (Rice,
2013). In the same way, you can
probably think of times when it
would be wise to avoid advance
information about another per- We all form first impressions when meeting new people. How can we avoid letson so that you will perceive the ting those first impressions inform all of our understanding and interactions
with others?
person as neutrally as possible.
99
100
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
These examples show that it’s important to take
time to gather all the facts before arriving at a conclusion.
We Assume Others Are Similar
to Us
We commonly imagine that others have the same
attitudes and motives that we do (Human and
Biesanz, 2011). The frequently mistaken assumption that other people’s views are similar to our own
applies in a wide range of situations. For example:
• You like to keep your cellphone on the table during meals and assume this preference is shared
when you visit some of your more distant relatives for dinner. Your relatives are offended
when you interrupt the dinner conversation to
answer a text.
• You’ve been bothered by a fellow students’ tendency to get off the subject during group project meetings. You would want to know if you
were creating problems for your group, so you
decide that these group members will probably
be grateful for some constructive criticism.
Unfortunately, you’re wrong.
• You lost your temper with a friend a week ago
and said some things you regret. In fact, if
TAKE TWO
• Halo effect: the tendency to form an overall positive impression of a person based on a single
positive characteristic.
• Fundamental attribution error: the tendency to
give more weight to personal qualities (dispositional) than to the situation when making attributions.
• Self-serving bias: the tendency to blame the
situation for our failures and take personal
credit for our successes.
• Confirmation bias: the tendency to seek out,
remember, and organize information to support
our opinions.
someone said those things to you, you would
consider the relationship finished. Imagining
that your friend feels the same way, you avoid
making contact. In fact, your friend feels partly
responsible and has avoided you because they
think you’re the one who wants to end things.
These examples show that others don’t always
think or feel the way we do and that assuming similarities can lead to problems. Sometimes, you can
find out the other person’s real position by asking
directly, other times, by checking with someone
else or by making an educated guess after you’ve
thought the matter through. All these alternatives
are better than simply assuming that everyone
would react the way you do.
We don’t always fall into the kind of perceptual
tendencies described in this section. Sometimes, for
instance, people are responsible for their misfortunes, or our problems are not our fault. Likewise,
the most obvious interpretation of a situation may
be the correct one. Nonetheless, a large amount of
research has shown again and again that our perceptions of others are often distorted in the ways
we’ve discussed. The moral, then, is clear: do not
assume that your negative appraisal of a person is
accurate or unbiased.
CHECK IT!
Summarize the five common tendencies in our perceptions of other people.
Perceiving Others More
­Accurately
After reading this far, you can appreciate how
flawed our perceptions of one another can be. It’s
easy to understand how these distorted perceptions can interfere with our communication. What
we need, then, are tools to improve the accuracy
of our attributions. In the following section, we’ll
introduce two such tools.
3 | Perceiving Others
Perception Checking
With the likelihood for perceptual errors being so
great, it’s easy to see how a communicator can leap
to the wrong conclusion and make false assumptions. Consider the defence-arousing potential of
incorrect accusations like these:
“Why are you mad at me?” (Who said I was?)
“What’s the matter with you?” (Who said anything was the matter?)
“Come on now. Tell the truth.” (Who said I was
lying?)
Even if your interpretations are correct, these
kinds of mind-reading statements are likely to generate defensiveness. The skill of perception checking is a better way to share your interpretations
(Hansen et al., 2002). A complete perception check
has three parts:
1. a description of the behaviour you noticed;
2. two or more possible interpretations of the
behaviour; and
3. a request for clarification about how to
interpret the behaviour.
Perception checks for the preceding three ­examples
would look like this:
“When you left quickly and slammed the door
[behaviour], I wasn’t sure whether you were mad
at me [first interpretation] or just in a hurry
[second interpretation]. How did you feel? [request
for clarification]”
“You haven’t laughed much in the last couple of
days [behaviour]. It makes me wonder whether
something’s bothering you [first interpretation]
or whether you’re just being quiet [second interpretation]. What’s up? [request for clarification]”
“You said you really liked the job I did [behaviour], but there was something about your voice
that made me think you may not like it [first
interpretation]. Maybe it’s just my imagination,
though [second interpretation]. How do you
really feel? [request for clarification]”
Perception checking is a tool to help us understand others instead of assuming that our first
interpretation is correct. Because its goal is mutual
understanding, perception checking is a co-­operative
approach to communication. Besides leading to
more accurate perceptions, it signals an attitude of
respect and concern for the other person, saying, in
effect, “I know I’m not qualified to judge you without
some help.”
Sometimes an effective perception check
won’t need all of the parts listed in the preceding
examples to be effective:
“You haven’t dropped by lately. Is anything the
matter?” [single interpretation]
“I can’t tell whether you’re kidding me about
being cheap or if you’re serious [behaviour combined with interpretations]. Are you mad at me?
[request for interpretation]
“Are you sure you don’t mind driving? I would
appreciate a ride if it’s no trouble, but I don’t want
to take you out of your way [request for clarification comes first; no need to describe behaviour].
The straightforward approach of perception
checking has the best chance of working in what
we identify in Chapter 6 as low-context cultures—
ones in which members use language as clearly
and logically as possible. Canadian, American,
Australian, and German dominant cultures, for
example, fit into this category. Members of these
groups are most likely to appreciate the kind of
straightforward approach that perception checking embodies. On the other hand, members of
high-context cultures (more common in Indigenous
Canadian communities, Latin America, and Asia)
value social harmony over clarity. High-context
communicators are more likely to regard candid
approaches like perception checking as potentially
embarrassing, preferring instead less direct ways
of understanding one another.
Along with clarifying meaning, perception
checking can sometimes be a face-saving way
to raise an issue without directly threatening
or attacking the other person. Consider these
examples:
101
102
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
“Were you going to drop off the rent cheque
tomorrow?”
“Am I boring you, or do you have something else
on your mind?”
hotblack/iStockphoto
In the first case you might have been quite sure
your roommate had forgotten to deliver the rent
cheque, in the second that the other person was
bored. Even so, a perception check is a less threatening way of pointing out behaviour than direct
confrontation. Keep in mind that one element of
competent communication is the ability to choose
the best option from a large repertoire, and perception checking can be a useful strategy at times.
parents whose perception checks reveal that their
teenager’s outlandish behaviour grows from a
desire to be accepted would likely find that insight
very useful. But to truly understand this behaviour
the parents would need to consider (or perhaps
recall) what it feels like to crave that acceptance.
Empathy Defined
What we need, then, to understand others more
completely is empathy—the ability to recreate
another person’s perspective and to experience
the world from her point of view (Geist, 2013).
It’s impossible to achieve total empathy, but with
enough effort and skill, we can come closer to this
goal (Buckman et al., 2011; Long et al., 1999).
Building Empathy
Empathy has three dimensions. On one level
Perception checking can help us decode ­messages empathy involves perspective taking—the ability
more accurately, but it doesn’t give us enough to take on the viewpoint of another person. This
information that we can claim to fully understand understanding requires a suspension of judgment,
another person. For example, a professor who uses so that for a moment you set aside your own opinperception checking might learn that a student’s ions and consciously take on those of the other
reluctance to ask questions is due to confusion person. In order to be accurate, we must use our
and not lack of interest. This information would be thinking skills, not our intuition (Ma-Kellams
helpful, but imagine how much more effective the and Lerner, 2016). The idea that there are diverse
professor would be if they could get a sense of the ways of seeing the world and that embracing them
confusion from the student’s perspective. ­Likewise, equally can help to deepen our understanding
has been referred to as “twoeyed seeing” (Martin, 2012).
Two-eyed seeing is believed
to have originated from the
Mi’kmaq word Etuaptmumk
and describes the need to take
both Indigenous and Western
worldviews into consideration
without perpetuating the dominance of one over the other
and to acknowledge our interdependence with each other
(Bartlett et al., 2012; Whiting
et al., 2018). Two-eyed seeing
reminds us, quite literally, that
we need to use all our ­resources
in our work to perceive each
Perception checking is a tool to help us understand others instead of assum- other accurately and that
ing that our first interpretation is correct. Have you done any perception understanding is the first comchecking recently?
ponent of empathy.
3 | Perceiving Others
BUILDING WORK SKILLS
PERCEPTION CHECKING
Improve your perception-checking ability by developing complete perception-checking statements for the following situations. Be sure your statements include a description of the behaviour, two equally plausible interpretations, and a request for verification.
You made what you thought was an excellent suggestion to your supervisor, who responded, “I’ll get
back to you about that right away.” It’s been three weeks, and you haven’t received a response yet.
You disagreed with a co-worker’s suggestions during a meeting. When the meeting was over, you asked
if anyone wanted to go for lunch and everyone agreed, with the exception of that same co-worker. The
next day when you pass in the hall, that persons nods, but doesn’t say hello or smile as usual.
In addition to cognitive understanding,
empathy also has an affective dimension—what
social scientists term emotional contagion. In
everyday language, emotional contagion means
that we experience the same feelings that others
have. We know their fear, joy, sadness, and so on
(Cuff et al., 2016). A third aspect of empathy is a
genuine concern for the welfare of the other person. Not only do we think and feel as others do, but
we have a sincere interest in their well-being. Full
empathy requires both intellectual understanding of the other person’s position and an affective
understanding of their feelings (Kerem et al., 2001;
Meneses and Larkin, 2017).
It’s easy to confuse empathy with sympathy,
but the concepts are different. With sympathy you
view the others person’s situation from your own
point of view. With empathy, you view it from the
other person’s perspective. Consider the difference
between sympathizing and empathizing with a
single parent or homeless person. When you sympathize, you focus on the other person’s confusion,
joy, or pain. When you empathize, the experience
becomes your own, at least for a moment. It’s one
thing to feel bad (or good) for someone; it’s more
profound to feel bad (or good) with someone.
Developing Empathy
There is considerable evidence that empathy, like
any other skill, can be learned (Buckman et al.,
2011; Luberto et al., 2018). Human beings appear to
TAKE TWO
• Empathy: recreating another person’s perspective and experiencing the world from his point of
view (“feeling inside”).
• Sympathy: feeling compassion for someone, but
not experiencing that person’s point of view or
emotions (“feeling with”).
have an innate capacity for empathy and the extent
to which it is developed varies from person to person. The development of empathy in childhood and
adolescence is supported by parenting p
­ ractices
that include modelling empathy, encouraging
appropriate emotional expressiveness, explaining
the effects of one’s actions on others, and consistent
discipline (Chaparro and Grusec, 2016; Strayer
and Roberts, 2004). A longitudinal investigation
conducted over a 23-year period found that adolescents with high empathy continued to be high
in empathy as adults and were more likely to use
constructive communication skills during conflict
situations in their marriages or common-law relationships as adults (Allemand et al., 2015).
Continuing to develop empathy as an adult
requires open-mindedness, curiosity, imagination, and commitment. It’s hardest to empathize
with people who are radically different from us in
categories such as age, sex, and socio-economic
103
104
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
William Steig/The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank
status (Goleman, 2013; Samovar et al., 2012). One
of the best ways to gain empathy for people whose
view differs from yours is by interacting with them
(Zhang, 2016). We can also empathize by attempting to experience the world from another person’s
perspective. Researchers have found that simulations can help you experience another person’s
reality. For instance, spending time in a virtual
body of a different race from yours or having an
elderly avatar, even for just a short period of time,
can help you understand how the world looks and
feels to other people (Hogenboom, 2013; Yee and
Bailenson, 2006). Even playing prosocial video
games and reading fictional stories have been associated with greater abilities to take another person’s
perspective and to be empathetic (Gentile et al.,
2009; Mar et al., 2009). Reading fiction and participating in simulations and co-operative video
games are experiences that have the potential to
take us to new places where we can experience the
social worlds of others. We can practise using the
same thinking skills and empathic abilities that we
would use in our own real-life social situations to
increase the accuracy of our understating of others.
As we saw in Chapter 1, the ability to empathize
is so important that it’s an essential ingredient of
communicative competence. Empathy can have
benefits for both the person who is doing the empathizing and the person who is being u
­ nderstood.
The importance of empathy is emphasized in
schooling and ongoing professional development
in a variety of fields including health care, education, corrections, and business. We’ll return to an
examination of the benefits of empathy in our discussion of listening in Chapter 5.
Empathy and Ethics
The golden rule of treating others as we want to be
treated points to the clear relationship between the
ability to empathize and the ethical principles that
enable society to function (Howe, 2013). Bystanders who feel empathy for victims are more likely to
intervene and offer help than those who are indifferent. On a larger scale, studies in Canada, the United
States, and Germany have revealed a relationship
between feelings of empathy and the willingness of
people to follow the moral principle that r­ esources
should be allocated according to people’s needs.
Empathetic people have “an interest in understanding life rather than taking sides” (Adams, 2003).
Requirements for Empathy
Empathy may be valuable, but it’s not always easy
to achieve. In order to make such perceptual leaps,
you need to develop several skills and attitudes.
Open-Mindedness Perhaps the most important characteristic of an empathic person is the
ability and disposition to be
open-minded—to set aside for
the moment your own beliefs,
attitudes, and values and to consider those of the other person.
Open-mindedness is especially
difficult when the other person’s
position is radically different
from your own. The temptation
is to think (and sometimes say),
“That’s crazy!” “How can you
believe that?” or “I’d do it this
way . . .”
Being open-minded is often
difficult because people confuse
understanding another’s position with accepting it. These
3 | Perceiving Others
BUILDING WORK SKILLS
BEGINNING TO BUILD EMPATHY
Canadian business leader Jean Claude Monty, the highly successful past chair, CEO, and president of BCE Inc.,
described empathy as one of the most important attributes of an effective leader. “Empathy allows you to
look at every situation through the customer’s, employee’s, shareholder’s, and competitor’s eyes, to gain a
far deeper understanding of how they’re all interconnected and what your next step should be” (Monty, 1998).
Often, the hardest time to empathize with someone is when we’re involved in an argument or conflict with
that person. Think about a disagreement you had recently with someone at work or school. Take a moment
to jot down your perspective on the issue. Now, try honestly and accurately to imagine the other person’s
thoughts and feelings about the same issue. Describe the two sides of the argument to a friend or classmate.
Does your friend or classmate think you have genuinely tried to perceive the issue from the other person’s
point of view? Has your position on the issue changed at all? Why or why not?
SELF-ASSESSMENT
YOUR EMPATHY QUOTIENT
Respond to each of the following statements using
a scale ranging from 0 to 4, where 0 = “never” and
4 = “always.” Also have someone who knows you
well fill out the questionnaire and compare notes
afterward.
1. When someone else is feeling excited, I
tend to get excited too.
2. Other people’s misfortunes do not disturb
me a great deal.
3. It upsets me to see someone being treated
disrespectfully.
4. I remain unaffected when someone close
to me is happy.
5. I enjoy making people feel better.
6. I have tender, concerned feelings for
people less fortunate than I am.
7. When a friend starts to talk about their
problems, I try to steer the conversation
towards something else.
8. I can tell when others are sad even when
they do not say anything.
9. I find I am in tune with other people’s moods.
10. I do not feel sympathy for people who
cause their own serious illnesses.
11. I become irritated when someone cries.
12. I am not really interested in how other
people feel.
13. I get a strong urge to help when I see
someone who is upset.
14. When I see someone being treated unfairly,
I do not feel very much pity for them.
15. I find it silly for people to cry out of happiness.
16. When I see someone being taken advantage
of, I feel a bit protective toward them.
Scoring:
Before summing your scores for the 16 items reverse
the scores for the negatively worded items: 2, 4, 7,
10, 11, 12, 14, and 15. That is, for these items: 0 =
4; 1 = 3; 2 =2, 3 = 1 and 4 = 0.
After reversing the scores for the noted items, sum all
your responses to determine your total empathy score.
In several studies female participants scored slightly
higher than male ones. For women, the average score
was 47 and for men, the average score was 44.
SOURCE: Adapted from Spreng, R., McKinnon, M.C.,
Mar, R.A., and Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto Empathy
Questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation
of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 62–71.
105
106
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
are quite different matters. To understand why a
friend disagrees with you, for example, does not
mean you have to give up your position and accept
theirs.
Imagination Being open-minded is often not
enough to make you empathetic. You also need
enough imagination to be able to picture another
person’s background and thoughts. A happily married or single person needs imagination to empathize with the problems of a friend considering divorce. A young person needs it to empathize with
a parent facing retirement. A teacher needs it to
understand the problems of students, just as students can’t be empathic without trying to imagine
how their instructor feels.
Commitment Because empathizing is often difficult, a third necessary quality is a sincere desire to
understand another person. Listening to unfamiliar,
often confusing information takes time and is not always pleasant. If you aim to be empathic, be willing
to accept the challenge. Empathy requires considerable energy and effort and you need to make sure
that your own needs for comfort and compassion
are met in order to be prepared for the challenge.
CHECK IT!
What are the three requirements for empathy, and
why do people often have difficulty with the first
requirement?
By now, you can see the tremendous difficulties we encounter when we want to understand
one another. Physiological distortion, psychological interference, and social and cultural conditioning all insulate us from our fellow human
beings. But the news is not all bad, for with a
combination of determination and skill, we can
do a better job of spanning the gap that separates
us and, as a result, enjoy more satisfying interpersonal relationships.
CHECK IT!
Name and describe two tools that can improve the
accuracy of our attributions.
SUMMARY
Many communication challenges arise because of
differing perceptions. The process of interpersonal
perception is a complex one, and a variety of factors influence each person’s view of reality.
Interpersonal perception involves four phases:
selection, organization, interpretation, and negotiation. A number of influences can affect how we perceive others’ behaviour. Physiological factors include
our senses, age, health, fatigue, hunger, and biological cycles. Psychological factors such as mood
and self-concept also have a strong influence on how
we regard others. In addition, social influences, such
as sex and gender and occupational roles, play an
important part in the way we view those with whom
we interact. Finally, cultural influences shape how
we recognize and make sense of others’ words and
actions. Our cultural values influence our perceptions
of talk and silence, thinking and logic, social obligations, distribution of power, avoidance of uncertainty,
and the value of achievement and nurturance.
Our perceptions are often affected by common
perceptual tendencies. We are more likely to blame
others than ourselves for misfortunes, and we are
more influenced by negative information than positive information. We’re influenced by our expectations, and we’re also influenced by obvious stimuli,
even if they are not the most important factors.
We make snap judgments and cling to first impressions, even if they’re mistaken, and we assume
others are similar to us.
One way to verify the accuracy of our interpretations is through perception checking. Instead of
3 | Perceiving Others
jumping to conclusions, communicators who check
their perceptions describe the behaviour they
noticed, offer two or more equally plausible interpretations, and ask for clarification from their partner.
Empathy is the ability to experience the world
from another person’s perspective. There are three
dimensions to empathy: perspective taking, emotional involvement, and concern for the other person. Empathy has benefits for both the empathizer
and the recipient. The requirements for developing
greater empathy include open-mindedness, imagination, and commitment.
MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
1.
2.
Which of the following statements about the
perception process is false?
a ­supposedly better cellphone plan. Fariba’s
mood is an example of
a. Your emotional state has little effect on
which stimuli you will attend to.
b. The raw sense data that we perceive can
be organized in more than one way.
c. Expectations affect our interpretation of
others.
d. Narratives can be used to create common ground.
a.
b.
c.
d.
a.
b.
c.
d.
4.
punctuation.
selection.
organization.
interpretation.
Culture influences people’s perceptions of
equality.
logic.
power.
all of the above.
5.
7.
Fariba is in a bad mood and is very skeptical about the salesperson’s explanation of
Blaming the failure of others on their personal
characteristics and blaming the situation for
our own failure are known as
Common tendencies in perception (such as
clinging to first impressions) are most likely
to lead to
a.
b.
c.
d.
Snap judgments
a. are always inaccurate.
b. are effortless.
c. are most accurate when they are based
on stereotypes.
d. help to de-categorize people.
physiological influence on perception.
social influence on perception.
psychological influence on perception.
narrative influence on perception.
a. the self-serving bias and uncertainty
avoidance.
b. uncertainty avoidance and standpoint
theory.
c. standpoint theory and the fundamental
attribution error.
d. the fundamental attribution error and
self-serving bias.
Within the perception process, relational
satisfaction has the greatest influence on
a.
b.
c.
d.
3.
6.
a
a
a
a
8.
judging others more charitably.
inaccurate attributions.
accurate attributions.
building empathy.
Our tendency to seek out, remember, and
organize information that supports our
impressions and beliefs is known as
a.
b.
c.
d.
confirmation bias.
the halo effect.
the empathy effect.
the first impressions effect.
107
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
9.
Which of the following is NOT a component of
empathy?
a.
b.
c.
d.
perspective taking
emotional contagion
genuine concern
sympathy
10. Which of the following statements is false?
b. Perception checking is a tool that helps
us understand others.
c. To be effective all perception checking
statements must include a description
of behaviour, two interpretations, and a
request for clarification.
d. Perception checking has the best chance
of working in low-context cultures.
a. Perception checking can decrease the
likelihood of making perceptual errors.
Answers: 1. a; 2. d; 3. d; 4. b; 5. c; 6. d; 7. b; 8. a; 9. d; 10. c
108
ACTIVITIES
1. Critical Thinking Probe
Complete the following sentences:
a. Women _____________________________.
b. Men ________________________________.
c. Francophones ________________________.
d. Anglophones _________________________.
e. Accountants _________________________.
f. Older people _________________________.
Now, ask yourself the degree to which each of your
responses was a stereotype and/or a generalization. How might aspects of your own identity (e.g.,
gender identity, religion, culture, language, etc.)
affect your responses? Is it possible to make generalizations about the groups listed above? How
could your answers to these questions change
the way you perceive and respond to people in
these groups? Share your list with a classmate
and discuss the degree to which your responses
were stereotypes and the ways in which your communication is affected by stereotyping.
2. Invitation to Insight
You can get a better appreciation of the importance of punctuation by using the format pictured
in Figure 3.3 (on page 83) to diagram the following
situations:
a. A father and daughter are growing more and
more distant. The daughter withdraws because
she interprets her father’s coolness as r­ ejection.
The father views his daughter’s aloofness as a
rebuff and withdraws further.
b. The relationship between two friends is
becoming strained. One makes jokes to
lighten up the tension, and the other becomes
more tense.
c. A couple is on the verge of breaking up. One
partner frequently asks the other to show more
affection; the other withdraws physical contact.
Explain how each of these situations could be punctuated differently by the two participants. Next, use
the same procedure to explain how an event from
your experience could be punctuated in at least
two different ways. Describe the consequences of
failing to recognize the plausibility of each of these
punctuation schemes.
3. Invitation to Insight
On pages 96–100 of this chapter, we outlined
several common perceptual tendencies. Describe
instances in which you committed each of them,
and explain the consequences of each one. Which
of these perceptual tendencies are you most prone
to make, and what may be the results of making it?
How can you avoid these tendencies in the future?
4. Skill Builder
You can develop your empathy skills by putting yourself in the shoes of someone with whom you have
3 | Perceiving Others
an interpersonal relationship. With that person’s
help, describe in the first person how the other person views an issue that is important to them. In
other words, try as much as possible to become
that person and see things from their perspective.
Your partner will be the best judge of your ability to
make this perceptual jump, so use their comments
to modify your account. After doing the exercise,
describe how your attempt changed the way you
might relate to the other person.
5. Role Play
With a partner, choose one of the situations
described below or recall a situation in which someone displayed ambiguous non-verbal behaviour,
and construct a perception-checking statement.
Be sure to include a description of the behaviour,
two plausible, but different interpretations of the
behaviour, and a request for clarification. Now,
have your partner act out the ambiguous behaviour
and role-play your perception-checking statement
with your partner. Reverse roles.
Situation One
Your sister arrives home from school, loudly drops
her books, and walks by you without a greeting. You
hear her bedroom door slam shut.
Situation Two
You call a close friend to talk about your exciting
plans for the weekend and they’re quiet, answering
your questions, but not elaborating on the plans, asking questions, or offering an opinion. Your friend’s
mood seems very subdued and a bit distant.
Situation Three
You arrive at work and your supervisor gives you a list
of things to be done. She is not as talkative as usual
and quickly walks away after giving you instructions.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Imagine yourself at a family meal or celebration. How might the participants’ perceptions
of this event differ? Consider all the influ­
ences on perception described in this chapter
to gain insight into the ways in which various
family members might perceive the situation
differently.
1.
Consider the cultural influences on perception described in this chapter. How might the
common perceptual tendency to assume that
2.
others are like us create problems in Canada’s multicultural society?
3.
In what types of situations can our common
tendencies in perception work to our advantage, and where would these same tendencies work to our disadvantage?
4.
Some communication researchers argue that
empathy is perhaps the most important element of communication competence. Would
you agree or disagree? Why?
2.
Think of someone you strongly disagree
with about a particular issue. Try to describe
how they think and feel about the issue as
accurately as possible. Remember, understanding their position does not mean that
you accept or agree with it.
JOURNAL IDEAS
1.
Consider the influences on perception
discussed in this chapter and describe
examples of how they have influenced
your perceptions and have possibly
influenced other people’s perceptions
of you.
109
Emotions
urbazon/iStockphoto
4
CHAPTER OUTLINE
What Are Emotions?
Physiological Changes
Cognitive Interpretations
Outward Expression
Influences on Emotional Expression
Personality
Culture
Gender
Social Conventions and Roles
Social Media
Emotional Contagion
Expressing Emotions Effectively
Recognize Your Feelings
Choose the Best Language
Share Multiple Feelings
Recognize the Difference between Feeling and Acting
Accept Responsibility for Your Feelings
Choose the Best Time and Place to Express Your Feelings
Managing Emotions
Facilitative and Debilitative Emotions
Thoughts as a Cause of Feelings
Irrational Thinking and Debilitative Emotions
Minimizing Debilitative Emotions
Maximizing Facilitative Emotions
KEY TERMS
communication apprehension
debilitative emotions
emotions
emotional contagion
emotional intelligence
emotional labour
emotionally counterfeit
facilitative emotions
fallacy of approval
fallacy of catastrophic expectations
fallacy of causation
fallacy of helplessness
fallacy of overgeneralization
fallacy of perfection
fallacy of should
intrapersonally
rational–emotive approach
reappraisal
rumination
self-talk
LEARNING OUTCOMES
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:
•
•
•
•
Identify and explain the physiological, cognitive, and outward expressions of your own and others’
­emotions
Describe the various personal and social influences on emotional expression
Demonstrate how to express your emotions appropriately and effectively
Distinguish between facilitative and debilitative emotions, and explain how that appraisal may be used
to manage emotions affectively
112
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
Imagine how different life would be if you lost
your ability to experience emotions. An emotionless world would be free of boredom, frustration,
fear, and loneliness. But the cost of such a painfree existence would be the loss of emotions like
joy, pride, and love. Few of us would be willing
to make that sort of trade-off. Being aware of
and experiencing emotions is fundamental to
the quality of our lives. People who have suffered damage to the areas of the brain that allow
them to process emotional information have
serious difficulty making decisions in daily life,
despite the fact that their cognitive abilities are
still functioning normally (Hiser and Koenigs,
2018). Making decisions and navigating our lives
require the combination of cognitive processes
and emotional responses. Emotions help humans
solve the basic problems of social living (Ferrer
and Mendes, 2018; Lerner et al., 2015).
The role of emotions in human affairs is apparent to social scientists and lay people alike. Daniel Goleman (1995) coined the term emotional
intelligence to describe the ability to understand
and manage our own emotions and be sensitive to others’ feelings. Studies have shown that
emotional intelligence is positively linked with
self-esteem and life satisfaction (Carmeli et al.,
2009), healthy conflict communication (Smith
et al., 2008), empathic listening abilities (Pence
and Vickery, 2012), and effective workplace interactions (Coetzer, 2015; Miao et al., 2017). Some
employers even use emotional intelligence measures as part of their personnel selection process
(Iliescu et al., 2012).
SELF-ASSESSMENT
YOUR EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
To what extent is each of the following true for you?
Rate each item below on a scale ranging from 1 to
5, where 1 = “very seldom true of me” and 5 = “very
often true of me.”
1. It’s hard for me to understand my feelings.
2. I have trouble understanding how others
feel.
3. I don’t fantasize or daydream.
4. I find it hard to contain my impulses.
5. I have difficulty expressing my feelings.
6. I’m good at understanding how others feel.
7. When I am in a difficult situation, I collect
information.
8. I tend to be impatient.
9. It’s hard for me to describe my feelings.
10. I’m sensitive to others’ feelings.
11. I stop and think before solving problems.
12. I find it hard to control my anxiety.
Scoring:
Reverse-score items 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 12 (i.e., 5 =
1, 4 = 2, 3 = 3, 2 = 4, 1 = 5).
Add items 1, 5, and 9. This is your score on the
intrapersonal dimension of Emotional Intelligence:
____. The average score for young adult men on this
dimension is about 10, with most scores between 8
and 12; for young adult women, the average is about
11, with most scores between 9 and 13.
Add items 2, 6, and 10. This is your score on the
interpersonal dimension of Emotional Intelligence:
____. The average score for young adult men on this
dimension is about 12, with most scores between 10
and 14; for young adult women, the average is about
13, with most scores between 11 and 15.
Add items 3, 7, and 11. This is your score on the
adaptability dimension of Emotional Intelligence:
____. The average score for young adult women and
men on this dimension is about 12, with most scores
between 10 and 14.
Add items 4, 8, and 12. This is your score on the
stress management dimension of Emotional Intelligence: ____. The average score for young adult women
and men on this dimension is about 9, with most
scores between 7 and 11.
SOURCE: This assessment, based on adaptations of
12 of the 35 items of the original measure, is from
Parker, J.A., Keefer, K.V., and Wood, L.M. (2011).
Toward a brief multidimensional assessment of emotional intelligence: Psychometric properties of the
Emotional Quotient Inventory – Short Form. Psychological Assessment, 23, 762–77.
4 | Emotions
Because emotions are such an important part
of human communication, we will take a close
look at them in the following pages. We’ll explore
what feelings are, discuss the ways they’re handled
in contemporary society, and see how recognizing
and expressing them can improve relationships.
We’ll also look at some guidelines that should give
you a clearer idea of when and how to express your
emotions constructively. In the final section, we’ll
explore a method for coping with troublesome,
debilitating feelings that inhibit rather than help
your communication.
What Are Emotions?
Emily Flake, The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank
Suppose an extraterrestrial visitor asked you to
explain emotions. How would you answer? You
might start by saying that emotions are things that we
feel. But this doesn’t say much, for, in turn, you would
probably describe feelings as synonymous with
emotions. There isn’t consistent agreement among
researchers on exactly what an emotion is (Izard,
2010, 2011). Psychologist Caroll Izard distinguishes
between first-order emotions, which are simpler and
operate in infancy and early childhood, and emotion
schemas. Emotion schemas are what we typically
experience as adults. They require more sophisticated
cognitive skills (i.e., beyond interpreting a sensation of pain or pleasure) and involve an interaction
between feeling and thinking. Much of the debate
regarding what emotions are seems to revolve around
the role of cognition in emotions. For our purposes
(understanding the role of emotions in interpersonal communication) we will define emotions as
feeling states that include physiological changes,
cognitive interpretations, and outward expression.
While finding an agreed upon definition of emotion
is chal­lenging, there is considerable consensus that
emotions play an important role in motivating and
focusing human behaviour and in social interactions.
In the context of interpersonal communication it’s
useful to examine three components of our definition
in order to better understand the role of emotion in
our social interactions (Scherer, 2000).
Physiological Changes
When a person has strong emotions, many bodily
changes take place. For example, the physical components of fear include an increased heartbeat, a rise
in blood pressure, an increase in adrenalin secretions, a high blood sugar level, a slowing of digestion, and a dilation of the pupils (Madan et al., 2017;
Schauer and Elbert, 2010). Marriage researcher
John Gottman notes that symptoms such as these occur when
couples engage in intense conflicts (Gottman and Silver, 1999).
He calls the condition “flooding”
and has found it impedes effective
problem solving.
Research supports the notion
that we experience emotions not
just in the mind but throughout the
whole body (Nummenmaa et al.,
2014). Research conducted at the
University of Toronto found that
undergraduate students who had
been rejected in an online game
were more likely to estimate the
temperature of the room they were
in as colder than participants who
had not been socially ostracized
(Zhong and Leonardelli, 2008).
113
114
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
Anger
Fear
Disgust
Happiness
Sadness
Surprise
FIGURE 4.1 Body Temperatures Associated with Various Emotions
Source: Nummenma et al. (2014)
In a second experiment by these same investigators,
rejected participants were significantly more likely
than their non-rejected peers to want a warm drink
(e.g., coffee or soup) than a cold drink (e.g., icy cola).
As Figure 4.1 shows, disgust may turn our stomachs,
fear can tighten our chest, happiness can make us
feel warm all over and sadness cold. Noticing physiological sensations such as these can offer a significant
clue to your emotions.
Cognitive Interpretations
Although there may be cases in which there is a
direct connection between physical behaviour
and emotional states, in most situations the mind
plays an important role in determining how we
feel (Critchley and Garfinkel, 2018). As we noted,
some physiological components of fear are a racing
heart, perspiration, tense muscles, and raised blood
pressure. Interestingly enough, these symptoms
are similar to the physical changes that accompany excitement, joy, and other emotions. In other
words, if we were to measure the physical condition
of someone having a strong emotion, we would
have a hard time knowing whether that person was
trembling with fear or with excitement. Sometimes
it’s a matter of interpretation and labelling.
The recognition that the bodily components of
most emotions are similar led some psychologists
to conclude that the experience of fright, joy, or
anger comes primarily from the labels—and the
accompanying cognitive interpretations—we give
to our physical symptoms (Imbir, 2016). Psychologist Philip Zimbardo (1977) offers a good example
of this principle:
I notice I’m perspiring while lecturing. From that
I infer I am nervous. If it occurs often, I might even
label myself a “nervous person.” Once I have the label,
the next question I must answer is, “Why am I nervous?” Then I start to search for an appropriate explanation. I might notice some students leaving the room,
or being inattentive. I am nervous because I’m not
giving a good lecture. That makes me nervous. How
do I know it’s not good? Because I’m boring my audience. I am nervous because I am a boring lecturer and
I want to be a good lecturer. I feel inadequate. Maybe I
should open a delicatessen instead. Just then a student
says, “It’s hot in here, I’m perspiring and it makes it
tough to concentrate on your lecture.” Instantly, I’m
no longer “nervous” or “boring.” (p. 53)
Social scientists refer to this process as reappraisal:
rethinking the meaning of emotionally charged
events in ways that alter their emotional impact
(Troy et al., 2013). Research shows that reappraisal
is related to positive psychological health outcomes
(Brockman et al., 2017; Butler et al., 2003; Gross
2015; Troy et al., 2018). Reappraisal also has relational benefits both among family and friends and
at work (Jones et al., 2017; Troth et al., 2018). People
who are able to step back from their conflicts and
reappraise them from a neutral perspective reduce
the emotional impact of their disputes and are better
able to maintain positive interpersonal relationships.
4 | Emotions
Outward Expression
Feelings are often apparent by observable changes.
Some of these changes involve a person’s appearance: blushing, sweating, and so on. Other changes
involve behaviour: a distinctive facial expression, a
particular posture, certain gestures, different vocal
tone and rate, and so on.
Although it’s reasonably easy to tell when someone is feeling a strong emotion, it’s more difficult to
be certain exactly what that emotion might be. A
slumped posture and a sigh may be a sign of sadness
or fatigue. Likewise, trembling hands may indicate
excitement or fear. As we shall see in Chapter 7,
non-verbal communication involves expressing
messages via non-linguistic means such as facial
expressions, gestures, posture, voice tone, etc., and
is usually ambiguous and can easily be misread.
Although we usually think of non-verbal behaviour as the reaction to an emotional state, there may
be times when the reverse is true—when non-verbal
behaviour actually causes emotions. For instance,
clenching your fists can help you feel stronger (Schubert and Koole, 2009) and walking with an upbeat
strut can stave off feelings of depression (Michalak
et al., 2015). We’ll discuss the relationship between
non-verbal behaviours and emotions more in Chapter 7. As behavioural scientists like to say, it can be
easier to act yourself into new ways of feeling than to
feel yourself into new ways of acting.
Non-verbal behaviour is a powerful way of communicating emotion. In fact, non-verbal actions
are better at conveying attitudes than they are at
expressing ideas. But sometimes, words are necessary to express feelings. Saying “I am angry” is
clearer and more helpful than stomping out of the
room, and “I’m feeling nervous” might help explain
a pained expression on your face. There are times
when you cannot rely on perceptiveness to make
sure a message is communicated and understood
accurately. Putting emotions into words can help
you manage them more effectively, whereas leaving them unspoken can be personally and interpersonally harmful (Chervonsky and Hunt, 2017).
The ability to communicate clearly about feelings
has been characterized as part of emotional intelligence, which we discussed earlier in the chapter. We
experience most emotions with different degrees of
intensity and we use specific emotion words to represent these differences. Awareness of the intensity
of emotions and the vocabulary to describe them
accurately is important. Reluctance or an inability
to express emotions is associated with greater social
difficulties and unhappiness (Chervonsky and
Hunt, 2017). Although we understand many words
that describe emotions in varying intensity, we tend
to rely on a few basic emotional labels (happy, sad,
mad, etc.), and increase or decrease their intensity
with words like “really,” “kind of,” and so on. Rather
than using these modifiers—“I was really, really
happy” and “I was kind of angry”—to increase or
decrease the intensity of our descriptions, we can
enhance others’ understanding of our experi­ences
by choosing more accurate descriptors such as
ecstatic or annoyed. Figure 4.2 illustrates this point.
To say you’re “annoyed” when a friend breaks an
important promise is probably an understatement.
In other cases, people chronically overstate the
strength of their feelings, saying everything is either
“fantastic” or “terrible.” The problem with this sort
of exaggeration is that when a truly intense emotion
comes along, there are no words left to describe it
adequately. If you “adore” chocolate chip cookies
Annoyed
Angry
Furious
Pensive
Sad
Grieving
Content
Happy
Ecstatic
Anxious
Afraid
Terrified
Linking
Loving
Adoring
FIGURE 4.2 Intensity of Emotions
115
116
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
from the local bakery, how do you describe your
feelings about your romantic partner?
CHECK IT!
Describe the three components of emotions and
provide examples of each.
Influences on Emotional
Expression
Each of us is born with the disposition to reveal
our emotions, at least non-verbally. Babies all over
the world smile, frown, giggle, and cry whenever
the mood strikes them. But over time, a wide range
of differences develops in emotional expression. In
the next few pages, we’ll look at some influences
that shape how people communicate their feelings.
Personality
Science has established an increasingly clear relationship between personality and the way people
experience and communicate emotions (Wilson
et al., 2015). For example, extroverted people—those
with a tendency to be cheerful and optimistic and
to enjoy social contact—report more positive emotions in everyday life than more introverted individuals (Lucas et al., 2008; McCrae and Costa, 2008).
Conversely, people with neurotic personalities—
those with a tendency to worry, be anxious, and
feel apprehensive—report more negative emotions
than less neurotic individuals. In addition, individuals with neurotic tendencies are less accurate when identifying negative emotions in others
(Edgar et al., 2012; Matsumoto et al., 2000).
Although personality can be a strong force, it
does not have to govern your emotions or communication satisfaction. Think of shyness, which
can be considered the opposite of extroversion.
Introverted people can devise comfortable and
effective strategies for reaching out. For example,
the absence of auditory and visual cues in textbased communication has been found to help shy
people feel less apprehension about communicating
with new people (Hammick and Lee, 2014). Social
media can provide a way for shy people to initiate
communication and gain confidence. Research evidence suggests that mediated communication provides opportunities for socially anxious people to
connect with others who share the same interests
and provides opportunities to rehearse behaviour
and communication skills that may help them in
face-to-face social interactions (Ledbetter et al.,
2011). However, there is also evidence that the
cognitive biases socially anxious people are more
susceptible to in face-to-face interactions are also
present in at least some forms of mediated communication (Kingsbury and Coplan, 2016). See the
Focus on Research box, R U Mad @ Me, for details.
Culture
Although people around the world experience the
same emotions, the same events can generate quite
different feelings in different cultures. The notion
of eating cod tongues might bring a smile of delight
to some residents of Newfoundland, though it
would cause many other Canadians to grimace in
­disgust. Culture also has an effect on how emotions
are ­valued.
Sometimes it’s hard to imagine emotions being
valued in ways that are different from our own. An
eye-opening example of what it’s like to experience
emotions being valued differently comes from the
late anthropologist Jean Briggs at Memorial University (2000). As a PhD student, in the 1960s, Jean lived
for 18 months with an Inuit family (as a daughter) in
a tiny Utkuhiksalik community in Chantrey Inlet,
northwest of Hudson’s Bay. The Utkuhiksalik value
social harmony. They need to work together to survive in such a harsh climate. During her stay Jean
learned to speak Utkuhikalingmiut (she documented
the language later) and she learned about a culture
that did not express anger or blame towards others.
Jean was not aware of this cultural value when she
arrived. When a group of American fishermen, who
had flown in, asked to borrow the only remaining
canoe after having damaged the first one they borrowed Jean was incensed. The community needed
the canoe to get their autumn and winter supplies
before the ice set in, and they had no materials or
access to materials to repair the first canoe these men
had broken! The canoe was essential for the ­survival
4 | Emotions
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
R U MAD @ME?
In face-to-face situations people who are socially
anxious are more likely to interpret ambiguous social
situations negatively when compared to their less
anxious peers (Chen et al., 2018). Although the use
of emoticons and emoji can help reduce ambiguity in
mediated communication (Kaye et al., 2016, 2017;
Rodrigues et al., 2018), there is some evidence that
they’re not used as frequently in private messaging
between friends as they are in more public messaging
(e.g., status updates) (Oleszkiewicz et al., 2017). In
addition, they don’t help reduce message ambiguity
in some situations (see examples below for mes­
sages in which an emoji or emoticon might not clarify
the senders’ messages). So, Carleton University
researchers Mila Kingsbury and Robert Coplan (2016)
wondered if social anxiety might also negatively bias
interpretations of ambiguous text messages.
Kingsbury and Coplan (2016) developed and validated a measure of interpretation bias in computermediated contexts, specifically text messages.
Their measure includes 24 vignettes for which the
respondent imagines receiving an ambiguous text from
a friend. The respondent is presented with one negative and one benign interpretation and asked to rate
the likelihood of each interpretation occurring to them.
They rate the likelihood of each interpretation using a
five-point scale with one meaning the interpretation
“does not come to mind” and five meaning the interpretation “definitely comes to mind.” Below are a few
examples of the vignettes and the two interpretations
(one negative, one benign) for each.
Vignette Example 1:
A few minutes before class, you message a friend
and ask him/her to save you a seat.
S/he responds
“I’m sitting with Alex.”
Response choices:
a. S/he is telling me where s/he is sitting so I
can find him/her
b. S/he doesn’t want to sit with me
Vignette Example 2:
A friend of yours is hosting a party. You send him/her
a message asking if it’s alright to bring someone with
you to the party.
S/he replies:
“Oh okay”
Response choices:
a. It’s fine if I bring someone
b. S/he doesn’t want me to bring someone
Vignette Example 3:
The day after attending a party, you get this message
from a friend:
“I heard about last night”
Response choices:
a. S/he heard about something interesting that
happened at the party
b. S/he heard about something embarrassing
I did or said
Kingsbury and Coplan (2016) varied the order of the
benign and negative interpretations and the gender of
the senders in the process of validating their measure. They found that individuals with higher social anxiety had a greater tendency to endorse the negative
interpretations of ambiguous text messages. They
point out that in face-to-face situations the presence
of ambiguous non-verbal social cues (e.g., a yawn
that could mean tiredness or boredom, or laughter that
continued
117
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
could signal amusement or disdain) provide a source
of social ambiguity that socially anxious individuals are
more likely to interpret negatively. In text mes­sages,
the absence of any additional social cues creates
the ambiguity. Socially anxious people appear more
inclined to not only misinterpret social cues (e.g., faceto-face interaction) but also interpret verbal messages
more negatively in the absence of social cues (e.g., text
messages). The investigators argue that these negative appraisals may serve to maintain social anxiety by
increasing the likelihood that people will avoid social
situations, and thereby decrease the amount of posi-
of the community. Jean was angry and told the men
her Inuit father did not want to lend them his canoe.
She violated the Utkuhiksalik rules of courteous,
obliging behaviour and created fear of reprisals from
the fishermen (even though in the end they got the
canoe). As a result of this discourteous display of
anger, Jean was subtly ostracized by the Inuit community. At first she didn’t realize or understand what
was happening but as she learned more about her
host community she found out that the meanings
they assigned to various emotions were very different
from the ones she had learned growing up.
“For them, a happy person was
a good person, a safe person;
anger was mindless, childish;
also dangerous: an angry person might kill. For Inuit, social
order did not derive merely
from following rules of expression, it depended on feeling the
culturally appropriate emotions. As they saw it, emotions
motivated behaviour. I think
they were right.” (p. 159)
More recent studies have confirmed that different cultures
both experience and value emotions differently. For example,
members of collectivist cultures
are more likely to value “low
arousal positive affect” such as
being calm, relaxed, and p
­ eaceful.
tive feedback they receive from social situations. The
good news is that negative interpretation bias can be
reduced (Liu et al., 2017). The first step in that process
is being aware of the possibility that our interpretations
might be biased. The next step involves reappraising
the situation, which we discuss later in this chapter.
Critical thinking: Can you think of factors other than
social anxiety or shyness that might contribute to interpreting ambiguous social situations more negatively?
More positively? What is the role of emoticons and
emoji in your mediated communication?
In contrast, members of more individualistic cultures
tend to value “high arousal positive affect” such as
excitement, enthusiasm, and elation (Kuppens et al.,
2016; Lim 2016; Tsai et al., 2006). There is also evidence that people experience emotions that “fit” their
culture’s values. For instance, in individualistic cultures that value autonomy and independence people
are more likely to experience emotions related to selfworth and autonomy, such as pride and anger. In contrast, in collectivist cultures, where interdependence
and connectedness are highly valued, people tend to
experience more feelings of closeness to others rather
than pride in situations where things go well, and
© iStockPhoto/Bartosz Hadyniak
118
There are a lot of influences that shape how we communicate our feelings.
How do you see the influences discussed in this chapter shaping the way you
communicate?
4 | Emotions
Pressmaster/Shutterstock
more embarrassment, rather than anger, when things emotional expression among collectivistic and indidon’t go well (Boiger et al., 2013; De Leersnyder et al., vidualistic cultures (Matsumoto et al., 2008). Clearly,
2014). In addition, when people’s experiences of emo- expressing strong negative emotions such as anger
tion “fit” with their cultural values, particularly in and disgust could easily threaten interpersonal harthe context of their interpersonal relationships, they mony. It’s easy to see how differences in display rules
experience greater relational well-being (De Leer- can lead to communication problems. For example,
snyder et al., 2014, 2015). These researchers confirm individualistic North Americans might view collecwhat Jean Briggs observed more than 50 years ago: tivistic Asians as less than candid, whereas a person
we learn which emotions are valued in our cultures raised in Asia could easily regard North Americans
through our interactions with others and this social- as being overly demonstrative.
ization shapes our emotional experiences (Mesquita
Cultural background influences the way we interet al., 2017).
pret others’ emotions as well as the way we express
The position of a culture on the individualism– our own. Recognition of emotion is generally more
collectivism spectrum is one of the most influential accurate when the person expressing the emotion
factors in emotional expression (Halberstadt and and the person judging the emotional display belong
Lozada, 2011). Members of collectivistic cultures to the same cultural group (Dailey et al., 2010; Elf(such as Japan and India) prize harmony among enbein and Ambady, 2002a). It makes sense that it
members of their in-group and discourage the would be easier to judge another person’s emotional
expression of any negative emotions that might upset expressions accurately if you were familiar with
relationships among people who belong to it. By the subtle differences in expressive style that are
contrast, members of highly individualistic cultures part of their culture. In a comparison of university
like Canada and the United States feel comfortable students from Africa (Gabon) and North Amerrevealing their feelings to people they are close to. ica (Quebec), Hillary Elfenbein and her colleagues
Individualists and collectivists also handle emotional (2007) found that members of these two groups of
expression with members of out-groups differently. students had their own culturally unique differences
Whereas collectivists are quite frank about express- in facial expressions of some emotions. Knowledge
ing negative emotions toward outsiders, individual- of these unique variations in emotional expression
ists are more likely to hide emotions such as dislike gave members of the same culture a distinct advan(Ting-Toomey, 2017). For instance, in a cross-cultural tage for accurately reading emotions within their
investigation of display rules for
seven basic emotions (happiness,
sadness, anger, fear, disgust, contempt, and surprise) researchers
found that Canadian university
students believed showing positive emotions (e.g., happiness,
surprise) and powerfully negative emotions (e.g., anger, disgust)
was appropriate more often than
Japanese students. Japanese students had more varied rules for
displaying emotions, depending
on who they were interacting
with, compared to Canadian students (Safdar et al., 2009). These
differences in ideas about appropriate displays of emotion are Women appear to be better at detecting and interpreting emotional expresconsistent with general norms for sions. Do you think this is an advantage or disadvantage for women?
119
120
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
cultural group. The investigators compared these
uniquely distinct variations in emotional expression
to ­dialects—variations in a standard language.
In addition to knowledge of unique variations
in facial expressions, members of different cultures
pay closer attention to different facial cues when
interpreting emotional expressions. People in individualistic cultures pay closer attention to a person’s
mouth. Conversely, people in collectivist cultures
are more likely to look carefully at a person’s eyes.
Cultures even differ in their use of emoticons, with
people from individualistic cultures usually using
symbols that direct attention to the mouth [ : ) or :–( ]
while people from collectivist cultures are more
likely to vary the direction of the eyes [ ^_^ or ; _ ; ]
(Park, Barash et al., 2013; Yuki et al., 2007).
Gender
Even within our culture, gender roles often shape the
ways in which people experience and express their
emotions (Lee et al., 2013; Wester et al., 2002; Wingenbach et al., 2018). For instance, research suggests
women are faster than men at recognizing emotions
from facial cues (Hampson et al., 2006). They are better at identifying multiple emotions (Hall and Matsumoto, 2004) and better at judging emotions from
eye behaviour alone (Kirland et al., 2013). They’re
also more stimulated by emotional data and remember them better than men do (Spalek et al., 2015).
Research on emotional expression also suggests that there is some truth in the stereotype of
the inexpressive male and the more demonstrative
female. Overall, women seem more likely than
men to express a wide range of feelings (Palomares, 2008). In many cultures, men are socialized
not to express emotions such as sadness, but their
expression of anger is deemed acceptable. In contrast, women’s expressions of sadness fit with the
female stereotype for emotional expression, but
their expressions of anger do not. Megan McCarty
and her colleagues (2014) found that when men and
women experience counter stereotypic emotions
in public places (e.g., men feeling sad and women
feeling angry) it interfered with performance on a
cognitive task. This was true even if they did not
express their emotions publically. These researchers suggest that experiencing emotions that we have
been socialized not to express is taxing. S­ imilarly,
when women buck social conventions and express
emotions that counter stereotypes, such as contempt, they report feeling more unhappy than men
do (Crowley and Knowles, 2014). Men, on the other
hand, are more likely to be reluctant to talk about
their feelings, which can lead to relational chal­
lenges (Hesse et al., 2012, 2015). Although men and
women generally experience the same emotions,
there are some significant differences in the ways
they read and express them (Brody and Hall, 2010).
These differences are due in large measure to social
conventions, which we’ll discuss next.
Social Conventions and Roles
Canadians have a reputation for being “nice”—polite,
deferential, and law-abiding people (Adams, 2003;
McIntyre, 2017). Mainstream North American culture generally discourages the direct expression of
most emotions. Count the number of genuine emotional expressions you hear over a two- or three-day
period (“I’m angry”; “I feel embarrassed”) and you’ll
discover that such expressions are rare. People are
generally comfortable making statements of fact
and often delight in expressing their opinions, but
they rarely disclose how they feel. They tend to act
out rather than talk about their emotions.
Not surprisingly, the emotions that people do
share directly, face to face or online, are usually
positive (“I’m happy to say . . .”; “I really enjoyed . . .”).
Communicators are reluctant to send messages that
embarrass or threaten the face of others (Shimanoff,
1988). For instance, contemporary societies discourage expressions of anger. When compared to past
centuries, many societies today strive to suppress
this “unpleasant” emotion and its expression in
almost every situation, including child-rearing, the
workplace, and personal relationships (Pinker, 2011;
Stearns and Stearns, 1986). One study of married
couples (Shimanoff, 1985) revealed that the partners shared complimentary feelings (“I love you”) or
face-saving ones (“I’m sorry I yelled at you”). They
also willingly disclosed both positive and negative
feelings about absent third parties (“I like Amir,” “I’m
uncomfortable around Gloria”). On the other hand,
they rarely verbalized face-threatening feelings
(“I’m disappointed in you”) or hostility (“I’m mad
4 | Emotions
at you”). This isn’t to suggest that restricting emotion expression is always a bad idea. Researchers use
the term emotional labour to describe situations in
which managing or even supressing emotions are
both appropriate and necessary (Butler and Modaff,
2012). Studies show emotional labour is an important part of many if not most occupations. Studies
of first responders, correctional officers, financial
planners, people working as customer service representatives, teachers and health care providers have
all found that it can be taxing to manage the expression of their emotions (Grandey et al., 2013).
Social Media
Communicators usually express more emotion via
mediated communication than they do in person
(Derks et al., 2008; Reid and Reid, 2010). In some
cases, that is good news. Those who have trouble
sharing feelings face to face may find freedom to
do so via mediated communication. Consider how
it might be easier to say the words “I’m embarrassed” or “I love you.” However, norms of social
media emotion sharing, like face-to-face sharing,
are biased toward the positive and when negative
emotions are shared on social media users are less
likely to offer public social support (Ziegele and
Reinecke, 2017).
In addition, as discussed in Chapter 1, online
disinhibition can also encourage emotional outbursts and tirades. This kind of venting can be hazardous to interpersonal relations, and it probably
won’t make you feel any better.
Social media can also feed emotional responses.
For instance, regularly checking a romantic partner’s Facebook may spur feelings of jealousy,
resulting in relational dissatisfaction (Dainton and
Stokes, 2015). Jealousy resulting from social media
posts is especially strong when the viewer is already
suspicious, and more so for women than men (Muise
et al., 2014). Snapchat can elicit even more jealousy
than Facebook because it’s often used for flirting
and finding new love interests (Utz et al., 2015).
The bottom line is that both senders and receivers
experience emotions more intensely online. It’s wise
to keep this in mind before hitting send on emotionally charged messages and before jumping to conclusions about ambiguous mediated messages.
Emotional Contagion
Emotions can spread from one person to another
through a process known as emotional contagion
(Dasborough et al., 2009). As Daniel Goleman
(1995, p. 115) observes, “We catch feelings from
one another as though they were some kind of
social virus.” There is evidence this contagion happens between students and teachers (Baker, 2005),
customers and employees (Jiangang et al., 2011),
co-workers (Robbins and Juge, 2010), and husbands
and wives (Randall et al., 2013). Although people
differ in the extent to which they are susceptible to
emotional contagion (Ilies et al., 2007; Papousek
et al., 2008), you can probably recall instances in
which being around a calm person left you feeling
more at peace or when your previously good mood
was spoiled by contact with a grouch. That’s the
power of emotional contagion.
This process can take place online as well as
in person. In an analysis of millions of status
updates on Facebook, researchers found that
posts about rain—which typically correlate with
negative moods—can have a ripple effect on readers (Coviello et al., 2014). Those exposed to their
friends’ rainy day messages began posting more
negative updates even if it wasn’t raining in their
area. The good news is that positive posts are contagious too—at even greater rates. The researchers found that every positive status update led to
1.75 new posts by followers. Twitter updates can
have similar effects (Ferrara and Yang, 2015). It’s
important to recognize that communicating your
emotional state—even online—with people who
may not know you well, can have an impact on
the feelings and moods of others. And, if checking others’ posts leaves you feeling anxious and
depressed (Lin et al., 2016), it might be a good time
to take a break from social media.
CHECK IT!
Describe seven influences on emotional expression that shape how people communicate their
feelings.
121
122
Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
are healthier than those who
don’t. Inexpressive people,
those who avoid their feelings
and impulses and deny distress,
are more likely to suffer from a
host of medical ailments (Quartana and Burns, 2010). However,
overly expressive people also suffer physiologically. When people
lash out angrily, their blood
pressure jumps an average of 20
points and in some people by as
many as 100 points (Siegman
and Snow, 1997). Learning how
to express emotions constructively is central to good health.
The following suggestions
Emotions can be contagious, so it’s important that we express them well. Can
can help you decide when and
you think of a time you “caught” an emotion from someone else?
how to express your emotions.
Combined with the guidelines
for self-disclosure in Chapter 2,
Expressing Emotions
they can improve the effectiveness of your emoEffectively
tional expression.
A wide range of research supports the value of
expressing emotions appropriately. Starting at a
young age the way parents talk to their children Recognize Your Feelings
about emotion has a powerful effect on develop- Answering the question, “How do you feel?” is
ment. John Gottman and his associates (1997) not as easy for some people as others (Peper,
identify two distinct parenting styles: “emotion 2000). Communication researchers Melanie
coaching” and “emotion dismissing.” Research Booth-Butterfield and Steven Booth-Butterfield
has found that parents who accurately and (1998; also see Samter and Burleson, 2005) found
non-judgmentally describe children’s emotions that some people (whom they term “affectively
(e.g., “It looks like you’re very angry”) were more oriented”) are much more aware of their own
likely to have children who could accurately rec- emotional states and use information about those
ognize and describe their emotional states. In con- feelings when they make important decisions. By
trast, children of parents who denied or invalidated contrast, people with a low affective orientation
their children’s emotions (e.g., “Don’t be angry!”) are usually unaware of their emotions and tend
were less able to accurately identify their feelings to consider feelings to be useless, unimportant
(Lambie and Linberg, 2016). Validating and label- information. The researchers summarize studies
ling children’s emotions teaches them life skills for showing a relationship between awareness of feelcommunicating about feelings, leading to much ings and a wide range of valuable traits, includmore satisfying relationships. Children who grow ing having positive relationships between parents
up in families where parents dismiss emotions are and children, being able to comfort others, being
at higher risk for behaviour problems than those sensitive to non-verbal cues, and even being able
to skilfully use humour to communicate. In other
who practise emotion coaching (Young, 2009).
At the most basic physiological level, people words, being aware of your feelings is an importwho know how to share their feelings appropriately ant ingredient in effective communication.
4 | Emotions
Beyond being aware of one’s feelings, research
shows that it’s valuable to specifically identify one’s
emotions. Teaching children to recognize and
accurately identify their emotions is foundational
to building their emotional intelligence (David,
2016). College students who could pinpoint the
negative emotions they experienced (such as “nervous,” “angry,” “sad,” “ashamed,” and “guilty”) also
had the best strategies for managing those emotions (Barrett et al., 2001).
As we saw earlier in this chapter, there are a
number of ways in which feelings become recognizable. Physiological changes can be a clear sign
of your emotional state. Monitoring your non-­
verbal behaviour is another excellent way to keep
in touch with your feelings. You can also recognize
your emotions by observing your thoughts, as well
as the verbal messages you send to others. It’s not
far from the verbal statement, “I hate this!” to the
realization that you’re angry (or bored, nervous, or
embarrassed).
Choose the Best Language
Teechai/Shutterstock
Most people suffer from impoverished emotional
vocabularies. Ask them how they’re feeling, and
the response will almost always include the same
terms: good or bad, terrible or great, and so on.
Take a moment now and see how many feelings
you can write down.
Many communicators think they’re expressing feelings when, in fact, their statements
are emotionally counterfeit. For example, it
sounds emotionally revealing to say, “I feel like
going to a show” or “I feel we’ve been seeing
too much of each other.” But, in fact, neither of
these statements has any emotional content. In
the first sentence, the word feel really stands in
for an intention: “I want to go to a show.” In the
second sentence, the “feeling” is really a thought:
“I think we’ve been seeing too much of each
other.” You can recognize the absence of emotion
in each case by adding a genuine word of feeling
to it—for instance, “I’m bored and I want to go to
a show” or “I think we’ve been seeing too much
of each other and I feel confined.”
Relying on a small vocabulary of feelings is as
limiting as using only a few terms to describe colours. To say that the ocean in all its moods, the
sky as it varies from day to day, and the colour of
your true love’s eyes are all “blue” tells only a fraction of the story. Likewise, it’s overly broad to use
a term like good or great to describe how you feel
in situations as different as earning a high grade,
finishing a marathon, and
hearing the words “I love you”
from a special person. Bradberry (2015) found that one
sign of emotional intelligence
is having a “robust emotional
vocabulary”:
Sometimes recognizing your emotions can be difficult. Journaling can help, as
can talking to someone close to you. What are some other ways you come to
recognize your emotions?
While many people might
describe themselves as simply feeling “bad,” emotionally intelligent people can
pinpoint whether they feel
“irritable,”
“frustrated,”
“downtrodden,” or “anxious.”
The more specific your word
choice, the better insight you
have into exactly how you are
feeling, what caused it, and
what you should do about it.
123
124
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
There are several ways to express a feeling verbally:
• Through single words: “I’m angry” (or “excited,”
“depressed,” “curious,” and so on).
• By describing what’s happening to you metaphorically: “My stomach is tied in knots,” “I’m
on top of the world.”
• By describing what you’d like to do: “I want to
run away,” “I’d like to give you a hug.”
Finally, you can improve emotional expression
by making it clear that your feeling is centred on a
specific set of circumstances, rather than the whole
relationship. Instead of saying, “I resent you,” say,
“I get resentful when you do not keep your promises.” Rather than, “I’m bored with you,” say, “I get
bored when you talk about money.”
Share Multiple Feelings
Many times, the feeling you express is not the only
one you’re experiencing. For example, you might
often express your anger, but overlook the confusion, disappointment, frustration, sadness, or
embarrassment that preceded it. To understand
the importance of expressing multiple emotions,
consider the following examples. For each one, ask
yourself two questions: How would I feel? What
feelings might I express?
• An out-of-town friend has promised to arrive
at your house at six o’clock. When your guest
hasn’t arrived by nine, and hasn’t responded to
your texts you’re convinced there’s been a terrible
accident. Just as you pick up the phone to call the
police and local hospitals, your friend strolls in
with an offhand remark about getting a late start.
• A friend has posted a photo of you online, along
with a positive message. On one hand, you feel
flattered by the display of affection. On the
other hand, you would rather keep the picture
private. You wish your friend had asked first.
In situations like these, you would probably
feel several emotions. Consider the case of the late
friend. Your first reaction to their arrival would
probably be relief: “Thank goodness they’re safe!”
TAKE TWO
• Emotionally counterfeit: statements that appear
to describe feelings, but lack emotional content.
But you would also probably feel anger: “Why
didn’t they text or call to tell me they’d be late?”
The second example would probably leave you
feeling pleased, embarrassed and angry—all at the
same time.
Despite the commonness of experiencing several emotions at the same time (Carofiglio et al.,
2008), we often communicate only one feeling—
usually, the most negative one. In both of the preceding examples, you might show only your anger,
leaving the other person with little idea of the full
range of your feelings. Consider the different reaction you would get by describing all your emotions
in such situations.
