Web Lecture 4 – Blog 4
On Web Lecture 4, interpersonal attraction is discussed. A cognitive approach to interpersonal attraction is probably rather prominent in today’s online dating world. My sister-in-law met her husband through an inter-organizational work relationship in which they communicated mostly via email and phone. As the web lecture states, cognitive approaches look at how beliefs, values, and attitudes influence interpersonal attraction. My sister-in-law and her husband were highly attracted to each others’ personalities, work ethic, values, etc. From this initial cognitive level of interpersonal attraction grew a friendship that resulted in a life-long partnership. The anthropological perspective was completely out of the equation for my sister-in-law and her husband. In fact, they both admitted that had physical beauty been part of their assessment in the beginning stages of their friendship, neither one would have been attracted to the other.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Week 4 - Blog 3
Ch. 11 De-escalating Relationships – Blog 3
On p. 341, our text begins discussing tactics people use when trying to disengage from a relationship. The withdrawal or avoidance tactics and justification tactics are mentioned on p. 344. I’m of the opinion that withdrawal/avoidance is the least effective way to end a relationship where as the justification tactic is one of the most effective means. Avoiding someone creates tensions not only between the disengager and the disengagee but also between any mutual, common relationships each party may have had outside their dyad. Avoiding someone as a means to de-escalate a relationship shows utter disrespect for the other party. Avoidance is pretty much the cowardly way out.
The justification messages, on the other hand, provide clear communication that the relationship is terminated. When a relationship is ending, it is important for both parties to avoid any vague or ambiguous messages; clearly stating that the relationship is over helps eliminate any confusion over the relationship’s status. In the justification approach, a reason is also given for the break-up. I’ve found that people can learn so much about who they are and what they want in a partner by understanding why certain relationships are/were not a good fit. These realizations are only made known through open discussion of the reasons for parting ways.
On p. 341, our text begins discussing tactics people use when trying to disengage from a relationship. The withdrawal or avoidance tactics and justification tactics are mentioned on p. 344. I’m of the opinion that withdrawal/avoidance is the least effective way to end a relationship where as the justification tactic is one of the most effective means. Avoiding someone creates tensions not only between the disengager and the disengagee but also between any mutual, common relationships each party may have had outside their dyad. Avoiding someone as a means to de-escalate a relationship shows utter disrespect for the other party. Avoidance is pretty much the cowardly way out.
The justification messages, on the other hand, provide clear communication that the relationship is terminated. When a relationship is ending, it is important for both parties to avoid any vague or ambiguous messages; clearly stating that the relationship is over helps eliminate any confusion over the relationship’s status. In the justification approach, a reason is also given for the break-up. I’ve found that people can learn so much about who they are and what they want in a partner by understanding why certain relationships are/were not a good fit. These realizations are only made known through open discussion of the reasons for parting ways.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Week 4 - Blog 2
Ch. 10 Maintaining Relationships – Blog 2
On pages 288-291, relational maintenance and equity are discussed. Psychologists and scholars both agree that when a couple views their relationship as equitable, where both parties contribute and benefit an equal amount, they are generally happier and more stable. On p. 291 the text states the following: “A sense of equity in the relationship, the absence of a major conflict, the expression of attraction, and a confrontational conflict management style were related to higher levels of psychological intimacy.” The piece of information that appeals most to me from this statement is the reference to a direct conflict style. As the text states, a confrontational conflict management style involves face-to-face and direct communication. There are many people who are conflict avoiders and/or passive-aggressive. These qualities can be detrimental in both intimate and casual relationships. As uncomfortable as it may be, significant others should address conflicts with straightforward communication. This, of course, doesn’t mean that you disrespect one another or allow the confrontation to be one-sided. Instead, it should be an “open discussion of differences.” Couples are likely rewarded for this openness by realizing clarity at the point of stasis; often times, we don’t even know where the actual disagreement is occurring. Once that is determined, clarification and understanding become prevalent.
