7 Chapter 7: Building and Maintaining Relationships
Jason S. Wrench; Narissra M. Punyanunt-Carter; Katherine S. Thweatt; and Carolyn Hurley
Introduction
Over the course of our lives, we will enter into and out of many different relationships. When it comes to dating, the average person has seven relationships before getting married (News Agencies, 2014). According to a study conducted by OnePoll in conjunction with Evite, the average American has:
- Three best friends
- Five good friends
- Eight people they like but don’t spend one-on-one time with
- 50 acquaintances
- 91 social media friends (Gervis, 2019)
In this chapter, we are going to discuss the nature how we use communication to build and maintain our interpersonal relationships.
7.1 The Nature of Relationships
We’ve all been in a wide range of relationships in our lives. But what makes something a “relationship”? How often do we need to see each other? Do we need to agree on the definition? Is following a person on social media a relationship?
We will answer these questions by examining specific relationship characteristics and the nature of significant relationships.
7.1.1 Defining Relationships
A relationship is a “connection established when one person communicates with another” (Beebe, Beebe, & Redmond, 2019). Relationships are built on connections – workplaces, familial connections, similar interests and hobbies, and shared experiences (to name a few). Relationships can serve a variety of purposes: work, task, and social.
- First, relationships can be work-related. We might have a significant work relationship that helps us advance our professional career. We might have work relationships that might support us in gaining financial benefits or better work opportunities.
- Second, we might have significant relationships because it is task-related. We may have a specific task that we need to accomplish with this other person. It might be a project or a mentorship. After the task is completed, then the relationship may end. For instance, a high school coach may serve as a significant relationship. You and your coach might have a task or plan to go to the state competition. You and your coach will work on ways to help you. However, after you complete high school and your task has ended, then you might keep in contact with the coach, or you may not since your competition (task) has ended.
- The last purpose is for social reasons. We may have social reasons for pursuing a relationship. These can include pleasure, inclusion, control, and/or affection. Each relationship that we have with another person has a specific purpose. We may like to spend time with a particular friend because we love talking to them. At the same time, we might like spending time with another friend because we know that they can help us become more involved with extracurricular activities.
Think about all the relationships that you have in your life. Which ones are the most meaningful and significant for you? Why do you consider these relationships as the most notable one(s) for you? Your parents/guardians, teachers, friends, family members, and love interests can all serve as significant relationships for you. Significant relationships have a huge impact on our communication behaviors and our interpretation of these conversations. Significant relationships impact who we are and help us grow. These relationships can serve a variety of purposes in our lives.
However, all relationships are not the same. The following relationship characteristics help define and differentiate our relationships with others. These characteristics are: duration, contact frequency, sharing, support, interaction variability, and goals (Gamble & Gamble, 2014).
Some friendships last a lifetime, others last a short period. The length of any relationship is referred to as that relationship’s duration. People who grew up in small towns might have had the same classmate till graduation. This is due to the fact that duration with each person is different. Some people we meet in college and we will never see them again. Hence, our duration with that person is short. Duration is related to the length of your relationship with that person.
Second, contact frequency is how often you communicate with their other person. There are people in our lives we have known for years but only talk to infrequently. The more we communicate with others, the closer our bond becomes to the other person. Sometimes people think duration is the real test of a relationship, but it also depends on how often you communicate with the other person.
The third relationship type is based on sharing. The more we spend time with other people and interact with them, the more we are likely to share information about ourselves. This type of sharing is information that is usually our private and very intimate details of our thoughts and feelings. We typically don’t share this information with a stranger. Once we develop a sense of trust and support with this person, we can begin to share more details.
The fourth characteristic is support. Think of the people in your life and who you would be able to call in case of an emergency. The ones that come to mind are the ones you know who would be supportive of you. They would support you if you needed help, money, time, or advice. Support is another relationship type because we know that not everyone can support us in the same manner. For instance, if you need relationship advice, you would probably pick someone who has relationship knowledge and would support you in your decision. Support is so important. It was found that a major difference between married and dating couples is that married couples were more likely to provide supportive communication behaviors to their partners more than dating couples (Punyanunt-Carter, 2004).
The fifth defining characteristic of relationships is the interaction variability. When we have a relationship with another person, it is not defined on your interaction with them, rather on the different types of conversations you can have with that person. When you were little, you probably knew that if you were to approach your mom, she might respond a certain way as opposed to your Dad, who might respond differently. Hence, you knew that your interaction would vary. The same thing happens with your classmates because you don’t just talk about class with them. You might talk about other events on campus or social events. Therefore, our interactions with others are defined by the greater variability that we have with one person as opposed to another.
The last relationship characteristic is goals. In every relationship we enter into, we have certain expectations about that relationship. For instance, if your goal is to get closer to another person through communication, you might share your thoughts and feelings and expect the other person to do the same. If they do not, then you will probably feel like the goals in your relationship were not met because they didn’t share information. The same goes for other types of relationships. We typically expect that our significant other will be truthful, supportive, and faithful. If they break that goal, then it causes problems in the relationship and could end the relationship. Hence, in all our relationships, we have goals and expectations about how the relationship will function and operate.
7.2 Relationship Formation
Communication scholars often differentiate relationships of circumstance and relationships of choice (Beebe, Beebe & Redmond, 2019). Relationships of circumstance are those formed without much choice from us. For example, many family relationships – such as relatives, siblings, guardians, and in-laws – are considered relationships of circumstance because they were forged because of matters outside our control. While you may choose your spouse or romantic partner, you do not have a choice in their family members, which may or may not approve of you and have an effect on your greater relationship. Workplace relationships are generally also considered relationships of circumstance, because we often seek out a specific job, but we do not have control (in most situations) over who our coworkers and supervisors are.
Relationships of choice are simply put, the relationships we choose. For most of us, our friends and romantic partners fit well into this category. Have you ever wondered why people pick certain relationships over others? Throughout our lives, we pick and select people that we build a connection to. One popular communication theory that explains this selection is Interpersonal Attraction Theory (Duck, 1993; Graziano & Bruce, 2008).
7.2.1 Understanding Attraction
Researchers have identified three primary types of attraction: physical, social, and task. Physical attraction refers to the degree to which you find another person aesthetically pleasing. What is deemed aesthetically pleasing can alter greatly from one culture to the next. We also know that pop culture can greatly define what is considered to be physically appealing from one era to the next. For example, in the U.S. in the 1950s, curvy women like Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor depicted an industry standard of “beauty” , whereas in the 1990s, supermodels who were thin and tall dominated the screens. Although discussions of male physical attraction occur less often, they are equally impacted by pop culture. In the 1950s, you had solid men like Robert Mitchum and Marlon Brando as compared to the heavily muscled men of the 2010s like Joe Manganiello or Zac Efron.
The second type of attraction is social attraction, or the degree to which an individual sees another person as entertaining, intriguing, and fun to be around. We all have finite sources when it comes to the amount of time we have in a given day. We prefer to socialize with people that we think are fun. These people may entertain us or they may just fascinate us. No matter the reason, we find some people more socially desirable than others. Social attraction can also be a factor of power. For example, in situations where there are kids in the “in-group” and those that are not. In this case, those that are considered popular hold more power and are perceived as being more socially desirable to associate with. This relationship becomes problematic when these individuals decide to use this social desirability as a tool or weapon against others.
The final type of attraction is task attraction, or people we are attracted to because they possess specific knowledge and/or skills that help us accomplish specific goals. The first part of this definition requires that the target of task attraction possess specific knowledge and/or skills. Maybe you have a friend who is good with computers who will always fix your computer when something goes wrong. Maybe you have a friend who is good in math and can tutor you. Of course, the purpose of these relationships is to help you accomplish your own goals. In the first case, you have the goal of not having a broken down computer. In the second case, you have the goal of passing math. This is not to say that an individual may only be viewed as task attractive, but many relationships we form are because of task attraction in our lives.
7.2.2 Reasons for Attraction
Now that we’ve looked at the basics of what attraction is. Let’s switch gears and talk about why we are attracted to each other. There are several reasons researchers have found for our attraction to others including proximity, physicality, perceived gain, similarities and differences, and disclosure.
Physical Proximity
When you ask some people how they met their significant other, you will often hear proximity is a factor in how they met. Perhaps, they were taking the same class or their families went to the same grocery store. These commonplaces create opportunities for others to meet and mingle. We are more likely to talk to people that we see frequently.
Physical Attractiveness
In day-to-day interactions, you are more likely to pay attention to someone you find more attractive than others. Research shows that males place more emphasis on physical attractiveness than females (Samovar, & Porter, 1995). Appearance is very important at the beginning of the relationship.
Perceived Gain
This type of relationship might appear to be like an economic model and can be explained by exchange theory (Stafford, 2008). In other words, we will form relationships with people who can offer us rewards that outweigh the costs. Rewards are the things we want to acquire. They could be tangible (e.g., food, money, clothes) or intangible (support, admiration, status). Costs are undesirable things that we don’t want to expend a lot of energy to do. For instance, we don’t want to have to constantly nag the other person to call us or spend a lot of time arguing about past items. A good relationship will have fewer costs and more rewards. A bad relationship will have more costs and fewer rewards. Often, when people decide to stay or leave a relationship, they will consider the costs and rewards in the relationship.
Costs and rewards are not the only factors in a relationship. Partners also consider alternatives in the relationship. For instance, Becky and Alan have been together for a few years. Becky adores Alan and wants to marry him, but she feels that there are some problems in the relationship. Alan has a horrible temper; he is pessimistic; and he is critical of her. Becky has gained some weight, and Alan has said some hurtful things to her. Becky knows that every relationship will have issues. She doesn’t know whether to continue this relationship and take it further or if she should end it.
Her first alternative is called the comparison level(CL), which is the minimum standard that she is willing to tolerate. If Becky believes that it is ok for a person to say hurtful things to her or get angry, then Alan is meeting or exceeding her CL. However, if past romantic partners have never said anything hurtful towards her, then she would have a lower CL.
Becky will also consider another alternative, which is the comparison level of alternatives (CLalt), or the comparison between current relationship rewards and what she might get in another relationship. If she doesn’t want to be single, then she might have a lower CL of alternatives. If she has another potential mate who would probably treat her better, then she would have a higher level of alternatives. We use this calculation all the time in relationships. Often when people are considering the possibility to end a relationship, they will consider all alternatives rather than just focusing on costs and rewards.
Similarities and Differences
It feels comforting when someone who appears to like the same things you like also has other similarities to you. Thus, you don’t have to explain yourself or give reasons for doing things a certain way. People with similar cultural, ethnic, or religious backgrounds are typically drawn to each other for this reason. It is also known as similarity thesis. The similarity thesis basically states that we are attracted to and tend to form relationships with others who are similar to us (Adler, Rosenfeld, & Proctor II, 2013). There are three reasons why similarity thesis works: validation, predictability, and affiliation. First, it is validating to know that someone likes the same things that we do. It confirms and endorses what we believe. In turn, it increases support and affection. Second, when we are similar to another person, we can make predictions about what they will like and not like. We can make better estimations and expectations about what the person will do and how they will behave. The third reason is due to the fact that we like others that are similar to us and thus they should like us because we are the same. Hence, it creates affiliation or connection with that other person.
However, there are some people who are attracted to someone completely opposite from who they are. This is where differences come into play. Differences can make a relationship stronger, especially when you have a relationship that is complementary. In complementary relationships, each person in the relationship can help satisfy the other person’s needs. For instance, one person likes to talk, and the other person likes to listen. They get along great because they can be comfortable in their communication behaviors and roles. In addition, they don’t have to argue over who will need to talk. Another example might be that one person likes to cook, and the other person likes to eat. This is a great relationship because both people are getting what they like to do, and it complements each other’s talents. Usually, friction will occur when there are differences of opinion or control issues. For example, if you have someone who loves to spend money and the other person who loves to save money, it might be very hard to decide how to handle financial issues.
Disclosure
Sometimes we form relationships with others after we have disclosed something about ourselves to others. Disclosure, or sharing about yourself, increases liking because it creates support and trust between you and this other person. We typically don’t disclose our most intimate thoughts to a stranger. We do this behavior with people we are close to because it creates a bond with the other person.
Disclosure is not the only factor that can lead to forming relationships. Disclosure needs to be appropriate and reciprocal (Dindia, 2000). In other words, if you provide information, it must be mutual. If you reveal too much or too little, it might be regarded as inappropriate and can create tension. Also, if you disclose information too soon or too quickly in the relationship, it can create some negative outcomes.
7.3 Stages of Relationships
Every relationship goes through various stages. Mark Knapp first introduced The Stage Model of Relationship Development after identifying patterns on the ways many relationships of choice progress (1984; Knapp & Vangelisti, 1992). The following model describes these 5 stages of coming together, and five stages of coming apart. As you read about the stages, remember that all relationships do not go through ALL stages. You may have only experienced a few relationships that have progressed into a bonding stage. Relationships can also go backwards and forwards through this model. It is normal to experience some de-escalation in a friendship that grows apart, but this can be followed with an escalation period as you and your friend become close again.
7.3.1 Coming Together
Do you remember when you first met that special someone in your life? How did your relationship start? How did you two become closer? Every relationship has to start somewhere. It begins and grows. In this section, we will learn about the coming together stages, which include: initiating, experimenting, intensifying, integrating, and then bonding.
Initiating
At the beginning of every relationship, we have to figure out if we want to put in the energy and effort to talk to the other person. If we are interested in pursuing the relationship, we have to let the other person know that we are interested in initiating a conversation.
There are different types of initiation. Sustaining is trying to continue the conversation. Networking is where you contact others for a relationship. An offering is where you present your interest in some manner. Approaching is where you directly make contact with the other person. We can begin a relationship in a variety of different ways.
Communication at this initiating stage is very brief. We might say hello and introduce yourself to the other person. You might smile or wink to let the other person know you are interested in making conversation with him or her. The conversation is very superficial and not very personal at all. At this stage, we are primarily interested in making contact.
Experimenting
After we have initiated communication with the other person, we go to the next stage, which is experimenting. At this stage, you are trying to figure out if you want to continue the relationship further. We are trying to learn more about the other person.
At this stage, interactions are very casual. You are looking for common ground or similarities that you share. You might talk about your favorite things, such as colors, sports, teachers, etc. Just like the name of the stage, we are experimenting and trying to figure out if we should move towards the next stage or not.
Intensifying
After we talk with the other person and decide that this is someone we want to have a relationship with, we enter the intensifying stage. We share more intimate and/or personal information about ourselves with that person. Conversations become more serious, and our interactions are more meaningful. At this stage, you might stop saying “I” and say “we.” So, in the past, you might have said to your partner, “I am having a night out with my friends.” It changes to “we are going to with my friends tonight.” We are becoming more serious about the relationship.
Integrating
The integrating stage is where two people truly become a couple. Before they might have been dating or enjoying each other’s company, but in this stage, they are letting people know that they are exclusively dating each other. The expectations in the relationship are higher than they were before. Your knowledge of your partner has increased. The amount of time that you spend with each other is greater.
Bonding
The next stage is the bonding stage, where you reveal to the world that your relationship to each other now exists. This only occurs with a few relationships. For example, the bonding stage could be when two partners get engaged and have an engagement announcement. For those that are very committed to the relationship, they might decide to have a wedding and get married. In every case, they are making their relationship a public announcement. They want others to know that their relationship is real.
Not every relationship will go through each of the ten stages. Several relationships do not go past the experimenting stage. Some remain happy at the intensifying or bonding stage. When both people agree that their relationship is satisfying and each person has their needs met, then stabilization occurs. Some relationships go out of order as well. For instance, in some arranged marriages, the bonding occurs first, and then the couple goes through various phases. Some people jump from one stage into another. When partners disagree about what is optimal stabilization, then disagreements and tensions will occur.
In today’s world, romantic relationships can take on a variety of different meanings and expectations. For instance, “hooking up” or having “friends with benefits” are terms that people might use to describe the status of their relationship. Many people might engage in a variety of relationships but not necessarily get married. We know that relationships vary from couple to couple. No matter what the relationship type, couples decided to come together or come apart.
7.3.2 Coming Apart
Some couples can stay in committed and wonderful relationships. However, there are some couples that after bonding, things seem to fall apart. No matter how hard they try to stay together, there is tension and disagreement. These couples go through a coming apart process that involves: differentiating, circumscribing, stagnating, avoiding, and terminating.
Differentiating
The differentiating stage is where both people are trying to figure out their own identities. Thus, instead of trying to say “we,” the partners will question “how am I different?” In this stage, differences are emphasized and similarities are overlooked.
As the partners differentiate themselves from each other, they tend to engage in more disagreements. The couples will tend to change their pronoun use from “our kitchen” becomes “my kitchen” or “our child” becomes “my child,” depending on what they want to emphasize.
Initially, in the relationship, we tend to focus on what we have in common with each other. After we have bonded, we are trying to deal with balancing our independence from the other person. If this cannot be resolved, then tensions will emerge, and it usually signals that your relationship is coming apart.
Circumscribing
The circumscribing stage is where the partners tend to limit their interactions with each other. Communication will lessen in quality and quantity. Partners try to figure out what they can and can’t talk about with each other so that they will not argue.
Partners might not spend as much time with each other at this stage. There are fewer physical displays of affection, as well. Intimacy decreases between the partners. The partners no longer desire to be with each other and only communicate when they have to.
Stagnating
The next stage is stagnating, which means the relationship is not improving or growing. The relationship is motionless or stagnating. Partners do not try to communicate with each other. When communication does occur, it is usually restrained and often awkward. The partners live with each other physically but not emotionally. They tend to distance themselves from the other person. Their enthusiasm for the relationship is gone. What used to be fun and exciting for the couple is now a chore.
Avoiding
The avoiding stage is where both people avoid each other altogether. They would rather stay away from each other than communicate. At this stage, the partners do not want to see each other or speak to each other. Sometimes, the partners will think that they don’t want to be in the relationship any longer.
Terminating
The terminating stage is where the parties decide to end or terminate the relationship. It is never easy to end a relationship. A variety of factors can determine whether to cease or continue the relationship. Time is a factor. Couples have to decide to end it gradually or quickly. Couples also have to determine what happens after the termination of the relationship. Besides, partners have to choose how they want to end the relationship. For instance, some people end the relationship via electronic means (e.g., text message, email, social media posting) or via face-to-face.
7.4 Relationship Maintenance
You may have heard that relationships are hard work. Relationships need maintenance and care. Just like your body needs food and your car needs gasoline to run, your relationships need attention as well. When people are in a relationship with each other, what makes a difference to keep people together is how they feel when they are with each other. Maintenance can make a relationship more satisfying and successful.
Daniel Canary and Laura Stafford stated that “most people desire long-term, stable, and satisfying relationships” (1994). To keep a satisfying relationship, individuals must utilize relationship maintenance behaviors. They believed that if individuals do not maintain their relationships, the relationships will weaken and/or end. “It is naïve to assume that relationships simply stay together until they fall apart or that they happen to stay together” (Canary & Stafford, 1994).
Relationship maintenance is the stabilization point between relationship initiation and potential relationship destruction (Duck, 1988). There are two elements to relationship maintenance. First, strategic plans are intentional behaviors and actions used to maintain the relationship. Second, everyday interactions help to sustain the relationship. Most importantly, talk is the most important element in relationship maintenance (Duck, 1994).
Laura Stafford and Daniel Canary (1991) found five key relationship maintenance behaviors.
- First, positivity is a relational maintenance factor used by communicating with their partners in a happy and supportive manner.
- Second, openness occurs when partners focus their communication on the relationship.
- Third, assurances are words that emphasize the partners’ commitment to the duration of the relationship.