Recognize the Difference between
Feeling and Acting
Just because you feel a certain way does not mean
you must always act on it. In fact, there’s compelling
evidence that people who act out angry feelings—
even by hitting a punching bag—actually feel worse
than those who experience anger without lashing out
(Bushman et al., 1999; Parlamis et al., 2010). Posting
your frustration on online “rant sites” doesn’t help
either (Martin et al., 2013). Venting anger has many
negative personal and interpersonal outcomes (Gibson and Callister, 2010; Parlamis, 2012).
Recognizing the difference between feeling and
acting can liberate you from the fear that getting
in touch with certain emotions will commit you to
some disastrous course of action. If, for instance,
you think, “I’m so nervous about the interview that
I want to cancel it and pretend I’m sick,” it becomes
possible to explore why you feel so anxious and
then work to remedy the problem. Pretending that
nothing is the matter, on the other hand, will do
nothing to diminish your anxiety, which can then
block your chances for success.
4 | Emotions
Accept Responsibility
for Your Feelings
People do not make us like or dislike them, and
believing that they do denies accepting accountability and the responsibility each of us has for our
own emotions. It’s important to make sure that
your emotional expressions do not blame others
for the way you feel (Bippus and Young, 2005;
Oatley, 2010). The “I” language described in Chapter 6 makes it clear that you own your feelings.
For example, instead of saying, “You’re making
me angry,” it’s more accurate to say, “I’m feeling
angry.” Instead of uttering, “You hurt my feelings,”
a more responsible statement is, “I feel hurt when
you do that.”
Choose the Best Time and Place
to Express Your Feelings
Often, the first flush of a strong feeling is not the
best time to speak out. If you’re awakened by the
racket caused by a noisy neighbour and you storm
over to complain, you may say things you’ll regret.
In situations like this, it’s probably wiser to wait
until you’ve thought out carefully how you can
express your feelings in a way that is most likely
to be heard.
Even after you’ve waited for your initial emotion to subside, it’s still important to choose the
time that is best suited to the message. If you’re
rushed or tired or disturbed by some other matter, that’s probably a good reason for postponing
the expression of your feeling. In the same manner, you ought to be confident that the recipient of
your message is ready to hear you out before you
begin. Sometimes that means checking the other
person’s mood before you start sharing emotions.
In other cases, it’s about calculating whether that
person is ready to hear sentiments such as “I love
you.” But don’t put off expressing emotions too
long. It turns out that the old adage “Never go
to bed angry,” has scientific validity (Hicks and
Diamond, 2011). Interpersonal conflict between
couples that’s left unresolved overnight leads to
poor sleep patterns, which can cause a variety of
health problems.
CHECK IT!
What are the six guidelines to keep in mind when
expressing emotions?
There are also cases where you may choose to
never express your feelings. Even if you’re dying to
tell an instructor that her lectures leave you bored
to a stupor, you might decide it’s best to answer her
question “How’s class going?” with an innocuous
“Okay.” And even though you may be irritated by
the arrogance of a police officer who stops you for
speeding, the smartest approach might be to keep
your feelings to yourself.
When you experience strong emotions but don’t
want to share them verbally (for whatever reason)
writing out your feelings and thoughts has been
shown to have mental, physical, and emotional
benefits (Crowley, 2014; Pennebaker and Chung,
2007). Putting your feelings into words—even if
no one reads them—has therapeutic value (Wilson, 2011). This demonstrates once again the link
between emotions and communication. The cognitive process of turning feelings into language helps
manage the emotions.
Managing Emotions
The preceding section described how to express
your emotions constructively. But there will be
times when you decide it’s best to keep your feelings to yourself. For example, imagine that during
class your professor makes an offhand comment
that makes you feel embarrassed. You might not
feel comfortable saying “That hurt my feelings.”
Likewise, in a job interview, you probably wouldn’t
do yourself any favours by confessing your nervousness.
The following sections describe how to manage
your emotions intrapersonally—that is through
your own thought processes. The starting point is
learning to differentiate beneficial emotions from
the less helpful kind.
125
126
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
Facilitative and Debilitative
Emotions
Not all emotions are beneficial. For instance, depression, terror, and irrational guilt do little to help you
live well or improve your relationships. It’s important
to distinguish between facilitative emotions, which
contribute to effective functioning, and debilitative
emotions, which hinder or prevent effective performance. An example of a debilitative emotion is
communication apprehension—­feelings of anxiety
that plague some people at the prospect of communicating in an unfamiliar or difficult situation
such as giving a speech, meeting strangers, or being
interviewed for a job.
Not surprisingly, debilitative emotions like
communication apprehension can lead to a variety of problems in personal, business, educational,
and even medical situations (Blume et al., 2013;
Emory et al., 2018; McCroskey, 2009). The difference between facilitative and debilitative emotions
is often not one of quality as much as degree. For
instance, a certain amount of anger or irritation
can be constructive, if it stimulates a person to
improve the unsatisfying conditions. Rage, on the
other hand, usually makes matters worse. The same
is true of fear. A little bit of nervousness before
a job interview may inspire you just enough to
improve your performance (athletes or actors who
are too relaxed usually do not do well), but a job
candidate who is inordinately anxious is not likely
to impress potential employers (Ayres and Crosby,
REFLECTION
FEELING MIXED EMOTIONS
Recently I had the experience of feeling mixed
emotions when my romantic partner of three years
ended our relationship. We dated throughout high
school and first year university, but the relationship had become strained and we had less and
less in common. I was seriously thinking about
ending the relationship but my partner beat me to
it, leaving me feeling relieved, hurt, and sad all at
the same time.
1995). One big difference, then, between facilitative
and debilitative emotions is their intensity.
A second characteristic of debilitative feelings is their extended duration. Feeling sad for a
while after the breakup of a relationship or the
loss of a job is natural. Spending the rest of one’s
life grieving over the loss accomplishes nothing.
In the same way, staying angry at someone for a
wrong inflicted long ago can be just as punishing
to the grudge holder as to the wrongdoer (Bushman et al., 2005). Rumination involves recurrent thoughts not demanded by the immediate
environment (Sullivan et al., 2005). A substantial
body of research confirms that rehashing negative events over and over in your head increases
feelings of sadness, anxiety, and depression, and
makes them last longer (Verduyn and Lavrijsen,
2015). Jealousy and rumination are a particularly
bad mix (Elphinston et al., 2013), often leading to
unhealthy relational behaviours such as surveillance and stalking. While it is sometimes hard to
stop ruminating, as we will soon see, it is possible.
Thoughts as a Cause of Feelings
How can you minimize debilitative feelings? One
way is known as the rational–emotive approach
(Ellis and Ellis, 2014). This method is based on the
idea that the key to changing feelings is to change
unproductive cognitive interpretations.
Emotions may seem to have a life of their own.
People wish they could feel calm when approaching strangers, yet their voices quiver. They try to
appear confident when asking for a raise, but their
eyes twitch nervously. Many people would say that
the strangers or their supervisor makes them feel
nervous, just as they would say that a bee sting
causes them to feel pain:
Activating Event
Consequence
bee sting
physical pain
meeting strangers
nervous feelings
When looking at emotions in this way, people
may believe they have little control over how they
feel. However, the causal relationship between
activating events and emotional discomfort (or
pleasure) is not as great as it seems. Cognitive
4 | Emotions
Activating
Event
Thought or
Belief
Consequences
Being called “I don’t deserve
names
to be treated like
this.”
hurt, anger
Being called “My friend must
names
be sick.”
sadness, compassion
The same principle applies in more common
situations. For example, the words “I love you”
can be interpreted in a variety of ways. They could
be taken at face value as a genuine expression of
deep affection. They might also be interpreted
in a variety of other ways: for example, as an
attempt at manipulation; a sincere, but mistaken
declaration uttered in a moment of passion; or
an attempt to make the recipient feel better. It’s
easy to imagine how different interpretations of
a statement like “I love you” can lead to different
emotional reactions:
Event
Thought
Feeling
Hearing “I
love you”
“This is a genuine
statement.”
delight
(perhaps)
Hearing “I
love you”
“They are just
saying this to
manipulate me.”
anger
tuaindeed/Shutterstock
psychologists and therapists argue that it is not
events, such as meeting strangers or being jilted by
a lover, that cause people to feel bad, but rather the
beliefs they hold about these events.
Consider this example to understand how
thoughts cause feelings. Imagine you start receiving a string of angry, insulting messages from a
friend. Under the circumstances, it’s likely that
you would feel hurt and angry. Now, imagine
that after receiving the offensive messages, you
learn that your friend had been hospitalized for
mental illness. In this case, your reaction would
probably be quite different—most likely, you’d feel
sorrow, compassion and possibly embarrassment
for ever imagining your good friend would turn
against you so quickly for no apparent reason.
In this story, the activating event—being called
names—was the same in both cases, and yet the
emotional consequences were very different. The
reason for different feelings has to do with the pattern of thinking in each case. In the first instance,
you would most likely think that your friend was
angry with you and that you must have done
something terrible to deserve such a response. In
the second case, you would probably assume that
your friend had experienced some psychological
difficulty, so you would probably feel sympathetic.
This example illustrates that people’s interpretations of events determine their feelings:
Think about the last time you were upset. What role did your beliefs about the
event play in your emotional response?
The key, then, to understanding and changing feelings
lies in reappraising the event.
This takes place through a form
of intrapersonal communication professionals have labelled
self-talk (Fernyhough, 2016;
Geurts, 2018)—the non-vocal,
internal monologue that is our
process of thinking. To understand how self-talk works, pay
attention to the part of you that,
like a little voice, whispers in
your ear. Take a moment now
and listen to what the voice is
saying.
Did you hear the voice? It
was quite possibly saying, “What
127
128
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
little voice? I don’t hear any voices!” This little voice
talks to you almost constantly:
“I wonder when they’ll finally decide about that.”
“I’d better get moving or I’m going to be late.”
“How rude to cut in line!”
At work or at play, scrolling through our phone
or brushing our teeth, we’re almost always thinking. This thinking voice rarely stops. It may fall
silent for a while when we’re meditating or concentrating on a task, but most of the time, it rattles on.
Let’s look at how that voice sometimes processes
thoughts in ways that need reappraising.
Irrational Thinking and Debilitative
Emotions
This process of self-talk is essential to understanding the debilitative feelings that interfere with effective communication (Ellis, 2017). Many debilitative
feelings come from accepting a number of irrational
thoughts—we’ll call them fallacies here—that lead
to illogical conclusions and, in turn, to debilitating
feelings. We are not usually aware of these thoughts,
and that makes them especially powerful.
The Fallacy of Perfection
People who accept the fallacy of perfection believe
that a worthwhile communicator should be able to
handle any situation with complete confidence and
skill. Although such a standard of perfection can
serve as a goal and a source of inspiration (rather
like making a hole-in-one for a golfer), it’s unrealistic to expect that you can reach or maintain this
level of behaviour. The truth is, people simply are
not perfect, despite what we see online and in
media (Dougherty and Krawczyk, 2018).
People who believe that it’s desirable and possible to be a perfect communicator come to think
that they will not be appreciated if they’re imperfect. Admitting mistakes, saying “I don’t know,” or
sharing feelings of uncertainty or discomfort thus
seem to be social defects. But we know that’s not
accurate, because most of us don’t like being around
know-it-alls who never acknowledge they’re fallible.
TAKE TWO
• Facilitative emotions: contribute to effective
functioning.
• Debilitative emotions: hinder and prevent effective performance; they are usually more intense
and longer lasting than facilitative emotions and
are frequently based on irrational thinking.
• Rational–emotive approach: a cognitively-based
therapeutic approach that involves getting rid of
debilitative emotions by changing one’s thinking.
You become more liberated each time you
comfortably accept the idea that you are not perfect. Saying to yourself “I made a mistake—I’m a
failure” will likely lead to debilitative emotions.
Replacing that with “I made a mistake—I guess
I’m human, and I learned something from it” is far
more facilitating.
The Fallacy of Approval
Another mistaken belief is based on the idea that
it is vital—not just desirable—to obtain everyone’s approval. Communicators who subscribe to
the fallacy of approval go to extreme lengths to
seek acceptance from others, even to the extent
of sacrificing their own principles and happiness.
Adherence to this irrational myth can lead to
some ludicrous situations, such as feeling nervous
because people you really do not like seem to disapprove of you, or feeling apologetic when you’re
not at fault.
Consider how some self-talk is rooted in the fallacy of approval, and how realistic alternatives can
lead to more facilitative emotions:
Fallacious approval seeking:
“If I speak up about those racist jokes, the others
will probably think I’m hung up on political correctness.”
Rational:
“I hope they won’t think I am overly PC but I’d
rather speak up than compromise my beliefs.”
4 | Emotions
Fallacious approval seeking:
“If I confront my classmate about not doing their
share of the project they will probably get defensive.”
Rational:
“There’s a chance my classmate will get
­defensive—but I would rather deal with it than
keep quiet and feel resentful.”
Don’t misunderstand: abandoning the fallacy of
approval does not mean living a life of selfishness.
It’s still important to consider the needs of others.
It’s also pleasant—perhaps even necessary—to strive
for the respect of certain people. The point is that
the price is too high if you must abandon your own
needs and principles in order to gain this acceptance.
The Fallacy of Should
One source of unhappiness is the inability to distinguish between what is and what should be, or
the fallacy of should. For instance, imagine a person who is full of complaints about the world:
“There should be no rain on weekends.”
“Money should grow on trees.”
“We should all be able to fly.”
Beliefs such as these are obviously foolish. But
we hold those kinds of expectations for others all
the time:
“They shouldn’t be so inconsiderate.”
“People should stand up for themselves.”
“They should work harder.”
We also hold these expectations for ourselves.
Read these out loud and consider how you feel
about them (your tone of voice will give you a clue):
“I should be more outgoing.”
“I should be nicer to my family.”
“I should be a better team player.”
Even when they’re true, “should” statements
carry a lot of emotional baggage. Rather than
expecting others to behave the way you think they
should and feeling disappointed when they don’t
meet that standard, it’s more realistic to think, “I
wish they would behave the way I want—but maybe
I’m being unrealistic to expect better behaviour.”
The same principle applies to self-imposed
resolutions—they can be unrealistic and create
­
more problems than they solve. It can be more productive to set goals rather than dwell on self-criticism.
Consider these alternatives to the previous list:
“I wish I were more extroverted but I’m not. I’ll
do the best I can without being phony.”
“I’m going to start being nicer to my family.”
“I’ll resist being selfish and work on being a better team player.”
The Fallacy of Overgeneralization
The fallacy of overgeneralization occurs when a
person bases a belief on a limited amount of evidence. Consider the following statements:
“I’m so stupid! I can’t understand how to do my
income tax.”
“Some friend I am! I forgot my best friend’s
birthday.”
These examples focus on a single shortcoming as
if it represents everything. It’s more rational and less
punishing to avoid overgeneralizing. Finding one task
challenging doesn’t mean you’re unintelligent, and
forgetting one event doesn’t make you a bad friend.
A second, related category of overgeneralization occurs when we exaggerate shortcomings:
“They never listen to me.”
“They’re always late.”
“I can’t think of anything.”
Upon closer examination, such absolute statements are almost always false and they usually lead
to discouragement or anger. It’s better to replace
overgeneralizations with more accurate messages:
“They often don’t listen to me.”
“They’ve been late three times this week.”
“I haven’t had any ideas I like today.”
129
130
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
THE REMINDERS OF OUR FRIENDS CAN HELP TAKE AWAY THE STING
OF BEING EXCLUDED
Why do we seek approval from others and why does
it hurt so much when they reject us? Researchers
have found that some of the same pain-related
brain mechanisms that are activated when we hurt
ourselves physically (e.g., stub your toe) are also
activated by social pain, such as social exclusion
or ostracism (Sturgeon and Zautra, 2016). In fact,
taking a pain reliever such as acetaminophen dulls
the social pain of rejection and exclusion just as it
does physical pain (DeWall et al., 2011). The need
to belong to a group is central to our survival as a
species, as we discussed in Chapter 1 (see Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs). Over a decade of research examining people’s responses to social exclusion in an
online cyberball game paradigm has confirmed that
adults find it painful when other adults choose not
to include them in the game; it’s also painful just to
watch others be rejected from the online game (Hartgerink et al., 2016; Wesselmann et al., 2009; Williams and Jarvis, 2006). Incredibly, it’s even painful
when people are rejected by groups of people they
despise (Gonsalkorale and Williams, 2007).
A recent investigation using the cyberball paradigm
examined the extent to which subtly reminding people
of their larger social network after they experienced
The Fallacy of Causation
People who live their lives in accordance with the
fallacy of causation believe they should do nothing that can hurt or in any way inconvenience
others because it will cause undesirable feelings.
For example, you might not tell your family members that they have interrupted you several times
because you don’t want to make them angry. Similarly, it might be tempting to avoid bringing up
issues with co-workers because you don’t want to
cause a negative reaction.
A reluctance to speak out in such situations often results from assuming that one person can cause another’s emotions—that others,
rejection in the cyberball game affected their ability
to recover from the social exclusion experience (Knausenberger and Echterhoff, 2018). This study found
that German university students with a more collectivist orientation (more interdependent) recovered faster
(regained their feelings of social connection) than their
peers with a more individualist orientation, when they
saw a subtle reminder of their social network (e.g.,
Facebook logo in the corner of their computer screen)
during a series of tasks they completed after experiencing ostracism in the cyberball game. Participants
who were not reminded of their friends saw a Word
logo on their computer screen. Participants who had
a more individualistic orientation (more independent)
were not affected by either logo. These investigators
wondered if the ubiquitous presence of logos in our
lives might sometimes help remind us of our enduring connections to others and bolster our sense of
belonging in the face of social exclusion.
Critical Thinking: What helps you recover from rejection or social exclusion? Do you think that the cultural dimension of individualism versus collectivism
helps explain your recovery supports? Are there other
aspects of culture that might be more relevant?
for example, are responsible for your feeling
disappointed, confused, or irritated, or that you
are responsible for others feeling hurt, angry, or
upset. Actually, this assumption is sometimes
incorrect. We may act in provocative ways, for
which we are responsible, but each person is also
responsible for the way they react.
It’s not accurate to say that people make you
angry, upset, or even happy. Behaviour that upsets
or pleases one person might not bring any reaction
from another. If you doubt this fact, think about
people you know who respond differently to a behaviour that you find bothersome. (You may scream
“Idiot!” when driving and someone switches lanes
in front of you without signalling, while the person
4 | Emotions
REFLECTION
THINKING ABOUT AN ANNOYING
FRIEND
My friend Ada talks about her personal life at
length, but when I talk about myself for more than
a couple of minutes, she has few comments and
quickly turns the conversation back to her favourite topic, herself.
Until lately, Ada’s egocentric focus was beginning to hurt my feelings. When Ada talks about herself, I think that what I have to say isn’t interesting
or that she doesn’t care about me as a friend.
I feel neglected, as if our relationship is one-sided.
Lately, I’ve started to think about other reasons Ada talks so much. For example, she’s told
me that I’m a great listener and that I help her by
lending an ear. Also, I’ve realized that Ada seldom
gets to talk about herself (she spends all day talking to customers on the phone and is engaged to
a very talkative guy).
So now I’ve started to take Ada’s self-centred
approach less personally. I still wish she would
listen to me more, but I don’t think that her egocentrism is making me resentful. It’s my choice
whether to accept her as she is, speak up about
what I want, or see less of her.
driving the car behind you may not even notice, or
may notice, but not care.) The contrast between their
reactions and yours shows that responses are determined more by our own temperament and thinking
than by the actions of others.
One way to avoid debilitative feelings that
often accompany the fallacy of causation is to
use responsible language, as we’ll discuss in
Chapter 6. Instead of saying “They make me
so angry,” reframe it to centre on your reaction
to the other person’s behaviour: “I don’t like
it when they talk about me behind my back.”
Instead of saying, “I had to visit my grandparents this weekend; they gave me no option,” take
responsibility for your choices: “I decided to
visit my grandparents this weekend, but I might
choose differently next time.” Taking ownership
for your actions and reactions can often lead to a
sense of empowerment.
The Fallacy of Helplessness
The fallacy of helplessness suggests that forces
beyond our control determine our satisfaction in
life. People with this outlook continually see themselves as victims:
“There’s no way a woman can get ahead in this
society. The best thing I can do is to accept it.”
“I was born with a shy personality. I’d like to be more
outgoing, but there’s nothing I can do about that.”
“I can’t tell my manager that she’s putting too many
demands on me. If I did, I might lose my job.”
The error in such statements becomes apparent once a person realizes that few paths are completely closed. Many difficulties a person claims
can’t be solved do have solutions; the task is to
discover the solutions and to work diligently at
applying them. Changing your self-talk can help
you see some of those choices and feel more positive about pursuing them:
“It’s an uphill battle in this society but I will do
my best to bring about change.”
“I tend to be shy around strangers, but I’m going
to introduce myself to someone I don’t know at
the party tonight.”
“It won’t be pleasant to confront my manager, but
I can do it.”
Even if you simply change “I can’t tell my manager” to “I won’t tell my manager” you’ll at least
be aware of the choice you’re making and feel less
helpless.
The Fallacy of Catastrophic Expectations
Some fearful people operate on the assumption
that if something bad can happen, it probably will.
This is the fallacy of catastrophic expectations—a
position similar to Murphy’s Law. These statements
are typical of such an attitude:
“If I invite them to the party, they probably won’t
want to come.”
“If I speak up in order to try to resolve a conflict,
things will probably get worse.”
131
132
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
and the kind of reappraisal we’ll
discuss next. Communicators
who manage their emotions are
able to express them in productive ways with their partners,
and this helps maintain relationships. With that in mind, we
look at how to reduce debilitative emotions that are generally
counterproductive to personal
and interpersonal health.
spfoto/iStockphoto
Minimizing Debilitative
Emotions
Which of these fallacies do you struggle with the most? What are some things
you can do to overcome irrational thoughts?
“If I apply for the job I want, I probably won’t be
hired.”
“If I tell them how I really feel, they’ll probably
just laugh at me.”
Once you start imagining terrible consequences, a self-fulfilling prophecy can begin
to build. One study revealed that people who
believed that their romantic partners would not
change for the better were likely to behave in ways
that contributed to the breakup of the relationship
(Metts and Cupach, 1990). And, people who have
a “pessimism bias” often perceive threats in their
relationships that are not apparent to outsiders,
leading to relationship dissatisfaction (Knobloch
et al., 2007). If this fallacy plagues you, it’s best
to shift your internal language from “I fear the
worst” to “I’ll hope for the best.”
Although it’s easy to understand the personal
benefits of reducing debilitating emotions, it’s
important to remember the interpersonal reasons for doing so. Simply put, relationships function better when the people involved manage
their e­ motions (English et al., 2013; Knobloch and
Metts, 2013). This obviously doesn’t mean stifling
feelings—quite the contrary. Emotion management
involves self-awareness, emotional intelligence,
Now you’re ready to put into practice the rational–emotive process
and self-talk. When practised conscientiously, it can help you cut
down on the self-defeating thinking that leads to many debilitative
emotions.
CHECK IT!
List the seven fallacies or irrational types of thinking that can create debilitative emotions. Provide
an example of each fallacy.
Monitor Your Emotional Reactions
The first step is to recognize when you’re having
debilitative emotions. As we suggested earlier, one
way to notice feelings is through physical stimuli:
butterflies in the stomach, racing heart, blushing, and so on. Although such reactions might
be symptoms of food poisoning, more often they
reflect a strong emotion. You can also recognize certain ways of behaving that suggest your
­feelings—stamping instead of walking normally,
being unusually quiet, and speaking in a sarcastic
tone of voice are some examples.
It may seem strange to suggest that it’s necessary to look for emotions—they ought to be
immediately apparent. However, the fact is that
we often suffer from debilitative feelings for some
4 | Emotions
time without noticing them. For example, at the
end of a trying day you’ve probably caught yourself
frowning and realized that you’ve been wearing
that expression for some time without knowing it.
Remember the two key characteristics of debilitating emotions, intensity (they are too intense)
and duration (they last too long), and use them to
guide your assessment.
Note the Activating Event
Once you realize how you’re feeling, the next step
is to figure out what activating event triggered your
response. Sometimes, it’s obvious. If your romantic
partner keeps calling you by the name of a former
lover, you’re likely to become upset. Research shows
that dating couples can develop “social allergies”
to each other, becoming hypersensitive about their
partner’s annoying behaviours (Cunningham et al.,
2005). In other cases, however, the activating event
is not so apparent.
Sometimes, there is no single activating event,
but instead a series of small incidents that finally
trigger a debilitative feeling. This sort of thing happens when someone teases you over and over about
the same thing, or when you suffer a series of small
disappointments.
The best way to begin tracking activating events
is to notice the circumstances in which you have
debilitative feelings. Perhaps they happen when
you are around specific people. For example, you
may feel tense or angry every time you encounter
a person you have struggled with in the past. Until
those issues are dealt with, feelings about past
events can trigger debilitative emotions, even in
apparently innocuous situations.
In other cases, you might discover that being
around certain types of individuals triggers debilitative emotions. For instance, you might become
nervous around people who seem more intelligent
or self-confident than you are. In other cases, certain
settings can stimulate unpleasant emotions: parties,
work, or school. Sometimes, the topic of conversation is what sets you off, whether it’s politics, religion, sex, or some other sensitive subject. There is
evidence to suggest that the channel or information
source can play a role too. There are considerable
variations in people’s perceptions of appropriate
cellphone etiquette and civility. Social media, with
its exclusive and nonexclusive message features,
friending and defriending, can also contribute to
feelings of jealousy, envy, sadness, and social isolation (Rozgonjuk et al., 2018; Utz et al., 2015). Recognizing your activating events is an important step in
minimizing debilitative emotions.
Record Your Self-Talk
This is the point at which you analyze the thoughts
that are the link between the activating event and
your feelings. If you’re serious about getting rid of
debilitative emotions, it’s important to actually write
down your self-talk when you’re learning to use this
method. Putting your thoughts on paper will help
you see whether or not they make any sense.
Monitoring your self-talk might be difficult at
first. This is a new skill, and any new activity seems
awkward. If you persevere, however, you’ll be able
to identify the thoughts that lead to your debilitative feelings. Once you get into the habit of recognizing this internal monologue, you will be able to
identify your thoughts quickly and easily.
Dispute Your Irrational Beliefs
Now is the time to engage in the reappraisal process mentioned earlier in this chapter. Use the discussion of irrational fallacies on pages 128 to 132
to find out which parts of your self-talk are based
on mistaken thinking, and then use those skills to
actively dispute your irrational beliefs.
You can do this most effectively by following three steps. First, decide whether each belief
you have recorded is rational or irrational. Next,
explain why the belief does or does not make
sense. Finally, if the belief is irrational, write
down an alternative way of thinking that is
more sensible and that can leave you feeling better when you are faced with the same activating
event in the future.
Change Your Self-Talk
Once you have disputed your irrational beliefs,
it’s time to change your intrapersonal language
accordingly. Replace words in your self-talk such
133
134
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
as “can’t,” “have to,” and “should” with words like
“will,” “want to,” and “choose to.” For example:
Instead of saying “I can’t make small talk with
strangers,” say, “I will ask more questions with
strangers.”
Instead of saying, “I have to be polite to rude customers,” say, “I choose to be polite because it’s
better than the other options.”
Instead of “I should be less defensive,” say, “I want
to be less defensive, so I’m going to work on it.”
After reading about this method for dealing
with unpleasant emotions, some readers may have
objections such as:
“This rational–emotive approach sounds like nothing
more than trying to talk yourself out of feeling bad.”
This accusation is totally correct. After all, since we
talk ourselves into feeling bad, what’s wrong with
talking ourselves out of bad feelings, especially
when they’re based on irrational thoughts?
“The kind of disputing we just read sounds phony
and unnatural. I don’t talk to myself in sentences
and paragraphs.” There’s no need to dispute your
irrational beliefs in any special literary style. You
can be as colloquial as you want. The important thing is to clearly understand what thoughts
led you into your debilitative feeling so you can
clearly reappraise them. When the technique is
new to you, it’s a good idea to write or talk out
your thoughts in order to make them clear. After
you’ve had some practice, you’ll be able to do
these steps in a quicker, less formal way.
“This approach is too cold and impersonal. It
seems to aim to turn people into cold-blooded,
calculating, emotionless machines.” This is simply
not true. A rational thinker can still dream, hope,
and love. There’s nothing necessarily irrational
about feelings like those.
“This technique promises too much. There’s no
chance I could rid myself of all unpleasant feelings,
however nice that might be.” We can answer this
by assuring you that rational–emotive thinking
probably won’t make all your debilitative feelings
go away. What it can do is reduce their number,
intensity, and duration.
Maximizing Facilitative Emotions
Reducing debilitative emotions is only part of the
emotional health equation. Contemporary scholars
maintain that fostering positive emotions is just as
important as minimizing negative ones. Whether
it’s called “learned optimism” (Seligman, 2006)
or “positivity” (Fredrickson, 2009), the approach
is similar to what’s outlined in this chapter. If
thoughts cause feelings, then positive thoughts
can cause positive feelings. Ruminating on the
good rather than the bad in life can enhance one’s
emotional, relational, and even physical health
(Rius-Ottenheim et al., 2013; Wrosch et al., 2017).
It’s unrealistic to think that you’ll have a positive emotional response to every event. The key,
according to Harvard professor Susan David
(2016), is to cultivate “emotional agility.”
Emotional agility is a skill set that builds on our
ability to face our emotions, label them, understand them, and then choose to move forward
deliberately. It is the ability to recognize when
you’re feeling stressed, be able to step outside
your stress, and then decide how to act in a way
that is congruent with your personal values and
aligned with your goals. (Semnani, 2016)
BUILDING WORK SKILLS
CHALLENGING IRRATIONAL BELIEFS
Debilitative emotions at work or school can prevent you from making decisions and solving problems. Choose
an important situation you faced at work or school in which you experienced debilitative emotions that interfered with your ability to communicate effectively. Use the five steps on pages 132–4 to challenge the rationality of your beliefs. How has the rational–emotive approach affected your communication in this situation?
4 | Emotions
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
COMBINING DAILY MINDFULNESS WITH REAPPRAISAL
Ekaterina Pogrebtsova and her colleagues (2018) at
the University of Guelph, Simon Fraser University,
and Kemmy Business School in Ireland developed and
piloted a brief (five day) daily practice of mindfulness
and positive appraisal to help university students
manage their stress, decrease their negative emotions, and promote their overall well-being. Positive reappraisal involves changing your self-talk, as
we’ve just discussed. Mindfulness is another well-­
established emotional regulation technique that
involves focusing awareness on thoughts and feelings in the present moment without judging them.
Mindfulness involves acceptance of and curiosity
about one’s emotions and thoughts. It helps people
broaden their attention, sometimes called “decentring
attention,” which can facilitate a positive reappraisal
of a seemingly negative situation (Azam et al., 2016;
Garlan et al., 2015). When you establish some distance from your thoughts and feelings it’s easier to
think about them differently. In addition, mindfulness
helps us focus on the meaning of our experiences
in terms of our personal growth and development.
Often, negative incidents can frequently be reframed
or reappraised as inherently meaningful events that
help us learn, grow, and develop as human beings.
These investigators randomly assigned 106 Canadian university students to one of three conditions:
reappraisal-only intervention, mindful-reappraisal
intervention, and a control condition. All participants
attended a one-hour “Looking on the Bright Side of
Life” general training session. Afterwards, for five
consecutive days (Monday to Friday), participants
assigned to the reappraisal-only condition completed
a daily positive reappraisal exercise, an online survey,
and a second online daily positive and negative affect
scale. Participants in the mindful-reappraisal condition completed the same surveys over the same fiveday period but their exercise included mindfulness
instructions (an example of these is below) in addition
to positive reappraisal instructions. The control group
completed all the same measures but did not receive
exercise instructions. Finally, in order to control
for people’s naturally occurring levels of ­mindfulness
all three groups completed the Toronto Mind­
fulness Scale each day (Davis et al., 2009).
Participants in this study described a variety of
predominantly low-severity stressors that included
academic issues (most frequent), followed by interpersonal conflict, miscellaneous daily hassles, and
general negative mood. Lower frequency issues
involved lateness, forgetfulness, physical pain or
sickness, and lack of sleep.
The investigators found that the students in
both intervention groups (but not the control group)
reported a pronounced decrease in negative emotions
over the five-day intervention. Participants assigned to
the mindful-reappraisal group experienced higher
average levels of daily positive emotion and lower
levels of daily negative emotions compared to participants assigned to the reappraisal-only and control
groups. In addition, participants in the mindful-reappraisal intervention reported higher average levels of mindfulness compared to the reappraisal-only
and control groups. The investigators concluded that
incorporating mindfulness instructions into classic
positive reappraisal exercises helped to promote
student well-being in a short (five-day) intervention.
Below are the instructions the investigators provided
to students in the mindfulness-reappraisal group.
Please lean back and relax for a moment. If you
want to, you can close your eyes. Allow yourself
to explore your thoughts and keep an open mind
while you engage in this activity. First please
complete the breathing technique: Keep count
of the number of seconds it takes you to inhale,
and then to exhale, for three full breaths. Now
relax and take some time to recall a negative
event that happened to you within the last
24 hrs. As you recall the negative situation,
please try to do so objectively without evaluating the situation or making judgments about
what happened. Pretend as if you are an outsider viewing the situation with no background
knowledge. What happened exactly? Where
did it happen? What did you see, hear, or even
smell? What did you do or say? Were you alone
or were other people involved? If another person was (or several people were) involved, what
exactly did they do or say? Think of the b
­ enefits
continued
135
136
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
you may have gained from your experience
such as self-understanding, insight, or improvement in a relationship and your thoughts and
feelings associated with those benefits such
as empowerment and relief. Focus on what you
have learned from this experience and how it
will help you in your future experiences. Please
finish the exercise by completing the breathing
technique again. Keep count of the number
of seconds it takes you to inhale, and then to
exhale, for 3 full breaths to allow yourself to
focus on the present moment.
More than half the participants in this study
reported feeling better (improved mood) after completing the exercises. Other benefits included
reduced frustration, improved clarity, feeling better
Even though you can’t dictate all the events in
your life, you have the power to reappraise them.
Clichés such as “look on the bright side” and “have
an attitude of gratitude” may not be comforting when delivered by others, but they can serve
as helpful reminders. You can regard challenging
situations as growth opportunities. You can focus
on what you gained rather than what you lost. You
can choose compassion over contempt. The difference between “you really hurt me” and “I found
out how strong and capable I really am” is often a
matter of mindset and positive emotions followed
by positive reappraisals.
prepared to face future stressors, and learning to
avoid similar situations in the future. Finally, 89 per
cent of the participants said the exercises were useful and 79 per cent believed they would continue to
use the exercises regularly in the future. Pogrebtsova
and her colleagues caution that there may be cultural
differences that affect the effectiveness of mindful-­
reappraisal as a coping strategy and that mindfulness
and positive reappraisal are just two of many effective strategies students can use to promote their
well-being.
Critical Thinking: How important is emotional regulation to your overall well-being? What strategies do you
employ to manage negative emotions and sustain positive emotions? What role could/does mindfulness play
in your well-being?
Many people find it easier to focus on their negative
emotional experiences. It often takes mindful effort to
pay attention and express pleasurable feelings in close
relationships. Here are 10 emotions that research (Fredrickson, 2009) identifies as basic to positivity: joy,
gratitude, serenity, interest, hope, pride, amusement,
inspiration, awe, and love. How many of those have
you experienced recently? How often do you express
these emotions to people who matter? Is it possible
that you felt these emotions but can’t recall them?
Identifying and then talking or writing about your
positive emotional experiences can lead to greater personal and interpersonal satisfaction.
SUMMARY
Emotions have several dimensions. They are
signalled by internal physiological changes, are
highly influenced by cognitive interpretations, and
are manifested in verbal and non-verbal outward
expression. Personality, culture, gender, social conventions and roles, social media, and emotional
contagion all influence how people experience and
express their emotions.
Expressing emotions effectively involves accurately recognizing our feelings, having a robust
vocabulary in order to accurately describe our emotions, and having the ability to express multiple
feelings. We must also recognize the difference
between feeling and acting. Appropriate emotional
expression requires willingness to accept responsibility for one’s feelings instead of blaming them on
4 | Emotions
others. If we determine it’s appropriate to share
our emotions with others we need to choose the
proper time and place.
Managing our emotions requires us to distinguish between facilitative and debilitative emotions. Many debilitative emotions are caused by
various types of irrational thinking. Minimizing
debilitative emotions involves a process of
reappraisal. The steps involved include paying
attention to our emotional reactions, noting the
activating event, recording our self-talk, disputing our irrational beliefs, and changing our selftalk. Maximizing facilitative emotions requires
emotional agility and mindful effort.
MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
1.
Min-Seo keeps thinking about how embarrassed she was when the teacher called her
name and she wasn’t paying attention in
class. She keeps replaying the scene over
and over in her head and wishing she had
been listening and feeling like a failure. MinSeo is
a.
b.
c.
d.
2.
4.
Darya notices that when she’s waiting for
her friends to arrive at the café she feels
light and carefree. She’s tapping her foot to
the music playing and she catches herself
smiling. She interprets these signals as evidence that she is happy. This is an example
of the
Kofi is an emergency room nurse who must
stay positive, and suppress anxiety and fear
during stressful situations when patients
are feeling acute pain and in distress. This
requires
a. emotional labour.
b. counterfeit emotions.
Which of the following statements is false?
a. Venting negative emotions on social
media is generally constructive.
b. Both senders and receivers of mediated messages experience emotions
more intensely than in face-to-face interactions.
c. Communicators generally express more
emotion online than they do in person.
d. Snapchat tends to illicit more jealousy
than Facebook.
reappraising the event.
ruminating.
displaying emotional intelligence.
experiencing a facilitative emotion.
a. verbal expression component of emotion.
b. non-verbal expression component of
emotion.
c. rumination component of emotion.
d. cognitive interpretation component of
emotion.
3.
c. rumination.
d. the rational–emotive approach.
5.
When considering sharing your emotions with
others it is important to
a. do it immediately.
b. be as spontaneous as possible.
c. realize that experiencing an emotion does
not commit you to a course of action.
d. all of the above are true about sharing
emotions.
6.
Isaad says that because he’s shy he can’t
speak during the presentation and so will
just have to accept a mark of zero on that
part of the assignment. Isaad’s thinking is an
example of the fallacy of
a.
b.
c.
d.
perfection.
approval.
should.
helplessness.
137
PART ONE: Foundations of Interpersonal Communication
7.
The belief that if something bad can happen
it probably will is the fallacy of
a.
b.
c.
d.
8.
causation.
should.
catastrophic expectations.
perfection.
Samina notices that whenever she spends
time with her partner’s friends from the art
college she feels anxious and doubts her
own intelligence. Her analysis of the situation is
a. noting the activating event for debilitating
emotions.
b. discovering that certain types of people
trigger these emotions.
c. one step in the rational–emotive process.
d. all of the above are true about her analysis.
9.
The rational–emotive approach to dealing
with debilitating emotions
a. is really just trying to talk yourself out of
feeling bad.
b. can help cut down on self-defeating thinking.
c. is not realistic for people who have strong
emotional temperaments.
d. all of the above are true about the
rational–emotive approach.
10. A skillset that builds on our ability to face our
emotions, label them, understand them, and
choose to move forward deliberately is called
a.
b.
c.
d.
the fallacy of perfection.
facilitative emotions.
emotional agility.
emotional labour.
Answers: 1. b; 2. b; 3. a; 4. a; 5. c; 6. d; 7. c; 8. d; 9. b; 10. c
138
ACTIVITIES
1. Invitation to Insight
The Self-Assessment exercise on page 112 gives
you a general sense of your emotional intelligence.
Ask two or three people who are close to you to
offer their appraisal using the assessment. Do
their evaluations match yours? If not, what do you
think explains the difference? What are some of
the ways you might improve your emotional intelligence?
3. Ethical Challenge
According to the rational–emotive approach, we
cause our own feelings by interpreting an event
in one way or another. If this is true, it is a fallacy to claim we “make” others feel happy or sad.
Do you accept this position? To what degree are
you responsible for communicating in ways that
“cause” others to feel happy or sad? Use a specific
incident from your life to illustrate your answer.
2. Skill Builder
Choose an important emotion you experience in
one of your relationships. This relationship needn’t
be highly personal. You might, for example, focus
on an employer, an instructor, or a neighbour.
Use the guidelines on pages 122–5 to determine
whether, and how, you might express this emotion.
4. Role Play
Choose a partner. Together, develop a specific
scenario in which you have sent an email that your
partner has interpreted much more negatively than
you intended. Discuss your options to clarify this
situation and then role-play your solution to the
problem. Now, switch roles.
4 | Emotions
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1.
What are emotions? What do they contribute
to the human experience of life?
2.
Six influences on emotional expression are
described in this chapter. Explain how each
has influenced your ability and motivation to
communicate your feelings.
4.
Several common, but flawed beliefs, or fallacies, are described in this chapter. Which
ones are you most susceptible to? Why do
you think that is?
5.
Discuss the value of self-talk in managing difficult emotions. How is the emergence of “life
coaches” related to this concept?
Six guidelines for expressing emotions are
described in this chapter. Do you think these
guidelines are complete? Are there any guidelines you would add? Remove? Why?
3.
JOURNAL IDEAS
1.
Explore the fallacy of helplessness by
describing two important difficulties you
have in communicating with (a) family
members, (b) people at school or at work,
(c) strangers, and (d) friends. Use the following format for each difficulty:
On the basis of your experience, decide
whether you subscribe to the fallacy of
helplessness and what you could do to
eliminate this sort of debilitative thinking
from your life.
2.
I can’t __________________________,
because _________________________.
Now, read the list, but with a slight difference. For each can’t, substitute the
word won’t. Note which ones are actually
“won’t” statements. Read the list again,
but this time substitute “I do not know how
to” for your original can’t. Rewrite any sentences that are truly “do not know how”
statements, then decide what you could
do to learn the skill that you currently lack.
The Focus on Research box, on page
135, included a description of mindful-­
reappraisal instructions to help decrease
the duration of negative emotions. For one
week keep track of times when you experience negative emotions and follow the
instructions for mindful-reappraisal. Pay
attention to your mood—do your emotions
change after you step back and reappraise
the situation more positively with an open
and non-judgmental attitude? If yes, how
so? If not, why not?
139
PART TWO
Creating and Responding
to Messages
ferrantraite/iStockphoto
pixelheadphoto digitalskillet/Shutterstock
5
Listening
CHAPTER OUTLINE
The Nature of Listening
The Importance of Listening
Listening Defined
Listening Styles
The Challenge of Listening
Recognizing Barriers to Listening
Avoiding Poor Listening Habits
Components of Listening
Hearing
Attending
Understanding
Remembering
Responding
Types of Listening Responses
Silent Listening
Questioning
Paraphrasing
Empathizing
Supporting
Analyzing
Evaluating
Advising
Which Style to Use?
KEY TERMS
advising
analytical listening
ambushing
analyzing
attending
closed questions
counterfeit questions
critical listening
empathizing
evaluating
hearing
listening
listening fidelity
mindful listening
mindless listening
open questions
paraphrasing
questioning
relational listening
remembering
responding
silent listening
sincere questions
supporting
task-oriented listening
understanding
LEARNING OUTCOMES
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:
•
•
•
•
Describe the importance and nature of listening, and the listening styles that interpersonal communicators use
Explain the challenges that can impede effective listening and identify your own ineffective listening
Identify the five components of the interpersonal listening process
Effectively use a variety of reflective and directive listening responses
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
Take a moment to think of the worst listener you
know. Maybe it’s someone who interrupts or whose
attention seems to wander as you talk. Perhaps this
person forgets important things you have said, steers
the conversation back to topics that only they’re
interested in, or gives responses that reflect a lack
of understanding. Recall how you feel when you’re
conversing with this poor listener. Perhaps you feel
irritated, frustrated, discouraged, or all three?
Now think about how others view you as a listener. Which of these behaviours that you find so
annoying in your conversational partners, do you
engage in yourself? Attentive listening is fundamental to effective interpersonal communication
and is perhaps the most difficult skill to develop.
In this chapter, you’ll learn about the many factors
that make good listening difficult, and you’ll also
find reasons for tackling those challenges. You’ll
see what really happens when listening takes place.
Finally, you’ll read about a variety of listening
responses that you can use to increase your own
understanding, improve your relationships, and
help others.
The Nature of Listening
all the ­challenges ­inherent in attentive and effective listening. Listening effectively requires a number of skills, not the least of which is really paying
attention in the midst of our constantly connected,
digitally distracting world. We begin our exploration of this subject by describing the importance of
listening in interpersonal communication.
The Importance of Listening
How important is listening? If we use frequency as
a measure, it ranks at the top of the list (Janusik
and Wolvin, 2009). Among college students, listening makes up over 50 per cent of their communication activities (Emanuel et al., 2008), as Figure 5.1
illustrates. In the workplace, listening is a frequent
activity. When working adults were asked to name
the most common communication behaviour they
observed in their place of business, “listening” was
named most frequently (Keyton et al., 2013)
Numerous studies (summarized in Flynn
et al., 2008) find listening to be the most important communication skill for entry-level workers,
subordinates, supervisors, and managers on several fronts: job and career success, ­productivity,
When people think about
improving their communication skills, they usually think
of developing their ability to
send messages. While sending
messages is important, and we
spend a considerable number
of pages in this book discussing effective language and non-­
verbal communication, many
scholars suggest that if you
were to choose only one communication skill to improve,
your best choice would be to
improve your listening skills.
We have all heard simplistic
prescriptions for better listening (e.g., “close your mouth Unfortunately, there is no connection between how well most communicators
and open your ears”), but this think they listen and how competent they really are in their ability to underadvice doesn’t begin to capture stand others. Are there times when you’re a better listener than others?
fizkes/Shutterstock
144
5 | Listening
28%
Media listening
16%
Reading
17%
Speaking
28%
Interpersonal
listening
FIGURE 5.1 Types of Communication Activities
Source: Emanuel, R. et al. (2008). How college students spend their time communicating. International Journal of Listening, 22, 13–28.
upward mobility, communication training, and
organizational effectiveness. When several hundred human-resource executives were asked
to identify skills of the ideal manager, the ability to
listen effectively ranked at the top of the list (Winsor et al., 1997). In fact, research suggests leaders
who build a culture of listening have better performing organizations (Kirtley Johnson and Reed,
2017; Daimler, 2016).
The world of work is not the only place where
listening is vital. When a group of adults was asked
to rank various communication skills according to
their importance, listening topped their family and
social lists, alongside their career lists (Brownell
and Wolvin, 2010). In committed relationships,
listening to personal information in everyday conversations is considered an important ingredient of
satisfaction (Kuhn et al., 2018; Prager and Buhrmester, 1998). With this in mind, we turn our attention to defining this important skill.
Listening Defined
So, what exactly is listening? Listening, at least
the interpersonal type, is the process of r­eceiving,
Hearing Versus Listening
Listening and hearing are not identical. Hearing
is the process by which sound waves strike the
eardrum and cause vibrations that are transmitted to the brain. Listening takes place when the
brain reconstructs these electrochemical impulses
into a representation of the original sound and
then gives them meaning (Robinshaw, 2007). Barring illness, injury, or earplugs, you cannot stop
William Haefeli/Cartoonstock
11%
Writing
i­nterpreting, and responding to spoken and ­nonverbal messages. Traditional approaches to listening
focus on reception of spoken messages. However,
we have broadened the definition to include messages of all sorts because much of contemporary
listening takes place through mediated channels,
some of which involve written ­messages. Consider
times you’ve said “I was talking to a friend and she
said . . .,” when the conversation you are recounting actually took place via text message. You’ll read
in Chapter 8 how social support can be offered in
face-to-face communication but also through text
messages, posts, tweets, and other social media
mechanisms. We continue to focus on spoken messages in this chapter but recognize that “listening”
in our contemporary society involves more than
meets the ear.
145
146
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
SELF-ASSESSMENT
YOUR LISTENING STYLE
Record your first impressions of each of the following
statements by indicating the degree to which you agree
or disagree. Use a scale ranging from 1 to 7, where 1 =
“strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree.”
Relational Listening
1. When listening to others, it is important to
understand the feelings of the speaker.
2. I listen to understand the emotions and
moods of the speaker.
3. I listen primarily to build and maintain relationships with others.
4. I enjoy listening to others because it allows
me to connect with them.
Analytical Listening
1. I tend to withhold judgment about another’s
ideas until I’ve heard everything they have
to say.
2. When listening to others, I consider the
issue before responding.
3. I fully listen to what a person has to say
before forming any opinions.
4. To be fair to others, I fully listen to what
they have to say before making judgments.
Task Listening
1. I get frustrated when people get off topic
during a conversation.
2. I prefer speakers who quickly get to the point.
3. I find it difficult to listen to people who take
too long to get their ideas across.
4. When listening to others, I appreciate speakers who give brief, to the point presentations.
hearing. Your ears will pick up sound waves and
transmit them to your brain whether you want
them to or not.
Listening, however, is not so automatic. Many
times, we hear, but do not listen. Sometimes, we
deliberately do not listen. Sometime we automatically and unconsciously block out irritating
sounds, such as a neighbour’s lawn mower or the
roar of nearby traffic. We also stop listening when
Critical Listening
1. I often catch errors in other speaker’s logic.
2. I tend to naturally notice errors in what
other speakers say.
3. I have a talent for catching inconsistencies
in what a speaker says.
4. When listening to others, I notice contradictions in what they say.
SOURCE: This measure presents 16 of the 24 items
of the original instrument developed by Graham Bodie
and his colleagues: Bodie, G.D., Worthington, D.L.,
and Gearhart, C.C. (2013). The Listening Styles Profile – Revised (LSP_R): A scale revision and evidence
of validity. Communication Quarterly, 61, 72–90.
Scoring:
Add your responses to items 1 to 4. This is your Relational Listening Score. American undergraduate students had an average score of 22, with most scoring
between 21 and 24.
Add your responses to items 5 to 8. This is your Analytical Listening Score. American undergraduate students had an average score of 19, with most scoring
between 17 and 21.
Add your responses to items 9 to 12. This is your
Task Listening Score. American undergraduate students had an average score of 20, with most scoring
between 18 and 22.
Add your responses to items 13 to 16. This is your
Critical Listening Score. American undergraduate students had an average score of 18, with most scoring
between 16 and 20.
we find a subject unimportant or uninteresting.
Boring stories, commercials, and nagging complaints are common examples of messages we may
tune out. Other times, we think we’re listening,
but in fact, we’re simply receiving sounds and our
minds are elsewhere. Listening requires not just
hearing, but the effort of paying attention, understanding, remembering, and responding, as we’ll
discuss later in this chapter.
5 | Listening
Mindless Listening
When we move beyond hearing and start to listen,
researchers note that we process information in
two very different ways (Burleson, 2011; Todorov
et al., 2002). Ellen Langer (1990) uses the terms
mindless and mindful to describe these two different ways of listening. Mindless listening occurs
when we react to others’ messages automatically
and routinely, without much mental investment.
Words such as superficial and cursory describe
mindless listening.
Although the term mindless listening may
sound negative, this sort of low-level information
processing is potentially a valuable type of communication. It frees us to focus our minds on
messages that require our careful attention (Burgoon et al., 2000). Given the number of messages
we’re exposed to, it’s impractical to listen carefully
and thoughtfully all of the time. It’s unrealistic
to devote your full attention to long winded stories, idle chatter, or remarks you have heard many
times before. The only realistic way to manage
the onslaught of messages is to be “lazy” toward
many of them (Griffin, 2006). In situations like
these, we forgo careful analysis and fall back on
the schemas—and sometimes the stereotypes—
described in Chapter 3 to make sense of a m
­ essage.
If you stop right now and recall the messages you
have heard today, it’s likely that you processed
most of them mindlessly.
Mindful Listening
By contrast, mindful listening involves giving
careful and thoughtful attention and responses to
the messages we receive. You tend to listen mindfully when a message is important to you or someone you care about. Think of how you would tune
in carefully if a close friend told you about the loss
of a loved one. In situations like this, you want
to give the message-sender your complete and
undivided attention.
Sometimes we respond mindlessly to information that deserves—and even demands—our
mindful attention. Ellen Langer’s (1990) determination to study mindfulness began when her grandmother complained about headaches coming from
a “snake crawling around” beneath her skull. Doctors quickly diagnosed the problem as senility,
interpreting the snake description as nonsense. In
fact, Langer’s grandmother had a brain tumour
that eventually killed her. The event made a deep
impression on Langer:
For years afterward, I kept thinking about the doctors’ reactions to my grandmother’s complaints,
and about our reactions to the doctors. They went
through the motions of diagnosis, but were not
open to what they were hearing. Mindsets about
senility interfered. We did not question the doctors; mindsets about experts interfered. (p. 3)
Most of our daily decisions about whether to
listen mindfully or not do not have life-or-death
consequences, of course. Yet we often need to listen
consciously and carefully to what others are telling
us. That kind of mindful listening is the focus of
this chapter.
Listening Styles
Not everyone listens the same way or with the same
goals all the time. Communication researchers have
identified four broad listening styles—task-oriented,
relational, analytical, and critical—each of which
has both strengths and weaknesses (Bodie et al.,
2013). Many people use more than one listening
style and the style may vary depending on the situation at hand (Gearhart et al., 2014).
Task-Oriented Listening
Task-oriented listening is most concerned with
efficiency and accomplishing the job at hand.
When deadlines and other pressures demand
immediate action, task orientation can be beneficial. It’s most appropriate when the focus is taking
care of business; such listeners encourage others to
be organized and concise.
Despite its advantages, a task orientation may
alienate others when it seems to ignore their feelings.
People with a different temperament, or those who
are from cultures where it’s impolite to be direct,
may not appreciate a strictly ­task-­oriented approach.
147
148
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
In addition, a focus on getting things done quickly
may come at the expense of thoughtful deliberation
and consideration. Finally, t­ask-oriented listeners
may minimize the emotional issues and concerns
that are important to many business and personal
transactions.
Relational Listening
Relational listening is most concerned with building emotional closeness with others. People who
primarily use this style are typically extroverted,
attentive, and friendly (Villaume and Bodie, 2007).
Relational listeners aim to understand how others
feel; they are thus aware of and are highly responsive to others’ emotions. They strive to be nonjudgmental and are more interested in understanding
and supporting people than evaluating or controlling them. Not surprisingly, relational listeners are
more likely than those with other styles to draw
out responses from the message sender (Keaton
et al., 2015).
A relational style can have drawbacks, however. In an effort to be congenial and supportive,
relational listeners may lose their detachment and
ability to objectively assess information (Gearhart
and Bodie, 2011).
Analytical Listening
Analytical listening emphasizes attending to the
full message before coming to judgment. People
who default to this style want to hear details and
analyze an issue from a variety of perspectives.
Analytical listeners can be a big help when the
goal is to investigate difficult questions, taking
into account a wide range of perspectives. They
are especially valuable in thinking systematically
about complex issues. This thorough approach
can be time consuming and impractical at
times, however, such as when a deadline is fast
approaching.
Critical Listening
People who default to critical listening have
a strong desire to evaluate messages. They
are concerned not with just understanding
­ essages but assessing their quality, focusing
m
on accuracy and consistency. This style is especially helpful when the goal is to investigate a
problem. However, critical listeners can also
frustrate others by appearing to find fault in
even minor details.
Whichever styles you use, it’s important to
recognize that you can control the way you listen. When your relationship with the speaker
needs attention, opt for a relational approach. If
investigation is called for, put on your analytical
persona. And when there is a need for evaluation, become a critical listener. You can be more
effective by assessing and adapting to the listening preferences and styles of your conversational
partners.
The Challenge of Listening
Even with the best intentions, listening carefully
is a challenge. When two or more people are listening to a speaker, we tend to assume that they’re
each hearing and understanding the same message. However, recall our discussion of perception in Chapter 3, where we pointed out the many
factors that cause each of us to perceive an event
differently. Physiological factors, social roles,
cultural background, and personal interests and
needs all shape and distort the raw data we hear
into very different messages. It’s no wonder that
dyads ­typically achieve only 25 to 50 per cent
accuracy in interpreting or representing each
other’s behaviour (Spitzberg, 1994). Our listening
is always coloured and limited by our unique view
of the world.
Although we all listen differently, we can try
to avoid some common pitfalls. Here we’ll look at
some of the obstacles and bad habits we must overcome to listen carefully.
Recognizing Barriers to Listening
Listening is more difficult than many realize.
Common barriers to listening include information
overload, personal concerns, rapid thought, and
noise. Being aware of these potential barriers can
help you create environments that are more conducive to listening.
5 | Listening
CHECK IT!
Define the term listening. Describe four reasons
for listening and provide an example of each.
Information Overload
The sheer amount of speech most of us encounter
every day makes it impossible to listen carefully to
everything we hear. We are bombarded with messages not only in face-to-face interaction, but also
from the internet, media, cellphones, and various
other sources (Arsenault, 2007). Given this barrage
of information, it’s challenging to keep our attention totally focused for long periods. As a result,
we often choose—understandably and sometimes
wisely—to listen mindlessly rather than mindfully.
Noise
Finally, our physical and mental worlds often present
distractions that make it hard for us to pay attention
to others. The sounds of other conversations, traffic,
and music, as well as the kinds of psychological
noise that we discussed in Chapter 1, all interfere
with our ability to listen well. In addition, fatigue or
other forms of discomfort can also distract us. For
instance, consider how the efficiency of your listening decreases when you’re seated in a crowded, hot,
stuffy room full of moving people and other noises.
In such circumstances, even the best intentions
aren’t enough to ensure cogent understanding.
CHECK IT!
Describe four barriers to listening.
Personal Concerns
A second reason we don’t always listen carefully is
that we’re often wrapped up in personal concerns that
we perceive as being more immediately important to
us than the messages others are sending (Nichols,
2009). It’s hard to pay attention to someone else when
we’re anticipating an upcoming test or thinking
about the wonderful time we had last night with our
friends. When we feel required to give attention to
others but our focus is elsewhere, listening becomes
mindless at best and often a polite charade.
Rapid Thought
Listening carefully is also difficult because our
minds are so active. Although we’re capable of
understanding speech at rates of up to 600 words a
minute (Versfeld and Dreschler, 2002), the average
person speaks much more slowly—between 100
and 140 words a minute. Therefore, we have a lot of
“spare time” to spend with our minds while someone is talking. The temptation is to use this time in
ways that are not related to the speaker’s ideas, such
as thinking about personal interests, daydreaming,
planning a rebuttal, and so on. The trick is to use
this spare time to understand the speaker’s ideas
better, rather than to let your attention wander.
Avoiding Poor Listening Habits
Most of us have one or more bad habits that keep us
from understanding others’ messages. As you read
about the following list of such habits, see which
ones describe you. Avoiding these poor ­listening
behaviours begins with awareness of when you
engage in them.
• Pseudo-listening is pretending to pay attention.
Pseudo-listeners give the appearance of being
attentive: they look you in the eye, nod, and
smile at the right times, and even answer you
occasionally, but their minds are elsewhere.
• Stage hogging is expressing your own ideas
without inviting others to share theirs. Stage
hogs monopolize the conversation and only
allow others to speak from time to time so they
can catch their breath. They do not seem to care
what others may contribute to the conversation.
• Selective listening is responding only to the parts
of a speaker’s remarks that interest the listener
and rejecting everything else.
• Filling in the gaps is manufacturing information that
was not part of an original story or message. People
presume to have heard things the speaker has not
communicated, as though they have the ability to
149
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
REFLECTION
FAKE LISTENING
I went parachuting for the first time last month.
Before our first jump, we spent four hours in
“ground school.” I listened very carefully, especially during the part where they told us what to
do if our chute didn’t open after jumping from
the plane. This was life-and-death material, and
I didn’t want to miss anything.
That’s not the way I listen at school most of the
time. I sit through most classroom lectures and it all
seems like gibberish to me. I act as if I’m listening—
nod at what I hope are the right times, smile when
people laugh, and even scratch my head as if I’m
thinking—so the teacher will assume I am listening.
But I don’t remember a thing afterward. I used to
think it was all the teacher’s fault, but I guess part
of it has to do with whether or not I bother to turn up
my “listening volume.”
Hearing
As we’ve already discussed, hearing is the physiological aspect of listening. It’s obviously vital to listening because it’s the starting point in the process.
It can be diminished by physiological disorders,
background noise, and auditory fatigue, a temporary loss of hearing caused by continuous exposure
to the same tone or loudness. People who attend
loud concerts or fireworks may experience auditory fatigue and, if they’re exposed often enough,
permanent hearing loss. Hearing loss is one of the
most prevalent chronic conditions facing Canadians (The Hearing Foundation of Canada, 2018).
What used to be perceived as a problem just for the
elderly is now a serious concern for adolescents,
due in large part to use of earphones for portable
devices (Jiang et al., 2016). It’s wise to protect your
hearing—for your own sake as well as for the sake
of your relationship partners.
read minds. When people who fill in the gaps retell
what they listened to, they present a distorted (not
merely incomplete) version of the original.
• Insulated listening is almost the opposite of
selective listening. Instead of only focusing on
topics of interest, these listeners tune out any
topics they would rather not deal with.
• Defensive listening is taking innocent comments
as personal attacks. Defensive listeners project
their own insecurities onto others.
• Ambushing is listening carefully only to collect
information for use in attacking the speaker.
This kind of strategy often creates defensiveness
from the other person and ruins a supportive
communication climate. It escalates conflict, as
we’ll discuss further in Chapters 9 and 10.
Components of Listening
By now, you can begin to see that there is more to
listening than sitting quietly while another ­person
speaks. In truth, listening—especially mindful
­listening—consists of five separate elements: hearing, attending, understanding, remembering, and
responding.
Polifoto/iStockphoto
150
We miss out on things when we don’t listen. Do you think
it’s possible to be a good listener all of the time?
5 | Listening
Attending
While hearing is a physiological process, attending
is a psychological one and is part of the process of
selection that we described in Chapter 3. As we
discussed earlier in this chapter and in ­Chapter 3,
we’re inundated with messages, often all at the
same time. This deluge of communication has
made attending tougher than at any time in human
history (Hansen, 2007; Ralph et al., 2013).
We would go crazy if we attended to every
sound we hear, so we filter out some messages and
focus on others. Not surprisingly, research shows
that we attend most carefully to messages when
there is a benefit in doing so (Burleson, 2007). If
you’re planning to see a movie, you’ll listen to a
friend’s description of it more carefully than you
otherwise would. And when you want to get better acquainted with someone, you’ll pay careful
attention to almost anything they say, in hopes of
improving the relationship.
In addition to paying attention to verbal communication, listening involves attending to the
non-verbal messages people send us as well.
Notice that the Chinese characters that make up
the verb meaning “to listen” in Figure 5.2 include
not just ears, but eyes, too. Some people fail to
EAR
EYES
UNDIVIDED
ATTENTION
TAKE TWO
• Pseudo-listening: an imitation of real listening.
• Stage hogging: the practice of only expressing
one’s own ideas during conversation.
• Selective listening: the act of listening only to
the parts of a speaker’s remarks that interest
you.
• Filling in the gaps: the practice of making up
information to give the impression that one was
listening and can recall the whole story.
• Insulated listening: the tendency to avoid or fail
to hear or acknowledge certain topics.
• Defensive listening: the habit of interpreting
innocent comments as personal attacks.