On pages 288-291, relational maintenance and equity are discussed. Psychologists and scholars both agree that when a couple views their relationship as equitable, where both parties contribute and benefit an equal amount, they are generally happier and more stable. On p. 291 the text states the following: “A sense of equity in the relationship, the absence of a major conflict, the expression of attraction, and a confrontational conflict management style were related to higher levels of psychological intimacy.” The piece of information that appeals most to me from this statement is the reference to a direct conflict style. As the text states, a confrontational conflict management style involves face-to-face and direct communication. There are many people who are conflict avoiders and/or passive-aggressive. These qualities can be detrimental in both intimate and casual relationships. As uncomfortable as it may be, significant others should address conflicts with straightforward communication. This, of course, doesn’t mean that you disrespect one another or allow the confrontation to be one-sided. Instead, it should be an “open discussion of differences.” Couples are likely rewarded for this openness by realizing clarity at the point of stasis; often times, we don’t even know where the actual disagreement is occurring. Once that is determined, clarification and understanding become prevalent.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Week 4 - Blog 1
Ch. 9 Escalating Relationships
Andersen’s six cognitive schemata are listed on p. 259. According to Andersen’s model, if all six schemata are positive when person A makes advances toward an increase in intimacy with person B, then a positive outcome will likely occur. However, if even one schemata is negative, then this theory predicts that the relational advances made by person A will result in a negative response from person B (p. 259-260).
It does seem that in order for there to be a positive response and an increase in intimacy, several of Andersen’s schemata must be in place. I do think, however, that there are a couple schematas that could be negative and not cause a negative response from person B, the recipient of the advances. For example, the 6th schemata considers the Psychological and Physical State of person B. This schemata states that if person B is not feeling well, he/she will not respond positively toward person A’s advances. However, this is dependent upon how person B feels toward person A. If person B has desired a relationship with person A prior to person A’s advances, then it’s likely person B will not dismiss the opportunity for relational intimacy simply because they are not feeling well at that given moment.
Andersen’s six cognitive schemata are listed on p. 259. According to Andersen’s model, if all six schemata are positive when person A makes advances toward an increase in intimacy with person B, then a positive outcome will likely occur. However, if even one schemata is negative, then this theory predicts that the relational advances made by person A will result in a negative response from person B (p. 259-260).
It does seem that in order for there to be a positive response and an increase in intimacy, several of Andersen’s schemata must be in place. I do think, however, that there are a couple schematas that could be negative and not cause a negative response from person B, the recipient of the advances. For example, the 6th schemata considers the Psychological and Physical State of person B. This schemata states that if person B is not feeling well, he/she will not respond positively toward person A’s advances. However, this is dependent upon how person B feels toward person A. If person B has desired a relationship with person A prior to person A’s advances, then it’s likely person B will not dismiss the opportunity for relational intimacy simply because they are not feeling well at that given moment.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Week 3 - Blog 4
Web Lecture 3: Chapters 6, 7, and 8 – Blog 4
In Web Lecture 3, Professor Cyborg says, “Identity is far more complex than simply ‘presenting who you are.’” Identities encompass multiple “selves” as we present different aspects of ourselves to different people groups. The selves we present depend on our target audience as well as different facets of who we are. Our cultural heritage, upbringing, friendships, religious beliefs, and schooling are some of the things that influence our identity and create our multiple “selves.” Being able to cognitively decipher the various components that make up our identity, we will be better equipped to present ourselves in a manner that reaps positive results. We will also be better able to assess and understand others’ self-presentations and their influence on our lives.
