3.

Interpersonal communication
Interpersonal communication is exchange of information between two or more
people. It is also an area of study. Related skills are learned and can be improved.
During interpersonal communication there is message sending and message
receiving. This can be conducted using both direct and indirect methods. Successful
interpersonal communication is when the message senders and the message receivers
understand the message.
3.1 The role of interpersonal communication
The role of interpersonal communication has been studied mainly as a mediator for
mass media effects. Since Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955) introduced their ‘filter
hypothesis’, maintaining that personal communication mediates the influence of
mass communication on individual voters, many studies have repeated this logic
when combining personal and mass communication in effect studies on election
campaigns (Schmitt-Beck, 2003). Although some research exists that examines the
activities of social networking and the potential effects, both positive and negative,
on its users, there is a gap in the empirical literature. Social networking relies on
technology and is conducted over specific devices with no presence of face-to-face
interaction, which results in an inability to access interpersonal behavior and signals
to facilitate communication.(Drussel,2012) As many positive advances we’ve seen
come from the latest web innovations, can it be said that there are negative ones as
well? Interpersonal communication is defined as what one uses with both spoken
and written words as the basis to form and maintain personal relationships with
others (Heil 2010).As technological advancements are made, the residual impact of
social networking on society’s young generation is of valuable importance to
researchers in the social work field. Left unattended, the lack of skills to effectively
communicate and resolve conflicts in person may negatively affect behavior and
impair the ability to develop and maintain relationships. (Drussel,2012)
Technological side effects may not always be apparent to the individual user and,
combined with millions of other users, may have large-scale implications. Therefore,
each participant has a dual role—as an individual who may be affected by the social
environment and as a participant who is interacting with others and co-constructing
the same environment (Greenfield & Yan, 2006). Berson, Berson and Ferron (2002)
believe that benefits of online interaction included learning relational skills,
expressing thoughts and feelings in a healthy way, practicing critical thinking skills
but I do not agree with them because I think one of important negative point of
interpersonal communication through social network is that people who rely on
social networking are losing the ability to talk with others in real life. On the other
hand, positive and negative effect of using interpersonal communication varies and
depend on your point of view then we can not give this question specific answer.
3.2 Context
Context refers to the conditions that precede or surround the communication. It
consists of present or past events from which the meaning of the messages is derived,
though it may also, in the case of written communications, depend upon the
statements preceding and following the quotation in question. Immediate
surrounding may also color the perceived meaning of words; normally safe discourse
may easily become contextually ambiguous or offensive in restrooms or shower
halls. These influences do not constitute the message by themselves, but rather these
extraneous nuances subtly change the message's effective meaning. Ultimately,
context includes the entire world, but usually refers to salient factors such as the
following:
Physical milieuthe season or weather, current physical location and
environmentSituational milieuclassroom, military conflict, supermarket
checkoutCultural and linguistic backgroundsDevelopmental progress (maturity) or
emotional stateComplementary or contrasting rolesboss and employee; teacher and
student; parent, child, and spouse; friend or enemy; partner or competitor
3.3Theories
Uncertainty reduction theory
Uncertainty reduction theory comes from the sociopsychological perspective. It
addresses the basic process of how we gain knowledge about other people.
According to the theory people have difficulty with uncertainty, they want to be able
to predict behavior and therefore they are motivated to seek more information about
people.
The theory argues that strangers, upon meeting, go through certain steps and
checkpoints in order to reduce uncertainty about each other and form an idea of
whether one likes or dislikes the other. As we communicate we are making plans to
accomplish our goals. At highly uncertain moments we become more vigilant and
rely more on data available in the situation. When we are less certain we lose
confidence in our own plans and make contingency plans. The theory also says that
higher levels of uncertainty create distance between people and that non-verbal
expressiveness tends to help reduce uncertainty.
Constructs include level of uncertainty, nature of the relationship and ways to reduce
uncertainty. Underlying assumptions include that an individual will cognitively
process the existence of uncertainty and take steps to reduce it. The boundary
conditions for this theory are that there must be some kind of outside social situation
trigger and internal cognitive process.