• Ambushing: the tendency to listen carefully, but
only to gather information that can be used to
attack the speaker.
notice non-verbal signals, but for others, attending
to non-verbal communication poses unique
­challenges. People with a physiological syndrome
called non-verbal learning disorder often miss or
misinterpret non-verbal cues like facial expressions, gestures, and tones of voice (Casey, 2012).
Whether due to insensitivity or physiology, failing
to attend to non-verbal cues is a listening deficit.
Attending doesn’t just help the listener; it also
benefits the message sender. People remember
more details of conversations in which they perceived their conversational partner as attentive
(Pasupathi and Hoyt, 2010). People also are able to
express their opinions with greater comfort during
conversations with an attentive versus an inattentive listener (Itzchakov et al., 2018).
Understanding
HEART
FIGURE 5.2 The Chinese characters that make up
the verb meaning “to listen” tell us something significant
about this skill.
Calligraphy by Angie Au
Paying attention—even close attention—to a message does not guarantee that you’ll understand
what’s being said. Understanding is attaching
meaning to a message. This stage of listening is
composed of several elements. First, of course, you
must be aware of the syntactic and grammatical
rules of the language. You must also be familiar
151
152
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
HEARING LOSS
Hearing loss is increasingly common in Canada (The
Hearing Foundation of Canada, 2018), particularly as
the population ages, and it creates a host of interpersonal challenges for those with this sensory loss, as
well as for their friends, family, and colleagues. Helen
Keller (1933), who was both blind and deaf for most
of her life, said:
The problems of deafness are deeper and more
complex, if not more important, than those of
blindness. Deafness is a much worse misfortune. For it means the loss of the most vital
stimulus—the sound of the voice that brings
language, sets thoughts astir and keeps us in
the intellectual company of man. (p. 68)
Hearing loss can create psychosocial difficulties
such as social isolation and increased dependency,
and it increases the likelihood of interpersonal challenges, particularly in close relationships (Lehane
et al., 2017; Manchaiah et al., 2013). People who
suffer hearing loss often find noisy social situations ­challenging and overwhelming. It’s difficult to
for them to pick out distinct voices and participate
in conversations and this can lead to avoidance of
social situations such as parties, work meetings, and
social situations in general. Even in quieter, private
situations, people with impaired hearing often cannot hear soft voices, which negatively affects their
ability to carry on an intimate conversation without
risk of embarrassment (Lucas et al., 2018). These
difficulties are associated with depression and
reduced social activity among people with hearing
loss (Andrade et al., 2017).
Hearing aids can help to alleviate many of the
social challenges associated with hearing loss, but
they’re not widely adopted. Only about 20 to 33 per
cent of individuals who could potentially benefit from
hearing aids actually report using them (Abrams and
Kihm, 2015; Bainbridge and Ramachandran, 2014;
Singh and Lauer, 2016). For most people, hearing
loss comes on gradually and is often difficult to perceive at first. People with mild hearing loss may not
be aware of it, may choose to ignore it or may blame
their communication difficulties on others—“You’re
mumbling, speak up!” may be a common refrain (Desjardins and Doherty, 2017).
Some factors that have been associated with
hearing aid uptake include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
degree of hearing impairment;
awareness of communication difficulties;
expectations and attitudes about hearing;
finger dexterity and visual acuity;
willingness to use information communication
technologies;
dispositions and personality traits such as
higher openness to new experiences;
positive expectations and attitudes of family,
significant others (SO), and health care professionals toward hearing aid cost and ownership;
and
not feeling stigmatized by hearing impairment
(see Singh and Launer, 2016, 2018 for reviews).
Unfortunately, the stigma associated with hearing loss constitutes one of the biggest barriers to
hearing aid use (Barker et al., 2017; Fraser, Kenyon, Lagacé, Wittich, and Southall, 2016). Older
people with hearing impairments are often perceived as less capable, cognitively diminished, or
poor communicators, and these beliefs may in turn
cause them to view themselves as old, weak, and
less capable, leading them to reject rehabilitation
services, such as hearing aids (David et al., 2018;
Gagné, Southall, and Jennings, 2009). It’s not difficult to see ageist stereotypes and self-fulfilling
prophecies contributing to this problem. Several
studies have found that even after brief periods of
hearing aid use individuals with hearing loss report
increased hearing ability and communication with
others (Kelly-Campbell and Plexico, 2012) but studies have also reported feelings of disappointment
in the efficacy of hearing aids for both the user and
their communication partners (Barker et al., 2017;
Desjardins and Doherty, 2017).
Overall, communication partners report more
benefits of hearing aid use and note that individuals
with hearing loss are more easily integrated into
social events when they agree to wear hearing aids.
5 | Listening
The processes of adapting to hearing loss and using
a hearing aid requires adjustments for both people
with sensory impairments and their communication
partners (Barker et al., 2017; Hofsoe et al., 2018)
and strong interpersonal skills and supportive relationships are excellent resources to assist in this
adjustment process.
with the speaker’s vocabulary and jargon (you
can probably remember times you felt lost in the
lingo and acronyms at a new job). Another important factor is what you know about the message’s
source. That will help you decide, for example,
whether a friend’s insulting remark is a joke or a
serious attack. The context of a message also helps
you understand what is being said. A yawning
response to your comments would probably have a
different meaning at midnight than at noon.
The ideal in interpersonal listening is both to
understand and to be understood. Listening fidelity is the degree of congruence between what a
Critical thinking: In your experience, are people less
patient and accommodating when communicating with
people who have acquired hearing loss compared to
other communication related impairments (e.g., low
vision, speech impediments)? Why or why not? Do you
think there is greater stigma associated with acquired
hearing loss? Why or why not?
listener understands and what the message sender
was trying to communicate (Powers and Witt,
2008). Fidelity doesn’t mean agreement. You might
listen carefully to a point your friend is making,
understand her position quite clearly, and still disagree completely. But the act of listening carefully
and understanding sends a positive relational message, even if the communicators don’t see eye-toeye on the content. We’ll discuss the importance of
establishing a positive communication climate in
greater detail in Chapter 9 and examine the effects
of establishing a positive climate when effectively
managing conflict in Chapter 10.
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
MUTLI-COMMUNICATING AT WORK
There is considerable quantitative and qualitative
evidence that we switch tasks at work frequently. In
the information technology (IT) field computer programmmmers, analysts, and managers spend an
average of nine minutes working on a task before
they switch or engage in overlapping tasks and in
other fields the length of time on task is as low as
an average of three minutes (Cameron et al., 2018;
Cameron et al., 2016; Dieker, 2016; Gonzalez and
Mark, 2004). As we discussed in Chapter 3, multitasking is really just task switching due to the limited
ability of our brains to process complex information.
Multi-communicating (MC) is a term used to describe
engaging in multiple overlapping conversations at the
same time (Reinsch, Turner, and Tinsley, 2008). Like
multitasking, we cannot actually read texts, answer
emails, and talk on the phone all at the same time—
we have to switch our attention between each of
these tasks.
Ann-Francis Cameron and her colleagues (2016,
2018) have identified four commonly held myths
about MC at work. The first is that it makes employees more accessible. While it is true that people at
work check their email on average every 12 minutes
(Marulanda-Carter and Jackson, 2012) and they
perceive themselves as more accessible, they are
actually less accessible to the people they’re meeting with face-to-face—because they’re not attending
and therefore are not listening to those they’re meeting with (Cameron and Webster, 2013; Cameron
et al., 2018).
The second misconception is that MC makes us
more productive. Research examining our ability to
juggle two conversations at the same time suggests
continued
153
154
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
we make more errors, contribute less to both conversations, and increase confusion and the need
for repetition when engaged in multiple conversations simultaneously (Cameron and Webster, 2013;
­Cameron et al., 2018).
The third erroneous belief about MC is that we
must engage in it to do our jobs. Because of this
belief, many of us have developed the habit of constantly checking and immediately responding to communications rather than at times that are best for us.
Most of us do not need to be constantly available to
do our jobs effectively and these MC habits contribute to our being less effective in our jobs, as a result
of the inattention and mindless listening MC produces. This is particularly true for those of us who try to
engage in MC during face-to-face meetings (Cameron
et al., 2016, 2018). In addition, this habit of constantly checking our phones may well have contributed to a new phobia, nomaphobia, which is the fear
of being without our devices (Yildirim, and Correia,
2015; for more information on nomaphobia and tips
for managing it in workplaces see Tam et al., 2018).
The final myth identified by Cameron and her
colleagues (2016) is that MC at work is not perceived as rude. People argue that everyone does
it and nobody really minds. However, Cameron
and her colleagues (2013) have found that people
perceive others engaging in MC as more rude and
incompetent. This is particularly true of managers
who engage in MC in the presence of their employees and this perception of rudeness is not just a
perception shared by the older generation. In Cameron’s research, younger employees’ perceptions
of their multi-communicating co-workers were just
as negative (Cameron and Webster, 2011). The
only situation in which MC at work was perceived
as acceptable was when the purpose of the second
conversation was to provide information needed in
the first discussion (e.g., texting a co-worker who
Remembering
Remembering is the ability to recall information
once we’ve understood it and it depends on several factors. These include the number of times
the information is heard or repeated, the amount
of information received at once, and whether the
information can be rehearsed (Ranpura, 2013).
is not present to get an update on a project being
discussed in the meeting) (Cameron et al., 2018;
Cameron and Webster, 2013).
So, what should we do about our inaccurate beliefs
about our mindless listening habits at work? Cameron
and her colleagues provide a series of research-based
suggestions that include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Do not confuse the frequency with which you
engage in MC with your ability to do it effectively.
When you need to focus your attention and
engage in mindful listening, disable prompts
(e.g., figure out the times you are most tempted
to engage in MC and put your communication
devices on silent mode) that perpetuate the
“cue-routine-reward” loop associated with mediated communication.
Identify channels and procedures for truly urgent
communications in the workplace.
When giving feedback and direction to employees and subordinates, focus on one conversation at a time.
Do not assume that peoples’ attitudes towards
MC are consistently positive or based on age or
generation.
When MC is required explain why and apologize
for doing so to reduce perceptions of incivility.
These investigators acknowledge that MC is part
of work environments and there may be times when it
can be planned for and effective, but that mindless MC
decreases our productivity and can damage people’s
perceptions of us and our work relationships.
Critical Thinking: Do you feel pressure to be constantly connected and responsive? Do you think some
of the inaccurate beliefs about multi-communicating at
work have parallels in our social lives? If so, how so?
If not, why not?
Early research on listening revealed that people
remember only about half of what they hear
immediately after hearing it, even when they listen
mindfully (Barker, 1971). Within two months, half
of the originally remembered portion is forgotten,
bringing what we remember down to about 25
per cent of the original message. In fact, people
start forgetting immediately (within eight hours,
tommaso79/Shutterstock
5 | Listening
contact, nodding, smiling, gesturing, leaning forward—their
patients responded with clearer
descriptions of symptoms, leading to more accurate diagnosis
(Ruben and Hall, 2016). There is
evidence to suggest we express
our opinions and recount events
more clearly when speaking to
attentive, responsive listeners
(Bodie et al., 2015; Itzchakov et
al., 2017). In other words, attentive and responsive listening
helps both senders and receivers
communicate more effectively.
As discussed in Chapter 1,
adding responsiveness to our
Listening is not a passive activity—at the same time we receive messages,
we also send them. What messages do you think these people are sending listening model demonstrates
the fact that communication is
one another?
transactional. Listening is not
the 50 per cent remembered drops to roughly just a passive activity. As listeners, we’re active par35 per cent). Of course, these amounts vary from ticipants in a communication transaction, sending
person to person and depend on the importance and receiving messages simultaneously.
of the information being recalled (Cowan and
AuBuchon, 2008). Brain injuries and diseases that
affect our memories increase even further the Types of Listening Responses
challenges of mindful listening and remembering Of the five components of listening described above,
(Barwood and Murdoch, 2013; Bender et al., 2014). responding is the one that lets us know if others are
Forgetting messages can cause relational prob- truly tuned in to what we’re saying (Maisel et al.,
lems. People often feel slighted when others—­ 2008). Think for a moment of someone you conespecially loved ones—don’t remember things sider a good listener. Why did you choose that perthey’ve heard. “I told you this repeatedly and you son? It’s probably because of the way they behave
still forgot?” is a familiar refrain in many interper- while you’re speaking.
sonal conflicts.
Across a variety of situations (e.g., with friends,
romantic partners, workplace colleagues) people
expect competent listeners to be attentive, underResponding
standing, alert, friendly, responsive, empathic,
All the steps we’ve discussed so far—hearing, open-minded, perceptive, reflective, supportive,
attending, understanding, and remembering— and able to maintain conversational flow (Bodie
are internal activities. A final part of the listening et al., 2012; Bodie et al., 2015; Lipetz et al., 2018).
process involves responding to a message—­giving What behaviours mark those characteristics?
observable feedback to the speaker (Reis and Clark, Good listeners:
2013). In initial interactions, people generally
appreciate listeners who respond by asking ques• ask and answer questions;
tions and paraphrasing (Huang et al., 2017; Weger
• provide reflective and relevant feedback;
et al., 2014). Non-­verbal ­responsiveness is import• give the speaker time and space to express
ant too. One study found that when physicians
themselves;
offered plenty of s­ upportive non-­verbal cues—eye
• offer their own perspective; and
155
156
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
• respond non-verbally by making eye contact,
nodding their heads, and leaning forward.
In other words, although listening begins as
an internal mental process, others will determine
whether and how you’re listening by monitoring
your responses.
As Figure 5.3 illustrates, listening responses like
these range from reflective feedback that invites
the speaker to talk without fear of being judged,
to more directive responses that evaluate the
speaker’s messages. The primary goals of reflective
feedback are to understand, confirm, and mirror
what the speaker said. By contrast, the primary
goals of directive feedback are to judge the speaker’s message and provide guidance. We’ll spend
the remainder of this chapter looking at when and
how to use each response style along the spectrum.
Each one is an important component of your listening toolkit.
Silent Listening
There are times when the best response is to say
nothing, such as when you don’t want to encourage
the speaker to keep on talking. If a supervisor or
instructor is droning on when you need to leave for
an appointment or when a friend retells the story of
a love affair gone bad you might not want to keep
the conversation going. In situations like these, a
verbal response would only encourage the speaker
to ­continue—precisely the opposite of the reaction
you would be seeking. The best response in these
cases may be silent listening—staying attentive and
non-verbally responsive without saying anything.
Silent listening is not just an avoidance strategy.
It also can be the right approach when you’re open
to the other person’s ideas, but your interjections
Silent
Listening
Questioning
Paraphrasing
MORE REFLECTIVE
LESS DIRECTIVE
FIGURE 5.3 Types of Listening Responses
Empathizing
wouldn’t be appropriate. For instance, rather than
interrupting a friend’s joke to ask for clarification,
it might be more considerate to wait for the punchline. Staying silent can be difficult in some situations, particularly when we’re working on projects
and tasks with others. Implementing “listening
circles” can help to improve interpersonal communication in the workplace. Listening circles are
an adaptation of Indigenous practices of “council”
and involve people sitting in a circle and only one
person speaking at a time (Hyde, 1993). The person
who is speaking holds a “talking stick” or “speaker’s staff” to signal that it’s their turn to speak. The
other group members listen silently. Research suggests that when employees have been effectively
trained and supported to employ listening circles at
work they experience less social anxiety, increased
self-awareness, and greater open-­mindedness in
relation to work-related matters (Itzchakov and
Kluger, 2017).
There are even times when silent listening can
help others solve their problems. Sonia Johnson
(1987; see also Smith, 2010) describes a powerful
activity she calls “hearing into being.” The process
is simple. In brainstorming sessions, each participant has half an hour of uninterrupted floor time.
“When we are free to talk without threat of interruption, evaluation, and the pressure of time,”
notes Johnson, “we move quickly past known
territory out into the frontiers of our thought”
(p. 132). Johnson, who uses the technique in feminist seminars, reports that some women burst
into tears when they first experience “hearing into
being” because they are not used to being listened
to so seriously and completely. When was the last
time you talked, uninterrupted, to an attentive
partner for more than a few minutes? How would
you like the chance to develop your ideas without
Supporting
Analyzing
Evaluating
Advising
LESS REFLECTIVE
MORE DIRECTIVE
5 | Listening
­ ausing for another’s comments? Silent listening is
p
a response style that many of us could profit from
using—and receiving—more often.
CHECK IT!
Describe the five components of listening.
Questioning
Regarded as “the most popular piece of language”
(Goodman and Esterly, 1990), questioning is asking for additional information. There are several
reasons to ask sincere, non-directive questions:
• To clarify meanings. Good listeners don’t
assume they know what their partners mean;
they ask for clarification with questions such as:
“What did you mean when you said he had been
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
LISTENING IN MEDICINE
The medical interview has long been a fundamental
part of health care. It allows the health care provider
to establish rapport with the patient, communicate
concern and compassion, and it facilitates reciprocal communication (Scholl et al., 2014), which
improves health outcomes (Street Jr., 2013). Open
ended questions such as “What brings you here
today?” or “How are you?” help prompt patients to
provide detailed information about their health concerns. This information is essential for establishing
the “agenda” or the patient’s reasons for the medical appointment.
Studies conducted in Europe and the US have
found that physicians frequently fail to ask these questions. (Rey-Bellet et al., 2017; Singh Ospina et al.,
2018). For example, a US study, which analyzed a
random sample of 112 clinical encounters, found only
about 36 per cent of physicians posed questions to
elicit the patients’ concerns and reasons for their visit
to the doctor. An examination of 68 patient follow-up
visits to a German university-based out-patient clinic
found higher rates of doctor’s soliciting the patient’s
agenda for the visit, but still 32 per cent of these
physicians failed to ask their patients these types
of questions during their appointments (Rey-Bellet
et al., 2017). Even when physicians do ask patients
for information about their health and the reasons
for their medical visits, they appear to be very quick
to interrupt. In that same US study, patients had an
average of only 11 seconds to describe their health
concerns before their doctors interrupted them.
This failure to demonstrate mindful listening is
not new. A landmark study conducted in the 1980s
found 69 per cent of physicians interrupted their
patients and the average time the patients spoke
before interruption was 18 seconds (Beckman and
Frankel, 1984). Subsequent studies have all found
that physicians frequently fail to ask questions in
order to understand the main reasons for the consultation and when they do inquire, they are often
quick to interrupt their patients (Dyche and Swiderski, 2005; Marvel et al., 1999).
There are probably multiple reasons for this lack
of mindful listening and they include doctors feeling
constrained for time, not having enough communication training, feeling burned out, and concentrating
on completing electronic records instead of interacting with their patients (Sing Ospina et al., 2018).
Research suggests that when left uninterrupted
patients complete their descriptions of their medical
complaints in under two minutes (Langewitz et al.,
2002) and mindful listening to the patients’ descriptions actually saves physicians time and increases
the likelihood of a more accurate diagnosis (Ruben
and Hall, 2016). Canadian-trained physicians receive
considerable communication instruction early in their
medical schooling but it often drops off when they
get into their clinical practice environments (Noakes,
2018), and if it’s not valued and modelled in those
clinical environments, it’s much less likely to be practised when physicians have graduated—perpetuating
the status quo.
157
158
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
Sometimes it takes a startling event to remind
us that our knowledge is limited and we need to stop
and listen mindfully. One such example comes from
a physician working in a Canadian Indigenous community.
The sense of humility that comes with understanding your limitations, I could illustrate with
a quick story: I saw a very elderly Native lady;
her daughters brought her in, she was sort of
a matriarch and they called me that night and
asked would I come to the house and see her
and I did. Normal pulse, normal blood pressure,
chest clear, everything seemed fine and I had
no idea why they called me out at night, but I
was pretty annoyed that they had done that . . .
when one of the daughters said to me, “Would
you like a cup of tea?” and I said, “Sure, that
would be great,” and that sort of diffused my
little reprimand.
I went to the kitchen and sat down to have my
cup of tea and while I was having the tea, the
daughters went back into the bedroom, and then
one of them walked out and said, “Well, she’s
gone very peacefully now,” and I said, “What?”
and ran into the bedroom. She was lying there
as dead as a doornail and they said, “Thank you
very much for coming when mother died. You
know we knew she was going to go and we really
appreciate just you having been here.”
I thought to myself, “Well, first of all am I ever
glad that I didn’t say what I had intended to say
about the unnecessary visit and secondly, how
the hell did they know she was dying? I honestly did not have a clue. That injected in me
a great sense of humility, like whoa, they know
a lot that I don’t know, about their mother, but
also just about death and dying—and anyway,
I’ve held onto that sense of humility and that’s
pretty much where I remain.” (Kelly and Brown,
2002)
Culturally sensitive health care practitioners
who employ mindful listening skills are better able
to establish trusting and therapeutic relationships
with their patients. This results in a constructive alliance that leads to focused, efficient, and
patient-centred care (Gobat et al., 2015; Mauksch
et al., 2008).
Critical thinking: How would asking open-ended questions and listening carefully to this family’s responses
have helped guide this physician’s behaviour? Can you
think of a time when you did not have an opportunity
to provide a helping professional (e.g., first responder,
health care provider, teacher, social service provider)
with information they needed in order to help you?
What factors contributed to that problem? Can you
recall times when you didn’t listen mindfully to a helping professional? What were the barriers that affected
your listening?
CALVIN AND HOBBES © Watterson. Dist. By UNIVERSAL UCLICK. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.
5 | Listening
•
•
•
•
‘unfair’ to you?” “You said she’s ‘religious’—how
do you define that term?” “You said you were
going ‘fast’—just how fast were you going?” Of
course, be sure to use an appropriate tone of
voice when asking such questions, or else they
might sound like an inquisition.
To learn about other people’s thoughts, feelings, and wants. A sincere, sensitive, and caring question can draw out opinions, emotions,
needs, and hopes. “What do you think about
the new plan?” and “How did you feel when you
heard the news?” are examples of such probes.
When inquiring about personal information,
it’s usually best to ask open questions that
allow a variety of extended responses rather
than closed questions that allow only a limited
range of answers. For instance, “How did you
feel?” is an open question that allows a variety
of responses, while “Did you feel angry?” is a
closed question that requires only a yes or no
answer (and may direct respondents toward
feelings they weren’t experiencing).
To encourage elaboration. People are sometimes
hesitant to talk about themselves, or perhaps
they aren’t sure if others are interested. Remarks
such as, “Tell me more about that,” “I’m not sure
I understand,” and “I’m following you” convey
concern and involvement. Notice that none of
these examples ends with a question mark. We
can encourage elaboration simply by acknowledging that we’re listening.
To encourage discovery. Asking questions can
sometimes encourage others to explore their
thoughts and feelings. “So, what do you see
as your options?” may prompt an employee to
come up with creative problem-solving alternatives. “What would be your ideal solution?”
might help a friend get in touch with various
wants and needs. Most importantly, encouraging discovery rather than dispensing advice
indicates you have faith in others’ ability to
think for themselves. This may be the most
important message that you can communicate
as an effective listener.
To gather more facts and details. People often
appreciate listeners who want to learn more, as
long as the questions aren’t intrusive. Questions
such as, “What did you do then?” and “What did
she say after that?” can help a listener understand
the big picture. One study found that teachers
who ask questions in ­
parent-teacher conversations before launching into problem solving
are perceived as more effective communicators
(Castro et al., 2013). Research also indicates that
people who ask more genuine questions, particularly follow-up questions, are better liked by
their conversation partners and are judged to be
more responsive (Huang et al., 2017).
Not all questions are genuine requests for information. Whereas sincere questions are aimed at
understanding others, counterfeit questions are
really disguised attempts to send a message, not
receive one. As such, they really fit better at the
“more directive” end of the listening response continuum shown in Figure 5.3 on page 156. It’s also
likely that they’ll lead to a defensive communication climate, as we’ll discuss in Chapter 9, and
escalate conflict, which we examine in Chapter 10.
Counterfeit questions come in several varieties:
• Questions that trap the speaker. Asking, “You
didn’t like that movie, did you?” backs the
respondent into a corner. By contrast, “What
did you think of the movie?” is a sincere question that’s easier to answer.
Adding a tag question such as “didn’t you?” or
“isn’t that right?” to the end of a question can indicate that the asker is looking for agreement, not
information. Although some listeners use these tag
endings to confirm and facilitate understanding
(Coates, 1986), others use tags to coerce agreement
or to accuse—for example, “You said you’d call
at five o’clock, but you forgot, didn’t you?” Similarly, questions that begin with “Don’t you” (such
as, “Don’t you think she would make a good manager?”) direct others toward a desired response. As
a simple solution, changing “Don’t you?” to “Do
you?” makes the question less leading.
• Questions that make statements. “Are you finally
ready?” is more a statement than a question—a
159
160
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
fact unlikely to be lost on the targeted person.
Emphasizing certain words can also turn a
question into a statement: “You lent money to
Tony?” We also use questions to offer advice.
The person who asks, “Are you going to stand
up to him and give him what he deserves?” has
clearly stated an opinion about what should be
done.
• Questions that carry hidden agendas. “Are you
busy Friday night?” is a dangerous question to
answer. If you say “no,” thinking the person
has something pleasant in mind, you won’t like
hearing, “Good, because I need some help moving my piano.” Obviously, such questions are
not designed to enhance understanding; they’re
setups for the proposal that follows. Other
examples include, “Will you do me a favour?”
and “If I tell you what happened, will you promise not to get mad?” Because they’re strategic
rather than spontaneous, these questions are
likely to provoke defensiveness (see Chapter 9).
Wise communicators answer questions that
mask hidden agendas cautiously with responses
such as “It depends” or “Let me hear what you
have in mind before I answer.”
• Questions that seek a positive judgment. “How
do I look?” is often a request for a particular
response, (“You look great”) The listener must
carefully consider the context before responding.
• Questions based on unchecked assumptions.
“Why aren’t you listening to me?” assumes the
other person is not paying attention. “What’s
the matter?” assumes that something is wrong.
As we explained in Chapter 3, perception checking is a much better way of confirming one’s
assumptions. You’ll recall that a perception
check offers a description and interpretations,
followed by a sincere request for clarification:
“When you keep looking at your phone, I think
you aren’t listening to me, but maybe I’m wrong.
Are you paying attention?”
No question is inherently sincere or counterfeit.
As we’ll discuss further in Chapter 6, the meaning
and intent of any statement is shaped by its context. Moreover, a slight change in tone of voice or
facial expression can turn a sincere question into a
counterfeit one, and vice versa. Consider how the
questions “What are you doing?’ or “When will you
be finished?” could be asked in different ways, eliciting different responses. Research about coming out
conversations (Manning, 2015) illustrates the delicate balance of using questions as an active listener.
In one study, gay, lesbian, and bisexual participants
said they wanted to hear certain kinds of questions
from those who listened to their coming out disclosures. Participants viewed sincere questions as
indicators of open communication and a desire to
understand. They didn’t appreciate questions that
seemed leading (“Are you sure this isn’t a phase?”),
defensive (“Is this because I wasn’t around much?),
or inappropriate (asking for graphic sexual details).
When a topic is sensitive and emotionally charged,
it’s best to keep your questions as open and neutral as possible. “Tell me more—I’m listening” is
usually a good option, if it’s sincere.
Paraphrasing
Paraphrasing is providing feedback that restates,
in your own words, the message you thought the
speaker sent. You may wonder, “Why would I want
to restate what has already been said?” Consider
this simple exchange:
“Let’s make plans to get together next weekend.”
“So you want to chat next week to make plans for
Saturday?”
“No, what I meant is that we should check our
calendars now to see if we’re free to go to the
game on Sunday.”
By paraphrasing, the listener learned that the
speaker wanted to make plans now, not later—and
that “weekend” meant Sunday, not Saturday. Note
that the listener rephrased rather than repeated
the message. In effective paraphrasing you restate
what you think the speaker has said in your own
words as a way of checking the meaning you’ve
assigned to the message. It’s important that you
paraphrase, not “parrot-phrase.” If you simply
repeat the speaker’s comments verbatim, you’ll
sound foolish—and, just as important, you still
might misunderstand what’s been said.
5 | Listening
Types of Paraphrasing Statements
Restating another person’s message in a way that
sounds natural can sometimes be a difficult skill
to master. Here are three approaches to get you
started:
1. Change the speaker’s wording.
Speaker: “Bilingual education is just another
failed idea of francophones.”
Paraphrase: “Let me see if I’ve got this right.
You’re mad because you think bilingual education sounds good, but it doesn’t work?”
2. Offer an example of what you think the
speaker is talking about. When the speaker
makes an abstract statement, you may suggest a specific example, or two, to see if your
understanding is accurate.
Speaker: “Lee is such a jerk. I can’t believe the
way he acted last night.”
Paraphrase: “You think those jokes were
pretty offensive, huh?”
3. Describe the underlying theme of the speaker’s remarks. When you want to summarize
the theme that seems to have run through
another person’s conversation, a complete
or partial perception check is useful:
Speaker: “Be safe tonight.”
Paraphrase: “Sounds like you’re worried that
something might happen to me. Am I right?”
There are several reasons why paraphrasing
aids in listening. First, as the preceding examples
illustrate, paraphrasing allows you to find out if
the m
­ essage received is the message the sender
intended. Second, paraphrasing often draws out
further information from the speaker, much like
questioning (in fact, a good paraphrase often
ends with a question such as “Is that what you
meant?”). Third, paraphrasing is an ideal way to
take the heat out of intense discussions. When
conversations become heated, it’s often because
the people involved believe they aren’t being
heard. ­Paraphrasing has been shown to increase
the speaker’s positive emotions toward the listener.
Rather than escalate the conflict, try paraphrasing
what the other person says: “Okay, let me be sure
I understand you. It sounds as if you’re concerned
about . . . ” Paraphrasing usually stops a defensive
spiral because it assures the other person of your
involvement and concern. For these and other reasons, we usually feel a sense of affinity for those
who make the effort to paraphrase our messages
(Weger et al., 2010).
There are two levels at which you can paraphrase messages: the first involves feedback of factual information; the second involves describing
what you believe the underlying message to be.
Paraphrasing Factual Information
Summarizing facts, data, and details is important
during personal or professional conversations.
“We’ve agreed that we’ll take another few days
to think about our choices and make a decision
on Tuesday—right?” might be an effective way
to conclude a business lunch. A questioning tone
should be used; a listener wants to be sure that
meaning has been shared. Even personal topics
are sometimes best handled on a factual level:
“So, your main problem is that our friends take
up all the parking spaces in front of your place.
Is that it?” While this “neutral” response may be
difficult when you feel under attack, it helps to
clarify facts before you offer your reaction. It’s
also a good idea to paraphrase instructions, directions, and decisions before acting on what you
think has been said.
Paraphrasing Personal Information
While restating factual information is relatively easy, it takes a sensitive ear to listen for the
other person’s thoughts, feelings, and wants. The
­underlying message is often the more important
one, and effective listeners try to reflect what they
hear at this level (Bodie et al., 2016). An attentive
conversationalist listens for thoughts, feelings, and
wants, and is thus able to address the cognitive
(rational), affective (emotional), and behavioural
(desired action) domains of the human experience.
161
162
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
BUILDING WORK SKILLS
PARAPHRASING
Practise your ability to paraphrase in order to understand others by following these steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Choose a partner, and designate one of you as person A and the other as person B. Find a subject on
which you and your partner seem to disagree—a personal dispute, a philosophical or moral issue, or
perhaps a matter of personal taste.
Person A begins by making a statement on the subject. Person B’s job is to paraphrase the idea. In this
step, B should feedback only what they heard A say, without adding any judgment or interpretation. B’s
job here is simply to understand A—not to agree or disagree with A.
Person A responds by telling B whether or not the response was accurate and by making any necessary
additions or corrections to clarify the message.
Person B then paraphrases the revised statement. This process should continue until A is sure that B
understands them.
Now, B and A reverse roles and repeat the procedure in the first four steps. Continue the conversation
until both partners are satisfied that they have explained themselves fully and have been understood by
the other person.
After the discussion has ended, consider how this process differed from typical conversations on controversial
topics. Was there greater understanding here? Do the partners feel better about one another? Finally, ask
yourself how your life might change if you used more paraphrasing in everyday conversations.
Read the following statement as if a friend is talking to you, and listen for all three components in
the message:
Jean-Pierre has hardly been home all week—he’s
been so busy with work. He rushes in just long
enough to eat dinner, then he buries himself at
his desk until bedtime. Then he tells me today
that he’s going fishing Saturday with his buddies. I guess men are just like that—job first, play
second, family third.
What is the speaker thinking, feeling, and wanting? Paraphrasing can help you find out: “Sounds
as if you’re unhappy (feeling) because you think
Jean-Pierre’s ignoring you (thought) and you want
him to spend more time at home (want).” Recognize that your paraphrase may not be accurate;
the speaker might reply, “No, I really don’t want
him to spend more time at home—I just want him
to pay attention to me when he’s here.” Recognize
also that you could identify an entirely different
think–feel–want set: “So, you’re frustrated (feeling)
because you’d like Jean-Pierre to change (want), but
you think it’s hopeless because men have different
priorities (thought).” The fact that these examples
offer such different interpretations of the same
message demonstrates the value of paraphrasing.
Your paraphrases don’t have to be as long as the
examples in the preceding paragraph. It’s often a
good idea to mix paraphrasing with other listening responses. In many cases, you’ll want to reflect
only one or two of the think–feel–want components. The key is to give feedback that is appropriate
for the situation and to offer it in a way that helps
the listening process. Because paraphrasing may
be an unfamiliar way of responding, it could feel
awkward at first. Research suggests that rehearsing
paraphrasing in imagined interactions can help you
respond more effectively in actual conversations
(Vickery et al., 2015). If you start by paraphrasing
occasionally and then gradually do it more often,
you’ll begin to see the benefits of this method.
CHECK IT!
Describe the three approaches to paraphrasing
another person’s message and explain how paraphrasing aids listening.
5 | Listening
Empathizing
Empathizing is a response style listeners use when
they want to show they identify with a speaker. As
we discussed in Chapter 3, empathy involves perspective taking, emotional contagion, and genuine
concern. When listeners put the attitude of empathy
into verbal and non-verbal responses, they engage
in empathizing. Sometimes, these responses can
be quite brief: “Uh-huh,” “I see,” “Wow!” “Ouch!’
“Whew!” and “My goodness!” In other cases,
empathizing is expressed in statements like these:
“I can see that really hurts.”
“I know how important that was to you.”
“It’s no fun to feel unappreciated.”
“I can tell you’re really excited about that.”
“Wow, that must be rough.”
“I think I’ve felt that way, too.”
“Looks like that really made your day.”
“This means a lot to you, doesn’t it?”
sturti/iStockphoto
Empathizing falls near the middle of the listening response continuum shown in Figure 5.3 on page
156. It’s different from the more reflective responses
at the left end of the spectrum, which attempt to
How often do you empathize with the people you interact
with?
gather information neutrally. It’s also different from
the more evaluative styles at the right end of the
spectrum, which offer more direction than reflection. To understand how empathizing compares to
other types of responses, consider these examples:
“So, your supervisor isn’t happy with your performance and you’re thinking about finding a
new job.” [paraphrasing]
“Ouch—I’ll bet it hurt when your supervisor said
you weren’t doing a good job.” [empathizing]
“Hey, you’ll land on your feet—your supervisor
doesn’t appreciate what a great asset you are.”
[supporting]
Notice that empathizing identifies with the
speaker’s emotions and perceptions more than
paraphrasing does, yet offers less evaluation and
agreement than supporting responses. In fact,
it’s possible to empathize with others while disagreeing with them (Gordon and Chen, 2016). For
instance, the response “I can tell that this issue is
important to you” legitimizes a speaker’s feelings
without assenting to that person’s point of view
(note that it could be said to either a friend or a foe
at a business meeting). Empathizing is therefore an
important skill whether you agree or disagree with
the speaker.
Perhaps a better way to explain empathizing is
to describe what it does not sound like. Many listeners believe they’re empathizing when, in fact,
they’re offering responses that are evaluative and
directive. Listeners are probably not empathizing
when they do the following:
• Deny others the right to their feelings. Consider this
common response to another p
­ erson’s ­problem:
“Don’t worry about it.” While the remark may
be intended as a reassuring comment, the underlying message is that the speaker wants the person
to feel differently. It’s unlikely that people can or
will stop worrying just because you tell them to.
Research shows that empathizing is more effective than denying the feelings and perspectives of
others (Burleson and Samter, 1985, 1994).
• Minimizing the significance of the situation.
Think about the times someone said to you,
163
164
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
“Hey, it’s only
.” You can
probably fill in the blank a variety of ways: “a
game,” “words,” “a test,” “a party.” How did you
react? You probably thought the person who
said it just didn’t understand. To someone who
has been the victim of verbal abuse, the hurtful message wasn’t “just words”; to a child who
didn’t get an invitation, it wasn’t “just a party”
(see Burleson, 1984); to a student who has failed
an important exam, it wasn’t “just a test” (see
Burleson and Samter, 1985). When you minimize the importance of someone else’s experience, you are not empathizing. Instead, you’re
interpreting the event from your perspective
and then passing judgment—rarely a helpful
response.
• Focus on yourself. It can be tempting to talk
at length about a similar experience you’ve
encountered (e.g., “I know exactly how you feel,
the same thing happened to me—let me tell you
about it . . .”). Although your intent might be to
show empathy, research shows that such messages aren’t perceived as helpful because they
draw attention away from the distressed person
(Burleson, 2008).
• Raining on the speaker’s parade. Most of the preceding examples deal with difficult situations
or messages about pain. However, empathizing
involves identifying with the joys of others as
well as their sorrows. Many of us can remember coming home with exciting news, only to be
told, “A five per cent raise? That isn’t so great.”
“An A minus? Why didn’t you get an A?” “Big
deal—I got one of those years ago.” Taking the
wind out of someone’s sails is the opposite of
empathizing. Research shows that we don’t get
the full enjoyment out of good news until we
share it with someone who responds empathically (Lambert at al., 2013; Reis et al., 2010).
and adults can learn how to offer such responses
­(Dexter, 2013). The Activities section at the end of
this chapter can offer you valuable practice in developing your skills as an empathic communicator.
Supporting
So far, we’ve looked at listening responses that put
a premium on being reflective and non-evaluative.
However, there are times when other people want
to hear more than a reflection of how they feel—
when they would like to know how you feel about
them. Supporting responses reveal the listener’s
solidarity with the speaker’s situation. There are
several types of supportive responses:
Agreement:
“You’re right—the landlord is being unfair.”
“Yes, that class was tough for me, too.”
Offers to help:
“I’m here if you need me.”
“Let me try to explain it to him.”
Praise:
“I don’t care what the manager said. I think you
did a great job!”
“You’re a terrific person! If she doesn’t recognize
it, that’s her problem.”
Reassurance:
“The worst part seems to be over. It will probably
get easier from here.”
“I know you’ll do a great job.”
Diversion:
“Let’s catch a movie and get your mind off this.”
“That reminds me of the time we . . .”
There is some evidence that men and women
may differ in the way they act when supporting
Empathic listening is essentially an expression others. Women are more likely than men to give
of affection, as it communicates validation and a supportive responses when presented with another
sense of worth to the message sender (Floyd, 2014). person’s problem (Burleson et al., 2005; Hale et al.,
Research suggests that emotional intelligence 1997), and appear to be more skilful at composis needed to offer these non-judgmental, other-­ ing and processing such messages (Burleson et al.,
oriented responses (Pence and Vickery, 2012). 2009, 2011). These skills have been traditionally
­Fortunately, research also shows that both children associated with what is stereotypically feminine
5 | Listening
(High and Solomon, 2016). In fact, women who
violate the feminine stereotype and aren’t skilled
at offering emotional support to their female
friends run the risk of being shunned by their
same sex peers (Holmstrom et al., 2005). Regardless of gender, most people respond well to the
same types of comforting messages. People report
feeling supported by highly personal messages that
are delivered with non-verbal immediacy such as
maintaining eye contact and appropriate touching
(Jones and Burleson, 2003). Moreover, people also
appreciate the kind of social support we describe
in Chapter 8.
However, even the most sincere supportive
efforts do not always help. Mourners who had
recently suffered the death of a loved one often
report that a majority of the comments made to
them were unhelpful (Davidowitz and Myrick,
1984; Glanz, 2007). Most of the unhelpful statements are advice: “You’ve got to get out more.”
“Don’t question God’s will.” Another frequent
response is reassurance, such as, “She’s out of her
REFLECTION
COMFORTING A CRYING CHILD: “IT’S
OKAY” IS NOT OKAY
I have always enjoyed working with young children.
Sharing their joy and excitement is such a pleasure and exploring the world with them inspires my
curiosity. Another important part of my job as a
caring adult in children’s lives is providing comfort and support when they are upset. My first
reaction when children are hurt and crying has
always been to try to reassure them. When I’m
hugging them I find myself saying, “It’s okay. It’s
all right.” And things like that. I realize now that,
rather than being reassuring, my words could be
seen as actually denying the child’s true feelings.
Obviously, if you are crying and someone or something has hurt you, it really isn’t okay at all in that
moment! It hurts. Now, I try to say things like, “I’m
here. I’ll try to help you feel better” when I’m giving
my hugs. I try to acknowledge their feelings and
offer to comfort and care for them.
pain now” and “Time heals all wounds.” A study
of bereaved parents found these kinds of clichés
actually do more harm than good (Toller, 2011).
People who are grieving don’t appreciate being
told how to feel or what they should do. Instead,
bereaved parents said they would feel more supported by the silent listening approach described
a bit earlier in this chapter. One mother who lost a
child offered this recommendation for people who
want to help a grieving friend:
Go and be with them. You don’t say anything,
just say, “I don’t know how you feel but I’m here.”
Go sit down and just be with that person. (Toller,
2011, p. 26)
Like the other kinds of helping styles, supporting can be beneficial, but only under certain
conditions (Goldsmith and Fitch, 1997; Halone
and Pecchioni, 2001), such as:
• Make sure your expression of support is sincere.
Phony agreement or encouragement is probably
worse than no support at all, since it adds the
insult of your dishonesty to whatever pain the
other person is already feeling.
• Be sure the other person can accept your support.
Sometimes, people are so upset that they aren’t
ready or able to hear anything positive. When
you know a friend is going through a difficult
time, it’s important not to be overly intrusive
before that person is ready to talk and receive
your support (Clark and Delia, 1997).
• Focus on “here and now” rather than “then and
there.” While it’s sometimes true that “you’ll
feel better tomorrow,” it sometimes isn’t. More
importantly, focusing on the future avoids
supporting in the present. Even if the prediction that “10 years from now, you won’t even
remember their name” proves correct, it gives
little comfort to someone experiencing heartbreak today.
Analyzing
In an analyzing response, the listener offers an
interpretation of a speaker’s message (“I think
what’s really bothering you is . . . ,” “They’re doing
165
166
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
it because . . . ,” or “Maybe the problem started
when they . . .”). Communicators who respond
this way often use the analytical style described
earlier in this chapter. This style can be effective
in helping people who have problems consider
alternative meanings of a situation. Sometimes,
an analysis helps clarify a confusing problem and
provide an objective understanding of the situation. Research suggests that analytic listeners are
able to listen to people who are emotionally upset
without experiencing similar emotions, and this
can be an advantage in solving problems (Weaver
and Kirtley, 1995).
In other cases, an analysis can create more
problems than it solves. There are two possible
reasons: First, your interpretation may not be correct, in which case the person with the problem
may become even more confused by accepting it.
Second, even if your analysis is accurate, sharing it
with the other person may not be useful. There is
a chance that it will arouse defensiveness (analysis
implies being superior and in a position to evaluate). Besides, the person with the problem may not
be able to understand your view of the problem
without working it out personally.
How can you know when it’s helpful to offer an
analysis? There are some guidelines to follow:
• Offer your interpretation in a tentative way
rather than as absolute fact. There’s a big difference between saying, “Maybe the reason is . . .”
and insisting, “This is the truth.”
• Your analysis ought to have a reasonable chance
of being correct. An inaccurate interpretation—
especially one that sounds plausible—can leave
a person more confused than before.
• Make sure that the other person will be receptive
to your analysis. Even if you’re completely accurate, your thoughts will not help if the other person is not ready to consider them. Pay attention
to the other person’s verbal and non-verbal cues
to see how your analysis is being received.
• Be sure that your motive for offering an analysis
is truly to help the other person. It can be tempting to offer an analysis to show how brilliant
you are or even to make the other person feel
bad for not having thought of the right answer
in the first place. Needless to say, an analysis
offered under such conditions is not helpful.
Evaluating
An evaluating response appraises the sender’s
thoughts or behaviour in some way. The evaluation may be favourable (“That’s a good idea” or
“You’re on the right track now”) or unfavourable
(“An attitude like that won’t get you anywhere”).
In either case, it implies that the person evaluating is in some way qualified to pass judgment on
the speaker’s thoughts or actions. Communicators
who respond this way often approach situations
with the critical listening style described earlier in
this chapter.
Sometimes, negative evaluations are purely
critical. How many times have you heard responses
such as, “Well, you asked for it!” or “I told you so!”
or “You’re just feeling sorry for yourself?” Such
comments usually make matters worse by arousing defensiveness.
Other times, negative evaluations are less
critical. These involve what we usually call constructive criticism, which is intended to help the
problem haver improve in the future. Friends give
this sort of response about the choice of everything from clothing to jobs to friends. A common
setting for constructive criticism is school, where
instructors evaluate students’ work in order to
help them master concepts and skills. Still, even
constructive criticism can arouse defensiveness,
because it may threaten the self-concept of the
person to whom it’s directed. Chapter 9 provides
guidelines for creating supportive communication
climates.
Advising
When we’re approached with someone’s problem,
the most common reaction is to advise (Feng and
Magen, 2016). An advising response involves providing the speaker with your opinion about what
they should do. We are all familiar with advising
responses: “If you’re so unhappy, you should just
5 | Listening
• Is the advice needed? If the person has already
made a decision or taken a course of action,
giving advice after the fact (“I can’t believe
you’re getting back together with him”) is rarely
appreciated.
• Is the advice wanted? People generally don’t
value unsolicited advice. It’s usually best if the
speaker is interested in hearing your counsel.
Remember that sometimes people just want a
listening ear, not solutions to their problems.
• Is the advice given in the right sequence? Advice
is more likely to be received after the listener
offers empathizing, paraphrasing, and questioning responses to understand the speaker
and the situation better.
• Is the advice coming from an expert? If you want
to offer advice about anything from car purchasing to relationship managing, it’s important to
have experience and success in those matters. If
you don’t have expertise, it’s a good idea to offer
the speaker supportive responses, and encourage the person to seek out expert counsel.
• Is the advisor a close and trusted person?
Although sometimes we seek out advice from
people we don’t know well (perhaps because
they have expertise), in most cases we value
advice given within the context of a close and
ongoing interpersonal relationship.
• Is the advice offered in a sensitive, face saving
manner? No one likes to feel bossed or belittled,
even if the advice is good (Miczo and Burgoon,
2008). Remember that messages have both content and relational dimensions. Sometimes the
unstated relational message when giving advice
(“I’m smarter than you”; “You’re not bright
enough to figure this out yourself”) will keep
people from hearing counsel.
Which Style to Use?
You can see that each style has advantages and
disadvantages. Which style is best? There is no
simple answer to this question. All response types
and styles have the potential to help others accept
their situation, feel better, and have a sense of
control over their problems (Imhof, 2003; Werger
et al., 2014).
As a general rule, it’s probably wise to begin
with responses from the left and middle of the
listening response continuum: silent listening,
questioning, paraphrasing, and empathizing.
bowdenimages/iStockphoto
quit your job”; “Just tell him what you think”; “You
should take some time off.”
Even when advice might be just what a person
needs, there are several reasons why it often is not
helpful. First, it may not offer the best suggestion
about how to act. There is often a temptation to tell
others how you would behave in their place, but it’s
important to realize that what’s right for one person may not be right for another. Second, people
may not welcome advice because they perceive it
as implying they are inferior to the advice giver
who has a ready solution (Shaw and Hepburn,
2013). Third, a related consequence of advising is
that it often allows others to avoid responsibility
for their decisions. A partner who follows a suggestion of yours that does not work out can always
pin the blame on you. Finally, people often do not
want advice. They may not be ready to accept it and
instead may simply need to talk out their thoughts
and feelings. Studies on advice giving (summarized in MacGeorge et al., 2008) offer the following important considerations when trying to help
others:
167
When we’re approached with someone’s problem, the
most common reaction is to advise. What conditions
should exist before you offer someone advice?
168
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
TAKE TWO
TYPES OF LISTENING RESPONSES
• Silent listening: staying attentive and non-­
verbally responsive, without saying anything.
• Questioning: asking the speaker for additional
information.
• Open questions allow for a variety of
extended responses.
• Closed questions only allow a limited range
of answers.
• Sincere questions are aimed at understanding others.
• Counterfeit questions are disguised attempts
to send a message, not receive one.
• Paraphrasing: restating, in your own words, the
message you thought the speaker sent.
• Empathizing: showing that you identify with a
speaker.
• Supporting: revealing your solidarity with the
speaker’s situation.
• Analyzing: offering an interpretation of a speaker’s message.
• Evaluating: appraising the speaker’s thoughts or
behaviour in some way.
• Advising: providing the speaker with your opinion about what she should do.
These skills comprise what pioneering therapist
Carl Rogers (2003) calls active listening (see
Weger et al., 2014). Rogers maintains that helpful interpersonal listening begins with reflective,
non-directive responses. Once you have gathered
the facts and demonstrated your interest and
concern, it’s likely that the speaker will be more
receptive to (and perhaps even ask for) your analyzing, evaluating, and advising responses (MacGeorge et al., 2017).
You can improve the odds of choosing the best
style in each situation by considering three factors.
1. Think about the situation, and match
your response to the nature of the problem. People sometimes need your advice.
In other cases, your encouragement and
­support will be most helpful, and in still
other cases, your analysis or judgment may
be truly useful. And, as you have seen, there
are times when your questioning and paraphrasing can help others find their own
answer.
2. Besides considering the situation, you also
should think about the other person when
deciding which approach to use. It’s important to be sure that the other person is open to
receiving any kind of help. Furthermore, you
BUILDING WORK SKILLS
WHICH LISTENING STYLE IS BEST?
Explore the various types of listening responses by completing the following steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Join with two partners to form a trio. Designate members as persons A, B, and C.
Person A begins by sharing an actual, current work- or school-related problem with B. The problem need
not be a major life crisis, but it should be a real one. Person B should respond in whatever way seems
most helpful. Person C’s job is to categorize each of B’s responses as either: silent listening, questioning,
paraphrasing, empathizing, supporting, analyzing, evaluating, or advising.
After a four- to five-minute discussion, C should summarize B’s response styles. Person A then describes
which of the styles were most helpful and which were not helpful.
Repeat the same process twice, switching roles so that each person has been in all of the positions.
Based on your findings, your threesome should draw conclusions about what combination of response
styles can be most helpful.
5 | Listening
need to be confident that you’ll be regarded
as someone whose support is valuable. The
same listening response can be regarded as
helpful or not depending on who is delivering it (Rossetto, 2015). Consider how an
“insider” to your job, social circle, or family
can offer encouragement or advice (“Hang
in there! It’ll get better”) that might ring
hollow if it came from an outsider.
It’s also important to match the type of
response you offer with the style of the person to whom it’s directed (Bippus, 2001).
One study found that highly rational people
tend to respond more positively to advice
than do more emotional people (Feng
and Lee, 2010). Many communicators are
extremely defensive and are not capable of
receiving analysis or judgments without
lashing out. Still others are not equipped to
think through problems clearly enough to
profit from questioning and paraphrasing.
Sophisticated listeners choose a style that
fits the person.
3. Finally, think about yourself when deciding
how to respond. Most of us reflexively use
one or two styles (did you notice this when
you completed the “Self-Assessment” on page
146). You may be best at listening quietly, posing a question, or paraphrasing from time to
time. Or perhaps you’re especially insightful
and can offer a truly useful analysis of the
problem. Of course, it’s also possible to rely on
a response style that is unhelpful. You may be
overly judgmental or too eager to advise, even
when your suggestions are not invited or productive. As you think about how to respond to
another’s problems, consider your weaknesses
as well as your strengths.
CHECK IT!
What factors should you consider before you
choose how to respond as a listener?
SUMMARY
Listening is both more frequent and less emphasized than speaking. Despite its relative invisibility, listening is at least as important as speaking.
Research shows that good listening is vital to both
personal and professional success.
Listening is the process of making sense of
other’s spoken messages. We listen to many messages mindlessly, but it’s important to listen ­mindfully
in a variety of situations. We also listen to others
based on our personal styles and ­listening goals.
Sometimes our listening is task-oriented; other
times it’s more relational, analytical, or critical.
Effective listeners match their styles with the needs
of the situations.
Most people’s understanding of listening suffers from several misconceptions, which communicators need to correct. Mindful listening isn’t easy;
rather, it’s a challenge that requires much effort
and talent. Several barriers can hamper effective
listening: information overload, personal concerns,
rapid thought, and both internal and external noise.
Even careful listening does not mean that all listeners will receive the same message. A wide variety of factors discussed in this chapter can result
in hugely varying interpretations of even simple
­statements.
Listening consists of several components:
hearing, attending to a message, understanding
the statement, remembering the message after the
passage of time, and responding to the speaker.
Listening responses are important, because they
let us know if others are truly tuned in to what
we’re saying. Listening responses can be placed
on a continuum. More reflective and less ­directive
169
170
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
responses include silent listening, questioning, paraphrasing, and empathizing. These put a
premium on gathering information and showing
interest and concern. Less reflective and more
directive responses include supporting, analyzing,
evaluating, and advising. These put a premium on
offering input and direction. It’s possible to use
the “more reflective” listening responses to help
people arrive at their own decisions without offering advice or evaluation. The most effective listeners use ­several styles, depending on the situation,
the other person, and their own personal skills and
motivation.
MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
1.
Which of the following statements is true?
a. While speaking takes up more of our time,
listening skills are important for both our
personal relationships and career success.
b. Listening and hearing are interchangeable concepts.
c. Analytical listening is most concerned
with efficiency and accomplishing the job
at hand.
d. The only way to manage the onslaught of
messages is to be “lazy” towards some
of them.
2.
a.
b.
c.
d.
4.
While his manager describes a project he
would like him to work on, Miguel is thinking about asking a colleague he likes to go
out for coffee. He is nodding and smiling at
his manager and maintaining eye contact
but he isn’t listening. Miguel thoughts are
information overload and selective listening.
rapid thought and stage hogging.
pseudo-listening and noise.
information overload and insulated listening.
Which of the following statements is false?
a. Listening fidelity is the degree of congruence between what a listener understands
and what the sender of the message was
attempting to communicate.
b. Listening fidelity implies agreement
between listener and message sender.
c. Listening mindfully in order to truly understand another person sends a positive
relational message.
d. High levels of listening fidelity are the
ideal in interpersonal listening.
According to research presented in this book,
listening is difficult because we’re capable of
understanding speech rates
a. that are much slower than the rate at
which most people speak.
b. that are more than four times as fast as
the rate at which most people speak.
c. that are almost twice as fast as the
rate at which most people speak.
d. faster in the evenings and slower in the
mornings due to our circadian rhythms.
3.
interfering with his ability to listen. This is an
example of
5.
Silent listening
a. can help others solve their own problems.
b. is fundamental to an activity called “hearing into being.”
c. is something most of us could profit from
using and receiving from others.
d. all of the above are true about silent listening.
6.
“You didn’t like that restaurant, did you?” is
an example of
a. a question that seeks a positive judgment.
b. a sincere question.
5 | Listening
c. a question that traps the speaker.
d. all of the above.
7.
When Seema’s mother brings up the topic of
school, homework, and grades, Seema totally
ignores her mother. Seema’s non-listening
would be best described as
a.
b.
c.
d.
8.
9.
pseudo-listening.
stage hogging.
insulated listening.
selective listening.
Which of the following is an example of an
empathic listening response?
a. “I can tell you’re really excited about that!”
b. “Oh, forget about it.”
c. “I know exactly how you feel. That happened to me. Let me tell you about it.”
d. “It’s nothing. Don’t worry about it.”
Which three listening responses would be
described as more reflective and less directive?
a. paraphrasing, silent listening, and questioning
b. questioning, analyzing, and evaluating
c. advising, supporting, and empathizing
d. paraphrasing, empathizing, and supporting
10. Identify which type of listening response the
following statement best represents: “I think
she did that because she’s jealous of all the
attention you got at the party.”
a.
b.
c.
d.
advising
evaluating
analyzing
supporting
Answers: 1
. d; 2. b; 3. c; 4. b; 5. d; 6. c; 7. c; 8. a; 9. a; 10. c
ACTIVITIES
1. Invitation to Insight
Keep a three-day journal of your listening behaviour, noting the time you spend listening in various situations. In addition, analyze your reasons
for listening. Which goal(s) were you trying to
achieve?
a. to accomplish a task or job
b. to build and maintain relationships
c. to look at an issue from a variety of
perspectives
d. to evaluate the message(s) you were receiving
To what extent did your listening style help you
to achieve your listening goal(s)? What worked?
How might you change your approach in the
future?
2. Critical Thinking Probe
Mindless listening can arise from factors that are
not easily observed. Based on your experience,
decide which of the following steps in the listening
process cause the greatest difficulties:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
hearing
attending
understanding
remembering
responding
Discuss your findings with your friends, and develop
a list of strategies that can help minimize listening problems in the areas you identified and listen
more mindfully.
3. Skill Builder
Explore the benefits of silent listening by using a
“talking stick” in a listening circle. Richard Hyde
(1993) developed this exercise from the Indigenous tradition of “council” and Guy Itzchakov and
Avraham N. Kluger (2018) have used it to improve
(private and public sector) employees’ listening
171
172
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
behaviour, reduce their social anxiety, and develop
more complex and less extreme attitudes.
Gather a group of people in a circle, and designate a particular item as the talking stick. Participants will then pass the stick around the circle.
Participants may speak
Are there ever cases where certain types of non-­
listening (e.g., pseudo-listening, stage hogging,
and defensive listening—see page 149) are justified? How would you feel if you knew that others
were not listening to you?
a. only when holding the stick;
b. for as long as they hold the stick; and
c. without interruption from anyone else in the circle.
5. Role Play
Choose a partner.
When a member is finished speaking, the stick
passes to the left and the speaker surrendering
the stick must wait until it has made its way around
the circle and back before speaking again.
After each member of the group has had the
chance to speak (not all group members are
required to speak if they choose not to), discuss
how this experience differs from more common
approaches to listening. Decide how the desirable
parts of this method could be introduced in everyday conversations.
4. Ethical Challenge
What responsibility do communicators have to listen as mindfully as possible to other speakers?
a. One person will provide a factual description of
something they know how to do and the other
person doesn’t (e.g., cook a particular dish, fix
something, etc.). The other person will listen
and use paraphrasing to clarify and ensure
they understand. Now, reverse roles.
b. Next, one person will describe a personal situation (ensure participants are comfortable disclosing the information) that involves thoughts
and emotions. The other person will listen and
paraphrase to ensure they understand. Now,
reverse roles.
c. Discuss the strengths and challenges of paraphrasing in both situations from the perspective of the listener and the speaker.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1.
Discuss the benefits of mindful listening
skills.
4.
Give an example from your own experience of
each of the seven poor listening habits.
2.
Describe instances in your own life when
you’ve used the four broad listening styles.
5.
Explain how things can go wrong in each of
the five elements of listening.
3.
Why is mindful listening not an easy communication task? Describe the four barriers
to listening.
6.
Describe paraphrasing and its benefits.
7.
When is advising an appropriate listening
response?
JOURNAL IDEAS
1.
Keep track of the time you engage in any of
the seven types of non-listening (e.g., pseudo-listening, stage hogging, selective listening, filling in the gaps, insulated listening,
defensive listening, and ambushing). Note
the day, time of day, topic of conversation,
location, and people involved. After collecting
examples over the course of a week, look at
5 | Listening
your examples and identify any patterns. Are
there people, times of day, topics, or locations that recur in your entries? Analyze your
entries and describe what obstacles to listening you encounter regularly and what you
can do to listen more effectively. Develop at
least one personal goal to improve your listening based on your analysis.
2.
Often people don’t want to paraphrase
or empathize with people with whom
they’re arguing, because they mistake
­nderstanding another person’s point of
u
view for agreeing with it. Think about a
recent time when you disagreed with someone and try to paraphrase the content of
their message as well as the personal elements. Can you understand their point of
view even when not agreeing with it? Can
you imagine the emotions they might have
experienced while talking to you? Would
actually using this paraphrasing strategy
during a disagreement with that person be
helpful? Why or why not?
173
laughingmango/iStockphoto
6
Language
CHAPTER OUTLINE
The Nature of Language
Language
Language
Language
Language
Is Symbolic
Is Governed by Rules
Is Subjective
and Worldview
The Influence of Language
Naming and Identity
Credibility and Status
Affiliation
Power and Politeness
Sexism
Sexual Orientation
Racism
Uses (and Abuses) of Language
Precision and Vagueness
The Language of Responsibility
Culture and Language
High- versus Low-Context Cultures
Verbal Communication Styles
Code-Switching
Gender and Language
Extent of Gender Differences
Online Language and Gender
Non-Gender Influences on Language Use
KEY TERMS
abstraction ladder
ambiguous language
assertiveness
“but” statement
code switching
convergence
divergence
euphemism
evaluative language
high-context culture
“I” language
“it” statement
linguistic relativity
low-context culture
phonological rules
politeness
powerful language
powerless language
pragmatic rules
racist language
relative language
semantic rules
sexist language
syntactic rules
“we” language
“you” language
LEARNING OUTCOMES
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Explain the symbolic, rule-based, subjective, culture-bound nature of language
Describe the influence of language on identity, affiliation, power, politeness, and attitudes about
­sexism, gender identity, and racism
Analyze the impact of precise, vague, and responsible language use in interpersonal relationships
Construct statements that acknowledge your responsibility for the content of messages
Rephrase disruptive statements in less inflammatory terms
Describe the relationship between culture and verbal styles, and the influence of language on
­perceptions
Compare and critique evidence regarding the impact of gender on language use in interpersonal
­relationships
Identify ways in which online language usage is different from the in-person variety
176
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
Cognitive scientist Lera Boroditsky (2009) often
begins her undergraduate lectures by asking students which cognitive faculty they would least
want to lose. Most choose vision and a few pick
hearing. Almost no one mentions language.
Boroditsky suggests that this an oversight.
After all, she reasons, people who lack the ability
to see and hear can still have rich and satisfying
lives. “But what would life be like if you had never
learned a language?” she wonders. “Could you still
have friends, get an education, hold a job, start a
family? Language is so fundamental to our experience, so deeply part of being human, that it is hard
to imagine life without it” (p. 116).
A simple exercise illustrates how language is
basic to our view of the world. Take a look at Figure 6.1 and quickly say aloud the printed colours of
the words shown. The correct response is “orange,
blue, yellow,” but chances are you’ll have difficulty
getting it right without pausing or stumbling. Our
brains tend to automatically fill in the meaning of a
word (when we see the word purple printed in the
colour orange it’s hard not to say purple, but if we
see the word cat printed in the colour orange it’s
easier to keep the word meaning and print colour
separate and we can complete the task faster). This
phenomenon, known as the Stroop effect, points
to how language influences perception. We see the
world through the filter of our words.
