Interpersonal communication - Wikipedia
When you communicate (verbal or written) there are always two messages: The relationship message and the content message. Instead, it refers both to the content and quality of messages relayed and the standings of interpersonal communication and the relationships that develop from. Develop your interpersonal communication skills. However, the problem with this way of seeing a relationship is that it presents In particular, it can reveal more about emotional attitudes which may underlie the content of speech. It refers to anything that distorts the message, so that what is received is different from.
Noise provides an additional component. The first two components of interpersonal communication are the sender and the message. The sender mentally composes a message to relay to another person, taking into account the reason, or intention, for sending the message. Perhaps it is meant to persuade, or to inform.
The act of transferring this message from thought to words is called encoding. The channel in this model refers to the mode of communication used to relay the message. Familiar channels include television, radio, and newspaper. However, interpersonal communication differs from mass communication in this respect because the channel used is face-to-face communication in which messages are relayed through verbal interaction at one location.
The fourth component of this model is the receiver.
The action of decoding results in the assignment of meaning by the receiver. The exchange described is one basic unit of interaction between communicators. Once the receiver decodes the message and gives meaning to it, that person can encode another message to relay to the sender.
The resulting action is characterized as feedback. Feedback helps to clarify the original message or to enhance it. In the feedback process, the original receiver then becomes the sender who encodes the message, and the original sender becomes the receiver who decodes the message.
Again, the channel of communication remains face-to-face. This process can continue in a cyclical manner, creating a dialogue between both people.
An additional component affecting the interaction represented in this model is noise. Noise refers to anything that could interfere with the transmission of the message from the sender to the receiver, and it can be attributed to a number of sources. Physical sources are often much easier to recognize and would include a loud truck driving by while the sender was talking to the receiver during a meeting, or if the receiver was having difficulty with his hearing aid while listening to the sender speak.
Noise related to differences in perception can also interfere with the ability for communicators to relay a message. This type of noise is attributed to a number of factors, including nonverbal communication and cultural differences. Differences in perception can lead to conflict among the communicators. Particularly, the quality of supervisory communication and information exchanges have been linked to revenue and productivity measures of the overall organization.
Most organizations typically have superior—subordinate relationships among organizational members. Generally, research in the area of superior—subordinate interpersonal communication centers on exchanges of information and influence between organizational members, at least one of whom has formal authority, granted by the organizational structure, to direct and evaluate the activities of other organizational members.
Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn suggested that superior to subordinate communication typically centers on information regarding organizational procedures and practices, indoctrination of goals, job instructions, job rationale, or feedback on performance.
Similarly, subordinate to superior communication typically focuses on information about the subordinates themselves, their colleagues, and their work-related or personal problems; information about tasks to accomplish; or about organizational policies and practices. Hellweg found in that subordinates are more satisfied with their work when communication between subordinate and supervisor is good. Hunt further posited in that subordinates reporting high-quality relationships with their supervisors were more likely to engage in informal, friendly interactions with their supervisors, to conform to formal and informal requests, to attempt to clarify expectations, and to accept criticism from supervisors than were individuals reporting lowerquality relationships.
Leader—member exchange LMX theory frequently informs superior—subordinate relationships. The LMX theory has been linked to a variety of communication behaviors and suggests that leaders have limited time and resources and share both personal and positional resources differently with their subordinates.
In sum, Jaesub Lee and colleagues suggested in that leaders tend to develop and maintain exchanges with their subordinates that vary in degrees of quality. These relationships range from high in-group to low out-group exchanges.
Interpersonal communication - Credo Reference
Ingroup exchange is considered a high-quality relationship reflected by high levels of information exchange, mutual support, informal influence, and trust, and greater negotiating latitude and input in decision influence. Alternatively, out-group exchange reflects a low-quality relationship characterized by formal supervision, less support, and less trust and attention from the supervisor. These include the following: Research that studies the communication patterns between supervisors and their subordinates.
How much time is spent communicating with each other? Who initiates the communication? What is the importance of the interactions?
This line of research examines two dimensions of openness in the superior—subordinate relationship: This occurs when persons of lower hierarchical rank in organizations communicate with persons of higher rank. Upward distortion falls into four general categories: Subordinates tend to distort upward information, saying what they think will please their supervisors. Subordinates tend to filter information and tell their supervisors what they, the subordinates, want them to know.
Subordinates often tell supervisors what they think the supervisor wants to hear. Subordinates tend to pass personally favorable information to supervisors while not transmitting unfavorable information about themselves to supervisors. This line of research focuses on two dimensions of influence: Effective versus ineffective superiors.
Examines prescriptive characteristics of effective and ineffective communication behaviors among organizational supervisors, as well as communication qualities of effective leaders. These study the mediating effects of personal characteristics of superiors and subordinates e. Research focusing on relationship between feedback and performance, feedback and motivation, feedback and attributional processes, the use of rewards and punishments as feedback, and the feedback-seeking behavior of individuals.
Research examining the role of communication in superior—subordinate conflict e. Peer Communication Peer communication is an important interpersonal facet in everyday organizational life. This area of study focuses on coworker communication within and between work groups.
These include autonomy-connection, novelty-predictability, openness-closedness. 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".
However, it also shows how the meanings within our conversations may be interpreted, understood, and of course misunderstood. 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. These consist of connectedness and separateness, certainty and uncertainty, and openness and closedness.
- Relationship and Content Messages
Connectedness and separateness[ edit ] 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[ edit ] 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. 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[ edit ] Main article: 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. These include constitutive and regulative rules.
Constitutive rules "are essentially rules of meaning used by communicators to interpret or understand an event or message". 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. 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".
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. Archetype context This 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[ edit ] Main article: 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. The behaviors vary based on the different levels of intimacy that a relationship encounters. 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 one's 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. These stages include the orientation, exploratory affective exchange, affective exchange, and stable exchange.Understanding Interpersonal Relationships
Exploratory affective stage Next, individuals become somewhat more friendly and relaxed with their communication styles. Affective exchange In the third stage, there is a high amount of open communication between individuals and typically these relationships consist of close friends or even romantic or platonic partners.
Stable stage The final stage, simply consists of continued expressions of open and personal types of interaction.
Interpretative and Interaction Theories
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.
Interpersonal Communication and Relations | Interpretative and Interaction Theories
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. 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.
Peripheral items are exchanged more frequently and sooner than private information 2. Self-disclosure is reciprocal, especially in the early stages of relationship development 3. Penetration is rapid at the start but slows down quickly as the tightly wrapped inner layers are reached 4.
Depenetration is a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal. Online communication seems to follow a different set of rules. 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. 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.
Their theory became the foundation from which scholars in the field of communication approached the study of relationships.