Prior to beginning work on this discussion forum, read
Chapters 7
and
8
of Making Connections: Understanding Interpersonal Communication, specifically Sections 7.2 and 8.3.(attach below) Also, watch the video below. (transcript attach below)
(Transcript)
To be an effective communicator, you must master the core competency of listening. A willingness to listen during an interaction allows you to understand others, respond appropriately to what they say, and provide helpful feedback. Bevan (2020) describes ideal listening as active and empathic. In this discussion, you will take a listening quiz, and then explain how using active empathic listening can help you improve as a communicator in your personal and professional relationships.
In your initial post,
5/21/2020
Print
Jennifer L. Bevan
Contributor: Tessa Urbanovich
Making Connections: Understanding Interpersonal Communication, Third Edition
Zovio Inc
Vice President, Learning Resources: Steve Wainwright
Associate Director, Sponsoring Editor: Greer Lleuad
Development Editors: Jessica Sarra, Shannon LeMay-Finn
Assistant Editor: Taylor Holmes
Production Editor: Julie Mashburn
Media Editor: Jaime LeClair
Cover Design: Tara Mayberry
Printer: Lightning Source
Production Service: Hespenheide Design
ePub Development: M & R Consultants Corporation (MRCC)
Video Production: Illuminating Pictures
Cover Image: Kubkoo / iStock / Getty Images Plus
ISBN-13: 978-1-62178-624-5
Copyright © 2020, 2014, 2011 Zovio Inc
All rights reserved.
GRANT OF PERMISSION TO PRINT: The copyright owner of this material hereby grants the holder of this publication the right to print these materials for
personal use. The holder of this material may print the materials herein for personal use only. Any print, reprint, reproduction or distribution of these
materials for commercial use without the express written consent of the copyright owner constitutes a violation of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-810,
as amended.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08i…
1/39
5/21/2020
Print
7
Beginning Interpersonal Relationships
Fuse/Thinkstock
Learning Outcomes
After reading this chapter, you should be able to
█ Explain how perceptions and impressions frame and shape the relationship initiation process.
█ Identify how individuals start and manage conversations with others.
█ Compare and contrast three of the primary theories of relationship development.
█ Explain why self-disclosure is signi icant when beginning relationships.
█ Describe Knapp’s ive stages of relationship formation.
█ Apply strategies for competent communication during relationship initiation and formation.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08i…
2/39
5/21/2020
Print
Introduction
To the blonde journalist that was at my register a few days ago. Even though I had to check your ID I do not remember your name and wish I would
of asked before you left 🙁
I highly enjoyed our interaction and conversation together. Even though it was in a hectic environment, I could of stood there all day and night talking
with you! You had such beautiful, kind eyes, great smile, awesome personality and just great energy! We both share some similar experience and
traumas due to my past profession and you as a journalist.
If for some reason you do read this, please don’t take this as me trying to hit on you.
I genuinely enjoyed our interaction and you as a person. All I am looking for is a chance to reconnect and make a friendship with an awesome
person! 🙂
Either way… if you read this or not…I wish you all the best and safe travels with your career. (Anonymous, n.d.)
Even the irst few minutes of the initial interaction with another person can be powerful: The fact that people place ads to reconnect with relative strangers is
an example of just how much of a lasting impression those irst moments can leave. The above excerpt is a “missed connections” advertisement posted on
Craigslist. Such missed connections occur when individuals meet each other, exchange glances, exchange smiles, or initiate a conversation. At least one person
inds the other attractive or memorable, even in that brief interaction, but the interaction abruptly ends, for one reason or another, before contact information
is shared or future plans are made. “Missed connections” ads also indicate that interpersonal communication does not just happen: For people to
communicate, one person must take the initiative and make contact with another person. The other person must then respond in some way for a connection
to occur. Sometimes that initial connection is broken, often to one communicator’s regret.
Earlier in this text, we de ined communication as a process—a series of steps in which an idea is formed, a message is encoded, and this message is sent via a
channel to a receiver who decodes or interprets the message and responds to it. Now we turn our attention to how we irst make these connections with
other people, engage in conversations to get to know them better, listen and share information, and begin to form close relationships.
In sum, in Chapter 7, we discuss how relationships are initiated. Relationships are the important and close connections or associations that we forge and
maintain with other people via communication. We explore the importance of irst impressions and perceptions, how we carry on conversations with others,
the concepts of self-disclosure, and the stages of interpersonal relationships.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08i…
3/39
5/21/2020
Print
7.1 First Impressions Matter: Perceptions and Impressions
When you initially meet someone, you immediately form an impression of the person—and the person forms an impression of you. These impressions are
formed based on how individuals look, including their physical attractiveness and what they are wearing; what they say; and how they sound. As you learned
in Chapter 2, when you interact with others, each person presents an image of himself or herself. We each have a self that we display in social situations—a
public personality that we show to other people. To create a positive impression when you irst meet someone, you need to understand the process of creating
irst impressions and the ways you can manage the impressions you create with others. In this section, we discuss perceptions and impressions.
Perceptions
When we communicate, we must irst perceive others and the world before us. Perception is a dynamic process that involves selecting, organizing, and
interpreting the world around us. We do not objectively see things that are external to us; rather, we become aware of objects, events, people, and messages
by perceiving them via one or more of our ive senses. We cannot process and attend to everything we are exposed to in our daily lives, but perception allows
us to make sense of and organize what we do encounter. The process of perception involves three general stages:
1. selection, which occurs when something stimulates our senses in some way, and we respond by focusing on or attending to it
2. organization, which occurs when we arrange the information that we have perceived in a manner that makes sense to us
3. interpretation, which is a subjective process that occurs when we explain and assign meaning to the thing that we have selected and organized
Within these stages, there are four speci ic concepts that we employ when we perceive something; each is described below.
Selective Perception
Consider the last face-to-face interaction you had with someone. Close your eyes and try to remember everything you can about what you both said, where it
took place, how it started and concluded, and what communication barriers were present. Though you may attempt to perceive everything that is part of a
speci ic interaction, doing so is impossible. There are too many stimuli. Thus, in the selection part of the perception process, we engage in selective perception,
directing our attention to the task of perceiving some stimuli and ignoring or disregarding others. The stimuli that we choose to perceive catch our attention in
a number of ways. A stimulus may be appealing in some way, such as a photo you ind beautiful. A stimulus may be the most dominant, such as extremely loud
yelling. Or a stimulus may be something important to you, such as a thought you want to communicate. You are likely to notice these types of stimuli irst in the
selection process and then continue to organize them in the next step of the perception process.
Schemas
Assume you have been invited to a concert. You have been to the venue before, and
you remember that the acoustics are wonderful and all the seats offer great views of
the stage. You know that parking is convenient, and several restaurants are nearby
where you can eat before the concert. You also like the group performing. You are
excited about attending the concert, and you expect to have a terri ic evening.
Paul Chesley/The Image Bank/Getty Images
Your expectation that the concert will be fun is based on the operation of a schema.
Schemas are organized collections of information about a subject that are stored in
your memory from past experiences. Schemas can be based on personal
experiences you have had and also formed as part of your dominant cultural and cocultural memberships. These mental structures or templates help you process and
categorize new information quickly, rather than starting from a blank slate every
time you encounter a new situation. As such, schemas are a signi icant part of the
organization process of perception. You tend to believe in the validity of your
schemas, and they create expectations about a situation (Fiske & Taylor, 1991).
█
You have schemas about social situations, objects, and people and their social roles.
We all assume roles in our lives—functions or positions that we have in our society.
We may occupy several social roles at the same time. For example, someone may be
a wife, mother, daughter, doctor, and community volunteer, but each of these roles
has a different set of expected behaviors. A person schema is an expectation about
what a speci ic person will be like based on certain characteristics he or she has. For example, you are referring to a person schema when you say something
like, “Every person I’ve known named Jose has been a nice guy.”
We have schemas for social situations, objects, and people and
their social roles. One person can occupy several of these social roles
at the same time, such as grandmother, teacher, and community leader.
A role schema is a set of expectations you have about how someone in a certain role should look or behave. For example, you might state, “Parents should not
swear in front of their children.” These person schemas and role schemas are mental images based on your personal experiences or on the behavior of other
people in your life who have played these roles. Person and role schemas can also be formed through your personal experiences and your cultural norms and
beliefs. You make judgments about people based, in part, on whether they conform to these schemas, and your impressions contribute to your decision about
whether to get to know them better.