Language is arguably the most essential component of human communication. In this chapter,
we’ll examine the relationship between words and
ideas. We describe some important characteris­
tics of language and show how these characteristics
affect our day-to-day communication. We’ll outline several types of troublesome language and
show how to replace them with more effective
kinds of speech. Finally, we’ll look at the influence
of culture and gender on the way we use language.
The Nature of Language
We begin our survey by looking at some features that characterize all languages. These
fea­t ures explain both why language is such a useful tool and why it can be so troublesome.
Language Is Symbolic
Words are arbitrary symbols that have no meaning
in themselves. For example, the word five is a kind
of code that represents the number of fingers on
your hand only because we agree that it does (see
Figure 6.2). As Bateson and Jackson (1964, p. 271)
point out, “There is nothing particularly five-like
in the number ‘five.’” To a speaker of French, the
symbol cinq conveys the same meaning; to a computer, the same value is expressed by the electronically coded symbol 00110101.
Even sign language, as “spoken” by most deaf
people, is symbolic in nature (Sandler, 2013).
Because this form of communication is symbolic
and not literal, there are hundreds of different
sign languages used around the world; they have
evolved independently whenever significant numbers of deaf people have come together (Meir et al.,
2010). These distinct languages include ­American
Sign Language, Mexican Sign Language, British
Sign Language, French Sign Language, Danish Sign
Language, Chinese Sign Language, and Australian
Aboriginal and Mayan Sign Languages—and communicating across different sign languages can be
as difficult as it is across different spoken languages
(Quinto-Pozos, 2008).
Language Is Governed by Rules
FIGURE 6.1 The Stroop Effect. Naming the font colour of a printed word is more difficult if the word meaning
and the font colour do not match.
The only reason symbol-laden languages work at all
is that people agree on how to use them. The linguistic agreements that make communication possible
can be codified in rules. Languages c­ ontain several
6 | Language
FIGURE 6.2 The word “five” in different writing systems.
types of rules that continuously evolve ­(Garner,
2014). Phonological rules govern how sounds are
combined to form words. For instance, the words
champagne, double, and occasion have the same
meanings in French and English, but are pronounced differently because the languages have
different phonological rules.
Syntactic rules govern the way symbols can
be arranged. Notice that the following statements
contain the same words, but the shift in syntax creates quite different meanings:
“Whisky makes you sick when you’re well.”
“Whisky, when you’re sick, makes you well.”
Wiley Miller/Cartoonstock
Although most of us are not able to describe the
syntactic rules that govern our language, it’s easy
to recognize their existence by noticing how odd a
statement that violates them appears. Sometimes,
however, apparently ungrammatical speech is simply following a different set of syntactic rules. For
example, English spoken in Newfoundland and
Labrador has many non-standard features in its
grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary. If you
apply the rules of Standard English syntax to the
statement, “Throw Mum down the stairs her keys,”
you’d be confused about who or what is going
down the stairs. But in parts of Newfoundland
and Labrador, this construction clearly means it’s
Mum’s keys, not Mum, that are being thrown down
the stairs. There are many regional or co-cultural
English dialects with their own syntactic rules.
Linguists believe it’s crucial to view dialects as different rather than deficient forms of English (Wolfram and Schilling-Estes, 2005).
Semantic rules govern the meaning of language as opposed to the structure. Semantic rules
are what make it possible for us to agree that bikes
are for riding and books are for reading. Without
semantic rules, communication would be impossible, because each of us would use symbols in
unique ways, unintelligible to others.
Although semantic rules help us understand
the meaning of individual words, they often do not
explain how language operates in everyday life.
Consider the statement, “Let’s get together tomorrow.” The semantic meaning of the words in this
sentence is clear enough, and yet the statement
could be interpreted in several ways. It could be
a request (“I hope we can get together”), a polite
command (“I want to see you”), or an empty cliché
(“I don’t really mean it”). We learn to distinguish
the accurate meanings of such speech through
pragmatic rules that tell us what uses and interpretations of a message are reasonable in a given
situation (Dougherty et al., 2009).
When these rules are understood by all players
in the language game, smooth communication is
possible. For example, one rule specifies that the
relationship between communicators plays a large
role in determining the meaning of a statement.
Our example, “I want to see you,” is likely to mean
one thing when uttered by your supervisor and
another thing entirely when it comes from your
romantic partner. Likewise, the setting in which
177
178
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
the statement is made plays a role. Saying “I want to
see you” will probably have a different meaning at
the office than at a party. Of course, the ­non-verbal
behaviour that accompanies a statement also helps
us interpret its meaning.
People in individual relationships create their
own sets of pragmatic rules. Consider the use
of humour: the teasing and jokes you exchange
with gusto with one friend might be considered
tasteless and offensive in another relationship.
For instance, imagine an email or text typed in
capital letters and filled with curse words, insults,
and exclamation marks. How would you interpret such a message? An outside observer might
find it offensive and insulting, when in fact the
­ essage might be fun-loving verbal jousting
m
between friends (O’Sullivan and Flanagin, 2003;
Maiz-Arevalo, 2015). If you have a good friend
you call by a less-than-­tasteful nickname as a
term of endearment, then you understand the
concept. Keep in mind, however, that those who
aren’t privy to your relationship’s pragmatic rules
are likely to misunderstand you, so you’ll want to
be wise about when and where to use these personal codes.
Language Is Subjective
If the rules of language were more precise and if
everyone followed them, we would suffer from
FOCUS ON TECHNOLOGY
ARE MEDIATED COMMUNICATION CHANNELS ERODING CONVENTIONAL GRAMMAR?
Since the 1960s, with the increased access to film
and television, there has been considerable speculation about the influence of media on language. This
interest has only increased in recent years with the
exponential changes in media in our lives (Tagliamonte, 2014, 2016). One specific concern is that
texting, Twitter, instant messaging, and other social
media negatively influence people’s ability to use
conventional grammar. The assumption is that the
use of abbreviations (e.g., tmw for “tomorrow,” u for
“you”); initializations or acronyms (e.g., lol for “laugh
out loud”; ttyl for “talk to you later”); intensifiers (e.g.,
really, so); misspellings (e.g., gonna for “going to”);
as well as other creative adaptations of conventional
language, will erode young people’s ability to use
normative (conventional or standard) grammar when
it’s required (e.g., in essays, reports, presentations,
work-related emails, formal letters, etc.).
Intrigued by this phenomenon, University of
Toronto linguistics researcher Sali Tagliamonte
(2016) amalgamated 13 weeks’ worth of her students’ unmonitored email, instant messaging, and
text messages, totaling 179,241 words. Her students
also consented to allow her to analyze their final term
papers. Taglimonte found that her students navigated
the various communication channels with fluidity and
ease. They adapted their spelling, grammar, use of
acronyms, short forms, intensifiers, and future temporal references to match the conventions of the type
of message (email, text message, instant message,
or term paper) they were writing.
She points out that acronyms, short forms, and
non-standard spellings are not new. Many of them
predated the recent surge in their use in mediated
communication. For instance, the first known use of
the acronym lol is said to have occurred in a letter
written by Admiral John Fisher to Winston Churchill
in 1917 and the variants of laughter such as haha
and hehe have been part of written language since
as early as 1000 CE (see Tagliamonte, 2016). Tagliamonte concludes that, across all of the analyses
she conducted, young people navigated the different
message channels and their corresponding spelling,
grammar, and language with ease and aplomb.
Critical Thinking: What is your experience navigating
the grammar and language choices unique to different communication channels? Have you ever made
an error or received a message that you thought was
inappropriately informal or formal in terms of language,
abbreviations, and grammatical structure? What factors might contribute to such missteps?
6 | Language
TAKE TWO
• Phonological rules: govern how sounds are combined to form words.
• Syntactic rules: govern the way symbols can be
arranged.
• Semantic rules: govern the meaning of statements.
• Pragmatic rules: tell us what interpretations of a
message are reasonable in a given situation.
fewer misunderstandings. You have an hour-long
argument about feminism with a friend, only to
discover that you were using the term in different
ways and that you really were in basic agreement.
You tease a friend in what you mean to be a playful manner, but they take you seriously and are
offended.
These problems occur because people attach
different meanings to the same message. Ogden
and Richards (1923) illustrated this point graphically in their well-known triangle of meaning (see
Figure 6.3). This model shows that there is only an
indirect relationship—indicated by a broken line—
between a word and the thing or idea it represents.
Thought or Reference
Symbol
Referent
FIGURE 6.3 Ogden and Richards’ Triangle of Meaning
Source: Adapted from Ogden, Charles K. and Richards, I.A. (1946), The Meaning
of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of
symbolism, 8th edn. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, p. 11.
The Ogden and Richards model is oversimplified in that not all words refer to physical “things”
or referents. For instance, some referents are
abstract ideas (such as love), while others (like
angry or exciting) are not even nouns. Despite
these shortcomings, the triangle of meaning is
useful since it clearly demonstrates an important principle: meanings are in people, not words.
Hence, an important task facing communicators is to establish a common understanding
of the words they use to exchange messages. In
this sense, communication—at least the effective
kind—requires us to negotiate the meaning of
our language (Leung and Lewkowicz, 2013). This
brings us back to a familiar theme: meaning is
both in and among people. Language is a function of individuals who give each word unique
meaning as well as cultures that create and share
meaning collectively.
Language and Worldview
For more than 150 years, theorists have put forth
the notion of linguistic relativity—that a language
both reflects and shapes the worldview of those who
use it (Deutscher, 2010; Everett, 2013). For instance,
bilingual speakers seem to think differently when
they change languages (Cook and Bassetti, 2011).
The idea that people who speak different languages
organize and view their worlds differently has been
supported by a variety of studies. For instance, Lera
Boroditsky (2009; Boroditsky and Gaby, 2010), the
cognitive psychologist whose observations about
language opened this chapter, describes the Pormpuraawans, an Australian Aboriginal community,
who don’t have spatial terms like right, left, back,
and forward in their language. Instead they use
compass directions to communicate about location (east, west, north, and south). So if you asked a
Pormpuraawan where she put the keys she wouldn’t
say, “On the top left shelf of the bookcase” as we
might. Instead she would say, “On the northeast
shelf of the bookcase.” The Pormpuraawans have
developed an unbelievably good sense of direction
and spatial knowledge. They always need to know
where they are (in terms of compass directions) in
order to communicate not only their own location,
179
180
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
but the location of anything or anyone in their
world—they have no language to allow them to
think about space differently. These differences in
spatial terms and spatial thinking provide support
for the idea that language exerts a strong influence
on perceptions (Allen, 2010).
Additional evidence comes from observations
of bilingual speakers who seem to think differently
when they change languages (Cook and Bassetti,
2011). In one study, French-Americans were asked
to interpret a series of pictures. When they spoke
in French, their descriptions were far more romantic and emotional than when they used English
to describe the same kinds of images. Likewise,
when students in Hong Kong were asked to complete a values test, they expressed more traditional
Chinese values when they answered in Cantonese
than when they spoke in English. In Israel, both
Muslim and Jewish students saw bigger distinctions between their group and “outsiders” when
using their native language than when they spoke
in English, a neutral language in this context.
Ex­amples like these show the power of language to
shape cultural identity—sometimes for better and
sometimes for worse.
Some languages contain terms that have no
English equivalents (Wire, 2010). For example,
consider a few words in other languages that have
no simple translation in English:
• unga (Inuktut): dependent love, especially the
•
•
•
•
love of a baby for its mother; wanting to be
taken care of; it may also refer to the feeling of
spouses or friends when they are apart and miss
each other.
nemawashi (Japanese): the process of informally
feeling out all the people involved with an issue
before making a decision.
lagniappe (French/creole): an extra gift given in
a transaction that wasn’t expected by the terms
of a contract.
lao (Mandarin): respectful term used for older
people, showing their importance in the family
and in society.
dharma (Sanskrit): each person’s unique,
ideal path in life, and the knowledge of how
to find it.
It’s possible to imagine concepts like these without having specific words to describe them, but linguistic relatively suggests that the terms do shape
the thinking and actions of people who use them.
Thus, speakers of a language that includes the
notion of lao would probably treat its older members respectfully, and those who are familiar with
lagniappe might be more generous.
The potential impact of linguistic relativity on
interpersonal communication is significant. Consider the difference between the phrases “You make
me angry” and “I get angry when you . . .” The first
phrase says to the other person—and to ­yourself—
that your anger is the other person’s fault. The
second phrase is an “I” message that takes responsibility for your emotions (a concept described
later in this chapter and previously in Chapter 4).
Changing your language can not only help reduce
defensiveness in the other person, but can also
reframe how you see the situation. The same could
happen for people who begin calling female adults
“women” instead of “girls” (Florio, 2016), or if they
refer to college undergrads as “students” rather
than “kids” (Valles, 2014). You might view people
differently based on the labels you use to describe
them. Your words affect how you see the world.
CHECK IT!
Describe four features of language and how each
contributes to both the usefulness of language
and the potential for misunderstandings.
The Influence of Language
As linguistic relativity suggests, language can have a
strong effect on our perceptions and how we regard
one another. In this section, we’ll examine some of
the many ways language can affect our lives.
Naming and Identity
“What’s in a name?” Juliet asked rhetorically. If
Romeo had been a social scientist, he would have
6 | Language
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES OF FAT TALK
The language we use influences our perceptions of
the world around us, including ourselves. University of
Ottawa researcher Camille Guertin and her colleagues
(2017, 2018) have examined the relationship between
women’s body image, intrinsic health goals, selfcompassion, and their propensity to engage in “fat talk.”
Fat talk is everyday conversations in which people
insult themselves about their food consumption (“I
ate way too much”), weight (“She’s so thin”), or body
appearance (“I hate my thighs”). Both women and men
engage in fat talk, but women, across all ages and
all body types, do it more. While talking about weight
and health concerns with others might provide some
cathartic relief and might elicit support from others, it
has been associated with numerous maladaptive consequences (Corning and Bucchianeri, 2016). These
include elevated body concern issues, which are in
turn associated with increased body dissatisfaction
and eating disorders. Fat talk is significantly associated with mental health issues such as depression,
low self-esteem, distorted body image, and dysfunctional eating (Arroyo and Harwood, 2012; Arroyo,
Segrin, and Harwood, 2014; Rudiger and Winstead,
2013; Shannon and Mills, 2015). Worse still, Guertin
and her colleagues (2017) point out—it’s contagious!
One woman’s fat talk causes conversational partners
and even women who overhear the conversation to
engage in more fat talk themselves and feel greater
answered, “A great deal.” Research has demonstrated that names are more than just a simple
means of identification, that, in fact, they shape the
way others think of us, the way we view ourselves,
and the way we act (Lieberson, 2000).
For more than a century, researchers have
studied the impact of rare and unusual names on
people who bear them (Christenfeld and Larsen,
2008). Early studies claimed that people with
non-­normative names suffered everything from
psychological and emotional disturbance to failure
in college. Later studies show that people often
have negative appraisals from not only unusual
­ issatisfaction about their bodies (Corning et al., 2014;
d
Engeln-Maddox and Salk, 2014; Gapinski et al., 2003;
Jones et al., 2014; Salk and Engeln-Maddox, 2011).
You can probably think of a multitude of ways media
and the unbelievably profitable beauty/grooming/
weight loss industries (sometimes referred to as the
“wellness economy”) perpetuate our dissatisfaction
with our appearances. You might argue that fat talk is
merely a “symptom” of a much larger problem. And you
would be correct, but keep in mind, linguistic relativity
proposes that language not only reflects the world we
live in but also creates it. The research findings of Guertin and her colleagues (2018) indicate that when women
are more self-compassionate (see Chapter 2) and pursue intrinsic, self-determined health related goals (e.g.,
“to be physically healthy”) rather than externally determined appearance goals (e.g., “to be beautiful”) they
engage in less fat talk. While these results are correlational, they do suggest that developing our capacity
for self-compassion and strengthening our capacity to
determine our own ideas about what is attractive and
desirable certainly can’t hurt.
Critical Thinking: Given that fat talk is not helpful
but is frequently engaged in in order to elicit support
and reassurance, which of the listening response(s)
described in Chapter 5 would you suggest is most appropriate to use when a friend engages in fat talk? Why?
names, but also unusual spellings (e.g., Mehrabian,
2001). Studies in Canada and the US have found
discriminatory hiring practices associated with
unusual names (Cotton et al., 2008; Eid, 2012;
Oreoploulos and Dechief, 2011).
Some people regard unique names as distinctive. You can probably think of four or five unique
names—of celebrities, professional athletes, or
even friends—that make the person easily recognizable and memorable. In one study, a poem
signed with an unusual name was assessed as more
creative than when signed by a more common
name (Lebuda and Karwowski, 2013).
181
182
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
TAKE TWO
Linguistic relativism: the idea that language exerts
a strong influence on perceptions and thought.
Names are one way parents can steep their
child in a family’s cultural heritage. In Canada,
as in many countries around the world, cultural
heritage is increasingly complex. Canadian census data (Statistics Canada, 2017) indicate that
the number of individuals who identify as having
multiple ethnicities continues to increase. Over
the years, popular baby names in Canada (e.g.,
Ava and Liam in 2018) have also been popular
south of the border. However, we have always had
names that have been more popular in Canada
than in the US. These “distinctly Canadian” baby
name choices have typically reflected famous
Canadians (e.g., Lorne, referring to Lorne Green,
a popular actor in the 1960s) as well as patterns
of Canadian immigration. For instance, during the 1950s and 1960s Italian names such as
Paolo, Franco, Giovanna, and Antonietta were
distinctly common in Canada. Currently there
is greater diversity in baby names in general but
South Asian names such as Zahra and Armaan
and Middle Eastern names like Syed and Zainab
are considered “distinctly Canadian” in terms
of their prevalence in Canada compared to the
US (Motskin et al., 2017). Karen Pennesi, (2016,
2017) a professor at Western University, studies
the role language plays in the construction of our
individual and group identities. Her work has
explored the diversity of names in Canada and
she argues that accommodating more diversity in
naming in Canada would help to create a more
welcoming society and a greater sense of belonging among immigrants and minorities. Increasingly newcomers to Canada choose to keep their
given names rather than adopt a more traditional
“Canadianized” Anglo or French name. This is
important for a variety of reasons not the least of
which is the centrality of our given names to our
identities. As one of the participants in Pennesi’s
(2016) research said:
The name is not just name. It’s your—the first
thing you hear when you’re a baby. It’s part of
you. To change it is not easy. It doesn’t feel right.
It doesn’t seem right. You don’t hear it right. It
hurts. (p. 58)
Pennesi (2016, 2017) argues that by keeping
their given names, and having Canadians learn to
pronounce them, immigrants share the responsibility of their integration with the host society. Participants in her study were generally not offended
when people mispronounced their names. The
important thing was people tried to learn the correct pronunciation rather than “rename” them
or suggest a “nickname.” Again, a participant in
Pennesi’s study, named Mahilla, who immigrated
to Canada as an adult provides an example of this
discourteous and disrespectful practice.
Well that doesn’t bother me [if people mispronounce my name]. What bothers me is when
people [say], ‘‘Oh, I can’t pronounce your name
so I’m gonna call you Molly or Margaret.’’ When
I was teaching as a term position at a Canadian
university the department head decided, oh my
name was too difficult to remember. It is three,
um three, ah syllables. So, he was going to give
me the nickname Molly and I said, ‘‘You can
name me whatever you want but [that] doesn’t
require me to answer.’’
Some newcomers to Canada do decide to adopt
a traditional Anglo or French name (of their own
choosing) for a variety of reasons. For instance, TaeYoung Kim (2007) interviewed Korean immigrants
to Toronto and found that those who adopted a Canadian name often did so to loosen their ties to the
Korean community in Toronto and establish a new
peer network. These people chose not to provide
their original Korean names even when they were
socializing with fellow Korean immigrants. They
explained they wanted their new Canadian identities to feature more prominently. As we discussed in
Chapter 2, identity development and maintenance
is a complex process, deeply rooted in interpersonal
communication, and the names people use to identify themselves are integral to that process. Skilled
communicators respect people’s choices.
6 | Language
Fedorovekb/Shutterstock
Credibility and Status
sensitive to any confusion their accents might create (Au et al., 2017; Derwing, 2003). In one study,
The words we use and the way we pronounce them when a native speaker asked for clarification or rephave a strong influence on whether others accept etition of something they had said, accented speakor reject our ideas. Although, strictly speaking, ers were more likely to feel embarrassed, annoyed,
accents are considered non-verbal communica- more socially anxious, and less confident compared
tion (see Chapter 7 for definition), we discuss them to accented speakers who had been similarly interhere because they can also be related to language rupted but asked questions that had nothing to do
comprehension. A significant amount of research with the clarity of their speech (Au et al., 2017).
shows that speaking with a strong foreign accent Finally, there is evidence that bilingualism is assois associated with a variety of negative stereotypes ciated with greater cognitive flexibility, which, as
(Derwing and Munro, 2009b), even when speak- we’ll discuss in Chapter 10, is related to effective
ers communicate their main ideas successfully conflict resolution skills (Bialystok, 2009). This sug(Gluszek and Dovidio, 2010). People can speak with gests that those speaking with an accent may frea heavy accent and be completely intelligible and quently have better interpersonal communication
easy to understand (Munro and Derwing, 2015). skills than many of the unilingual native speakHowever, accented speakers are often judged as ers judging them negatively! Of course, bilingual
being less competent, less intelligent, less loyal and people are just as susceptible to accent-based biases
trustworthy, and less attractive than native English in their perceptions as unilingual individuals are
speakers (Fuertes et al., 2012; Gluszek and Dovidio, but by becoming aware of our perceptual biases,
2010; Hanzlikova and Skarnitzl, 2017; Timming, we’re better equipped to overcome them.
2017). Like many of our perceptual preferences and
Vocabulary is also important in shaping percepprejudices (see Chapter 3), our biases against speak- tions. Scholarly speaking is a good example of this
ers with a strong foreign accent are often uncon- phenomenon. One illustration comes from a now
scious (Pantos and Perkins, 2013). This can make classic study referred to as the “Dr Fox” research
these biases difficult to overcome. Research also (Naftulin et al., 1973; Peer and Babad, 2014; Ware and
suggests that non-native English speakers are quite Williams, 1980). This research involved Dr Myron L.
Fox, who delivered a talk followed by a half-hour discussion
on “mathematical game theory
as applied to physical education.” The original audience
included psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and educators (Naftulin et al., 1973); and
a more recent audience (who
saw a film of the original Dr Fox
lecture) included both undergraduate and graduate students
(Peer and Babad, 2014). Questionnaires, collected after the
sessions back in the 1970s and
after the more recent sessions,
revealed that these educated listeners found the lecture thought
provoking. Their perceptions of
How do accent and vocabulary influence your perception and understanding
Dr Fox were very positive.
of the characters?
183
184
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
The remarkable thing was that Fox was a complete fraud! He was a professional actor who had
been coached by researchers to deliver a lecture
of double-talk—a patchwork of information from
a Scientific American article mixed with jokes,
non-sequiturs, contradictory statements, and
meaningless references to unrelated topics. When
wrapped in a linguistic package of high-level,
sophisticated professional jargon, and delivered by
an engaging, humorous, and well-spoken person,
the meaningless gobbledygook was judged favourably. In other words, Fox’s credibility came more
from his vocabulary and style of speaking than
from the ideas he expressed.
REFLECTION
ACCENTS AND SELF-FULFILLING
PROPHECIES
My mother-in-law came to Canada from Italy with
her husband and children about 50 years ago.
The family settled in an Italian-Canadian community and she was able to continue to speak Italian
in order to manage the household and raise her
family. Her husband and kids all learned to speak
English but she did not. As the only non-Italianspeaking in-law in this big, warm, tightknit family,
this posed some communication challenges. I
quickly figured out her receptive English vocabulary was very good and when it was just the two of
us, she would speak a bit of English and I would
muddle along with my rudimentary Italian and we
could understand each other. I noticed she never
spoke English in front of her husband and children. I was puzzled. I pushed my husband to tell
me why this was and discovered that in her early
days in Canada, she tried speaking English and
her young and much more fluent children teased
her about her pronunciation. She immediately lost
confidence and quit trying—believing that she
could never be as fluent as her children. I was
shocked that good-natured teasing could have
such a negative impact on a person’s beliefs
about themselves and I resolved to never make
fun of people’s accents or pronunciations.
Affiliation
Accent and vocabulary are not the only ways in
which language reflects the status of relationships.
An impressive body of research has shown how
language can build and demonstrate solidarity
with others. Communicators adapt their speech
in a variety of ways to indicate affiliation and
accommodation, including through their choice of
vocabulary, rate of talking, number and placement
of pauses, and level of politeness (Giles, 2016). In
one study, the likelihood of mutual romantic interest increased when conversation partners’ use of
pronouns, articles, conjunctions, prepositions,
and negations matched (Ireland et al., 2011). The
same study revealed that when couples use similar language styles while instant messaging, the
­chances of their relationship continuing increased
by almost 50 per cent.
Close friends and lovers often develop a set of
special terms that serve as a way of signifying their
relationship (Dunleavy and Booth-Butterfield,
2009). Using the same vocabulary serves to set these
people apart from others. The same process works
among members of larger groups, ranging from
online communities to street gangs and military
units. Convergence is the process of adapting one’s
speech style to match that of others with whom the
communicator wants to identify (Dragojevic et al.,
2016). Language matching creates bonds not only
between friends but also between strangers online
(Rains, 2016; Riordan et al., 2013).
When two or more people feel equally positive
about one another, their linguistic convergence
will be mutual. But when one communicator wants
or needs approval, convergence is more one-sided
(Muir et al., 216). We see this process when employees seeking advancement start speaking more like
their superiors. One study even showed that adopting the swearing patterns of bosses and co-workers
in emails is a sign that an employee is fitting into
an organization’s culture (Lublin, 2017).
The principle of speech accommodation works
in reverse too. Communicators who want to set
themselves apart from others adopt the strategy of
divergence, that is, speaking in a way that emphasizes their differences (Gasiorek and Vincze, 2016).
6 | Language
TAKE TWO
• Convergence: the process of adapting one’s
speech style to that of others with whom the
communicator wants to identify.
• Divergence: the process of adapting one’s
speech in ways that emphasize differences
between the speaker and others from whom the
speaker wants to distance him or herself.
For example, members of an ethnic group, even
though fluent in the dominant language, might
use their own dialect as a way of showing solidarity with one another. Divergence also occurs in
other settings. For example, a physician or lawyer
might speak formally and use professional jargon
to create a sense of distance from their clients. The
same can occur across age lines, such as teens who
adopt slang of subcultures other than their own
to show divergence from adults (Reyes, 2005). Of
course, communicators need to be careful about
when not to converge their language. For example,
using ethnic or racial epithets when you are not a
member of that in-group may be inappropriate and
even offensive (O’Dea et al., 2015).
Power and Politeness
Communication researchers have identified a number of language patterns that communicate more
or less power (Dillard, 2014; Hosman and Siltanen,
2006). Notice the difference between these two
statements from an employee to a manager:
“Excuse me, sir. I hate to say this, but I . . . uh . . . I
guess I won’t be able to finish the project on time.
I had a personal emergency and . . . well . . . it was
just impossible to finish it by today. I’ll have it to
you first thing on Monday, okay?”
“I won’t be able to turn in the project on time. I
had a personal emergency and it was impossible
to finish it by today. I’ll have it to you first thing
on Monday.”
The first statement is an example of what has
been called powerless language: tentative and
indirect word choices, with hedges and hesitations
(“Excuse me; sir”; I guess”; “okay?”). The second is
labelled powerful language: direct and forceful
word choices, with declarations and assertions (“I
won’t”; “I will”). Table 6.1 lists several powerless
speech mannerisms illustrated in the first statement you just read. It should be noted that the
last example in Table 6.1, disclaimers, which are
attempts to distance a speaker from unwelcome
remarks (e.g., “I don’t mean to sound judgmental
but, . . . .”) can actually increase negative judgments (El-Alayli et al., 2008). Disclaimers involving arrogance, laziness, or selfishness (e.g., “I don’t
mean to sound arrogant . . .”) also backfire because
they sensitize listeners to look for—and find—precisely the qualities the speaker is trying to disavow.
A number of studies have shown that speakers
who use powerful language are rated as more competent, dynamic, and attractive than speakers who
sound powerless (Ng and Bradac, 1993; Reid and
Ng, 1999). In addition, when it comes to employment interview outcomes, a powerful speech style
results in more positive attributions of competence
and employability than a powerless one (Parton
et al., 2002).
Some communication scholars argue that what
we have labelled “powerless” language is actually
the speech less powerful people use to get their
ideas across (Orbe and Bruess, 2005). When there
is inequity in power, it’s not necessarily powerless
language that puts one communicator at a disadvantage but rather the power imbalance itself.
Women frequently report experiencing power
imbalances in male dominated workplace meetings. They describe being interrupted more frequently and having their ideas regularly ignored.
While using more assertive and powerful language
can help reduce these kinds of power imbalances
some researchers suggest that reducing inequity is
a team effort. Joanne Lipman (2018) suggests having colleagues who interrupt the “interrupters”
and who repeat or amplify the ideas less powerful people present in order to ensure they’re considered can help level the playing field and ensure
everyone is heard.
185
186
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
Additionally, some experts question the label
“powerless” because tentative and indirect speech
styles can sometimes achieve goals better than more
assertive approaches (Lee and Pinker, 2010). For
example, less forceful approaches can be attempts
at politeness: communicating in ways that save
face for both senders and receivers. Politeness is
valued in some cultures more than others (Dunn,
2013). In Japan, saving face for others is an important goal, so communicators there tend to speak in
ambiguous terms and use hedge words and qualifiers. In most Japanese sentences, the verb comes
at the end of the sentence, so the action part of the
statement can be postponed. Traditional Mexican
culture, with its strong emphasis on co-operation,
also uses hedging to smooth over interpersonal
relationships. By not taking a firm stand with their
speech mannerisms, Mexicans believe they will
not make others feel ill at ease. Some Canadian
Indigenous groups and Koreans are two other cultural groups that prefer “indirect” (e.g., using perhaps or could be) over “direct” speech.
Even in North American culture, simply counting the number of powerful or powerless statements
will not always reveal who has the most control
TABLE 6.1
in a relationship. Social rules often mask the real
distribution of power. A manager who wants to
be pleasant might say to an assistant, “Would you
mind getting this file?” In truth, both manager and
assistant know this is an order and not a request,
but the questioning form makes the medicine less
bitter. Sociolinguist Deborah Tannen (1994, p. 101)
describes how politeness can be a face-saving way
of delivering an order:
I hear myself giving instructions to my assistants
without actually issuing orders: “Maybe it would
be a good idea to . . .” “It would be great if you
could . . .” all the while knowing that I expect
them to do what I’ve asked right away. . . . This
rarely creates problems, though, because the
people who work for me know that there is only
one reason I mention tasks—because I want them
done. I like giving instructions in this way; it
appeals to my sense of what it means to be a good
person . . . taking others’ feelings into account.
As this quotation suggests, high-status speakers—especially higher-status women, according to
Tannen—often realize that politeness is an effective way to get their needs met while protecting the
Examples of Less Powerful Language
Type of Language
Example
More Empowering Alternative
Hedges and limiting
qualifiers
“I’m kinda disappointed . . .” “I think, maybe
we should . . .” “I guess I’d like to . . .”
“I’m disappointed.” “We should . . .” “I
would like to . . .”
Hesitations
“Uh, may I have a minute of your time?”
“Well, we could try this idea . . .” “I wish you
would . . . er . . . try to be on time.”
“May I have a minute of your time?” “We
could try this idea.”
“I wish you would try to be on time.”
Intensifiers
“So that’s how I feel.” “I’m not very hungry.”
“That’s how I feel.” “I’m not hungry.”
Overly polite forms
“Excuse me, sir, may I bother you for a
second and ask you a question . . .”
“Excuse me, I have a question.”
Tag questions
“It’s about time we got started, isn’t it?”
“Don’t you think we should give it another try?”
“It’s about time we got started.” “We
should give it another try.”
Disclaimers
“I probably shouldn’t say this, but I think
you’re overreacting.”
“I think you’re overreacting.”
SOURCE: Adapted from Adler, R.B. and Elmhorst, J. (2010). Communicating at work: Principles and practices for business and the professions, 10th edn. New York:
McGraw-Hill, p. 29.
6 | Language
dignity of the less powerful person. The importance of achieving both content and relational goals
helps explain why a mixture of powerful and polite
speech is usually most effective (Geddes, 1992).
The key is to be able to adapt your style to your
conversational partner (Loyd et al., 2010). If the
other person misinterprets politeness for weakness, it may be necessary to shift to a more powerful speaking style. Conversely, in some situations
powerful speech can be perceived as insensitive and
overbearing and a less powerful approach is what
is needed (Fandrich and Beck, 2012). We’ll discuss
power and control issues further in our examination of communication climates in Chapter 9. As
always, competent communication requires flexibility and adaptability.
CHECK IT!
Describe six less powerful speech mannerisms
and provide an example of each.
Sexism
Sexist language “includes words, phrases, and
expressions that unnecessarily differentiate
between females and males or exclude, trivialize,
or diminish” either sex (Parks and Robertson,
2000, p. 415). This type of speech can affect the
­self-concepts of women and men, often in subtle
ways. Suzanne Romaine (1999) offers several
ex­amples of how linguistic terms can stereotype
men and women. To say that a woman mothered
her children focuses on her nurturing behaviour,
but to say that a man fathered a child talks only
about his biological role. We are familiar with terms
like working mother, but there is no term working
father because we assume (perhaps inaccurately)
that men are the breadwinners in families.
Beyond just stereotyping women, sexist language can stigmatize women. For example, the
term unmarried mother is common, but we do not
talk about unmarried fathers because for many
people, there is no stigma attached to this status
for men. And whereas there are over 200 English
words for promiscuous women, there are only 20
for men (Piercy, 2000). In addition to people’s attitudes towards women, education and perspective
taking predict their attitudes regarding non-sexist
language (Parks and Roberton, 2008). More years
of formal education, in academic settings or in specialized settings such as learning to be a plumber
or an electrician, is predictive of positive attitudes
toward the use of non-sexist language. Similarly,
people who are better able to see things from the
perspective of others have been found to have a
more receptive attitude towards using inclusive
language (Parks and Roberton, 2008).
One way to eliminate sexist language is by eliminating sex-specific terms or substituting neutral
terms (Lei, 2006; Rakow, 1992). For example, using
plural pronouns (e.g., they, theirs, them) in sentence
constructions eliminates the necessity for gender
specific pronouns (e.g., he and she, his and hers, him
and her, etc.). You may have noticed that, in this
book, we often use a singular they pronoun in place
of the standard he or she in an effort to choose language that is as inclusive as possible and facilitate
the most effective communication with readers. In
fact, as discussed in Chapter 2, they has become the
pronoun of choice for many individuals ­(Airton,
2018; Hess, 2016). When words are unnecessarily
gender specific, you can substitute neutral terms.
For example: mankind may be replaced with
humankind, humanity, human beings, human race,
and people; man-made may be replaced with artificial, manufactured, and synthetic; manpower may
be replaced with labour, workers, and workforce;
and manhood may be replaced with adulthood. In
the same way, mailmen are letter carriers and postal
workers; firemen and firewomen are firefighters;
chairmen and chairwomen are presiding officers,
leaders, and chairs; foremen and forewomen are
supervisors; policemen and policewomen are police
officers; and stewardesses and stewards are flight
attendants. Of course, some terms refer to things
that could not possibly have a sex; so, for example, a
manhole cover should be called a sewer lid.
Research suggests that while gender-neutral
language helps to reduce our stereotypical perceptions of previously male dominated occupations
(e.g., entrepreneur instead of businessman, news
anchor instead of anchorman) it doesn’t ­completely
187
188
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
eliminate the male bias we have (Lassonde and
O’Brien, 2013; Sczesny et al., 2016). Author Joanne
Lipman (2018) argues that being male is the norm
and being female is the outlier. She points out
that in European and Asian languages the default
form of any word is male. In creating an alternate
form to make a female equivalent we add “esse”
or “ette” (e.g., steward and stewardess or star and
starlet). Lipman argues the male version is taken
more seriously and to make her point she jokes
that few of us would want to be operated on by
a “surgeonette.” Obviously, increased exposure
to women in stereotypically male occupations (as
well as men in stereotypical female occupations)
helps and so does changing the ways we speak.
Another more controversial approach to eliminating sexism is clearly marking sex—to heighten
awareness of whether the reference is to a female or
a male especially in traditionally male or fe­male
dominated professions. For example, orthopaedic
surgery is a male dominated medical speciality
so rather than use the neutral surgeon substitute
female surgeon. Nursing is traditionally a female
dominated profession so rather than using, the
neutral nurse substitute male nurse. Although
this approach has been shown to increase non
sex-stereotyped imagery (Gustafsson et al., 2015),
it also has been criticized for reinforcing gender
binaries (as discussed in Chapter 2).
Sexual Orientation
Eliminating language that discriminates against
LGBTQ+ people is an equally important and challenging task (Stonefish and Lafreniere, 2015). In
their study of men’s use of anti-gay insults at the
University of Calgary, Tyler Brown and Kevin
Alderson (2010) found that men used an abundance of homosexual insults to joke with and pressure their peers, and that only about one-quarter
of the men surveyed said they would never use the
term fag or faggot to insult another person. The
men surveyed also revealed that they rarely if ever
believed that the person they were insulting was in
fact gay. Brown and Alderson speculate that using
what they refer to as homosexual insults may help
to create a feeling of inclusion among men and
may serve as an indicator of greater masculinity
to heterosexual women. Similarly, in their analysis
of the use of the hashtag #nohomo on Twitter, Pascoe and Diefendorf (2019) found it was rarely used
in a negative emotional context. Most frequently,
#nohomo was used by men when expressing positive emotions and opinions about a wide variety
of topics (e.g., movies, music, appearance of other
men, celebrities, athletes, friendships, etc.). They
argue that the use of #nohomo serves to delineate
boundaries between stereotypically masculine
and non-masculine behaviour, and their usage
reveals the homophobic stereotypes and anxieties
that serve as organizing principles of contemporary masculinity. Regardless of why people use
these insults, they are offensive and contribute to
the stigma and stress LGBTQ+ people experience
(Burn et al., 2005; Ecker et al., 2015; Stonefish and
Lafrenier, 2015).
When confronted with discriminatory language, people often don’t feel they know what to
do or say. In a study of recently graduated teachers who were faced with anti-LGBTQ+ language
in the classroom, researchers found that by their
responses, teachers could be categorized into four
main groups: avoiders, hesitators, confronters,
and interrogators (Zack et al., 2010). The majority
of teachers interviewed were hesitators, but a few
confident interrogators used the situation to ask
questions and explore students’ understanding of
the words they chose and the larger consequences
of their choices. Lisa van Leent (2016) found Australian teachers’ responses to diverse sexualities
in school fell into similar categories. Canadian
scholar Catherine Taylor (2016) and her colleagues
suggest Canadian teachers need more support to
ensure our schools are LGBTQ+-inclusive.
Brian Payne (2010), a high school art teacher,
found that students often misused the terms gay
and retarded when discussing art, and he made
a point of addressing the hurtful nature of these
terms and how using these words to describe
things they found gauche, awkward, or uncomfortable made them seem unintelligent. He found that
by talking openly about students’ choice of words,
he not only helped to raise their consciousness, but
also improved their vocabularies.
6 | Language
Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock
Racism
How often do you hear biases like sexist language, sexually prejudiced language, and racist language in the language of people around you? How often
do you use them yourself?
Whereas sexist language
usually defines the world as
made up of superior men and
inferior women, and sexually
prejudiced language usually
implies that heterosexuality is
superior to any other sexual
orientation, racist language
reflects a worldview that classifies members of one racial
group as superior and others
as inferior (Asante, 2002). Not
all language that might have
racist overtones is deliberate.
For example, the connotations
SELF-ASSESSMENT
SEXIST LANGUAGE
Section I
For each of the following statements, rate your agreement or disagreement on a scale ranging from 1 to 5,
where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree.”
1. W
omen who think that being called a chairman is sexist are misinterpreting the word.
2. Worrying about sexist language is a trivial
activity.
3. If the original meaning of he was “person,”
we should continue to use he to refer to
both males and females today.
4. The elimination of sexist language is an
important goal.
5. Sexist language is related to the sexist
treatment of people in society.
6. When teachers talk about the history of
Canada, they should change expressions
such as our forefathers to expressions that
include women.
7. Teachers who require students to use
non-sexist language are unfairly forcing
their political views on their students.
Section II
For each of the following statements, rate your willingness on a scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 = “very
unwilling” and 5 = “very willing.”
8. W
hen you are referring to a married woman,
how willing are you to use the title “Ms
Smith” rather than “Mrs Smith”?
9. How willing are you to use the word
“server” rather than “waiter” or “waitress”?
10. How willing are you to use the expression
“husband and wife” rather than “man and
wife”?
11. How willing are you to use the term “flight
attendant” instead of “steward” or “stewardess”?
Total = ______.
Add your responses to the 11 statements, making sure to reverse-score (i.e., 5 = 1, 4 = 2, 3 = 3,
2 = 4, and 1 = 5) statements 1, 2, and 3. Scores can
range from 11 to 55, and scores that are 38 or higher
reflect a supportive attitude towards non-­sexist language; and scores between 28 and 37 reflect a neutral attitude. Scholars note that women are typically
less tolerant of sexist language than are men, which
may have an impact on these scores (Douglas and
Sutton, 2014).
SOURCE: This “Self-Assessment” box contains 11 of
the 21 items on the Inventory of Attitudes toward Sexist/Nonsexist Language-General, developed by Parks
and Robertson (2000).
189
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
of many words favour white people over people
of colour (Smith-McLallen et al., 2006; Pfeifer,
2009). Words and images associated with white are
usually positive, whether it’s the cowboy hero in
white clothing or connotations of white as “pure,”
“clean,” “honourable,” “innocent,” “bright,” and
“shiny.” The words and images associated with
black are often negative, a concept that reaches
from the black hat of the villain cowboy and the
black cat that causes bad luck to words and phrases
like black market, blackball, and blacklist.
An obvious step toward eliminating racist
language is to make sure your communication is
free of offensive labels and slurs (Guerin, 2003).
Some troublesome language will be easy to identify, while other problematic speech will be more
subtle. For instance, you may use racial, ethnic, or
sexuality-related modifiers unconsciously when
describing others, think of specifying black professor or Pakistani merchant or lesbian poet. Modifiers
like these usually are not necessary, and they can
be subtle indicators of prejudiced language. If you
wouldn’t use the phrases white professor, European
merchant, or heterosexual poet, then modifiers that
identify race, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation
may be indicators of attitudes and language that
need to be changed.
Uses (and Abuses)
of Language
need language skills to make our ideas understandable to others. Sometimes, however, we want to be
less than perfectly clear. In the following pages, we’ll
point out some cases where vagueness serves useful
purposes as well as cases where complete understanding is the goal.
Ambiguous Language
Ambiguous language consists of words and phrases
that have more than one commonly accepted definition. Some ambiguous language is amusing, as the
following newspaper headlines illustrate:
Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers
Teacher Strikes Idle Kids
20-Year Friendship Ends at the Altar
Many misunderstandings that arise from
ambiguity are trivial. Other misunderstandings involving ambiguous messages can be more
serious. A nurse gave one of his patients a scare
when he told her that she “would not be needing” her robe, books, and toiletries any more. The
patient became quiet and moody. When the nurse
inquired about the odd behaviour, he discovered
that the poor woman had interpreted his statement to mean she was going to die soon. In fact,
the nurse meant she would be going home shortly.
By now, it’s apparent that language can shape the way we
perceive and understand the
world. Next, we’ll look at some
specific types of usage and
examine both their value and
the problems they can cause.
Precision and
Vagueness
Most people assume that the
goal of language is to make
our ideas clear to one another.
When clarity is the goal, we
Sask Pork
190
6 | Language
REFLECTION
CALLING OUT HOMOPHOBIA—WE’RE
ALL ON THE SAME TEAM
I have three siblings, all of whom are really into
sports, especially hockey and lacrosse. Going
to their games and hanging out with them has
exposed me to lots of swearing and unsavoury
language and none of it really bothers me except
using gay or fag as an insult. My brothers have
said it’s just a word and it comes out before they
think about it as part of “jock” culture. But I think
it’s so unbelievably hurtful in so many ways, not
the least of which is because chances are somebody playing on their team is gay or bisexual or
trans or two-spirted! These guys are a tight knit
crew and I really don’t think they want to be that
unbelievably insensitive and mean to a teammate,
so I call them on it. Language matters. It’s wrong.
and embarrassment by being deliberately unclear
(Eisenberg and Witten, 1987). If a friend apologizes for arriving late for a date, you can choose
to brush off the incident instead of making it an
issue by saying, “Don’t worry. It wasn’t the end of
the world”—a true statement, but less specific than
saying, “To tell you the truth, I was mad at the time,
but I’ve cooled off now.” If your manager asks your
opinion of a new idea that you think is weaker than
your own approach, but you don’t want to disagree,
you could respond with a higher-level abstraction
by saying, “I never thought of it that way.”
Although vagueness does have its uses, highly
abstract language can cause several types of problems. At the most basic level, the vagueness of
some abstract language makes it hard to understand the meaning of a message. Telling the hairstylist “shorter” or “more casual” might produce
the look you want, or it might lead to an unpleasant surprise.
Abstrac
t
It’s difficult to catch and clarify every instance of
ambiguous language. For this reason, the responsibility for interpreting statements accurately rests in
large part with the receiver. Feedback of one sort or
another—for example, paraphrasing and questioning—can help clear up misunderstandings: “You
say you love me, but you want to see other people.
In my book, ‘love’ is exclusive. What about you?”
You need to
be more positive.
You need to complain less.
Abstraction
c
You need to
complain less about
working too hard.
Specifi
Abstractions are convenient ways of generalizing
about similarities between several objects, people,
ideas, or events. Figure 6.4 shows an abstraction
ladder that illustrates how to describe the same
phenomenon at various levels of abstraction.
We use higher-level abstractions all the time.
For instance, rather than saying, “Thanks for
washing the dishes,” “Thanks for vacuuming the
rug,” and “Thanks for making the bed,” it’s easier
to say, “Thanks for cleaning up.” In such everyday
situations, abstractions are a useful kind of verbal
shorthand.
High-level abstractions also can help communicators find face-saving ways to avoid confrontations
You need to have
a better attitude.
FIGURE 6.4
You need to quit complaining
every time we have to work
late or come in on weekends.
Abstraction Ladder
In this example, a supervisor gives feedback to an
employee about career advancement at various levels
of specificity.
191
192
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
BUILDING WORK SKILLS
REDUCING ABSTRACT LANGUAGE
A significant amount of work-related communication consists of stating goals, making requests of others,
talking about work-related problems, and complaining! No matter what type of career you have in mind, this
will probably be true.
Think about using language at work in one of the following ways. Perhaps you need to make a request
of a colleague or someone who reports to you, or you need to give them some negative feedback (criticism) about their work. Write down what you might say and then take a look at the examples in Table 6.2,
Reducing Abstraction in Your Descriptions, which show how to examine language for abstraction and how
to correct for it. The same techniques can help you decide whether you’ve found the right balance between
behavioural description and abstract description. How did you do? Could you improve your request or your
criticism? How?
You might assume abstract statements will soften
the blow of critical messages, but research suggests
that isn’t always the case. People who use vague
language to describe others’ negative actions are
rated as less likeable than those who use concrete
language (Douglas and Sutton, 2010). By describing
another person’s behaviour in abstract terms you
may appear to have a hidden agenda. The effect was
not found, however, when describing the positive
behaviours of others. Overly abstract language can
also lead to stereotyping, as with someone who has
had one bad experience and, as a result, blames an
entire group: “Marriage counsellors are worthless,”
“Torontonians are all rude,” or “Men are no good.”
Overly abstract expressions like these can cause
people to think in generalities, ignoring uniqueness.
Besides narrowing your own options, excessively
abstract language can also confuse others. Overly
abstract language can lead to more serious problems.
For instance, accusations of sexual assault can arise
because one person claims not to have consented
when the other person insists they did. In response
to this sort of disagreement, specific rules of sexual
conduct have become more common in workplaces
and educational institutions. For instance, Bill 132,
the Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan
Act (2016), requires all post-secondary institutions in Ontario to have published sexual violence
policy and protocols, and trained employees able to
respond to and address incidents and complaints
of sexual violence. These policies and protocols use
low-level abstractions to minimize the chances of
anyone claiming confusion about a partner’s willingness or consent. An example of how consent is
defined is provided below:
Consent: The voluntary agreement to engage in
the sexual activity in question. It is the act of
willingly agreeing to engage in specific sexual
behaviour, and requires that a person is able to
freely choose between two options: yes and no.
This means that there must be an understandable
exchange of affirmative words which indicates a
willingness to participate in mutually agreed
upon sexual activity. It is also imperative that
everyone understands the following:
• Silence or non-communication must never be
interpreted as consent and a person in a state
of diminished judgment cannot consent.
• A person is incapable of giving consent if she/
he is asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unable
to communicate.
• A person who has been threatened or
coerced (i.e., is not agreeing voluntarily) into
engaging in the sexual activity is not consenting to it.
• A person who is drugged is unable to consent.
• A person is usually unable to give consent
when she/he is under the influence of alcohol
and/or drugs.
• A person may be unable to give consent if she/
he has a mental disability.
6 | Language
• The fact that consent was given in the past to
a sexual or dating relationship does not mean
that consent is deemed to exist for all future
sexual activity.
• A person can withdraw consent at any time
during the course of a sexual encounter.
A person may be incapable of giving consent to a
person in a position of trust, power or authority.
Any sexual relationship between an employee
and a student, where the employee teaches or has
professional contact with the student as part of
their employment responsibilities, is prohibited.
Any sexual relationship between an employee with
supervising responsibilities and an emp­loyee who
reports to them, directly or indirectly, must be
reported to their manager and Human Re­sources
who will work with the parties to address any
potential conflict of interest.
• Consent cannot be given on behalf of another
person.
• It is the responsibility of the initiator of sexual activity to obtain clear and affirmative
responses at all stages of sexual engagement.
Low-level abstractions can reduce the chances
of a serious misunderstanding. Specific language
may not be desirable or necessary in many situations, but in this context it’s useful to ensure a
shared understanding of exactly what constitutes
voluntary participation and what is an abuse of
power.
You can make your language—and your
­thinking—less abstract and more clear by learning
to make behavioural descriptions of your problems,
goals, appreciations, complaints, and requests. We
use the word behavioural because such descriptions move down the abstraction ladder to describe
the specific, observable objects and actions we’re
­thinking about. Table 6.2 shows how behavioural
descriptions are much more clear and effective than
vague, abstract statements.
Euphemism
A euphemism (from a Greek word meaning “to
use words of good omen”) is an innocuous term
substituted for a blunt one. A euphemism avoids
a direct, literal reference to an event (such as “She
died”), substituting terms describing its consequences (“She’s no longer with us”); related events
(“She took her last breath”); metaphors (“She
jumped the last hurdle”); or other, more abstract
associations (McGlone et al., 2006). Euphemisms
typically soften the impact of information that
might be unpleasant, both for oneself and for the
other person (McCallum and McGlone, 2011). It’s
easy to imagine how a relational breakup might
be easier to handle with the explanation, “I’m not
ready for commitment” than with “I want to date
other people.” We tend to use euphemisms more
when talking to people of higher status, probably
as a way to avoid offending them (Makin, 2004).
When choosing how to broach difficult subjects,
the challenge is to be as kind as possible without
sacrificing either your integrity or the clarity of
your message.
Relative Language
Relative language gains meaning by comparison. For example, do you attend a large or a small
school? This depends on what you compare it to.
Compared to the University of Toronto, with over
90,000 students, your university or college may
look small, but when compared with a smaller
institution, it may seem quite large. Relative
words such as fast and slow, smart and stupid,
short and long are clearly defined only through
comparison.
Using relative terms without explaining them
can lead to communication problems. Have you
ever answered someone’s question about the
weather by saying it was warm, only to find out the
person thought it was cold? Have you followed a
friend’s advice and gone to a “cheap” restaurant,
only to find that it was twice as expensive as you
expected? Did classes you heard were “easy” turn
out to be hard? The problem in each case resulted
from failing to link the relative word to a more
measurable term.
One way to make words more measurable is to
turn them into numbers. Health care practitioners have found that by having patients rate their
pain on a 10-point scale (with 1 representing
193
194
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
TABLE 6.2
Reducing Abstraction in Your Descriptions
Behavioural Description
Abstract
Description
Who Is Involved
In What
Circumstances
Specific Behaviour
Behavioural
Description
Problem
I’m no good
at meeting
strangers.
People I’d like
to date
At parties and in
school
I think, “They’d never
want to date me.”
Also, I don’t initiate
conversations.
Behavioural
description more
clearly identifies
thoughts and
behaviour to change.
Goal
I’d like to
be more
assertive.
Phone and
door-to-door
solicitors
When I don’t
want the product
or can’t afford it
Instead of
apologizing, I want to
keep saying, “I’m not
interested” until they
go away.
Behavioural
description clearly
outlines how to act;
abstract description
does not.
Appreciation
“You’ve
been a
great
supervisor.”
(No clarification When I’ve
necessary)
needed to
change my
schedule
because of
school exams or
assignments
“You’ve been so
willing to rearrange
my work schedule.”
Give both abstract
and behavioural
descriptions for best
results.
Complaint
“I don’t like
some of the
instructors
around
here.”
Professors A
and B
In class, when
students ask
questions, the
professors think
they are stupid
They either answer in
a sarcastic voice (you
might demonstrate)
or accuse us of
not studying hard
enough.
If talking to A or B,
use only behavioural
description.
With others, use
both abstract
and behavioural
descriptions.
Request
“Quit
bothering
me!”
You and your
friends X and Y
When I’m
studying for
exams
“Instead of asking
me again and again
to party with you, I
wish you’d accept
that I need to study
tonight.”
Behavioural
description will reduce
defensiveness and
make it clear that you
don’t always want to
be left alone.
no pain and 10 representing the worst possible
pain) they can more accurately gage others’ pain
(Chuang et al., 2014). Numerical ratings are used
to make words more measurable in everything
from restaurant and movie reviews to student
satisfaction.
Evaluative Language
Evaluative language (sometimes called ­
emotive
language) seems to describe something, but really
announces the speaker’s attitude toward it (Macagno
and Walton, 2010; Richards, 1948). If you approve of
6 | Language
a friend’s roundabout approach to a difficult subject,
you might call her “tactful”; if you don’t like it, you
might accuse her of “beating around the bush.”
You can appreciate that evaluative words are
really editorial statements when you consider these
examples:
If You Approve, Say
If You Disapprove, Say
cautious
cowardly
eccentric
crazy
extrovert
loudmouth
information
propaganda
progressive
radical
thrifty
cheap
traditional
old-fashioned
The Language of Responsibility
Besides providing a way to make the content of
a message clear or obscure, language reflects the
speaker’s willingness to take responsibility for
their beliefs, feelings, and actions. This acceptance
or rejection of responsibility says a great deal about
the speaker, and it can shape the tone of a relationship. To see how, read on.
“It” Statements
Notice the difference between the sentences of
each set:
“It bothers me when you’re late.”
“I’m worried when you’re late.”
“It’s a problem.”
“I see it as a problem.”
“It’s a boring class.”
“I’m bored in the class.”
As the name implies, an “it” statement replaces
the personal pronoun I with the less immediate
construction it. By contrast, “I” language clearly
identifies the speaker as the source of a message.
Communicators who use “it” statements avoid
responsibility for ownership of a message. This
habit is not just imprecise; more importantly, it’s
an unconscious way to avoid taking a position.
“But” Statements
TAKE TWO
• Ambiguous language: words and phrases that
have more than one commonly accepted definition
• Abstractions: convenient ways of generalizing
similarities between several objects, people,
ideas, or events.
• Advantages: provide an easy shorthand; help
avoid confrontations and embarrassment.
• Disadvantages: can lead to stereotyping; can
confuse others.
• Euphemisms: innocuous terms substituted for
blunt ones (e.g., between jobs instead of unemployed).
• Relative language: words that gain meaning by
comparison (e.g., fast, short).
• Evaluative language: (also called emotive language) appears to describe something but
actually announces speakers’ attitude towards it
Statements that take the form “X-but-Y” can be
quite confusing. A closer look at the “but” statement explains why. But has the effect of cancelling
the thought that precedes it:
“You’re really a great person, but I think we ought
to stop seeing each other.”
“You’ve done good work for us, but we’re going to
have to let you go.”
“This paper has some good ideas, but I’m giving it
a ‘D’ because it’s late.”
“Buts” can, however, be a face-saving strategy
worth using at times. When the goal is to be absolutely clear, however, the most responsible approach
will deliver the central idea without the distractions that can come with “but” statements. Break
statements such as the preceding ones into two
sentences, and then explain each one as necessary.
Doing so allows you to acknowledge both parts of
the statement without contradicting yourself.
195
196
ozgurdonmaz/iStockphoto
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
“You” language is likely to
arouse defensiveness. It implies
that the speaker is qualified to
judge the target—not an idea
that most listeners are willing
to accept, even when the evaluation is correct. “I” language
offers a more accurate and less
provocative way to express a
complaint (Simmons et al.,
2005). By using “I” language,
you can describe your reaction to someone’s behaviour,
taking responsibility for your
statement without expressing
judgment.
Communicators
who use these kinds of “I” mes­
sages engage in assertiveness—
clearly expressing thoughts,
feelings, and wants (Alberti and
Emmons, 2008).
Assertive messages are composed of three different types of
“I” statements. One describes
Though we might describe people as being nervous or attention-seeking just the other person’s behaviour,
like we describe the colour of their eyes, people are rarely that unchanging. one describes your feelings, and
one describes the consequences
How would your friends describe you? Are you like that all of the time?
the other’s behaviour has for
you. Here are some examples of complete assertive
“I,” “You,” and “We” Language
messages:
We’ve already seen that “I” language is a way of
“I get embarrassed [your feeling] when I hear you
accepting responsibility for a message. “You” lantalk about my bad grades in front of our friends
guage, by contrast, expresses a judgment of the other
[the behaviour you observed]. I’m afraid they’ll
person. Positive judgments (“You did a great job!”)
think I’m stupid [the possible consequence].”
rarely cause problems, but notice how each of the
“Because I was waiting for you to pick me up
following critical “you” statements implies that the
this morning [behaviour], I was late for class
subject of the complaint is doing something wrong:
“You left this place a mess!”
“You didn’t keep your promise!”
“You’re really crude sometimes!”
Despite its name, “you” language does not have
to contain the pronoun you, which is often implied
rather than stated outright:
“That was a stupid joke!” (“Your jokes are stupid!”)
“Don’t be so critical!” (“You’re too negative!”)
“Mind your own business!” (“You’re too nosy!”)
and wound up getting chewed out by the professor [consequence]. That’s why I got so angry
[­feeling].”
“I haven’t been very affectionate [consequence]
because I’ve noticed that you’ve hardly spent
any time with me in the past few weeks [behaviour]. I’m confused [feeling] about how you feel
about me.”
When the chances of being misunderstood or
getting a defensive reaction are high, it’s a good
6 | Language
idea to include all three elements in your assertive
message. In some cases, however, only one or two
of them will get the job done:
“I’m feeling annoyed because I went to a lot of
trouble making this dinner, and now it’s cold.”
(The behaviour is obvious.)
“I’m worried because I haven’t heard from you.”
(“Worried” is both a feeling and a consequence in
this statement.)
Despite its obvious advantages, even the
best-constructed and masterfully delivered “I”
­
message will not always receive a non-defensive
response (Bippus and Young, 2005). As Thomas
Gordon (1970, p. 145) points out, “nobody welcomes
hearing that his behaviour is causing someone a
problem, no matter how the message is phrased.”
Furthermore, “I” language in large doses can start
to sound egotistical (Proctor, 1989). Research
shows that self-absorbed people, also known as
“conversational narcissists,” can be identified by
their constant use of first-person-singular pronouns (Vangelisti et al., 1990; Zimmermann et al.,
2013). For this reason, “I” language works best in
moderation.
One way to avoid overuse of “I” language is to
consider the pronoun we. “We” language implies
that the issue is the concern and responsibility of
both the speaker and receiver of a message. Consider a few examples:
“We have a problem. We can’t seem to talk about
money without fighting.”
“We’re not doing a very good job of keeping track
of all the deliverables on this project, are we?”
“We need to talk to your parents about whether
we’ll visit them for the holidays.”
It’s easy to see how “we” language can help
build a constructive climate. It suggests a kind of
“we’re in this together” orientation, a component
of what is known as verbal immediacy (Turnman,
2008). Couples who use “we” language are more
satisfied than those who rely more heavily on “I”
and “you” pronouns (Seider et al., 2009). “We
talk” is also helpful for couples when one partner
is dealing with a health issue (Rohrbaugh et al.,
2012). Using plural pronouns suggests the medical
problem is “ours” rather than “mine” or “yours.”
On the other hand, using the pronoun we can be
presumptuous and even demanding because you’re
speaking for the other person as well as for yourself
(Rentscher et al., 2013). It’s easy to imagine someone replying to the statement, “We have a problem . . .” by saying, “Maybe you have a problem, but
don’t tell me I have one!” Look again at the “we”
language examples offered above and imagine that
you don’t agree with the speakers’ conclusions. In
that case, you would probably feel defensive rather
than included.
Table 6.3 summarizes how all three p
­ ronouns—
I, you, and we—have their advantages and drawbacks. Given this fact, what advice can we give
about the most effective pronouns to use in interpersonal communication? A study by Russell Proctor and James Wilcox (1993) offers an answer. The
researchers found that I–we combinations (for
example, “I think that we . . .” or “I would like to see
us . . . ”) were strongly endorsed by college students,
particularly for confrontational conversations in
romantic relationships. Richard Slatcher and his
associates (2008) came to a similar conclusion:
There is value in both “I” and “we” messages in relational communication, as these pronouns demonstrate both autonomy and connection (see Chapter
8 for a description of these relational dialectics).
TAKE TWO
• “It” statement: replaces the pronoun I with it
and allows a speaker to avoid taking responsibility for ownership of a message.
• “But” statement: when but is used in a statement, it has the effect of cancelling out the
thought that proceeds it.
• “You” language: expresses judgment of the
other person.
• “I” language: clearly identifies the speaker as
the source of the message.
• “We language: implies concern and responsibility for the issue is shared between the speaker
and receiver of message.
197
198
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
TABLE 6.3
Pronoun Uses and Their Effects
Pronoun
Pros
Cons
Recommendations
“I” Language
Takes responsibility for
personal thoughts, feelings,
and wants. Less defenceprovoking than “you”
language
Can be perceived as
egotistical, narcissistic,
and self-absorbed
Use descriptive “I” messages in
conflicts when the other person
does not perceive a problem.
Combine “I” with “we” language
in conversations.
“We” Language
Signals inclusion,
immediacy, cohesiveness,
and commitment
Can speak improperly for
others
Combine with “I” language,
particularly in personal
conversations.
Use in group settings to enhance
a sense of unity.
Avoid when expressing personal
thoughts, feelings, and wants.
“You” Language
Signals other-orientation,
particularly when the topic is
positive
Can sound evaluative
and judgmental,
particularly during
confrontations
Use “I” language during
confrontations. Use “You”
language when praising or
including others.