In Web Lecture 3, Professor Cyborg says, “Identity is far more complex than simply ‘presenting who you are.’” Identities encompass multiple “selves” as we present different aspects of ourselves to different people groups. The selves we present depend on our target audience as well as different facets of who we are. Our cultural heritage, upbringing, friendships, religious beliefs, and schooling are some of the things that influence our identity and create our multiple “selves.” Being able to cognitively decipher the various components that make up our identity, we will be better equipped to present ourselves in a manner that reaps positive results. We will also be better able to assess and understand others’ self-presentations and their influence on our lives.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Week 3 - Blog 3
Ch. 8 Defending the Self – Blog 3
The Common Forms of Accounts discussed on pages 219-223 significantly reminded me of the types of accounts you might here from an attorney defending his/her client. In COMM 149, we discussed the 4 major headings in which you could conduct a defense in Rome in later A.D. and early B.C.; these 4 headings notably parallel communication scholars’ common forms of accounts. The first frequent act of defense accused of a misdeed by a court of law is to deny the offense. Interpersonal Communication scholars, according to our text, refer to this as “refusal.” “In a refusal, a person denies that the questionable act occurred or denies responsibility for it.” Furthermore, the “principled justification” account also reflects elements of the Roman defense system, as well as our modern defense system. In Roman times, an advocate could justify his client’s crime through “the issue of Quality” which means that the client is not denying he committed the crime, but claiming that there were higher circumstances at play which provide a legitimate and excusable explanation for the wrongful act. Similarly, the principled justification act, in our text, “is used when a person accepts responsibility for an action but says there was a ‘good reason’ for engaging in the action based on values, goals, or principles.” In this area of study, modern scholarship has confirmed ancient suspicions.
The Common Forms of Accounts discussed on pages 219-223 significantly reminded me of the types of accounts you might here from an attorney defending his/her client. In COMM 149, we discussed the 4 major headings in which you could conduct a defense in Rome in later A.D. and early B.C.; these 4 headings notably parallel communication scholars’ common forms of accounts. The first frequent act of defense accused of a misdeed by a court of law is to deny the offense. Interpersonal Communication scholars, according to our text, refer to this as “refusal.” “In a refusal, a person denies that the questionable act occurred or denies responsibility for it.” Furthermore, the “principled justification” account also reflects elements of the Roman defense system, as well as our modern defense system. In Roman times, an advocate could justify his client’s crime through “the issue of Quality” which means that the client is not denying he committed the crime, but claiming that there were higher circumstances at play which provide a legitimate and excusable explanation for the wrongful act. Similarly, the principled justification act, in our text, “is used when a person accepts responsibility for an action but says there was a ‘good reason’ for engaging in the action based on values, goals, or principles.” In this area of study, modern scholarship has confirmed ancient suspicions.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Week 3 - Blog 2
Ch. 7 Disclosing the Self – Blog 2
On p. 188, Social Penetration Theory (SPT) is discussed; this theory suggests that we assess relationships based on their rewards and costs, and we seek intimate relationships where the rewards outweigh the costs. Altman and Taylor elaborate on SPT stating that self-disclosure is more frequent in the beginning of relationships, and as relationships become closer, self-disclosure lessens. I wonder if these two notions contribute to relational digression. If people are primarily seeking relationships that benefit them (rewards and cost), then they may not be focused enough on the contributions they themselves should make in the relationship. Furthermore, this idea that self-disclosure ceases as a relationship becomes more intimate can also discourage relational longevity. I read a book recently where the author discussed his relationship with his wife. He said that he and his wife are constantly changing and growing, and because of that, he continually discovers new things about her that he didn’t know before. He went on to say that if people start to think that they know everything there is to know about their partner, then the relationship tends to become stifled and mundane. It may be the norm for people to disclose less as they become more intimate, but…maybe we should work against our natural tendencies if we desire to enhance relational satisfaction and longevity.
Our text discusses Rawlins’s Model of Disclosure Decision Rules on pages 194-196. I appreciate the “likelihood of candor” perspective. This suggests that disclosing our opinions isn’t only determined by our assessment of how we will feel about the disclosure, but it is also determined by our assessment of how the recipient will feel. It’s almost like the saying “choose your battles.” There are moments when it just isn’t worth it to proselytize your views, particularly when it will do more harm than good.