Stereotypes
When we use stereotypes, we are answering the question “What can I expect to happen?” by relying on predictive, broad generalizations. As discussed earlier
in this text, stereotypes are a speci ic type of schema; they are preconceived opinions you hold about someone or something. A stereotype assumes that all
members of a particular group possess the same or similar characteristics. Whereas schemas are based on your own experiences, stereotypes are usually not
based on reason, fact, or past experiences. You may form stereotypes based on what others have said, images portrayed by the media, or mistaken beliefs you
have about people. Stereotypes are also often guided, reinforced, or determined by cultural beliefs about race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, and class.
Schemas are more likely to be related to individual characteristics of a person, but stereotypes ignore the individual characteristics and assume that a person
possesses personality traits or holds attitudes that are typical of an entire group. Stereotypes are often negative and re lect prejudices, preconceived opinions
of dislike, hostility, or unjust behavior. Schemas, on the other hand, do not necessarily have negative connotations (Pennington, 2000).
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08i…
4/39
5/21/2020
Print
Prototypes
Another way to organize the perceptions that you select is by using prototypes. Prototypes represent a mental image you have about the attitudes and
behaviors of the ideal person in a speci ic role. As with schemas and stereotypes, they can be formed and reinforced based on both personal experiences and
on cultural beliefs. Your prototype of a best friend, for example, would probably include what you think their personality should be like, what interests and
beliefs they should have, and what you can talk to them about. This prototype is the epitome of what you envision a best friend to be. The person who actually
becomes your best friend will probably have a great deal in common with your prototype of a best friend. However, if your friend suddenly becomes
unavailable to talk to when you need them, the gap between the prototype and the actual person will grow. If that happens, the relationship might change, and,
although you might still be friends, you may no longer be best friends (Pennington, 2000).
Prototypes, like stereotypes and schemas, are oversimpli ications and generalizations. To some extent, we need to generalize across the many perceptions we
select each day to categorize them in a useful and ef icient way. You will not, for example, need to relearn or seriously consider each time how to interact with
the checkout person at the grocery store because you have a prototype in your mind for how that general type of interaction should unfold. You thus carry
these mental images into your interactions with other people, but these ways to organize your perceptions become problematic when you start to rely on
them as your only source of information about a person or situation. When you meet people and initially interact with them, it is important that you keep an
open mind and guard against letting your preconceived ideas in luence your early judgments of others. In that way, you can get to know another person as the
unique individual he or she is based on how that person acts and the interactions you share. If you build a relationship with that person, over time, some of
your initial impressions will be con irmed and others will be discarded (Zunin, 1986).
Implicit Personality Theory
How do these perceptions work together to form a general impression or perception of someone? Implicit personality theory provides an explanation of
how perceptions are predicted to it together. According to this theory, once we know a small amount about someone’s characteristics or traits, we use that
information to ill in our general expectation about that person with other similar qualities. Which personality characteristics go together is typically
determined by our previous experiences and interactions with others.
For example, research has found that people who perceive that someone is physically attractive (a nonverbal aspect of interpersonal communication we
discussed in Chapter 4) will also think that he or she is kind, friendly, generous, and smart as well, even if they have no direct evidence for the existence of
those personality traits (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972; Langlois et al., 2000). Grouping positive personality characteristics in this way is called the halo
effect. In contrast, the reverse halo effect, also called the horn effect, describes the grouping of negative characteristics on the assumption that the individual
only has other negative traits as well.
As with stereotypes and prototypes, we use implicit personality theory to organize and interpret our interactions with others. The danger associated with this
theory occurs when we do not check our perceptions via communication or are unwilling to learn more about the person to more accurately understand who
the individual is. In other words, rather than allowing our implicit (usually initial) assumptions about someone to “ ill in” the rest of their personality
characteristics, we must be open to communicating with them and allowing the perceptions that stem from our direct interactions to determine how we
perceive who they are as a person.
Impressions
At the broadest level, an impression is the overall effect of someone or something, which is based to some extent on your experience with that individual or
that thing. There are three important aspects of impression that researchers study: how we form impressions of other people, how long these impressions
last, and how we attempt to manage the impressions others form of us. Interpersonal communication is instrumental in assisting us in forming impressions of
others and managing others’ impressions of us.
Impression Formation
The saying “You never get a second chance to make a good irst impression” is true. Not only do we form impressions and make judgments about people
quickly, but these split-second impressions are often long lasting and dif icult to change. With impression formation, you are decoding, or interpreting,
dimensions of another person’s “image,” be it how they appear, their nonverbal messages, or what they say.
For example, studies have shown that when you irst meet someone, you form general impressions of the person based on facial appearance alone—and you
form these impressions in less than a tenth of a second. Based on that split-second impression, you immediately judge the attractiveness, trustworthiness, and
likeability of the other person, and you also form impressions of speci ic traits, such as competence or aggressiveness, that you believe the person possesses
(Willis & Todorov, 2005).
Researchers have found that you usually approach new people with preconceived ideas about their personalities, attitudes, and beliefs as well as certain
expectations of how they should behave (Uleman, 1999). Any number of things can aid in forming these impressions. For example, wearing the color red in a
job application context led participants in one German study to form impressions that the job candidate was less intelligent and would be less likely to be hired
in comparison to applicants wearing blue or green clothing (Maier et al., 2013). In this way, implicit personality theory and stereotypes can come into play
when you form impressions of others.
But in many ways, the ability to make quick assessments of other people is a valuable trait; the judgments you make can help you detect potential threats and
keep you safe. You continually encounter strangers as you walk down the street, sit next to them in a crowded movie theater, or swipe left or right on a dating
app. Your safety may depend on your ability to judge their personalities and accurately predict the behavior of people you encounter. This ability to form
accurate impressions of others can help you sense if it is a good idea to give your number to someone that you have just met or if you can trust the person
you are talking to via an app enough to meet in person.
Impression Management
At the same time that we are forming impressions of others, we also trying to in luence the impressions others form of us. The act of encoding, or creating,
dimensions of your own image is called impression management. When you are preparing to go on a irst date with someone, for example, you probably pay
particular attention to your grooming, your clothing, and other aspects of your appearance. When you see the other person, you most likely put your best
“self” forward, and you do your best to smile and convey a positive image. These are all attempts to create a good irst impression.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08i…
5/39
5/21/2020
Print
Social psychologists have identi ied two common techniques that people use for impression management: self-enhancement and other-enhancement. Selfenhancement includes behaviors such as paying attention to how you dress, describing yourself in positive ways, and playing up your accomplishments,
which help you present yourself in the best way possible. Researchers have found that people who used self-enhancement techniques when trying to make a
date with another person were more successful than people who were more honest or modest about their accomplishments (Rowatt, Cunningham, & Druen,
1998).
Other-enhancement refers to attempts to create a favorable impression by making
the other person feel good. The most obvious method is by lattering the other
person; lattery, or complimenting a person, is an other-enhancement technique that
has been found to increase the likelihood that the other person will comply with a
request you make of him or her (Grant, Fabrigar, & Lim, 2010). However, lattery
should not be overdone because it can back ire and seem insincere. Agreeing with
another person, being interested in what the other person has to say, and asking for
advice on issues are additional other-enhancement techniques that can create
positive impressions in others.
It might seem as if these techniques and methods are manipulative or disingenuous.
However, effective use of impression management relies on one’s ability to identify
when and how to best apply such techniques. The key is to avoid manipulative use
and overuse. We all want to put our best foot forward, yet our impression
management should not create a false impression. We should present the best
aspects of who we are.
Four Components of Impressions
According to Michael Eaves and Dale Leathers (2018), there are four components,
or dimensions, of impressions, and each have their own way of being communicated:
Eternity in an Instant/The Image Bank/Getty Images
█
We can use other-enhancement to create a favorable impression in
an interaction.
1. Credibility emphasizes believability and trustworthiness. Consistency between the verbal and nonverbal messages, high level of eye contact, and use
of short, purposeful pauses are cues that indicate credibility.
2. Likeability emphasizes affability and friendliness. Likeability cues include sincerely smiling, maintaining mutual gaze, and open body postures.
3. Interpersonal attractiveness emphasizes sociability, interestingness, and emotional expressiveness. Physical attractiveness, being facially animated,
and being willing to disclose about oneself are cues that show you are interpersonally attractive.
4. Dominance emphasizes power and assertiveness. Dominance cues include staring, frequently interrupting others, and speaking in a loud voice.
Depending on the situation, one of the dimensions of impression may be more important than others (Eaves & Leathers, 2018). For example, during a job
interview, the candidate will likely focus more on managing his or her credibility and likeability. In addition, we may base these impressions on a number of
communication cues, including what individuals say and how they look and speak. For example, surgeons who used a more dominant tone of voice with their
patients were more likely to have been involved in malpractice suits than surgeons with less dominant vocal tones (Ambady et al., 2002). (See the Everyday
Communication Challenges feature for a look at how impressions of others and ourselves are interpreted online.)