- Fourth, networking is communicating with family and friends.
- Lastly, sharing tasks is doing work or household tasks.
- Later, Canary and his colleagues found two more relationship maintenance behaviors: conflict management and advice (Canary & Zelley, 2000).
Additionally, Canary and Stafford also posited four propositions that serve as a conceptual framework for relationship maintenance research (Canary & Stafford, 1994).The first proposition is that relationships will worsen if they are not maintained. The second proposition is that both partners must feel that there are equal benefits and sacrifices in the relationship for it to sustain. The third proposition states that maintenance behaviors depend on the type of relationship. The fourth proposition is that relationship maintenance behaviors can be used alone or as a mixture to affect perceptions of the relationship. Overall, these propositions illustrate the importance and effect that relationship maintenance behaviors can have on relationships.
7.5 Tensions in Relationships
Relationship Dialectics
We know that all relationships go through change. The changes in a relationship are usually dependent on communication. When a relationship starts, there is lots of positive and ample communication between the parties. However, there are times that couples go through a redundant problem, and it is important to learn how to deal with this problem. Partners can’t always know what their significant other desires or needs from them.
Dialectics had been a concept known well too many scholars for many years. They are simply the pushes and pulls that can be found every day in relationships of all types. This perspective examines how we must manage these push-pull tensions that arise, because they cannot be fully resolved. The management of the tensions is usually based on past experiences; what worked for a person in the past will be what they decide to use in the future. These tensions are both contradictory and interdependent because without one, the other is not understood. Dialectical tension is how individuals deal with struggles in their relationship. There are opposing forces or struggles that couples have to deal with (Baxter, 2004; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996).
The overarching premise to dialectical tensions is that all personal ties and relationships are always in a state of constant flux and contradiction. Relational dialectics highlight a “dynamic knot of contradictions in personal relationships; an unceasing interplay between contrary or opposing tendencies” (Griffin, 2009).The concept of contradiction is crucial to understanding relational dialectics. The contradiction is when there are opposing sides to a situation. These contradictions tend to arise when both parties are considered interdependent. Dialectical tension is natural and inevitable. All relationships are complex because human beings are complex, and this fact is reflected in our communicative processes. Baxter and Montgomery argue that tension arises because we are drawn to the antitheses of opposing sides. These contradictions must be met with a “both/and” approach as opposed to the “either/or” mindset. However, the “both/and” approach lends to tension and pressure, which almost always guarantees that relationships are not easy. Below are some different relational dialectics (Baxter, & Montgomery, 1996):
1) Autonomy-Connection
This is where partners seek involvement but not willing to sacrifice their entire identity. For instance, in a marriage, some women struggle with taking their partner’s last name, keeping their maiden name, or combine the two. Often when partners were single, they might have engaged in a girl’s night out or a guy’s night out. When in a committed relationship, one partner might feel left out and want to be more involved. Thus, struggles and conflict occur until the couple can figure out a way to deal with this issue.
2) Predictability–Novelty
This deals with rituals/routines compared to novelty. For instance, for some mothers, it is tough to accept that their child is an adult. They want their child to grow up at the same time it is difficult to recognize how their child has grown up.
3) Transparency-Privacy
Disclosure is necessary, but there is a need for privacy. For some couples, diaries work to keep things private. Yet, there are times when their partner needs to know what can’t be expressed directly through words.
4) Similarity-Difference
This tension deals with self vs. others. Some couples are very similar in their thinking and beliefs. This is good because it makes communication easier and conflict resolution smoother. Yet, if partners are too similar, then they cannot grow. Differences can help couples mature and create stimulation.
5) Ideal-Real
Couples will perceive some things as good and some things as bad. Their perceptions of what is real may interfere or inhibit perceptions of what is real. For instance, a couple may think that their relationship is perfect. But from an outsider, they might think that the relationship is abusive and devastating.
Another example might be that a young dating couple thinks that they do not have to marry each other because it is the ideal and accepted view of taking the relationship to the next phase. Thus, the couples move in together and raise a family without being married. They have deviated from what is an ideal normative cultural script (Baxter, 2006).
6) Judgement-Acceptance
In our friendships, we often feel the simultaneous need to be accepting of our friends for who they are, but also be honest and open with them. In this example, Phoebe wants to help Joey, but she also thinks he is being unreasonable.
***
Every relationship is fraught with these dialectical tensions. There’s no way around them. However, there are different ways of managing dialectical tensions:
- Denial is where we respond to one end. For example, in a romantic relationship, one partner wants closeness (connection) while the other desires more independence (autonomy). The couple might deny the tension by only focusing on closeness, spending all their time together, and ignoring the need for independence, which might lead to issues later.
- Disorientation is where we feel overwhelmed. We fight, freeze, or leave. For example, a young couple experiencing their first serious conflict may feel overwhelmed by the tension between wanting to stay close (connection) and needing space (autonomy). They might freeze and avoid each other, or have explosive arguments without resolution.
- Alternation is where we choose one end on different occasions. For example, in a friendship, two people balance the need for openness and privacy. They might choose to be very open and share everything during some conversations, but at other times, they respect each other’s need for privacy, alternating between these two extremes depending on the context.
- Recalibration is reframing the situation or perspective. For example, a couple experiencing tension between predictability and novelty reframes their perspective by recognizing that their routine doesn’t have to be boring. Instead, they see stability as a foundation that allows them to introduce new experiences, such as traveling together, without destabilizing their relationship.
- Segmentation is where we compartmentalize different areas. This may sound very similar to alternation, above. For example, in a friendship balancing the need for openness and privacy, the friends may be very open about their romantic relationships, telling each other all of the details of their romantic encounters. But if the subject moves to family relationships, the friends may decide to stay closed off in this area.
- Balance is where we manage and compromise our needs. For example, when a person realizes that their partner cannot be “perfect”, and changes their standards to a more realistic level.
- Integration is blending different perspectives. For example, in a long-distance relationship, the couple integrates the desire for both autonomy and connection by scheduling regular virtual dates but also encouraging each other to pursue individual hobbies and social lives outside of the relationship.
- Reaffirmation is having the knowledge & accepting our differences. For example, partners in a marriage might accept that they will always have different approaches to handling money—one being a saver and the other a spender. They reaffirm their differences by discussing them openly, acknowledging that the tension is a natural and ongoing part of their relationship, and working through it without trying to change each other.
These strategies will come up again as we discuss conflict in chapter 9. Not every couple deals with dialectical tensions in the same way. Some will use a certain strategy during specific situations, and others will use the same strategy every time there is tension.
Chapter Wrap-Up
In this chapter, we’ve explored the range of issues related to building and maintaining relationships. We started by discussing the nature of relationships, which included a discussion of the characteristics of relationships and the importance of significant relationships. We then discussed the formation and dissolution of relationships. Then explored the importance of communication in relationships. Lastly, we looked at dating relationships and ended by discussing gender and relationships. Hopefully, you can see that building and maintain relationships takes a lot of work.
References
Adler, R., Rosenfeld, L. B., & Proctor II, R. F. (2013). Interplay: The process of interpersonal communication. Oxford.
Ayers, J. (1983). Strategies to maintain relationships: Their identification and perceived usages. Communication Quarterly, 31(1), 62-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463378309369487
Baxter, L. A. (2006). Relationship dialectics theory: Multivocal dialogues of family communication. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.). Engaging in family communication. (pp. 130-145). Sage.
Beebe, S. A., Beebe, S. J., & Redmond, M. V. (2019). Interpersonal Communication: Relating to Others. Pearson.
Tensions in a relationship where individuals need to deal with integration vs. separation, expression vs. privacy, and stability vs. change.
Expectations about how the relationship will function.
The tendency of some people to inflate their expertise when they really have nothing to back up that perception.
The length of time of your relationship.
The physical reactions to stimuli in the outside environment.
Introduction
The relationship between language and meaning is not a straightforward one. One reason for this complicated relationship is the limitlessness of modern language systems like English (Crystal, 2005). Language is productive in the sense that there are an infinite number of utterances we can make by connecting existing words in new ways. In addition, there is no limit to a language’s vocabulary, as new words are coined daily. Of course, words aren’t the only things we need to communicate, and although verbal and nonverbal communication are closely related in terms of how we make meaning, nonverbal communication is not productive and limitless. Although we can only make a few hundred physical signs, we have about a million words in the English language. So with all this possibility, how does communication generate meaning?
We arrive at meaning through the interaction between our nervous and sensory systems and some stimulus outside of them. It is here, between what the communication models labeled as encoding and decoding, that meaning is generated as sensory information is interpreted. The indirect and sometimes complicated relationship between language and meaning can lead to confusion, frustration, or even humor. We may even experience a little of all three, when we stop to think about how there are some twenty-five definitions available to tell us the meaning of word meaning! (Crystal, 2005) Since language and symbols are the primary vehicle for our communication, it is important that we not take the components of our verbal communication for granted.
4.1 Language is Symbolic
Our language system is primarily made up of symbols. A symbol is something that stands in for or represents something else. Symbols can be communicated verbally (speaking the word hello), in writing (putting the letters H-E-L-L-O together), or nonverbally (waving your hand back and forth). In any case, the symbols we use stand in for something else, like a physical object or an idea, they do not actually correspond to the thing being referenced in any direct way.
The symbols we use combine to form language systems or codes. Codes are culturally agreed on and ever-changing systems of symbols that help us organize, understand, and generate meaning (Leeds-Hurwitz, 1993). There are about 6,000 language codes used in the world, and around 40 percent of those (2,400) are only spoken and do not have a written version (Crystal, 2005).
The symbolic nature of our communication is a quality unique to humans. Since the words we use do not have to correspond directly to a “thing” in our “reality,” we can communicate in abstractions. This property of language is called displacement. It refers to our ability to talk about events that are removed in space or time from a speaker and situation (Crystal, 2005).
For example, the word calculate comes from the Latin word calculus, which means “pebble.” However, what does a pebble have to do with calculations? Pebbles were used, very long ago, to calculate things before we developed verbal or written numbering systems (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). As I noted earlier, a farmer may have kept, in a box, one pebble for each of his chickens. Each pebble represented one chicken, meaning that each symbol (the pebble) had a direct correlation to another thing out in the world (its chicken). This system allowed the farmer to keep track of his livestock. He could periodically verify that each pebble had a corresponding chicken. If there was a discrepancy, he would know that a chicken was lost, stolen, or killed.
Later, symbols were developed that made accounting a little easier. Instead of keeping track of boxes of pebbles, the farmer could record a symbol like the word five or the numeral 15 that could stand in for five or fifteen pebbles. This demonstrates how our symbols have evolved and how some still carry that ancient history with them, even though we are unaware of it. While this evolution made communication easier in some ways, it also opened up room for misunderstanding, since the relationship between symbols and the objects or ideas they represented became less straightforward. Although the root of calculate means “pebble,” the word calculate today has at least six common definitions.
The Triangle of Meaning
The triangle of meaning is a model of communication that indicates the relationship among a thought, symbol, and referent and highlights the indirect relationship between the symbol and referent (Ogden & Richards, 1923). As you can see in figure 3.1 “Triangle of meaning," the thought is the concept (or idea) a person references. The symbol is the word that represents the thought, and the referent is the object or idea to which the symbol refers.
This model is useful for us as communicators because when we are aware of the indirect relationship between symbols and referents, we are aware of how common misunderstandings occur, as the following example illustrates. Jasper and Abby have been thinking about getting a new dog. So each of them is having a similar thought. They are each using the same symbol, the word dog, to communicate about their thought. Their referents, however, are different. Jasper is thinking about a small dog like a dachshund, and Abby is thinking about an Australian shepherd. Since the word dog does not refer to one specific object in our reality, it is possible for them to have the same thought and use the same symbol only to find out the other person did not have the same thing in mind.
Being aware of this indirect relationship between symbol and referent, we can try to compensate for it by getting clarification. Abby might ask Jasper, “What kind of dog do you have in mind?” This question would allow Jasper to describe his referent, which would allow for more shared understanding. If Jasper responds, “Well, I like short-haired dogs. And we need a dog that will work well in an apartment,” then there is still quite a range of referents. Abby could ask questions for clarification, like “Sounds like you’re saying that a smaller dog might be better. Is that right?” Getting to a place of shared understanding can be difficult, even when we define our symbols and describe our referents.
Definitions
Definitions help us narrow the meaning of particular symbols, which also narrows a symbol’s possible referents. They also provide more words (symbols) for which we must determine a referent.
Words have denotative and connotative meanings. Denotation refers to definitions that are accepted by the language group as a whole, or the dictionary definition of a word. For example, the denotation of the word cowboy is a man who takes care of cattle. Another denotation is a reckless and/or independent person. A more abstract word, like change, would be more difficult to understand due to the multiple denotations.
Connotation refers to definitions that are based on emotion- or experience-based associations people have with a word. To go back to our previous words, change can have positive or negative connotations depending on a person’s experiences. A person who just ended a long-term relationship may think of change as good or bad depending on what he or she thought about his or her former partner. Even words like handkerchief that only have one denotation can have multiple connotations. A handkerchief can conjure up thoughts of dainty Southern belles or disgusting snot-rags.
A word like cowboy has many connotations, and philosophers of language have explored how connotations extend beyond one or two experiential or emotional meanings of a word to constitute cultural myths (Barthes, 1972). Cowboy, for example, connects to the frontier and the western history of the United States, which has mythologies associated with it that help shape the narrative of the nation. While people who grew up with cattle or have family that ranch, or members of indigenous tribes who's land was taken by settlers may have a very specific connotation of the word cowboy based on personal experience, other people’s connotations may be more influenced by popular cultural symbolism like that seen in westerns.
Language is Learned
As we just learned, the relationship between the symbols that make up our language and their referents is arbitrary, which means they have no meaning until we assign it to them. In order to use a language effectively system, we have to learn, over time, which symbols go with which referents, since we cannot just tell by looking at the symbol. Like me, you probably learned what the word apple meant by looking at the letters A-P-P-L-E and a picture of an apple and having a teacher or caregiver help you sound out the letters until you said the whole word. Over time, we associated that combination of letters with the picture of the red delicious apple and no longer had to sound each letter out. This is a deliberate process that may seem slow in the moment, but as we will see next, our ability to acquire language is actually quite astounding. We did not just learn individual words and their meanings, though; we also learned rules of grammar that help us put those words into meaningful sentences.
The Rules of Language
Any language system has to have rules to make it learnable and usable. Grammar refers to the rules that govern how words are used to make phrases and sentences. Someone would likely know what you mean by the question “Where’s the remote control?” But “The control remote where’s?” is likely to be unintelligible or at least confusing (Crystal, 2005). Knowing the rules of grammar is important in order to be able to write and speak to be understood, but knowing these rules is not enough to make you an effective communicator. As we will learn later, creativity and play also have a role in effective verbal communication. Even though teachers have long enforced the idea that there are right and wrong ways to write and say words, there really is not anything inherently right or wrong about the individual choices we make in our language use. Rather, it is our collective agreement that gives power to the rules that govern language.
Looking back to our discussion of connotation, we can see how individuals play a role in how meaning and language are related, since we each bring our own emotional and experiential associations with a word that are often more meaningful than a dictionary definition. In addition, we have quite a bit of room for creativity, play, and resistance with the symbols we use. Have you ever had a secret code with a friend that only you knew? This can allow you to use a code word in a public place to get meaning across to the other person who is “in the know” without anyone else understanding the message. The fact that you can take a word, give it another meaning, have someone else agree on that meaning, and then use the word in your own fashion clearly shows that meaning is in people rather than words. As we will learn later, many slang words developed because people wanted a covert way to talk about certain topics like drugs or sex without outsiders catching on.
4. 2 Functions of Language
What utterances make up our daily verbal communication? Some of our words convey meaning, some convey emotions, and some actually produce actions. Language also provides endless opportunities for fun because of its limitless, sometimes nonsensical, and always changing nature. In this section, we will learn about the five functions of language, which show us that language is expressive, language is powerful, language is fun, language is dynamic, and language is relational.
4. 2.1 Language is Expressive
Verbal communication helps us meet various needs through our ability to express ourselves. In terms of instrumental needs, we use verbal communication to ask questions that provide us with specific information. We also use verbal communication to describe things, people, and ideas. Verbal communication helps us inform, persuade, and entertain others, which as we will learn later are the three general purposes of public speaking. It is also through our verbal expressions that our personal relationships are formed. At its essence, language is expressive. Verbal expressions help us communicate our observations, thoughts, feelings, and needs (McKay, Davis, & Fanning, 1995).
Expressing Observations
When we express observations, we report on the sensory information we are taking or have taken in. Eyewitness testimony is a good example of communicating observations. Witnesses are not supposed to make judgments or offer conclusions; they only communicate factual knowledge as they experienced it. For example, a witness could say, “I saw a white Mitsubishi Eclipse leaving my neighbor’s house at 10:30 pm.” Observation and description occur in the first step of the perception-checking process. When you are trying to make sense of an experience, expressing observations in a descriptive rather than evaluative way can lessen defensiveness, which facilitates competent communication.
Expressing Thoughts
When we express thoughts, we draw conclusions based on what we have experienced. In the perception process, this is similar to the interpretation step. We take various observations and evaluate and interpret them to assign them meaning (a conclusion). Whereas our observations are based on sensory information (what we saw, what we read, what we heard), thoughts are connected to our beliefs (what we think is true/false), attitudes (what we like and dislike), and values (what we think is right/wrong or good/bad). Jury members are expected to express thoughts based on reported observations to help reach a conclusion about someone’s guilt or innocence. A juror might express the following thought: “The neighbor who saw the car leaving the night of the crime seemed credible. And the defendant seemed to have a shady past—I think he’s trying to hide something.” Sometimes people intentionally or unintentionally express thoughts as if they were feelings. For example, when people say, “I feel like you’re too strict with your attendance policy,” they are not really expressing a feeling; they are expressing a judgment about the other person (a thought).
Expressing Feelings
When we express feelings, we communicate our emotions. Expressing feelings
is a difficult part of verbal communication, because there are many social norms about how, why, when, where, and to whom we express our emotions.
Norms for emotional expression also vary based on culture, demographics and lived experiences. In terms of age, young children are typically freer to express positive and negative emotions in public. Gendered elements intersect with age as boys grow older and are socialized into a norm of emotional restraint. Although individual men vary in the degree to which they are emotionally expressive, a prevailing social norm encourages and expects women to be more emotionally expressive than men.
Expressing feelings can be uncomfortable for those listening. Some people are generally not good at or comfortable with receiving and processing other people’s feelings. Even those with good empathetic listening skills can be positively or negatively affected by others’ emotions. Expressions of anger can be especially difficult to manage because they represent a threat to the face and self-esteem of others.
Despite the fact that expressing feelings is more complicated than other forms of expression, emotion sharing is an important part of how we create social bonds and empathize with others, and it can be improved.
In order to express our emotions, it is important that we develop an emotional vocabulary. The more specific we can be when we are verbally communicating our emotions, the less ambiguous our emotions will be for the person decoding our message. As we expand our emotional vocabulary, we are able to convey the intensity of the emotion we are feeling whether it is mild, moderate, or intense. For example, happy is mild, delighted is moderate, and ecstatic is intense; ignored is mild, rejected is moderate, and abandoned is intense (Hargie, 2011).
In a time when so much of our communication is electronically mediated, it is likely that we will communicate emotions through the written word in an e-mail, text, or instant message. We may also still use pen and paper when sending someone a thank-you note, a birthday card, or a sympathy card. Communicating emotions through the written (or typed) word can have advantages such as time to compose your thoughts and convey the details of what you are feeling. There are also disadvantages in that important context and nonverbal communication cannot be included. Things like facial expressions and tone of voice offer much insight into emotions that may not be expressed verbally. There is also a lack of immediate feedback. Sometimes people respond immediately to a text or e-mail, but think about how frustrating it is when you text someone and they do not get back to you right away. If you are in need of emotional support or want validation of an emotional message you just sent, waiting for a response could end up negatively affecting your emotional state.