On p. 188, Social Penetration Theory (SPT) is discussed; this theory suggests that we assess relationships based on their rewards and costs, and we seek intimate relationships where the rewards outweigh the costs. Altman and Taylor elaborate on SPT stating that self-disclosure is more frequent in the beginning of relationships, and as relationships become closer, self-disclosure lessens. I wonder if these two notions contribute to relational digression. If people are primarily seeking relationships that benefit them (rewards and cost), then they may not be focused enough on the contributions they themselves should make in the relationship. Furthermore, this idea that self-disclosure ceases as a relationship becomes more intimate can also discourage relational longevity. I read a book recently where the author discussed his relationship with his wife. He said that he and his wife are constantly changing and growing, and because of that, he continually discovers new things about her that he didn’t know before. He went on to say that if people start to think that they know everything there is to know about their partner, then the relationship tends to become stifled and mundane. It may be the norm for people to disclose less as they become more intimate, but…maybe we should work against our natural tendencies if we desire to enhance relational satisfaction and longevity.
Our text discusses Rawlins’s Model of Disclosure Decision Rules on pages 194-196. I appreciate the “likelihood of candor” perspective. This suggests that disclosing our opinions isn’t only determined by our assessment of how we will feel about the disclosure, but it is also determined by our assessment of how the recipient will feel. It’s almost like the saying “choose your battles.” There are moments when it just isn’t worth it to proselytize your views, particularly when it will do more harm than good.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Week 3 - Blog 1
Ch. 6 Presenting the Self
Audience segregation is discussed in Ch. 6 on p. 156. In Goffman’s dramaturgical perspectives, he discusses audience segregation as “a tactic we use to keep certain audience members apart so we can present aspects of the self specific to each audience.” As our text points out, most people put on different faces/masks when communicating with the different groups they associate with. Recently, a friend of mine had a birthday party in which friends from church and old college friends were invited. She was dismayed over the fact that she was unable to have two separate parties (one with church friends and one with school friends). She faced what the text refers to as “multiple audience problems.” She was forced into a situation where she had to maintain her self-presentation with two audiences during one encounter. What fascinates me about audience segregation is people’s inability to be consistent with all the people groups they interact with. If people felt free to be consistent with how they present themselves, there would not be a need for audience segregation.
Something else that stood out to me in this chapter was the discussion on strategies for presenting the self. The self-promotion strategy is discussed on pages 162-165. I find it very difficult to “sell” myself which is something we all have to do at some point, particularly when hunting for a job. In these types of situations, where you must endorse yourself in order to succeed, I find it difficult to do so without sounding utterly conceited. The text mentions that a self promoter may use tactics that makes them appear modest, such as following up a statement of self-praise with a statement that reveals a weakness. This strategy may work well in social settings, but I wonder if it would benefit “self-promoters” during an interview.
Audience segregation is discussed in Ch. 6 on p. 156. In Goffman’s dramaturgical perspectives, he discusses audience segregation as “a tactic we use to keep certain audience members apart so we can present aspects of the self specific to each audience.” As our text points out, most people put on different faces/masks when communicating with the different groups they associate with. Recently, a friend of mine had a birthday party in which friends from church and old college friends were invited. She was dismayed over the fact that she was unable to have two separate parties (one with church friends and one with school friends). She faced what the text refers to as “multiple audience problems.” She was forced into a situation where she had to maintain her self-presentation with two audiences during one encounter. What fascinates me about audience segregation is people’s inability to be consistent with all the people groups they interact with. If people felt free to be consistent with how they present themselves, there would not be a need for audience segregation.
Something else that stood out to me in this chapter was the discussion on strategies for presenting the self. The self-promotion strategy is discussed on pages 162-165. I find it very difficult to “sell” myself which is something we all have to do at some point, particularly when hunting for a job. In these types of situations, where you must endorse yourself in order to succeed, I find it difficult to do so without sounding utterly conceited. The text mentions that a self promoter may use tactics that makes them appear modest, such as following up a statement of self-praise with a statement that reveals a weakness. This strategy may work well in social settings, but I wonder if it would benefit “self-promoters” during an interview.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Week 2 - Blog 4
Ch. 16 – Interpersonal Communication Competence
The authors begin discussing the standards for assessing communication competence on page 506. Many standards seem to reflect good listening skills. A good listener will be involved in the conversation by offering many nonverbal cues (head nods, etc) which show the speaker that the listener is attentive. These same signals which indicate good listening also indicate conversational involvement.