Everyday Communication Challenges (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/sec7.1#tip7-1)
Overall, it is important to remember that your impressions of others are not necessarily complete and accurate. These impressions can be wrong, especially if
the other person is trying to manage the impression you receive. But how do you know if your impressions are correct or incorrect? You can test your irst
impressions by
1. communicating your impressions to the other person and asking if he or she agrees with your judgment,
2. communicating with other people about the person and asking if their opinions are similar to yours, and
3. observing their actions to see if their behavior matches your prediction (Pennington, 2000).
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08i…
6/39
5/21/2020
Print
7.2 Conversation Management
Connecting with other people is an integral part of life, and your ability to engage in everyday conversations is crucial to your mental and physical well-being
and success. Some people are gregarious; they enjoy meeting people, getting to know them, asking them questions, and exchanging information. However,
other people have dif iculty initiating a conversation with a stranger; they are shy; they get tongue-tied, self-conscious, or embarrassed in social situations; or
they never know what to say when they have to engage in conversation. As we discussed in Chapter 5, these individuals may have communication
apprehension or may be shy, introverted, or have an unwillingness to communicate. In this section, we examine the importance of everyday conversations
when initiating interpersonal relationships with others.
The Conversation Process
In every situation, there is a process we use to meet and engage in conversations with others. Let’s look at the main components in the conversation process.
Meeting People
The environment in which you live and work plays a major role in your chances of meeting other people, which is the irst necessary part of the conversation
process. Early research on housing developments, for example, found that location matters in terms of who talked to whom. Speci ically, neighbors whose
houses had adjacent driveways had more frequent conversations with one another than with people whose driveways were farther away, and people whose
houses were in the middle of the block tended to have more frequent contact with other people on that block than those whose houses were at the end of the
block (Whyte, 1956). Other researchers found that people who lived in apartments tended to have greater social contact and more friendships with people in
the same building and particularly from their same loor. They also tended to converse with people whose doors faced theirs rather than with those whose
doors were next to theirs or some distance away (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1963). In a more recent study, individuals who own dogs were found to spend
more time outside, be more recognizable to their neighbors, and serve as a source of conversation (Power, 2013), thus decreasing their physical distance from
others.
The reason for these results seems obvious: You tend to get to know the people you see or run into most often due to simple geographic proximity. However,
meeting people can be regarded as a numbers game: You are more likely to meet other people if you put yourself in situations that allow you to interact with
others. If you ind it dif icult to meet people, make an effort to seek out situations where you can interact with others, be it in person or through mediated
channels. Engage in social activities, join colleagues in the break room, join a club, or walk around your neighborhood. Despite the belief that Americans don’t
know or trust their neighbors anymore, research has found that most know at least some of the individuals who live around them, and more than half say they
would trust a neighbor with a key to their home (Parker et al., 2018). Thus, these geographically proximal conversations could potentially be built upon and
grown into interpersonal relationships. If you prefer to interact with others online, join an online group for a hobby or cause that interests you, or enlarge
your circle of friends on the social networking sites you already belong to.
Establishing Rapport
Once you meet someone, how do you improve your chances of making a favorable irst impression? The idiom breaking the ice describes the second step in
the conversation process: establishing rapport. Having rapport with someone means that you connect or communicate well and understand each other. In
other words, rapport means that your interactions with another person are smooth and harmonious (Spencer-Oatey, 2005) and that you likely achieve shared
meaning. This initial rapport can be the foundation upon which you can build a close relationship. Rapport is also an important aspect of building and
maintaining satisfying relationships in the workplace, as it is an essential component of effective face-to-face business and professional interactions (Pullin,
2010).
As we mentioned earlier, we form irst impressions of other people in less than a second. However, psychiatrist Leonard Zunin (1986) argues that when we
meet people, we have about four minutes to establish rapport. He suggests that at a typical party, if the host or hostess introduces two strangers, they will tend
to converse for a minimum period—on average, about four minutes—before they decide to continue the conversation or to move on. If a relationship
continues, it is by mutual consent; if one person is unwilling, the potential relationship is lost for that moment. At the core of establishing rapport, says Zunin
(1986), are four key principles:
Conveying con idence. Choosing not to exude con idence—the belief that you can be successful or excel at something—may create a temporary
sympathy from the other person in the conversation, but most people do not respond favorably if they perceive the other person lacks con idence or
is self-demeaning or overly apologetic.
Being creative. Making contacts means inding ways to tune into the feelings of others. Humor may be used, but you can also notice and comment on
something interesting about the other person, and using your strengths and interests can help you ind ways of initiating conversation with others.
Showing that you care. Asking appropriate questions about personal interests, giving your total attention, and being a good listener show the other
person that you care. Indeed, Dale Carnegie, author of the best-selling book How to Win Friends and In luence People, said, “You can make more friends
in two months by becoming interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to get other people interested in you” (1990, p. 54).
Being considerate. Being sensitive and aware that you are relating to another unique individual is one way to show consideration. Zunin (1986)
describes consideration best by saying that some people we meet leave us feeling a little better about ourselves after we talk with them. Listening skills
(which we address later in this chapter) are some of the most important ways in which you express consideration for other people—by making good
eye contact, appropriately smiling, being engaged with the other person, and responding with meaningful questions and comments. The feeling of
consideration is thus a combination of the other three factors: con idence, creativity, and caring.
Culture can help determine the best way to initiate a conversation. In the United States, for example, a smile, a handshake, or a simple “hello” are ways to
initiate a conversation. The next step is to ask a non-threatening question, to comment about some element of the occasion or the environment in which the
two of you are talking, or to listen carefully and to respond to what the other person says. For example, you might ask general questions such as, “Where are
you from?” or “Have you been in this area long?” Questioning the other person is a useful strategy many people employ because it allows them to avoid
focusing on themselves, and it gives the other person the opportunity to share information. When you ask a question or make a comment, stick to facts rather
than opinions, and focus on noncontroversial subjects. Try to use open-ended questions that ask who, what, where, when, why, and how. Such questions
require more than a yes or no answer and encourage the other person to talk.
You might also use a technique called speech mirroring to help you establish and build rapport with another person. To do this, pay attention to how the
other person is speaking—how fast and how loudly the person talks and the pattern of give and take in the conversation. Then try to subtly match your
speech with the pace and characteristics of the speech set by the other person. This technique can help both of you feel more comfortable with each other.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08i…
7/39
5/21/2020
Print
The irst two steps we have discussed will generally get you through the crucial irst
four minutes and avoid disagreement, during which time you and the other person
will decide to end the conversation or to continue. If you both desire to continue the
conversation, you will worry less about establishing and maintaining rapport from
that point on. It should naturally unfold on its own.
Turn-Taking
An important but often overlooked aspect of the conversation process is turntaking. A conversation requires that both communicators act as speakers and as
listeners, and the transition between these two roles should occur luidly and
naturally. Recall from Chapter 4 that we use many nonverbal messages to regulate
when each communicator takes turns during an interaction, and a conversation is no
different. Indeed, when one communicator dominates the interaction by speaking
the majority of the time, it becomes less of a conversation and more of a monologue.
Both individuals need to take turns for the conversation to be maintained.
Listening
Andrew Hobbs/Photodisc/Thinkstock
█ When establishing rapport during the initial phase of an
When you think of communicating, what words come to mind? Most likely the words interaction, we can use open-ended questions to encourage the other
speaking, talking, and writing jump out right away; but what about listening? One of person to share information.
the most neglected interpersonal communication skills, and a core competency we
must master, is listening. Listening is a complex psychological process of physically
hearing, interpreting, and understanding the signi icance of a sound (Hayes, 1991). If you do not listen during an interaction, you cannot understand others,
respond appropriately to what they say, or provide feedback. Parents and teachers teach children to speak, read, and write, but very few people have had
formal lessons about listening. This gap in education is particularly troubling because research shows that we engage in listening more than any other single
form of communication activity. One study estimated that 45% of all communication time is spent listening, compared with 30% speaking, 16% reading, and
9% writing (Hayes, 1991). Listening is also an important aspect of the conversation process.
Though most people think they are good listeners, studies show that the majority of people listen poorly and inef iciently (Lee & Hatesohl, 1993). Minimal
training to build listening skills is one possible explanation, but another reason is that people think faster than they can speak. Humans have the mental
capacity to hear and understand words spoken at 400 to 500 words per minute; however, most people speak at about 100 to 125 words per minute. While
someone is speaking to you, you have a great deal of extra time to let your mind wander and to think of things other than what the speaker is saying.
