FINAL EXAM COMS 8

Exchange Theory

we often seek out people who can give us rewards that are greater than or equal to the costs we encounter in dealing with them.

Paralanguage

-How a message is spoken. - Vocal rate, pronunciation, pitch, tone, volume, and emphasis can give the same word or words many meanings.

Superiority (#5 Gibbs Def Behaviors)

A fifth behavior creating a defensive climate involves superiority. A body of research describes how patronizing messages irritate receivers ranging from young students to senior citizens (Draper, 2005; Harwood et al., 1997). Any message that suggests "I'm better than you" is likely to arouse feelings of defensiveness in the recipients. Research confirms what most of us know from experience: We dislike people who communicate Superiority. Many times in our lives we communicate with people who possess less talent or knowledge than we do, but it isn't necessary to convey an attitude of superiority in these situations. Gibb found ample evidence that many who have superior skills and talents are capable of projecting feelings of equality rather than superiority.

Listening for Understanding

(1) Syntactic and grammatical rules of the language. (2) Knowledge about the source of the message. (3) Context of a message. (4) Paying attention— even close attention— to a message doesn't guarantee that you'll understand what's being said. Understanding is composed of several elements. First, of course, you must be aware of the syntactic and gram-matical rules of the language. But beyond this basic ability, understanding a message depends on several other factors. One is your knowledge about the source of the message. Such background will help you decide, for example, whether a friend's insulting remark is a joke or a serious attack. The context of a message also helps you understand what's being said. A yawning response to your comments would probably have a different meaning at midnight than at noon. The ideal in interpersonal listening is both to understand and to be understood. Communication researchers use the term listening fidelity to describe the degree of congruence between what a listener understands and what the message sender was attempting to communicate (Powers &Witt, 2008). Fidelity doesn't mean agreement. PAGE 206

Four Linguistic Rules:

(1.) Phonological -rules govern how sounds are com-bined to form words. For instance, the words champagne, double, and occasion have the same meaning in French and English, but are pro-nounced differently because the languages have different phonological rules. (2.) Syntactic rules -govern the way symbols can be arranged. (Structure) Notice that the following statements contain the same words, but the shift in syntax creates quite different meanings: Whiskey makes you sick when you're well. Whiskey, when you're sick, makes you well. (3) Semantic rules -also govern our use of language. Semantics governs the (meaning of statements.) (4) Pragmatic Rules -pragmatic rules that tell us what uses and interpretations of a mes-sage are appropriate in a given context.

Perceptual Process Four Stages:

(1.) Selection of which -data we will attend to. (2.) Organization- The raw sense data we perceive can be organized in more than one way. Organizing it. (3.) Interpretation — attaching meaning to sense data— plays a role in virtually every interpersonal act. (4.) Negotiations -process by which communicators influence each other's perceptions through communication is known as negotiation

Poor Listening Habits

(5): Pseudo listening, stage hogging, selective listening, filling in gaps, insulated listening, defensive listening, ambushing.

Verbal Communication -Words, voice, tone, sounds.

*Mostly voluntary & conscious. *Usually content oriented. *Can be clear or vague. *Primarily shaped by culture. *Discontinuous/Intermittent. *Single Channel (words only)

Five Conflict Styles

1. Avoidance (Lose-Lose) -ignores conflict. 2. Accommodation (Lose-Win) -when we allow others to have their own way rather than our POV. 3. Competition - (WIN- LOSE) high concern for self and low concern for others. 4. Compromise-(Negotiated Lose-Lose) "Half Way" 5. Collaboration-(Win-WIN) "Our Way" seeks win- win solutions to conflict. Handling CONFLICTS (12.1 pg. 372)

TOXIC CONFLICT: THE "FOUR HORSEMEN"

1. Criticism 2. Defensivness 3. Contempt 4. Stonewalling Some conflict approaches are so destructive that they are almost guaran-teed to wreak havoc on relationships. These toxic forms of communication include what John Gottman has called the "Four Horsemen of the Apoca-lypse" (Gottman, 1994; see also Graber et al., 2011; Holman & Jarvis, 2003).Gottman has gathered decades of data about newlywed couples and their communication patterns. By observing their interactions, he has been able to predict with high accuracy whether the newlyweds will end up di-vorcing. Here

Noise

3 types of Noise= (1.) External Noise, (2.) Physiological Noise, (3.)Psychological Noise. Another factor in the environment that makes communication difficult is what scientists call noise : Anything that interferes with the transmission and reception of a message. Three types of noise can disrupt communication. External noise includes those factors outside the receiver that make it difficult to hear, as well as many other kinds of distractions. For instance, loud music in a bar or a jackhammer grinding in the street might make it hard for you to pay attention to another person. Physiological noise in-volves biological factors in the receiver that interfere with accurate recep-tion: hearing loss, illness, and so on. Psychological noise refers to cognitive factors that make communication less effective. For instance, a woman who is called "girl" may become so irritated that she has trouble listening objec-tively to the rest of a speaker's message.

