Areas of Interpersonal Communication PDF

AREAS OF I NTERP ERSONAL COM M UNI C AT I ON Politeness Theory → Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) All individuals are concerned with maintaining face Positive Face Negative Face Need to be thought of highly...

AREAS OF I NTERP ERSONAL COM M UNI C AT I ON Politeness Theory → Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) All individuals are concerned with maintaining face Positive Face Negative Face Need to be thought of highly Need to be autonomous → Entails exchange of compliments, praise, and general → Entails the exchange of permission requests, messages positivity indicating that a person’s time is valuable and respected, and any imposed obligations Human beings are rational and goal-oriented, at least with respect to achieving face needs Some behaviors are fundamentally face threatening o FACE-THREATENING ACT: pose a threat to the source or target’s positive or negative face Corrective Faceworks Suprastrategies 1. Avoidance GOING OF RECORD: subtle mention of the topic 2. Humor NEGATIVE POLITENESS: negative face needs to appear 3. Apologies vulnerable 4. Explanations POSITIVE POLITNESS: gives flattery and compliments into 5. Physical Remediation camouflage face threatening acts BALD ON RECORD: direct to the point INTE RPE RSONAL INFLUE NCE Interpersonal Influence → occurs over the entirety of one’s life span Preserve or change the behavior of another individual Maintain or modify aspects of another individual that are proximal to behavior M e s s a g e P ro d u c t i o n Goals That Motivate Interpersonal Influence GOALS Definition Constitutive Rules Gain Assistance An individual seeks physical, financial, informational, or material Source needs help → source seeks for target’s aid → target (Ask-Favor) aid from a target helps Seeking assistance coincides with secondary concerns for Target is NOT obligated to help identity, interaction, and relationship management Give Advice Provides counsel Target: not ideal course of action + Source: motivated to SOURCE: recommends a course of action offer advice = promote well-being TARGET: must choose whether to follow the guidance → Arise from source’s sincere recognition of a need for action Share Activity Promote joint endeavors between source and target Target: willing and able to spend time with the source → persuading a target to engage in a mutual activity Source: legitimate right to make request + willing to engage embedded in the parameters of close relationships with collaborative action → A request is necessary to instantiate the mutual activity Change Orientation Alter target’s stance toward a sociopolitical issue Source: influence attempt + legitimate right to advocate → SOURCE: attempts to alter or solidify the target’s attitudes Target: willing/able to be persuaded and or behaviors Change Relationship Alter the nature of the source-target relationship of other people (Relationship Person’s attempt to alter the nature of a relationship by (Re)Definition seeking to increase or decrease intimacy Obtain Permission Secure endorsement of the target Target: permission needed → Source: legitimate right for SOURCE: seeks authorization from the target to perform permission + enacts request some behavior NOTE: shows power imbalance Enforce Rights and Compel target to fulfill commitment or role requirement Target: made previous commitment + action not Obligations SOURCE: expresses dissatisfaction with the actions of the performed→ Source: persuades the target to fulfill the target overdue obligation Request the target to fulfill their obligation M e s s a g e Ef fe c t s Compliance Technique → emphasizes scripted methods for enhancing compliance Assumes a linear model of communication in which the source and the target are clearly differentiated and influence flows in one direction Single-Interact Techniques Triple-Interact Techniques Multiple-Interact Techniques Source makes a single utterance and the The source uses some type of set-up that requires engagement Interaction sequences target either complies or refuses on the part of the target → more than two ordered requests are → Source and target produce one → Prior to making the request for compliance planned as the means of achieving communicative act each, which Pique compliance together constitute a single interact phrasing a request with unusual specificity The High-Probability Procedure That’s-Not-All (TNA) target’s interest, mindful processing, and compliance calls for the source to pose a series Product + price + request to Pre-Giving of questions purchase → prospective buyer RECIPROCITY: directs individuals to return in kind the followed by the target appeal Effect might be accounted for actions, objects, and affections that are provided by others Dump-and-Chase (DAC) either by a felt need for Unit Relationship Techniques conversations are cocreated reciprocity or by perceptual reminding message targets of their existing relationship with contrast a message source The Lure two interactants are previously unknown to each other the basis for the relationship is wholly arbitrary  Target is offered and agrees to an The Door-in-the-Face (DITF) attractive deal begins with a large request enough that it will be rejected by Bait-and-switch most individuals Disrupt-Then-Reframe (DTR) followed by a smaller, but still substantial request Individuals possess cognitive scripts