We sometimes confuse hearing with listening. Listening involves hearing, but it is more than just the physiological act of your ears perceiving a sound and
transmitting the auditory sensation to your brain. As we learned earlier in this text, listening is essential to the process of creating meaning (encoding) and
attempting to discern the meaning that other people give to a message (decoding). Effective listening is important in all facets of interpersonal communication.
Learning how to be a more effective listener involves understanding a ive-step process: receiving, attending, interpreting, responding, and remembering. We
explain each stage below, using the example of trying to have a conversation with a family member from the other side of the political spectrum about a
particular political candidate.
The irst stage in the listening process is receiving, which involves hearing what your conversation partner is communicating. This can take place face-to-face
or over mediated channels, such as via videoconferencing or on a mobile phone or landline. It thus involves the “technical” aspects of listening and can be
hampered by communication barriers such as the types of noise we discussed in Chapter 1, including hearing impairment, bad cellular connections, or
environmental distractions such as other people talking around you. To approach the political conversation with your family member, which you know will be
touchy, you might create an environment that is quiet and private to allow you both to receive the messages you will communicate to one another to the best
of your abilities.
Attending is the second listening stage, and it means that you devote attention or conscious awareness to the messages you are decoding. In other words,
focusing exclusively on the conversation and not participating in any other activities (that is, not multitasking) is optimal for the listening process. In fact,
individuals who multitask habitually have trouble listening because they are unable to attend to the interaction (Carr, 2010). Nonverbal cues such as making
eye contact show that you are giving your conversation partner your full attention (Orick, 2002)—as does putting down your phone and not looking at any
other screens during the conversation. So, when talking to your family member about your political beliefs, give them your full attention and show them you
are doing so.
The third stage of listening is interpreting. In essence, you interpret what you have listened to when you understand what your conversation partner has
communicated by linking this new information to your previous knowledge. You are making meaning in this listening stage. In this way, your own experiences
and background become relevant to the interaction. Elements of the self and your cultural background will be in luential as you interpret what someone is
saying. As you and your family member discuss your political differences, you will likely try to understand their perspective better by considering where they
come from culturally and who they are as a person. How are they different from and similar to you? Are they older, younger, or do they live in a different
region of the country? You hope they are taking into account the same considerations.
The fourth listening stage is responding, where both conversation partners communicate that they are attending to and interpreting one another’s messages.
This can occur in two primary ways. First, you can offer feedback, which is when you express attention and understanding cues as you are listening. Feedback
can be positive or negative, depending on how you feel about what you are hearing. Examples include nodding, saying “uh-huh,” or shaking your head no,
turning away, or pulling out your phone. Second, you can respond during a conversation by paraphrasing after your partner has inished speaking, or
restating what the other person has said in your own words, and then asking if you have captured their ideas correctly. In the family political conversation
example, as you listen to why your family member believes what they do about a particular political candidate, you can offer feedback by nodding or
narrowing your eyes as you are thinking through what they are saying. Then, you respond by paraphrasing what they said (“Can I make sure that I have
understood what you have said correctly?”).
Finally, the ifth listening stage, remembering, involves how accurately you are able to recall the information you listened to after the conversation is over—the
extent to which you can remember it. Listening effectiveness is frequently assessed by how well individuals can remember what they heard. Further, effective
listeners are able to accurately convey information to a third party, showing that they actively listened to what the original speaker had communicated (Orick,
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08i…
8/39
5/21/2020
Print
2002). Being able to accurately remember your political conversation with your family member at a later date, especially the speci ics of what they said, shows
them that you were an active, respectful, and eager participant in that interaction.
Your methods of meeting other people and engaging them in conversation are familiar to you; for this reason, such patterns may be hard to change, even if
your behaviors are ineffective. Do you have dif iculty walking up to strangers and talking with them? Do you think you come on too strong or are too talkative,
or have you been told that you need to assert yourself more? Do you feel you need to sharpen your conversational skills or want to feel more comfortable
making small talk? Improving your conversational competency is not dif icult; it simply requires that you learn and use the above methods of making contact
with other people—striking up conversations with them, establishing a rapport, and learning to listen effectively. (The IPC Research Applied feature addresses a
speci ic communication challenge when one or both of the partners are in the military.)
IPC Research Applied (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/sec7.2#tip7-2)
Small Talk and Phatic Communication
A inal important component in the conversation process is the act of small talk (also known as phatic communication). Small talk is de ined as “the phase of
conversation that follows the exchange of greetings but precedes the discussion of more serious topics” (Knutson & Ayers, 1986, p. 5). Examples of small talk
topics include the weather, current events, and comments about the event or environment where the individuals are talking (for example, “This restaurant is
really nice. I hear they have a great shrimp cocktail”). Many people dislike small talk or view it only as a necessary (and sometimes even an unnecessary) evil in
their conversations with others. However, one research study analyzed the conversations of 17 friendship pairs and determined that small talk has a number
of important functions (Knutson & Ayers, 1986). Namely, small talk serves as a conduit for
information exchange,
discussions about more intimate and serious topics,
relationship validation,
self-presentation in interactions with others, and
nonthreatening behaviors that help in killing time (Knutson & Ayers, 1986).
These functions of small talk show that it is not only an important way to transition to other parts of the conversation, but it is also a key form of
communication in and of itself (Knutson & Ayers, 1986).
Small talk can also serve a purpose beyond its immediate functions in a two-person conversation. For example, small talk is an important method for building
rapport, solidarity, and trust between work colleagues and is thus an essential gateway to effective business and professional interactions (Pullin, 2010).
Speci ically, in our culture, small talk in organizational contexts can create a relaxing atmosphere, diffuse tensions and power differentials, and provide insight
into the different views and backgrounds of employees. Patricia Pullin (2010) thus recommends that companies value and create a space for small talk. In
addition, in initially identifying the importance of small talk in our communication with others, communication scholar Mark Knapp (1978) argued that small
talk helps us maintain a sense of community and fellowship with one another and thus helps build acceptance and social cohesion. In this way, if a culture
approves of small talk, its members know that it is an acceptable way to initiate a conversation with a stranger. Overall, despite its bad reputation, small talk
does possess many bene its at the interpersonal, professional, and even societal level. (See the Web Field Trip feature for a perspective on the impact of
technology on connecting with others.)
Web Field Trip (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/sec7.2#tip7-3)
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08i…
9/39
5/21/2020
Print
7.3 Relationship Development
Researchers in social psychology and communication have long been interested in understanding how we develop relationships with others. What factors
contribute to wanting to meet and spend time with one individual but not another? As you can imagine, there is no single explanation of our relationship
initiation messages; rather, a variety of related components come into play. In this section, we describe three perspectives that explain how we come to know
other people and why we decide to form (or not form) relationships with them. Each perspective takes a unique position on how interpersonal
communication is relevant to relationship development—together, they paint a detailed picture of these often-complicated communication processes.
Relationship Dialectics Theory
Communication scholars Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery viewed relationship initiation and continuation as an interpersonal communication process.
Speci ically, in their relationship dialectics theory, they propose that building a close relationship through communication is a contradiction-ridden dialogue
where relationship partners continuously face and struggle with opposing tensions (Baxter, 2004; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). These dialectical tensions
represent the push and pull of divergent ends of a continuum between the self and the relationship. Dialectical tensions are present in romantic, friend, and
family relationships, as well as in long-distance relationships (Sahlstein, 2004). Namely, there are three primary pairs of relationship dialectics that should be
consistently attended to and managed in relationships, often via interpersonal communication: autonomy and connection, novelty and predictability, and
openness and closedness.
Autonomy and Connection
A relationship where the partners are constantly together or in contact or always apart is not healthy and cannot be sustained. Instead, it is best for
relationships to involve both partners negotiating time together and time on their own. The autonomy and connection dialectic acknowledges the push and
pull between seeking to be independent and focusing on the self versus wanting to feel connected to a partner. The struggle between autonomy and
connection is typically the primary dialectic in romantic relationships and can even be a reason for romantic dissolution (Sahlstein & Dun, 2008). This
dialectical tension is characterized in today’s interpersonal communication by mobile phone usage, such that romantic partners, and even parents and their
college-age children, struggle with how much to be available to communicate with one another versus others (Kelly, Duran, & Miller-Ott, 2017; Miller-Ott &
Kelly, 2016). The constant availability afforded by a mobile phone essentially forces close relational partners to confront this tension by having them
communicatively negotiate how much or how little to call and text one another.