Too much use of any pronoun comes across as
inappropriate, so combining pronouns is generally
a good idea, and it suggests you’re able to see things
from multiple perspectives (Pennebaker, 2011). If
your “I” language expresses your position without
being overly self-absorbed, your “you” language
shows concern for others without judging them,
and your “we” language includes others without
speaking for them, you’ll probably come as close as
possible to the ideal mix of pronouns.
Culture and Language
So far, we’ve described attributes that characterize most languages, with a particular emphasis on
English. Although there are some remarkable similarities among the world’s many languages (Lewis
et al., 2013), they also differ in important respects
that affect communication within and between
CHECK IT!
Describe three harmful linguistic habits that
­contribute to conflict.
language groups. In this section, we’ll outline some
of those factors.
High- versus Low-context Cultures
Anthropologist Edward Hall (1959) identified two
distinct ways that members of various cultures
deliver messages. A low-context culture uses
language primarily to express thoughts, feelings,
and ideas as directly and logically as possible. To
low-context communicators, the meaning of a
statement lies in the words spoken. By contrast,
a high-context culture relies heavily on subtle,
often non-verbal cues to maintain social harmony. High-context communicators pay close
attention to non-verbal behaviours, the history of
relationships, and social rules that govern interaction between people. In Table 6.4, we summarize
some key differences in how people from low- and
high-context cultures c­ ommunicate.
Mainstream culture in Canada, the United
States, and northern Europe can be categorized
near the low-context end of the scale. In these
low-context cultures, communicators generally
value straight talk and grow impatient with indirect
behaviours such as hinting (Tili and Barker, 2015).
Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock
6 | Language
Korea) were less likely than those
from a low-context culture (e.g.,
the US) to judge a superior who
failed to deliver on a promise
negatively. While all participants in this study lost some
trust for people who failed to
keep their promises, the impact
of the broken promise was less
potent on members of high-­
context cultures (Friedman et al.,
2018). Even websites designed for
global audiences reflect differences attributable to whether a
country’s communication style
is high- or low-context (Usnier
and Roulin, 2010). For example,
those designed for low-context
Do you ever witness clashes between low- and high-context communicators countries invite more contact
in your interactions with your family or friends? How do you negotiate these
and contain more relationship-­
differences?
related content than websites
from high-­context countries.
By contrast, most Asian and Middle Eastern mainTo members of high-context cultures, communistream cultures fit the high-context pattern and
can be offended by the bluntness of low-context cators with a low-context style can appear overly
talkative, lacking in subtlety, and redundant. On the
communication styles (Yum, 2012).
There are many other examples of communica- other hand, to people from low-context backgrounds,
tion differences between high- and low-context cul- high-context communicators often seem inexprestures. One study of online discussions found that sive or even suspicious. It’s easy to see how misunderin India (a high-context culture), people used more standings about directness and indirectness can
emoticons and disclosed less private information create communication problems. For example, direct,
that in Germany (a low-context culture; Pflug, 2011). low-context Israelis might perceive their Arab neighIn a study of verbal promises made in the workplace bours, whose high-context culture stresses smooth
(e.g., “I will get you those results by Friday”), people interaction, as evasive, while their Arab counterparts
from high-context cultures (e.g., India, Taiwan, and might perceive the Israelis as insensitive and blunt.
TABLE 6.4
High- and Low-context Communication Cultures
Low Context
High Context
Representative national
cultures
Canada, the United States, and
most northern European countries
Most Asian, Middle Eastern, Latin
American, and southern European countries
How most important
­information is carried
Explicit verbal messages, with less
focus on the situational context
Contextual cues such as time, place,
relationship, and situation
What communicators value
Self-expression, striving to persuade
others to accept one’s viewpoint
Relational harmony, maintained by indirect
expression of options
What communicators admire
Clear, direct speech
Ambiguity and the use of silence
199
200
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
Verbal Communication Styles
Using language is more than just a matter of choosing a particular group of words to convey an idea.
Each language has its own unique character that distinguishes it from others. Matters like the amount
of formality or informality, precision or vagueness,
and brevity or detail are major ingredients in speaking competently. When a communicator tries to use
the verbal style from one culture or co-culture in a
different one, problems are likely to arise.
Gudykunst (2005) describes three important
types of cultural differences in verbal style:
1. Direct or indirect. We’ve already discussed
how low-context cultures use language
primarily to express thoughts, feelings,
and ideas as clearly, directly, and logically
as possible, whereas high-context cultures
may speak less directly, using language to
maintain social harmony.
2. Elaborate or succinct. Speakers of Arabic
commonly use language that is much more
rich and expressive than that normally found
in English. Strong assertions and exaggerations that would sound odd in English are a
common feature of Arabic. This contrast in
linguistic style can lead to misunderstandings
between people from different backgrounds.
Succinctness is most extreme in cultures
where silence is valued. In many North
American Indigenous cultures, for example,
the favoured way to handle ambiguous
social situations is to remain quiet (Ferraro
and Andreatta, 2012). When you contrast
this silent style to the talkativeness that is
common when people first meet in mainstream Canadian culture, it’s easy to imagine
how the first encounter between a Cree or
Mi’kmaq person and an Anglo-Canadian
person might be uncomfortable for both.
3. Formal or informal. The pronouns used
in a language may encode politeness and
formality. For example, most European
languages except English have different
pronouns for informal use among friends
(e.g., tu in French and Italian) and more formal pronouns for addressing superiors and
people one does not know well (e.g., vous in
French, lei in Italian). In Japanese, there are
even more choices depending on the rank,
job, sex, and age of the person being spoken
to. The informal approach that is characteristic of North Americans is quite different from the great concern for propriety in
many parts of Asia and Africa. Formality
is not so much a matter of using correct
grammar as of defining social relationships.
For example, there are different degrees
of formality for speaking to old friends,
­non-acquaintances whose background one
knows, and complete strangers.
Code-Switching
Linguists define the term code-switching as
alternating between two or more languages or
varieties of a language depending on the conversational context. The term is used more generally
to refer to how communicators often adapt both
their language and their manner of speaking
when they change contexts (Bullock and Toribio, 2012). People can use code-switching either
to minimize social differences (convergence)
between themselves and other people involved
in the conversation or to emphasize them (divergence). Using code-switching to alter how you
present yourself to others is another example of
communication competence that increases your
chances of achieving your goals. A common type
of code-switching is to use a word or phrase from
a different language or dialect in a sentence. Canada is a multilingual country with two official languages and immigrants from all over the world,
so it’s not uncommon to hear people adapt their
manner of speaking in different contexts and
substitute words from one language into another.
For example, a Montrealer speaking English with
friends might use the word dep for depanneur, the
French word for convenience store. A Canadian
whose first language is Spanish might tack on, “you
know?” at the end of a sentence spoken in Spanish. Canadians with Caribbean roots might combine patois or creole with standard English with
their friends and family but speak only standard
English when talking to teachers or employers.
6 | Language
S­ hifting between codes doesn’t require rejecting
your heritage. Think of it as a type of bilingual
ability. As we discussed in Chapter 2, the ability
to construct multiple identities is one element of
communication competence.
Tannen (1990, 1994, 2001). She suggests that
women and men grow up learning different rules
about how to speak and act.
In support of this two-culture hypothesis, communication researcher Anthony Mulac (2006;
also see Mulac et al., 2013) has found that men
are more likely than women to speak in sentence
Gender and Language
fragments (“Nice photo”). Men more typically talk
So far, we’ve discussed language usage as if it were about themselves with “I” references (“I have a lot
identical for women and men. Are there differences of meetings”) and use more judgmental language.
between male and female language use? If so, how They’re also more likely to make directive stateimportant are they?
ments. In contrast, female speech tends to be more
tentative, elaborate, and emotional. For instance,
women’s sentences are typically longer than men’s
Extent of Gender Differences
and they make more references to feelings and
make use of more intensive adverbs (“He’s really
Approach 1: Significance Differences
interested”) that paint a more complete verbal picIn 1992, John Gray argued that men and women ture. In addition, Mulac has found that women’s
are so fundamentally different they might as speech is often less assertive. It contains more statewell have come from separate planets. His best-­ ments of uncertainty (“It seems to be . . .”), hedges
selling book Men are from Mars and Women are (“We’re kind of set in our ways”), and tag questions
from Venus was based largely on anecdotes and (“Do you think so?”). Some theorists have argued
conjecture and has been criticized for its lack of that such differences cause women’s speech to be
scholarship (Dindia, 2006; Wood, 2002). How- less powerful, but more inclusive than men’s.
ever, social scientists have identified some sigCommunication scholar Julia Wood (Wood
nificant differences in the ways men and women and Fixmer-Oraiz, 2017) has devoted much of her
behave socially (Palomares, 2008; Wood and career to analyzing the impact of sex and gender
Fixmer-Oraiz, 2017). These findings have led on communication. While she maintains that
­
some scholars to describe men and women as Gray’s “Mars and Venus” approach is an overmembers of distinct cultures, with their differ- statement that can do more harm than good, she
ences arising primarily from socialization rather acknowledges there are differences in what she
than biology. The best-known advocate of this terms “feminine and masculine” communication
“two culture” theory is sociolinguist Deborah practices.” These are summarized in Table 6.5.
TABLE 6.5
Differences Associated with Feminine and Masculine Communication
Feminine
Masculine
Converse to maintain relationships
Converse to establish control
Create climate of equality
Create a sense of power and status
Offer emotional support
Solve problems and complete tasks
Ask questions
Make statements
Offer concrete personal disclosures
Make abstract generalizations
Speak tentatively (often to be polite)
Speak assertively (often to be in charge)
SOURCE: Adapted from Wood, J.T. and Fixmer-Oraiz, N. (2017). Gendered lives: Communication, gender and culture. 12 th edn. Boston, MA: Cambridge.
201
202
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
Approach 2: Minor Differences
Despite the differences in the way men and women
speak, the link between gender and language use
isn’t as clear cut as it might seem (Timmerman,
2002). One meta-analysis involving more than
3,000 participants found women were only slightly
more likely than men to use tentative speech
(Leaper and Robnett, 2011). Three other analyses
(Leaper and Ayres, 2007) looked for gender differences in adults’ talkativeness, affiliative speech,
and assertive speech—and found negligible differences for all three language constructs. In essence,
these studies showed men’s and women’s speech
are far more similar then different.
A recent study offers further support for the
“minor differences” approach (Hancock et al.,
2015). Researchers asked men and women to
describe a health-related episode in their lives.
Analysis of the transcripts revealed women used
slightly more intense adverbs and personal pronouns than men did. However, participants who
read the transcripts were largely unable to identify the speakers’ gender. These same researchers
then asked men, women, and transgender women
to describe a painting. Studied closely, the trans
women’s word choices were slightly more similar
to the men’s than the women’s—but again most
people could not distinguish between them on the
basis of word choice.
In light of the considerable similarities in language used by both and men and women, communication researcher Kathryn Dindia (2006)
suggests that men and women are not from different planets or different cultures and do, in fact,
speak the same language, though somewhat differently at times. Online communication appears
to be a context in which men and women use language somewhat differently.
Online Language and Gender
Research shows that women and men have different written language styles (Pennebaker, 2011),
which shows up in online communication (Hoseinei and Tammimy, 2016). For instance, men tend
to use more large words, nouns, and swear words
than women do. By contrast, women use more
personal pronouns, verbs, and hedges. Of course,
word count does not tell the whole story. For
instance, whereas women and men use the word
we about equally, they do so in different ways.
Closer scrutiny suggests women are more likely to
use the “warm we” (e.g., “We have so much fun
together”), while men are more inclined toward
the “distant we” (e.g., “We need to do something
about this”). Similarly, research analyzing the
online language of 15,000 Facebook users found
substantial differences between men and women’s
use of affiliative (warmth) language. Self-identified women’s Facebook updates were more likely
to use language that was warmer, more compassionate, and polite, whereas self-identified men
tended to use language that was colder, more
hostile, and impersonal. Substantial differences
between women and men’s use of assertive language were not found. In another study, researchers analyzed Facebook status updates provided by
75,000 users and found women tended to use more
emotion words (excited) and first person singular
pronouns, and made more references to people in
their lives (Schwartz et al., 2013). Men made more
object references (Xbox) and swore more often—a
finding that seems to hold true across most studies
exploring gender differences in word use.
It appears people are intuitively aware of gender
differences in online language. For instance, one
study found that online communicators adopt
different writing styles depending on their online
gender identities (Palomares and Lee, 2010). Participants were given randomly selected gendered
avatars—some matching their biological sex and
some not. Communicators who were assigned
feminine avatars expressed more emotions, made
more apologies, used more tentative language than
did those with masculine avatars. In other words,
participants adapted their language to match linguistic gender stereotypes.
Online language differences between genders
are more pronounced among adolescents. A study
looked at the word choices of teenage boys and
girls in chat rooms (Kapidzic and Herring, 2011).
The boys were more active and assertive, initiating
interaction and making proposals, whereas girls
were more reactive (“wow,” “omg,” “lmao”). The
boys were also more flirtatious and sexual (“any
PeopleImages/iStockphoto
6 | Language
threats) when they have the same
amount of bargaining strength
in a negotiation (Scudder and
Andrews, 1995), and they are
equally likely to change the
topic of conversation when
they have equal power or status
in a ­
task-oriented discussion
(Okamoto and Smith-Lovin,
2001). Findings like this suggest
that characteristically feminine
speech is less a function of gender
or sex than women’s historically
­less-powerful positions. In fact,
differences in social status often
show up more clearly in language than gender differences do
What reasons are there for miscommunication with members of the opposite
(Pennebaker, 2011).
sex? Have you come across any of these in your own life?
By now, it should be clear that
there are differences between
hotties wanna chat?”). The researchers noted that the ways men and women speak, but that these
these accentuated differences were probably due to
the age of the participants and would likely recede
in adulthood.
REFLECTION
Non-Gender Influences
on Language Use
Factors other than gender can outweigh or mitigate the influences of gender when it comes to
language use. Occupation is one such factor.
Male and female athletes communicate in similar
ways (Sullivan, 2004) and female farm operators,
working in a male dominated occupation, speak
more similarly to male farm operators (Pilgeram,
2007). Similarly, male early childhood educators’
speech to their students resembles the language
of female teachers more closely than it resembles
the language of fathers at home (Gleason and
Greif, 1983).
Another factor that trumps gender differences in
language use is power. For instance, in LGBTQ+ relationships, the conversational styles of partners reflect
power differences in the relationship (e.g., who is
earning more money) more than the biological sex
of the communicators (Steen and Schwartz, 1995).
There are also few differences between the way
men and women use powerful speech (specifically,
DIFFERENT ROLES, DIFFERENT
­L ANGUAGE
As the first woman in a formerly all-male architectural firm, I feel like something of a guinea pig. Most
of the partners and associates have made me feel
welcome, but a small group treats me with what
seems like a condescending attitude. The structural, mechanical, and electrical engineers we use
as consultants are even worse. I don’t think they’ve
ever worked with a woman who wasn’t a secretary.
I’ve found that with these guys, I’ve changed the
way I speak. I try to use more powerful language
with fewer hesitations and hedges. I make more
statements and ask fewer questions. In other
words, I sound more like a stereotypical man.
I don’t know yet whether this approach will
make any difference. The point is, I sound like a
different person when I’m at work more than in any
other setting. It’s not really an act: it’s more an
effort to sound professional. I guess if someone
dresses differently when they go to work, there’s
nothing wrong with sounding different too.
203
204
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
­ ifferences are determined by a wide variety of facd
tors that may have little or nothing to do with biological sex. As men and women grow to have equal
opportunities and more similar social experiences,
we can expect that there will be fewer differences in
the ways they speak and write.
CHECK IT!
Describe the evidence regarding the influences of
gender, occupation, and power on language.
SUMMARY
Language is both a marvellous communication tool
and the source of many interpersonal problems.
Every language is a collection of symbols governed
by a variety of rules. Because of its symbolic nature,
language is not a precise vehicle: meanings rest in
people, not in words themselves. The languages
we speak shape our worldview.
Besides conveying meanings about the content
of a specific message, language both expresses
and shapes the perceptions of its users. For
example, names that people are given influence
their identity and the way they’re viewed by others.
Language influences our perceptions of creditability and status, and reveals the level of affiliation
communicators have with each other. In addition,
language patterns reflect and shape a speaker’s
perceived power. Finally, language reflects and
influences racist, sexist, and prejudiced attitudes.
When used carelessly, language can lead to
a variety of interpersonal problems. The level of
precision or vagueness of messages can affect
a receiver’s understanding of them. Both precise
messages and vague, evasive messages have
their uses in interpersonal relationships, and a
competent communicator has the ability to choose
the best level of precision for the situation at hand.
Competent communicators know how to use “I,”
“you,” and “we” statements to accept the optimal level of responsibility and relational harmony.
Some language habits, such as using evaluative
or emotive terms, can lead to unnecessary disharmony in interpersonal relationships.
Low-context cultures (e.g., North American) rely
primarily on language to express thoughts and feelings, while high-context cultures (e.g., Asian) rely
heavily on subtle cues to maintain social harmony.
The relationship between the gender of the
communicator and language is a complex one.
Although some writers in the popular press have
argued that men and women are radically different
and thus speak different languages, this position
isn’t supported by scholarship. A growing body of
research suggests that differences are relatively
minor. Language use in social media has some distinct features and gender differences appear more
pronounced (or easier to measure) when written via
social media. Many of the language differences that
first appeared to be sex-related may actually be due
to other factors such as occupation and interpersonal power.
MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
1.
Syntactic rules govern
a. how symbols can be arranged.
b. how sounds can be combined to form
words.
c. how words should be interpreted given
the situation.
d. the meanings of words.
2.
Ogden and Richards’ triangle of meaning suggests
a. meanings are in and among people.
b. there is an indirect relationship between
a word and the thing or idea it represents.
6 | Language
c.
problems occur because people attach
different meanings to the same message.
d. all of the above.
3.
The Pormpuraaw people of Australia don’t
have words for right, left, back, and front in
their language; instead they use compass directions, and as a consequence they think differently about space than people who speak
other languages. This is an example of
a.
b.
c.
d.
4.
Alternating between two or more languages or
varieties of a language in a single conversation is called
divergence.
abstraction.
relative language.
code-switching.
Convergence involves
a. adapting one’s speech style to distinguish oneself from others.
b. adapting one’s speech style to ensure
credibility and status.
c. adapting one’s speech style to better
match the style of others.
d. adapting one’s speech style to be more
powerful.
Hedges, hesitations, intensifiers, polite
forms, tag questions, and disclaimers are all
examples of
One friend tells you that a course you’re considering enrolling in is very difficult. Another
friend says it’s easy. You’re not sure which
assessment is accurate. The problem is,
9.
Research on gender differences and language
a. has determined that differences in communication are a result of biological
sex.
b. has determined that in written communication gender is more measurable and
noticeable.
c. has established that for the most part
men and women speak so differently they
can accurately be described as speaking
different languages.
d. all of the above statements regarding
gender differences and language are
true.
10. People from high-context cultures, such as
many Canadian Indigenous, Asian, and Middle Eastern cultures,
a. rely on subtle non-verbal cues, the history of relationships, and general social
rules that govern interaction.
b. rely on language to express thoughts,
feelings, and ideas directly.
c. often appear talkative and lacking in
subtlety.
d. tend to be direct and succinct.
Answers: 1. a; 2. d; 3. d; 4. a; 5. d; 6. c; 7. c; 8. d; 9. b; 10. a
7.
convergent speech.
divergent speech.
less powerful speech.
sexist speech.
a. your friends are using euphemisms to
describe the course.
b. your friends are using ambiguous language to describe the course.
c. your friends are using powerless speech
to describe the course.
d. your friends are using relative language to
describe the course.
Linguistic relativity
a.
b.
c.
d.
6.
8.
credibility and status.
pragmatic rules.
coordinated management of meaning.
linguistic relativism.
a. is the idea that language both shapes our
perceptions and reflects them.
b. describes a type of powerless speech.
c. describes ways both senders and receivers of messages can save face.
d. relies heavily on euphemisms.
5.
a.
b.
c.
d.
205
206
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
ACTIVITIES
1. Invitation to Insight
Recall an incident in which you were misunderstood. Explain how this event illustrates the principle that “meanings are in people, not words.”
2. Ethical Challenge
The information about the influence of language,
on pages 180–9, shows how the words a communicator chooses can shape the perceptions
of others. Create two scenarios for each type of
linguistic influence listed below. The first should
describe how the type of influence could be used
constructively, and the second should describe an
unethical application of this knowledge.
a. naming and identity
b. affiliation
c. credibility and status
d. power and politeness
e. sexism
f. sexual prejudice
g. racism
3. Skill Builder
Translate the following into behavioural language
and share with your classmates to get their feedback:
• an abstract goal for improving your interpersonal communication (e.g., “Be more
assertive” or “Stop being so sarcastic”)
• a complaint you have about another person
(e.g., they are “selfish” or “insensitive”)
In both cases, describe the person or people
involved, the circumstances in which the communication will take place, and the precise behaviour
involved. What difference will using behavioural
descriptions likely make in your relationships?
4. Invitation to Insight
Are there ever situations in your life when it’s desirable to be less clear and more vague? Use the
information on pages 190–5 to answer this question and to decide whether vagueness is the most
competent approach to the situation.
5. Skill Builder
Practise rephrasing each of the following “you”
statements in “I” or “we” language:
• “You’re not telling me the truth!”
• “You only think of yourself!”
• “Don’t be so touchy!”
• “You don’t understand a word I’m saying!”
Now think of three “you” statements you could
make to people in your life. Transform each of
these statements into “I” and “we” language, and
rehearse them with a classmate.
6. Invitation to Insight
Do you communicate differently online or by text
than in person? Does your social media language
differ depending on the medium you use? Monitor your communication over three days and see
if you “talk” differently in text messages, social
networking posts, tweets, blog entries, and emails
compared to face-to-face communication. Are there
some words you use more in one context versus
another? Do you notice differences in your use of
more powerful and less powerful language? Does
your level of politeness change? How about use of
“you,” “I,” and “we” language? Do your social media
messages reflect the identity you wish to project?
7. Invitation to Insight
Some authors believe that differences between
male and female communication are quite significant. Other researchers believe the differences
are not nearly so dramatic. Which approach seems
more accurate to you? Offer evidence provided in
this chapter along with experiences from your life
to support your point of view.
8. Role Play
Choose a partner. Think of a real criticism (of
someone else) and compose a highly abstract
message to convey your complaint (e.g., “You’re
so rude”). Briefly describe the situation to your
partner (who the other person is and the general
situation—avoid providing specific details about
6 | Language
the complaint) and have your partner pretend to be
the person you’re criticizing. Deliver your abstract
criticism and have your partner respond. Now,
compose a more specific behavioural description
of the same complaint and deliver this criticism to
your partner and have them respond. Discuss the
differences between the two messages. What are
the advantages of stating your complaints in more
specific terms? Now, reverse roles and repeat the
exercise.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Does naming something make it more or less
real? More or less frightening? Can you think of
examples where naming something in your life
made it easier or more difficult to cope with?
How does language affect our p
­ erceptions?
We’ve argued in this chapter that eliminating gender references (“letter carrier” rather
than “mailman”) is preferable to highlighting
gender in professional references (female letter carrier). Do you agree or disagree? Why?
Given the subjective nature of perception, is
“we” language ever acceptable? Why or why
not?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
What is your experience communicating with
people whose tendencies are toward loweror higher-context communication than your
own? Have these differences caused communication difficulties? If so, how so? If not,
why not?
Do you believe that the language a person
speaks affects that person’s worldview? Why
or why not?
Given the diversity of verbal styles in different
cultures, is it possible not to offend someone
when you’re communicating cross-culturally?
Why or why not?
JOURNAL IDEAS
1.
Over the next few days keep track of generalizations (high level abstractions) you
make when speaking to others when offering thanks and criticism. Try to rewrite
these comments using more precise language. What might be the benefits and
drawbacks of using less abstract language
when communicating with others?
2.
Think of a couple of times you recently
used “you” or “it” language during an argument or conflict. Rewrite your criticisms
using “I” language. How might using “I”
language change the interaction during a
conflict?
207
Non-verbal Communication
fizkes/Shutterstock
7
CHAPTER OUTLINE
Non-verbal Communication Defined
Characteristics of Non-verbal Communication
Non-verbal Communication Is Always Occurring
Non-verbal Communication Is Primarily Relational
Non-verbal Communication Is Ambiguous
Non-verbal Communication Occurs in Mediated
­Messages
Non-verbal Communication Is Influenced by Culture
and Gender
Functions of Non-verbal Communication
Creating and Maintaining Relationships
Regulating Interaction
Influencing Others
Influencing Ourselves
Concealing/Deceiving
Types of Non-verbal Communication
Body Movement
Touch
Voice
Distance
Territoriality
Time
Physical Attractiveness
Clothing
Physical Environment
KEY TERMS
barrier behaviours
chronemics
disfluencies
emblems
haptics
intimate distance
kinesics
monochronic
non-verbal communication
oculesics
paralanguage
personal distance
personal space
polychronic
proxemics
public distance
regulators
social distance
territory
LEARNING OUTCOMES
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:
•
•
•
•
Define non-verbal communication and describe its distinguishing characteristics
Categorize the various functions that non-verbal communication can serve and provide examples
of each
Analyze a variety of types of non-verbal communication and describe how they communicate meaning
Critically examine the role of culture and gender in influencing non-verbal communication and its
­influence on our perceptions
210
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
depending on the way they’re spoken. Furthermore, some non-spoken forms of communication,
including sign languages used in the deaf community, are linguistic and not really non-verbal
in the sense most social scientists use the term. A
better definition of non-verbal communication is
messages expressed by non-linguistic means.
These non-linguistic messages are important
because what we do often conveys more meaning
than what we say. One early study (Mehrabian,1972)
Read Body Language to reveal the secrets . . .
claimed that 93 per cent of the emotional impact
Do his eyes say he’s interested?
of a message comes from a non-verbal source,
Does her facial expressions say she’s a manipuwhereas only 7 per cent is verbal. Another (Birdlator?
whistell, 1970) described a 65–35 percentage split
Does the way he’s standing say he’s a player?
between actions and words respectively. Although
Almost every pharmacy, supermarket, and airport social scientists have disputed these figures and
book rack has its share of “body language” paper- the relative importance of verbal versus non-­verbal
backs and magazine articles with claims such as cues (e.g., Lapakko, 1997; Nagel et al., 2012), the
these. They promise you can learn secrets that will point remains: non-verbal communication conchange you from a fumbling social failure into a tributes a great deal to shaping perceptions.
You might ask how non-verbal communicaself-assured mind reader.
Claims like these are almost always exaggerations tion can be so powerful. At first glance, it seems
or fabrications. There is, of course, a scientific body as if meanings come from words. To answer
of knowledge about non-verbal communication, this question, think of a time when you watched
and it has provided many fascinating and valuable people speaking a language you didn’t understand.
clues to human behaviour. That’s what this chapter is Although you didn’t understand the words being
about. It’s unlikely the following pages will turn you spoken, there were plenty of clues that gave you
instantly into a rich, sexy, charming communication an idea of what was going on in the exchange. By
superstar, but don’t go away. Even without glamor- watching the speakers’ facial expressions, postures,
ous promises, a quick look at some facts about non-­ gestures, vocal tones, and other behaviour you
verbal communication shows that it’s an important probably gained a sense of the way the communiand valuable field to study, and that non-verbal com- cators felt about one another and got some ideas
munication skills are worth acquiring (Riggio, 2006). about the nature of their relationship. Researchers
(summarized in Knapp and Hall, 2013) have found
that subjects who hear content-free speech—­
Non-verbal Communication
ordinary speech that has been electronically
manipulated so that the words are unintelligible—
People don’t always say what they mean . . . but
their body gestures and movements tell the truth!
Will he ask you out? Is she encouraging you?
Know what’s really happening by understanding
the secret language of body signals. You can
improve your . . .
sex life . . .
social life . . .
business life . . .
Defined
Since non means “not” and verbal means “with
words,” then it seems logical that non-verbal
communication would involve “communication
without words.” This definition is an oversimplification, however, because it fails to distinguish
between vocal communication (by mouth) and verbal communication (with words). Some non-verbal ­messages have a vocal element. For example,
the words “I love you” have different meanings
TAKE TWO
• Non-verbal communication: messages expressed
by non-linguistic means; they can include vocal
communication (e.g., voice tone), but not language (e.g., sign language).
7 | Non-verbal Communication
211
can consistently recognize the
emotion being expressed as well
as identify its strength.
Characteristics
of Non-verbal
Communication
Non-verbal
Communication Is
Always Occurring
huePhotography/iStockPhoto
As Table 7.1 shows, verbal and
non-verbal communication differ in a number of ways. We’ll
now take a look at some of the
fundamental characteristics of
non-verbal communication.
What is the difference between sign language and non-verbal ­communication?
behaviour can convey a message. You may not
intend to show that you’re embarrassed, but your
Some theorists have suggested that all non-­ blushing can still give you away.
Of course, not all behaviour (intentional or not)
verbal b
­ehaviour conveys information. They
argue that it is impossible not to communi- will be interpreted correctly. Your trembling hands
cate. You can understand the impossibility of might be taken as a sign of nervousness when you’re
non-communication by considering what you really just shivering from the cold. But whether
would do if someone told you not to communi- or not your behaviour is intentional, and whether or
cate any messages at all. Even if you closed your not it’s interpreted accurately, all non-verbal behaveyes or left the room, you would communicate iour has the potential to create messages.
messages that mean you’re avoiding contact. One
study (DePaulo, 1992) took just this approach. TABLE 7.1 Some Differences between Verbal and
When communicators were told not to express Non-verbal Communication
non-verbal clues, others viewed them as dull,
Non-verbal
withdrawn, uneasy, aloof, and deceptive.
Verbal Communication
Communication
The impossibility of not communicating is sigmostly voluntary and
often unconscious
nificant because it means that each of us is a kind
conscious
of transmitter that cannot be shut off. No matter
usually content-oriented
usually relational
what we do, we send out messages that say somecan be clear or vague
inherently ambiguous
thing about ourselves and our relationships with
others. If, for instance, someone were observing
primarily shaped by
rooted in biology
culture
you now, what non-verbal clues would they get
about how you’re feeling? Are you sitting forward
discontinuous or
continuous
or reclining? Is your posture tense or relaxed?
intermittent
What does your facial expression communicate
single channel (words
multi-channeled
now? Can you make your face expressionless?
only)
Don’t people with expressionless faces still com- SOURCE: Adapted from Andersen, P. (1999). Nonverbal communication: forms and
municate something to you? Even uncontrollable functions. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, p. 16.
212
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
Thurtell/iStockphoto
1. “I’m tired.”
2. “I’m in favour of universal health care.”
3. “I’m attracted to another
person in the group.”
4. “I think freedom of speech
should be protected.”
5. “I’m angry at someone in
this room.”
This exercise shows that
ideas (such as statements 2 and
4) do not lend themselves to
non-verbal expressions nearly
as well as attitudes and feelings (statements 1, 3, and 5).
This explains why it’s possible
How can we become more conscious of both the non-verbal messages we’re
to understand the attitudes or
sending and the non-verbal messages of others?
feelings of others by reading
non-verbal cues, even if you don’t understand the
subject of their communication.
Non-verbal Communication Is
Text messages and email offer fewer non-verbal
­Primarily Relational
cues about the speaker’s feelings than do face-toSome non-verbal messages serve practical func- face encounters or even telephone conversations.
tions, such as a police officer directing the flow of Most of us have had the experience of finding out
traffic. But non-verbal communication also serves that our email or text message has been misundera far more common (and more interesting) series stood. The use of emoticons and emoji and statements about emotion can be used to try to capture
of social functions.
Non-verbal communication allows us to define non-verbal expressions in text-based messages and
the kind of relationships we have—or want to reduce the chances for misunderstandings. Research
have—with others (Burgoon and Le Poire, 1999; suggests that the use of emoticons to capture emoMyers et al., 2011). You can appreciate this fact by tional expressiveness increases the involvement and
thinking about the wide range of ways you could interaction between the people sharing an email
­ alther
behave when greeting another person. You could or text message (Fabri and Moore, 2005; W
wave, shake hands, nod, smile, clap the other per- and D’Addario, 2001). Clearly, the rich mixture of
son on the back, give them a hug, kiss them on non-verbal and verbal messages that flow in faceboth cheeks, or avoid all contact. Each one of these to-face exchanges, or even in phone conversations,
actions sends a message about the nature of your cannot be easily replicated in writing, but it’s posrelationship with the other person. Non-verbal sible to share emotions and compensate for the lack
messages perform another valuable social func- of non-verbal cues in CMC (Walther et al., 2010).
tion: they convey emotions that we may be unwilling or unable to express or that we may not even Non-verbal Communication Is
be aware of. In fact, non-verbal communication
is much better suited to expressing attitudes and Ambiguous
feelings than ideas. You can demonstrate this by In Chapter 6, we pointed out how some language
imagining how you could non-verbally express can be ambiguous. (For example, the statement
“Your nose piercing really makes you stand out”
each of these comments:
7 | Non-verbal Communication
Non-verbal Communication Occurs
in Mediated Messages
Not all mediated communication is solely verbal.
Video calls/chat obviously provide non-verbal
information, as do photos on social networking
apps and messaging platforms. Even text-based
digital communication has non-verbal features.
The most obvious way to represent non-verbal
expressions in type is with emoji. Emoji, as we
Chris Wildt/Cartoonstock
could be a compliment or a criticism, and the
vague statement, “I’m almost done” could mean
you have to wait a few minutes or an hour.) Most
non-verbal behaviour has the potential to be even
more ambiguous than verbal statements like these.
To understand why, consider how you would interpret silence from your companion during an evening together. Think of all the possible meanings of
this non-verbal behaviour—affection, anger, preoccupation, boredom, nervousness, thoughtfulness—the possibilities are many.
The ambiguity of non-verbal behaviour was
illustrated when a supermarket chain tried to
emphasize its customer-friendly approach by
instructing employees to smile and make eye contact with customers. Some customers mistook the
service-with-a-smile approach as sexual come-ons.
As this story suggests, non-verbal cues are much
more ambiguous than verbal statements when it
comes to expressing willingness to become physically involved (La France, 2010).
Because non-verbal behaviour is so ambiguous, caution is wise when you’re responding to
non-­
verbal cues. Rather than jumping to conclusions about the meaning of a sigh, smile,
slammed door, or yawn, it’s far better to use the
kind of p
­ erception-checking approach described
in ­Chapter 3. “When you yawned, I got the idea I
might be boring you. But maybe you’re just tired.
What’s going on?” The ability to consider more
than one possible interpretation for non-verbal
behaviour illustrates the kind of cognitive complexity that we identified in Chapter 1 as an element of communication competence. Popular
advice on the subject notwithstanding, it’s usually
not possible to read a person like a book.
213
described in Chapter 4, can help communicate
emotion and clarify a meaning that isn’t evident
from words alone (Derks et al., 2008; Lo, 2008;
Riordan, 2017; Riordan and Kreuz, 2010). For
example, see how each graphic below creates a different meaning for the same statement:
• You’re driving me crazy
• You’re driving me crazy
• You’re driving me crazy
Yet the meaning of emoji can be ambiguous
(Skovholt et al., 2014). A smiley face could have
a number of meanings, such as “I’m happy,” “I’m
kidding,” or “I’m teasing you.” Other online communication markers are also ambiguous (Vandergriff, 2013). Exclamation marks (sometimes more
than one!!!) can be used at the end of sentences
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
DOES YOUR SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS INFLUENCE YOUR INTERPERSONAL ACCURACY?
The ability to interpret other people’s often-ambiguous non-verbal cues with greater accuracy contributes to our competence as communicators. Research
suggests that factors such as intelligence, empathy,
and openness to experience are positively correlated
with greater interpersonal accuracy and traits such
as depression and neuroticism are associated with
lower accuracy (Hall et al., 2009, 2011).
Social psychology researcher R. Thora Bjornsdottir and her colleagues (2017) at the University of
Toronto wondered if people’s subjective perception
of their socio-economic status (SES) or social class
might also be associated with their ability to accurately judge the non-verbal behaviour of others. Bjornsdottir and her colleagues measured subjective SES by
asking study participants to complete the MacArthur
Scale of Subjective Social Status (Adler and Stewart, 2007), which asks questions about education,
income, living arrangements, and perception of status
relative to comparison groups such as your community and country. In addition, they explicitly rated their
subjective SES ranging from 1 (lower income) to 5
(upper income). In a series of three studies, these
investigators examined the relationship between participants’ reports of subjective SES and their ability to
PeopleImages/iStockphoto
214
make accurate judgments about other people using
non-verbal cues. One of the measures they used to
assess participants’ interpersonal accuracy was the
Reading the Mind In the Eyes Test (RMET) (Baron-­
Cohen et al., 2001). This standardized test involves
describing what people are thinking or feeling based
on a photograph of only their eyes. The participant
is presented with a series of 25 photographs of different actor’s eyes (both male and female) expressing a variety of emotions/mental states. Participants
are asked to choose the word (from a list provided)
that best describes what the person in the photo is
thinking or feeling (e.g., serious, ashamed, alarmed,
bewildered). The test has proven to be an accurate
measure of mild deficits in social understanding in
adults (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001).
Among Bjornsdottir and her colleagues’ (2017)
found that subjective SES significantly predicted participants’ performance on the RMET. Individuals who
perceived themselves as lower in SES showed greater
sensitivity to the non-verbal displays of others. These
investigators note that this finding is congruent with
findings that individuals with lower subjective SES
focus more on social context (Kraus et al., 2009) and
show greater sensitivity to threats and hostile emotions (Kraus et al., 2011)
and display greater empathic
responses (Varnum et al.,
2015) and greater empathic
accuracy when reading others’
thoughts, feelings, and emotions (Kraus et al., 2010).
Bjornsdottir and her colleagues suggest one possible
explanation for these findings
is that people who perceive
themselves as having lower
SES than those around them
may experience reduced personal control over many areas
The Reading the Mind In the Eyes Test (RMET) presents a series of photos
of their lives and as a result
similar to the one above and provides a series of choices to describe what the
need to be more attentive to
person depicted is thinking or feeling such as: serious, ashamed, alarmed,
their social environments that
bewildered. In this case “alarmed” is the best choice.
7 | Non-verbal Communication
people with higher SES who have greater amounts of
personal control. These investigators conclude that
these differences in interpersonal sensitivity have the
potential to create misunderstandings in interactions
between individuals of varying SES and highlight the
importance of this type of research in furthering our
understanding of interpersonal communication.
and even by themselves to denote a variety of emotional states. Ellipses (. . .) at the end of a phrase
can signal displeasure, thoughtfulness, or confusion. They can also be turn-taking signals similar
to what you might convey facially or with pauses
during in-person conversations. The same is true
of lexical surrogates such as “hmmm” or “ooooh,”
with meanings ranging from delight to disapproval. Even clicking “Like” or “+1” has a variety
of content and relational meanings (Hayes et al.,
2016). Punctuation too can make a difference in
how you perceive a message. For instance one
study found that the use of periods in texts (e.g.,
“Sure.” ) in one word texts were viewed as less
sincere than those written without punctuation
(“Sure”) (Gunraj et al., 2016).
A study of workplace emails (Skovholt et al.,
2014) found that use of emoticons serves three
purposes. They can act as hedges (softening or
making requests more polite—see Chapter 6),
indicate the positive attitude of the sender, and
act as markers of irony and jokes. While not
everyone agrees about the professionalism of
using emoji in work-related emails, it’s important to understand that workplace emails can
have an unintended emotional impact. The two
most common misinterpretations of emotions
in workplace email (that do not include emoji,
emoticons, or indications of emotion) are (1)
receivers are likely to perceive emails intended
to convey positive emotions as more neutral,
and (2) receivers are likely to perceive emails
as more intensely negative than was intended
by the sender (Byron, 2008). There are a number of factors that influence the likelihood of
miscommunication, including the length of the
Critical thinking: Can you think of ways people who
perceive themselves as having lower SES might have
developed superior accuracy in their non-verbal
emotion recognition skills, which might be less available or relevant to people who perceive their SES as
higher?
relationship between the sender and the receiver,
the gender and relative status of the sender (e.g.,
colleague or manager), the age and mood (positive or negative) of the receiver, and the established guidelines for the expression of emotion in
that workplace. Senders can increase the accuracy of receivers’ interpretations by actually verbalizing the emotion (“I am so happy you will be
able to come to the meeting”), and receivers can
ask questions and state their interpretations of
messages and invite the sender to respond. These
strategies for perception checking (see Chapter
3) are as useful for mediated communication as
they are for the face-to-face variety.
Not only does the content of a non-verbal message matter, but when it’s sent matters as well (Ledbetter, 2008; Walther, 2009). If you have ever been
upset by a friend who hasn’t responded punctually
to one of your texts, then you know the role that
timeliness plays in mediated interpersonal communication. We examine the management of time
later in this chapter, but here we’ll note that it’s
a vital feature of mediated interaction (Kalman
et al., 2013). It’s also a good example of the principle that you cannot not communicate. Communicators have expectations about when others should
respond to their posts, emails, and messages, and
they may perceive delays negatively.
Non-verbal Communication Is
Influenced by Culture and Gender
It has long been established that certain expressions have the same meanings around the world
(Ekman and Friesen, 1971). Smiles and laughter
are a u
­ niversal signal of positive emotions, for
215
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
example, while the same sour expressions convey displeasure in every culture. Charles Darwin
believed that expressions like these are the result
of evolution, functioning as survival mechanisms
that allowed early humans to convey emotional
states before the development of language. The
innateness of some facial expressions becomes
even clearer when we examine the behaviour of
children born deaf and blind (Eibl-Eibesfeldt,
1972). Despite a lack of social learning, these children display a broad range of expression. They
smile, laugh, and cry in ways virtually identical to seeing and hearing infants. While non-­
verbal expressions like these may be universal in
infants, the cultural rules for appropriate emotional expression and interpretation vary widely
around the world. So much so that cultures can
be described as having different non-verbal languages just as they have verbal ones (Hasler et al.,
2017). Fiorello LaGuardia, mayor of New York
from 1933 to 1945, was fluent in English, Italian,
and Yiddish. Researchers who watched films of
his campaign speeches with the sound turned off
found that they could tell which language he was
speaking by the changes in his non-verbal behaviour (Birdwhistell, 1970).
Some kinds of non-verbal behaviour—called
emblems—are culturally understood substitutes for
verbal expressions. Nodding the head up and down
is an accepted way of saying “yes” in many, but not
all cultures. Likewise, a side-to-side head shake is a
non-verbal way of saying “no,” and a shrug of the
shoulders is commonly understood as meaning “I
do not know” or “I’m not sure.” Remember, however, that some emblems—such as the thumbs-up
gesture—vary from one culture to another (it means
“good job!” in Canada, the number “1” in Germany,
and the number “5” in Japan). Most North Americans would say the hand gesture depicted in the
photo on this page means “Okay.” But to a Buddhist
it signifies acceptance of the world as it is, and in
Greece and Turkey its meaning is vulgar.
A variety of cultural norms also guide non-­
verbal expressiveness (Matsumoto, 2006). In some
cultures, overt demonstration of feelings, such
as happiness or anger, are discouraged. In other
cultures, the same expressions are perfectly
appropriate. Thus, a Korean person might appear
much more non-verbally controlled than an
Italian person might, when in fact their feelings
might be identical. It’s important to note that the
culture in which people live is far more influential
than their nationality or ethnicity. For example,
the facial expressions of Japanese nationals and
Japanese Americans differ in ways that reflect
their cultural backgrounds (Marsh et al., 2003).
Findings of a large-scale investigation into the
propensity of people from individualistic and
collectivist cultures to express positive emotion
(smiling) and negative emotion (eyebrow furrowing) in response to television ads suggest
members of individualistic cultures express negative emotions more freely when compared to individuals from collectivist cultures (McDuff et al.,
2017). These investigators argue that this finding
is consistent with the idea (Markus and Kitayama,
1991) that collectivist cultures base self-esteem
on the ability to show self-restraint and maintain social harmony whereas in individualist cultures self-esteem is based on self-expression and
the ability to differentiate oneself from others.
­Similarly, cultures differ in the appropriateness of
RapidEye/iStockphoto
216
In North America this hand gesture
means “okay” but in other places in the
world it has a very different meaning.
7 | Non-verbal Communication
© CBC Archives
non-verbal expressions of pain. For instance, in
Mi’kmaq culture stoicism is valued and children
learn early not to grimace or cry when they’re in
pain or even to express pain verbally (Latimer
et al., 2014). In fact, there is no word for “pain” in
the Mi’kmaq language, only an equivalent for the
word “hurt.”
Culture also affects how non-verbal cues are
monitored. In Japan, for instance people tend
to look to the eyes for emotional cues, whereas
many Europeans and North Americans focus
more on the mouth (Yuki et al., 2007). These
differences can be seen in text-based emoticons
used in these cultures, as we discussed in Chapter 4. Recall, people from individualistic cultures
usually use symbols that direct attention to the
mouth [ : ) or :–( ] while people from collectivist
cultures are more likely to vary the appearance
of the eyes [ ^_^ or ; _ ; ] (Park et al., 2014; Yuki
et al., 2007).
In her review of the treatment of Indigenous
girls taken from their families and forcibly placed
in Ontario Training Schools (also known as Residential Schools), Joan Sangster (2002) describes
the devastating effects of misinterpreting
non-verbal behaviour because of cultural differences. Sangster gives heartbreaking accounts of
young Indigenous girls whose culturally appropriate emotional restraint, silent listening, and
lack of eye contact were misinterpreted as passivity, secretiveness, and deceitfulness by the
reform school staff, who were English-speaking
Canadians of European descent. These young
girls showed their respect for and deference to
authority figures by not looking them in the eye,
listening silently, and by keeping their feelings
to themselves. The staff interpreted the girls’
non-verbal behaviour as hostility and sneakiness.
One school worker wrote, “She is quiet, deep, and
cunning. She goes along with training . . . but
it is not penetrating.She has no conscience and
is not ­progressing. . . . She appears co-operative,
but is deceitful” (Sangster, 2002, p. 38). There
is no question that the residential school staff’s
ethnocentrism and their racist attitudes toward
Indigenous Canadians contributed to the staff’s
negative interpretations of the girls’ behaviour,
and it is also easy to see how a lack of awareness
217
Have you ever misunderstood someone’s nonverbal
cues due to differences in culture? Been misunderstood
yourself?
of cultural differences in non-verbal expression
can lead to tragic misunderstandings, particularly when one is dealing with children.
Gender also affects non-verbal communication and, with rare exceptions, these differences
hold true across cultures (Hall, 2006; Knapp and
Hall, 2010, 2013). Generally, women are more
non-verbally expressive than men and they’re
more accurate in interpreting non-verbal behaviour (Hall and Andrzejewski, 2017). More specifically, research summarized by Judith Hall (Hal1,
2006b) shows that, compared to men, women
typically
• smile more;
• use more facial expression;
• use more (but less expansive) head, hand, and
arm gestures;
• touch others more;
• stand closer to others;
• are more vocally expressive; and
• make more eye contact.
Despite these differences, men’s and women’s
non-verbal communication patterns have a good
deal in common (Dindia, 2006; Hall, 2006a).
Moreover, gender differences are less pronounced
in conversations between LGBTQ+ participants
(Knofler and Imhof, 2007). Gender and culture
certainly have an influence on non-verbal style,
but the differences are a matter of degree rather
than kind.
218
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
REFLECTION
NOT SHOWING UP SENDS A MESSAGE
As a social convenor at my school, I thought it
would be great to have lunchtime yoga sessions to
reduce our stress! Many of my classmates seemed
keen so I organized the sessions, got the word out
via social media, and was then shocked when only
two people showed up. I had no idea that many of
my classmates had cultural and religious beliefs
that prohibited certain mixed gender activities
and that in order to participate they needed the
yoga classes to be gender specific. That was easy
enough to organize—I just wish I had been more
aware of the cultural norms and expectations of
my peers in the first place. Nevertheless, they certainly sent me a message by not showing up!
CHECK IT!
Describe the five characteristics of non-verbal
communication.
Functions of Non-verbal
­Communication
Now that we have established what non-verbal
communication is, we need to explore the functions
it serves in relationships. As you’ll read, non-verbal
communication plays several roles in the way we
relate to others (Ting-Toomey, 2017).
Creating and Maintaining
Relationships
As we’ll discuss further in Chapter 9, communication is our primary means for beginning, maintaining, and ending relationships. Non-verbal
behaviour plays an important role during every
relational stage.
Consider the importance of non-verbal communication at the beginning of a relationship. When
we first meet another person, our initial goal is to
reduce uncertainty about them (Berger, 1987, 2011).
We ask ourselves questions such as, “Would I like to
know this person better?” and “Is this person interested in me?” One of the first ways we answer these
questions is by observing non-verbal cues, including
facial expression, eye contact, posture, gesture, and
tone of voice (Berger and Kellermann, 1994). This
process occurs quite rapidly—often in a matter of
seconds (Zebrowitz and Montepare, 2008).
At the same time we’re sizing up others, we are
providing non-verbal cues about our own attitude
toward them. We rarely share these thoughts and
feelings overtly. Imagine how odd it would be to
say or hear words such as “I’m feeling friendly and
relaxed” or “You look pretty interesting, but I won’t
pursue this unless you give me a sign you’re interested too.” Messages like these are much more safely
expressed through non-verbal channels. Of course,
it’s important to remember that non-verbal channels
are ambiguous and that you may be misinterpreting
them (Mehrabian, 2008). You might want to get an
outside evaluation to check your perceptions (“Is it
just my imagination, or is she checking me out?”).
Non-verbal cues are also important in established ongoing relationships: they both help create
and signal emotional climate. For example, non-­­
verbal displays of affection—such as sitting close,
holding hands, and gazing at one another—are
strongly connected to satisfaction and commitment
in romantic relationships (Horan and Booth-Butterfield, 2010). In families, non-verbal cues offer a
clear sign of relational satisfaction (Rogers, 2001),
and managing their meaning is vital to s­ uccessful
parent–child interaction (Grebelsky-Lichtman,
­
2014, 2015). On the job, supervisors who offer
non-verbal cues of liking can increase subordinates’ job motivation, job satisfaction, and affinity
for their supervisor (Teven, 2010).
You can test the power of non-verbal behaviour
in your relationships for yourself. First, observe
the interaction of people in relationships without
paying attention to their words. Watch couples
or families in restaurants or other public places.
Focus on non-verbal behaviour of fellow employees or professors and students. You’re likely to
see a multitude of cues that suggest the quality of
7 | Non-verbal Communication
each relationship. Chances are good that you could
make an educated guess about whether the people
you’re watching are satisfied with each other—and
whether their relationship is beginning, being
maintained, or ending.
S­ometimes deliberately and sometimes without
thought, we use non-verbal behaviours in ways that
get others to satisfy our wants and needs. To appreciate how we manage impressions and influence
others via non-verbal means, consider what happens
when you meet strangers you would like to know
better. Instead of projecting your image ­verbally
Regulating Interaction
(“Hi! I’m attractive, friendly, and ­easygoing”), you
Non-verbal regulators are cues that help control behave in ways that will present this identity. For
verbal interaction. The best example of such regu- example, you might dress in ­something you know
lation is the wide array of turn-taking signals in looks good on you, smile more, and perhaps strike a
everyday conversation (Wiemann and Knapp, more relaxed and casual pose.
2008). Research has shown there are three non-­
In many individualistic cultures, such as mainverbal signals that indicate a speaker has finished stream Canadian and American cultures, people are
talking and is ready to yield to a listener:
more compliant and co-operative when we make direct eye contact (Kaisler and Leder, 2016), wear high
1. a change in vocal intonation—a rising or
status clothing (Maner, DeWall, and Gailliot, 2008),
falling in pitch at the end of a clause;
use open body postures (Burgoon et al., 1990), touch
2. a drawl on the last syllable or the stressed
others appropriately (Gueguen et al., 2010; Kraus,
syllable in a clause; and
Huang, and Keltner, 2010), and behave in a friendly,
3. a drop in vocal pitch or loudness when
positive way (Kleman, 2008). That’s why job seekers
speaking a common expression such as
are coached to offer firm handshakes, particularly
“you know.”
men (Katsumi et al., 2017; Stewart et al., 2008), and
Eye contact is another way of regulating verbal smile often and genuinely (Krumhuber et al., 209) to
communication (Bavelas et al., 2002). In conver- help influence employers to hire them.
sations, the person listening typically looks more
In a series of experiments, French psychologist
at the speaker than the reverse. The speaker sig- Nicolas Guéguen and his colleagues (2013) invesnals that they’re seeking a response by looking at tigated the extent to which small differences in
the listener, creating a brief period of mutual gaze setting could influence attraction. A male research
called a “gaze window.” At this point, the listener confederate approached women at a shopping
is likely to respond with a nod, “uh-huh,” or other centre and asked for their phone numbers. When
reaction, after which the speaker looks away and he made the request holding a guitar case he was
continues speaking.
more successful (31 per cent gave him their number) than when carrying nothing (14 per cent gave
him their number). When carrying a sports bag
Influencing Others
the proportion of women who agreed dropped to
In Chapter 2, we explained that one major goal of nine per cent. In another study, Guéguen (2013)
communicating is impression management: getting had female research confederates lie face down on
others to view us the way we want to be seen. In many the beach, reading a book. Some had a temporary
cases, non-verbal cues can be more important than tattoo of a butterfly on their lower back and some
verbal messages in creating impressions (Weisbuch did not. Those with the tattoo were approached by
et al., 2010). How we look, act, and sound can be men for conversation more often and more quickly
more important in meeting our goals than the words than those without tattoos. These investigators
we speak. The influence of non-verbal behaviour suggest that in both studies, seemingly minor
comes in many forms. It can capture attention, show changes played major roles in non-verbal impresor increase liking, generate power, or boost cred- sion management. Findings such as these illustrate
ibility (Cesario and Higgins, 2008; G
­ ifford, 2011). the influence of stereotypes on our perceptions of
219
220
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
SELF-ASSESSMENT
NON-VERBAL IMMEDIACY BEHAVIOURS
Most communication researchers agree that nonverbal immediacy—the display of involvement signaled by physical closeness, eye contact, smiling,
movement, and touch—is an important ingredient of
communication competence. You can measure your
immediacy be completing this self-­
assessment.
Indicate the degree to which you believe each statement applies to you on a scale of 1 to 5, where
1 = “never” and 5 = “very often.” Then ask someone you know well to complete the assessment
about you, requesting they be as honest as possible. When you’re finished, compare notes on your
assessments, discuss influences on your behaviour
and identify any non-verbal immediacy behaviours
you would like to change. Like all skills, increasing
or decreasing these non-verbal behaviours requires
practice. You may want to practise alone in front
of a mirror before trying to make changes in social
interactions with others. Often just increasing your
awareness of these behaviours and understanding
their importance in communicating attention, interest, and warmth is enough to help you make minor
adjustments.
6. I have a bland facial expression when I
talk to people.
7. I’m stiff when I talk to people.
8. I have a lot of vocal variety when I talk to
people.
9. I lean toward people when I talk to them.
10. I maintain eye contact with people when I
talk to them.
11. I smile when I talk to people.
12. I avoid touching people when I talk to them.
These 12 items are from a 26-item measure
developed by Virginia Richmond and her colleagues.
1. I use my hands and arms to gesture when
talking to people.
2. I use a monotone or dull voice while talking to people.
3. I avoid eye contact while talking to people.
4. I have a tense body position when talking
to people.
5. I’m animated when I talk to people.
Scores can range from 12 to 60. Men and women
differ in their self-evaluations using this measure,
with women perceiving themselves as engaging in
more non-verbal immediacy behaviours than men.
College-age women had an average score of 47,
with most scores between 42 and 52. College-age
men had an average score of 43, with most scores
between 38 and 49.
others (as we discussed in Chapter 3), as well as the
significance of non-verbal communication’s role in
influencing others.
Influencing Ourselves
Scholars have long known that non-verbal behaviour reflects how a person feels. If you’re happy, you
smile; if you’re depressed, you slump, but research
also shows the opposite can occur too. That is, if
SOURCE: Richmond, V.P., McCroskey, J.C., and Johnson,
A.D. (2003). Development of the Non-verbal Immediacy
Scale (NIS): Measure of self-and other-perceived non-verbal immediacy. Communication Quarterly, 51, 504–17.
Scoring:
Step 1. Reverse-score items 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 12
(i.e., 5 = 1, 4 = 2, 3 = 3, 2 = 4, and 1 = 5). Step 2.
After reverse scoring the six items in step 1, sum
the scores for all 12 items. This is your Non-verbal
Immediacy Score.
you change your non-verbal behaviour, it can
affect the way you feel. In essence, your body language influences your emotions. Examples of some
of these research findings are as follows:
• Adopting expansive poses such as hands on
hips or spreading out your arms can increase
your sense of power (Carney et al., 2010; Cuddy
et al., 2018) and tolerance for pain (Bohns and
Wiltermuth, 2012).
7 | Non-verbal Communication
• “Jumping for joy” is more than just an emotional reaction. The act of jumping up and down
actually triggers happiness (Shafir et al., 2013).
• Sitting up straight can improve your mood,
self-esteem, and even your memory (Michalak
et al., 2014; Nair et al., 2015).
• Smiling makes you feel happier (Chang et al.,
2013) and smiling for a selfie once a day can
improve your mood over time (Chen et al.,
2016).
This information has practical applications.
Amy Cuddy and her colleagues (2015) suggest that
prior to a job interview you can boost your confidence and create a more confident presence by discretely holding a power pose for a minute or two.
In fact, anytime you’re feeling nervous or low, performing the non-verbal cues of how you want to
feel can help you “fake it” until you “make it.” Keep
in mind, however, that displaying obviously “fake”
emotions (when facial expressions and internal
feelings do not match) can lead to negative evaluations by others (Hideg and Kleef, 2017).
Concealing/Deceiving
We may honour the truth, but many messages we
exchange are not completely truthful. Sometimes
we keep silent, sometimes we hedge, and sometimes we downright lie. As we discussed in detail
in Chapter 2, not all deception is self-­serving or
malicious: much of it is aimed at saving the face
of the communicators involved. For example, you
might pretend to have a good time at a family
celebration or work-related event, even though
you were feeling bored and preoccupied. In other
cases you might lie to save your own face and avoid
embarrassment (“I didn’t get that text”—when you
did). In situations like these and many others, it’s
easy to see how non-verbal factors can make the
face-saving deception either succeed or fail. When
verbal and non-verbal messages conflict, we tend
to believe the non-verbal. That’s why most people
monitor (and self-monitor) non-verbal cues such as
facial expressions, patterns of eye contact, posture,
vocal pitch, and rate when trying to detect or conceal deception.
Communication researchers Judee Burgoon
and Tim Levine (2010) reviewed the evidence
on deception detection and came up with three
findings that have been supported by research
over several decades. First, we’re accurate in
detecting deception only slightly more than half
of the time—which is only slightly better than
chance. Second, we overestimate our abilities to
detect others’ lies. We’re not as good at catching
deception as we think. Finally, we have a strong
tendency to judge others’ messages as truthful.
In other words, we want to believe that people
wouldn’t lie to us, which biases our ability to
detect deceit.
This evidence serves as a reminder that it’s
not easy to determine whether or not someone
is lying and singular non-verbal cues (e.g., lack
of eye contact) are not dead giveaways (Burgoon
et al., 2015). As one researcher put it, “There is no
unique telltale sign for a fib. Pinocchio’s nose just
doesn’t exist, and that makes liars difficult to spot”
(Lock, 2004, p. 72). Moreover, many popular prescriptions about liars’ non-verbal behaviours simply are not accurate (Guerrero and Floyd, 2006).
For instance, conventional wisdom suggests that
liars avert their gaze and fidget more than nonliars. Research, however, shows just the opposite:
liars often sustain more eye contact and fidget less,
in part, because they believe that to do otherwise
might appear deceitful (Mann et al., 2013). They
also make more eye contact to help them determine whether the other person believes the tales
they’re telling (Jundi et al., 2013).
Despite the challenges of detecting deception,
there are some non-verbal clues that may reveal it
(Ekman, 2009). For example, deceivers typically
make more speech errors (e.g., false starts, hesitations, stutters, stammers, etc.) than truth tellers.
Vocal pitch often rises when people tell lies and
liars pause longer before offering answers than
do truth-tellers (Sporer and Schwandt, 2007; Vrij
et al., 2000). Perhaps most significantly, because it’s
a physiological reaction and thus harder to control,
liars’ pupils tend to dilate because of the arousal
associated with telling lies (Vrij, 2006). That’s why
many professional poker players wear sunglasses
to hide what their eyes might reveal.
221
222
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
Similar to pupil dilation, the face sometimes
reveals a liar’s true feelings in brief unconscious
displays called micro-expressions (Yan et al.,
2013). Without being aware, liars may leak how
they genuinely feel though fleeting furrows of
the brow, pursing of the lips, or crinkling around
the eyes (Porter et al., 2012). Micro-expressions
are more common in what’s called “high stakes”
lying, such as when there are severe punishments for being caught (Ekman, 2009). Keep in
mind that slow-motion recordings and trained
professionals are often required to pick up these
micro-expressions.
The bottom line is that non-verbal cues can
offer information for detecting deception but
most lies aren’t detected through snap judgments
of a facial expression or shift in posture. Jumping to conclusions based on limited information
is unwise and it may lead to communication and
relational difficulties.
TAKE TWO
The following are five functions of non-verbal communication:
1. Creating and maintaining relationships
2. Regulating interaction
3. Influencing others
4. Influencing ourselves
5. Concealing or deceiving
Types of Non-verbal
­Communication
So far, we have talked about the role non-verbal
communication plays in our interpersonal relationships. Now, it’s time to look at the many types
of non-verbal communication.
Body Movement
A primary way we communicate non-verbally is
through the movement of our bodies: our posture, gestures, eye contact, facial expressions, and
so on. Social scientists use the term kinesics to
describe the study of how people communicate
through bodily movements (Afifi, 2017). We break
them down by category here, although these various features usually work in combination with
each other.
shirhan/iStockphoto
Face and Eyes
Not everyone’s nose grows when they’re being deceitful.
What are some ways we can detect deceit?
The face and eyes are probably the most noticeable
parts of the body, but the non-verbal messages they
send are not always the easiest to read. The face is
a tremendously complicated channel of expression
to interpret, for several reasons.
First, it’s hard to describe the number and kind
of expressions commonly produced by the face
and eyes. For example, researchers have found that
there are at least eight distinguishable positions of
the eyebrows and forehead, eight more of the eyes
and lids, and ten for the lower face (Ekman, 2003).
When you multiply this complexity by the n
­ umber
7 | Non-verbal Communication
thefinalmiracle/iStockphoto
of emotions we experience, you can see why it
would be almost impossible to compile a dictionary of facial expressions and their corresponding
emotions.
The significance of the face in interpersonal
communication can be seen in the many phrases
that allude to it. We talk about “saving face,” needing some “face time,” maintaining a “poker face,”
and “facing our fears.” That’s because, according to
Knapp and Hall (2010), the face may well be “the
primary source of communicative information
next to human speech” (p. 293).
A central component of facial expression is
eye behaviour. Oculesics is the study of how
the eyes can communicate. Gazes and glances
are usually signals of the looker’s interest. However, the type of interest can vary. Gazing can
be an indicator of liking (Schotter et al., 2010).