The Foot-in-the-Door (FITD) for request interactions begins with a small request to which almost anyone would SCRIPTS: expectations regarding be likely to acquiesce sequences of behavior followed by a second request that is not so innocuous The Low Ball low price offer → commitment from target → clear transactions with management with this, target will be offered a new offer but with a higher price The Foot-in-the-Mouth (FITM) asking the individual how they feel prior to making a request target experience an internal pressure to behave consistently with that statement Power and Influence Power → ability to influence what another person thinks or does An individual has power over another person to the extent that they can influence what this person thinks or does Power Dynamics Referent Power Make others wish to be like you or to be identified with you → Depends on attractiveness and prestige Legitimate Power Others believe you have the right, by virtue o of your position, to influence or control their behavior → Belief: certain people should have power over us and has the right to influence us because of who they are Expert Power Seen as having expertise or knowledge → Increases when an individual is seen as unbiased and as having nothing to gain personally from influencing others Information and Persuasion Others see you as having the ability to communicate logically and persuasively Power → Persuasion Power: influence others’ attitudes and behavior → Information Power: possess significant information and the ability to use it to gain compliance Reward Power Have the ability to reward (material or social) people → If an individual grant others some kind of reward, they may have a control over them to the extent that they want what you can give them Coercive Power Have the ability to administer punishments or rewards if others fail to yield to your influence → The potential to influence is rooted in the ability to physically or psychologically punish them Principles of Power 1) Power is a Perception, not a fact. While you may believe that you are powerful with the potential to influence others, if they doesn’t perceive you as having a power, you don’t. 2) Power exists within a relationship. Sources of power available to you are specific to each relationship and can change over time. 3) Power is not inherently good or bad. Whether the power dynamic in a relationship is healthy or not, it will depend on the communication skills of both parties and the ethical use of power by the more powerful person. 4) The person with greater power in a relationship can make and break the rules for the relationship. INTERPERSONAL CONFLIC T Interpersonal Conflict → disagreement between or among connected individuals who perceive their goals as incompatible a dynamic process that occurs between interdependent parties as they experience negative emotional reactions to perceived disagreements and interference with the attainment of their goals o intimacy, power, personal flaws, personal distance, social issues, distrust NOTE: Some ways of approaching conflict can resolve difficulties and differences and improve relationships while others can hurt the relationship by destroying self-esteem, create bitterness, and foster suspicion. Myths about Interpersonal Conflict Sign of Troubled Damages Interpersonal There is a Winner Destructive; Reveals Best Avoided Relationship Relationships and a Loser Negative Selves Predictors of Conflict a) Relational Approaches → Interpersonal conflict requires some degree of interdependency must exist for individuals to be in conflict Relational Turbulence Individuals experience periods of turbulence during relational transitions as they adopt new relational Model definitions and behavioral patterns View their partner’s irritating behavior as more severe Experience more negative emotions Try to avoid discussing difficult topics Report more relational turbulence than do those whose relationship is at a stable point of intimacy Personal-Relational Individuals try to keep a balance between personal and relational needs Equilibrium Kinds of relational sacrifices, categorize according to motivation, and effect in well-being and relationship overtime Approach Motivations: love for a partner, wanting to make the partner happy Avoidance Motivations: fear of partner, dependency, guilt Social Allergens Actions that create an undesirable emotional reaction that is of greater intensity in a person’s relational partner than in others with whom they don’t have a relationship  Awareness of a partner’s annoying behavior Awareness of a partner’s decreasing concern for positive impression management Emotionality resulting from repeated exposure to an irritant Growing tendency to see the annoying behavior as intentional 1) PERSONALISM: behavior is personally directed and focuses on the individual 2) INTENTIONALITY: whether a behavior is deliberately enacted, as opposed to a behavior that is performed out of a habit or one that is accidental b) Individual Difference Approach → Grounded in individual perceptions and that individuals may differ in their perceptions of a conflict Self-Construal x Partner’s 1) RELATIONSHIP-THREATENING BEHAVIOR: acting condescending, neglectful, self-centered Behavior 2) AUTONOMY-THREATENING BEHAVIOR: acting moody, jealousy Self-Construal x Attachment 1) Bowlby (1971): anxious individuals worry about being rejected Styles 