Chapter 9 OL190 PDF

Preview

Summary

lecture notes...

Description

What is communication Climate: The term communication climate refers to the social tone of a relationship. A climate doesn’t involve specific activities so much as the way people feel about each other as they carry out those activities.

How communication climate develop: Why does some communication create a positive climate while other communication has the opposite effect? A short but accurate answer is that communication climates are determined by the degree to which people see themselves as valued. Communicators who perceive others as liking, appreciating, and respecting them react positively, while those who feel unimportant or abused react negatively. Social scientists use the term confirming communication to describe direct and/or indirect messages that convey valuing. In one form or another, confirming messages say, “you exist,” “you matter,” “you’re important.” By contrast, disconfirming communication signals a lack of regard. In one form or another, disconfirming messages say, “you’re not important,” “you don’t matter,” or “you don’t exist.” Levels of message confirmation:

Confirming messages: There is no guarantee that others will regard even your best attempts at confirming messages the way you intend them, but research shows that there are three increasingly-positive types of messages that are most likely to be perceived as confirming: recognition, acknowledgement, and endorsement. Recognition: The most fundamental act of confirmation is recognition, or indicating your awareness of the other person. This can be done non-verbally, for example, by making eye contact or offering a smile. It can also be done verbally, with phrases such as “Glad to see you” or “I’ll be right with you” or by sending a quick text or email reply that both acknowledges you have received the person’s message and indicates when you can provide a more fulsome response. In the same way, avoiding eye contact can send a negative message. Consider what it feels like when a store clerk fails to non-verbally signal that you’re waiting for service

Acknowledgment: Paying attention to the ideas and feelings of others constitutes acknowledgement, which is a stronger form of confirmation than simple recognition. Phrases such as “I see your point” or “I understand how you feel that way” communicate acknowledgement regardless of whether you agree with what’s being said. As French philosopher Simone Weil puts it, “Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity”. Endorsement: Whereas acknowledgement shows you’re interested in another person, endorsement means that you agree with or support them. Endorsement is the strongest type of confirming message because it communicates the highest form of valuing. You can verbally endorse others by agreeing with them (“You’re right about that”), offering compliments (“Nice job handling that situation”), or giving praise (“That’s the best presentation I’ve seen this year”). Getting recognition like this on the job helps workers “feel personally significant, needed, unique, and particularly successful”. Disagreeing messages: A disagreeing message essentially says, “You’re wrong.” In its most constructive form, disagreement includes two confirming components: recognition and acknowledgement. At its worst, a disagreeing message can devastate another person such that the benefits of recognition and acknowledgement are lost. Because there are better and worse ways to disagree with others, disagreeing messages need to be put on a positive-to-negative scale. Argumentative: communication researchers define argumentativeness as presenting and defending positions on issues while opposing positions taken by others. The key to maintaining a positive climate while arguing a point is the way you present your ideas. It’s crucial to attack issues, not people. In addition, a sound argument is received better when it’s delivered in a supportive, affirming manner. Complaining: When communicators aren’t prepared to argue (which requires interaction), but still want to register their dissatisfaction, they can engage in complaining. As for all disagreeing messages, some ways of complaining are more constructive than others. Satisfied couples tend to offer behavioural complaints, while dissatisfied couples make more complaints aimed at personal characteristics. Personal complaints are more likely to result in an escalated conflict episode. The reason should be obvious—complaints about personal characteristics attack a more fundamental part of someone’s presenting self. Talking about socks deals with a habit that can be changed; calling someone a slob is a character assault that is unlikely to be forgotten when the conflict is over. Disconfirming messages: Disconfirming messages can be subtler than disagreeing ones but potentially more damaging. Disconfirming communication implicitly says, “you are not valued” or “you don’t exist.” Disconfirmation can be communicated in small ways (Cissna and Sieburg, 2006). When you make an important point during a conversation and a friend interrupts, you probably feel devalued. The same may be true if the friend goes off on an irrelevant tangent, gives an impersonal response (“It’s no big deal, these things happen”), or

ignores your message altogether. Sometimes we inadvertently send disconfirming messages because we’re distracted.