Novelty and Predictability
Always being unsure about what is going to happen in the relationship is uncomfortable and tiring, and being able to predict your partner’s every move can
become tedious and boring. The novelty and predictability dialectic re lects the tension between wanting to experience newness versus wanting to be able to
predict routine patterns in a relationship. Relational partners tend to prefer that novelty be in the form of small gestures, such as receiving surprise gifts, and
predictability occur in relation to larger relational patterns, such as keeping dates and communicating about plans. Research has also found that this tension
can be prominent in the experiences of the cultural adjustment of immigrants (Erbert, Perez, & Gareis, 2003). Speci ically, immigrants were particularly attuned
to the differences between their old and new cultures and found that adjusting to their new culture involved learning about and adapting to these unfamiliar
and surprising experiences (Erbert et al., 2003).
Openness and Closedness
The inal major dialectical tension is openness and closedness, a continuum between sharing and concealing information. We may choose particular times or
situations in which to be open or closed, or, instead, we may alternate between speci ic topics that we want to discuss versus keep private. For example,
divorced and stepfamily members often struggle with this tension, and they manage it by segmenting information into safe and unsafe topics (Braithwaite &
Baxter, 2006). This was a particular issue for children communicating with a parent with whom they did not live (i.e., the nonresidential parent). More
speci ically, these children sought open communication with their nonresidential parent, but these children had dif iculty achieving this openness because the
parent was not privy to the children’s everyday life and because they did not want to hurt the nonresidential parent’s feelings, particularly when it came to the
relationship the child had with the stepparent (Braithwaite & Baxter, 2006).
Uncertainty Reduction Theory and Management
When you irst meet someone, when you begin to talk, what is your goal? What do you hope to get out of the interaction? These questions are at the heart of
uncertainty reduction theory (URT), which was introduced by communication theorists Charles Berger and Richard Calabrese in 1975. Berger and
Calabrese’s theory predicted that the primary motivation in an initial interaction is to reduce uncertainty about the other person and the relationship you may
develop. You experience uncertainty when “details of situations are ambiguous, complex, unpredictable, or probabilistic; when information is unavailable or
inconsistent; and when people feel insecure in their own state of knowledge or the state of knowledge in general” (Brashers, 2001, p. 478).
Uncertainty reduction theory is laid out via a series of speci ic predictions, called axioms, which state that uncertainty will decrease during irst meetings as
messages such as verbal communication, information-seeking, and nonverbal expressiveness increase (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Initially, URT was signi icant
because it was intuitive and was also the irst authentic interpersonal communication theory, but subsequent research failed to consistently support URT’s
predictions. Indeed, research studies found that certain communication situations such as romantic in idelity and forming new friendships with others could
actually increase your uncertainty about your partner (Planalp & Honeycutt, 1985; Planalp, Rutherford, & Honeycutt, 1988).
Such indings led to a fundamental shift in uncertainty research. Instead of focusing exclusively on the reduction of uncertainty in relation to how we interact
with others, scholars now concentrate their efforts on understanding how we manage our uncertainty. The notion of uncertainty management
acknowledges that interpersonal communication can increase, decrease, or maintain our uncertainty about the other person, our relationship with that
person, and even how we view ourselves. For example, one study determined that young adult siblings experienced uncertainty about their relationships with
each other, even though siblings tend to know one another most of their lives (Bevan, Stetzenbach, Batson, & Bullo, 2006). This relationship uncertainty
increased when the siblings also engaged in topic avoidance, or avoiding the discussion of certain topics such as money and household rules (Bevan et al.,
2006). Thus, uncertainty management is a broad concept that allows us to study how uncertainty waxes and wanes in relation to interpersonal communication
in both new and established relationships.
Predicted Outcome Value Theory
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08…
10/39
5/21/2020
Print
To determine what motivates us when we communicate in initial interactions, Michael
Sunnafrank (1986) developed predicted outcome value (POV) theory. Unlike the
other theories introduced in this section, POV theory states that our communication
is not guided by a desire to decrease uncertainty. Instead, when we irst meet
someone, we are motivated by a desire to maximize relationship outcomes. Thus,
predicted outcome value is our evaluation, based on an initial meeting, of whether a
future relationship with another person will likely be either positive or negative. Did
they say things that made us laugh? Did we ind them physically attractive? Did they
ask us questions about us that made it seem as if they were listening to what we
were saying? Similarly, your conversation partner is making that evaluation of you
based on how you communicated.
Individuals strive to form relationships with others so that they can achieve positive
relational outcomes (Sunnafrank, 1986). If both communicators perceive that the
interaction was positive, they likely will believe that future interactions will also be
positive and will both try to spend more time together. For example, the individual
who wrote the “missed connections” ad presented in the beginning of the chapter
believed their brief irst meeting was positive and held the possibility of a rewarding
future relationship. However, when one or both partners perceive an interaction as
negative, they are likely to have a less positive POV about the relationship and will
not pursue a future relationship. Today, this assessment could be as quick as swiping
left or right on a dating app.
Thomas Barwick/Stone/Getty Images
█
Scholars now focus on learning more about how we manage
uncertainty during our interactions in both new and established
relationships.
When we consider the larger implications on relationship development, how does research about POV compare with research about uncertainty? In three
studies, Sunnafrank found evidence that supported POV theory (Sunnafrank, 1988, 1990; Sunnafrank, & Ramirez, 2004). In these studies, an individual’s POV
about his or her partner was positively related to the amount of verbal communication, nonverbal af iliation, intimacy, liking, attraction, perceived similarity,
and information seeking. In essence, the more individuals communicated with and experienced intimacy, liking, attraction, and similarity with their
conversation partners, the greater their POV regarding a future relationship with that individual. Further, when uncertainty and POV in initial interactions are
directly compared to one another, research has consistently found that POV is a more important motivator than uncertainty and is more strongly related to
how the individuals interact with one another (Grove & Werkman, 1991; Sunnafrank, 1990). Sunnafrank’s POV theory has also been extended to
understanding more established relationships. In such relationships, unexpected events could cause one or both individuals to reevaluate the value of their
relationship (Ramirez, Sunnafrank, & Goei, 2010). This also applies in online contexts. One research study (Young, Kelsey, & Lancaster, 2011) found that the
frequency and immediacy of e-mails between college students and their professors can contribute to the students’ POV of developing a student–teacher
relationship.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08…
11/39
5/21/2020
Print
7.4 Self-Disclosure and Relationship Development
Have you had the experience of meeting someone for the irst time and having him
or her tell you personal information that you did not want to hear? Have you opened
up to someone and shared your thoughts or feelings but then regretted it later? The
intentional act of sharing private and personal aspects of oneself with other people
is called self-disclosure (Wheeless, 1978). According to this de inition, basic
information about you, such as your name, would not be classi ied as self-disclosure;
rather, self-disclosure refers to information that is private and would likely not be
revealed by anyone other than you. Self-disclosure from this perspective is thus an
intentional choice.
Self-disclosure is important for building rapport with other people, but it also helps
you learn more about yourself. If you develop a relationship with someone, you
gradually disclose more information about yourself. Identifying, understanding, and
then verbalizing your ideas, beliefs, and experiences are processes that enable you
to better explore and analyze yourself, which helps you to question or reinforce
your self-concept. As you disclose more to others, you may become aware of
previously untapped issues or feelings. For example, imagine that you are becoming
Christopher Malcom/The Image Bank/Getty Images
friends with someone at work, and you are both building that friendship by sharing
things about yourself. You tell your work friend that you have a full-time job, are in █ Self-disclosure can help us build rapport with others and help us
school, are raising a daughter, and take care of your aging father. Your work friend learn more about ourselves.
replies, “Wow. That is a lot to take on. I really admire you.” When you hear that, you
realize that you do juggle many important tasks and that you are stronger than you
had given yourself credit for. In this way, self-disclosure can be a form of the looking-glass self we described in Chapter 2. It can also help you to shape, form,
and alter your self-concept, self-image, and self-esteem.
Although self-disclosure can have many bene its, such as inding out that you have something in common with another person, it is also risky. Sharing
information about yourself makes you vulnerable. When others know you well, they have information that they might use against you in some way, such as by
telling others, and you may fear being taken advantage of (Farber, 2006). You might also want to protect yourself from criticism or rejection. For example, how
might you react if a new romantic partner disclosed that she had cheated on one of her previous partners? Would you be less likely to trust her, or would you
want to hear more about the situation to determine what happened? Would you be willing to listen to your partner’s explanations about why it happened and
how it will not happen in your relationship? You may never know unless you test that assumption and disclose information and are also receptive to others
when they disclose risky information about themselves to you.