Poor Listening Responses:

: Pseudo listening, stage hogging, selective listening, filling in gaps, insulated listening, defensive listening, ambushing.

Attribution

:attribution is the process of making sense of an-other person's behavior. Attribution is an unavoidable part of communicating: We have to form some sort of interpretation of what others' words and actions mean. But most behavior is so ambiguous that it can be interpreted in several ways.

"I" Language

Accepts responsibility for ones messages. e.g. "I feel uncomfortable when you act like that."

Control (#2 Gibbs Def Behaviors)

Controlling communication occurs when a sender seems to be imposing a solution on the receiver with little regard for that person'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. Whether done with words, gestures, or tone of voice, or through some other channel; whether control is accomplished through sta-tus, insistence on obscure or irrelevant rules, or physical power: The control-ler generates hostility. The unspoken message such behavior communicates is "I know what's best for you, and if you do as I say, we'll get along."

Culture

Culture : "the language, values, beliefs, traditions, and customs people share and learn." CULTURE People from most cultures prefer mutually beneficial resolutions to dis-agreements whenever possible (Cai & Fink, 2002). Nonetheless, the ways in which people communicate during conflicts vary from one culture to an-other (Croucher et al., 2012; Shearman et al., 2011). Cultures differ in their orientation toward disagreement (is it to be avoided or is it acceptable?), rapport management (how important is it to ensure relationship mainte-nance?), and the preserving of face (is it vital to preserve dignity for self and the other party?; Stadler, 2013).

Neutrality (#4 Gibbs Def Behaviors)

Describes a fourth behavior that arouses defensiveness. Probably a better word would be indifference . E.G; 911 emergency telephone dispatchers are taught to be neutral to calm down the caller, but they shouldn't communicate indifference or a lack of caring (Shuler & Sypher, 2000). Using Gibb's terminology, a neutral attitude is dis-confirming because it communicates a lack of concern for the welfare of an-other and implies that the other person isn't very important to you. The poor effects of neutrality become apparent when you consider the hostility that most people have for the large, impersonal organizations with which they have to deal: "They think of me as a number instead of a person"; "I felt as if I were being handled by computers and not human beings." These common statements reflect reactions to being treated in an indifferent, neutral way.

Descriptive (#1 Gibbs Supportive Behavior)

Description is a way to offer 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 behavior that can be changed rather than on personal characteristics that cannot. In addition, descriptive messages often use "I" language, which tends to provoke less defensiveness than "you" language (Heydenberk & Heyden-berk, 2007; Proctor & Wilcox, 1993).

Empathy (#3 Gibbs Supportive Behavior)

Empathy . The behavior that contrasts with neutrality is empathy. Gibb found that empathy helps rid communication of the quality of indifference. When people show that they care for the feelings of another, there's little chance that the person's self- concept will be threatened. Empathy means accept-ing another's feelings, putting yourself in another's place. This doesn't mean you need to agree with that person. By simply letting someone know about your care and respect, you'll be acting in a supportive way.

Equality (#4 Gibbs Supportive Behavior)

Equality 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. Charles and Elizabeth Beck (1996) observe that equality is put to the test when a person doesn't have superior skills yet is in a position of authority. Supervisors sometimes have less expertise in certain areas than their subordinates but believe it would be beneath them to admit it. A truly secure person can treat others with equality even when there are obvious differences in knowledge, talent, and status. Doing so creates a positive climate in which ideas are evaluated not on the basis of who contributed them, but rather on the merit of the ideas themselves.