Aggressiveness: Verbal aggressiveness refers to the tendency to attack another person’s character, background, or identity. Unlike argumentativeness, aggressiveness demeans the worth of others and is corrosive to relationships. Name calling, put-downs, sarcasm, taunting, yelling, badgering, and even some types of humour are all methods of using aggressiveness to “win” disagreements at someone else’s expense. Communication research has linked aggressiveness to a host of negative outcomes, such as lowered self-esteem, occupational burnout, juvenile delinquency, depression, violence, and even mortality. -

Ostracism: It’s bad enough to be treated poorly, but it can be even worse to be ignored altogether. Ostracism involves excluding others from interaction and has been called “the social death penalty”. Most people can recall a hurtful childhood experience of being ostracized by a group, but this kind of disconfirmation can also happen in adulthood. Workplace studies show that employees would rather receive negative attention from managers and co-workers than no attention at all. Many people report that ostracism is even more painful and damaging than harassment.

Causes and effects of defensiveness: face-threatening act: messages that seem to challenge the image we want to project—we’re likely to resist what they say. Defensiveness: then, is the process of protecting our presenting self, our face. Although responding defensively to a face-threatening attack may seem logical, over time defensiveness erodes relationship stability. Some people are more prone to defensiveness than others. Generally, individualistic people are more likely to interpret other people’s messages as neutral or critical and thus more inclined to deflect criticism, whereas people with a communal orientation are more likely to both interpret ambiguous messages as supportive and be more accepting of criticism. Who offers the potentially defence-arousing remark or criticism also matters. Research suggests that in-group criticisms are tolerated better than out-group criticisms. Similarly, being ignored by someone we know well is more hurtful than being ignored by people we know less well. Climate patterns: Once a communication climate is formed, it can take on a life of its own. The pattern can be either positive or negative. As we have discussed previously in this textbook, we tend to match the communication style of our partners during social interactions. This tendency towards reciprocity works with both confirming and disconfirming communication. For instance, in conflict situations, hostility tends to provoke more hostility (“tit for tat,” or equivalent retaliation), whereas consolatory communication is more likely to be followed by conciliatory responses (one person

apologizes and so does the other). These same patterns tend to hold for other kinds of messages. Avoidance leads to avoidance, analysis evokes analysis, and so on. This reciprocal pattern can be represented as a spiral. Fortunately, spirals can also work in a positive direction. One confirming behaviour leads to a similar response from the other person, which in turn leads to further confirmation by the first person.

Creating supportive climates:

Evaluation vs. Description: The first type of defence-arousing message Gibb identified is evaluation, which judges the other person, usually in a negative way. Consider this message: “You don’t care about me!” Evaluative messages like this have several characteristics that make them face-threatening. First, they judge what the other person is feeling rather than describing the speaker’s own thoughts, feelings, and wants. Second, they don’t explain how the speaker arrived at his or her conclusion, and they lack specific examples. Furthermore, they’re often phrased in the kind of defence-arousing “you” language that we described in Chapter 5. From this, it’s easy to understand why evaluative statements often trigger defensive spirals. Do the climate-threatening properties of evaluative messages mean that it’s impossible to register a legitimate complaint? No. They simply mean that you must be alert to more constructive ways to do so. Description, for example, offers a way to share your thoughts, feelings, and wants without judging the listener. Descriptive messages make documented observations that are specific and concrete. As we mentioned earlier when discussing complaining, description focuses on behaviour that can be changed rather than on personal characteristics that cannot be changed. In addition, descriptive messages often use “I” language, which tends to provoke less defensiveness than “you” language

Controlling communication vs. problem orientation: Controlling communication occurs when a sender seems to be imposing a solution on the receiver with little regard for the receiver’s needs or interests. The object of control can involve almost anything: where to eat dinner, how to spend a large sum of money, or whether to remain in a relationship, to name a few. The channel can range from words, to gestures, to tone of voice, and the control can be accomplished through status, insistence on obscure or irrelevant rules, or physical power. In problem orientation, by contrast, communicators focus on finding a solution that satisfies both their own needs and those of the other person or people involved, rather than imposing their solution. The goal here is not to “win” at the expense of your partner, but to work out some arrangement in which everybody feels like a winner. Problem orientation is often typified by “we” language.

Strategy vs. spontaneity: Strategy to refer to defence-arousing messages in which speakers hide their ulterior motives. The words dishonesty and manipulation reflect the nature of strategy. Even if the intentions that motivate strategic communication are honourable, the victim of deception who discovers the attempt to deceive is likely to feel offended at having been tricked. spontaneity involves being honest with others rather than manipulating them. What it doesn’t mean is blurting out what you’re thinking as soon as an idea comes to you. As we discussed in Chapter 2, there are appropriate (and inappropriate) times for self-disclosure. You would undoubtedly threaten other people’s presenting selves if you were “spontaneous” about every opinion that crossed your mind. That’s not what Gibb intended in using the term spontaneity; rather, his understanding of spontaneity involves setting aside any hidden agendas that others will sense and resist.

