Chapter 8 OL190 - lecture notes PDF

Preview

Summary

lecture notes...

Description

Why we form relationships: . Interpersonal attraction is involved in all interpersonal relationships, from romantic to professional to familial and friendly. While the term attraction is used most often to describe being drawn to others physically or sexually, research on interpersonal relationships also uses the term to refer to interest in and the appeal of other people more generally, in platonic relationships Appearance: Appearance is especially important in the early stages of a relationship. For instance, physical appearance seems to be the primary basis for attraction of speed daters. These first impressions can influence secondary ones. For example, when photos rated as attractive accompany online profiles, raters appraise what’s written in the profile more positively Similarity: According to the similarity thesis, perhaps the strongest determinant of relationship formation is similarity to another person. For example, one study found that similar values about politics and religion are the best predictors of mate choice—significantly more than attraction to personality traits This idea makes sense when we consider the reasons why similarity is a strong foundation for interpersonal attraction in many Western cultures. 1. First, the other person serves as an external indication—a social validation—that you are not alone in your thinking, that you’re not too peculiar. Someone else did like the same controversial book you liked; therefore, this other person could offer support for you by reinforcing your own sense of what is right. 2. Second, when someone is similar to you, you can make fairly accurate predictions—such as, for example, whether the person will want to eat at a Thai restaurant or attend a concert you’re very excited about. This ability to make confident predictions reduces uncertainty and anxiety, which leads to greater emotional and relational stability. 3. Third, it’s possible that when we learn that other people are similar to us, we assume they will probably like us, so we in turn like them, causing the self-fulfilling prophecy to creep into the picture again. Complementary: Differences strengthen a relationship when they are complementary—when each partner’s characteristics satisfy the other’s needs. Research suggests that attraction to partners who have complementary temperaments might be rooted in biology. Relationships also work well when partners agree that one person will exercise control in certain areas and the other will take the lead in different ones. Disagreement over control issues, however, can cause strain. Rewards: social exchange theory: This model suggests that we often seek out people who can give us rewards that are greater than or equal to the costs we encounter by dealing with the relationship. Social exchange theorists define rewards as any outcomes we desire. They may be tangible (a nice place to live, a high-paying job) or intangible (prestige, emotional support, companionship). Costs are undesirable outcomes, such as unpleasant work, emotional pain, and so on.

A simple formula captures the social exchange explanation for why we form and maintain relationships: Rewards − Costs = Outcome According to social exchange theorists, we use this formula (often unconsciously) to calculate whether a relationship is a “good deal” or “not worth the effort,” based on whether the outcome is positive or negative comparison level (CL): her minimum standard of acceptable behaviour. comparison level of alternatives (CLalt): This standard refers to a comparison between the rewards she is receiving in her present situation and those she could expect to receive in others Competence: We like to be around talented people, likely because we hope their skills and abilities will rub off on us. On the other hand, we’re uncomfortable around those who are too competent—probably because we believe we look bad by comparison. And we’re attracted most to competence in others when it’s accompanied by a warm (i.e., high friendliness) rather than a cool (i.e., low friendliness) personality. Proximity: As common sense suggests, we’re likely to develop relationships with people with whom we interact frequently. In many cases, proximity leads to liking. For instance, we’re more likely to develop friendships with close neighbours—whether near where we live or in adjacent seats in our classrooms —than distant ones. Chances are good that we will choose a mate with whom we often cross paths. Proximity even has a role in social media, where messaging or chatting can create virtual proximity. As one researcher notes, when it comes to social networking sites, cultural proximity outweighs geographic proximity. Disclosure: Sometimes, the basis of this attraction comes from learning about ways we’re similar, either in our experiences (“I broke off an engagement as well”) or in our attitudes (“I feel nervous with strangers, too”). Disclosure also increases liking because it’s a sign of esteem. Sharing private information is a form of respect and trust, which we’ve already seen increases attractiveness.