ESSAY QUEST#4 FACILITATIVE AND DEBILITATIVE EMOTIONS

FACILITATIVE AND DEBILITATIVE EMOTIONS It's important to distinguish facilitative emotions , which contribute to effective functioning, from debilitative emotions, which hinder or prevent effective performance. Positive emotions such as joy and love are obviously facilitative. Much of the time, "negative" emotions such as anger or fear are debilitative. Sometimes, though, unpleasant emotions can be useful. The difference is often a matter of degree. For instance, a certain amount of anger or irrita-tion can be constructive because it often stimulates a person to improve the unsatisfying conditions. Rage, on the other hand, usually makes matters worse. The same is true for fear. A little bit of nervousness before a job in-terview may boost you just enough to improve your performance (mellow athletes or actors usually don't do well), but a job candidate who is inordi-nately anxious isn't likely to impress potential employers (Ayres & Crosby, 1995). One big difference, then, between facilitative and debilitative emo-tions is their intensity. A second characteristic of debilitative feelings is their extended dura-tion. Feeling depressed for a while after the breakup of a relationship or the loss of a job is natural. Spending the rest of one's life grieving over the loss accomplishes nothing. In the same way, staying angry at someone for a wrong inflicted long ago can be just as punishing to the grudge holder as to the wrongdoer (Bushman et al., 2005). Social scientists call this rumination — recurrent thoughts not demanded by the immediate environment. For example, jealous lovers who dwell on imagined transgressions of their part-ners feel more distressed than necessary and act in counterproductive ways. Minimizing Debilitative Emotion: (1.) Rational- emotive approach— does exist (Ellis & El-lis, 2014; Neenan & Dryden, 2006). This reappraisal method is based on the idea that the key to changing feelings is to change unproductive cognitive interpretations. (2.) SELF TALK -The key, then, to understanding and changing feelings lies in reapprais-ing the event. This takes place through a form of intrapersonal communi-cation professionals label self- talk (Kross et al., 2014; Vocate, 1994)— the nonvocal, internal monologue that is our process of thinking. To understand how self- talk works, pay attention to the part of you that, like a little voice, whispers in your ear. Take a moment now and listen to what the voice is saying. (3) Monitor Your Emotional Reactions How can you overcome irrational think-ing? Social scientists have developed a simple yet effective approach (E. D. Cohen, 2007; Ellis & Dryden, 2007). When practiced conscientiously, it can help you cut down on the self- defeating thinking that leads to many debilitative emotions. Monitor Your Emotional Reactions The first step is to recognize when you're having debilitative emotions. (Of course, it's also nice to be aware of pleasant feelings when they occur!) As we suggested earlier, one way to no-tice feelings is through physical stimuli: butterflies in the stomach, racing heart, hot flashes, and so on. Although such reactions might be symptoms of food poisoning, more often they reflect a strong emotion. You also can recognize certain ways of behaving that suggest your feelings: stomping instead of walk-ing normally, being unusually quiet, and speaking in a sarcastic tone of voice are some examples.It may seem strange to suggest that it's necessary to look for emotions— they ought to be immediately apparent. (4)Remember the two key characteristics of debilitating emotions— intensity (they are too intense) and duration (they last too long)— and use them to guide your assessment. (5) Note the Activating Event -Once you're aware of how you're feeling, the next step is to figure out what activating event triggered your response. Sometimes it is obvious. If your sweetheart keeps calling you by the name of a former lover, you're likely to become upset. Research shows that dating couples can develop "social allergies" to each other, becoming hypersensitive about their partner's annoying behaviors (Cunningham et al., 2005). In these cases, it's easy to identify what triggers a given response. In other cases, however, the activating event isn't so apparent. Sometimes there isn't a single activating event but rather a series of small incidents that finally build toward a critical mass and trigger a debilitative feeling. This sort of thing happens when someone teases you over and over about the same thing, or when you suffer a series of small disappointments. The best way to begin tracking down activating events is to notice the circumstances in which you have debilitative feelings. Perhaps they occur when you're around specific people. For example, you may feel tense or angry every time you encounter a person with whom you have struggled in the past. Until those issues are dealt with, feelings about past events can trigger debilitative emotions, even in apparently innocuous situations. In other cases, you might discover that being around certain types of individuals triggers debilitative emotions. For instance, you might become nervous around people who seem more intelligent or self- confident than you are. In other cases, certain settings can stimulate unpleasant emotions: parties, work, school. Sometimes the topic of conversation is the factor that sets you off, whether politics, religion, sex, or some other subject. (6. )Record Your SelfTalk -- This is the point at which you analyze the thoughts that are the link be-tween the activating event and your feelings. If you're serious about getting rid of debilitative emotions, it's important to actually write down your self- talk when first learning to use this method. Putting your thoughts on paper will help you see whether they make any sense.Monitoring your self- talk might be difficult at first. This is a new skill, and any new activity seems awkward. If you persevere, however, you'll find you will be able to identify the thoughts that lead to your debilitative feelings. Once you get in the habit of recognizing this internal monologue, you'll be able to identify your thoughts quickly and easily. (7) Dispute Your Irrational Beliefs --Now is the time to engage in the reappraisal process mentioned earlier in this chapter (page 239). Use the discussion of irrational fallacies on pages 256-262 to find out which of your internal statements are based on mistaken thinking. You can do this most effectively by following three steps: First, decide whether each belief you've recorded is rational or irrational. Next, explain why the belief does or doesn't make sense. Finally, if the belief is irrational, write down an alternative way of thinking that is more sensible and that can leave you feeling better when faced with the same activating event in the MAXIMIZING FACILITATIVE EMOTIONS Reducing debilitative emotions is only part of the emo-tional health equation. Contemporary scholars maintain that fostering positive emotions is just as important as minimizing negative ones. Whether it's called "learned optimism" (Seligman, 2006) or "positivity" (Fredrick-son, 2009), the approach is similar to what we've out-lined in this section. If thoughts cause feelings, then positive thoughts can cause positive feelings. ou can regard challeng-ing situations as growth opportunities. You can focus on what you gained rather than what you lost. You can choose compassion over contempt. The difference between "That really hurt me" and "I found out how strong and capable I really am" is often a matter of mindset— and positive emotions follow positive appraisals.Many people find it easier to focus on their negative emotional experi-ences. It often takes mindful effort to pay attention to and express pleasur-able feelings in close relationships. Here are 10 emotions that Frederickson's research identifies as basic to positivity: joy, gratitude, serenity, interest, hope, pride , amusement, inspiration, awe, and love. SEE ALL 7 FALLACIES!!!!