According to the theory we reduce uncertainty in three ways:
1.Passive strategies: observing the person.
2.Active strategies: asking others about the person or looking up info.
3.Interactive strategies: asking questions, self-disclosure.

Social exchange theory

Social exchange theory falls under the symbolic interaction perspective. The theory
predicts, explains and describes when and why people reveal certain information
about themselves to others. The social exchange theory uses Thibaut and Kelley’s
(1959) theory of interdependence. This theory states that “relationships grow,
develop, deteriorate, and dissolve as a consequence of an unfolding social-exchange
process, which may be conceived as a bartering of rewards and costs both between
the partners and between members of the partnership and others” (Huston &
Burgess, 1979, p. 4). Social exchange theory argues the major force in interpersonal
relationships is the satisfaction of both people’s self-interest. Theorists say self-
interest is not necessarily a bad thing and that it can actually enhance relationships.
According to the theory human interaction is like an economic transaction, in that
you may seek to maximize rewards and minimize costs. You will reveal information
about yourself when the cost-rewards ratio is acceptable to you. As long as rewards
continue to outweigh costs a couple will become increasingly intimate by sharing
more and more personal information. The constructs of this theory include discloser,
relational expectations, and perceived rewards or costs in the relationship. Levinger
(1965, 1976) discussed marital success as dependent on all the rewarding things
within the relationship, such as emotional security and sexual fulfillment. He also
argued that marriages either succeed or fail based on the barriers to leave the
relationship, like financial hardships, and the presence of alternative attractions, like
infidelity. Levinger stated that marriages will fail when the attractions of the partners
lessen, the barriers to leave the spouse are weak, and the alternatives outside of the
relationship are appealing.
The underlying assumptions include that humans weigh out rewards versus costs
when developing a relationship. The boundary conditions for this theory are that at
least two people must be having some type of interaction.
Social exchange also ties in closely with social penetration theory.

Symbolic interaction
Symbolic interaction comes from the sociocultural perspective in that it relies on the
creation of shared meaning through interactions with others. This theory focuses on
the ways in which people form meaning and structure in society through interactions.
People are motivated to act based on the meanings they assign to people, things, and
events.
Symbolic interaction argues the world is made up of social objects that are named
and have socially determined meanings. When people interact over time they come
to shared meaning for certain terms and actions and thus come to understand events
in particular ways. There are three main concepts in this theory: society, self and
mind.
SocietySocial acts (which create meaning) involve an initial gesture from one
individual, a response to that gesture from another and a result. SelfSelf-image
comes from interaction with others based on others perceptions.
A person makes sense of the world and defines their "self" through social
interactions. One ’s self is a significant object and like all social objects it is defined
through social interactions with others.MindYour ability to use significant symbols
to respond to yourself makes thinking possible. You define objects in terms of how
you might react to them. Objects become what they are through our symbolic
minding process.
Constructs for this theory include creation of meaning, social norms, human
interactions, and signs and symbols. An underlying assumption for this theory is that
meaning and social reality are shaped from interactions with others and that some
kind of shared meaning is reached. The boundary conditions for this theory are there
must be numerous people communicating and interacting and thus assigning
meaning to situations or objects.
Relational dialectics theory
In order to understand relational dialectics theory, we must first understand
specifically what encompasses the term discourse. Therefore, discourses are
"systems of meaning that are uttered whenever we make intelligible utterances aloud
with others or in our heads when we hold internal conversations”. Now, taking the
term discourse and coupling it with Relational Dialectics Theory, it is assumed that
this theory “emerges from the interplay of competing discourses”.
This theory also poses the primary assumption that, "Dialogue is simultaneously
unity and difference”. Therefore, these assumptions insinuate the concept of creating
meaning within ourselves and others when we communicate, however, it also shows
how the meanings within our conversations may be interpreted, understood, and of
course misunderstood. Hence, the creation and interpretations we find in our
communicative messages may create strains in our communicative acts that can be
termed as ‘dialectical tensions.’