In other situations, eye contact indicates interest, but not attraction or approval, such as when
a teacher glares at a rowdy student or a police
officer “keeps an eye on” a suspect. Of course,
the meaning of eye contact is influenced by
culture. In many Asian, Indigenous Canadian,
and Caribbean cultures individuals avert their
gaze as a sign of respect. Some cultures perceive
prolonged eye contact as unpleasant and even
aggressive (Akechi et al., 2013).
In mainstream Canadian and US culture,
making eye contact is generally regarded favourably (Akechi et al., 2013). Those who look others
in the eye are perceived as intelligent (Murphy,
2007), and experts have found a strong correlation between eye contact and interpersonal closeness (Shellenbarger, 2013). Those same experts
have expressed concern about how mobile devices
interfere with eye contact. Research also suggests that overuse of technology can dull interpersonal perceptiveness. Preteens who took a
five-day break from their cellphones dramatically increased their ability to accurately interpret others’ non-verbal cues (Uhls et al., 2014). In
Chapters 8 and 10, we’ll have more to say about
technology and relationships, communication
climate, and conflict. For now it’s worth noting
that eye contact distractions can take a toll on
interpersonal communication.
223
The face and eyes are probably the most noticeable
parts of the body, but the non-verbal messages from
the face and eyes are not the easiest to read. What are
some of the reasons for this?
Posture and Gestures
To appreciate the communicative value of kinesics
messages, stop reading for a moment and notice
how you’re sitting. What does your position say
non-verbally about how you feel? Are there any
other people near you now? What messages do you
get from their present posture? By paying attention to the posture of those around you, as well as
to your own, you’ll find another channel of non-­
verbal communication that reveals how people feel
about themselves and others.
The English language reveals the deep links
between posture and communication. English is
full of expressions that tie emotional states with
body postures:
“I won’t take this lying down!”
“Stand on your own two feet.”
224
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
“That’s a weight off my back.”
“Don’t be so uptight!”
FangXiaNuo/iStockphoto
Phrases like these show an awareness of posture,
even if it is often unconscious. The main reason we
miss most posture messages is that they are usually
subtle. In daily life, people who feel weighed down
by a problem seldom hunch over dramatically. In
interpreting posture, then, the key is to look for small
changes that might be shadows of the way people feel.
Gestures are a fundamental element of communication—so fundamental, in fact, that even
people who have been blind from birth use them
(Bruce et al., 2007). Gestures are sometimes intentional—for example, a cheery wave or thumbs-up.
In other cases, however, they’re unconscious.
Occasionally, an unconscious gesture will consist
of an unambiguous emblem, such as a shrug that
clearly means “I don’t know.”
Gestures can produce a wide range of reactions in
receivers. In many situations, the right kinds of gestures can increase persuasiveness (Maricchiolo et al.,
2009). For instance, increasing hand and arm movements, leaning forward, fidgeting less, and keeping
one’s limbs open all make a speaker more effective
at influencing others. Even more interesting is the
finding that persuasiveness increases when one person mirrors another’s movements (Van Swol, 2003).
This is logical considering that non-verbal mirroring
(similar to language convergence discussed in Chapter 6) is a common way to express similarity and
affiliation with others (Kouzakova et al., 2010).
As with almost any non-verbal behaviour, the
context in which gestures occur makes all the
difference in the results they produce. Animated
movements that are well received in a co-operative
social setting may seem like signals of aggression
or attempts at domination in a more competitive
setting. Fidgeting that might suggest deviousness
in a bargaining session could be appropriate when
you offer a nervous apology in a personal situation.
In any case, trying to manufacture insincere, artificial gestures (or any other non-verbal behaviour)
will probably backfire. A more useful goal is to recognize the behaviour you find yourself spontaneously delivering and to consider how it expresses
the attitudes you already feel.
Touch
Social scientists use the term haptics to distinguish
the study of touching (Afifi, 2017). Interpersonal
touch is a powerful way to communicate our feelings and it plays an important role in our emotional
well-being (Gallace and Spence, 2010). Contemporary research confirms the value of touch for infants
(Feldman et al., 2010; Field, 2007).
In particular, studies have shown
the value of “kangaroo care” for
premature infants (Feldman et
al., 2014). This involves mothers
holding their underdeveloped
infants close to their skin for one
hour a day for two weeks. Compared to babies kept exclusively
in incubators, these infants had
stronger physiological and cognitive development, slept better, and had lower stress levels.
Moreover, the touch sessions
increased mothers’ bonds with
their babies and reduced their
anxiety, showing that touch is
important for both givers and
People who gesture appropriately often create impressions that differ from receivers. The effects on the
those of less expressive people. How expressive do you think you are?
children in this study were still
7 | Non-verbal Communication
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
NON-VERBAL IMITATION: THE SINCEREST FORM OF FLATTERY
The next time you’re at a social gathering, take a look
at the non-verbal behaviours of each group of conversationalists. Are most of them standing the same
way? Are their postures similar? What about their
facial expressions? It’s likely their non-­verbal displays
are similar, and that’s a positive sign, according to
researchers Ishabel Vicaria and Leah Dickens (2016).
They conducted a meta-analysis of data about interpersonal coordination—the tendency of social partners to imitate each other’s non-verbal mannerisms.
They analysed 50 different studies and found some
consistent conclusions.
Synchronizing non-verbal behaviours creates a
social bond. It happens with people we know and
love and also between strangers. Coordinating with
another’s non-verbal cues reflects and creates a
sense of affinity. It also reduces anxiety and enhan-
evident 10 years later. What this suggests is that
interpersonal touch meets a primal human need.
Some of the most pronounced benefits of touching occur in medicine and the health and helping
professions. For example, patients are more likely
to take their medications when physicians give a
slight touch when prescribing (Guéguen and Vion,
2009). Touch between therapists and clients has
the potential to encourage a variety of beneficial
­changes: more self-disclosure, client self-acceptance, and better client–therapist relationships
(Driscoll et al., 1998). Patients with dementia who
were given hand massages, along with intermittent
gentle touches on the arm and shoulder, decreased
their anxiety and dysfunctional behaviour (Kim
and Bushmann, 1999). In addition to being touched,
studies have found that touching soft things (e.g.,
soft grip pen, teddy bear) can reassure people in
times of uncertainty or social exclusion (Tai et al.,
2011; Van Horen and Mussweiler, 2014).
An additional power of touch is its on-the-job
utility. Studies show that in restaurants, a server’s
fleeting touch of their hand on the forearm of a
ces one’s mood. The researchers conclude that non-­
verbal coordination is the “social glue” that promotes
cohesion and harmonious feelings between people.
So watch for it the next time you’re at a family
event, out with friends, or at work. If your non-verbal
behaviours match what others are doing, it’s no accident. It may reflect how you feel about those people
and how they feel about you.
Critical thinking: Have you ever suddenly become
aware of how your non-verbal cues have morphed to
match the person or people you’re interacting with,
making you self-conscious? Conversely, have you ever
noticed when the non-verbal communication of someone in a group or gathering is not in sync? What factors
make it easier or more difficult for people to synchronize their non-verbal communication?
patron can result in larger tips (Guéguen and Jacob,
2005). And a patron whom a server touches on the
arm while suggesting an entrée choice is more likely
to choose that meal (Guéguen et al., 2007).
There is considerable variation around the
world in the amount of touch viewed as appropriate. For example, Saudi men often hold hands as a
sign of trust. Same-sex handholding is appropriate
in Saudi culture but might easily be misinterpreted
by North Americans. In contrast, Saudi men and
women do not touch each other in public (Feghali,
1997). Canada is regarded as a moderate touch
culture. Most Asian cultures are considered non-­
contact cultures, whereas many South and Central
American cultures, and southern European cultures, are viewed as contact cultures (Finnegan,
2005; Hall, 1963; McDaniel and Andersen, 1998).
Voice
Social scientists use the term paralanguage to
describe the way a message is spoken. Vocal rate,
pitch, tone, volume, accent, tempo or emphasis, and
225
226
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
meanings come from a single sentence just by shifting the emphasis from one word to another:
This is a fantastic communication book.
(Not just any book, but this one in particular.)
This is a fantastic communication book.
(This book is superior, exciting.)
This is a fantastic communication book.
(The book is good as far as the study of communication goes, but it may not be as great as a
work of literature.)
digitalskillet/iStockPhoto
This is a fantastic communication book.
(It’s not a play or a movie; it’s a book.)
Touch is a powerful form of communication. Next time
you touch or are touched by someone, think about how
the touch is part of the communication.
so on can give the same word or phrase many meanings. In essence, paralanguage is not so much about
what you say, as how you say it. It adds a considerable
amount of information to our utterances, ­helping us
to convey our emotions and intentions, and understand those of others. For example, note how many
TAKE TWO
• Kinesics: the study of how people communicate
through body movements.
• Oculesics: the study of how the eyes communicate
• Haptics: the study of touching
Along with tone, speed, pitch, and volume,
paralanguage includes pauses. Silent or unintentional pauses are those times when people stop to
collect their thoughts before deciding how to best
continue. It’s no surprise that liars tend to have
more of these than truth tellers, as they often make
up their stories on the fly (Guerrero and Floyd,
2006). When people pause at length after being
asked a delicate question (“Did you like the gift I
bought you?”), it might mean they’re buying time
to come up with a face-saving—and perhaps less
than honest—response. A second type of pause is
a vocalized paused. These range from disfluencies
such as uh, um, and er to filler words and phrases
such as “like,” “okay,” and “ya know.” The effect of
paralinguistic cues is strong. Preschool children
tend to give more weight to the language or content
of messages but as they grow and develop so does
their increased reliance on non-verbal information
to infer speakers’ emotions, attitudes, and intentions (Gillis and Nilsen, 2017). In fact, by the time
children reach the age of 10 years old they rely on the
paralinguistic features of a message more than the
content to identify speakers’ intent (Friend, 2000),
as do adults (Burns and Beier, 1973). Even when
vocal factors contradict a verbal message (as when
a speaker shouts, “I am not angry!”), adolescent and
adult listeners tend to judge the speaker’s intention
from the paralanguage, not the words themselves
(Mehrabian and Weiner, 1967). Vocal changes that
contradict spoken words are not easy to conceal. If
the speaker is trying to hide fear or anger, the voice
7 | Non-verbal Communication
will probably sound higher and louder, and the rate
of talk may be faster than normal. Sadness produces
the opposite vocal pattern: quieter, lower-pitched
speech delivered at a slower rate (Ekman, 1985).
We tend to have greater affinity for people whose
paralanguage is similar to our own. Like the convergence of language patterns we discussed in Chapter
6, people tend to adopt the vocal patterns of their
co-cultural peers (Ting-Toomey, 2017). When we
judge a speaker’s speech rate as similar to our own
we perceive them as more competent and socially
attractive than when the rate is different (Feldstein
et al., 2001). In addition, people are more likely to
comply with requests from speakers whose speech
rates are similar to their own (Buller and Aune,
1988, 1992). Similarly, children prefer playmates
who have similar speech styles (Kinzler et al., 2009).
Sarcasm is one approach in which we use both
emphasis and tone of voice to change the meaning
of a statement to the opposite of its verbal message
(Rockwell, 2007b). Experience this reversal yourself with the following three statements. First say
them without additional emphasis, and then say
them sarcastically.
“You look terrific!”
“I really had a wonderful time on my blind date.”
“There’s nothing I like better than calves’ brains
on toast.”
As with other non-verbal messages, people
often ignore or misinterpret the vocal nuances of
sarcasm. Members of certain groups—children,
people with weak intellectual skills, poor listeners, and people who have communication apprehension and people with certain forms of brain
damage—are more likely to misunderstand sarcastic messages than are others (Rockwell, 2007a;
Shamay et al., 2002). Research has revealed that
children interpret mixed messages in ways very
different from adults (Morton and Trehub, 2001).
When youngsters aged four to eight were presented
with positive statements (such as “Dad gave me a
new bike for my birthday”) delivered in a sad tone
of voice, they gauged the speaker as happy because
they paid attention to the words rather than the
vocal cues. When a negative statement was read in
an upbeat tone, children interpreted the message as
negative—again, relying more on the content than
the paralanguage. There was a direct r­elationship
between age and sensitivity to non-verbal cues,
with the youngest children relying most heavily on
the words spoken. This study helps us appreciate the
often taken-for-granted importance of non-verbal
cues. It also serves as a reminder that communication with children may require different approaches
than those that work with adults. In some cases,
you will want to give clues that your words should
not be taken literally. One way to do this in written
mediated communication is with emoji (Thompson and Filik, 2016), or shorthand such as “jk” or
“haha.” In face-to-face conversations, sometimes
you need to clarify: “Sorry, I was being sarcastic—
maybe I should have just said, I don’t like it when
you tease me in front of my friends.”
We use vocal cues to express the relational dimension of our messages. For instance, as adults we can
lower the pitch of our voices to establish power and
authority (Cheng at el., 2016). It is important to
pay attention to the paralinguistic messages you’re
sending. When first-year medical students watched
videos of themselves and rated their doctor–patient
communication, some of the primary shortcomings
they noticed had to do with their paralanguage—
particular tone, rate of speech, volume, and disfluencies (Zick et al., 2007). Disfluencies such as vocalized
pauses (including “um,” “er,” “okay,” etc.) reduce a
speaker’s perceived credibility (Davis et al., 2006).
Pause for a moment and take a self-inventory.
What feedback have you received about your paralanguage? Do people ask you to speak up or quiet down?
Are you a fast or slow talker? Does your vocal pitch
signal confidence? Is you speech filled with “ums”
and ‘likes” and “ya knows”? Do loved ones sometimes react to your tone of voice, or critique not what
you say but how you say it? Apart from the qualities
that result from your particular vocal cords, most
features of paralanguage are changeable. With a bit of
self-monitoring, you have the ability to shift the way
you talk to assist your interpersonal communication.
Distance
Proxemics is the study of how communication is
affected by the use, organization, and perception of
227
228
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
TAKE TWO
• Paralanguage: the way a message is spoken.
The speaker’s mode of delivery is governed by
vocal rate, pitch, tone, volume, pauses (both
silent and verbal), and disfluencies.
• Disfluencies: non-linguistic verbalizations such
as stammering, use of um, er, uh, etc.
space and distance (Afifi, 2017). Each of us carries
around a sort of invisible bubble of personal space
wherever we go. We think of the area inside this
bubble as our own—almost as much a part of us as
our own bodies. Our personal bubbles vary in size
according to the culture in which we were raised,
the person we’re with, the situation, our age, and our
gender (Sorokowska et al., 2017). The varying size of
our personal space—the distance we put between
ourselves and others—gives a non-verbal clue to our
feelings (Horan and Booth-Butterfield, 2013).
In a classic study (Crane et al., 1987), researchers tested more than 100 married couples, asking
partners to walk toward one another and stop
when they reached a “comfortable conversational
distance.” Then, they gave each partner a battery of
tests to measure their marital intimacy, desire for
change, and potential for divorce. The researchers
discovered that there was a strong relationship
between distance and marital happiness. The average space between distressed couples was about 25
per cent greater than that between satisfied partners. On average, the happy couples stood 28.5
centimetres apart, while the distance between
unhappy spouses averaged 37 centimetres.
Preferred spaces are largely a matter of cultural norms (Beaulieu, 2004; Høgh-Olesen,
2008). For example, most North Americans stand
closer to each other when talking than do most
Asians (Anderson and Wand, 2009). Interestingly, the influence of culture on proxemic behaviour even extends to online communication. In
­avatar ­interactions, Asian dyads maintain larger
­distances than European dyads, consistent with
what occurs in face-to-face interactions (Hasler
and Friedman, 2012).
Looking at the distances that North American
communicators use in everyday interaction, pioneering researcher Edward Hall found four special
distances, each of which reflects a different way we
feel about others at a given time. More recently, a
large group of researchers representing 42 countries reaffirmed Hall’s research findings and found
considerable variation in people’s preferences
across various countries (Sorokowska et al., 2017).
By “reading” which distance
people select, we can get some
insight into their feelings.
TakakoWatanabe/iStockphoto
Intimate Distance
Think about personal space the next time you’re comfortable being close to
another person, or uncomfortable being close to another. How far apart are
you in those interactions?
The first of Hall’s four zones,
intimate distance, begins with
skin contact. We usually use
this intimate distance with
people who are emotionally
close to us, and then mostly
in private situations—making
love, caressing, comforting,
protecting. By allowing people
to move into our intimate distance, we let them enter our
personal space. When we let
them in voluntarily, it’s usually
a sign of trust: we have willingly
7 | Non-verbal Communication
lowered our defences. On the other hand, when
someone invades this most personal area without
our consent, we usually feel threatened.
Personal Distance
The second spatial zone, personal distance, ranges
from 45 centimetres at its closest point to 1.2
metres at its farthest. The closer end of the range is
the distance most couples stand from one another
in public. If, at a party, a third person were to
venture that close, the couple is likely to become
alert. This “moving in” is often taken to mean that
something more than casual conversation is taking
place. The far end of the personal distance range
(from roughly 0.75 metres to 1.2 metres) is the area
just beyond a person’s reach. As Hall puts it, at this
distance, we can keep someone “at arm’s length.”
His choice of words suggests the type of communication that goes on at this range: the contacts are
still reasonably close, but they’re much less personal than the ones that occur 30 centimetres or
so closer.
Social Distance
The third zone is social distance. It ranges from
1.2 metres to about 3 metres at the outside. Within
this zone, the distance between communicators
can have a powerful effect on how we regard and
respond to others. For example, students are more
satisfied with teachers who reduce (at appropriate
levels, of course) the distance between themselves
and their classes. They are also more satisfied with
the course itself and are more likely to follow the
teacher’s instructions (Hackman and Walker,
1990). Likewise, medical patients are more satisfied with doctors who use close physical proximity to convey warmth and concern (Grant et al.,
2000). However, people with high social anxiety
are likely to keep social distance at the far reaches
to reduce their discomfort with strangers (Perry
et al., 2013).
Public Distance
Public distance is Hall’s term for the farthest
zone, extending outward from 3 metres. The
closer range of public distance is the one that
most ­teachers use in the classroom. In the farther reaches of public space—7.5 metres and
beyond—two-way communication is almost
impossible. Sometimes, speakers must use public distance to reach a large audience, but we can
assume that anyone who chooses to use it when
more closeness is possible is not interested in a
dialogue.
When our spatial bubble is invaded, we usually
experience stress and respond with barrier
behaviours: strategies designed to create a barrier (or fix a broken one) between ourselves and
other people (Evans and Wener, 2007). Invade
someone’s personal space and notice the reaction.
At first, the person is most likely to simply back
away, probably without realizing what is happening. Next, your partner might attempt to put an
object between you, such as a desk, a chair, or
some books clutched to the chest, all in an effort
to get some separation. Then, the other person
will probably decrease eye contact (the “elevator
syndrome,” in which we can crowd in and even
touch one another so long as we avoid eye contact). Your reluctant partner might sneeze, cough,
scratch, and exhibit various gestures to discourage
your anti-social behaviour. The label “anti-social”
suggests you should think twice before running
experiments like this. The goal here is to describe
the lengths people will go to to protect their personal space—and how most of their defense signals are non-verbal.
Territoriality
While personal space is the invisible bubble we
carry around, territory is a stationary area we
claim (Hidalgo and Hernandez, 2001).
Robert Sommer (1969) watched students in a
college library and found that there is a definite
pattern for people who want to study alone. When
the library was not crowded, students almost
always chose corner seats at one of the empty
rectangular tables. After each table was occupied
by one reader, new readers would choose a seat
on the opposite side and at the far end, thus keeping the maximum distance between themselves
and the other readers. One of Sommer’s ­associates
229
230
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
tried breaking these “rules” by sitting next to and
across from other female readers even though
distant seats were available. She found that the
women reacted defensively, signalling their discomfort through shifts in posture, by gesturing,
or by moving away.
Consider how you would react if someone took
“your” seat in one of your classes. Even though
the chair isn’t your possession, you probably have
some sense of ownership about it (Kaya and Burgess, 2007). How you respond to such a manoeuvre
depends on who enters and uses your territory (a
friend is less threatening than a stranger); why
they enter or use it (for instance, a “mistake” is less
important than a “planned attack”); what territory is entered or used (you may care more about
a territory over which you have exclusive rights,
such as your bedroom, than about a territory in a
public area, such as your seat in class). Generally,
we grant people with higher status more personal
territory and greater privacy. We knock before
entering our supervisor’s office, whereas the supervisor can usually walk into our work area without
hesitating.
Time
Social scientists use the term chronemics to
describe the study of how humans use and structure time. The use of time depends greatly on
culture. Some cultures tend to be monochronic,
emphasizing punctuality, schedules, and completing tasks on time (Flaskerud, 2013). Examples of
monochromic cultures would be German, Swiss,
and mainstream Canadian and US cultures. In
contrast, other cultures are more polychronic,
with flexible schedules in which multiple tasks are
pursued at the same time. Many Indigenous Canadian cultures take this approach (Stonefish and
Kwantes, 2017) as do numerous South American,
Mediterranean, Caribbean, and Arab cultures
(Arman and Adir, 2012). One psychologist discovered the difference between North and South
American attitudes when he was teaching at a
university in Brazil (Levine, 1988). He found that
some students arrived halfway through a two-hour
class and that most of them stayed and kept a­ sking
TAKE TWO
• Personal space: the invisible bubble of space we
consider as our own; it varies in size according
to the person we’re with, the culture in which we
were raised, and the situation at hand.
• Intimate distance: the first of Hall’s spatial distances, skin contact to about 45 centimetres.
• Personal distance: the second of Hall’s spatial
distances, 45 centimetres to 1.2 metres.
• Social distance: the third of Hall’s spatial
­distances, 1.2 to 3 metres.
• Public distance: the fourth of Hall’s spatial distances, 7.5 metres and beyond.
• Barrier behaviours: strategies to create or fix
a barrier between ourselves and other people
(e.g., avoiding eye contact).
• Territory: a stationary space claimed by a person or animal.
questions when the class was scheduled to end.
Half an hour after the official end of the period, the
professor finally closed off discussion, since there
was no indication that the students intended to
leave. This flexibility of time is quite different from
what is common in most North American colleges
and universities.
Even within a culture, rules of time vary.
Consider your own experience. In school, some
instructors begin and end class punctually, while
others are more casual. With some people, you feel
comfortable talking for hours in person or on the
phone, while with others, time seems precious and
not to be “wasted.”
Time can be a marker not only of status and
culture but also of relationships. Research shows
that the amount of time spent with a relational
partner sends important messages about valuing
that person (Andersen et al., 2006). In one study
analyzing 20 non-verbal behaviours, “spending
time together” was the most powerful predictor of
both relational satisfaction and perceived interpersonal understanding (Egland et al., 1997). And, as
we’ll discuss in Chapter 11, spending time with a
partner is one of love’s languages.
7 | Non-verbal Communication
CHECK IT!
Chronemics: the study of how people use and
structure time.
Monochronic: an approach to the management of
time that emphasizes punctuality, schedules, and
completing one task at a time.
Polychronic: an approach to the management of
time that emphasizes flexibility of schedules and
pursuing multiple tasks at the same time.
Physical Attractiveness
The importance of beauty has been emphasized in
the arts for centuries. More recently, social scientists
have begun to measure the degree to which physical
attractiveness affects interaction between people
(Lemay et al., 2010; Lorenzo et al., 2010). Findings,
summarized by Knapp and Hall (2013), indicate that
women who are perceived as attractive have more
dates, receive higher grades in college (or university),
persuade men with greater ease, and receive lighter
court sentences. Both men and women whom others
view as attractive are rated as being more sensitive,
kind, strong, sociable, and interesting than people
who conform less with what is deemed physically
attractive (Knapp and Hall, 2010).
Recall, from Chapter 3, that our first impressions and the judgments we make about others are
heavily influenced by attractiveness stereotypes
(the halo effect). Often people unknowingly judge
what is beautiful as what is good (Lemay et al.,
2010). For instance, more than 200 managers in a
Newsweek survey admitted that attractive people
get preferential treatment both in hiring decisions
and on the job (Bennett, 2010). People rated as
better looking get better grades and higher wages
(Gordon et al., 2013; Rhode, 2010). Professors perceived as “hot” are judged as having more expertise; students are more motivated to learn from
them and give them higher teaching evaluations
(Liu et al., 2013). The beauty bias even exerts itself
in the legal system and our political judgments and
affiliations (Peterson and Palmer, 2017; Rhodes,
2010). The pervasiveness of what some scholars
have dubbed “lookism” is widespread and does us
all a disservice as do all prejudices (Gordon, 2013).
Occasionally, beauty has negative effects. Interviewers may turn down highly attractive candidates if they are perceived as threats (Agthe et al.,
2011). While good looks generally get rewarded,
glamorous beauty can be intimidating (Frevet
and Walker, 2014). There is evidence that physically attractive people have trouble maintaining
their romantic relationships, perhaps because they
have high expectations for how they’ll be treated
by their partners (Ma-Kellams et al., 2017). On
the whole, however, the interpersonal benefits of
attractiveness far outweigh the downsides.
Fortunately, attractiveness is something we can
control without having to call the plastic surgeon.
Evidence suggests that as we get to know people
and like them, we start to regard them as better
looking (Albada et al., 2002). Even brief interactions with others can increase our perceptions
of their attractiveness (Hall and Compton, 2017).
Moreover, we view others as beautiful or ugly, not
just on the basis of the “original equipment” they
come with, but also on how they use that equipment. Posture, gestures, facial expressions, and
other behaviours can increase the attractiveness
of a seemingly unremarkable person. Finally, our
style of dress can make a significant difference in
the way others perceive us, as we discuss next.
Clothing
Besides protecting us from the elements, clothing is
a tool of non-verbal communication. Clothing
conveys a variety of messages to others (Howlett
et al., 2013), including the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
economic level;
educational level;
trustworthiness;
social position;
level of sophistication;
economic background;
social background;
educational background;
level of success; and
moral character.
231
232
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
Dressing more formally—whether in a business
suit, lab coat, or uniform—tends to enhance perceptions of credibility and expertise. Canadians
prefer their doctors to wear formal attire (defined
as blouse, skirt, or pants for women and collared
shirt and tie and slacks for men) and a lab coat,
rather than scrubs or casual attire, particularly on
first encounter (Petrilli et al., 2015). Preferences
for physicians’ attire vary around the world and
influence patients’ perceptions of knowledge, competence, trustworthiness, professionalism, and
approachability. Students regard guest lecturers
who dress up for their presentations as more credible (Dunbar and Segrin, 2012). However, formal
clothing can also create interpersonal distance.
One study (Sebastian and Bristow, 2008) found
students attribute more expertise to professors who
dress up, but they also rank those professors lower
in likeability than casually dressed professors.
Judgments based on what a person wears, like
other perceptions, need to be made carefully. For
example, some people judge the hijab, a head covering or scarf worn by some Muslim women, as a
symbol of patriarchal, anti-feminist, male oppression. In contrast, Canadian-Muslim women who
wear the hijab have explained that they see it as
helping them define their identity and religiosity,
demonstrate modesty, and resist sexual objectification (Bhowon, 2016; Litchmore and Safdar,
2016). The choice of whether or not to wear the
hijab is influenced by both the internal and external experiences of each woman and is their personal choice. Similarly, investigations into the
motivations and responses to Canadian-Muslim
women who wear the niqab or burka (complete
body, hair, and face covering in which only the
eyes are visible) revealed highly personal reasons
for this choice including commitment to deeper
religious development, helping them express their
Muslim identity, and freedom from the pressures
of women’s fashion (Clarke, 2013). Perhaps surprisingly to those who judge such coverings as
oppressive, very few of the women interviewed in
these studies felt pressure by men to wear these
garments. In fact, several of the women interviewed who wore the niqab explained that the
choice to do so was theirs alone and they faced
spousal opposition to their choice (Clarke, 2013).
Finally, there is fascinating research regarding
the effects of wearing designer knock-off clothing
and accessories. Students who believed they were
wearing counterfeit sunglasses were more likely to
behave unethically than their peers who believed
they were wearing authentic designer apparel.
Also, those who believed they were ­
wearing
designer knock-off goods were more cynical in
their perception of others (Gino et al., 2010). Like
all our perceptions based on appearances, judgments of others based on their clothing choices
need to be made carefully and put into the larger
context of what we know about the subjectivity
and biases inherent in human ­perception.
© Zoe Waelchli
Physical Environment
Look at what you’re wearing and how you’re sitting right
now. What do your clothing and body language communicate about yourself?
We conclude our discussion of non-verbal communication by examining how physical settings,
architecture, and interior design affect communication. Physical environments can shape
the kinds of interactions that take place in them.
For example, a study of 10 neighbourhoods examined the sidewalks, front porches, traffic-calming
devices (e.g., speed humps, roundabouts), bars on
windows and presence of litter or graffiti. Neighbourliness was significantly higher in places with
more positive physical environments. In grittier
7 | Non-verbal Communication
REFLECTION
HEAD SCARVES
Carlosphotos/iStockphoto
I consider myself to be an independent, liberated,
Western woman with a fundamental belief in my
equality with men. Attending university, I met several Muslim women who wore head scarves. I had
always seen the head scarf as a sign of the male subjugation of women. I had this stereotype of demure,
soft-spoken, obliging women, sort of like the “ideal”
1950s housewife, but from a different culture. As I
got to know these Muslim women, my perception (or
bias) seemed really wrong! I observed these women
to be outspoken, articulate, independent-minded
individuals. They spoke up in class, challenged their
peers’ ideas (both male and female), and clearly
had a strong sense of their worth. They told me that
rather than being a symbol of subservience to men,
the head scarf served as a guard against the eyes
of men and freed them from being “sexual objects.”
For me, this was a whole new way of interpreting the
meaning of the head scarf.
locales, people were less likely to have positive
interactions in their communities (Wilkerson et
al., 2012). In less hospitable neighbourhoods, adding green space and just keeping them clean, well
lit, and graffiti-free can help to promote less littering, graffiti, and crime and can support more
positive interactions. Kuo and Sullivan (2001)
found that residents of inner-city public housing
who lived in relatively barren buildings reported
more mental fatigue, aggression, and violence
than their counterparts in buildings with nearby
grass and trees. Similarly, researchers (Keizer
et al., 2008) have found that in environments that
contain graffiti, are strewn with litter, and have an
abundance of unreturned shopping carts, people
are more likely to similarly violate norms or social
rules governing public spaces (e.g., they too litter,
vandalize, or fail to return their shopping carts).
In contrast, exposure to natural environments has
been found to be associated with increased generosity and caring for others (Weinstein et al., 2009)
Interior design, lighting, choice of furnishings,
and decorations also affect the way people feel
and interact. Most of us have spent time in what
Knapp and Hall (2013) call “unliving rooms,”
where the spotless floors, pristine and uncomfortable furniture, and delicate furnishings and
decorations send non-verbal messages telling us
not to touch anything, to be very careful, and
not to be relaxed and comfortable. Students who
were interviewed in a room with dim lighting were
more relaxed, had a more favourable impression
of the interviewer, and were more self-disclosing
than those exposed to bright lighting (Miwa and
Hanyu, 2006). Clients who received counselling
in a comfortably furnished office with upholstered
chairs, curtains, a throw rug, and plants felt more
welcome and expected better results than those
who were treated in a sparsely furnished office
with bright lighting (Nasar and Devlin, 2011).
Along with shaping communication, the
physical environment can reflect the relationships
of the people who create them. Consider the shared
space of a couple. Do they display photographs of
themselves together? Do souvenirs remind them of
special times? Partners who create environments
that chronicle and celebrate their relationships
233
234
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
BUILDING WORK SKILLS
CULTURAL VALUES AT WORK
An important beginning strategy to communicate more effectively at work is being aware of your workplace
values and behaviour, and how they’re influenced by your culture.
Take a moment to assess your workplace or your school environment in terms of some of the types of
non-verbal communication discussed in this chapter. Pay particular attention to touch, proxemics and territoriality, time, clothing, and physical environment. Describe your workplace in terms of these elements, and then
identify the values communicated. Here are some questions to get your started:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Who initiates touch? Who touches whom?
Who gets the most territory? Who gets the least? Who gets the window?
Do some people prefer greater or less social distance? Who? How do you know?
How important is punctuality? Can some people keep others waiting with impunity?
What do people wear? Are there differences?
Is the physical environment clean? Are some places cleaner than others? Is the space well designed for
the work to be done? Are some places better than others?
report feeling closer to one another, having better
functioning relationships, and having higher levels
of commitment (Arriaga et al., 2008).
Environmental influences can even shape perceptions and communication in virtual space. For
example, people who meet online in a formal virtual setting, such as a library, communicate more
formally than those who meet in a casual virtual
cafe (Pena and Blackburn, 2013).
You might want to keep these concepts in mind
when you’re designing or decorating the spaces
in which you live, study, and work. Your physical
environment—real or virtual—can affect your
interpersonal communication.
CHECK IT!
List the 10 types of non-verbal communication
and provide an example of each.
SUMMARY
Non-verbal communication consists of messages
expressed by non-linguistic means. It is pervasive;
in fact, non-verbal messages are always available
as a source of information about others. Often what
we do conveys more meaning than what we say,
and non-verbal behaviour shapes perception. Most
non-verbal behaviour conveys messages about
relational attitudes and feelings, in contrast to verbal statements, which are better suited to expressing ideas. Messages that are c­ommunicated
non-verbally are usually more ambiguous than verbal communication. Contrary to what some might
think, non-verbal cues also play a role in mediated
communication. Non-verbal communication is also
affected by culture and gender.
Non-verbal communication serves many functions. It can help create and maintain relationships. It also serves to regulate interactions,
influence others and influence yourself. In addition,
non-verbal communication can be used to conceal
7 | Non-verbal Communication
or reveal deception. When people are presented
with conflicting verbal and non-verbal messages,
they’re more likely to rely on the non-verbal ones.
Non-verbal messages can be communicated in a
variety of ways—through body movement (­ including
the face and eyes, gestures, and posture), touch,
voice, distance, territory, time, physical appearance, clothing, and environment. Culture plays a
significant role in determining the rules and meanings for each of these factors.
MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
1.
Which of the following statements is not true
about non-verbal communication?
5.
a. It’s best defined as communication without words.
b. It’s a message expressed by non-­linguistic
means.
c. It can be expressed vocally.
d. It’s influenced by culture and gender.
a. are non-verbal regulators.
b. are used to indicate a speaker is finished
talking.
c. are used to help control verbal interaction.
d. are all of the above.
6.
2.
When comparing verbal and non-verbal communication scholars suggest non-verbal
­communication is
a.
b.
c.
d.
3.
rooted in biology.
mostly voluntary and conscious.
single channel.
usually content oriented.
The difficulty we have expressing ideas and
opinions, such as “I think there should be
free speech restrictions” via non-verbal communication illustrates the idea that
a. non-verbal communication is ambiguous.
b. non-verbal communication is influenced
by culture and gender.
c. non-verbal communication is always
occurring.
d. non-verbal communication is primarily
relational.
4.
Emblems
a. describe the way a message is spoken.
b. are culturally understood substitutes for
verbal expressions.
c. are cues that control verbal interaction.
d. all of the above are true about emblems.
Changes in vocal intonation, a drawl on the last
syllable, and a drop in vocal pitch or loudness
Hamid dislikes public speaking. Just before
he enters the room to give his presentation
he takes a minute and puts his hands on his
hips, stands up straight, and takes a deep
breath. Hamid’s behaviour is an example of
how non-verbal communication
a.
b.
c.
d.
7.
helps us create relationships.
helps us regulate social interaction.
influences our own feelings.
helps us conceal our true emotions.
Paralanguage refers to
a. the way body movements communicate.
b the way our use of space and distance
communicate.
c. the way a message is spoken.
d. the way the eyes communicate.
8.
The influence of physical attractiveness on
human perception
a. is primarily limited to dating websites.
b. has few if any negative effects.
c. is a recent phenomenon due to the
increased ease and availability of photo
manipulation.
d. is similar to other types of prejudice such
as racism and sexism.
235
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
9.
Hans feels frustrated when his colleagues
routinely show up to meetings late and, as
a result, meetings start late and go over the
allotted time. He perceives his colleagues
as unprofessional and disrespectful. Hans’s
time orientation is probably
a.
b.
c.
d.
monochronic.
chronemic.
polychronic.
latinate.
10. Dressing more formally
a. tends to enhance perceptions of credibility and expertise.
b. tends to increase perceptions of trustworthiness.
c. tends to create interpersonal distance.
d. tends to do all of the above.
Answers: 1. a; 2. a; 3. d; 4. b; 5. d; 6. c; 7. c; 8. d; 9. a; 10. d
236
ACTIVITIES
1. Invitation to Insight
Demonstrate for yourself that it’s impossible to
avoid communicating non-verbally by trying not to
communicate with a friend or family member. (You
be the judge of whether to tell the other person
about this experiment beforehand.) See how long
it takes for your partner to ask what you are doing
and to report what they think you might be thinking
and feeling.
2. Critical Thinking Probe
Interview someone from a culture different from
your own, and learn at least three ways in which
non-verbal codes differ from those of the place
where you were raised. Together, develop a list
of ways you could break unstated, but important,
rules about non-verbal behaviour in your partner’s
culture in three of the following areas:
• eye contact
• posture
• gesture
• facial expression
• distance
• voice
• touch
• time
• clothing
• physical environment
• territory
Describe how a failure to recognize different cultural codes could lead to misunderstandings,
frustrations, and dissatisfaction. Discuss how an
awareness of cultural rules can be developed in an
increasingly multicultural world.
3. Skill Builder
Sharpen your ability to distinguish between observing and interpreting non-verbal behaviour by following these directions:
a. Sit or stand opposite a partner at a comfortable distance. For a one-minute period, report
your observations of the other person’s behaviour by repeatedly completing the statement,
“Now I see ______ (non-verbal behaviour).”
For example, you might report, “Now I see
you blinking your eyes. Now I see you looking
down at the floor. Now I see you fidgeting with
your hands.” Notice that no matter what your
partner does, you have an unending number of
non-verbal behaviours to observe.
b. For a second one-minute period, complete
the sentence “Now I see ______ (non-verbal
behaviour), and I think ______,” filling in the
blank with your interpretation of the other
7 | Non-verbal Communication
c.
­erson’s non-verbal behaviour. For instance,
p
you might say, “Now I see you look away, and
I think you’re nervous about looking me in the
eye. Now I see you smiling and I think you’re
agreeing with my interpretation.” Notice that
by clearly labelling your interpretation, you give
the other person a chance to correct any mistaken hunches.
Repeat the first two steps, changing roles with
your partner.
4. Invitation to Insight
In a public place, unobtrusively record field notes
describing non-verbal messages you observe. For
each observation, record at least two assumptions about the significance of the behaviour in
question.
5. Invitation to Insight
Explore your territoriality by listing the spaces you
feel you “own,” such as parts of the place you live
in, or a seat in a particular classroom. Describe
how you feel when your territory is invaded and
identify things you do to “mark” it.
6. Role Play
This role play allows you to become more aware
of your non-verbal behaviour and then gives you
an opportunity to pay attention to all the facets of
non-verbal communication by observing and copying someone else.
a. Think of an important message you need to
deliver to someone significant (e.g., declining
an invitation, asking for something the person
may be unwilling to give). If you can’t think of
anything currently, think of a message you had
to deliver in the past.
b. Deliver the message to your partner and ask
them to copy all your non-verbal actions (except
paralanguage) while you’re giving the message —as though you’re looking into a mirror.
When you’re finished, discuss what you and your
partner noticed about your non-verbal message.
c. Next, reverse roles. Have your partner deliver
the message and you copy their behaviour. Be
sure to pay attention to as many facets as possible (e.g., face and eyes, posture and body
movement, touch, gestures). Again, discuss
your observations.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1.
Describe similarities and differences between
verbal and non-verbal communication.
2.
Why do you think non-verbal communication
has so much influence on human perception? Why do we value it more than verbal
communication when we’re evaluating the
relational content of messages? What are the
limitations of non-verbal communication in
this regard?
3.
Describe nine types of non-verbal behaviour
and rate the significance of each in your communication with others.
4.
The research evidence regarding the power of
physical attractiveness over human perception is disconcerting. What can we do to overcome our biases (both positive and negative)
in this area? Do you think it’s fair to characterize our perceptual biases related to physical
appearance as a prejudice similar to racism
or sexism? Why or why not?
5.
Non-verbal communication is ambiguous and
often unconscious. It’s highly influenced by
culture. How do you think these characteristics in particular contribute to the development and perpetuation of bias?
237
238
PART TWO: Creating and Responding to Messages
JOURNAL IDEAS
1.
Pay attention to the types of non-verbal
communication that you notice most in
others. What kinds of things do you tend to
notice? Why do you think that is? Are these
observations helpful? Are there other types
of non-verbal communication that you overlook? Would it be helpful to pay more attention to these areas? Why or why not?
2.
Keep a one-day log of significant ­non-verbal
communication (both face-to-face and mediated) in one of your important ­relationships.
For each entry, note (a) whether the behaviour was deliberate or unintentional; (b) the
relational messages that seem to have
been exchanged; (c) the degree of ambiguity
about the meaning of the behaviour; and (d)
gender and cultural factors that may have
shaped the non-verbal communication.
PART THREE
Dimensions of Interpersonal
Relationships
Teamjackson/iStockphoto
bbernard/Shutterstock
8
Dynamics of Interpersonal
Relationships
CHAPTER OUTLINE
Why We Form Relationships
Appearance
Similarity
Complementarity
Rewards
Competence
Proximity
Disclosure
Intimacy and Distance in Relationships
Forms of Intimacy
Forms of Distance
The Influence of Culture and Gender on Intimacy
and Distance
Models of Relational Dynamics
Stages of Relational Development
Dialectical Tensions in Relationships
Characteristics of Relational Development
Communicating about Relationships
Content and Relational Messages
Maintaining and Supporting Relationships
Repairing Damaged Relationships
KEY TERMS
avoiding
bonding
circumscribing
comparison level (CL)
comparison level of alternatives (CL alt)
dialectical tensions
differentiating
experimenting
expression–privacy dialectic
initiating
integrating
integration–separation dialectic
intensifying
intimacy
metacommunication
relational maintenance
relational transgressions
social exchange theory
social support
stability–change dialectic
stagnating
terminating
LEARNING OUTCOMES
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:
•
•
•
•
Describe the various reasons for entering into interpersonal relationships
Analyze the stages typically experienced in relationships and identify factors that might affect this
sequence
Identify the dialectical tensions that influence your communication goals, the strategies you use to
manage these tensions, and alternative strategies you might consider using
Describe what communicators must consider in order to maintain, and improve their interpersonal
relationships
242
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
We are like islands in the sea, separate on the
surface but connected in the deep.
—William James
There is no question that personal relationships
matter. The development and maintenance of
stable and satisfying interpersonal relationships
is fundamental to human motivation, health, and
well-being (Baumeister and Leary, 1995; Campos and Kim, 2016; Yang et al., 2016). Our interconnectedness to others affects our biology, our
physical health and survival, and our emotional
health and well-being. It’s no surprise that interpersonal relationships are a big part of what make
our lives meaningful (Baumeister et al., 2013). Yet,
while interpersonal relationships are essential and
contribute to our happiness and the meaningfulness of our lives, they also cause stress (O’Donnell
et al., 2014)
In this chapter, we introduce some of the
dynamics that characterize interpersonal relationships and the communication that occurs within
them. After reading the chapter, you’ll see that relationships are neither fixed nor unchanging. Rather,
they can, and often do, change over time. In other
words, a relationship is more a process than a thing.
We look at why we form relationships, the dynamics of those relationships, and how to manage them.
In Chapter 11, the companion to this chapter, we’ll
extend our discussion by focusing on specific relational contexts: close relationships with friends,
family members, and romantic partners.
Why We Form Relationships
Claudiad/iStockphoto
Why do we form interpersonal relationships with
some people and not with others? Sometimes,
we have no choice. Children can’t choose their
parents, and most workers aren’t able to choose
their colleagues. However, even in our workplaces
and families we tend to seek out some people and
actively avoid others. Social scientists have collected an impressive body of research on interpersonal attraction (Eastwick et al., 2013; Finkle
and Baumeister, 2010). Interpersonal attraction is
involved in all interpersonal relationships, from
romantic to professional to familial and friendly.
While the term attraction is used most often to
describe being drawn to others physically or sexually, research on interpersonal relationships also
uses the term to refer to interest in and the appeal
of other people more generally, in platonic relationships—we’ll be using the term in both senses
in this chapter. The following are some of the factors that have been identified as influences on our
choice of relational partners.
Appearance
Think about some of your closest relationships. How
have they changed over time? Do you have relationships
that haven’t changed?
Most people claim that we should judge others
on the basis of how they act, not how they look.
However, the reality is quite the opposite, at
least in terms of first impressions. Appearance is
8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships
e­ specially important in the early stages of a relationship (Lemay et al., 2010). For instance, physical
appearance seems to be the primary basis for
attraction of speed daters (Luo and Zhang, 2009).
These first impressions can influence secondary
ones. For example, when photos rated as attractive
accompany online profiles, raters appraise what’s
written in the profile more positively (Brand et al.,
2012). Online profile owners are also rated as more
attractive when they have pictures of physically
attractive friends on their pages (Jaschinski and
Kommers, 2012). The opposite is also true: images
of people’s faces are rated as less attractive when
they appear near those rated as unattractive or
average (Rodway et al., 2013).
Our perceptions of beauty, however, are influenced by more than just societal standards of
attractiveness. After initial impressions have passed,
ordinary-looking people with pleasing personalities
are likely to be judged as attractive (Berscheid and
Walster, 1978; Lewandowski et al., 2007). Our interactions with others change our perceptions of their
physical appearance. Factors such as liking, familiarity, and respect also influence our perceptions of
attractiveness (Singh et al., 2009). You’ll recall from
Chapter 7 that positive communication increases
perceptions of physical attractiveness (Albada et al.,
2002). In fact, as romantic relationships develop, partners create “positive illusions,” viewing
one another as more physically
attractive over time (Barelds
­et al., 2011, p. 707).
243
Similarity plays an important role in initial
attraction. People are more likely to accept a Facebook friend request from a stranger who is perceived to be similar to them than from one who
is perceived as different (Martin et al., 2013). The
word “perceived” is important in the preceding
sentence. Research shows that speed daters are
more attracted to similarities they believe they
have than to actual similarities (Tidwell et al.,
2013). This finding illustrates that attraction based
on similarities is a subjective process. In fact,
research suggests that deciding you like someone
often leads to perceptions of similarity rather than
the other way around (Sprecher, 2014). In addition,
attraction and similarity are related to trust (Singh
et al., 2015, 2017). Trustworthiness is fundamental to interpersonal attraction (Cotrell et al., 2007)
and it may be that people we perceive as more similar to ourselves are also perceived as more trustworthy and more attractive (Singh et al., 2015).
For example, in one study, participants were more
attracted to discussion partners who changed their
attitudes to better align with the participant’s attitude because they viewed these partners as, among
other things, more trustworthy (Reid et al., 2018).
The similarity thesis has a great deal of support in cultures such as Canada and the United
According to the similarity thesis,
perhaps the strongest determinant of relationship formation
is similarity to another person
(Montoya and Horton, 2013). For
example, one study found that
similar values about politics and
religion are the best predictors of
mate choice—significantly more
than attraction to personality
traits (Alford et al., 2011).
Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock
Similarity
In what ways are your friends like you? What are the advantages and disadvantages of having friends who are similar to you?
244
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
Nina Paley/Creative Commons Attribution
Share-Alike
States; however, among other cultures, the attraction to people similar to oneself may not be quite
as strong. Steven Heine and his colleagues (2009)
found that in comparison to Canadians, Japanese
people were less attracted to those who had similar
personalities, attitudes, and backgrounds. These
investigators suggest that it may be the degree to
which you’re pleased with yourself and the extent
to which your culture promotes a positive view of
the self that determines how attracted you are to
people similar to yourself.
This idea makes sense when we consider the
reasons why similarity is a strong foundation for
interpersonal attraction in many Western cultures.
First, the other person serves as an external indication—a social validation—that you are not alone in
your thinking, that you’re not too peculiar. Someone else did like the same controversial book you
liked; therefore, this other person could offer support for you by reinforcing your own sense of what
is right. Second, when someone is similar to you,
you can make fairly accurate predictions—such
as, for example, whether the person will want to
eat at a Thai restaurant or attend a concert you’re
very excited about. This ability to make confident predictions reduces uncertainty and anxiety (Montoya and Horton, 2013), which leads to
greater emotional and relational stability (Cheng
and Gruhn, 2016). Third, it’s possible that when we
learn that other people are similar to us, we assume
they will probably like us, so we in turn like them,
causing the self-fulfilling prophecy to creep into
the picture again.
Complementarity
The old saying “opposites attract” seems to contradict the principle of similarity we just described.
In truth, though, both are valid. Differences
strengthen a relationship when they are complementary—when each partner’s characteristics
satisfy the other’s needs. Research suggests that
attraction to partners who have complementary
temperaments might be rooted in biology (Fisher,
2007). Relationships also work well when partners agree that one person will exercise control
in certain areas (e.g., “You’ll be in charge of laundry”) and the other will take the lead in different
ones (e.g., “I’ll take the lead on grocery shopping
and cooking”). Disagreement over control issues,
however, can cause strain. One study showed that
“spendthrifts and tightwads” are often attracted
to each other, but their differences in financial
management lead to significant conflict over the
course of a relationship (Rick et al., 2011).
Studies that have examined successful and
unsuccessful couples over a 20-year period show
the interaction between similarities and differences (Klohnen and Luo, 2003). When partners
are radically different, the dissimilar qualities
that at first appear intriguing later become cause
for relational breakups (Amodio and Showers,
2005). Partners in successful marriages were similar enough to satisfy each other physically and
mentally, but were different enough to meet each
other’s needs and keep the relationship interesting. Successful couples find ways to keep a balance
8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships
between their similarities and differences while
adjusting to the changes that occur over the years
(Shiota and Levenson, 2007).
Opposites can attract at work, too. There is
evidence that teams made up of people with different personality traits, communication styles,
cultures, and backgrounds can be more innovative
and productive in certain industries and occupations (Gartzia and van Knippenberg, 2016; Joshi
and Roh, 2009; Schaffer et al., 2008). Generally,
employees are more attracted to their team members when the team is made up of people with
differing personality traits, particularly when the
team has a balance of people with differing levels
of extroversion. People who are extroverted tend
to be more sociable, assertive, dominant, and like
excitement. A study of teams employed at manufacturing firms, as well as teams of MBA students,
found that people got along better and liked their
team members more when their own level of extroversion was different from the average level of their
team (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). However, when
team members differ in their goals and values, productivity and harmony at work is compromised
(Kristof-Brown and Stevens, 2001).
Rewards
Some interpersonal relationships are based on an
economic model called social exchange theory
(Hand and Furman, 2009; Thibaut and Kelley,
1959). This model suggests that we often seek out
people who can give us rewards that are greater than
or equal to the costs we encounter by dealing with
the relationship. Social exchange theorists define
rewards as any outcomes we desire. They may be
tangible (a nice place to live, a high-paying job) or
intangible (prestige, emotional support, companionship). Costs are undesirable outcomes, such as
unpleasant work, emotional pain, and so on. A simple formula captures the social exchange explanation for why we form and maintain relationships:
Rewards − Costs = Outcome
According to social exchange theorists, we use
this formula (often unconsciously) to calculate
whether a relationship is a “good deal” or “not
worth the effort,” based on whether the outcome is
positive or negative (Frisby et al., 2015).
At its most blatant level, an exchange approach
seems cold and calculating, but it seems quite
appropriate in some types of relationships. A
healthy business relationship is based on how well
the parties help one another, and some friendships
are based on an informal kind of barter: “I don’t
mind listening to the ups and downs of your love
life because you rescue me when my house needs
repairs.” Even close relationships have an element
of exchange. Friends and lovers often tolerate each
other’s quirks because the comfort and enjoyment
they experience makes the less-than-pleasant times
worth accepting. However, when one partner feels
“under-benefited,” it often leads to problems in the
relationship (DeMaris, 2007).
Costs and rewards do not exist in isolation.
We define them by comparing a certain situation
with alternatives. For example, consider a hypothetical woman, Maryam, who is struggling to
decide whether to remain in a relationship with
Ahmed, her long-time romantic partner. Ahmed
does love Maryam, but he has a hair-trigger temper and has become occasionally verbally abusive.
Also, Maryam knows that Ahmed was unfaithful
to her at least once. In deciding whether or not to
stay with Ahmed, Maryam will use two standards.
The first is her comparison level (CL)—her minimum standard of acceptable behaviour. If Maryam
believes that relational partners have an obligation
to be faithful and treat one another respectfully at
all times, then Ahmed’s behaviour will fall below
her comparison level. This will be especially true if
Maryam has had positive romantic relationships in
the past (Merolla et al., 2004). On the other hand,
if Maryam adopts a “nobody’s perfect” standard,
she is more likely to view Ahmed’s behaviour as
meeting or exceeding her comparison level.
Maryam will also rate Ahmed according to her
comparison level of alternatives (CLalt). This standard refers to a comparison between the rewards
she is receiving in her present situation and those
she could expect to receive in others (Overall and
Sibley, 2008). If, for example, Maryam doesn’t
want to be alone, her CLalt would be lower than her
245
246
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
present s­ ituation; if she is confident that she could
find a kinder partner, her CLalt would be higher than
her present situation. Research suggests that when a
sense of connection is lacking in a romantic relationship, the draw of intimacy from romantic alternatives
becomes particularly strong (Spielmann set al., 2012).
Social exchange theorists suggest that communicators unconsciously use this calculation to
decide whether to form and stay in relationships.
At first, this information seems to offer little comfort to communicators who are in unsatisfying
relationships, such as those when the partner’s
behaviour is below the CL and there are no preferable alternatives (CLalt). But there are alternatives
to being stuck in situations where the costs outweigh the rewards. First, you might make sure that
you are judging your present relationship against
a realistic comparison level. Expecting a situation
to be perfect can be a recipe for unhappiness and
relational dissatisfaction (Mikkelson et al., 2016).
(Recall the discussion of the “fallacy of should” in
Chapter 4.) If you decide that your present situation truly falls below your CL , you might look for
alternatives you have not considered. Finally, the
skills introduced throughout this book may help
you negotiate a better relationship with the other
person, assuming the relationship isn’t abusive.
Our discussion of social exchange theory has
focused on typical relationship rewards and costs
that people may experience in a variety of relationships. The consequences of the costs related to these
issues are not particularly severe or life threatening.
However, social exchange theory can also be applied
to more serious relationship challenges. Many abusive relationships do not end despite the pain and
suffering endured and the high costs involved. Abusive partners often create conditions (e.g., financial
or psychological dependency, fear for one’s physical
safety or the safety of children) that undermine
the calculation process we outlined above, in that
the costs of leaving are (or seem to be) greater
than those involved in staying in the relationship.
Abused partners may also believe a bad relationship
is better than no relationship at all (Kreager at al.,
2013). Research has shown that people in abusive
dating relationships u
­ nderestimate how unhappy
they really are and overestimate how unhappy they
would be if the relationship were to end (Arriaga et
al., 2013). Professional help is vital for pulling free
from an abusive relationship. Experts recommend
the following:
• Don’t keep abuse a secret. At the very least, tell
a trusted friend or family member what’s happening to you and then ask that person to help
you get help.
• Watch for patterns. Abuse often happens in
cycles. If you’re in the upside of a cycle and all is
calm, abusive partners are frequently apologetic
and insist that the abuse will not happen again.
During this phase of the cycle, it can be easy to
overlook a previous violation. But if the abuse
returns, it probably won’t be the last time.
• Resist self-blame. Abused people often believe
they’re at fault for what happened to them, but
it’s important to remember that no one deserves
to be abused.
In addition to resources in your community
and at your college or university, the Government
of Canada has suggestions regarding information
and services to help. (https://www.canada.ca/en/
public-health/topics/get-help-if-you-are-beingabused.html)
Competence
We like to be around talented people, likely because
we hope their skills and abilities will rub off on us.
On the other hand, we’re uncomfortable around
TAKE TWO
• Social exchange theory: the practice of seeking
out people who can give us rewards that are
greater than the costs of dealing with them.
• Comparison level (CL): a minimum standard of
acceptable behaviour.
• Comparison level of alternatives (CLalt): a comparison between rewards in the present situation and those one could expect to receive from
others.
8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships
those who are too competent—probably because
we believe we look bad by comparison. And we’re
attracted most to competence in others when it’s
accompanied by a warm (i.e., high friendliness)
rather than a cool (i.e., low friendliness) personality (Fiske et al., 2007).
Elliot Aronson and his associates (2008) demonstrated how competence and imperfection combine to affect attraction by having subjects evaluate
recordings of candidates for a quiz program. One
was a “perfect” candidate who answered almost
all the questions correctly and modestly admitted
that he was an honours student, athlete, and college
yearbook editor. The “average” candidate answered
fewer questions correctly, had average grades, was a
less successful athlete, and was a low-level member
of the yearbook staff. In half the tapes, the candidates committed a blunder near the end, spilling
coffee all over themselves. The remaining half of
the tapes contained no such blunder. These, then,
were the four experimental conditions: (1) a person
with superior ability who blundered; (2) a per­
son with superior ability who did not blunder; (3)
an average person who blundered; and (4) an average person who did not blunder. The students who
rated the attractiveness of these four types of people
revealed an interesting and important principle of
interpersonal attraction. The
most attractive person was the
superior candidate who blundered. Aronson’s conclusion was
that we tend to like people who
are somewhat flawed because
they remind us of ourselves.
247
classrooms (Back et al., 2008)—than distant ones.
Chances are good that we will choose a mate with
whom we often cross paths. Proximity even has a
role in social media, where messaging or chatting
can create virtual proximity (Baker, 2008). As one
researcher notes, when it comes to social networking
sites, cultural proximity outweighs geographic
proximity (Rohn, 2014). Facts like these are understandable when we consider that proximity allows
us to get more information about other people and
benefit from a relationship with them. Also, people
in close proximity to us may be more similar to us
than those who aren’t—for example, if we live in the
same neighbourhood, odds are we have the same
socio-economic status.
Disclosure
In Chapter 2, we described how telling others
important information about yourself can help
build liking both in person (Dindia, 2002; Sprecher
et al., 2013) and through mediated communication
(Ledbetter et al., 2011). Sometimes, the basis of this
attraction comes from learning about ways we’re
similar, either in our experiences (“I broke off an
engagement as well”) or in our attitudes (“I feel nervous with strangers, too”). Disclosure also increases
As common sense suggests, we’re
likely to develop relationships
with people with whom we interact frequently (Segrin & Flora,
2005). In many cases, proximity leads to liking. For instance,
we’re more likely to develop
friendships with close neighbours—whether near where we
live or in adjacent seats in our
shironosov/iStockphoto
Proximity
Who are the five people you come in contact with most in your life? Do you
have strong positive or negative feelings about them?
248
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
liking because it’s a sign of esteem. Sharing private
information is a form of respect and trust, which
we’ve already seen increases attractiveness.
Not all disclosure, however, leads to liking.
Research shows that the key to satisfying self-­
disclosure is reciprocity—that is, getting back an
amount and kind of information equivalent to
what you reveal (Dindia, 2000a). A second important aspect of successful self-disclosure is timing.
It’s probably unwise, for example, to talk about
your sexual insecurities with a new acquaintance
or to express your pet peeves to a friend at your
birthday party. This is particularly true on social
media: disclosures made privately are perceived as
more appropriate and intimate than those made
publicly. The lack of non-verbal cues and relative
anonymity of social media allow people to disclose
information that is more personal more easily but
revealing those personal details doesn’t always
increase likeability or build trust. Disclosures that
are made publicly via social media tend to reduce
liking for the discloser (Bazarova, 2012). Figuring
out what’s appropriate to disclose when, where,
and to whom can be difficult, but, for the sake of
self-protection, it’s important to reveal personal
information only when you’re sure the other person is trustworthy (Shirley et al., 2007).
CHECK IT!
Why do we decide to form relationships? Describe
the factors that influence our choice of relational
partners.
Intimacy and Distance ­
in Relationships
What does it mean to be intimate? Does intimacy
mean spending time together? Sharing feelings?
Having sex? Going through thick and thin? Similarly, how does distance affect relationships? Is a
desire to spend time apart indicative of a problem?
How and why do we create physical and emotional
space between ourselves and others?
Relationship intimacy is often described as a
motivation to share one’s private self with another
person (Aron et al., 2004). This closeness and commitment can occur in a variety of relationships,
including romantic partners, friendships, and relationships with family members and co-workers. As
such, intimacy can come in many forms (Lippert and
Prager, 2001). However, while intimacy in relationships is important, there are times we want to create
some space and distance ourselves from our romantic
partners, friends, family, and co-workers. In the next
sections of this chapter we’ll examine the many ways
we both establish intimacy and create distance, and
how culture influences our understanding of both.
Forms of Intimacy
As we’ve discussed, intimacy comes in many forms
(Lippert and Prager, 2001). One form is emotional
intimacy: sharing important information and feelings. Sharing distressing emotions with others can
help reduce stress and provide support and comfort (Taylor, 2007). Sharing positive emotions also
supports relationship development, because when
others respond enthusiastically to our happy news
it helps to build trust (Reis et al., 2010). In addition, as we described in Chapter 4, sharing positive
emotions helps prolong those good feelings, which
makes us happier.
Another form of intimacy is physical. Even
before birth, developing fetuses experience a kind
of physical closeness with their mothers that will
never happen again, “floating in a warm fluid, curling inside a total embrace, swaying to the undulations of the moving body and hearing the beat of
the pulsing heart” (Morris, 1973, p. 7). As they
grow up, fortunate children are continually nourished by physical intimacy when they are rocked,
fed, hugged, and held. As we grow older, the
opportunities for physical intimacy are less regular but still possible and important. Some physical
intimacy is sexual, but physical intimacy can also
include affectionate hugs, kisses, and closeness.
Even physical struggle can foster intimacy—companions who have endured physical challenges
together, for example in sports or during emergencies, can form bonds that last a lifetime.
8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships
Brave-carp/iStockphoto
A third form of intimacy is
intellectual exchanges—though
not every exchange of ideas
counts as intimacy, of course.
Talking about next week’s midterm with your professor or
classmates isn’t likely to forge
strong relational bonds. But
when you engage another person in an exchange of important ideas, a kind of closeness
develops that can be powerful
and exciting.
Shared activities can provide a fourth form of emotional
closeness (Baxter, 1992; Girme
et al., 2014). Not all shared activCompanions who have endured physical challenges together form a bond
ities lead to intimacy. You might
that can last a lifetime. Do you have friends with whom you’ve played sports,
work with a colleague for years climbed mountains, or survived other physical adversity together? How has
without feeling any sort of emo- that affected your relationship?
tional connection. But some
shared
experiences—struggling together against obstacles or living together you may share all of your thoughts or feelings with
as housemates, for example—can create strong a friend, family member, or lover; at other times,
bonds. Play is one valuable form of shared activ- you may withdraw. You may freely share your feelity that can increase feelings of trust and intimacy ings about one topic and stay more distant regard(Baxter, 1992). Various forms of play often char- ing another one. The same principle holds for
acterize friendships, family, and romantic rela- physical intimacy, which waxes and wanes in most
tionships. These types of play include partners relationships.
inventing private codes, fooling around by acting
like other people, teasing one another, joking,
laughing, texting each other, chatting playfully, Forms of Distance
and playing games and sports (Baxter, 1992; Hsieh Intimacy in a relationship is important, but so is
distance. Sometimes, we create physical and emoand Tseng, 2017; Proyer, 2017).