ESSAY Quest#6: Gibbs Categories: of Supportive & Defensive Behaviors

Gibb's findings have commonsense appeal and multiple applications. As a result, they've played an important part in communication textbooks, training seminars, journals, and research studies (e.g., Becker et al., 2008; Forward et al., 2011). We use them here to discuss how positive climates can be created by sending supportive rather than defense- provoking messages. Pg 350 & 364 DEFENSE- PROVOKING BEHAVIORS 1. Evaluation 2. Control 3. Strategy 4. Neutrality 5. Superiority 6. Certainty SUPPORTIVE BEHAVIORS 1. Description 2. Problem Orientation 3. Spontaneity 4. Empathy 5. Equality 6. Provisionalism

Certainty (#6 Gibbs Def Behaviors)

Have you ever run into people who are positive they're right, who know that theirs is the only or proper way of doing something, who insist that they have all the facts and need no additional information? If you have, you've met individuals who project the defense- arousing behavior Gibb calls = certainty Communicators who regard their own opinions with certainty while disregarding the ideas of others demonstrate a lack of regard for others. It's likely the receiver will take the certainty as a personal affront and react defensively. In contrast to dogmatic certainty is provisionalism

Essay Quest#5 Listening Responses:

Listening Responses: Analyzing, Evaluating, Advising, Questioning, Supporting, Paraphrasing. -What behaviors mark those characteristics? Good listeners ask and answer questions, provide reflective and relevant feedback, offer their own perspective, and respond nonverbally by making eye contact, nodding their heads, and leaning forward. In other words, although listening begins as an internal mental process, others will determine whether and how you're listening by monitoring your responses. SILENT LISTENING There are times when the best response is to say nothing. This is certainly true when you don't want to encourage a speaker to keep talking. instance, recall times when a boss or instructor droned on and on when you needed to leave for an appointment; or instances when a friend retold the story of a horrible date for what seemed like the 10th time. In situations like these, a verbal response would only encourage the speaker to continue— precisely the opposite reaction you would be seeking. The best response in these cases may be silent listening — staying attentive and nonverbally responsive without offering any verbal feedback.Silent listening isn't just an avoidance strategy. It also can be the right approach when you are open to the other person's ideas but your interjec-tions wouldn't be appropriate. If you are part of a large audience hearing a lecture, asking questions and offering comments would probably be disrup-tive. On a more interpersonal level, when a friend tells you a joke, butting in to ask for clarification ("There was a priest, a rabbi, and a what ?") would probably spoil your friend's rhythm.There are even times when silent listening can help others solve their problems (Cain, 2014). Sonia Johnson (1987; see also Smith, 2010) de-scribes a powerful activity she calls "hearing into being." The process is sim-ple: In brainstorming sessions, each participant has totally uninterrupted floor time. "When we are free to talk without threat of interruption, evalu-ation, and the pressure of time," notes Johnson, "we move quickly past known territory out into the frontiers of our thought" (p. 132). Johnson, who uses the technique in feminist seminars, reports that some women burst into tears when they first experience "hearing into being" because they are not used to being listened to so seriously and completely. Ask yourself, when was the last time you talked, uninterrupted, to an attentive partner for more than a few minutes? How would you like the chance to develop your ideas without pausing for another's comments? Silent listening is a response style that many of us could profit from using— and receiving— more often. ********************************************* QUESTIONING Regarded as "the most popular piece of language" (Goodman & Esterly, 1990), questioning occurs when the listener asks the speaker for additional information. There are several reasons to ask sincere, nondirective questions: • To clarify meanings. By now you know that people who share words do not always share meanings. Good listeners don't assume they know what their partners mean; they ask for clarification with questions such as these: "What did you mean when you said he was being 'unfair'?" • To learn about others' thoughts, feelings, and wants. A caring listener may want to inquire about more than just "the facts." Opinions, emotions, needs, and even hopes are buried inside many messages; with sensitiv-ity, a sincere question can draw these out. "What do you think about the new plan?"; "How did you feel when you heard the news?"; and "Were you hoping for something different?" are examples of such probes. When inquiring about personal information, it is usually best to ask open questions that allow a variety of extended responses rather than closed questions that only allow a limited range of answers. For instance, "How did you feel?" is an open question that allows a variety of responses, whereas "Did you feel angry?" is a closed question that requires only a yes- or- no answer (and may direct respondents toward feelings they weren't experiencing). • To encourage elaboration. People are sometimes hesitant to talk about themselves, or perhaps they aren't sure if others are interested. Re-marks such as "Tell me more about that," "I'm not sure I understand," and "I'm following you" convey concern and involvement. Notice that none of these examples ends with a question mark. We can encourage elaboration simply by acknowledging that we are listening. • To encourage discovery. People in the helping professions— clergy, coun-selors, therapists, and so on— often ask questions to prod their clients into discovering solutions for their problems (Watts et al., 2005). "Playing counselor" can be a risky game, but there are times when you can use questions to encourage others to explore their thoughts and feelings. "So, what do you see as your options?" may prompt an employee to come up with creative problem- solving alternatives. "What would be your ideal solution?" might help a friend get in touch with various wants and needs. Most important, encouraging discovery rather than dispensing advice indicates you have faith in others' ability to think for themselves. This may be the most important message that you can communicate as an effective listener. • Questions that trap the speaker. • Questions that make statements. • Questions that carry hidden agendas. • Questions that seek "correct" answers. • Questions that seek "correct" answers. • Questions based on unchecked assumptions. *Not all questions are genuine requests for information. Whereas sin-cere questions are aimed at understanding others, counterfeit questions are really disguised attempts to send a message, not receive one. No question is inherently sincere or counterfeit because the meaning and intent of any statement is shaped by its context. ************************************************* PARAPHRASING is feedback that restates, in your own words, the message you thought the speaker sent. 1. Change the speaker's wording. 