Models of Relational Dynamics: Even the most stable relationships vary from day to day and over longer periods of time. Communication scholars have tried to describe and explain how communication creates and reflects the changing dynamics of relational interaction. In the following sections, we’ll look at two very different characterizations of relational development and interaction. Stages of relational development: Stage theories describe how communication changes over the entire life of a relationship. One of the best-known models of relational stages was developed by Mark Knapp, who broke the waxing and waning of

relationships into a three-part view of relational communication. Knapp’s model features 10 stages of relational development. relational maintenance: communication aimed at keeping relationships operating smoothly and satisfactorily.

Initiating: The goals in the initiating stage are to show that you’re interested in making contact and to demonstrate that you are a person worth talking to. Communication during this stage is usually brief, and it generally follows conventional formulas, such as handshakes, comments about innocuous subjects such as the weather, and friendly expressions. Such behaviour may seem superficial and meaningless, but it’s a way of signalling that you are interested in building some kind of relationship with the other person. Experimenting: After meeting someone new, we generally begin the search for common ground, which is known as the experimenting stage. This search usually begins with the basics: “Where are you from? What program are you in?” From there, we look for other similarities: “You’re a runner, too? How many kilometres do you run a week?” The hallmark of the experimenting stage is small talk. We tolerate the ordeal of small talk because it serves several functions. First, it’s a useful way to find out what interests we share with the other person. It’s also a way to “audition” the other person—to help us decide whether a relationship is worth pursuing. In addition, small talk is a safe way to ease into a relationship. You haven’t risked much as you decide whether to proceed further.

Intensifying: When a relationship enters the intensifying stage, communicators increase their amount of contact and the breadth and depth of their disclosures. In friendship, intensifying often includes spending time together, participating in shared activities such as shopping, eating together, hanging out, playing games, studying, watching movies, and sharing their lives with each other. In romantic relationships,

people use a wide range of strategies to communicate that a relationship is intensifying. About a quarter of the time, they express their feelings directly to discuss the state of the relationship, such as saying “I love you” . More often, they use less-direct methods of communication—spending an increasing amount of time together, asking for support from one another, doing favours for their partner, giving tokens of affection, hinting and flirting, expressing feelings nonverbally, getting to know their partner’s friends and family, and trying to look more physically attractive. The intensifying stage is usually a time of relational excitement and even euphoria.

Integrating: As a relationship strengthens, the individuals enter the integrating stage. They begin to take on an identity as a social unit. Invitations begin to come addressed to a couple, social circles merge, partners share each other’s commitments: “Sure, we’ll spend Thanksgiving with your family.” Common property may begin to be designated—our apartment, our car, our song —and partners may develop their own personal idioms Bonding: During the bonding stage, the partners make symbolic public gestures to show the world that their relationship exists and that a commitment has been made. These gestures can take the form of a contract between business partners, getting engaged, sharing a residence, a public ceremony, or a written or verbal pledge. The key is that bonding is the culmination of a developed relationship. Bonding usually generates social recognition for the relationship. Differentiating: Now that partners have formed this commonality, they need to re-establish individual identities in a stage Knapp calls differentiating. “How are we different?” “How am I unique?” Instead of talking about “our” plans for the weekend, differentiating conversations focus on what “I” want to do. Whereas happy employees might refer to “our company,” the description might change to “this company” when a raise or some other request isn’t forthcoming. Circumscribing: In the circumscribing stage, partners reduce the scope of their contact with each other. The word “circumscribe” comes from the Latin meaning “to draw circles around.” In this stage, distinctions that emerged in the differentiating stage become more clearly marked and labelled: “my friends” and “your friends,” “my bank account” and “your bank account,” and “my room” and “your room.” Such distinctions can be markers of a healthy balance between individual and relational identity. The problem, however, is when there are clearly more areas of separation than integration in a relationship, or when the areas of separation seriously limit interaction, such as taking a personal vacation expressly to put space between you and your partner. In this example, circumscribing entails a shrinking of partners’ shared interests and commitments. Stagnating: If circumscribing continues, the relationship begins to stagnate. Partners behave toward each other in old, familiar ways without much feeling. No growth occurs and relational

boredom sets in. The stagnating stage sees the relationship become a hollow shell of its former self. We see stagnation in many workers who have lost enthusiasm for their jobs yet continue to go through the motions for years. The same sad event occurs for some couples who unenthusiastically have the same conversations, see the same people, and follow the same routines without any sense of joy or novelty.