Social Penetration Theory
In 1973, social psychologists Irwin Altman and Dalmas Taylor proposed a theory of self-disclosure called social penetration theory. In this theory, Altman
and Taylor compared the disclosure process to peeling back an onion layer by layer. When you irst meet someone, you usually discuss obvious or
nonthreatening subjects, thus remaining only at the surface or outer layer of the onion. At this peripheral level, you might compliment someone about things
you can easily observe, such as a person’s clothing, or discuss mundane topics, such as the weather. Your conversation at this level usually involves learning
more than you tell by asking questions to reduce uncertainty about the other person and to ind common ground.
As a relationship progresses, people reveal more details about themselves. This information represents the middle layers of the onion. You might ask about the
other person’s family, interests, social activities, and other such topics. Continued progression of the relationship will depend, in part, on the responses you get
because this type of disclosure enables you to pinpoint commonalities that can help you determine if you want to get to know this person more.
Self-disclosure allows you to reduce uncertainty about each other and to predict how costly or rewarding future interactions with the other person will be. If
this sounds familiar, you are correct—Sunnafrank’s (1988, 1990) POV theory was based on the broad concepts of social penetration. Once you mutually
determine that you want to establish some type of relationship, disclosure gradually continues to more personal topics (Svennivig, 2000). As this happens,
according to social penetration theory, more layers of the onion are peeled back and revealed. The central layers of the onion represent the most personal or
private details about you, such as your values, fears, and feelings, and are revealed only to a few close relational partners. As such, they are the most dif icult
to get to and most likely to make us cry—much like peeling an actual onion down to the center will likely do!
Self-Disclosure in Person
The vast majority of self-disclosure occurs in face-to-face contexts, though early social media research determined that college student Facebook users were
more likely to self-disclose on the site than in general (Christo ides, Muise, & Desmarais, 2009), and a more recent review of online self-disclosure research
found a consistent relationship between online and off-line self-disclosure patterns (Desjarlais, Gilmour, Sinclair, Howell, & West, 2015). Whether face-to-face
or online, there are two important things to consider when disclosing about yourself: reciprocity and appropriateness.
Reciprocity
Sidney Jourard (1971) emphasized that disclosure must be reciprocal; both parties must disclose the same degree of information. Face-to-face self-disclosure
is most bene icial for a relationship when it is equally reciprocated between both partners. So, when you self-disclose to another person, in a sense, you are
placing a burden on that person to share information with you to approximately the same degree. If you continue to share personal information with someone
and he or she does not reciprocate, you may decide to disclose less or not at all. If the relationship is ongoing, con lict usually results if one person feels that
he or she is doing all the giving and getting little in return. On the other hand, if you are not interested in developing a relationship with the person who is
disclosing to you, the shared information can make you uncomfortable because you now know things about this person you did not care to know, and the
other person has an unspoken assumption that you will divulge personal information as well.
Individuals often rely on nonverbal listening feedback cues such as nodding, touch, and eye contact to ensure that they have not shared more than they should
have. You can use this knowledge about nonverbal communication cues to determine whether the information you are sharing is at approximately the same
level of what your partner is sharing.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08…
12/39
5/21/2020
Print
Appropriateness
In-person disclosures must also be appropriate. Think back to the appropriateness dimension of communication competence, which indicates that individuals
should strive to follow rules and consider the context or situation surrounding the interaction. For example, sharing intimate details about your relationships
or discussing personal issues in professional situations such as the classroom or the workplace is inappropriate in most circumstances. Disclosure that is
excessive and inappropriate to the context is referred to as overdisclosure. To determine what is appropriate, you must consider the communication context,
which will impact your decisions about appropriateness. Consider the following contextual factors:
target: the person with whom you are sharing and the nature of your relationship with them
situation: the time and place of the disclosure
amount: how much information you disclose
depth: the level of detail you disclose
duration: how long you talk (Brockbank & McGill, 2006)
Let’s look at an example to consider how each factor works in an interpersonal communication situation. Perhaps you have started dating someone you really
like, and you want to disclose to them that you have a chronic health condition that will affect your relationship if you two choose to pursue it. Your condition
isn’t serious, but it does need to be managed, and it will impact elements of your day-to-day interactions with a partner. So, you decide you are ready to
disclose this information.
Your target is the person you are dating, and you have determined that the nature of your relationship is to the point where you feel comfortable
sharing this personal information with them.
You choose a situation—a night at your house where you have made dinner—that is conducive to this type of disclosure because it is private, quiet,
and gives you both time to discuss the information for as long as you like.
You strike a balance between amount and depth by sharing the diagnosis of your condition, some background about it, how it affects you, and how it
will affect your relationship, should it blossom. You try not to share too much or too little so as to give your new romantic partner a chance to process
the information and determine how to proceed.
This links to the last factor, duration—you will talk irst, but you want to give your partner a chance to respond soon into the interaction and not
overwhelm him or her with information.
As with all communication, as you can see by this example, self-disclosure must be appropriate to the context in which the communication occurs.
Self-Disclosure Online
Opportunities for self-disclosure have expanded exponentially with the growth of
the Internet, emerging technologies, and social media. Individuals have been able to
disclose about themselves online for the past two decades, and this outlet for selfdisclosure is unique and thus distinct from face-to-face self-disclosure in two
important ways.
Erik Palmer/FogStock/Thinkstock
█
Technology offers additional opportunities for self-disclosure. On
the Internet, for example, the information we share with others can be
either exclusive, via personal messages, or nonexclusive, via postings
on message boards.
First, self-disclosing on social media can be done either exclusively (that is, directed
to only the receiver by private message) or nonexclusively (by posting to many
individuals in their networks via public comments, status updates, or wall postings).
For example, one study found that Facebook users utilize various methods of
nonexclusive disclosure to update their friend networks on major life events (Bevan
et al., 2015). When the life events are negative, such as a divorce or death in the
family, Facebook users prefer to share that information directly via status updates or
photo captions. But when the events are positive—an engagement or receiving a
promotion—users disclose more indirectly by posting a photo with no caption or
changing information in the “About” section of their pro ile without explanation
(Bevan et al., 2015). It is likely that Facebook users do this to avoid “boasting” online
about their positive news in a way that could be seen as self-aggrandizing and to
seek social support from their networks about their negative information (Bevan et
al., 2015).
The extent to which a self-discloser provides information to a receiver exclusively is
referred to as disclosure personalism (Bazarova, 2012). For example, exclusive disclosures about both positive and negative topics on Facebook were viewed
as more intimate and personal than nonexclusive disclosures (Bazarova, 2012). Further, when disclosures were exclusive to a particular individual rather than
shared with one’s broader network, there were also greater perceptions of relationship intimacy and liking of the discloser (Bazarova, 2012). Such research
indicates that sharing intimate information with large groups of social network users is an ef icient way to disclose but can sometimes have unintended results
depending on how the message and the relationship are perceived. For example, McEwan (2013) notes that sharing information about yourself on social
media can be less of an interpersonal interaction and more of a “masspersonal” broadcast (that is, a blend of mass and interpersonal communication) that
prevents true reciprocity from occurring.
The honesty of self-disclosure is the second factor that differs in online contexts. In face-to-face disclosures, honest and intentional self-disclosure is positively
related to relationship intimacy; but in certain online contexts, there is no such relationship. For example, researchers found that honest self-disclosure on
Facebook is not positively related to relationship intimacy (Park, Jin, & Jin, 2011). As we discussed in Chapter 2, on social networking sites such as Facebook,
users are easily able to create and change their self-images. Being honest and conscious of what is disclosed may not be as important in this context as it is in
face-to-face disclosures. However, Desjarlais and colleagues’ (2015) review of online self-disclosure research focused on adolescents and young adults and
found that this form of disclosure is generally viewed as relationally bene icial by this group, as it is related to increased trust, commitment, closeness, and
understanding in multiple cultures. As social media grows in size and in luence, mediated self-disclosure may becoming more accepted as part of our culture
as well.
Though sharing information about oneself to a group of people via mediated channels has a certain appeal, it is important to remember that this form of selfdisclosure is less private and more permanent than face-to-face disclosures. If the disclosure is made publicly, potential employers view this information and
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08…
13/39
5/21/2020
Print
form a negative impression of you. As we discussed in Chapter 6, exercise caution when you post about yourself online, and verify which other users can
access the information.
Self-Disclosure and Health
Jourard irst argued in 1971 that self-disclosure is linked to individual well-being. Speci ically, those who actively avoid disclosing to others increase their
vulnerability to stress, which then increases the likelihood of compromising personal physical health (Jourard, 1971). Based on Jourard’s idea, psychologist
James Pennebaker (1989) formally theorized that disclosure and mental and physical health are interrelated. His theory of inhibition and confrontation
posits that there is a clear relationship between disclosure and health: Namely, keeping important psychological experiences to yourself, or inhibition, can
increase stress levels. That stress can lead to the development of other health issues. Conversely, when you disclose, as a form of confrontation, your personal
experiences—when you decrease inhibition—you lower your stress levels. This decrease in stress can bene it overall health.