Expressing Needs
When we express needs, we are communicating in an instrumental way to help us get things done. Since we usually know our needs more than others do, it is important for us to be able to convey those needs to others. Expressing needs can help us get a project done at work or help us navigate the changes of a long-term romantic partnership. Not expressing needs can lead to feelings of abandonment, frustration, or resentment. For example, if one romantic partner expresses the following thought “I think we’re moving too quickly in our relationship” but does not also express a need, the other person in the relationship does not have a guide for what to do in response to the expressed thought. Stating, “I need to spend some time with my hometown friends this weekend. Would you mind if I went home by myself?” would likely make the expression more effective. Be cautious of letting evaluations or judgments sneak into your expressions of need. Saying, “I need you to stop suffocating me!” really expresses a thought-feeling mixture more than a need.
4.2.2 Language Is Powerful
The contemporary American philosopher David Abram wrote, “Only if words are felt, bodily presences, like echoes or waterfalls, can we understand the power of spoken language to influence, alter, and transform the perceptual world” (Abram, 1997). This statement encapsulates many of the powerful features of language. Next, we will discuss how language expresses our identities, affects our credibility, serves as a means of control, and performs actions.
Language Expresses our Identities
The power of language to express our identities varies depending on the origin of the label (self-chosen or other imposed) and the context. People are usually comfortable with the language they use to describe their own identities but may have issues with the labels others place on them. In terms of context, many people express their “Irish” identity on St. Patrick’s Day, but they may not think much about it over the rest of the year. There are many examples of people who have taken a label that was imposed on them, one that usually has negative connotations, and intentionally used it in ways that counter previous meanings. Some country music singers and comedians have reclaimed the label redneck, using it as an identity marker they are proud of rather than a pejorative term. Other examples of people reclaiming identity labels is the “black is beautiful” movement of the 1960s that repositioned black as a positive identity marker for African Americans and the “queer” movement of the 1980s and ’90s that reclaimed queer as a positive identity marker for some gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Even though some people embrace reclaimed words, they still carry their negative connotations and are not openly accepted by everyone.
Language Affects our Credibility
One of the goals of this chapter is to help you be more competent with your verbal communication. People make assumptions about your credibility based on how you speak and what you say. Even though we have learned that meaning is in people rather than words and that the rules that govern verbal communication, like rules of grammar, are arbitrary, these norms still mean something. You do not have to be a perfect grammarian to be perceived as credible. In fact, if you followed the grammar rules for written communication to the letter you would actually sound strange, since our typical way of speaking is not as formal and structured as writing. However, you still have to support your ideas and explain the conclusions you make to be seen as competent. You have to use language clearly and be accountable for what you say in order to be seen as trustworthy. Using informal language and breaking social norms we have discussed so far would not enhance your credibility during a professional job interview, but it might with your friends at a tailgate party. Politicians know that the way they speak affects their credibility, but they also know that using words that are too scientific or academic can lead people to perceive them as eggheads, which would hurt their credibility. Politicians and many others in leadership positions need to be able to use language to put people at ease, relate to others, and still appear confident and competent.
Language is a Means of Control
Control is a word that has negative connotations, but our use of it here can be positive, neutral, or negative. Verbal communication can be used to reward and punish. We can offer verbal communication in the form of positive reinforcement to praise someone. We can withhold verbal communication or use it in a critical, aggressive, or hurtful way as a form of negative reinforcement.
Directives are utterances that try to get another person to do something. They can range from a rather polite ask or request to a more forceful command or insist. Context informs when and how we express directives and how people respond to them. Promises are often paired with directives in order to persuade people to comply, and those promises, whether implied or stated, should be kept in order to be an ethical communicator. Keep this in mind to avoid arousing false expectations on the part of the other person (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990).
Rather than verbal communication being directed at one person as a means of control, the way we talk creates overall climates of communication that may control many. Verbal communication characterized by empathy, understanding, respect, and honesty creates open climates that lead to more collaboration and more information exchange. Verbal communication that is controlling, deceitful, and vague creates a closed climate in which people are less willing to communicate and less trusting (Brown, 2006).
4.2.3 Language is Dynamic
As we already learned, language is essentially limitless. We may create a one-of-a-kind sentence combining words in new ways and never know it. Aside from the endless structural possibilities, words change meaning, and new words are created daily. In this section, we will learn more about the dynamic nature of language by focusing on neologisms and slang.
Neologisms
Neologisms are newly coined or used words. Newly coined words are those that were just brought into linguistic existence. Newly used words make their way into languages in several ways, including borrowing and changing structure. Taking is actually a more fitting descriptor than borrowing, since we take words but do not really give them back. In any case, borrowing is the primary means through which languages expand. English is a good case in point. Most of its vocabulary is borrowed and does not reflect the language’s Germanic origins. English has been called the “vacuum cleaner of languages” (Crystal, 2005). Weekend is a popular English word based on the number of languages that have borrowed it. We have borrowed many words, like chic from French, karaoke from Japanese, and caravan from Arabic.
Existing words also change in their use and meaning. The digital age has given rise to some interesting changes in word usage. Before Facebook, the word friend had many meanings, but it was mostly used as a noun referring to a companion. The sentence, I’ll friend you, would not have made sense to many people just a few years ago because friend was not used as a verb. Google went from being a proper noun referring to the company to a more general verb that refers to searching for something on the Internet (perhaps not even using the Google search engine). Meanings can expand or contract without changing from a noun to a verb. Gay, an adjective for feeling happy, expanded to include gay as an adjective describing a person’s sexual orientation. Perhaps because of the confusion that this caused, the meaning of gay has contracted again, as the earlier meaning is now considered archaic, meaning it is no longer in common usage.
Slang
Slang is a great example of the dynamic nature of language. Slang refers to new or adapted words that are specific to a group, context, and/or time period; regarded as less formal; and representative of people’s creative play with language. Research has shown that only about 10 percent of the slang terms that emerge over a fifteen-year period survive. Many more take their place though, as new slang words are created using inversion, reduction, or old-fashioned creativity (Allan & Burridge, 2006).
Inversion is a form of word play that produces slang words like sick, wicked, and bad that refer to the opposite of their typical meaning. Reduction creates slang words such as pic, sec, and later from picture, second, and see you later. New slang words often represent what is edgy, current, or simply relevant to the daily lives of a group of people. Many creative examples of slang refer to illegal or socially taboo topics like sex, drinking, and drugs. It makes sense that developing an alternative way to identify drugs or talk about taboo topics could make life easier for the people who partake in such activities. Slang allows people who are in “in the know” to break the code and presents a linguistic barrier for unwanted outsiders. Taking a moment to think about the amount of slang that refers to being intoxicated on drugs or alcohol or engaging in sexual activity should generate a lengthy list.
4.2.4 Language is Relational
We use verbal communication to initiate, maintain, and terminate our interpersonal relationships. The first few exchanges with a potential romantic partner or friend help us size the other person up and figure out if we want to pursue a relationship or not. We then use verbal communication to remind others how we feel about them and to check in with them—engaging in relationship maintenance through language use. When negative feelings arrive and persist, or for many other reasons, we often use verbal communication to end a relationship.
Language Can Bring Us Together
Interpersonally, verbal communication is key to bringing people together and maintaining relationships. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, our use of words like I, you, we, our, and us affect our relationships. “We language” includes the words we, our, and us and can be used to promote a feeling of inclusiveness. “I language” can be useful when expressing thoughts, needs, and feelings because it leads us to “own” our expressions and avoid the tendency to mistakenly attribute the cause of our thoughts, needs, and feelings to others. Communicating emotions using “I language” may also facilitate emotion sharing by not making our conversational partner feel at fault or defensive. For example, instead of saying, “You’re making me crazy!” you could say, “I’m starting to feel really anxious because we can’t make a decision about this.” Conversely, “you language” can lead people to become defensive and feel attacked, which could be divisive and result in feelings of interpersonal separation.
Aside from the specific words that we use, the frequency of communication affects relationships. Of course, the content of what is said is important, but research shows that romantic partners who communicate frequently with each other and with mutual friends and family members experience less stress and uncertainty in their relationship and are more likely to stay together (McCornack, 2007).
When frequent communication combines with supportive messages, which are messages communicated in an open, honest, and non-confrontational way, people are sure to come together.
Language Can Separate Us
Whether its criticism, teasing, or language differences, verbal communication can also lead to feelings of separation. Language differences alone do not present insurmountable barriers. We can learn other languages with time and effort, there are other people who can translate and serve as bridges across languages, and we can communicate quite a lot nonverbally in the absence of linguistic compatibility. People who speak the same language can intentionally use language to separate. The words us and them can be a powerful start to separation.
Think of how language played a role in segregation in the United States as the Supreme Court upheld the notion of “separate but equal” and how apartheid affected South Africa as limits, based on finances and education, were placed on the black majority’s rights to vote. Symbols, both words and images, were a very important part of Hitler’s rise to power in the 1930s and ’40s in Europe. Various combinations of colored stars, triangles, letters, and other symbols were sewn onto the clothing or uniforms of people persecuted by the Nazis in order to classify them. People were labeled and reduced to certain characteristics rather than seen as complete humans, which facilitated the Nazis’ oppression, violence, and killing (Holocaust and Human Rights Education Center,2012).
At the interpersonal level, unsupportive messages can make others respond defensively, which can lead to feelings of separation and actual separation or dissolution of a relationship. It is impossible to be supportive in our communication all the time, but consistently unsupportive messages can hurt others’ self-esteem, escalate conflict, and lead to defensiveness. People who regularly use unsupportive messages may create a toxic win/lose climate in a relationship. Six verbal tactics that can lead to feelings of defensiveness and separation are global labels, sarcasm, dragging up the past, negative comparisons, judgmental “you” messages, and threats (McKay, Davis, & Fanning, 1995).
Common Types of Unsupportive Messages
- Global labels. “You’re a liar.” Labeling someone irresponsible, untrustworthy, selfish, or lazy calls his or her whole identity as a person into question. Such sweeping judgments and generalizations are sure to escalate a negative situation.
- Sarcasm. “No, you didn’t miss anything in class on Wednesday. We just sat here and looked at each other.” Even though sarcasm is often disguised as humor, it usually represents passive-aggressive behavior through which a person indirectly communicates negative feelings.
- Dragging up the past. “I should have known not to trust you when you never paid me back that $100 I let you borrow.” Bringing up negative past experiences is a tactic used by people when they do not want to discuss a current situation. Sometimes people have built up negative feelings that are suddenly let out by a seemingly small thing in the moment.
- Negative comparisons. “Jade graduated from college without any credit card debt. I guess you’re just not as responsible as her.” Holding a person up to the supposed standards or characteristics of another person can lead to feelings of inferiority and resentment. Parents and teachers may unfairly compare children to their siblings.
- Judgmental “you” messages. “You’re never going to be able to hold down a job.” Accusatory messages are usually generalized overstatements about another person that go beyond labeling but still do not describe specific behavior in a productive way.
- Threats. “If you don’t stop texting back and forth with your ex, both of you are going to regret it.” Threatening someone with violence or some other negative consequence usually signals the end of productive communication. Aside from the potential legal consequences, threats usually overcompensate for a person’s insecurity.
4.3 Using Words Well
Have you ever gotten lost because someone gave you directions that did not make sense to you? Have you ever puzzled over the instructions for how to put something like a bookshelf or grill together? When people do not use words well, there are consequences that range from mild annoyance to legal actions. When people do use words well, they can be inspiring and make us better people. In this section, we will learn how to use words well by using words clearly, using words affectively, and using words ethically.
4.3.1 Using Words Clearly
The level of clarity with which we speak varies depending on whom we talk to, the situation we are in, and our own intentions and motives. We sometimes make a deliberate effort to speak as clearly as possible. We can indicate this concern for clarity nonverbally by slowing our rate and increasing our volume or verbally by saying, “Frankly…” or “Let me be clear…” Sometimes it can be difficult to speak clearly—for example, when we are speaking about something with which we are unfamiliar. Emotions and distractions can also interfere with our clarity. Being aware of the varying levels of abstraction within language can help us create clearer and more “whole” messages.
Level of Abstraction
The ladder of abstraction is a model used to illustrate how language can range from concrete to abstract. As we follow a concept up the ladder of abstraction, more and more of the “essence” of the original object is lost or left out, which leaves more room for interpretation, which can lead to misunderstanding. This process of abstracting, of leaving things out, allows us to communicate more effectively because it serves as a shorthand that keeps us from having a completely unmanageable language filled with millions of words—each referring to one specific thing (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). However, it requires us to use context and other words to generate shared meaning. Some words are more directly related to a concept or idea than others are. If I asked you to go take a picture of a book, you could do that. If I asked you to go and take a picture of “work,” you couldn’t because work is an abstract word that was developed to refer to any number of possibilities from the act of writing a book, to repairing an air conditioner, to fertilizing an organic garden. You could take a picture of any of those things, but you cannot take a picture of “work.”
You can see the semanticist S. I. Hayakawa’s classic example of the abstraction ladder with "Bessie the cow" in figure 3.5 “Ladder of abstraction” (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). At the lowest level, we have something that is very concrete. At this level, we are actually in the moment of experiencing the stimuli that is coming in through our senses. We perceive the actual “thing,” which is the “cow” in front of us (either in person or as an image). This is concrete, because it is unmediated, meaning it is actually the moment of experience. As we move up a level, we give the experience a name—we are looking at “Bessie.” So now, instead of the direct experience with the “thing” in front of us, we have given the thing a name, which takes us one step away from the direct experience to the use of a more abstract symbol. Now we can talk and think about Bessie even when we are not directly experiencing her. At the next level, the word cow now lumps Bessie in with other bovine creatures that share similar characteristics. As we go on up the ladder, cow becomes livestock, livestock becomes an asset, and then an asset becomes wealth. Note that it becomes increasingly difficult to define the meaning of the symbol as we go up the ladder. With each step, we lose more of the characteristics of the original concrete experience.
When shared referents are important, we should try to use language that is lower on the ladder of abstraction. Being intentionally concrete is useful when giving directions, for example, and can help prevent misunderstanding. We sometimes intentionally use abstract language. Since abstract language is often unclear or vague, we can use it as a means of testing out a potential topic (like asking a favor), offering negative feedback indirectly (to avoid hurting someone’s feelings or to hint), or avoiding the specifics of a topic.
Definitions and Clarity
Knowing more about the role that abstraction plays in the generation of meaning can help us better describe and define the words we use. As we learned earlier, denotative definitions are those found in the dictionary—the official or agreed-on definition. Since definitions are composed of other words, people who compile dictionaries take for granted that there is a certain amount of familiarity with the words used to define another word—otherwise we would just be going in circles.
One challenge we face when defining words is our tendency to go up the ladder of abstraction rather than down (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). For example, if asked to define the word blue, you would likely say it is a color. If asked what a color is, you would say it is a tint or characteristic of the appearance of a particular thing. To define more clearly, by going down the ladder of abstraction, you could say, “It’s the color of Frank Sinatra’s eyes,” or “It’s what the sky looks like on a clear day.” People often come to understanding more quickly when a definition is descriptive and/or ties into their personal experiences. Definitions are not useless, but they are usually best when paired with examples.
Jargon refers to specialized words used by a certain group or profession. Since jargon is specialized, it is often difficult to relate to a diverse audience and should therefore be limited when speaking to people from outside the group—or at least be clearly defined when it is used.
4.3.2 Using Words Ethically
Communication is irreversible. The National Communication Association’s “Credo for Ethical Communication” states that we should be accountable for the long- and short-term effects of our communication (National Communication Association, 2012). The way we talk, the words we choose to use, and the actions we take after we are done speaking are all important aspects of communication ethics. Knowing that language can have real effects for people increases our need to be aware of the ethical implications of what we say. Hate speech and bias are important aspects of communication ethics on language and culture. In this section, we will focus on civility and accountability.
Civility
Our strong emotions regarding our own beliefs, attitudes, and values can sometimes lead to incivility in our verbal communication. Incivility occurs when a person deviates from established social norms. It can take many forms, including insults, bragging, bullying, gossiping, swearing, deception, and defensiveness, among others (Miller, 2001). Some people lament that we live in a time when civility is diminishing, but since standards and expectations for what is considered civil communication have changed over time, this isn’t the only time such claims have been made (Miller, 2001). As individualism and affluence have increased in many societies, so have the number of idiosyncratic identities that people feel they have the right to express. These increases could contribute to the impression that society is becoming less civil, when in fact it is just becoming different. As we learned in our section on perception and personality, we tend to assume other people are like us, and we may be disappointed or offended when we realize they are not. Cultural changes have probably contributed to making people less willing to engage in self-restraint, which again would be seen as uncivil by people who prefer a more restrained and self-controlled expression (Miller, 2001). The following are some common individual and situational influences that may lead to breaches of civility (Miller, 2001):
- Individual differences. Some people differ in their interpretations of civility in various settings, and some people have personality traits that may lead to actions deemed uncivil on a more regular basis.
- Ignorance. In some cases, especially in novel situations involving uncertainty, people may not know what social norms and expectations are.
- Lack of skill. Even when we know how to behave, we may not be able to do it. Such frustrations may lead a person to revert to undesirable behavior such as engaging in personal attacks during a conflict because they do not know what else to do.
- Lapse of control. Self-control is not an unlimited resource. Even when people know how to behave and have the skill to respond to a situation appropriately, they may not do so. Even people who are careful to monitor their behavior have occasional slipups.
- Negative intent. Some people, in an attempt to break with conformity or challenge societal norms, or for self-benefit (publicly embarrassing someone in order to look cool or edgy), are openly uncivil. Such behavior can also result from mental or psychological stresses or illnesses.
Polarizing Language
Philosophers of language have long noted our tendency to represent the world in very narrow ways when we feel threatened (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). This misrepresents reality and closes off dialogue. Although in our everyday talk we describe things in nuanced and measured ways, quarrels and controversies often narrow our vision, which is reflected in our vocabulary. In order to maintain a civil discourse in which people interact ethically and competently, it has been suggested that we keep an open mind and an open vocabulary.
One feature of communicative incivility is polarizing language, which refers to language that presents people, ideas, or situations as polar opposites. Such language exaggerates differences and overgeneralizes. Things are not simply black or white, right or wrong, or good or bad. Being able to see only two values and clearly accepting one and rejecting another does not indicate sophisticated or critical thinking. We do not have to accept every viewpoint as right and valid, and we can still hold strongly to our own beliefs and defend them without ignoring other possibilities, rejecting, or alienating others. A citizen who says, “All cops are corrupt,” is just as wrong as the cop who says, “All drug users are scum.” In avoiding polarizing language, we keep a more open mind, which may lead us to learn something new. A citizen may have a personal story about a negative encounter with a police officer that could enlighten us on his or her perspective, but the statement also falsely overgeneralizes that experience. Avoiding polarizing language can help us avoid polarized thinking, and the new information we learn may allow us to better understand and advocate for our position. Avoiding sweeping generalizations allows us to speak more clearly and avoid defensive reactions from others that result from such blanket statements.