The amount and type of intimacy can vary from tional space between ourselves and others whose
one relationship to another. Some intimate rela- behaviour we find bothersome, such as intrusive
tionships feature emotional disclosure, physical relatives or annoying co-workers. Other times,
intimacy, intellectual exchanges, and shared activ- we feel the need to distance ourselves, at least
ities, while others may only feature one or two of temporarily, from people we genuinely care for
these forms of intimacy. Of course, some relation- (Hess, 2000).
Just as there are a variety of ways to be intimships aren’t close ones in any way. Acquaintances,
roommates, and co-workers may never become ate, there are different ways to gain distance in a
intimate. In some cases, even family members relationship. The most common strategy for credevelop smooth, but relatively impersonal, rela- ating distance, at least among students, is avoidance (Hess, 2000). We can avoid unwanted contact
tionships.
Not even the closest relationships always oper- physically or by other means. In the same way as
ate at the highest level of intimacy. At some times, you can avoid physically making eye contact with
249
250
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
TAKE TWO
FORMS OF DISTANCE
• Avoidance: evading contact with others.
• Being reserved: holding back expression of
thoughts and feelings.
• Shortening interactions: not asking questions or
providing non-verbal cues to encourage conversation.
• Restricting topics: limiting what is discussed.
• Restraint: not joking or encouraging contact.
• Deception: lying.
someone you wish to distance yourself from, you
can screen your incoming messages and selectively
ignore or delay responding to unwanted messages.
Other common avoidance tactics include: being
reserved, i.e., communicating very little with the
other person; shortening interaction, perhaps by
not asking questions or engaging in non-verbal
behaviour that encourages the other person to
talk; restricting topics, especially those that might
be personal or intimate; and using restraint, for
instance, avoiding joking or other attention-getting
behaviours that often encourage unwanted contact.
Deception is a sixth form of distance. In Chapter 2, we discussed lying as an alternative to self­disclosure, and we’ll have more to say about managing the tension between intimacy (integration)
TAKE TWO
FORMS OF INTIMACY
• Emotional: the exchange of important information and feelings.
• Physical: physical closeness, both sexual and
non-sexual.
• Intellectual: the exchange of important and profound ideas.
• Shared activities: mutual experiences such as
struggling together or playing.
and ­distance (separation) when we examine the
dialectic tensions inherent in our relationships a
little later in this chapter.
Most people would not want the obligation
to form close, intimate relationships with everyone they meet—from the people who share their
morning commute to the friends-of-friends they
meet at social engagements—but they wouldn’t
want to be entirely without intimate relationships
either. The key then is balance. Some people fear
intimacy in relationships and this can cause major
problems in establishing and maintaining satisfying and meaningful relationships (Montesi et al.,
2013). Normally, our desire for intimacy waxes and
wanes in our relationships. As we’ll discuss later in
this chapter, individuals need both closeness and
distance even in their most intimate relationships.
Lovers and married couples often go through periods of much sharing, alternating with times of
relative withdrawal. Likewise, they experience
periods of passion and then times of little physical
contact (Ben-Ari, 2012; Van Lear, 1991). Friends,
too, have times of high disclosure, when they share
almost every feeling and idea, and then disengage
for days, months, or even longer. Given the equally
important needs for intimacy and distance, the
challenge is to communicate in a manner that provides the best possible mix of intimate and non-­
intimate relationships (Petronio, 1991).
The Influence of Culture
and Gender on Intimacy
What is the ideal amount of intimacy? The answer
varies according to who is giving it. You know
from personal experience that different people
seek different levels of intimacy, but what factors
lead to these differences? Two powerful influences
are gender and culture.
Until recently, many social scientists believed
that women were better than men at developing
and maintaining intimate relationships. This
view grew from the assumption that the disclosure of personal information is the most important ingredient of intimacy. Most research does
show that women (taken as a group, of course) are
somewhat more willing than men to share their
8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships
most personal thoughts and feelings, although
the differences aren’t as dramatic as most people
believe and appears to be changing (Dindia,
2000b, 2002; Floyd, 2002; Good et.al., 2002). In
addition, as we discussed in Chapter 4, there is
evidence that men and women also differ in terms
of their emotional expression (Palomares, 2008),
their ability to quickly and accurately interpret
the non-verbal emotional expressions of others
(Hampson et al., 2006; Kirkland et al., 2013), and
their ability to remember emotional information
(Spalek et al., 2015). However, we also know that
intimacy comes in several forms. Past research
has suggested that while women are more likely
to establish intimacy through sharing personal
information, men are more likely to find that
shared experiences bring them closer to others
(Swain, 1989). As with all research that examines
gender and communication, it’s important to realize that no generalization applies to every person
and that these associations between gender and
intimacy don’t imply that one group is better at
developing and maintaining intimate relationships than another.
Notions of public and private behaviour have
changed dramatically over time (Adamopoulos,
1991; Gadlin, 1977). What would be considered
intimate behaviour today was quite public at times
in the past. For example, in parts of early modern
Europe newlyweds were often expected to take
part in a bedding ceremony, where family and
other witnesses would usher them into their bed to
ceremonially validate consummation of the marriage! Conversely, in Europe as well as in colonial
North America, the customary level of communication between spouses was once quite formal—
not much different from the way acquaintances or
neighbours spoke to one another.
Today, the notion of intimacy varies from one
culture to another and those differences appear
related to both differing cultural values (e.g., individualism versus collectivism) and gender role
ideology. Studies have found lower levels of intimacy between romantic couples in collectivist cultures such as China than individualistic cultures
such as Canada and the US (Goa, 2001; Marshall,
2008; Ting-Toomey, 1991). Some scholars suggest
this is because intimacy needs are often satisfied
through interdependent family relationships in
collectivist cultures whereas in individualistic cultures, needs for intimacy are satisfied primarily
through romantic relationships (Dion and Dion,
1993; Ting-Toomey, 1991). Research has also found
that gender role traditionalism is associated with
lower rates of self-disclosure and lower levels of
intimacy in romantic relationships (Marshall,
2008; Neff and Suizzo, 2006).
Canadians often have multiple cultures that
influence their behaviour in relationships. Tara
Marshall (2010) was interested in how these
multiple cultures influenced intimacy and
commitment in the romantic relationships of
Chinese-Canadians. She found that when ChineseCanadian men identified more with mainstream
Canadian culture, they reported greater intimacy
in their relationships and so did their romantic
partners. When Chinese-Canadian women identified more strongly with their Chinese heritage, they reported greater commitment to their
partners. Marshall argues that both culture and
gender roles interact to explain these findings.
She suggests that the more traditional gender
roles that are highly valued in Chinese culture
may account for women’s greater commitment to
relationships, and the more egalitarian norms for
men’s behaviour in mainstream Canadian culture
may allow for greater self-disclosure thereby promoting greater intimacy.
In addition to differences in notions of intimacy, the amount of intimacy that people desire also
varies from one culture to another. In a comparison of members of collectivistic and individualistic cultures (Turkish and mainstream Canadian),
researchers from Toronto’s York University studied
the participants’ ratings of ideal closeness in a variety of relationships (e.g., with friends, family, and
acquaintances) (Uskul et al., 2004). Both the Turkish and the Canadian participants ideally wanted
to be closest to their romantic partner; however,
the Turkish participants wanted to have greater
intimacy than the Canadians in all types of relationships. The Turks also said they feel closer to
friends, family, and acquaintances than the Canadians did.
251
252
101dalmations/iStockPhoto
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
Do you think you are easy to meet but difficult to know, or difficult to meet but
easy to know? Or some other combination?
When communicating with
people from different cultures,
it’s important to consider their
norms for appropriate intimacy. Be sure not to mistakenly
judge them according to your
own standards. Likewise, be
sensitive about honouring their
standards when talking about
yourself. In this sense, choosing
the proper level of intimacy isn’t
too different from choos­ing the
appropriate way of dressing
or eating when encountering
members of a different culture:
what seems familiar and correct at home may not be suitable
with strangers.
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
CULTURE AND RELATIONAL MOBILITY
People differ in their beliefs about relationships and
what it takes to make them successful. Researchers
have identified two factors that influence our ideas
about relationships and both of them appear to be
influenced by culture.
The first factor is the degree to which we feel we
have opportunities to select relationship partners
based on our personal preferences, which has been
labelled relational mobility (Yuki and Schug, 2012;
Yuki et al., 2007). Generally, Canadian and US cultures are characterized as having high levels of relational mobility. In these cultures, there is freedom
to seek new relationships and terminate existing
relationships based on what an individual deems
desirable. Individuals choose their friends, romantic
partners, and even the extent to which they interact
with their families. In contrast, in cultures with lower
levels of relational mobility, such as China, there are
comparatively few opportunities to meet new partners because relationships tend to be more stable,
exclusive, long-lasting, and often determined by
c­ ircumstance (such as birth and geographical location) (Kito et al., 2017). Choices regarding friends,
romantic partners, and the extent to which individuals interact with extended families are highly influenced by collective group membership.
The second factor that influences our conceptualizations of successful relationships and how to
achieve them is the extent to which we believe relationships are “meant to be” (referred to as destiny
beliefs) or that they require constant effort (referred
to as growth beliefs). In cultures with high levels of
relational mobility, people are likelier to have growth
beliefs and endorse strategies, such as those
described in this chapter, about how to establish,
maintain, and repair relationships. In contrast, in
cultures with low relational mobility, people are more
likely to ascribe to destiny beliefs (relationships
are destined to succeed or fail) and are less likely
to actively seek out new relationships and invest in
relational development strategies, but they are more
likely to maintain harmony in their relationships and
8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships
avoid violating the often unstated but mutually understood relationship rules (Lou and Li, 2018).
It’s important to keep these concepts in mind
when reviewing the information presented in this
chapter in order to better understand individual differences in people’s beliefs about relationships as well
as the extent to which many of the strategies we’ll
Models of Relational Dynamics
Even the most stable relationships vary from day to
day and over longer periods of time. Communication scholars have tried to describe and explain how
communication creates and reflects the changing
dynamics of relational interaction. In the following
sections, we’ll look at two very different characterizations of relational development and interaction.
Stages of Relational Development
discuss are appropriate and effective across various
cultures.
Critical Thinking: Do you think age, geographical location, and group membership (in addition to cultural
background) might influence relational mobility and
density beliefs? Why or why not?
later in this chapter. Figure 8.1 shows how Knapp’s
10 stages fit into this three-part view of relational
communication that spans the development and
demise of a relationship.
Initiating
The goals in the initiating stage are to show that
you’re interested in making contact and to demonstrate that you are a person worth talking to
(Sprecher et al., 2008). Communication during
this stage is usually brief, and it generally follows conventional formulas, such as handshakes,
comments about innocuous subjects such as the
weather, and friendly expressions. Such behaviour
may seem superficial and meaningless, but it’s a
Stage theories describe how communication
­changes over the entire life of a relationship. One
of the best-known models of relational stages was
developed by Mark Knapp (Knapp et al., 2014; also
see Dunleavy and Boothbutterfield, 2009; Mongeau
and Henningson, 2008), who
broke the waxing and waning
of relationships into a threeRelational Maintenance
part view of relational communication. Knapp’s model
Bonding
features 10 stages of relaDifferentiating
Integrating
tional development. Other
Coming
Coming
Together
Circumscribing Apart
researchers have suggested
Intensifying
Stagnating
that in addition to explaining
Experimenting
Avoiding
how people come together
and come apart, any model
Initiating
Terminating
of relational communication
ought to contain a third area,
relational maintenance—
communication aimed at
keeping relationships operating smoothly and satisfactor- FIGURE 8.1 Stages of Relational Development
From Knapp, Mark L., Vangelisti, Anita L., and Caughlin, J.P. (2014). Interpersonal communication and human
ily. We’ll discuss relational Source:
relationships. (7 ed.) Boston: Pearson. Printed and electronically reproduced by permission of Pearson Education,
maintenance in more detail Inc., New York, New York.
th
253
254
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
DenisProduction.com/Shutterstock
way of signalling that you are interested in building some kind of relationship with the other person. It allows us to indicate, “I’m a friendly person,
and I’d like to get to know you.”
Beginning a relationship—especially a romantic one—can be particularly difficult for people
who are shy. Mediated communication can make
it easier for people to strike up a relationship
(Baker and Oswald, 2010). Not only is online initiating easier for some, but it can result in successful
relationships. In one survey, more than a third of
married respondents said their relationship began
online (Cacioppo et al., 2013). Among college and
university students, relationship development typically begins with communication through social
networking sites, and progresses to text messaging
and later face-to-face and phone conversations
(Yang et. al., 2014).
Keep in mind that initiating is the opening
stage of all relationships, not just romantic ones.
Friendships start here (Johnson et al., 2004) and so
do employment relationships. In fact, some have
compared job interviews to first dates because they
have similar properties (Half, 2016). As you read
about the stages that follow, consider how the communication involved could apply to landing a job,
connecting with a roommate, or joining an organization—as well as forming a romantic relationship.
Experimenting
After meeting someone new, we generally begin
the search for common ground, which is known
as the experimenting stage. This search usually
begins with the basics: “Where are you from?
What program are you in?” From there, we look
for other similarities: “You’re a runner, too? How
many kilometres do you run a week?”
The hallmark of the experimenting stage is
small talk. We tolerate the ordeal of small talk
because it serves several functions. First, it’s a useful way to find out what interests we share with the
other person. It’s also a way to “audition” the other
person—to help us decide whether a relationship
is worth pursuing. In addition, small talk is a safe
way to ease into a relationship. You haven’t risked
much as you decide whether to proceed further.
Scholars have noted, and your experience probably confirms, the importance of social media
during the experimenting stage. By perusing someone’s online profiles you can gather much of the
information you might gather on the first couple
of dates. You can learn about their hobbies, their
favourite music, books, and movies, their political
preferences, who they hang out with, and what
they like to do in their free time (Shonbeck, 2011).
In romantic relationships, it’s at this stage that
people often make a social media
request or offer an invitation.
Once access has been given,
communicators can look over
each other’s profiles, learning
important information about
the other person at a glance.
Information about activities—
often gleaned from photos and
mutual friends—are important
factors in deciding whether to
continue to develop the relationship (Fox et al., 2013). And of
course, gathering this information through social media is less
face-threatening than in-person
experiment­ing, as it involves
Beginning a relationship requires a fair measure of skill. Think about your cur- no stammering, blushing, or
rent or last romantic relationship. How did it begin? Was it difficult to start?
awkward pauses. In addition,
8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships
experimenting online may benefit people who
are committed to religious or social practices that
require a more conservative approach to courtship.
For instance, in a study of Muslim women residing
in the United States, researchers found that online
dating platforms allowed women greater access
to social networks, more freedom to initiate contact with potential partners, and greater control
over the courtship process than they might have
in the traditional face-to-face courtship process
(Rochadiat et al., 2018).
Of course, not all relational experiments are
successful. You can probably think of times when
you knew within an hour of meeting up with a new
potential friend that things were going nowhere.
The same can happen when online daters take
the plunge and meet in person. The relationship
that seemed promising in mediated communication may become less so when interacting face-toface. Communication researchers call this shift in
communication channels “modality switching,”
and have found it comes with a variety of chal­
lenges (Ramirez et al., 2015). In general, the longer
couples hold off meeting in person, the more awkward it will be when they transition to face-to-face
communication.
Intensifying
When a relationship enters the intensifying stage,
communicators increase their amount of contact
and the breadth and depth of their disclosures. In
friendship, intensifying often includes spending
time together, participating in shared activities
such as shopping, eating together, hanging out,
playing games, studying, watching movies, and
sharing their lives with each other (Lee, 2008). In
romantic relationships, people use a wide range of
strategies to communicate that a relationship is
intensifying (Levine et al., 2006). About a quarter
of the time, they express their feelings directly to
discuss the state of the relationship, such as saying “I love you” (Brantley et al., 2002). More often,
they use less-direct methods of communication—
spending an increasing amount of time together,
asking for support from one another, doing favours
for their partner, giving tokens of affection, h
­ inting
and flirting, expressing feelings non-verbally, getting to know their partner’s friends and family,
and trying to look more physically attractive.
The intensifying stage is usually a time of relational excitement and even euphoria. For friends,
it’s a time of increased eagerness, positivity, and
patience (Lee, 2008). For romantic partners, it’s
often filled with star-struck gazes, goosebumps,
and daydreaming. As a result, it’s a stage that is
regularly depicted in movies and romance novels—
after all, we love to watch lovers in love (Johnson
and Holmes, 2009). The problem, of course, is that
this stage doesn’t last forever. Sometimes, romantic partners who stop feeling goosebumps begin to
question whether they’re still in love, and friends
begin to discover one another’s flaws. Although
it’s possible the relationship is not as good as it
initially seemed during the intensifying stage, it’s
equally likely that it has simply moved on to the
next of Knapp’s stages—integrating.
Integrating
As a relationship strengthens, the individuals enter
the integrating stage. They begin to take on an
identity as a social unit. Invitations begin to come
addressed to a couple, social circles merge, partners
share each other’s commitments: “Sure, we’ll spend
Thanksgiving with your family.” Common property may begin to be designated—our apartment,
our car, our song (Baxter, 1987)—and partners may
develop their own personal idioms (Dunleavy and
Booth-Butterfield, 2009) and forms of play (Baxter,
1992). As these examples illustrate, the stage of integrating is a time when we give up some characteristics of our former selves and become different people.
As integration increases and we become more intimate, uncertainty about our relationship decreases:
we become clearer about relationship norms and
what behaviours are appropriate and inappropriate. Reducing uncertainty about our partner and
the relationship enhances attraction and feelings of
closeness (Knobloch and Solomon, 2002).
Integrating may include public declarations of
a relationship; going “Facebook Official” (FBO), for
example, involves the public note that two people
are “in a relationship” (Lane et al., 2016). Of course,
255
256
vgajic/iStockphoto
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
As integration increases and we become more intimate, uncertainty about our relationship decreases. We
become clearer about relationship norms and what
behaviour is appropriate and inappropriate. How is getting to this stage of a relationship difficult?
problems arise when one partner wants to be FBO
and the other doesn’t (Papp et al., 2012). Moreover,
the meaning of FBO can be different for each partner. One study found that in heterosexual relationships women tend to perceive FBO declarations as
involving more intensity and commitment than
men do (Fox and Warber, 2013). As a result, such
women may connect FBO status with the rights and
restrictions normally associated with the next relational development stage, bonding.
Bonding
During the bonding stage, the partners make symbolic public gestures to show the world that their
relationship exists and that a commitment has
been made (Foster, 2008). These gestures can take
the form of a contract between business partners,
getting engaged, sharing a residence, a public ceremony, or a written or verbal pledge. The key is that
bonding is the culmination of a developed relationship. Bonding usually generates social recognition
for the relationship. This may be particularly true
for LGBTQ+ people. For instance, in one study, gay
and lesbian Canadians who were legally married
reported feeling better understood by their friends
and family. One participant summarized it nicely:
“The language of marriage helped us feel more a
part of this world. Everyone knows what it means.
It helps others start to realize that a relationship
is a relationship and we are dealing with the same
issues that everyone else deals with” (MacIntosh,
Reissing, and Andruff, 2010, p. 84). In addition to
social support, customs and laws impose certain
rights and responsibilities on partners who have
officially bonded.
Bonding usually marks an important turning
point in a relationship. Up to now, the relationship may have developed at a steady pace. Experimenting gradually moved into intensifying and
then into integrating. Now, however, there is a
surge of commitment. The public display and declaration of exclusivity make this a critical period in
the relationship.
Differentiating
Now that partners have formed this commonality, they need to re-establish individual identities
in a stage Knapp calls differentiating. “How are
we different?” “How am I unique?” Instead of
talking about “our” plans for the weekend, differentiating conversations focus on what “I” want to
do. Whereas happy employees might refer to “our
company,” the description might change to “this
company” when a raise or some other request isn’t
forthcoming.
Differentiation can also be positive—people
need to be individuals as well as part of a relationship. Think, for instance, of young adults who want
to forge their own unique lives and identities, even
while maintaining relationships with their families
8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships
of origin (Skowron et al., 2009). The same can be
true for couples with diverse cultural backgrounds
who want to stay connected to their individual
cultural values as well as to each other (Kim et al.,
2012). As Figure 8.1 shows, differentiating is often a
part of normal relationship maintenance in which
partners manage the inevitable challenges that
come their way. The key to successful differentiation
is to maintain commitment to a relationship while
creating the space for being individuals as well.
Circumscribing
In the circumscribing stage, partners reduce the
scope of their contact with each other. The word
“circumscribe” comes from the Latin meaning “to
draw circles around.” In this stage, distinctions
that emerged in the differentiating stage become
more clearly marked and labelled: “my friends”
and “your friends,” “my bank account” and “your
bank account,” and “my room” and “your room.”
Such distinctions can be markers of a healthy balance between individual and relational identity.
The problem, however, is when there are clearly
more areas of separation than integration in a
relationship, or when the areas of separation seriously limit interaction, such as taking a personal
vacation expressly to put space between you and
your partner. In this example, circumscribing
entails a shrinking of partners’ shared interests
and ­commitments.
257
Avoiding
When stagnation becomes too unpleasant, people
in a relationship begin to create distance between
each other through avoidance. This is the avoiding stage. Sometimes, they do it under the guise of
excuses (“I’ve been sick lately and can’t see you”);
other times, they’re direct (“Please don’t call me; I
don’t want to see you now”). In either case, by this
point the writing is on the wall about the future of
the relationship.
Some relationships stall at this stage. Friends,
lovers, or family members simply drift apart and
rarely if ever interact again. While sometimes there
is a natural parting of the ways, other times they
leave important things unsaid. A need for some
If circumscribing continues, the relationship
begins to stagnate. Partners behave toward each
other in old, familiar ways without much feeling.
No growth occurs and relational boredom sets
in (Harasymchuk and Fehr, 2013). The stagnating stage sees the relationship become a hollow
shell of its former self. We see stagnation in many
workers who have lost enthusiasm for their jobs
yet continue to go through the motions for years.
The same sad event occurs for some couples who
unenthusiastically have the same conversations,
see the same people, and follow the same routines
without any sense of joy or novelty.
© Thinkstock/Pixland
Stagnating
There are a lot of reasons why relationships don’t last
and some breakups are more positive than others. What
is the “best” breakup you or one of your friends ever
had? What was the worst?
258
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
relationship closure (Dailey et al., 2013), however,
often leads to the final sage: terminating.
Terminating
Partnerships, friendships, and marriages can last for
a lifetime once they’re established, but some do end.
The terminating stage of a relationship has its own
distinguishable pattern (Conlan, 2008). Characteristics of this stage often include summary dialogues
of where the relationship has gone and the desire to
dissociate. The relationship may end with a cordial
dinner, a note left on the kitchen table, a phone call, a
text message, a social network post, or a legal document stating the dissolution, or a combination of
several methods. In the workplace, it often involves
a meeting between an employee and the person they
report to. Depending on each person’s feelings, the
terminating stage can be quite short and amicable
or it may be bitterly drawn out over time. In either
case, termination of a relationship doesn’t have to
be completely negative. Understanding each other’s
investments in the relationship and needs for personal growth may dilute the hard feelings.
The strategies partners use to disengage vary
in their levels of directness and the amount of
caring and concern that is communicated. This
in turn affects the interpersonal outcome associated with the end of the relationship. In romantic
relationships, taking a direct approach (e.g., talking about the relationship ending openly, face to
face) is associated with less negativity and hard
feelings compared to taking an indirect approach
(e.g., avoidance, withdrawal and using mediated
communication) (Collins and Gillath, 2012). In
employment relationships too, the way employees
communicate with their managers about leaving
an employment relationship affects both their
interpersonal relationships and future employment possibilities. In one study of 40 employees
who had left a variety of employment positions
(e.g., professional, clerical, managerial, sales,
etc.), researchers found that when employees left
for external reasons (e.g., go back to school), they
were more likely to use direct communication
strategies and their managers were more likely
to respond positively (Kulik et al., 2015). Perhaps
not surprisingly, when employees left for internal
reasons (e.g., problems within the employment
relationship) they were more likely to use indirect
communication strategies and their managers’
responses were less positive.
Ilana Gershon (2010) interviewed college students about their romantic relationship breakups
and found that the “channel” or medium (face to
face, phone, text, or social network) by which the
breakup information was communicated mattered
a great deal. When students described their breakup
stories to her, they always included descriptions
of how they or their romantic exes chose to communicate during the breakup—although many of
the participants were nostalgic for the days when
there were far fewer choices about how to communicate the end of a relationship, they found pros
and cons for each choice.
Once a relationship is over, it may be wise to
take a break from social media connections with
that person (LeFebvre et al., 2015). Checking up
on a former partner or friend may reduce some
uncertainty (Tong, 2013), but it’s associated with
greater distress over the breakup, more negative
feelings, and decreased personal growth (Lukacs
and Quan-Hasse, 2015). Additionally, communicating with former partners can have negative
consequences on one’s current relationship (Rodriquez et al., 2016).
Terminating relationships is, for many people,
a learning experience. In one study, college students who had recently had a relationship breakup
were asked to describe the positive lessons they had
gained that might help them in future relationships
(Tashiro and Frazier, 2003). Their responses fell
into four categories. First were “person positives,”
such as gaining self-confidence and recognizing that it’s alright to cry. Second, they identified
“other positives,” such as learning more about what
is desired in a partner. Third, “relational positives,”
such as how to communicate better and how not
to jump into a relationship too quickly were
described. Finally, they identified “environment
positives,” such as learning to rely more on friends
and how to better balance relationships and schoolwork. Scholars note that although gaining closure
might be an ideal in relational termination, finding
8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships
meaning might be a more attainable and healthy
goal (Frost et al., 2016).
TAKE TWO
Dialectical Tensions
in ­Relationships
STAGES OF RELATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Stage-related views, like the one described in the
preceding pages, characterize communication as
differing in important ways at various points in
the life of a relationship. According to the stage
approach, the kind of communication that happens during initiating, experimenting, or intensifying is different from the kind of communication
that occurs during differentiating, circumscribing, or avoiding. However, not all theorists agree
that relational stages are the best way to explain
relational dynamics. Our own experiences, for
example, often tell us that communicators grapple with many of the same challenges and use the
same strategies throughout a relationship’s lifespan. Some theorists maintain that it’s possible for
a relationship to have attributes of both “coming
together” and “coming apart” at the same time.
Maintaining relationships, then, is about managing these competing goals. Scholars call these
struggles dialectical tensions: conflicts that arise
when two opposing or incompatible desires exist
simultaneously in a relationship.
Communication scholars such as Leslie Baxter
(Baxter and Braithwaite, 2006; Baxter and Montgomery, 1996), and William Rawlins (1992) have
identified several dialectical forces that make successful communication challenging. They suggest
that the struggle to manage these tensions creates
the most powerful dynamics in relational communication. In the following pages, we’ll discuss
three influential dialectical tensions, which are
summarized in Table 8.1. As the table shows, we
experience dialectical challenges both internally,
vis-à-vis our partners, and externally, as we and
our relational partners encounter other people
whose desires clash with our own.
Coming Together
• Initiating: making contact; demonstrating that
you are worth talking to.
• Experimenting: searching for common ground;
engaging in small talk.
• Intensifying: beginning to develop a personal
relationship; spending more time together and
experiencing excitement.
Integration versus Separation
Recognizing that no one is an island, we seek out
involvement with others. But, at the same time,
Relational Maintenance
• Integrating: taking on an identity as a social
unit; shared commitments, property and obligations grow.
• Bonding: making a symbolic gesture to announce
the relationship publicly (e.g., marriage, business partnership).
• Differentiating: re-establishing individual identities; can be stressful, positive, or both.
• Circumscribing: decreasing the quantity and
quality of communication; avoiding conversations about problems in the relationship.
Coming Apart
• Stagnating: going through hollow routines; no
growth in the relationship; little joy or novelty.
• Avoiding: creating distance; expressing detachment, avoiding involvement, showing antagonism, dissociating mentally.
• Terminating: ending the relationship; can be
negative, positive, or both.
we’re unwilling to sacrifice our entire identities
for even the most satisfying relationships. The
conflicting desires for connection and independence are embodied in the integration–separation
dialectic. We want to be close and connected to
others, but we also seek autonomy and independence. This set of apparently contradictory needs
creates communication challenges that can show
up both within a relationship and between the
partners and the rest of the world.
Sociolinguist Deborah Tannen (1986, p. 17)
captures the insoluble integration–separation
259
260
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
TABLE 8.1
Dialectical Tensions
Dialectic of
Integration–Separation
Dialectic of
Stability–Change
Dialectic of ­
Expression–Privacy
Our seemingly
incompatible goals
connection–autonomy
predictability–novelty
openness–closedness
External manifestations
inclusion–seclusion
conventionality–
uniqueness
revelation–concealment
SOURCE: Adapted from Baxter, L.A. (1994). A dialogic approach to relationship maintenance. In D.J. Canary and L. Stafford (Eds.). Communication and relational maintenance. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, p. 240.
­ ialectic nicely by evoking the image of two porcud
pines trying to get through a cold winter:
They huddle together for warmth, but their sharp
quills prick each other, so they pull away. But then
they get cold. They have to keep adjusting their
closeness and distance to keep from freezing and
from getting pricked by their fellow p
­ orcupines—
the source of both comfort and pain.
We need to get close to each other to have a sense
of community, to feel we’re not alone in the world.
But we need to keep our distance from each other
to preserve our independence, so others do not
impose on or engulf us. This duality reflects the
human condition. We are individual and social
creatures. We need other people to survive, but
we want to survive as individuals.
The ability to manage conflicting needs for connection and autonomy is basic to relational success
(Baxter, 1994; Sahlstein and Dun, 2008). Some of
the most common reasons that relationships break
up involve the failure of partners to satisfy one
another’s needs for connection: “We barely spent
any time together”; “My partner wasn’t committed to the relationship”; “We had different needs.”
But other complaints involve excessive demands
for connection: “I was feeling trapped”; “I needed
freedom” (Hui et al., 2013).
Mobile devices can create a connection–­
autonomy dilemma (Duran et al., 2011). Frequent
interaction during the day via cellphone can be a
means for building intimacy in a romantic relationship (Boyle and Sullivan, 2016), for example, but
receiving too many calls and texts can feel imposing or even smothering. This is a source of conflict
for many couples and may require some negotiation (Miller-Ott et al., 2012). For instance, partners
might agree not to text or call during work hours
unless it’s an emergency or they may agree that during certain situations (e.g., concerts, parties, family
gatherings) there is no expectation to respond to
messages right away. Research suggests that college
students often struggle with the conflicting desire
to be fully present and attentive in their face-to-face
interactions with their romantic partners while still
maintaining connection with their social networks
(Miller-Ott and Kelly, 2016). These tensions occur in
non-romantic relationships too. You can probably
think of friends and family members who expect
you to always be responsive via cellphone, yet you
need some space from them (Eden and Veksler,
2016; Hall and Baym, 2012). Teenagers may perceive
parents’ monitoring via cellphones as a violation
of their need for independence (Weisskirch, 2009,
2011). Similarly, smart phones have been described
as “tethers” that enable employers and employees to
be constantly connected, infringing on each other’s
autonomy and work–life balance (Sullivan, 2014).
These examples serve as a reminder that dialectal
tensions exist and persist over the entire life of most
close relationships.
Stability versus Change
Stability is an important need in relationships,
but too much of it can lead to feelings of staleness;
conversely, too much change and unpredictability
can create stress and uncertainty. The stability–
change dialectic captures the tensions between the
need for predictability and the need for novelty in
our relationships. Although nobody wants a completely unpredictable relational partner (“You are
8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships
not the person I married!”), humorist Dave Barry
(1990, p. 47) exaggerates only slightly when he talks
about the boredom that can come from spouses
knowing each other too well:
After a decade or so of marriage, you know everything about your spouse, every habit and opinion and twitch and tic and minor skin growth.
You could write a seventeen-pound book solely
about the way your spouse eats. This kind of
intimate knowledge can be very handy in certain
­situations—such as when you are on a TV quiz
show where the object is to identify your spouse
from the sound of his or her chewing—but it
tends to lower the passion level of a relationship.
TAKE TWO
• Dialectical tensions: conflicts that arise when
two opposing forces exist simultaneously; they
exist within personal relationships and also
between individuals/couples and the external
world.
• Integration–separation: conflicting desires for
connection and independence within a relationship.
• Stability–change: conflicting needs for constancy and variation within a relationship.
• Expression–privacy: conflicting needs to share
information but also to keep things confidential
within a relationship.
Expression versus Privacy
As we discussed above and in Chapter 2, disclosure is an important characteristic of building and
maintaining intimacy in interpersonal relationships. Yet, along with our drive for intimacy is an
equally important need to maintain some space
between ourselves and others. These sometimes
conflicting drives create the expression–privacy
dialectic, which challenges us to balance our need
to be open with our need to keep some information
to ourselves.
The internal struggle between expression and
privacy shows up in our need to be open with our
relationship partners (and have them be forthcoming with us) and our simultaneous need to
be closed—to keep some things to ourselves (and
their need to do the same). What do you do in an
intimate relationship when a person you care about
asks an important question that you don’t want to
answer? (e.g., “Do you think I’m attractive?” “Are
you having a good time?”) Because of your commitment to the relationship, you may wish to be
honest, but your concern for the other person’s feelings and a desire for privacy may lead you to be less
than completely honest. Many people claim, “There
are no secrets between me and my best friend” or
“I tell my partner everything,” but that’s probably an
overstatement. Wise communicators make choices
about what they will and won’t share with loved
ones—sometimes, but not always, for the other person’s sake (Goldsmith and Domann-Scholz, 2013).
Strategies for Managing
Dialectical Tensions
Managing these dialectical tensions can be challenging (Duran et al., 2011; Prentice and Kramer,
2006), but researchers have identified a number
of communication strategies for dealing with
them—most of which are unconscious (Baxter and
Braithwaite, 2006). As you read on, think about
which ones you use and how effective they are.
1. Denial. In the strategy of denial, relational partners pretend to themselves and
one another that conflicts don’t exist. For
example, a couple caught between the conflicting desires for stability and change
might find their struggle for change too difficult to manage. So they choose to follow
predictable, if unexciting, patterns of relating to one another.
2. Compromise. Communicators who try to
balance dialectical tensions recognize that
both forces are legitimate and try to manage
them through compromise. As we’ll point
out in Chapter 10, compromise is inherently a situation in which everybody loses
at least a little of what they want. A couple
caught between the conflicting desires for
stability and change might seek balance
by compromising with a lifestyle that is
261
262
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
­ either as predictable as one wants nor as
n
surprise-filled as the other seeks, which is
not an ideal outcome.
Alternation. Communicators who use this
strategy choose one end of the dialectical
spectrum at some times and the other on different occasions. Friends, for example, might
manage the integration–separation dialectic
by alternating between times when they spend
a large amount of time together and other periods when they live independent lives.
Compartmentalization. Partners who use
this tactic segment different areas (e.g., topics,
activities) of their relationship. For example,
a couple might manage the expression–­
privacy dialectic by sharing almost all their
feelings about mutual friends with one
another, but keeping certain parts of their
romantic histories private.
Acceptance. With this more rewarding
approach, communicators simultaneously
embrace opposing forces without trying
to diminish them. Barbara Montgomery
(1993) describes a couple who accept the
need both for stability and for change by
devising a “predictably novel” approach.
Once a week, they would do something
together that they had never done before.
Similarly, Dawn Braithwaite and her colleagues (1998) found that step-families
often manage the tension between the “old
family” and the “new family” by adapting
and blending their family rituals.
Reframing. Another constructive way to
manage opposing desires is by reframing
them so that the apparent contradiction
disappears. Consider how a couple who felt
hurt by each other’s unwillingness to share
parts of their past might redefine the secrets
as creating an attractive aura of mystery
instead of being a problem to be solved. The
desire for privacy would still remain, but it
would no longer compete with a need for
openness about every aspect of the past.
Reaffirmation. This approach acknowledges
that dialectical tensions will never disappear.
Instead of trying to make them go away,
reaffirming communicators accept—or
even embrace—the challenges these dialectical tensions present. If we consider the
metaphorical view of relational life as a kind
of roller coaster, communicators who use
reaffirmation view dialectical tensions as an
inevitable part of the ride.
Characteristics of Relational
Development
Whether you analyze a relationship in terms of
stages or dialectical dynamics, two characteristics
are true of every interpersonal relationship.
Relationships Are Constantly Changing
Relationships are rarely stable for long periods of
time. In fairy tales, a couple may live happily ever
after, but in real life this sort of equilibrium is not
exactly common. Consider partners who have been
married for some time: although they have formally bonded, their relationship will probably
shift forward and backward along the spectrum
of stages and different dialectical tensions will
become more or less important at different times.
This constant change can be captured graphically by characterizing relationship development as a
helix, as shown in Figure 8.2. The helix depicts relational cycles in which partners continually move
through a series of stages before returning, at a new
level, to ones they previously encountered (Conville, 1991; Dance, 1967). According to this model,
we move from security (integration in Knapp’s
terminology) to disintegration (differentiating) to
alienation (circumscribing) to resynthesis (intensifying, integrating), to a new level of security. This
cycle repeats itself again and again, reflecting the
dialectical tensions identified by Baxter and others.
Movement Is Always to a New Place
Even though a relationship may move back to a
stage it has experienced before, it will never be the
same as before. For example, most healthy longterm relationships will go through several phases
of experimenting as the partners try out new ways
of behaving with each other. Although each phase
has the same general features, the specifics will
8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
HUMOUR AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS
There is a good deal of research that suggests that
people value a sense of humour in their friends and
romantic partners (Butzer and Kuiper, 2008; Hall,
2017; Kuiper, 2010; Treger et al., 2013). People rate
those with a good sense of humour as more attractive than their less funny peers. Playfulness between
partners is a vital component of establishing trust and
laughing is an important indicator of romantic attraction (Hall, 2015). However, it’s not just being a humorous person or appreciating your partner’s sense of
humour that seems to matter the most in terms of
increasing attraction and relationship satisfaction.
Instead, what’s important is co-creating humour with
your partner. This type of relationship-enhancing joking is referred to as relational humour (Hall, 2015).
In his meta-analysis of studies published between
1985 and 2016, Jeffery Hall (2017) uncovered and
discussed the associations between relational
humour and satisfaction at various stages in romantic relationships. He found that this type of shared
humour, which includes making private jokes and
engaging in humorous banter and playfulness, has
a number of benefits. These include bringing about
a positive mood, creating a safe space to take risks
and be creative (or at least be less bored), and reaf-
feel different each time. Similarly, how partners
manage the connection–autonomy dialectic at one
time will affect how they experience and manage it
at another time with the same or different relational
issues. As we discussed in Chapter 1, communication is irreversible. Partners can never simply go
back to “the way things were” at a past time. Sometimes, this may lead to regrets, but it can also make
relationships exciting, since it lessens the chance for
boredom and can lead to novelty and growth.
Communicating about
­Relationships
It’s clear that relationships are complex, dynamic,
and important—so what do we need to consider in
firming that you and your partner share the same
perspective and values (you “get” each other)—all
of which contributes to feelings of increased safety
and intimacy in the relationship. The results of his
meta-analysis suggest that humour that is more
relationship-oriented, as opposed to self-oriented, is
associated with increased relationship satisfaction.
However, aggressive or negative humour, such as
making fun of or attacking others, is associated with
decreased relationship satisfaction.
Finally, Hall’s investigation found a stronger association between humour and relationship satisfaction in
young, unmarried samples; he suggests that perhaps
this is because the ability to be funny in the early stages
of a romantic relationship contributes to attraction and
relational humour contributes to bonding. Among individuals in enduring relationships, Hall found that producing
and using humour to cope were still predictors of relationship satisfaction but they were not quite as strong as
in the early stages of relationship development.
Critical thinking: What other reasons might explain
why the stage of the relationship affects couples’ uses
of humour and its contribution to their satisfaction with
the relationship?
order to maintain, improve, and repair them? In
this section, we’ll look at ways to think about and
analyze our relational communication with the
aim of managing the inevitable complexities and
changes in ways that are constructive. We start by
revisiting an important principle of interpersonal
communication discussed in Chapter 1: every
message has two dimensions, a content dimension
and a relational dimension.
Content and Relational Messages
The most obvious component of most mes­sages
is their content—the subject being discussed:
“It’s your turn to do the dishes” or “I’m busy Saturday night.” In addition, every message—both
verbal and non-verbal—has a second, relational
263
264
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
REFLECTION
ynthesis
R es
ynthesis
R es
Alienat
ion
Sec
grati
Disinte
urity
SENDING THE WRONG RELATIONAL
MESSAGE
Alienat
ion
on
ynthesis
R es
Alienat
ion
Sec
on
grati
Disinte
urity
Security
I work 30 hours a week and have a full course load
at school, so I’m very busy. Sometimes, when my
little brother wants to hang out and talk, I give
him the brush-off. While he’s telling me about
his day, I keep typing on the computer or reading a book. After a while, I sigh and start replying
automatically, “Yeah, yeah.” Last night, he asked,
“Why don’t you like me anymore?” I realized that,
in my obsession with staying on top of my work,
I’ve been giving him the wrong impression. Next
time, I’ll either give him my attention or let him
know explicitly that I can’t.
te
Disin
ion
grat
FIGURE 8.2 A Helical Model of Relational Cycles
­ imension, which makes statements about how the
d
communicators feel toward one another (Knobloch
and Solomon, 2003; Watzlawick et al., 1967). These
relational messages deal with one or more of the
social needs: intimacy, affinity, respect, and control. Consider the two examples we just mentioned:
• Imagine two ways of saying, “It’s your turn to
do the dishes”—one that is demanding and
another that is matter-of-fact. Notice how the
different non-verbal messages make statements
about how the sender views control in this part
of the relationship. The demanding tone says,
in effect, “I have a right to tell you what to do
around the house,” whereas the matter-of-fact
one suggests, “I’m just reminding you of something you might have overlooked.”
• You can easily imagine two ways to deliver the
statement, “I’m busy Saturday night”—one with
some affection and the other without.
Most of the time, we’re unaware of the relational
messages that bombard us every day. Sometimes,
these messages don’t capture our awareness because
they match our belief about the amount of control,
liking, or intimacy that is appropriate in a relationship. For example, you would probably not be
offended if your supervisor told you to drop everything and tackle a certain job, because you agree
that supervisors have the right to direct employees.
However, if your supervisor delivered the order in
a condescending, sarcastic, or abusive tone of voice,
you would probably be offended. Your complaint
wouldn’t be with the order itself, but with the way
it was delivered. “I may work for this company,”
you might think, “but I’m not a slave or an idiot.
I deserve to be treated like a human being.”
Exactly how are relational messages communicated? As the supervisor–employee example suggests,
they are usually expressed non-verbally. To test this
fact for yourself, imagine how you could act while
saying, “Can you help me for a minute?” in a way that
communicates each of the following messages:
•
•
•
•
•
•
superiority
helplessness
friendliness
aloofness
sexual desire
irritation
Although non-verbal behaviour is a good source
of relational messages, remember that it’s ambiguous. The sharp tone you take as a personal insult
8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships
might be due to fatigue, and the interruption you
take as an attempt to ignore your ideas might be a
sign of pressure that has nothing to do with you.
Before you jump to conclusions about relational
clues, it’s a good idea to verify the accuracy of your
interpretation with the other person: “When you
cut me off, I got the idea you were angry with me.
Were you?” Using a perception checking statement
(see Chapter 3) such as this can help you to avoid
acting on assumptions and increases your chances
of achieving a mutual understanding.
Not all relational messages are non-verbal,
however. Social scientists use the term metacommunication to describe messages that refer to
other messages (Ruesch and Bateson, 1951; Weder,
2008). In other words, metacommunication is
communication about communication. Whenever
we discuss a relationship with others, we are metacommunicating: “I wish we could stop arguing so
much,” or “I appreciate how honest you’ve been
with me.”
Despite its importance, overt metacommunication is not a common feature of most relationships
(Fogel and Branco, 1997; Wilmot, 1987). In fact,
there seems to be an aversion to it, even among
many people in intimate relationships (Bisson and
Levine, 2009; Zhang and Stafford, 2008). When 90
people were asked to identify the taboo subjects
in their personal relationships, the most frequent
topics involved metacommunication (Baxter and
Wilmot, 1985). For example, people were reluctant
to discuss the state of their current relationships
and the norms (“rules”) that governed their lives
together. Nevertheless, there are times when it
becomes necessary to talk about what’s going on
TAKE TWO
• Content dimension: the subject of a message
being discussed.
• Relational dimension: a statement describing
how the speaker feels about the listener (can
be non-verbal or verbal).
• Metacommunication: messages that refer to
other messages.
between you and a person with whom you have an
intimate relationship. Research shows that metacommunication can play a vital role in relational
maintenance and repair (Becker et al., 2008).
Maintaining and Supporting
­Relationships
We have all heard the advice that we must “work” at
relationships if we want them to be positive and fulfilling, but rarely do we hear about exactly what that
work involves. Just as gardens need tending, cars need
tune-ups, and bodies need exercise, relationships
need ongoing maintenance to keep them successful
and satisfying (Lydon and Quinn, 2013). When life is
challenging we count on our interpersonal relationships to offer the support we need (Lakey, 2013), so it’s
important to put in time and effort to maintain them.
Relational Maintenance
As noted earlier, relational maintenance can be
defined as communication that keeps relationships
running smoothly and satisfactorily. What kinds
of communication help maintain relationships?
Researchers have identified a number of communication strategies that are used by friends, relatives,
romantic partners, and co-workers to maintain
positive relationships (Canary et al., 1993; Ogolsky
and Bowers, 2013). The five strategies most commonly used by university students were:
• Openness: disclosing information, being empathetic, talking about the relationship, and
listening to each other. This includes metacommunication and the kinds of relational work
discussed earlier in this chapter.
• Assurances: letting each other know (both verbally
and non-verbally) that the relationship is important, comforting each other, and being supportive.
• Joint activities and tasks: spending time with
each other and taking care of life’s chores and
obligations.
• Positivity: trying to make interactions pleasant
and cheerful, showing affection, and avoiding
criticism.
• Social networks: being invested in each other’s
friends and family.
265
266
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
Of the strategies listed above, positivity and assurances are the best predictors of marital satisfaction
(Dainton et al., 1994). A study analyzing college students’ emails found that with family and friends the
most frequently used strategies were openness (e.g.,
“Things have been a little crazy for me lately”) and
social networks (e.g., “How are you and Sam? Hopefully good”) (Johnson et al., 2008). With romantic
partners, however, as previous research found, providing assurances (“This is just a little email to say I
love you”) was the most used strategy.
Social media can play an important role in maintaining relationships (Ledbetter and Keating, 2015).
Sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram give
communicators the chance to keep up with each
other through status updates (Craig and Wright,
2012; Dainton, 2013). Of course, there’s a risk that
constant updates will leave little to talk about in person. Emails can help too, though calling is particularly valuable for more intimate topics (Utz, 2007).
Even a streak of daily Snapchat exchanges can help
maintain a relationship (Stein, 2017). One study
found that women use social media for relational
maintenance more often than men do, regardless of
the type of relationship (Houser et al., 2012). This
finding is consistent with research showing that
women expect and receive more maintenance communication with their female friends than men do
with their male friends (Hall et al., 2011).
Social media can be especially useful for meeting
the challenges of long-distance relationships. These
relationships are increasingly common, and they
can be as stable as, or even more so than, geographically close relationships (Merolla, 2010). This is
true not only for romantic and family relationships,
but also for friendships (Johnson, Becker et al.,
2009). The key to ensuring the longevity of a long-­
distance relationship is a commitment to relational
maintenance. In one study, female college students
said that openness and mutual problem solving are
vital maintenance strategies in long-distance dating relationships (McGuire and Kinnery, 2010). In
another study, both men and women reported that
openness (self-disclosure) was the most important
factor for maintaining their long-distance friendships (Johnson, Haigh et al., 2009). Participants
conceded that sharing tasks and practical help may
be less viable options in long-distance relationships.
We’ll talk more about specific relational maintenance strategies in families, friendships, and romantic relationships in Chapter 11.
Social Support
Whereas relational maintenance is about keeping
a relationship thriving and running smoothly,
social support is about helping others during
challenging times by providing emotional, informational, or instrumental resources (MacGeorge
et al., 2011). Social support has been consistently
linked to mental and physical health (Lakey, 2013)
and can be offered in a variety of ways, including:
• Emotional support: Few things are more helpful
in times of stress, hurt, or grief than a loved one
who listens with empathy and responds in caring ways (Reis and Clark, 2013). Chapter 5 (pages
164–5) describes what supporting does and
doesn’t sound like when responding to others’
emotional needs. Remember, it’s important to
keep your message person-centred (High and
Solomon, 2016)—that is, focused on the emotions of the speaker (“this must be so difficult for
you”) rather than minimizing those feelings (“it’s
not the end of the world”) or diverting attention
away from them (“tomorrow is a new day”).
• Informational support: The people in our lives
can be helpful information sources. They can
give us recommendations for shopping, advice
about relationships, or observations about our
blind spots. Of course, keep in mind that advice
is most likely to be regarded as supportive when
it’s wanted and requested by the person in need.
• Instrumental support: Sometimes, support is
best given by rolling up your sleeves and doing
a task or favour to show that you care (Semmer
et al., 2008). This can be as simple as giving
someone a ride to the airport or as involved as
providing care to someone during a period of illness. We count on our loved ones to offer assistance in times of need, and instrumental support
is a primary marker of a meaningful friendship
(“A friend in need is a friend indeed”).
Sometimes just being available for interaction
can provide social support. One study found that
8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships
SELF-ASSESSMENT
NON-VERBAL IMMEDIACY BEHAVIOURS
With a particular relationship partner in mind, read
each of the following 14 questions, and consider the
extent to which you agree or disagree with each. Use
a 7-point scale, with 1 = “completely disagree,” 7
= “completely agree,” and 2 though 6 representing
levels of agreement between these endpoints. The
relationship partner I’m thinking of
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
acts positively towards me.
is understanding.
talks about their feelings.
discusses the quality of our relationship.
talks about our plans for the future.
includes our friends in our activities.
shares in joint responsibilities that face us.
is upbeat when we’re together.
is forgiving of me.
is open about their feelings.
tells me how they feel about the relationship.
tells me how much I mean to them.
does things with our friends.
helps with tasks that need to be done.
SOURCE: Adapted from Stafford, L. (2011). Measuring relationship maintenance behaviours: Critique and
development of the Revised Relationship Maintenance Behaviour Scale. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 28, 278–303; and Stafford, L. (2016).
Marital sanctity, relationship maintenance, and marital quality. Journal of Family Issues, 37, 119–31.
Add your responses to items 2 and 9. This represents
your perception of your partner’s use of understanding maintenance behaviours.
Add your responses to items 3 and 10. This represents your perception of your partner’s use of self-­
disclosure maintenance behaviours.
Add your responses to items 4 and 11. This represents your perception of your partner’s use of relationship talk maintenance behaviours.
Add your responses to items 5 and 12. This represents your perception of your partner’s use of assurance maintenance behaviours.
Add your responses to items 6 and 13. This represents your perception of your partner’s use of networks maintenance behaviours.
Add your responses to items 7 and 14. This represents your perception of your partner’s use of tasks
maintenance behaviours.
Which relational maintenance behaviours did you
perceive your partner as using most, and which
least? These seven types of maintenance behaviours are independent; that is, a person can be perceived as enacting none, several, or all. A review
of studies using a version of this test (Ogolsky and
Bowers, 2013) concluded that women are perceived
as using more of the different types of relational
maintenance behaviours than men. Which relational
maintenance behaviours are most important in your
relationship?
Scoring:
Add your responses to items 1 and 8. This represents
your perception of your partner’s use of positivity
maintenance behaviours.
patients who texted with their friends after they
got out of surgery required less pain medication
than those who didn’t (Guillory et al., 2015). In
this case, the benefit wasn’t just a matter of distraction, because playing video games didn’t
have the same analgesic effect on the patients.
The researchers maintain that interpersonal
interaction—even via texting—offers social support and a measure of pain relief. This serves as
a reminder that the simple act of communication with others when they’re hurting is an act of
kindness that can help. Providing and receiving
social support can strengthen our connections
with others and deepen our appreciation of the
relationships we have with them. The empathy
(see Chapter 3) that social support both requires
and inspires goes a long way towards maintaining
relationships that are important to us.
267
268
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
Repairing Damaged Relationships
Sooner or later, even the most satisfying and
stable relationships hit a bumpy patch. Sometimes, problems arise from outside forces such as
work, finances, and competing relationships, to
name a few. Other times, problems arise from differences and disagreements within a relationship.
In Chapter 11, we offer guidelines for dealing
with these sorts of challenges. Beyond inside and
outside forces, relational transgressions can also
pose relational problems. Relational transgressions are when one relationship partner violates
the explicit or implicit terms of the relationship,
thereby letting the other one down in an important way.
Types of Relational Transgressions
What constitutes a relational transgression depends
on a number of factors; however, these types of violations can be grouped into different categories (Guerrero and Bachman, 2008). Table 8.2 lists some types
of relational transgressions, which we’ll analyze in
terms of their significance or seriousness, how common they are, the extent to which they were committed on purpose or by accident, and whether they
are isolated events or part of a larger pattern. Analyzing transgressions in this way will help inform
our choices regarding relationship repair.
Minor versus significant: Some of the items listed
in Table 8.2 aren’t inherently transgressions, and in
small doses they can actually aid relationships. For
instance, a little distance can make the heart grow
fonder, a little jealousy can be a sign of affection,
TABLE 8.2
and a little anger can start the process of resolving
a gripe. In large and regular doses, however, these
acts become serious transgressions that can damage personal relationships. When transgression
severity is perceived as high, and the perceiver’s
communication competence is low, rumination
increases and relational closeness decreases (Robbins and Merrill, 2014).
Social versus relational: Some transgressions
violate social rules shared by society at large. For
example, almost everyone would agree that ridiculing or humiliating a friend or family member
in public is a violation of a fundamental social rule
regarding saving others’ face. Other rules are relational in nature—unique norms constructed by
the people involved. For instance, some families
have a rule stating, “If I’m going to be more than
a little bit late, I’ll let you know so that you don’t
worry.” Once such a rule exists, failure to honour it
feels like a violation, even though outsiders might
not view it as such.
Deliberate versus intentional: Some transgressions are unintentional. You might reveal something about a friend’s past without realizing that
this disclosure would be embarrassing. Other violations, though, are intentional. In a fit of anger, you
might purposely lash out with a cruel comment,
knowing that it will hurt the other person’s feelings.
One-time versus incremental: The most obvious
transgressions occur in a single episode: an act of
betrayal, a verbal assault, or walking out in anger.
But more subtle transgressions can occur over
time. Consider emotional withdrawal: sometimes
people retreat into themselves, and we usually
give one another space to do just that. But if the
Some Types of Relational Transgressions
Category
Examples
Lack of commitment
Failure to honour important obligations (e.g., financial, emotional, task related); selfserving dishonesty; unfaithfulness
Distance
Physical separation (beyond what is necessary); psychological separation (avoidance;
ignoring)
Disrespect
Criticism (especially in front of third parties)
Problematic emotions
Jealousy; unjustified suspicion; rage
Aggression
Verbal hostility; physical violence
8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships
withdrawal slowly becomes pervasive, it becomes
a violation of the fundamental rule in most relationships that partners should be available to one
another.
Strategies for Relational Repair
Research confirms the common-sense notion that
a frequent first step to repairing a transgression is
to talk about the violation (Brandau-Brown and
Ragsdale, 2008). Chapter 6 offered tips for sending clear, assertive “I messages” when you believe
you’ve been wronged (“I was really embarrassed
when you yelled at me in front of everybody last
night”), whether describing the outcomes of the
transgression or asking for an apology (Peyton and
Goei, 2013).
In other cases, you might be responsible for
the transgression and want to raise it for discussion: “What did I do that you found so hurtful?”
“Why was my behaviour a problem for you?” Asking questions such as these—and listening non-­
defensively to the answers—can be an enormous
challenge. In Chapter 5 we offered guidelines for
listening; in Chapter 9, we’ll provide tips about
how to manage criticism.
Not surprisingly, some transgressions are
harder to repair than others. One study of dating
partners found that sexual infidelity and breaking
up were the two least forgivable offenses (Bachman and Guerrero, 2006). The seriousness of
the transgression and the relative strength of the
relationship prior to the offense are the two most
significant factors in whether forgiveness will be
granted (Guerrero and Bachman, 2010).
For the best chance of repairing a seriously
damaged relationship, an apology needs to be
offered. The Last Lecture author Randy Pausch
(2008) notes, “If you have done something wrong
in your dealings with another person, it’s as if
there’s an infection in your relationship. A good
apology is like an antibiotic, a bad apology is like
rubbing salt in the wound” (p. 161). Here are the
top three things people look for in an apology, in
order of importance (Lewicki et al., 2016):
1. Acknowledgement of responsibility: “It was
my fault; I acted like a selfish jerk.”
2. Offer of repair: “I’ll fix what I did and make
things right.”
3. Expression of regret: “I’m really sorry. I feel
awful for letting you down.”
Even if you offer an ideal apology, however, it
may be unrealistic to expect immediate forgiveness. Sometimes, especially with severe transgressions, expressions of regret and promises of new
behaviour will only be accepted conditionally,
with a need for them to be demonstrated over time
before the aggrieved party regards them as genuine
(Merolla, 2008).
Given the challenges and possible humiliation
involved in apologizing, is it worth the effort?
Research suggests yes. Participants in one study
consistently reported that they had more remorse
over apologies they didn’t offer than about those
they did (Exline et al., 2007). If you need to make
things right with someone you’ve offended, it’s better to do so now than to later regret that you didn’t.
Forgiving Transgressions
You might think that forgiveness is a topic for the
theologians and philosophers. However, social scientists have found that forgiving others has both
personal and relational benefits (Antonuccio and
Jackson, 2009). On a personal level, forgiveness
has been shown to reduce emotional distress and
aggression (Eaton and Struthers, 2006; Orcutt,
2006) and even improve cardiovascular function
(Hannon et al., 2012). Interpersonally, extending
forgiveness to lovers, friends, and family can often
help restore damaged relationships (Fincham and
Beach, 2013). Moreover, most research shows that
transgressors who have been forgiven are usually
less likely to repeat their offenses than those who
have not received forgiveness (Whited et al., 2010).
In the workplace, research suggests that leaders who
show compassion when employees make mistakes
inspire greater loyalty and trust, whereas leaders
who react angrily to employee errors increase stress
and inhibit employees’ creativity (Seppala, 2015).
Even when a sincere apology is offered, forgiving others can be difficult. Research shows that one
way to improve your ability to forgive is to recall
times when you have mistreated or hurt others in
269
270
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
the past—in other words, to remember that you,
too, have wronged others and needed their forgiveness (Exline et al., 2008). Given that it’s in our
own best interest to be forgiven, we would do well
to remember these words from Richard Walters
(1984) who sees forgiveness as a choice requiring courage and continuous acts of will: “When
we have been hurt we have two alternatives: be
destroyed by resentment, or forgive. Resentment is
death; forgiving leads to healing and life” (p. 366).
SUMMARY
Explanations for why we form relationships with
some people and not with others include appearance (physical attractiveness), similarity, complementarity, rewards, competence, proximity, and
disclosure. Intimacy and distance are important
parts of our relationships with others and there are
several ways to establish both. Culture and gender
influence intimacy in relationships by informing the
social rules that govern intimate communication.
Also, each culture defines the extent to which any
relationship should be formal and distant or close
and intimate.
Some theorists argue that interpersonal relationships may go through as many as 10 stages
of growth and deterioration. They suggest that
communication may reflect more than one stage
at a given time, although one stage will be dominant. Another way to analyze the dynamics of interpersonal communication is in terms of dialectical
tensions, that is, mutually opposing, incompatible
desires that are part of our relationships and that
can never be completely resolved. These tensions
include integration–separation, stability–change,
and expression–privacy. Both views characterize
relationships as constantly changing, so that communication is more of a process than a static thing.
Relational messages are sometimes expressed
overtly by verbal metacommunication; however, they
are more frequently conveyed non-verbally. Interpersonal relationships require maintenance to stay
healthy. Relational maintenance requires partners to
use positive and open communication that includes
assurances and demonstrates commitment to the
relationship. It also entails sharing tasks, investing
in each other’s social networks and offering social
support through the exchange of emotional, informational and instrumental resources.
Some relationships become damaged over time
and others are hurt through relational transgressions. Apologies and forgiveness are particularly
important strategies for repairing damaged relationships.
MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONS
1.
Which of the following statements is true
regarding why we form relationships?
a. We are attracted to people who are similar
to us and dislike those who are different.
b. We are attracted to people who are different than ourselves rather than people
who are similar.
c. We are attracted to people who are similar to ourselves and we are also attracted
to those whose different characteristics
complement our own.
d. Neither similarities nor differences affect
our motivation to form relationships
because our relationships are influenced
most by proximity.
2.
In Elliot Aronson and colleagues’ study of how
competence and imperfection combine, their
subjects found which of the following quiz
show contestants most attractive?
a. the person with superior ability who did
not spill the coffee
b. the person with average ability who did
not spill the coffee
c. the person with superior ability who
spilled the coffee
8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships
d. the person with average ability who
spilled the coffee
3.
Social exchange theory suggests
a. we seek relationships with people who
are competent in social exchange.
b. we seek relationships with people who
can give us rewards greater than the
costs we encounter dealing with them.
c. we terminate relationships with people
when our social exchanges with them are
stagnant.
d. we terminate relationships with people
who are low on the social exchange index.
The finding that frequent interaction during
the day via cellphone can be a source of conflict in relationships is evidence of which of
the following dialectical tensions?
a.
b.
c.
d.
7.
denial
compartmentalizing
accepting
reframing
integration–separation dialectic
stability–change dialectic
expression–privacy dialectic
dynamic–static dialectic
Grace and Zoe enjoy sharing their beliefs
about spirituality, politics, and the meaning
emotional
physical
intellectual
shared activities
Metacommunication is the term used to
describe
a. messages that refer to other messages
or communication about communication.
b. the aspects of communication that convey how communication partners feel
about one another.
c. communication that helps maintain and
repair relationships.
d. communication that conveys emotional
support.
handshakes and friendly facial expressions.
small talk and searching for common ground.
engagement and marriage.
avoidance and personal space.
Sal has reinterpreted Akeno’s unwillingness
to share some information about parts of his
past as an interesting and admirable quality
rather than feeling hurt and excluded by his
privacy. Which of the following strategies has
Sal used to manage this tension in her relationship with Akeno?
a.
b.
c.
d.
6.
8.
The hallmark of the “experimenting” stage of
relational development is
a.
b.
c.
d.
5.
a.
b.
c.
d.
9.
Fabiola helps her friend Gabrielle move to a
new place when her relationship with Alberto
ends. Fabiola is providing Gabrielle with which
type of social support?
a.
b.
c.
d.
emotional
informational
instrumental
all of the above
10. Which of the following apologies contains the
components people look for in an apology, in
order of importance?
a. Sorry you found that remark insensitive.
I will avoid that sort of straight talk with
you in the future.
b. I acted selfishly and didn’t consider your
perspective. I will make things right and I
am so sorry for being so thoughtless.
c. Oh, l didn’t realize you would be offended.