Research that tests the theory of inhibition and confrontation, as well as research that generally links self-disclosure with health, has overwhelmingly found
evidence of a positive association between the sharing of private information about oneself and individual health and well-being (Tardy, 2000). For example, in
one study that tested the theory of inhibition and confrontation, students who wrote about their traumatic experiences visited the university health center less
frequently than did those who did not disclose via writing (Pennebaker, 1989). In addition, individuals who were less emotionally expressive were more likely
to experience health issues such as headaches, asthma, heart disease complications, and even early cancer death (Pennebaker, 1993). In terms of
interpersonal communication, engaging in expressive writing in the manner suggested by Pennebaker’s (1989) theory has been found to help individuals
caring for spouses diagnosed with cancer become more person-centered in their communication (Harvey, Manusov, & Sanders, 2019) and assist lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) hate speech victims to psychologically and physiologically cope with a hate speech incident (Crowley, 2014).
Overall, research shows that self-disclosure can be good for the body and the soul and has at least six positive consequences, as illustrated in Table 7.1
(Farber, 2006).
Table 7.1: The positive consequences of self-disclosure
Positive consequence
Implied statement
Feeling emotionally closer to another person (intimacy)
“Being able to talk with you like this makes me feel closer to you.”
Feeling validated or af irmed by the other person
“I’m telling you this because I want you to tell me that what I did was right.”
Strengthening your identity
“He got mad at me when I said that, but I don’t care.”
Exploring your feelings
“The more I talk about this, the more I understand the different feelings I
have.”
Achieving a greater sense of authenticity—being true to yourself
“It feels so good to be able to talk about this honestly with someone.”
Relieving the burden of painful or shameful experiences
“It is such a relief to get this off my chest.”
Source: Adapted from Farber, B. A. (2006). Self-disclosure in psychotherapy. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
However, self-disclosure can sometimes be painful and even harmful. Table 7.2 summarizes some of the negative consequences of self-disclosure identi ied by
Robin Kowalski (1999). It is also important to keep in mind that although self-disclosure has an impact on relationships, individuals, and health, it is not always
or entirely bene icial, as we discussed earlier.
Table 7.2: The negative consequences of self-disclosure
Negative consequence
Outcome
Being rebuffed by the other person
Feeling rejected
Burdening another person with your secrets so that he or she might worry about it, feel responsible
for doing something, or identify with your pain
Feeling guilt
Creating undesired impressions about yourself or being seen as different because of the disclosure
and perhaps changing the way the other person sees you
Feeling regret
Increasing your feelings of vulnerability or feeling that you have given away too much of yourself
Feeling vulnerable and perhaps wanting to close up
again to feel safe
Facing undesirable parts of yourself and acknowledging that you are not the person you wish to be
Feeling shame
Giving the other person power over you and being in danger of the other person using that
information against you
Feeling violated or fearful
Source: Adapted from: Kowalski, R. M. (1999). Speaking the unspeakable: Self-disclosure and mental health. In R. M. Kowalski & M. R. Leary (Eds.), The social psychology of emotional and behavioral problems (pp. 225–
248). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08…
14/39
5/21/2020
Print
7.5 Stages in Forming Close Relationships
In 1978, communication scholar Mark Knapp presented his stage model of interpersonal relationships, which attempted to answer the question of how
communication changes as relationships progress through the phases of formation and termination. Knapp presented 10 sequential stages: ive for coming
together, and ive for breaking apart. In between stages, the relational partners remain in a state of relationship maintenance, which we discuss in Chapter 8.
Since its introduction, the stage model has been widely used to understand how individuals communicatively go through the process of beginning and ending
relationships, leading researchers to call it “a full treatment of the relational life-cycle” (Avtgis, West, & Anderson, 1998, p. 281). Further, the stage model has
been validated in multiple research studies (Avtgis et al., 1998; Welch & Rubin, 2002) and is relevant in the era of social media (Fox, Warber, & Makstaller,
2013).
Overall, Knapp’s stage model of relationships offers a useful way to chart how interpersonal communication is inherent in how relationships grow and wither
away. However, there are some caveats to keep in mind. First, though we can conceive of friendships as progressing through these stages, the stage model is
best applied to romantic relationships. Second, the stage model does not account for what happens once bonding has occurred. Thus, relationship
maintenance, discussed in the next chapter, is not considered in depth. Third, the stage model assumes that relationship partners proceed sequentially through
the stages; in reality, some partners may remain stuck in one stage or may move back and forth between stages.
The next sections describe the irst ive stages of relationship formation and how communication is a part of each (Figure 7.1). The inal ive stages are
discussed in Chapter 10. Keep in mind that though this model is a general framework for understanding how we communicate as relationships initiate and
develop, it should not be viewed as a required relationship checklist. Every relationship is a bit different and progresses in a different way.
Figure 7.1: The ive stages of relationship formation
█
Knapp’s stage model of interpersonal relationships can help explain how relationships form and, in some cases,
deteriorate. During the formation stages, partners come together and establish a relationship.
Source: Adapted from Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Initiating
In the initiating stage, we become aware of the other person for the irst time. This communicative exchange is usually brief, typically lasting less than a
minute. Nonverbal messages, such as eye contact or smiling, take place, as do short verbal exchanges of basic demographic information. If the irst contact
takes place online, the irst message constitutes the initiation stage. In this stage, limited information determines whether we wish to interact more with this
person.
Think back to the “missed connections” ad at the beginning of the chapter. The individual took part in the initiating stage with the person they were trying to
locate. The person who placed the ad would like to move on to the next stage of relationship formation.
Experimenting
If the interaction continues, the pair has moved into the experimenting stage. In this stage, according to URT and POV theory, based on this interaction, we
irst assess our uncertainty and the reward value of pursuing a relationship with the other person. We seek to gain more information so that we can make
such decisions. We also seek to make a good impression (Avtgis et al., 1998). Small talk is a hallmark of experimenting, as it allows communicators to look for
similarities and differences that help them determine whether they want to pursue a relationship. Most interactions we have with others never progress
beyond the experimenting stage (Knapp, 1978).
Intensifying
The third stage is the intensifying stage, when a true interpersonal relationship develops. Intimacy and closeness grow and are exhibited via multiple verbal
and nonverbal messages. Self-disclosure begins in earnest, and the pair may engage in more intimate nonverbal behaviors such as standing closer together
and engaging in more eye contact or touch. As the pair moves further into this stage, they also engage in more in-depth disclosures, such as about each other’s
personal values (Avtgis et al., 1998), and even more intimate nonverbal behaviors. This stage often includes the most excitement and joy.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08…
15/39
5/21/2020
Print
Integrating
In the integrating stage, the partners come to see themselves as a social unit. The pair may use joint pronouns such as “we” and “our” rather than singular
pronouns like “I” and “my.” They may introduce each other to their friends; others begin to consider them a couple as well. In these ways, the integrating stage
involves declarations that the two share a relationship. Yet, the individuals may also observe dialectical tensions, such as a struggle between autonomy and
connection, as partners settle into the seriousness of the relationship. The intensifying and integrating stages can be accelerated faster than partners wish due
to social media, as partners can learn about one another via their online pro iles (Fox et al., 2013). Social media also creates a heightened pressure to
announce the relationship publicly faster than before, creating another test for both partners as they negotiate these stages (Fox et al., 2013).
Bonding
As a couple’s relationship grows, they may reach the bonding stage, where there is complete trust in one another and a formal or ritualistic declaration of
their commitment to each other and the relationship. Family and friend relationships are blended, and communication between the partners is at its most
advanced level (Welch & Rubin, 2002). In romantic relationships, bonding can include getting engaged or married, buying a house, or having a child together.
Friends can also bond—examples may include serving as a bridesmaid or groomsman in a wedding or as a child’s godparent. Thus, bonding involves a
signi icant level of commitment that is acknowledged by social or legal institutions.
Jamie and Sidney: Relationship Formation
Video illustrating the irst ive stages of Knapp’s relationship model.
0:00 / 4:49
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08…
16/39
5/21/2020
Print
7.6 Strategies for Communicating Competently When Forming Interpersonal Relationships
This chapter has explored ways to improve your competency in forming perceptions and impressions, making contact and conversing with other people,
initiating relationships, and determining when and how much to disclose to another person. To conclude our discussion of interpersonal communication skills,
we discuss strategies for competent communication when you are initiating interpersonal relationships.