Swearing
Scholars have identified two main types of swearing: social swearing and annoyance swearing (Baruch & Jenkins, 2007). People engage in social swearing to create social bonds or for impression management (to seem cool or attractive). This type of swearing is typically viewed as male dominated, but some research studies have shown that the differences in frequency and use of swearing by men and women are not as vast as perceived. Nevertheless, there is generally more of a social taboo against women swearing than men, but as you already know, communication is contextual. Annoyance swearing provides a sense of relief, as people use it to manage stress and tension, which can be a preferred alternative to physical aggression. In some cases, swearing can be cathartic, allowing a person to release emotions that might otherwise lead to more aggressive or violent actions.
Accountability
The complexity of our verbal language system allows us to present inferences as facts and mask judgments within seemingly objective or oblique language. As an ethical speaker and a critical listener, it is important to be able to distinguish between facts, inferences, and judgments (Hayakawa & Hayakawa, 1990). Inferences are conclusions based on thoughts or speculation, but not direct observation. Facts are conclusions based on direct observation or group consensus. Judgments are expressions of approval or disapproval that are subjective and not verifiable.
Linguists have noted that a frequent source of miscommunication is inference-observation confusion, or the misperception of an inference (conclusion based on limited information) as an observation (an observed or agreed-on fact) (Haney, 1992). We can see the possibility for such confusion in the following example: If a student posts on a professor-rating site the statement “This professor grades unfairly and plays favorites,” then they are presenting an inference and a judgment that could easily be interpreted as a fact. Using some of the strategies discussed earlier for speaking clearly can help present information in a more ethical way—for example, by using concrete and descriptive language and owning emotions and thoughts through the use of “I language.” To help clarify the message and be more accountable, the student could say, “I worked for three days straight on my final paper and only got a C,” which we will assume is a statement of fact. This could then be followed up with “But my friend told me she only worked on hers the day before it was due and she got an A. I think that’s unfair and I feel like my efforts aren’t recognized by the professor.” Of the last two statements, the first states what may be a fact (note, however, that the information is secondhand rather than directly observed) and the second states an inferred conclusion and expresses an owned thought and feeling. Sometimes people do not want to mark their statements as inferences because they want to believe them as facts. In this case, the student may have attributed her grade to the professor’s “unfairness” to cover up or avoid thoughts that her friend may be a better student in this subject area, a better writer, or a better student in general. Distinguishing between facts, inferences, and judgments, however, allows your listeners to better understand your message and judge the merits of it, which makes us more accountable and therefore more ethical speakers.
4.4 Language, Society, and Culture
Society and culture influence the words that we speak, and the words that we speak influence society and culture. Such a cyclical relationship can be difficult to understand, but many of the examples here and examples from our own lives help illustrate this point. One of the best ways to learn about society, culture, and language is to seek out opportunities to go beyond our typical comfort zones. Studying abroad, for example, brings many challenges that can turn into valuable lessons.
4.4.1 Language and Social Context
We arrive at meaning through conversational interaction, which follows many social norms and rules. As we have already learned, rules are explicitly stated conventions (“Look at me when I’m talking to you.”) and norms are implicit (saying you have to leave before you actually do to initiate politely the end to a conversation). To help conversations function meaningfully, we have learned social norms and internalized them to such an extent that we do not often consciously enact them. Instead, we rely on routines and roles (as determined by social forces) to help us proceed with verbal interaction, which also helps determine how a conversation will unfold. Our various social roles influence how we speak. For example, a person may say, “As a longtime member of this community…” or “As a first-generation college student…” Such statements cue others into the personal and social context from which we are speaking, which helps them better interpret our meaning.
One social norm that structures our communication is turn taking. People need to feel like they are contributing something to an interaction, so turn taking is a central part of how conversations play out (Crystal, 2005). Although we sometimes talk at the same time as others or interrupt them, there are numerous verbal and nonverbal cues, almost like a dance, that are exchanged between speakers that let people know when their turn will begin or end. Conversations do not always neatly progress from beginning to end with shared understanding along the way. There is a back and forth that is often verbally managed through rephrasing (“Let me try that again,”) and clarification (“Does that make sense?”) (Crystal, 2005)
Ending a conversation is similarly complex. Just walking away or ending a conversation without engaging in socially acceptable “leave-taking behaviors” would be considered a breach of social norms. Topic changes are often places where people can leave a conversation, but it is still routine for us to give a special reason for leaving, often in an apologetic tone (whether we mean it or not). Generally, though, conversations end through the cooperation of both people, as they offer and recognize typical signals that a topic area has been satisfactorily covered or that one or both people need to leave. It is customary in the United States for people to say they have to leave before they actually do and for that statement to be dismissed or ignored by the other person until additional leave-taking behaviors are enacted. When such cooperation is lacking, an awkward silence or abrupt ending can result, and as we have already learned, US Americans are not big fans of silence. Silence is not viewed the same way in other cultures, which leads us to our discussion of cultural context.
4.4.2 Language and Cultural Context
Language and Cultural Bias
Cultural bias is a skewed way of viewing or talking about a group negatively. Bias has a way of creeping into our daily language use, often under our awareness. Culturally biased language can refer to one or more cultural identities, including race, gender, age, sexual orientation, and ability. Much biased language is based on stereotypes and myths that influence the words we use. Bias is both intentional and unintentional, but as we’ve already discussed, we have to be accountable for what we say even if we didn’t “intend” a particular meaning—remember, meaning is generated; it doesn’t exist inside our thoughts or words. We will discuss specific ways in which cultural bias manifests in our language and ways to become more aware of bias. Becoming aware of and addressing cultural bias is not the same thing as engaging in “political correctness.” Political correctness takes awareness to the extreme but does not do much to address cultural bias aside from make people feel like they are walking on eggshells. That kind of pressure can lead people to avoid discussions about cultural identities or avoid people with different cultural identities. Our goal is not to eliminate all cultural bias from verbal communication or to never offend anyone, intentionally or otherwise. Instead, we will continue to use guidelines for ethical communication that we have already discussed and strive to increase our competence.
Race
People sometimes use euphemisms for race that illustrate bias because the terms are implicitly compared to the dominant group (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 2019). For example, referring to a person as “urban” or a neighborhood as “inner city” can be an accurate descriptor, but when such words are used as a substitute for racial identity, they illustrate cultural biases that equate certain races with cities and poverty. Using adjectives like articulate or well dressed in statements like “My black coworker is articulate” reinforces negative stereotypes even though these words are typically viewed as positive. Terms like nonwhite set up whiteness as the norm, which implies that white people are the norm against which all other races should be compared. Biased language also reduces the diversity within certain racial groups—for example, referring to anyone who looks like they are of Asian descent as Chinese or everyone who “looks” Latino/a as Mexicans. Some people with racial identities other than white, including people who are multiracial, use the label person/people of color to indicate solidarity among groups, but it is likely that they still prefer a more specific label when referring to an individual or referencing a specific racial group.
Gender
Language has a tendency to exaggerate perceived and stereotypical differences between men and women. The use of the term opposite sex presumes that men and women are opposites, like positive and negative poles of a magnet, which is obviously not true, or men and women would not be able to have successful interactions or relationships. A term like other gender does not presume opposites and acknowledges that male and female identities and communication are more influenced by gender, which is the social and cultural meanings and norms associated with males and females, than sex, which is the physiology and genetic makeup of a male and female.
One key to avoiding gendered bias in language is to avoid the generic use of he when referring to something relevant to males and females. Instead, you can informally use a gender-neutral pronoun like they or their or you can use his or her (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 2019). When giving a series of examples, you can alternate usage of masculine and feminine pronouns, switching with each example. We have lasting gendered associations with certain occupations that have tended to be male or female dominated, which erase the presence of both genders. Other words reflect the general masculine bias present in English. The following word pairs show the gender-biased term followed by an unbiased term: waitress/server, chairman/chair or chairperson, mankind/people, cameraman/camera operator, mailman/postal worker, sportsmanship/fair play. Common language practices also tend to infantilize women but not men, when, for example, women are referred to as chicks, girls, or babes. Since there is no linguistic equivalent that indicates the marital status of men before their name. Using Ms. instead of Miss or Mrs. helps reduce bias.
Age
Language that includes age bias can be directed toward older or younger people. Descriptions of younger people often presume recklessness or inexperience, while those of older people presume frailty or disconnection. The term elderly generally refers to people over sixty-five, but it has connotations of weakness, which is not accurate because there are plenty of people over sixty-five who are stronger and more athletic than people in their twenties and thirties. Even though it is generic, older people does not really have negative implications. More specific words that describe groups of older people include grandmothers/grandfathers (even though they can be fairly young too), retirees, or people over sixty-five (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 2019). Referring to people over the age of eighteen as boys or girls is not typically viewed as appropriate.
Sexual Orientation
Discussions of sexual and affectional orientation range from everyday conversations to contentious political and personal debates. The negative stereotypes that have been associated with homosexuality, including deviance, mental illness, and criminal behavior, continue to influence our language use (American Psychological Association, 2019). Terminology related to gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) people can be confusing, so let’s spend some time raise our awareness about preferred labels. First, sexual orientation is the term preferred to sexual preference. Preference suggests a voluntary choice, as in someone has a preference for cheddar or American cheese, which doesn’t reflect the experience of most GLB people or research findings that show sexuality is more complex. You may also see affectional orientation included with sexual orientation because it acknowledges that GLB relationships, like heterosexual relationships, are about intimacy and closeness (affection) that is not just sexually based. Most people also prefer the labels gay, lesbian, or bisexual to homosexual, which is clinical and does not so much refer to an identity as a sex act.
Ability
People with disabilities make up a diverse group that has increasingly come to be viewed as a cultural/social identity group. People without disabilities are often referred to as able-bodied. As with sexual orientation, comparing people with disabilities to “normal” people implies that there is an agreed-on definition of what “normal” is and that people with disabilities are “abnormal.” Disability is also preferred to the word handicap. Just because someone is disabled does not mean he or she is also handicapped. The environment around them rather than their disability often handicaps people with disabilities (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 2019). Ignoring the environment as the source of a handicap and placing it on the person fits into a pattern of reducing people with disabilities to their disability—for example, calling someone a paraplegic instead of a person with paraplegia. In many cases, as with sexual orientation, race, age, and gender, verbally marking a person as disabled is not relevant and does not need spotlighting. Language used in conjunction with disabilities also tends to portray people as victims of their disability and paint pictures of their lives as gloomy, dreadful, or painful. Such descriptors are often generalizations or completely inaccurate.
References
Abram, D. (1997). Spell of the sensuous: Perception and language in a more-than-human world. Vintage Books.
Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (2006). Forbidden words: Taboo and the censoring of language. Cambridge University Press.
American Psychological Association. (2019). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association 7th ed.). American Psychological Association.
American Psychological Association. (2019). Supplemental resources. https://apastyle.apa.org/products/supplemental-resources
Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). Hill and Wang.
Baruch, Y., & Jenkins, S. (2007). Swearing at work and permissive leadership culture: When anti-social becomes social and incivility is acceptable. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28(6), 492–507. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730710780958
Brown, G. A. (2006). Explaining. In O. Hargie (Ed.),The handbook of communication skills. Routledge.
Crystal, D. (2005). How language works: How babies babble, words change meaning, and languages live or die. Overlook Press.
Dindia, K. (1987). The effect of sex of subject and sex of partner on interruptions. Human Communication Research, 13(3), 345-371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1987.tb00109.x
Dindia, K., & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.106
Haney, W. V. (1992). Communication and Interpersonal relations: Text and cases. Pennsylvania State University Press.
Hargie, O. (2011). Skilled interpersonal interaction: Research, theory, and practice. Routledge.
Hayakawa, S. I., & Hayakawa, A. R. (1990). Language in thought and action (5th ed.). Harcourt Brace.
Holocaust and Human Rights Education Center. (n.d.). Lesson 4: 1939–1942, Persecution and segregation. Retrieved November 11, 2021 from https://hhrecny.app.neoncrm.com/np/clients/hhrecny/product.jsp?product=26&
McCornack, S. (2007). Reflect and relate: An introduction to interpersonal communication. Bedford/St Martin’s.
McKay, M., Davis, M., & Fanning, P. (1995). Messages: Communication skills book (2nd ed.). New Harbinger Publications.
Miller, R. S. (2001). Breaches of propriety. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Behaving badly: Aversive behaviors in interpersonal relationships (pp. 29–58). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10365-002
National Communication Association. (2017). NCA credo for ethical communication. Retrieved November 12, 2021 from https://www.natcom.org/sites/default/files/Public_Statement_Credo_for_Ethical_Communication_2017.pdf
Ogden, C.K., & Richards, I.A. (1923). The meaning of meaning. Harcourt, Brace.
Olbricht, T. H. (1968). Informative speaking. Scott, Foresman.
Yaguello, M. (1998). Language through the looking glass: Exploring language and linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Figures
Figure 4.1: Triangle of meaning. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0.
Figure 4.2: Image of little boy playing soccer and cheering. Laura Rincon. 2023. CC by Pexels.
Figure 4.2: “Google” is a neologism; the term went from being just a noun to both a noun and a verb. Nathana Rebouças. 2020. Unsplash license. https://unsplash.com/photos/O5v8heKY4cI
Figure 4.3: Example of a supportive message. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0.
Figure 4.4: Example of an unsupportive message. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0.
Figure 4.5: Ladder of abstraction. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0. Adapted under fair use from S. I. Hayakawa and Alan R. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 5th ed. (San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace, 1990), 85.
Figure 4.6: Common types of cultural bias. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0.
Introduction
What do you do when you perceive a disagreement with your partner? Have you ever attempted to confront a family member about an important issue, only to have them shift the topic or joke it off? While this type of encounter is highly frustrating, it is normal. In this chapter we'll discuss interpersonal conflict, a perceived or expressed disagreement between two or more interdependent parties. Interpersonal conflict is a natural part of human interaction, as conflict can arise from differences in opinions, miscommunication, or perceived threats to one's identity or goals. While many people view conflict as negative, it is an essential aspect of communication that, when managed effectively, can lead to stronger relationships, deeper understanding, and creative problem-solving. In this chapter we'll explore common approaches to interpersonal conflict, the role of emotions, and strategies for resolving conflicts constructively to foster healthier and more productive relationships.
8.1 Understanding Conflict
The term “conflict” is actually very difficult to pin down. We could have an entire chapter where we just examined various definitions of the term. Simplistically, conflict is an interactive process occurring when conscious beings (individuals or groups) have opposing or incompatible actions, beliefs, goals, ideas, motives, needs, objectives, obligations resources and/or values. First, conflict is interactive and inherently communicative. Second, two or more people or even groups of people who can think must be involved. Lastly, there are a whole range of different areas where people can have opposing or incompatible opinions. For this generic definition, we provided a laundry list of different types of incompatibility that can exist between two or more individuals or groups. Is this list completely exhaustive? No. But we provided this list as a way of thinking about the more common types of issues that are raised when people engage in conflict. From this perspective, everything from a minor disagreement to a knock-down, drag-out fight would classify as a conflict.
The rest of this section is going to explore the nature of conflict and its importance in communication. To do this, we’ll break down the definition of conflict. Then we'll discuss two different perspectives on conflict (disruption vs. normalcy). Lastly, we’ll discuss the positive and negative functions of conflict.
8.1.1 Defining Interpersonal Conflict
According to Cahn and Abigail (2014), interpersonal conflict requires four factors to be present:
- the conflict parties are interdependent,
- they have the perception that they seek incompatible goals or outcomes or they favor incompatible means to the same ends,
- the perceived incompatibility has the potential to adversely affect the relationship leaving emotional residues if not addressed, and
- there is a sense of urgency about the need to resolve the difference.
Let’s look at each of these parts of interpersonal conflict separately.
People are Interdependent
According to Cahn and Abigail, “interdependence occurs when those involved in a relationship characterize it as continuous and important, making it worth the effort to maintain” (Cahn & Abigail, 2014). From this perspective, interpersonal conflict occurs when we are in some kind of relationship with another person. For example, it could be a relationship with a parent/guardian, a child, a coworker, a boss, a spouse, etc. In each of these interpersonal relationships, we generally see ourselves as having long-term relationships with these people that we want to succeed. Notice, though, that if you’re arguing with a random person on a subway, that will not fall into this definition because of the interdependence factor. We may have disagreements and arguments with all kinds of strangers, but those don’t rise to the level of interpersonal conflicts.
People Perceive Differing Goals/Outcomes of Means to the Same Ends
An incompatible goal occurs when two people want different things. For example, imagine you and your best friend are thinking about going to the movies. They want to see a big-budget superhero film, and you’re more in the mood for an independent artsy film. In this case, you have pretty incompatible goals (movie choices). You can also have incompatible means to reach the same end. Incompatible means, in this case, “occur when we want to achieve the same goal but differ in how we should do so” (Cahn & Abigail, 2014). For example, you and your best friend agree on going to the same movie, but not about at which theatre you should see the film.
Conflict Can Negatively Affect the Relationship if Not Addressed
Next, interpersonal conflicts can lead to very negative outcomes if the conflicts are not managed effectively. Here are some examples of conflicts that are not managed effectively:
- One partner dominates the conflict, and the other partner caves-in.
- One partner yells or belittles the other partner.
- One partner uses half-truths or lies to get her/his/their way during the conflict.
- Both partners only want to get their way at all costs.
- One partner refuses to engage in conflict.
Again, this is a sample laundry list of some of the ways where conflict can be mismanaged. When conflict is mismanaged, one or both partners can start to have less affinity for the other partner, which can lead to a decreasing in liking, decreased caring about the relational partner, increased desire to exit the relationship, increased relational apathy, increased revenge-seeking behavior, etc. All of these negative outcomes could ultimately lead to conflicts becoming increasingly more aggressive (both active and passive) or just outright conflict avoidance. We’ll look at both of these later in the chapter.
Some Sense of Urgency to Resolve Conflict
Lastly, there must be some sense of urgency to resolve the conflict within the relationship. The conflict gets to the point where it must receive attention, and a decision must be made or an outcome decided upon, or else. If a conflict reaches the point where it’s not solved, then the conflict could become more problematic and negative if it’s not dealt with urgently.
Now, some people let conflicts stir and rise over many years that can eventually boil over, but these types of conflicts when they arise generally have some other kind of underlying conflict that is causing the sudden explosion. For example, imagine your spouse has a particularly quirky habit. For the most part, you ignore this habit and may even make a joke about the habit. Finally, one day you just explode and demand the habit must change. Now, it’s possible that you let this conflict build for so long that it finally explodes. It’s kind of like a geyser. According to Yellowstone National Park (2015), here’s how a geyser works:
The looping chambers trap steam from the hot water. Escaped bubbles from trapped steam heat the water column to the boiling point. When the pressure from the trapped steam builds enough, it blasts, releasing the pressure. As the entire water column boils out of the ground, more than half the volume is this steam. The eruption stops when the water cools below the boiling point.
In the same way, sometimes people let irritations or underlying conflict percolate inside of them until they reach a boiling point, which leads to the eventual release of pressure in the form of a sudden, out of nowhere conflict. In this case, even though the conflict has been building for some time, the eventual desire to make this conflict known to the other person does cause an immediate sense of urgency for the conflict to be solved.
8.1.2 Two Perspectives on Conflict
As with most areas of interpersonal communication, no single perspective exists in the field related to interpersonal conflict. There are generally two very different perspectives that one can take (see Simons, 1972). On the one hand, you had scholars who see conflict as a disruption in a normal working system, which should be avoided. On the other hand, some scholars view conflict as a normal part of human relationships. Let’s look at each of these in this section.