2) Fraley and Shaver (2000): highly committed to continuing their relationship downplaying relational threats arising from their partner’s traits and actions 3) Arriaga, Slaughterback, Cappeza, and Hmurvoic (2007): highly committed to relationship were less affected after becoming aware of their partner’s negative traits Types of Interpersonal Conflict Pseudo Conflict Disagreement that is caused by a perceptual difference between partners and is easily resolved When a partner ascribes different meanings to words When a partner has goals or needs that appear to be incompatible but are not When one partner badgers (tease, taunts, mocks) the other RESOLVED: paraphrasing to elucidate word meaning, clarifying goals, and asserting boundaries for appropriate badgers Fact Conflict Disagreement caused by a dispute over the truth or accuracy of an item of information RESOLVED: consulting an external source Value Conflict Disagreement caused by differences in partners’ deep-seated moral beliefs Can be difficult to resolve RESOLVED: content to respect each other but agree to disagree Policy Conflict Disagreement caused by differences over a preferred plan or course of action Common in most relationships RESOLVED: depends on what both parties feel personally comfortable with and agree to since there is no “right” or “wrong” way to resolve them Ego Conflict Disagreement that results when both parties insist on being the “winner” of the argument to confirm their self-concept or self-esteem Develops when one or both partners to a conflict make personal, negative, and judgmental statements NOTE: ignores the central disagreement to defend themselves Meta Conflict Disagreement over the process of communication itself during an argument The original area of incompatibility Conflict process itself NOTE: complicates interpersonal communication, making it more difficult to find a satisfactory resolution to the conflict Styles of Conflict Management Approach Definition Outlook Withdrawing Resolving a conflict by physically or psychologically removing UNCOOPERATIVE & UNASSERTIVE yourself from the conversation I don’t want to talk about it To keep from dealing with conflict Accommodating Resolving a conflict by satisfying the other person’s needs or COOPERATIVE & UNASSERTIVE accepting the other person’s ideas while neglecting one’s own Getting my way isn’t as important as keeping the needs or ideas peace To keep from upsetting the other person Competing Resolving a conflict by satisfying one’s own needs or advancing UNCOOPERATIVE & ASSERTIVE one’s own ideas with little concern for the needs or ideas of the I’ll get my way regardless of what I have to do other person or for the relationship To get my way Compromising Resolving a conflict by bargaining so that each partner’s needs or PARTIALLY COOPERATIVE & PARTIALLY ASSERTIVE interests are partially satisfied I’ll get part of what I want and other people also have To get partial satisfaction part of what they want Collaborating Resolving a conflict by using problem solving to arrive at a COOPERATIVE & ASSERTIVE solution that meets the needs and interests of both parties Let’s talk this out and find the best solution for the To solve the problem together both of us Destructive Conflict Pattern Principle of Negative Reciprocity → the proposition that we repay negative treatment with negative treatment Serial Arguing Partners argue about the same issue two or more times Both partners are focused on the issue but disagree about how it should be resolved, exchanging messages that either defend their position or attack their partner’s NOTE: this pattern is unlikely resolved unless one or both partners do something to break the pattern Counter blaming You blame your partner for what they have accused you of doing, shifting responsibilities and leaving the original issue unresolved Escalates a back-and-forth series of attacks NOTE: counter blaming strays further and further away from the original issue Cross-Complaining Partners trade unrelated criticisms, leaving the initial issue unresolved Demand-Withdrawal One pattern consistently demands while the other consistently withdraws The person demanding tends to be less powerful and dissatisfied while the withdrawing person is more powerful and happy with the status quo Mutual Hostility Partners trade increasingly louder verbal abuse including inappropriate, unrelated personal criticism, name-calling, sweating, and sarcasm Begins when one person interjects a hostile comment into a conflict conversation, which the other partner matches with one of their own NOTE: the longer this pattern continues, the more likely the conversation is to degenerate into hateful and bitter messages that can permanently damage a relationship and mental and physical health GUIDELINES FOR INITIATING A COLLABORATIVE CONFLICT CONVERSATION How do you Say It? Mentally rehearse what you Describe the conflict in terms will say before confronting Recognize and state of behavior, consequence, ownership of the conflict the other person. and feelings (bcf) Be sure the other person Don not blame or ascribe Keep it short understands your position motives Phrase your preferred solution to focus on common ground How to Respond to It? Find common ground by Respond empathetically with agreeing with some aspect of Raise your mental shields genuine interest and concern the complaint Ask the initiator to suggest solutions