Much like listening, communication competence can take a conscious effort to stay focused on what the speaker is saying. Being able to cognitively focus on a speaker will help you become more competent in their eyes. We shouldn't assume communication and competence is something we're born with; it's something we must continually work at.
The authors begin discussing the standards for assessing communication competence on page 506. Many standards seem to reflect good listening skills. A good listener will be involved in the conversation by offering many nonverbal cues (head nods, etc) which show the speaker that the listener is attentive. These same signals which indicate good listening also indicate conversational involvement.
Much like listening, communication competence can take a conscious effort to stay focused on what the speaker is saying. Being able to cognitively focus on a speaker will help you become more competent in their eyes. We shouldn't assume communication and competence is something we're born with; it's something we must continually work at.
Week 2 - Blog 3
Ch. 14 – Self and Society
Machiavellianism is quite fascinating; the cynicism that persists in a high Mach is especially appealing. I wonder if Machiavellian behavior is learned or innate? Perhaps a bit of both in some cases. Our world, particularly the business world, can be so cut-throat, I think people sometimes take on Machiavellian traits in order to shield themselves from unexpected disappointments.
The authors address characteristics of Cynicism on table 14.1, p. 439. Cynics believe that all people have a vicious streak that will come out if given the chance. This statement reminded me of the mythical story, The Ring of Gyges, which is mentioned by the Greek philosopher, Plato. The story states that Gyges finds a ring that makes him invisible; once invisible, he seduces the queen of Lydia, murders the king, and becomes king himself! The moral of the story, according to Plato, is that most people are inherently self-seeking and will do despicable things, such as steal, cheat, and commit murder so long as no one can see them do the deed.
It appears that the one common thread in each of the personalities listed in this chapter is self-absorption. It seems that one must eventually take focus off of themselves in order to be an effective listener and communicator.
Machiavellianism is quite fascinating; the cynicism that persists in a high Mach is especially appealing. I wonder if Machiavellian behavior is learned or innate? Perhaps a bit of both in some cases. Our world, particularly the business world, can be so cut-throat, I think people sometimes take on Machiavellian traits in order to shield themselves from unexpected disappointments.
The authors address characteristics of Cynicism on table 14.1, p. 439. Cynics believe that all people have a vicious streak that will come out if given the chance. This statement reminded me of the mythical story, The Ring of Gyges, which is mentioned by the Greek philosopher, Plato. The story states that Gyges finds a ring that makes him invisible; once invisible, he seduces the queen of Lydia, murders the king, and becomes king himself! The moral of the story, according to Plato, is that most people are inherently self-seeking and will do despicable things, such as steal, cheat, and commit murder so long as no one can see them do the deed.
It appears that the one common thread in each of the personalities listed in this chapter is self-absorption. It seems that one must eventually take focus off of themselves in order to be an effective listener and communicator.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Week 2 - Blog 2
Ch. 5 – Fundamentals of Social Cognition
The idea of the Pygmalion effect and self-fulfilling prophecies, as discussed on pages 127-129, is incredibly intriguing. The notion that people’s behaviors and cognitive processes can be affected by the labels bestowed upon them is amazing and speaks volumes for the “power-of-the-mind.” The Pygmalion effect is similar to the Placebo effect in some respects. Studies have shown that ill patients who were given a sugar pill (aka a Placebo) showed signs of improvement as if they had been given authentic medication. The thought alone that they were given something to aid their ailments caused a physical reaction.
In dealing with our interpersonal relationships, I think it’s highly important and beneficial to recognize the power the mind has. If the Pygmalion effect can work in a negative way, it can also work in a positive way. Imagine what would happen if positive/encouraging labels were placed on others; perhaps those individuals would begin to assume the characteristics of the positive label.
The idea of the Pygmalion effect and self-fulfilling prophecies, as discussed on pages 127-129, is incredibly intriguing. The notion that people’s behaviors and cognitive processes can be affected by the labels bestowed upon them is amazing and speaks volumes for the “power-of-the-mind.” The Pygmalion effect is similar to the Placebo effect in some respects. Studies have shown that ill patients who were given a sugar pill (aka a Placebo) showed signs of improvement as if they had been given authentic medication. The thought alone that they were given something to aid their ailments caused a physical reaction.