So, if we assume the stance that all of our discourse, whether in external
conversations or internally within ourselves, has competing properties, then we can
take relational dialectics theory and look at what the competing discourses are in our
conversations, and then analyze how this may have an effect on various aspects of
our lives. Numerous examples of this can be seen in the daily communicative acts
we participate in. However, dialectical tensions within our discourses can most
likely be seen in interpersonal communication due to the close nature of
interpersonal relationships. The well known proverb "opposites attract, but Birds of
a feather flock together" exemplifies these dialectical tensions.
The three relational dialectics
In order to understand relational dialectics theory, one must also be aware of the
assumption that there are three different types of relational dialectics. These consist
of connectedness and separateness, certainty and uncertainty, and openness and
closedness.
Connectedness and separateness
Most individuals naturally desire to have a close bond in the interpersonal
relationships we are a part of. However, it is also assumed that no relationship can
be enduring without the individuals involved within it also having their time alone
to themselves. Individuals who are only defined by a specific relationship they are a
part of can result in the loss of individual identity.
Certainty and uncertainty
Individuals desire a sense of assurance and predictability in the interpersonal
relationships they are a part of. However, they also desire having a variety in their
interactions that come from having spontaneity and mystery within their
relationships as well. Much research has shown that relationships which become
bland and ..monotonous are not desirable.
Openness and closedness
In close interpersonal relationships, individuals may often feel a pressure to reveal
personal information. This assumption can be supported if one looks at the
postulations within social penetration theory, which is another theory used often
within the study of communication. This tension may also spawn a natural desire to
keep an amount of personal privacy from other individuals. The struggle in this
sense, illustrates the essence of relational dialectics.
Coordinated management of meaning
Coordinated management of meaning is a theory assuming that two individuals
engaging in an interaction are each constructing their own interpretation and
perception behind what a conversation means. A core assumption within this theory
includes the belief that all individuals interact based on rules that are expected to be
followed while engaging in communication. "Individuals within any social situation
first want to understand what is going on and apply rules to figure things out”.
There are two different types of rules that individuals can apply in any
communicative situation. These include constitutive and regulative rules.
Constitutive rules “are essentially rules of meaning used by communicators to
interpret or understand an event or message”. Regulative rules “are essentially rules
of action used to determine how to respond or behave".
An example of this can be seen if one thinks of a hypothetical situation in which two
individuals are engaging in conversation. If one individual sends a message to the
other, the message receiver must then take that interaction and interpret what it
means. Often this can be done on an almost instantaneous level because the
interpretation rules applied to the situation are immediate and simple. However,
there are also times when one may have to search for an appropriate interpretation
of the ‘rules’ within an interaction. This simply depends on each communicator’s
previous beliefs and perceptions within a given context and how they can apply these
rules to the current communicative interaction. Important to understand within the
constructs of this theory is the fact that these "rules" of meaning "are always chosen
within a context".[8] Furthermore, the context of a situation can be understood as a
framework for interpreting specific events.
The authors of this theory believe that there are a number of different context an
individual can refer to when interpreting a communicative event. These include the
relationship context, the episode context, the self-concept context, and the archetype
context.
Relationship context. This context assumes that there are mutual expectations
between individuals who are members of a group. Episode context.This context
simply refers to a specific event in which the communicative act is taking place.Self-
concept contextThis context involves one’s sense of self, or an individual’s personal
‘definition’ of him/herself.Archetype contextThis context is essentially one’s image
of what his or her belief consists of regarding general truths within communicative
exchanges.
Furthermore, Pearce and Cronen believe that these specific contexts exist in a
hierarchical fashion. This theory assumes that the bottom level of this hierarchy
consists of the communicative act. Next, the hierarchy exists within the relationship
context, then the episode context, followed by the self-concept context, and finally
the archetype context.
Social penetration theory
Developed by Irwin Altman and Dallas Taylor, the Social Penetration Theory was
made to provide conceptual framework that describes the development in
interpersonal relationships. This theory refers to the reciprocity of behaviors
between two people who are in the process of developing a relationship. These
behaviors can vary from verbal/nonverbal exchange, interpersonal perceptions, and
ones use of the environment around them. The behaviors vary based on the different
levels of intimacy that a relationship encounters.