2. Offer an example of what you think the speaker is talking about. When the speaker makes an abstract statement, you may suggest a specific example or two to see if your understanding is accurate: 3. Reflect the underlying theme of the speaker's remarks. When you want to summarize the theme that seems to have run through another person's conversation, a complete or partial perception check is appropriate. ************************************************* EMPATHIZING= is a response style listeners use when they want to show that they identify with a speaker. Empathy involves perspective taking, emotional contagion, and genuine concern. When listeners put the attitude of empathy into verbal and nonverbal responses, they engage in empathizing. Sometimes these responses can be quite brief: "Uh- huh," "I see," "Wow!," "Ouch!," "Whew!," "My goodness." In other cases, empathizing is expressed in statements such as these: "I can see that really hurts." NOT EMPATHIZING: • Denying others the right to their feelings. • Minimizing the significance of the situation. • Focus on yourself. • Raining on the speaker's parade. Empathic listening is essentially an expression of affection, as it com-municates validation and a sense of worth to the message- sender (Floyd, 2014). Research suggests that emotional intelligence is needed to offer these nonjudgmental, other- oriented responses (Pence & Vickery, 2012). Fortunately, research also indicates that the ability to offer such responses can be learned. ************************************************* SUPPORTING responses reveal the listener's solidarity with the speaker's situation. Brant Burleson (2003) describes supporting as "expressions of care, concern, affection, and interest, especially during times of stress or upset" (p. 552). There are several types of supportive responses: (1)AGREEMENT: "Yeah, that class was tough for me too." "You're right— the landlord is being unfair." Offers to help "I'm here if you need me." "Let me try to explain it to him." (2)PRAISE: "I don't care what the boss said: I think you did a great job!" "You're a terrific person! If she doesn't recognize it, that's her problem." (3)REASSURANCE: "The worst part seems to be over. It will probably get easier from here." "I know you'll do a great job." (4)DIVERSION: "Let's catch a movie and get your mind off this." "That reminds me of the time we. . . . "Men and women differ in the way they act when the opportunity to support others arises. Women are more prone than men to give supportive responses when presented with another person's problem (Burleson et al., 2005; Hale et al., 1997) and are more skillful at composing and processing such messages (Burleson et al., 2009, 2011). In fact, women who aren't skill-ful at offering emotional support to their female friends run the risk of being shunned by their same- sex peers (Holmstrom et al., 2005). By contrast, men tend to respond to others' problems by offering advice or by diverting the topic (Derlega et al., 1994; Woodward et al., 1996). *********************************************** ANALYZING a situation, the listener offers an interpretation of a speaker's message ("I think what's really bothering you is . . ."; "She's doing it be-cause . . ."; or "Maybe the problem started when he . . ."). Communicators who respond this way often use the analytical listening style described ear-lier in this chapter (page 208). Interpretations are often effective in helping people who have problems seeing alternative meanings of a situation— meanings they would have never thought of without your assistance. Some-times an analysis helps clarify a confusing problem, providing an objective understanding of the situation. Research suggests that analytic listeners are able to hear the concerns of emotionally upset others without experiencing similar emotions, which can be an advantage in problem solving (Weaver & Kirtley, 1995). In other cases, an analysis can create more problems than it solves. There are two reasons why: First, your interpretation may not be correct, in which case the problem holder may become even more confused by accepting it. Second, even if your analysis is accurate, sharing it with the problem holder might not be useful. There's a chance that it will arouse defensiveness (analysis implies being superior and in a position to evaluate). Besides, the problem holder may not be able to understand your view of the problem without working it out personally.How can you know when it's helpful to offer an analysis? Here are some guidelines to follow: • Offer your interpretation in a tentative way rather than as absolute fact. There's a big difference between saying "Maybe the reason is . . ." and insisting "This is the truth." • Your analysis ought to have a reasonable chance of being correct. An inaccurate interpretation— especially one that sounds plausible— can leave a person more confused than before. • Make sure that the other person will be receptive to your analysis. Even if you're completely accurate, your thoughts won't help if the problem holder isn't ready to consider them. Pay attention to the other person's verbal and nonverbal cues to see how your analysis is being received. ********************************************** EVALUATING: response appraises the sender's thoughts or behaviors in some way. The evaluation may be favorable ("That's a good idea" or "You're on the right track now") or unfavorable ("An attitude like that won't get you anywhere"). In either case, it implies that the person evaluating is in some way qualified to pass judgment on the speaker's thoughts or actions. ********************************************** ADVISING- When approached with another's problem, the most common reaction is advising (Notarius & Herrick, 1988). We're all familiar with advising re-sponses: "If you're so unhappy, you should just quit the job"; "Just tell him what you think"; "You should take some time off." Even though advice might be just what a person needs, there are several reasons why it often isn't helpful. First, it may not offer the best suggestion about how to act. There's often a temptation to tell others how you would behave in their place, but it's important to realize that what's right for one • Is the advice needed? If the person has already taken a course of action, giving advice after the fact ("I can't believe you got back together with him") is rarely appreciated. • Is the advice wanted? People generally don't value unsolicited advice. It's usually best to ask if the speaker is interested in hearing your counsel. Remember that sometimes people just want a listening ear, not solutions to their problems. • Is the advice given in the right sequence? Advice is more likely to be received after the listener first offers empathizing, paraphrasing, and questioning responses to understand the speaker and the situation better. ************************************************* WHICH STYLE IS BEST TO USE? (PG 230) As a rule of thumb, it's probably wise to begin with responses from the left and middle of the listening response continuum: silent listening, ques-tioning, paraphrasing, empathizing, and supporting. Once you've gathered the facts and demonstrated your interest and concern, it's likely that the speaker will be more receptive to (and perhaps even ask for) your analyzing, evaluating, and advising responses. You can boost the odds of choosing the best style in each situation by considering three factors. First, think about the situation , and match your response to the nature of the problem. People sometimes need your advice. In other cases, your encouragement and support will be most helpful; and in still other instances, your analysis or judgment may be truly useful. And, as you have seen, there are times when your questioning and paraphrasing can help others find their own answer. Besides considering the situation, you also should think about the other person when deciding which approach to use. It's important to be sure that the other person is open to receiving any kind of help. Furthermore, you need to be confident that you will be regarded as someone whose support is valuable. The same response that would be accepted with gratitude when it comes from one communicator can be regarded as unhelpful when it's offered by the wrong person (Clark et al., 1998; Sullivan, 1996).It's also important to match the type of response you offer with the style of the person to whom it is directed (Bippus, 2001). One study found that highly rational people tend to respond more positively to advice than do more emotional people (Feng & Lee, 2010). Many communicators are extremely defensive and aren't capable of receiving analysis or judgments without lashing out. Still others aren't equipped to think through problems clearly enough to profit from questioning and paraphrasing. Sophisticated listeners choose a style that fits the person. Copyright | Oxford University Press | Interplay: The Process of Interpersonal Communication | Edition 13 | [email protected] | Printed from www.chegg.com