Disruptions in Normal Workings of a System
The first major perspective on conflict views it as inherently disruptive and potentially harmful to relationships and social harmony. This perspective, often aligned with collectivistic cultures, emphasizes the importance of group cohesion, maintaining relationships, and avoiding direct confrontation. According to McCroskey and Wheeless (1976), conflict in interpersonal relationships is seen as the breakdown of affinity—the erosion of mutual attraction, the perception of incompatibility, and the development of disrespect between individuals. From this viewpoint, conflict is not simply a disagreement over an issue but a deeper disruption of social bonds, often leading to negative emotions and damaged relationships. Collectivistic cultures, which prioritize harmony and interdependence, tend to view conflict as something to be avoided whenever possible, as it threatens the stability and well-being of the group.
From this perspective, conflict is often managed through indirect communication, compromise, or avoidance, with an emphasis on preserving relationships over winning the argument. When conflict escalates and is allowed to fester, it is compared to a wound that worsens without care. While disagreements can be addressed and resolved in a way that allows both parties to save face, conflicts are seen as far more damaging and may require significant effort to manage without causing lasting harm to the relationship.
Normal Part of Human Communication
The second perspective of the concept of conflict is very different from the first one. According to this perspective, conflict is a normal and an inevitable part of life, essential for the growth of relationships (Cahn & Abigail, 2014). From this viewpoint, conflict is a natural aspect of human interaction, where individuals with different perspectives and needs come together to negotiate, collaborate, and find solutions. In fact, one could ask whether it is possible for relationships to grow without conflict. Successfully managing and resolving conflicts can make relationships healthier, fostering mutual understanding and trust.
In this approach, conflict is seen as neither inherently good nor bad, but rather a tool that can be used for constructive or destructive purposes, depending on how it is handled. When managed well, conflict can offer numerous benefits to individuals and relationships. It helps people find common ground, develop better conflict management skills for the future, and gain a deeper understanding of one another. Conflict often leads to creative solutions to problems, providing opportunities for open and honest discussions that build trust. Moreover, navigating conflict encourages personal growth, improves communication skills, and enhances emotional intelligence. It also allows individuals to set healthy boundaries, assert their needs, and practice effective communication strategies.
When viewed from this perspective, conflict is an invaluable resource in relationships, offering opportunities for learning, development, and connection. However, for conflict to be truly beneficial, both parties must engage in prosocial conflict management strategies—working together to ensure the conflict leads to positive outcomes for all involved.
8.2 Power and Influence
One of the primary reasons we engage in a variety of interpersonal relationships over our lifetimes is to influence others. We live in a world where we constantly need to accomplish a variety of goals, so being able to get others to jump on board with our goals is a very important part of social survival. As such, we define influence when an individual or group of people alters another person’s thinking, feelings, and/or behaviors through accidental, expressive, or rhetorical communication (Wrench, McCrosky, & Richmond, 2008). Notice this definition of influence is one that focuses on the importance of communication within the interaction. Within this definition, we discuss three specific types of communication: unintentional, expressive, or rhetorical.
First, we have unintentional communication, or when we send messages to another person without realizing those messages are being sent. Imagine you are walking through your campus’ food court and notice a table set up for a specific charity. A person who we really respect is hanging out at the table laughing and smiling, so you decide to donate a dollar to the charity. The person who was just hanging out at the table influenced your decision to donate. They could have just been talking to another friend and may not have even really been a supporter of the charity, but their presence was enough to influence your donation. At the same time, we often influence others to think, feel, and behave in ways they wouldn’t have unconsciously. A smile, a frown, a head nod, or eye eversion can all be nonverbal indicators to other people, which could influence them.
The second type of communication we can have is expressive or emotionally-based communication. Our emotional states can often influence other people. If we are happy, others can become happy, and if we are sad, others may avoid us altogether. Maybe you’ve walked into a room and seen someone crying, so you ask, “Are you OK?” Instead of responding, the person just turns and glowers at you, so you turn around and leave. With just one look, this person influenced your behavior.
The final type of communication, rhetorical communication, involves purposefully creating and sending messages to another person in the hopes of altering another person’s thinking, feelings, and/or behaviors. Unintentional communication is not planned. Expressive communication is often not conscious at all. However, rhetorical communication is purposeful. When we are using rhetorical communication to influence another person(s), we know that we are trying to influence that person(s).
8.2.1 French & Raven’s Five Bases of Power
When you hear the word “power,” what comes to mind? Maybe you think of a powerful person like a Superhero or the leader of your country. For social scientists, we use the word “power” in a very specific way. Power is the degree that a social agent (A) has the ability to get another person(s) (P) to alter their thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors. First, you have a social agent (A), which can come in a variety of different forms: another person, a role someone embodies, a group rule or norm, or a group or part of a group (French & Raven, 1959). Next, we have the person(s) who is being influenced by the goal to be a specific change in thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors. When we discussed influence above, we talked about it in terms of communication: accidental, expressive, and rhetorical. When we deal with power, we are only dealing in the realm of rhetorical communication because the person exerting power over another person is consciously goal-directed.
Power does not always operate in the same way. Let’s examine five different bases of power.
- Informational: Informational power refers to a social agent’s ability to bring about a change in thought, feeling, and/or behavior through information. For example, since you initially started school, teachers have had informational power over you. They have provided you with a range of information on history, science, grammar, art, etc. that shape how you think (what constitutes history?), feel (what does it mean to be aesthetically pleasing?), and behave (how do you properly mix chemicals in a lab?). In some ways, informational power is very strong, because it’s often the first form of power with which we come into contact. In fact, when you are taught how to think, feel, and/or behave, this change “now continues without the target necessarily referring to, or even remembering, the [influencer] as being the agent of change” (Raven, 2008).
- Coercive and Reward: Coercive power, is the ability to punish an individual who does not comply with one’s influencing attempts. On the other end of the spectrum, we have reward power (3rd base of power), which is the ability to offer an individual rewards for complying with one’s influencing attempts. We talk about these two bases of power together because they are two sides of the same coin. Furthermore, the same problems with this type of power apply equally to both. Influence can happen if you punish or reward someone; however, as soon as you take away that punishment or reward, the thoughts, feelings, and/or behavior will reverse back to its initial state. Hence, we refer to both coercive and reward power as attempts to get someone to comply with influence, because this is the highest level of influence one can hope to achieve with these two forms of power.
- Legitimate: Legitimate power, is influence that occurs because a person (P) believes that the social agent (A) has a valid right to influence P, and P has an obligation to accept A’s attempt to influence P’s thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors. French and Raven argued that there were two common forms of legitimate power: cultural and structural. Cultural legitimate power occurs when a change agent is viewed as having the right to influence others because of their role in the culture. For example, in some cultures, the elderly may have a stronger right to influence than younger members of that culture. Structural legitimate power, on the other hand, occurs because someone fulfills a specific position within the social hierarchy. For example, your boss may have the legitimate right to influence your thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors in the workplace because they are above you in the organizational hierarchy (French & Raven, 1959).
- Expert: Expert power, is the power we give an individual to influence us because of their perceived knowledge. For example, we often give our physicians the ability to influence our behavior (e.g., eat right, exercise, take medication, etc.) because we view these individuals as having specialized knowledge. However, this type of influence only is effective if P believes A is an expert, P trusts A, and P believes that A is telling the truth. One problem we often face in the 21st Century involves the conceptualization of the word “expert.” Many people in today’s world can be perceived as “experts” just because they write a book, have a talk show, were on a reality TV show, or are seen on news programs (Bauerlein, 2008). Many of these so-called “experts” may have no reasonable skill or knowledge but they can be trumpeted as experts. One of the problems with the Internet is the fundamental flaw that anyone can put information online with only an opinion and no actual facts. Additionally, we often engage in debates about “facts” because we have different talking heads telling us different information. Historically, expert power was always a very strong form of power, but there is growing concern that we are losing expertise and knowledge to unsubstantiated opinions and rumor mongering.
- Referent: Referent power, is a social agent’s ability to influence another person because P wants to be associated with A. Ultimately, referent power is about relationship building and the desire for a relationship. If A is a person P finds attractive, then P will do whatever they need to do to become associated with A. If A belongs to a group, then P will want to join that group. Ultimately, this relationship exists because P wants to think, feel, and behave as A does. For example, if A decides that he likes modern art, then P will also decide to like modern art. If A has a very strong work ethic in the workplace, then P will adopt a strong work ethic in the workplace as well. Often A has no idea of the influence they are having over P. Ultimately, the stronger P desires to be associated with A, the more referent power A has over P.
Influence and Power
By now, you may be wondering about the relationship between influence and power. Research has examined the relationship between the three levels of influence and the six bases of power. Coercive, reward, and legitimate power only influence people at the compliance level. Whereas, informational, expert, and referent power have been shown to influence people at all three levels of influence: compliance, identification, and internalization (Wrench, McCrosky, & Richmond, 2008). When you think about your own interpersonal influencing goals, you really need to consider what level of influence you desire a person’s change in thoughts, feelings, and/or behaviors to be. If your goal is just to get the change quickly, then using coercive, reward, and legitimate power may be the best route. If, however, you want to ensure long-term influence, then using informational, expert, and referent power are probably the best routes to use.
8.3 Emotions and Feelings
Emotions and feelings play a significant role in shaping how interpersonal conflicts unfold and are managed. When individuals experience strong emotions, such as anger, frustration, or hurt, they may react impulsively, escalating the conflict or making it harder to find common ground. Additionally, emotions can cloud judgment, leading to misinterpretations of others' intentions and heightened defensiveness. On the other hand, being aware of and managing emotions can help individuals approach conflict with greater empathy, patience, and clarity, enabling more productive and respectful communication.
As we discuss the effects of our emotions and feelings on conflicts, it’s important to differentiate between emotions and feelings. Emotions are our reactions to stimuli in the outside environment. Emotions, therefore, can be objectively measured by blood flow, brain activity, and nonverbal reactions to things. Feelings, on the other hand, are the responses to thoughts and interpretations given to emotions based on experiences, memory, expectations, and personality. So, there is an inherent relationship between emotions and feelings, but we do differentiate between them. Table 8.1 breaks down the differences between the two concepts.
| © John W. Voris, CEO of Authentic Systems, www.authentic-systems.com Reprinted here with permission. |
|
| Feelings: | Emotions: |
|---|---|
| Feelings tell us “how to live.” | Emotions tell us what we “like” and “dislike.” |
| Feelings state: “There is a right and wrong way to be.“ | Emotions state: “There are good and bad actions.” |
| Feelings state: “your emotions matter.” | Emotions state: “The external world matters.” |
| Feelings establish our long-term attitude toward reality. | Emotions establish our initial attitude toward reality. |
| Feelings alert us to anticipated dangers and prepares us for action. | Emotions alert us to immediate dangers and prepare us for action. |
| Feelings ensure long-term survival of self (body and mind). | Emotions ensure immediate survival of self (body and mind). |
| Feelings are Low-key but Sustainable. | Emotions are Intense but Temporary. |
| Happiness: is a feeling. | Joy: is an emotion. |
| Worry: is a feeling. | Fear: is an emotion. |
| Contentment: is a feeling. | Enthusiasm: is an emotion. |
| Bitterness: is a feeling. | Anger: is an emotion. |
| Love: is a feeling. | Lust: is an emotion. |
| Depression: is a feeling. | Sadness: is an emotion. |
Table 8.1 The Differences of Emotions and Feelings
It’s important to understand that we are all allowed to be emotional beings. Being emotional is an inherent part of being a human. For this reason, it’s important to avoid phrases like “don’t feel that way” or “they have no right to feel that way.” Again, our emotions are our emotions, and, when we negate someone else’s emotions, we are negating that person as an individual and taking away their right to emotional responses.
We all have the ability to alter our emotions. Altering our emotional states (in a proactive way) is how we get through life. Maybe you just broke up with someone, and listening to music helps you work through the grief you are experiencing to get to a better place. For others, they need to openly communicate about how they are feeling in an effort to process and work through emotions. The worst thing a person can do is attempt to deny that the emotion exists.
- Think of this like a balloon. With each breath of air you blow into the balloon, you are bottling up more and more emotions. Eventually, that balloon will get to a point where it cannot handle any more air in it before it explodes. Humans can be the same way with emotions when we bottle them up inside. The final breath of air in our emotional balloon doesn’t have to be big or intense. However, it can still cause tremendous emotional outpouring that is often very damaging to the person and their interpersonal relationships with others.
Research has demonstrated that how we handle our negative emotions during conflicts can affect the rate of de-escalations and mediation (Bloch, Haase, & Levenson, 2014).
8.3.1Expressing Feelings: The Problem of You Statements
According to Marshall Rosenberg, the creator of nonviolent communication, "You" statements often reflect moralistic judgments where we imply that the other person is wrong or bad based on their behavior (2003). When we make such judgments, we deny responsibility for our own thoughts, feelings, and actions. It's important to remember that no one can "make" us feel a certain way—we choose our emotional responses. When we shift blame onto others and fail to take responsibility for our emotions, we create a cycle of defensiveness, making it harder to meet our needs in the relationship. Behind every negative emotion lies an unmet need, and blaming others only perpetuates the problem. For example, someone might say, "If you go hang out with your friends tonight, I'll hurt myself and it will be your fault." In this case, the individual is expressing disapproval and using blame to manipulate their partner's actions, which can lead to unhealthy dynamics where neither person's needs are truly met.
Expressing emotions, however, is only part of the process. It's also important to clearly identify the underlying need. When we talk about "needs," we are not just referring to basic physical needs, as described in Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Instead, relational needs are often less tangible but equally important, such as the need for autonomy and connection, as outlined in the Table below (adapted from Rosenberg, 2003). When these needs go unmet, we naturally reach out to get them fulfilled. Effective communication about emotions involves not only expressing feelings but also identifying the unmet need behind them. For example, instead of blaming or accusing, one could say, "I feel hurt when you yell at me because I need to feel respected."
Notice that there isn’t judgment associated with identifying one’s needs.
| Area | Need |
|---|---|
| Autonomy | to choose one’s dreams, goals, values |
| to choose one’s plan for fulfilling one’s dreams, goals, values | |
| Spiritual Communion | beauty, harmony |
| inspiration | |
| order, peace | |
| Physical Nurturance | air |
| food, water | |
| movement, exercise | |
| protection from life-threatening forms of life: viruses, bacteria, insects, predatory animals | |
| rest | |
| shelter | |
| Integrity | authenticity |
| creativity | |
| meaning, self-worth | |
| Interdependence | acceptance, understanding, empathy |
| appreciation, consideration | |
| closeness, love, community, warmth | |
| reassurance | |
| respect, trust, honesty | |
| Source: Adapted from Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life 2nd Ed by Dr. Marshall B. Rosenberg, 2003–published by PuddleDancer Press and Used with Permission. For more information visit www.CNVC.org and www.NonviolentCommunication.com |
|
Table 8.2 Needs
8.3.2Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence(EQ) is an individual’s appraisal and expression of their emotions and the emotions of others in a manner that enhances thought, living, and communicative interactions. Furthermore, we learned that EQ is built by four distinct emotional processes: perceiving, understanding, managing, and using emotions (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Take a minute and complete Table 8.3, which is a simple 20-item questionnaire designed to help you evaluate your own EQ.
Read the following questions and select the answer that corresponds with your perception. Do not be concerned if some of the items appear similar. Please use the scale below to rate the degree to which each statement applies to you.
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
_____1. I am aware of my emotions as I experience them.
_____2. I easily recognize my emotions.
_____3. I can tell how others are feeling simply by watching their body movements.
_____4. I can tell how others are feeling by listening to their voices.
_____5. When I look at people’s faces, I generally know how they are feeling.
_____6. When my emotions change, I know why.
_____7. I understand that my emotional state is rarely comprised of one single emotion.
_____8. When I am experiencing an emotion, I have no problem easily labeling that emotion.
_____9. It’s completely possible to experience two opposite emotions at the same time (e.g., love & hate; awe & fear; joy & sadness, etc.).
_____10. I can generally tell when my emotional state is shifting from one emotion to another.
_____11. I don’t let my emotions get the best of me.
_____12. I have control over my own emotions.
_____13. I can analyze my emotions and determine if they are reasonable or not.
_____14. I can engage or detach from an emotion depending on whether I find it informative or useful.
_____15. When I’m feeling sad, I know how to seek out activities that will make me happy.
_____16. I can create situations that will cause others to experience specific emotions.
_____17. I can use my understanding of emotions to have more productive interactions with others.
_____18. I know how to make other people happy or sad.
_____19. I often lift people’s spirits when they are feeling down.
_____20. I know how to generate negative emotions and enhance pleasant ones in my interactions with others.
Scoring:
| Perceiving Emotions | Add scores for items 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 | = | ||
| Understanding Emotions | Add scores for items 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10 | = | ||
| Managing Emotions | Add scores for items 11, 12, 13, 14, & 15 | = | ||
| Using Emotions | Add scores for items 16, 17, 18, 19, & 20 | = |
Interpreting Your Scores:
Each of the four parts of the EQ Model can have a range of 5 to 25. Scores under 11 represent low levels of EQ for each aspect. Scores between 12 and 18 represent average levels of EQ. Scores 19 and higher represent high levels of EQ.
Table 8.3 Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire
Emotional intelligence plays a crucial role in effectively handling conflict, as it involves the ability to recognize, understand, and manage both your own emotions and those of others. Individuals with high emotional intelligence are better equipped to navigate the emotional landscape of conflict, allowing them to remain calm, empathetic, and thoughtful in tense situations. They can identify underlying emotions that fuel disagreements, such as frustration, fear, or hurt, and respond in ways that de-escalate tension rather than inflame it. Emotional intelligence also helps people communicate more clearly and compassionately, fostering open dialogue and mutual understanding. By managing emotions constructively, individuals are more likely to resolve conflicts in ways that strengthen relationships, build trust, and promote long-term collaboration. Ultimately, emotional intelligence allows people to approach conflict not as a threat, but as an opportunity for growth and deeper connection.
Next, let's discuss common communication strategies for managing conflict.
8.4 Conflict Management Strategies
Many researchers have attempted to understand how humans handle conflict with one another. You may see classifications of conflict based on whether participants are Integrative or distributive ; and how assertive and cooperative they are. All of these approaches are valid to understanding conflict. However, in this textbook we have chosen to simplify conflict management into 3 primary strategies known as the ABCs.
8.4.1 ABC’s of Conflict
So how do you typically approach a conflict situation? Go ahead and take a moment to complete the questionnaire in Table 8.4 to identify some of your own common patterns.
Instructions: Read the following questions and select the answer that corresponds with how you typically behave when engaged in conflict with another person. Do not be concerned if some of the items appear similar. Please use the scale below to rate the degree to which each statement applies to you.
| Strongly Disagree | Disagree | Neutral | Agree | Strongly Agree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
When I start to engage in a conflict, I _______________
_____1. Keep the conflict to myself to avoid rocking the boat.
_____2. Do my best to win.
_____3. Try to find a solution that works for everyone.
_____4. Do my best to stay away from disagreements that arise.
_____5. Create a strategy to ensure my successful outcome.
_____6. Try to find a solution that is beneficial for those involved.
_____7. Avoid the individual with whom I’m having the conflict.
_____8. Won’t back down unless I get what I want.
_____9. Collaborate with others to find an outcome OK for everyone.
_____10. Leave the room to avoid dealing with the issue.
_____11. Take no prisoners.
_____12. Find solutions that satisfy everyone’s expectations.
_____13. Shut down and shut up in order to get it over with as quickly as possible.
_____14. See it as an opportunity to get what I want.
_____15. Try to integrate everyone’s ideas to come up with the best solution for everyone.
_____16. Keep my disagreements to myself.
_____17. Don’t let up until I win.
_____18. Openly raise everyone’s concerns to ensure the best outcome possible.
Scoring:
Avoiders
Add Items 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16______
Battlers
Add Items 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17______
Collaborators
Add Items 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18______
Interpretation: Scores for each subscale should range from 6 to 30. Scores under 14 are considered low, scores 15 to 23 are considered moderate, and scores over 24 are considered high.