"Onion Theory"
This theory is best known as the “onion theory”. This analogy suggests that like an
onion, personalities have “layers” that start from the outside (what the public sees)
all the way to the core (ones private self). Often, when a relationship begins to
develop, it is customary for the individuals within the relationship to undergo a
process of self-disclosure. As people divulge information about themselves their
“layers” begin to peel, and once those “layers” peel away they cannot go back; just
like you can’t put the layers back on an onion.
There are four different stages that social penetration theory encompasses. These
stages include the orientation, exploratory affective exchange, affective exchange,
and stable exchange.
Orientation stageAt first, strangers exchange very little amounts of information and
they are very cautious in their interactions.Exploratory affective stageNext,
individuals become somewhat more friendly and relaxed with their communication
styles.Affective exchangeIn the third stage, there is a high amount of open
communication between individuals and typically these relationships consist of
close friends or even romantic partners.Stable stageThe final stage, simply consists
of continued expressions of open and personal types of interaction.
If a person speeds through the stages and happens to share too much information too
fast, the receiver may view that interaction as negative and a relationship between
the two is less likely to form.
Example- Jenny just met Justin because they were sitting at the same table at a
wedding. Within minutes of meeting one another, Justin engages in small talk with
Jenny. Jenny decides to tell Justin all about her terrible ex-boyfriend and all of the
misery he put her through. This is the kind of information you wait to share until
stages three or four, not stage one. Due to the fact that Jenny told Justin much more
than he wanted to know, he probably views her in a negative aspect and thinks she
is crazy, which will most likely prevent any future relationship from happening.

Altman and Taylor believed the social exchange theory principles could accurately
predict whether or not people will risk self-disclosure. The principles included,
relational outcome, relational stability, and relational satisfaction. This theory
assumes that the possible outcome is the stance that which the decision making
process of how much information an individual chooses to self disclose is rooted by
weighing out the costs and rewards that an individual may acquire when choosing
to share personal information. Due to ethical egoism, individuals try to maximize
their pleasure and minimize their pain; acting from the motive of self-interest. If a
person is more of a hassle to you than an asset, it is more likely that you will dispose
of them as a friend because it is decreasing the amount of pleasure in your life.

An example of the social penetration theory can be seen when one thinks of a
hypothetical situation such as meeting someone for the first time. The depth of
penetration is the degree of intimacy a relationship has accomplished. When two
individuals meet for the first time, it is the cultural expectation that only impersonal
information will be exchanged. This could include information such as names,
occupations, age of the conversation participants, as well as various other impersonal
information. However, if both members participating in the dialogic exchange
decide that they would like to continue or further the relationship; with the
continuation of message exchanges, the more personal the information exchanged
will become. Altman and Taylor defined these as the depth and breadth of self-
disclosure. According to Griffin, the definition of depth is "the degree of disclosure
in a specific area of an individuals life" and the definition of breadth is "the range of
areas in an individual's life over which disclosure takes place."

Altman and Taylor discussed the process of four observations that are the reasons a
relationship occurs:
1. Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private
information2. Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in the early stages of
relationship development3. Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly
as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached4. Depenetration is a gradual process
of layer-by-layer withdrawal.
"Computer Mediated Social Penetration"
Also important to note, is the fact that due to current communicative exchanges
involving a high amount of computer mediated contexts in which communication
occurs, this area of communication should be addressed in regard to Social
Penetration Theory as well. Online communication seems to follow a different set
of rules. Because much of online communication between people occurs on an
anonymous level, individuals are allowed the freedom of foregoing the interpersonal
‘rules’ of self disclosure. Rather than slowly disclosing personal thoughts, emotions,
and feelings to others, anonymous individuals online are able to disclose personal
information immediately and without the consequence of having their identity
revealed. Ledbetter notes that Facebook users self-disclose by posting personal
information, pictures, hobbies, and messages. The study finds that the user’s level
of self-disclosure is directly related to the level of interdependence on others. This
may result in negative psychological and relational outcomes as studies show that
people are more likely to disclose more personal information than they would in face
to face communication, primarily due to the heightened level of control within the
context of the online communication medium. In other words, those with poor social
skills may prefer the medium of Facebook to show others who they are because they
have more control. This may lead to an avoidance of face-to-face communication,
which is undoubtedly harmful to interpersonal relationships. The reason that self
disclosure is labeled as risky, is because, individuals often undergo a sense of
uncertainty and susceptibility in revealing personal information that has the
possibility of being judged in a negative way by the receiver. Hence the reason that
face-to-face communication must evolve in stages when an initial relationship
develops.