Problem Orientation (#2 Gibbs Supportive Behavior)

Problem Orientation communicators focus on finding a solution that satisfies both their own needs and those of the others involved. The goal here isn't to "win" at the expense of your partner but to work out some arrangement in which everybody feels like a winner. "WIN-WIN"

Provisionalism (#5 Gibbs Supportive Behavior)

Provisionalism Which people may have strong opinions but are willing to acknowledge that they don't have a corner on the truth and will change their stand if another position seems more reasonable. Provisionalism often surfaces in a person's word choice. Whereas people with certainty regularly use the terms can't, never, always, must, and have to, those 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. Katt and Collins (2009; 2013) found that when teachers use provisional language, it helps motivate students. For instance, students responded more favorably to the critique "Your introduction could have been developed more thoroughly" than to the starker "The introduction."

Behavioral Descriptions:

Sensory data: see, feel, hear, smell, taste, touch Pg 156, Table 5.2

Spontaneity (#3 Gibbs Supportive Behavior)

Spontaneity is the behavior that contrasts with strategy. Spontaneity simply means 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 (see the Focus on Research sidebar on page 354). Gibb was after setting aside hidden agendas that others both sense and resist. You can probably recall times when someone asked you a question and you suspiciously responded with "Hmmm . . . why do you want to know?" Your defensive antennae were up because you detected an underlying strategy.