Table 8.4 ABC’s of Conflict Management
Avoiders
Conflict avoidance is the practice of deliberately steering clear of addressing disagreements or confrontations in personal or professional relationships. People often avoid conflict because they fear negative outcomes, such as damaged relationships, emotional discomfort, or escalated tension. Some individuals may also avoid conflict due to a desire to maintain harmony, low self-confidence, or previous experiences where conflict led to undesirable consequences. While conflict avoidance can offer short-term benefits, like reducing immediate stress or preserving peace, it has significant drawbacks. On the positive side, avoiding conflict can sometimes prevent unnecessary arguments or allow time for emotions to cool down. However, consistently avoiding conflict often leads to unresolved issues, increased frustration, and weakened relationships over time. When people avoid addressing problems, underlying tensions may fester, leading to larger, more difficult conflicts in the future. Ultimately, while avoidance might seem easier in the moment, it can prevent open communication and inhibit healthy problem-solving.
Table 8.4 provides a list of common tactics used by avoiders in conflict (Sillars, Coletti, Parry, & Rogers, 1982).
| Conflict Management Tactic | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Simple Denial | Statements that deny the conflict. | “No, I’m perfectly fine.” |
| Extended Denial | Statements that deny conflict with a short justification. | “No, I’m perfectly fine. I just had a long night.” |
| Underresponsiveness | Statements that deny the conflict and then pose a question to the conflict partner. | “I don’t know why you are upset, did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?” |
| Topic Shifting | Statements that shift the interaction away from the conflict. | “Sorry to hear that. Did you hear about the mall opening?” |
| Topic Avoidance | Statements designed to clearly stop the conflict. | “I don’t want to deal with this right now.” |
| Abstractness | Statements designed to shift a conflict from concrete factors to more abstract ones. | “Yes, I know I’m late. But what is time really except a construction of humans to force conformity.” |
| Semantic Focus | Statements focused on the denotative and connotative definitions of words. | “So, what do you mean by the word ‘sex’?” |
| Process Focus | Statements focused on the “appropriate” procedures for handling conflict. | “I refuse to talk to you when you are angry.” |
| Joking | Humorous statements designed to derail conflict. | “That’s about as useless as a football bat.” |
| Ambivalence | Statements designed to indicate a lack of caring. | “Whatever!” “Just do what you want.” |
| Pessimism | Statements that devalue the purpose of conflict. | “What’s the point of fighting over this? Neither of us are changing our minds.” |
| Evasion | Statements designed to shift the focus of the conflict. | “I hear the Joneses down the street have that problem, not us.” |
| Stalling | Statements designed to shift the conflict to another time. | “I don’t have time to talk about this right now.” |
| Irrelevant Remark | Statements that have nothing to do with the conflict. | “I never knew the wallpaper in here had flowers on it.” |
Table 8.4 Avoidant Conflict Management Strategies
Battlers
"Battlers," also known as aggressive or competitive communicators, approach conflict with a win-at-all-costs mindset, viewing disagreements as a zero-sum game where one side emerges victorious while the other loses. Battlers engage in what is called distributive conflict, where their primary focus is on achieving their own goals, often without regard to the feelings or needs of others. This approach to conflict can be highly antagonistic and personalistic, as battlers tend to target the individual rather than just the issue at hand. While this style can sometimes lead to short-term wins or assertively defending one's position, it often causes significant relational damage, fostering resentment and hostility. The aggressive nature of battlers may lead to burned bridges and strained communication in the long run. On the positive side, battlers can be decisive, willing to take charge and tackle difficult situations head-on. However, the downside is that their lack of concern for collaboration or compromise can result in broken trust, weakened relationships, and an inability to resolve conflicts in a way that benefits both parties (Sillars et al., 1982).
Table 8.5 provides a list of common tactics used by battlers in conflict (Sillars et al., 1982).
| Conflict Management Tactic | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Faulting | Statements that verbally criticize a partner. | “Wow, I can’t believe you are so dense at times.” |
| Rejection | Statements that express antagonistic disagreement. | “That is such a dumb idea.” |
| Hostile Questioning | Questions designed to fault a partner. | “Who died and made you king?” |
| Hostile Joking | Humorous statements designed to attack a partner. | “I do believe a village has lost its idiot.” |
| Presumptive Attribution | Statements designed to point the meaning or origin of the conflict to another source. | “You just think that because your father keeps telling you that.” |
| Avoiding Responsibility | Statements that deny fault. | “Not my fault, not my problem.” |
| Prescription | Statements that describe a specific change to another’s behavior. | “You know, if you’d just stop yelling, maybe people would take you seriously.” |
| Threat | Statements designed to inform a partner of a future punishment. | “You either tell your mother we’re not coming, or I’m getting a divorce attorney.” |
| Blame | Statements that lay culpability for a problem on a partner. | “It’s your fault we got ourselves in this mess in the first place.” |
| Shouting | Statements delivered in a manner with an increased volume. | “DAMMIT! GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER!” |
| Sarcasm | Statements involving the use of irony to convey contempt, mock, insult, or wound another person. | "The trouble with you is that you lack the power of conversation but not the power of speech." |
Table 8.5 Battling Conflict Management Strategies
Collaborators
Collaborators approach conflict with a focus on finding mutually beneficial solutions, aiming for outcomes where both sides feel satisfied with the resolution. They engage in prosocial communication behaviors, emphasizing open dialogue, active listening, and problem-solving to ensure that all parties' needs are considered. Collaborators may either work toward a fully cooperative solution or, when necessary, compromise, understanding that each side may need to give up something to reach a fair and balanced outcome. While this approach is often ideal, it can be difficult to achieve, especially when one party is unwilling to collaborate or is more focused on "winning" the conflict. In such cases, collaborative strategies may not be effective because successful collaboration requires both parties to engage in good faith. Despite these challenges, collaboration is typically seen as a constructive approach to conflict, as it strengthens relationships, builds trust, and encourages long-term cooperation by valuing the perspectives and needs of everyone involved.
Table 8.6 provides a list of common tactics used by collaborators in conflict (Sillars et al., 1982).
| Conflict Management Tactic | Definition | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Descriptive Acts | Statements that describe obvious events or factors. | “Last time your sister babysat our kids, she yelled at them.” |
| Qualification | Statements that explicitly explain the conflict. | “I am upset because you didn’t come home last night.” |
| Disclosure | Statements that disclose one’s thoughts and feelings in a non-judgmental way. | “I get really worried when you don’t call and let me know where you are.” |
| Soliciting Disclosure | Questions that ask another person to disclose their thoughts and feelings. | “How do you feel about what I just said?” |
| Negative Inquiry | Statements allowing for the other person to identify your negative behaviors. | “What is it that I do that makes you yell at me?” |
| Empathy | Statements that indicate you understand and relate to the other person’s emotions and experiences. | “I know this isn’t easy for you.” |
| Emphasize Commonalities | Statements that highlight shared goals, aims, and values. | “We both want what’s best for our son.” |
| Accepting Responsibility | Statements acknowledging the part you play within a conflict. | “You’re right. I sometimes let my anger get the best of me.” |
| Initiating Problem-Solving | Statements designed to help the conflict come to a mutually agreed upon solution. | “So let’s brainstorm some ways that will help us solve this.” |
| Concession | Statements designed to give in or yield to a partner’s goals, aims, or values. | “I promise, I will make sure my homework is complete before I watch television.” |
Table 8.6 Collaborative Conflict Management Strategies
Before we conclude this section, we do want to point out that conflict management strategies are often reciprocated by others. If you start a conflict in a highly competitive way, do not be surprised when your conflicting partner mirrors you and starts using distributive conflict management strategies in return. The same is also true for integrative conflict management strategies. When you start using integrative conflict management strategies, you may be able to deescalate a problematic conflict by using integrative conflict management strategies.
8.5 Resolving Conflict Effectively
Cahn and Abigail created a very simple model that can help us to think through a heated conflict situation (2014). They called the model the STLC Conflict Model because it stands for stop, think, listen, and then communicate.
Step 1: Stop
The first thing an individual needs to do when interacting with another person during conflict is to take the time to be present within the conflict itself. Too often, people engaged in a conflict say whatever enters their mind before they’ve really had a chance to process the message and think of the best strategies to use to send that message. Others end up talking past one another during a conflict because they simply are not paying attention to each other and the competing needs within the conflict. Communication problems often occur during conflict because people tend to react to conflict situations when they arise instead of being mindful and present during the conflict itself. For this reason, it’s always important to take a breath during a conflict and first stop.
Sometimes these “time outs” need to be physical. Maybe you need to leave the room and go for a brief walk to calm down, or maybe you just need to get a glass of water. Whatever you need to do, it’s important to take this break. This break takes you out of a “reactive stance into a proactive one” (Cahn & Abigail, 2014).
Step 2: Think
Once you’ve stopped, you now have the ability to really think about what you are communicating. You want to think through the conflict itself. What is the conflict really about? Often people engage in conflicts about superficial items when there are truly much deeper issues that are being avoided. You also want to consider what possible causes led to the conflict and what possible courses of action you think are possible to conclude the conflict. Cahn and Abigail argue that there are four possible outcomes that can occur: do nothing, change yourself, change the other person, or change the situation.
- First, you can simply sit back and avoid the conflict. Maybe you’re engaging in a conflict about politics with a family member, and this conflict is actually just going to make everyone mad. For this reason, you opt just to stop the conflict and change topics to avoid making people upset. One of our coauthors was at a funeral when an uncle asked our coauthor about our coauthor’s impression of the current President. Our coauthor’s immediate response was, “Do you really want me to answer that question?” Our coauthor knew that everyone else in the room would completely disagree, so our coauthor knew this was probably a can of worms that just didn’t need to be opened.
- Second, we can change ourselves. Often, we are at fault and start conflicts. We may not even realize how our behavior caused the conflict until we take a step back and really analyze what is happening. When it comes to being at fault, it’s very important to admit that you’ve done wrong. Nothing is worse (and can stoke a conflict more) than when someone refuses to see their part in the conflict.
- Third, we can attempt to change the other person. Let’s face it, changing someone else is easier said than done. Just ask your parents/guardians! All of our parents/guardians have attempted to change our behaviors at one point or another, and changing people is very hard. Even with the powers of punishment and reward, a lot of time change only lasts as long as the punishment or the reward. One of our coauthors was in a constant battle with our coauthors’ parents about thumb sucking as a child. Our coauthor’s parents tried everything to get the thumb sucking to stop. They finally came up with an ingenious plan. They agreed to buy a toy electric saw if their child didn’t engage in thumb sucking for the entire month. Well, for a whole month, no thumb sucking occurred at all. The child got the toy saw, and immediately inserted the thumb back into our coauthor’s mouth. This short story is a great illustration of the problems that can be posed by rewards. Punishment works the same way. As long as people are being punished, they will behave in a specific way. If that punishment is ever taken away, so will the behavior.
- Lastly, we can just change the situation. Having a conflict with your roommates? Move out. Having a conflict with your boss? Find a new job. Having a conflict with a professor? Drop the course. Admittedly, changing the situation is not necessarily the first choice people should take when thinking about possibilities, but often it’s the best decision for long-term happiness. In essence, some conflicts will not be settled between people. When these conflicts arise, you can try and change yourself, hope the other person will change (they probably won’t, though), or just get out of it altogether.
Step 3: Listen
The third step in the STLC model is listen. Humans are not always the best listeners. As we discussed in Chapter 6, active listening is a skill that requires us to pay attention, reflect, and respond to a partner. Unfortunately, during a conflict situation, this is a skill that is desperately needed and often forgotten. When we feel defensive during a conflict, our listening becomes spotty at best because we start to focus on ourselves and protecting ourselves instead of trying to be empathic and seeing the conflict through the other person’s eyes.
One mistake some people make is to think they’re listening, but in reality, they’re listening for flaws in the other person’s argument (known as defensive listening). We often use this type of selective listening as a way to devalue the other person’s stance. In essence, we will hear one small flaw with what the other person is saying and then use that flaw to demonstrate that obviously everything else must be wrong as well.
The goal of listening must be to suspend your judgment and really attempt to be present enough to accurately interpret the message being sent by the other person. When we listen in this highly empathic way, we are often able to see things from the other person’s point-of-view, which could help us come to a better-negotiated outcome in the long run.
Step 4: Communicate
Lastly, but certainly not least, we communicate with the other person. Notice that Cahn and Abigail (2014) put communication as the last part of the STLC model because it’s the hardest one to do effectively during a conflict if the first three are not done correctly. When we communicate during a conflict, we must be hyper-aware of our nonverbal behavior (eye movement, gestures, posture, etc.). Nothing will kill a message faster than when it’s accompanied by bad nonverbal behavior. For example, rolling one’s eyes while another person is speaking is not an effective way to engage in conflict. One of our coauthors used to work with two women who clearly despised one another. They would never openly say something negative about the other person publicly, but in meetings, one would roll her eyes and make these non-word sounds of disagreement. The other one would just smile, slow her speech, and look in the other woman’s direction. Everyone around the conference table knew exactly what was transpiring, yet no words needed to be uttered at all.
During a conflict, it’s important to be assertive and stand up for your ideas without becoming verbally aggressive. Conversely, you have to be open to someone else’s use of assertiveness as well without having to tolerate verbal aggression. We often end up using mediators to help call people on the carpet when they communicate in a fashion that is verbally aggressive or does not further the conflict itself. As Cahn and Abigail (2014) note, “People who are assertive with one another have the greatest chance of achieving mutual satisfaction and growth in their relationship.”
Key Takeaways
- A conflict occurs when two people perceive differing goals or values, and if the two parties do not reach a solution, the interpersonal relationship could be seriously fractured. There are two general perspectives regarding the nature of conflict. The first perspective sees conflict as a disruption to normal working systems, so conflict is inherently something that is dangerous to relationships and should be avoided. The second perspective sees conflict as a normal, inevitable part of any relationship. From this perspective, conflict is a tool that can either be used constructively or destructively in relationships.
- Both power and emotions have the ability to effect the management and outcome of a conflict interaction.
- Simply put there are three basic forms of conflict management: integrative (collaborators), distributive (battlers), and avoidance (avoiders).
- The STLC method for communication is very helpful when working through conflict with others. Stop and be present within the conflict itself. Think through the real reasons for the conflict and what you want as an outcome for the conflict. Listen to what the other person says and try to understand the conflict from their point-of-view. Communicate in a manner that is assertive, constructive, and aware of your overall message.
References
Bloch, L., Haase, C. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2014). Emotion regulation predicts marital satisfaction: More than a wives’ tale. Emotion, 14(1), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034272
Cahn D. D., & Abigail, R. A. (2014). Managing conflict through communication (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Institute for Social Research.
McCroskey, J. C., & Wheeless, L. R. (1976). An introduction to human communication. Allyn & Bacon.
Raven, B. H. (2008). The bases of power and the power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 8, 1-22.
Rosenberg, M. B. (2003). Nonviolent communication: A language of life (2nd ed.). Puddle Dancer Press.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185-211.
Sillars, A. L., Coletti, S., Parry, D., & Rogers, M. (1982). Coding verbal conflict tactics: Nonverbal and perceptual correlates of the ‘avoidance-competitive-cooperative’ distinction. Human Communication Research, 9(1), 83-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1982.tb00685.x
Simons, H. W. (1972). Persuasion in social conflicts: A critique of prevailing conceptions and a framework for future research. Speech Monographs, 39(4), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637757209375763
Wrench, J. S., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2008). Human communication in everyday life: Explanations and applications. Allyn & Bacon.
Yellowstone National Park Staff. (2015, February 15). Why do geysers erupt? Retrieved from: https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/geysers-erupt
Images
Image1: Avoiders. Upset young Indian couple after conflict. Ketut Subiyanto. 2020. CC BY 4.0.
Image 2: Battlers. Man and Woman wearing brown leather jackets. Vera Arsic. 2018. CC BY 4.0.
Image 3: Collaborate. Photo of women talking while sitting. Fauxels. 2019. CC BY 4.0.
Love is a multidimensional concept that can include several different orientations toward the loved person such as romantic love (attraction based on physical beauty or handsomeness), best friend love, passionate love, unrequited love (love that is not returned), and companionate love (affectionate love and tenderness between people).
Interest in another person and a desire to get to know them better.
Introduction
3.1 Foundations of Culture and Identity
Culture is a complicated word to define, as there are at least six common ways that culture is used in the United States. For the purposes of exploring the communicative aspects of culture, we will define culture as the ongoing negotiation of learned and patterned beliefs, attitudes, values, and behaviors. Unpacking the definition, we can see that culture should not be conceptualized as stable and unchanging. Culture is “negotiated.” It is also dynamic, and cultural changes can be traced and analyzed to better understand why our society is the way it is. The definition also points out that culture is learned, which accounts for the importance of socializing institutions like family, school, peers, and the media. Culture is patterned in that there are recognizable widespread similarities among people within a cultural group. There is also deviation from and resistance to those patterns by individuals and subgroups within a culture, which is why cultural patterns change over time. Last, the definition acknowledges that culture influences our beliefs about what is true and false, our attitudes (including our likes and dislikes), our values regarding what is right and wrong, and our behaviors. It is from these cultural influences that our identities are formed.
Personal, Social, and Cultural Identities
Ask yourself the question “Who am I?” We develop a sense of who we are based on what is reflected back on us from other people. Our parents, friends, teachers, and the media help shape our identities. While this happens from birth, most people in Western societies reach a stage in adolescence where maturing cognitive abilities and increased social awareness lead them to begin to reflect on who they are. This begins a lifelong process of thinking about who we are now, who we were before, and who we will become (Tatum, 2000). Our identities make up an important part of our self-concept and can be broken down into three main categories: personal, social, and cultural identities.
We must avoid the temptation to think of our identities as constant. Instead, our identities are formed through processes that started before we were born. And they will continue after we are gone. Therefore, our identities are not something we achieve or complete. Two related but distinct components of our identities are our personal and social identities (Spreckels & Kotthoff, 2009). Personal identities include the components of self that are primarily intrapersonal and connected to our life experiences. Our social identities are the components of self that are derived from involvement in social groups with which we are interpersonally committed.
For example, we may derive aspects of our social identity from our family or from a community of fans for a sports team. Social identities differ from personal identities because they are externally organized through membership. Our membership may be voluntary (Greek organization on campus) or involuntary (family) and explicit (we pay dues to our labor union) or implicit (we purchase and listen to hip-hop music). There are innumerous options for personal and social identities. While our personal identity choices express who we are, our social identities align us with particular groups. Through our social identities, we make statements about who we are and who we are not.
Personal identities may change often as people have new experiences and develop new interests and hobbies. A current interest in online video games may give way to an interest in graphic design. Social identities do not change as often because they take more time to develop, as you must become interpersonally invested. For example, if an interest in online video games leads someone to become a member of a MMORPG, or a massively multiplayer online role-playing game community, that personal identity has led to a social identity that is now interpersonal and more entrenched.
Cultural identities are a type of social identity, that includes "the emotional significance that we attach to our sense of belonging or affiliation with the larger culture and internalization of the core value patterns and practices" (Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2020, p. 95). Some of the larger social and societal groups we belong to - such as our religious affiliation, country or place of birth, ethnic groups - have been influencing our beliefs and behavior systems since birth. We may literally have a parent or leader tell us what it means to be a "man" or a "woman" or a "good Christian". We may also unconsciously consume messages from popular culture that offer representations of gender or religion. Since we are often a part of them since birth, cultural identities are the least changeable of the three.