Relational patterns of interaction theory
Relational Patterns of Interaction Theory of the cybernetic tradition, studies how
relationships are defined by peoples’ interaction during communication. Gregory
Bateson, Paul Watzlawick, et al. laid the groundwork for this theory and went on to
become known as the Palo Alto Group. Their theory became the foundation from
which scholars in the field of communication approached the study of relationships.
Ubiquitous communication
The Palo Alto Group maintains that a person’s presence alone results in them,
consciously or not, expressing things about themselves and their relationships with
others (i.e., communicating). A person cannot avoid interacting, and even if they do,
their avoidance may be read as a statement by others. This ubiquitous interaction
leads to the establishment of "expectations" and "patterns" which are used to
determine and explain relationship types.
Expectations
Individuals enter communication with others having established expectations for
their own behavior as well as the behavior of those they are communicating with.
These expectations are either reinforced during the interaction, or new expectations
are established which will be used in future interactions. These new expectations are
created by new patterns of interaction, established expectations are a result of
established patterns of interaction.
Patterns of interaction
Established patterns of interaction are created when a trend occurs regarding how
two people interact with each other. There are two patterns of particular importance
to the theory which form two kinds of relationships.
Symmetrical relationships
These relationships are established when the pattern of interaction is defined by two
people responding to one and other in the same way. This is a common pattern of
interaction within power struggles.
Complementary relationships
These relationships are established when the pattern of interaction is defined by two
people responding to one and other in opposing ways. An example of such a
relationship would be when one person is argumentative while the other is quiet.
Relational control
Relational control refers to who, within a relationship, is in control of it. The pattern
of behavior between partners over time, not any individual’s behavior, defines the
control within a relationship. Patterns of behavior involve individuals’ responses to
others’ assertions.
There are three kinds of responses:
One-down responses are submissive to, or accepting of, another’s assertions.
One-up responses are in opposition to, or counter, another’s assertions.
One-across responses are neutral in nature.
Seth Weiss and Marian Houser add to relational control in a teacher/student context.
"Students communicating with instructors for relational purposes hope to develop or
maintain a personal relationship; functional reasons aim to seek more information
presented and discussed by instructors; students communicating to explain a lack of
responsibility utilize an excuse-making motive; participatory motives demonstrate
understanding and interest in the class or course material; and students
communicating for sycophantic purposes hope to make a favorable impression on
their instructor."
Complementary exchanges
A complementary exchange occurs when a partner asserts a one-up message which
the other partner responds to with a one-down response. When complementary
exchanges are frequently occurring within a relationship, and the parties at each end
of the exchange tend to remain uniform, it is a good indication of a complementary
relationship existing.
Symmetrical exchanges
Symmetrical exchanges occur when one partner’s assertion is countered with a
reflective response. So, when a one-up assertion is met with a one-up response, or
when a one-down assertions is met with a one-down response, a symmetrical
exchange occurs. When symmetrical exchanges are frequently occurring within a
relationship, it is a good indication of a symmetrical relationship existing.
Identity management theory
Falling under the Socio-Cultural tradition and developed by Tadasu Todd Imahori
and William R. Cupach, identity-management theory explains the establishment,
development, and maintenance of identities within relationships, as well as changes
which occur to identities due to relationships.