In dealing with our interpersonal relationships, I think it’s highly important and beneficial to recognize the power the mind has. If the Pygmalion effect can work in a negative way, it can also work in a positive way. Imagine what would happen if positive/encouraging labels were placed on others; perhaps those individuals would begin to assume the characteristics of the positive label.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Week 2 - Blog 1
Ch. 4 – Fundamentals of Listening
On page 95 of our text, the authors quote Haas and Arnold as saying, “ One common weakness of many executives is the failure to recognize that listening is equal in importance to talking.” When I read this sentence, I was reminded of a couple coworkers of mine who are twin brothers. When they were children, one brother would do all the talking while the other would keep silent. In an effort to correct this behavior, their parents sent them to counseling. During these counseling sessions, each twin had their IQ tested. Ironically, the “silent” twin’s IQ was significantly higher than the “talking” twin’s IQ! The test-giver’s assessment was that the one who didn’t talk much was in-turn listening and taking in all sorts of information which thus increased his intelligence. The “talker,” on the other hand, inadvertently shut out information because he wouldn’t stop conversing long enough to gain knowledge.
Some scholars, such as Bostrom, who is also quoted on page 95 of our text, suggest that retention may not necessarily have anything to do with listening and all to do with natural born intelligence. However, the correlation between listening and a high IQ in the one twin boy is something that, in my opinion, shouldn’t be too quickly overlooked.
On page 95 of our text, the authors quote Haas and Arnold as saying, “ One common weakness of many executives is the failure to recognize that listening is equal in importance to talking.” When I read this sentence, I was reminded of a couple coworkers of mine who are twin brothers. When they were children, one brother would do all the talking while the other would keep silent. In an effort to correct this behavior, their parents sent them to counseling. During these counseling sessions, each twin had their IQ tested. Ironically, the “silent” twin’s IQ was significantly higher than the “talking” twin’s IQ! The test-giver’s assessment was that the one who didn’t talk much was in-turn listening and taking in all sorts of information which thus increased his intelligence. The “talker,” on the other hand, inadvertently shut out information because he wouldn’t stop conversing long enough to gain knowledge.
Some scholars, such as Bostrom, who is also quoted on page 95 of our text, suggest that retention may not necessarily have anything to do with listening and all to do with natural born intelligence. However, the correlation between listening and a high IQ in the one twin boy is something that, in my opinion, shouldn’t be too quickly overlooked.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Hi Comm 110 :-)
I'm with ya, boyd013... I've never blogged before either. A little intimidating trying to get it all set-up.
I moved to CA from TX with my husband nearly 2 years ago, and I am currently in the communication graduate program at SJSU.
Assumption 4, in Ch 1, intriques me since I have always adhered to the idea that one "cannot not communicate." I've always understood that saying to mean that we are constantly communicating, whether it be with the artifacts we adorn ourselves with or other nonverbal cues. The authors of our text, however, suggest that all communication is intentional. They state that we are simply not always conscious of our goals when we communicate with others. Even when communicaton and/or behavior is mindless in its formative stage, it still sends a message that can be interpreted by others.
Chat with you all soon,
jdmINT
p.s. Hope you are enjoying your time in Maui, Jamie! I'm jealous ;-)
I'm with ya, boyd013... I've never blogged before either. A little intimidating trying to get it all set-up.
I moved to CA from TX with my husband nearly 2 years ago, and I am currently in the communication graduate program at SJSU.
Assumption 4, in Ch 1, intriques me since I have always adhered to the idea that one "cannot not communicate." I've always understood that saying to mean that we are constantly communicating, whether it be with the artifacts we adorn ourselves with or other nonverbal cues. The authors of our text, however, suggest that all communication is intentional. They state that we are simply not always conscious of our goals when we communicate with others. Even when communicaton and/or behavior is mindless in its formative stage, it still sends a message that can be interpreted by others.
Chat with you all soon,
jdmINT
p.s. Hope you are enjoying your time in Maui, Jamie! I'm jealous ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)