Differences Matter
Whenever we encounter someone, we notice similarities and differences. While both are important, often the differences are highlighted. These differences may contribute to communication troubles. We do not only see similarities and differences on an individual level. In fact, we also place people into in-groups and out-groups based on the similarities and differences we perceive. This is important because we then tend to react to someone we perceive as a member of an out-group based on the characteristics we attach to the group rather than the individual (Allen, 2011). In these situations, it is more likely that stereotypes and prejudice will influence our communication. Learning about differences and why they matter will help us be more competent communicators. The other side of emphasizing difference is to claim that no differences exist and that you see everyone as a human being. Rather than trying to ignore difference and see each person as a unique individual, we should know the history of how differences came to be so socially and culturally significant and how they continue to affect us today.
Culture and identity are complex. You may be wondering how some groups came to be dominant and others non-dominant. These differences are not natural, which can be seen as we unpack how various identities have changed over time in the next section. There is, however, an ideology of domination that makes it seem natural and normal that some people or groups will always have power over others (Allen, 2011). In fact, hierarchy and domination, although prevalent throughout modern human history, were likely not the norm among early humans. So one of the first reasons differences matter is that people and groups are treated unequally, and better understanding how those differences came to be can help us create a more just society. Difference also matters because demographics and patterns of interaction are changing.
In the United States, the population of people of color is increasing and diversifying, and visibility for people who are gay or lesbian and people with disabilities has also increased. The 2010 Census shows that the Hispanic and Latino/a populations in the United States are now the second largest group in the country, having grown 43 percent since the last census in 2000 (Saenz, 2011). By 2030, racial and ethnic minorities will account for one-third of the population (Allen, 2011). Additionally, legal and social changes have created a more open environment for sexual minorities and people with disabilities. These changes directly affect our interpersonal relationships. The workplace is one context where changing demographics has become increasingly important. Many organizations are striving to comply with changing laws by implementing policies aimed at creating equal access and opportunity. Some organizations are going further than legal compliance to try to create inclusive climates where diversity is valued because of the interpersonal and economic benefits it has the potential to produce.
We can now see that differences matter due to the inequalities that exist among cultural groups and due to changing demographics that affect our personal and social relationships. Unfortunately, many obstacles may impede our valuing of difference (Allen, 2011). Individuals with dominant identities may not validate the experiences of those in non-dominant groups because they do not experience the oppression directed at those with non-dominant identities. Further, they may find it difficult to acknowledge that not being aware of this oppression is due to privilege associated with their dominant identities. Because of this lack of recognition of oppression, members of dominant groups may minimize, dismiss, or question the experiences of non-dominant groups and view them as “complainers” or “whiners.” Recall from our earlier discussion of identity formation that people with dominant identities may stay in the unexamined or acceptance stages for a long time. Being stuck in these stages makes it much more difficult to value difference.
Members of non-dominant groups may have difficulty valuing difference due to negative experiences with the dominant group, such as not having their experiences validated. Both groups may be restrained from communicating about difference due to norms of political correctness, which may make people feel afraid to speak up because they may be perceived as insensitive or racist. All these obstacles are common and they are valid. However, as we will learn later, developing intercultural communication competence can help us gain new perspectives, become more mindful of our communication, and intervene in some of these negative cycles.
3.2 Exploring Specific Cultural Identities
We can get a better understanding of current cultural identities by unpacking how they came to be. By looking at history, we can see how cultural identities that seem to have existed forever actually came to be constructed for various political and social reasons and how they have changed over time. Communication plays a central role in this construction. Social constructionism is a view that argues the self is formed through our interactions with others and in relationship to social, cultural, and political contexts (Allen, 2011). In this section, we will explore how the cultural identities of race, gender, sexual orientation, and ability have been constructed in the United States and how communication relates to those identities. Other important identities could be discussed, like religion, age, nationality, and class. Although they are not given their own section, consider how those identities may intersect with the identities discussed next.
Race
Would it surprise you to know that human beings, regardless of how they are racially classified, share 99.9 percent of their DNA? This finding by the Human Genome Project asserts that race is a social construct, not a biological one. The American Anthropological Association agrees, stating that race is the product of “historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances” (Allen, 2011). Therefore, we will define race as a socially constructed category based on differences in appearance that has been used to create hierarchies that privilege some and disadvantage others.
Race did not become a socially and culturally recognized marker until European colonial expansion in the 1500s. As Western Europeans traveled to parts of the world previously unknown to them and encountered people who were different from them, a hierarchy of races began to develop that placed lighter skinned Europeans above darker skinned people. At the time, newly developing fields in natural and biological sciences took interest in examining the new locales, including the plant and animal life, natural resources, and native populations. Over the next three hundred years, science that we would now undoubtedly recognize as flawed, biased, and racist legitimated notions that native populations were less evolved than white Europeans were, often calling them savages. In fact, there were scientific debates as to whether some of the native populations should be considered human or animal. Racial distinctions have been based largely on phenotypes, or physiological features such as skin color, hair texture, and body/facial features. Western “scientists” used these differences as “proof” that native populations were less evolved than the Europeans, which helped justify colonial expansion, enslavement, genocide, and exploitation on massive scales (Allen, 2011). Even though there is a consensus among experts that race is social rather than biological, we cannot deny that race still has meaning in our society and affects people as if it were “real.”
Given that race is one of the first things we notice about someone, it is important to know how race and communication relate (Allen, 2011). Discussing race in the United States is difficult for many reasons. One is due to uncertainty about language use. People may be frustrated by their perception that labels change too often or be afraid of using an “improper” term and being viewed as racially insensitive. It is important, however, that we not let political correctness get in the way of meaningful dialogues and learning opportunities related to difference. Learning some of the communicative history of race can make us more competent communicators and open us up to more learning experiences.
Racial classifications used by the government and our regular communication about race in the United States have changed frequently, which further points to the social construction of race. Currently, the primary racial groups in the United States are African American, Asian American, European American, Latino/a, and Native American, but a brief look at changes in how the US Census Bureau has defined race clearly shows that this hasn’t always been the case (see links below). In the 1900s alone, there were twenty-six different ways that race was categorized on census forms (Allen, 2011). The way we communicate about race in our regular interactions has also changed, and many people are still hesitant to discuss race for fear of using “the wrong” vocabulary.
The five primary racial groups noted previously can still be broken down further to specify a particular region, country, or nation. In fact, the term ethnicity is more commonly used to describe meaningful cultural differences, because ethnicity is is based on cultural characteristics shared by people of a particular race, national origin, religion or language.
For example, Asian Americans are diverse in terms of country and language of origin and cultural practices. While the category of Asian Americans can be useful when discussing broad trends, it can also generalize among groups, which can lead to stereotypes. You may find that someone identifies as Chinese American or Korean American instead of Asian American. While they may both "check" the same Asian American box, in reality they may speak different first languages, eat different foods, have different holiday celebrations, and practice different verbal and nonverbal norms. In this case, the label further highlights a person’s cultural lineage. We should not assume, however, that someone identifies with his or her cultural lineage, as many people have more in common with their US American peers than a culture that may be one or more generations removed.
An example
- History and personal preference also influence how we communicate about race. Culture and communication scholar Brenda Allen notes that when she was born in 1950, her birth certificate included an N for Negro. Later she referred to herself as colored because that is what people in her community referred to themselves as. During and before this time, the term black had negative connotations and would likely have offended someone. There was a movement in the 1960s to reclaim the word black, and the slogan “black is beautiful” was commonly used. Brenda Allen acknowledges the newer label of African American but notes that she still prefers black. The terms colored and Negro are no longer considered appropriate because they were commonly used during a time when black people were blatantly discriminated against. Even though that history may seem far removed to some, it is not to others. Currently, the terms African American and black are frequently used, and both are considered acceptable. The phrase people of color is acceptable for most and is used to be inclusive of other racial minorities. If you are unsure what to use, you could always observe how a person refers to himself or herself, or you could ask for his or her preference. In any case, a competent communicator defers to and respects the preference of the individual.
The history of immigration in the United States also ties to the way that race has been constructed. The metaphor of the melting pot has been used to describe the immigration history of the United States but does not capture the experiences of many immigrant groups (Allen, 2011). Generally, immigrant groups who were white, or light skinned, and spoke English were better able to assimilate, or melt into the melting pot. However, immigrant groups that we might think of as white today were not always considered so. Irish immigrants were discriminated against and even portrayed as black in cartoons that appeared in newspapers. In some Southern states, Italian immigrants were forced to go to black schools, and it was not until 1952 that Asian immigrants were allowed to become citizens of the United States. All this history is important, because it continues to influence communication among races today.
Interracial Communication
Race and communication are related in various ways. Racism influences our communication about race and is not an easy topic for most people to discuss. Today, people tend to view racism as overt acts such as calling someone a derogatory name or discriminating against someone in thought or action. However, there is a difference between racist acts, which we can attach to an individual, and institutional racism, which is not as easily identifiable. It is much easier for people to recognize and decry racist actions than it is to realize that racist patterns and practices go through societal institutions, which means that racism exists and does not have to be committed by any one person. As competent communicators and critical thinkers, we must challenge ourselves to be aware of how racism influences our communication at individual and societal levels.
We tend to make some of our assumptions about people’s race based on how they talk, and often these assumptions are based on stereotypes. Dominant groups tend to define what is correct or incorrect usage of a language, and since language is so closely tied to identity, labeling a group’s use of a language as incorrect or deviant challenges or negates part of their identity (Yancy, 2011). We know there is not only one way to speak English, but there have been movements to identify a standard.
This becomes problematic when we realize that “standard English” refers to a way of speaking English that is based on white, middle-class ideals that do not match up with the experiences of many. When we create a standard for English, we can label anything that deviates from that “nonstandard English.” Differences between standard English and what has been called “Black English” have gotten national attention through debates about whether or not instruction in classrooms should accommodate students who do not speak standard English. Education plays an important role in language acquisition, and class relates to access to education. In general, whether someone speaks standard English themselves or not, they tend to judge negatively people whose speech deviates from the standard.
Another national controversy has revolved around the inclusion of Spanish in common language use, such as Spanish as an option at ATMs, or other automated services, and Spanish language instruction in school for students who do not speak or are learning to speak English. As was noted earlier, the Latino/a population in the United States is growing fast, which has necessitated inclusion of Spanish in many areas of public life. This has also created a backlash, which some scholars argue is tied more to the race of the immigrants than the language they speak and a fear that white America could be engulfed by other languages and cultures (Speicher, 2002). This backlash has led to a revived movement to make English the official language of the United States.
The U.S. Constitution does not stipulate a national language, and Congress has not designated one either. While nearly thirty states have passed English-language legislation, it has mostly been symbolic, and court rulings have limited any enforceability (Zuckerman, 2010). The Linguistic Society of America points out that immigrants are very aware of the social and economic advantages of learning English and do not need to be forced. They also point out that the United States has always had many languages represented, that national unity has not rested on a single language, and that there are actually benefits to having a population that is multilingual (Linguistic Society of America, 2011). Interracial communication presents some additional verbal challenges.
Code switching involves changing from one way of speaking to another between or within interactions. Some people of color may engage in code switching when communicating with dominant group members because they fear they will be negatively judged. Adopting the language practices of the dominant group may minimize perceived differences. This code switching creates a linguistic dual consciousness in which people are able to maintain their linguistic identities with their in-group peers but can still acquire tools and gain access needed to function in dominant society (Yancy, 2011). White people may also feel anxious about communicating with people of color out of fear of being perceived as racist. In other situations, people in dominant groups may spotlight non-dominant members by asking them to comment on or educate others about their race (Allen, 2011).
Gender
When we first meet a newborn baby, we ask whether it is a boy or a girl. This question illustrates the importance of gender in organizing our social lives and our interpersonal relationships. A Canadian family became aware of the deep emotions people feel about gender and the great discomfort people feel when they cannot determine gender when they announced to the world that they were not going to tell anyone the gender of their baby, aside from the baby’s siblings. Their desire for their child, named Storm, to be able to experience early life without the boundaries and categories of gender brought criticism from many (Davis & James, 2011).
Conversely, many parents consciously or unconsciously “code” their newborns in gendered ways based on our society’s associations of pink clothing and accessories with girls and blue with boys. While it is obvious to most people that colors are not gendered, they take on new meaning when we assign gendered characteristics of masculinity and femininity to them. Just like race, gender is a socially constructed category. While it is true that there are biological differences between who we label male and female, the meaning our society places on those differences is what actually matters in our day-today lives. In addition, the biological differences are interpreted differently around the world, which further shows that although we think gender is a natural, normal, stable way of classifying things, it is actually not. There is a long history of appreciation for people who cross gender lines in Native American and South Central Asian cultures, to name just two.
You may have noticed the use the word gender instead of sex. That is because gender is an identity based on internalized cultural notions of masculinity and femininity that is constructed through communication and interaction. There are two important parts of this definition to unpack. First, we internalize notions of gender based on socializing institutions, which helps us form our gender identity. Then we attempt to construct that gendered identity through our interactions with others, which is our gender expression. Sex - which is now commonly referred to as sex or gender assigned at birth - since it is determined by others external to us, is based on biological characteristics, including external genitalia, internal sex organs, chromosomes, and hormones (Wood, 2005). While the biological characteristics between males and females can be different, our connection to those terms and the meaning that we create and attach to those characteristics makes them significant. Some common gender identity terms you may here include: man, woman, trans, and nonbinary. It is important to allow others to choose the term that's best for them. Miscommunication and bias are more likely to occur when we (as observers) assign people into gender groups based on rigid binary stereotypes.
- Cisgender is used to describe people in which their gender identity aligns with their sex or gender assigned at birth. For example, if a baby was identified as a female and that baby grows up to be a child/adult identifies as a girl/woman, this person is considered cisgender. Many cisgender individuals do not use this term, because in many societies being cisgender is considered "the norm" or even the only acceptable identity.
- Transgender is an umbrella term for people whose sex identity and/or expression does not match the sex or gender they were assigned by birth. Transgender people may or may not seek medical intervention like surgery or hormone treatments to help match their physiology with their gender identity. The term transgender includes other labels such as transsexual and intersex, among others. Terms like hermaphrodite and she-male are not considered appropriate. As with other groups, it is best to allow someone to self-identify first and then honor their preferred label. If you are unsure of which pronouns to use when addressing someone, you can use gender-neutral language or you can use the pronoun that matches with how they are presenting.
Gender has been constructed over the past few centuries in political and deliberate ways that have tended to favor men in terms of power. Moreover, various academic fields joined in the quest to “prove” there are “natural” differences between men and women. While the “proof” they presented was credible to many at the time, it seems blatantly sexist and inaccurate today. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, scientists who measure skulls, also known as craniometrists, claimed that men were more intelligent than women were because they had larger brains. Leaders in the fast-growing fields of sociology and psychology argued that women were less evolved than men and had more in common with “children and savages” than an adult (white) males (Allen, 2011).
Doctors and other decision makers like politicians also used women’s menstrual cycles as evidence that they were irrational, or hysterical, and therefore could not be trusted to vote, pursue higher education, or be in a leadership position. These are just a few of the many instances of how knowledge was created by seemingly legitimate scientific disciplines that we can now clearly see served to empower men and disempower women. This system is based on the ideology of patriarchy, which is a system of social structures and practices that maintains the values, priorities, and interests of men as a group (Wood, 2005). One of the ways patriarchy is maintained is by its relative invisibility. While women have been the focus of much research on gender differences, males have been largely unexamined. Men have been treated as the “generic” human being to which others are compared. However, that ignores the fact that men have a gender, too. Masculinities studies have challenged that notion by examining how masculinities are performed.
Gender as a cultural identity has implications for many aspects of our lives, including real-world contexts like education and work. Schools are primary grounds for socialization, and the educational experience for males and females is different in many ways from preschool through college. Although not always intentional, schools tend to recreate the hierarchies and inequalities that exist in society. Given that we live in a patriarchal society, there are communicative elements present in school that support this (Allen, 2011). For example, teachers are more likely to call on and pay attention to boys in a classroom, giving them more feedback in the form of criticism, praise, and help. This sends an implicit message that boys are more worthy of attention and valuable than girls are. Teachers are also more likely to lead girls to focus on feelings and appearance and boys to focus on competition and achievement. The focus on appearance for girls can lead to anxieties about body image.
Gender inequalities are also evident in the administrative structure of schools, which puts males in positions of authority more than females. While females make up 75 percent of the educational workforce, only 22 percent of superintendents and 8 percent of high school principals are women. Similar trends exist in colleges and universities, with women only accounting for 26 percent of full professors. These inequalities in schools correspond to larger inequalities in the general workforce. While there are more women in the workforce now than ever before, they still face a glass ceiling, which is a barrier for promotion to upper management. Many of my students have been surprised at the continuing pay gap that exists between men and women. In 2010, women earned about seventy-seven cents to every dollar earned by men (National Committee on Pay Equity, 2021). To put this into perspective, the National Committee on Pay Equity started an event called Equal Pay Day. In 2011, Equal Pay Day was on April 11. This signifies that for a woman to earn the same amount of money a man earned in a year, she would have to work more than three months extra, until April 11, to make up for the difference (National Committee on Pay Equity, 2021).
Sexuality
While race and gender expression are two of the first things we notice about others, sexuality is often something we view as personal and private. Although many people hold a view that a person’s sexuality should be kept private, this is not a reality for our society. One only needs to observe popular culture and media for a short time to see that sexuality permeates much of our public discourse.
Sexuality relates to culture and identity in important ways that extend beyond sexual orientation, just as race is more than the color of one’s skin and gender is more than one’s biological and physiological manifestations of masculinity and femininity. Sexuality is not just physical; it is social in that we communicate with others about sexuality (Allen, 2011). Sexuality is also biological in that it connects to physiological functions that carry significant social and political meaning like puberty, menstruation, and pregnancy. Sexuality connects to public health issues like sexually transmitted infections (STIs), sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and teen pregnancy. Sexuality is at the center of political issues like abortion, sex education, and gay and lesbian rights. While all these contribute to sexuality as a cultural identity, the focus in this section is on sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation refers to a person’s primary physical and emotional sexual attraction and activity. The terms we most often use to categorize sexual orientation are heterosexual (straight), gay, lesbian, bisexual, and queer. Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are sometimes referred to as sexual minorities. While the term sexual preference has been used previously, sexual orientation is more appropriate, since preference implies a simple choice. Although someone’s preference for a restaurant or actor may change frequently, sexuality is not as simple. The term homosexual can be appropriate in some instances, but it carries with it a clinical and medicalized tone. As you will see in the timeline that follows, the medical community has a recent history of “treating homosexuality” with means that most would view as inhumane today. So many people prefer a term like gay, which was chosen and embraced by gay people, rather than homosexual, which was imposed by a then discriminatory medical system.
The gay and lesbian rights movement became widely recognizable in the United States in the 1950s and continues on today, as evidenced by prominent issues regarding sexual orientation in national news and politics. National and international groups like the Human Rights Campaign advocate for rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) communities. While these communities are often grouped together within one acronym (LGBTQ), they are different. Gays and lesbians constitute the most visible of the groups and receive the most attention and funding. Bisexuals are rarely visible or included in popular cultural discourses or in social and political movements. Transgender issues have received much more attention in recent years, but transgender identity connects to gender more than it does to sexuality. Last, queer is a term used to describe a group that is diverse in terms of identities but usually takes a more activist and at times radical stance that critiques sexual categories. While queer was long considered a derogatory label, and still is by some, the queer activist movement that emerged in the 1980s and early 1990s reclaimed the word and embraced it as a positive. As you can see, there is a diversity of identities among sexual minorities, just as there is variation within races and genders.