So sorry.
d. We obviously had a misunderstanding but
I will make things right. Sorry.
Answers: 1
. c; 2. c; 3. b; 4. b; 5. d; 6. a; 7. c; 8. a; 9. c; 10. b
4.
of life with each other. They find these discussions interesting and they feel secure knowing they can safely share their deeply held
beliefs with each other. Their relationship
involves which type of intimacy?
271
272
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
ACTIVITIES
1. Critical Thinking Probe
Some critics claim that Knapp’s model of relational
stages is better at describing romantic relationships than other types. Use a variety of romantic
and non-romantic interpersonal relationships from
your experience to evaluate the breadth of his
model. If the model does not describe the developmental path of all types of interpersonal relationships, can you suggest alternative models?
2. Invitation to Insight
How do you manage the dialectical tensions in your
important relationships? Is there a pattern to what
you and the other person do, or does it depend on the
type of relationship you have? Identify at least two
dialectical tensions in two different relationships—
one relationship, perhaps, with a person with
whom you work closely, and the other with a romantic partner. How is each tension managed? Which
approach do you and your partner tend to use
(denial, disorientation, alternation, segmentation,
balance, integration, recalibration, or reaffirmation)? What seem to be the conditions that determine which method you and your partner use?
3. Ethical Challenge
Consider the notion that we often face conflicting
goals when we communicate in an attempt to meet
our own needs and those of others. Use the information found on pages 259–62 to identify a situation in which your personal goals conflict with those
of another person. What obligation do you have to
communicate in a way that helps the other person
reach their goals? Is it possible to honour this obligation and still try to satisfy your own needs?
4. Skill Builder
Describe three unexpressed relational messages
in one or more of your interpersonal relationships.
a. Explain how you could have used metacommunication to express each one. Consider skills you
learned in other chapters, such as perception
checking, “I” language, and paraphrasing.
b. Discuss the possible benefits and drawbacks
of this kind of metacommunication in each of
the situations you identified. On the basis of
your discussion here, what principles do you
believe should guide your decisions about
whether and when to focus explicitly on relational issues?
5. Role Play
Choose a partner. Pretend you don’t know each
other and you want to initiate contact with this
person in class. What strategies might you use?
(Review the strategies listed on pages 253–5.)
Role-play your attempts to initiate contact. Which
strategies worked well? Are there any you would
not try in this context? Now reverse roles and think
of another context or situation in which your partner might want to initiate contact with you (e.g., at
work, at a party). Role-play initiating contact in this
new situation. Afterward, again analyze the strategies that worked, those that didn’t, and the ones
that felt appropriate or inappropriate in this situation, and discuss why.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1.
Why do we form relationships with other
people?
2.
Describe the four different types of intimacy
presented in this chapter and give an example
of each from your own relationships. Do you
think an ideal intimate relationship would
include all four? Why or why not?
3.
Do you think Knapp’s model of the stages of
relational development can be adapted to collectivist cultures? Why or why not?
8 | Dynamics of Interpersonal Relationships
4.
Describe the dialectical tensions that exist in
one of your relationships (e.g., with your parents, a friend, or a romantic partner). How do
you manage these tensions in that relationship?
5.
Despite its importance, metacommunication
is not a common feature of most relationships. Why do you think this is?
6.
Review the strategies for relationship maintenance and repair described on pages 265–70.
Which do you use in your most satisfying
r­elationships? Which, if any do you use in
your least satisfying relationships? Is there a
relationship between the number of maintenance strategies you use and your satisfaction
with your relationships? Why or why not?
7.
While forgiveness has tremendous benefits
it can be challenging. Are some transgressions in relationships easier for you to forgive
than others? What factors might contribute
to individual differences in people’s ability to
forgive?
JOURNAL IDEAS
1.
You can get a sense of how your desires
for both intimacy and distance operate by
reflecting on a relationship with an important person you see regularly. For this journal exercise you might choose a friend,
family member, or romantic partner. For at
least a week, chart how your communication with this relational partner reflects your
desire for either intimacy or distance. Use
a 7-point scale, in which behaviour seeking
high intimacy receives a 7 and behaviour
designed to avoid physical, intellectual,
and/or emotional contact receives a 1. Use
ratings from 2 to 6 to represent intermediate stages. Record at least one rating per
day, making more detailed entries if your
desire for intimacy or distance changes
during that period. What tactics did you
use to establish or maintain distance?
After charting your communication, reflect
on what the results tell you about your
personal desire for intimacy and distance.
Consider the following questions:
•
Was there a pattern of alternating
phases of intimacy and distance during the time you observed?
•
•
•
•
2.
Was this pattern typical of your communication in this relationship over a
longer period of time?
Does your communication in other
relationships contain a similar mixture
of intimacy and distance?
Most importantly, are you satisfied
with the results you discovered in this
exercise?
If you are not satisfied, how would you
like to change your communication
behaviour?
Choose one of the dialectal tensions
described in this chapter and describe
how it operates in one of your close relationships. Review this journal entry in a
couple of weeks and see if the tension
has changed. If so, how has it changed?
Why do you think it has changed? If no
change has occurred, why do you think it
has remained so stable? Are there environmental factors that influence how these
competing needs affect this relationship?
If so, what are they?
273
DanielBendjy/iStockphoto
9
Communication Climate
CHAPTER OUTLINE
What Is Communication Climate?
How Communication Climates Develop
Levels of Message Confirmation
Causes and Effects of Defensiveness
Climate Patterns
Creating Supportive Climates
Evaluation versus Description
Controlling Communication versus Problem
Orientation
Strategy versus Spontaneity
Neutrality versus Empathy
Superiority versus Equality
Certainty versus Provisionalism
Invitational Communication
The Language of Choice
Responding Non-defensively to Criticism
KEY TERMS
acknowledgement
aggressiveness
argumentativeness
certainty
communication climate
complaining
confirming communication
controlling communication
defensiveness
description
disagreeing message
disconfirming communication
endorsement
equality
evaluation
face-threatening acts
invitational communication
neutrality
ostracism
problem orientation
provisionalism
recognition
spontaneity
strategy
superiority
LEARNING OUTCOMES
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:
•
•
•
•
Explain the nature of communication climates
Analyze the development of communication climates
Distinguish the factors that create defensive communication climates versus supportive communication
climates
Identify the communication skills that create invitational climates
276
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
How would you describe your most important
relationships? Fair or stormy? Hot or cold? Just
as physical locations have characteristic weather
patterns, interpersonal relationships have unique
climates, too. You can’t measure the interpersonal
climate by looking at a thermometer or glancing at
the sky, but it’s there nonetheless. Every relationship has a feeling, a pervasive mood that colours
the actions of the participants.
What Is Communication
­Climate?
The term communication climate refers to the
social tone of a relationship. A climate doesn’t
involve specific activities so much as the way people
feel about each other as they carry out those activities. Consider two interpersonal communication
classes. Both meet for the same length of time and
follow the same syllabus. It’s easy to imagine how
one of these classes might be a friendly, comfortable place to learn, whereas the other could be cold
and tense—even hostile. It’s not the course content
that differs; rather, it’s the way the people in the
classroom feel about and treat each other (Johnson and LaBelle, 2016)—even if the learning takes
place online (Zhang et al., 2012).
Just as every classroom has a unique climate, so
too does every relationship. Romances, friendships,
and families—just like neighbourhoods, cities, and
countries—can be defined by their social tone.
Another obvious place for observing the effect of a
climate impact is the workplace, which may explain
why the topic is so widely studied (Sopow, 2008;
Yurtsever and de Rivera, 2010). Have you ever held
a job where backbiting, criticism, and suspicion
were the norm? Or have you been lucky enough to
work where the atmosphere was positive, encouraging, and supportive? If you have experienced
both, you know what a difference climate makes.
Studies demonstrate that employees have higher
levels of commitment to jobs where they experience
a positive communication climate (Bakar et al.,
2010; Bartels et al., 2008) and are more creative and
willing to solve problems when they feel supported
at work (Kholer et al., 2010; Seppala, 2015).
Like their meteorological counterparts, communication climates are shared by everyone
within them. It’s rare to find one person describing
a relationship as open and positive while another
characterizes it as cold and hostile. And, just like
the weather, communication climates can change
over time. A relationship can be overcast at one
time and sunny at another. Carrying the analogy
to its conclusion, we should say that communication climate forecasting is not a perfect science.
Unlike the weather, however, people can change
their communication climates—and that’s why
it’s important to understand them. This chapter
explores several climate issues: how communication climates develop, how and why we respond
defensively in certain climates, and what can be
done to create positive climates and transform
negative ones.
How Communication
Climates Develop
Why does some communication create a positive
climate while other communication has the opposite effect? A short but accurate answer is that communication climates are determined by the degree
to which people see themselves as valued. Communicators who perceive others as liking, appreciating, and respecting them react positively, while
those who feel unimportant or abused react negatively. Social scientists use the term confirming
communication to describe direct and/or indirect
messages that convey valuing (Dailey, 2010). In
one form or another, confirming messages say,
“you exist,” “you matter,” “you’re important.” By
contrast, disconfirming communication signals
a lack of regard. In one form or another, disconfirming messages say, “you’re not important,” “you
don’t matter,” or “you don’t exist.”
As we have stressed throughout this book, every
message has a relational dimension along with
its content. This means that we send and receive
confirming and disconfirming messages virtually
whenever we communicate. Serious conversations
about our relationships may not be common, but
we convey our attitudes about one another even
9 | Communication Climate
when we talk about everyday matters. In other
words, it isn’t what we communicate about that
shapes a relational climate so much as how we
speak and act toward one another.
It’s hard to overstate the importance of confirming messages and the impact of disconfirming
ones. Victims of hateful speech can experience the
same long-term consequences that follow other
traumas: feeling dazed, shocked, ill, and angry
(Leets, 2002). Children who lack confirmation
suffer a broad range of emotional and behavioural
problems (Osterman, 2001), whereas those who feel
confirmed have more open communication with
their parents, higher self-esteem, and lower levels
of stress (Dailey, 2009, 2010). In school, a sense of
belonging is associated with both a positive attitude toward school, class work, and teachers as
well as greater participation, school engagement,
and achievement. Both teachers’ and parents’ supportive interactions help to moderate the daily
challenges and frustrations children face at school
and help them to be more successful (Strom and
Boster, 2007). Even in post-secondary settings,
when instructors behave in ways that are confirming to students (e.g., by responding to student
questions, employing an interactive teaching style,
and demonstrating interest in students’ learning),
their students experience an abundance of emotional benefits (Goldman and Goodboy, 2014; Titsworth et al., 2013). A confirming climate is also
important in marriages, where it’s the best predictor of marital satisfaction. Marriage researcher
John Gottman (2003) suggests couples who have
five times as many positive interactions (e.g., smiling, laughing, paying compliments, and touching) as negative ones are likely to have happy and
successful relationships. Furthermore, if children
Confirming
see their parents regularly engage in confirming
communication with each other, they are likely to
replicate those patterns in their own romantic relationships (Young and Schrodt, 2016).
The interpretation of a message as confirming or
disconfirming is subjective. Consider, for example,
times when you took a comment that might have
sounded unsupportive to an outsider (“You’re such
a nerd!”) as a sign of affection within the context
of your personal relationship. Likewise, a comment that the sender might have meant to be helpful (“I’m telling you this for your own good . . . ”)
could easily be regarded as a disconfirming attack.
Levels of Message Confirmation
Figure 9.1 shows that the range of confirming and
disconfirming communication includes several
categories of messages, which we’ll examine in the
following pages.
Confirming Messages
There is no guarantee that others will regard even
your best attempts at confirming messages the way
you intend them, but research shows that there
are three increasingly-positive types of messages
that are most likely to be perceived as confirming:
recognition, acknowledgement, and endorsement
(Cissna and Sieberg, 2006).
Recognition The most fundamental act of confirmation is recognition, or indicating your
awareness of the other person. This can be done
non-verbally, for example, by making eye contact
or offering a smile. It can also be done verbally,
with phrases such as “Glad to see you” or “I’ll be
Disagreeing
Endorsement Acknowledgement Recognition Argumentativeness Complaning
Disconfirming
Aggressiveness Ostracism
Valuing
FIGURE 9.1 Message Types Along the Confirmation–Disconfirmation Spectrum
Non-Valuing
277
278
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
right with you” or by sending a quick text or email
reply that both acknowledges you have received
the person’s message and indicates when you can
provide a more fulsome response. In the same way,
avoiding eye contact can send a negative message.
Consider what it feels like when a store clerk fails to
non-verbally signal that you’re waiting for service.
One national retailer strives to greet customers
within “10 feet and 10 seconds” of them entering
the store, believing those moments to be vital in
creating customer loyalty (Gallo, 2012).
Acknowledgement Paying attention to the ideas
and feelings of others constitutes acknowledgement, which is a stronger form of confirmation
than simple recognition (Weger et al., 2014).
­Phrases such as “I see your point” or “I understand
how you feel that way” communicate acknowledgement regardless of whether you agree with what’s
being said. As French philosopher Simone Weil
puts it, “Attention is the rarest and purest form of
generosity” (Saltz, 2012).
Disagreeing Messages
Between confirming and disconfirming communication lies a type of message that isn’t always easy to
categorize: a disagreeing message. A ­disagreeing
message essentially says, “You’re wrong.” In its
most constructive form, disagreement includes
two confirming components: recognition and
acknowledgement. At its worst, a disagreeing message can devastate another person such that the
benefits of recognition and acknowledgement are
lost. Because there are better and worse ways to
disagree with others, disagreeing messages need to be put
on a ­positive-to-negative scale.
In this section, we’ll discuss
three types of disagreement—­
argumentativeness, complaining, and aggressiveness—to show
how disagreeing messages can fall
on a positive-to-negative scale.
suriya_silsaksom/iStockphoto
Endorsement Whereas acknowledgement shows
you’re interested in another person, endorsement
means that you agree with or support them. Endorsement is the strongest type of confirming
­ essage because it communicates the highest
m
form of valuing. You can verbally endorse others
by agreeing with them (“You’re right about that”),
offering compliments (“Nice job handling that
situation”), or giving praise (“That’s the best presentation I’ve seen this year”). Getting recognition
like this on the job helps workers “feel personally
significant, needed, unique, and particularly successful” (­ Lutgen-Sandvik et al., 2011, p. 12).
Non-verbal endorsement also can enhance the
quality of a relational climate (Dailey, 2008). For
example, simple acts like maintaining eye contact
and nodding while someone speaks can confirm
the value of a speaker’s idea.
When have you used confirming communication with someone and found that
they felt valued? Have you ever used confirming communication with someone only to find that they did not feel valued?
Argumentativeness Normally,
when we call a person argumentative, we’re making an unfavourable judgment because
they argue too much. However,
the ability to create and de­liver
a sound argument is something we admire in lawyers,
talk-show participants, writers,
and debaters. Taking a positive
9 | Communication Climate
approach to the term, communication researchers define argumentativeness as presenting and
defending positions on issues while opposing positions taken by others (Johnson et al., 2014). The
key to maintaining a positive climate while arguing a point is the way you present your ideas. It’s
crucial to attack issues, not people. In addition, a
sound argument is received better when it’s delivered in a supportive, affirming manner. There is a
world of difference between “That’s a stupid idea”
and “I disagree—let me explain why.” The supportive kinds of messages outlined in the ­previous
section of this chapter show how it’s possible to
argue in a respectful, constructive way. It’s important to keep in mind that not all cultures value
a clear and assertively-made argument. Cultures
that value collectivism, high power distance, and
high-context communication patterns, such as
China and Malaysia, may be less appreciative of
this kind of assertive communication than people
in more individualistic, low power distance, and
low-context communication cultures, such as
Canada and the United States (e.g., Koc, 2010; Ma
and Jaeger, 2010).
SELF-ASSESSMENT
CONFIRMING AND DISCONFIRMING COMMUNICATION
With a particular friendship in mind, respond to each of
the statements below using a scale ranging from 1 to 5,
where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree.”
Part 1
1. M
y friend pays attention to me when I’m
talking.
2. My friend usually listens carefully to what I
say.
3. When we talk, my friend does their part to
keep the conversation going.
4. I feel as though I’m usually able to say everything I want to say without being judged.
5. My friend makes eye contact while we talk.
6. My friend usually accepts my point of view
as accurate.
7. My friend often acts interested in what I
have to say.
Part 2
1. M
y friend teases me in a way that hurts my
feelings.
2. When I bring up something that upsets
me, my friend tells me I shouldn’t complain
about it.
3. My friend often tells me that my feelings or
thoughts are wrong.
4. My friend ignores me when I try to talk to
them about something important.
5. M
y friend often changes the subject to
something they want to discuss.
6. My friend often seems uninvolved in our
conversations.
7. My friend often takes over the conversation
and does not allow me to do much of the
talking.
8. My friend often interrupts me.
9. My friend blames me when we have a disagreement about something.
10. My friend often makes jokes at my expense.
SOURCE: Adapted from Bloch, A.S. and Wenger,
H.W. Jr. (2012 May). Associations among friendship
satisfaction, self-verification, self-enhancement, and
friends’ communication skill. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the International Communication
Association, Phoenix, AZ.
Scoring:
Add your responses to the seven items in Part 1. This
is your conformation score: _______. The average score
for college students was 29, with possible range from
7 to 35. Higher scores represent greater confirmation.
Add your responses to the 10 items in Part 2. This
is your disconfirmation score: _______. The average
score for college students was 20 (the original instrument has 17 items for this part), with possible range
from 10 to 50. Higher scores represent greater disconfirmation.
279
280
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
Complaining When communicators aren’t prepared to argue (which requires interaction), but
still want to register their dissatisfaction, they
can engage in complaining. As for all disagreeing messages, some ways of complaining are more
constructive than others. Satisfied couples tend to
offer behavioural complaints (“You always throw
your socks on the floor”), while dissatisfied couples
make more complaints aimed at personal characteristics (“You’re a slob”) (Alberts, 1988, 1990).
Personal complaints are more likely to result in an
escalated conflict episode (Alberts and Driscoll,
1992). The reason should be obvious—complaints
about personal characteristics attack a more fundamental part of someone’s presenting self. Talking
about socks deals with a habit that can be changed;
calling someone a slob is a character assault that is
unlikely to be forgotten when the conflict is over.
Marriage researcher John Gottman (2000)
has found that complaining is not a sign of a
troubled relationship—in fact, it’s usually healthy
for spouses to get their concerns out in the open.
Other researchers agree that complaining can be
“a relationship constructing tool [that] encourages
bonding and increased intimacy within romantic
relationships” (Hall et al., 2013, p. 59). However,
when a couple’s complaining turns to criticism and
contempt, it’s often a symptom of relational trouble
(see the “Four Horsemen” in Chapter 10).
Disconfirming Messages
Disconfirming messages can be subtler than disagreeing ones but potentially more damaging. Disconfirming communication implicitly says, “you
are not valued” or “you don’t exist.”
Disconfirmation can be communicated in small
ways (Cissna and Sieburg, 2006). When you make
an important point during a conversation and a
friend interrupts, you probably feel devalued. The
same may be true if the friend goes off on an irrelevant tangent, gives an impersonal response (“It’s
no big deal, these things happen”), or ignores your
message altogether. Sometimes we inadvertently
send disconfirming messages because we’re distracted. For instance, how do you feel when you’re
talking to someone and they check their phone
mid-conversation? Research suggests that most
of us have had this disconfirming experience and
it can cause conflict in our relationships (Roberts
and David, 2016). In fact, the mere presence of a
cellphone (even if it’s never touched) on the table in
a restaurant during a meal with family and friends
undermines the enjoyment of the people sharing the meal (Dwyer et al., 2018). You can assess
the level of confirmation and disconfirmation in
one of your friendships by completing the Self-­
Assessment on page 279. But some disconfirming
communication is more intentional, and usually
more injurious. Two message types that fall into
this category are aggressiveness and ostracism.
Aggressiveness Verbal aggressiveness refers to
the tendency to attack another person’s character,
background, or identity (Xie et al., 2015). Unlike
argumentativeness, aggressiveness demeans the
worth of others and is corrosive to relationships
(Roper et al., 2017). Name calling, put-downs, sarcasm, taunting, yelling, badgering, and even some
types of humour are all methods of using aggressiveness to “win” disagreements at someone else’s
expense. Communication research has linked aggressiveness to a host of negative outcomes, such
as lowered self-esteem, occupational burnout, juvenile delinquency, depression, violence, and even
mortality (Rancer and Avtgis, 2014).
One form of aggressiveness—bullying—has
received a good deal of attention from both
the media and researchers (Danielson and
Emmers-Sommer, 2016; Goodboy et al., 2016). The
word bully often conjures up the images of a tough
kid on the school playground, but bullying occurs
in a variety of contexts. For instance, it can take
place within families (Berry and Adams, 2016),
and sibling bullying can have long lasting negative effects (Bowes et al., 2014). Bullying can occur
between managers and employees (Moss, 2016),
doctors and nurses (Robbins, 2015), and professors
and students (Martin et al., 2015).
The internet gives bullies more channels for
engaging in verbal aggressiveness. Cyberbullying has some unique characteristics that increase
its negative consequences. First, the anonymity of
cyberbullying allows bullies to remove themselves
9 | Communication Climate
from the consequences of their actions. They are
less aware of the repercussions of their actions and
have less fear of punishment than they would in
face-to-face interactions. In addition, cyberbullying
can occur at any time and, given the pervasiveness
of our social media use and mediated communication, victims cannot easily remove themselves from
the bullying situation in order to increase their
feelings of safety. Finally, cyberbullies have a larger
audience than people who are verbally aggressive in
face-to-face-interactions (Camacho et al., 2018). It’s
not surprising that cyberbullying has been linked
to a variety of negative consequences, including
lower satisfaction with social media, poor academic performance, depression, withdrawal, drug
and alcohol abuse, and even suicide (Baier et al.,
2018; Camacho et al., 2018; Giumetti and Kowalski,
2016; Muhonen et al., 2017; Pingault and Schoeler,
2017). A key to stopping cyberbullying is blowing the whistle on perpetrators, but young people
experiencing or witnessing cyberbullying are often
reluctant to do so for a variety of reasons (Brody
and Vangekisti, 2016; Cassidy et al., 2013). However,
speaking up and supporting victims of this aggressive, disconfirming communication is necessary if
we want to solve this problem.
There are laws to protect Canadians from
harassment, and most schools and workplaces have
policies and resources that can help provide some
protection against bullying behaviours. These
may assist both victims and bystanders in finding appropriate and constructive ways to respond.
Responding to cyberbullying and the in-person
variety may require some different strategies. For
instance, in the case of cyberbullying it’s important to document (print hard copies) the harassing messages and contact an appropriate teacher,
administrator, or supervisor. In any type of bullying situation it’s important to try to remove yourself from the situation to the extent that’s possible
and always send clear, firm messages that are
assertive (standing up for yourself and others)
rather than aggressive (putting others down). For
tools for creating assertive “I” statements, refer to
Chapter 6 (page 196) and for details on win–win
versus win–lose problem solving, see Chapter
10. Later in this chapter, The Language of Choice
section describes ways to clearly articulate your
thoughts, feelings, and wants to others—even if it
means saying, “I will not tolerate this treatment.”
Open communication is vital to bringing bullying
out of the shadows and stopping it.
Ostracism It’s bad enough to be treated poorly, but
it can be even worse to be ignored altogether. Ostracism involves excluding others from interaction
and has been called “the social death penalty”
(Parramore, 2014). Most people can recall a hurtful childhood experience of being ostracized by a
group (Wolfer and Scheithauer, 2014), but this kind
of disconfirmation can also happen in adulthood.
Workplace studies show that employees would
­rather receive negative attention from managers and
co-workers than no attention at all. Many people report that ostracism is even more painful and damaging than harassment (O’Reilly et al., 2015).
Ostracism usually involves exclusion from
a group, but it can also take place in one-to-one
interaction. In Chapter 10, we describe several
variations on ostracism and exclusion: the silent
treatment (p. 307), and stonewalling (p. 319). In
this chapter we describe ghosting (p. 292). The
power of ostracism illustrates a principle introduced in Chapter 1: you cannot not communicate.
Withholding interaction from others sends a message. In some cases, it can send the most disconfirming message of all: you do not exist.
TAKE TWO
• Communication climate: the social tone of a
relationship.
• Confirming communication: messages that convey valuing (levels include recognition, acknowledgement, and endorsement).
• Disagreeing messages: messages that say,
“You’re wrong,” but that can include confirming
components (types include argumentativeness
and complaining).
• Disconfirming communication: messages that
signal a lack of regard (types include aggressiveness and ostracism).
281
282
RgStudio/iStockphoto
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
acts—messages that seem to
challenge the image we want
to project—we’re likely to resist
what they say. Defensiveness,
then, is the process of protecting
our presenting self, our face.
Although responding defensively
to a face-­threatening attack may
seem logical, over time defensiveness erodes relationship stability (Lannin et al., 2013).
To understand how defensiveness operates, imagine what
might happen if an important part of your presenting
self were attacked. Suppose
an instructor criticized you in
Think back to the last time you felt defensive or threatened: What were you
front of the class for making a
guarding against and how did you deal with the situation?
mistake, or a friend called you
self-centred,
or
your
supervisor labelled you as
Causes and Effects
lazy. You would probably feel threatened if these
of ­Defensiveness
attacks were untrue. But your own experience
It’s no surprise that disconfirming and disagreeing will probably show that you sometimes respond
messages can pollute a communication climate. defensively even when you know that the critiPerhaps the most predictable reaction to a disagree- cism is justified. For instance, you have probably
ing or disconfirming message is defensiveness.
responded defensively at times when you did
The word defensiveness suggests protecting make a mistake, act selfishly, or cut corners in
yourself from attack, but what kind of attack? your work (Zhang and Stafford, 2008). In fact, we
When you become defensive, it’s seldom due to a often feel most defensive when criticism is right
physical threat. If you’re not threatened by bodily on target (Becker et al., 2008). Later in this chapinjury, what are you guarding against? To answer ter, we’ll discuss how to respond non-defensively
this question, we need to return to the notions of in such situations.
presenting self and face, both of which were introSome people are more prone to defensiveness
duced in Chapter 2. Recall that the presenting self than others. Generally, individualistic people are
consists of the physical traits, personality char- more likely to interpret other people’s messages as
acteristics, attitudes, aptitudes, and all the other neutral or critical and thus more inclined to deflect
parts of the image you want to present to the world, criticism, whereas people with a communal orienand the term face describes this socially approved tation are more likely to both interpret ambiguous
identity (Goffman 1959, 1971). Indeed, it’s a mis- messages as supportive and be more accepting of
take to talk about a single face, as we try to pro- criticism (Suzuki et al., 2008). Who offers the potject different selves to different people. You might entially defence-arousing remark or criticism also
try to impress a potential employer with your ser- matters. Research suggests that in-group criti­
iousness, while wanting to show your friends that cisms are tolerated better than out-group criti­cisms
you’re a joker. When others are willing to accept (Hornsey et al., 2002). Similarly, being ignored by
and acknowledge important parts of our presenting someone we know well is more hurtful than being
self, there’s no need to defend it. On the other hand, ignored by people we know less well (Snapp and
when others confront us with face-threatening Leary, 2001).
9 | Communication Climate
So far, we’ve talked about defensiveness as if it
is only the responsibility of the person who feels
threatened. If this were the case, dealing with
defensiveness would be as simple as growing a
thicker skin, admitting your flaws, and not trying to manage impressions. This approach isn’t
just unrealistic; it also ignores the role played by
those who send face-threatening messages. In fact,
competent communicators protect the face needs
of others as well as their own. Skilled instructors
carefully protect their students’ presenting faces,
especially when they are offering constructive
criticism (Trees et al., 2009). This face-work leads
to less defensive responses from their students.
Similarly, wise students craft their emails politely
when making requests of their teachers, showing
them appropriate respect (Bolkan and Holmgren,
2012). Findings like these make it clear that defensiveness is interactive: all communicators contribute to the communication climate of a relationship.
As a practical example, communication
researcher Sarah Tracy (2002) analyzed emergency call-centre interactions to investigate the
role of defensiveness in communication climates.
Tracy concluded that callers become defensive
when they perceive the call takers’ questions to be
face threatening. She offered suggestions for call
takers to make the climate more supportive. For
instance, she suggested changing “Tell me if . . . ”
to “Can you tell me if . . . ” The change only adds
two words, but those words soften the inquiry and
make it more of a request than a demand. Changes
like this take very little extra time, and they have
the potential to keep the climate supportive rather
than defensive—in 911 calls, that small investment
could save a life.
Climate Patterns
Once a communication climate is formed, it can
take on a life of its own. The pattern can be either
positive or negative. As we have discussed previously in this textbook, we tend to match the communication style of our partners during social
interactions (Park and Antonioni, 2007). This tendency towards reciprocity works with both confirming and disconfirming communication. For
instance, in conflict situations, hostility tends to
provoke more hostility (“tit for tat,” or equivalent
retaliation), whereas consolatory communication is more likely to be followed by conciliatory
responses (one person apologizes and so does the
other). These same patterns tend to hold for other
kinds of messages. Avoidance leads to avoidance,
analysis evokes analysis, and so on. This reciprocal pattern can be represented as a spiral (Wilmot,
1987). Fortunately, spirals can also work in a positive direction. One confirming behaviour leads to
a similar response from the other person, which
in turn leads to further confirmation by the first
person (Le Poire and Yoshimura, 1999; Wiebe and
Zhang, 2017).
Spirals—whether positive or negative—rarely
go on indefinitely. When a negative spiral gets out
of hand, the partners may agree to back off from
their disconfirming behaviour. “Hold on,” one
may say, “this is getting us nowhere.” At this point,
there may be a cooling-off period, or the partners
may work together more constructively to solve
their problem (Becker et al., 2008). This ability to
end and recover from negative communication
spirals is characteristic of successful relationships
(Gottman and Levenson, 1999). Even the best
relationships go through rocky periods in which
the communication climate suffers. However, the
accumulated goodwill and communication ability of the partners can make these times less frequent and intense. The remainder of this chapter
focuses on communication strategies that will
help you create more supportive communication
climates when you give or receive potentially face-­
threatening messages. We also describe a philosophical approach to communication that invites
the exchange of ideas and is inclusive, respectful,
and civil.
Creating Supportive Climates
Even the “best” message is not guaranteed to create a positive climate. Praise can be interpreted as
sarcasm; an innocent smile can be perceived as a
sneer; an offer to help can be seen as condescension.
Because human communication is so complex,
there are no foolproof words, phrases, or formulas
283
284
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
BEING SNUBBED BY A PHONE
You and your friends are having a meal and during the
conversation one or more members of the group concentrates on their phone for a while rather than contributing to the conversation. Maybe that someone is
you? No big deal, right? How about when it’s just two
people having a conversation? Does it matter more?
Research suggests that spending time on your phone
during a social interaction negatively affects both
conversational and relational quality and although
it’s increasingly common, it contributes negatively to
a communication climate by sending a disconfirming
non-verbal message to the person who is being temporarily ignored.
Studies conducted in a variety of countries, including Canada, have all found that being snubbed by a
smartphone (called “phubbing”) has negative effects
on people and relationships (Abeele and PostmaNilsenova, 2018; Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas,
2016, 2018; David and Roberts, 2017; Dwyer et al.,
2018; Wang et al., 2017). Researchers have found
that as phubbing increases in a social interaction
people experience greater threats to the fundamental
needs (see Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in Chapter
1) and they suggest that phubbing is a form of social
exclusion that threatens people’s needs for belonging,
self-esteem, and meaningful existence (Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas, 2018). Similarly, research examining the effects of phubbing in romantic relationships
has found phubbing to be associated with increases in
conflict over phone use, decreases in relational satisfaction, and even increases in the risk of depression
(David and Roberts, 2017; Wang et al., 2018).
In fact, just gazing at your phone (not even touching it) during a social interaction negatively affects
the quality of the interaction. Researchers in the
Netherlands compared the effects of gazing at a
newspaper versus gazing at a phone during a face-toface conversation and found that phone gazing had a
unique ability to devalue the quality of the interaction
with the conversational partner (Abeele and Postma-­
Nilsenova, 2018). People judged the phone gazing as
significantly more harmful than newspaper gazing. In
addition, these researchers found that phone gazing
while listening to a conversational partner disrupted
the connection between the two more than phone
gazing while speaking to the partner. In a similar Canadian study, Ryan J. Dwyer and his colleagues (2018)
had people go out to dinner in a restaurant with
family and friends and either have their phone in plain
sight on the table during the meal or have it hidden
away throughout the entire meal. People were randomly assigned to either condition. These researchers found that people who had their phones in view
reported feeling distracted and reported enjoying the
time spent with family and friends less than those in
the “phone out of sight” group. These investigators
suggest that even though our phones can connect
us to others all over the world, they might very well
disconnect us from those sitting across the table.
The findings of these studies reveal that both the
person being ignored (the “phubee”) and the person
distracted by their phone (the “phubber”) suffer individually when both parties are not fully present during
social interactions. Moreover, their relationship suffers too. So what should we do? If you tend to be
the phubbee, it’s probably best to exercise patience
and compassion. Phubbing is highly correlated with
fear of missing out, lack of self-control, and internet
addiction (Chotpitayasunondh and Douglas, 2016).
The collaborative strategies for conflict resolution
described in Chapter 10 might help you work out a
solution in relationships that are important to you.
Similarly, if you tend to be the phubber, gaining
self-awareness about your potentially disrespectful
behaviour and using problem-solving strategies with
your communication partners might help you balance
your need to be included in your social network with
your need to be fully present with others and connect
with them in meaningful ways.
Critical thinking: Do you think there are times when
phubbing is more or less damaging to relationships?
If so, what factors influence the consequences of
phubbing?
9 | Communication Climate
TAKE TWO
• Presenting self: the person you believe yourself
to be in moments of honest self-examination;
the physical traits, personality characteristics,
attitudes, aptitudes, and all other parts of the
image you want to present to the world.
• Faces: different selves we present to different
people; your socially approved identities.
• Face-threatening acts: messages that seem to
challenge the image we want to project.
• Defensiveness: the process of protecting our
presenting self (face).
Matthew Diffee, The New Yorker Collection/The Cartoon Bank
for creating positive climates. N
­ onetheless, research
has suggested strategies that can increase the odds
of creating and maintaining positive relational climates, even when the message you’re delivering is
a tough one.
Jack Gibb’s (1961) categorization of supportive
and defensive behaviour, for example, has stood
the test of time. After observing groups for sev-
TABLE 9.1 The Gibb Categories of DefensiveProvoking versus Supportive Behaviours
Defensive Behaviour
Supportive Behaviour
1. Evaluation
1. Description
2. Control
2. Problem orientation
3. Strategy
3. Spontaneity
4. Neutrality
4. Empathy
5. Superiority
5. Equality
6. Certainty
6. Provisionalism
eral years, Gibb was able to isolate six types of
defence-arousing communication and six contrasting kinds of behaviour that seem to reduce the level
of threat and resulting defensiveness (Gibb, 1961,
2008). These “Gibb Categories” are listed in Table
9.1. His findings have both common-sense appeal
and multiple applications. As a result, they’ve
played an important part in communication textbooks, training seminars, journals, and research
studies (Becker et al., 2008; Stewart, 2012). Understanding them helps explain
how you can create positive
climates by sending supportive
rather than defence-­provoking
messages.
Evaluation versus
Description
The first type of defence-­
arousing message Gibb identified is evaluation, which
judges the other person,
usually in a negative way. Consider this message: “You don’t
care about me!” Evaluative
messages like this have several
characteristics that make them
face-threatening. First, they
judge what the other person is
feeling rather than describing
the speaker’s own thoughts,
feelings, and wants. Second,
285
286
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
they don’t explain how the speaker arrived at his
or her conclusion, and they lack specific examples.
Furthermore, they’re often phrased in the kind of
defence-arousing “you” language that we described
in Chapter 5. From this, it’s easy to understand
why evaluative statements often trigger defensive
spirals.
CHECK IT!
Describe the characteristics of communication
spirals.
Do the climate-threatening properties of evaluative messages mean that it’s impossible to register
a legitimate complaint? No. They simply mean that
you must be alert to more constructive ways to do
so. Description, for example, offers a way to share
your thoughts, feelings, and wants without judging the listener. Descriptive messages make documented observations that are specific and concrete.
As we mentioned earlier when discussing complaining, description focuses on behaviour that
can be changed rather than on personal characteristics that cannot be changed. In addition, descriptive messages often use “I” language, which tends
to provoke less defensiveness than “you” language
(Proctor and Wilcox, 1993; Rogers et al., 2018).
Contrast the evaluative “You don’t care about me”
with this descriptive message: “I’m sorry that we
don’t spend as much time together as we did during
the summer. When we don’t talk during the week,
I sometimes feel unimportant. Maybe we could set
up a phone call time on Wednesdays—that would
mean a lot to me.”
Let’s look at more examples of the differences
between evaluative and descriptive messages
Evaluation
Description
You’re not
making any
sense.
I don’t understand the point
you’re trying to make.
You’re
inconsiderate.
I would appreciate it if you’d let
me know when you’re running
late—I was worried.
That’s an ugly
tablecloth.
I’m not crazy about big blue
stripes; I’d like something subtler.
Note several things about these descriptive messages. First, their focus is on the speaker’s honest
thoughts, feelings, and wants, which are expressed
with little or no judgment. Second, the messages
address specific behaviours rather than making
sweeping character generalizations. The messages
also provide information about how the speaker
arrived at their conclusions. Finally, and perhaps
most importantly, notice that each of the descriptive
statements is just as honest as its evaluative counterpart. Once you have learned to speak descriptively,
you can be straightforward while avoiding personal
attacks than can poison a climate.
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
SOCIAL SUPPORT: TALK OR TEXT?
As we discussed in Chapter 1, considerable research
confirms that supportive social relationships are
good for both our mental and physical health. However, the majority of that research has focused on the
support we receive through face-to-face interactions
with others. The digital revolution has changed the
ways we connect with our family and friends as well
as social services. In light of this, Susan Holtzman
and her colleagues at the University of British Columbia (2017) wondered whether digital forms of social
support provide the same benefits as those gained
through in-person interactions.
These researchers were specifically interested in
social support offered via text messaging. In two labbased experiments, young adults completed a stressful task and were randomly assigned to one of three
9 | Communication Climate
groups. The first group was provided with emotional
support in-person, the second group was provided
with emotional support via text, and the third group
received no emotional support. In the first experiment,
the emotional support offered in-person or via text
was from a close friend. In the second experiment,
an associate of the experimenters who was a similar age to the participants offered it. In both studies,
participants who received in-person support reported
they felt happier (more positive affect) compared to
those who received text messaging support or no
support at all. In addition, participants indicated they
were more satisfied with the support from the confederate (in experiment two) when it was offered inperson, rather than via text. These researchers suggest that although social support offered via text was
Controlling Communication versus
Problem Orientation
A second type of defence-provoking message
involves some attempt to control another person.
Controlling communication occurs when a sender
seems to be imposing a solution on the receiver with
little regard for the receiver’s needs or interests. The
object of control can involve almost anything: where
to eat dinner, how to spend a large sum of money, or
whether to remain in a relationship, to name a few.
The channel can range from words, to gestures, to
tone of voice, and the control can be accomplished
through status, insistence on obscure or irrelevant
rules, or physical power. Whatever the object, channel, or form of control, people who act in controlling ways generate hostility. The unspoken message
underlying their communication is “I know what’s
best for you and, if you do as I say, we will get along.”
In problem orientation, by contrast, communicators focus on finding a solution that satisfies both
their own needs and those of the other person or
people involved, rather than imposing their solution. The goal here is not to “win” at the expense
of your partner, but to work out some arrangement
in which everybody feels like a winner. (See Chapter 10 for a thorough discussion on “win–win”
problem solving as a way to find problem-oriented
solutions.) Problem orientation is often typified by
­ arginally better than no support at all, the in-person
m
variety may be most effective because our biological
communication mechanisms (e.g., our brains, sensory systems, and motor organs) are better suited
to face-to-face communication. Processing text takes
more effort and as a result might be perceived as
less pleasant. In any case, this study provides additional evidence that there is no replacement for the
benefits of in-person human interaction, particularly
when we are stressed or in need of some support.
Critical thinking: What is your experience with giving
and receiving emotional support via text versus in person? Is it easier to give social support in person or via
text? What factors, in addition to the channel, play a
role in the effectiveness of social support?
“we” language (see Chapter 6), which suggests the
speaker is making decisions with rather than for
other people (Seider et al., 2009).
Here are some examples of how some controlling
and problem-orientation messages might sound:
Controlling
Problem Orientation
You didn’t book this
room in advance
and I have a client
waiting! Please get
out.
It appears there’s been a
misunderstanding with this
room booking. I have a client I
need to meet with privately for
about 10 minutes. There are a
couple of shared workspaces
free now and you can have this
room back as soon as I’m done.
There’s only one
way to handle this
problem . . .
Looks like we have a problem.
Let’s work out a solution that
we can both live with.
Either you start
working harder or
you’re fired!
The production in your
department hasn’t been as
high as I’d hoped. Any ideas
on what we could do?
Strategy versus Spontaneity
Gibb uses the term strategy to refer to
defence-arousing messages in which speakers
hide their ulterior motives. The words dishonesty and manipulation reflect the nature of strategy. Even if the intentions that motivate strategic
287
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
communication are honourable, the victim of
Strategy
Spontaneity
deception who discovers the attempt to deceive
What are you doing
I have a piano I need to
is likely to feel offended at having been tricked
Friday after work?
move Friday after work.
(Tsang, 2006).
Can you give me a hand?
As we discussed in Chapter 5, counterfeit quesHave you ever
I’m concerned about your
tions are a form of strategic communication, for
considered another line job performance over the
example, because they try to trap others into givof work?
last year; let’s set up a time
ing desired responses. Many sales techniques are
to talk about it.
strategic; they may give customers limited inforTrevor and Alicia go out I’d like to go out for
mation and then make it difficult for them to say
to dinner every week.
dinner more often.
no. This is not to say that all sales techniques are
wrong or unethical, but most strategic ones are not
well-suited to positive communication climates—
This is a good place to pause and talk about
let alone interpersonal relationships. If you have context and some critical responses regarding the
ever become defensive when you thought a friend Gibb model. First, Gibb’s work can be seen as not
was doing a “sales job” on you, you understand the particularly culturally inclusive as his emphasis
concept.
on being direct is better suited to low-context culIn contrast, spontaneity involves being honest tures, like Canada, the United States, and northwith others rather than manipulating them. What ern Europe, which rely primarily on language to
it doesn’t mean is blurting out what you’re thinking express ideas as directly and logically as possible,
as soon as an idea comes to you. As we discussed in than to high-context cultures, like many Asian
Chapter 2, there are appropriate (and inappropri- and Middle Eastern cultures, which rely heavily on
ate) times for self-disclosure. You would undoubt- subtle, often non-verbal cues to convey messages.
edly threaten other people’s presenting selves if Second, his approaches are useful guidelines, but
you were “spontaneous” about every opinion that they aren’t definitive and there are ways in which
crossed your mind. That’s not
what Gibb intended in using
the term spontaneity; rather,
his understanding of spontaneity involves setting aside any
hidden agendas that others
will sense and resist. You can
probably remember times when
someone asked you a question
and you answered suspiciously
with “Hmmm . . . why do you
want to know?” Your defensive
antennae were likely up because
you detected an underlying
strategy. If the person had told
you honestly why he or she was
asking the question, then your
defences probably would have
been lowered. Here are some Can you think of a situation in which communication that sounds “spontanexamples that illustrate the dif- eous” at first should actually be classified as “strategy”? Or, can you think of
ference between strategy and messages that blur the lines between evaluation and description and control
and problem solving? How might you address these issues?
spontaneity:
davidf/iStockPhoto
288
9 | Communication Climate
each of the communication approaches Gibb labels
as “supportive” can be used to exploit others and,
therefore, violate the spirit of building a positive
communication climate. For instance, consider
spontaneity. Although it sounds paradoxical at
first, spontaneity can be a strategy, too. Sometimes, you’ll see people using honesty in a calculating way, being just frank enough to win someone’s
trust or sympathy for the purpose of manipulation. This calculated frankness is probably the
most defence-arousing strategy of all because once
you’re on to the manipulation, there is almost no
chance you’ll ever trust that person again.
Neutrality versus Empathy
Gibb uses the term neutrality to describe a fourth
behaviour that provokes defensiveness, but a better
word would probably be indifference. For example,
911 emergency telephone dispatchers are taught to
be neutral in order to calm down callers, but they
should not communicate either indifference or lack
of caring (Shuler and Sypher, 2000). Using Gibb’s
terminology, a neutral attitude is disconfirming
because it communicates a lack of concern for the
welfare of another person and implies that they are
not very important to you.
The poor effects of neutrality become apparent
when you consider the hostility that most people
have for the large, impersonal organizations they
have to interact with: “They think of me as a number instead of a person,” “I felt as if I were being
handled by computers and not human beings.”
These common statements reflect people’s reactions
to being handled in an indifferent, neutral way.
The behaviour that contrasts with neutrality is
empathy, which is the ability to consider another
person’s point of view and attempt to experience their thoughts and feelings. Gibb found
that empathy helps rid communication of the
quality of indifference. Research has shown that
empathy minimizes threats to self-concept (Bradley and Campbell, 2016). It’s important to note that
accepting another’s feelings and putting yourself in
another’s place is separate from agreeing with them.
By simply letting someone know you care and have
respect for them, you’re acting in a supportive way.
Gibb noted the importance of non-verbal messages
in communicating empathy. He found that facial
and bodily expressions of concern are often more
important to the recipient than the words used.
We addressed the concept of empathy in Chapter 3 and the skill of empathizing in Chapter 6;
now, let’s see what empathic messages look like
when they’re contrasted with neutral ones:
Neutrality
Empathy
This is what happens
when you don’t plan
properly.
Ouch—looks like this
didn’t turn out the way
you expected.
Sometimes, things just
don’t work out. That’s
the way it goes.
I know you put a lot of
time and effort into this
project.
Don’t get too excited —
I’ll bet you’re pretty
everybody gets promoted excited about the
sooner or later.
promotion.
Superiority versus Equality
A fifth behaviour that can create a defensive communication climate involves superiority, which
involves sending patronizing messages either
explicitly or implicitly. There is considerable
research that suggests patronizing messages irritate recipients ranging from young students to senior citizens (Draper, 2005; Harwood et al., 1997).
Any message that suggests “I’m better than you”
is likely to arouse feelings of defensiveness in the
recipient. Research supports what most of us know
from experience: we dislike people who communicate superiority, especially when it involves explicit
comparison with others (Hoorens et al., 2012).
Many times in our lives, we communicate with
people who possess less talent or knowledge than
we do, but it’s not necessary to convey an attitude of superiority in these situations. Instead, we
can communicate with equality, which involves
conveying our respect for the inherent worth of
others. Gibb found ample evidence that many who
have superior skills and talents are capable of projecting feelings of equality rather than superiority.
Such people communicate that although they may
have greater talent in certain areas, they see other
289
290
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
human beings as having just as much worth as
themselves.
Equality is put to the test when a person does not
have superior skills yet is in a position of authority (Beck and Beck, 1996). Supervisors sometimes
have less expertise in certain areas than their subordinates but believe it would be beneath them
to admit it. You have probably been in situations
where you knew more about the subject than the
person in charge—be it a supervisor, a teacher, a
parent, or a salesperson—yet the person acted as if
they knew more. Did you feel defensive? No doubt.
Did that person feel defensive? Probably. Both of
you were challenging each other’s presenting self,
so the climate likely became hostile. A truly secure
person can treat others with equality even when
there are obvious differences between their knowledge, talent, and status and that of those around
them. Doing so creates a positive communication
climate in which ideas are evaluated not on the
basis of who contributed them, but rather on
the merit of the ideas themselves.
FOCUS ON RESEARCH
HOW TIME CONTRIBUTES TO COMMUNICATION CLIMATE
Studies of Indigenous people’s interactions with
mainstream health care in Canada have documented
a reoccurring theme of misunderstanding between
patients and health care providers (Brown, 2007;
Browne et al., 2016; Neufeld, 2014). A wide variety
of factors contribute to these communication problems, including, but not limited to, cultural differences in communication styles, beliefs, and values
as well as systemic racism and negative stereotypes
of Indigenous people (Allan and Smylie, 2015; Vang
et al., 2018). These studies have also documented
factors that have created experiences that are more
positive. Two of these factors are health care providers who show compassion and non-discriminatory
attitudes, and establishing long-standing, positive,
trusting relationships with their First Nations patients
(Browne and Fiske, 2001). When health care providers are compassionate and respectful and build positive, trusting relationships they reduce the potential
for misunderstanding and create positive communication climates, which are central to establishing cultural safety. The goal of cultural safety is to foster a
climate that respects the unique history of Indigenous
peoples in order that they receive safe and equitable
care and services, without discrimination (San’yas
Indigenous Cultural Safety Training, 2019).
Zoua Vang and her colleagues (2018) were interested in identifying the institutional factors that can
help support better experiences among Indigenous
people in health care settings. Specifically, these
investigators were interested in how hospital bureaucracy affects interactions between health providers
and Indigenous patients. They conducted interviews
with 25 Inuit and First Nations women who were
transferred from northern Quebec to a city hospital in southern Quebec to receive maternity care
due to medically high-risk pregnancies. They found
hospital policies and procedures contributed to the
creation of a dehumanizing communication climate
in the health care facility. For instance, hospitals
often impose regulations governing the length of
health care providers’ visits with patients in order
to maximize efficiency. Shorter visits are correlated
with poorer health care outcomes (Roter and Hall,
2006). Vang and her colleagues (2018) found the
shorter visits also negatively affected communication
between the health care providers and the Indigenous maternity care patients because the lack of time
created yet another barrier (in addition to culture,
and pre-existing stereotypes) to establishing caring,
trusting relationships. She and her colleagues argue
that because of time constraints, health care providers’ focus is on the content components of their
messages to patients (e.g., asking questions, giving
information and direction about treatments and test
results, etc.) rather than on the relational component (e.g., communicating affiliation, showing concern,
providing support). Research suggests time is essential to the delivery of culturally safe medical care
(Neufeld, 2014; Oster et al., 2016). As we ­discussed
9 | Communication Climate
in Chapter 7, our use of time communicates information about status. These investigators argue that
lengthening medical visit times has the potential to
transform the communication climate in a health
care setting from one that privileges the traditional,
Western, hierarchical patient–provider relationship
to one that is more respectful, collaborative, and
better aligned with the principles of cultural safety.
This observation aligns with the strategies Annette
Browne and her colleagues (2016) researched and
described for enhancing equity in Canadian health
services. These strategies include re-visioning the
use of time to enable the flexibility that is needed
to establish trusting relationships with Indigenous
people who have often been dismissed or mistreated
by the health care system.
What does equality sound like? Here are some
examples:
Superiority
Equality
When you get to be in my
position someday, then
you’ll understand.
I’d like to hear how
the issue looks to you.
Then I can tell you how
it looks to me.
You really believe that?
Here’s another way to
think about it. . . .
No, that’s not the right way!
What if you tried it
Let me show you how to do it. this way?
Certainty versus Provisionalism
Have you ever run into people who are absolutely
positive that they’re right? Who know that theirs is
the only, or proper, way of doing something? Who
insist that they have all the facts and need no additional information? If you have, you’ve met individuals who project the defence-arousing behaviour that
Gibb calls certainty. Communicators who dogmatically regard their own opinions with certainty while
disregarding the ideas of others, demonstrate a lack of
respect for others. It’s likely the recipient will take the
certainty as a personal affront and react defensively.
In contrast to dogmatic certainty is provisionalism, in which people express openness to others’
ideas and opinions. You may have strong opinions,
but in this supportive style of communication, you
Vang and her colleagues (2018) conclude that
the possibility of a medical encounter leading to a
relationship-building opportunity or a perpetuation of
misunderstanding rests on not only the communication styles and interpersonal skills of those involved,
but also the extent to which the institutions involved
make an effort to equalize patient–provider power
dynamics and create a more positive and responsive
communication climate.
Critical thinking: What institutional factors, in addition to time, undermine the establishment of collaborative, supportive relationships between health care
professionals and members of Indigenous and minority cultures in Canada? What is the non-verbal message these factors communicate and/or how do they
undermine a positive communication climate?
acknowledge that you don’t have a monopoly on
the truth. Provisionalism often surfaces in a person’s choice of words. While people acting with certainty regularly use the terms can’t, never, always,
must, and have to, those acting with provisionalism use perhaps, maybe, possibly, might, and could.
It’s not that provisional people are spineless—they
simply recognize that discussion is aided by openminded messages. Researchers found that when
teachers use provisional language, it helps motivate students (Katt and Collins, 2013). For instance,
students responded more favourably to the critique
“Your introduction could have been developed
more thoroughly” than “The introduction was not
well developed.” Let’s look at some examples:
Certainty
Provisionalism
That will never
work!
My guess is that you’ll run into
problems with that approach.
You’ll hate that
class! Stay away
from it!
I didn’t like that class very
much; I’m not sure you would,
either.
You won’t get
anywhere without a
university education.
Mark my words.
I think it’s important to get
that degree. I found it was
hard to land an interview until
I had one.
You’ve probably noticed a great deal of overlap
among the various Gibb categories. For instance,
291
292
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
BUILDING WORK SKILLS
CRITICISM THAT AROUSES LESS DEFENSIVENESS
Using the Gibb categories of defensive and supportive behaviour, analyze the following message:
This project coordinator job seems to be too challenging for you! You’re constantly wasting my time. You
need to take minutes of the team meetings and send them to me if I’m not able to attend. You’re the
coordinator, after all. These things happen when you don’t plan properly. When you’ve been here as long
as I have, you’ll know better.
What defensive-arousing elements does this message include? Rewrite the criticism using more supportive
statements.
look at the final example under provisionalism.
The statement is likely to create a positive climate
not only because it’s provisional rather than certain, but also because it’s descriptive rather than
evaluative, problem-oriented rather than controlling, and equal rather than superior. You may also
have noticed a tone of respect underlying all of the
supportive examples. By valuing and confirming
others—even if you disagree with them—you create a respectful, positive communication climate
both now and in future interactions.
Invitational Communication
It might be tempting to view the suggestions in this
chapter as fail-proof: just adopt certain phrases and
methods, and your interpersonal problems will be
solved. But of course, we all know it doesn’t work
that way. Becoming a truly competent communicator requires developing an interpersonal philosophy
that undergirds what you say and do. Communication scholars Sonja Foss and Cindy Griffin (1995;
see also Modesti, 2012) have identified such an
approach. Their study began in the field of rhetoric,
which is traditionally associated with persuasion.
Foss and Griffin offer a way to approach the challenge of creating supportive communication climates, a view they call invitational rhetoric:
Invitational rhetoric can be viewed as a communication exchange in which participants create an environment where growth and change
can occur but where changing others is neither
the ultimate goal nor the criterion for success
in the interaction. (Bone et al., 2008, p. 436)
Invitational communication is an approach
that welcomes others to see your point of view
and to freely share their own. In an invitational
climate, communicators offer ideas without coercion; they listen to ideas with an open mind; they
exchange ideas without pressure. Yet it doesn’t
mean they don’t critically appraise the messages
they hear. They also don’t waffle about things they
believe in. What it means is they endeavour to create a supportive climate based on value, safety, and
freedom, thereby leading to greater civility in their
communication (Bone et al., 2008).
Earlier in this chapter, we discussed valuing as
the key component of confirming communication.
In order to describe how safety and freedom tie
into invitational communication and civility, it’s
helpful to describe what incivility looks like. Here
are some examples that illustrate uncivil, noninvitational communication:
• harmful labels and slurs that denigrate others’
value and worth; using words in ways that
demean and belittle;
• the gaslight effect, which involves imposing one
person’s perception on another’s in an attempt
to manipulate and control them;
• ghosting, which involves not responding to
texts, emails, and calls and blocking others on
social media, thereby disconfirming them and
treating them as if they don’t exist; and
9 | Communication Climate
• cyberbullying, discussed earlier in this chapter,
which communicates to its victims “you have
no value” and “you’re not safe.”
In contrast to these uncivil approaches,
many of the skills we’ve discussed in previous
­chapters—perception checking, responsible language, responsive listening—are rooted in an
invitational approach to interpersonal communication, because they support the mutual exchange
of ideas and help to build more positive communication climates. Building on their foundation, let’s
look briefly at two more ways to put this invitational philosophy into action: using the language
of choice and responding non-defensively to
­criticism.
The Language of Choice
Chapter 6 explained the relationship between pronouns such as I, we, and you and the language of
responsibility. The words that follow these pronouns are also important components of responsible communication (Zeman, 2010). Read the
following statements and consider how you feel
about them (assuming they involve activities you’d
rather not do):
“I have to talk to my neighbour about the barking
dog.”
“I should be nicer to my roommate.”
“I ought to be more assertive.”
“I can’t take this anymore.”
“I had no choice—I had to tell her.”
It’s likely that you read those lines in a somber
tone of voice and that you were left with a sense
of heaviness and pressure. Consider how those
same phrases might conjure a different feeling if
worded this way (with possible reasons in parentheses):
“I’m going to talk to my neighbour about the
barking dog” (I want to settle this problem).
“I will start being nicer to my roommate” (I want
a more pleasant relationship).
“I’m determined to be more assertive” (I want to
be a more effective communicator).
“I’m not going to take this anymore” (I want
change).
“I decided to tell her” (I wanted her to know).
Notice how the second list describes choices
instead of obligations and the wording focuses on
decisions made (e.g., will, going to), not grudging
acquiescence (e.g., should, have to). You probably
found the second list more motivating than the
first; research supports this finding, too. When
participants in one study said “I don’t eat unhealthy
snacks” (suggesting personal choice), instead of “I
can’t eat unhealthy snacks” (suggesting external
constraint), they demonstrated greater willpower
and changes in their eating habits (Patrick and
Hagtvedt, 2012). The researchers call this phenomenon “empowered refusal,” maintaining that
word choice plays a significant role in the process
in maintaining motivation. In the language of
invitational communication, empowering words
identify your freedom to make choices. In essence,
when you use the language of invitational communication, you invite yourself to take charge of
your ­decisions.
Similarly, psychologist Susan David (2016)
maintains that labelling a goal as a “have to”
priority (as in, “I have to finish this paper”)
increases your emotional stress and decreases
your likelihood of achieving that goal. However,
turning that “have to” into a “want to” facilitates
goal achievement, as in: “I want to finish this
paper because I want to do well in this course,
and I also want to enjoy the rest of the weekend.” David notes that rewording goals is often
an important component of perceiving them differently:
We all fall into these subtle traps of language
and thinking: “I have to be on dad duty today,”
or “I have to attend another boring meeting.”
When we do this, we forget that our current circumstances are often the result of earlier choices
we made in service of our values: “I want to be a
father,” or “I love the work that I do and want to
excel at my job.” (p. 152)
293
PART THREE: Dimensions of Interpersonal Relationships
Once you’ve adopted the language of choice for
yourself, consider what it’s like to offer that same
choice and freedom to others with whom you communicate:
“You should” becomes “I’m going to” (and you can
join me if you want)
“You have to” becomes “ You’re welcome to”
“We can’t”
becomes “I don’t want to” (do you?)
One study found that when a request is followed
by the phrase “but you are free to say no,” respondents
are actually more likely to comply with the request
(Carpenter, 2013). The concept is simple: people don’t
like feeling pressured or having their options limited
or prescribed. When you extend the right of refusal,
others are more open to respond favourably. Of course,
it’s best when the phrase “but you are free to . . .”
isn’t just a technique to get others to say yes. The goal
of invitational communication is to genuinely offer
freedom of choice, which people value and appreciate.
As mentioned earlier, there’s nothing magical
about these words and phrases—they simply
reflect an invitational attitude. Generally, they say,
“Here is what’s going on inside me; tell me what’s
going on inside you.” As such,
they are best understood as part
of an exchange. Consider how
phrases such as these demonstrate value, safety, and freedom
for both parties in a dialogue:
Invitational communicators not only extend freedom to others, but they exercise it themselves. It’s
fine to let people know what you think and feel, and
want, and to have values, beliefs, and convictions
that guide your choices. The key is communicating
those ideas responsibly rather than aggressively.
By offering your perspective in a way that invites
rather than imposes on others and recognizes they
may not share your views you help to create a more
positive, respectful and supportive communication
climate.
Responding Non-defensively
to Criticism
The world would be a happier place if everyone
communicated invitationally, but sometimes when
we invite others to offer their point of view, they
criticize and/or attack us. In those situations, it
can be chal­
lenging to remain civil and respond
non-­defensively—even if we’re committed to using
the language of choice and projecting an invitational
attitude. How can you respond non-defensively when
faced with criticism? The following pages introduce
two such methods: seeking more information and
“I hold a different opinion, but
I understand why that’s important to you.”
“I have some thoughts on the
matter—would you like to hear
them?”
“I welcome your input” (I may
or may not use it, but I value
what you have to say).
“Here is something I feel strongly
about” (it’s okay if you don’t).
The final statement above
illustrates an important point.
Yuri Gurevich/Shutterstock.
294
How can you respond non-defensively when others use the defensiveness-­
provoking behaviours Gibb identified? Can you think of situations in which
you’ve sought more information or agreed with the critic? Did that change the
climate of the communication?
9 | Communication Climate
a­ greeing with the critic. Despite their apparent simplicity, these methods have proven to be among the
most valuable skills communicators can learn.
Seek More Information
It’s unwise to respond to a critical attack until you
truly understand what the other person has said
(Gold and Castillo, 2010). Even comments that at
first appear to be totally unjustified or foolish may
contain at least a grain of truth and, sometimes,
much more.
Many people object to the idea of asking
for details when they’re criticized. Their resistance grows from confusing the act of listening
open-mindedly to a speaker’s comments with
accepting them. Once you realize that you can listen to, understand, and even acknowledge the most
hostile comments without necessarily accepting
them, it becomes much easier to hear another person out. If you disagree with a speaker’s criticisms,
you will be in a much better position to explain
yourself once you understand their objections.
On the other hand, after carefully listening to the
other person’s remarks, you may just see that they
are valid, in which case you’ve learned some valuable information about yourself. In either case,
you have everything to gain and nothing to lose by
paying attention to the critic.
CHECK IT!
Describe the Gibb categories of defensive and
supportive behaviours and how they can contribute to creating a more defence-arousing or a less
defence-arousing response.
One way to seek more information is to ask for
specifics. Often, the vague attack of a critic is virtually useless even if you sincerely want to change.
Abstract accusations such as “You’re being unfair”
or “You never help out” can be difficult to understand. In such cases, it’s a good idea to request
more specific information from the sender, inviting them to explain their position more clearly.
Before agreeing with or disputing an accusation,
you might ask, “What do I do that’s unfair?” or
“When haven’t I helped out?” Remember that it’s
important to ask these kinds of questions in a tone
of voice that suggests you genuinely want to learn
more about the other person’s perception.
Sometimes, even your sincere and well-phrased
requests for specific details won’t meet with success,
and your critics won’t be able to define precisely
the behaviour they find offensive—or they may be
reluctant to tell you. In instances like these, you
can often learn more clearly what is bothering your
critic by guessing at the specifics of a complaint.
Like the technique of asking for specifics, guessing
must be done with goodwill if it is to produce satisfying results. You need to convey to the critic that,
for both of your sakes, you are truly interested in
finding out what is the matter. Here are some typical questions you might hear from someone guessing about the details