Strategy (#3 Gibbs Def Behaviors)

Strategy to characterize defense arousing messages in which speakers hide their ulterior motives. The terms dishonesty and ma-nipulation reflect the nature of strategy. Even if the intentions that motivate strategic communication are honorable, the victim of deception who dis-covers the attempt to deceive is likely to feel offended at being played for a sucker (Tsang, 2006). This is not to say that all sales techniques are wrong or unethical, but most strategic ones aren't well suited for interpersonal relationships.

2. Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis:

The best- known declaration of linguistic relativity is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, credited to Benjamin Whorf, an amateur linguist, and anthro-pologist Edward Sapir (Tohidian, 2009; Whorf, 1956). Following Sapir's theoretical work, Whorf found that the language spoken by Hopi Native Americans represented a view of reality that is dramatically different from most tongues. For example, the Hopi language makes no distinction be-tween nouns and verbs. Therefore, the people who speak it describe the entire world as being constantly in process. Whereas English speakers use nouns to characterize people or objects as being fixed or constant, the Hopi language represents them more as verbs, constantly changing. In this sense, English represents the world rather like a collection of snapshots, whereas Hopi reflects a worldview that is more like a motion picture.

Co-Culture

The perception of membership in a group that is part of an encompassing culture. (Herakova, 2012; Orbe & Spellers, 2005). Co- cultures in North American society in-clude categories based on • Age (e.g., teens, senior citizens) • Race/ethnicity (e.g., African American, Latino) • Sexual orientation (e.g., lesbian, straight) • Nationality (e.g., immigrants from a particular country, expatriates)• geographic region (e.g., Southerners, Midwesterners) • Physical disability (e.g., wheelchair users, persons who are deaf) • Religion (e.g., Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Muslim) • Activity (e.g., biker, gamer)

Perception Checking

The skill of perception checking provides a better way to review your assumptions and to share your interpretations (Hansen et al., 2002). A complete perception check has three parts: 1. A description of the behavior you noticed. 2. Two possible interpretations of the behavior. 3. A request for clarification about how to interpret the behavior. Perception checking is a tool to help us understand others accurately instead of assuming that our first interpretation is correct. Because its goal is mutual understanding, perception checking is a cooperative approach to communication. Besides leading to more accurate perceptions.

Evaluation (#1 Gibbs Def Behaviors)

The first type of defense- arousing message Gibb identified is evaluation. An evaluative message judges the other person, usually in a negative way. E.G;For instance, consider this message: "You don't care about me!" Evaluative messages such as this possess several characteristics that make them so face threatening. They judge what the other person is feeling rather than de-scribing the speaker's thoughts, feelings, and wants. They don't explain how the speaker arrived at his or her conclusion, and they lack specifics. Further-more, they're often phrased in the kind of defense- arousing "you" language described in Chapter 5. It's easy to understand why evaluative statements often trigger a defensive spiral.

Ogden and Richards Triangle of Meaning

This model shows that there is only an indirect relationship between a word and the thing or idea it represents. e.g. - "You tease a friend in what you mean to be a playful manner, but he takes you seriously and is offended." These problems occur because people attach different meanings to the same message. Ogden and Richards (1923) illustrated this point in their well- known "triangle of meaning"

Cognitive conservatism

This tendency to seek information that conforms to an existing self- concept, appears to hold true for people in a variety of cultures (Church et al., 2012). We E.g; People with unnecessarily negative self- esteem can become their own worst enemies, denying themselves the validation they deserve and the need to enjoy satisfying relationships.

ESSAY Quest#2: Recommendations for responding "non defensively to criticism"