Manage Others’ Perceptions and Impressions of You
Though we unconsciously communicate every day to shape and form how others perceive us, research has identi ied speci ic communication behaviors that
can help us make a more favorable impression on others. According to Eaves and Leathers (2018), personal appearance cues and vocal communication cues
are key to impression management. Personal appearance cues that are bene icial include meeting the clothing expectations of the individuals with whom you
will be interacting and being formal and conservative in your dress when you irst meet someone, especially in a business and professional context. Helpful
vocal cues include speaking at a moderate rate of 125 to 150 words per minute, not using a monotone voice, articulating and pronouncing words correctly,
and using deliberate pauses. Being conscious of and employing these messages can be advantageous in multiple impression management situations. You can
learn to test your intended irst impression in the same way that you learned to test the irst impressions you receive from others: by verifying if what is sent
is the same as what is received. Communicate the impression you intend to send with someone you already know and trust, asking for honest feedback about
your behavior. Your friend can help you identify if your behaviors match the impression you intend to make.
Consider Your Relationship Stage and Dialectical Tensions
Now that you know about relationship dialectics and relationship stages, you can consider how these work in relation to how you communicate in your own
close relationship. You should think about your partner and his or her perspective as well as your own. One thing to consider is whether you and your partner
are in the same relationship stage or are experiencing a similar dialectic tension. Are you in the bonding stage while your partner remains in the integrating
stage? Are you experiencing the openness side of the dialectic while your partner is more on the closed side? How does your communication change when
different stages or tensions are experienced? How can you use interpersonal communication to bring them into alignment?
Table 7.3 summarizes the ive stages of relationship formation discussed in this chapter. Considering the role of interpersonal communication in each of these
aspects of your relationship can help you and your partner move closer together.
Table 7.3: Relationship formation: The irst ive stages of Knapp’s model of interpersonal relationships
Stage
Explanation
Example
Initiating
The irst stage of formation: One individual becomes aware of the existence of the
other individual for the irst time.
Making initial eye contact and smiling
Experimenting
The second stage of formation: The individual irst assesses his or her uncertainty or
the reward value of pursuing a relationship with the other individual.
Starting to learn more about the other person
and forming an impression of the person
Intensifying
The third stage of formation: A true relationship develops between the two
individuals.
Engaging in more in-depth self-disclosures and
more intimate behaviors such as touching
Integrating
The fourth stage of formation: The partners come to see themselves as a social unit.
Others beginning to see them more as a couple
rather than as individuals
Bonding
The ifth stage of formation: The partners undergo a formal or ritualistic declaration
of their commitment to each other and to the relationship.
Making a formal or public commitment to one
another
Source: Adapted from Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Engage in Competent Self-Disclosure
Self-disclosure is a key factor in developing and maintaining close relationships. Though there are some risks when disclosing, you can learn to exercise
competent self-disclosure by identifying the appropriate information to self-disclose. Tailor your disclosures to the person, setting, and topic, and do not
disclose too much to someone you don’t know. Also, strive to disclose in a reciprocal manner. Do not disclose signi icantly more or less than the other person
because doing so could damage your relationship. Finally, be aware of what and how you self-disclose online. Remember that many people may see your
disclosures—including those to whom you may not have wanted to self-disclose.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08…
17/39
5/21/2020
Print
Summary and Resources
Impressions are important when we irst meet other people. Perceptions occur when we select, organize, and interpret the world around us through our
senses. Selection stimulates our senses in some way, and we respond by focusing on or attending to speci ic messages, organizing information in a way that
makes sense based on our past experiences and our expectations. We form impressions about others when we irst meet them, and we simultaneously
manage others’ impressions of us in our interactions with them. Conversations allow you to share information, ideas, thoughts, and feelings with other people.
You may sometimes take everyday conversations for granted because they are such a common part of your life. However, it is through these conversations
that you connect with people and begin to build relationships. Engaging with other people in competent conversations is crucial to your well-being and to your
success.
Someone must take the irst step to initiate the conversation and make contact, which involves meeting people, forming irst impressions, managing
impressions, and breaking the ice during the initial phase of interaction. Once the initial contact has been made and both people have decided to continue the
conversation, a primary goal is to build rapport and to ind commonalities and differences. During these interactions, listening is a crucial element of
communication competence.
When you converse with other people, you decide how much personal information to share and to what degree. Self-disclosure can have many positive
bene its, but it can also be risky or have negative consequences. However, it is an important process if you want to develop meaningful relationships. Open and
appropriate communication, contingent on each unique relationship, can help a relationship progress through Knapp’s irst ive stages of interpersonal
relationship development.
Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions
1. This chapter discusses several different perceptions that can in luence irst impressions. What can we do to reduce the impact of stereotypes,
prototypes, and halo and reverse halo effects on our perceptions of others?
2. What schemas do you carry with you about people and the roles they play? Can you identify schemas you have about students? Teachers? Think
about how your schemas might in luence your judgments and how you communicate when you meet new people who assume these roles.
3. Think about a recent interaction that you had when managing the other’s impression of you was particularly important. How did you adjust your
communication to manage that person’s impression? Which of the four components of impression were more important in that situation and why?
4. How does self-disclosure in person differ from self-disclosure online? Are there different risks and bene its for each of these communication
channels?
5. Consider one of your own close relationships. How do the stages of Knapp’s relationship stage model apply to your relationship’s development? How
would you revise the model to improve its application to the progression of relationships?
Key Terms
Click on each key term to see the de inition.
attending
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
The second stage of the listening process during which the listener devotes attention or conscious awareness to the message he or she is decoding.
autonomy
and
connection
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
A dialectic that acknowledges the push and pull between being independent and wanting to feel connected to one’s partner.
bonding
stage
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
The ifth stage of Knapp’s relational stage model where there is a formal or ritualistic declaration of the partners’ commitment to each other and to the
relationship.
credibility
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
The component of impressions that involves believability and trustworthiness.
dialectical
tensions
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
In relationship dialectics theory, these represent the push and pull of divergent ends of a continuum between the self and the relationship.
disclosure
personalism
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
The extent to which a self-discloser provides information to a receiver exclusively.
dominance
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
The component of impressions that involves a person’s level of power and assertiveness.
experimenting
stage
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08…
18/39
5/21/2020
Print
The second stage of Knapp’s relational stage model where we irst assess our uncertainty and the reward value of pursuing a relationship with an individual.
gregarious
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
The personality trait of being sociable, friendly, and fond of the company of others.
halo
effect
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
A part of implicit personality theory that asserts that we group together positive personality characteristics.
implicit
personality
theory
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
A theory about perceptions that predicts that once we know a small amount about someone’s characteristics or traits, we use that small bit of information to
“ ill in” our general expectation about that person with other similar qualities.
impression
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
The overall effect of someone or something, which is based to some extent on one’s experience with it.
impression
formation
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
The act of decoding or interpreting dimensions of another person’s image.
impression
management
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
The act of encoding or creating dimensions of one’s own image.
initiating
stage
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
The irst stage of Knapp’s relational stage model, where we irst become aware of the existence of the other person.
integrating
stage
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
The fourth stage of Knapp’s relational stage model, where the relationship partners come to see themselves as a social unit.
intensifying
stage
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
The third stage of Knapp’s relational stage model, where a true interpersonal relationship between two individuals irst develops.
interpersonal
attractiveness
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
The component of impressions that involves how sociable, interesting, and emotionally expressive an individual is.
interpretation
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
The third step of the perception process in which we explain and assign meaning to the thing that we have selected and organized.
interpreting
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
The third stage of the listening process during which the listener links new information from the communicator to his or her own previous knowledge.
likeability
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
The component of impressions that involves how affable and friendly someone is.
listening
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
A complex psychological process of physically hearing, interpreting, and understanding the signi icance of a sound.
novelty
and
predictability
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
A dialectic that re lects the tension between wanting to experience newness and wanting to be able to predict routine patterns in a relationship.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Bevan.6245.19.1?sections=fm,ch07,ch07intro,sec7.1,sec7.2,sec7.3,sec7.4,sec7.5,sec7.6,ch07summary,ch08,ch08…
19/39
5/21/2020
Print
open-ended
question
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
A question that requires a comment rather than a yes or no answer.
openness
and
closedness
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
A dialectic that re lects the continuum between sharing and concealing information.
organization
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
The second step in the perception process in which we arrange the information that we have perceived in a manner that makes sense to us.
other-enhancement
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
An attempt to make a favorable impression by making the other person feel good.
overdisclosure
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
Information that is excessive and inappropriate to the context of the communication.
perception
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245
A dynamic process that involves selecting, organizing, and interpreting the world around us.
person
schema
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/books/Bevan.6245.19.1/sections/cover/bo…