Neutrality vs. Empathy: Gibb uses the term neutrality to describe a fourth behaviour that provokes defensiveness, but a better word would probably be indifference. For example, 911 emergency telephone dispatchers are taught to be neutral in order to calm down callers, but they should not communicate either indifference or lack of caring. Using Gibb’s terminology, a neutral attitude is disconfirming because it communicates a lack of concern for the welfare of another person and implies that they are not very important to you. empathy, which is the ability to consider another person’s point of view and attempt to experience their thoughts and feelings. Gibb found that empathy helps rid communication of the quality of indifference. Research has shown that empathy minimizes threats to self-concept

Superiority vs. equality: superiority, which involves sending patronizing messages either explicitly or implicitly. There is considerable research that suggests patronizing messages irritate recipients ranging from young students to senior citizens. Any message that suggests “I’m better than you” is likely to arouse feelings of defensiveness in the recipient. Research supports what most of us know from experience: we dislike people who communicate superiority, especially when it involves explicit comparison with others. equality, which involves conveying our respect for the inherent worth of others. Gibb found ample evidence that many who have superior skills and talents are capable of projecting feelings of equality rather than superiority. Such people communicate that although they may have greater talent in certain areas, they see other human beings as having just as much worth as themselves.

Certainty vs. provisionalism: Have you ever run into people who are absolutely positive that they’re right? Who knows that theirs is the only, or proper, way of doing something? Who insists that they have all the facts and need no additional information? If you have, you’ve met individuals who project the defence-arousing behaviour that Gibb calls certainty. Communicators who dogmatically regard their own opinions with certainty while disregarding the ideas of others, demonstrate a lack of respect for others. It’s likely the recipient will take the certainty as a personal affront and react defensively. In contrast to dogmatic certainty is provisionalism, in which people express openness to others’ ideas and opinions. You may have strong opinions, but in this supportive style of communication, you acknowledge that you don’t have a monopoly on the truth. Provisionalism often surfaces in a person’s choice of words. While people acting with certainty regularly use the terms can’t, never, always, must, and have to, those acting with provisionalism use perhaps, maybe, possibly, might, and could. It’s not that provisional people are spineless—they simply recognize that discussion is aided by open-minded messages.

Responding non defensively to criticism: Seek more information: Many people object to the idea of asking for details when they’re criticized. Their resistance grows from confusing the act of listening open-mindedly to a speaker’s comments with accepting them. Once you realize that you can listen to, understand, and even acknowledge the most hostile comments without necessarily accepting them, it becomes much easier to hear another person out. If you disagree with a speaker’s criticisms, you will be in a much better position to explain yourself once you understand their objections. On the other hand, after carefully listening to the other person’s remarks, you may just see that they are valid, in which case you’ve learned some valuable information about yourself. In either case, you have everything to gain and nothing to lose by paying attention to the critic. One way to seek more information is to ask for specifics. Often, the vague attack of a critic is virtually useless even if you sincerely want to change. you can often learn more clearly what is bothering your critic by guessing at the specifics of a complaint.

Another strategy is to draw out confused or reluctant speakers by paraphrasing their thoughts and feelings; you can do this using the reflective listening skills that we described in Chapter 5. By clarifying or amplifying what you understand critics are saying, you’ll likely learn more about their objections. Agree with the critic: One way to agree with the critic is to agree with the truth Agreeing with the facts seems quite sensible when you realize that certain matters are indisputable. If you agree to be somewhere at 4:00 and don’t show up until 5:00, you are late—no matter how good your explanation is. If you have broken something you borrowed, run out of gas, or failed to finish a job you started, there’s no point in denying it. In the same way, if you’re honest you’ll have to agree with many interpretations of your behaviour, even when they’re not flattering. You do get angry, act foolishly, fail to listen, and behave inconsiderately—everyone does. All these responses to criticism may appear to buy peace at the cost of denying your feelings. However, as you can see by now, counterattacking usually makes matters worse. The invitational responses you’ve just learned will not solve problems or settle disputes by themselves. They will, however, make a constructive dialogue possible, thereby setting the stage for a productive solution. How to achieve productive solutions is the topic of Chapter 10....