As with other cultural identities, notions of sexuality have been socially constructed in different ways throughout human history. Sexual orientation did not come into being as an identity category until the late 1800s. Before that, sexuality was viewed in more physical or spiritual senses that were largely separate from a person’s identity.
Ability
There is resistance to classifying ability as a cultural identity, because we follow a medical model of disability that places disability as an individual and medical rather than social and cultural issue. While much of what distinguishes able-bodied and cognitively able from disabled is rooted in science, biology, and physiology, there are important sociocultural dimensions. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines an individual with a disability as “a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment” (Allen, 2011). An impairment is defined as “any temporary or permanent loss or abnormality of a body structure or function, whether physiological or psychological” (Allen, 2011).
This definition is important because it notes the social aspect of disability in that people’s life activities are limited and the relational aspect of disability in that the perception of a disability by others can lead someone to be classified as such. Ascribing an identity of disabled to a person can be problematic. If there is a mental or physical impairment, it should be diagnosed by a credentialed expert. If there is not an impairment, then the label of disabled can have negative impacts, as this label carries social and cultural significance. People are tracked into various educational programs based on their physical and cognitive abilities. In addition, there are many cases of people being mistakenly labeled disabled who were treated differently despite their protest of the ascribed label. Students who did not speak English as a first language, for example, were—and perhaps still are—sometimes put into special education classes.
Ability, just as the other cultural identities discussed, has institutionalized privileges and disadvantages associated with it. Ableism is the system of beliefs and practices that produces a physical and mental standard that is projected as normal for a human being and labels deviations from it abnormal, resulting in unequal treatment and access to resources. Ability privilege refers to the unearned advantages that are provided for people who fit the cognitive and physical norms (Allen, 2011). One of the authors attended a workshop about ability privilege led by a man who was visually impaired. He talked about how, unlike other cultural identities that are typically stable over a lifetime, ability fluctuates for most people. We have all experienced times when we are more or less able.
- Perhaps you broke your leg and had to use crutches or a wheelchair for a while. Getting sick for a prolonged period of time also lessens our abilities, but we may fully recover from any of these examples and regain our ability privilege. Whether you have experienced a short-term disability or not, the majority of us will become less physically and cognitively able as we get older.
Statistically, people with disabilities make up the largest minority group in the United States, with an estimated 25 percent of people five years or older living with some form of disability (CDC, 2024). Even though we use an image of a wheelchair to indicate disability, disability is more than mobility restrictions. Disability includes a diverse group of people with a wide range of needs (see 2024 table to the right). Some disabilities may be hidden and not easy to see.
People with disabilities have been stigmatized throughout history. In many cultures, disability has been associated with curses, disease, dependence, and helplessness. Disability stigma can play out in a number of ways, including (Houtenville & Boege, 2019):
- Social Avoidance and Exclusion. People with disabilities may be left out of social activities, or they may find that friends become more distant after they develop a disability. People may be hesitant to make eye contact or start a conversation with someone who has a visible disability or may avoid a person with a cognitive disability whom they do not understand (de Boer et al., 2012).
- Stereotyping. People with disabilities may be presumed to be helpless, unable to care for themselves, or unable to make their own decisions. People with one disability, such as a speech impairment, may be presumed to have other disabilities they don’t have, such as an intellectual disability.
- Discrimination. People with disabilities may be denied jobs, housing, or other opportunities due to false assumptions or stereotypes about disabilities. This still occurs today (see Project WHEN for recent examples), despite disability rights laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- Condescension. People with disabilities may be coddled or over-protected due to perceptions of their helplessness.
- Blaming. People may be blamed for their disability, or accused of using their disability to gain unfair benefits. A recent study of physicians even found that health care workers treating people with disabilities can carry biased views that affect their health care access and outcomes (Iezzoni et al., 2021).
- Internalization. People with disabilities may themselves adopt negative beliefs about their disability and feel ashamed or embarrassed about it. As a society, we have only recently begun to discuss mental health as an important social issue, and given individuals and celebrities the space to discuss mental health conditions and struggles.
- Hate Crimes and Violence. People with disabilities may be targeted in hate crimes. According to the National Center for Victims of Crime, people with disabilities are twice as likely to be victims of crime as compared to people without disabilities, including physical or sexual violence (2018).
It's important to note that an outsider cannot, 1) see all disabilities, and 2) understand the ways in which a person's disability is impacting their life.
3.3 Intercultural Communication Competence
It is through intercultural communication that we come to create, understand, and transform culture and identity. Intercultural communication is communication between people with differing cultural identities. One reason we should study intercultural communication is to foster greater self-awareness (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). Our thought process regarding culture is often “other focused,” meaning that the culture of the other person or group is what stands out in our perception. However, the old adage “know thyself” is appropriate, as we become more aware of our own culture by better understanding other cultures and perspectives. Intercultural communication can allow us to step outside of our comfortable, usual frame of reference and see our culture through a different lens. Additionally, as we become more self-aware, we may also become more ethical communicators as we challenge our ethnocentrism, or our tendency to view our own culture as superior to other cultures.
Intercultural communication competence (ICC) is the ability to communicate effectively and appropriately in various cultural contexts. There are numerous components of ICC. Some key components include motivation, self- and other knowledge, and tolerance for uncertainty.
Initially, a person’s motivation for communicating with people from other cultures must be considered. Motivation refers to the root of a person’s desire to foster intercultural relationships and can be intrinsic or extrinsic (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). Put simply, if a person is not motivated to communicate with people from different cultures, then the components of ICC discussed next do not really matter. If a person has a healthy curiosity that drives him or her toward intercultural encounters in order to learn more about self and others, then there is a foundation from which to build additional competence-relevant attitudes and skills. This intrinsic motivation makes intercultural communication a voluntary, rewarding, and lifelong learning process. Motivation can also be extrinsic, meaning that the desire for intercultural communication is driven by an outside reward like money, power, or recognition. While both types of motivation can contribute to ICC, context may further enhance or impede a person’s motivation to communicate across cultures.
Members of dominant groups are often less motivated, intrinsically and extrinsically, toward intercultural communication than members of non-dominant groups, because they do not see the incentives for doing so. Having more power in communication encounters can create an unbalanced situation where the individual from the non-dominant group is expected to exhibit competence, or the ability to adapt to the communication behaviors and attitudes of the other. Even in situations where extrinsic rewards like securing an overseas business investment are at stake, it is likely that the foreign investor is much more accustomed to adapting to United States business customs and communication than vice versa. This expectation that others will adapt to our communication can be unconscious, but later ICC skills we will learn will help bring it to awareness.
The unbalanced situation just described is a daily reality for many individuals with non-dominant identities. Their motivation toward intercultural communication may be driven by survival in terms of functioning effectively in dominant contexts. Recall the phenomenon known as code switching discussed earlier, in which individuals from non-dominant groups adapt their communication to fit in with the dominant group. In such instances, African Americans may “talk white” by conforming to what is called “standard English,” women in corporate environments may adapt masculine communication patterns, people who are gay or lesbian may self-censor and avoid discussing their same-gender partners with coworkers, and people with nonvisible disabilities may not disclose them in order to avoid judgment.
While intrinsic motivation captures an idealistic view of intercultural communication as rewarding in its own right, many contexts create extrinsic motivation. In either case, there is a risk that an individual’s motivation can still lead to incompetent communication. For example, it would be exploitative for an extrinsically motivated person to pursue intercultural communication solely for an external reward and then abandon the intercultural relationship once the reward is attained. These situations highlight the relational aspect of ICC, meaning that the motivation of all parties should be considered. Motivation alone cannot create ICC.
Knowledge supplements motivation and is an important part of building ICC. Knowledge includes self- and other-awareness, mindfulness, and cognitive flexibility. Building knowledge of our own cultures, identities, and communication patterns takes more than passive experience (Martin & Nakayama). Developing cultural self-awareness often requires us to get out of our comfort zones. Listening to people who are different from us is a key component of developing self-knowledge. This may be uncomfortable, because we may realize that people think of our identities differently than we thought.
The most effective way to develop other-knowledge is by direct and thoughtful encounters with other cultures. However, people may not readily have these opportunities for a variety of reasons. Despite the overall diversity in the United States, many people still only interact with people who are similar to them. Even in a racially diverse educational setting, for example, people often group off with people of their own race. While a heterosexual person may have a gay or lesbian friend or relative, they likely spend most of their time with other heterosexuals. Unless you interact with people with disabilities as part of your job or have a person with a disability in your friend or family group, you likely spend most of your time interacting with able-bodied people. Living in a rural area may limit your ability to interact with a range of cultures, and most people do not travel internationally regularly. Because of this, we may have to make a determined effort to interact with other cultures or rely on educational sources like college classes, books, or documentaries. Learning another language is also a good way to learn about a culture, because you can then read the news or watch movies in the native language, which can offer insights that are lost in translation. It is important to note though that we must evaluate the credibility of the source of our knowledge, whether it is a book, person, or other source. In addition, knowledge of another language does not automatically equate to ICC.
Developing self- and other-knowledge is an ongoing process that will continue to adapt and grow as we encounter new experiences. Mindfulness and cognitive flexibility will help as we continue to build our ICC (Pusch, 2009). Mindfulness is a state of self- and other-monitoring that informs later reflection on communication interactions. As mindful communicators, we should ask questions that focus on the interactive process like “How is our communication going? What are my reactions? What are their reactions?” Being able to adapt our communication in the moment based on our answers to these questions is a skill that comes with a high level of ICC. Reflecting on the communication encounter later to see what can be learned is also a way to build ICC. We should then be able to incorporate what we learned into our communication frameworks, which requires cognitive flexibility. Cognitive flexibility refers to the ability to continually supplement and revise existing knowledge to create new categories rather than forcing new knowledge into old categories. Cognitive flexibility helps prevent our knowledge from becoming stale and also prevents the formation of stereotypes and can help us avoid prejudging an encounter or jumping to conclusions. In summary, to be better intercultural communicators, we should know much about others and ourselves and be able to reflect on and adapt our knowledge as we gain new experiences.
Motivation and knowledge can inform us as we gain new experiences, but how we feel in the moment of intercultural encounters is also important. Tolerance for uncertainty refers to an individual’s attitude about and level of comfort in uncertain situations (Martin & Nakayama, 2010). Some people perform better in uncertain situations than others, and intercultural encounters often bring up uncertainty. Whether communicating with someone of a different gender, race, or nationality, we are often wondering what we should or should not do or say. Situations of uncertainty most often become clearer as they progress, but the anxiety that an individual with a low tolerance for uncertainty feels may lead them to leave the situation or otherwise communicate in a less competent manner. Individuals with a high tolerance for uncertainty may exhibit more patience, waiting on new information to become available or seeking out information, which may then increase the understanding of the situation and lead to a more successful outcome (Pusch, 2009). Individuals who are intrinsically motivated toward intercultural communication may have a higher tolerance for uncertainty, in that their curiosity leads them to engage with others who are different because they find the self- and other-knowledge gained rewarding.
Cultivating Intercultural Communication Competence
How can ICC be built and achieved? This is a key question we will address in this section. Two main ways to build ICC are through experiential learning and reflective practices (Bednarz, 2010). We must first realize that competence is not any one thing. Part of being competent means that you can assess new situations and adapt your existing knowledge to the new contexts. What it means to be competent will vary depending on your physical location, your role (personal, professional, etc.), and your life stage, among other things. Sometimes we will know or be able to figure out what is expected of us in a given situation, but sometimes we may need to act in unexpected ways to meet the needs of a situation. Competence enables us to better cope with the unexpected, adapt to the non-routine, and connect to uncommon frameworks. ICC is less about a list of rules and more about a box of tools.
Three ways to cultivate ICC are to foster attitudes that motivate us, discover knowledge that informs us, and develop skills that enable us (Bennett, 2009). To foster attitudes that motivate us, we must develop a sense of wonder about culture. This sense of wonder can lead to feeling overwhelmed, humbled, or awed (Opdal, 2001). This sense of wonder may correlate to a high tolerance for uncertainty, which can help us turn potentially frustrating experiences we have into teachable moments. You may have had such moments in your own experience abroad. For example, trying to cook a pizza when you do not have instructions in your native language. The information on the packaging was written in Swedish, but like many college students, you have a wealth of experience cooking frozen pizzas to draw from. You might think it strange that the oven did not go up to the usual 425–450 degrees. Not to be deterred, and if you cranked the dial up as far as it would go, waited a few minutes, put in your pizza, and walked down the hall to room to wait for about fifteen minutes until the pizza was done. You would soon figure out that the oven temperatures in Sweden are listed in Celsius, not Fahrenheit!
Discovering knowledge that informs us is another step that can build on our motivation. One tool involves learning more about our cognitive style (how we learn). Our cognitive style consists of our preferred patterns for “gathering information, constructing meaning, and organizing and applying knowledge” (Bennett, 2009). As we explore cognitive styles, we discover that there are differences in how people attend to and perceive the world, explain events, organize the world, and use rules of logic (Nisbett, 2003). Some cultures have a cognitive style that focuses more on tasks, analytic and objective thinking, details and precision, inner direction, and independence, while others focus on relationships and people over tasks and things, concrete and metaphorical thinking, and a group consciousness and harmony.
Developing ICC is a complex learning process. At the basic level of learning, we accumulate knowledge and assimilate it into our existing frameworks. However, accumulated knowledge does not necessarily help us in situations where we have to apply that knowledge. Transformative learning takes place at the highest levels and occurs when we encounter situations that challenge our accumulated knowledge and our ability to accommodate that knowledge to manage a real-world situation. The cognitive dissonance that results in these situations is often uncomfortable and can lead to a hesitance to repeat such an engagement. One tip for cultivating ICC that can help manage these challenges is to find a community of like-minded people who are also motivated to develop ICC.
Developing skills that enable us is another part of ICC. Some of the skills important to ICC are the ability to empathize, accumulate cultural information, listen, resolve conflict, and manage anxiety (Bennett, 2009). Again, you are already developing a foundation for these skills by reading this book, but you can expand those skills to intercultural settings with the motivation and knowledge already described. Contact alone does not increase intercultural skills; there must be more deliberate measures taken to capitalize fully on those encounters. While research now shows that intercultural contact does decrease prejudices, this is not enough to become interculturally competent. The ability to empathize and manage anxiety enhances prejudice reduction, and these two skills have been shown to enhance the overall impact of intercultural contact even more than acquiring cultural knowledge. There is intercultural training available for people who are interested. If you cannot access training, you may choose to research intercultural training on your own, as there are many books, articles, and manuals written on the subject.
While formal intercultural experiences like studying abroad or volunteering for the Special Olympics or a shelter for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer (GLBTQ) youth can result in learning, informal experiences are also important. We may be less likely to include informal experiences in our reflection if we do not see them as legitimate. Reflection should also include “critical incidents” or what I call “a-ha! moments.” Think of reflection as a tool for metacompetence that can be useful in bringing the formal and informal together (Bednarz, 2010).
References
Allen, B. J. (2011). Difference matters: Communicating social identity (2nd ed.) Waveland.
Bednarz, F. (2010). Building up intercultural competences: Challenges and learning processes. In M. G. Onorati & F. Bednarz (Eds.), Building intercultural competencies: A handbook for professionals in education, social work, and health care (pp. 39-52). Acco.
Bennett, J. M. (2009). Cultivating intercultural competence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 127-134). Sage.
Carlson, L. (2001). Cognitive ableism and disability studies: Feminist reflections on the history of mental retardation. Hypatia, 16(4), 124-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.2001.tb00756.x
Centers for Disease Control. (2024). Disability Impacts Us All. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/infographic-disability-impacts-all.html
Collier, M. J. (1996). Communication competence problematics in ethnic friendships. Communication Monographs, 63(4), 314-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759609376397
Davis, L., & James, S. D. (2011, May 30). Canadian mother raising her ‘genderless’ baby, Storm, defends her family’s decision. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/canadian-mother-raising-genderless-baby-storm-defends-familys/story?id=52436895
de Boer A., Pijl S. J., Minnaert A. (2012a). Students’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities: a review of the literature. International Journal of Disability & Developmental Education, 59, pp. 379–392. 10.1080/1034912X.2012.723944
Houtenville, A., & Boege, S. (2019). Annual Report on People with Disabilities in America: 2018. Durham, NH: University of New Hampshire, Institute on Disability. Available at https://disabilitycompendium.org/sites/default/files/user-uploads/Annual_Report_2018_Accessible_AdobeReaderFriendly.pdf
Iezzoni, L. I., Rao, S. R., Ressalam, J., Bolcic-Jankovic, D., Agaronnik, N. D., Donelan, K., Lagu, T., & Campbell, E. G. (2021). Physicians' perceptions of people with disability and their health care. Health Affairs, 40 (2).
Martin, J. N., & Nakayama, T. K. (2010). Intercultural communication in contexts (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
National Committee on Pay Equity (2021). Worse than we thought. https://www.pay-equity.org/
National Center for Victims of Crime. (2018). Crimes Against People With Disabilities: Fact Sheet. Retrieved from https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/ncvrw2018/info_flyers/fact_sheets/2018NCVRW_VictimsWithDisabilities_508_QC.pdf
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and westerners think differently…and why. Free Press.
Opdal, P. M. (2001). Curiosity, wonder, and education seen as perspective. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 20(4), 331–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011851211125
Pusch, M. D. (2009). The interculturally competent global leader. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The Sage handbook of intercultural competence (pp. 66-84). Sage.
Saenz, A. (2011, March 21). Census data shows a changed American landscape. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/census-data-reveals-changed-american-landscape/story?id=13206427
Speicher, B. L. (2002). Problems with English-only policies. Management Communication Quarterly, 15(4), 619-625.
Spreckels, J., & Kotthoff, H. (2009). Communicating identity in intercultural communication. In H. Kotthoff & H. Spencer-Oatey, Handbook of intercultural communication (pp. 415-419). Mouton de Gruyter.
Tatum, B. D. (2000). The complexity of identity: ‘Who am I?’ In M. Adams, W. J. Blumfeld, R. Casteneda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (pp. 9-14). Routledge.
Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L. C. (2020). Understanding Intercultural Communication. Oxford University Press.
Wood, J. T. (2005). Gendered lives: Communication, gender, and culture (5th ed.) Thomas Wadsworth.
Yancy, G. (2011). The scholar who coined the term Ebonics: A conversation with Dr. Robert L. Williams. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 10(1), 41–51.
Yep, G. A. (1998). My three cultures: Navigating the multicultural identity landscape. In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in cultural contexts (pp. 79-84). Mayfield.
Zuckerman, M. A. (2010). Constitutional clash: When English-only meets voting rights. Yale Law and Policy Review, 28 (2): 353–377. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27871299
Figures
Figure 7.1: Mug with Rainbow Flags. RDNE Stock Project. 2021. Pexels license. https://www.pexels.com/photo/mug-with-rainbow-flags-10503405/
Figure 7.2: The Hispanic and Latinx population has grown 43% since 2000. Jhon David. 2018. Unsplash license. https://unsplash.com/photos/3WgkTDw7XyE
Figure 7.3: Competent communicators challenge themselves through awareness. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0. Includes Think by Brandon Lim from NounProject (NounProject license).
Figure 7.4: Ability is a social identity that makes up the largest minority group in the U.S.. CDC. 2021. Unsplash license. https://unsplash.com/photos/68zwHPkpxpI
Figure 7.5: Intercultural communication can foster greater self-awareness and more ethical communication. Ivan Samkov. 2021. Pexels license. https://www.pexels.com/photo/coworkers-looking-at-a-laptop-in-an-office-8127690/
Figure 7.6: How to cultivate intercultural communication competence. Kindred Grey. 2022. CC BY 4.0.