Establishing identities
People establish their identities (or faces), and their partners, through a process
referred to as "facework". Everyone has a desired identity which they’re constantly
working towards establishing. This desired identity can be both threatened and
supported by attempting to negotiate a relational identity (the identity one shares
with their partner). So, our desired identity is directly influenced by our
relationships, and our relational identity by our desired individual identity.
Cultural influence
Identity-management pays significant attention to intercultural relationships and
how they affect the relational and individual identities of those involved. How
partners of different cultures negotiate with each other, in an effort to satisfy desires
for adequate autonomous identities and relational identities, is important to identity-
management theory. People take different approaches to coping with this problem
of cultural influence.
Tensions within intercultural relationships
Identity freezing occurs when one partner feels like they’re being stereotyped and
not recognized as a complex individual. This tends to occur early on in relationships,
prior to partners becoming well acquainted with each other, and threatens
individuals’ identities. Showing support for oneself, indicating positive aspects of
one’s cultural identity, and having a good sense of humor are examples of coping
mechanisms used by people who feel their identities are being frozen. It is also not
uncommon for people in such positions to react negatively, and cope by stereotyping
their partner, or totally avoiding the tension.
When tension is due to a partner feeling that their cultural identity is being ignored
it is referred to as a nonsupport problem. This is a threat to one’s face, and
individuals often cope with it in the same ways people cope with identity freezing.
Self-other faceground, giving in, alternating in their support of each identity, and
also by avoiding the issue completely.
Relational stages of identity management
Identity management is an ongoing process which Imahori and Cupach define as
having three relational stages. Typically, each stage is dealt with differently by
couples.
The trial stage occurs at the beginning of an intercultural relationship when partners
are beginning to explore their cultural differences. During this stage each partner is
attempting to determine what cultural identities they want for the relationship. At
this stage cultural differences are significant barriers to the relationship and it is
critical for partners to avoid identity freezing and nonsupport. During this stage
individuals are more willing to risk face threats to establish a balance necessary for
the relationship.
The enmeshment stage occurs when a relational identity emerges with established
common cultural features. During this stage the couple becomes more comfortable
with their collective identity and the relationship in general.
The renegotiation stage sees couples working through identity issues and drawing
on their past relational history while doing so. A strong relational identity has been
established by this stage and couples have mastered dealing with cultural
differences. It is at this stage that cultural difference become part of the relationships
and not a tension within them.
Communication privacy management theory
Of the socio-cultural tradition, communication privacy management theory is
concerned with how people negotiate openness and privacy in concern to
communicated information. This theory focuses on how people in relationships
manage boundaries which separate the public from the private.
Boundaries
An individual’s private information is protected by the individual’s boundaries. The
permeability of these boundaries are ever changing, and allow certain parts of the
public, access to certain pieces of information belonging to the individual. This
sharing occurs only when the individual has weighed their need to share the
information against their need to protect themselves. This risk assessment is used by
couples when evaluating their relationship boundaries. The disclosure of private
information to a partner may result in greater intimacy, but it may also result in the
discloser becoming more vulnerable.
Co-ownership of information
When someone chooses to reveal private information to another person they are
making that person a co-owner of the information. Co-ownership comes with rules,
responsibilities, and rights which the discloser of the information and receiver of it
negotiate. Examples of such rules would be: Can the information be disclosed?
When can the information be disclosed? To whom can the information be disclosed?
And how much of the information can be disclosed? The negotiation of these rules
can be complex, the rules can be explicit as well as implicit, and they can be violated.
Boundary turbulence
What Petronio refers to as "boundary turbulence" occurs when rules are not mutually
understood by co-owners, and when a co-owner of information deliberately violates
the rules. This usually results in some kind of conflict, is not uncommon, and often
results in one party becoming more apprehensive about future revelation of
information to the violator.
Cognitive dissonance theory
The theory of cognitive dissonance, part of the Cybernetic Tradition, explains how
humans are consistency seekers and attempt to reduce their dissonance, or
discomfort, in new situations. The theory was developed in the 1950s by Leon
Festinger.