Avoiding: When stagnation becomes too unpleasant, people in a relationship begin to create distance between each other through avoidance. This is the avoiding stage. Sometimes, they do it under the guise of excuses (“I’ve been sick lately and can’t see you”); other times, they’re direct (“Please don’t call me; I don’t want to see you now”). In either case, by this point the writing is on the wall about the future of the relationship. Terminating: The terminating stage of a relationship has its own distinguishable pattern. Characteristics of this stage often include summary dialogues of where the relationship has gone and the desire to dissociate. The relationship may end with a cordial dinner, a note left on the kitchen table, a phone call, a text message, a social network post, or a legal document stating the dissolution, or a combination of several methods. In the workplace, it often involves a meeting between an employee and the person they report to. Depending on each person’s feelings, the terminating stage can be quite short and amicable or it may be bitterly drawn out over time. In either case, termination of a relationship doesn’t have to be completely negative. Understanding each other’s investments in the relationship and needs for personal growth may dilute the hard feelings.

Communicating about relationships: Content and relational messages: The most obvious component of most messages is their content—the subject being discussed: “It’s your turn to do the dishes” or “I’m busy Saturday night.” In addition, every message—both verbal and non-verbal—has a second, relational dimension, which makes statements about how the communicators feel toward one another. These relational messages deal with one or more of the social needs: intimacy, affinity, respect, and control. metacommunication: is communication about communication. Maintaining and supporting relationships: Relational maintenance: As noted earlier, relational maintenance can be defined as communication that keeps relationships running smoothly and satisfactorily. The five strategies most commonly used by university students were:

•Openness: disclosing information, being empathetic, talking about the relationship, and listening to each other. This includes metacommunication and the kinds of relational work discussed earlier in this chapter. •Assurances: letting each other know (both verbally and non-verbally) that the relationship is important, comforting each other, and being supportive. •Joint activities and tasks: spending time with each other and taking care of life’s chores and obligations. •Positivity: trying to make interactions pleasant and cheerful, showing affection, and avoiding criticism. •Social networks: being invested in each other’s friends and family.

Social support: Social support is about helping others during challenging times by providing emotional, informational, or instrumental resources. Social support has been consistently linked to mental and physical health and can be offered in a variety of ways, including: •Emotional support: Few things are more helpful in times of stress, hurt, or grief than a loved one who listens with empathy and responds in caring ways. Chapter 5 (pages 164–5) describes what supporting does and doesn’t sound like when responding to others’ emotional needs. Remember, it’s important to keep your message person-centred (High and Solomon, 2016)—that is, focused on the emotions of the speaker (“this must be so difficult for you”) rather than minimizing those feelings (“it’s not the end of the world”) or diverting attention away from them (“tomorrow is a new day”). •Informational support: The people in our lives can be helpful information sources. They can give us recommendations for shopping, advice about relationships, or observations about our blind spots. Of course, keep in mind that advice is most likely to be regarded as supportive when it’s wanted and requested by the person in need. •Instrumental support: Sometimes, support is best given by rolling up your sleeves and doing a task or favour to show that you care. This can be as simple as giving someone a ride to the airport or as involved as providing care to someone during a period of illness. We count on our loved ones to offer assistance in times of need, and instrumental support is a primary marker of a meaningful friendship (“A friend in need is a friend indeed”)....