Three such methods: "Seeking more information", "Paraphrasing" and "Agreeing with the Critic." - Despite their apparent simplicity, they have proven to be among the most valuable skills communicators can learn. (#1) Seek More Information: The response of seeking more information makes good sense when you realize that it's foolish to respond to a critical attack until you understand what the other person has said (Gold & Castillo, 2010). Even comments that on first consideration appear to be totally unjustified or foolish often prove to contain at least a grain of truth and sometimes much more. One way to seek more information is to ask for specsfic's. Often the vague attack of a critic is virtually useless, even if you sincerely want to change. Abstract accusations such as "you're being unfair" or "you never help out" can be difficult to understand. In such cases, it is a good idea to request more specific information from the senders, inviting them to explain their position more clearly. "What do I do that's unfair?" is an important question to ask before you can judge whether the accusation is correct. "When haven't I helped out?" you might ask before agreeing with or disputing the accusation. Remember that it's important to ask these kinds of questions in a tone of voice that suggests you genuinely want to learn more about the other person's perception.Sometimes your critics won't be able to define precisely the behavior they find offensive— or they may be reluctant to tell you. -In instances such as these, you can often learn more clearly what is bothering your critic by guessing at the specifics of a complaint. Like the technique of asking for specifics, guessing must be done with goodwill if it's to produce satisfying results. -You need to convey to the critic that for both of your sakes you're truly interested in finding out what is the matter. E.G.; Here are some typical questions you might hear from someone guessing about the details of another's criticism: "So you object to the language I used in writing the paper. Was my language too formal?" ********************************************** (#2) PARAPHRASING - Another strategy is to draw out confused or reluctant speakers by paraphrasing their thoughts and feelings, using the reflective listening skills described in Chapter 7. By clarifying or amplifying what you understand critics to be saying, you may learn more about their objections (Homburg & Fürst, 2007). ********************************************* (#3) "Agree with the Critic =Another method for responding invitationally to criticism is to agree with the critic. But, you protest, how can I honestly agree with comments I don't believe are true? The following pages will answer this question by showing how you can acknowledge and accept the other person's point of view and still maintain your position. One way to agree with the critic is to agree with the truth. For instance, you agree with the truth when another person's criticism is factually correct:"You're right; I am angry.""I suppose I was just being defensive.""Now that you mention it, I did get pretty sarcastic."Agreeing with the truth seems quite sensible when you realize that cer-tain matters are indisputable. If you agree to be somewhere at 4:00 P.M. and don't show up until 5:00, you are late, no matter how good your explanation for tardiness is. If you've broken a borrowed object, run out of gas, or failed to finish a job you started, there's no point in denying the fact. In the same way, if you're honest, you will have to agree with many interpretations of your behavior, even when they're not flattering. You do get angry, act foolishly, fail to listen, and behave inconsiderately. Once you acknowledge this, your communication can become more invitational.

1. "Meaning lies in people" & "The word is not the thing"

Words are arbitrary symbols that have no meaning in themselves. For exam-ple, the word five is a kind of code that represents the number of fingers on your hand only because we agree that it does. As Bateson and Jack-son (1964) point out, "There is nothing particularly five- like in the number 'five'" (p. 271). To a speaker of French, the symbol cinq would convey the same meaning; to a computer, the same value would be represented by the electronically coded symbol 0101 . Because this form of communication is symbolic and not literal, there are hundreds of different sign languages used around the world that have evolved independently, whenever significant numbers of deaf people have come in contact (Meir et al., 2010). These distinct languages include American Sign Language, Mexican Sign Language, British Sign Language, French Sign Language, Danish Sign Language, Chinese Sign Language, and Australian Aboriginal and Mayan sign languages— and communicating across different sign languages can be as difficult as it is across different spoken languages (Quinto- Pozos, 2008). The only reason symbol- laden languages work at all is that people agree on how to use them. The linguistic agreements that make com-munication possible can be codified in rules. Languages contain several types of rules that continuously evolve (Garner, 2014). SEE:Four Linguistic Rules def. LANGUAGE IS SUBJECTIVE If the rules of language were more precise and if everyone followed them, we would suffer from fewer misunderstandings. You have an hour- long argument about "feminism" only to discover that you were using the term in different ways and that you really were in basic agreement. You tease a friend in what you mean to be a playful manner, but he takes you seriously and is offended.These problems occur because people attach different mean-ings to the same message. Ogden and Richards (1923) illustrated this point in their well- known "triangle of meaning"

Competent Communication

is both effective and appropriate. There Is No Single "Ideal" or "Effective" Way to Communicate. Your own experience shows that a variety of communication styles can be effective. Some very successful communicators are serious, whereas oth-ers use humor; some are gregarious, others are quieter; and some are more straightforward, and others hint diplomatically. Just as there are many kinds of beautiful music or art, there are many kinds of competent communi-cation. Furthermore, a type of communication that is competent in one setting might be a colossal blunder in another, and what one person thinks is competent may be seen by another as incompetent (Dunleavy & Martin, 2010).

Meta-Communication

messages that refer to other messages

Facework

the verbal and nonverbal ways in which we act to maintain our own present-ing image and the images of others. Soci-ologist Erving Goffman (1959, 1983) used the word face to describe this socially approved identity, and he coined the term facework to describe the verbal and nonverbal ways in which we act to maintain our own present-ing image and the images of others. Goffman argued that each of us can be viewed as a kind of playwright who creates roles that we want others to believe, as well as the performer who acts out those roles. This "playwriting" starts early in life as children interact with their parents (Gerholm, 2011), and it continues into adulthood in both personal and professional settings. Goffman (1983) suggested that each of us maintains face by putting on a front when we are around others whom we want to impress. In contrast, behavior in the back region— when we are alone— may be quite different. You can recognize the difference between front and backstage behavior by recalling a time when you observed a driver, alone in her or his car, be-having in ways that would never be acceptable in public. All of us engage in backstage ways of acting that we would never exhibit in front of oth-ers. Just recall how you behave in front of the bathroom mirror when the door is locked, and you will appreciate the difference between public and private behavior. If you knew someone was watching, would you behave differently?