When individuals encounter new information or new experiences they categorize the
information based on their preexisting attitudes, thoughts, and beliefs. If the new
encounter does not coincide with their preexisting assumptions, then dissonance is
likely to occur. When dissonance does occur, individuals are motivated to reduce the
dissonance they experience by avoiding situations that would either cause the
dissonance or increase the dissonance. For this reason, cognitive dissonance is
considered a drive state that encourages motivation to achieve consonance and
reduce dissonance. An example of cognitive dissonance would be if someone holds
the belief that maintaining a healthy lifestyle is important, but they don’t regularly
work out or eat healthy, they may experience dissonance between their beliefs and
their actions. If there is a significant amount of dissonance, they may be motivated
to change their attitudes and work out more or eat healthier foods. They may also be
inclined to avoid situations that will point out the fact that their attitudes and beliefs
are inconsistent, such as avoiding the gym or not reading health reports.
The selection process
Selective exposureis a method for reducing dissonance that only seeking information
that is consonant with ones current beliefs, thoughts, or actions.Selective attentionis
a method for reducing dissonance by only paying attention to particular information
or parts of information that is consonant with current beliefs, thoughts, or
actions.Selective interpretationis a method for reducing dissonance by interpreting
ambiguous information so that it seems consistent with ones beliefs, thoughts, or
actions.Selective retentionwhen an individual only remembers information that is
consistent with their current beliefs.
Types of cognitive relationships
According to cognitive dissonance theory there are three types of cognitive
relationships: consonant relationships, dissonant relationships, and irrelevant
relationships. Consonant relationships are when two elements, such as your beliefs
and actions, are in equilibrium with each other or coincide. Dissonant relationships
are when two elements are not in equilibrium and cause dissonance. Irrelevant
relationships are when two elements do not possess a meaningful relationship with
one another, they are unrelated and do not cause dissonance.
Attribution theory
Attribution theory is part of the sociopsychological tradition and explains how
individuals go through a process that makes inferences about observed behavior.
Attribution theory assumes that we make attributions, or social judgments, as a way
to clarify or predict behavior. Attribution theory assumes that we are sense-making
creatures and that we draw conclusions of the actions that we observe.
Steps to the attribution process
1.The first step of the attribution process is to observe the behavior or action.
2.The second step is to make judgments of interactions and the intention of that
particular action.
3.The last step of the attribution process is making the attribution which will be either
internal, where the cause is related to the person, or external, where the cause of the
action is circumstantial.
An example of this process is when a student fails a test, an observer may choose to
attribute that action to 'internal' causes, such as insufficient study, laziness, or have
a poor work ethic. The action might also be attributed to 'external' factors such as
the difficulty of the test, or real-world stressors that led to distraction.
We also make attributions of our own behavior. Using this same example, if it were
you who received a failing test score you might either make an internal attribution,
such as "I just can’t understand this material", or you could make an external
attribution, such as "this test was just too difficult."
Fundamental attribution error
As we make attributions, we may fall victim to the fundamental attribution error
which is when we overemphasize internal attributions for others and underestimate
external attributions.
Actor-observer bias
Similar to the fundamental attribution error, we may overestimate external
attributions for our own behavior and underestimate internal attributions.
Expectancy violations theory
Expectancy violations theory is part of the sociopsychological tradition, and explains
the relationship between non-verbal message production and the interpretations
people hold for those non-verbal behaviors. Individuals hold certain expectations for
non-verbal behavior that is based on the social norms, past experience and situational
aspects of that behavior. When expectations are either met or violated, we make
assumptions of the behavior and judge them to be positive or negative.
Arousal
When a deviation of expectations occurs there is an increased interest in the
situation, also known as arousal. There are two types of arousal:
Cognitive arousalour mental awareness of expectancy deviationsPhysical
arousalchallenges our body faces as a result of expectancy deviations.
Reward valence
When an expectation is not met, we hold particular perceptions as to whether or not
that violation is considered rewarding. How an individual evaluates the interaction
will determine how they view the positive or negative impact of the violation.
Proxemics
A significant focus of expectancy violations theory is the concept of proxemics, or
the study of individual use of personal space. There are four types of proxemic zones:
Intimate distance0–10 inchesPersonal distance38 inches – 64 feetSocial distance54–
82 feetPublic distance32 feet or more
Dyadic communication and Relationships
Dyadic communication is the part of a relationship that calls for "something to
happen". Partners will either talk or argue with one another during this point of a
relationship to bring about change. When partners talk or argue with one another the
relationship may still survive at this point.
Bochner (2000) stresses inherent dialectic in interpersonal communication as the key
to healthy marital dyads. He proposes that people in intimate relationships are
looking to find an equilibrium point between needing to be open with their partner
and needing to protect their partner from the consequences of this openness.
Therefore, the communication in romantic, long-term relationships can be viewed
as a balance between hiding and revealing. Taking this theory even further,
communication within marriages can be viewed as a continuing refinement and
elimination of conversational material. The partners of the marriage will still have
things to discuss, but as their relationship and communication grows, they can decide
when to not speak about an issue, because in complex relationships like marriage,
anything can become an issue.
Conflict resolution
Sillars (1380) and Roloff (1876) expressed that conflict resolution strategies can be
categorized as pro-social or anti-social in nature. When an individual is presented
with an interpersonal conflict, they can decide how they want to deal with it. They
can avoid (anti-social), compete (anti-social), or cooperate (pro-social). It has been
learned that one who avoids conflict is less capable of solving problems because
they are more constricted. Avoidance has negative effects on dyads.
The Couples Coping Enhancement Training (CCET)
This program is based on stress, coping, and research on dyads (Bodenmann, 1997a;
2000b). The focus is on individual and dyadic coping to help promote satisfaction
within marriage and to help reduce distress within marriages. CCET states three
important factors for dyads being successful when they enter counseling programs.
Firstly, the dyad’s ability to cope with daily stress is a main factor in determining
the success or failure of their relationship. Couples need to be educated about ways
to manage daily stress so that this stress is not placed on their partner or on their
relationship. Secondly, couples who enter counseling to help their relationship must
stay in counseling to continue to get reinforcement and encourage about practicing
their new methods of communication. Continued counseling will help the couple to
maintain their new strategies. Lastly, couples should make use of technology within
their counseling. They should use the Internet and seek help online in addition to
their counseling program. Having technology that can help couples with immediate
problems is a very useful thing.
Parenting
Many theorists have studied how the relationship between the husband and wife
greatly affects the relationship between the parent and child (Belsky, 1990; Parke &
Tinsley, 1987). There have been numerous studies done that show how difficult it is
to maintain a positive and healthy parent-child relationship when the marriage
between the parents is failing. “Spillover,” emotional transmission from one family
relationship to another, is a likely explanation as to why parents have trouble
fostering a good relationship with their children when there are problems within their
marriage (Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Wethington, 1989; Repetti, 1987).
New Parenthood and Marital Quality:
New parenthood is a time where there are many adjustments within a family and
these adjustments can put a lot of stress on marital dyads. How a couple deals with
first-time parenthood directly correlates to their marital satisfaction, amount of
conflict within their marriage, and the perceptions of themselves (Glade, Bean, &
Vira, 2005). Studies show that transitioning into parenting leads to more marital
conflicts and less marital satisfaction. When marital dyads have a child, their once
dyadic dynamic relationships quickly changes to a triadic relationship, creating a
shift in roles. New topics for discussion between the married couple, such as
household labor, finances, and child care responsibilities, can lead to major conflicts.
It is important for couples to identify ways that may help them maintain marital
satisfaction while coping with becoming parents.
Teaching
Good communication between teachers and young students is thought to improve
the test scores of the students. Some parents of students at The William T. Harris
School were interviewed and stated that they can tell how good a teacher is just by
watching them in the classroom setting. Observing how teachers talk to their
students and how they promote communication between their students can lead to
conclusions about how well these students will score on standardized tests. Parents
of students at The William T. Harris School have admitted that they do not always
trust the publicized rankings of teachers, however, they stated that there are strong
similarities between their children’s grades and their impressions of their children’s
teachers.